Many communities have been extremely concerned about the sustain-

ability of their cropping systems as a part of overall farming

systems, particularly in marginal environments. Their concern

was reflected in the choice of the crops, rotations, inter or

mixed cropping systems, non-chemical input management systems and

above all in a whole range of creative innovations requiring

individual or group action. The scientists have of course been

quite conscious of the need for making cropping system sustain-

able. Some of them have also started paying attention to the

local knowledge systems of the farmers. The bridges between

formal and informal knowledge systems, however, remain weak. It

is to remedy this weakness and highlight the role of grassroots

creativity and innovations that Honey Bee network was launched

seven years ago.

Why Honey Bee Network?

The concept of Honey Bee evolved in response to a dilemma with

regard to our responsibility towards those communities and indi-

viduals who conserve diversity and the knowledge around it, but

never partake in any benefits that accrue through value addition

to outsiders. The ethical basis of extraction of knowledge as

well as resources triggered search for a suitable metaphor to

resolve this dilemma.

Honey Bee does what we, intellectuals, often don’t. It collects

pollen from the flowers and flowers don’t complain. When we

collect knowledge as well as resources (such as land races), I am

not sure that farmers don’t complain.

It connects flower to flower. We do not have any arrangements

for sharing information about the knowledge or resource we col-

lect from people back with them because we neither have Knowledge

Network accessible to people nor we communicate in local languag-

es. We have collected more than 5300 innovations as well as examples

of traditional ecological and technological knowledge from 2300

villages of one state ( Gujarat) alone. Similar examples have

been collected from other states such as Rajasthan, Tamilnadu,

Karnataka, UP, etc., with in India. The Honey bee data base is

supported by SRISTI (Society for Research and Initiatives for

1. Coordinator, SRISTI and Honey Bee network and Professor, Indian Institute of Management,

Ahmedabad 380015

anilg@iimahd.ernet.in

Sustainable Technologies and Institutions)- a NGO and Indian

Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. It has innovations from

Mongolia, Vietnam, Uganda, Kenya, Columbia, Ecuador, American

Indian communities in North America, etc. Honey bee newsletter

has been published in several languages for last seven years and

the network extends to 75 countries.

This data base is one of the largest in the world with informa-

tion about name and address of the innovators ( individuals as

well as communities) or providers of information. Council of

Scientific and Industrial Research ( CSIR) has recently initiated

steps to establish formal links between Excellence in the infor-

mal systems with that in the formal systems through a Memorandum

of understanding ( MOU) between SRISTI (Society for Research and

Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions)- a NGO

supporting Honey Bee network and CSIR. Collaborative research

with clear benefit sharing arrangements with grassroots innova-

tors through SRISTI is being pursued in several areas of sustain-

able agriculture including microbial diversity as indicator of

soil eco-systems health, herbal pesticides, indigenous veterinary

medicine based on local biodiversity etc.

Cataloging Diversity: How do we read the book of diversity?

A serious problem is the inadequacy of passport information

sheets in the gene banks whether at international, national or

regional level. If we do not read the ‘book of diversity’ embed-

ded in local knowledge adequately, we would of course lose much

of information available in nature and with local communities.

Our studies have shown that most breeders did not/could not

document the information about the resource providers, often did

not recall the selection criteria used by the local communities,

and did not include the recipes indicating the culinary charac-

teristics. In the absence of this information, it would be very

difficult to revisit the exact sites and share any benefits that

may accrue in future through value addition in these land races.

In the case of animal germplasm, situation is even more serious

from the point of view of conservation. Unlike crops, where a

small sample of seeds selected properly may capture a large part

of variance of the population, among animals one needs very large

sample to achieve the same result. Most ex-situ gene banks have

very few animals of different breeds. The passport information

sheets for animal germplasm are even more inadequate.

Honey Bee network has tried to address not only the gaps in our

knowledge of peoples’ creativity and innovation, but also in

terms of germplasm characterization. The recent strategy of FAO

on developing DAD-IS (Domestic Animal Diversity Information

Systems) is trying to overcome these inadequacies in a very

participative manner.

Building upon local Knowledge: Towards Participative Breeding

The challenge, however, remains as to how do we make information

in the gene bank accessible to the local communities in the

manner in which they can understand and make sense of it and vice

versa ( i.e. make breeders take note of people’s knowledge).

Further, how could local people obtain materials that they would

need for their own breeding programmes. Obviously, if communi-

ties and selected individuals could develop such distinguished

land races and animal breeds in past, they could be expected to

do so in future too. The challenge of participative breeding is

important for several other reasons:

a.The proportion of land races available in a local gene bank

that goes into breeding programme of any crop is very small.

b.Existing ecological heterogeneity in rainfed regions and in-

creasing location specific differences even in irrigated regions

(due to mineral deficiencies, changes in the water table, pest

and disease regime, drainage profile, etc.) require that breeding

for local specificity becomes a paramount goal.

c.Formal institutions are under resource crunch all around the

world and therefore, it is unlikely that they would have resourc-

es to expand on-station research facilities in different sub

regions. Participatory on-farm research is thus inevitable.

d. A very large amount of improved genetic variability in form of

F7 of F8 generations/advance lines is rejected today because of

its inability to surpass the available checks (control

varieties). Many of these lines might prove to be extremely

suitable for different locations if given a chance of being

selected jointly or separately by farmers as well as scientists

under local conditions.

e.The selection criteria of the farmers may be different from

that of the scientists and thus may provide additional variabili-

ty to select and take forward in improvement programmes. In a

study on Matching Farmers’ Concerns with Technologists’ Objec-

tives (1985), we found that the harvest index in millets pre-

ferred by marginal farmers was much lower than preferred by the

bigger farmers. This realization has dawned on the institutional

scientists only recently. The selection criteria of poor people

with whom scientist do not have much opportunities of interaction

might some time be different from that of others. In Bangladesh

while talking to disadvantaged farmers about two different modern

rice varieties, I learnt that one was preferred over another

because its grains after cooking remained in the stomach for

longer period. The feeling of belly fullness helped in avoiding

the pangs of hunger. This criteria hasn’t been recorded in liter-

ature. Whether this can be or need be bred for or not is not

important. The relevant point is that choices and preferences of

different classes may vary and thus provide a basis for develop-

ing diversity.

f.The level of significance at which improved varieties or ad-

vanced lines are considered superior is generally 1 or 5 per

cent, particularly in terms of yield parameters. Farmers face

much higher risk and therefore might prefer technologies which

reduce risk not necessarily to the extent of 95 per cent but may

be 80 per cent or 75 per cent without much increasing the cost.

This could become evident through participatory technology devel-

opment process.

g.The gender dimension of technological suitability whether for

performing farm operations or for assessing post harvest process-

ing or cooking attributes offers additional advantages of partic-

ipatory breeding.

h.Farmers innovations for management of pest and disease, nutri-

ents, weeds, etc., documented through the Honey Bee network could

be screened under the farmers’ criteria and thereby help us in

developing varieties which respond to non-chemical external

inputs. This could mean re-ordering breeding priorities in some

cases2.

i.Farmers’ own selections from local material as well as other

materials have led in past to development of new varieties. This

is a potential which is grossly under utilized. Two example would

suffice; Thakar Sing Bhai of Junagadh district of Gujarat suf-

fered like many other farmers in 1987 drought. This was one of

the worst droughts of last several decades. Government distribut-

ed groundnut seeds to overcome the seeds shortage. Thakar Sing

found two or three unusual plants in the crop so grown. He se-

lected them and grew them since then. The new variety is called

Morla because the pods are slightly curved, very compact and the

grains are quite bold. Each pod has two grains. Several farmers

have bought this seed and have had good experience. Similarly

Raja bhai, another farmer from the same district had selected few

odd groundnut plants which he selected and developed into a

variety.

j.Many of the crops in marginal environments are grown as mixed

or sole crop. However, when breeders developed varieties even for

such crops they often make selection under monocrop condition and

only later try to generate intercrop combinations. Participatory

breeding makes possible for breeders to select under farmers

management conditions.

It is well known that the economy of rainfed farmers is primarily

dependent upon livestock and yet most of the crop varieties are

2. A farmer in Gujarat had faced a serious problem of termites in his field. He had observed that young

sorghum (less than 30 - 40 days) plants when eaten by the cattle caused toxicity to the animals. He

thought couldn’t the same toxicity be used to control the termite also. He cut the sorghum plants and put them in the irrigation channel. Soon he found substantial control of termites. Perhaps the hydro- synydes have contributed to the control of termites. In case this hypothesis is true, it could provide a new breeding goal for sorghum which otherwise are bread for low HCN content. If farmers could get high HCN content lines which could be grown in a small patch, as a backyard herbal pesticide factory, a sustainable way of pest control could be found. Safety aspects of this practice for other soil microb- ial and earthworm populations will have to be carefully studied. 

only screened on the basis of grain yield rather than on the

basis of fodder quality. By working with the farmers, scientist

can get quick feedback on such attributes and thereby make mid

course correction.

Conserving Diversity: Novel approaches

(a) Conservation through Competitions: Organizing Biodiversity

Contests for closing the gap

SRISTI has organised Biodiversity contests among children ( more

than 4000 children covered so far) to scout ‘little genius’. We

have come across children like Mahadev Sodha of age less than 11

years in Banaskantha district knowing 309 plants and Ankita- a

girl knowing as many 165 plants at the same age. What is the

destiny of such children? Will they have a chance to grow as

naturalists and guardians of diversity or just become land less

labourers? The possibility of the latter alternative is very high

because it is in these rainfed and drought prone regions that

male emigration is highest, unemployment lowest, poverty highest

and drop out rate from schools highest. Incidentally in these

areas (in addition to mountainous and forest regions) the propor-

tion of women headed or managed household is also very high. I

have argued earlier that if the regions of high biodiversity are

also regions of high poverty, then we cannot conserve diversity

by keeping people poor (Gupta, 1991). Various kinds of in-

centives will have to be developed which may include material and

non -material rewards for individuals as well as communities or

groups. These contests have been very helpful in transferring

knowledge and from grand parent generation to grand children (

and thus closing the gap) in much lesser time and with greater

efficiency than would have been the case if left to itself.

SRISTI has developed various models of incentives which need to

be experimented by building upon local knowledge networks.

(b) Role of Culture in Diversity:

Why do we eat weed found in rice fields only on a particular

fasting day. This weed called as Sama ( Echonocloa colonum) has

been conserved in cultivated field not without any purpose.

Literature search on this plant revealed that in some cases it

has been reported that it does not let leaf roller and some other

pest complete their life cycle . It is possible that its allelo-

pathic impact contributed to its ecological and cultural signifi-

cance. How do we embed such cultural consciousness among future

leaders of our society so that in situ conservation of diversity

of cultivated and uncultivated plants can be strengthened.

(c) Establishing Knowledge Networks: What inspires people to

take initiatives and transform their options: potential for

lateral learning makes a big difference to many innovators. Honey

bee network has tried to link communities conserving biodiversity

and associated knowledge around the country and different parts

of the world through local language networks. Today every other

sub set of society is networked except the creative individuals

and innovators such as crop or animal breeders, developers of

herbal pesticides, indigenous veterinary medicines etc. In the

International Conference on Creativity and Innovation at Grass-

roots being organised at IIM Ahmedabad ( Jan 11-14, 1997), we

intend to bring some of these innovators together along with

policy makers and researchers and activists so that future policy

options under FAO Undertaking on Plant genetic resources as well

as under Convention on Biological Diversity and International

Convention to Combat Desertification are generated in the light

of real life experiences of grassroots innovators and not through

sterile academic debates.

d) Generating Consumer Demand for diverse and organic agricul-

tural products

There have to be many incentives for conserving Diversity as

mentioned earlier but one which can provide immediate incentives

for farmers growing land races in marginal environments is the

generation of premium on organic and diverse natural products.

Our country wide surveys of green consumers pursued through

students of IIMA during summer assignments has revealed a tremen-

dous latent demand for such products with modal value of premium

most consumers are willing to pay being close to 15 per cent. The

major problem is the absence of outlets where people can buy and

experiment apart from facilities for certification.

SRISTI is pursuing in collaboration with IIMA and many other

formal (ICAR, SAUs, MS University, Indian Institute of Sciences)

and informal institutions several areas of research which can

help in recognizing, respecting and rewarding local creativity.

In addition we are also looking at soil microbial diversity as

possible indicators of eco-systems health and approach to organic

certification. The concept of Farmers’ Rights is being redefined

in the light of CBD and diverse set of incentive choices have

been generated for conserving Diversity such as Trust Funds,

Royalty, Educational and curricular modifications, venture capi-

tal funds for small innovators, risk and insurance funds for on

farm experimentation, public recognition, tax on green revolution

surplus farmers to provide incentive prices and procurement

support to growers of land races in marginal environments, etc.

We must stress that biological diversity can not be conserved by

keeping people poor and thus internal (ethical and value based)

and external (material as well as non material) incentives are

urgently called for.