Sustainability of cotton cultivation after
introduction of genetically modified seeds in Tamil
Nadu, India
University of Amsterdam
International Development Studies
Research Master Thesis
Student: ARIANA FERFILA
Student number: 10427228
2 Supervisor:
dr. J.M. (Maarten) Bavinck Associate professor
Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Universiteit van Amsterdam
Nieuwe Achtergracht 166 1018 WV Amsterdam The Netherlands Phone: +31(0)205254185 E mail: J.M.Bavinck@uva.nl Second reader:
dr. Y.P.B. (Yves) van Leynseele
Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Universiteit van Amsterdam
Nieuwe Achtergracht 166 1018 WV Amsterdam The Netherlands E mail: Y.P.B.vanLeynseele@uva.nl Local supervisor: dr. K.Karunaharan Bharathidasan University Thiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu, India
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ... 5
List of figures, photos, maps, tables, graphs ... 6
List of acronyms ... 8
1 INTRODUCTION ... 9
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 12
2.1 Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach ... 12
2.1.1 The Analytical Components of SRLA ... 13
2.1.1.1 Livelihood assets ... 15 2.1.1.2 Mediating processes ... 16 2.1.1.3 Livelihood strategies ... 16 2.1.1.4 Agricultural technologies ... 17 2.1.2 Critique of SRLA ... 18 2.2 Agro-ecology Approach ... 20 2.3 Conceptual Scheme ... 25 3. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ... 27 3.1 Ontological positioning ... 27
3.2 Research questions and sub-questions ... 28
3.3 Units of analysis and sampling ... 29
3.4 Research Methods ... 31
3.5 Ethical Issues and limitations ... 33
4 RESEARCH CONTEXT... 34
4.1 Agricultural policy ... 34
4.2 The green and the gene revolution ... 35
4.3 Cultural dissonance ... 37
5 COTTON SECTOR ... 38
5.1 Cotton production ... 38
5.2 Types of cotton production ... 39
5.3 Cotton production in India ... 41
5.3.1 Cotton seeds ... 43
5.3.2 Use of fertilizers ... 43
5.3.3 Use of pesticides ... 45
5.4 Cotton production in Tamil Nadu ... 47
5.4.1 Research location in Tamil Nadu ... 50
4
6 CULTIVATING COTTON IN TAMIL NADU ... 57
6.1 Socio-economic profiles of cotton farmers ... 57
6.1.1 Human capital ... 57 6.1.2 Natural capital ... 59 6.1.3 Social capital ... 60 6.1.4 Physical capital ... 62 6.1.5 Financial capital ... 64 6.1.6 Main findings ... 69
6.2 Agricultural practices & technologies ... 70
6.2.1 Use of machinery ... 73
6.2.2 Crop-livestock integration ... 73
6.2.3 Soil fertility maintenance ...74
6.2.4 Seeds ... 77
6.2.5 Crop diversity ... 81
6.2.6 Disease and weed control ... 83
6.2.7 Pest control ... 83
6.2.8 Source of technical advice ... 86
6.2.9 Main findings ... 88
6.3 Economic performance of cotton cultivation ... 89
6.3.1 Size of the land under cotton ... 89
6.3.2 Cotton yields ... 91 6.3.3 Cotton price ... 92 6.3.4 Seed costs ... 94 6.3.5 Fertilizer costs ... 95 6.3.6 Pesticide costs ... 97 6.3.7 Labour costs ... 98
6.3.8 Costs for renting machinery ... 99
6.3.9 Main findings ... 100
7 CONCLUSIONS ... 104
7.1 Theoretical reflections ... 104
7.2 Answers to the research questions ... 105
7.3 Areas for further study ... 111
Bibliography ... 112
Appendices ... 121
Appendix 1 List of respondents ... 121
Appendix 2 Questionnaire ... 123
5
ABSTRACT
Cotton cultivation in India has changed substantially after the introduction of genetically modified cotton seeds (approved in 2002). By combining the Sustainable rural livelihood approach with concepts from Agro-ecology I analyse and compare agricultural practices and technologies involved in cotton cultivation from various perspectives: economic, environmental and social. I argue that the evolution of agricultural technology should not be evaluated in economic terms alone and that the environmental sustainability of agriculture itself needs to be included. My study is based on a comparison of two sites: one site where genetically modified cotton cultivation has become common place, and a second site where it is only now coming up.
From September to December 2013 I conducted four months of ethnographic fieldwork in Perambalur and Dindigul District of Tamil Nadu, India. I did around 60 interviews with cotton farmers, input sellers, local NGO representatives and academic researchers. Other research methods used were: in-depth household case studies, observations, surveys and semi-structured interviews, key informant interviews and secondary data.
My conclusions are that the trend of evolution of agricultural technology (genetically modified cotton seeds) brought to the farmers wide range of opportunities and risks. Bigger cotton yields and bigger profits are the optional economic benefits of applying new agricultural technology, while higher production costs, yield failure in case of rain scarcity and dependence on input sellers are the newly introduced risks. In addition it is still not known and agreed among the scientists what environmental changes will introduction of genetically modified organisms bring, how will farmers deal with secondary pests pressures, declining fertility of the soil and the loss of biodiversity in the long run.
I posit that if society wants to increase the sustainability of cotton production and reduce the distress of the Indian farmers, a rethinking of the modernizing process of agriculture itself is necessary. The question needed is: what agricultural practices and technologies should farmers start applying in order to increase self-sufficiency and avoid dependence on off-farm inputs, non-institutional sources of loans and the long-term negative effects of monocultures?
6 LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2.1 The Sustainable Rural Livelihoods conceptual framework with agricultural technologies
Fig. 2.2 The conceptual framework for agricultural practices & technologies and sustainable rural livelihoods Fig. 4.1 Trends in fertilizer consumption (N,P and K), 1950 – 2010
Fig. 5.1 Demographic data of Kolakkanatham village
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 5.1 & 5.2 Towards Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur village Photo 6.1 Agricultural Cooperative Society in Kolakkanatham village Photo 6.2 Path connecting Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur Photo 6.3 Cotton plant
Photo 6.4 Nearby field on the way from Kanthasamypuram towards Palaniyur Photo 6.5 & 6.6 The ways how new types of GM cotton seeds were advertised Photo 6.7 One of the farmers in Kolakkanatham
LIST OF MAPS
Map 3.1 Locations of Thappai, Varakuppai, Alunthalaipur, Saradamangalam and Kollakanatham in Perambalur district, Tamil Nadu Map Location of Dindigul and Perambalur in Tamil Nadu
Map 5.1 Kolakkanatham village
Map 5. 2 Map drawing of Kolakkantham village Map 5.3 Map drawing of Kanthasamypuram Map 5.4 Map drawing of Palaniyur
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Cotton production in the main producing countries in season 1960-1961 Table 4.2 Cotton production in the main producing countries in season 2012-2013 Table 4.3 Consumption of pesticides in India from 1955-86
Table 5.1 Number of the respondents Table 5.2 Gender structure of the respondents Table 5.3 Age structure of the respondents Table 5.4 Education structure of the respondents Table 5.5 Size of the respondents' land
Table 6.1 Share of the land under cotton cultivation in relation to total farmer's land in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Table 6.2 Share of the land under cotton cultivation in relation to total farmer's land in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013 LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 4.1 All India harvested cotton area (1960 – 2011) Graph 4.2 All India production of cotton (1960 – 2011) Graph 4.3 All India yield of cotton (1960 – 2011)
Graph 4.4 All India cotton area under irrigation (1960 – 2011) Graph 4.5 All India consumption of fertilizers (2003 – 2013)
7
Graph 4.6 All India consumption of pesticides (1990 – 2013) Graph 4.7 Tamil Nadu harvested cotton area (1996 – 2011) Graph 4.8 Tamil Nadu production of cotton (1996 – 2011)
Graph 4.9 Comparison of yields of cotton per hectare for Tamil Nadu and all India (1996 – 2011) Graph 6.1 Family members working on the land in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.2 Family members working on the land in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur Graph 6.3 Size of the farmers' land in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.4 Size of the farmers' land in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur Graph 6.5 Source of the farmers' loans in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.6 Source of the farmers' loans in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur Graph 6.7 Cattle in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.8 Cattle in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur Graph 6.9 Source of off-farm income in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.10 Source of off-farm income in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur Graph 6.11 Soil Fertility maintenance in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.12 Soil Fertility maintenance in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur Graph 6.13 Use of chemical fertilizers in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.14 Use of chemical fertilizers in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur Graph 6.15 Quantity of chemical fertilizer’s application in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.16 Quantity of chemical fertilizer’s application in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur Graph 6.17 Brands of cotton seeds cultivated in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.18 Brands of cotton seeds cultivated in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013 Graph 6.19 Crop pattern in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.20 Crop pattern in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013 Graph 6.21 Pesticide application in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.22 Pesticide application in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013 Graph 6.23 Pesticide application in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.24 Pesticide application in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013 Graph 6.25 Source of technical advice in Kolakkanatham
Graph 6.26 Source of technical advice in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur Graph 6.27 Acreage under cotton in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.28 Acreage under cotton in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013 Graph 6.29 Cotton yields per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.30 Cotton yields per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013 Graph 6.31 Total costs for cotton seeds per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.32 Total costs for cotton seeds per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013 Graph 6.33 Total costs for fertilizers per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.34 Total costs for fertilizers per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013 Graph 6.35 Total costs for pesticides per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.36 Total costs for pesticides per acre in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013 Graph 6.37 Total costs for renting machinery in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.38 Total costs for renting machinery in Kanthasamypuram & Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.39 Farmer’s personal estimations of earnings from cotton per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013 Graph 6.40 My estimations of earnings from cotton per acre in Kolakkanatham in year 2012-2013
Graph 6.41 Farmer’s personal estimations of earnings from cotton per acre in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur in year 2012-2013 Graph 6.42 My estimations of earnings from cotton per acre in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur in year 2012-2013
8 LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACS - Agricultural Cooperative Society
AICCIP – All India Coordinated Cotton Improvement Project
EANDS – Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India ENSSER – European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility
FAI – Fertilizers Association of India
FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
IAASTD – International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science & Technology for Development ICAC – International Cotton Advisory Committee
INR - Indian Rupees
OFAI - Organic Farming Association of India PPIN – Plant Protection Information Network SRLA – Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach
9
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2002 the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests approved commercial release of three Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton hybrid seeds. Bt cotton represents the first genetically modified crop technology that was approved by the regulatory authorities in India. Since then biotechnology and genetically modified crops have been the subject of controversial debate. Proponents see this new agricultural technology as an instrument to achieve agricultural growth and farmer's poverty alleviation, while opponents emphasize environmental and health risks.
The technology was developed by the US company Monsanto. Already in 1996 Monsanto transferred a US Bt cotton variety to India. In collaboration with the Mahycho (Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company) the technology was firstly introduced into several of Mahycho's hybrid cotton varieties. Bt cotton, sold under the brand name Bollgard, namely contains genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and makes the plant resistant to certain insect pests, especially cotton bollworm and related species. The main attributes of genetically modified cotton according to the first trials (Narayanamoorthy, 2006; Qaim, 2003; Stone, 2011) were resistance to bollworms pests, better pest control, subsequent reduction in use of pesticides and higher cotton yields.
India became in the years that followed 'the world's biggest producer of Bt cotton, with an estimated area of 23,2 million acres under this technology in 2010' (Kouser & Qaim, 2011: 2106). But Bt-cotton is hardly a technology with no impact on cultivation practices as it 'may bring a plethora of changes including new requirements for field management practices, new kinds and rates of technological change, new sources of advertising and lobbying and new insect population dynamics (Stone, 2011: 387).
Whether cultivating Bt cotton is an economically beneficial opportunity for Indian farmers is an issue under discussion since its introduction. Through all these years the non-governmental organizations in India (Deccan Development Society, Navdanya) routinely reported about problems with Bt cotton cultivation such as higher production costs, infestation of secondary pests, bio-safety concerns etc. Furthermore the Indian media has with disquieting regularity 'drawn attention to the plight of a significant number of desperate cotton farmers who saw no way out of the debt trap' (Baumgartner in Eyhorn, 2007:7). According to National Crime Records Bureau of India from 1995 to 2012 more than a quarter of a million farmers have committed suicide. Suicide rates among the farmers have been
10 tragically high among the highest cotton producing states in the country. According to Vasavi (2012) each of the affected regions manifested a coming together of a triple crisis: economic, social and ecological. Although the introduction of Bt cotton has played a negative role in this cases it 'is correct to indicate it is not the key or singular factor responsible for suicides' (Vasavi, 2012: 22). The desperation of the farmers primarily purportedly stemmed from 'the fact that high input costs, stagnating yields and low cotton prices lead farm households into poverty and indebtedness, especially under unfavourable climatic conditions' (Baumgartner in Eyhorn, 2007:7). In addition the livelihoods of cotton farmers were 'subject to the intensification of resource depletion which includes the decreasing fertility of the soil, the decline of water table and loss of biodiversity' (Vasavi: 2012: 64). What seriously stands out in these cases of suicides and the overall condition of farmers' distress in India is the need to rethink the dominant model and practice of agriculture and 'to review and promote practices and patterns of agriculture that are suitable to the ecological, economic and social needs of population' (Vasavi, 2012:4).
I have conducted four months of research field work in Perambalur and Dindigul District of Tamil Nadu in India between September and December 2013. The central concern of my research was to evaluate risks and opportunities farmers are facing, while adopting certain agricultural practices and technologies. The risks and opportunities were estimated after reconstructing different agricultural practices and technologies involved, reviewing socio-economic profiles of the cotton farmers, their perceptions of risks and opportunities and the economic performance of one season's cotton cultivation.
My thesis is structured as follows: in the second chapter my theoretical framework is presented linking Sustainable Rural Livelihood approach with concepts of Agro-ecology. The chapter ends with presenting the conceptual scheme. In the third chapter my methodological framework is presented with ontological positioning, research questions, units of analysis and description of research methods used. The chapter ends with considering ethical issues and limitations I have faced during my research. The fourth chapter briefly explains wider research context putting emphasis on agricultural policy, the green and the gene revolution and cultural dissonance. The fifth chapter presents some facts of global cotton production but moreover presents the cotton sector in India in more detail, considering different types of cotton production and the issues of seeds, use of fertilizers and pesticides. The chapter ends with presenting cotton production in Tamil Nadu and basic characteristics of the research
11 locations and samples in Perambalur and Dindigul Districts of Tamil Nadu. Sixth chapter is empirical in nature, presenting analyses of cotton cultivation in Tamil Nadu considering socio-economic profiles of cotton farmers, reconstruction of agricultural practices and technologies and estimation of economic performance. The seventh chapter is a concluding one presenting theoretical reflections, answers to my research questions and concluding thoughts on areas for further studies.
12
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This second chapter presents my theoretical framework linking Sustainable Rural Livelihood approach (SRLA) with the concepts of Agro-ecology. Firstly I present the analytical components of SRLA with a brief introduction of agricultural technology concept in SRLA frame. Then I also mention some critique of the SRLA approach before presenting the Agro-ecology approach. The chapter ends with an overview of the conceptual scheme.
2.1 SUSTAINABLE RURAL LIVELIHOODS APPROACH
The Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach is a theoretical framework that partially suits the complexity of my research topic. According to Ellis (2000) it is people centred and provides a researcher with a method for thinking about the multiple and interactive influences on people’s livelihoods without overlooking wide range of explanatory factors. SRLA has challenged single-sector approaches in solving complex rural development issues and has the ability to integrate ‘insights and interventions beyond disciplinary or sectoral boundaries’ (Scoones, 2009:171). SRLA has been used as a theoretical framework by number of organizations since the late 90’s. It has been applied not only for the purposes of designing projects and programmes, but also for assessing research and existing activities.
One of the key features of the SRLA is that it recognizes people themselves as actors with assets and capabilities ‘who act in pursuit of their own livelihood goals’ (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002:6). A livelihood ‘comprise the assets (natural, physical, human, financial and social capital), the activities and the access to these activities (mediated by institutions and social relations) that together determine the living gained by the individual or household’ (Ellis, 2000:10). Moreover, it needs to be understood as an ongoing process, in which it can't be assumed that elements remain the same from one year to the next. The concept implies that the means of livelihood can be transformed by activities but also policies. Although individuals, households and communities are the primary levels of the analysis, SRLA seeks for relevant interactions at micro, intermediate and macro levels.
Since its very beginning SRLA has been committed to including several dimensions of sustainability: environmental, economic, social and institutional. A livelihood is considered to be sustainable according to SRLA ‘when it can cope with and recover from stresses and
13 shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base’ (Scoones, 1998:5). But although SRLA has encouraged critical reflection about diversity and complexity of rural realities in the past, it is presently facing an urgent need to rethink, retool and reengage livelihood perspectives for new challenges. According to Scoones (2009) four themes must be considered and addressed: knowledge, politics, scale and dynamics. In section 2.1.2 we consider two of them: knowledge and politics.
The controversy about genetically modified crops and concerns about the climate change in the beginning of 21st century re-opened debates about issues such as self-sufficiency of the farming systems, future of human food, human health, biodiversity and corporate control of the agri-food system. All of these issues are centred around the question of sustainability; ‘they all have intersecting ecological, economic and socio-political dimensions; and (...) they have both local and global dimensions’ (Scoones, 2007:593).
2.1.1 THE ANALYTICAL COMPONENTS OF SRLA
SRLA views rural people as operating in a real or potential context of vulnerability under surrounding physical, geographic, social, economic and political conditions. Sustainability and vulnerability represent two opposite extremes of a continuum depicting the quality of the livelihood systems with regards to the household’s capabilities and assets.
SRLA is usually divided conceptually into five sections (see Fig. 2.1): Vulnerability Context[trends, shocks]
Livelihood Assets [natural, financial, physical, social and human capital] Mediating Processes [policies, institutions, organizations]
Livelihoods Strategies [employed by rural people in pursuit of income, security, well-being]
Livelihoods Outcomes
Adato and Meinzen-Dick (2002) have added one more concept to the original scheme of SRLA - agricultural technologies. This variation of the original scheme is very useful for the purposes of my research.
14
Fig. 2.1 The Sustainable Rural Livelihoods conceptual framework with the added concept of agricultural technologies (Adato, Meinzen-Dick, 2002)
The starting point of the framework is the assets ‘owned, controlled, claimed or in some other means accessed by the household’ (Ellis, 2000:31). They are seen as stocks of capital that can be utilized directly or indirectly with the aim to generate the means of survival of the household or to sustain its material well-being. The translation of these set of assets into a livelihoods strategy is ‘mediated by a great number of contextual, social, economic and policy considerations’ (Ibid, p.37). According to Scoones (1998) these are seen as ‘contexts, conditions and trends’ on the one hand and ‘institutions and organizations’ on the other. While the former category (vulnerability context in Fig.2.1) encompasses history, politics, economic trends, climate, agro-ecology, demography and social differentiations, the latter category (mediating/ transforming processes or policies, institutions and processes in Fig.2.1) includes policies, institutions, laws, incentives and social relations.
As the interrelationship between assets, mediating processes and livelihoods activities unfolds over time SRLA identifies certain, exogenous aspects as capable of initiating or influencing new patterns of household activities. These are referred as trends and shocks. For our research interesting trends include the evolution of agricultural technology, international market trends and rates of out-migration from rural areas. While trends refer to long-term socioeconomic climate and the ‘livelihood outcomes may be adverse or fortuitous’ (Ellis in Amekawa, 2011:131), shocks destroy assets directly. Shocks refer to any impacts which are sudden, unpredictable and severe such as droughts, floods, human illnesses, economic crisis and war.
15 Livelihoods strategies are composed of activities generating the means of household survival. In reality people combine different activities in a complex portfolio. Rural livelihood diversification can be defined as a process ’by which rural households construct an increasingly diverse portfolio of activities and assets in order to survive and improve their standard of living’ (Ellis, 2000:15). Although SRLA underlines the importance of livelihood diversification as key strategy the diversifying livelihood strategies of rural people are not my primal focus of concern. I will instead concentrate on agricultural practices and technologies (see section 2.1.14).
2.1.1.1 LIVELIHOOD ASSETS
The main aspects of rural people’s livelihoods and the relationships among them are presented through a combination of assets:
HUMAN CAPITAL refers to the labour available to the household: its education, skills and health.
NATURAL CAPITAL consists of the land, water and biological resources utilised by people to generate means of survival.
SOCIAL CAPITAL refers to the social networks (like family, relatives, friends or inside-village relations) and associations in which people participate and from which they can gain support (informal safety nets, membership in organizations etc.).
PHYSICAL CAPITAL consists of infrastructural assets (buildings, roads, irrigation canals) and production assets (machines, tools, vehicles, equipment).
FINANCIAL CAPITAL stands for the amount of money to which the household has access. This is likely to be in the form of savings, access to credit in the form of loans, regular income, pensions etc.
The livelihood assets are not merely resources that households can mobilize in sustaining their livelihoods but they provide ’the capability to be and to act’ (Bebbington in Amekawa, 2011:133). Assets are (material and social) means through which people can make a living, but they are also vehicles for hermeneutic actions (making living meaningful) and emancipatory actions (challenging the structures). SRLA indicates that there is a close relationship between vulnerability and assets: ‘the most vulnerable households are those that are both highly prone to adverse external events and lacking the assets or social support systems that could carry them through periods of adversity’ (Ellis, 2000: 62).
16
2.1.1.2 MEDIATING PROCESSES (POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS)
Assets of individuals and households are to a certain degree influenced by various mediating processes from governance, institutions, organizations, policies but also social relations. Governance is a notion ‘addressing long term transformation of a polity and associated changes in the development path’ while ‘institutions are the normative means through which governance implements the structural design of a polity’ (Amekawa, 2011:134). Institutions are the formal rules, conventions and informal codes of behaviour that ‘comprise constraints on human interaction’ (North in Ellis, 2000:38). The role of institutions (laws, land tenure agreements) is in reducing uncertainty by establishing the structure for stable human interactions. The way markets interface between different (familial, communal, social, collective and state/policy) institutional forms results in a complexity of a micro-macro links. The public and private sector, civil society, community institutions, laws as well as culture may all play a role. They all form the environment in which livelihood strategies are pursued and they shape livelihoods by ‘influencing access to assets, livelihood strategies, vulnerability and terms of exchange’ (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002:9).
Organizations are distinguished from institutions. They depict ‘groups of individuals bound by some common purpose to achieve objectives’ (North in Ellis, 2000:38). Examples of organisations are government agencies (Ministry of Agriculture), administrative bodies (local government), NGOs and associations (farmer’s association).
2.1.1.3 LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES
Livelihood strategies refer to people’s choices that they employ ‘in pursuit of income, security, well-being, and other productive and reproductive goals’ (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002:10). Households and individuals may pursue multiple strategies, sequentially or simultaneously in order to make income or to provide a measure of security. Livelihood strategies are dynamic in terms of responding to changing pressures and opportunities and adapting accordingly. The typical adaptive strategies recognized among resource poor households are: (1) agricultural intensification or extensification (agricultural intensification refers to intensifying resource use in combination with the given land area, while agricultural extensification refers to bringing new land into cultivation or grazing), (2) diversificationof income resources (non-farm rural employment), (3) migration (seasonal or temporary labour
17 migration), (4) making use of communal resources, (5) relying upon social relationship (kinship support systems) or informal credit resources, (6) adjusting consumption patterns and (7) mortgaging or selling assets (see also Agarwal in Amekawa, 2011).
Livelihood strategy outcomes according to Ellis (2000) can be divided between livelihood security and environmental sustainability aspects. Livelihood security aspect, according to Ellis, brings together attributes related to income level, income stability and reduction in overall risk profile of the income portfolio. Environmental sustainability on the other hand refers to changes in the stability and resilience of natural resources (water, soils, bio-diversity, forests). Although Ellis argues, that these terms are difficult to be more precisely defined, outcomes have a feedback-effect on the livelihoods assets and vulnerability context. In livelihood strategy outcomes indicators such as income, food security, sustainable use of natural resources can be found, they can further on weaken or strengthen the assets base, reduce or increase vulnerability and make improvements in well-being aspects such as health, self-esteem, sense of control, maintenance of cultural assets etc.
2.1.1.4 AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES
Adato and Meinzen-Dick (2002) indicated three possible ways how agricultural technology could fit into the SRLA framework: by affecting the vulnerability context, through the linkages to the asset base or as part of the policies, institutions and processes. In general new agricultural practices and technologies can reduce vulnerability (for example when new crops are more resistant towards water supply fluctuations or different kinds of pests) but they can also increase vulnerability (when new varieties of seeds are more susceptible to crop failure if weather conditions are not right, when farmers have to purchase seed material every year under conditions of cash constraint, or when agricultural practices and technologies are decreasing soil fertility).
The adoption of agricultural practices and technologies is also linked to the assets base. Usually certain types of assets are needed in order to adopt new agricultural practices and technologies. Here we can recall the critical observations of the green revolution in India claiming that only the farmers with large landholdings (natural capital) were able to benefit from the package of technological innovations (Altieri, 1989; Shiva, 1993; Vasavi 2012). As the new hybrid varieties of seeds required greater amounts of water (natural capital),
18 irrigation facilities (physical capital) were also seen as a necessary requirement for adopting new agricultural practices and technologies.
Social capital on the other hand can also play an important role in agricultural technology usage ‘because of the ways in which social networks and social relationships facilitate or constrain technology dissemination’ (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002:16). Farmers, for an example, may prefer to learn from their neighbours’ successes and failures, rather than through official government channels and instructions.
Furthermore it is important to address how policies and institutions influence the adoption of new agricultural practices and technologies. In the current context of globalization and liberalization the agrarian policies are under increasing pressures of intensifying international competition and withdrawal of state support. Of increasing importance is to research how certain processes (such as reducing government subsidies for fertilizers and electricity; liberalization of agricultural trade; decreasing availability of institutional credit; dependency on traders for inputs, loans and selling of crops; promotion of genetically modified crops from the privatised seed companies; new intellectual property rights; rising costs of production processes and declining prices for crops on the global market) are influencing the sustainability of rural livelihoods in developing countries.
According to this reasoning it is important to assess the impact of newly introduced or competing agricultural practices and technologies. Effective but also environmentally friendly agricultural practices and technologies sustain rural livelihoods in the long run and have a significant impact on farmer’s existence. With SRLA as an underlying theoretical framework I am interested in analysing, how different agricultural practices and technologies involved in growing cotton influence the livelihood strategies of households and individuals that have different types of assets. Although I will adjust the SRLA framework and supplement it with concepts from the Agro-ecology approach later in this chapter, it offers the researcher a valuable framework to highlight multi-layered interactions involved in the complex agricultural realities on the ground.
2.1.2 CRITIQUE OF SRLA
According to Ellis (2000) one of the criticism of SRLA addresses the neglect of non-economic factors. The actual process of strategy development after all does not simply result
19 from a given constellation of assets and context with the aim of increasing different kinds of capital. Livelihood strategies need to take into a consideration other non-economic aspects such as culture, traditions, historical factors, social status and personal ambitions. Among the all already mentioned assets we could therefore add the ’cultural asset’, which would include ‘beliefs, traditions, language, identity, festivals and sacred rites’ (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002: 26).
What has also been observed is that SRLA lacks the notion of power and power relations. As Ashley & Carney have put it: ‘the Sustainable Livelihoods framework overall can convey a somewhat cleansed, neutral approach to power issues’ (Ibid., p.28).
Scoones (2009) has identified four failures of SRLA: incapacity to deal with big shifts in the state of global markets and politics, failure to link livelihoods and governance debates in development, lack of attempts to deal with long-term secular change in environmental
conditions and last but not least, exclusion from the debates on long term shifts in rural economies and wider questions about agrarian change.
At this point I will elaborate further on challenges identified by Scoones (2009) in the realms of: (1) knowledge and (2) politics.
(1) Knowledge. Livelihood thinking has often carried along some explicit normative commitments around a set of widely-shared principles. Through a process of discursive framing this has created a politics of livelihoods knowledge, making of which has rarely been discussed. When terms emerge that further on influence the construction of debates, it is worthwhile reflecting on livelihood perspectives as a discourse in which questions of values become important. Although accepting diverse, complex livelihoods as an empirical reality, the underlying ‘assumption propose it as a starting point for a future trajectory to something better’ (Scoones, 2009: 185). With other words, institutional power behind the ideas creates certain politics of knowledge in the development field. ‘Unpacking, questioning, challenging and recasting such perspectives is vital’ (Ibid.) in order to show that knowledge production always is conditioned by values, politics, institutional histories and commitments.
(2) Politics. Although the urgent need to bring politics back into the livelihoods perspectives is recognized, according to Scoones the attention to politics and power already is at the heart of SRLA. Much of livelihoods analysis centres on question how different people get access to
20 assets for pursuit of their livelihoods. This necessarily encompasses question of power and politics as institutions are mediated by power relations. But the attention to the issue of power and politics must move beyond the local levels as basic questions of political economy and history do matter (such as the nature of the state, the influence of private capital and terms of trade, wider structural forces that are conditioned by histories of places and peoples, interactions with colonialism, state-making, globalisation etc.).
Regardless of all the use of SRLA should not be limiting but should be used creatively and ’with concepts, tools, and modes of analysis that have long been used in other fields; such as development sociology, anthropology and history’ (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002:30). One of the underlying narratives of SRLA that I want to problematize here is the assumption that ‘agriculture is no longer a major source of sustainability in rural livelihoods’ (Amekawa, 2011:142). SRLA, paradoxically, doesn’t contain an aspect of environmentally sustainable agricultural practice itself. Which then further on pose a question how (with which concepts and tools) to reconstruct complete set of agricultural practices farmers are applying in order to evaluate the environmental, social and economic sustainability aspect of the evolution of agricultural technology?
2.2 AGRO-ECOLOGY APPROACH
At this particular point I want to introduce Agro-ecology as another development school that is promoting people-centred approach with focus on integration, complexity, inter-disciplinarity and equity. Although at present there are still multiple definitions, different objects, concepts, levels of scale and research methods, it seems Agro-ecology is gaining wider recognition (Mendez et al, 2013). Initially Agro-ecology dealt with crop production and protection aspects and started distinctively evolving since the 1930s. In recent decades scales and definitions spatially expanded; from the plot, field to the farm and agro-ecosystem scale and finally addressing the ‘entire realm of the food system1’ (Wezel et al., 2009:513).
Today the term Agro-ecology means ‘either a scientific discipline, agricultural practice or political or social movement’ (Wezel et al., 2009:503) and its primary aim is solving the sustainability problem of agriculture.
21 The concept of sustainable agriculture ‘is a relatively recent response to a decline in the quality of the natural resource or productive base associated with modern agriculture.’ (Rosset&Altieri, 2008:288) According to Agro-ecology sustainable agriculture distinguish itself with regard to nature of inputs, resource use, cropping pattern, degree of diversity, methods of plant protection, cultural practices, management of resources and degree of dependency on local external resources and knowledge. The concept of sustainable agriculture has evolved in response to ecological as well as other problems such as ‘pest resistance and outbreak, loss of biodiversity, pesticide hazards and contamination, scale biases towards larger farms, undemocratic top-down transmission of new technology and information etc’ (Altieri& Nichols in Amekawa, 2011: 119). According to Rosset & Altieri (2008) through unsustainable agricultural practices a steady erosion of the productive base has occurred. This is indicated by the decline of organic matter in the soil, loss of bio-diversity, salinization, depletion of groundwater, pest outbreaks (because of widespread monoculture), genetic uniformity, elimination of natural enemies (for the pests), resistance of insects, weeds and crop diseases, pesticides etc.
Agro-ecology is concerned with developing a new approach to natural resource management that would be environmentally sustainable, based on local resources and knowledge and would aim to improve whole farming systems at the field level rather than solely emphasizing increase in the yield of specific commodities. From the scientific point of view, Agro-ecology is a new discipline, ‘that defines, classifies and studies agricultural systems from an ecological and socio-economic perspective’ (Altieri, 1989:38). It is a science which emphasises the importance of food sovereignty, conservation of natural resources, agro-biodiversity and empowers rural social movements.
‘The problem of hunger and rural poverty in the developing countries has been perceived fundamentally as a problem of production’ (Altieri, 1989: 42). The common solution was to develop a system where ’low productivity subsistence oriented agriculture would be transformed into high-productivity commercial, cash crop-oriented agriculture’ (Chambers in Altieri, 1989:42). The process of modernization of agriculture that occurred after World War Two introduced mechanization, dissemination of improved seeds – hybrids, pesticides and fertilizers to the developing countries. It brought ‘non-ecological, chemical-intensive practices, maximum yield breeding strategies and monoculture specialization’ (Wezel et al, 2009:506). But in the areas where conversion from subsistence to cash crop agricultural
22 economy occurred, a number of ecological and social problems also became evident: ‘loss of food self-sufficiency, genetic erosion, loss of traditional farming knowledge, permanence of rural poverty’ (Toledo in Altieri, 1989:42), not to forget water pollution and soil degradation.
Focusing solely on improving productivity of agricultural production ‘a deep understanding of the nature of agro-ecosystems and the principles by which they function’ (Altieri, 2002:7) has been neglected. With a narrow focus on the short-term yields and economic returns agricultural economists considered social and environmental factors as externalities. ‘Public policies rarely considered the environmental impact of agriculture, nor the social consequences of a uni-dimensional rural development focussed on production and economics.’ (Wezel et al, 2009:505) Agro-ecology, on the other hand, was meanwhile evolving as a discipline, developing basic ecological principles for the purpose of studying, designing and managing agro-ecosystems that are productive, natural resource conserving, culturally sensitive, socially just and economically viable. Agro-ecology is argued to avoid one-dimensional view of agro-ecosystems. ‘Instead of focusing on one particular component of the agro-ecosystem, agro-ecology emphasizes the interrelatedness of all agro-ecosystem components and the complex dynamics of ecological processes’ (Rosset&Altieri, 2008:290).
Agro-ecologists began very early to emphasize that it is indeed crucial ‘that scientists involved in the search for sustainable agricultural technologies are concerned about who will ultimately benefit from them’ (Altieri, 1989: 40). It is further more necessary to monitor what is produced, how it is produced and for whom. Simply focusing on the technological aspect of the sustainability problem of agriculture is argued not to be enough. The major constraint to a wider recognition of the logic of Agro-ecology still supposedly is ‘that powerful economic and institutional interests have backed research and development for the conventional agro-industrial approach, while research and development for agro-ecology and sustainable approaches has been largely ignored’ (Altieri, 2002:16).
Agro-ecology argues that crisis of modern agriculture is universal, ‘encompassing developed and Third World economies’ (Rosset&Altieri, 2008:284) and that it has three dimensions: economic, social and environmental. The key forces identified as drivers of agricultural crisis are: extensive monoculture, excessive use of machinery, inputs controlled by agribusiness, dependence on fossil fuels and high capital requirements.
23 Agro-ecologists go beyond input substitution2 and stress the importance of developing
integrated agro-ecosystems with minimal dependence on external, off-farm inputs. ’The emphasis is on the design of complex agricultural systems in which ecological interactions and synergism between biological components replace inputs to provide the mechanisms for sponsoring soil fertility, productivity and crop protection’ (Rosset&Altieri, 2008:289). Emphasis is also put on recovering and nourishing local knowledge about vegetation, animals, soils and environment. On the basis of local knowledge and ecological features (such as ability to bear risk, efficiency of symbiotic crop mixtures, recycling of materials, reliance on local resources and germplasm and exploitations of micro-environments) appropriate agricultural strategies can be developed.
A common point of all Agro-ecology approaches is the realization, that ‘if someone wants to practice this new discipline, its operational tools and concepts are still under development and difficult to identify’ (Wezel et al, 2009:510). At the plot or field level, however, a number of principles and practices have been identified: recycling nutrients and energy on the farm (rather than introducing external inputs), enhancing soil organic matter and soil biological activity, diversifying plant species and genetic resources in agro-ecosystems over time and space, integrating crops and livestock in order to optimize interactions and productivity of the total farming system and not only the yields of an individual species. Sustainability is supposed to be achieved ‘by enhancing diversity and complexity of farming systems via poly-cultures, rotations, agroforestry, use of native seeds and local breeds of livestock, encouraging natural enemies of pests, and using composts and green manure to enhance soil organic matter thus improving soil biological activity and water retention capacity’ (Altieri&Toledo, 2011:588).
Until recently Agro-ecology approach was used by non-governmental organizations focusing on sustainable agriculture and rural development topics, and ‘those oriented toward empowering small-scale farmers and resource poor rural communities’ (Mendez et al., 2013: 5). The turning point for the inclusion of Agro-ecology also at higher policy levels came with the publication of the 2009 report entitled International Assessment of Agricultural
2 Input substitution is according to Altieri and Rosset (2008) an evolving discourse in which agri-business has appropriated the concept of sustainability to its own ends. Input substitution approach is only emphasizing environment friendly alternatives to agro-chemical inputs, without challenging dependence on off-farm inputs or monoculture structure that characterize current agricultural systems.
24 Knowledge, Science & Technology for Development (IAASTD3) which recognized it as ‘an
alternative promising approach to resolve the interrelated global problems of hunger, rural poverty and sustainable development’ (IAASTD in Mendez et al., 2013: 5). Olivier de Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, thus in his address to UN Human Rights Council in March 2011 expressed and affirmed the need to move towards agro-ecological ways of production if we want to feed the world, fight rural poverty and combat climate change at the same time. In addition in June 2013 the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) organized a conference about Transformative Agenda on Agro-ecology for Sustainable Food Systems in Europe4. There is
thus a good reason to integrate the Agro-ecology approach with SRLA as it is attempted in the following section.
Inclusion of Agro-ecology in the SRLA theoretical framework is important for giving the criteria and variables for evaluating especially environmental, but also economic and social sustainability aspects related to the evolution of agricultural technology (especially genetically modified cotton seeds). It also helps to gain a deeper understanding of agricultural practices in relation to long-term environmental sustainability aspects. Finally the Agro-ecology approach draws attention to important socio-economic aspects of newly introduced agricultural practices such as dependency on input sellers, top-down dissemination of knowledge, reliance on off-farm inputs etc.
3 IAASTD is a report commissioned by the World Bank, the United Nations and the World Health Organization sought to direct research and development policy solutions to the issue of hunger, poverty and sustainable agricultural development. By many it is considered as the agricultural equivalent of the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) report. ‘It brought together hundreds of scientists and institutions from all regions of the world over a seven-year period’ (Mendez et al. 2013: 15).
4 ENSSER, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility is dedicated to bringing together independent scientific expertise to develop public-good knowledge for the critical assessment of existing and new emerging technologies. Link to the conference announcement: http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/agroecology-conference/
25 2.3 CONCEPTUAL SCHEME
It is important to assess the impact of newly introduced agricultural practices and technologies on the sustainability of rural livelihoods. My study seeks to reconstruct current agricultural practices and technologies involved in cotton cultivation and to explore how these practices impact livelihood assets and outcomes of cotton farmers. I designed a conceptual framework in order to estimate sustainability of rural livelihoods according to three aspects: environmental, economic and social. Here the focus is on the risk and opportunity context farmers are facing with introduction of new agricultural technology (genetically modified cotton seeds) and livelihood assets and outcomes that might be affected by agricultural practices. Figure 2.2 below builds on the sustainable livelihoods diagram (see Fig. 2.1) modified by Adato and Meinzen-Dick with the concept of agricultural technologies added. My conceptual framework represents narrower version of the SRLA framework as it leaves out the vulnerability context and institutions, but includes the principles of agro-ecology especially in reconstructing agricultural practices and evaluating risks and opportunities context. See also Operationalization table in Appendix 3.
Fig. 2.2 The conceptual framework for agricultural practices & technologies and sustainable rural livelihoods (modified from Tang, Bennett, Xu, Li, 2013)
POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS (PROCESSES)
AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES & TECHNOLOGIES LIVELIHOOD
ASSETS
RISK & OPPORTUNITY CONTEXT
LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES
LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIS
26
According to the diagram above farmers with different livelihood assets apply certain agricultural practices and technologies on their land and employ different livelihood strategies in order to achieve certain livelihood outcomes. My aim is to explore how different agricultural practices are impacting livelihood assets, strategies and outcomes of the farmers. Agricultural practices and technologies are reconstructed according to three aspects of sustainability: environmental, economic and social and later on evaluated from the risk and opportunities context encompassing agro-ecology principles.
Risk and opportunity context, livelihoods assets and outcomes are variables that might be affected by agricultural practices. Livelihood strategies, on the other hand, 'belong to process variables meaning that the choices farmers employ in pursuit of outcomes might be affected as agricultural practices have an impact on their concepts, information structures and capital' ( Tang et al., 2013: 18). In this study the decline of farmers' risks, enhancement of livelihood assets and improvement of livelihood outcomes are main indicators to measure 'if the objective of sustainable livelihood is achieved' ( Tang et al., 2013: 18).
27
3. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
In the third chapter I present my ontological positioning, research questions and sub-questions, followed by describing my units of analysis and description of research methods used. The chapter ends with discussing on ethical issues and limitations I have faced during my field work.
3.1 ONTOLOGICAL POSITIONING
My research leans on a critical realist (CR) perspective. The key assumption in CR ontology is that the world exists independently of our knowledge of it, perceptions, theories and constructions. ‘The world is stratified, consisting not only of events, but objects including structures, which have powers and liabilities capable of generating events’ (Easton. 2010: 118)
Science or the production of any kind of knowledge is a social practice. Knowledge in this respect is largely linguistic, the nature of language and the way we communicate are not incidental to what is known and communicated. Although acknowledging independence of the world from our knowledge, critical realists accept the possibility of knowing reality. According to Easton (2010) the features of critical realism include its distinction between the real, the empirical and the actual. The real is whatever exists. It is the realm of objects, its powers and structures. The actual refers to what happens if and when those powers are activated and the empirical is defined as the domain of experience. The empirical domain is where observations are made and experienced.
In my research I try to reconstruct the agricultural practices and technologies farmers apply while cultivating cotton (the empirical), I try to estimate the economic performance of cotton cultivation (the actual) and I try to explain the mechanisms and the structures that have created the context of risk and opportunities, while using certain agricultural practices and technologies when growing cotton (the real).
28 3.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND SUB-QUESTIONS
Main Research Question:
Sub-questions:
Changes in the environmental, economic and social context in which farmers' households operate can constitute threats to their livelihoods, but also open up new opportunities. The risk and opportunity context influences farmers' decisions as they observe and interpret changes and trends, but also effect the livelihood outcomes and assets. Risk and opportunity context includes trends and fluctuations in input prices, labour market, climate, product market, water resources, technological innovation, conflicts etc.
In my research farmers represent agriculturalists, that grew cotton in year 2012-2013, own the land that is not bigger than 6.5 hectares and recognize agriculture as their main source of income.
What are the comparative risks and opportunities met by farmers applying various
agricultural practices and technologies in growing cotton in Perambalur and Dindigul
Districts in Tamil Nadu, India?
What is the socio-economic profile of farmers applying various agricultural practices
and technologies in growing cotton?
How do various agricultural practices and technologies used by farmers growing cotton differ?
How do farmers perceive risks and opportunities in applying various agricultural
practices and technologies while growing cotton?
What are the comparative livelihood outcomes among farmers using various agricultural
29 Agricultural practices and technologies encompass a set of activities and inputs farmers are applying on their fields while cultivating cotton.
Socio-economic profiles of the farmers consist of five types of livelihood assets. Assets are seen as stocks of capital that can be utilized directly or indirectly with the aim to generate the means of survival of the household or to sustain its material well-being.
Livelihood outcomes are narrowed to two sets of variables. One set is evolving around the notion of livelihood security (including income stability and households' food self-reliance), the other takes into consideration the issue of sustainable use of natural resources.
3.3 UNITS OF ANAYSIS AND SAMPLING
My primary units of analysis are farmers and their households, who own the land on which their crops are growing, agriculture is their main source of income and their fields are less than 6.5 hectares of size. According to the Indian Agricultural Census 2010-11 with the term farmer I refer to marginal (0.5-1ha), small (1-2ha), semi-medium (2-4ha) and medium (4-10ha) sized farmers as opposed to the large farmers that own industrialized farms or plantations (10ha and above). I also refer to those farmers who engage with the market and undertake commercial cultivation as opposed to ‘peasants’ who cultivate primarily for subsistence (only for their own and family needs).
The average landholding in our sample is 6.71 acres or 2.71 hectares of land. Indian agriculture is generally characterized by small farm holdings. Around 98 percent of farmers in India have land holdings smaller than 4 hectares and they cultivate nearly 82 percent of the arable land according to Indian Agricultural Census 2010-11. The average farm size in India is only 1.15 hectares.
My research field work was done in India in two districts of Tamil Nadu; Perambalur and Dindigul District (see map 3.1). After my first enquiries, when arriving to Tamil Nadu, I managed to locate a few villages in Perambalur District that were all involved into cotton cultivation. These villages were Thappai, Varakuppai, Alunthalaipur, Karudamangalam, Anaippadi, Kolakkanatham and Saradamangalam (see map 3.2). After the first week of visiting each village and speaking with a few cotton farmers with my translator, it became clear that all the farmers in these villages were cultivating genetically modified cotton. I decided to focus this part of the research in Kolakkanatham as it was the biggest village. There are primary and secondary government schools located in the village, a primary health
30 centre, a bank, a library, a veterinary hospital, a post office, a couple of grocery shops, an Agricultural Cooperative Society office and a few local shops selling seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. Local busses travel in all directions of Perambalur area on a regular basis (every couple of hours). As my translator and I were staying in Alunthalaipur with two local families, we were travelling to Kolakkanatham with the local bus daily.
Map 3.1 Location of Dindigul and Perambalur in Tamil Nadu
Map 3.2 Locations of Thappai, Varakuppai, Alunthalaipur, Saradamangalam and Kollakanatham in Perambalur district, Tamil Nadu
In Kolakkanatham we started visiting cotton fields on all sides of the village and randomly meeting farmers in the fields. For our selection we only considered farmers that were cultivating cotton in year 2012-2013, owned fields that were less than 6.5 hectares (16 acres) and were gaining their main income from farming.
31 Finding a second research location and a group of cotton farmers that are not so involved in intensive genetically modified cotton cultivation in Tamil Nadu was more problematic. With the help of secretary of SIMCODESS, local NGO near Dindigul, I managed to locate few smaller villages in Dindigul District of Tamil Nadu that have been actively involved into activities of preserving old cotton seed varieties. These villages were Kanthasamypuram, Palaniyur, Chinnappar Puram and Karisalpatti, not very far from Dindigul itself. The smaller village populations and the remoteness of the locations were in contrast with my previous research location in Perambalur District. After visiting these villages, I decided to do a research in two of them, located next to each other, Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur (see map 5.3 and 5.4). During this stage of research my translator and I were staying in A.Vellodu and travelling by local bus daily through Dindigul to reach Kanthasamypuram village. In these two villages the number of cotton farmers was much smaller than in comparison to Kolakkanatham. We interviewed almost all the farmers that were cultivating cotton in year 2012-2013, owned fields that were less than 6.5 hectares, were gaining main income from the farming and were prepared to speak to us.
3.4 RESEARCH METHODS
As my theoretical framework is the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach expanded with Agro-ecology, my aim was to apply an integrative approach drawing upon quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. Most of all, I tried to conduct a reflective and flexible ethnographical research. Here I adopted a broad interpretation of ethnography ‘as a research process based on fieldwork using a variety of mainly (but not exclusively) qualitative research techniques but including engagement in the lives of those being studied over an extended period of time’ (Davies, 2008: 5).
The research methods I used are: in-depth household case studies, observations, surveys and semi – structured interviews, key informant interviews and secondary data.
Participatory observation and in-depth case studies represented the starting point of my field research and helped me to identify and build relationships important for further research activities. Moreover they enabled villagers to get accustomed to my presence. This point of departure for a further research can give ‘the researcher an intuitive as well as an intellectual grasp of the way things are organized and prioritized, how people relate to one another, and the ways in which social and physical boundaries are defined’ (Schensul et al, 1999: 91).
32 The first part of my research field work was conducted in Kolakkanatham village in Perambalur District from September until beginning of November 2013. All this time I was living with a family in Alunthalaipur, in which the father was one of the first cotton cultivators in that village. Living with this family, conducting informal interviews observing and participating in their daily house activities helped me to gain many insights into everyday practices of the farmers, their identities, gender and inter-generation relations.
The second part of my research was conducted in Kanthasamypuram and Palaniyur from mid November to late December 2013. We were in everyday contact with secretary of SIMCODESS and his wife, who was also the formal director of the NGO. By observing households' and village dynamics and spending time with the farmers involved in cotton production I gained much information on the complexity of agricultural practices and farmers' everyday activities and challenges.
In-depth household case studies and participant observation provided me with the insights that are not available when applying other methods. Furthermore they also represented the starting point for refining questions I was asking further on while conducting other more structured data collection techniques. As I was incorporated in a family in Alunthalaipur and to a lesser extent in A.Vellodu, this brought many personal, social and scientific advantages.
In both research locations I conducted all together 45 quantitative surveys and semi-structured interviews among farmers. Surveys among the farmers were conducted for gaining demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the research population. Semi-structured interviews allowed me subsequently to follow up relevant topics that were emerging during the course of discussion and interviewing. To conduct a good semi-structured interview ‘the interviewer must know enough about the local culture to avoid violating principle of polite conversation’ (Schensul et al, 1999: 136). By means of semi-structured interviews (being re-fined through the initial stage of my research) I tried to achieve the level of good conversation and reciprocal relationship between the interviewer and interviewee. Questionnaires were based on ‘initial direction’ of the concepts already presented in my theoretical framework and operationalization table, but careful attention was also given to other perspectives and issues emerging if relevant.
Also very beneficial for my research was identifying key informant persons in the villages and conducting more open interviews with them. 'Key informant interviews allow the researcher to follow up in more detail with individuals that have specialized knowledge'
33 (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 20012: 35). Among them were for example individuals that had rich knowledge about specific agricultural practice, village history and structure, or they were early adopters of the agricultural technology. Very useful insights into my research problematic were gained also through open interviews with local seed distributors and agricultural input sales-men but also academic researchers on cotton problematic in India (the head of the cotton research station in Veppanthattai, Perambalur District) and representatives of local NGO’s (SIMCODESS, KUDUMBAN and Ettram Rural Comunity College).
Secondary data sources from government (data from Census of India), other researcher's studies (Deccan Development Society) and Indian press media (The Hindu, The Week, Frontline) were also not overlooked. They facilitated a cross-checking of information from other sources. Moreover my research fieldwork diary - including day-to-day recording of the events, work, observations and the sequencing of my field research - was also a helpful tool for reflection and for my later analysis.
3.5 ETHICAL ISSUES AND LIMITATIONS
Research in developing countries demands high level of reflectivity and responsibility. Together with my translator, I strived to show full respect to all the people we were talking to in the villages; although my position as a researcher was not neutral (in terms of my values, race, gender, language, research interests and methods) I tried my best to reflect on it regularly with my translator and my local supervisor.
Researchers in developing countries need very quickly to reach the level of neutral acceptance of culture, religion and way of existence of the population under study, as this is the prerequisite of tolerance that needs to be shown on each step of conducting field work. Perhaps the most evident limitation of my research was the language barrier. I can only guess how much data, small talk and extra explanations were lost during the interviews in the process of translating into English language. Although before starting the series of interviews, I took time to go through the questionnaire, we agreed that everything needs to be translated in order to be noted down, I think that much more was said in the Tamil language than later on translated into English for me.
34
4. RESEARCH CONTEXT
The fourth chapter briefly explains wider research context putting emphasis on existing agricultural policy, discussing historical aspect of technology innovation or the green and the gene revolution and cultural dissonance appearing with modernizing agriculture.
4.1 AGRICULTURAL POLICY CONTEXT
The central government of India abandoned the existing policy of treating agriculture as a priority sector as part of its neoliberal turn in 1991. The structural adjustment package that commenced then included ‘devaluation, fiscal correction, trade liberalization, financial sector reforms, deregulation and privatization’ (Walker, 2009: 559). From 1991 onwards the government thus began withdrawing from ‘green revolution support systems providing state-subsidized hybrid seeds, irrigation and some degree of low-interest credits’ (Lerche, 2011: 106). Between 1996 and 2001 the central government also rapidly removed trade protection for agriculture. ‘During that five-year period, the prices of all primary products, including cotton, jute, food grains and sugar, fell by astonishing 40 to 60 percent’ (Walker, 2009: 574). During the 1990’s external trade in agricultural produce and inputs was liberalized, which exposed Indian farmers to outside competition and fluctuating world market prices. The removal of state subsidies and monopolies on fertilizers also resulted in ‘considerable price increases paralleled by rising prices for pesticides and other inputs (Walker, 2009: 572). Besides the opening of the Indian market to the global trade and influx of the multinational corporations, the new agricultural policies were accompanied with a general shift toward cash crop cultivation. The switch to cash crop cultivation and redevelopment of the agricultural sector into an export-oriented one was being supported by subsidies, irrigation facilities and investments available only for particular cash crops (cotton, sugarcane).
Financial liberalization redefined the ‘priority sector’, but also led to a decline in institutional credit for agriculture. The state’s withdrawal drove many small-holder farmers ‘into the arms of moneylenders and traders, both of whom supply loans at usurious rates (amounting in some instances to as much as 100 percent) and are much more inflexible in rolling over debts than institutional lenders’ (Patnaik in Walker, 2009: 573). For small-holder farmers non-institutional sources have become the dominant source of credit again. The availability of cheap credit has classically been considered as a requirement, if resource-poor farmers
