Enabling Poverty relevant Bio-fertilizer Innovation Systems – Lessons

from India

Sunita Sangar

STADD Development Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

Email: sunitasangar@yahoo.com

Abstract: Today, increasing cost of chemical fertilizers along with declining yield response

to increased fertilizer application and degradation of soil, limit the soil fertility choices

available to farmers. Even if part of the increased demand for fertilizers could be met from

bio-fertilizers, it is likely to result in savings for farmers. This is especially important for

developing countries such as India where farming will continue to be in the hands of small

farmers, who cannot afford high priced fertilizers (even though there is already a nearly 80%

subsidy being given to the fertilizer industry). Literature on innovation systems points out

that pro-poor innovation in rural areas is most likely to occur through small-scale ventures

and entrepreneurs.

Bio-fertilizers as cheap and safe inputs for farmers provides lot of scope for local

employment through decentralized rural infrastructure, more skills and capacities to address

technology, research and production capacities of soils. The bio-fertilizers innovation system

(BfIS) is marked by the presence of various actors and their linkages that bring diverse set of

knowledge based on their roles and capacities. The innovation systems approach was used for

analyzing organizations along with the institutions and policies specific to the two bio-

innovations to understand their poverty alleviation focus. The main research question

explored was: In what way the poor participate and how are the poor’s needs expressed and

represented in policies and programmes for bio-fertilizers? The analysis reveals that poverty

focus was missing in the agenda of the actors and organizations. There were no specific

institutional changes/arrangements to achieve the poverty focus. This paper provides an

overview of the bio-fertilizers sector, analyses the bio-fertilizers innovation systems to bring

out some missing linkages and present positive lessons from some local efforts which can be

helpful in bringing poverty relevance to the bio-innovations. The paper concludes with

specific intervention points and policy recommendations to enable poverty relevant Bio-

fertilizers Innovation Systems in India.

Key words: Bio-fertilizers, Rhizobium, Azospirillium, bio-innovation, poverty relevance

Enabling Poverty relevant Bio-Fertilizer Bio-Innovation Systems – Lessons

from India

Sunita Sangar

Email: sunitasangar@yahoo.com

Background

Chemical fertilizers are one of the essential ingredients that gave an impetus to the green

revolution in India helping meet goals of self-sufficiency in food production. The chemical

fertilizers did deliver on counts expected, but progressively led to ill effects manifested

through reduced crop responses despite increase in application dose. It has now been widely

accepted that this model of agriculture has led to resource degradation, prominent being;

depletion of natural resources, increased erosion and loss of natural fertility of soils,

increased incidence of new pests and diseases, reduction of biomass production and

biodiversity (Conway & Barbier 1990; Chopra, 1997). This has an overall impact over the

sustainability of various production systems. Green revolution practices encouraged an

increase in application of fertilizers, particularly nitrogen that has led to a negative

environmental impact. Most prominent among these are, decrease of soil organic matter pool,

modification of soil microbial composition and balance, increase soil compaction and overall

soil quality deterioration. Also in the current energy scenario, with fossil based fuel prices

going up, use of chemical fertilizers has not only become an expensive affair but also

unsustainable given the high rate of resource deterioration. With increasing cost of chemical

fertilizers on account of oil price hikes, degradation of soil, and given the declining yield

response to increased fertilizer application soil fertility choices available to farmers is limited.

Bio-fertilizers have emerged as one of the alternatives to application of chemical inputs for

needs of fertilizers. Their use in agriculture in preference to chemical fertilizers, offers

economic and ecological benefits by way of soil health and fertility to farmers. Field studies

have demonstrated them to be a low cost input that is effective and free from adverse

implications of chemicals. Bio-fertilizers were promoted through integrated plant nutrient

systems (IPNS) that involved combining fertilizers, organic/green manures and bio-fertilizers

to sustain crop production, maintaining soil productivity, health and diversity.

Bio-fertilizers are natural fertilizers that are microbial inoculants of bacteria, algae, fungi

alone or in combination. They are defined as a product containing carrier based (solid or

liquid) living micro-organisms that are agriculturally useful in terms of nitrogen fixation,

phosphorous solubilization or nutrient mobilization (The Gazette of India, 2006). They

augment the availability of essential elements like Nitrogen, Potash, Phosphorous, Sulphur by

directly supplying them or transforming them into soluble form; in addition, they also help

plants to uptake several micronutrients. So far emphasis has been given to certain types of

bio-fertilizers such as Rhizobium, Azotobactor, Azospirillum, and phosphate solubilizing

bacteria (PSB) (Adholeya and Pant, 2007). However, in practice a large variety of other

microbial inoculants are also available and are being used as bio-fertilizers such as Blue

Green Algae, Trichoderma, Vesicular Arbuscular Mycorriza(VAM) and Azolla.

Contribution of bio-fertilizers depends upon the efficacy of microbial strains present in the

bio-fertilizer packet. These microbial strains that are used in bio-fertilizers production are

either natural isolates obtained by selection process or are strains characteristic improved by

mutation/biotechnological protocols. There is increasing imbalance in fertilizer usage in

Indian agriculture (Shah, 2006). The efficacy of various microbial inoculants in increasing

the yields and saving nitrogen and phosphorous for pulses and oilseeds, cereals has been

convincingly proved in farmers’ fields in most agro-eco-zones. Various soil and inoculants

management practices, suitable carriers, packaging and methods for enhancing shelf-life of

bio-fertilizers have been well standardized (Rao & Sharma, 2009). Earlier, research efforts

related to bio-fertilizers were only seen as means of augmenting nutrients through BNF, and

phosphorous solubilization but recent research reveals that they can improve fertilizers use

efficiency and thus they can be exploited for this purpose (ibid).

2. Bio-fertilizers for sustainable transitions through BNF

Bio-fertilizers have emerged as one of the alternatives for transitions towards more

sustainable development pathways through biological nitrogen fixation(BNF). Biological

nitrogen fixation (BNF) refers to the process of microorganisms fixing atmospheric nitrogen,

mostly within subsoil plant nodules, and making it available for assimilation by plants. This

process gains importance in the context of crop productivity because nitrogen supply is a key

limiting factor in crop production. Investment in BNF research continues to be a high priority

research area with expanding focus both on developing and as well as developed countries

(Serraj, 2004). Use of bio-fertilizers in agriculture, in preference to chemical fertilizers, offers

economic and ecological benefits by way of soil health and fertility to farmers. Field studies

have demonstrated them to be effective and cheap inputs, free from conventionally adverse

implications of chemicals. Bio-fertilizers are now being increasingly used as part of

Integrated Plant Nutrient Systems (IPNS) that advocate involving a combination of fertilizers,

organic/green manures and microbial inoculants as imperative to sustain crop production and

maintain soil health and soil diversity in the long run (Wani, et al. 1995). This is important

for countries like India where farming will continue to be in the hands of small farmer. In

India, the demand for nitrogen fertilizers is expected to go up from the present level of 11.4

million t (2001-02) to 13.9 million t by 2006-07 and 16.2 million t by 2011-2012 AD). The

economic burden and environmental cost of applying such a high quantity of additional

fertilizers is obvious. Even if a part of this increase in demand for N is met through bio-

fertilizers, the likely savings will be enormous (Rao et al. 2004). This holds importance for

developing countries such as India where farming is practiced by a large number of small

farmers and will continue to be in the hands of small farmers, who cannot afford high priced

fertilizers (in spite of nearly 80% subsidy being given to the fertilizer industry). Small

farmers are dependent on government subsidies and suffer from both soil quality

deterioration and declining yield response. Bio-fertilizers can play a major role in transition

to sustainability for these farmers. They are affordable for majority of farmers, have the

ability to take farmers out of total dependence on harmful chemical fertilizers and contribute

to long term sustainability by strengthening of local production systems and improvement of

natural resources (soil quality).

Bio-fertilizers are likely to result in improvement in soil and environmental health and

savings for farmers. The emphasis has largely been on promoting bio-fertilizers as safe and

cheap products for resource poor communities and providing income generation prospects

through decentralization of scientific and production processes that go into the development

and production of bio-fertilizers through local participation. The rationale is that such a

pursuit will directly help in poverty alleviation among small farmers; enhance soil quality,

leading to fulfilling needs of national food security. This research paper provides an overview

of the bio-fertilizers sector and analyses the bio-fertilizers innovation systems for their focus

on poverty, and presents positive lessons from the local efforts which could be helpful in

bringing poverty relevance to the public sector R&D.

3. Bio-fertilizers sector in India: an overview

The first documented production of bio-fertilizers in the form of Rhizobium in India was in

1934 by M.R. Madhok (Yadav & Raychaudhuri, 2004), but the first commercial production

was initiated only in 1956 at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi and

Agricultural College and Research Institute, Coimbatore. Growth in production remained

very slow till the mid sixties (Tewatia, Kalwe and Chaudhuri, 2007). Introduction of Soybean

along with ‘Nitragin Soybean inoculant’ imported from USA in 1964 was the first major

event in bio-fertilizers history of India. Encouraged by the success of Rhizobium inoculation

in Soybean, efforts were made to replace the requirement of imported inoculant with locally

produced inoculants for soybean in the first phase. This was the extended to other pulses and

legume oilseeds in the second phase. During 1965-1990 around 30 bio-fertilizers production

laboratories were set up in the country to meet the demand (Venkataraman & Tilak, 1990)

and lot of schemes were formulated to popularize their use in different legume crops. Starting

from few tonnes, production and consumption increased gradually and reached a moderate

figure of 1000MT by 1988-89. During this period Rhizobium inoculants was dominating with

other bio-fertilizers also starting to make their presence felt such as Azotobacter. Nineties

saw a dramatic surge in bio-fertilizers industry with adding of new bio-fertilizers such as

Azotobacter, Azospirillum, PSBs added to the list and total production jump from

1000MT(1989) to 10,000MT (2000) (Dwivedi and Motsara, 2001; Bhattacharya & Dwivedi,

2004). The growth of bio-fertilizer started with the initiation of “National Project on

Development and use of Bio-fertilizers during 1983-84 which continued up to September

2004, till the project was subsumed as National Project on Organic Farming. Due to intensive

efforts made under the project overall production of Bio-fertilizers in the country, which

stood at less than 500 tons/annum during 1984-85, was raised to more than 10,000

tones/annum during 2003-04 and more than 20,000 tonnes/annum in 2007-08. The growth

story is still continuing with continued assistance from Government of India (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Growth of Bio-fertilizers Production in India (1992-93 to 2007-08).

Source: Bio-fertilizer Statistics, Fertilizers Association of India (1992-2008).

Contrary to the world bio-fertilizers scenarioi, Indian bio-fertilizers industry is not restricted

to Rhizobium. Almost all production units now produce at least 4-5 different types of bio-

fertilizers. It is clear that the bulk of the growth in the bio-fertilizers production took place by

1992-95 and then again during 2001-2008. There were changes in shares, where as the intial

increase was due to Rhizobium, the later growth phase was largely contributed by the moderate

success in Azospirillum and by far the best performance by Phosphorous solubilizing bacteria

(PSBs). Statewise Bio-fertilzers production comparison in India reveals an overall decline in

Rhizobium bio-fertilzers from 45% in 1992-93 to 14% during 2007-08 (Figure 2) as

compared to other nitrogenous biofertilizers such as Azotobacter and Azospirillum. The

decline in Rhizobium are indicative of lower success in groundnut and pulses. Sharp decline

from 1996-99 has largely been due to emphasis being given to Phosphorpus solubilizing

Biofertisers (PSBs) with its contribution constituting to more that half of the total BF

production in the country after 1996-97. This trend was well envisaged as PSBs are non-

symbiotic and non-crop specific in nature with broad application as a plant growth nutrient to

large number of crops (mostly cereals) which may or may not be leguminous.

Figure 2: Declining Rhizobium production in India.

Source: Bio-fertilizer Statistics, Fertilizers Association of India (1992-2008).

Currently, there are about 164 firms belonging to the public, cooperative and private sector

involved in the production of different types of bio-fertilizers (NCOF Annual Report 2007-

08). These firms have the total annual production capacity of about 67162 tonnes. The

production level of 20111.05 tonnes is much low considering its vast potential. Among

various bio-fertilizers, the maximum growth during 1990s was observed in production and

distribution of phosphate solubilizers (Tewatia, R.K. 2003). Proportion of bio-fertilizers

currently being produced in the country are Azotobactor, Azospirillum and Phosphorous

solubilizing bacteria (PSBs) (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Current Bio-fertilizers production Scenrio in India (2007-08)

Source: NCOF, Annual Report, 2008-09.

Among all the states southern & western states contribute to almost the entire bio-fertilizers

being produced in the Country. The region wise distribution of bio-fertilizers is more

dispersed relative to chemical fertilizers as with highest share going to west followed by

south while north and east claimed lower shares. The distribution does not follow that of

chemical fertilizers they supplement, where north is the largest claimant. Five States, namely

Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu account for than

three-fourth of total bio-fertilizers production. The highest number of units are located in the

state of Maharashtra (37), followed by Tamil Nadu (33), Karnataka (23) and Kerala/Andhra

Pradesh (11). The manufacturing units in the above states were analyzed for their nature,

variety of products produced, and number of units the trend revealed states such as

Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka as the leading states in terms of bio-fertilizer

manufacturers. Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, witnessed a large degree of private sector

participation with more than half of the bio-fertilizer manufacturers belonging to the private

sector. A good degree of large industrial chemical fertilizers units are also involved in bio-

fertilizer production as their corporate social responsibility along with chemical based

fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides.

The state-wise details of units, their installed capacity and production for the year 2007-08

revealed that bio-fertilizers production is not uniform through out the country. There exists a

wide inter-state variation. Five States, namely Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,

Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu account for than three-fourth (75.5%) of total bio-fertilizers

production. Maharashtra leads in having the highest number of bio-fertilizer producing units

(37), followed by Tamil Nadu (33) and Karnataka (23). This trend varies in the case of bio-

fertilizer production. The leading bio-fertilizer manufacturing state is Andhra Pradesh with

4515.81 tonnes, followed by Tamil Nadu (3466.97 tonnes) and Maharashtra (2486.41

tonnes). Also the overall production has always been lower than the production capacity of

the Bio-fertilizer units (Table 1).

Table 1: State-wise Bio-fertilizers production in India (2007-08).

S. No. State Number of BF

Producing units

Installed

Capacity

(tones)

Total Bio-fertilizer

Production (tonnes)

1. Andhra Pradesh 11 7025 4515.81

2. Assam 3 290 70.901

3. Bihar 1 150 20

4. Delhi 1 1000 168.844

5. Goa 1 150 0

6. Gujarat 4 1850 1263.30

7. Haryana 1 50 8.89

8. Himachal Pradesh 1 75 56.21

9. Karnataka 23 26425 2841.27

10. Kerala 11 5855 814.45

11. Madhya Pradesh 7 1725 1884.87

12. Mizoram 1 25 3.58

13. Maharashtra 37 5775 2486.41

14. Nagaland 1 150 13.98

15. Orissa 4 430 331.94

16. West Bengal 7 1105 922.34

17. Jharkhand 2 220 201.68

18. Punjab 1 2 2

19. Rajasthan 3 800 302.30

20. Tamil Nadu 33 12825 3466.97

21. Tripura 1 30 14.27

22. Uttar Pradesh 5 315 250.06

23. Pondicherry 5 890 471.29

ALL INDIA 164 67162.00 20111.05

Source: NCOF, Annual Report, 2007-08

The past years bio-fertilizers production statistics (1992-93) revealed that the production has

always been lower than the capacity and varied for different years (Table 2). The trend also

makes it clear that the entire production could never be sold by the industry, but the present

decade shows good distribution percentage in the later years compared to the nineties.

However, the percentage increase in distribution generally shows a downward trend (Table

2).

Figure 4: Production capacity vis-a-vis Actual production of Bio-fertilizers(1992-2008)

Source: Bio-fertilizer Statistics, Fertilizers Association of India (1992-2008).

Table 2: Bio-fertilizers production statistics (1992-2008)

Year Capacity

(Tonnes)

Production

(Tonnes)

Distribution

(Tonnes)

Capacity

Utilization

(%)

%

Distribution

of

Production

% Growth

in

distribution

1992-93 5400.5 2005.0 1600 37.1 79.8 -

1993-94 6125.5 3084.0 2914 50.3 94.4 82.1

1994-95 8114.5 5800.5 4988.9 63.8 86 71.2

1995-96 10680.4 6692.3 6288.3 62.6 94 26

1996-97 12647.0 7406.6 6681.4 58.6 90.2 6.2

1997-98 NA 7104.6 6295.6 43.4 88.6 (-)5.7

1998-99 16446.0 5972.1 5065.5 48.7 84.8 (-)19.5

1999-00 NA 5716.0 5452.7 NA 95.3 7.6

2000-01 NA 6242.7 6138.6 NA 98.3 12.5

2001-02 15439.0 9019.2 8429.3 58.4 93.4 12.0

2002-03 18679.5 7181.7 7029.9 38.4 97.8 (-)16.6

2003-04 18632.0 8701.4 8357.0 46.7 96 18.8

2004-05 NA 10479.0 10427.6 NA 99.5 24.7

2005-06 NA 11752.4 11357.6 NA 96.6 8.9

2006-07 26864.0 15871.0 15745.6 59.0 99.2 38.6

2007-08 67162 20111.05 NA 30

Source: Bio-fertilizer Statistics, Fertilizers Association of India (FAI)ii (1992-2008).

Bureau of India Standards(BIS) has published necessary specifications/standards for different

bio-fertilizers (Rhizobium-IS-8268: 2001). But these specifications are purely of voluntary in

nature and are being regulated on firms and producers who have opted for BIS certification

and putting for BIS certification and putting ISI mark on their products. There are few firms

holding BIS certification or putting ISI mark on their products. The bio-fertilizers demand for

2011 has been estimated to be 30,000 tonnes by an expert committee constituted by the

Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers (REF). The Government of India and various State

governments have been making efforts to promote usage of bio-fertilizers involving farmers

and producer/investors. This has been pursued through measures such as farm level extension

and promotion programmes, financial assistance to investors for setting up units, subsidies on

sale, direct production in public sector and cooperative organizations, universities and

research organizations. Government is still the largest producer and distributor of the bio-

fertilizers in the country. They also procure large qualitative of bio-fertilizers from the private

sector in order to meet the targets set by the State government under various schemes. Bio-

fertilizer sector has been largely pushed through the centrally sponsored schemes of the

Government and reaching the farmers through State governments. Emphasis has been

through farm level extension programmes, financial assistance to investors for setting up

units, subsidies on sale, direct production by the public sector and cooperative organizations.

Key Constraints relating to Bio-fertilizers promotion: Despite the required push by the

public sector there is still absence of faith in the farmers/ manufacturers alike, it is still not a

demand based technology and is largely pushed through the government only. Overtime there

has been increase in the sales volumes and diffusion across countries. However, there is lack

of information on the farm level usage or profitability of units by these small entrepreneurs

(Ghosh, 2004). In India, while there are claims that area under bio-fertilizers is increasing

rapidly the reliable statistics are not readily available, and whatever statistics are available,

they are based on the information compiled on capacity and distribution by various bio-

fertilizer units (ibid). The effort by public R & D organizations to collect data on various

aspects bio-fertilizers or identify researchable issues and ways to address the problems is

minimal in India. Mainstream R&D relating to bio-fertilizers in India has been not been

assessed beyond production targets achieved by its research results, especially not for its

other environmental and social benefits. There is lack of information on the farm level usage

or profitability of units by small entrepreneurs. Mainstream R&D is still chemical fertilizers

oriented justifying for food security needs with little assessment on environmental & social

benefits. In addition lot of efforts are required to optimize yield, efficiency, infrastructure for

distribution and storage, poor quality, handling, limited shelf life of bio-fertilizers.

Despite constrains innovations related to bio-fertilizers (bio-innovations) can play an

important role in sustainable transitions in the country. Innovations related to bio-fertilizers

form an important part of the broader agriculture innovation system(AIS) in India.

Innovations for bio-fertilizers have occurred in a very different way with different sources of

knowledge, organizations, institutions and learning processes that forms the Bio-fertilizers

Innovation System(BfIS). Little is known about the BfIS, an important subset of AIS, as the

interlinked and learning network of organizations and individuals together with institutions

and policies that affect their innovative behavior. Innovation systems literature points out that

pro-poor innovation in rural areas is most likely to occur through small-scale ventures and

entrepreneurs. Thus, there is a need to understand the roles, capacities and relationships

among the diverse actors involved in BfIS and identify the major impediments to the pro-

poor application of the innovations related to bio-fertilizers as part of AIS in India. The next

section gives an overview of the major actors and institutions that link up to form Bio-

fertilizers innovation system in India as an important subset of an overall Agricultural

innovation system in India.

3. Bio-fertilizers Innovation System: Actors and institutions

Bio-fertilizers innovation system (BfIS) is dominated by actors and institutions belonging to

the public sector organizations. Major actors include, Central government (Ministry of

Agriculture, Department of biotechnology), R&D organizations (ICAR, CSIR, State

Agriculture universities) State government, several NGO’s and large numbers of private

sector and co-operative sector organizations. These actors are often scattered around various

organizational compartments which are located in different domains, with weak linkages

among them. Some of the actors play an intermediary role of bringing these scattered actors

together by facilitating or influencing successful coalitions or partnerships. However, all

these actors are guided by the mainstream agricultural policies that use yield as the only

yardstick with little concerns for soil or natural resources improvement or sustainability.

Ongoing attempts to promote bio-fertilizers in Indian agriculture began through public sector

intervention, and in keeping with the spirit of the times, the policy motivates private sector

and profit motive to propel their production and sale.

Indian Council of Agricultural Research(ICAR)-the key actor

ICAR is the main co-coordinating agency for any research work concerning bio-fertilizers in

India. They are largely promoted through the Natural Resource Management Division of the

ICAR which has integrated plant nutrient management as one of its major thrust areas that

focuses on combining inorganic fertilizers, organic manures, composts/bio-fertilizers for

sustained crop health and productivity. The entire focus on bio-fertilizers was triggered by the

oil crisis of the 1970s and consequent sharp rise in the nitrogen prices forced researchers to

look for alternatives to industrially fixed nitrogen (Rao, 2007). ICAR constituted a committee

under the chairmanship of Dr. H. K. Jain, the then director of Indian Agricultural Research

Institute (IARI)iii

to develop a coordinated research project focusing on BNF. This resulted in

the initiation of All India co-ordinated research project on biological nitrogen fixation( BNF)

in 1976, which finally came into force in 1978, and continued up to 2004. Keeping in mind

the expertise available in India and the agro climatic conditions, a network project was

formulated by the committee with a broad mandate to intensify research on Biological

Nitrogen Fixation(BNF) during the Sixth (1980-85) and Seventh (1985-89) five year plans. (

RaoThe prime objective was to generate new and more effective microbial cultures for

various crops in various agro-ecological regions, which were then tested under different

centres in farmer fields and later on in front line demonstrations. During the Eighth five year

plan, the objectives of the scheme were modified to make the work more applied in nature

focusing on supplementing a part of chemical fertilizer needs of crops by enhancing BNF

processes in legumes and cereals through symbiotic and non-symbiotic micro-

organisms(Rao, 2001).

The Ninth five year plan also placed greater emphasis in integrating the use of bio-fertilizers

in farming systems as a component of integrated nutrient management and demonstrations in

farmer fields. During this period ( in 2004) the ICAR initiated the All India Network Project

on Bio-fertilizers, replacing the All India Coordinated Research Project on BNF. This

network project was headed Dr. D.L.N. Rao, project coordinator, Indian Institute of Soil

Sciences (IISS), Bhopal. One of the major aims was to improve bio-fertilizer technology with

particular reference to quality, carriers, consortia, delivery systems and testing methods. It

also focused to exploit the biodiversity of inoculants to diverse cropping systems (Rao,

2008). There were 11 centres of the project during 2004-2007 (Rao, et al, 2004). Concerted

efforts were made to optimize yield, efficiency, storage stability and delivery of this

technology to evolve and meet agricultural demands at the local level. Despite these efforts

there are factors constraining the spread and. These constraints are largely associated

insufficient extension effort related to bio-fertilizers and poor quality of the products due to

poor handling, insufficient infrastructure for distribution & storage, limited shelf life, and

climate specificity. Simultaneous to the successful research efforts cultures are widely

disseminated for bio-fertilizers production by user agencies such as the State Agricultural

Universities, State Department of Agriculture, Regional Bio-fertilizer Development Centres

and the private and the public sector agencies.

Role of Government- policies and institutions

Bio-fertilizers got the necessary impetus when the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of

India initiated the “National Project on Development and Use of Bio-fertilizers” in 1983 and

UNDP assisted in “National Bio-fertilizers Development project” in 1990 (Rajput et. al.

year). Under this schemeiv

, one national and six regional centers were established to cater to

the needs of northern, southern, western, eastern and central regions in the country. They

were responsible for organizing training, demonstrating programs and quality testing of bio-

fertilizers. The public sector organizations form a bulk of the units in the industry, while similar

units in the private sector are also coming forward. Different State governments also provide

subsidies sometimes up to 50% of the sales realization but the manner of subsidization is rather

unsystematic. In many cases the discrimination and manipulation in subsidizing lead to a lot of

intra industry variation in prices. Thrust to bio-fertilizers has largely been done for their

conjunctive use with chemical fertilizers through promotion of balance use of fertilizers and

various other schemesv. All these schemes come under the Integrated Nutrient Management

initiative of the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, by way of which it seeks to

promote soil test-based balanced and judicious use of chemical fertilizers, bio-fertilizers and

locally available organic manures like farmyard manure, compost, NADEP compost, Vermi

compost, green manure, press mud and other indigenous methods, to maintain soil health and

its productivity. In addition, Government has also been facilitating bio-fertilizers through

various schemes of Department of Biotechnologyvi

and Department of Science and

Technologyvii

have also been promoting bio-fertilizers. India’s national agricultural policy

has given priority to bio-fertilizers for the scope to create local food security and employment

in drylands (NCOF, 2006, Sharma, 2005). The next section explores specific cases of bio-

innovations related to bio-fertilizers for their pro-poor focus.

4. Bio-fertilizer innovation systems and poverty relevance

To begin with, bio-fertilizer promotion was meant to help the poor by making available good

quality affordable products and presenting income generation possibilities at local level.

However, after about four decades of pursuit two divergent views have emerged from

experience. On the one hand, professionals in academia, the government, and the private

sector largely believe that bio-fertilizers need technical and scientific involvement and thus

needs to be centralized or done through organized sector since decentralized production

systems cannot have quality standards which the state can enforce or monitor. While on the

other hand there are views of the Civil Society Organizations based on the experience of units

established by them that there is scope for making bio-fertilizers sector work for the poor

with establishment of decentralized production units with local participation & its

affordability and easy access for poor.

Despite these divergent views and various technical and institutional constraints, there were

successful adoption of some bio-fertilizers to become bio-innovations. Based on interactions

and suggestions of leading stakeholders/sector specialists who were part of BfIS in India, two

successful bio-innovations (cases of bio-fertilizers), located in separate states: Madhya

Pradesh (Central India) & Tamil Nadu (Southern India) were analyzed to understand their

contributions to poverty alleviation. These bio-innovations are are:

The case of Rhizobium(Bradyrhizobium japonicum) bio-innovation for Soybean

production in Madhya Pradesh (MP)

The case of Azospirillum bio-innovation in Tamil Nadu.

The professional actors associated with the organizations along with the institutions and

policies that paved way for these bio-innovations to happen were specifically explored to

understand their poverty alleviation focus. In this context the question that was explored was:

In what way the poor participate and how are the poor’s needs expressed and represented in

policies and programmes for bio-fertilizers? Innovation systems framework- the analytical

framework helped in identifying the actors and institutions, missing linkages, gaps in their

roles and interventions that could enhance pro-poor focus (Hall, et al, 2004).

Rhizobium bio-innovation: Bio-fertilizers hold a lot of promise for Soybean

production in rainfed regions of Madhya Pradesh(MP) in view of low input use

particularly very low chemical fertilzers use where per hectare of consumption of

fertilzers is lowest (30kg) as against all India average consumption of fertilzers

(92.6kg) (GOI, 2008). Rainfed areas in MP were inhabited for Soybean production

giving benefits to poor farmers involved with agriculture. The state dominated in the

production of Rhizobium in the country owing to successful adoption of leguminous

crop-Soybean production in large areas with large number of poor farmers involved in

its production. For this reason the case of Rhizobium bio-innovation has also been

hailed as a pro-poor innovation. Soybean crop has specific rhizobial preference for

Bradyrhizobium japonicum for nodulation and effective biological nitrogen fixation to

improve soil health. Bradyrhizobium japonicum inoculants (hereafter, referred to as

Soybean Rhizobium) also represent the case of first commercial production of bio-

fertilizers in the 1960’s when yellow seeded soybean was introduced in India, largely

in MP. Rhizobium inoculants represents the successful case of bio-fertilizers

producton and adoption for Soyabean production1 in the country. Though MP

dominates with largest area under Soybean cultivation, its productivity is lower

compared to other Soybean producing states. Rhizobium bio-innovation in MP

helped by converging social, environmental and economic benefits for people by

bringing marginal lands under Soybean cultivation.Since regular need and application

of Rhizobium inoculants for Soybean is essential for sustained yield and resource

improvement, this bio-innovation system was explored for identifying the strategies

and capacity building needs of the weak /missing actors beyond the dominant Public

sector R&D in MP.

Azospirillum bio-innovation in TamilNadu: Azospirillum bio-innovation in Tamil

Nadu has not only helped in the improving the yield of major crops (especially rice)

but also helped in resource improvement through its conjunctive usage with chemical

fertilizers. TamilNadu, dominates in usage of chemical fertilizers that is much above

(216.5 kg/ha) as against the all India average (nutrients/kg) of 128.5kg/ha. High cost

of these fertilizers makes them beyond the reach of small and marginal farmers. With

fertilizers subsidies/policies largely in favour of the manufacturers and further

approval by the government to nutrient based pricing of subsidized fertilizers, bio-

fertilizers bring lot of scope especially for the poor farmers due to their lower costs as

compared to the costly chemical fertilizers. Researchers, manufacturers and farmers

are equally aware of its benefits. Azospirillum bio-innovation was possible only

through initial successful uptake of the technology by the State department of

agriculture which later on also got involved in production and distribution. Research

system was flexible with meaningful linkages, not only private sector but also through

direct access to farmers. Though, a very vibrant innovation system with diverse actors

and linkages, the strategies and capacity building needs for bringing poverty relevance

in the innovation system were explored.

4.1. Bio-innovations and Poverty Relevance

Exploration into the key innovation system feature “Poverty relevance” revealed that both

bio-innovations are inclusive of the poor as both poor and non-poor households benefit

equally with lower production costs given the economies of scale due to low cost involved

biofertilizers prodution as compared to chemical fertilzers. Poverty focus was found missing

1 India is 5

th largest producer of Soybean in the World and accounts for 25% of the total oilseeds in the country.

Often referred to as “Miracle crop of the 20th

century”, the crop showed spectacular growth in terms of

cultivation area, production and productivity from 1986-2001, but is passing through a crisis due to stagnating

productivity at the farm level owing to degradation of natural resources in the already resource constraints areas

of central India ( 98% soybean produced from three states: MP, Maharashtra,& Rajasthan) particularly in

Madhya Pradesh.

in the public sector actors/institutions of both innovations. There has been no direct emphasis

placed by public sector on poverty relevence for example, through Government Schemes

through which they are distributed such as ISOPOM, NADP or entrepreneurship

Development Programme on Biofertilizers (DBT). Insights into the patterns and

characteristics of the actors and organizations, with institutions and policies operating with

respect to bio-fertilizers in India reveals that poor participated in the end as mere recipients in

a typical linear transfer of technology mode of research –extension- adoption that does not

distinguish between the socioeconomic status of the farmers. It does not reflect the pro-poor

targetting as:

poverty focus was missing through agendas of the actors and organizations

technology-user perspective did not influence the outcome of partnership processes

No specific institutional change/arrangement to achieve the poverty focus (for

example with respect to selection of target groups/farmers or entrepreneurs)

Though meant to help the poor, it had little linkages to national /international rural

livelihoods projects at the state level

Innovation system analysis revealed that technological and institutional innovations related to

both the cases which have largely been following linear model of R&D and extension have

not been able to directly target or work for reducing poverty and improving social inclusion .

However, there are some pilot efforts facilitated through civil society organizations for

example, MSSRF, which have made it evident that there is a scope for making this sector

pro-poor with establishment of decentralized production units with local participation.

Innovation system framework has been used to understand the local “positive deviance”

situation where pro-poor innovation processes are already taking place in the country (Biggs,

2008).This can provide a framework for building on these experiences for bringing poverty

relevance to the local rural and agricultural innovations. This positive example in Tamil Nadu

is known for establishing eco-enterprises for sustainable livelihoods, in which they organize

and train women SHGs for decentralized production of Azospirillum. This initiative has also

been one of the successful models for scaling down of bio-fertilizers production at the small

level.

4.2. Learning from the positive: pro-poor significance

Innovation systems approach provides a framework to learn from multiple sources. It is

relevant for pro-poor institutional innovations analysis as it helps in identifying areas were

positive changes are taking place as regards sustainable rural livelihoods/social inclusion and

building on these initiatives already taking place. There are some key actors/institutions

which are actually playing positive and influential roles in these innovation systems. It is

important learning from such innovations and building on those positive situations (Biggs,

2008). Decentralized production units for Azospirillum were established as an eco-enterprise

to create local employment opportunity for rural women self Help Groups (WSHGs) in two

villages in TamilNadu. These were established as part of Department of Biotechnology

funded project “Low cost bio-fertilizer production units at the village level as employment

opportunities for rural women”. The main aim was to set up decentralized production units

with demystified technology at the village level which would be run by WSHG as a means of

additional income generation so as to ensure rural job opportunities as well as supply of good

quality bio-fertilizer to promote good agricultural practices locally. Establishment of units at

the village level helped in creation of lot of awareness among men and women farmers for

use of bio-fertilizers for ease of good quality products availability. Some of the positive

innovative features of the decentralized efforts for bringing poverty relevance are discussed

below:

Focus on specific social group: Before starting of the project exploratory survey was done to

select the villages where specific social group could be targeted. The population in the

villages was primarily involved in agriculture and half of the population in these villages

belonged to small and marginal farmers and other half were landless agricultural labourers.

Main aim was to enhance the capacity of these poor rural women among these groups in the

production of bio-fertilizers.

Institutional support through Self Help Groups (SHGs): Several SHG federations were

consulted in identifying the suitable and interested SHG to take up the Azospirillum bio-

fertilzers production as an ecoenterprise. The selection was made through a consultative

process based on certain criteria. These criteria included: members of the group are mostly

agricultural labourers, socially and economically disadvantages households, preferable

women SHG that is three years old, with good credit rating and at least two of the group

members are semi-literates.

Openness & Process mode approach for long term sustainability: MSSRF experimented

openly and learn interactively with farmers on appropriate institutional arrangements (such as

investing in equipments, procuring mother culture, packaging material, marketing strategies,

quality checking, input dealers, regular capacity building) and technologies (scaling down

machinery/equipments, appropriate packaging material, low cost storing facilities). The

initiative followed a process mode for development that was systematic and cyclic in nature.

Its various phases included mobilization, organization, technology incubation, capacity

building, systems management and role change. MSSRF, a not for profit research

organizations got involved as an organization to act as a catalyst facilitating this pattern of

broad based collaboration. The institutional context of these collaboration or partnerships is a

key determinate of their direction and outcome. Azospirillum bio-innovation has focused

specifically on establishing coalitions of local actors around a particular problem area. The

actors included scientific ones but not exclusively as leading actors.

Actors are engaged with complexity: Azospirillum bio-innovation involves dealing with

complex issues related to both technical and socio-economic parts and often involved range

of actors. Both technical and institutional innovations play an important role. Formal R& D is

only one of a series of related tasks required to bring about Azospirillum production. Diverse

actors work in collaboration. Linkages were among different scientific disciplines, between

researchers and technology users and between public and private sectors.

Successful partnerships and changing roles: There is no separate actor responsible to

transfer the technology, learning is equally important for all the actors involved and is the key

to their ability to adapt and seek new institutional arrangements and technologies. There was

pro-active involvement with other actors and encouragement of partnerships appropriate to

each location and resource situation. Even role of MSSRF has changed from mere facilitator

to active participant.

Awareness on advantages of sustainable ways of farming: Benefits of Azospirillum

inoculants for the crops were the main highlights and discussion points during the process of

mobilization and organization of Self Help Groups (SHGs). These are further strengthened

during the training and capacity building programmes. Efforts were also made for creating

awareness through community learning centres, and distribution of handbills and pamphlets

to the local farmers. They also explain usefulness of their products in local SHG meetings,

local exhibitions, farmers’ training and conferences.

Facilitating access to technology: Intensive hands-on training of the members in the

production of Azospirillum in research laboratory helped members in handling various

instruments required for the production. Processes involved: weighing the media constituents,

media preparation, sterilization, adjusting pH, and inoculum production. In order to reduce

the cost of the production unit and enable the women to handle, several technological

innovations got generated such as, low-cost Laminar Air Flow Chamber to ease inoculation,

locally available glass containers for mass production, and locally available FYM was used as

a carrier material.

Focus of both institutional & technological institutions: Each technological or institutional

innovation was made in response to some specific requirement at the local level. The actors

attempt to make meaningful improvements rather than present a list of recommendations to

the other actors in the system.

Capacity building among the rural poor: Capacity building programmes were need basedviii

.

These programmes involved: exposure visits of the members to nearly other BF units. For

technical production few members were given intensive hands –on training in the

microbiology laboratory at MSSRF, Chennai. These members then trained other members of

the group with the support of MSSRF after establishment of the unit. This exposed the

members to various techniques involved in the production process to start a unit. There was

learning by doing after establishment of unit while stabilization in the production process was

on. In addition to technical training leaders were also exposed to group and account

management and other need-based training on the problems encountered during the

production. Some of the members were also sent to TNAU for intensive training programme

on mass multiplication of bio-fertilizer production technology and Quality Control. Members

came back and made changes in the production process to improve production efficiency.

They were trained on the preparation of a business plan and budget for setting up the

production units with a capacity of 12 tonnes (scaling down from standard 150Mt capacity

plant). Since market links for the products was a major constrain, capacity building

programmes in establishing market link were organized by involving WSHG members in the

discussion and negotiation.

Supportive financing mechanisms at the local level: This institution such as “Friends of

MSSRF” is a community banking initiative of the MSSRF, which is involved in supporting

its various projects and initiatives financially. For example, it is one of the financing agencies

of MSSRF’s initiative of eco-enterprises of sustainable livelihoods-decentralized production

of bio-fertilizers.

Promoting sustainable livelihoods opportunities in the rural areas: Facilitating access to

technology along with capacity building among members has helped poor farmers to generate

higher income and diversify the livelihoods in rural areas. Institutional processes to promote

business plan and market linkages also were set up through MSSRF’s Community Banking

Programme, Chennai for Financial support. Sustainability of technical support was ensured

through linkages with TNAU and market linkages were sought through local agriculture

department, input dealers, and wholesale distributors, NGOs facilitating sustainable

agriculture and District Rural Development Agency. Other efforts for sustainability included

SHG members directly selling the products to the local farmers, marketing tie-up with local

fertilizers shops and fertilizer dealers.

From the discussion on innovation features above there an evident poverty focus is visible in

these decentralization efforts. This is also evident through various institutional arrangements

to achieve poverty focus for example, targeting only marginal/landless groups of farmers.

Innovation system analysis of Azospirillum bio-innovation at the decentralized level clearly

indicates that in order to take the benefits of improvements in Science and Technology and

use it for poverty reduction it is essential to fine tune and simplify the technology to suit the

local region and this provides that scope to develop the technology in scale neutral mode and

enable access to rural men and women. The process of decentralization has been done in a

participatory manner in a result-based approach mode in order to identify the constraints and

evolve suitable site-specific strategies. These decentralized production units/enterprises

support the group as an additional income generating activity in addition to their primary

livelihood. Method of training and capacity building involved multidimensional aspects

including technology, management, leadership, as well as entrepreneurship. The training

methods need followed “learning by doing” approach, learning through mistakes and errors.

Market links at the multiple levels were found to be crucial in making the unit sustainable and

maintaining good group dynamics innovative partnership between universities, NGO’s and

CBO’s of the this kind could be good delivery mode for such technology transfer offering

some crucial lessons to the Public sector actors.

5. Conclusions

There was a general consensus on the relevance of bio-fertilizers usage particularly for small

farmers in the context of current climate change concerns as a cheap and safe source of input

for agriculture. Even if part of the increased demand for fertilizers could be met from bio-

fertilizers, it is likely to result in savings for poor farmers for example, bio-fertilizer usage

has been found to reduce chemical fertilizer usage by about 20% in some cases. As a learning

from positive, this paper brought out specific lessons from the case of Azospirillum in Tamil

Nadu, known for establishing eco-enterprises for sustainable livelihoods, in which they

organize and train women SHGs for decentralized production of Azospirillum. This initiative

has also been one of the successful models for scaling down of bio-fertilizers production at

the small level. BfIS, could be strengthened by making available cheap and quality products

on time to the poor farmers. The microbial inoculants production can also be directly taken

up at the decentralized level by the unemployed literate youth, as it embodies sophisticated

infrastructure, specialized skill and qualified manpower. However, poor farmers can be

involved in secondary distribution of microbial inoculants i.e., in the village level

transportation. Instead of giving subsidies to the farmers for using microbial inoculants,

state/centre government should be advised to allocate the funds to raise the grass root level

infrastructure for safe storage of the microbial inoculants and for village level local

transportation to be run by poor farmers (recommendations from the workshop on “Enabling

poverty Relevant Bio-fertilizers innovation Systems”, 30th

July, New Delhi). Landless

farmers/small entrepreneurs can be also get into this production at the decentralized level

with the facilitation of local civil Society organizations. Some of these efforts are already

taking place. There is need to learn from them. This opens up the need for alternate policy

and institutional frameworks that could make bio-fertilizer based innovations profitable for

the small farmers.

Supporting the pulse sector: Integration of legumes with crop production is important for

sustainable agriculture, but there has been decline in pulse/legume availability. The condition

is even worse for small farmers with little place in its food basket. In addition lack of

government support/procurement for PDS is also responsible for the current situation.

Pushing the pulses agenda will give a better chance of poor participation in agriculture. Bio-

fertilizers can play an important role in promotion of the case of legume/pulse crops, which

need to be inoculated with rhizobium, irrespective of the soil conditions.

While Rhizobium inoculants are potentially beneficial to poor smallholder farming system for

example in MP, without adequate policy support to create a suitable environment for active

participation of private entrepreneurs at the local level its wider production and application

are seriously limited. Production of Rhizobium inoculants through active collaborations with

other institutions/projects such as forming a component into the ongoing rural livelihoods

related projects in that State like, Madhya Pradesh District poverty initiative project,

(MPDPIP), Madhya Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project and Rainfed farming projects.

Farmers participation can have direct influence on the setting up of research priorities,

especially in addressing marginal areas of the country where use of Rhizobium is limited due

to physical constraints and farmers lack access to chemical fertilizers.

Supportive policies: Rural Innovations (in this case bio-innovation) are essential to spur

economic growth and development. But in the absence of supportive public policy

commitment, emergence of alternate innovations will not take place. Previous rural policies

largely focused on small –holder agriculture but in fact most rural poor are landless poor and

therefore unlikely to benefit greatly from agriculture based policies (Sonne, 2010). Poverty

focus targeting was neglected in most of the agriculture related policies in the context of bio-

fertilizers. Pro-poor innovation in rural areas is more likely to occur through small–scale

venture and entrepreneurs than industrial research and development. The case of

decentralized production of Azospirillum however, provides a positive deviance. There is

need of supportive policy measures that do specific pro-poor targeting and help them

integrate with the mainstream flow of development. There is a need for policy attention,

while shunning some of the instituional rigidites to further promote these innovations so that

institutions for promoting the missing links and actors could be placed and larger impact on

the poor can be achieved. Policy should address the need to bring more flexibility and

appropriate atmosphere to allow the entry of other stakeholders and need based partnerships

beyond the public sector.

Supportive institutional mechanisms: Maintaining quality and monitoring of bio-inoculants

material are the important factors for enabling bio-fertilizers innovation systems. There are

two major concerns about the ways in which the institutional system prescribe rules and

controls in the current scenario. For example, Fertilizers Control order ( FCO), 1985, that lays

emphasizes on maintaining the quality of bio-fertilizers products has turned out to be an

entirely ornamental piece, proving meaningless for the industry and the farming community.

FCO is basically a regulation intervention without sufficient provision for actual monitoring

and effective supply of nutrients when needed. Therefore, there is a need to make provisions

for something beyond regulation. It needs to be seen whether the regulation has impacted bio-

fertilizers per se. Strengthening institutions that serve the interest of poor farmers, enhance

their capability and improve their participation in adapting and testing research & extension

services through organization and exchange of information related to the innovation will be

crucial.

A new approach for enabling poverty relevance: The way forward

Bio-fertilizers constitute an important component of the agricultural innovation system. In the

context of its pro-poor relevance, it is important to make available good quality material to

small farmers. The farmers use the necessary dosage in a variety of ways, which need not co-

coincide with the recommended dosages prescribed by the state. Thus, in a way the pro-

poorness rests on the capacity of the actors to respond to the elements of agricultural

production, this also seems to constraint the process. Linear mode of technology of

production-packaging-distribution has been followed throughout the world but failed to help

poor farmers. Bringing systemic thinking demands the production and employment to go

together to have a pro-poor focus. Academia lacks the understanding on existing bio-

fertilizers and sees this as similar to knowledge systems (generation, promotion & adoption)

that exist for chemical fertilizers/pesticides. There is need for efforts to rethink this model

and seek answer from the academicians from various disciplines (agro-ecological,

anthropology, economics, environment sector etc) to have an integrated view on the kind

approaches which are actually working at the local level. For this, a need to change the

mindset of the academia is a must (Emerged from workshop recommendations).

The BfISs have relied far too much on the ICAR at the expense of State Agriculture

Universities. There is need for re-thinking of institutions in terms of science & technology

itself, so that it can respond to bio-fertilizers needs. Government can play an important role

here. Given the focus on poverty, the cost of bio-fertilizers to the farmers is very low as

compared to the chemical fertilizers. Maintenance of R&D quality should be the

responsibility of the government, while the private players should take over the production

part of the system. The distribution outlets of the seed and fertilizer companies can be used

for bio-fertilizers as well. Fragmentation of technology into a form of a 3-tier technology:

highly technical, semi technical and least technical are some of mechanisms suggested for its

successful dissemination and adoption. For example, the mass multiplication of microbes can

be taken up by the unemployed youth, with more specialized processes performed by

technical units, the mother culture supply and the final testing being taken care of by the

ICAR, while the farmers can themselves be engaged in distribution and collection of

feedbacks. Formulation of such a policy has already been in place, which envisages the

mother culture supply and final quality check to rest with the ICAR, with production being

taken care of by big corporate. ICAR system is ready to take the responsibility for the whole

country for mother culture supply and the final testing of products, while the rest of the

components can be handed over to the corporate and farmer groups (Based on “Workshop on

Enabling Poverty relevant Bio-fertilizers innovation systems in India, 30th

July, 2010)ix

.

Bio-fertilizer innovation systems have not been able to generate innovations since their

relevance to poverty is limited. Pro-poor innovations will not come through charity but from

the ability of the poor to organize themselves. The focus should be on how poor can

themselves manage their own innovations. Bio-fertilizers will be pro-poor only if it is a part

of the set of solutions and understands the dynamics of the processes that constitute the small

farming systems.

Acknowledgement

This paper is based on a research study funded in 2009 under the programme, “Enabling bio-innovation for Poverty Alleviation in Asia”, which is a competitive research grants awarding program supported by IDRC-CRDI Asia Regional Office, (Singapore) in partnership with Asian Institute of Technology (Bangkok, Thailand-www.bioinnovationpolicies.ait.asia).

ENDNOTES

i Though produced and referred to as “Bio-fertilizers” for common usage, scientists prefer to use the term

“micobial inoculants” ii The Fertilizer Association of India (FAI) periodically presents information compiled on capacity

and distribution of bio-fertilizers by various units. In the absence of reported information on farm

level use of the inputs, this can help in understanding the progress of the technology and its

adoption in India.

iiiIndian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)is one the pioneering institutes of the ICAR to work on bio-

fertilizers. As one of its major activities, the division was involved in research, which focused on BNF,

molecular biology of Rhizobia, cyanobacteria and other agriculturally important micro-organisms. The

department was also involved in human resource development as it organized various training programmes on

techniques in Microbiology and bio-fertilizers production. Major research achievements included: a lead in the

commercial production of Soybean inoculants which encouraged the Government of India to stop import of

soybean inoculants from USA. The preparation of quality control parameters for peat based Rhizobium and

Azotobacter inoculants have been standardized for the first time in India and division is guiding Bureau of

Indian Standards (BIS) for evolving quality control standards for various bacterial inoculants. The PL-480

scheme on Survey and Isolation of root nodule bacteria in Indian soils has provided data on the occurrence and

distribution of native efficient strains of Rhizobium for important leguminous crops. Accordingly, Rhizobium

maps have been prepared for different legumes as a ready reference. They were also involved in the

development of production protocols for mass production of various bio-fertilizers (Subba Rao, 2005). iv To attain production targets, the Government of India implemented a central sector scheme called National

Project on Development and use of Biofertilizers (NPDB) during the Ninth Plan for the production, distribution

and promotion of biofertilizers. A National Biofertilizer Development Centre was established at Ghaziabad as a

subordinate office of the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation with six regional centers. The purpose of

the scheme covered organization of training courses for extension workers and field demonstrations and

providing quality control services. Production and distribution of different bio-fertilizers were also undertaken

but subsequently discontinued as the centers redefined their role towards R&D and HRD related activities.

Capacity creation and production was however encouraged through one time grant for new units. The financial

assistance, given as grant-in-aid to the tune of Rs 13 lakh and now increased to Rs.20 lakh per unit and thrown

open for all, was routed through the State governments but owing to delays in release of grants the onus is

transferred to NABARD/NCDC. v DAC launched a central scheme during 1991-92, a centrally sponsored scheme, entitled ‘Balanced and

Integrated Use of biofertilizers’. The main objective of the scheme was to promote Integrated Nutrient

Management(INM) to disseminate information on the balanced and judicious use of chemical fertilizers

(Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium) with secondary nutrients (Sulphur, Calcium, Magnesium) and micro

nutrients in conjunction with organic sources of nutrients like green manures, organic manures, vermin

composting etc, and bio-fertilizers based on scientific soil test. The scheme continued during subsequent plan

periods and was subsumed under the Macro Management of Agriculture (MMA) Scheme in 2000. The recently

constituted task force on balance use of fertilizers in the DAC has recommended strengthening and revamping

of soil testing facilities, encouraging production, promotion and production of organic manures and bio-

fertilizers.

viDBT has been funding programmes for rural areas under the domain of Societal Development. Technologies

have been developed for mass production of Rhizobium strains specific for chickpea, rajmash, moongbean and

soybean in fermentors upto 1000 lt. Solid state fermentation has been used for the production of Rhizobial

biofertilisers using exfoliated vermiculite as carrier material. New Initiatives under the Xth Plan: A new network

programme associating 11 centres was launched by the DBT for the development of transgenic bio-fertilizers

with better nitrogen fixing and phosphate solubilising ability. In addition efforts are being made to generate

some more projects on the following aspects:

Generating applied and adoptive research programme for the development of bio-fertiliser based

nutrient management practices of high value plantation crops, spices, medicinal and aromatic plants,

protected cultivation and organic farming of high value horticultural crops etc.

Entrepreneurship development among public and private sector institutions, organizations etc. for small

scale production and delivery of biofertilizer inoculants with attention to quality control, farmers’

advisory and adoption (preferably in linkage with state agricultural and other universities, scientific

institutions etc.).

vii

The Science for Equity Empowerment and Development (SEED) division of the DST have been funding

projects on BIOFARM and BFs under different initiatives such as Science and Technological Application for

Rural Development (STARD), Science and Technology (S&T) for Women, Technological Intervention for

assessing Societal Needs (TIASN+SYSP), Special Component Plan (SCP) for the SCs and the Tribal Sub Plan

(TSP) for STs. DST is also co-ordinating a programme on ‘Biological Integration of Farming Activities &

Resource Management’ (BIOFARM). It has been initiated at 15 locations involving science and technology

based field groups from different agro-climatic regions. This program will endeavour to develop a set of

packages/models for small farms which can be used to ameliorate not only the productivity in respective agro-

ecosystems but would also improve the nutritional and livelihood status of the farm households. All India

coordinated Programme on Bio-integrated Farming (Bio Farm). viii

A total of 158 training days were provided to the members, learning by doing after establishing the unit

whole stabilizing in the production process was on: group account management training to leaders and need

based training on the problems encountered during the production.

References

Alok Adholeya and Deepak Pant (2007) Biofertilizers: Are they going to stay? In Biotech

News, 1(1): 3-5. Newsletter of Department of Biotechnology, Government of India

Bhattacharya, P. and Dwivedi., 2004. Proceedings of National Conference on Quality Control

of Bio-fertilizers. New Delhi: National Bio-fertilizer Development Centre.

Chopra Kanchan (1989) ‘Land degradation: Dimensions and Casualities’ Indian Journal of

Agricultural Economics, Vol. 44 (1): 45-54.

Conway Gordon R. and Edward B. Barbier (1990) After the Green revolution: Sustainable

Agriculture for Development, Earthscan publications Ltd., London, p.205.

Gosh, Nilabja (2004) Promoting Bio-fertilzers in India Agriculture, Paper is based on a

research project conducted at IEG for Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Institute

of Economic Growth, Delhi, India.

Hall A., Mytelka L. and Oyeyinka B. 2006. “Concepts and guidelines for the diagnostic assessments

of agricultural innovation capacity”, Working paper Series #2006-017, United Nations University-

Maastricht Economic and social Research and training Centre on Innovation and Technology, Keizer

Karelplein 19, 6211 TC Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Hall, Andy, Willem Janssen, Eija Pehu & Riikka Rajalahti. 2006. “Enhancing Agricultural

Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems, Economic and Sector

Working paper, Agriculture and Rural Development Department, Washington: World Bank.

NCOF, 2006 National Centre for Organic Farming (NCOF), Annual Report, 200-07,

Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. New Delhi.

NCOF, 2009, National Centre for Organic Farming (NCOF), Annual Report, 2008-09,

Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. New Delhi.

Rajput, A.K., Tyagi, M.K., and Ravindranath, P., 2000. Should an act be required for quality

control of biofertilizers? Journal, V(I), p.

Rao, D. L. N., 2007. Biological Nitrogen Fixation and Biofertilizers: Status and Prospects. In

Y. P. Abrol, N. raghuram, and M.S. Sachdev, eds. Agricultural Nitrogen Use & its

Environmental Implications, New Delhi: I. K. Publishing House Private Limited. p. 395-414.

Rao, D.L.N. ed., 2001. BNF Research Progress (1996-2000). Bhopal: All India Coordinated

Research project on Biological Nitrogen Fixation, Indian Institute of Soil Sciences (IISS).

Rao, D.L.N., 2008. Biofertilizer Research Progress (2004-2007), All India Network Project

on Biofertilizers, Indian Institute of Soil Sciences (IISS), Bhopal, p.105

Rao, D.L.N., and Sharma, P.D., 2009. Bio-fertilizers in Indian Agriculture. In S. P. Sharma,

et. al, eds. Policy Issues on Balanced and Integrated Nutrient. Palampur: CSK HP

Agricultural University. p. 47-54.

Rao, D.L.N., and Sharma, P.D., 2009. Bio-fertilizers in Indian Agriculture. In S. P. Sharma,

et. al, eds. Policy Issues on Balanced and Integrated Nutrient. Palampur: CSK HP

Agricultural University. p. 47-54.

Rao, D.L.N., Natarajan, T., Raut, R.S., and Rawat, A.K., 2004. Rhizobium Incolution of

Leguminous Oilseeds-Results of On-Farm and Farmers’ Field Demonstrations in the ICAR

Coordinated Project on BNF. In R. Serraj, ed. Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation. New Delhi:

Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Ch.19, p.301-309.

Serraj, R. ed., 2004. Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation. USA: Science Publishers

Shah Amita, 2006, Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security: Challenges and policy issues,

Working Paper- 277, Institute of Economic Growth, University Enclave, Delhi.

Sharma, Arun K. (2005) The potential for Organic Farming in the Drylands of India, Arid

land Newsletter, vol. 58.

Subba Rao, N.S.S., 2005. “The History of Microbiology at the Indian Agricultural Research

Institute” in: B.D. Kaushik, (Eds.): Advances in Microbiology at IARI 1961-1974. New

Delhi: Indian Agricultural Research Institute pp.1-6.

Tewatia, R. K., 2003. Status of Biofertilizers in India. Fertilizer marketing News, 34 (5), p.1-

7.

Tewatia, R.K., Kalwe, S.P., and Chaudhary, R.S., 2007. Role of Biofertilizers in Indian

Agriculture. Indian Journal of Fertilizers, V(I), p. 111-118.

Venkataraman, G. S., and Tilak, K.V.B.R., 1990. Biofertilizers in Sustainable Agriculture. In

V. Kumar, G. C. Shrotriya, and S.V. Kaore, eds. Soil Fertilty and Fertilizer Use – Vol IV.

New Delhi: PR Department, Marketing Division, Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative

Limited (IFFCO).

Wani S P, Rupela O P and Lee, KK, 1995. Sustainable agriculture in the semi-arid tropics

through biological nitrogen fixation in grain legumes, Plant and Soil 174:129-49.

Yadav, A.K., Raychaudhary, S., 2004. Biofertlizers as Agro-inputs-Past, Present and Future

Perspectives. In A.K. Yadav, S. R. Chaudhary, and N. C. Talukdar, eds. Biotechnology in

Sustainable and Organic Farming-Scope and Potential. New Delhi: Shree Publishers and

Distributors. Chp. 1, p.1-17.

Mishra Srijit and Gopikrishna SR.2008. Nutrient Based Subidy (NBS) & Support Systems

for Ecological fertilization in Indian Agriculture, Policy Brief, Greenpeace, India.

Greenpeace 2009. Report on Public Consultations on Fertilizer Subsidy Reforms.

Sonne Lina, 2010. Pro-poor, Entrepreneur-Based Innovation and its Role in Rural

Development, UNU-MERIT, Working paper series No: 2010-037.

Biggs Stephen, 2008, Learning from the positive to reduce rural poverty and increase social

Justice: Institutional innovations in agricultural and Natural Resources Research and

Development, Experimental Agriculture.