Seed for survival

Expensive evasions

Such an evasion of emphasis appeared expensive. However, the damages due to "sick" seeds sown have never been quantified, nor could they be quantified in the presence of paucity of data. But to give a glean, allow me to read from a report on seed health and its consequent costs. "..BRRI estimate a national yield loss due to all diseases of 10-15 per cent of which it is further estimated that two-thirds are fungal, giving a yield loss of 6-10 per cent. The technical advice is that perhaps 20 per cent of these losses is estimated to originate from seed-borne inoculum, implying that 1.2 to 2 per cent of the total rice crop is lost.....This is likely to be a conservative estimate; experimental use of clean seed in farmers' fields in the Philippines has given yield improvement of 5-20 per cent...

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Assuming also conservatively, that the rice crop averages 18m tons p.a., these losses translate into 2,16,000 to 3,60,000 tons forgone availability annually due to diseases...

At the current farmgate price (i.e.1999), this equates to Tk. 1.3 to 2.2 billion (18 to 31 million Pound sterling) per annum which indicates that the economic problem is on a scale worth tackling."

Pains of the poor

The loss of yield on account of seed quality falls heavily on the poor farmers. The marginal disutility of parting with a production is different for different land size groups. The larger ones can possibly afford the loss since it would not stand on the way of their survival. But in the case of poor farmers -- with hardly owning one acre or so land and a big family to feed -- such a loss could throw them down the poverty line. Therefore, the marginal benefit of regained yield through seed improvement could be large and lucrative for the small than the large.

PETRRA and the poor

With the above-mentioned premises in mind, the Poverty Elimination through Rice Research Assistance (PETRRA) project of IRRI initiated a project called 'Seed Health Improvement Project' (SHIP). Researches by the formal scientists of BRRI and other organizations on seeds are passed on to the informal scientists -- the farmers -- through Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC). The project is participatory in nature in the sense that farmers sit with scientists and exchange experiences. The "resource poor" farmers -- as PETRRA calls them -- are selected on the basis of the following features: (a) households owning not more than one acre of land; (b) households' supply of rice from own fields does not exceed seven months requirement and (c) they spend 100 days or so in working on others' land etc. The selected sample farmers are then trained about roguing the lands (atleast thrice each unit of land) and their spouses are trained on preservation of seed -- on how to sort out seeds and preserve them in proper containers.

On board the 'SHIP'

I personally visited one 'key' site of PETRRA sponsored and BRAC-BRRI collaboration on SHIP. The selected three villages are located at Sutang under Habigonj sadar thana -- about 60 km west of Srimongal. I sat with 17 'resource poor' farmers and they accounted for half of the target farmers selected for SHIP. The interesting point to note is that only five of the participants that I met were males and the rest male farmers were represented by their counterpart females. Indeed, the males could earn Tk.

80 to 100/day in this busy season of aus planting rather than listening to a university professor of no practical use to them. But courteous as they were, they sent their spouses who seemed to be no less knowledgeable than the males that I counted on.

All of the 17 persons present were from resource poor households with the following attributes: (a) average size of owned land was 68 decimals (only three of them had more than one acre with a maximum of 1.64 acre in the case one household); (b) only six per cent of them were pure tenants and the rest equally divided between owner and owner-cum-tenant cultivators; (c) average household income per year was reported to be Tk. 21,118 and given a family size of 6.5, the per capita income estimated was about Tk.3,249 per year ; (c) most of their houses are of straw roofs and (d) most of them had provisions for rice from own farms for 6-7 months at the beginning of their involvement with SHIP.

Learning is light

The participants in the dialogue informed me that their forefathers had no idea about seed health in terms of promotion and preservation and so they had to pay a price for that inherited ignorance. "What is that price?" I asked. "Our present poverty" they replied. But through the involvement in the SHIP, they have learnt (a) how to clean rice fields through roguing three times to weed out the competing crops. Each time roguing requires 2-3 hours. (b) How to sort seeds manually one by one to ensure balanced seeds and (c) how to prepare and preserve them in suitable containers that ensure seed health.

Another village that I visited was Sirajnagar under Srimongal thana. The project is managed by the Agricultural Advisory Society (AAS). Besides, seed preservation training, AAS also supplies foundation seeds to resource poor farmers for growing their own seeds. The resource poor that I met there also had the same features as mentioned before and the impact of the training were more or less the same. But for the sake of this column, I shall concentrate on SHIP as experienced from my visit to Sutang and make reference to the other, if and when needed.

Rewarding lessons

Admittedly, the sample size was small and the effects of SHIP could not be captured quantitatively. But allow me to submit some impressional improvements that I could glean from the deliberations of the "resource poor" farmers that I sat and chat with.

First, came the knowledge. Messrs Feroz Ali (80) and Abdul Bari (70) submitted that for ages, they harvested 8-10 maunds/Kare (34 decimals) of rice. Since they were born, they heard about the same figures from their forefathers. But for the last four years or so and without a break, they have been harvesting 15-20 maunds/Kare of rice. It means an increase of output by 50 per cent or so. But taking the average from all, I reckoned that the rise could be around 40-50 per cent. Thus, knowledge pertaining to seed health led to more output for the resource poor farmers. The same sentiment was echoed by farmers at Sirajnagar.

Second, income of sample households increased. For example, the average income of SHIP farmers was Tk. 19,000/year compared to 22, 000 now. Paripassu, the per capita income also rose over the years.

Third, the increased yield enhanced food entitlements for the households. As noted before, four years back, the sample households had 6-7 months provisions for rice from own farms. Now nine of the 17 farmers can feed family for 12 months from own production. Another five have food security for 10 months. By and large, as they reported, all improved upon food security. To quote Hasina (40): " I have seven members to feed and five Kares to cultivate. Four years back, my own production from land could meet five months' need of rice. The rest would come from borrowing or help. Now both my husband and myself are working hard with SHIP and fetching good fortunes. Now we get 100 maunds of rice from the same amount of land compared to 50 maunds before."

Fourth, one-third of the respondents reported that they were selling rice after meeting family needs. In Sirajnagar, half of the sample respondents reported to be selling rice after meeting family needs.

Fifth, they invested on sanitary latrines, repairing houses, buying land and bullocks, turning straw-houses into tin sheds etc. Four years back, they could hardly dream of such developments.

And finally, before being with SHIP or farm seed project of AAS, they could hardly afford to have three rice-meals a day with two curries. Now, they have regularly three rice-meals with two curries.

Admittedly, the above mentioned impacts could originate from other sources also and a decomposition of the effects are also difficult within the short span of time and in the absence of in-depth household level income and expenditure data. But the participants revealed their strong assumption that increased yield and output resulting from the improvement of seed quality and seed growing largely helped them to be on an even keel.

Teachers and teasers

The spillover effects of SHIP and the other project also need mentioning. When the project started in 2001, the participants under SHIP were teased by fellow villagers on the plea that the exercise was just sparing a pound for a penny. This meant that they were labouring hard for no hefty gain. "What can we do else to change the lot? Let's try it and see what happens in the future" -- the sample farmers used to tell the teasers. But now -- proudly pointed out by the participants -- the teasers approach them to teach the methods of seed promotion, preparation and preservation. Sometimes they even ask for good seeds to be exchanged for rice for consumption. The exchange takes place provided the participants have surplus seed. It was also reported that neighbouring villagers and richer section within the village also approach them for the same reasons. One female farmer from Sirajnagar informed that her brother from a remote village saw her seeds and requested her to supply to him.

Sustainable survival?

But what would happen when the SHIP leaves the port of the participants? Will they be dropped down? In response to my questions, all of them rose for a "NO". Why? "Because, we shall teach our children and grand children about this cost effective technology so that they do not inherit ignorance like us and fall in poverty trap. Even if we die, our knowledge will keep us alive to our generations" -- replied some of them.

Rice research and the resource poor

Rice researches have rarely helped the resource poor directly and decisively. Undoubtedly they benefited, among others, from the introduction of modern varieties or the green revolution. But rice researches need to be targeted for the resource poor in Bangladesh since (a) they are actively engaged in rice production and growingly becoming dominant among the set of farmers; (b) they could be the victims of the vagaries of nature to join the line of the extreme poor and (d) they are poor because they lack knowledge about the proper management of their meagre endowments. Sometimes extension services could be more powerful and sustainable than mere provisions of micro credit. The PETRRA efforts seem to point to these observations.

Epilogue

At the end of our cordial conversations at Sutang, I posed a question: "what do you mean by poor"? The participants kept mum for moments till Mrs. Razia of Noagaon broke the silence and said: "A blind or a lame without capacity to work is a poor." " But why did you enlist yourself as poor in SHIP without being a blind or a lame?" I asked Razia. " It is because you call us so. I am not poor. I have hands to work and legs to walk. Why should I be a poor?" replied Razia.

Driving back to Srimongal and seeing farmers planting aus in the muddy fields, I recollected Razia's reactions. Perhaps poor, not because they are poor but because they are called poor.

Abdul Bayes is Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University