System of Rice Intensification in India:
innovation history and institutional challenges
=
C. Shambu Prasad
Xavier Institute of Managem=
ent, Bhubaneswar<=
/st1:place>
751013, Orissa
The System of Rice
Intensification, or SRI for short, is a fascinating case of rural innovation
that has been developed outside the formal rice research establishment both=
in India a=
nd the
rest of the world. This paper documents the evolution of SRI in India i=
n the
last few years by using an innovation systems perspective. This paper is in
three parts. The first part looks at the complex evolution of SRI in India. =
Part two
of the paper applies the innovation systems framework to understand SRI by
looking closely at the nature and quality of linkages of the various actors=
in
the SRI innovation system. Finally, in part three the paper presents some
features of SRI in I=
ndia
and its implications for pro-poor innovation.
For the study the SRI crop =
was
followed in two seasons, Kharif 2004 and Rabi 2=
004
– 2005 in a few southern states. The inputs and insights from the fie=
ld
were corroborated through detailed interviews with key stakeholders involve=
d in
SRI involving structured and semi-structured surveys with farmers and other
stakeholders. The study has relied on interviews with over 250 persons in <=
st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on">India covering the southern states of Andh=
ra
Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka as well as the
union territory
of Pondicherry
and a diagnostic survey of SRI in Jharkand. Alo=
ng
with these interviews and field visits the study has relied on extensive re=
search
of available material on SRI, primarily from the SRI website hosted by CIIF=
AD
and Tefy Saina, and=
has
followed the debates on SRI placing it within the larger context of the
International Year of Rice 2004 and SRI’s
neglect by the research establishment. The paper also explores some recent
happenings on SRI since the study with a focus on another state, namely Orissa.
The paper first shows how d=
espite
a late start compared to other countries of the world, SRI has seen an acti=
ve
spread in the last few years especially in South India. SRI has a complex
evolution and has had apart from the official trials by scientific
establishment, an alternate history of innovation networks including farmer=
s,
NGOs and sustainable agriculture groups. These innovation networks continue=
to
play a significant role in the spread of SRI. Some states have tapped these
networks effectively in taking the SRI agenda forward. Irrigation departmen=
ts
in many states have been more receptive to SRI than the agriculture
departments. In recent times SRI has started spread in states like Orissa despite lack of formal governmental support.
SRI is a continuously evolv=
ing
system in India
with very dynamic changes in the system through the entry of new actors and
partnerships with every cropping season. Newer partnerships such as those l=
ed
by the WWF project have brought in more synergy by providing space for work=
by
civil society groups and their innovation networks to work with the scienti=
fic
establishment. Such partnerships have produced new technical knowledge on t=
he
factors that contribute to the successful running of SRI. It has also led to
several institutional innovations or new ways of working for agricultural
research centres and civil society organisations. The paper uses the innovation systems
framework to throw more light on complex, open systems such as SRI. SRI is a
knowledge sensitive system and not an input based model for increasing
productivity. It requires an understanding of principles by the various act=
ors
and thereby much more interaction between researchers, extension workers and
farmers than conventional variety or input based technology transfer models.
This necessarily poses several challenges for research organisations.
The paper uses a innovation systems framework an=
d drawing
on science studies perspectives shows how there are differing knowledge cla=
ims
in SRI that researchers need to be sensitive to. Assumptions that the valid=
ity
or otherwise of SRI can be established through simple =
locational
field trials have proved to be facile. Such trials have ignored the factors
that are necessary for higher yields in SRI that are often at variance and
challenge conventional rice science.
The study shows that those =
actors
and researchers who have intuitively realised t=
hat
conventional methods of assessment – scientific or economic – w=
ould
not work, have been able to work with others in multidisciplinary teams usi=
ng
insights from different areas and experiences and indigenous knowledge from
farmers to come up with interesting knowledge insights that can be applied =
to
not just the rice crop but the practice of agriculture as a whole. Enabling
better knowledge transfer and flow in SRI, the paper argues, requires a
reconfiguration of agricultural research organisations=
in particular and presents several institutional challenges.
SRI in India is not a single story w=
ith a
single message, but several stories with interrelated messages. SRI has
enabling grassroots innovation. It demonstrates how innovation is about
providing greater choice and allowing for multiple meanings. The study has
shown the importance of process and institutional innovations in the genera=
tion
and use of new knowledge. It also clearly highlights the need for knowledge=
in
the public domain especially if it has to have a poverty impact and help sm=
all
and marginal farmers. Networks , champions,
the ability to respond to external triggers such as drought t, the need to change entrench=
ed
habits and practices, learning from civil society are all factors that have
larger policy implications as the SRI case shows. The Indian experience also
reveals possibilities of reconfiguring agricultural research by looking at
extension differently and also by showing how farmer – scientist
interaction can be mutually enriching. The paper does not suggest that
everything about SRI in India
is perfect and the best model or that SRI has worked everywhere. What is
suggest though is that a newer model of learning needs to be in place for t=
he
future spread of SRI where various actors work together and feeding into the
new knowledge that can transform agriculture in a sustainable manner. =