Social startups changing landscapes

Climate change has been a heated topic of debate in all circles. While every country wants to look good, they don’t want to accept policies at the cost of their ‘development’. There are conferences globally that talk about new conditions but the decisions and execution remain in the grey area.

There are positive signs though. For instance, the Indian government also announced future campaigns like ‘Fresh air, my birthright’, ‘Save Water, Save Energy’, ‘Grow More Plants’ and ‘Urban green’. On the other hand, the private sector initiatives in the country have already been proactive in the past years to promote a more responsible approach to the environment. Their area of competence varies from waste management to eco-tourism, to organic farming and so on. Here are some of them listed below:

Alternative energy

Energy is one of the most crucial elements for reducing the Co2 emissions. These enterprises have experimented different ways of producing them

Nokoda is a Bihar based social enterprise which developed a technology to convert waste into energy

Sustain Earth has created a cheap, resistant, and easy-to-use method to generate energy from cows’ manure

Urja Unlimited started from the consideration that “It is ironical that the rural poor pay twice as much as urban consumers for lighting needs” and has developed cheaper solar solutions targeted to them

ONergy operates in East India to provide clean energy solutions to villages

Waste Management

If alternative energy found a broader user base in rural areas, waste management – the most visible symptom of a polluted environment – remains largely an urban problem

Sampurn(e)arth started in Mumbai and expanded to the rest of the country, this social enterprise promote waste recycling as well as waste pickers’ dignity

I Got Garbage operates in Pune, Hyderabad, Vellore, Vizag, Hubli, Dharwad, Mumbai, Kottayam and Pondicherry. Users are encouraged to segregate waste and ‘hire a ragpicker’, who are able to earn more income by selling segregated garbage to different recycling centres.

Green Nerds has engineered a patent pending idea into an automatic garbage machine to segregate waste into easily manageable blocks.

Saahas is a Bengaluru based company that encourages waste management at a hyper local level

Clean Upper Dharamshala Project aims to clean up and recycle waste in Mcleodganj

Paperwaste headquarted in Hyderabad, picks up paper waste from individual households and corporate and take it to the landfil

EcoFemme produces sanitary pads made of fabric which help reduce the problem of disposal

In areas where the IT boom has been particularly prominent (South and West India) e-waste management has become a new concern, as well as a new opportunity for business

BinBag The Assamese Founder of the Bengaluru based start up Achitra Borgohain ensures that through his company e-waste is properly recycled.

Ecoreco has developed a technology to process e waste, being also able to export it

ReNewIt collects computers and other electronic devices disposed by big corporate companies which are still in good conditions. After fixing them and clear the data, they sell it back to the market at a very reasonable price

Eco Tourism

Eco Tourism generally focuses on the first of the three ‘Rs’ (Reduce, Recycle, Reuse), by trying to reduce the amount of waste produced by tourist.

Here you can find two links that list 12 travel social enterprises: link 1 and link 2

Organic farming

Agriculture contributes to 20 per cent of carbon emissions in the world. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN has disclosed that “Organic agriculture not only enables ecosystems to better adjust to the effects of climate change but also offers a major potential to reduce the emissions of agricultural greenhouse gases. Moreover, mixed farming and the diversity of organic crop rotations are protecting the fragile soil surface and may even counteract climate change by restoring the organic matter content.”

In India, some of the organisations involved in Organic Farming are

AgSri has been promoting the Sustainable Sugarcane Initiative (SSI), a set of agronomic practices that involves using less seeds, raising seedlings in a nursery, and following new planting methods, with wider plant spacing, and better water and nutrient management to increase cane yields.

Chetna Organic is working toward implementing organic methods for the cultivation of cotton, which is currently one of the most polluting in the world

Bee The Change taking advantage from the fact that farmers can keep bees only if they grow organic products, the Founder Shrikant Gajbhiye encourages them to introduce the striped insects in their farms. This, in turn, not only offer an additional source of income from the sale of honey and wax, but it helps increasing the annual yield.

The Apple Project works with apple growers in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh and help them become owners of their organic produce.

Urban initiatives

Finally, pollution is a problem that results from the lack of communication between urban and rural worlds. Lack of information about the ‘other reality’ causes several issues like the inability of urban dwellers to distinguish between healthy and chemical products and the lack of access to urban market for organic farmers. These organisations are working in this field

The Living Greens encourages urban dwellers to cultivate their own vegetables on their rooftops to re-gain contact with the food they consume

Daana Network works with cooperatives of organic farmers and provides them with a distributing platform for their products. For the moment they operate in Hyderabad sourcing products from all over south India.

Aura Herbal has created a fashion brand to sell only herbal textiles. They are engaged both in B2B and B2C operations

I Say Organic delivers certified organic products in different Indian cities

Tackling Poverty Through Farming

Bio-diverse integrated farms: Means for reducing rural poverty

Farmers of fragile agro-ecosystems have developed some unique integrated farming systems, to make their farms more resilient to factors like changing climatic conditions, declining soil fertility levels and decreasing farm income. While many NGOs have promoted such improved systems, it is time to reckon these systems as units of planning for large scale adoption.

Bio-diverse farming in a 700 sq.m plot.

Poultry is integrated with fishery to reap more benefits.

In developing countries, ensuring food, nutrition and livelihood security through agriculture without causing negative externalities on social, economic and environmental sustainability is a challenge. This assumes greater proportions in the context of ever-increasing pressure on land and other natural resources, globalization and urbanization.

In West Bengal, the picture is even bleaker where 85% farmers are small and marginal in nature. The situation becomes harsh in marginal and less integrated environments like the rainfed and the coastal-saline production systems, where most of the poor people live. In such a situation, small holder agriculture assumes great significance.

Future of agriculture and rural poverty alleviation depends on how we ensure food, nutrition and livelihood security through sustainable and integrated family farming, which is resilient to uncertainties of climate and markets. Promotion of sustainable farming systems as a poverty alleviation strategy seems to be an appropriate solution. Though simple, it is still a challenging proposition.

The Integrated Bio-diverse Family Farm

Agriculture in South Paraganas, a coastal district in West Bengal, is characterized by mono-cropping systems. Soil salinity particularly in dry months is a major problem. Farmers migrate to nearby towns and cities in lean agricultural months. Agricultural productivity is low and there is a cyclic productivity-led poverty trap affecting the farmers. Small holdings limit the expansion of conventional farming and the youth are reluctant to pursue farming as an occupation.

To overcome the constraints, several hundreds of farmers in coastal saline area in West Bengal have established Integrated Bio-diverse Family Farms (IBFF) with the support from Development Research Communication and Service Centre (DRCSC), a Kolkata-based NGO. There are also thousands of similar IBFF that have been developed by the farmers themselves to sustain livelihoods from their small holdings. One could also find IFS in smaller holdings of less than 30 decimal.

Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University (RKMVU) aimed at establishing a model village on Integrated Rural Development, conducted an intensive study on IBFF to understand IFS models. The study was made as a part of the academic research programme.

We selected an IFS farm of 1 acre (60 katha) size from Patharpratima Block of South 24 Parganas district for our study. The one acre land was utilized as follows: 30-40 katha (50-66%) for raising crops, 10-12 katha for home and homestead (16-20%), 8-10 katha for water body (13-16%) and 4-6 katha for livestock raising (6-10%). Substantial space was created by raising and broadening the bunds. For every 0.27 ha crop field, around 0.02- 0.03 ha of cultivable land was created on the bunds, on which vegetables were grown all through the year. The ponds and trenches around the crop fields were interconnected to facilitate water flow in which fishes were reared. Apart from this, some space was created by using aerial cultivation on bamboo and rope made scaffolds. Since the farm was small in size, intensifications were enhanced by growing crops having less water requirement, more intercropping, agroforestry of fruit trees, use of aerial space, small livestock, backyard poultry etc.

We measured nearly 40 environmental, economic and social parameters of these farms. Primarily, to examine the benefits accrued from the farm, we took up two important poverty-related indicators – food intake (calorie consumption) and farm income. We examined whether the IBFF was enough to feed the family of five persons throughout the year or not.

The study revealed that the model could provide the requisite calories for the family members (2400 and 2200 Kcal per person per day for men and women, respectively). The household had to purchase only a small amount of pulses and onions from the market, which was less than 5% of the total dietary need. The estimated monetary benefit from IBFF model was around Rs.75,000-80,000, of which more than 60% was secured as cash income. Though the estimation did not consider benefits from medicinal plants (saving health expenditure), recycling of nutrients and organic manure (saving cost of fertilizers), materials used for household use etc., the monetary income of the model was enough to bring the households above government specified poverty line. (Rs.41062/ - per household per annum, assuming Rs.22.50/- per capita per day for rural areas).

Upscaling the model

A small farmer adopts an IFS model

RKMVU aimed at establishing a model village on Integrated Rural Development, conducted surveys in Paruldah village having nine village settlements. During the initial surveys conducted during 2011-12, we found agriculture as the principal livelihood option. But, this was constrained by salinity and small fragmented holdings of the farmers. Eighty eight percent of 561 households in Paruldah village belonged to Scheduled Caste and more than 50% of them were below the poverty line.

RKMVU discussed with the farmers about their needs and preferences. Also had discussions with the local Community-Based Organization, Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama, Narendrapur (where our University’s Faculty Centre is situated) which has vast experience in promoting such models in the district. This apart, experts were also consulted in arriving at a suitable, powerful intervention point. IFS models of South 24 Parganas was the obvious choice which suited small holdings and resulted in multifunctional benefits to the farm household.

Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University initiated scaling up of the model in 2013, with farm-specific refinements in Paruldah village. The model is developed as per the needs and resources of the household and is not a prescriptive recommendation. Besides focus on the principles of ecological farming, these IBFF models further aimed at building social capital and a conducive institutional environment.

Farmers were organized into para (hamlet) committee comprising of around 20 men and women in each project village. Farmers are selected through bi-weekly para committee meeting followed by approval in the monthly village committee meeting.

Farmer Field School was organized to a group of farmers. Farmers received training from experts and scientists on scientific cultivation of crops and their pest management. FFS members are selected through the Para and Village Committee resolutions. An assurance is taken from the host farmer to return 10% of the benefits in monetary and/or non-monetary terms (e.g. - seed, labour) to the village committee. Besides crop data, members of this network also collected meteorological data from the village resource centre where a Hygrometer and Digital rain gauge are kept and monitored by the village committee. Further, leaders/farmer-trainers of the FFS provide training to other farmers at regular intervals.

All the farmers having IFS model are members of a Seed Sharing Network. Farmers select the germplasms and maintain them through the seed sharing network. All the members, as per their need, take seed at the initial stage of their cultivation and return 20% extra seed material to the seed sharing network after harvest. Members regularly monitor the process and supervise the quality of the germplasms, which are kept in a cool and dry place inside seed bins. Presently, the seeds of vegetables and mustard have been shared and they are stored in the seed bins.

As farm surplus is small, farmers have planned to sell their produce collectively, by forming a Market Linkage Network in each of the hamlet. This is still in the initial stages. In future, the entire model may be linked to farmer producer company or cooperative.

Thus, three institutional entities namely, Farmer Field School, Seed Sharing Network and Marketing Network have been established. A farmer may be a member of all these networks, but, this is not mandatory. Even interested non-farmers of the village have become member of one or more of these institutions.

Early benefits

Though it is too early to measure the impacts, there are certain developments that indicate that there are positive results. Farmers are coming together for the first time with regular interaction through Farmer Field Schools. Important farming related information/technologies are being exchanged among farmers. For instance, two progressive farmers are freely sharing their ‘hidden expertise’ with FFS members. Also enthusiastic members make use of Village Resource Centre where extension literature in local language is being maintained.

The seed sharing network has saved the farmers from expending cash for purchasing seed. In the first year, farmers have saved around Rs.400-500 on an average. While it has improved the access to seeds, the seed network has helped in maintaining the local germplasm. Seeds of local varieties of cucumber, bottle gourd, leafy vegetables, chillies etc. are being preserved, as women of the farm households grow these in the homestead areas.

There is a definite increase in the incomes realised from the farm. For example, Ranjan Mondal, one of the farmers, after securing for household consumption earned Rs.8000 from 18 layer birds (Rhode Island), Rs.8000/- from fish, Rs.15000/- from vegetables. Last year, he had not received any income.

The dietary diversity of the households has also increased due to the intervention. Previously, the share of carbohydrate was more than 80%. Now, with the consumption of vegetables, fish and eggs, the protein and vitamin components in the diet have increased. Also farmers are able to consume pesticide free, healthy produce.

More importantly, the solidarity of farmers has enhanced. Earlier, farmers of the nine village settlements hardly sat together for regular discussions.

Future potential

FFS members being trained in vermicomposting

Integrated Farming System (IFS) employs a unique resource management strategy to help achieve economic benefit while sustaining agricultural production and environmental quality. These systems which have the potential to address many issues like food security, employment generation and environmental stability are being promoted sporadically by NGOs. It is time to reckon these systems and implement as a unit of planning on a large scale.

Also, there is a need for various departments to work in tandem. For example, Sundarban Development Board, an autonomous body under the Sundarban Development Department of Govt. of West Bengal has promoted thousands of land shaping/excavation of irrigation tank in the Sundarbans region. A large number of such tanks have also been created under MGNREGA, a rural employment programme of the government.

There is an enormous potential of improving socio-economic condition and restoring ecological balance by promoting IFS on these lands. Even with a conservative estimate of 50000 farms in the area, the potential value of primary agriculture produce will be Rs.350 crore a year, of which Rs.125 crore will come to market directly. Not to mention the employment generated by these farms and the associated labour economy.

The contribution to ecosystem services is enormous if one can estimate in terms of nutrient balance, water saved, carbon sequestered, energy saved and biodiversity enhanced. These are subjects of great practical importance and, astonishingly, no policy initiatives have been taken up to focus the same. IBFF need to be taken up as units of NRM in regional planning and be merged with the overarching poverty alleviation strategy.

Copenhagen Conundrum

The only thing that's interesting - and significant -- about the ongoing UN climate change conference in Copenhagen is the rallying together of the so-called weak countries: the African nations, Bangladesh, Island nations and others and their being backed by the BASIC four - Brazil, South Africa, India and China. And why wouldn't they fight for their survival, pushed to the wall as they are by the rich world?

Why is it so surprising that wealthy - and selfish - countries led by the likes of Denmark, Australia and the US are holding a brief for their like-minded brethren, refusing to commit themselves to targets and figures to slowdown global warming? Of their outright rejection of the Kyoto Protocol that was formulated with great thought, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility? What happened to the upholding of the polluter-pays-principle that requires those with historical responsibility to make amends in the interests of the common good? Isn't it inhuman to expect that while they remain well fed and uncommitted, poorer countries - who are only now taking the path of poverty alleviation and basic development needs - ought to reduce their energy consumption and infrastructure programmes? Is this not a violation of human rights?

Even as the rich countries wrangle over their right to continue to pollute, they have chosen to forget that the developing world is only asking for help - by way of clean technology transfer and funding for adaptation - to not take the same indiscriminate, environment-unfriendly path the developed world has taken so far. Is that asking for too much? Mary Robinson, former UN Commissioner for Human Rights, delivering a global verdict along with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, says: "International human rights law says that 'in no case may a people be deprived of its means of subsistence'. Yet because of excessive carbon emissions, produced primarily by industrialized countries, millions of the world's poorest people's rights are being violated every day. This is a deep and global injustice."

Could there be any reasonable argument against this stand? With just four days to go before the current UN climate change conference concludes, tensions are running high with no sight of either monetary and technology transfer nor emissions cutback commitments from developed countries despite the UN framework underlining the fundamental principle of equity and justice in all such international negotiations.

The rich countries are guilty of several human rights violations against millions of people in the developing world, and these include the denial of the right to livelihood, the denial of the right to their homes, the denial of the right to food, shelter and clothing, the denial of the right to employment opportunities, the denial of the right to freedom from disease, denial of the right to preservation of cultures and traditions and in all, the denial of the right to a future free of poverty.

In its March 28 resolution in 2008 the UN Commission on Human Rights declared that climate change "poses an immediate and far-reaching threat to people and communities around the world" and that the link between climate and change and human rights could no longer be ignored. From the International Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report it is clear that there is scientific evidence that the acceleration in climate change and the ensuing consequences of the increase in the frequency and intensity of floods and droughts, and other what were hitherto seen as "natural" calamities are no longer natural but man-made, on account of the huge volume of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere with fast-paced industrialization and burning of fossil fuels, mostly by the developed world.

What the UN conference ought to address urgently is how culpable countries can be made to account for their responsibilities with regard to righting human rights violations of people living in vulnerable countries who had little or no part in the creation of the climate change problem in the first instance. If this question remains unanswered, maybe it is time the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change calls it a day, admitting that the entire expensive exercise - that began in 1992 with the Rio summit - has been a dismal failure, contributing to rather than helping to solve the problem that inspired the creation of the framework in the first place.

Sorry delegates, for squashing your plans for your next junket to Mexico City.