RJK IE Endline Report - World Bank Documents

World Bank Group– Development Impact Evaluation Unit

RJK IE Endline Report

Final impact evaluation report for Rani Jamara Kulariya

Modernization Project - Nepal

Paul Christian

Teevrat Garg

Odbayar Batmunkh

5-25-2020

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

RJK IE Final Report

ACRONYMS

CAPI Computer

DIME Development Impact Evaluation

FFS Farmer Field Schools

FG Farmer Group

GoN Government of Nepal

ICC Intra-Cluster Correlation

IE Impact Evaluation

IYCF Infant and Young Child Feeding

MDES Minimum Detectable Effect Size

MoALD Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development

NLSS National Living Standards Survey

NPR Nepali Rupees

PIU Project Implementation Unit

RJK Modernization of Rani Jamara Kulariya Irrigation Scheme Project

TE Technical Efficiency

WUA Water Users Association

RJK IE Final Report

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The World Bank’s DIME unit conducted an impact evaluation of extension trainings and irrigation

improvements with support from Rani Jamara Kulariya Project’s project implementation unit. The

aim of the impact evaluation was to assess whether timing of extension trainings was important

in farmer’s uptake of trainings, improvements in agricultural knowledge, adoption of new farming

practices and increase in agricultural incomes.

The initial findings from the IE suggest that farmer group extension trainings had boosted farmer’s

knowledge temporarily, but these gains eroded by the endline survey. The irrigation

improvements conducted after the baseline survey did not substantially increase total household

agricultural income, because the sub-branches where these improvements took place already

had higher incomes at baseline. The subset of farmers that were randomly assigned to be trained

after irrigation improvements took place showed comparatively higher agricultural incomes,

however this finding is most likely driven by a few large farmers.

It is possible that the completion of the main feeder canal can provide year-round irrigation and

substantially increase the agricultural income for all farmers in the command area, however the

additional benefit of extension trainings could be null, since farmers knowledge gains are

temporary. The initial findings also suggest that in absence of substantial irrigation improvements,

farmers are taking up the extension trainings as a substitute for irrigation, rather than a

complement.

RJK IE Final Report

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 PROGRAM CONTEXT

Agriculture is the primary sector of employment in Nepal. 26.98% percent of Nepal’s GDP comes

from agriculture, which employs 81% of the active labor force.1 (FAO, 2020) However, Nepal’s

agricultural sector is characterized by subsistence farming, low crop yields and low cropping

intensity arising from lack of properly managed irrigation facilities and farmer’s poor knowledge of

improved cultivation practices. (World Bank, 2011)

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

To address these issues the government of Nepal has been implementing the Modernization of

Rani Jamara Kulariya Irrigation Scheme Project since 2012, with financing and technical

assistance from the World Bank. The project has two primary components. The first is the

modernization of the Rani Jamara Kulariya (RJK) Irrigation Scheme, which includes construction

of a feeder canal to link the three major canals in the target area as well as modernization of these

three branch canals including intake structures, control structures, diversion structures, and canal

bank protection. The major improvements, excluding the construction of the feeder canal, were

completed by June 2018, with additional tertiary level improvements to be undertaken in Phase 2

of the project. Rani, Jamara and Kulariya are 3 pre-existing traditional irrigation systems, which

are subdivided into 48 different sub-branch canals. (Figure 1) (Figure 6)

Irrigation improvements constructed so far include:

1. Construction of control structures connecting the Karnali river to each of the three primary

branch canals. This system regulates the flow of water into each primary branch and

reduce the likelihood of monsoon flooding.

2. Construction of control structures along each of the primary branches to regulate water

flow and divert water into sub-branch canals

3. Construction of off takes on the sub-branch canals, which allow for off-season irrigation in

a non-randomly assigned subset of the sub-branch canals. (Figure 8)

1 Share of GDP from agriculture taken from Nepal Ministry of Finance’s Economic Survey 2018. Share of population involved in agriculture was reported by FAO.

RJK IE Final Report

Figure 1 RJK Irrigation System Overview

Source: RJK Phase 2 PAD (2018)

The second component of the RJK project involves supporting farmers with extension programs

to improve their agricultural practices and to maximize the benefits of the new irrigation structures.

These extension programs include the following: block production demonstrations, subsidies for

equipment purchases, construction of collection centers, farmer field schools and farmer group

trainings on vegetable and cereal crop production.

2.3 THEORY OF CHANGE

There are two broad paths in the theory of change based on the two classes of interventions the

project is implementing. The first intervention (non-experimentally varied by the impact evaluation)

is irrigation infrastructure and technical expertise that serve as inputs. The main output from this

intervention is the modernization of the canals and building new control structures that result in

predictable supply of water. The expected change in farmers’ outcomes from the irrigation

investments is an increase in access, especially availability of water in the off-season, and more

efficient water usage.

RJK IE Final Report

Figure 2 Project Theory of Change

The second intervention (experimentally varied during the impact evaluation) is the transfer of

technical expertise on agriculture practices to farmers through certified training of farmer groups.

The main output from extension is increased knowledge of agriculture methods and commercial

crops. The expected change in farmers’ outcomes resulting from their improved knowledge is

diversification of crops and increased yields in high value crops. Both sets of interventions should

result in new and improved crop varieties and agricultural methods being adopted leading to

improved welfare of farm households. (Figure 2) The above theory of change only covers

extension trainings and irrigation, and does not cover support to postharvest activities, seed,

equipment, or pesticide distribution conducted by the project.

2.4 LITERATURE REVIEW

Despite growing concerns about the impact of changing climate (and the manifestation of such

change through extreme weather events) on a range of economic outcomes including especially

RJK IE Final Report

agricultural productivity (Burke, 2012) (Schlenker, 2009) (Deschenes, 2007), little is known about

the extent of the damage in developing countries (Taraz, 2013) (Guiteras, 2009). Therefore, and

not surprisingly, we know even less about the channels for adaptation as well as coping

mechanisms that individuals and households use to modulate the deleterious effects of changing

resource environments. In the case of agriculture, one such important coping mechanism is

irrigation, which is known to generate unequal benefits across rich and poor farmers (Duflo &

Pande, 2007), underscoring the socio-economic disparities in capacity for adaptation.

At the same time, much of the global variation in income growth is explained by the fact that most

people in poor societies use means of production that are less efficient than those employed in

higher income societies (Comin, 2004). Given that most of the world’s poor earn their income

from subsistence agriculture, it would seem that one of the best prospects for alleviating poverty

may be to achieve convergence between the methods and inputs used by the poorest farmers

with those used by the most productive farmers (Foster, 2010). Lack of access to irrigation, failure

to use the highest yielding varieties, and lack of fertilizer lead farmers to have far lower incomes

than would otherwise be possible. For example, Evenson and Gollin (Evenson, 2003) show that

adoption of new “Green Revolution” varieties of crops accounted for 40% of the growth in

agricultural production growth in developing countries between 1981 and 2000, meaning that

areas that failed to adopt the modern farming practices missed out on a large share of the income

growth in agriculture in recent years. They argue that a major reason Sub-Saharan Africa failed

to take advantage of Green Revolution varieties was because of a lack irrigation and access to

water, complementary inputs to using these varieties. As such, adoption of new technologies will

become particularly important if climate change creates an additional mismatch between

appropriate technologies for current environments and actual technologies employed.

The recognized importance of modernizing factors of production in agriculture in general, and

specifically irrigation, has led to massive investments in improving agricultural inputs. Across Asia,

public investments in agricultural inputs including extension and input subsidies account for nearly

10% of total government expenditures, more than half the amount spent on education and more

than the amount spent on health programs (Akroyd & Smith, 2007). There is also strong evidence

of the impacts of irrigation on increased household food security (Dillon, 2011), increased in food

production and consumption (Ahmed, Mume, & Kedir, 2014) and positive general equilibrium

effects on non-irrigators (Hossain & Shahabuddin, 2005). Between 1900 and 2000, global public

investment in large-scale irrigation projects such as dams accounted for over $2 Trillion, and

these investments are relied on by 30-40% of the world’s irrigated land (World Commission on

RJK IE Final Report

Dams., 2000). Despite such investments, use of modern inputs and adoption of intensive farming

methods remains low.

The economics literature has made considerable headway in exploring behavioral channels to

explain low adoption of productive technologies. For instance, Duflo et al. (Duflo E. M., 2008)

argue that present bias leads to underinvestment in fertilizers. Alternatively, farmers may be

inattentive to opportunities to learn about new inputs and methods unless exposed to a shock

(Foster, 2010). As a historical example, (Sutch, 2011) argues that when hybrid maize was

introduced in the United States in the 1920’s, initial adoption was low despite heavy promotion,

until intense droughts in the 1930’s prompted switching.

It is possible that standard non-behavioral economic models can explain low adoption if adoption

of technologies is not profitable unless complementary inputs such as irrigation are in place. For

instance, Evenson and Gollin (Evenson, 2003) argue that the reason Sub-Saharan Africa failed

to take advantage of Green Revolution varieties was because of a lack irrigation and access to

water. Therefore, we use quasi-experimental variation in access to irrigation and randomized roll-

out of extension-based agricultural training to study the individual and joint impact of these two

strategies on crop yields.

One important input whose absence may particularly inhibit growth of agricultural production is

irrigation. Duflo and Pande (Duflo & Pande, 2007) show that dams increase agricultural

productivity in India on average, but not without generating winners and losers. If returns to

modern inputs are high and investments in delivering access to modern inputs are large, the

question of why farmers fail to take full advantage of this inputs is a puzzle (Duflo E. M., 2008).

Several explanations for this puzzle have been proposed. First, farmers may require external

shocks to prompt attention to new learning opportunities. Second, adoption of technologies may

not be profitable unless complementary inputs are in place (Evenson, 2003). Finally, farming

methods and technologies may be suited to environments that have changed, rendering farming

strategies outdated.

Each of these explanations suggest that the timing in which inputs are offered to farming is likely

to be important to stimulating uptake of these inputs. If farmers only pay attention to learning

opportunities when prompted by external shocks to their environment, then extension training

sessions that are not timed to coincide with irrigation investments or other environmental changes

might not be effective. If adopting new cropping strategies is not cost effective until

complementary irrigation inputs are in place, training sessions before irrigation works are

completed may be wasted.

RJK IE Final Report

The key hypotheses derived from our theory of change are our primary research questions.

A. Changes in access to water and regularity of water delivery will prompt farmers most

affected by the changes (those farmers with plots in sub-branches that receive irrigation

improvements during the course of the evaluation) to increase their interest in agricultural

extension programs, making them more likely to attend training sessions and adopt new

methods.

B. The highest rates of adoption of new technologies among the trained farmers most

affected by irrigation changes will lead to the biggest impacts on yields, income, and

dietary diversity to appear for households that were both exposed to extension and receive

irrigation improvements. The gains from irrigation combined with extension will be bigger

than the gains from either irrigation or extension alone.

The main evaluation questions are as follows:

1. What is the impact of agricultural extension service provision of crop choice, yields and

household welfare? [Experimental]

2. What is the impact of modernized irrigation infrastructure on crop choice, yields and

household welfare? [Non-experimental]

3. What is the impact of both extension services and modernized irrigation infrastructure on

crop choice, yields and household welfare? [Experimental and Non-Experimental]

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 EVALUATION DESIGN

The location of the canals has been fixed for a century, thus targeting of the irrigation

improvements could not be altered and is likely to be endogenous to land quality and land

ownership. Because of worries about non-parallel time trends that may differentially affect the 48

different sub-branch command areas, we analyzed the pre-trends in share of household of

households that will ultimately receive irrigation improvements, with those that will not, comparing

census 1 and baseline data for same households. Results are presented in the descriptive

statistics section. We used a difference-in-difference design to assess new changes from the

irrigation improvements. Since we observed cropping patterns both before the irrigation

improvements are completed and after, we can compare households across these three groups:

• Households with plots that were not irrigated by RJK in either survey round

• Households with plots in sub-branches that ended up receiving improved structures

RJK IE Final Report

• Households with plots in sub-branches that ended up not receiving improved structures

In order to assess the role of combined agriculture and irrigation improvements, we randomized

the timing of the agricultural training programs. Out of a sample of 150 farmer’s groups that

requested training, we selected 40 to be trained before the baseline survey (early training) and

40 after the baseline survey (late training). Originally, we expected the feeder canal to be

completed after the baseline survey, however only the off takes on sub-branches were

constructed between 2017 and 2018. The training were also offered to control farmer groups that

were within the RJK command area at the start of Phase 2 of RJK project in 2019, however the

take up was significantly lower due to all of the control groups becoming inactive 5 years after the

initial randomization.

Figure 3 Impact Evaluation Timeline

The extension treatment consisted of 2- or 3-day training sessions to farmers groups within the

command area on topics selected by the farmer groups themselves. Farmers groups are

comprised of approximately 25 farmers from the same community, with multiple members of the

same household often being a member of one group. The extension programs covered the

following topics:

Table 1 Trainings Topics Offered

Training Topic # %

Banana 1 2%

Cauliflower 2 3%

Cucumber 5 8%

Maize 2 3%

Onion 2 3%

RJK IE Final Report

Paddy 12 19%

Potato 1 2%

Sugarcane 1 2%

Vegetable 36 58%

Total 62 100%

20 groups were trained each year, starting in 2015. The project’s agriculture component would

contact the representative of each selected farmer group and that person would inform the

members of the training date and venue.2

Randomization of the timing of training allows us to estimate two econometric specifications of

interest. First, since extension is randomly assigned relative to the timing of surveys, we are able

to estimate the causal effect of the training programs alone on adoption of new technology, yields,

and household expenditures through a simple comparison of treatment and control groups at

baseline. Having random assignment over several years allows us to estimate the effects over

time as farmers learn and improve their application of methods.

To estimate the impact of extension services, we estimated the impact of extension equation

separately in each round. In the baseline, we estimate

Yijt = α + β1Extensionjt + εijt

where Yijt is an outcome (yield, household expenditure) for household, or plot i in farmers’ group

j in period t, Extensionjt is an indicator for whether farmer’s group j has been offered extension

trainings in or prior to period t. The coefficient of particular interest is β1, the effect of extension

services on outcomes. Since extension is randomized, this tells us causal impact of extension

on farmers knowledge and yields in the year following the first trainings conducted before

irrigation improvements were made.

In the endline, we estimate

Yijt = α + β1Early_Extensionjt + εijt

Comparing those households that were in the early extension group tells us the difference in

timing of extension. If farmers improve their learning over time and take advantage of things

2 Feedback from farmers indicates that in some groups the person contacted would invite farmers based on their own preferences, instead of inviting all group members, but our survey instrument does not allow us to separate whether a person was informed but did not attend from cases where a farmer was not informed. Both causes are recorded as farmers not attending the training..

RJK IE Final Report

they learned only after a few seasons have passed or their conditions have changed, we may

see that differences in agricultural production emerge only over time.

For the effect on irrigation, we estimated the following simple difference in difference specification:

Yijt = α + β1Irrigationjt + Gj + Tt + εijt

where Yijt is an outcome (yield, household expenditure) for household, or plot i in farmers’ group

j in period t, Irrigationjt is an indicator for whether sub-branch of plot had off take installed in or

prior to period t, and G and T are group and time fixed effects. The coefficient of particular interest

is β1, the effect of irrigation on outcomes. Our difference-in-differences approach is embedded in

the fixed effects estimation. As with the primary specification, we cluster standard errors at the

farmer group level.

Ultimately, we are interested in whether having access to extension in before irrigation

improvements are made helps farmers take advantage of changes from irrigation or whether

farmers are most likely learn and adopt practices from extension only after they have noticed

significant changes in access to inputs like new access to irrigation.

Combining the difference-in-difference approach with randomized training schedule allows us to

identify complementarities between extension and irrigation using the following form:

Yijt = β1 Late_extensionjt*No_Irrigation_Changejt

+ β2 Late_extensionjt*Irrigation_Changejt

+ β3 Late_extensionjt*No_Irrigation_Changejt * Roundt

+ β4 Late_extensionjt*Irrigation_Changejt * Roundt

+ β5 Early_extensionjt*No_Irrigation_Changejt

+ β6 Early _extensionjt*Irrigation_Changejt

+ β7 Early _extensionjt*No_Irrigation_Changejt * Roundt

+ β8 Early _extensionjt*Irrigation_Changejt * Roundt + εijt

Where Yijt is an outcome (yield, household expenditure) for household, or plot i in farmers’ group

j in period t, Extensionjt is an indicator for whether farmer’s group j has been offered extension

trainings in or prior to period t, Irrigationjt is an indicator for whether the area for which the outcome

is measured has experienced an irrigation improvement by period t, and G and T are group and

RJK IE Final Report

time fixed effects. The coefficient of particular interest is β3, the combined effect of having both

extension programs and irrigation improvements occurring in tandem. Because trainings are

offered to farmers groups, the primary unit of clustering is farmers groups.

3.2 SAMPLING

The sample size was chosen by comparing Minimum Detectable Effects for various survey

design choices according to the formula (Duflo, Glennerster, Kremer; 2007):

𝑀𝐷𝐸 =(𝑡𝛼 2⁄ + 𝑡1−𝜅)

2

√𝑃(1 − 𝑃)𝐽𝜎 √𝜌 +

1 − 𝜌

𝑛

1

𝑐 − 𝑠

Where

o α=.1 is the level of the statistical test

o κ=.8 is the power of the test

o P=.167 is the proportion of households assigned to treatment (described below)

o σ= is the standard deviation of the outcome of interest. Rice yields are estimated

from data collected during an impact evaluation in Bihar India3.

o ρ=.01 is the intracluster correlation of rice yields computed from an impact

evaluation in Bihar for yields and is varied to account for scenarios for take up

calculations.

o J is the number of clusters

o n is the average number of households per clusters

o c is the proportion of households who take up the technology advocated by the

extension

o s is the proportion of households practicing the technology without being offered

extension

The sampling frame for the survey were 150 farmer groups that expressed interest in the

extension training from the project. This made up 2000 households, the remaining 500 were

selected from Village Development Committees and Wards that lied outside of the command area

of RJK to act as the external control group. The 500 households were selected from the census

of the command area conducted by the project at the beginning of phase 1 of RJK project.

3 Variance and intracluster correlation can be estimated from data taken from an impact evaluation in Bihar state in India which has similar agricultural practices and environment

RJK IE Final Report

At baseline we gave the survey team all 40 early and 40 late treatment groups to be surveyed.

The team was instructed to survey all households that were members of the selected farmer

group, households with multiple people enrolled in the same farmer group were only interviewed

once. Then enumerators were provided with the list of all control groups and 500 households

outside of the command area, regardless of farmer group status. It was observed that control

farmer groups were largely inactive, and some could not be reached at baseline. The final sample

is shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2 Sample and Attrition

Baseline Survey Attrition at

endline

Treatment Arm Freq. Percent Freq. Percent

Other 392 16% 38 10%

Early treatment 621 25% 68 11%

Late treatment 571 23% 49 9%

Control inside RJK 422 17% 29 7%

Control outside RJK* 503 20% 73 15%

Total 2,509 100% 257 10%

At endline the survey team was able to reach 90% of baseline respondents, however the control

group outside of the RJK command area experienced higher attrition than other groups. For the

regressions analysis we will combine the late treatment and control inside RJK groups, because

they were both offered the training after the baseline survey took place. The “Other” groups in the

above table are households that lived in same wards as control group households, but were not

included in the original randomization, and thus they will be excluded from the analysis. The

control outside RJK group will be the main counter-factual groups, because they received neither

the irrigation improvement nor extension training from RJK project.

3.3 DATA

The project collected three types of data with supervision, coordination, and planning from the

research team:

1. The main data used for the impact evaluation relies on a panel survey that tracks crop

cultivation and household. This survey instrument consisted of several sections

• An irrigation section to assess water usage, satisfaction with water availability,

fees paid for maintenance and operations to the water users associations (WUA),

and labor-days contributed by the family to canal maintenance

RJK IE Final Report

• An agricultural survey module asking plot- and season-wise inputs and outputs

for the previous year (3 seasons) to assess family labor time spent on agriculture,

net revenue from agriculture, and agricultural methods used

• A module on agricultural knowledge and recall of RJK training attendance

• A consumption module based on common foods and non-food categories to

measure household expenditure and measures of well-being such as dietary

diversity indices

• A social networks module asking about primary sources of information about

agricultural practices, types of information shared with these contacts, and

methods of sharing information to assess spillovers

2. Census of the RJK command area was conducted twice, at the beginning of Phase 1 and

Phase 2. The latter also covered the future Lamki extension area. The first census only

asked about household’s land ownership tabulated by RJK irrigation status and the latter

census also asked about income from production of crops.

3. The final type of data collected were GPS coordinates of houses and plots, however at

endline only 17% of plots had GPS coordinates collected, thus we are unable to present

any geospatial analysis in this report.

The baseline survey took place in December 2016 and was collected using paper questionnaires.

One important implication of the use of paper questionnaires was to that assignment of quizzes

assessing knowledge of farming practices deviated from random assignment. Relative to the

planned random assignment, farmers were much more likely to answer questions about crops

that they actively cultivated, such as paddy and wheat, which may inflate average quiz scores at

baseline relative to a random assignment of quizzes. The endline survey took place in December

2019 and was administered using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) methods, and

we were able to randomly assign different quiz topics to all households.

4 RESULTS

4.1 BASELINE BALANCE AND TREND ANALYSIS

Households in all 4 treatment arms were balanced on religion, ethnic group, presence of wage

income and remittances at baseline. (Table 8) However households in the early and late treatment

arms were more likely to be headed by a female household head and had higher household head

education on average. Households in the early training group owned less land on average and

sharecropped about 0.1 hectare more land compared to the other groups. This could indicate

RJK IE Final Report

early changes to cropping behavior at baseline, since the early training groups was already

trained when the baseline survey took place. However, all groups were balanced on the amount

of land that is rented out and amount of land that is irrigated.

Figure 4 Trends in land ownership and irrigation

Figure 4 above show trends in land ownership and irrigation in sub-branches that were in the

study sample. We divided the sub-branches into those that would ultimately receive off-takes and

those that would not. The data presented above uses Census 1, which was conducted at the start

of Phase 1 of RJK project. We then matched households in Census 1 with those in each survey

round using respondent names, phone numbers, and address. Households with plots in sub-

branch canals that would ultimately receive an off take had on average higher land ownership

and area irrigated by RJK. The parallel trends between census 1 and baseline are sufficient to

meet the parallel trends assumption for difference in difference analysis.4

Table 3 Irrigation structures built

Is the off-take operational in off-

season?

Idle at Endline

Operational at Endline

Total

Off take not built during IE period

10 1* 11

Off take built during IE period

9 23 32

Total 19 24 43

4 This was based on 87 households whose information was present in both survey rounds and census 1. Further data cleaning can increase the number of households in the parallel trends analysis and integration with MODIS satellite data (vegetation index and evapotranspiration) will be used to confirm parallel trends in future academic work.

RJK IE Final Report

* One off-take was pre-existing before Phase 1 and was still operational.

During the endline survey all sub-branch offtakes were visited, accompanied by staff from the

RJK project, to assess operational status in the winter season. There was a total of 43 off-takes

in the command area of RJK and 32 had off-takes constructed during phase 1 of the project. Only

24 offtakes were operational in the winter season, or roughly half of the command area.

Table 4 Flood protection

Offtake type

Gated offtake

Traditional offtake

Total

Off take not built

3 8 11

Off take built 30 2 32

Total 33 10 43

Table 4 above shows that out of 32 sub-branches were irrigation structures were constructed, 2

were still using traditional offtakes due to land disputes. Overall, 33 out of 43 visited sub-branches

had a gated offtake structure, mostly from phase 1 of the project, but 3 were pre-existing before

the project. These 33 gates provide protection from flooding during the monsoon season, when

the level of water in the sub-branch canals is high.

Table 5 WUA membership and satisfaction

Survey Round

WUA committee membership

WUA satisfaction

N Obs

Baseline 10% 65% 1468

Endline 18% 78% 1468

Membership in Water User Associations (WUA) increased by 8% from baseline to endline, and

the self-reported satisfaction with WUA activities also increased to 78% at endline. This impact

evaluation was not designed to gauge the impact of increased WUA participation on farm level

production outcomes. Additionally, the membership to WUA committees is most likely

endogenous to land size and higher status in the community, thus any association between

membership and household long term outcomes can’t be causal.

RJK IE Final Report

4.2 LEARNING FROM AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

Figure 5 Kernel density plots: AG knowledge

To measure the gain in agricultural knowledge which resulted from the impact of randomly

assigned extension trainings, the evaluation team created 15 different quizzes based on the RJK

training curriculum. Z-scores were created for each quiz and the kernel density plots are

presented above in Figure 5. Visually we observe that the farmers trained before the baseline

survey exhibit higher scores than the rest of the sample. Difference in differences analysis in

Table 9 shows that at baseline the early trained groups had a 0.34 higher z-scores compared to

other households. This result suggested that the first round of agricultural trainings led to

statistically significant5 increases in farmers learning. In the endline, we find that the late trained

group, who were offered training 1-3 years before the endline survey, did not have significantly

higher scores than the group who were trained before the baseline years earlier suggesting that

repeated training doesn’t have additional gains.

To test if the temporary6 gains in agricultural knowledge translate to improved farming practices

we estimated farm level technical efficiency, where the outcome variable was the value of all

crops produced, as a function of seeds, manure, fertilizer, micronutrients, cultivated area, hired

and farm labor. We find that irrigation improvements increase predicted farm level technical

efficiency of inputs (Table 12), while standalone training does not impact predicted farm level

technical efficiency. The group trained after the baseline survey and received irrigation

5 Statistically significant refers to a coefficient with a p-value of less than 0.1, or that there is at maximum 10% chance that the coefficient was created by a random process. Or the probability that the estimated coefficient is null is below 10%. 6 The project commented that the nature of farmer group trainings, which lasted 1-3 days, explain the temporary impact on farmer’s agricultural knowledge.

RJK IE Final Report

improvements also saw a 2% increase in farm level technical efficiency, suggesting those farmers

are now better utilizing their inputs.

Simple baseline and endline comparisons show that farmers who self-reported being trained on

a specific topic were more likely to apply the knowledge at baseline than at endline. (Table 6) Due

to the programming in the survey we only asked whether the household applied the knowledge

from the trainings, when they self-reported being trained.

Table 6 Application of learned knowledge

Self-reported adoption at

Baseline among households

trained before baseline

Self-reported adoption at

Endline among households

trained before endline

Training Topic % that applied training

# of hhs self-

reported as

trained

% that applied training

# of hhs self-

reported as

trained

Cauliflower 74% 162 88% 32

Cabbage 73% 89 60% 20

Beans 71% 14 0% 5

Banana 53% 49 67% 3

Sugarcane 43% 14 . 0

Onion 76% 67 43% 7

Cucurbits 83% 228 33% 3

Chilies 76% 91 17% 12

Tomato 79% 53 33% 6

Okra 77% 48 50% 6

Paddy seed 83% 59 38% 21

Paddy bed 71% 76 62% 13

Lentil 100% 3 . 0

Wheat 91% 22 25% 4

Potato 74% 23 54% 13

Total 76% 998 59% 132

4.3 IMPACT OF IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS ON AGRICULTURAL REVENUE

The figure below shows changes in total average income, comparing groups who received or did

not receive irrigation improvements between baseline and endline. Agricultural revenue earned

RJK IE Final Report

by households who cultivate plots on sub-branch canals that experienced irrigation improvements

increased by 6,030 rupees (9% of baseline income) per year more than revenue earned by

households whose plots are located on sub-branches that did not have irrigation improvements,

but this difference is not statistically significant7.

The figure above also shows that irrigation improvements were conducted in sub-branches that

already had higher baseline incomes. This suggests that irrigation improvements are reinforcing

pre-existing disparities in access to irrigation in the command area of RJK.

4.4 DOES THE IMPACT OF IRRIGATION DEPEND ON THE TIMING OF EXTENSION

TRAINING?

The goal of the impact evaluation is to test whether farmers are more likely to change their

practices and experience yield gains if extension occurs before or after irrigation improvements

have been made. The graph below shows the results of the difference-in-difference estimate fully

interacted with the timing of training. The bars on the left show the change in agricultural revenue

from baseline to endline, comparing households who cultivate on sub-branches where irrigation

7 In this case, not statistically significant means that the 6030 NPR increase in income is not different from 0, or that the study’s sample is too low to detect a change less than 6030 NPR (50$ USD).

RJK IE Final Report

improvements were made or not, for households in the later training group. Recall that these

farmers received training 1-3 years before the endline, after the irrigation improvements on their

sub-branch had been made. Their knowledge of agricultural practices was no higher at endline

than the group trained years before, whose changes are shown by the lighter bars on the right.

The late trained group experienced much bigger gains in income associated with irrigation,

however, suggesting that the impact of extension may have been greater for them.

One concern with evaluating the difference in agricultural income is that the revenue earned from

agriculture is a noisy measure, which may have several large outliers. An approach that is more

robust to being affected by outliers is to estimate the effect on revenue in terms of percentage

changes at the mean of the outcome.8 In the graph below, we report the difference-in-difference

effect of irrigation by the timing of training as an effect relative to the average revenue in the early

trained group. Using this comparison, the difference-in-difference coefficient is no longer

significant. There are two possible interpretations of this finding. First, it may be possible that the

impact of the training comes through affecting the income of a very small number of people who

have very high revenue9. Alternatively, the fact that we don’t find an effect with this comparison

8 This is estimated by estimating the impact with the same regressions as before, but replacing the outcome with the natural log of the outcome. The coefficient of this regression approximates a percentage change. 9 High revenue farmers are defined as those households with agricultural incomes above 533212 NPR (4400$ USD) per annum or the 99th percentile of agricultural income in the sample.

RJK IE Final Report

may mean that the difference in timing of training on revenue is due only to statistical noise and

may be less reliable than the impact on farmers’ knowledge at baseline reported above.

4.5 LIMITATIONS

The biggest limitation of the impact evaluation is the inability to measure the impact of the feeder

canal construction. The impact evaluation was originally designed to study the impact of extension

trainings before and after the introduction of the canal enable year-round access to irrigation to

households in the command area of RJK. This affects our study in two ways.

First the impact of the offtake structures, is limited by the low volume of water that is flowing thru

the main branch canals in the winter and spring seasons, thus limiting the number of plots that

potentially can be irrigated in the off season. In addition, some of these lower order structures

were only operational very briefly10, meaning they could not be expected to impact water use at

endline. Please refer to Appendix B for pictures of the types of problems that limit the effectiveness

of newly built off-takes.

10 Pictures of the siltation and off-take design issues are shown in Appendix B at the end of the document.

RJK IE Final Report

Table 7 Issues with newly built irrigation structures

Is the off-take operational in off-season?

Idle Operational Total

Not silted 5* 23 28

Silted 4 0 4

Total 9 23 32

* These 5 off takes had entry gates that were too high for the low water level in branch canals.

Table 7 above shows that 9 out of 32 newly built off-takes had either silting or design issue that

prevents off-season irrigation. With 4 offtakes encountering a siltation problem and 5 offtakes

having a gate that was too high for the low water level in the winter. This resulted in only half of

the command area having access to irrigation in the winter season.

In contrast, the feeder canal was expected to have a much bigger influence on water regularity

and accessibility. As a result of only being able to study changes in lower order irrigation

structures, the expected effect of interaction term coefficient of extension training and irrigation

improvements is lower, because not enough plots were affected by both improvements.

Secondly the farmers were possibly reluctant to take up the extension trainings offered by the

project if they expected most of the benefits of such training to only occur if irrigation access

improved significantly. The repeated delays and extended timelines in feeder canal construction

could also drive household to leave farming and focus on remittances as their most important

source of income, this could potentially explain the significant number of households that were

cultivating crops at baseline but sharecropped out their land at endline.

This evaluation narrowly focuses on the interaction of extension training and irrigation support,

we are not evaluating the other activities of the project, such as improving access to improved

seed varieties, pesticides, crop insurance and support to marketing and postharvest facilities. We

were unable to conduct detailed productivity of crops adjusted for area, due to the lack of plot

GPS tracing coordinates.

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

The positive impact of extension trainings on farmer’s agricultural knowledge lasts a short time,

especially if major irrigation improvements do not materialize. We therefore recommend that the

RJK IE Final Report

project re-train the farmers again after the feeder canal is constructed and access to year-round

irrigation is fully realized. Repeated trainings are likely necessary to help farmers realize gains to

irrigation.

The lower gains in knowledge and practices in later trainings relative to earlier trainings suggests

that communication with farmers about delays is important. Initial interest in new practices when

construction begins may fade if dramatic changes in water access or availability take longer to

materialize than expected. We can speculate that attendance and learning from trainings might

re-appear once the canal begins to operate and farmers can observe changes in water availability

for which they might want to take advantage, but without additional trainings after the feeder canal

is completed, the evaluation cannot confirm this hypothesis.

5.2 CONCLUSION

In summary, we find that standalone extension trainings have a temporary impact on farmer’s

knowledge and fails to increase adoption of new cropping methods. Although the groups of

farmers that were offered extension trainings after irrigation improvements were constructed

showed higher agricultural incomes at endline, the coefficient is too small for our sample to detect.

These findings reinforce the importance of providing irrigation improvements in a timely fashion,

otherwise we risk farmers losing interest in the trainings and fail to adopt the new technologies

demonstrated in the extension trainings.

RJK IE Final Report

6 APPENDIX A – MAP OF COMMAND AREA

Figure 6 Location of Sub-branches

Source: RJK Phase 2 Feasibility Study 2017

RJK IE Final Report

7 APPENDIX B – IRRIGATION STRUCTURES

Figure 7 Example of siltation problem

This picture shows two sub-branch canals that share

the same off take. The offtake is capable of

siphoning water in the winter and spring, but the sub-

branch on the right has a design issue that caused a

siltation problem. The sub-branch on the left is able

to access irrigation year-round, while the sub-branch

on the right is only able to access water in the

summer. The siltation issue can be caused by

insufficient slope in the sub-branch command area

or lack of cement lining in the sub-branch canal.

Figure 8 Off take not providing water in off-season

This is an example of an off take that has an opening

that is too high to allow for water to enter in the off

season.

RJK IE Final Report

8 APPENDIX C – EXTENSION SUPPORT

Figure 9 Farmer group training

Figure 10 High value crop production supported by the project

RJK IE Final Report

9 APPENDIX D – TABLES

RJK IE Final Report

Table 8 Baseline Balance

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) t-test t-test t-test t-test t-test t-test

Early Treat

Late Treat

Control inside RJK

Control outside RJK

Difference

Difference

Difference

Difference

Difference

Difference

Variable N/[Clusters]

Mean/SE

N/[Clusters]

Mean/SE

N/[Clusters]

Mean/SE N/[Clusters]

Mean/SE (1)-(2) (1)-(3) (1)-(4) (2)-(3) (2)-(4) (3)-(4)

HH size 621 6.75 571 6.71 422 6.83 503 6.44 0.04 -0.09 0.31 -0.13 0.26 0.39

[33] [0.21] [32] [0.22] [25] [0.25] [1] [0.00]

Ethnic Group 621 3.71 571 3.84 422 3.58 503 3.81 -0.13 0.13 -0.10 0.26 0.03 -0.23

[33] [0.18] [32] [0.17] [25] [0.18] [1] [0.00]

Religion 621 1.10 571 1.40 422 1.18 503 1.04 -0.30 -0.08 0.07 0.22 0.37 0.15*

[33] [0.04] [32] [0.24] [25] [0.08] [1] [0.00]

HH head gender 621 1.35 571 1.30 422 1.26 503 1.16 0.05 0.10* 0.19*** 0.05 0.14*** 0.10***

[33] [0.04] [32] [0.03] [25] [0.03] [1] [0.00]

HH head age 621 45.90 571 45.99 422 45.58 503 46.13 -0.09 0.32 -0.23 0.41 -0.14 -0.56

[33] [0.77] [32] [0.91] [25] [0.67] [1] [0.00]

HH head education 621 4.47 571 4.30 422 4.12 503 4.08 0.17 0.36** 0.40*** 0.19 0.22 0.04

[33] [0.11] [32] [0.16] [25] [0.13] [1] [0.00]

HH has wage income 621 0.28 571 0.32 422 0.30 503 0.32 -0.03 -0.01 -0.04 0.02 -0.01 -0.03

[33] [0.04] [32] [0.04] [25] [0.05] [1] [0.00]

HH has remittances income 621 0.37 571 0.32 422 0.33 503 0.33 0.05 0.04 0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -0.00

[33] [0.04] [32] [0.03] [25] [0.05] [1] [0.00]

Total area owned: Hectares 621 0.39 571 0.53 422 0.46 503 0.56 -0.13 -0.07 -0.17***

0.07 -0.03 -0.10*

[33] [0.05] [32] [0.07] [25] [0.05] [1] [0.00]

Total area sharecropped: Hectares

621 0.50 571 0.40 422 0.45 503 0.32 0.10 0.05 0.19* -0.05 0.08 0.13

[33] [0.10] [32] [0.06] [25] [0.08] [1] [0.00]

Total area rented out: Hectares

621 0.15 571 0.10 422 0.13 503 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.05 -0.03 -0.00 0.03

[33] [0.03] [32] [0.02] [25] [0.03] [1] [0.00]

Total area irrigated: Hectares

621 0.91 571 1.05 422 0.97 503 0.92 -0.14 -0.06 -0.01 0.08 0.13 0.05

[33] [0.11] [32] [0.10] [25] [0.10] [1] [0.00]

F-test of joint significance (F-stat)

3.62*** 1.95** 3.85*** 1.19 3.01*** 22.71**

*

F-test, number of observations

1192 1043 1124 993 1074 925

The value displayed for t-tests are the differences in the means across the groups.

The value displayed for F-tests are the F-statistics.

Standard errors are clustered at farmer group identifier variable.

***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1, 5, and 10 percent critical level.

RJK IE Final Report

Table 9 Impact on Agricultural knowledge

RJK IE Final Report

Table 10 Impact of irrigation improvements on total AG income

RJK IE Final Report

Table 11 Interaction between irrigation and trainings

RJK IE Final Report

Table 12 Interacted diff in diff - all outcomes

RJK IE Final Report

10 REFERENCES

Ahmed, B., Mume, J., & Kedir, A. (2014). Impact of Small-scale Irrigation on Farm Income

Generation and Food Security Status: The Case of lowland Areas, Oromia, Ethiopia. .

International Journal of Economics and Empirical Research, 2(10): 412-419.

Akroyd, S., & Smith, L. (2007). Review of public spending to agriculture . World Bank Group.

Burke, M. &. (2012). Adaptation to climate change: Evidence from US agriculture. Available at

SSRN 2144928.

Cochrane, W. W. (1958). Farm prices: myth and reality. U of Minnesota Press.

Comin, D. a. (2004). An Exploration of Technology Diffusion. American Economic Review,

100(5): 2031–59.

Deschenes, O. &. (2007). The economic impacts of climate change: evidence from agricultural

output and random fluctuations in weather. The American Economic Review, 354-385.

Dillon, A. (2011). Do differences in the scale of irrigation projects generate different impacts on

poverty and production? . Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(2), 474-492.

Duflo, E. M. (2008). How High Are Rates of Return to Fertilizer? Evidence from Field

Experiments in Kenya. American Economic Review, 98(2), 482-88.

Duflo, E., & Pande, R. (2007). Dams. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2), 601-646.

Evenson, R. a. (2003). Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science,

300(5620): 758.

Foster, A. a. (2010). The Microeconomics of Technology Adoption. Annual Review of

Economics, 2(10).

Guiteras, R. (2009). The impact of climate change on Indian agriculture. College Park,

Maryland: Department of Economics, University of Maryland.

Hossain, M. N., & Shahabuddin, Q. (2005). Food security and nutrition in Bangladesh: Progress

and determinants. Electronic Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics,

2(2):103-132.

Schlenker, W. &. (2009). Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop

yields under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences, 106(37),

15594-15598.

Suri, T. (2011). Selection and comparative advantage in technology adoption. Econometrica,

79(1), 159-209.

Sutch, R. (2011). The Impact of the 1936 Corn Belt Drought on American Farmers’ Adoption of

Hybrid Corn. in The Economics of Climate Change: Adaptations Past and Present.

National Bureau of Economic Research.

Taraz, V. (2013). Adaptation to Climate Change: Historical Evidence from the Indian Monsoon.

Smith College Working Paper.

RJK IE Final Report

UNDP. (2014). Nepal Human Development Report. United Nations Development Programme.

United Nations Development Programme . (2014). Nepal Human Development Report . UNDP.

World Bank. (2011). RJK Project Appraisal Document. World Bank.

World Commission on Dams. (2000). Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-

making: the Report of the World Commission on Dams. Earthscan.

RJK IE Final Report

Technical Appendix: Quizzes used to assess extension knowledge

This appendix includes the text of all the quizzes on 15 possible topics administered to farmers

to assess their knowledge of topics covered by the training sessions. Farmers were assigned to

complete 3 of these quizzes so that we can measure knowledge of both quizzes taken and not

taken.

RJK IE Final Report

SECTION F1 - CAULIFLOWER CULTIVATION

10 11 12 13 14

Did you receive a

training on cauliflower

cultivation?

Did you apply or

practice the learnt

knowledge and

practices from the

training?

If yes what practices did

you apply in the field?

If no, could you please state

reasons for not using the

knowledge?

How can you prevent your cauliflower from

Molybdenum deficiency (with symptoms of

crumpled and overcrowded white and yellow

leaves)?

1 - Yes

2 - No (Skip to 18)

1 - Yes

2 - No ( Skip to 13)

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

1 - Use Bororn while preparing soil for

plantation

2 - Spray Bororn mixed in water

3 - Use 45 gram of Sodium Ammonium

Molybdenum mixed with chemical

fertilizer per Ropani of land

4 - Don’t know

15 16 17 18 19 20

How can you prevent your cauliflower from not

growing to its full potential?

Name any two

cauliflower

diseases:

Name two

insects that can

affect

cauliflowers

negatively:

How does

cabbage

butterfly

damage

cauliflower

plants?

Which planting

season can

potentially produce

maximum profits

from cauliflower

cultivation?

Name three types of

cauliflower that are

regular season (any

three would suffice):

1 - Transplanting seedlings to fertile soil on time

2 - Use Nitrogen rich fertilizer on time

3 - Maintain appropriate soil moisture

4 - All of the above

5 - Don’t know

1 - Club root (gada

jasto jara hune)

2 - Damping off

(Biruwa marne

rog)

3 - Powdery

mildew

(Kapasedhusi)

4 - Don’t know

1 - Cabbage

butterfly

2 - Tobacco

butterfly

3 - Brick pattern

larvae

4 - Aphid (lahi)

5 - Don't know

1 - Damage the

stem

2 - Damage the

leaves

3 – Damage the

crown

4 - Don’t know

1 - On season

2 - Off season

3 - Both (1) and (2)

4 - Don’t know

1 - Snow Crown

2 - Snow King

3 - Kathmandu local

4 - Jyapu local

5 - Don't know

RJK IE Final Report

SECTION F2 - CABBAGE CULTIVATION

21 22 23 24 25

Did you receive a

training on cabbage

cultivation?

Did you apply or practice the

learnt knowledge and

practices from the training?

If yes what practices

did you apply in the

field?

If no, could you please

state reasons for not using

the knowledge?

What is the optimal amount

of seed for cultivation per

kattha?

1 - Yes

2 - No (Skip to 28)

1 - Yes


a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

1 - 5 gram

2 - 10 gram

3 - 15 gram

4 - None of the above

5 - Don’t know

26 27 28 29 30

How can we protect

seedlings from extreme

temperature/rain?

The best season with

suitable environment for

cabbage is:

Name three varieties of

cabbage

Name two common

diseases of cabbage

Name two most comoin

insects that affect cabbage

plants

1 - Cover seedlings

with stray or grass

2 - No need to protect

the seedlings

3 - Don’t know

1 - Summer

2 - Winter

3 - Spring

4 - Don't know

1 - Greenstone

2 - Green coronate

3 - Zenisth

4 - Super Green

5 - All green

6 - Don't know

1 - Club root

2- Kapase dhusi

3 - Alterneria thople

4 - Don't know

1 - Cabbage butterfly

2 - Tobacco butterfly

3 - Brick pattern larvae

4 - Aphid (lahi)

5 - Don't know

RJK IE Final Report

SECTION F3 - BEAN SEEDS PRODUCTION METHOD

31 32 33 34 35

Did you receive a training on

Bean Seeds Production?








knowledge?

Name three major early steps

to keep in mind for bean seeds

production

1 - Yes

2 - No (Skip to 38)

1 - Yes

2 - No ( Skip to 34) a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

1 - Selection of appropriate

soil

2 - maintaining proper distance

between plants

3 - Land Preparation

4 - Bean planting methods

5 - Fertilizer selection and use

6 - Don't know

36 37 38 39 40

Where should one buy the

bean seeds from?

Name two organic or

inorganic fertilizers that can

be used for healthy high

quality plant and seeds (any

of two works):

When is the best time to

harvest the peas?

To store the bean seeds

properly, farmers should dry

the seeds properly

Bean seeds can be stored

immediately after drying.

RJK IE Final Report

1 – Agrovet

2 - Seed company

3 - Agriculture research

station

4 - Agriculture cooperative

5 - Seed producing farm


7 - Don't know

1 - Compost

2 - Nitrogen

3 - Potash

4 - Don't know

1 - When the bean pods

turn yellow

2 - When pea pods are

still green

3 - Pea pods are dry and

brown


5 - Don’t know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

SECTION F4 - BANANA CULTIVATION

41 42 43 44 45

Did you receive a training

on Banana Cultivation?

Did you apply or practice

the learnt knowledge and

practices from the

training?



field?


state reasons for not

using the knowledge?

Banana cultivation should be

rotated every 3-4 years for

protection from insects and

diseases related to banana

plants

1 - Yes

2 - No (Skip to 48)

1 - Yes


a)_______________

b)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

RJK IE Final Report

c)_______________

c)_______________

46 47 48 49 50

How is land prepared for

banana cultivation?

What is the advantage of

crop rotation with banana

cultivation

How many banana

suckers are required

per bigha?

Name three common

varities of bananas:

Name two diseases that are

common to banana plants

1 - Prepare raised bed with

ridges for irrigation

2 - Transplant the banana in

the field directly

3 - Make hole/ ditches and

transplant the suckers


5 - Don’t know

1 - Reduce the likelihood of

diseases and insects

2 - Maintain the soil fertility

3 - Both (1) and (2)

4 - Don’t know

1 : 400 - 700

2 : 700 - 1800

3 : 1800 - 2000

4 : All of the above

5 : Don’t know

1 - William Hybrid

2 - Harichhal

3 - Malbhog

4 - Z 9

5 - Chinichampa

6 - Don't know

1 - Bunch top (tuppo ma

jhuppa)

2 - Panam disease (Kerako

bot ailaune)

3 - Anthracnore (kotre rog)

4 - Don’t know

SECTION F5 - SUGARCANE CULTIVATION

51 52 53 54 55

RJK IE Final Report


on Sugarcane Cultivation?



practices from the

training?

If yes what practices did you

apply in the field?



knowledge?

One kattha of land requires 60

- 80 kilos of sugarcane seeds.

1 - Yes

2 - No (Skip to 58)

1 - Yes

2 - No ( Skip to 54) a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

56 57 58 59 60


sugarcane

Depending on the

conditions of pests and

diseases, sugarcane can

be kept for

What is the most

appropriate type of soil for

sugarcane?

It is necessary to tie sugarcane

from two rows once it reaches

1 to 1.5 meters to:

What is the best climate for

sugarcane cultivation?

1 - Jeetpur 1

2 - Jeetpur 2

3 - B. O. -17, 32, 34, 42,

47, 50

4 - Don't know

1 - One/twpo times

2 - Two/three times

3 - Three/four times


5 - Don’t know

1 - Alluvial

2 - Sandy loam

3 - Sandy

4 - Don’t know

1 - Prevent it from

overcrowding

2 - Prevent it from falling

3 - For aesthetics


5 - Don’t know

1 - Winter

2 - Spring

3 - Summer and humid

4 - Don’t know

RJK IE Final Report

SECTION F6 - ONION CULTIVATION

61 62 63 64 65

Did you receive a

training on Onion

Cultivation?


the learnt knowledge

and practices from the

training?





knowledge?

What are the difficulties in

onion cultivation?

1 - Yes

2 - No (Skip to 68)

1 - Yes

2 - No ( Skip to 64) a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

66 67 68 69 70

Demand for onion is all

around the year and its

increasing

State two ways in which

onions can go bad

What are the fertilizers

one can use while land

preparation for onion

cultivation?

Onion bulbs are perfectly dry

when

After spreading the seed,

one should cover it with

straw/thatch

RJK IE Final Report

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

1 - Germination

2 - Rot

3 - Withering/drying

4 - Don’t know

1 - Compost

2 - DAP

3 - Urea


5 - Don’t know

1 - The shells are dry

2 - The bulb is closed

3 - Bulbs look dry

4 - Both (1) and (2)

5 - Don’t know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

SECTION F7 - CUCURBITS OFFSEASON CULTIVATION

71 72 73 74 75


Cucurbits offseason

cultivation?





apply in the field?



knowledge?

What are the major nutritions

obtained from cucumber,

bittergourd, pumpkin, squash

and gourd?

1 - Yes

2 - No (Skip to 78)

1 - Yes

2 - No ( Skip to 74) a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

1 - Vitamin A

2 - Iron

3 - Both (1) and (2)


5 - Don’t know

76 77 78 79 80

How many grams of seed do

you need for per katha for

cucumber, squash, pumpkin

and bottle gourd?

While sowing, one must use

two seeds per hole

Which season is the best for

cucurbits production in terms

of environment?

What kind of soil is

appropriate for cucurbits

production?

What kind of seed sowing do

you prefer?

RJK IE Final Report

1 - 100 grams

2 - 75 grams

3 - 50 grams

4 - Don’t know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

1 - Winter

2 - Summer

3 - Rainy

4 - Don’t know

1 - Alluvial soil

2 - Sandy soil

3 - Balaute domat or

Pango domat


5 - Don’t know

1 - Direct seed sowing

2 - Nursery raise transplant

3 - Don't know

SECTION F8 - CHILIES CULTIVATION

81 82 83 84 85


Chilies cultivation?






field?



knowledge?

How can one prevent/cure

chilies plants from Mozac

virus?

RJK IE Final Report

1 - Yes

2 - No (Skip to 88)

1 - Yes

2 - No ( Skip to 84) a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

1 - Use healthy seeds

2 - Pluck out affected parts

from the plants

3 - Wash hands after touching

affected parts


5 - Don’t know

86 87 88 89 90

Name two diseases that can

affect chilies:

Once the seedlings are ready

to be transformed, the soil

attached to the seedlings

should be properly removed

before transferring.

How many grams of

chilies are required per

kattha of land?

Name three fertilizers that

can be used for production

Chilies can be best grown in

rainy season

1 - Anthracnode (kotre)

2 - Mozac Virus

3 - Wilt

4 - Don't know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

1 - 20 to 30 grams

2 - 30 to 50 grams

3 - 50 to 100 grams

4 - Don’t know

1 - Compost

2 - Urea

3 - DAP

4 - Murate of Potash

5 - Chilated zinc

6 - Don't know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

SECTION F9 - TOMATO CULTIVATION

RJK IE Final Report

91 92 93 94 95


on Tomato cultivation?







state reasons for not

using the knowledge?

Lahi sucks onto leaves and

soft stems of the tomato

plant.

1 - Yes

2 - No (Skip to 98)

1 - Yes


a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

96 97 98 99 100

Tomato gawaro eats the

surface of tomatoes.

For one ropani of land, 10

gram seed is required.


tomatoes that can be

grown in Nepal region

Name two common

diseases that affect

tomato plants

Name three fertilizers used

in tomato cultivation

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don’t know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

1 - Manisha

2 - Ankush

3 - Suraksha

4 - Indom 9502/9808

5 - Himsohana

6 - Siris

7 - Don't know

1 - Root rotting disease

2 - Dhadhuwa rog

3 - Oilaune rog

4 - Mozac virus

5 - Don't know

1 - Compost

2 - Urea

3 - DAP

4 - Murate of Potash

5 - Don't know

RJK IE Final Report

SECTION F10 - OKRA (LADY'S FINGER) CULTIVATION

101 102 103 104 105


on Okra cultivation?





apply in the field?



knowledge?

How can we cure okra plant

from yellow mosaic vein virus?

1 - Yes

2 - No (Skip to 108)

1 - Yes

2 - No ( Skip to 104) a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

1 - Uproot diseased plants and

burn them.

2 - Plant disease resistant

varieties

3 - Spray Rogar by mixing 2 ml

per liter of water


5 - Don’t know

106 107 108 109 110

Name three fertilizers

used for okra cultivation

Ganwaro penetrates the

okra plant through its stem

and sucks the juice out of

the plant so that the plant

dies

Okra seeds should be put in

water 24 hours prior to

sowing.

State the quantity of seed

needed for one kattha of

land.

Name three varieties of okra:

RJK IE Final Report

1 - Compost/Cowdung

2 - Nitrogen

3 - Phosphorus

4 - Potash

5 - Don't know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

1 - 200 to 300 gram

2 - 300 to 400 gram

3 - 400 to 500 gram

4 - 500 to 600 gram

5 - Don’t know

1 - Pusa sawani

2 - Parmani Kranti

3 - Punjab Padmani

4 - Parvati

5 - Ako Anamika

6 - Sagun

7 - Don't know

SECTION F11 - PADDY SEED SELECTION AND TREATMENT

111 112 113 114 115

Did you receive a

training on Paddy

Selection and

Treatment?





apply in the field?



knowledge?

What are the two

methods to treat seeds

for good quality?

1 - Yes


1 - Yes

2 - No ( Skip to 114)

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

1 - Treat the seeds in

salt and water.

2 - Treat the seeds with

chemicals to kill any

bacteria or

diseases.

3 - Don't know

RJK IE Final Report

116 117 118

State two physical attributes of good paddy/rice seed

Seeds that have been selected

can be stored anywhere in open

or closed space

Seeds that are moist are

good quality seeds

1 - Seeds that did not have any broken or damaged seed mixed in it.

2 - Seeds that do not have any leaves or seeds of other plants mixed in it.

3 - Seeds that do not any small stones, soil, leaves, stem, etc. not mixed

4 - Don't know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

SECTION F12 - PADDY BED PREPARATION

119 120 121 122 123

Did you receive a

training on Paddy Bed

Preparation?


learnt knowledge and practices

from the training?


apply in the field?



knowledge?

If the seedlings become

yellow due to Nitrogen

deficiency, one should apply

RJK IE Final Report

1 - Yes


1 - Yes

2 - No ( Skip to 122) a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

1 - Compost

2 - Nitrogen

3 - Phosphorus

4 - Don’t know

124 125 126

The seedlings must be transplanted within the same day

of uprooting

Name two fertilizers used for

bed preparation

What are the appropriate

number of days required for

the seedling to be ready?

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

1 - Compost

2 - Urea

3 - Don’t know

1 - 15 to 20 days

2 - 20 to 25 days

3 - Don’t know

RJK IE Final Report

SECTION F13 - LENTIL CULTIVATION METHOD

127 128 129 130 131


Lentil Cultivation Method?








knowledge?

Musuro helps to balance the

nitrogen level in the soil

1 - Yes


1 - Yes

2 - No ( Skip to 130) a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

132 133 134 135 136

Name two sources of

nutrient found in Musuro

Name two fertilizers used in

Musuro production

When is the best time to

harvest Musuro?

How long should one dry

Musuro before storing it?

One kattha of land needs

1 - 1.5 kg of seed

1 - Protein

2 - Calcium

3 - Iron

4 - Don’t know

1 - DAP

2 - Potash

3 - Borax

4 - Don’t know

1 - When 80% is ripe

2 - When 60% is ripe

3 - Whenever you think is

appropriate


5 - Don’t know

1 - One to Two days

2 - Three to Four days

3 - No need to dry

4 - Don’t know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

RJK IE Final Report

SECTION F14 - WHEAT CULTIVATION

137 138 139 140 141


Wheat Cultivation Method?





apply in the field?



knowledge?

Water should not be

stagnant in wheat field.

1 - Yes


1 - Yes

2 - No ( Skip to 140) a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

142 143 144 145 146

Wheat should be dried for 2-

3 days before storage.

Name three types of wheat

suitable for Terai and inner

Terai:

Name two ways to

prevent/treat aphid /lahi:

Name three fertilizers that

can be used in wheat

cultivation:

One kattha needs 4 kg of

seeds

RJK IE Final Report

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

1 - BL 1135/1473

2 - Achyut

3 - Bhrikuti

4 - Gautam

5 - Don't know

1 - Mitra khapate keera

2 - Tobacco leaves with

soap and water

3 - Cow urine

4 - Don't know

1 - Compost

2 - DAP

3 - Potash

4 - Urea

5 - Don't know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

SECTION F15 - POTATO DISEASES AND PREVENTION

147 148 149 150 151

Did you receive a training on Potato

Diseases and Prevention?


the learnt knowledge

and practices from the

training?


apply in the field?


state reasons for not using

the knowledge?

Name two media

through which black

scurf can spread

1 - Yes


1 - Yes

2 - No ( Skip to 150)

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

a)_______________

b)_______________

c)_______________

1 - Infected Seed

2 - Infected Soil

3 - Don’t know

RJK IE Final Report

152 153 154 155 156

Name two media through which late

blight can spread:

Name two media

through which early

blight can spread

Name two bacterial diseases

that affect potatoes:

Name two insects that

affect potato plants:

Late blight is the

primary enemy of

potatoes.

1 - Water, air

2 - Potato Seed

3 - Tomato and other similar plants

4 - Other nearby infected potatoes

5 - Don't know

1 - Air

2 - Soil

3 - Water

4 - Don't know

1 - Bacterial wilt or brown rot

2 - Black/soft rot

3 - Don’t know

1 - Potato butterfly

2 - Red ants

3 - Potato lahi/aphid

4 - Don't know

0 - False

1 - True

2 - Don't know

RJK IE Final Report