Final report
Small research and development activity
project
Informing policies for removing barriers to scaling conservation
agriculture based sustainable intensification in the Eastern
Gangetic Plains
project number
CSE/2016/112
date published
4 October 2017
prepared by
TP Tiwari, Mahesh Gathala and Sofina Maharjan
co-authors/ contributors/ collaborators
BARI, RDRS, DAE (Bangladesh); NARC, DoA (Nepal); UBKV, DoA (West
Bengal); ICAR, BAU; and CSIRO, UQ and CU (Australia)
approved by
John Dixon/Eric Huttner
final report number
FR2017/24
ISBN
978-1-925746-00-6
published by
ACIAR
GPO Box 1571
Canberra ACT 2601
Australia
This publication is published by ACIAR ABN 34 864 955 427. Care
is taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in
this publication. However, ACIAR cannot accept responsibility for
the accuracy or completeness of the information or opinions
contained in the publication. You should make your own enquiries
before making decisions concerning your interests.
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
(ACIAR) XXXX - This work is copyright. Apart from any use as
permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced
by any process without prior written permission from ACIAR, GPO Box
1571, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia, [email protected].
6
Contents
1Acknowledgments3
2Executive summary4
3Introduction5
4Working session on scaling CASI and policy and institutional
barriers6
5Two short stories/cases of typical policy and institutional
barriers constraining to scale high impact CASI technologies.7
6Vision of widespread scaling in the EGP potentially reaching a
substantial proportion of EGP farmers8
7Identify M&E&L systems and implementation modalities
for evaluating pilot scaling out of CASI to benefit 1.5 million
households9
8Identified and mapped EGP farming systems and potential scaling
areas by type of CASI practices, with spatial data, maps and
report10
9Elaborated policy and institutional barriers to improve ground
water management, strengthen mechanisation services, strengthen
IPs, expand entrepreneurship by farmers and micro-entrepreneurs,
and related evidence base15
10Prepare consolidated proposal for SRFSI II in consultation
with key stakeholders with integration and functional linkages to
the USA/IFPRI/CIMMYT policy proposal16
11Conclusions and recommendations17
11.1Conclusions17
11.2Recommendations18
12References20
12.1References cited in report (not appropriately listed also
not in proper order order)20
12.2List of publications produced by project22
13Appendixes23
Appendix 1: Pathways to Impact for SRFSI23
Appendix 2. Case stories for typical and institutional (ground
level) barriers constraining to scale high impact CASI
Technologies29
Appendix 3: Vision of widespread scaling in the EGP potentially
reaching a substantial proportion of EGP farmers32
Appendix 4. Farming systems zones with major characteristics,
technological/policy interventions and potential area for
scaling39
Appendix 5. Elaborated policy and institutional barriers47
Final report: Informing policies for removing barriers to
scaling conservation agriculture based sustainable intensification
in the Eastern Gangetic Plains
Final report: Informing policies for removing barriers to
scaling conservation agriculture based sustainable intensification
in the Eastern Gangetic Plains
Page iv
Page 63
Acknowledgments
Assistance received from DAE, BARI and RADRS in Bangladesh;
ICAR, BAU, UBKV, DoA-WB, Shakhi and JEEViKA in India, NARC and DoA
in Nepal and community based organizations (CBOs), and their
associated staff are thankfully acknowledged. We thank the farmers
of EGPs for their co-operation and inputs in running on-farm
trials. Thanks are also due to ACIAR and DFAT for the support of
CASI technology development and delivery in the EGPs. This report
is an output from a short research and development activity funded
by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
(ACIAR) and the Department of Foreign Affair and Trade (DFAT) for
the benefit of developing countries (CSE/2016/112). The views
expressed are not necessarily those of these institutions or
organizations.
Executive summary
Despite the worlds highest concentration of rural poverty and a
strong dependence on agriculture for food security and livelihoods,
the EGP has the potential to become a major contributor to South
Asia regional food security. This is because the region has fertile
soils, and abundant groundwater resources (except few locations),
and sufficient rainfall during summer. The productivity of major
cereals, specifically rice and wheat remain low and diversification
is limited because of poorly developed markets and infrastructure,
sparse agricultural knowledge and service networks, and inadequate
development of available water resources and sustainable production
practices. Gradually the region started experiencing labour
shortages due to migration and higher wages. These factors lead to
smallholder vulnerability to climate and market risks that
constraint farmer and private sector investments in high impact and
face changing technologies. To address these issues, a regional
project entitled Sustainable Resilient Farming Systems
Intensification (SRFSI) a collaborative venture launched in May
2014 is led by CIMMYT and implemented through national and
international multi-partnership with ACIAR/DFAT funding. The aim of
this project is to sustainably reduce the poverty, especially
womens, in the Eastern Gangetic Plains (EGPs).
Conservation agriculture for sustainable intensification (CASI)
has shown great promise at small scale, but there are barriers in
scaling up across the region. Evidences so far suggests that lack
of access to finance to utilise improved technologies and farm
machineries, capacity building, weak extension system, and poorly
developed agro-processing and marketing/supply chains, are the key
limiting factors hindering wider scale adoption of new technologies
thereby poverty reduction. Further, there appear to be
socio-economic and institutional constraints that inhibit farmers
to realise the benefit from CASI technologies that contribute to
food security sustainably while safeguarding environment.
This report summarises the underlying policy and institutional
drivers operating across EGPs. Further, the variation 3 emphasising
impact pathways in general and capacity building of relevant
stakeholders in particular. Additionally, a potential policy
project led by University of South Australia (USA) will collaborate
with decision makers in both the public and private sectors to
develop options that unlock the potential of agriculture and food
systems in the EGP, which is expected to facilitate wider scale
adoption of CASI technologies and approaches in the EGPs by:
designing strategies and local implementation modalities to
ensure widespread scaling out and up of CASI in the EGP
identifying and map farming systems for targeting the scaling of
CASI in the EGP
analysis and documenting of policy and institutional constraints
to CASI in the EGP with a particular focus on the research areas of
SRFSI
Implementation of variation 3 and policy project will provide
convincing evidences on Food, Energy and Water nexus that would
create an enabling environment for scaling CASI in the EGP.
Based on partners feedback and knowledge/experiences gathered
over the years, existing nodes have been characterized for each
district focussing where comparative advantage lies -meaning the
scaling out efforts will be emphasised only in A and B nodes.
Therefore, relying on impact pathways and synergistic effects of
the variation 3 along with the impacts and benefits of the policy
project (led by USA with IFPRI and CIMMYT collaboration) would lead
to 1.5 million farming households adopting at least one or more
high impact CASI technologies/practices, which are more sustainable
than current practices that improves farmer livelihoods and reduces
poverty.
Introduction
The EGP, spanning Nepal, Bangladesh and India has the worlds
highest concentration of rural poverty currently some 40% of global
poverty. Future population growth is predicted to lead South-Asia
to inter-related crises, with food supply increasingly lagging
behind demand (already, 0.5 billion people in South Asia are
hungry), fresh water resources diminishing and a burgeoning demand
for energy. Rice, wheat and pulse productivity remain low and
diversification is limited because of poorly developed markets,
limited development of small businesses, sparse agricultural
knowledge and service networks, inefficient use of water resources
and unsustainable production practices. This problem is strongly
exasperated by policy limitations, the impact of climate change,
labor shortages and land fragmentation. The sub-optimal production
presents an opportunity to increase regional agricultural
productivity by establishing enabling policy, introducing
innovations that more efficiently use land, water and energy and
strengthening markets and entrepreneurial activities. This project
aligns with the priorities of the governments of Bangladesh, India
and Nepal. The Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable
Intensification (CASI) and diversification of climate-resilient
farming systems sought through this project clearly addresses
issues on these areas.
ACIARs priorities, under the Australian Governments Sustainable
Development Investment Portfolio (SDIP) for South Asia policy are
met by the strong focus on food, energy and water nexus and women
and youth that will continue to underpin this work. A full proposal
has been formulated by detailing key thematic areas, clarifying on
methodological aspects of partner engagement emphasising capacity
building of all relevant stakeholder including women, youth and
private sector. Similarly, as part of SRFSI II, a separate proposal
is being formulated in addressing policy barriers collaboratively
with the University of South Australia (USA), IFPRI and CIMMYT that
is expected to facilitate wider scale adoption of CASI technologies
and approaches in the EGPs.The SRFSI II is an important part of the
DFAT-led SDIP Phase 2 program, which seeks to improve regional
cooperation across the food, energy and water sectors in order to
reduce poverty and increase food security. Therefore, the
envisioned objectives of variation 3 (emphasizing on capacity
building) will not be achieved unless barriers for wider scale
dissemination and adoption of CASI practices are addressed.
While developing a full variation 3 proposal, among others the
following key aspects of the sustainable intensification have been
accomplished under this SRA:
Working session on scaling CASI and policy and institutional
barriers,
Two short stories/cases of typical policy and institutional
barriers constraining to scale high impact CASI technologies,
Vision of widespread scaling in the EGP potentially reaching a
substantial proportion of EGP farmers,
Identify ME&L systems and implementation modalities for
evaluating pilot scaling out of CASI to benefit 1.5 million
households,
Identified and mapped EGP farming systems and potential scaling
areas by type of CASI practices, with spatial data, maps and
report,
Elaborated policy and institutional barriers to improve ground
water management, strengthen mechanisation services, strengthen
IPs, expand entrepreneurship by farmers and micro-entrepreneurs,
and related evidence base, and
Prepare consolidated proposal for SRFSI II in consultation with
key stakeholders with integration and functional linkages to the
USA/IFPRI/CIMMYT policy proposal
These aspects have been summarised separately below.
Working session on scaling CASI and policy and institutional
barriers
A three-day high level meeting with SRFSI partners including
policy makers and private sector representatives was organised from
16-18 November 2016 in Delhi (Hotel Lemon Tree Premier). There were
25 participants in both the meetings. The first day meeting was
focussed on SRFSI out-scaling variation proposal, which was led by
Dr Peter Brown to consider inputs into re-writing the SRFSI Scaling
Variation for consideration by CIMMYT and ACIAR. The key challenges
for Scaling Variation project identified were i) the impact
pathways of partners use CASI technologies benefit 1.5 million
households in the EGP by 2020/21 principally through horizontally
out scaling methods, including direct benefit to at least 30%
women, and ii) to consider the approaches and methods that are
needed to catalyse substantial local small-scale private sector
engagement and attract the necessary private investment to the
EGP.
This meeting was facilitated through a series of short
presentations relating to needs to be done for supporting scaling
out in the EGP focussing on agronomy, social and economic
perspectives, government schemes, policy, gender, private sector,
business skills and universities. This was followed by general
discussion and then detailed planning through modifying an existing
activities plan to consider relevant methods and approaches to
achieve scaling out. The presentations and subsequent planning was
highly rigorous in clarifying thinking and potential approaches to
enable scaling out to occur.
Peter wrote the SRFSI Scaling Variation based on those inputs to
be submitted to CIMMYT thereby ACIAR, which became a foundation for
the SRFSI variation 3. In a practical sense, it will not be
possible for project staff to shake the hands of 1.5 million
households individually given the available resources and
timeframe. Therefore, relying on synergistic effects of the
Variation 3 along with the impacts and benefits of the policy
project (led by USA with IFPRI and CIMMYT collaboration) would
facilitate scaling process. The evidence based pathways would be
adopted (Appendix 1) emphasising more on capacity building that
would lead to 1.5 million farming households adopting at least one
or more high impact CASI technologies that improves farmer
livelihoods, reduces poverty (SRFSI Variation 3). The target group
for this livelihoods improvement is smallholders in EGP, including
women and youth.
Dr Eric Kueneman and Judee Fisher led next two-days meeting for
designing the SRFSI Phase II policy support project. The challenges
to design the project are: i) to provide the Phase II project
evidence-based guidance to enable governments and their stakeholder
partners to develop effective strategies and support policies for
scaling-up adoption of CASI innovations that have been pilot-tested
in EGP, ii) to collaborate with government programs/schemes and
create enabling environments for expanded private sector
engagements in CASI technologies and approaches, iii) the
approaches and methods to catalyse more effective synergies between
research projects on biophysical, social/policy constraints and
investment-grade government-created projects that are scale-up
oriented and iv) a policy-focused project, catalyse regional
strategies and policies around the nexus of food, water and energy,
while considering the needs and opportunities that exists in the
EGPs.
A series of presentations followed by detailed group discussions
and reporting back to build some detailed information to use in
writing the project document. Outline of project objectives,
activities and milestones were developed. Eric put all relevant
information into the development of a proposal, which is now has
been merged and became a foundation of a policy project that would
be led by University of South Australia (USA) and co-led by IFPRI,
and CIMMYT will be a key partner.
Two short stories/cases of typical policy and institutional
barriers constraining to scale high impact CASI technologies.
Two stories related with field policy and institutional issues
and barriers were documented from Madhubani district of Bihar,
India and Rangpur, Bangladesh. A synthesised stories based on
information received from ICAR (for Madhubani) and RDRS (for
Rangpur) representing India and Bangladesh are presented in
Appendix 2.
The major impediments for CASI promotion found to be the lack of
access of machines and services that promotes CASI, weed management
since CASI technologies are based on three main crop production
principles (less soil disturbance, rational use of residues and
sustainable crop rotation) and new seeds farmers will not realise
the full benefit of CASI without new seeds of crop varieties that
they prefer. However, there are opportunities in the study areas to
promote CASI, if issues are addressed. The other institutional
barrier that needs to be resolved for scaling CASI technologies are
promotion of knowledge about benefits of CA technologies that could
be achieved through training NARES personnel, agri-machinery
agents/dealers, service providers and farmers. Beside addressing
policy issues, more advocacy program from Government side is also
needed to encourage/motivate private sector to come forward to
invest with a service motive (earning while serving) on CASI
technologies and marketing.
Vision of widespread scaling in the EGP potentially reaching a
substantial proportion of EGP farmers
The SRFSI has made a tremendous progress since last three years
in understanding farmers bio-physical and socio-economic
circumstances in the EGPs, generating quality data, and syntheses
reports on gender, socio-economic and CASI. Also strengthened
business models for service provision and local seed value chain
involving women and youth for generating employment and income.
This was clearly highlighted during mid-term review meeting (MTR)
in February 2017. As a result of collaborative efforts, we have
been able to reach over 50,000 farm families (30% are women) with
one or more of the CASI technologies and farmers are experiencing
higher yield and economic benefits. Recommendation of MTR and the
Project Steering Committee (PSC) also suggested focusing more on
consolidation of results, priorities field activities and working
where comparative advantage lies.
Based on partners feedback, lesson learned, and
knowledge/experiences gained over the years, working nodes have
been characterized for each SRFSI districts like A, B and C. In
addition to MTR feedback, and PSC meeting guidance, we also
considered available timeframe and resources while making decision
that scaling efforts should be made in A and B category nodes,
which are outlined in Appendix 3. Activities, as strategic
demonstrations using various CASI technologies and opportunity
trials, capacity building/trainings (ToTs, LSPs, Farmers, etc.),
quality seed production and strengthen market linkages, gender
mainstreaming, etc. will be priority activities for variation 3
that are clearly reflected in the proposal.
Identify M&E&L systems and implementation modalities for
evaluating pilot scaling out of CASI to benefit 1.5 million
households
Over three years of experiences and learnings suggest that a
single-factor solution is not effective in addressing multi-facets
problems of farmers associated with food, energy and water. The
SRFSI - through its partnership and participatory approaches has
been validating and promoting CASI technologies and practices that
benefits poor and marginal farmers and are more resilience to
adverse climate situation. Together with partners, the SRFSI has
been able to identify technologies that are efficient in energy and
water uses (SRFSI Annual Report, 2017). However, the benefit of
such technologies is limited to targeted geographical locations.
Therefore, it requires collective and concerted efforts based on a
combination of public and private engagements to reach out millions
of needy farmers with basket of CASI technological options. A
vision for widespread scaling and pathways to impact 1.5 million
households have been described in section 4 and 6 and Appendices 1
and 2, respectively.
Identified and mapped EGP farming systems and potential scaling
areas by type of CASI practices, with spatial data, maps and
report
The EGPs in South Asia is spread over 180 districts of three
countries. Which include major part of Bangladesh, Terai of Nepal,
and Bihar, Eastern UP, West Bengal and Assam of India. It is a
house of 451 m people with a population density of slightly over
1000 per square Km. Majority of the rural population is small and
marginal (70-90%), where approximately 44 million labor depending
on agriculture. It covers approximately 30 m ha land with 173
percent cropping intensity, which is characterized by low crop
productivity, exposed to climatic vulnerability such as frequent
floods, storms, erratic rainfall, long spell of drought and high
pressure of abiotic (salinity, acidity, soil erosion etc.) and
biotic (weed, pest and diseases) stresses. The EGP is dominated by
rice based farming systems covering maximum area under rice-rice
(6.51 m ha) followed by rice-wheat (6.22 m ha), rice-maize (1.0 m
ha) and rice - lentil (0.7 m ha) systems. The reasons for low
productivity, apart from climate shocks are lack of new
technological intervention coupled with poor quality inputs,
increased land fragmentations with domination of small and marginal
farm households, low risk bearing capacity, poor market and
institutional infrastructure e.g. road connectivity. In addition,
very high resource intensive cropping systems having poor
mechanization services, high cost of irrigation, seasonal labor
scarcity and poor capacity building infrastructure leads to high
production costs.
It has been evidenced that among the EGP districts, there is
huge variability in terms of social structure, farm typologies,
farming and cropping systems, land topography, crop yields,
infrastructure, market networks, local policies and governance. To
characterize farming systems zones, the secondary data were
extracted from different sources e.g. govt. statistics. The
variables included for farming systems zones characterization are
percentage farm household types, cropping intensity, cropping
systems, crop yields, irrigation accessibility, available
mechanization services, and livestock per household. Based on this
information, the EGP farming systems have been broadly grouped into
six different farming systems zones. A cluster analysis using R
software was performed to group zones (Figure 1) and districts were
mapped using QGIS software (Figure 2) and individual zones were
further characterized for major features for technological and
policy intervention, and estimation for a potential scaling area.
Meaning that one set of technological validation/intervention
approach and addressing policy issues designed for one specific
zone or farming systems might not necessarily work for the others,
which means different approach and strategy for technology
targeting and addressing policy issues for a wider-scale
dissemination of CASI technologies for each zones would be required
to have a meaningful CASI intervention (Appendix 4).
Based on the evidences and experiences from SRFSI domains, this
study attempted to identify potential area for scaling targeted
CASI technologies, and technological and policy intervention for
each farming systems zones in EGPs.
Zone 1: 37 districts from Nepal, Eastern UP, and Bihar (Jhapa,
Morang, Sunsari, Saptari, Siraha, Dhanusha, Mohottari, Sarlahi,
Rautahat, Bara, Parsa, Nawalparashi, Rupendehi, Bardiya, Chitwan,
Azamgarh, Behraich, Ballia, Basti, Deoria, Fiazabad, Ghazipur,
Gonda, Gorakhpur, Jaunpur, Kushinagara, Maharagunj, Mau,
Pratapgarh, Sultanpur, St. Kabir Nagar, Vanarashi, Jehanabad,
Lakhisarai, Paschim Champaran) are under this zone. Of the total
cultivable area (5.38 m ha), Rice-Wheat system covers 54%, which is
a dominant cropping system. The major characteristics of this zone
are poor soil and land management, poor network of road, lack of
availability of quality inputs and output markets, low intervention
thereby adoption of modern technologies and practices and has 73%
small and marginal farm households with fragmented land holdings
and very poor coordination and linkages among institutions/
organizations. Though 84% area is irrigated, irrigation is costly
due to diesel pumping. Preliminary analysis show, around 2.9 m ha
of rice-wheat systems and 1.0 m ha lentil/pulses productivity could
be enhanced by advanced planting through ZT technology, better bet
agronomy and improved irrigation scheduling by supplementary
irrigation in existing systems. At least 15% net sown area (0.8 m
ha) can be brought under diversification and intensification with
maize and short duration crops like pulses where assured irrigation
is available. It has a great scope of crop intensification by
converting summer fallow provided that alternate irrigation
infrastructure is developed (e.g. electrification, solar energy)
thereby improving systems productivity. Equally important is to
consider and improve institutional and infrastructure arrangements,
capacity building and agricultural knowledge access to farm
communities especially young and women farmers.
Zone 2: 46 districts from Nepal, Eastern UP, Bangladesh and West
Bengal (Kapilvastu, Dang, Bankee, Balrampur, Sravasti,
Sidarthnagar, Comilla, Noakhali, Lakshimpur, Faridpur, Jamalpur,
Mymensingh, Narsandhi, Netrokona, Rajbari, Sherpur, Tangail,
Natore, Nawanganj, Noagoan, Pabna, Rajshai, Dinajpur, Gaibandha,
Kurigram, Lalmonirhat, Nilphamari, Panchagar, Rangpur, Thakurgaon,
Alipurdwar, Burdwan, Birbum, Cooch behar, Kolkata, Dinajpur (N),
Dinajpur (s), Howrah, Malda, Medinipur (E), Medinipur (W), Araria,
Saharsa, Samistipur, Supal, Kishangarh) are under this zone.
It has the highest cultivable area i.e. 8.67 m ha. Rice-rice
(Boro rice) is a dominant cropping system covering 47% net sown
area, followed by rice-wheat (16%) and new emerging rice-maize
system (9%). Though cropping intensity is 191% only, 55% net
cultivated area is under irrigation. The major characteristics of
this zone are 90% farm households are small and marginal farmers.
Late rice transplanting is general phenomenon because of reliance
on monsoon rains. This zone is fairly mechanized with 2-wheel and
4-wheel tractors but has poor local infrastructure for other
agricultural machinery services and poor value chain and marketing
networks. Nearly 30-40% area is affected by frequent flash floods.
This Zone has good presence of NGOs, public and private
sectors.
Approximately 2.0 m ha area is under boro rice that could be
brought under improved irrigation scheduling through alternate
wetting and drying, mechanized rice transplanting and Direct Seeded
Rice (DSR) and at least 1 m ha of area under Aman rice can be
targeted for DSR.
To greater extent, policy on integrated biological stress
management practices such as weed, diseases and insects and pests,
and proper knowledge and information sharing can address the issue
of biotic stresses. It has a potential to use existing network of
local NGOs for scaling the CASI technologies.
Zone 3: 35 districts from Bangladesh, Assam and West Bengal
(Chandpur, Brahmanbaria, Sunamgonj, Hobigonj, Dhaka, Gazipur,
Gopalgunj, Kishoerganj, Madaripur, Munshiganj, Naryanganj,
Sariatpur, Perojpur, Bagerhat, Khulna, Satkhira, Darrang, Dhurbi,
Golapara, Golaghat, Hailkandi, Kamrup (rural), Kamrup (Metro),
Karbi (analog), Karimgunj, Kokrajhar, Lakhimpur, Morigoan, Nogaon,
Sonitpur, Udalgari, South 24 Parganas, North 24 Parganas, Bankura,
Jalpaiguri, Calcutta) are under this zone. It has 4.8 m ha
cultivable area. Like Zone 2, Rice-Boro rice is the dominant
cropping system. The major characteristics of this zone are low
lying catchment of Brahmaputra and Megna rivers in Bangladesh and
Assam, which is severely affected by climatic variations, low
mechanization due to poor connectivity and infrastructure, less
scope for cropping intensification as excess moisture is major
issue for non-rice crop planting during winter season and has poor
irrigation facility due to deep floods and excess moisture.
However, it has a good coverage of short duration oilseed crops.
80% of farming households are under small and marginal category and
suffering from poor market infrastructures.
Fish and rice farming system, promotion of improved/hybrid high
yielding varieties and deep water tolerant varieties, and suitable
short duration oilseed and pulses are the potential interventions
that could significantly improve food security and livelihoods of
Zone 3 farmers.
The policy intervention could be on disaster and salinity
managements in relation to agricultural production, especially in
the southern Bangladesh.
Zone 4: This is the zone with highest cropping intensity i.e.
237% and highest yield of rice, wheat and maize. It includes 12
districts (Manikganj, Chaudanga, Jessore, Jhenaidah, Kushtia,
Magura, Meherpur, Narail, Bogra, Joypurhat, Pabna, Sirajang) from
Bangladesh and 3 districts (Hooghly, Murshidabad, Nadia) from West
Bengal and has 2.29 m ha cultivable land.
64% of net sown area is dominated by rice-rice system followed
by 11% under rice-wheat system. This zone is fairly well mechanized
with developed markets and 69% area under irrigation but has
arsenic problems. Of the total, 1.3 m ha of boro rice area could be
brought under mechanized services like, mechanized transplanting,
0.3 m ha and 0.2 m ha area could be utilized for CASI technologies
for wheat and maize, respectively.
Zone 5: It has 2.23 m ha cultivable land. Out of 17 districts
under this zone, 12 districts are from Assam (Barpeta, Baksa,
Bongigaon, Cachar, Chirang, Dhemaj, Dilbugarh, Dima Hassaon (N. C.
hills), Jorhat, Nalbari, Sabsagar, Tinsukia) and 5 districts from
Bangladesh (Barguna, Barisal, Bhola, Jhalakhati, Patuakhali). It
covers coastal areas of Bangladesh and foot hills of Assam.
This is the zone with low cropping intensity i.e. 143%, low crop
yields, low mechanization and poor market networks. Kharif rice and
low input pulses and oilseeds are predominantly grown. This zone is
highly vulnerable to climatic variations and follows rainfed
agriculture. Only 10% cultivated area is under irrigation. However,
it has good balance of small and medium farm households. 14%
cultivable land is fallow and of which 0.31 m ha could be converted
to crop land with mechanization and introduction of pulses and
oilseeds and 0.7 m ha of rice-fallow systems could be intensified
with Rabi crops like, maize and wheat. It has good potential to use
surface water irrigation.
The policy to efficiently use surface water for irrigation,
improve market infrastructure and flood resistance crop can
increase the cropping intensity.
Zone 6: 28 districts of Bihar (Arwal, Arungabad, Banka,
Begusarai, Bhagalpur, Bhojpur, Buxar, Darbanga, Gaya, Gopalgunj,
Kaimur (Bhabua), Katihar, Khagara, Madhepura, Madhubani, Munger,
Muzaffarpur, Nalanda, Nawada, Patna, Purbi Champaran, Purnia,
Rohtas, Saran, Sheikhpur, Siwan, Vaishali, Jumai), and 2 districts
of Eastern UP (Mirzapur, Chandauli) fall in this zone. It has 5.5 m
ha cultivable land. Rice-wheat is the major cropping system that
cover 41% of net sown area but has low wheat productivity due to
late sowing, poor mechanization and land fragmentation. Rice-maize
is emerging system. 56% area has irrigation facility, but access is
uncertain and costly. Majority of farm households are poor and
mostly practice share cropping and farming decision is taken by
land owner. Due to this there is a poor land management especially
soil acidity. It has complex social structure and poor coordination
among the institutions and government schemes. This zone is well
mechanized for tillage which is very resource intensive. However,
in other agricultural operations use of machines are low.
For scaling, 1.9 m ha area under rice-wheat can be improved by
advance planting through CASI technologies, 1.0 m ha fallow land
and 0.3 m ha maize area can be brought under cultivation through
improved irrigation systems and CASI technologies. 1.1 m ha land
can be improved by lime application which will improve the land
productivity. The yield of oilseed and pulses covering approximate
0.9 m ha area can be enhanced by better agronomy and CASI.
In this zone due to poor access to market, farmers do not get
right price and farmers are unable to sell their produce even at
minimum support price. Therefore, policy to support market network,
improved institutional arrangement for better coordination and
implementation, soil fertility and nutrient management can enhance
productivity of this zone. Better drainage system should be
developed to reduce flood risk in the region.
Final report: Informing policies for removing barriers to
scaling conservation agriculture based sustainable intensification
in the Eastern Gangetic Plains
In all the zone capacity and knowledge building of farm
communities especially young women farmers and youth, and improved
institutional arrangements is essential for scaling CASI
technologies.
Page iv
Figure1. Farming systems zones map
Figure 2 Cluster analysis for identifying farming systems
zones
Elaborated policy and institutional barriers to improve ground
water management, strengthen mechanisation services, strengthen
IPs, expand entrepreneurship by farmers and micro-entrepreneurs,
and related evidence base
This would basically come from a policy project led by
University of South Australia (USA) and co-led by IFPRI. It would
complement SRFSI variation 3 by removing barriers constraining
widespread scaling of CASI technologies and approaches.
Efforts were made to capture a few major barriers of CASI
technology dissemination and adoption from Bihar, India, Nepal and
Bangladesh, which are briefly mentioned below and elaborative form
of the existing policies are included in Appendices 5.1, 5.2 and
5.3, respectively.
Major policy barriers for out-scaling of CASI technologies:
Bihar, India
1. Land fragmentation and land tenure system
2. Lack of irrigation facility
3. Lack of appropriate infrastructure like unreliable
electricity supply, market, trained government official on CSAI,
unavailability of quality inputs with affordable price, and poor
information network and extension services.
Nepal
1. Fragmented and small land holding
2. Lack of irrigation facility and market connectivity and
infrastructure
3. Unavailability of quality seeds and inputs (fertilizers,
herbicides, etc.)
4. Inadequate policy focus on agricultural mechanization
5. Unavailability of modern agriculture implements and machinery
custom hire centre and lack of enabling policy to attract local
service provider as entrepreneurs.
6. Lack of access to institutional loan for custom hire
centre
7. High import duty on machinery parts and raw materials
Bangladesh
1. Lack of proper dissemination of information
2. Inadequate extension personnel
3. Lack of machinery and repairing facility
4. Unavailability of quality seeds and herbicides
5. Lack of credit at reasonable rate
6. Poor market infrastructure
Prepare consolidated proposal for SRFSI II in consultation with
key stakeholders with integration and functional linkages to the
USA/IFPRI/CIMMYT policy proposal
The SRFSI variation 3 as part of Scaling variation as part of
SDIP I has been submitted to ACIAR/DFAT for approval, which is an
expansion of ongoing SRFSI objective 4 with emphasis on capacity
buildings. Policy project to complement the SRFSI variation 3, is
being developed under SDIP II by the University of South Australia
(USA) in collaboration with CIMMYT and IFPRI. The policy proposal
is expected to be in place by January 2018. Both SRFSI variation 3
and Policy project will complement each other and will have strong
synergy effect to address issues around food, energy and water
nexus. Therefore, there will be a close working collaboration
between them.
Conclusions and recommendationsConclusions
The SRFSI has made a tremendous progress within a short span of
time in understanding farmers bio-physical and socio-economic
circumstances in the EGPs, generating quality data, syntheses
report on gender, socio-economic, CASI and so forth. This was
clearly reflected during mid-term review meeting (MTR). As a result
of a collaborative venture, we have been able to reach over 50,000
farm families (30% are women) with one or more of the CASI
technologies, by adopting these farmers are experiencing higher
yield and economic benefits.
Activities, as a strategic demonstration system and opportunity
trials, quality seed production and marketing, capacity
building/trainings (ToTs, LSPs, Farmers, etc.), gender
mainstreaming, etc. will be priority activities for variation 3.
Based on partners feedback and knowledge/experiences gathered over
the years, working nodes have been characterized for each district
like A, B and C. Considering the feedback of partners and MTR
meeting and resources, scaling efforts will be focused on A and B
nodes where competitive advantage lies. To identify potential area
for scaling CASI technologies, and technological and policy
intervention in EGP, six farming system zones (FSZs) were
identified. For scaling of targeted CASI in each FSZs, capacity and
knowledge building of farm communities especially young women
farmers and youth, and iimproved institutional arrangements are
essential.
Across EGP, quality inputs at right time and enough quantity
(seeds, fertilizers, herbicides, etc.), limited access to
institutional credit, small and fragmented land holding,
non-availability of CASI technology service providers, poor network
of manufacturer and spare parts and repair centre of CASI
implements, lack of information and training to service providers,
challenge in maintaining crop residue due to its alternative use as
livestock feed and firewood, unfair price of product, insufficient
investment in research, poorly developed market and high cost of
irrigation are the major barriers for scaling high impact CASI
technologies across EGPs. Policies such as subsidy, access to
inputs, attracting private sectors, etc. are different for
different countries. Bangladesh for example, has come up with
different policies for promoting agriculture sector and they are
favourable for promotion of CASI technologies as is also focussing
on crop rotation, legume integration, better quality seeds,
nutrient management, integrated pest management etc., but
implementation as well as awareness are serious problems. For
instance, the rate of subsidy on agri. Machineries is 30% to
promote rural mechanization but farmers are not aware about it and
there is no effective mechanism to create awareness, hence farmers
are deprived from the benefit. Unlike Bangladesh, Nepal and India
has restrictive agriculture machinery import policy from China due
to which cheap and small farm machinery are not available in the
market. Compare to India and Bangladesh, agricultural mechanization
is very slow in Nepal because, mechanization was not in the
priority list in five-year Agricultural plan. Nepal got its 1st
rural and agricultural mechanization policy only on 2015. India
spends lots on agricultural research and has progressive policies
that favours spread and manufacturing of CASI technologies similar
policies can be implemented in Nepal and Bangladesh to attract
manufacturer and service provider in the business.
In Bangladesh and Nepal policy focuses mainly on rice. India is
slowly moving its focus from rice, wheat to maize and pulses.
Though agricultural policy in all three countries are slowly
shifting focus from rice to other crops, resources and capacity
still needs to be developed to impart knowledge and make input
available to farmers.
Technologies validated and identified suitable for certain
biophysical and socio-economic environment will not perform equally
everywhere in the EGP. Therefore, farming system zones based on
bio-physical environment have been defined for technology
targeting. In practical sense, it will not be possible for project
staff to shake the hands of 1.5 million households individually
given the available resources and timeframe. Therefore, relying on
synergistic effects of the Variation 3 along with the impacts and
benefits of the policy project (led by USA with IFPRI and CIMMYT
collaboration) will facilitate scaling process. The evidence based
pathways will be adopted Appendix 1) focussing more on capacity
building of NARES for convergence with Govt. programs/schemes that
would lead to 1.5 million farming households adopting at least one
or more highly effective CASI technologies that improves farmer
livelihoods, reduces poverty and is more sustainable than current
practices. The target group for this livelihoods improvement is
smallholders, including youth and women. Not only that the
expertise developed under capacity building objective under the
existing SRFSI Objective 4 will remain in the country, which will -
to some extent guarantee the sustainability.
Recommendations
Policies to develop legal framework for leasing land can
increase investment in improving the quality of soil, adoption of
CASI technologies and enhanced productivity. Provision for
providing institutional agricultural credit with low interest and
no mortgage will address the liquidity crisis of farmers, which can
encourage adoption of CASI technologies as well as it will enable
farmers to buy inputs on time.
CASI technologies/practices are knowledge intensive hence
capacity building of farmers including youth and women to come up
as service provider, increase knowledge on better bet agronomic
practices could scale adoption of CASI technologies and practices
as out migration of men is leading to feminization of agriculture
in EGP. In addition, the use of ICT services to provide information
on CASI practices and other agricultural related information can
help farmer to take action on time.
In all three countries government relies much on subsidies and
less on incentives to rely on policy goals. Nevertheless, most of
the subsidies are distortionary and poorly targeted. Rationalizing
subsidies in food, energy, water and mechanized equipment sector is
essential to promote sustainable intensification.
EGP depends heavily on diesel for irrigation resulting to high
irrigation cost due to poor irrigation infrastructure. Therefore,
focus should be on developing the surface and ground water
irrigation infrastructure. Recently, all three countries are
focussing on renewable energy source such as solar and electricity
for irrigation but the policy to promote solar power in agriculture
needs to shift its focus from high capital subsidies to better
access to credit and innovative financing mechanism for cost
sharing between farmers and companies as even after subsidy it is
difficult for farmers to arrange rest of the amount required to
install solar pump.
Both input and output market in EGP is distorted, hence
initiative like JEEViKA and DeHaat in Purnea, Bihar are required to
address inefficient value chains and enhance small and marginal
farmers bargaining power. Satmile and Sabuji farmers club model for
youth and women entrepreneurship for custom hire services and mat
rice seedlings growing, Bidyanandapur and Kalinagar farmers club
for seed production models should be replicated in other
regions.
In the transition phase from conventional/traditional to CASI,
misconceptions and uncertainties regarding the performance of CASI
technologies needs to be addressed. For this farmer participatory
trails and demonstration plots could play a vital role in clearing
the misconception about the technology thereby changing mind-set.
The SRFSI has been playing a role as a catalyst and lobbying for
ensuring minimum returns through risk-hedging, which is expected to
speed up adoption.
Convergence into different government programs such as BGERI,
NFSM, ATMA in India, Small Irrigation Program, PMAMP etc. in Nepal
can scale up CASI practices. It is taking place in West Bengal and
to some extent in Bangladesh but in Nepal Terai and Bihar this link
seems to be missing. Hence, SRFSI needs to focus on how to create
linkage for out scaling of CASI technologies in Bihar and
Nepal.
Use and strengthening of existing platforms for formation of
innovation platform, can fasten scaling of CASI technologies and
solving farmers agriculture related problems and use resources in
other capacity development activities.
For strengthening scaling out CASI technologies for sustainable
and inclusive livelihoods, SRFSI should advocate and implement:
Training of Trainers (ToT) on CASI, monitoring and
evaluation.
Rapid ICT- based communication between IPs and extension and
development agencies for agricultural related information like pest
and disease outbreaks via photographs
Establish CASI demonstration plots in a strategic location for a
demonstration effect
Organise training locally, arrange field days in villages
(rather research stations),
Strengthen custom hiring service as one-stop-advise &
service-shops
Continue developing linkages among and between machines dealers,
resource and service centres, credit providers and communities
Look for better synergy and convergence opportunities
ReferencesReferences cited in report (not appropriately listed
also not in proper order order)
Adhikary, S. K. (2003). Nepal Country Report. In Country Paper
Technical Advisory Committee ( Tac ) And Governing Board Meeting Of
Asia And The Pacific Centre For Agricultural (Pp. 132). Country
Paper Technical Advisory Committee ( Tac ) And Governing Board
Meeting Of Asia And The Pacific Centre For Agricultural (APCAEM),
Beijing, China
Agriculture Credit Subsidy Guidelines 2014, Ministry of
Agriculture, Nepal Policy Division, 2013.
Agriculture Census, 2011
Annual Report, 2017: SRFSI
Aryal, J. P., Bhatia, M., Jat, M., & Sidhu, H. (2015).
Impacts of Laser Land Leveling in Rice-Wheat System of the
North-western Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Food Security, 114.
Bangladesh Agriculture Year Book 2015
Erenstein, O., & Farooq, U. (2009a). A Survey of factors
Associated with the adoption of Zero Tillage Wheat in the Irrigated
Plains of South Asia. Experimental Agriculture, 45(2), 133147.
Erenstein, O., & Farooq, U. (2009b). Factors affecting the
adoption of zero tillage wheat in the rice-wheat systems of India
and Pakistan. Outlook on Agriculture, 38(4), 367373.
http://doi.org/10.5367/000000009790422124
Erenstein, O., Malik, R. K., & Singh, S. (2007). Adoption
and Impacts of Zero-Tillage in the Rice-Wheat Zone of Irrigated
Haryana , India. New-Delhi.
Feder, G., & OMara, G. T. (1981). Farm size and the
diffusion of green revolution technology. Economic Development and
Cultural Change, 30(1), 5976.
Giller, K. E., Witter, M., Corbeels, M., & Tittonell, P.
(2009). Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa:
The heretics view. Field Crops Research, 114, 2334.
Gisselquist, D., Nash, J., & Pray, C. (2002). Deregulating
the Transfer of Agricultural Technology: Lessons from Bangladesh ,
17 (2), 237265.
htmlhttp://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/rap/files/meetings/2016/160801_BGD-SurveyCalendar_Expectations_from_Ag_Census_by_DAE.pdf
IFPRI. (2017). Machine Reforms For Sustainable Intensification
of Agriculture in South Asia. In Machine Reforms For Sustainable
Intensification of Agriculture in South Asia (pp. 14). New Delhi:
International Foof Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Research complex
for Eastern Region. (2016). Production and Technological Gaps in
Middle Indo-Gangetic Plains ICAR Research Complex for Eastern
Region. The Director, ICAR-Research Complex for Eastern Region,
Patna, Bihar, India.
Jehangir, W. A., Masih, I., Ahmed, S., Gill, M. A., Ahmad, M.,
Mann, R. A., Turral, H. (2007). Sustaining Crop Water Productivity
in Rice-Wheat Systems of South Asia: A Case Study from the (No.
IWMI Working Paper 115). Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Joshi, K. D., Conroy, C., & Witcombe, J. R. (2012).
Agriculture, seed, and innovation in Nepal: Industry and policy
issues for the future. International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Joshi, P. ., Khan, T., & Kishore, A. (2017). Policies for
Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Eastern Gangetic
Plains (EGP). Submitted to Australian Centre for International
Agricultural Research (ACIAR), International Food Policy Research
Institue (IFPRI), New Delhi.
K.G, S. (1998). Conserving natural resources and enhancing food
security by adopting no-tillage- An assessmnet of the potential for
soil-conserving production systems in various agro-ecological zones
of Africa. Eschborn: TOEB/GTZ.
Kienzle, J., Ashburner, J. E., & Sims, B. G. (2013).
Mechanization for Rural Development: A review of patterns and
progress. Integrated Crop Management Vol. 20-2013 (Vol. 20).
Marongwe, L. S., Nyagumbo, I., Kwazira, K., Kassam, A., &
Friedrich, T. (2012). Conservation Agriculture and Sustainable Crop
Intensification: A Zimbabwe Case Study. Integrated Crop Management
(Vol. 17). Plant Production and Protection Division, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome: FAO.
Ministry of Agriculture Development Department, Nepal,
Collection of Agriculture Related Policies, 1-336
Agricultural policy 2004
Irrigation policy 2060
Fertilizer Policy
National Seed Policy 1999
Ministry of Population and Environment, 2016. Renewable Energy
Subsidy Policy. Government of Nepal.
Mondal, M. H. (2010). Crop Agriculture of Bangladesh: Challenges
and Opportunities. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research,
35(2), 235245. http://doi.org/10.3329/bjar.v35i2.5886
Mottaleb, K. A., Krupnik, T. J., & Erenstein, O. (2016).
Factors associated with small-scale agricultural machinery adoption
in Bangladesh: Census findings. Journal of Rural Studies, 46,
155168.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.06.012
National Agricultural Policy 2010 (Draft) Ministry of
Agriculture, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh
National Agricultural Policy 2013 Ministry of Agriculture,
Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh
National Agricultural Extension Policy 2012 (Draft) Ministry of
Agriculture, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh
Pingali, P. (2007). Chapter 54 Agricultural Mechanization:
Adoption Patterns and Economic Impact. Handbook of Agricultural
Economics, 3(August), 27792805.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0072(06)03054-4
Place, F., & Dewees, P. (1999). Policies and incentives for
the adoption of improved fallows. Agroforestry Systems, 47,
323343.
Seventh Five Year Plan FY2016-2020 (7FYP) Ministry of
Agriculture (Agriculture Sub-sector: crops and horticulture),
Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh
Tahir, M. A., & Younas, M. (2004). Feasibility of dry sowing
technology of wheat in cotton growing districts and impact
evaluation of zero tillage technology in rice growing districts.
Publication No. 364. Lahore: Punjab Economic Research Institute
(PERI), 364.
The Kathmandu Post. (2016, November 14). Government Implements
Farm Modernization Project. The Kathmandu Post. Kathmandu, Nepal.
Retrieved from
http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2016-11-14/govt-implements-farm-modernisation-project.
List of publications produced by project
Enter text
AppendixesAppendix 1: Pathways to Impact for SRFSI
To improve farmer livelihoods and produce resilient and
adaptable farming households and communities on a large scale
requires more than the traditional, linear and uni-directional
transfer of information and new technologies by government
extension services. Consequently, this scaling proposal is based on
the business model training and development of innovation systems
as multi-stakeholder vehicles with multi-directional information
exchange to stimulate technological and institutional change
leading to livelihood improvements for vulnerable farming
households. This targeted business skills training of local
entrepreneurs, input suppliers and service providers to enhance an
enabling environment to create demand for inputs and services. This
will then be transferred to neighbouring communities and Districts
(Figure 3) and are outlined in Table 1.
Figure 3. Plan for enabling scaling out to occur through
establishing activities with groups of farmers, input dealers and
service providers, then replicating this in new areas (Nodes or
Districts).
Table 1. Pathways to Impact for SRFSI.
Pathways
Activities/Means
Results in
Promoting partnership (PPP) and participatory approaches
Enhance togetherness, mutual trust, listening, respecting each
others efforts/knowledge, shared responsibilities, promoting joint
decision making process & eventually sharing the credit (either
success or failure).
Science-driven & impacts-oriented initiative with a diverse
set of partners from public & private sector is key to
success.
Strengthen existing & develop new partnership representing
research, development & educational sectors to exploit
synergies from a unique strength of each partner.
Create enabling environment to influence institutional level
decision making to help in integration of activities into their
regular program.
Private sector engagement: Improved markets (inputs/outputs)
& services for smallholder producers & micro & small
enterprises is key value chains envisioned in the SRFSI
project.
Identify few key points where private sector engagement can
catalyze wider investments: (a) improving technologies, business
competencies & services in key production inputs; (b)
strengthening technical & financial services for smallholder
producers in different agricultural systems taking into account for
diversification, & the highly dynamic market opportunities;
& (c) giving farmers access to market means linking smallholder
producers to inputs market as well as higher value chain markets
through improved product development, organizational capacities
& new partnerships with private sector investors.
Engaging private sectors who have national & regional level
presence to stimulate their investments in planning process.
Organise interface meeting between public & private
sectors.
Partners take the ownership of initiatives and
technology/ies.
Integration of SRFSI promoted activities in NARES regular
program that would result in reaching thousands of farmers with
sustainable more productive and profitable technology/ies.
Private sector would be attracted to invest more on services and
delivery
Improved policy and institutional support
Facilitate in removing policy bottlenecks that are constraining
the adoption of farmers preferred technology/ies by lobbying with
GOs & I/NGOs who are experiencing such bottlenecks.
Policy briefs prepared would be helpful to convince research
& development leaders including policy makers.
Organize meeting with research & development leaders
including policy makers to make them aware about development
bottleneck.
Lobbying with IFPRI, GOs & I/NGOs to influence on policy
decisions related with agricultural inputs & machineries.
Enabling environment would be created that permits farmers to
access essential inputs and services locally possibly with
affordable prices.
Access to new technologies
Stakeholders (farmers, private sectors, GO/NGOs are offered
technological options (CA-based practices like ZT/ST multi-crop
planters, laser land leveller, new seeds, site specific nutrient
management, efficient irrigation, DSR, mechanization in rice etc.)
to choose which is/are more suited to their bio-physical &
socio-economic circumstances & environments.
Expand validation & demonstrations of matured technologies
that are sustainably profitable (e.g. CA-based crop management like
ZT/Strip till, maize + vegetables intercropping, diversification
& intensification with inclusion of short duration new crops,
improved varieties/hybrids, laser land leveler, new seeds of
adapted varieties, etc.) through existing & new partners
(GOs/NGOs) in strategic locations in new areas while continue
focusing with the existing locations & partners.
Farmers would be able to select and adopt the best
technology/ies from a basket of choices.
Private sector would be attracted to expand their business
Capacity building
Training (academic like PhD/MSc through linkages), &
professional trainings for scientists /development workers,
training to trainers, training to service providers, agro-inputs
dealers & field level training to farmers).
Equipment & infrastructure supports, etc. to build capacity
of partners for smooth implementation of field activities.
NARES partners learn a robust on-farm participatory research
& development approaches, which will improve their ability to
analyse qualitative (e.g. farmer perceptions) & quantitative
data/information & recommend technologies for
dissemination.
Targeted approach to offer more benefit to the weaker section/s
of the community like, women & poor. Agri. machineries that
reduces drudgery (particularly for women) like reapers, mechanical
rice trans-planters, etc. & herbicides.
Women focused training events would be organised so that the
productivity of their efforts is increased. Household seed
security, machine operators training to enhance their operation
& entrepreneurial skills are few examples.
Reduce knowledge gaps, internalise and take ownership of the
activities by partners that would be eventually reflected into
their regular program, which is key to have a sustained
change/impact.
Women will be encouraged to come forward as service provider
Capacity will remain there even after project is over
Change in attitude and mind-set
Achieved through multi-pronged approach: by organising
participatory & evidence based demonstrations, mentoring
research & development leaders with project success stories
about best-bet practices & services; conducting field days,
farm walks, FGDs, Exchange visits because seeing is believing.
The data generated from long-term conservation agriculture (CA)
based system trials & demonstrations established in different
strategic locations.
Make them realize that the system thinking demands time & we
must try for the system productivity enhancement rather than
focusing only on component yield, which undoubtedly demands a TEAM
spirit/working culture to promote sustainable & resilient
system.
Seeing is believing
Produce a convincing evidence that CA works well under the
circumstances they are working in
Create awareness and demand of new high yielding varieties,
technologies and mechanization
Innovation Platform (IP)
Organize multi-stakeholders consultations & coordination by
involving partners not only SRFSI, but also from outside.
Use lead farmers as resources person to communicate
technological information to other farmers in same & other new
locations, because information communicated by farmers have greater
impact than those coming from researchers or extension agents.
Facilitate public & private sectors partners &
farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing using IPs.
Engage a wide range of partners in IPs, like private-sector
company representatives involved in the supply & marketing of
agri inputs & services, equipment manufacturers/dealers, credit
providers, public-sector research & extension agencies,
universities, cooperatives, NGOs, & farmer groups that may be
locally important to overcome bottlenecks in the principal local
agricultural value chains.
Use UBKV model of serving farmers through local club/s presented
(Appendix 1, Fig 2) to replicate to other similar locations.
Positive responses about the approach are coming in
NARES would adopt this approach to serve the unserved.
Provide a common platform for sharing their knowledge,
experiences and overcome to small key issues and also explore for
linkages with inputs and outputs markets
Linkage development with other ACIAR funded and CIMMYT regional
projects
Organize knowledge sharing events like joint & exchange
visits.
Participate in the review & planning meetings organised for
different projects.
Learnings from SRFSI innovation platforms would be taken to
CSISA locations
Training modules for CA & associated technologies targeted
to public/private sectors (training modules for service providers
& agro-dealers) developed by CSISA & other projects would
be shared with SRFSI partners for use to train service providers,
farmers, etc.
Consortium Supported Research Programs (CRPs) like CCAFS, etc.
& national Seed Systems will give more opportunity to expand
areas under each SRFSI supported technology
SRFSI proactively collaborate with Sustainable Development
Investment Portfolio (SDIP) projects supported under food, water
& energy under DFAT in the region.
Rationalization of resources
Results in better synergy
Cover more beneficiaries
Publication and communication
Organize training events, participate & present outcomes in
various workshops, seminars, fairs, linkage events, which will
receive news coverage in various local newspapers, local
television, radio, etc. in both English & local languages.
Simple recommendations, bulletins, success stories, etc. would
be produced & distributed to various formal & informal
events.
Seek opportunities to work closely with partners (GOs/NGOs
including private sectors) for farmer knowledge & information
sharing using modern Information & Communication Technologies
(ICTs), like mobile based information dissemination (e.g.
SMSs).
Attainable yield prediction/estimation model & web based
nutrient management recommendations for different ecologies for use
by farmers/stakeholders.
Increased visibility
Increased the adoption of more profitable technology/ies
Note: The SRFSI is clear that there should be a well-defined
strategy to enhance impacts. Impact doesnt occur only by addressing
one pathway or only through the dissemination of good technologies;
achieving impact along these pathways which are summarised above
requires a careful networking and investment of resources in a
range of activities designed to translate outputs to outcome and
outcomes to impact. Therefore, these pathways are very much
interlinked with each other, hence inseparable. During the course
of implementation, we will access what worked well and what didnt
and will go on correcting/modifying pathways as we move on based on
those learnings.
The variation 3 explicitly adopts strategies to capacity
building of collaborative partnerships between private-sector
companies involved in the supply and marketing of agricultural
inputs and services, processing facilities, equipment
manufacturers, credit providers, public-sector research and
extension agencies, universities, cooperatives, water management
associations, NGOs, and farmer groups, as well as others that may
be locally important to overcome constraints in agricultural value
chains. Strategic partnerships anchored in innovation systems,
multi-stakeholder forums, targeted business skills training and
support of input dealers and service providers, can achieve
collective impacts that substantially exceed the impacts of the
partners operating alone.
The scaling effort intends to build innovation institutions
capable of persisting without external funding and hand-holding on
the basis that developing trust and harnessing comparative
advantages dramatically mitigate the transaction costs that limit
cooperation. This investment in building relationships between
organisations, scales and sectors should yield long-lasting
returns.
This choice of impact pathway rests, of course, on assumptions
or pre-requisites that include:
the appropriate type and range of partners must participate in
the innovation systems - the identification of appropriate partners
is in part a research question, and in part an engagement
process;
the partners must be brought together, and the necessary trust
building and co-learning actively facilitated by skilled staff;
the process of forming the innovation systems must clearly
identify the needs, interests and concerns of each of the partners,
and ensure that appropriate incentives for participation are
identified, and eventually provided, for each partner;
close vertical linkages should be formed between innovation
systems at the different scales; as well as horizontal linkages
between innovation systems at the same scale;
successful innovation systems (multi-stakeholder forums) will
build social capital among their members;
involvement of appropriate entrepreneurs and leading farmers on
business skills training, and their willingness to assist in
training of others to build capacity across the community and in
neighbouring communities.
The pathway to reach 1.5 million households by 2021 is outlined
in Figure 4. This approach relies on reaching many famers early in
the project through a range of pathways/strategies and activities.
Through business development training, supporting innovation
systems and other support (field demonstrations, field days/fairs
and cross visits), and utilising a ToT approach, this will lead to
multiplicative benefits to catalyse communities to adopt CASI
technologies.
Figure 4. Model for scaling out to reach 1.5 million households
by 2021 (derived from Roy Murray-Prior adoption curve, presented at
SRFSI Annual Meeting, Darjeeling, September 2016).
Appendix 2. Case stories for typical and institutional (ground
level) barriers constraining to scale high impact CASI
Technologies
a. Madhubani, Bihar
Madhubani district consists of 21 Development Blocks with total
of 1110 number of villages, which fairly represents the centre of
the territory once known as Mithila, and has maintained a distinct
individuality of its own. Madhubani ranks 4th in terms of
population and 5th in terms of area in the state of Bihar. In terms
of population per sq.km. Madhubani is the12th densely populated
district in the state with 1,282 persons per sq.km as against the
states 1,106. It consists of a rich alluvial plain intersected by
numerous rivers and streams issuing from the Nepal hills and
running almost parallel to each other from north to south. Rice is
the major Kharif crop which occupies nearly 78 % of Kharif area.
Wheat, mustard and lentil are major Rabi crops. All the selected
nodes are severely to moderately affected by the disease,
insect-pest or weeds and their occurrence are frequent in nature.
Among the social and technical factors, non-availability of
manpower (especially, during peak period demand) and machinery are
the most limiting factors for achieving desired level of yield.
Barrier
Drought during different stages of crop growth, flood, and heat
stress are thought to be moderately affecting the farming practices
which are more or less recurrent in Madhubani. Farmers are
sometimes affected by erratic weather condition, which is mild to
moderate in nature. Agriculture in the district is affected by
drought as well as seasonal flooding. Water management is a key
issue for agricultural development in the district. Ground water
utilization is less than 30%. Mostly diesel operated pumps are used
for lifting water, hence irrigation is costly. In Mauahi and Khairi
nodes, tenant and part tenants mostly hire pumps (custom hiring)
for pumping out water. The hiring cost of pumping varies from
INR100/ to 120/hr. Sometimes, they even dont apply water during
critical crop growth stages reason being either not available or
costly, resulting lower yield.
No. of tractors and power tillers are increasing in the district
over the years (data not shown). During the year 2015-16, 31 zero
till drills were sold in the district, however none of the farmers
owns any CA based machine (Laser Land Leveler, Bed planter, Seed
cumferti. drills, etc) in any of the selected SRFSI nodes ( Khairi,
Nanore, Mauahi, Korahia and Sukhet) of Madhubani district.
Scattered and small plots also restrict adoption of such machine in
this area. Lack of machinery banks or custom hiring centers is
another constraint to out-scale CASI technologies. There is no
viable successful business model for custom hiring centers in the
district.
Presently, establishment of Innovation Platform (IP) is
hypothetical unless evidence based institutionalized platform is
established. There is already an institutionalized agency, called
Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA) for dealing
diverse problems of agricultural development. It is a society of
key stakeholders responsible for technology dissemination at
district level. Due to limited involvement of different
stakeholders it (ATMA) plays limited role towards achieving a
desired goal.
Professional training for entrepreneurs is lacking in the
district. There is limited institutional and financial support for
establishment of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Except
Makhana crop (Euryale ferox) and to some extent - fishes, there is
no marketable and commercial agricultural produce for
processing.
b. Ranpur, Bangladesh
In Bangladesh, Boro cultivation covers large area in Rangpur,
which requires frequent pumped irrigations (even more than 30
pumping per boro cycle), as a result ground water depletion has
become the major concern for winter crops production in this
region. The need for water use efficiency (WUE) forms a strong
rationale for CA adoption in this area. The Barind Multipurpose
Development Authority (BMDA), is encouraging WUE via metering,
promoting less water intensive crop and associated technologies
like, CASI on wheat, maize, legumes, etc. However, these
motivations have not yet been harnessed via strong linkages among
agricultural agencies and pundits of CASI. BARI, DAE and RDRS in
Bangladesh are working together very recently on the promotion of
CASI, however, the out-scaling is not as per expectation. There are
many organizations involved in agricultural technology
dissemination and promoting agriculture, only few of them are
engaged in promoting CASI technologies.
The major constraints for adoption of CA are weed control and
inferior quality of machines. Different organizations are
implementing CASI technologies indecently. Many farmer
organizations exist under DAE and RDRS but activities are mostly
depended on external funding. The government organizations mostly
depend on research activities but DAE is involved slightly in out
scaling activities. There is no direct communication and
coordination system that exists between farmer and private sectors.
CASI technology depends on specialized farm machineries but
Bangladesh has only two major agricultural machinery firms that
have expertise in manufacturing CA machinery.
The information have been collected using FGDs and KII with
Deputy Director of DAE, Upazilla Agricultural Officer, Sub-
Assistant Agriculture Officer, Scientist of BARI and WRC, NGO
representative, private sectors and we also reviewed some reports
and government policy.
Major constraints
1. Difficult to control weed
2. Inferior quality of machinery
3. Lack of communication and coordination between farmer and
private sectors
4. Limited number of CASI machinery manufacturer
5. Lack of knowledge on benefits of CA among farmers
6. Inadequate farm household to Sub-Assistant Agricultural
Officer (SSAO)
7. Lack of promotion of CA in policy level
1. Difficult to control weed
Weed control is perceived as difficult under CASI. Until farmers
see weed controlled under CASI trials, out scaling of CASI would be
difficult.
2. Inferior quality of machinery
The CA machinery available in Bangladesh is of inferior quality
and low capacity: 2 to 2.5 acre/day. There is frequent breakdown of
machinery and parts are not easily available as there are only two
CA machinery manufacturers in Bangladesh who manufacture on
demand.
3. Lack of communication and coordination between farmer and
private sectors
There are different public, civic, and private players working
in Bangladesh for reducing poverty via increasing productivity of
agriculture but there is not much coordination among them and only
few are working on CASI technologies. Private sectors (herbicide
and pesticide) have either no or very limited coordination among
the CA farmers and other implementing organizations. Farmers are
not aware about the suitable herbicide and pesticide. Farmers
mostly depend on dealer and retailer for the information of their
farming as a result farmers are deprived from the expected result.
In case of seed, it is fully controlled by a strong syndicate where
the marginal farmer has to pay higher price for purchasing the
quality seed.
4. Limited number of CASI machinery manufacturer
There are only two CA machinery manufacturers in Bangladesh at
Dinajpur district who manufacture on demand. As they manufacture
manually the quality is not good and there is frequent break down
of machinery and parts are also not easily available. And for
repair owner has to travel to the manufacturer. Moreover, less
coordination exists among onfarm research, research organizations
and private sectors (machine importer and manufacturers).
5. Lack of knowledge on benefits of CA among farmers
Farmers in Rangpur are not much aware of CASI technologies and
even the SRFSI farmers have not learnt to manage the farm under
CASI solely on their own. CASI adoption is knowledge intensive;
hence farmers still lack the confidence to transfer the knowledge
to others on benefits of CASI.
6. Inadequate farm household to Sub-Assistant Agricultural
Officer (SSAO)
The Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) is a central
actor but has not formed a view on CA and training in the use of
new agri-machinery is very limited. DAE has formed more than 500
Integrated Crop Management (ICM) farmer clubs that is managed by
the Sub-Assistant Agricultural Officer (SSAO) but gets dissolved
after the program. The farming household allocation for each SSAO
is 1: 2,000- 2,500, which is high. Farmers get visit from SSAO
hardly once a month.
7. Lack of promotion of CA in policy level
The National Agricultural Policy (MOA 1999) suggests that the
use of machinery in tilling and seeding needs to be extended
further, so that efficiency of production can be achieved with
increased production and reduced cost. However, activities and
policies are not focusing in promotion of CA. Minimum tillage
establishment for Aman rice is a particular challenge for CA in
Bangladesh but promising technologies (such as direct seeding,
aerobic rice, raised beds, un-puddled transplanting) have been
developed elsewhere and are under evaluation in Bangladesh (Haque
et al. 2010)
Appendix 3: Vision of widespread scaling in the EGP potentially
reaching a substantial proportion of EGP farmers
Background
West Bengal
As an impact of CASI in both Malda and Coochbehar district of
West Bengal, strong network for custom hiring centre for CASI
machinery (ZT machinery/ rice transplanter) have been established.
They are using different business models for providing services.
Some of them are as follows:
Satmile Saitash club in Coochbehar is covering 3 SRFSI nodes:
Falimari, Ghughumari and Patchhara. After being associated with
SRFSI, it started providing custom hiring services for CASI
technologies and approaches. From 2015, it provided a single window
services and since then expanding their services by creating small
clubs in different other villages. Apart from providing machinery
services for ZT services, it also provides post-harvest processing
of crops. Additionally, it is also involved in seed system and is a
dealer for machineries (threshers, ZT multi-crop planters, rice
transplanters, mini combine and reapers etc.). This club has been
promoted as Producer Organization Promoting Institute (POPI) and
has become one of the major platform for promoting government
schemes in Coochbehar.
Sabuji Mitra Farmers Club at Dinhahta node was involved in
organic farming and was not working commercially. After being
associated with SRFSI in 2014, it started providing a single window
custom hiring services for machinery and other inputs for maize,
wheat, lentil and paddy. They have two models to provide services
i) take 60 days responsibility of crop, from sowing until crop is
60 days old, which includes seeding by ZT drill, seed, fertilizer,
pre and post emergence herbicides application and irrigation by
charging reasonable amount, and ii) Custom hiring services for
machinery. In this node Rice-Rice system is now slowly being
replaced with Rice- Maize system. This club has become the platform
for implementing government schemes and there is a good convergence
of SRFSI and government schemes such as Bringing Green Revolution
in Eastern India (BGERI) and the National Food Security Mission
(NFSM).
Anwesha horticulture society is an NGO at Mansai Node. It was
involved in working with tribal community for their economic and
social upliftment. After being connected with the project it also
started providing custom hiring services for machinery.
In the nodes of Malda the farmer clubs apart from providing
custom hiring services are also engaged in seed production. The
Kalinagar node has become a major hub for lentil seed production
and Bidyananandpur node for wheat and lentil. All seed are being
produced with ZT technology. In Bidyananandapur node farmers club
has started micro entrepreneurship for seed business. In all the
nodes of Malda there is a good convergence with national and state
plans and schemes such as BGERI, Agriculture Technology Management
Agency (ATMA), NFSM, Sub-Mission on Agricultural Mechanization
(SMAM). In Gourangapur Node, Rice-Rice cropping system is being
replaced with either by Rice-Wheat or Rice-Maize which is very
encouraging.
In Coochbehar farmers club are well established and are actively
involved in custom hiring services whereas in Malda community model
is working well. In total there are there are 21 farmers club in
Coochbehar and 7 in Malda. Innovation platform is working as a
platform that has brought farmers together for seed production
business in Malda.
In total there are 21 farmers clubs in Coochbhear out of which 5
are the major ones. In total it covers 670 ha and 1250 farmers
whereas in Malda there are 7 farmers club, out of which 5 are
major. These 7 clubs cover 966 ha with 3307 farmers. West Bengal is
a good example for convergence with government programs. We could
already see the impact of SRFSI in these areas and are expanding
outside SRFSI nodes but they are still in need of some technical
support as they are in beginner phase and fragile and is also
expressed by the farmers and club members. Additional support for
few more years will act as stepping stone for achieving the dream
of 1.5 million farmers.
Bihar
In Purnea, Maize is one of the major cash crop. There is a good
potential for growing maize with ZT. JEEViKa is the major NGO who
is helping farmers across the value chain from providing seed to
the marketing of produce. It has formed a women self-help groups
and providing custom hire services. Through Jeevika female farmers
are being able to sell their maize in National Commodity exchange
Market. A private player named Dehat has initiated 360 degree
service in Purnea. Unlike West Bengal there is no farmers club who
is providing custom hiring service. There are some individual
service providers who is providing rotavator, electric pumps,
cultivators on hire but none for the CASI technology. Additional
support for building technical capacity of Innovation platform is
required to set up custom hire service at the community level.
In Udayanagar, Kathaili, Tikapati, and Purani Garel node CASI
technology is well accepted hence there is a good scope for
expansion of CASI on Rabi crop especially maize. Purnea has small
and marginal farmers and women farmers who are well incorporated in
the project through JEEViKA. Through JEEViKA and Dehaat farmers are
getting single window service from seed to market but to reach more
farmers in other districts of Bihar such as Madhubani some
technical and financial support is required.
Madhubani has a complex social system. Share croppers are more
in numbers and soil is highly acidic. In Shukhet and Khairi,
Nananur, Mauahi nodes significant improvement can be seen and
farmers have accepted CASI technologies but service providers for
the CASI technology is either unavailable or limited in number. A
NGO called SAKHI is providing services but is not being able to
reach maximum number. To see the impacts of the project long term
investment is required.
Nepal
In Dhanusha, situation is similar with that of Madhubani,
complex social system and difficult to manage soil. There is lack
of tractor operator and service providers, irrigation is costly for
winter crops and has huge out migration of youth. Though farmers
are willing to participate in Giddha, Sinorjora and Lalgarh, in
Raghunathpur and Phulgama farmers are not cooperative and mobility
is difficult due to poor road connectivity. Long term investment is
required to see the impacts.
In Sunsari, Farmers have accepted CASI technologies and DADO
(District Agricultural Development Offices) is also actively
promoting them. In 2016-17 Rabi DADO made it compulsory for the
farmers to go for ZT- Wheat for availing wheat seed on subsidy.
Farmers are innovative in this node. In Salbani node they have
experimented ZT with Kidney beans and Sunflower and is performing
well. Though SRFSI has placed ZT seed drill with community, except
Kaptangunj and Bokhara, field technician have to arrange for
tractor on hire so availability of machine on custom hire centre is
the constrain. In Bhaluwa node women engagement is impressive. They
even operate mechanical rice transplanter but being low lying area
it is difficult to run machineries in anchored residue. One of the
important issue that need immediate attention is, unavailability of
harvester resulting to delay in sowing of Rabi crops. Nodes in
these districts has good potential for producing field evidences to
inform policy around FEW nexus. Especially in Bhaluwa, validation
and dissemination of CASI technologies is not as per expectation.
Innovation platform is coming up as centre for machinery hiring,
agrovet and agro advisory services and demonstration of CASI
technologies.
Bangladesh
In all the nodes of Rangpur, farmers have accepted the CASI
technologies except Durgapur node. Aside from, in all the nodes
custom hiring of machinery is available. Lakhitari node has lack of
access to mechanization and market due to Teesta River. Innovation
Platform in all the nodes is actively working in solving the
farmers problem and coming up as machinery hire center. Mohanpur
node in Dinajpur district is the leading example of successful
innovation platform which has initiated agro clinic and advisory
services to help farmers and have good coordination among
stakeholders. All the nodes of Rangpur have fair gender
participation. Impact of SRFSI can be well observed in Lakhitari
node. Before SRFSI it was isolated. It did not use to get any agro
advisory service from DAE and use to grow single crop, with SRFSI
intervention farmers are getting technical support and advisory
services and are growing more than one crop in a year.
In Bhaduria, Dharampur, Bijoynagar nodes of Rajshahi district,
CASI technologies have got good response from farmers and have
access to service. Due to active participation of DAE, farmers are
aware of benefits of CASI technologies. However, Nabinnagar and
Lakshimpur nodes have poor response from farmers and have limited
access to water for irrigation, machineries.
Impact on women
In all the areas women are actively involved in SRFSI activities
through participatory trails, field visits, training etc. However,
one of the distinctive feature of Satmile Satish club in Coochbehar
district of West Bengal is, it is involving community women in
growing rice seedlings for mechanical rice transplanters due to
which women who were displaced from agriculture due to
mechanization is getting alternative employment opportunities that
is less drudgeries. It organizes training for the community women
to build their knowledgebase on growing rice seedlings, which is
the direct spillover effect of SRFSI that utilized the existing
knowledge base and existing work division of the society. Similar
initiative can be implemented in Bangladesh, Bihar and Nepal as it
will provide additional employment opportunities for displaced
women labourers and the communities where women do not work in the
field will also get aligned with the project activities which in
turn will economically empower women and uplift the family from the
poverty.
SRFSI has made a tremendous progress slightly over three years
in understanding farmers bio-physical and socio-economic
circumstances in the EGPs, generating quality data, syntheses
report on gender, socio-economic, CASI and so forth. This was
clearly reflected during mid-term review meeting (MTR). As a result
of a collaborative venture, we have been able to reach over 50,000
farm families (30% are women) with one or more of the CASI
technologies, as a result farmers are experiencing higher yield and
economic benefits. Recommendation of Mid-term review and the
Project Steering Meeting also suggest focusing more on
consolidation of results and priorities field activities and
working where comparative advantage lies. Based on partners
feedback and knowledge/experiences gathered over the years, working
nodes have been characterized for each districts like A, B and C.
Considering, MTR feedback, PSC meeting guidance, available
timeframe and resources, it has been decided that the scaling
efforts should be placed only to A and B nodes. Activities, as a
strategic demonstration system and opportunity trials, quality seed
production and marketing, capacity building/trainings (ToTs, LSPs,
Farmers, etc.), gender mainstreaming, etc. will be priority
activities for variation 3. List of the potential nodes/locations
are mentioned below (Table 2).
Table 2. Potential nodes and suggested scaling technologies
Nodes
Scaling hub - local. Potential for local scaling, with notes on
which aspect (innovation) of CASI, and which local organization
would drive scaling
Scaling hub - EGP. Potential for scaling across EGP, with notes
on which aspect (innovation) of CASI and which target farming
system in EGP
West Bengal
Coochbehar
Mansai (Tufanganj) =B
Rice-maize would be the most adapted and profitable system.
Intercropping of leafy vegetables with maize also has potential.
DoAWB with the support of UBKV can promote new high impact CASI and
build the capacity of local clubs/ NGO (Anwesha).
It displays good evidence of why and how boro rice is being
replaced by maize
Durganagar (Dinhata) =A
Farmers club act as a micro-entrepreneur for sustainability by
involving and ownership of local communities. In Innovation
platform, there is engagement of relevant stakeholders. Rice-Maize
would be the most adapted and profitable systems. Intercropping of
leafy vegetables with maize also has potential. DoAWB with the
support of UBKV can promote high impact CASI technologies and
experiment with other crops such as jute and oilseeds.
Active participation of women and youth in growing rice
seedlings, as field technician, agro advisory services,
post-harvest operation, and custom hire services can be further
developed.
Satmile club and Sabuj Mitra club (Durganagar) have good
business model that can be replicated to other parts of EGPs
(single window services). Micro-entrepreneurship and convergence
with government of programs. Potential to scale out CASI and CASI
b