Shanti Bhavan to accept Haitian orphans

As you all know, the people of Haiti are now suffering terribly as a result of the earthquake just three days ago. Many countries, organizations and individuals are trying to help these desperate people in different ways. We too must do what we can at this critical juncture.

Shanti Bhavan was founded 15 years ago on the simple principle of universal humanity - that we are all part of one large family - and we must come to the aid of others in times of need. It is only consistent with the teachings of some of India's great figures such as Ashoka the Great as early as 250 BC, Rabindranath Tagore, Swami Vivekananta and Mahatma Gandhi, as well as numerous Western philosophers.

Shanti Bhavan has considerable experience in caring for orphans and children of single parent families who have been victims of social and economic disadvantage. We know the importance of a loving home, personal attention and quality education to realize the full potential of each child. Our commitment is not constrained by race, gender, social background or nationality.

After consulting with some of you, Shanti Bhavan has decided to open its doors to the children of Haiti who have been orphaned as a result of destruction and deaths. We are offering free admission to 12 Haitian children between the ages of 4 and 6 as soon as we can obtain the necessary permission from relatives and governments. While this would only be a small gesture, I hope it would motivate other institutions to do the same to save many more precious lives.

I realize the difficulties we will face to make this happen due to governmental regulations. We will need the consent and approval of relatives and governments. I am hopeful that we can persuade all parties that what we are striving to do is in the best interest of the children. We will commit to bringing up the children without government financial support all through school and college until they are in a position to seek employment.

I am reaching out to those of you who can help us accomplish this difficult task of facilitating the transfer of 12 orphan children from Haiti to Shanti Bhavan in India. There are many steps to this process which require influential contacts with governments and coordination with relief agencies. Shanti Bhavan does not have the institutional capability to accomplish that. If you are in a position to contribute to this noble effort, please email us at shantibhavanchildren@gmail.com describing how you can be helpful; we will try to put those organizations and individuals together, where appropriate.

This is an important moment in our history. We owe our fellow humanity all our support and help at this time of great anguish and sorrow. Please help Shanti Bhavan help the children of Haiti.

Please visit us at www.shantibhavanonline.org and www.tgfworld.org

Half- truths, Lies and Poverty

Since the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) were first set by the United Nations in the year 2000, much attention has been given to those pursuing the issue of poverty. Mohammed Yunis was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his novel work through Grameen Bank, and Jeffrey Sachs, an influential academic at the Earth Institute in Columbia University, New York, appeared on the cover pages of major magazines describing what he considers as an effective strategy to end poverty. Even Bono, a highly acclaimed pop artist, entered the scene along with former president Bill Clinton to raise substantial money from governments for poverty programs.

Undoubtedly, these and other well-known individuals and institutions must be credited for their efforts in tackling the world’s largest and most pressing problem – poverty. But when they make assertions and projections that are either incorrect or unrealistic, the credibility and confidence of all efforts are affected. For example, Jeffrey Sachs wrote and promoted his program claiming that poverty can be brought to an end in a short period if just sufficient money can be raised to implement his ideas; Yunis asked his admirers to quickly look for a plot to bury poverty – a premature death as a result of microcredit programs worldwide. Since these pronouncements, the number of poor people in most developing countries (outside China) has in fact increased.

It is not just reputed individuals who are guilty of making these inaccurate or unrealistic claims and assertions to promote their own agenda and programs. For many years until 2008, the World Bank has been saying that poverty has steadily declined over the past two decades, implying that the programs supported by their extensive funding have contributed to this accomplishment. This claim is supported by the bank’s pre-2008 published statistics that showed a decline in poverty rate to 21.4 percent in 2005 from 25.9 percent in 1999 for all developing countries excluding China. But the bank failed to give sufficient importance to the fact that the number of people in poverty has in fact increased over the same period in most developing countries – a reflection of population increase proceeding at a faster pace than poverty decrease.

It was not just insufficient emphasis for a single statistic that was the mistake. Under pressure from many circles, the World Bank acknowledged in late 2008 higher levels of poverty than previously reported. The bank changed its view of poverty around the world by defining extreme poverty as living below $1.25 per day from $1.08 previously, adjusting for purchasing power parity. By this new yardstick, 1.4 billion people were seen to be living in extreme poverty — more than 28 percent of the population of all developing countries excluding China as of 2005. This reflects an upward revision by over 30 percent in the number of extremely poor people. Those living in extreme poverty as well as within the definition of $2 per day actually increased in India, South Asia and Sub-Sahara region between 1999 and 2005. This significant adjustment raises questions on the reliability of important statistics put out by the world’s leading poverty fighting institution.

Look at another example. For the past two decades, microfinance institutions have been claiming that they lend small amounts of money to the poor, especially women, who are able to start new businesses and come out financially successful as entrepreneurs. Many have described these for-profit ventures as the long-sought panacea to eliminate poverty. Microfinance companies have been able to attract substantial funds from philanthropic-minded investors and even major institutions such the United Nations and several developmental banks based on their claim that the loans are mostly to the poor and 99 percent of the borrowers are able to repay the loans. These assertions were not questioned adequately by even those who call themselves developmental experts, but now the truth is slowly coming out. It is increasingly clear that the recipients of loans are mostly those well above the $2 poverty level, and the high repayment rate is facilitated by their increased borrowing from local money lenders at exorbitantly high interest rates. There is very little evidence that these loans have made any noticeable impact on poverty.

In recent years, there has been considerable excitement among academicians and investors on the idea of social entrepreneurship to alleviate poverty. These institutions, many of them microfinance companies and small entrepreneurial ventures, argue that they directly serve the so-called “Bottom of the Pyramid” – those who belong to an untapped market segment wherein savvy businesses can earn attractive profit, while claiming to help the poor. Once again, as researchers started looking into these claims, it became clear that hardly any of these social enterprises directly serve people who are below $2 per day in income. Soon, the attempt to redefine the Bottom of the Pyramid started. The World Economic Forum restated this segment as those earning below $8 per day, while some others expanded the definition to include even those earning below $13 per day, yet still claiming that the poor are served. When nearly 75% of the population in countries like India and the entire sub-Saharan Africa earn less than $2 per day, these even broader definitions are including almost everyone within the poor category; only the affluent are excluded. Such misstatements and inappropriate definitions impede efforts to achieve poverty reduction.

I can go on with many more examples of assertions that are not sufficiently supported by evidence in the poverty alleviation arena. Let me conclude this critique with examples of recent projections being put out by two of the highly reputed institutions in the world. According to Global Fund and the United Nations, current efforts to reduce malaria deaths, and the billions of dollars being spent on it, will result in eliminating malaria in successive countries from 2015. This implies saving nearly 1 million lives each year –the current rate of deaths from malaria – over the coming decade or so.

But when you closely examine the available data, there is no clear evidence that the present program is eradicating malaria, though treatment programs have been more effective. In order to prevent malaria, there are only three possibilities: first, eliminate all malaria-carrying mosquitoes; second, avoid all mosquito bites; third, discover a vaccine that can protect against malaria. The other choice is to ensure effective treatment of all those who are infected so that death from malaria can be practically eliminated. The truth is that none of the above can be accomplished in the foreseeable future, let alone by 2020.

There is no initiative to eliminate all malaria carrying mosquitoes – an impossible task. The current effort, on the other hand, including those funded by the Gates Foundation, focuses mainly on offering mosquito nets for protected sleep, cost-effective treatment for those infected, and possibly finding a vaccine to prevent infection. But mosquito nets offer nothing more than a comfort time zone for a good night’s sleep, and do not have any relevance to mosquito bites inside and outside the home. Cost-effective treatment can be a big relief, but it does not reduce the incidence of malaria. As for the likely discovery of a vaccine by 2015 to protect against infection, it is far from certain that all the people in over 103 countries where malaria is prevalent can be vaccinated in five years, if not decades. In the face of these realities, it would be more prudent on the part of those combating malaria to express modest expectations.

Those are enough depressing facts. I will be remiss if I neglect to say that all these individuals and institutions that are probably guilty of not presenting accurate accounts are also the ones that are doing some of the best work toward poverty alleviation. However, it would be far more constructive if they avoided the pitfalls of half-truths and outright lies when promoting their ideas and programs.

The author is engaged in several social initiatives to alleviate poverty through The George Foundation in South India.

Please visit us at www.shantibhavanonline.org & www.tgfworld.org

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