Self Help p Groups p in Vegetable g and Fruit Farming: A Case Study from Kerala India Kerala, Dr. Jaya Abraham Abu Dhabi University, UAE

Introduction • Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council-Keralam (VFPCK) • SHG•small economically homogenous affinity group •of 10 to 20 poor persons who come together to • save small amounts regularly • mutually agree to contribute to a common fund • have collective decision making • resolve conflicts through collective leadership and mutual discussion

Objectives • Describe the activities and achievements of the SHGs p promoted by y VFPCK among g the fruits and vegetable farmers. • Assess the empowerment of farmers achieved through the SHGs.

Methods • Th The dimensions di i off empowermentt were identified id tifi d as leadership propensity, self confidence, employment generation, increase in income and decision making power • For each of the five dimensions of empowerment, a score is obtained by dividing the individual total score with the maximum possible score score. • Summation of the score for the dimensions gives the empowerment index for the individual member. Thus the empowerment index will range from 0 to 5 (Panda and Misra, 1996).

SHGs in India • Model I : SHGs formed and financed by banks • Model II: SHGs formed byy NGOs, and formal agencies but directly financed by banks • Model III: SHGs financed by banks using NGOs as financial intermediaries • Model IV:NGO Guided but self supported SHGs • Model V: Completely Self-Supported SHGs

Figure 1SHG –VFPCK Figure. VFPCK Linkage

VFPCK

GROUP MARKETING CENTRE

Master Farmer-Credit

Master Farmer-Training

SHG

Master Farmer- Marketing

Figure 2 :The VFPCK Model Figure-2

Training &Extension Pest& Disease surveillance Participatory Technology Development Field demonstrations & Campaigns Microfinance Group Marketing

Descriptive Statistics Particulars

Mean

1

Mean Age of farmer

53

2

F il size Family i

4

3

Years of experience in SHG

8.2

4

Area owned (in Hectares)

0.17

5

Average ve age aarea ea cultivated cu t vated ( in Hectares)

0.32 0.3

Sl.No.

Components of farmer empowerment Component

Mean score

SD

Leadership propensity it Self confidence p y Employment generation Income

0.59

0.12

0.56

0.16

0.73

0.22

0 36 0.36

0 12 0.12

0.78

0.13

Decision making

Distribution based on group characteristics Items

Category

Distribution of sample farmers Less than mean score

Greater than mean score

Group cohesion

0.3 -0.93

87

113

Group interaction

0.5-0.99

72

128

Group leadership

0.4-0.8

92

108

Transparency

0.2-0.66

100

100

N d satisfaction Need ti f ti

0 55 0 99 0.55-0.99

104

96

Interdependence

0.32-0.99

85

115

Equity

0.44-0.92

95

105

Accountability y

0.2-0.7

105

95

Group cooperation

0.28-0.78

97

103

Distribution of farmers based on empowerment score Class Number of farmers

%

0-1 11-22 2-3 3-4 44-55 Total

6 15.5 21 42.5 15 100%

12 31 42 85 30 200

Distribution of farmers based on empowerment score

90 80 70 60 50 Series1 40 30 20 10 0 0 to 1

1 to 2

2 to 3

3 to 4

4 to 5

Conclusions • SHGs have been successful in empowering the small and marginal vegetable and fruit farmers • Capacity building and empowerment through SHGS can be used as effective mechanism for strengthening the democratic institutions. • Any intervention strategy from the promoter agency to empower the SHGs should target especially the decision making and the employment generation.

Policy Implications • Streamlining of different models of SHGs and p promoter relations • Legal framework that formalize the relation between the SHGs, SHGs promoters promoters, state institutions and research stations