Political analysis of the adoption of the Zero-Budget natural farming program in Andhra Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT

Input-driven agriculture has led to an epidemic of impoverishment, farmer suicides, and environmental degradation in India, but has also shown consistent staying power in Indian politics. We examine the case of organic farming policy adoption to explore this paradox. Specifically, our objective was to evaluate how the state-wide Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) program (now formally known as Community Managed Natural Farming) in Andhra Pradesh, India came to be. Evidence was drawn from government documents, field notes from a ZBNF workshop and farmer interactions, and in-depth interviews with stakeholders. Results suggest that advocacy of civil society networks, champions within the bureaucracy, emphasis on rural livelihoods, and the 20-year history of consensus building around agroecology all played a key role in the adoption of the ZBNF program in this state. Given the possibility of scaling up ZBNF at the national level, our analysis of the enabling environment is especially timely.

KEYWORDS:

• Sustainable agriculture
• agroecology
• organic
• rural development
• sustainable development
• political economy

Introduction

The Green Revolution in India led to increased production and income for many farmers, but the economic benefits of input-driven agriculture did not accrue equitably to all. In the past few decades, land holdings have become increasingly fragmented, and the number of small and marginal landholders (less than two hectares) has risen commensurately (Department of Agriculture 2016). Similarly, there has been net out-migration of both landed peasants and agricultural laborers out of the agriculture sector (Jakobsen 2018), and more of the cultivated land area has been farmed under tenancy agreements (Rao 2019). In many cases, income from small farms is no longer adequate to meet household needs – the average small-scale farmer can make ends meet only by borrowing against an uncertain future (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation 2013).

There have been significant ecological costs from input-driven agriculture, as well. In many Indian states, crop production is characterized by a heavy burden on the environment. India is the largest extractor of groundwater in the world (World Bank 2012), with over 85% of groundwater used for irrigation, depleting most aquifers (Central Ground Water Board 2017; Shiao, Carson, and Loizeaux 2015). Agriculture directly contributes to 20% of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, primarily due to livestock rearing and the use of nitrogenous fertilizers (Ministry of Environment, 2015). These fertilizers are also the largest source of nitrate contamination in surface waterbodies (Swaney et al. 2015). Crop residue burning is a significant contributor to air pollution, especially in the northwestern region (Kaskaoutis et al. 2014). Nearly 30% of the total geographic area of the country is also undergoing land degradation (Indian Space Research Organisation 2016).

Agricultural practices also have significant public health impacts. Pesticide poisonings are common, and represent an additional dimension of the harms posed by input-intensive production practices (Bonvoisin, Utyasheva, Knipe, Gunnell, and Eddleston, 2020). In spite of a national cereal production surplus (World Food Programme and Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation 2019), 35% of children under five are stunted (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare 2019), indicating that neither private market forces nor government policies are meeting the basic needs of many people.

Immediately following the liberalization of the Indian economy in 1991, which was characterized by policy changes in trade, private and foreign investment, taxation, fiscal discipline, and more, farmer suicides made national headlines. The crisis has been linked to financial distress in the form of indebtedness, dependence on commercial (‘cash’) crops, increased risk borne by marginal farmers, and other factors (Falnikar and Dutta 2019; Kennedy and King 2014; Vasavi 2009). These outcomes have been linked to increased input costs and stagnation of market prices and yields in the post-liberalization era, coupled with increasing environmental risks such as depleting groundwater reserves (Reddy and Mishra 2008; Sridhar 2006; Vakulabharanam and Motiram 2011).

The agrarian crisis and support measures for farmers continue to dominate the agendas of both central and state elections in the country. The largest farmer protests in recent years were organized around demands for increases in government-declared ‘minimum support prices,’ loan waivers, and the establishment of debt-relief commissions (The Economic Times 2018). The ruling BJP government addressed the problem largely as an economic issue, initiating a direct cash-transfer program called PM-Kisan to augment farmer incomes, a move that may have helped the government win votes in the 2019 national parliamentary elections (Manish 2019).

Taking a different tack, some civil society organizations have emphasized agroecological approaches, including advocacy for alternative¹ ‘sustainable’ production practices1. One such production system, popularized by Subhash Palekar, is ‘Zero Budget Natural Farming’ (ZBNF), which focuses on four core strategies: (i) microbial seed coating (bijamrita), (ii) enhancing soil microbiome and organic matter (jivamrita), (iii) cover cropping and mulching (acchandana), and (iv) soil aeration (whapahasa).

We interpret ZBNF in some contrast to prevailing fiscal policy approaches to agriculture sector problems. First, ZBNF addresses water and soil quality challenges directly, whereas subsidy and loan forgiveness programs have no immediate connection to ecological issues. Second, ZBNF takes a relatively long-term view; fiscal policy measures have much more immediate impact. In general terms, these are classic ingredients of a collective action problem pitting fast-acting, short-term measures with high political salience against a comprehensive solution with far better potential but comparatively low political salience because of the longer timescale on which it would operate and the many unknown risks of implementation that require both strong leadership and leaps of faith.

Several states throughout India have witnessed widespread adoption of ZBNF, either as a grassroots movement as in Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu, or as state-sponsored programs as in Andhra Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, since 2016 and 2018, respectively (Press Information Bureau 2019). Outside of ZBNF, there have been other state-supported organic farming programs, such as in Sikkim, which declared itself to be fully organic in 2015 (The Economic Times, 2016). Given that the agricultural land area in Andhra Pradesh is 80 times larger than that of Sikkim (Department of Agriculture Cooperation & Farmers Welfare 2018), the program in Andhra Pradesh is unprecedented in its scope (Rythu Sadhikara Samstha 2019). While there is variability in what the ZBNF program entails village-to-village, it is primarily a training and field-level support program. To understand how various stakeholders have interpreted ZBNF and assess its salience as a movement, we focused on the policy adoption process for ZBNF in Andhra Pradesh.

The state of Andhra Pradesh is home to approximately 6 million farmers and agriculture makes up 34% of the state’s GDP (PRS Legislative Research 2019). The state has a fertile irrigated coastal belt and a semi-arid rain-fed in-land region. In the prosperous coastal regions, many land-owning farmers have moved out of the agricultural sector; of all Indian states, Andhra Pradesh has the largest share of land area cultivated by tenants (Rao 2019). The arid and primarily rain-fed regions are hardscrabble by comparison. Declining groundwater levels and other indications of ecological stress have been accompanied by reports of hardship for farmers, including suicide and distress migration. Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh is input dependent-the state has one of the highest per-capita purchasing rates of nitrogenous fertilizers and the highest per-capita consumption of electricity in agriculture (Veluguri, Ramanjaneyulu, and Jaacks 2019). In parallel, Andhra Pradesh has the highest rate of indebtedness among farmers. Over 90% of farm households are in debt, compared to the national average of 52% (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation 2013), and the average income of 6,920 INR per household per month is about 23% lower than the national average of 8,931 INR (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development 2018).

Successive state governments, including the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), which came to power in 2014, and the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu (YSR) Congress, elected in 2019, have made agriculture a priority. These parties have embraced a fiscal policy approach to the problems of farmers, enacting programs at large costs to the state exchequer (Government of Andhra Pradesh 2019; Kalavalapalli 2014). The 2014 agricultural loan waiver program of up to 150,000 INR per farmer largely benefitted those who owned land and had access to formal credit, which typically go hand-in-hand (Rajaram 2019). In contrast, the direct cash transfer program, initially adopted in 2017 by the TDP and continued in modified form by the YSR Congress, aims to benefit all cultivators in the state. The cash transfer is currently INR 13,500 per family per year, including tenant farmers, now officially recognized by 2019 legislation legalizing tenancy in the state (New India Express 2019).

In 2016, the state government also tried rolling out a state-wide ZBNF program as an agroecological approach to agrarian distress. Considering the scale and possible impact of the program, this paper is an attempt to study the history and adoption of the ZBNF program in Andhra Pradesh. Our guiding question was: how did the ZBNF program in Andhra Pradesh come to be in its present form? We wondered, when all states have recognized the agrarian crisis as a priority, why did the state of Andhra Pradesh choose ZBNF as the solution? Understanding the political dynamics of the policy adoption process has the potential to reveal some of the ways societies can move beyond the common cycle of unsustainable input-based agriculture and indebtedness and can illuminate possible solutions to one of the world’s largest collective action problems at the heart of climate change.

Methods

Data collection

We drew evidence from the review of relevant government documents including Press Information Bureau releases, government orders,² the publicly available report on ZBNF by the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, media reporting, academic papers, and a position statement on ZBNF shared by the Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India. One author (DV) also attended a ZBNF workshop organized by Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS), including a day-long field visit and interactions with visiting and farmers local to Anantapur District, and took extensive field notes, which were used to triangulate findings. The public repository of government orders of Andhra Pradesh (goir.ap.gov.in) was searched using keywords ZBNF, Natural Farming, Organic Farming, RySS, Rythu Sadhikara Samstha, and T. Vijay Kumar, for the period of 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2019 to identify all government orders regarding RySS and ZBNF. Seventy-one unique government orders were identified and reviewed to create a chronology of events.

In addition to this document review, in-depth, open-ended interviews were conducted with nine stakeholders, purposefully selected based on their knowledge of the history of agroecology and adoption of the ZBNF program in Andhra Pradesh and for the diversity of their experiences and perspectives. Interviewees included representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in the implementation of ZBNF, along with an NGO critical of the program, activist bodies, donor agencies, bureaucracy, media platforms, and academia. Attempts were also made to interview pesticide industry representatives, both at the state and the national level. Interviews were semi-structured and adapted to individual stakeholders.

Theoretical framework

We used an adapted version of the Global Political Priority framework, first proposed by Shiffman and Smith (2007), to help organize our findings relating to factors relevant to the process of adoption of the ZBNF program in Andhra Pradesh (Table 1). This framework outlines four determinants of political priority: actor power, determined by the cohesion and strength of individuals, organizations and institutions involved in advocating for and adoption of the policy; ideas, which relates to the acceptability of the policy solution, both within the policy community and the general public; political contexts, which is both the political window of opportunity, and the institutional mechanisms that allow for collective action toward the adoption of the policy; issue characteristics, which refers to the severity of the problem, availability of effective indicators for measurement, and implementable solutions.

Table 1. Global political priority framework by Shiffman and Smith 2007, as adapted to the Zero-Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) program in Andhra Pradesh, India

Determinant	Description	As relevant to ZBNF Policy
Actor power	‘The strength of the individuals and organizations concerned with the issue’	Strength of civil society network in communicating ideas, promoting adoption, and implementing the program Champion within the state bureaucracy
Ideas	‘The ways in which those involved with the issue understand and portray it’	Agroecological approaches accepted as the solution, with focus on livelihood security Farmer autonomy and knowledge: Solutions lie in the hands of farmers, not universities
Political contexts	‘The environments in which actors operate’	Window of opportunity in Andhra Pradesh State level governance structure: RySS Power of the Executive
Issue characteristics	‘Features of the problem’	Implementable solution Sustainable agriculture as a political priority

Although the Shiffman and Smith framework is itself a derivative of John Kingdon’s Agenda Setting framework, we chose the former for this analysis because it offered greater flexibility to discuss the individual factors, which may not necessarily be inter-related, within each determinant. This was particularly relevant in our analysis of two factors: the role of community groups and the role of farmer knowledge and innovation. Moreover, Shiffman and Smith’s framework aims to answer the question of why ‘some global health initiatives attract political priority whereas others remain neglected’ (Shiffman and Smith 2007). Considering that the ZBNF program represents a shift away from fiscal programs that have been prevalent in India since the Green Revolution, we have used the framework to analyze how training in agroecological approaches, namely, ZBNF, came to be a political priority.

Analysis

The interview guide was used to identify a primary set of codes, subsequently edited to include previously unidentified themes and concepts based on a review of transcripts by two authors (DV and LMJ). Interviews were analyzed using Dedoose (version 8.2.32, SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC, Los Angeles, CA, 2019). DV coded the final transcripts and LMJ reviewed the same for quality control. A draft of this paper was shared with all interviewees for feedback and approval to publish. Individual interviews have been referenced using a randomly assigned number, from I1 to I9; notes taken by the author during the RySS workshop and related field visits are referenced as ‘FN.’

Ethics

This study was reviewed and approved by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Institutional Review Board (Protocol #: IRB19–0695) and the Center for Chronic Disease Control Institutional Ethics Committee (Protocol #: IRB00006330). Written, informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Results

Chronology of events

Promotion of agroecological approaches in Andhra Pradesh did not start with the ZBNF program (I1, I2, I4, I6, I7, FN). Between 1999 and 2004, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Government of India together led a program to promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM) among cotton cultivators through farmer field schools (Mancini et al. 2008). In 2004, the Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture (CMSA) program was initiated by the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP), a part of the Department of Rural Development in Andhra Pradesh, at the time headed by Vijay Kumar. SERP itself had been established in 2000 ‘to facilitate rural poverty reduction through social mobilization and livelihood improvement’ (Poverty 2014), with agriculture as one of its primary areas of work (I6). As part of the CMSA program, SERP partnered with NGOs to reduce pesticide use through Non-Pesticidal Management (NPM), with the overarching goal of reducing cultivation costs to increase farmers’ net incomes (I6, I1, I2). The CMSA program leveraged existing community groups of women, called ‘self-help groups,’ training them in pest and soil management practices. The program used ‘community resource persons’ for organizing farmer field schools, and as of 2007, self-help groups were given responsibility for program management, including paying the NGOs responsible for extension. In just over 4 years, the CMSA program reportedly reached more than 300,000 farmers and 12% of all villages in the state (Kumar 2009). After 2010, these practices continued to be promoted in the state through various centrally sponsored schemes such as the Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana but not at the scale of the preceding CMSA program (I1, I2).

In 2015, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, through the Department of Agriculture, started promoting ZBNF practices in parts of the state. In 2016, Vijay Kumar, who was then Special Chief Secretary, Agriculture, was appointed as Co-Vice Chairman of RySS (Government of Andhra Pradesh 2016a). A second government order was then issued, shifting management of ZBNF to RySS and declaring the intent of the state to scale-up the program to reach 500,000 farmers by 2022 to ensure ‘reduction in costs of cultivation, improvement in soil fertility, improvement in crop yields, improvement in crops' ability to withstand prolonged dry spells and excess rains, etc.’ (Government of Andhra Pradesh 2016b). Financial resources through the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, a centrally sponsored scheme for the promotion of organic farming, and other state funds were directed for promoting ZBNF through RySS, along with a grant from the Azim Premji Philanthropic Initiative (APPI) (Government of Andhra Pradesh 2016b).

ZBNF versus the ZBNF program

To discuss the ZBNF program, it is necessary to differentiate between ‘ZBNF’ as a set of production principles promoted by Subhash Palekar, and the ‘ZBNF program’, also referred to as the Climate Resilient ZBNF program (CRZBNF) and now formally known as the Andhra Pradesh Community Managed Natural Farming (APCNF) program, as adopted by the government of Andhra Pradesh. While Palekar’s trainings were used in the initial implementation of the program, particularly due to his popularity as a convincing orator (as noted elsewhere (Muenster 2018)) (I2, I6), and his principles make up the core of the training provided to farmers, a recurring theme from our interviews and field observations was the distinction between the two.

ZBNF, as taught by Palekar, and the ‘ZBNF program’ have diverged over the past 4 years due to the addition of other forms of expertise to the latter. The adoption of a wide range of chemical-free agricultural production practices beyond ZBNF by farmers has been quoted as the most important factor of differentiation. Some practices, such as the use of vermicompost, go directly against the teachings of Palekar because they involve the introduction of non-native worms into the soil. Others, such as the use of NADEP compost, embrace widely accepted principles of agroecology that are not part of Palekar’s teaching. Practices such as pre-monsoon dry sowing, where farmers sow before the first rain of the summer monsoon instead of after, are innovations generated through the ZBNF program itself (FN, I1, I2, I9, I6, I7). Palekar’s adoption of the name ‘Subhash Palekar Spiritual Farming’ in 2019 and change of the Andhra Pradesh ZBNF program’s name to APCNF in March 2020 are further evidence of this distinction. We continue to use the nomenclature of ‘ZBNF’ to refer to the program initially adopted by the government of Andhra Pradesh.

Actor power

The Global Political Priority framework (Shiffman and Smith 20072007) posits that actor power is shaped by several factors. With regards to the adoption of ZBNF in Andhra Pradesh, these included (1) civil society networks that can mobilize authorities to address the issue and (2) the presence of leaders who are strong ‘champions’ of the cause. The ability of civil society organizations to implement projects, coordinate with a champion within the bureaucracy, and concerted efforts relating to consensus-building around agroecology by these actors, all played a role in ZBNF’s adoption.

Civil society organization network

Civil society organizations in Andhra Pradesh played a critical role in promoting agroecology in the state. In 2004, volunteers and staff of the Center for World Solidarity and the Center for Sustainable Agriculture were the first to propose NPM to Vijay Kumar at SERP (I6), which led to pilot training programs, and eventually to the adoption of the CMSA program (I6, I1). Several NGOs in the state provided technical assistance in agroecology practices and acted as ‘resource organizations’ that enabled implementation of the CMSA program. Multiple interviewees cited their experience in the CMSA program as a factor for supporting the adoption of the ZBNF program (I1, I6, I7, I9). Apart from working with government agencies such as SERP, NGOs frequently contributed to media conversations around safe food and agrarian distress (I3, I1). This contributed to a change in consumer perception around chemical-free food production (I3) and in consumer demand for organic produce, which has been a supporting factor sustaining the ZBNF program (I6). Various NGOs are now formally part of the ZBNF program as ‘resource organizations’, which focus on providing training and expertise in agroecology, and ‘field NGOs’, which have established networks with farmers in various parts of Andhra Pradesh.

In December 2015, Vijay Kumar, then with the Ministry of Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh, and activists of a national advocacy network organized a workshop that showcased the work done through CMSA and other agroecology initiatives across the country, and connected the then CEO of APPI and Vijay Kumar, eventually leading to APPI’s further engagement and sponsorship of the program (I2, I9, I6).

Champions

Vijay Kumar has played a crucial role in the promotion of various community-based agroecology programs in India, particularly in Andhra Pradesh. The adoption of the CMSA program under his leadership through SERP (a part of the Department of Rural Development department, not the Department of Agriculture), was a ‘turning point’ in how decision-making about agriculture happened in Andhra Pradesh (I1), as NPM ran counter to the conventional Green Revolution practices long promoted by agricultural universities and the Department of Agriculture (I6, I1). He played a key role in articulating the potential of low-input chemical-free practices as a means for livelihood security and in leveraging the women’s self-help group network for their promotion. After moving to the national bureaucracy in 2010, he was instrumental in drafting and initiating the Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana program. He returned to the government of Andhra Pradesh in 2015 and took the position of Special Chief Secretary, Agriculture, where he proceeded to promote organic and natural farming, initially in the form of ZBNF trainings, then as an independent program for scale-up at the state level. As the Special Chief Secretary, Vijay Kumar had the power to greatly influence the policy agenda. Not only was he able to facilitate the issuance of government orders adopting the ZBNF program, he was also able to bring together government officials to build new consensus on the role of ZBNF and agroecology (I6). His positive working relationships with fellow Indian Administrative Service officers in a number of Ministries, including Agriculture and Rural Development, were essential for bringing these officials together.

The role of a champion was also evident in Kerala’s experience, with the Department of Agriculture, in charge of the extension services, and the state agriculture universities being the strongest critics of the state’s organic family policy adopted in 2010. There too, champions outside the Ministry of Agriculture, such as the State Biodiversity Board, and within the ministry (the then Agriculture Minister himself), with support from NGO partners helped in the drafting and adoption of the policy (Thottathil 2014).

Ideas

In Andhra Pradesh, while political leaders with resources and a strong organized civil society network agreed that the problem – i.e., the agricultural crisis – was a consequence of the top-down model of the Green Revolution, and that the solution was low-input production systems and farmer-led innovation, agricultural universities remained skeptical.

Agroecological approaches with focus on livelihood security

Five of the interviewees began their narration of the history of agroecology in Andhra Pradesh with accounts of farmer suicides in the state in the early 2000s. Some explicitly cited the issue of farmer suicides as a personal motivation for taking up the cause of agroecology (I6, I1, I3). The initial adoption of CMSA in Andhra Pradesh coincided with an unprecedented period of farmer suicides: 428 farmer suicides were reported in less than 2 months, between May and July 2004 (Sridhar 2006). Sridhar noted in 2006 that the summer of 2004 was unique compared to previous years (1987–88, 1997–98, and 2000) because it affected every single district in the state with the only exception being Hyderabad (Sridhar 2006). The 2004 incident prompted the state government to immediately set up a ‘Commission of Farmers’ Welfare’ (Sridhar 2006). The commission provided recommendations in six areas, one of which was to ‘encourage cheaper and more sustainable input use, with greater public provision and regulation of private input supply and strong research and extension support’ (Commission on Farmers’ Welfare Andhra Pradesh 2004). Launched in the same year, one of the primary goals of the CMSA program was a reduction in the cost of cultivation (I6), focusing on pesticide-free management during a time when pesticides contributed to a large portion of input costs (I1). Discussing the intent behind the CMSA program, a senior bureaucrat who was part of its implementation recalled how women from self-help groups were struggling to save thirty rupees (0.4 USD) a month at the time, but had been spending thousands on pesticides, which he felt were unnecessary.

In 2014, a reported 92.9% of agricultural households in Andhra Pradesh were indebted, the highest in the country, compared to a national average of 51.9% (National Sample Survey Organization 2014). At the same time, the theme of reducing input costs and liberation from indebtedness is also a prominent part of Palekar’s discourse, as well as the Andhra Pradesh ZBNF program (I6, FN). In a context where agriculture is seen as no longer profitable for most farmers, all stakeholders interviewed saw promotion of agroecology as a means for promotion of livelihood security. The government order for scaling up ZBNF also explicitly states that the reduction in the cost of cultivation is a benefit of adopting ZBNF (Government of Andhra Pradesh 2016b) and the promotion of diverse sources of income for farmers, particularly to promote livelihood security, has become one of the central themes of the ZBNF program (FN).

Sustainable agricultural programs have largely been framed as a way of promoting ecological sustainability, particularly in the west. However, the present narrative has framed the ZBNF program primarily as a means of achieving livelihood security for farmers, particularly smallholders. Reduction in the use, and consequently amount spent on purchasing pesticides for production, was a driving force behind the support for NPM among women’s self-help groups established through SERP (I6, I1, I7). NPM was proposed by civil society experts as a solution to an ecological and economic crisis, while the agriculture department viewed NPM as a purely ecological approach. However, the SERP CMSA program interpreted NPM as a livelihoods approach given that it focused on reducing the cost of cultivation (I1).

The CMSA program contributed to creating a ‘general atmosphere’ of acceptability for chemical-free agriculture (I2) in Andhra Pradesh. The program’s activities were showcased as a potential solution to farmers’ problems both in regional (I3) and national media outlets (I1). In this context, promoting fully organic production through the ZBNF program has been described as a ‘logical next step’ (I2), both socially and ecologically. Government stakeholders identified the program as ‘20 years old’ (I6, I7) because of the ‘social mobilization process initiated in 2000ʹ (I7) through SERP.

The ideas behind ZBNF, as advanced by Palekar, gained prominence as a critique of Green Revolution and ‘western’ practices promoted by agricultural universities and the state. While ‘organic farming’ was previously seen as costly and inaccessible to smallholder farmers, the nomenclature of ‘zero-budget’ was adopted by Palekar to articulate the low cost and accessibility of the practices he promoted (I2).

Farmer autonomy and knowledge: Solutions lie in the hands of farmers, not universities

The role of farmer choice, autonomy, and farmer-driven innovation was another recurring theme in our interviews. While not mentioned in our stakeholder interviews, this theme hearkens back to the farmer field schools of the 1990s and early 2000s (Mancini et al. 2008). The current crisis in agriculture was described as a result of the adoption of Green Revolution technologies unsuitable to ‘local conditions,’ particularly given the diversity of agroclimatic regions in India. The limitations of the scientific method were brought up in five interviews and during the ZBNF workshop. Stated critiques of the existing Green Revolution paradigm included: the ‘reductionist’ process of generating scientific evidence, which is especially limiting in the study of system-level impacts of chemical-free agriculture on social and ecological parameters; scarce information on the role of microbes in agriculture and soil health; and the limitations of the ‘technological treadmill,’ which demands increasingly higher input use in the context of nonrenewable resources.

Anecdotal evidence indicates a wide range of ‘innovative’ and ‘traditional’ agroecological practices by farmers. The ZBNF program meshed with this tradition by emphasizing farmer-led field-level experimentation, facilitated by champion farmers, RySS and ‘resource NGOs,’ and reinforced by APPI, the donor (I6, I9, FN). ‘Natural Farming Fellows’ who are graduates in agricultural science, have been chosen in various locations to develop and test practices suitable to typical field conditions, rather than in more standardized experimental plots. While the primary field staff – community resource persons – are trained and employed by RySS, the program relies extensively on peer-to-peer learning. Experienced farmers within each cluster of villages are chosen to be ‘master farmers,’ tasked with providing direct support to their peers. New staff for expansion are then selected from the pool of master farmers.

The process of training and enrollment of farmers also promotes experimentation by farmers who are encouraged to adopt alternative practices in a small portion of their land to learn and observe before scaling up. This has been a central strategy designed to help farmers assess their own risks within their own circumstances, thus allowing them to make more informed choices as they consider adopting ZBNF practices. Interviewees reported the autonomy of farmers to adopt any chemical-free production practice while being supported by the program to be one of the crucial factors relevant to its adoption (I2, I6). However, one interviewee noted concern with the top-down nature of knowledge transfer within the ZBNF program, drawing parallels to the prescriptive model of the Green Revolution (I1).

The greatest opposition to the promotion of agroecology in the form of alternative low-input models has come from within the Department of Agriculture and state agricultural universities (I1). This opposition is centered around the question of whether agroecological practices can meet food security needs in the country (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences 2019) and the lack of ‘scientific validity’ for ZBNF practices, especially in the promotion of only indigenous cow dung and urine (I4, I5). One study has reported the impact of ZBNF on crop yields based on farmer self-report, concluding, ‘The yield of the crops grown under ZBNF are found to be on par with those grown under non-ZBNF’ (Galab et al. 2019). However, of the 1,987 farmers interviewed, 622 were excluded from the analysis because they practiced a mix of ZBNF and conventional agriculture (Galab et al. 2019). More farm-level studies are needed to inform effects on yield as well as contextual factors that may influence effectiveness. A recent simulation model of ZBNF suggests that yield benefits may be seen for low-input farmers, but yield penalties are likely for high-input farmers (Smith et al. 2020).

Political context

Shiffman and Smith (2007) identify two important political contexts in which actors operate as part of the Global Political Priority Framework: a window of opportunity for change and the global governance structure or relevant institutions that allows for effective action. In Andhra Pradesh, we found that the nature of power with the executive provided the necessary institutional structure, and the presence of a political champion with appropriate resources provided a window of opportunity for the adoption of ZBNF.

Window of opportunity

Many factors combined to create a window of opportunity for the adoption of the ZBNF program. Vijay Kumar returning to Andhra Pradesh as the Special Chief Secretary placed a leader within the bureaucracy who championed the cause of ZBNF. At the same time, APPI, a newly formed philanthropic organization, was looking for a way to support farmer livelihoods (I9, I2) and the formulation of a program around ZBNF facilitated that in partnership with a state government. The program coincided with an emerging consensus around low-input chemical-free production as a solution to the agricultural crisis. These changing attitudes were reflected in media coverage. It would have been the norm for media houses owned by the opposition party to be critical of the program. However, when it was introduced by the ruling TDP government, the leading opposition’s (YSR Congress) Sakshi newspaper provided positive coverage for ZBNF practices. When the YSR Congress government replaced TDP a few years later, they sustained investment in the program in a rare case of nonpartisan continuity (I3).

State-level governance structure: RySS

The structure of the bureaucracy itself also enabled adoption of the program. RySS, the nodal agency for implementation, was established as a registered corporation under the Department of Agriculture, with the explicit purpose of being a ‘one-stop shop’ for all programs related to farmers' welfare. However, the corporation remained primarily focused on implementing the farm loan-waiver program soon after its establishment in 2014. Scale up of ZBNF through RySS offered the program a distinct advantage: while the agriculture department continues to provide extension and other support services for chemical-based agriculture, RySS was able to independently promote a different agenda, while also accessing government resources (I6). This structure allowed different agencies within the agriculture department to promote seemingly contradictory programs – one emphasizing ‘natural farming’, and the other continuing to support chemical-based agriculture (I6).

Power of the executive

It is also noteworthy that the powers of the executive advanced the ZBNF program through government orders, rather than via the state legislature. Other states, such as Kerala, have progressive sustainable or organic farming policies on the books, but little has been done toward achieving the goals set out in these policies. Policies adopted through the legislature, without executive support or dedicated financial resources, have been ineffective (I2). Thus, the structure of the bureaucracy, the ability of the government to adopt such a program through executive action, and the window of opportunity created by the return of Vijay Kumar to Andhra Pradesh, along with the availability of funds from a willing donor that could be utilized without the constraints of a rigid government program, created the political context in which the ZBNF program was adopted and sustained. Parallels can be drawn with IPM policies in other Asian countries, notably Indonesia and China, which were also catalyzed through the power of the executive (Oudejans 1999; Peshin et al. 2009; Resosudarmo 2014).

Nature of the issue

Certain characteristics of an issue enable it to become a global political priority: severity of the issue, credible indicators to measure the severity and monitor progress, and the availability of an effective intervention. Shiffman and Smith (2007) propose that the presence of an ‘effective’ solution that is also ‘simple to implement and inexpensive’ is more likely to make an issue a priority. In the context of Andhra Pradesh, we postulate that the ZBNF program presented one such solution to a problem that was already identified as political priority.

Implementable solution

Promotion of IPM through a farmer field school model had been a tried and tested approach in Andhra Pradesh through the FAO program between 1999 and 2004 (Mancini, Jiggins, and O’Malley 2009; Mancini et al. 2008). In 2004, the farmer field school model was also adopted for an ongoing program on community-led groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh (Chavva and Smith 2012). Starting in 2000, the SERP program mobilized rural women in Andhra Pradesh to form self-help groups. NPM practices were piloted through self-help groups using the farmer field school model, and the positive response and demand from these groups led to the adoption of the CMSA program (I1, I6). CMSA showed the effectiveness of targeting development programs through community-based organizations, making farmer communities active participants rather than passive recipients through ‘investing in the capability of citizens to solve their own problems’ (I6).

The ZBNF program is similar in that it views self-help groups as village-level entry points for building an alternative extension system, allowing the program to train women in groups, who in turn train and support other members of the community. All stakeholders involved in implementation considered women’s self-help groups as essential. Without them, the program would not have been possible (I7, I6). They act as a ‘force multiplier’ in creating social capital (I6). Since 2019, as part of the ZBNF program, self-help groups also review data on training, resources, and adoption of the program, allowing for direct accountability of RySS staff to the community (I6). Self-help groups are also the unit for raising capital for women to invest in ZBNF activities, such as purchasing cows or making inputs. The program also drew on existing human capital built during the CMSA program, hiring many of the field staff trained during CMSA as resource persons.

The ‘effectiveness’ of the ZBNF program as a solution has also been dependent on the ‘dynamic’ nature of the program itself. The availability of financial resources through an external agency (APPI) allowed the program to evolve over time. Sponsorship of APPI enabled the work of civil society organizations that were able to bring in expertise and also experiment with various models that were fed into the program to increase ‘effectiveness’ (I9, I1, I6), which would not have been possible through a purely government-sponsored program (I6). The relatively low cost of ZBNF, as the program only invests in training and knowledge-transfer, may also have been a significant factor. One interviewee noted that the ZBNF program was promoted at a lower cost per capita than other existing organic farming programs (I6). The lower long-term investment in low-input farming compared to the high-cost of input-subsidies currently borne by the government was also emphasized by the program (I1, I2).

The fast realization of personal economic benefits for farmers has also been discussed as a reason for the popularity of the program. It is claimed that the cost reduction due to low-input practices has led to increasing profitability from the first season of adoption (I6). At the same time, it was observed that the benefits may not have been realized equally by all farmers enrolled in the program, based on differences in agroclimatic conditions and crops grown (I1) (Bharucha, Mitjans, and Pretty 2020).

Agroecology as a political priority in Andhra Pradesh

The crisis in agriculture is itself a frequently measured and analyzed phenomenon. Elections at the national level and in a majority of states prioritize the agricultural sector considering the importance of farmers for their vote-share as well as national GDP. Successive governments and all major political parties in Andhra Pradesh have prioritized the concerns of farmers, with each subsequent government announcing new measures for the sector. High input costs and indebtedness being linked to farmer suicides made programs targeting these costs as a clear solution to the livelihood problem of farmers. However, given the limitations in the scope of our analysis, it is difficult to compare the agricultural crisis in Andhra Pradesh to those of other states, and hence there is no formal basis for interpreting the validity of our findings in other settings.

Limitations

The nine individuals interviewed for this study were from diverse professional backgrounds and included key government officials who were part of the adoption and implementation of the ZBNF program in Andhra Pradesh, but we were unable to interview officials in the Department of Agriculture who may have been opposed to its adoption. Also, we were unable to secure an interview with a representative from the pesticide industry, which as a whole has been critical of the ZBNF approach. While our conclusions on the political priorities were informed by the testimony of individuals who played key roles in the issuance of related government orders, we did not directly interview representatives of either political party in power in Andhra Pradesh for a first-hand account of how agroecology became a strategy to address the agricultural crisis. As the interviews were conducted 3 years after passing of the government orders, there is a possibility of recall bias in the interviews and in our narrative.

It was outside the scope of our study to evaluate the barriers and facilitators to implementing ZBNF, and its effectiveness in terms of crop yields and farmers’ incomes. Readers are referred to a handful of preliminary studies and simulation models that attempt to answer these related questions (Bharucha, Mitjans, and Pretty 2020; Gupta, Tripathi, and Dholakia 2020; Smith et al. 2020).

Discussion

ZBNF is possibly the largest agroecology program in the world. Understanding how it came to be institutionalized in Andhra Pradesh – a state bigger than most European countries – is a critical first step toward understanding how agroecology programs could be taken to scale in other parts of the world. Given the growing emphasis of UN agencies on the importance of agroecology for achieving food security and sustainability (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition 2019), the experience of Andhra Pradesh is especially timely. Our results suggest that the advocacy of civil society networks, champions within the bureaucracy, the emphasis on rural livelihoods, and the 20-year history of consensus building around agroecological production practices as the solution to the agrarian crisis were all key factors in the adoption of the ZBNF program in Andhra Pradesh. The availability of social capital in the form of a large network of women’s self-help groups, and of human capital, proved crucial in making the program possible.

These findings enhance our knowledge of how agroecology can be achieved at scale, via government institutionalization, and contrast with previous studies on the topic in India. For example, a study of ZBNF in Karnataka framed ZBNF as a ‘peasant movement’ in the context of the global peasant movement La Via Campensina (Khadse et al. 2018). Many of the seven key drivers identified in their analysis of Karnataka, and also Latin American movements in which agroecology has been taken to scale (Mier y Terán et al., 2018), were similar to those identified in our analysis of Andhra Pradesh: (1) crises that drive the search for alternatives, (2) social organization, (3) constructivist teaching-learning processes, (4) effective [or ‘simple’] agroecological practices, (5) mobilizing discourse, (6) external allies, and (7) political opportunities and favorable policies. However, that analysis states, ‘All this has been achieved without any formal movement organization, paid staff or even a bank account,’ which is the opposite of what we observed in Andhra Pradesh. Here, the large-scale adoption of ZBNF is primarily a state-driven process, with long-term state investment, along with the work of civil society organizations building consensus around agroecological approaches.

A recent paper posits that ZBNF in Andhra Pradesh was a natural evolution from the peasant-led movement in Karnataka (Khadse and Rosset 2019). However, we did not find this. Our analysis suggests that the adoption of ZBNF in Andhra Pradesh was distinct from that in Karnataka and stemmed from an earlier agroecological program in Andhra Pradesh itself. Our findings also differ from an analysis of ZBNF in Kerala, which identified Palekar as a champion and key to the program’s success (Muenster 2018), whereas we found the political champion in Andhra Pradesh to be positioned within the state bureaucracy, and also identified significant tensions between Palekar’s vision and the ZBNF program as implemented.

This process of institutionalization is not an aberration in the Indian context. Sikkim’s transition to being a fully organic state is primarily a state-driven process, although in creating institutional structures it may have compromised on the values of agroecology (Meek and Anderson 2020). Other programs of community-centric resource management such as joint forest management programs also have a history of being promoted through a project-based approach before being institutionalized (Saigal 2000). In Nicaragua, the state has been described as a ‘recent entrant that has co-opted ideas from the movement’ (Schiller et al. 2020), but in Andhra Pradesh, the state has not been separate but rather a key player in supporting projects and NGOs in this space. The ‘state’ here cannot be viewed as a single entity with a single agenda, but rather as a body with diverse players, each with distinct agendas.

Giraldo and McCune (2019) conclude from the Latin American experience that the process of institutionalization dilutes from the ‘radical’ transformation of food systems with an agroecological basis, but also accept the need for state resources, particularly for investments in farmer training and research in agroecology, and building of local markets, the very kind of investments being made in Andhra Pradesh. While in theory the program accepts a broader set of agroecological principles than the four pillars as advocated by Palekar, it is unclear if the institutionalization of community management and other agroecological principles, as done by the ZBNF program, will achieve its goal of providing farmers the freedom to choose production practices most beneficial for them and their environment, thereby enabling a large-scale agroecological transformation. Additionally, it is uncertain if ZBNF’s model of individual choice will produce optimal collective outcomes.

It is noteworthy that the Andhra Pradesh program explicitly focuses on small and marginal farmers, who comprise nearly 89% of farmers in Andhra Pradesh and 86% of farmers in the country (Department of Agriculture, 2016). Khadse et al. (2018) note that the farmer organization in Karnataka that popularized ZBNF is primarily comprised of land-owning farmers who produce a surplus for the market. Among the farmers interviewed in that study, only 29% were small and marginal, compared to the Karnataka state average of 80%. In fact, nearly 28% of farmers interviewed were large farmers, compared to the state average of <1%. Conversely, in Andhra Pradesh, a recent study has found that ZBNF farmers are much more likely to be marginal farmers than large farmers (Gupta, Tripathi, and Dholakia 2020). It is possible that state-sponsored programs have an especially important role to play in reaching the most resource-poor farmers. This is an observation worth further investigation in future studies.

Indian agricultural universities, along with nodal agencies of the state and central government, played a crucial role in the implementation of Green Revolution technologies in India. Some of these universities were established in the model of US land-grant universities, supported with knowledge and other resources by USAID, as a conduit for ‘modern’ agricultural practices into the country (Parayil 2003). Given the adoption of the Green Revolution for meeting food-security needs, the focus of these institutions has been primarily increasing agricultural productivity in India, at which they have achieved considerable success, as evidenced by the three-fold increase in cereal production since the 1960s (Department of Agriculture Cooperation & Farmers Welfare 2018). Departments of agriculture throughout the country, in confluence with agricultural universities, continue to advocate for these technologies and shape conversations on the future of Indian agriculture.

On the surface, it seems unintuitive that a local initiative based on environmental stability and farmer wellbeing would attract strong institutional opposition, but the community of agricultural scientists in India have been among the most vocal critics of the ZBNF program. The primary criticism, as published in the public report of The National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, has been that ZBNF rejects modern technology without ‘scientific evidence’ and that this may lead to lower crop productivity and food insecurity (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences 2019). Others have expressed concern that the yield results published by the ZBNF program itself (Rythu Sadhikara Samstha 2019) have not been replicated.

In conclusion, although the Green Revolution was based on science and innovation, it has created structures that are resistant to new ideas and may be bound up with a social order that undermines the generation and assessment of new knowledge. The impact of alternative practices such as ZBNF on food security and farmers’ incomes appears to be positive anecdotally, but must be studied more systematically. Given the diversity of agroclimatic conditions in India, context-specific approaches are needed to uphold the long-term goals of national food security and sustainability.

Given the possibility of scaling up ZBNF or other agroecological approaches through a similar program at the national level, our analysis of the enabling environment is especially relevant. Apart from financial investments, it is possible that the dynamic nature of the program based on inputs from civil society organizations played a crucial role in the continuation of the ZBNF program in Andhra Pradesh, now known as APCNF. The long-term investment in community-based organizations in the form of women’s self-help groups, along with previous programs training farmers in agroecological practices, together made a strong foundation in the state upon which ZBNF was built. In January 2020, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the YSR Congress government to take a loan amount of 98 million USD to support scaling ZBNF up to all farmers in the state, suggesting the long-term viability of agroecology in the state. Similar investments over an extended period may be required in other states to enable a shift toward agroecological practices.

Declaration of Interests,

Divya Veluguri and Karthik Teja Pulugurtha were previously employed by the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture. Jesse B. Bump, Nikhil Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy, Sailesh Mohan, and Lindsay M. Jaacks have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Data availability

Due to the nature of this research, we did not seek consent from participants to share interview transcripts publicly, so supporting data are not available. Even with redaction of parts of the transcript, the information is likely to be identifiable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our interviewees for participating in the study. We would also like to thank Dr. Michael Reich for his feedback on the interview guide and first draft of the manuscript.

Notes

1. Alternative to the conventional approaches of the Green Revolution.

2. Government orders are issued by the executive branch, based on the powers bestowed on the executive through previous acts or conventions. An act through legislature establishes laws, but government orders can be used as a means to establish programs and policy intentions of the government.