Whenever we talk about scaling up there are several dilemmas. NGOs are often blamed to make large generalizations based on small experiences. There is always a dilemma about the relevance of the small experiences. For example, based on one successful experience of cultivating crops without us
e of pesticides in
one village can we ask the government to stop permitting and
recommending chemical pesticides? Also, do we consider the complex
situations which the community lives? Do we visualize the macro
situation while lobbying for a policy change Have we taken into account
possible implications of all known issues? Can we universalize the
solutions we are talking about? Then what do we scale up – the
technology or the principles based on which a technology choice was
made? Or do we scale up in terms of the methodology? What changes are
needed in the institutional framework?
Another dilemma is whether one can replicate the emotions, attachments, the commitment and the human touch, which was perhaps one of the keys to the success of the experiment at a smaller scale. When we talk of human scale operations, many things work precisely because it is human scale, and problems and solutions are generated and acted upon at that scale successfully. Therefore what do we mean when we say scaling up of "essentially human scale model of livelihood."
In agriculture, pests are a problem. How do we talk about pest management without using pesticides? Basically we are talking about using locally available resources, the knowledge of which has by and large been forgotten. Even if the government agrees with us, and says go ahead, the problem is how we convince the farmer who is now, after thirty years of green revolution, and increasing pest attacks, not willing to take the "risk".
What kind of institutional and support systems would be required? How do we build them, particularly in the context that the current systems, be it of credit, technical know-how, or insurance have been set-up for a different purpose - that of increasing use of fertilisers and pesticides. In the case of NPM, the challenge is how you supplement the farmers' knowledge instead of displacing it.
Another fundamental issue about scaling up is how you reduce the time taken for the transformation. When you are working in one village, it may take up to six years to achieve the change over. But when you are talking at a larger scale, there is need for reducing the time period for such a transformation.
Today the farmers are caught in between backward and forward linkages, all of which are increasingly getting out of their control. Equipment, machinery, power & electricity, as well as the money credit system are totally out of his hands. The forward linkages such as traders, retailers, distributors and other purchasers call the shots. The Minimum Support Price mechanism has not worked in his favour. The new commodities market has made his returns susceptible to the vagaries and imbalances of international market manipulations.
All this has created a crisis and farmers' suicide is one of the manifestations of this crisis. The costs of seeds, fertilisers and pesticides have gone up. Again the expenditure on pesticide has gone into a vicious upward spiral. Once you use it you need to use it more and more.