Who can claim to be a social entrepreneur in poverty reduction?

Today, there are many ventures claiming to be social enterprises, some with the professed goal of poverty alleviation. In the frenzy of associating with social good, many such assertions do not face enough scrutiny. Further, there isn’t sufficient clarity on who is a social entrepreneur contributing to poverty reduction as its main goal.

Social entrepreneurship is the activity of a social entrepreneur. A social entrepreneur is one who recognizes a social problem and uses business principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to bring about social change. Social entrepreneurs are usually individuals with novel solutions to society’s pressing problems. Some social entrepreneurs often work through nonprofits and citizen groups, while most are now working in the private and governmental sectors.

Whereas a business entrepreneur measures performance in terms of profits and rates of return on investment, a social entrepreneur additionally includes the impact he has on society as well – the so-called double bottom line. The main aim of a social entrepreneurship is to further social and environmental goals for a good cause. In its purest form, social entrepreneurships are non-profits that reinvest the profits generated to further the social goal. Most social enterprises are built on business models that combine a revenue-generating objective with a social-value-generating structure or component. Social entrepreneurships redefine entrepreneurship as we know by adding a social component.

One well known contemporary social entrepreneur is Muhammad Yunus who founded the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, and who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. His work was built initially on the concept of offering credit to those who were unable to obtain loan from conventional sources such as banks to undertake small business ventures. Subsequently, a new microcredit industry mushroomed in developing countries, most claiming that they are able to lend money profitably to the poor to enable them to start or run small businesses. However, there is some degree of skepticism about their motive, business practices, performance, and benefit offered to the poor.

I would like to offer some clarity to this field. Social entrepreneurship can be in many areas that offer products and services to improve consumer safety, environmentally friendly choices, poverty alleviation, and other worthwhile initiatives. There is no doubt that many of these ventures are valuable to the economy and the society in general. However, the problem arises when some of these initiatives claim that they are designed to alleviate poverty as their main goal. Such claims often attract public support and investment from the philanthropic community, but they do not necessarily meet the minimum criteria for claiming as a poverty alleviation enterprise.

In my opinion, for-profit ventures that claim to be social entrepreneurships to alleviate poverty must meet at least one of the following criteria:

• Employ and/or train proportionately significant number of poor people in its main business activity (e.g.: making mosquito nets, pottery, processing vegetables, etc.) instead of simply using them as cheap manual labor, such as sweepers, porters, etc.
• Produce/offer essential products and/or services (healthcare, education, housing, food, clean water, etc.) to poor people (those below income of $2 per day) at affordable prices.
• Make credit available to poor people at reasonable rates (no higher than twice the rate charged by banks to their credit worthy clients) for personal or business uses.
• Offer technical, material and/or financial assistance to the poor to enable them to engage in family-run businesses, with returns to investors generated in the form of products produced from those activities (milk production from cows and buffalos, tailoring of items such as designer quilts and cushions that may be sold at high prices to the affluent community, etc.).
  

In all these cases, the social entrepreneur employs the poor in the company’s main business activity at fair wages, makes possible for poor families to engage in small entrepreneurial ventures, and/or offer essential products and/or services at affordable prices/charges. The poor must benefit directly from the activities of such social entrepreneur. It is not sufficient to argue that the poor also benefits from the trickle down impact of a regular business run by or for the higher income population to qualify as a social entrepreneur serving the poor; otherwise, every corporate entity including Wal-Mart would fit the definition of a social entrepreneur serving the poor.

Further, the cost incurred by the beneficiary for the product/service obtained must be affordable and reasonable; not to place any such constraint to qualify as a social entrepreneur serving the poor would be to accept exploitation of and extortion from the poor in the name of social good, as is the case of local money lenders who charge exorbitantly high interest rates to those who badly need loans to meet emergencies.

Investors must differentiate between those for-profit business ventures that are set up in poor areas or employ low-wage labor from other activities that are clearly designed also to improve the lives of poor people at the true “bottom of the pyramid.” Without making such a distinction, every business that operates in deprived communities or sells products and services to the poor and the not-so-poor will be termed social entrepreneurships in poverty alleviation.

Innovation of a different sort -- educating the nation

The idea of Shanti Bhavan School was conceived from my personal conviction that the leaders of tomorrow must come from a well-educated population that is brought up with innovative curiosity and good values. If one hundred such schools can be created, I thought, it will over time bring about great economic prosperity for India while offering social justice for all. The ingredients for such success could very well be innovation and risk-taking, among other important attributes. But what kind of innovation?

Innovation is rarely about top science or high technology; scientific breakthroughs don’t come about every day. It is more about the power of ideas and their creative application. Often it is about leveraging existing resources, technology or science to useful purposes in an innovative way.

Few would dispute that Steve Jobs of Apple is one of the greatest innovators of our time. Coming from humble beginnings and raised by adoptive parents who could not afford much, Jobs barely completed one year of college. But he was free to do what he liked most – attending lecturers given by scientists and innovators on subjects like calligraphy. He even went to India and returned as a Buddhist. His short employment at Atari Video Game gave birth to his own idea for mouse-driven graphic interface. All the innovations that followed at Apple were not new technology in the sense of basic science or research, but application of existing technology to new ideas. It was a result of his free spirit – the ability to decide for himself without confining to prevailing conventions and rules. It is about independent thinking and originality, and the courage to plunge ahead to create products and services that even more established companies could not innovate.

What we have tried to do at Shanti Bhavan is a little bit of imparting these strengths. When I started out creating Shanti Bhavan in 1995, most people, including some who had held high positions in government, told me that excellence among the poorest is not possible. I was told that they do not have the capacity to accomplish greatness. My contention, on the other hand, was that those who don’t have sufficient means are the ones who have that fire in the belly to succeed, if given the opportunity. After all, the past half a century of educational programs focusing on literacy and primary schooling to uplift the poor have not motivated many children from those families to even complete high school.

Today, we all can be proud of the children we have at Shanti Bhavan. They came from among the poorest families, and made academic history in India. The first two batches of children, entire classes – practically all from dalit families –scored first class in ICSE examination. Further, half of both classes passed with distinction.

Even more compelling is what these children are today – confident, creative, and bright, and yet humble and polite. They have the right values. It is the result of an academic program that encourages originality, and an environment that values open discourse and differing opinions. They may not fit the mold of young geniuses, but they have the capacity to think for themselves and the courage to act on it. I am confident they will be very successful in their lives.

The point I am making is this. If children are brought up with the spirit of freedom to go beyond what the books tell, and experiment with their own ideas, they will become the true innovators of tomorrow. Imagine what India would be like if it can unleash the potential among the hundreds of millions of people whose children presently go through a rote-learning system of education that curtails creativity and originality. If the required resources are put into creating institutions like Shanti Bhavan in every country, there will soon be many more innovative minds to make the world a better place. And what great contribution and tribute to social justice that would be!

Sure, today Shanti Bhavan is facing financial constraints that limit its ability to scale-up to achieve the original goal. But based on the accomplishments of the past 13 years, I am more convinced than ever before that this is a model that could transform India in a significant way. The lofty goal of one hundred such schools is not that distant if the already successful innovators of the country join forces to offer the opportunity for the next generation of young minds to become the innovators of tomorrow.

Abraham M. George
www.shantibhavanonline.org

The Heavy Hand of Government

I returned to India in 1995 to start and run a charitable foundation (The George Foundation) without any financial assistance from governments at state and central levels. Since then, many people have asked me why I do not seek government support for our work in helping the poor. I tell them that the status of a government-funded or -assisted institution carries with it many undesirable obligations and interferences from the State. My personal belief is that private citizens must make their own contributions to social causes, and they should not be tempted by the potential for “easy” money that comes with corrupt practices.

Despite our independent status, the past 12 years have not been free of attempts by government officials to extract money from us. We have faced difficulties as a result of the political ideology of a past government that targeted any organization that was deemed to be “Christian.” Arrogance of power on the part of officials had once forced us to seek court protection to prevent damage being inflicted by the government on physical infrastructure (the sub-collector ordered digging up an access road we had improved at our own expense with local panchyat permission but without state permit). I have written extensively about this and other instances in my book, India Untouched: The Forgotten Face of Rural Poverty.

Political and bureaucratic machineries in India may not find anything unusual or wrong about the way government officials have been conducting themselves for decades. They would argue that it is their duty to safeguard the interests of the general public. In dealing with governments, citizens have very little rights or recourse to what they consider as unfair and unjust acts.

Just last month our Shanti Bhavan School received a State order from the education department requiring us to complete an extensive survey form within a short period of seven days. Principals of all schools – government funded as well as independent schools -- were required to personally attend a session at the Taluk Education Office to receive instructions on how to fill the forms, and then return within another week with completed forms. A month later, the principals were called again to enter the submitted data into computers provided at the Taluk office. The argument justifying this procedure was that the State wants to hold the Heads of all local schools personally responsible for the accuracy of the information provided. No exception to this rule would be permitted; no one else could substitute for the principal.

On the surface it sounds a justifiable demand on the part of the State. Past surveys have not been accurate and it is essential that the government is now able to collect correct data (though one has to wonder about the validity or relevance of the data being asked for). But if this goal is all that matters, I suppose that principals of schools will be spending time only filling forms submitted by the numerous agencies of the government. Failure to appear in person could result in summons, fines and even harassment. I wonder whether CEOs of private companies are also expected to appear in person at the offices of labor, environment, water, electricity and other departments of governments.

When a government department exercises its powers arrogantly, one can be certain that its top management does not value or respect others. Such officials have no place in leadership positions. The strength of a democracy lies in fair and just laws and regulations applied equally and correctly for everyone. Private individuals and institutions must be able to seek protection from unjust acts of governments, and obtain redress. Until such time this balance between the responsibilities of the State and the rights of individuals is brought about, the country will not be able to create a just society and accomplish its full potential.

Please visit us at www.tgfworld.org and www.indiauntouched.com

Insurmountable financial obstacles faced by NGOs

NGOs play a major role in the global effort to reduce poverty and suffering. Traditionally, these organizations are not-for-profit, and they focus mainly in the delivery of critical services in education and healthcare. Lately, some NGOs have been engaged in projects to create livelihood for poor people through job training, assistance in starting small businesses, and direct employment. These efforts complement programs run by governments and assisted by international agencies and donors.

There is much to be said about the contribution that the NGO community has made over the past several decades. However, it is also true that, for a variety of reasons, their efforts have not brought about sustainable results on a wide scale. In this brief article, I shall offer my thoughts on why NGOs have not been sufficiently effective in poverty reduction.

1. Heavy dependence on donor funds: Practically all NGOs carry out their programs with grants from governments, international agencies and/or private donors. These funds are for specific projects within areas denoted by the donor, with disbursements usually made on an annual basis. Donors prefer to set small goals, and hence, grants are often in limited amounts for a given period. NGOs submit their proposals tailored to grant amounts, and consequently, the resources that are made available seldom meet what is needed to do a good job. When each approved project period is over, there is no assurance of continuity. Donor fatigue sets in after a few years, requiring NGOs to seek new or additional “partners.” Neither the NGO nor the beneficiaries are assured of assistance to see through the completion of projects. When funding stops, projects simply end. Results are seldom complete, permanent, or sustainable without additional assistance.

2. Misplaced focus on compliance reporting: As recipients of donor assistance, NGOs are greatly concerned about keeping the donor “happy.” Inordinate amounts of attention and time on the part of senior management at NGOs are spent on preparing reports that show compliance of grant conditions, and in preparing for the next application for grant renewal. The bureaucracy at donor institutions offers the recipient very little room for innovation or divergence from previously agreed upon terms for project execution. Often, it matters less what has been accomplished in the field, and more what is put on paper. Demonstration of success is usually a function of quantity (number of beneficiaries) as opposed to quality (sustainable outcomes).

3. Lack of institutional infrastructure to deliver services: Donor funds are mostly assigned for operating needs and seldom toward capital expenses. For example, grants may be available to purchase medicines and supplies but not for constructing medical clinics or purchasing major equipment. Similarly, an NGO might receive donations to buy books and supplies for students from poor families, but the school itself might have to operate without functional classrooms and toilets. This bias toward meeting on-going operational needs without the necessary physical infrastructure results in major inefficiencies. The long-term viability of projects depends greatly on institutions and their underlying organizational structure to deliver services efficiently on a continuing basis.

4. Inability to attract good staff: Most NGOs cannot offer a stable work environment where assurance of continued employment is not dependent on renewal of current projects. Cost overruns are commonplace, and consequently, staffing may have to be reduced during the course of the project to remain within budget. Tight financial constraints and inability to raise sufficient funds for a project force the organization to hire employees at below-market salaries or to rely on volunteers. NGOs usually refrain from offering their employees long-term compensation in the form of pensions and other benefits. The result is that NGOs usually attract less competent people than their for-profit counterparts. A quick survey of even major NGOs will show that, except for the founder and a few top managers, the remaining staff does not have adequate background or training. The absence of competent staff results in inefficiencies and failure to accomplish goals.

5. Inadequate seed capital and endowment: Often, it is one individual or a small group of people with a common vision and ideal who are responsible for establishing an NGO. They contribute their own savings or seek seed money from others to get started and carry out the mission for a year or two. In most instances, initial capital received is far less than what is needed to establish a sound base in terms of staffing and required material resources. The first project undertaken may not have been sufficiently funded. In such situations, the NGO is forced to function in a survival mode right from the very beginning of its existence. Even those NGOs who are able to overcome their initial financial constraints may still have to rely on external funding each subsequent year. Only a small number of NGOs are able to attract adequate external resources to establish an endowment fund, the return on which might cover some or all of the future operational needs. Donors seldom provide the capital as seed money or endowment funds. Unlike for-profit companies that operate with adequate initial investment, line of credit, and subsequent reserves, NGOs are forced to function with little or no certainty about future cash flows. The result of insufficient funding is serious inefficiencies and subsequent failures.

6. Absence of internally generated funds: Not-for-profit NGOs seldom generate any income of their own to meet their capital and annual operating needs. Their reliance on project funding from external sources alone makes them financially vulnerable. Very few NGOs operate within a self-supporting financial model. They are reluctant to charge fees for services provided to the poor. The general assumption is that the poor are entitled to free services or they are incapable of paying even a small portion of the costs involved. Further, most NGOs do not have the managerial skills or resources to start and run revenue generating businesses, even when poor people can be employed. Without an endowment fund or business income, NGOs perpetually function by the benevolence of donors. This is not a self-sustaining situation in the long run.

Recognizing the above financial obstacles, The George Foundation has been attempting to cover its annual operating expenses from internally generated funds. As the founder of the organization, I made the investment to meet initial capital expenses (to build Shanti Bhavan, Baldev Hospital, etc.) and most of the annual operating needs for the first 10 years. During this period, the foundation invested in several acres of farm land, most of which is being used for agriculture to employ poor people. The surplus income from farming and fee revenues from a journalism school run by the foundation are being ploughed back into its other humanitarian initiatives.

Since 2005, the foundation has been seeking donor funds to meet its capital expenses and to set up a permanent endowment fund that would cover a portion of the operating expenses. Several generous individuals – visionaries – have come forward so far to assist us. If our income generating activities also succeed, the foundation will have increasing financial resources to widen its services in the years to come.

Good work is not possible without financial stability. Donor funds will never be sufficient. A pure form of social entrepreneurship might be the best financial model for those NGOs who can tap managerial talent and sufficient “investment capital.”



Please visit us at http://www.tgfworld.org/ and http://www.indiauntouched.com/

Tips on preparing high quality compost on a large scale

In my last blog entitled Organic farming isn’t always easy, I promised to present our experience in preparing compost in large quantities. This is an attempt to do just that. As mentioned earlier, we have been growing over 200 acres of bananas for the past 4 years, relying mostly on compost. Our compost requirement each year has been in excess of 3,000 tons – 12-15 Kg per plant per year (other crops might require much less). It would be prohibitively expensive to purchase that much compost from commercial suppliers; further, we could not rely on their quality. We were motivated by the fact that large quantities of plant material is available within our own farm every year after harvest of bananas (banana plant is cut down after harvest at the end of 12-13 months).

Here below is a cookbook recipe style explanation on how to produce 200 tons of compost. I have used this quantity as a guide as each of our compost pits holds approximately that quantity. However, there is no restriction on the size of the pit, and all the “ingredients” may be adjusted according to the total compost produced.

We start with banana waste collected after harvest. Banana waste is one of the best plant material available as it is rich in NPK (nitrate, phosphate and potassium), especially in potassium which is usually not contained in sufficient amounts in most other plant material. Banana waste also has several micronutrients such as iron, boron, magnesium, manganese, and zinc.

Banana waste is crushed using earth-mover (JCB) bucket and brought to a central location. It is then placed on a 400-500 sq. ft area in layers of approximately 2 ft. Over each layer, a solution containing EM (Effective Micro-organisms) is poured to speed up the decomposition process. Maximum of 3 layers are placed, and the entire pile is covered with 50-60% shade net to avoid too much direct sun. The pile is maintained moist by weekly application of water.

Before we go any further, just a few words about EM, originally developed by Dr. Teruo Higa, professor of horticulture at the University of the Ryukyus in Okinawa, Japan. It is a concentration of different kinds of “good bacteria” that helps improve soil condition, converts fertilizers into digestible forms for plant absorption, and speeds up decomposition of plant material. EM can be obtained from several suppliers in India; two suppliers that I know of are Bio-India Biologicals (BIB) in Hyderabad, and Maple Organics in Dehra Dun. The concentrated form of EM is then made into SEM (Secondary EM) – also called Extended EM -- in diluted large quantities through a fermentation process. SEM is add to cow-dung solution in water and sprayed on each layer of plant material as described above.

Many suppliers of composting bacteria claim that full decomposing can take place in 45 days or less. Our experience is that banana waste, especially stem, does not compost sufficiently in less than 75 days. Even then, it needs further decomposing in a large pit along with other compost ingredients for at least another 45 days.

We use some amount of sandy soil in the preparation of compost as our land is slightly clayish. We believe that soil is a necessary media for bacteria to function effectively in producing good compost.

Here below is the list of ingredients in 200 tons of finished compost. I have indicated multiples of 15 tons as a tipper load is around that weight.

30 tons of sandy soil

60 tons of decomposed garbage waste from government-run processing factory

60 tons of banana and plant waste (partly decomposed as described above)

60 tons of cow-dung

10 tons of dry decomposed poultry waste

There will be approximately 10-15% evaporation of moisture, and hence the above quantity yields no more than 200 tons of final output.

All the above are put into a large pit in no less than 4 or 5 installments. Use the bucket of the JCB to thoroughly mix the ingredients. Water well to assure that the material remains moist. It requires 2-3 days of effort to put each installment of ingredients and to mix them. After the entire quantity is put into the pit and mixed, cover it with tarpaulin or plastic sheet. Once a month, mix and spray water to keep it moist.

In our experience, it takes approximately 2 months of decomposing in the pit for the compost to be ready. Practically all the plant material will be totally “digested” by the heat generated in the pit as a result of the composting process. The final material is fairly soft and black in color.

The required quantity of compost is put around each plant at least 6 inches away from the stem. SEM (without cow-dung) as well as nitrogen and phosphate fixing bacteria (azetobacteria and phosphobacteria) solutions are applied and covered with a thin layer of soil.

It is important that no chemical fertilizers (if needed) are applied for at least 45-60 days after the compost is put around the plant to allow healthy multiplication of good bacteria. It takes over 30 days for the compost to become digestible for plant absorption.

The above process is what we have experimented with and found successful for vigorous plant growth. This approach to compost preparation can be applied to smaller farms by using proportionately smaller quantities of ingredients. Also, plant materials other than banana waste may be used, but care must be taken to ensure that they do not create toxicity from acidity or other factors, as is the case with coconut fiber. Similarly, leaves of eucalyptus tree are not suitable for preparing compost.

The all-in cost of finished compost is estimated to be around Rs. 250 ($6.25) per ton assuming that banana waste is free. We have found the above process to be a practical methodology to produce large quantities of high quality compost in our own farm. Other agro-specialists may recommend different techniques for preparing compost; their results should be confirmed by laboratory tests of the finished product. I hope my sharing our experience with readers will help others develop their own relevant methodology.

In a subsequent blog I shall write about processing raw sewage into safe fertilizer and water for irrigation. It is based on our experience in Shanti Bhavan residential school where its sewage processing facility generates over 75,000 litres of residue water for irrigation every day.

Please visit us at www.tgfworld.org and www.indiauntouched.com

The Per Capita Game

First the good news. Finance Minister Chidambaram stated on November 6, 2007 that the country has already exceeded a BRIC (Goldman Sachs investment bank report on Brazil, Russia, India and China) forecast of India's per capita income of $800 by 2010 and $1,149 by 2015. According to him, “we have exploded this assumption as our per capita income has already touched $1,000 this year and expect it to touch $4,000 by 2025."

Let us consider both sets of forecasts. BRIC forecast calls for a per capita income of Rs. 88 ($2.20) per day by 2010 and Rs. 126 ($3.15) by 2015. By contrast, the finance minister expects daily per capita income of Rs. 110 ($2.75) by this year and Rs. 438 ($10.95) by 2025. These forecasts compare against a daily per capita income of Rs. 82 ($2.05) estimated for 2007 (in nominal terms) in several published studies.

Per capita income should be calculated by dividing total personal income by the population. It is not calculated by dividing total output measures like GNP or GDP, which gives an exaggerated picture of per capita income. Only if a nominal (at current prices) GDP figure of $1.1 trillion and an exchange rate of Rs. 40/$ are used can one arrive at a daily per capita income of Rs. 110 ($2.75) for 2007. But that wouldn’t be correct.

Leave aside these discrepancies for a moment; after all, everyone wants to hear good news. The real question is whether the rapid rise in national per capita income is reflective of prosperity for all.

It was just two months back when India’s Central Ministry of Statistics reported that the daily per capita income of the rural population was Rs. 18.50 ($0.46) in 2005. With rural income rising no more than 5% per annum, the best estimate for 2007 is around Rs. 20.40 ($0.51). This estimate is consistent with the recent report by the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector (NCEUS) showing that 77% of Indians in 2004-2005 -- about 836 million people -- live on less than Rs. 20 ($0.50) a day. Obviously, there is a wide gap between the national daily per capita income figure of Rs. 110 ($2.75) estimated by the finance minister and the rural figure of Rs. 20.40 ($0.51) for 2007.

Even more troubling is the widening trend between national and rural figures. If we are to assume that rural per capita will increase by the same percentage as the change in national figure between 2007 and 2025, the gap between national and rural per capita will only widen from Rs. 90 ($2.25) in 2007 to Rs. 358 ($8.95) by 2025 – a whopping 400% increase. Undoubtedly, we have a society that does not share equitably the benefits of a growing aggregate economy.

The fact is that much of the rise in overall per capita income comes from the rapidly increasing personal income of the 34 million or so of people employed in the nation’s organized sector. These are the people who benefit most from the current economic expansion. Less than 10% of the nation’s population contribute to more than 90% of the growth in GDP and incomes.

The real test is in how the poor are benefited. With 770 million people living in the villages, and over 80% of them on less than Rs. 20 ($0.50) per day, what can we forecast about their future? All this talk about national per capita income adds up to very little when a great majority of people in the country is likely to remain below $1 per day in income even after another decade.

Please visit us at www.tgfworld.org and www.indiauntouched.com

Organic farming isn’t always easy

Everyone is talking these days about the virtues of organically grown fruits and vegetables. Consumers are anxious to buy, even at higher prices, produce that do not contain chemicals. Agricultural experts and environmentalists argue that use of compost and herbal pesticides protect the soil from turning toxic and offer produce free of dangerous chemicals.

There is no doubt that plants and trees grow well if sufficient qualities of compost material is applied to soil periodically. It also ensures adequate moisture holding capability and avoids toxicity of soil from residues of chemical fertilizers, usually called NPK – nitrate, phosphate and potassium. Soil remains healthy with compost application, and fair crop output is assured every year.

There is no doubt that use of chemical pesticides pose danger to the environment, especially by contaminating ground water. Fruits and vegetables protected by spraying toxic chemicals may leave residues that are very harmful for human consumption. Healthy plants have the best in-built protection; use of herbal and other natural ingredients such as neem offer alternatives to the use of certain chemical pesticides.

Unfortunately, there are just too many forms of diseases and pests that attack plants and trees. They are usually soil and air borne, affecting the root system, stems, leaves and crop. For example, caterpillars and termites attack bananas and grapes in their early stages of growth. Nematodes that prevail in most soils can become a serious problem when they take hold of the root system. There are stem borers that consume and degenerate the entire plant. Funguses can spread wild after few days of rain. Different types of viruses, bacteria, fungus and parasites cause havoc to the plant and the crop. If the infected area is not properly taken care of, the problem will most likely spread to the entire field. Certain crops are more susceptible to diseases than others, and none are totally resistant.

Herbal remedies do not always arrest the problem before it spreads wide. For example, caterpillars and termites can multiply and attack a wide area in less than a week or two, and we have not found a way to prevent extensive loss without chemicals. There might be natural remedies for every situation, but they may not be fast-acting or readily available locally in sufficient quantities. Whether one likes it or not, often the needed solution may lie in the use of appropriate chemical pesticides.

The George Foundation has been growing bananas on over 200 acres for the past 4 years, and recently we have been switching over to grapes. It is one thing to use organic and herbal products on small areas, but large scale farming cannot avoid the use of some form of chemicals, especially pesticides, if the entire farm crop is not to be lost to diseases and pests. Though chemicals have their place in farming, to the maximum extent possible it is better to work with good quality compost and herbal pesticides, insecticides and repellants.

The trouble with the use of compost alone is that it is unlikely to offer high crop output that chemical fertilizers may provide in the short run. Further, all compost material may not contain sufficient quantities of micronutrients such as magnesium, boron and others, and may be deficient in potassium as required for certain types of crops. In those cases, use of chemical fertilizers and micronutrients as supplements may be required occasionally.

For example, bananas are large potassium consumers, and despite the heavy use of compost, our farm could not obtain high yield without supplementing with chemical forms of potassium, such as potassium nitrate or potassium sulphate. We have also found that the absence of certain micronutrients result in poor quality produce. We have tried to overcome these with improved quality compost, but this effort too has its limitations.

In another blog, I will try to communicate our knowledge and experience in preparing good quality compost. We have been using over 3,000 tons of compost prepared in our own farm every year. The difficulties associated with producing good compost in large quantities are a subject that every serious farmer needs to understand before embarking on totally organic cultivation.

Please visit us at www.tgfworld.org and www.indiauntouched.com