Centre for World Solidarity

Coping with ComplexityMAPPING SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE IN ORISSA

USING THE RTD FRAMEWORK

XAVIER INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, BHUBANESWAR

C. Shambu Prasad & Sumita Sindhi

© Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar - 751 013, IndiaPhone: 91-674 3012345 Fax: 91-674 2300 995

Supported By:

KICS, Knowledge in Civil Society, www.kicsforum.net

ILAC, Institutional Learning and Change, c/o Bioversity International, Rome. www.cgiar-ilac.org

CWS, Centre for World Solidarity, 12-13-438, Street No-1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad-500 017, A.P. India. info@cwsy.org

No. of Copies 500

For copies write to:Dr. C Shambu Prasad & Sumita SindhiAssociate ProfessorXavier Institute of ManagementBhubaneswar 751013Ph: 0674-3983 740shambu@ximb.ac.ins.sindi@gmail.com

KICSc/o Centre for World Solidarity12-13-438. Street No. 1Tarnaka. Secunderabad - 500 017Ph: 040-2701 8257, 2701 4300info@cwsy.org

3

This study is a product of collective inquiry. It started with the workshop we had in February 2008 at XIMB where Prof. Weibe Bijker from the University of Maastricht patiently explored with

us the idea of using the RTD framework in the context of debates on the agricultural policy of the Government of Orissa. We thank Prof. Wiebe Bijker for his consistent support and for encouraging us to take this study that started as a thought, proceeded into a term paper and then a commissioned study. We thank the Knowledge in Civil Society (KICS) forum and the Centre for World Solidarity (CWS) for graciously providing initial funding support for the mapping study. XIMB has been very supportive not only in hosting the workshops but for providing a conducive academic atmosphere that enabled this study. We thank the Director and the Dean Administration Fr P T Joseph and Fr Tony for their support and encouraging us to go beyond expert consultancy services towards research studies that are innovative, collaborative and participatory.

We thank all the stakeholders involved and interested in agriculture in the state - scientists from national, international and state agricultural universities; community workers and researchers from civil society organisations, offi cials from the state government agencies, donor organizations, the Directorate of Agriculture & Food Production who were cordial and shared their valuable time for interviews and discussions, which forms the basis of the study. Our sincere thanks to the Director of Agriculture, Dr. Arabinda Padhee who readily agreed for discussions on the policy even as the policy was being shaped and for agreeing to participate in the stakeholder dialogue process.

This report had to be put together in very short time and would not have been possible without the unstinting support of Shravani Roy, research associate at XIMB, who went out of her way to ensure that diffi cult deadlines were met with even as she had to concentrate on organizing the workshop around this report. We also thank Dayanidhi Mishra for the support and New Concept Information Systems who edited and shaped this report in its present form in a short span of time. The fi rst year students of XIMB have put up a wikispace http://rtdpolicydialogue.wikispaces.com/ in connection with the workshop and the report. The timely support of Institutional Learning And Change (ILAC) in supporting the process and the publication of the report is very much appreciated. Lastly our heartfelt thanks to all the farmers of Orissa, who through their knowledge and wisdom have inspired us to think about issues that have affected their lives.

C. Shambu PrasadSumita Sindhi

Acknowledgements

4

Contents

Acknowledgements 3

List of Acronyms 5

1. Coping with Complexity: Mapping Sustainable Agriculture in Orissa using the RTD framework 7 1.1. Policies, Policy-making and Science Policy 9 1.2. The RTD Framework and using it to Understand Orissa Agriculture 10 1.3. Objectives and Methodology of the Study 12

2. Policy Analysis and the RTD Framework 15 2.1. The Case for Policy Dialogues in Science Policy-Making 16 2.2. The RTD Framework and Diagnostic or Mapping Studies 17 2.2.1 RTD policy dialogue 18 2.2.2 The Indian context and RTD 18

3. Some Salient Features of Agriculture in Orissa 21 3.1. Agricultural Trend Analysis 22 3.1.1 Cropping Pattern 22 3.1.2 Land-use 23 3.1.3 Food grain Production 23 3.1.4 Major Field Crops 24 3.2 Commercial Crops 26 3.3 Fruits and Vegetables 26 3.4 Floriculture 27 3.5 Spices 27 3.6 Farm Mechanisation 27 3.7 Fertiliser Consumption 27 3.8 Other Agricultural Schemes 28 3.8.1 Aided By Government of India 29 3.8.2 Externally Aided Projects 29

4. Outcome of the Study and Analysis 31 4.1. State Agriculture Policy 1996 and Agriculture Policy 2008 31 4.2. Mapping the context of Orissa Agriculture Policy using RTD framework 32 4.2.1 Policy and development 32 4.2.2 Policy dialogue 34 4.2.3 The S&T landscape 35 4.3. Actor-oriented Tools 35 4.3.1 Agriculture time-line 36 4.3.2 Stakeholder mapping 36 4.3.3 Stakeholder linkages 38 4.3.4 Actor Linkage Matrix 38 4.3.5 Determinants Diagram 39

5. Towards a Policy Network 43

References 47

Annexures 51

5

ADB Asian Development BankAPICOL Agriculture Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa LimitedCIFA Central Institute of Freshwater AquacultureCIP International Potato Research InstituteCRRI Central Rice Research InstituteCTCRI Central Tuber Crop Research InstituteCYSD Centre for Youth & Social DevelopmentDFID Department for International DevelopmentDoA Department of AgricultureDoH Department of HorticultureDoWR Department of Water ResourcesDST Department of Science & TechnologyGSTK Gram Sevak Talim KendraICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research IMAGE Institute of Management & Agriculture ExtensionKVK Krishi Vigyan KendraNAIP National Agriculture Innovation ProjectNATP National Agriculture Technology ProjectNFSM National Food Security MissionNHM National Horticulture MissionNRCWA National Research Centre for Women in AgricultureNRM Natural Resource ManagementOAICL Orissa Agro Industries Corporation LimitedOIIAWMP Orissa Integrated Irrigation Agriculture & Water Management ProjectOTELP Orissa Tribal Empowerment & Livelihood ProjectOSAMB Orissa State Agricultural Marketing BoardOSSCA Orissa State Seed Certifi cation AgencyOUAT Orissa University of Agriculture & TechnologyOWDM Orissa Watershed Development MissionPOKS Paschim Orissa Krishijeevi Sangh PPP Public Private PartnershipRPRC Regional Plant Resource CentreRTD Research & Technology for DevelopmentSVA Sahabhagi Vikas AbhiyanTEWA Training & Extension of Women in AgricultureWORLP Western Orissa Rural Livelihood ProjectWTCER Water Technology Centre for Eastern Region

List of Acronyms

7

Coping with Complexity:Mapping Sustainable Agriculture in Orissa using the RTD framework

The new State Agricultural Policy (hereafter referred to as SAP) in Orissa (Government

of Orissa [GoO] 2008) has rightly focused the attention of policy makers, civil society organisations, farmers, research institutes and the private sector on agriculture. The importance of agriculture in a state like Orissa is reiterated some of the standard fi gures on the contribution of agriculture to livelihoods and the state domestic product. Agriculture in Orissa can be seen through several lenses. The most typical are those of productivity, yields, technology absorption, percentage of irrigation, levels of farm mechanisation, use of improved seeds, fertiliser and pesticides. In most of these standard understandings Orissa compares rather poorly with the national average (see Box 1 for salient features of Agriculture in Orissa). Yet, there is more to agriculture in Orissa than what statistics reveal.

Agriculture as a way of life and its strong links with culture, the diversity of its farming systems and the ingenuity of its farmers in preserving several thousand varieties of rice is yet another vision of agriculture. The simultaneous existence of different forms of agriculture – tribal, peasant and modern – presents altogether different challenges while planning for science and technological inputs in agriculture. Even as modernisation of agriculture in the typical green revolution mode of intensifi cation through enhanced inputs of irrigated water, improved seeds and agricultural inputs in the form of synthetic fertilisers continue; newer opportunities are emerging where the ability of existing knowledge systems is being recognised for its contribution to reducing the vulnerability due to climate change. Organic farming, the System of Rice Intensifi cation or SRI, and even the recent recognition of international research centres on the potential of crops such as sweet

1

potato to meet the nutritional requirements of the poor is increasingly spoken about.

The ecological stress of agriculture in terms of inputs and water is indeed very low. Even as many states are fi ghting to grab and capture more and more water resources and investing in highly suspect mega irrigation projects, the state is muted in its demands. The percentage of irrigation is below national average. A closer look reveals that Orissa’s policy has been skewed in favour of large irrigation projects. Utilisation of ground water, which is available aplenty, is not being taken up seriously, an important reason being the access to cheap electric power for farmers. Orissa’s use of electricity for agriculture is abysmally low at 1.52 per cent, with the national average at 21.73 per cent. Poor public policies have created an ironical situation wherein a power- surplus state is unable to satisfy its own farmers due to poor pricing of power. There is indeed a strong case for improving the irrigation coverage not through more and more canals and projects, whose maintenance has been rather poor, but through the judicious use of groundwater. The irrigation story is but one instance that indicates that the solutions for agriculture in Orissa require different ways of thinking about and solving problems.

A more revealing picture comes to light in state fertiliser consumption. Fertiliser subsidies have increased substantially over the years prompting the Government of India to even issue an advertisement titled ‘Dear Farmers are You Aware?’ The advertisement indicated how, despite increased oil prices, fertilisers were reaching farmers at almost the same rate. This has of course cost the government a lot (in excess of Rs 20,000 crores just for NPK fertilisers or urea). Yet, access to this for most farmers in Orissa continues to remain a

8

Agricultural Scenario in Orissa in Comparison to India

• Agriculture’s contribution to state domestic product (23.1% in 2006-07) though declining, is higher than the national average of 17 per cent.

• Orissa’s share with regard to area of major food grains is 4.37 per cent and 3.38 per cent according to area and production respectively.

• In the case of rice, the principal crop in the state, Orissa ranks third in terms of area (10.16% of total area under rice in India) but fifth (7.31 %) in terms of production; 42.6 per cent of rice area is under irrigation (eleventh overall).

• Orissa’s percentage cover under irrigation is 37 per cent in comparison to national average of 45.5 per cent.

• Production of pulses, often the next important crop after rice, has shown a downward trend. The land and production under pulses is 3.4 per cent and 2.46 percent of the all-India totals.

• Orissa’s production of major oilseeds is even lower at 1.21 and 0.18 per cent. Orissa’s production of coarse grains, often also seen as important from the nutritional point of view, is particularly poor. It figures last of the 18 states, contributing 0.56 per cent of total area and 0.47 per cent on production.

• Though potato is an important part of Oriya cuisine the production of potatoes is just over 0.37 per cent of the national total. In comparison, onion is grown in 4.9 per cent of total onion area in India and contributes 3.63 per cent of total production in the country.

• Orissa does not figure in the three largest producing states of any food grain, commercial crop or oilseeds, despite having large areas under rice and pulses.

• Cashew nut is the only crop where Orissa is in the top three contributing 13.54 per cent of cashew nut production and 14.64 per cent by area. The total area under fruits and vegetables in the state is also one of the highest.

• There is an upward trend in certain crops such as groundnuts (1.85% of all-India production and a high 37.5% under irrigation), and cotton.

Source: Compiled from Government of India. 2008. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. New Delhi: Academic Foundation.

critical issue. The Kharif season had reports of the state government continuously seeking to increase its share of fertilisers and Centre not acceding to the requests. In other parts of the country there were riots by farmers due to shortage of fertilisers. It actually costs the national exchequer very little to provide farmers in Orissa fertilisers as the fertiliser consumption by farmers is less than 2.0 per cent of the total consumption in the country. In fact, the figure has come down from 1.93 per cent to 1.86 per cent even if farmers are indeed using more fertilisers in absolute terms from 2004 – 2007.

If the diversity of agricultural systems and its myriad representations becomes one of the important parameters of planning for agriculture it might require a different way of approaching policy. The SAP rightly suggests, in the light of the National Farmer Commission report (NCF 2007) and in the

wake of serious agricultural distress leading to farmers suicides in the country, an important task is to bring back the glory and self-respect of the farming community. There are no tools that can achieve this directly’. The rapidly changing agricultural environment in recent times suggests that earlier policies and institutional mechanisms that were predominantly focused only on increasing food supplies are not enough. A paradoxical feature of the farming situation is India is the coexistence of large buffer stocks and large-scale distress and indebtedness of farmers. It is ironical that the farming community that contributes to the large food grain buffer stocks is facing unprecedented levels of distress and indebtedness. The complex challenges of including livelihood and environmental sustainability concerns, along with production or productivity enhancement measures, needs to be recognised.

9

This calls for approaches that openly perceive complexity and plan systemically for changes. It has been pointed out that the Indian agricultural research community has often been rather insular in responding to challenges both globally and locally. The complex agricultural environment requires new metrics for assessing and planning agricultural research (Shambu Prasad 2009, forthcoming). It is quite likely that smaller states are likely to provide more interesting answers to the farming puzzle especially if they are able to break free of institutional barriers and demonstrate the capacity to innovate and make a difference. Tripura is one such example in recent times where self-sufficiency in food grains has been achieved through a more open acceptance of newer ideas even before there is a Central policy on this. The recent Planning Commission directive to move towards district-level agricultural plans through the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana or RKVY is another opportunity that seems to suggest that a more innovative unit for agricultural change could be the district or the state rather than the country as a whole.

1.1 Policies, Policy-making and Science Policy

Given such a diversified and complex environment the policy challenges are indeed immense. Debates on public policy in recent times have often looked at reforms of policy-planning institutions largely from the perspective of the need, or otherwise, for the state to withdraw. A minimalist and lean state, it is often argued would deliver better. However, the issue is not state versus the market, as it is often simplistically reduced to. Rather, a more important question that needs collective attention is the role of the state in complex environments where markets and policy instruments are not effective and when we are confronted with large environmental challenges such as climate change. These seem to require a totally different response on, to use the popular phrase following the Bruntland report, ‘our common future’. Is it enough for policy makers to formulate policies or do we need to look further into the policy-making processes? How can these processes be more democratic and responsive to diverse stakeholders? What are

the mechanisms that can enable these? Why is it that the need for larger consultations on policy processes is not sufficiently understood when the state and its agencies have ceased to become the sole repositories of knowledge and expertise? How can the vast knowledge that is expressed by several civil society organisations be incorporated in policy processes? What would civil society organisations do differently to contribute more meaningfully in the shaping of these policies, instead of being oppositional or being seen by the state to be obstructionist?

How do we build trust among stakeholders so that there is greater dialogue leading to better policy processes and not just better policies? A feature of Indian policies and processes suggests multiplicity of organisations and agencies with often poor coordination and involvement of various stakeholders in the formulation of policies. The complexity increases when we recognise that though agriculture, for instance, is seen as a state subject, most policies on agriculture are determined by the Centre. Few Indian states have been able to chart independent agricultural policies on a consistent basis and back this up with adequate financial resources in recent times. The situation appears even more complex and bleak with regard to people’s’ participation when we look at science policies in the country. Science policies continue to be seen, in the Indian context, as preserves of the few with narrowly chosen technical expertise. The possibilities of reshaping the policies based on a more diverse set of choices and alternatives and discussions and debates, while deemed necessary in many spheres, is surprisingly lacking in science policy-making in India (Shambu Prasad 2008).

Academic expertise on science technology and society studies, or science studies for short, has raised questions on science policy often questioning the assumptions that any critique of science policy (by citizens or civil society) needs to be seen negatively as anti-science. They have often argued that the critiques could also be the source of new ideas and scientific imaginations that merit closer attention by policy-makers. Policy frameworks that incorporate such possibilities that

10

could open up the complex and messy process of policymaking, to quote Charles Lindblom (1995), are indeed few in the Indian context. Bringing the insights of innovation theorists and academics in science policy has emerged as one of the bigger challenges in policy studies and has engaged the attention of several groups.1

Not much of this literature and new thinking on policy has been attempted in the Indian context. This report is a result of trying to engage with alternate frameworks on science and innovation policy in the Indian context.

1.2 The RTD Framework and using it to Understand Orissa Agriculture

Integrating research policies into public policy-making in the Indian context is a challenge because they are, in contexts such as agriculture, seen as two different domains and operated by different agencies as well. The large pool of scientific and technical manpower and the national agricultural research system in India has meant that issues of research have always been dealt with by bodies such as the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) while implementation, or rather extension, has been seen as the work of state governments and their respective departments of agriculture. This research extension dichotomy and the linear model of innovation on which these institutions have been shaped, has been challenged by several innovation theorists, practitioners, development professionals and academics.

Amongst the plethora of approaches on policy-making, a framework that explicitly recognises the need to engage with research agencies and that too in a democratic and consultative manner is Research and Technology for Development or RTD for short. This framework was first developed in the national context and by researchers from the European Union for the ACP or Africa Carribean and Pacific nations (Bijker et al. 2000, 2001). Meant as a framework to enable national planning for science and

technology, this has since been applied to a few nations. However the application of this framework to the Indian context and at the sub-national level in a particular sector is completely new. This was indeed a big challenge for us as researchers and we engaged with this in the following manner.

Regular dialogue with Prof. Wiebe Bijker of the University of Maastricht as part of another initiative called the Knowledge in Civil Society (KICS) forum led to exploring this in the Indian context and on sustainable agriculture. As these discussions were on, the draft policy of the Government of Orissa was opened for discussion and comments. Members of the KICS-sustainable agriculture engaged with this but time was rather short for providing inputs. In February of 2008 a workshop was held jointly by Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar (XIMB) and University of Maastricht. An earlier workshop was held in November 2006 with a few civil society groups to introduce the RTD framework and test the waters, so to speak, and see if there would be interest in such an exercise. The response indicated the need to have a two-day workshop.

The second workshop spread the canvas more widely across the state. As preparations to the workshop, civil society organisations were asked to prepare policy notes on agriculture indicating their work on agriculture, their experiences both positive and negative, their interface with government agencies and the private sector, and the kinds of challenges they perceived in sustainable agriculture in the state. The participants were also introduced to the RTD framework and encouraged to use this in groups. The possibility of using the framework to discuss the agricultural policy of the state was found quite useful. The absence of public and policy spaces to discuss the agricultural policy was underestimated by the organisers and we soon realised the potential and also the under-preparedness for a policy dialogue with the

1 Some of the groups engaged internationally with such challenges and with specific focus on agricultural research include the Institutional Learning And Change or ILAC initiative www.cgiar-ilac.org . Another group engaged with these issues is the LINK or Learning Innovation and Knowledge www.innovationstudies.org. The LINK January 2008 news bulletin lists ten innovation initiatives to watch out for in 2008. Hirvonen (2008) has a compilation of system studies on rural innovation that lists some of these approaches.

11

Government. As a first and preliminary effort, participants from research organisations and government agencies were not present. Many participants expressed their interest in trying out these studies in their district but it was felt that a mapping or diagnostic study at the state level would be a good starting point.

Following the workshop, XIMB decided to take up this study. One of us (Sumita Sindhi) systematically followed this up by interviewing several research organisations, government officials and donors to understand their perspective and complete the mapping study. This mapping study has been presented in this report. The purpose of the diagnostic study is to enable different stakeholders to participate in the process of dialogue, that is seen as a precondition for any policy process. We hope that the mapping study will help the dialogue process amongst different stakeholders in the state. Orissa, thanks to the openness of the Government and the Directorate of Agriculture and Food Production, has actively participated in institutional innovations that could create the necessary climate for better use of research and technology for development. The successful dialogue process on the System for Rice Intensification (SRI) in the state led to the formation and strengthening of a Learning Alliance with two state-level workshops and resulted in detailed documentation of farmers’ experiences and perspectives (Shambu Prasad et al. 2007, 2008). Research studies by XIMB have not been seen as mere academic exercises to be published in journals, but as a process of engagement with different stakeholders. We hope that this study too would contribute in some way in strengthening the policy processes on agriculture in the state while setting up newer possibilities for coping with complexity in other sectors as well.

1.3 Objectives and Methodology of the Study

Following the workshop in February 2008 titled ‘Towards a Sustainable Agriculture Policy in Orissa: Using the Research and Technology for Development (RTD) Framework’ it was felt that a RTD diagnostic or mapping study be undertaken. The draft ‘Orissa State Agriculture Policy 2008’ served as the base policy for

trying out RTDs 19-point checklist. During the workshop participants were encouraged to explore the changes necessary in the framework for taking up issues in developing countries. These included questions such as ‘What is the configuration of relationships among scientific researchers, policy decision-makers and intermediaries in developing country contexts? What are the challenges and opportunities for strengthening these linkages? What types of strategies exist or could potentially be adopted to improve evidence-informed policy processes? How can these linkages apparently help small and marginal farmers? How will they be empowered? What is the role of indigenous knowledge and technology in policy-level decisions?’

The study sought to incorporate these questions and was conducted with the following objectives:• To map the stakeholders in agriculture

policy and study linkages amongst them and their contribution in policy formulation at the state-level (in Orissa). Specifically to study the relationship between scientists, policy makers and other stakeholder groups;

• To find out the potential role of RTD as a mapping tool in policy formulation and its effectiveness in the inculcation of research and technology in science policies;

• To find an effective medium and strengthening factors for initiation of policy dialogue and to explore if a policy community involving several stakeholders could be formed to continue conversations amongst different stakeholders and plan for agriculture in the state; and

• To address the issues of accessibility, transparency and responsiveness in public policy formulation and see if some lessons could be learnt from the policy dialogue process.

For the study the RTD framework has been used to map the landscape of Orissa Agriculture Policy 2008. Actor-oriented tools have also been used along with stakeholder mapping and analysis to study the involvement of the stakeholders and how their contributions can

12

be enhanced. Specifically, the inter-linkage amongst research institutions and policy implementing agencies and involvement and collaboration of state and Central government institutes is also looked into.

In keeping with the objectives the study has chosen not to be very quantitative except in understanding the broader context of agriculture and Orissa’s role in that (Chapter 3). Semi-structured interviews were conducted from June to August 2008 to understand the perspective of the stakeholders. The terms and issues as ‘development’, ‘stakeholders’, ‘involvement of stakeholders in policy formulation’ were deciphered from the answers of the interviewees. The attempt has not been to chase some imaginary notion of accuracy or precision but rather to get stakeholders to express and explore the possibility of a dialogue.

The literature on policy-making, policy dialogue, evidence-based policy-making and RTD was scanned to appreciate the various linkages and to help situate the study. Application of RTD framework in agriculture policy required identification of stakeholders in agriculture. It was carried out through literature review and discussions amongst the peer group, academicians and with civil society organisations. The information shared in the introductory workshop on RTD was of much help in identification of stakeholders and for selecting persons for interview. Secondary literature and statistics at both the national- and state-levels were used for the study to understand the context of agriculture in Orissa.

A representative sample from government, farmers organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in agriculture, donors, research and academic institutes was chosen for the interviews. Attempts were made to select the key stakeholders and representatives. Interviews were mostly conducted as discussions to collect basic information and to understand the process of policy-formulation and how the policies affect particular communities. The interviews were transcribed to understand the relationships

and the strength of linkages amongst the stakeholders using Actor Linkage Maps. Secondary information on the stakeholders and their role in policy formulation was also adjudged by interviews of other stakeholders and their opinions. Secondary data on current and past projects, state of human resources and financial resources in research and academic institutions was collected to have a complete idea of the resources and their utilization by the institutions. Secondary literature review and internet sources were utilized to chalk out the growth of agriculture institutes in the state in the form an agricultural timeline.

During the course of the study there were further consultations by the government and the Agriculture Policy was accepted by the Government. This document has then been analysed using the RTD framework. The information from the interviews and discussions with the policy-makers were the key inputs for analysis.

For the diagnostic study we have used the RTD framework but have not sought to apply the tool blindly. In instances we have felt the need to use other actor-oriented tools such as the Actor-Linkage Matrix (ALM), Determinants diagram and Linkage maps to better understand relations between different stakeholders. These tools help in quick identification of the weak linkages and detection of intervening points. Interpretation of the interviews and secondary information is analysed to suggest modifications in policy making process and for strengthening linkages amongst stakeholders.

We also believe that the framework would, through adaptation in diverse contexts such as India, throw newer insights on the research and technology for development process. We believe the framework might even need to be adapted to take into account the existence of strong scientific manpower in the Indian context. The challenges of using this manpower for development are somewhat different from the ACP context and we hope that our effort will also be able to contribute to refining the frameworks as well.

13

This report has five chapters. Following this introductory chapter is the chapter on policy analysis and the RTD framework. In this we discuss the RTD framework in the light of policies and policy processes in India. This is followed in chapter 3 where we provide an overview on agriculture in Orissa and seek to compare the Orissa scenario with the rest of the country. In chapter 4, the mapping study using the RTD framework is described.

We begin with a comparison of the two agricultural policies of the state in 1996 and 2008. To dwell upon the progress of research in agriculture and to know the growth of research institutions in agriculture a time line is constructed. Other actor oriented tools have also been used to explore linkages amongst stakeholders. Finally in chapter 5 we present the conclusions of the study with suggestions for strengthening the policy process.

15

Policy Analysis and the RTD Framework

2

Promoting good practices in policy-making is fundamental to the delivery of quality

outcomes for citizens and the realisation of public sector reform. Policy-making is today seen as a complex, multi-factorial and non-linear process. As Sabatier (1999) suggests the complexity arises due to a multiplicity of actors (both individual and corporate) each with different interests, values, perceptions and policy preferences. Policies usually have long time spans, in many cases more than a decade. Within a policy domain there are normally dozens of different programmes involving multiple layers of government. It often involves several debates of both technical and non-technical nature and policies also involve high stakes and the politics of it cannot be wished away.

It is not unusual for policy analysts to suggest the use of policy cycles and stages in the policy process. The rational choice theory suggests that there are specifi c sequences of policy development. These are listed below. 1. Problem recognition and issue identifi cation:

This stage draws the attention of policy-makers to a problem that might require governmental action; problems, if legitimate, and then become issues.

2. Agenda setting: the issue is given the status of a serious matter.

3. Policy formulation: Proposals are developed for dealing with issues.

4. Policy adoption: Efforts are made to obtain enough support for a proposal to make it to the government’s stated policy

5. Policy implementation: The policy mandate is aimed at through public programmes and the federal bureaucracy, often with citizen, state, and local government cooperation

6. Policy analysis and evaluation: This involves examining the consequences of policy actions, including whether the policy has worked.

The idea of policy-making as following neat and clearly identifi able stages is attractive but can be misleading. As leading political scientists Charles Lindblom suggests, the ‘policy cycle’ model assumes that public policy-making passes through a coherent and rational process with a clear beginning, middle and end, logically tied with each other. However reality suggests that policies often arise due to several complex reasons; it may be an unintended by-product of some other action, policy may emerge due to failure to act, without an explicit decision as well. More importantly, he suggests that policy analysis in such models ignores several actors as the cast of characters does not change much across the stages. In some cases this is too internal to the governmental policy process ignoring either the strong role that business plays in shaping policy or not including the possibility of other groups such as consumers, farmers, civil society contributing to the process. In many cases implementation and evaluation cannot be separated that easily from other steps.

Policy-making is, instead, a complex interactive process without beginning or end. It requires attention to conventional governmental actions – political topics such as elections, elected functionaries, bureaucrats and interest groups. But equally or more important are the deeper forces structuring and often distorting government behaviour: business infl uence, inequality, and impaired capacity for probing social problems.

If, for instance, we were to take the earlier Agricultural Policy of Orissa 1996, despite the fact that it is invoked several times, it would be diffi cult to see the stages above and trace the process through which an elaborate evaluation and implementation of the policy has been carried out and this being used to change the policy in 2008. Lindblom and Woodhouse

16

(1995) offer a different perspective for policy analysts and for the study we are much closer to this thinking than the policy cycle or policy stage approach.

They suggest that ‘The quality of public policy depends on a vast network of thought and interaction, in which professional policy analysts play a small role’. In our study we do not want to assume that we have a big role and that we would be defining public policy in agriculture. Rather our task is more modest, but nevertheless difficult, we would like to create a network of actors engaging with agricultural policy. It is our search for frameworks that explicitly enable the creation of policy dialogue that attracts us to RTD. To quote Lindblom and Woodhouse, we see the role of policy analysts as below:

Rather than aiming to remain neutral, aim for thoughtful and responsible partisanship. Rather than trying to provide correct predictions about an inherently unknown future, prod political participants to frame policies capable of coping with uncertainty: Give advice about how to take precautions against unacceptable errors, how to build in flexibility, and how to accelerate learning from experience. Rather than aiming analysis solely at political elites, recognise that improved thinking by ordinary people may be humanity’s best hope. (Lindblom and Woodhouse 1993: 137-8).

2.1 The Case for Policy Dialogues in Science Policy-Making

While the theoretical literature listed above assumes a strong link between democratic societies and science policy processes, this interface is less than obvious when it comes to the Indian context. As discussed earlier, the Indian experience of policy making in science policy is replete with examples of being led by a handful of technical experts. There is a dearth of research that systematically examines the science–policy interface. Research and technology need society and have little chance of influencing development if they do not anticipate societal effects and responses. Science and technology policies often make implicit assumptions about development, modernisation

and economic growth. Recent studies suggest that combining the fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and development studies implies the integration of an analysis of science and technology with an analysis of poverty, social injustice and global relations (Maat and Waldman, 2007).

Hence, it becomes essential to integrate society and scientific research into policy formulation for better understanding of the issues and finding appropriate solutions. Greater interaction, discussion and deliberation between researchers and policy-makers are thus called for. Policy dialogue amongst stakeholders, their perspective of development and sustainability should be taken into account.

Scientific research in policy is often used selectively at the discretion of policy-makers. Recent scholars (Jones et al. 2008) suggest six themes characterise science-policy interface. These include politicisation of science and scientisation of politics, engagement versus objectivity, space for risk and uncertainty versus demand for certainty in policy making, the focuses and timescales of scientists versus policy makers, specific expertise versus democratised but dilute knowledge, and indigenous knowledge versus western scientific knowledge. Many of these debates are relevant in the Indian context as well, except that science policy in India is usually dominated by the technocratic elite whose tolerance for risk and other forms of knowledge has not been very high. The differences in the goals and accountability of researchers and policy makers, makes it imminent for intermediary organizations to act both as knowledge brokers at the science–development policy interface and as capacity-builders for both researchers and policy-makers. Efforts are now made to shed light on ways in which the quality of policy dialogues on science and technology could be strengthened in order to enhance their value for pro-poor sustainable development policy and practice (Jones et al. 2008).

It is with a view to incorporate developmental concerns and policy dialogues in science and

17

technology that the RTD framework was chosen for this study. The attempt has been to use the insights from science studies and apply these in understanding and furthering a policy dialogue in the state of Orissa.

2.2 The RTD Framework and Diagnostic or Mapping Studies

Research and Technology for Development or RTD is a recent framework for policy formulation that takes into account scientific research, technological breakthroughs, and stakeholder dialogue as an open, learning process. The central role of policy dialogue is deemed as essential for stimulating research and innovation. The framework recognises, from insights drawn from science studies, that the relation between science technology and innovation needs to be seen as complex and non-linear and recognises the key role of indigenous knowledge in addition to ‘Western’ scientific knowledge. It also stresses the importance of local ownership of research and innovation plans.

By appreciating the need to incorporate the views of relevant user groups in a policy dialogue, the framework suggests that better policies are hinged on better policy processes. Formulation of science policies without the involvement of stakeholders through a policy dialogue is likely to increase conflicts among different groups and reduce the ownership of the policy. The RTD is thus a tool for strengthening the democratic procedure of policy making. Through the process of policy dialogue it gives voice and rights to people. The guideline ensures an inclusive process, which can lead to higher goals of making agriculture more sustainable, profitable and beneficial for marginal farmers, for instance, if marginal farmers are seen as relevant social groups in the policy dialogue.

Thus, RTD as a framework or toolbox has been developed, with an ‘objective to provide methodological guidelines that will strengthen the scientific quality of the process that leads towards formulation of Science & Technology (S&T) policies.’ The methodology was developed as part of an endeavour to stimulate an RTD policy dialogue between

the European Commission, European Union (EU) member states and the ACP countries. This was following a greater recognition in the EU of the technological divides between the European member states and the ACP and the need to promote the strategic role of research and technology in ACP countries. The aim was to develop a framework for policy dialogue that would enable ACP countries to address the challenges and issues related to reforming their national RTD policies and strengthening their capabilities. This included supporting policy reform and capacity-building in RTD in ACP countries (Greenidge, Box and Englehard, 2002).

Donor agencies with an interest in supporting RTD reforms in ACP countries began to commission ‘RTD diagnostic studies’ to provide guidance in focusing their aid policies. These studies were undertaken by the representatives of the RTD communities of the donor and developing countries – take stock of the building materials of the national RTD systems (science and technology policy-making frameworks, legal instruments, priorities, research institutions and their capacities, stakeholders, and so on). (Bijker, Leonards and Wackers, 2000). As mentioned above, the framework involves a 19-point checklist known as the RTD checklist (see Annexure I).

An important reason to develop such guidelines is to help generate RTD diagnostic studies. To administer an adequate therapy, one needs a good diagnosis. To formulate a RTD policy, one needs an adequate description and analysis of the research, technology and development situation in a country. An RTD diagnostic study describes a specific country’s state of affairs in research and technology policies for development. This can contribute to the creation of a new co-operation strategy for research and technology that is shared by developing countries and donor countries.

While the context is indeed vastly different from the Indian context, the potential of the RTD framework to contribute to policy dialogues is of specific interest. As the first exploratory study of its kind outside the ACP nations, and

18

at a sub-national and sectoral level, there are thus likely to be several grey areas. However the need to build broader coalitions of interest around public policies and agriculture in particular in Orissa drew us to taking up this diagnostic study.

This report is a diagnostic study on science and technology in agriculture in Orissa. With the contents of the policy already framed, the aim was to study the process of policy formulation and to study the policy landscape. The concerns on mapping policy landscapes is not new and has been attempted by others as well, notably the RAPID team (Research and Policy in International Development) supported by the Overseas Development Institute, UK. It is recognized that substantial improvement in the use of research-based evidence in development policy and practice also requires effort at the institutional level. This leads to improvement in organizational structures, processes, resources, and management and governance issues (Young 2008). It is assumed that for an effective RTD policy the active participation of all relevant institutions is crucial, and that this participation should be organized in such a way that these institutions may influence the very content of the policy.

2.2.1 RTD policy dialogueFor putting together a national RTD policy agenda, policy makers need professional inputs from the RTD stakeholders at various stages in the policy making process – to ensure the relevance and feasibility of the national policy agendas and the support of the implementers. The consulting and soliciting of views and opinions of RTD stakeholders during various stages of the national policy making process is referred to as the national RTD policy dialogue (Englehard, R. 2000).

The dialogue process is designed to work towards:• formulating goals of the policy agenda

which all stakeholders can endorse;• building consensus around RTD policy

priorities; and

• developing implementation strategies that all can support.

Actors involved in policy dialogue include:• public authorities responsible for (i)

formulating and implementing RTD policies, and (ii) reforming and strengthening national RTD infrastructure and capacities, in both public and private sectors of ACP states;

• donor agencies• the RTD communities (universities, research

institutes and networks) in ACP countries, which should play an active role in (i) establishing priorities in RTD policies, (ii) developing sustainable sources of funding for their implementation, and (iii) promoting (innovative) forms of collaboration with universities, research institutes and the private sector both within their regions and with high-income countries;

• civil society organisations, which are increasingly acting as conduits between the local producers and end-users of technology, and the

• private sector

The RTD policy dialogue must be interpreted as an on-going, open learning process.• Open: The policy goals and priorities are

not fixed at the outset, but are amenable to revision during the dialogue.

• Learning: The policy dialogue has means to record and make widely available the arguments, decisions, results, successes and failures of the policy process.

• Process: The focus is not as much on the products of the policy dialogue, as it is on the process of reaching decisions on RTD policy.

This has implications for the types of actors and institutions that are described. Before initiating a policy dialogue, it is necessary to ascertain the science and technological developments of a country.

2.2.2 The Indian context and RTDIndia is one of the countries that has a rather elaborate set-up for planning for science and

19

technology. Mapping this at the national level would in a sense be repeating processes of the science policy already underway.2 Clarity on the state government’s and on their role in furthering science and technology is not very high. Most states have state science councils for science and technology and have come up with strategies for promotion in their respective regions.3

The main objectives of the S&T department in Orissa are as follows.1. To popularize science and technology

among the people in general and the student community in particular so as to inculcate in them a scientific attitude.

2. Encouragement to and funding of application-oriented research in the field of science and technology.

3. To propagate, develop and extend the use of renewable energy sources.

4. To promote and popularize remote sensing technology.

5. To undertake research in frontier areas of life sciences, materials sciences, bio-technology, molecular and environmental biology.

6. To undertake fundamental research in mathematics and its applications and to support inter-disciplinary research.

7. To create awareness among the people about astronomy, astrophysics and space sciences.

8. Support to institutions/organizations to conduct seminars/workshops/science competitions/science exhibitions etc.

9. To provide financial support to scientists of the state to enable them to participate and interact in the higher forums of international conferences.

10. To provide financial assistance to technical institutions for conducting entrepreneurship development training programmes.4

In the agriculture stream, major emphasis and developments are being made in the field of biotechnology. The department of Science & Technology in Orissa is working on tissue culture of important plant species and is developing bio fertilizers and bio pesticides for the promotion of organic farming. A proposal for the development of an Agricultural Economic Zone (AEZ) has also been mooted.

2 For details visit the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India www.dst.gov.in 3 See http://www.dst-sstp.org/AddressesCouncilSnT.htm for details. 4 Science & Technology Department, Govt. of Orissa. http://www.orissa.gov.in/sciencetechnology/index.htm.

21

Before we take up the mapping study it is important to take stock of the agricultural

scenario in the state. In this chapter we continue the thread of situating agriculture in Orissa, in the national context by providing some basic information on agriculture in the state. The agricultural scenario with regard to inter-temporal and spatial variation has been analysed in the State Human Development Report of the Planning Commission (GoI 2004).

Orissa is primarily an agrarian economy. Agriculture accounted for some 20.09 per cent of the state domestic product in 2007-08 at 1999-2000 prices and employing over 70 per cent of the total workforce. Orissa, however, remains one of the poorest states in India, with a per capita income of USD 220 in the year 2003. Development of agriculture in Orissa has lagged behind due to several constraints, such as the continued use of the traditional method of cultivation, inadequate capital formation and low investment, inadequate irrigation facilities and uneconomic size of holdings (GoO 2009).

With an average landholding size of 0.13 ha, and over 80 per cent of holdings operated by small farmers, agriculture is largely based on traditional practices, although 10 per cent of the total cultivated area is also devoted to fruit and vegetable cultivation.1

The state is broadly divided into four physiographic zones namely: coastal plains, central tableland, northern plateau and eastern ghats. These are further subdivided into 10 agro climatic zones, viz. north-western plateau, north-

central plateau, north-eastern coastal plain, east and south-eastern costal plain, north-eastern ghat, eastern ghat high land, south-eastern ghat, western undulating zone, western-central table land and mid-central table land. The state has a tropical climate, characterised by high temperature, high humidity, medium to high rainfall and short and mild winters. The normal rainfall2 is 1451.2 mm.

The state is known for physical diversities with multiplicity of rice cultivation. Orissa is the secondary origin of rice (Jeypore tract) and farmers of Orissa still produce and consume fi ne quality aromatic rice despite the lack of proper procurement and marketing for these. The state produces export quality turmeric and ginger that are cultivated in Koraput and Phulbani. Orissa has a considerable pool of rice, mango and brinjal germ plasm. The tea produced in

Some Salient Features of Agriculture in Orissa

3

Orissa Agriculture Status

Tropical climateNormal rainfall: 1451.2 mm Low cropping intensity (130-140%)Average landholding: 1.25 Ha• Marginal and small farmers hold 83.3% land,

medium 15.9% and large < 1%

Predominance of paddy (70% area under paddy)Total cultivated area: 61.80 lakh ha, of which 33% is irrigated.The total irrigation potential created so far from all sources is about 40.81 lakh ha.Low seed replacement rateFertilizer consumption: 53.2 Kg/haTraditional practices followed.

1 India: Preparing the Orissa Integrated Irrigated Agriculture and Water Management Project (Co-fi nanced by the Government of the United Kingdom and the Cooperation Fund for the Water Sector) ADB Technical Assistance Report, Project Number: 38411, July 2006. www.adb.org/Documents/PIDs/38411012.asp2 Status of agriculture in Orissa as on 31.7.2008. Directorate of Agriculture & Food Production: Orissa, Bhubaneswar.

22

Keonjhar is considered top quality in Asia. The potential of organic farming in the state is high given the low consumption of fertilizers and there are attempts to convert Phulbani district into an “Organic District”.

3.1 Agricultural Trend Analysis

3.1.1 Cropping PatternOrissa is almost a single crop state. Seventy-four per cent of the cultivated area in the state is covered by paddy. Table 3.1 below presents the

cropping pattern of principal crops in Orissa from 2001-02 to 2007-08.

The productivity remains low during 2001-02, with (i) high cropping intensity (130–140%), (ii) low levels of irrigated land (about 30%) and other input use, and (iii) a predominance of paddy cropping (70% of cultivation), with yields much lower than the national average, but in recent times some of them have increased. Table 3.2 displays the increasing trend seen in crop intensity since 2004-05.

Table 3.1 Cropping Pattern of Principal Crops in Orissa(Figures in percentage)

Principal Crops 2001-2002 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 (P)

Paddy 76.2 77.7 76.4 76.9 75.46 75.7 73.72

All Cereals 79.5 80.8 79.3 79.8 78.3 78.46 76.67

Total Pulses 11.4 10.9 12.2 11.2 13.64 13.42 14.07

Total Food grains 90.9 91.7 91.5 91 91.94 91.89 90.74

Oilseeds 5.5 4.9 4.9 5.6 4.57 4.38 4.38

Fibers 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.54 1.63 1.44

Other Crops (sugarcane, potato, tobacco, chili and ginger)

1.8 2.1 2.1 2 1.95 2.1 3.44

All Crops 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Total Area (per 1000 ha)

5907 5499 5499 5840 5932 5880.2 6038.51

P: Provisional Estimate

Source: GoO

Table 3.2 Cropping Intensity during 2001-02 to 2007-08(Area in'000Ha)

Year Net sown area Gross Cropped area Cropping Intensity (%)

2000-01 5829 7878 135

2001-02 5845 8798 151

2002-03 5680 7853 138

2003-04 5796 8637 149

2004-05 5739 8718 152

2005-06 5691 8928 157

2006-07 5654 8960 158

2007-08 5624 9016 160Source:GoO

http://www.orissa.gov.in/agriculture/Status%20of%20agril.2008.pdf

23

A better picture of the state’s agriculture can be found through an analysis of a few key trends in terms of contribution to state domestic product (SDP) and also on different crops. The share of agriculture to net SDP (NSDP) has declined three times since 1950, though recent information indicates there is a change since 2000-01. Though a sizeable population still resides in rural areas, the total workforce engaged in agriculture is declining steadily and the per capita availability of land is also declining.

3.1.2 Land-useThe state has a cultivated area of 61.80 lakh ha, of which 29.14 lakh ha is high land, 17.55 lakh ha medium land and 15.11 lakh ha low land. The land-use statistics of the state for 2006-07 are indicated in Table: 3.4

3.1.3 Food grain ProductionA fluctuating trend is found in the food grains due to various natural calamities such as drought, cyclonic weather etc., since 2001-02.

Table 3.3: Key Agricultural Indicators in the State

Indicators 1950-51 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01

Share of Agriculture in NSDP (%) 66.8* iona;54.6 30.0** 21%

Total Population Living in Rural Area (%)

95.9 93.7 91.6 88.2 87 72%

Total Workforce Engaged in Agriculture in %

73.8 77.4 74.7 73 65

Cultivators to Main Workers in% 56.8 49.2 46.9 44.3 54.4

Agricultural Labourers to Main Workers in %

17 28.3 27.8 28.7 -

Per Capita Availability Of Cultivated Land (Ha)

0.39 0.38 0.31 0.18** 0.11

Source:GoO

Table 3.4: Land Utilisation in Orissa during 2006-07 in lakh ha)

SI.No. Items Area in Lakh Hectares

1. Forest 58.13

2. Misc. Tree & Groves 3.42

3. Permanent Pasture 4.94

4. Culturable waste 3.75

5. Land Put to Non- Agriculture 12.98

6. Barren & unculturable land 8.40

7. Current fallow 5.26

8. Other fallow 2.29

9. Net Area Sown 56.54

Total Geographical Area 155.71

Gross cropped area 89.60

Cropping Intensity (%) 158Source: GoO, Status of Agriculture in Orissa 2007-08, DA & FP, Orissa

24

Despite this however, in 2007-08 the food grain production rose to 81.44 lakh MT, 10.88 per cent more than 2006-07 which is quite visible in the Table 3.5 below.

3.1.4 Major Field CropsRice, pulses, oilseeds, fibres and sugarcane are major field crops grown in the state. Of the total cropped area the coverage of rice, pulses and oilseeds cover 57.18 per cent, 17.59 per cent, and 7.86 per cent respectively whereas other crops cover 17.37 per cent.

3.1.4.1 RiceRice is the principal food crop in the state and accounts for about 88 per cent of total agricultural production during the Kharif season and about 12 per cent during the Rabi season. In Kharif 2006, autumn rice was cultivated in 7.57 lakh ha (mostly on high land) and winter paddy was cultivated in 33.79 lakh ha (mostly on medium and low lands). The entire Rabi

area was irrigated and covered by HY Paddy during 2007-08. The area under HYV paddy has increased by 3.46 per cent over 2006-07. A clear view of this can be had from Table 3.7. Kharif Paddy in 2006-07 under irrigation covered 42 per cent of the total area. The yield rate of rice in the state during 2006-07 was 1557 kg/ha against the country average of 2276 kg/ ha. The state has provisionally estimated rice production at 75.92 tonnes with productivity of 17 kg/ha during 2007-08. The trend in production and productivity of rice in the state is indicated in Table 3.8. As is clear from the table, the production high of 2001-02 has been surpassed only in 2007-08. There is a healthy increasing trend in recent years though the state average is much lower than national average.

As revealed from the above table there has been a steady rise in the productivity of rice in the state after 2001-02, except in 2002-03 (a serious drought year).

Table 3.5 Food grain Production in Orissa

Total Food Crop 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Rice 32.44 67.34 65.37 68.59 68.25 75.41

Cereals 33.5 68.86 67.04 70.23 69.93 77.6

Pulses 2.05 2.66 2.61 3.36 3.52 3.84

Food grains 35.55 71.52 69.65 73.59 73.45 81.44Source: GoO

Table 3.6: Comparative Productivity of Different Crops in Orissa

Year Oilseeds Groundnut Sunflower Cotton Sugarcane

1996-97 552 1006 402 327 66996

1997-98 610 1209 551 283 72623

1998-99 525 1023 787 306 64917

1999-00 668 1438 797 272 58990

2000-01 531 1058 707 283 66951

2001-02 635 1426 750 147 63728

2002-03 550 1194 675 287 60150

2003-04 626 1461 726 408 62908

2004-05 627 1515 771 412 68600

2005-06 668 1547 815 435 69286

2006-07 719 1599 936 307 70008Source: GoO

25

3.1.4.2 PulsesNext to rice pulses are an important group of crops in the state. Pulses are triple beneficiary crops as they supply plant protein to meet our dietary requirement, enrich the soil productivity by fixing atmospheric nitrogen, and fit into any type of cropping system. During 2007-08 the total

area under pulses accounted for 8.50 lakh ha, which constitutes 15.5 per cent of the total area under food grains (54.80 lakh ha) and contributed 4.73 per cent (3.84 lakh MT) of total food grain production of 81.44 lakh MT in the state. The productivity of pulses in the state is around 479 kg/ha as against national average of 616 kg./ha.

Table 3.8: Production and Productivity of Rice in Orissa

Year Area ( in lakh hects) Production (in MTs) Productivity (kg/ ha)

Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total

1970-71 43.3 1.4 44.7 39.1 1.9 41.0 902 1387 917

1980-81 40.2 1.7 41.9 40.3 2.7 43.0 1003 1571 1026

1990-91 41.9 2.1 44.0 48.4 4.3 52.7 1156 2019 1198

1998-99 41.8 2.7 44.5 48.9 5.0 53.9 1169 1889 1212

1999-00 42.2 3.8 46.0 42.8 9.1 51.9 1013 2389 1127

2000-01 42.3 2.0 44.3 41.7 4.4 46.1 987 2136 1041

2001-02 42.3 2.7 45.0 65.7 5.8 71.5 1554 2127 1589

2002-03 40.9 1.8 42.7 28.2 4.2 32.4 690 2352 759

2003-04 42.5 2.5 45.0 62.0 5.3 67.3 1459 2112 1496

2004-05 42.0 2.9 44.9 58.8 6.5 65.3 1401 2230 1455

2005-06 41.54 3.25 44.79 62.49 7.14 69.63 1504 2193 1554

2006-07 41.36 3.14 44.50 61.96 7.32 69.28 1498 2328 1557

2007-08 41.18 3.20 44.38 68.26 7.66 75.92 1658 2393 1711

Source: GoO

Table 3.7: Area under HYV Paddy in Orissa

Year Autumn Winter Summer Total

Irrigated Un-irrigated

Irrigated Un-Irrigated

Irrigated Un-irrigated

Irrigated Un-Irrigated

2000-01 32.03 367.48 866.08 1155.97 206.74 Nil 1104.85 1523.45

2001-02 30 395 852 1301 272 Nil 1154 1696

2002-03 20.99 382.66 859.63 1225.75 177.55 Nil 1058.17 1608.41

2003-04 15.22 434.64 839.09 1345.94 253.47 Nil 1107.78 1780.58

2004-05 28 406 925 1351 293 Nil 1246 1757

2005-06 24.05 411.57 913.31 1427.9 325.49 Nil 1262.86 1839.46

2006-07 28.28 411.34 941.75 1466.62 314.6 Nil 1284.63 1877.96

2007-08 30.05 420.55 969.18 1518.62 333.74 Nil 1332.97 1939.17Source: GoO

The Value will be ‘0’/’Zero’.

26

3.1.4.3 OilseedsOrissa has enough potential for growing all nine important oilseed crops. Groundnut, sesame, castor, mustard, niger, sunflower, safflower, soybean, and linseed are major oilseed crops of the state. These crops are usually grown on upland in the Kharif season (except rapeseed-mustard) and on river beds, and rice fallows during Rabi season. Area, production and productivity show an increasing but more fluctuating trend in area and production during the past few years. There was significant achievement in oilseeds sector during implementation of TMOP and the productivity of groundnut in the state was the highest in the country. The coverage under oilseed in 2007-08 was 2.65 lakh hectares with a production level of 1.72 lakh MT as against coverage of 2.57 lakh ha and production level of 1.49 lakh MT during 2006-07.

3.2 Commercial CropsMajor commercial crops found in Orissa are sugarcane, jute, mesta, cotton, soyabean, groundnut, potato, chilly and onion. Sugarcane as a commercial crop is being cultivated in several districts of the state. After showing substantial production and productivity of sugarcane, the situation has changed in the state mainly due to non-remunerative price support

and closure of some sugar factories. A revival package has been introduced in recent years for enhancing crop production and productivity. Data presented in Table 3.9 indicates the fluctuation in crop production and productivity over the years. Cotton has been accepted as a major cash crop in some districts of the state. Table 3.9 indicates a better scenario of cotton than other cash crops in the state. Nevertheless, Orissa’s productivity of cotton was lower than the national level (392 kg/ha) in 2006-07.There has been substantial reduction in the area covered by jute and mesta in the state as jute fibre cannot compete with synthetic fibre in the market.

3.3 Fruits and VegetablesOrissa is becoming an important centre for production of fruits and vegetables due to very favourable agro climatic conditions. During 2007-08, the area under fruit crops in the state was recorded as 295.50 thousand (th) ha comprising 148.24 th. ha of mango, 23.10 th. ha of banana, 26.77 th. ha of citrus, 45.79 th. ha of other fruits and 51.60 th. ha of coconut. The production of fruits was about 11.54 lakh MT and 2824 lakh nuts in 2007-08. Table 3.10 reveals the area, and production of fruits in the state during 2006-07 and 2007-08.

Table 3.9: Area, Production and Yield Rate of Fruits

Fruit2006-07 2007-08

Area ('000ha.)

Production (000MT)

Yield Rate (Qtl/ha.)

Area ('000ha.)

Production (000MT)

Yield Rate (Qtl/ha.)

Mango 140.1 431.4 30.8 148.2 251.8 17

Banana 22.2 284.8 128.1 23.1 297.1 128.6

Citrus 26.5 206 77.7 26.8 211.7 7.9

Pineapple 0.7 7.4 108.5 0.7 7.5 109

Papaya 0.8 13.9 174 0.8 14.7 17.5

Coconut 51 2756* 5400** 51.6 2824* 5473**

Others 42.1 365.4 86.7 44.3 371.5 83.9

Total 232.4 1308.9 56.3 243.9 1154.3 47.3

* in lakh numbers

** numbers/ haSource:GoO, Economic Survey 2008-09

27

3.4 FloricultureThere is an interesting growth in flower cultivation in Orissa. In order to meet the increasing demand of people for flowers in cities and urban areas, the cultivation of flowers like rose, marigold and tuberose have been promoted. Table 3.11 below shows the area and production of different floricultural crops in Orissa.

3.5 SpicesAlthough the state has a major share at the national level, production of ginger and turmeric, the varieties cultivated are mostly traditional and low yielding.

3.6 Farm MechanisationMechanization of farms in Orissa is still at a rather low level. There seems to be some improvement on this front in recent years especially in the use of power tillers.

Table 3.10: Area and Production of Different Floricultural Crops (area in ha./ Production in Quantity, Gladioli - in nos. of lakh spike)

Year Marigold Rose Gladioli Tuberose

Area Production Area Production Area Production Area Production

2003-04 194.64 14581 41.62 92.19 11.37 11.37 33.62 540

2004-05 221.05 16599 46.14 98.63 12.07 12.06 34.92 555

2005-06 243.05 17.14 111.55 245.55 129.65 129.64 107.5 1515

2006-07 333 26640 246.25 505.86 311.7 311.7 196 1960

2007-08 243 17514 112 245.55 130 648 108 1515Source: Directorate of Horticulture, Orissa,Bhubaneswar

3.7 Fertiliser ConsumptionAs mentioned in chapter 1, fertiliser consumption in Orissa is among the lowest in the country. Fertiliser consumption in the state has increased from 402.88 TMT during 2006-07 to 451.90 TMT during 2007-08, showing an increase of 12.17 per cent. Table 3.14 shows fertiliser consumption in Orissa since 1961-62 to 2007-08 as well as consumption of pesticides/insecticides. Later during 2007-08 it has been recorded as 1152.50 MT comprising 664.75 MT during Kharif and 487.75 MT during Rabi with per hectare consumption at 148.24 gm.

Further, it also reveals that fertiliser consumption in the state is very low as compared to other major states and the all-India level. Per hectare consumption of fertiliser in the state is about half the per hectare consumption at the all-India level, and about one-third the consumption in neighbouring states like Andhra Pradesh, West

Table 3.12: Area and Production of Spice Crops in Orissa

(Area in 000’ hectares) (Production in 000’MT)

Spice 2006-07 2007-08

Area Production Area Production

Onion 28.51 260 28.77 262.37

Garlic 11.04 35.51 110.49 35.56

Coriander 19.07 9.07 19.07 9.6

Chili 75.12 63.93 75.13 63.92

Ginger 16.07 31.4 16.34 32.44

Turmeric 24.74 59.35 24.82 60.34

Total 174.55 459.26 175.18 463.64Source:GoO

28

Bengal etc. Table 3.15 reveals a glance at Orissa figures compared to some other states.

The state has made a large investment on major and medium irrigation. However, there is great stress on this with Hirakud dam waters being used, often illegally, by industries. The progress of minor irrigation has been slow and the spread of

shallow or medium tubewells is quite low given the groundwater potential in the state. In 2006-07 this was quite low at 4589 and 753 respectively.

3.8 Other Agricultural Schemes The complexity of mapping the agricultural situation in a state is also due to multi-institutional settings and arrangements. There

Table 3.13: Sale of tractor, power tillers since 1992-93 till 2007-08 in Orissa

YearSale of Machinery in number

Tractor Power tiller Paddy reaper Total

1995-96 103 76 -- 179

1996-97 512 345 - 857

1997-98 774 393 -- 1167

1998-99 303 748 -- 1051

1999-00 143 783 -- 926

2000-01 168 775 943

2001-02 102 822 210 1134

2002-03 251 1242 68 1561

2003-04 585 1734 75 2394

2004-05 788 2125 79 2992

2005-06 800 1631 50 2481

2006-07 1247 2974 107 4328

2007-08 682 3263 95 4040Source: GoO (SA2007-08)

Table 3.14: Fertiliser Pesticide Consumption in Orissa

Year Total NPK consumption

Kg./ ha Total Pesticide Consumption(MT)

Consumption Per hectare (gm./ha)

1961-62 4.87 0.76 N.A. N.A.1971-72 49.82 7.25 N.A. N.A.1981-82 81.99 9.68 N.A. N.A.1991-92 196.03 19.96 N.A. N.A.2001-02 344.66 41 1018 N.A.2002-03 290.56 39 682.3 N.A.2003-04 326.21 39 1028.5 N.A.2004-05 355.3 43 987 1182005-06 394.89 46 1039 138.532006-07 402.88 47 1132.5 148.942007-08 451.9 52 1152.5 148.24

Source: GoO

29

are very few state specific schemes but central schemes have suggested guidelines where implementation is suited to the state. There are several schemes by bilateral agencies and organisations such as IFAD or International Fund for Agricultural Development. Some of these are listed here.

3.8.1 Aided By Government of IndiaSome of the important schemes aided by the Government of India are the Integrated Cereals Development Programme (Rice), National Pulse Development Programme (NPDP), Oilseed Production Programme (OPP), Special Jute Development Programme (SJDP), and the Intensive Cotton Development Programme (ICDP, Cotton).

These are basically crop-oriented scheme with the main objective of increasing production and productivity through better input supply, extension support and infrastructural facilities. Supply of inputs at subsidized rates, a seed

Table 3.15:- Consumption of Fertilisers in some Selected States:

State 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2006-07

Orissa 39 39 37.1 40.4 43

WB 126.82 122.23 114.1 129 127.5

AP 143.47 128.44 145.3 155.8 203.61

Punjab 173.38 174.99 190.1 192.5 210.06

Haryana 155.69 152.79 161.7 166.2 166.72

Tamil Nadu 141.55 114 114.5 152.9 183.67

All India 90.12 84.82 88.2 96.6 104.5Source: GoO

village programme for production of certified seeds, laying of block demonstration, distribution of mini kits to popularize new varieties, and farm mechanization are some of novel features of these schemes.

Apart from these the state has been reasonably pro-active in accessing funds from two new schemes – the National Food Security Mission (NFSM) and Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY).

3.8.2 Externally Aided ProjectsAgriculture is also taken up through external agencies in the state through several bilateral or multilateral schemes with special agencies to take this further.• Western Orissa Rural Livelihood Project

(WORLP)

This project will be implemented in the districts of Bolangir, Nuapada, Baragarh and Kalahandi with assistance of Rs.2292 millions from the

Table 3.16: Agricultural Credit Advanced in Orissa

Year Commercial Bank RRBs Cooperative Banks

OSFC Total

2001-02 266.4 396.2 532.25 0.54 928.99

2002-03 281.4 437.29 609 0.26 1046.55

2003-04 434.9 602.55 724.03 0.31 1326.88

2004-05 627.9 932.56 971.26 0.22 1904.03

2005-06 842.3 1257.65 1443.06 0 2700.71

2006-07 1224.93 516.15 1576.87 0 3317.95

2007-08 1513.87 518.74 1624.67 0 3657.28Source:GoO

30

Department of International Development (DFID), UK. The project will continue for 10 years and will benefi t the poorest people. The activities of the project mainly relate to livelihood initiation, drinking water, sanitation and capacity-building. • Orissa Tribal Empowement and Livelihood

Programme (OTELP)

Funded by International Fund for Agriculture Development, IFAD and DFID, the programme would cover 30 of the most backward blocks with tribal concentrations in seven districts, namely Gajapati, Kalahandi, Kandhamal, Koraput, Malkangiri, Nawarangpur, and Rayagada in South-West Orissa. It will be implemented in three phases over 10 years and focuses on empowering tribals and enabling them to enhance their food security, increase their incomes and improve their overall quality of life through more effi cient natural resource management based on the principles of improved watershed management and more productive, environmentally sound agricultural practices, and through off-farm/non-farm enterprise development. (Agriculture map of Orissa - Annexure II).

The low productivity of many crops has been a concern in the state for sometime now. Constraints in improving productivity relate to the undulating topography (the state has less plain land), to poor soil health etc. The extension system in the state has virtually collapsed. The earlier system of deploying one Village Agricultural Worker (VAW) for

every 500-1000 farm families no more exists. Even one VAW is not available at the Gram Panchayat (GP) level and at least 628 AAOs/JAOs for 314 Blocks were not available as per a recent study done by XIMB on the Work Plan on Macro Management of Agriculture. There has been recent improvement in the system with the government investing in increasing its extension system at the senior level. Much more needs to be done if the state seeks a greater presence in interventions at the village level.

Agriculture in Orissa is still largely traditional and organic by default. The government agenda of modernising agriculture and improving the economic status of the farmers requires policy changes which can match the agricultural vision of the state government. As seen, a majority of the farmers are small and marginal and their perspective in growth and development can give meaningful insights for policy reforms. Academic and research institutions and their participation in policy formulation add science and technology inputs to policy. The CSOs/NGOs being the conduits between policy makers and policy users can give their critical inputs in policy and can help in identifying the gaps. Media can be effective in creating forward and backward linkages between stakeholders, making it a dynamic process. Therefore, all the stakeholders have a role in the procedure of policy formulation and their inputs are valuable at all the stages in the policy process. Thus, identifi cation of stakeholders and stakeholder analysis is a major exercise in policy process.

31

The state agriculture policy of Orissa is analysed using the RTD framework. The RTD framework

takes into consideration the landscape of research and development and issues of policy dialogue and power relations (see checklist in Annexure 1). The new agricultural policy in Orissa is not the fi rst, there was one in 1996, we, therefore begin with a comparison between the state agriculture policy of 1996 and 2008, to gain an insight into the issues of concern in the earlier policy and the change of agenda in the later policy.

The study looked into the institutional and research progress in agriculture, which is depicted through an agricultural time-line. Though much more can be added to the time-line, but it has been restricted to establishment of government (both cen tral and state) research institutes and major agriculture development projects. The next subsection covers the stakeholder analysis. The actor linkage tools used and their outcome have then been depicted diagrammatically.

4.1 State Agriculture Policy 1996 and Agriculture Policy 2008

Orissa’s fi rst agriculture policy was formulated in 1996, wherein agriculture was given the status of an industry. The focus was on mechanising agriculture and improvising ways and means for modernisation of agriculture. To achieve this objective a corporation the Agriculture Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited (APICOL) was formed with an intention to bring enterprise into the agricultural sector.

A cash crop-based economy was the preference and export-oriented products and crops were emphasized upon. The establishment of agro- and food-based industries was highly subsidized. This was seen as one of the means for poverty eradication. Marketing of agricultural produce,

irrigation, crop insurance and agricultural credit were all related to cash/commercial crops. There has been no comprehensive assessment of the 1996 policy and even if there is, it is not invoked in the 2008 policy and the general public have no access to knowledge about the success or failure of the policy. As mentioned earlier, following the policy cycle becomes diffi cult because evaluation of policies such as the 1996 one are rarely done in a rigorous manner even though the Government learns internally from the policy.

The agricultural indicators show that the agricultural situation in Orissa has not changed much and has not made as much inroads as an ‘industry’ as the policy orientation of 1996 suggested. Crop productivity and agro-based enterprises are much below the national average. On a different perspective, we may argue, that Orissa, with nearly 80 per cent small and marginal farmers was not ready at that point for agricultural industrialization.

Twelve years later, the second agriculture policy of Orissa was framed, but with different objectives. State Agriculture Policy 2008 was prepared in a much more elaborate manner and takes into account areas untouched in the earlier policy. The focus is not only to encourage profi table commercial agriculture but also to improve the economic condition of the farmers. In this era of globalization, talking of sustainable agriculture, water-use effi ciency, integrated watershed development, SRI and integrated pest management (IPM) shows a futuristic trend and an attempt towards holistic development.

Participation and involvement of farmers in extension activities, water usage, and in agricultural research fi nd mention in the policy document. Public private partnership in establishing agro industries and in research

Outcome of the Study and Analysis

4

32

and education also finds mention. Noteworthy points are the community initiatives suggested and integration with schemes as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). Support and improvement of rain fed agriculture, organic farming and integrated farming for risk minimization are some of the added features.

In case of agricultural research and education, emphasis is given to ‘demand-driven’ research rather than ‘project-oriented’ research. The consideration for small and marginal farmers and women in development of technologies is also a well-specified agenda along with information, communication and technology (ICT) in agriculture.

In its articulation the 2008 agriculture policy looks into issues more holistically and there is a mention of a farmer-participatory approach. Yet major areas of conflict such as the entry of genetically modified (GM) crops in the state, often illegally, find little mention. Tackling the complex issues of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) regime and agricultural produce

marketing are left unanswered. The objectives of the Policy are listed in Box 4.1 4.2 Mapping the context of Orissa

Agriculture Policy using RTD framework

The 19-point checklist of RTD mapping was used to develop an understanding on the issues of research and development in agriculture in the state of Orissa and how policy addressed those issues. We follow the order of the RTD checklist and seek to see if we can understand broader issues on the policy through systematically following the checklist.

4.2.1 Policy and development In this we ask if the agriculture policy is linked to a wider set of issues. On links with the research institutional infrastructure we find that there is a mention in the policy of research institutions as ICAR and Orissa University of Agriculture and Research (OUAT). The suggestion is that there is a need to enhance their exposure and induce competitiveness. The policy document mentions the need to gear-up seed research

Box 4.1 Objectives of State Agricultural Policy 2008

1. To bring in a shift from subsistence agriculture to profitable commercial agriculture with a view to increase agriculture as a vocation.

2. To promote sustainable agricultural development.3. To enhance productivity of important crops to match with national average. 4. To encourage crop diversification particularly in uplands and medium lands (e.g. paddy to non-paddy

crops).5. To focus on horticultural crops including dry-land horticulture.6. To encourage modern farming-system approach.7. To enhance water-use efficiency through peoples’ participation.8. To facilitate increased long-term investment in agricultural sector (on-farm as well as off-farm) by the

private sector, public sector and private and public partnership (PPP).9. To encourage contract as well as compact farming.10. To increase access to credit for small and marginal farmers.11. To facilitate appropriate market linkages for agricultural produce with respect to which the state has

competitive advantages.12. To implement integrated watershed development programmes in watershed areas for Natural Resource

Management (NRM), increased crop production as well as on-farm and non-farm income.13. To create appropriate institutions/ facilities to undertake regulatory, enforcement and quality assurance

activities matching to the emergent needs.14. To redefine the roles and responsibilities of the agricultural extension machinery by suitably restructuring

the field extension set-up.

33

and development of technologies to cater to the needs of a large number of clientele, specifically small and marginal farmers. This is sought to be done through developing an efficient extension system for faster diffusion of technology. Mention is made of a biotechnology centre under OUAT and the need to strengthen the database to help in planning and forecasting. The policy seeks to link agriculture to entrepreneurship through opening up Vocational Training Institutes (VTIs) for youth in agriculture.

4.2.1.1 Research funding structureInformation on this was gathered through different research institutes. Most of the ICAR institutes receive funds from the Central government and externally-aided projects such as National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP). The OUAT too receives funding from World Bank under NAIP and from the state government for various projects. The state research institutes are funded by the state government and by donors such as the DFID of the government of the United Kingdom.

The policy takes note of the declining public investment in agriculture but has no specific suggestions on increasing it. There is a mention on increasing private investment. Most of the foreign aid is in the form of bilateral projects described earlier.

4.2.1.2 Intellectual property rights (IPR) and patent regulation

Despite being an important issue, this surprisingly does not find any mention in either the policy or in the consultations with various groups. The agriculture department has established a WTO cell that we had a tough time locating. Though listed on the agenda, capacity-building of staff on this complex issue of IPR and patents is not adequately addressed and needs to be built.

It is pertinent to add here that the link between policy and development can be seen quite differently by other actors. A typical

development studies perspective would seek more questions on this important link. Specifically in the context of the agricultural policy is a critique that sees the agricultural policy in a very different light.1

4.2.1.3 Value-laden scientific knowledge and conceptualisation of development

The RTD framework asks if it is recognised that all scientific knowledge and technological artefacts are value-laden? Are specific technical and scientific accomplishments used in neutral and objectifying terms? Given the nature of policy discourse in India and the general domination of the expert policy maker it would be rare to find a document that speaks of knowledge as value-laden. The System Analysis and Program Development (SAP) is no exception either. Most of the time scientific knowledge and technological artefacts are merely used in the policy as popular terms. Incorporating this concern in policy would perhaps take much longer in the Indian context. How is ‘development’ conceptualized by the various actors involved? This question was posed to all the stakeholders who were interviewed and their responses varied depending on the personal interests and professional alliance and exposures. Development was not necessarily related to science and technology development, but more often related to economic development of the state and of farmers. Where CSOs viewed it as empowerment at the grass roots, the government functionaries thought it akin to poverty reduction and improvement in health and education of all citizens. The researchers view development as improved facilities of research and technology. Annexure III provides the list of stakeholders who were interviewed and some excerpts from the interviews. It is evident from the interviews that development is indeed viewed quite differently by different stakeholders. Thus policy dialogues that would mediate on this term would help build greater alignment. Often these are assumed in policy.

1 For this see Nayak, B. S. (2008). The Orissa State Agricultural Policy 2008: A Document of Denials to Farmers, Retreat of the State and Threat to Economy. Personal communication from a member of the e-group common concern in August 2008.

34

The RTD framework seeks to push the idea further by asking how is the impact of science and technology on development viewed by the various actors involved. Given the diversity of actors in agriculture (it being the livelihood of most of the people in the rural areas) the responses have been grouped sectorally as government and non-government. The non-government sector includes CSOs and farmers. According to a majority of them, indigenous technology is cost-effective, good for the soil and can be used locally without depending on the government structure. Research organizations do not focus much on indigenous technologies though there are exceptions. The focus on such technologies is currently greater in the Government sector, that too more in the growth of biotechnology and its use in agriculture. The latter is not well-accepted by the other stakeholders.

4.2.2 Policy dialogueIn this we specifically seek to understand if different levels of policy dialogue are distinguished. Is the policy dialogue an open process? Is the policy dialogue conceived as a learning process? Is the policy dialogue addressing key issues? Are all the relevant social groups, institutions and actors involved?

Agriculture in India though a state subject is often driven by policy decisions at the Centre. Quite often the views of the district are not taken into account in shaping policies. This might undergo change with the move to introduce comprehensive district agricultural plans. However there does not seem to have been an approach where there have been district-level consultations on policy. Some meetings were organised by the Directorate of Agriculture to seek opinions of different stakeholders but this is nowhere near the possibilities of incorporating district views in agricultural planning.

A wide variety of actors and institutions are involved – a consultation meeting with various actors and institutions (research institutes, farmer federation, government bodies and individual farmers) was conducted to discuss the policy issues. Suggestions of the

consultation group are incorporated in the policy (Members constituting the consultation group are mentioned in Annexure IV). The draft policy document was also published in the local newspaper for comments and displayed on the internet on the agriculture department website and was open to comments. On enquiry it was learnt that not many people were aware of this and especially at the grass roots-level media and internet accessibility remains very low. The original deadline for comments on the agricultural policy too was rather short. It is to the credit of the Department though that following initial criticisms there was an attempt to widen the reach of the consultative process. The policy document was released on the website and in local newspapers in 2007 for a period of three months, asking for feedback from stakeholders. An attempt has been made to involve various user groups in policy dialogue, but the medium has not proved to be very effective. There are no set procedures for getting feedback from various actors and the end users are usually information-handicapped. One hopes that this becomes a feature of public policy rather than having to be dependent on the good offices of a particular senior government official.

There is much more that could be done on making the process an ‘open, learning process’. This might include several stakeholder meetings and trust-building exercises. Currently ‘outsiders’ access to the policy dialogue is limited. We tried understanding the discussions of the consultation but could not access it easily and had to give up. Improving the transparency of policy processes is a key challenge in India and is of course not specific to agriculture alone.

The RTD suggests and assumes that end-users can influence policy. In the context of Orissa with poor political representation of farmers and few farmer organisations, the influences of end-users, farmers, on policy is negligible. Though the policies are claimed to be farmer-friendly, processes are not necessarily so. This was a strong perception from the discussions. One way out is to have greater interaction with civil society organisations which often form conduits

35

between government and farmers, partially representing farmer interests.

Further the role of the private sector is not very clear from the policy document. The SAP 2008 mentions public-private partnership (PPP) in various forms, but mechanisms of involvement are not very clear. Further the private sector, seed companies in particular, have a more troubled relation within Orissa. The use of high-yielding varieties is rather low and in recent times there has been entry of illegal GM crops that the state has yet to recognise and civil society groups have been vociferously protesting. The issue is still unresolved, yet the question remains on how to get the private sector more involved.

The policy dialogue process is not very transparent as only few people are aware about the process. Ensuring that there are platforms to learn together is at the heart of policy dialogues and it is hoped that the study would enable this process in the state by pointing to its critical need in policy formulation.

The policy dialogue is addressing issues such as ‘how to deal with declining productivity and low capital formation in the agriculture sector’, ‘ways and means to involve private players’ etc. The focus has shifted towards the economic well-being of farmers.

4.2.3 The S&T landscapeThe RTD framework also looks at the institutional landscape. In the SAP 2008 the agriculture landscape has been described in terms of organisations. The key organisations are OUAT (the only agriculture university in Orissa), three ICAR institutes, donor organisations, NGOs, implementing bodies. Professionals from these organisations were interviewed to get their opinion on agriculture policy and their association with the Department of Agriculture. (Annexure V – questionnaire followed for interviewing research institutions).

The research areas, potentials, human resources and funding options were also discussed to assess the problems and concerns of researchers. However, such actions have not been taken up

by policy formulators to assess the strength of scientific institutions and their contributions in the field. Mapping the institutional landscape is a bigger challenge where one moves away from individual organisations to the relations between organisations and the norms of working with each other. The RTD is not particularly strong on these institutional issues and we have used stakeholder mapping methods to map the institutional landscape.

The remaining issues in the RTD checklist (Issue #11-19), do not find mention either in the policy or in consultative discussions. These issues pertain to power relations in various institutions and growth of science and technology and its traditional counterpart. Such issues are not brought up in dialogue processes and neither are they documented for further reference. These are better addressed through actor-oriented tools.

4.3 Actor-oriented Tools An actor-oriented approach primarily focuses on mapping the relationship and flow of information among various actors in a system to facilitate reflection and action. “Actor-oriented tools provide practical ways to monitor, document, and assess and thus legitimise crucial institutional strengthening activities.” (Biggs and Matsaert, 2004). These are qualitative tools which provide a basis for reflection and action. The effective use of actor-oriented tools helps in changing the perceptions of the actors. It encourages them to engage with the social and political context of their activities in a productive way. These tools can study the linkages between various stakeholders to suggest ways of better collaboration and involvement and to improve the procedure of policy formulation and thereby strengthen the policy dialogue process. These tools include constructing a time-line, mapping key actors or stakeholders and later their linkages through Actor Network Maps or Actor Linkage Matrices. Specific relations are then focused on, using determinant diagrams. Biggs and Matsaert, 2004 recommend that development interventions should include actor-oriented tools in development planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

36

In policy dialogue, mapping of stakeholders and conducting actor linkage analysis and their involvement in policy process can lead to effective policy implications.

4.3.1 Agriculture time-lineThe growth of research and development in agriculture in Orissa can be traced back to pre-independent India, where government initiatives were taken to mitigate the effect of famine and drought. Orissa being primarily an agrarian state took initiatives in setting up the Department of Development in 1945, working on agricultural issues (later changed to the Department of Agriculture and Food Production). Rice being the predominant crop in the region and with the Bengal famine (Coastal Orissa was then part of Bengal Province) in 1943, the Central Government set up a Rice Research Institute at Cuttack in 1946. The state was also aggressive in setting up an Agriculture College in 1954. The University of Missouri collaborated with the college for research work. The college was later upgraded to a university in 1962 and became the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT).

The Government was most active in 1970s when different departments were segregated from the agriculture department and most of the autonomous corporations were established under the administrative control of the agriculture department. This period also witnessed the formation of research stations and Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) to cater to regional research and extension and get feedback from the field.

The decade of the 1980s saw some bilateral projects with World Bank and the Danish development agency DANIDA as donors. In this period ICAR also established some of its research institutes in Bhubaneswar to cater to the research needs of eastern India. In 1996, the first agriculture policy was formulated for the state. It was a progressive policy and agriculture was given the status of an industry. Bodies such as APICOL were also established for the promotion of technology and modernization of agriculture. Following this, 1998 was also an

important year, with the launch of the National Agriculture Technology Project (NATP) and ICAR opening up a special research centre for women in agriculture.

The year 2000 saw some more bilateral projects such as the WORLP and with it formation of Orissa Watershed Development Mission (OWDM). Later in the decade, IFAD launched OTELP in the tribal areas and World Bank-funded NAIP for the research institutes. Many more models for research and funding are now being tried as PPP and newer aid agencies like the Asian Development Bank (ADB) are coming forward to improve the agriculture and irrigation potential of the state. Though the state has been consistent in its efforts to boost research and improvise agricultural practices in the state, the results are yet to be seen. The agriculture policy of 2008 is yet another step in this path, to undertake research that is directly beneficial to the farmers and on the farmers field itself. The policy also emphasizes on PPP for more efficient implementation. A diagrammatic representation of key events in Orissa agriculture is given in Fig.4.1.

4.3.2 Stakeholder mapping“Stakeholder analysis can be defined as an approach for understanding a system by identifying the key actors or stakeholders in the system, and assessing their respective interest in that system” (Grimble et al. 1995). Grimble and Wellard (1996) underline the usefulness of stakeholder analysis in understanding complexity and compatibility problems between objectives and stakeholders. In case of policy studies stakeholder analysis particularly helps in assessing how people affect policies and institutions, and how policies and institutions affect people. A number of analysts in the field call for the introduction of participatory and deliberative processes as a mechanism to guide strengthening of the science–policy interface. These involve bringing together key stakeholders so as to combine different types of evidence, to incorporate diverse opinions and to ground decisions in relevant, feasible and implementable advice (Jones et al. 2008).

37

Fig. 4.1: Agriculture Time Line

1960

1980

1990

2000

CRRI established at Cuttack

Government Initiative

Directorate of Development (later Directorate of Agriculture & Food Production )

Utkal Krishi Mahavidyalaya established

OUAT established from UKM

Central Tuber Crop Research Institute (CTCRI)

4 Regional Research Stations

13 Adaptive Research Stations

1950

Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. (OAICL)

1st Agricultural Policy in 1996 IMAGE upgraded from GSTK

Directorate of Soil Conservation & Directorate of Water Conservationofof Horticulture

Orissa Cashew Development Corporation

Orissa State Seeds Corpoation (OSSC) Gram Sevak Talim Kendra

(GSTK) established

1940

National Agriculture Research Project (WB aided)

Water Technology Centre for Eastern Region (WTCER)

8 KVKs established Central Inland Freshwater Aquaculture (CIFA)

Training & Extension of Women in Agriculture (TEWA) DANIDA-assisted

International Potato Centre

National Research Centre for Women in Agriculture (NRCWA)

National Agriculture Technology Project (NATP) (WB aided)

National Agriculture Innovation Project (NAIP) (WB aided)

Western Orissa Rural Livelihood Programme (WORLP) (by DFID)

Orissa Tribal Empowerment & Livelihood Project (OTELP)

Orissa Integrated Irrigated Agriculture & Water Management Project (ADB)

Research Institutes & major projects

Agricultural promotion & Investment Corporation (APICOL)

State Agriculture Policy’2008

National Food Security Mission (NFSM)

Orissa Watershed Development Mission (OWDM)

National Horticulture Mission (NHM)

1970

38

If the policies and institutions are geared towards improving livelihoods then understanding the individuals and groups that affect them, or are affected by them, is crucial at all levels (Mayers, 2005). Moreover, the range of stakeholders and their roles are dynamic, so one has to see beyond the superficial roles of the actors. A list of stakeholders associated with agriculture policy is generated. The stakeholders are then classified institution-wise. In this study, the stakeholders are mapped as per their affiliation to the institutions, rather than acknowledging individual actors

Agriculture has many complexities and many primary and secondary stakeholders. Mapping all the stakeholders for the study was challenging due to the multiplicity of actors and the time-span. In the first attempt the stakeholders are classified into four groups’ viz. policy influencers, policy makers, policy regulators and users and were classified accordingly (Annexure VI). The stakeholders were identified and listed institution-wise for better comprehension and for studying stakeholder institutional linkages (Annexure VII).

4.3.3 Stakeholder linkagesA stakeholder- or actor-oriented approach is concerned principally with mapping relationships and flows of information to provide a basis for reflection and action. The linkage maps are a useful starting point for discussing relationships and flows of information in any system (Biggs and Matsaert, 2004). Key actors are shown on a map with arrows between them indicating flows of information. In this linkage analysis there is always an arrow going in each direction. The intensity of these flows is illustrated by the width of the arrows. The linkage maps are particularly useful when focusing on one actor and his or her linkages with other groups.

In the study, the Department of Agriculture is the central actor and its linkage with other stakeholders is depicted in Fig 4.2.

The linkage between other actors is also mapped. The OUAT as a research and education institute has linkage with other research institutes but

the linkage is only need-based and project-based. The regular research and development interactions do not take place. Farmers at the other end are well-connected to NGOs/CSOs but show very weak linkages with research and implementing agencies. The linkage map is easily comprehensible and shows weak linkages of the institutions with the agriculture department. The linkages amongst the various stakeholders suggest some intervention to strengthen the weak linkages. Though the linkages being systemic, not many changes can be worked out, but the linkage map helps in deciphering the strength of the linkage and also the connectivity amongst the stakeholders.

4.3.4 Actor Linkage Matrix (ALM)This approach uses a matrix to map linkages and flows of information between key stakeholders. It can be used to gain an understanding of the key institutional linkages with which the project should work, or strengthen, to achieve its aims. It is useful in identifying strengths and opportunities in a given institutional environment and in the development of meaningful indicators of change (Matsaert, 2002).

In the matrix, the actors are listed along the vertical and horizontal axes. The cells in the matrix represent flows of information from the

Fig. 4.2: Stakeholder Linkages

Dept. of Agriculture

DoH, DoWR, DST,

APICOL, IMAGE, OSSCA etc.

Farmers

NGOs/CSOs

ICAR Institutes

Donors/Funders

Other Research Institutes

OUAT

Work for the welfare and improving livelihoods

Strong linkage-implementing agencies

Limited information provided

Need based and project related information

Weak interdepartmental linkage

39

actors in the rows to actors in the columns. The tool can deal with many numbers of stakeholders and complex situations. It is useful in helping to pinpoint particularly significant links e.g. strong links, coalition groups, weak links and also the opportunities for further strengthening of links. It enables to quantify the strength of linkages (Biggs and Matsaert, 2004).

For the study, after interviewing the stakeholders, ALM is summarized based on the discussions with the interviewees. The actors have been grouped as per their institutional affinity. The criteria for classifying the linkages as strong, medium and weak were devised based on the response of the interviewees and the comprehension of the interviewer. Based on the responses the linkage was termed as follows.

Strong: If there was direct flow of information on both sides, either implementing agencies or regulatory bodies.

Medium: Flow of information restricted; information sharing basically for fulfilling the targets and completion of projects or the extension services.

Weak linkage: Flow of information is need-based, if required some information is provided or media provides some information, no direct correspondence.

The blank spaces signify no linkage or not relevant linkage. See Fig.3 for linkages amongst the institutions. The stars depict the need for intervention amongst the two stakeholders.

The matrix reveals that flow of information from the state government departments is less. Sharing of information with research organizations is seen to be one way, where the departments receive information but do not share their work with other institutions. Similarly, it is seen that ICAR research institutions have limited sharing of information with other institutes; the dissemination of technology in the field is also limited to specific areas. This may be due to the fixed mandate of the institutes and the laboratory-based research.

It was observed that CSOs and NGOs try to disseminate information and participate in state level discussions, but again the flow of information is one-sided. The CSOs/NGOs share a good reputation with the farmers and their presence is felt on the field.

Some intervention points are marked to build-up linkages with research institutes and farmers and also with CSOs which can act as channels for flow of information backwards and forwards. Allied departments also need to strengthen linkages for holistic development. The autonomous implementing agencies under the agriculture department need to play a proactive role to reach the farmers for dissemination of newer technologies and research inputs.

To amalgamate action in the field and research inputs, it is highly desirable that the implementing agencies and research institutes increase their reach in the farmers’ field. This can be guided through policy decisions and its genuine implementation.

In the study, it was observed that implementing agencies such as APICOL, Orissa State agricultural Marketing Board (OSAMB) do not form part of policy dialogue. The other actors as NGOs/ CSOs though are part of the policy dialogue; they cannot really voice their concerns. The state agriculture department, which is the main implementing body and primary stakeholder should respect and respond to other stakeholders’ points of view, especially the farmers who are the end users of the policy. Various research institutes which form part of the policy dialogue can influence policy decisions to some extent but the final decision is taken by the ministry and the legislature. Therefore, strengthening stakeholder groups to voice their concerns requires a more strategic and rational process

4.3.5 Determinants DiagramThis is a group discussion tool to analyse the nature of a particular linkage. In this study the linkage between the formulation of agriculture policy and the incorporation of research and technology in the policy is looked into.

40

Fig.4.3: Actor Linkage Matrix

DoA

DoH

DoW

R

DST

DoC

(OSA

MB)

IMA

GE

API

CO

L

OSS

CA

OU

AT

RPRC

ICA

R In

st.

CIP

Don

or O

rg.

NG

Os

Farm

er fe

d.

Farm

ers

Directorate of Agriculture

DoAW M W M S S S S W M W W M

Directorate of Horticulture

DoHM W W W M W W M

Dept. of Water Resources

DoWRM W W M W W W

Dept. of Science & Technology

DSTW W W S

Orrisa State Agri. Mktg. Board

DoC (OSAMB)W W

Insti. Of Mgt. & Agri. Extension

IMAGES

Agri. Promotion & Investment Corp.of Orissa Ltd.

APICOL

S W W

Orissa State Seeds Certification Agency

OSSCA

S

Orissa Univ. of Agri. & Tech.

OUATS W M

Regional Plant Resource Centre

RPRCS

Indian Council of Agri. Research

ICAR Inst.M M M W W S S W W

International Potato Centre

CIP W S S M

Donor Org. M M M M M

NGOs S S S M S S S S

Farmer fed. S S S M M S

Farmers W W W W M M M M S S

Strong Linkage Medium Linkage Weak Linkage Requires Intervention

The blank spaces signify no information or not relevant.

41

This tool helps in exploring the strengths and weaknesses of a particular linkage or relationship and to identify ways to build on strengths and overcoming problems. This tool is useful in analyzing the quality of a linkage (Matsaert, H. et al. 2004). This diagram leads from analysis of a particular situation to the development of action plans. The strengthening and weakening factors identified then call for solutions to absolve the issues.

The study brought forward many issues not only in policy formulation but governance also. For overall development and to assure sustainable livelihoods to the people, policies are an instrument to cater to the needs of all and therefore, need to be well-designed and formulated.

Enhancing CSO- and legislator-capacities to engage in evidence-based policy debates and processes requires addressing a number of key challenges (Jones, N. 2008). First, is the distrust between parliamentarians and NGOs. Secondly, the capacity of all the stakeholders needs to be enhanced especially the government organisations and NGOs. Moreover, there is an urgent need to address leadership challenges within CSOs themselves (such as the ‘founder syndrome’, whereby the CSOs’ influence is based on the identity of their founder, rather than on the basis of issue expertise, and limited

accountability to constituents) in order to improve their credibility in the eyes of legislators. (ibid).

Taking up different linkages, a determinant diagram can be reconstructed. For this study the linkage between policy and incorporating research and technology into it is the core issue and the role of stakeholders as identified revolves around this issue. The strengthening and weakening factors of the linkage are listed and resolutions to those factors are sort out. This is a logic-based tool where brainstorming amongst the stakeholders chalks out the factors and the solution to those factors.

In this study, the solution that figures out most is to develop better communication modes and interactions at various forums, collaborative projects, and sensitization of the government officials and also NGOs in emerging frameworks for policy formulation. (Fig.4.4). The weakening factors here are more systemic and so require a change in systems to some extent. To further strengthen already strong points more funding must go into research. This can be done by exploring newer funding mechanisms, private partnerships, donor mobilization and farmers-fields research. An important point is to empower farmers, research organizations and CSOs for better flow of research and technology in either direction.

42

Fig. 4.4: Determinants Diagram - Exploring the Linkage between State Agriculture Policy and Research and Technology

Channelize the funds for more practical research and dissemination

Increase interactions & holistic solutions

Act as conduits between farmers & department

Sensitization of stakeholders

What to do

Increase in research funding

Empowered NGOs/CSOs

Consultation meetings

Frameworks as RTD

Interdepartmental research projects

State Agriculture Policy & Research & Technology Linkages

Ideological differences of researchers & politicians

Laboratory -oriented research

Farmers’ voices unheard

Weak extension services

Weak link between agriculture dept. & Research Institutes

Arrange for more interactions through various forums

Field research preferred

Strengthen linkage with NGOs/CSOs & media support

Training for extension staff to bring forth backward & forward linkages

More collaborative projects

Strengthening factors

Weakening factors

What to do

43

The RTD framework as a tool was developed for formulation of national-level policies to

encourage research and technology in science policies in developing countries. The distinguishing feature of the RTD framework is the use of insights from science studies and thereby its advantage in providing a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between science technology and development. The other feature that the framework provides is the methodological imperative of a policy dialogue before the formulation of a public policy. Despite limitations in using the framework, as is in the Indian context (see Annexure VIII) we have seen that the framework can be applied quite usefully to initiate a dialogue and critical thinking amongst the actors by raising up-front questions of participation. Following the framework will require much more ‘buy-in’ from ‘policy makers’. However a key learning is the need to treat public policies as open learning processes.

Activist groups and academics who often criticise policies for being undemocratic, non-representative and elitist are equally often not heard because of lack of spaces where they could engage in constructive criticism with the state. There is also an attempt to read too much into particular policies, ignoring the possibilities of intervention in processes of policy-making. The RTD framework can indeed lead to a greater focus on the latter.

Policy is a multi-disciplinary and multi-layered process. Policy is a multi-layered process in that it involves contributions from a number of disparate sources. As a number of policy analysts observe, policy occurs over a number of levels and power is unevenly dispersed. Owing to lack of accountability and/or formal mechanisms for the integration of researchable knowledge into policy, scientifi c research is often used selectively at the discretion of policy-makers.

The concept of policy dialogue is now gaining much importance in the context of science policies because people are still unaware and have varied notions regarding technological developments. Policy dialogue in effect, brings diverse interest groups together focusing on issues of common interest and seeks to formulate practical solutions to complex problems (Adler and Celico, 2004). In agriculture, with the introduction of GM crops and market forces affecting farmers in a big way, it is imperative to assess impact on their livelihoods and therefore, include them in policy dialogue for their take on research and technology and how best these issues can be sorted out at the regional/state level, through policy inputs. NGOs and CSOs act as conduits between government and farmers in the process of policy dialogue. Similarly academic institutions with social science and management expertise have a new role to play in fostering this process of policy dialogue. Their ‘neutral’ or ‘lack of vested interest’ space actually provides for increasing spaces for dialogue and information fl ow.

Applicability of RTD framework at state level in Orissa has raised certain issues which are most relevant both from point of view of implementation of the framework by the policy formulators and from policy dialogue point of view. Some of the issues are cited in Annexure VIII. These issues point to the process of RTD study and also to the status of the implementing country or state. The question that arises is how empowered are we culturally and socio-economically to accept and utilize the framework? Empowering stakeholders and sensitising them to policy dialogue is important for exercises such as stakeholder meetings to be effective. Else they could become places where conventional hierarchies get re-established. It has been shown by several Right to Information (RTI) activists that the willingness of the state

Towards a Policy Network5

44

to part with scientific information has not been very high. There have been several cases where requests for information by the public on scientific trials were initially denied under the presumption that ‘you cannot understand scientific documents’. Such an attitude is however out of sync with the democratic aspirations of most Indians seeking greater information and accountability from state organisations.

Invoking democratic values in science is not just to do with external interfaces with society but also with internal systems and procedures within the scientific establishment. The lack of institutional synergy amongst the plethora of research and extension agencies in the state is one manifestation of disabling institutions of scientific research. Institutional change is a key issue that needs to be addressed in case the objectives mentioned in SAP 2008 are to be met with. Policies in the past have focused too much on technological issues such as improving productivity with little emphasis on the institutional mechanisms that can make this change possible. The increasing complexity of agriculture suggests that policies to be effective cannot be implemented by a single agency, as the locus of control has indeed shifted from the government to civil society organisations (CSOs) and the private sector in many cases. Incorporating their perspectives becomes critical in case policies need to be effective.

Research organisations’ involvement in policy processes needs greater attention. The isolation of many of these organisations from their economic, social and political contexts is a cause for concern. While demands on greater effectiveness on these organisations increase we need to also recognise that many of them have been set up during the reigning paradigm of the Green Revolution that caused them to focus exclusively on improvements in varieties. Scientific research nowadays suggests greater need to focus on synergy of soil systems with root systems and as is evident in many agro ecological practices such as SRI improvements, which show that increase in productivity is possible without change in varieties and through change in management

practices. These insights have implications on how research organisations should be looking at their own agendas. A recent learning alliance meeting on SRI in Orissa revealed that it required a special platform such as the learning alliance to bring together different research organisations and scientists. There is indeed a case for these agencies to work together for a common cause.

For the effective use of research and technology the research policy interface needs re-conceptualisation. This usually takes a back seat because of poor communication between researchers and policy-makers, limited responsiveness of research to current policy concerns, ineffective lobbying, inappropriate targeting and limited researcher credibility in the eyes of policy-makers. These points came to the fore after conducting the study and analysing stakeholder linkages. Flow of information from research institutes to the agriculture department and vice versa is weak. The linkages amongst various stakeholders in agriculture are weak; rather it was deciphered from the interviews that all departments and institutes have their own agendas and mandates, which do not match with other institutions and hence, coordination problems arise. This is one reason that most of the inter-department/inter-institution projects end up in troubled waters. An integrated approach is recommended in most of the projects, but hardly followed. Any initiative at the individual level is purely due to self-interest and self-motivation. Before formulating RTD policies, some of the fundamental institutional linkages need to be strengthened. Incoherence is observed amongst various stakeholder institutions, which leads to partial fulfilment of the objectives.

How effectively can the stakeholders become part of policy formulation is to be addressed initially. • Electronic and print media is an important

tool in reaching out to the maximum number of stakeholders.

• Consultation process at different levels can also be triggered to not only inform the stakeholders but to receive their feedback.

• Forward and backward linkages have to be strengthened, which requires coordinated

45

effort on the part of the government and research institutes.

• Empowering stakeholders to make decisions and actively participate in the process has to be addressed

Over and above these is the need to move away from a single agency model to a network or coalition model. Policy networks now form a central part of the analytic armoury of most policy analysts. Some of the features of this include the idea that policy is made and implemented by a group of organisations. These are dependent on others to meet their goals; and that these groups develop clear connections with each other because of their shared interest (Hudson and Lowe 2007). The study suggests a clear case for such a policy network in the case of agriculture in Orissa. An attempt to build coalitions in the state in recent times such as the SRI learning alliance have met with much enthusiasm; it is being considered an institutional innovation worth replicating in other states as well. This idea need not be restricted to a single crop and a specific innovation within it but to the state as a whole, and the atmosphere is conducive. Building this coalition of interest might be one of the biggest challenges in improving agriculture in the state.

Building trust amongst the actors is one of the ways forward. The greater interest in agriculture in the state from several quarters pushes the case for policy dialogue. In this the state is expected to play a more pro-active role in sharing information widely and seeking consultations both at the state and district levels. It is not clear as yet how many of the RTI requests in the state are related to agriculture but scanning these and appreciating concerns from the field might be a good starting point. Elaborating a framework or blueprint for action without wider consultation is likely to get us into the same pitfalls that we often criticise public policies for. We hope that this study would instead provide the backdrop for larger consultative processes and the building of a pro-active policy network in the state. We believe that the unique characteristics of agriculture in the state require different solutions and not business as usual approaches. The state though poor in many ways has sufficient ingenuity amongst its farmers and CSOs and if backed by public policy Orissa could, like in SRI, lead the way in state planning for agriculture. If the RTD framework has helped in this process we need to celebrate the innovation – the first in India, the first at a state level and the first in a sector such as agriculture.

47

Adler, P.S & Celico, K.P. 2004. ‘Policy Dialogues’. Working paper. Keystone Centre. http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/Policydialogue_pa_kpc.PDF

Alston, J.M, C. Chan-Kang., Marra, M.C., Pardey, P.G., Wyatt, T.J. 2000. ‘A meta-analysis of rates of return to agricultural R&D: Ex pede herculem?’ IFPRI Research Report No. 113. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Biggs S., Matsaert, H. 2004. ‘Strengthening Poverty Reduction Programmes Using An Actor-Oriented Approach: Examples From Natural Resources Innovation Systems’. ODI Agricultural Research & Extension Network. Network paper No. 134

Bijker W. E. et.al. 2001. ‘Research and Technology for Development (RTD) through an EU-ACP Policy Dialogue. Scientifi c background, Methodology, and Toolbox’. University of Maastricht. http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fi d=1998

Bijker Wiebe E., Leonards, C. & Wackers, G. (2000). EU-ACP Policy Dialogue on Research and Technology for Development (RTD). Methodology for RTD Diagnostic Studies for European Commission, DG Development. European Centre for Development Policy Management ECDPM, Maastricht.

Engelhard, R. (2000). National Policy Dialogue on Research and Technology for Development Introduction to Assessment reports prepared in Ghana, Senegal, Uganda and Vietnam, for European Commission. D G Development. www.knowledge.cta.int/en/content/view/full/1230

Friedrich, C. J. 1963. ‘Man and His Government;. c.f. S.Z. Theodoulou & M.A. Cahn (ed.) Public Policy- The Essential Readings. Prentice Hall, London.

GoO (Government of Orissa) 2008. State Agricultural Policy. Department of Agriculture, Government of Orissa.

GoO. 2009. Economic Survey 2008-09. Bhubaneswar: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Orissa.

Grant. W. 2006. ‘Agriculture and Food’. In B. Guy Peters & John Pierre (ed.) Handbook of Public Policy. Sage Publication Ltd. London.

Greenidge, C. & Engelhard, R. (2002). The Need for a Policy Dialogue on Science and Technology for Development in ACP Countries. European Centre for Development Policy Management, Maastricht, the Netherlandshttp://www.contactivity.com/en/resources/documents/policy_research_for_s_t_in_developing_countries

Grimble, R.; Chan, M K; Aglionby, J.;Quan, J. 1995. Trees and trade-offs: a stakeholder approach to natural resource management. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK. Gatekeeper Series 52.

Grimble, R.; Wllard, K. 1996. ‘Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities’. Paper presented at the ODA NRSP Socioeconomic Methodologies Workshop, 29-30 Apr, 1996, London, UK.

References

48

Hirvonen, Maija. 2008. A Tourist Guide to Systems Studies of Rural Innovation. LINK Policy Resources on Rural Innovation Series No. 1. Hyderabad: UNU- MERIT.http://innovationstudies.org/images/stories/linktouristguide.pdf

Hudson John and Stuart Lowe. 2007. Understanding the Policy Process. New Delhi: Rawat.

Jones, N. 2008. ‘Civil Society Organizations & Legislators’. Capacity.org – a gateway for capacity development, 35.

Jones, N., Jones, H. & Walsh, C. 2008. Political science? Strengthening science-policy dialogue in developing countries. Working Paper 294. Overseas Development Institute. http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/working-papers/294-science-policy-dialogue-developing-countries.pdf Accessed on September 8, 2008.

Lasswell, H.D and Kaplan, A. 1950. Power and Society. New Haven: Yale University Press

Lindblom, Charles and E. J. Woodhouse. 1996. The Policy-Making Process. Prentice Hall: New Jersey. Linblom, C.E. 1959. ‘The ‘Science’ of Muddling Through’. In S.Z. Theodoulou & M.A. Cahn (ed.) Public Policy- The Essential Readings (1995). Prentice Hall, London.

Maat, H. & Waldman, L. 2007. ‘Introduction: How Participation Relates to Science and Technology and How Science and Technology Shapes Participation’. IDS Bulletin, 38 (5).

Matsaert, H. 2002. ‘Institutional analysis in natural resources research. Socio-economic Methodologies for Natural Resources Research’. Best Practice Guidelines. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

Matsaert, H., Ahmed, Z., Islam, N., Hussain, F. 2004. ‘Actor-oriented Tools for Analysis of Innovation Systems. Some guidelines from experience of analyzing natural-resource based

innovation systems in Bangladesh’. Draft report at www.developmentwheel.org

Mayers, J. 2005. Stakeholder power analysis. International Institute for Environment and Development.

Nayak, B S. 2008. The Orissa State Agricultural Policy 2008: A Document of Denials to Farmers, Retreat of the State and Threat to Economy. Personal communication from a member of the e-group commonconcern in August 2008.

Ramirez, R. 1999. ‘Stakeholder Analysis and Conflict Management’. Concept paper. In D. Buckles (ed.). Cultivating Peace Conflict and Collaboration in Natural Resource Management. International Development Research Centre/The World Bank, Ottawa/Washington.

Salisbury, R. H. 1995. ‘The Analysis of Public Policy: A Search for Theories and Roles’. In S.Z. Theodoulou & M.A. Cahn (ed.) Public Policy - The Essential Readings. Prentice Hall, London.

Shambu Prasad C. 2009 (forthcoming). ‘Coping with complexity’. Seminar. 565. March 2009 on Agrarian Transitions.

Shambu Prasad, C. 2008. ‘Knowledge, Democracy and Science Policy: The Missing Dialogue in Globalised India’. Journal of Governance and Public Policy (ICFAI Press). Vol. 3 (Nos. 2 & 3): 87-102, June & September 2008.

Shambu Prasad, C. Debasis Mohapatra and Piyus Mishra. 2008. Strengthening the Learning Alliance: Scaling up Options for SRI in Orissa. Published jointly by Institutional Learning And Change (ILAC) initiative of Bioversity International and XIMB. http://sri-learning-alliance.blogspot.com/2008/12/strengthening-learning-alliance-report.html

Shambu Prasad, C. Koen Beumer and Debasis Mohanty. 2007. Towards a Learning Alliance: System of Rice Intensification in Orissa. Published jointly by WWF-Dialogue Project at the International Crop Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics and XIMB.

49

Theodoulou, S.Z. 1995. ‘The Contemporary Language of Public Policy: A Starting Point’. In S.Z. Theodoulou & M.A. Cahn (ed.). Public Policy - The Essential Readings. Prentice Hall, London.

Vedung, E. 2006. ‘Evaluation Research’. In B. Guy Peters & John Pierre (ed.). Handbook of Public Policy. Sage Publication Ltd. London.

Young, J. 2008. ‘Impact of Research on Policy and Practice’. Capacity.org – a gateway for capacity development. 35. http://www.capacity.org/en/content/view/full/105/(issue)/19634

51

Annexure I - RTD Checklist

Checklist for RTD mapping study

Policy and development: issues to be addressed1 Is S&T policy linked to a wider set of issues? For example:

research institutional infrastructure; research funding structure; foreign aid structure, private and government; intellectual property rights and patent regulation; international research collaboration, both among universities and via NGOs and

multinational companies. 2 Is it recognized that all scientifi c knowledge and technological artefacts are value-laden? In

other words, are specifi c technical and scientifi c accomplishments not used in naively neutral and objectifying terms?

3 How is ‘development’ conceptualized by the various actors involved?4 How is the impact of science and technology on development viewed by the various actors

involved?

Policy dialogue: issues to be addressed5 Are different levels of policy dialogue distinguished?

intra-national intra-regional inter-national

6 Is the policy dialogue an open process? For example, by identifying: a wide variety of actors and institutions involved the procedures giving ‘outsiders’ access to the policy dialogue the infl uence of end-users the infl uence of the private sector

7 Is the policy dialogue conceived as a learning process? For example, by identifying: procedures for accounting and checking the dialogue procedures for reporting the results of the policy dialogue positive strategic reactions to failures fl exibility in maintaining procedures and devising new ones a refl exive attitude with regard to both the content and process of the dialogue transparency of the policy dialogue process

52

8 Is the policy dialogue addressing key issues? At least: the development of new S&T policies reform of S&T institutions strengthening of national S&T capacities intensifying international S&T collaboration innovation of funding structures conditions for productive collaboration fit with socio-economic and cultural context pace of change in the global market and that of local communities

9 Are all relevant social groups, institutions and actors involved? At least: user groups, potential users, local and national stakeholders public authorities donor agencies S&T communities and institutions NGOs private sector companies

The S&T landscape: issues to be addressed10 Is the S&T landscape described in terms of institutions:

universities private and public research institutions funding agencies NGOs relevant regulatory agencies and other government officesAnd in terms of relevant indicators: science and technology workforce financial budgets scientific and innovative activities

Analysis of power relations: issues to be addressed11 Have the hierarchical relations between the various research institutions, donors, ministries,

NGOs and multinational companies been adequately mapped?12 Have national regulations that set conditions for R&D within multinational firms and national

private businesses been described?13 Have national laws and international agreements relating to (intellectual) property rights,

including patents, been described?

Science and technology: issues to be addressed14 Have all the relevant social groups involved in a specific scientific or technological

development been described?15 Have all relevant forms of indigenous knowledge, craft knowledge and local expertise been

described?

53

Fields of S&T: issues to be addressed16 Have all relevant fields of science and technology been covered, including those that enhance

the country’s ability to link up with global markets, as well as those that aim to meet local needs? Has, for example, the trap been avoided of identifying technological progress with computers only?

17 Have the changes in focus between fields of science and technology over the past decade been documented?

18 Have the country’s S&T policy plans been described?

Implementation of S&T policies: issues to be addressed19 Is the dissemination of scientific findings and implementation of technological innovations

given sufficient attention? This may involve, for example, separate funding or management structures.

54

Annexure II - Agriculture Map of Orissa

Source: www.mapsofi ndia.com/maps/orissa/orissaagriculture.htm

Fig 1. Agriculture Map of Orissa

55

S.No. Name of the interviewee Designation1. Dr. Dibakar Naik Dean Research, OUAT2. Dr. Arabinda Padhee Director, Agriculture & Food Production3. Mr. P. Srinivas Brahmanand Scientist Agronomy, WTCER, Bhubaneswar4. Dr. Shouvik Ghosh Scientist, Extension, WTCER, Bhubaneswar5. Mr. S. Sreekanth Programme Offi cer, International Potato Centre,

Research Station, Bhubaneswar6. Dr. H.K. Das Scientist, Agriculture Economics, NRCWA7. Ms. Geetanjali Jena Incharge Agriculture Policy, CYSD8. Mr. Jagdish Pradhan Secretary, SVA & POKM9. Prof. Radhamohan Ex Information Commissioner, GoO10. Ch. Bardaprasanna Das OSAMB11. Dr. A. Mishra APICOL12. Ms. Supriya Pattnaik State Representative, DFID, Orissa13. Mr. Bibhudhendra Pratap Ex-MLA & leader Orissa Krushak Mahasangh14. Mr. Amarjit Jena HDF15. Mr. Natabar Sarangi Organic farmer & Secretary, SPARD

Excerpts from the interviews:

The present research activities at RRTTS/KVK are very limited due to paucity of scientists and the results are not really transferred to the desired levels and to the potential customers. Dr. Dibakar Naik, Dean Research, OUAT

There is a set of defi ned objectives and a vision statement - based on this the policy is formulated. It is an open process, whereby a consultation process goes on for about few months. It is a dynamic process whereby the feedback from the fi eld allows making changes in the laws and regulations as per farmers suitability Dr. Arabinda Padhee, Director, Department of Agriculture & Food Production

Though the state agriculture department is in direct contact with the institute and its research projects, but the replication of technology on a wide scale is not being promoted.

Mr. P. Srinivas Brahmanand, Scientist Agronomy, WTCER

Now there is a mix of laboratory and fi eld research. Movement is towards participatory research with the help of development offi cials, NGOs and farmers organizations. More interaction and research evaluation is required to establish farmer friendly research.

Dr. H K Das, Scientiest, Agriculture Economics, NRCWA

Annexure III - List of stakeholders interviewed

56

Since CYSD implements programmes at fi eld level, it understands the problems of farmers. Farmers require more of extension services rather than subsidies. The marginalized farmers are more inclined towards organic farming.

Ms. Geetanjali Jena, CYSD

This policy endorses agriculture mechanization, improved seeds, technical trainings and subsidies for the farmers which will benefi t small and marginal farmers also.

Mr. Jagdish Pradhan, SVA

The bureaucratic attitude of the state government, underestimate the knowledge of farmers and fi eld level workers

Prof. Radhamohan, Retd. Information Commissioner

57

Annexure IV - List of people in the Consultative group on Agriculture policy interviewed

1. Agriculture Production Commissioner (Chairman)

2. Commissioner –cum-Secretary, Agriculture

3. Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources

4. Principal Secretary, Department of Cooperation

5. Vice Chancellor, OUAT

6. Director, CRRI, Cuttack

7. Director, WTCER, Bhubaneswar

8. Special Secretary, Planning & Coordination

9. Mr. Jagdish Pradhan, NGO representative, Sahabhagi Vikas Abhiyan

10. Sh. Dolamani Sahu & Sh. Gajendra Behera – farmer representatives

11. Director Agriculture

12. Former VC of OUAT

13. Ex VC of Sambalpur University

14. Rtd. Jt. Director, CRRI, Cuttack

58

Annexure V - Questionnaire followed to collect information from Research Institutes

Name of the Institute & address:

Infrastructure:

Programmes/Projects:

1. Individual – 2. In collaboration – (national/ international)

Extension Activities:

Research Projects: (their relevance at the fi eld level)

Funding:1. State2. National3. International4. Private

Workforce:1. Scientists (as per their areas of specialization)2. Technical staff3. Field staff

Publications:1. Journal2. Magazine3. Books4. Others

Trainings: 1. For the staff (nature, duration between two trainings)

Any regulations on R&D activities:

Issues of IPR & Patents:

Hierarchical mapping and power linkages:

Information on new the programmes/ projects, funding and change in workforce and the reforms in the last few years in scientifi c activities

59

Annexure VI - Stakeholders in State Agriculture Policy of Orissa

Policy Infl uencers

• Politicians• Civil Society Groups o Farmers Association (Orissa Krusak Mahasangha), NGOs, Media • Researchers, Academicians, Extension workers/ Institutions (OUAT, ICAR, IMAGE etc.)• Market & Market Institutions• Funders/Donors• Policy Makers of other State Depts, Central Govt, Multi-lateral Negotiators (WTO)• Allied Departments – Revenue, Irrigation, Forest, Power, Finance• Press & Mass Media

Policy Makers

• Council of Ministers• Working Group of Legislatures• APC, Secretary and Director, Agriculture• Policy Drafters o Rep from OUAT, NCDS, farmer leaders, Civil Soc Rep, Rep from State Agril Institutions

Policy Regulators

• Ministry & Department of Agriculture• Regulating Agencies – APMC etc.• Court

60

Policy Users

• Farmers o Land owners : AL (LL), Marginal, Small & Large o Scale : Commercial (few) & Subsistence o Social : Tribal, Non-tribal o Geographic :Hill, upland, Alluvial delta farmers o Eco : Organic (natural etc.) Vs Chemical/modern• Farmer Groups o Farmer Society/Cooperatives• Agri-Input Suppliers o Chemical (Fertilizer & Pesticide) companies o Bio-fertilizer & Bio-pesticide producers o Seed Companies o State Agencies : DoA, DoH, Seed Corporation, OAIC, APICOL etc.• Credit Agencies (Banks, NBFC, Money lenders etc.) • Market, Market Agencies, market channel & regulators• Storage & Processing Agencies, Industries e.g. FCI• Extension Agencies – DoA, DoH, KVK, IMAGE• Research – OUAT, ICAR Institutes, Pvt Sector, NGO• Academics – OUAT, BSE, CHSE, Universities

61

Annexure VII - List of Stakeholders in Orissa Agriculture Policy

- Farmers- Politicians – Ministry of Agriculture, Orissa; Chief Minister, MPs, MLAs

- Civil Society Groups :1. Orissa Krushak Sangathan (Paschim Orissa Krishijeevi Sangh)2. Orissa Farmers’ Coordination Committee - A farmers’ association involved in the ongoing

protests against industrial use of Hirakud water.3. Orissa Coffee Growers Association – 4. Orissa Gramin & Mazdoor Association - to oppose displacement and land acquisition for

the proposed Essar Steel plant.5. Orissa Organic Farmers Association – There are now 800 organic farmers who have

organized themselves into an Association.6. Orissa Nari Samaj - The fl agship of THREAD is Orissa Nari Samaj which has 53 registered

Samajas (CBOs) which oversee the functioning of cluster level committees and 3255 village level Sanghas with the total members of 250,000.1

7. Pani Panchayats

- NGOs- involved in implementation and also policy advocacy.

- Researchers, Academicians, Extension workers/ Institutions 1. Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology (OUAT) – its various research stations

(Regional Research and Technology Transfer Stations –RRTTS) • Agricultural Technology Information Centre (ATIC) of OUAT• Krishi Vigyan Kendras (27)

2. Regional Research Laboratory (RRL) -3. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Institutes:

• Central Rice Research Institute (CRRI)• Water Technology Centre for Eastern Region (WTCER)• Central Soil Water Conservation Research & Training Institute (CSWCR&TI)• National Research Centre for Women in Agriculture (NRCWA)• Central Tuber Crop Research Institute(CTCRI)• Central Horticulture Experimentation Station (CHES)

4. Directorate of Agriculture• Institute of Management and Agriculture Extension (IMAGE)• Regional Institute on Training & Extension (3)• State Seed Testing Laboratory• Agricultural Implement Factory• Minor Irrigation & Water Use Training Institute

- Autonomous bodies/ Corporations

• Orissa State Seeds Corporation (O.S.S.C),

1 http://www.siddharthvillage.com/narisamaj.php

62

• Orissa Agro Industries Corporation (O.A.I.C.), • Agriculture Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Limited (APICOL), • Orissa State Seed Certifi cation Agency (OSSCA),• Orissa Cashew Development Corporation (OCDC)• Regional Plant Resource Centre (RPRC)• Regional Bio-Fertiliser Development Centre (RBDC)• Central Integrated Pest Management Centre (CIPMC)• Central Institute of Save Grain Campaign• Coconut Board• State Botanical Garden• Water and Land Management Institute (WALMI)

- Market & Market Institutions:

1. Orissa State Agricultural Marketing Board (OSAMB) - To facilitate backward and forward market integration of agricultural produce, which ultimately leads to remunerative price realisation to the producers and availability of quality produce to the consumers.

2. Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Federation(OSCMF)

- Funding Organizations /Donors:3. International Donors –

• DFID- PRIA (Society for Participatory Research in Asia), New Delhi is working as the Implementing Agency on behalf of DFID under an Accountable Grant Arrangement.(Western Orissa Livelihood Development Programme)

• World Bank – Orissa Socio-economic Development Loan & Credit Project• IFAD – Orissa Tribal Empowerment & Livelihoods Programme• ADB

4. National Donors – • ICAR (for various projects as NATP, NAIP, AICRP etc.)• GoI – its various schemes

5. State Donors – • GoO• Public Private Partnership

- Policy Makers of other State Departments, Central Government, Multi-lateral Negotiators (WTO)

- Allied Departments – • Revenue, • Irrigation • Forest • Power • Finance• Rural Development

- Press & Mass Media

63

Annexure VIII - Issues with RTD framework

• Is applicable to only science and technology policies and needs modifi cation for application to public policies.

• The mechanism to reach the end users and ensure their feedback on development – in case of Agriculture, the end users of the policy are farmers and consumers– how to include them in policy dialogue. To take into account all the actors, is there a need for new institutional arrangements or devise novel mechanisms for collecting information?

• If so, who amongst the stakeholders will look into these issues – Government, NGOs/CSOs?• Some of the policies are very closely related to other departments – as in the case of Agriculture

Policy – it has strong linkage to Revenue department (land issues), Power sector, Water resources department and forest department – mechanism for interdepartmental collaboration and refl ection into the respective policies for smooth implementation of the policies. ( or else lots of trouble to the end users at the implementation stage)

• Should the roles and responsibilities be demarcated at the policy formulation level or during implementation of the policy?

• The framework takes into account the technological divide and tries to bridge the technological gap, also takes into account the socio- economic conditions. But cultural aspects are very important (e.g. state like Orissa slow in adopting new technologies as compared to other states and also there are many indigenous technologies that are the solutions to some of the potent problems, are those being extended by the agriculture department or being documented and researched upon?).

• While formulating a new policy, can also have a check on the previous policy and identify the strengths and weaknesses with respect to science and technology parameters.

• Sensitization (for policy formulators) required to make policy dialogue an open learning process.• Issue of linking up with global markets – to achieve a consensus on globalization is diffi cult

(different perspectives of organizations and institutes)• EU makes sure that the developing countries, to which they fund, follow RTD checklist, but in

the absence of funding organizations, what is the motivation for the governments to follow RTD? (Apart from EU-ACP linkage, has anyone else applied RTD framework? No literature on RTD since 2003.)

• Time frame for Policy dialogue – it may take long time in these dialogues and the delay in policy formulation as such.

• Are the actors empowered to understand the issues of research and technology and globalization?• Individual and interest specifi c linkages are forged by the authority in-charge, otherwise the

institutes or organizations do not have a mandate for integrated approach.• Gap between formulation and implementation• Does putting everything on paper actually work out (does policy formulation and statements really

are enough for bridging the technological divide)?• Are we culturally and socio-economically empowered to accept and utilize the framework?