Support for market-oriented local production in the DMQ region

Once producers achieve household food security, AGRUPAR encourages them to form microenterprises and trains them in business planning, marketing and accounting. The microenterprises are not only engaged in the production of vegetables, fruits, small animals, fish and ornamental plants, but also in the processing of jams, cookies, yogurt, cheese, drinks and traditional snacks and they also supply products to local food processing companies or to restaurants.

  • AGRUPAR provides training on entrepreneurship-related skills.
  • Producers who lack the necessary capital are supported through grass-roots investment societies, where each member contributes USD 10 to 20.

Besides strengthening food security, AGRUPAR improves the incomes of vulnerable groups. Half of the participants generate revenue as well as employment. Around 177 started entrepreneurships, of which 104 are formalized. On average their income is USD 3,100 per year and, since 2016, they have created 337 jobs. On average producers benefit from USD 175 of additional income per month. Total savings are more than three times the value of the government human development voucher (USD 50 a month). However, most of 480 participants surveyed in 2010 said that for them the increased quality of life, improved nutrition and health, and personal empowerment were even more important. It is noteworthy that AGRUPAR enjoys a high acceptance among its beneficiaries (over 91 per cent).

Support for urban, community and institutional gardening for home consumption and the sale of leftovers

People are trained in organic production, management skills, nutrition, food processing and marketing. AGRUPAR provides producers with seeds, seedlings, poultry, guinea pigs, bees, inputs and equipment. It supports community gardens, family gardens and gardens in schools and other institutions, as well as small livestock production units. It also promotes vertical farming. Community gardens are established on communal land, or on land that the municipality rents out for a minimal price to growers, and receive an organic certification by AGRUPAR, whilst family gardens are established on individually owned land. It should be noted that that AGRUPAR does not provide official land titles. In 2018, AGRUPAR  had plans to open an additional 200 gardens.

  • AGRUPAR provides training and inputs
  • AGRUPAR arranges for communal land or land that is rented from the municipality

Not all orchards require an official organic certification, for example the orchards intended for family self-care do not require this process. For this reason, the project has implemented an internal control system (SIC, which is very similar to a system of participatory guarantees) for all orchards (certified or not) to ensure compliance with Ecuadorian organic production regulations.

CONQUITO
Support for urban, community and institutional gardening for home consumption and the sale of leftovers
Support for market-oriented local production in the DMQ region
Food supply and distribution
Promotion of food consumption, healthy diets and nutrition through bio-fairs and education
Potential as a Transferable Model
CONQUITO
Support for urban, community and institutional gardening for home consumption and the sale of leftovers
Support for market-oriented local production in the DMQ region
Food supply and distribution
Promotion of food consumption, healthy diets and nutrition through bio-fairs and education
Potential as a Transferable Model
CONQUITO
Support for urban, community and institutional gardening for home consumption and the sale of leftovers
Support for market-oriented local production in the DMQ region
Food supply and distribution
Promotion of food consumption, healthy diets and nutrition through bio-fairs and education
Potential as a Transferable Model
Linking the conversion strategy with the gradual phase-out of synthetic inputs

One of the strongest components of the plan was to couple the conversion strategy with the gradual phase-out of synthetic inputs. Starting in 2005, the government decided to stop receiving its chemical fertilizer quota from the Government of India and began to gradually reduce subsidies on chemical fertilizers and pesticides at a rate of 10 per cent every year to make them costlier and discourage their purchase. In this way, subsidies were phased-out by 2007-2008. Another measure was to start closing down all sale points and other outlets supplying farmers with synthetic inputs. The state government also started to restrict the import of synthetic inputs and, finally, in 2014 the Sikkim Agricultural, Horticultural Inputs and Livestock Feed Regulation Act was passed, which prohibits the import of any chemical inputs for agriculture and horticulture, and as such constitutes a total ban on the sale and use of chemical pesticides in the state.

 

During the period between 2010 and 2014, the government earmarked a budget of EUR 6.75 million to support the implementation of the Organic Mission. Recently, the Organic Mission has received also support from central Government schemes, such as the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA).

  • The state government showed strong political will and policy consistency, along with well-defined targets and implementation plans, which can be adopted by other states.
  • The state government’s strategy to phase out chemical fertilizers was implemented gradually, but firmly. It was a bold decision, backed up by substantial measures to build real sustainable alternatives.

Since the policy’s introduction, resolute efforts to halt use of chemicals in the fields and to convert all the national agricultural land to organic practices were implemented by the regional government and the people at large. Measures include the implementation of bio-villages, where farmers are trained in organic farming practices and the production of on-farm organic inputs, such as composting, organic fertilizers and organic pesticides, using with locally available plant materials and cow urine. Mandatory requirements were combined with support and incentives, and by providing sustainable alternatives, the implementation of Sikkim’s strategy became successful.

Piloting organic farming and launching Sikkim Organic Mission

Between 2003 and 2010, several pilot programmes supporting organic farming were launched, including the implementation of bio-villages where farmers were trained in organic farming practices and the production of organic inputs such as composting, organic fertilizers and organic pesticide using with local plants and cow urine. During this period, the government also invested substantially in the construction of vermicomposting pits. By 2009, more than 100 villages had benefited from these programmes, reaching 10,000 farmers in all four districts of the state.

 

Under the Sikkim Organic Mission, launched in 2010, a number of additional actions to support organic agriculture were implemented, including capacity building, organic seed and planting material production, setting up a seed and soil testing laboratory, operation of Sikkim Organic retail outlet at New Delhi, the inclusion of organic farming in school curricula, the conversion of the two state government farms at Nazitam and Mellidara, which became Organic Centres of Excellence for conducting organic farming demonstrations and trials, and the launch of three livelihood schools as training centres for unemployed youth.

Activities aimed at supplying farmers with quality organic seeds included strengthening the seeds laboratory testing and processing facilities, and the development of a range of local organic seed development projects, such as contracting seed producers, government purchase and distribution, and establishing automated greenhouses for quality organic seedling production.

In 2016, a National Organic Farming Research Institute (NOFRI) was established at Gangtok. The Institute promotes research and education on organic farming, and provides research and technological backstopping to organic production systems, not only for Sikkim but for the whole North East Hills Region of India.

 

Certification has also been a crucial part of the programme. Eighty per cent of the budget between 2010 and 2014 was used to build the capacity of farmers, rural service providers and certification bodies in organic farming practices, requirements and inspections, and to support farmers in acquiring certification, mainly through the Internal Control System.

Bernward Geier
Developing a vision and a clear roadmap towards 100% organic
Piloting organic farming and launching Sikkim Organic Mission
Linking the conversion strategy with the gradual phase-out of synthetic inputs
Potential as a Transferable Model
Frugal Rehabilitation Demonstration (FRD): developing and adapting the methodology (FRM) through action-research

Once demonstration sites are selected, local ASM groups receive training and are contracted to implement FRM through six steps:

  1. Preparation & Planning: degradation, boundary, hydrological & equipment assessments; labor, volume estimates; waste management; OHS standards
  2. Technical Rehabilitation: infill, regrading and reprofiling; use of limited mechanisation
  3. Topsoils: identification, conservation and re-distribution across sites
  4. Biological Rehabilitation: topsoil enrichment ; natural regeneration assessments; identification of native and key vegetation communities; seed collection; seeds and natural fertilizers distribution into topsoils; tree, shrub and grass plantings
  5. Mitigation Hierarchy: integrating rehabilitation planning into active ASM design and operations so as to reduce primary environmental impacts and unnecessary rehabilitation efforts
  6. Handover of completed rehabilitation site to relevant government administrations for approval/sign-off
  • National and local government permission to implement Frugal Rehabilitation Demonstration projects.
  • Resources to fund demonstration labour effort and technical application of methodology at site.
  • ASM capacity and willingness to receive training and implement the methodology on site.
  • Successful application of the FRM: all the key physical and ecological requirements for successful rehabilitation are (with few exceptions) available within reasonable proximity of the site. They just need to be identified and adapted to context.
  • Habitat rehabilitation targeted to native vegetation communities can be successful without the use of non-native species.
  • Identification and recovery of topsoils are critical to success.
  • Biological rehabilitation works well together with topsoil seedbank  to establish a path to ecological recovery.
  • Low level mechanised approaches to heavy-lifting of material in topographic filling  can be effective but a dependence on mechanisation in the later stages of rehabilitation is not recommended. Overuse of machinery in these latter phases can result in reduced capacity for biological recovery.
  • FRM can be applied in abandoned areas, where mineral reserves are exhausted, and it can also be integrated into current ASM operations to reduce rehabilitation efforts.
  • Handover and sign-off from local authorities is key to ensure ongoing commitment.
Establishment of National FRM working group with government and sectoral stakeholders

On the basis that government ministries are willing and able to work together to develop solutions to address impacts of ASM on the wider environment, Protected Areas and on stakeholders impacted by such mining activity, a national working group (which includes such ministries, agencies and relevant representative stakeholders) needs to be established. This will help steer the process of project engagement with local government, artisanal miners and wider stakeholders at the local level to set the scene for Frugal Rehabilitation Demonstration (FRD). A key step in this process is to select sites for FRD that can serve the development and application of the methodology within the ecological, economic and social context. The purpose of establishing this FRM working group is to ensure a participatory, consultative approach to the development of the methodology, and to enable a demonstration site selection process that ensures an informed and strategic approach based on agreed criteria. Sites selected for methodology demonstration need to be typical, representative and associated with formalised ASM capacity to undertake the rehabilitation.

The key enabling factors were the collaborative approach to developing the FRM and adequate resources to undertake the participatory approach both at meetings and in the field. The working group was involved in a coordinated travel program to select, assess, monitor and review rehabilitation progress and approaches at sites.

The working group’s participation and involvement in the development of the FRM was critical to its eventual endorsement and adoption. Key ministries and associated agencies played a role in selecting FRD sites, visiting them through the rehabilitation process and discussing the development of a methodology that was informed through action-research across a range of representative sites. It was also important to have exposure and engagement with formalised artisanal miners, who were keen to participate in the work and help develop a mechanism for promoting best practice and their association with such practice.