Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Agriculture and Livelihoods Activities of Action for Social Advancement (ASA)
An Impact Assessment
Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
Action for Social Advancement, Bhopal
Agriculture and Livelihoods Activities of Action for Social Advancement (ASA)
An Impact Assessment
Prof. T. Rajaretnam
Dr. Bhaskar Mittra
Mrs. Shilpi Vineet Gupta
Assisted by
Ms. Nupur Kulkarni, Mr. Premsagar Tasgaonkar
Mr. Bhaskar Raj
TATA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, Mumbai
Study Sponsored by
ACTION FOR SOCIAL ADVANCEMENT, Bhopal
March 2015
i
Preface
Action for Social Advancement (ASA), Bhopal is a non-profit organization working in the field
of farm based livelihoods development for smallholders. The organization started its activities in
1996 in Madhya Pradesh and is now extended to Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. ASA's ap-
proach to development is firmly founded upon participatory action at the community level. Par-
ticular emphasis has been placed on tribal communities, small and marginal farmers and women.
ASA’s mission is to ensure the livelihoods of poor people by developing natural resources
through community organizations. The key thematic areas of ASA’s work are development of
land and water resources, enhancement of agriculture productivity, promotion of agribusiness
for smallholders, and building of community institutions around these interventions.
As the organization expands its activities, special emphasis is laid on understanding the impact of
its activities in terms of increase in irrigated land, increase in area under rabi crops, increase in
crop yield as well as effective management at the household and community levels. With this in
view, ASA has entrusted the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai to undertake a
study to assess the impact of its activities, focusing on Madhya Pradesh.
This study involves a review of earlier studies about ASA’s intervention programmes, perception
and experiences of farmers (males) and SHG members (females) about the benefits they had de-
rived from ASA’s activities. The study has adopted both qualitative and quantitative methods
and the qualitative methods include FGDs with farmers and SHG members, in-depth interviews
with village leaders, panchayat functionaries and ASA functionaries, and the quantitative method
includes a sample survey of 1500 households about crops cultivated in different seasons, crop
yield, food security and seasonal migration.
The report is the outcome of the study. Though the study has limitations in measuring the im-
pact precisely, it provides insights into the functions and programmes of the organization and
the impact of these programmes from the community’s point of view. We hope the report pro-
vides a rich source of information not only to ASA but also to the donors, governmental organi-
zations and the research community.
The Authors Tata Institute of Social Sciences Deonar, Mumbai
ii
Acknowledgements
On behalf of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai, the Principal Investigators of
the study are grateful to Mr. Ashis Mondal, Director, ASA, Bhopal for entrusting the study to
the Institute and for the generous funding. Our special thanks to Mr. Vivek Saraf of ASA for
coordinating the activities between ASA and TISS.
We thank the ASA staff of all the ‘team offices’ in different study locations for providing support
to the study teams and sharing information about ASA’s activities and facilitating the survey
work. We also thank the ASA field level staff for working as field investigators and collecting
data for the study. The Village Resource Persons (VRPs) helped the teams organize focus group
discussions (FGDs) and conduct field work in the village, we thank them all.
At the community level, the study team contacted some influential persons, village leaders and
men and women in the villages and conducted in-depth interviews and FGDs. The community
representatives participated actively and shared considerable information including their con-
cerns. We thank them all.
At TISS, the research team worked tirelessly in planning for the study, collecting qualitative and
quantitative information, compiling them and writing the report. We place on record their sin-
cere and dedicated work.
The Authors Tata Institute of Social Sciences Deonar, Mumbai.
iii
Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ ii
Contents ........................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... v
Study Team ....................................................................................................................................... vi
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. vii
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1
ASA Programmes and Activities ........................................................................................ 1
Background ............................................................................................................................ 1
Vision and Mission ........................................................................................................................... 1
Operational Area and Administration .............................................................................................. 1
Programmes ...................................................................................................................................... 2
ASA Interventions .................................................................................................................. 2
Land and Water Resources Development Programme ..................................................................... 4
Satellite Imagesof Jobat Block in Alirajpur District (M.P.) ............................................................. 5
Validation and Extension of Agriculture Technology ....................................................................... 6
Institutional Credit for Agriculture ................................................................................................... 6
ASA Programmes – A Review .............................................................................................. 8
Dug Well and Related Studies .......................................................................................................... 8
Better cotton and better soybean initiatives.................................................................................... 10
Microfinance and Livelihoods ........................................................................................................ 11
Summary findings of the review ...................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2 ........................................................................................................................... 13
Study Design and Study Locations ................................................................................. 13
Objectives/Research Questions ............................................................................................ 13
Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 14
Study Area and Sampling ................................................................................................................ 14
Study Team and Field work ............................................................................................................ 15
Coverage of FGDs and Households ..................................................................................... 15
Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................................... 16
ASA Beneficiary Defined .................................................................................................... 16
Study Locations - A Brief Account ...................................................................................... 18
Socioeconomic Profile of Households ................................................................................. 19
Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................... 22
Reach of ASA Programmes .............................................................................................. 22
Common Activities of ASA across Locations ..................................................................... 22
SHGs and Learning Groups ........................................................................................................... 22 Farmer Producer Companies ......................................................................................................... 23
Capacity Building on Good Agricultural Practices .............................................................. 23
Location Specific Activities of ASA.................................................................................... 25
Ratlam ............................................................................................................................................. 25
Pitol................................................................................................................................................. 25
Rajpur ............................................................................................................................................. 26
Mandla ............................................................................................................................................ 26
Saikheda .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Jatara and Bijawar ......................................................................................................................... 27
Benefits Received................................................................................................................. 28
iv
SHGs and Credit Linkages with Banks for Financial Inclusion .......................................... 29
Experience with Farmer Producer Companies ..................................................................... 30
Chapter 4 ........................................................................................................................... 32
Impact of ASA Interventions ............................................................................................ 32
Landholding ......................................................................................................................... 32
Crop Cultivation ................................................................................................................... 34
Crops Cultivated ............................................................................................................................. 34
Sources of Seed ............................................................................................................................... 35
Crop Yield ............................................................................................................................ 36
Food Security ....................................................................................................................... 37
Seasonal Migration............................................................................................................... 39
Chapter 5 ........................................................................................................................... 49
Case Studies ..................................................................................................................... 49
Dug well Programme in Pitol, Jhabua District .................................................................... 49
Barwani Farmer Producer Company, Rajpur ....................................................................... 50
Lift Irrigation in Bakshera Dona, Mandla District ............................................................... 51
Chapter 6 ........................................................................................................................... 54
Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................... 54
Overall Observations ............................................................................................................ 59
v
List of Tables
Table 1.1: List of Locations and Number of Villages Selected for the Sample Study ...................... 14 Table 2.1: Percentage of ASA Beneficiary Households by Location and Caste Class,
Classified by Landholding of Household ................................................................................ 17 Table 2.2: Caste Composition of Households by Location ............................................................... 20 Table 2.3: Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Study Population by Location.............................. 21 Table 3.1: ASA Activities in the Villages as perceived by Farmers Classified by Location
and RCI Membership .............................................................................................................. 31 Table 4.1a: Percentage of households having total, irrigated and non-irrigated land,
percentage distribution of households by size of total landholding, mean
landholding of total, irrigated and non-irrigated land (among respective landholding
households), percentage of irrigated and non-irrigated landholding households
having up to 2.5 acres of respective land, percentage of land irrigated by location,
classified by ASA beneficiary status ....................................................................................... 41 Table 4.1b: Percentage distribution of irrigated land by source of water for irrigation,
classified by location and ASA beneficiary status .................................................................. 42 Table 4.2a: Percentage of cropped area under different crops (2013 and 2014 combined)
by ASA beneficiary status, classified by season, type of cultivation. ..................................... 42 Table 4.2b: Percentage of cropped area under different crops (2013 and 2014 combined)
by ASA beneficiary status, cross classified by season and type of cultivation. ..................... 43 Table 4.2c: Percentage of cropped area under different crops (2013 and 2014 combined)
by ASA beneficiary status, classified by location. .................................................................. 43 Table 4.2d: Percentage of cropped area under major crops (2013 and 2014 combined) in
kharif and rabi seasons, classified by location and type of cultivation. .................................. 44 Table 4.3a: Percentage of cropped area of ASA beneficiaries, sown with seed obtained
from Farmer Producer Company (FPC) and Agriculture Produce Marketing
Committee (APMC), Agro-centre, etc. during 2013 and 2014. .............................................. 44 Table 4.3b: Percentage of cropped area of ASA beneficiaries, sown with seed obtained
from Farmer Producer Company (FPC) by location. .............................................................. 45 Table 4.4a: Average crop yield per acre by beneficiary status and by location ............................... 45 Table 4.4b: Value of crop yield per acre, expenditure on crop per acre and percentage
expenditure to crop value, net crop income per acre and difference in these figures
between ASA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries for major crops by ASA
beneficiary status .................................................................................................................... 46 Table 4.5a: Percentage of households possessing PDS card, availed ration, experienced
food shortage and months of food shortage by ASA beneficiary status ................................ 46 Table 4.5b: Frequency of consumption of food items by ASA beneficiary status. ........................... 47 Table 4.5c: Average crop yield and average quantity of grain kept for household use and
percentage of crop yield used for household consumption by ASA beneficiary
status ...................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 4.6a: Percentage of household members aged 10-59 years worked outside during
the past one year before the survey by age, sex and ASA beneficiary status. ...................... 48 Table 4.6b: Percentage of households migrated at survey, percentage of members
worked outside in the past one year before the survey by sex, nature of work
done, duration of work and reasons for migration by location and ASA beneficiary
status ...................................................................................................................................... 48
vi
Study Team
Project Directors/Principal Investigators
Prof. T. Rajaretnam, Programme Management Specialist (Professor)
Dr. Bhaskar Mittra, Associate Director, Tata-Cornell Agriculture and Nutrition Initiative
Senior Research Officer
Mrs. Shilpi Vineet Gupta
Research Officers
Ms. Nupur Kulkarni, Mr. Bhaskar Raj, Mr. Premsagar Tasgaonkar
Field Investigators
Mr. Arvind Khare, Mr. Arvind Singh, Mr. Ashish, Mr. Brijbhan, Mr. Dost Mohammad, Mr.
Jayram, Mr. Kailash, Mr. Naveen, Mr. Raghavendra, Mr. Rahul, Mr. Rajaram, Mr. Santosh,
Mr. Sanjeet and Mr. Tensingh
Office Assistant
Ms. Pratiksha P. Singh
vii
Abbreviations
APMC Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee
ASA Action for Social Advancement
BCI Better Cotton Initiative
CBO Community Based Organization
DAP Di-ammonium Phosphate
DWP Dug Well Programme
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FPC Farmer Producer Company
GAP Good Agriculture Practices
HH Household
LG Learning Group
LWRD Land and Water Resources Development
MP Madhya Pradesh
MGNREGS Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
NABARD National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
OBC Other Backward Class
PDS Public Distribution System
PIM Participatory Irrigation Management
PVSP Participatory Varietal Selection Programme
RCI Responsible Crop Initiative
SC Scheduled Castes
SHG Self Help Group
SRI System of Rice Intensification
ST Scheduled Tribes TISS Tata Institute of Social Sciences VRP Village Resource Person WUG Water Users Group
viii
ix
In the study population, 60 percent of
the households were tribal communities.
Mobile phone was the only modern item
possessed by most of the households.
More than three-fourths of the households
possessed agricultural land and of them
nearly three-fifths possessed irrigated land.
Only 10 percent of the land area came un-der irrigation within the past ten years and it was more among ASA beneficiaries than among non-beneficiaries.
Executive Summary
About the Study
Action for Social Advancement (ASA) is a non-profit community-oriented organization with its
headquarter in Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh, working since 1996 for the development of farm
based livelihoods of smallholders. At the instance of ASA, TISS had undertaken a study to assess
the quantitative and qualitative impact of its work and its contribution to the policies of main-
stream development programmes.
Study Design
The study was conducted in Madhya Pradesh where ASA has made its maximum contribution.
From three regions of Madhya Pradesh namely west, east and north in which ASA is working, 7
programme locations distributed in 7 districts, and from each location 2-7 programme villages
(total 34 villages) were selected. In the selected villages, 66 FGDs (SHG women and LG men), a
number of in-depth interviews with leaders and ASA functionaries and 1499 household inter-
views were conducted.
Socioeconomic Background
In the study population, 60 percent of the households belonged to tribal communities and it
ranged from about 95 percent in Rajpur and Pitol locations, around 55 percent in Ratlam,
Mandla and Saikheda locations to just 11 percent in Jatara and Bijawar locations. Socioeconomic
characteristics of the households varied between
locations. Around three-fourths of the house-
holds were living in kuchcha houses but 80-90
percent of the houses were electrified (Pitol loca-
tion 61 percent only). Drinking water source was
mostly tap in Ratlam and Rajpur locations
(around 85 percent), hand-pump in Pitol location (88 percent) and a combination of tap, hand-
pump and open well in the other locations. Very few households in the study population had a
toilet facility. Mobile phone was the only modern item possessed by most of the households, fol-
lowed by electric fan. Other items including TV were possessed by only a few households. ASA
beneficiary households were marginally better off than non-beneficiary households according to
most of the above indicators.
Nearly 77 percent of the households had agricultural land, ranging from 94 percent to 72 percent
in different locations, with an average holding of two acres per household. However, only 57
percent of the farmers had irrigated land, and
while it was as high as 85 percent in Rajpur, it
was just 29 percent in Pitol location. Of the
irrigated land possessed by the households,
only 10 percent of the land area came under
irrigation within the past ten years and it was
more among ASA beneficiaries (more often
with the assistance of ASA) than among non-
x
The ASA programmes were mainly related to
water resources development, agriculture
productivity enhancement, agribusiness pro-
motion, SHG formation and women empow-
erment and institutional credit for agriculture.
beneficiaries. The land possessed by the households was their own or inherited and not leased-in
or purchased and as such land transfer was very rare.
ASA Programmes
FGDs with men and women and discussions with ASA functionaries revealed that the ASA pro-
grammes in different locations were basically the same, namely land and water resources devel-
opment (LWRD), enhancement of agriculture productivity, promotion of agribusiness, planting
trees on farms, formation of self-help groups(SHGs) and institutional credit for agriculture.
However, there were some differences especially in LWRD programmes depending on the local
topography, irrigation potential, cropping pattern, and the like. The programmes were in opera-
tion in different locations for different durations and the components were changed or modified
from time to time. It was learnt that ASA was building its activities mainly on three types of insti-
tutions, namely Learning Groups (LGs) for men, Self Help Groups (SHGs) for women and
Farmer Producer Companies (FPCs) for
agriculture-marketing. Water users group
as activity based groups were also formed
among the members of SHGs and LGs in
the villages to look after work related to
stop dams, tanks, lift irrigation and canal
restoration, and over time, the LGs were replaced with SHGs. Through the SHGs, ASA was
empowering women by involving them in social participation, household decision making, finan-
cial control and small savings, managing agricultural activities and good agricultural practices.
Perception of FGD Participants
Focus Group Discussion (FGD) participants perceived that with the involvement of ASA, they
had learned good agricultural practices and adopted them in their fields to a great extent. They
added that women are now more empowered and coming out and participating in social activi-
ties; they are also involved in household decision making, financial dealings and small savings. A
number of participants reported that they had benefited from the LWRD programme such as
dug well, minor irrigation, check dam, and so on. Most of the participants admitted that due to
LWRD and community organization activities of ASA, their land under irrigation increased, crop
yield enhanced, expenditure on raising crop decreased and household income improved.
Crops and Yield
As per the household survey, the major crops cultivated (in terms of percentage of area under
specified crop to total area under all crops) irrespective of season and year, were wheat (26 per-
cent), soybean (19 percent) and maize (17 percent). The other significant crops grown were pad-
dy, gram, cotton and black gram, each grown in 5-9 percent of the cropped area.
The percentage of ASA beneficiary farmers who depended on FPC for seed was about 10 per-
cent and it was 13 percent in terms of cropped area. The crops grown with FPC seeds were
wheat, soybean, maize, gram, paddy and cotton, and location-wise, Rajpur topped the list with 27
percent, while in the other regions it was only 10 percent.
xi
Most households possessed PDS ration card and availed themselves of ration more or less regularly.
Most households reported that they did not face any serious problem of having normal food during the year that preceded the survey.
In the study areas, as of survey date, nearly 10 percent of the households and among the resident households, about 17 percent of the members in the age group 10-59, out-migrated for their livelihood.
The major crops cultivated in the study areas
were wheat, soybean and maize. About 10 per-
cent of the farmers depended on FPC for seed.
The crop yield per acre was higher for ASA ben-
eficiaries than for non-beneficiaries. The crop
yield increased substantially for households who
shifted from non-irrigated to irrigated cultivation.
The crop yield per acre (combined for kharif and rabi seasons of 2013, and kharif season of 2014)
worked out to wheat 902 kg, soybean 327 kg, maize 502 kg, paddy 772 kg, cotton 592 kg and
gram 298 kg. The crop yield assessed in
the study was substantially higher (except
maize) than that reported for Madhya
Pradesh in the India Agricultural Statis-
tics (Indiaagristat.com). The reported
crop yield was higher for ASA beneficiar-
ies than for non-beneficiaries, though
there were variations between the loca-
tions. The study also confirmed that with the irrigation potential created, the crop yield of many
households, who shifted from non-irrigated to irrigated cultivation, increased substantially and
the increase was relatively higher for ASA beneficiaries than for non-beneficiaries.
Food Security
In the study areas, 93 percent of the households possessed PDS ration card and among them
almost 90 percent availed themselves of ration more or less regularly. Further, around 90 percent
of the households reported that they did
not face any problem of having normal
food during the year that preceded the
survey. The pattern did not differ much
between ASA beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries. The staple food was wheat
followed by maize and rice and the house-
holds had set apart sufficient quantities (500-800 kg) of the grains they had cultivated for their
household consumption. The absolute and percentage quantities of own-farm grain used for
household consumption were higher among ASA beneficiaries than among non-beneficiaries.
Seasonal Migration
In the study areas, as of survey date, about 9 percent of the households (all members together)
migrated and it was 19 percent in Rajpur location, 10 percent in Jatara and Bijawar and Pitol lo-
cations and just 3 percent in Ratlam, Mandla
and Saikheda locations. Among the house-
holds residing in the villages at survey, as
many as 17 percent of its members in the age
group 10-59 had worked outside at any time
during the year that preceded the survey and
it was 19 percent among males and 15 percent among females. The proportion of household
members who worked outside was as high as 25 percent in the age group 20-39. The nature of
work the migrated members did was predominantly non-agriculture casual labour.
Overall Impact of ASA
While it is difficult for an organization to ensure total transformation of any community, espe-
cially a tribal community, within a few years, ASA with its agriculture and livelihoods pro-
grammes, has made a positive impact on people’s agriculture practices, social development and
livelihoods enhancement. With its limited resources, ASA has sown the seeds of social and eco-
nomic progress in the backward and tribal areas of central India. Many changes, though gradual,
xii
The ASA programmes have contributed
positively to agricultural improvement, so-
cial development and people’s livelihoods.
With its limited resources, ASA has sown
the seeds of social and economic pro-
gress in the backward and tribal areas of
central India and people will reap more
benefits in the years to come.
The activities of ASA in terms of land and
water resources development, women
empowerment and capacity building are
making gradual improvements in the lives
of the rural community.
tribal community in particular.
have been taking place on several fronts – education, women empowerment and capacity build-
ing, and people will reap many more benefits in the years to come.
In assessment of the study team, ASA’s interventions of land and water resources development
have benefitted the farmers more than its training and capacity building activities. Having access
to better water resources, farmers could shift
from non-irrigated cultivation to irrigated culti-
vation and also started growing rabi crops and
thereby increased their crop yield and house-
hold income substantially. Further, in the study
locations, farmers were cultivating food crops
such as wheat, maize, paddy and gram more
often than commercial crops like cotton and
soybean and could thus ensure better food se-
curity for their households.
Though the study did not reveal marked differ-
ences in the agricultural and social practices
between ASA beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries, it is evident that the ASA beneficiary households were earlier marginal farmers and
relatively poor compared to their counterparts. However, in the wake of ASA interventions, the
farmers could enhance their irrigation potential, increase the crop yield, obtain better income and
ensure household food security. They are now equal to or even better than many others. This
can be considered as a contribution to the rural community in the backward areas. Further,
women could become more empowered and come out of their houses and participate in social
activities, small savings and agricultural management through ASA promoted SHGs.
1
ASA's approach to development is livelihood securi-
ty through natural resources development and is
firmly founded upon participatory action at the
community level with particular emphasis placed on
tribal communities, the poor and women.
Chapter 1
ASA Programmes and Activities1
Background
Action for Social Advancement (ASA) is a non-profit community-oriented organization with its
headquarters at Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh, working in the field of farm based livelihoods for
smallholders since 1996. It is a registered institution under the Gujarat Societies Registration Act,
1860 and the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Founded in late 1995 by a group of development
professionals with considerable collective experience of working with tribal people in participa-
tory natural resources development in the central part of India (mainly Madhya Pradesh), ASA
has emerged as a prime and lead organization in the sector of farm based livelihoods and natural
resource management for the poor.
Vision and Mission
ASA's approach to development is firmly founded upon participatory action at the community
level. At the heart of the organization is the aim of developing livelihood security, which is facili-
tated by an intensive participatory process of development of natural resources and local institu-
tions, with particular emphasis on the
tribal community, poor and women.
ASA has a mission for ensuring the
livelihood of poor people by provid-
ing development services, in particu-
lar, through natural resources devel-
opment. The key thematic areas of ASA’s work are land and water resource development
(LWRD), enhancement of agriculture productivity, promotion of agribusiness and building of
community institutions around these interventions. ASA has a specific mandate to work with
tribal communities and at present over 70 percent of its target groups are tribal communities in
central and central-east India.
Operational Area and Administration
Since its foundation in 1995, ASA has expanded its programme activities and covered a few
states. ASA is now operational in 29 districts, of which 15 are in Madhya Pradesh, 3 in Chhattis-
garh, 6 in Jharkhand and 5 in Bihar. In these districts, ASA is working directly in 1322 villages
covering over 130,000 poor rural families, or a population of nearly 800,000. Of the 29 districts
1This chapter is based on the material provided by ASA and/or obtained from its website
www.asaindia.org and shall not be considered the views or assessment of the study team.
2
ASA is now operational in 29 districts - 15 in Madhya
Pradesh, 3 in Chhattisgarh, 6 in Jharkhand and 5 in
Bihar. In these districts, ASA is working directly in 1322
villages covering over 130,000 poor rural families.
in which ASA is working, 21 districts belong to the 200 most disadvantaged districts of India
that the Planning Commission of India has identified.
For field operations ASA has a three-tier structure with five Regional Offices (MP West, MP
East, MP Bundelkhand, Bihar and Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh), twelve Area Offices and fifty
Team Offices. It has around 250
professionally qualified staff in
disciplines such as agriculture, en-
gineering, management, social
work, economics, geo-hydrology
and mass communication. In addition, more than 350 para-professional staffs work for ASA in
the villages. A group of Associate Consultants works with ASA on assignment basis and they are
regularly involved in ASA’s programme interventions.
Programmes
The programme activities of ASA are grouped under six categories
Land & Water Resources Development (LWRD)
1. Watershed Development 2. Minor Irrigation Development 3. Participatory Irrigation Management
Agriculture Productivity Enhancement
1. Promotion of sustainable agriculture by adopting Responsible Crop Initiative princi-ples of Good Agriculture Practices, Responsible Environmental and Social Practices
2. Participatory Varietal Selection and Promotion of Seeds 3. Farmers’ Field School 4. System of Crop Intensification with focus on Rice and Wheat 5. Vegetable Gardens.
Agribusiness promotion for smallholders through development of Farmer Producer Companies
Trees on farm with particular focus on development of horticulture, orchard and agro-forestry
Institutional credit for agriculture by linking community institutions with banks and oth-er financial institutions
Social research, training, consultancy, policy advocacy.
ASA Interventions
Since its inception (in 1996) till 2001, ASA’s focus was exclusively on land and water resources
development (LWRD). Within the LWRD, ASA was concentrating on small water harvesting
structures like check dams, ponds, field bunding, community pasture land development and a
small amount of forestation work on farm fields. Subsequently, ASA introduced the strategies of
community mobilization, institution building, participatory processes, training and gender aspects
across all themes. Now, SHGs with woman head of households form the core group at the vil-
lage level and vehicle for all ASA interventions. Institutional credit for agriculture through SHGs
3
ASA’s Livelihood Model
At the centre of the model is the community (families)
formed into CBOs such as SHGs and FPCs.
It has a three-pronged approach for enhancing the
livelihoods of families, namely land and water re-
sources development, agricultural technology valida-
tion and extension of institutional credit for agriculture.
This approach is uniformly applied across all locations
especially among small holders and women.
and banks, and farmer producer companies (FPCs) to link farmers with the market, are also in-
corporated.
All these components now occupy key positions in ASA’s overall programme basket in the form
of a unique model called ASA’s ‘Livelihood Model’, which is diagrammatically depicted below.
At the centre of the model is the
community/families, formed into
community based organizations
(CBOs) such as SHGs and Farmer
Producer Companies (FPCs). The
ASA’s model emphasizes a three-
pronged approach for the en-
hancement of livelihoods of the
families, namely, land and water
resources development, validation
of agricultural technology and ex-
tension of institutional credit for agriculture. This approach is uniformly applied and religiously
adhered to in all its endeavours across all locations for achieving a sustained agriculture and soci-
oeconomic impact especially among small holders and women.
The three components are briefly described below:
Land and Water Resources Development (LWRD) incorporates natural resource devel-
opment and management in the programme villages and aims at supporting agriculture in
these villages.
Validation and extension of Agriculture Technology aims at enhancement of productivity
through trials, demonstrations, training and all-round technical support to beneficiary
farmers.
4
Financial inclusion for agriculture is mainly to help achieve financial resource support
from banks and financial institutions through SHGs for the benefit of farmers to enable
better production and ensure profitable sale of usufructs in the market.
Land and Water Resources Development Programme
The Land and Water Resources Development (LWRD) programme evolved over the years with
the addition of new elements. By 2001, ASA developed technical capacity to build large water
harvesting structures instead of looking opportunities at the micro watershed level. The capacity
for planning at the river-basin level, and monitoring the progress and impact were developed in
the organization. ASA had set up a Geographical Information System to spearhead this work. In
2007, through a project, ASA introduced the concept of participatory irrigation management
(PIM) for canal irrigation systems, mainly in the public irrigation schemes. ASA developed inter-
nal capacity and started working in seven large, medium and small irrigation schemes in collabo-
ration with the state’s irrigation department. Later, it continued these initiatives in five more
small schemes in Madhya Pradesh. Around 2010, for the first time, ASA commissioned a small
lift irrigation scheme in Bihar. Building on this experience, it has become a major component
within ASA’s LWRD programme, with nearly a hundred schemes implemented already with var-
iations in design to suit local requirements.
A Canal Restoration Programme in Rajpur Location
The dug wells programme is one of the oldest programmes within the LWRD basket. It all start-
ed with food for work during the severe drought in western MP during 1999-2001 for three con-
secutive years. ASA managed to get 300 metric tons of food grains from an international aid
agency and developed a scheme of dug wells for food for work. It was the most successful sub-
programme with nearly 100 percent success and sustainability rate, with the highest level of ben-
eficiary contribution, nearly 60 percent of the cost. The programme has been extended to newer
areas of micro drip irrigation as an effort towards on-farm water management.
Over time, ASA has constructed as many as 246 stop dams, 87 earthen tanks, 305 farm ponds,
99 group lift irrigation systems and 2785 group dug wells. Currently ASA's watershed pro-
gramme is continuing in 84 villages covering an area of 28,514 hectares under the Government
5
sponsored Integrated Watershed Development Programme, Integrated Village Micro Plan Pro-
ject and NABARD supported watershed programme and programmes of NRTT and Hindustan
CocaCola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Canal restoration works of nearly 33,137 metres have been ac-
complished successfully by ASA with water user groups. Activities such as land leveling, field
bunding and soil conservation measures have been undertaken in 77,232 ha area by ASA.
Satellite Images2of Jobat Block in Alirajpur District (M.P.)
(Note: Portions in red indicates the extent of cropped area)
23 December 2000 19 January 2012
Interventions Unit 2013-14 2014-15
Land Development Ha 977 1002
Large Water Harvesting Structures-Earthen Tank, Check Dam No. 65 70
Small Water Harvesting Structures-Farm Pond No. 16 52
Group Dug Wells No. 146 219
Micro Sprinklers/Drip Irrigation No. 42 97
Agroforestry (Bung Plantation) Ha 514 48
Canal Restoration RM 6950 1400
Horticulture Ha 34 38
Area Increase for Irrigation Ha 863 1541 Source: ASA
A major leap forward was attaining convergence with government programmes, mainly the Ma-
hatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), which has sup-
plemented financial resources for the quantum of work carried out by ASA. Building a collabora-
tive approach with Gram Panchayats mainly for technical backstopping to utilize funds under
MGNREGS for land and water resources development at the village level is one of ASA’s im-
portant strategies towards building sustainable livelihood assets. It also serves the purpose of ca-
2The maps are provided by ASA
6
pacity building in Gram Panchayats for technical and management issues, a critical gap that one
finds with the Gram Panchayats, especially in resource poor regions.
The above Table presents the statistics of the works carried out by ASA under the convergence
of programmes of various government departments including MGNREGS, Water Resources
Department, Agriculture/Horticulture Department, and others. For example, ASA’s Watershed
Project area of Jobat Block shows that between December 2000 and January 2012 (11 years), the
area under crop cultivation increased substantially due to ASA’s interventions in the area
(Cropped area is marked in red in the maps).
Validation and Extension of Agriculture Technology
Agriculture development in the form of participatory selection of varieties and their promotion
(PVSP) was added to ASA’s programme in 2001 through project collaboration with the Centre
for Arid Zone Studies, University of Wales, UK. A full scale agriculture programme including
PVSP, promotion of good agriculture practices, varietal research and vegetable gardening came
into full force around 2008-09, especially with the addition of knowledge, innovative practices
and professional help. Today the agriculture programme is comprehensive with Responsible
Crop Initiative (RCI) being the main protocol covering all crops that are grown in the operation-
al area. Seed production, organic agriculture, promotion of neglected and under-utilized crops
like millets and sorghum were part of the agriculture programme.
In 2012, ASA launched a Responsible Crop Initiative that aimed at improving farm productivity
and was popularly known as "Jimmedar Kheti", a form of certification for agricultural practices
that reduce environmental and social footprints of agriculture while increasing yield and produc-
tivity for the farmer and making the business of farming more sustainable. These practices are
also in line with Good Agricultural Practices as propounded by the Food and Agricultural Or-
ganization of the United Nations and objectives of the National Mission on Sustainable Agricul-
ture - one of the eight mission-mode schemes under the National Action Plan for Climate
Change. The efforts largely complement some of ASA's other initiatives such as land and water
resource development and promotion of Farmer Producer Companies and also carry forward the
functional objectives of some of ASA's programmes, such as support to Better Cotton Initiative
(BCI) as well as Responsible soybean. ASA was also part of the two internationally recognized
sustainable agriculture development standards, namely ‘Round Table on Responsible Soybean
Association’ for soybean and ‘Better Cotton Initiatives’ under which ASA works with over
35,000 farmers who follow these standards and verified by third party. Besides, under ASA’s
own Responsible Cotton Initiative (RCI) standards, there are nearly 80,000 farmers who follow
the standards and are verified by third party.
Institutional Credit for Agriculture
The association of beneficiary villagers in ASA programmes begins essentially with their partici-
pation in groups. Throughout ASA’s group formation it has been stressed that the poor and
women gain a representative strength through collectivization as a group, which also helps them
with some beneficial activities like inter-loaning, credit from banks, linkages to government de-
velopment programmes. The group strength has also been utilized to provide benefits under
government convergence activities, sharing of natural resources, getting shared assets, agriculture
equipment and irrigation resources such as dug-wells, check-dams and farm ponds. The groups
also pursue agriculture profitably through self-managed outlets for getting agri-inputs and ena-
7
bling the sale of agricultural produce at a better rate in the market through farmer producer
companies.
ASA nurtures the groups in multiple forms such as Self Help Groups (SHG) as the foundation
of institutional architecture, Users' Group/Association as users of common resources, like water,
forest, etc., Watershed Development Committees, and Responsible Producers' Group for differ-
ent crops.
ASA has an overall strength of 4998 SHGs with as many as 62953 members. Thrust is laid on
maximizing the savings along with inter-loaning in these groups, which has been achieved to the
tune of Rs. 4.68 crores as savings and Rs. 3.22 crores as inter-loaning. These groups also have
been able to raise revolving funds through the support of governmental programmes such as
National Rural Livelihood Mission that further strengthens their economic status. ASA also en-
sures linking them to financial institutions and banks for raising additional funds and so far, bank
loans funds worth Rs. 3.8 crores have been received by the SHGs.
ASA pursues its gender policy rigidly during the formation of the groups, which makes it manda-
tory to have at least 50 per cent female beneficiaries for all its initiatives, and out of the total
4998 SHGs, as many as 4946 are female SHGs. ASA programmes have maximum thrust on
working with women farmers and empowering them with respectable social status in the family
and also strive to give them an opportunity to play a lead role in income generation activities for
their families.
Farmer Producer Companies
Since 2005, ASA has pioneered in developing Farmer Producer Companies (FPC) in Madhya
Pradesh by organizing small and marginal farmers into a cluster level organization with the ob-
jectives of backward and forward linkages with the market and various related services. Till Au-
gust 2013, ASA had promoted 40 FPCs with a shareholder base of 55503 in MP. The total annu-
al business transaction through FPCs is about Rs.120 crores. ASA has a plan to promote another
30 FPCs in MP alone in the next two years.
The functions of FPCs include production of certified seeds (soy, wheat, pulses) under the buy
back guarantee of the State and Central government institutions (National Seeds Corporation
Ltd) and private seed production companies; aggregation of crop produce and sale in the bigger
market/processing units (cotton, soy, wheat, coriander, chick pea, pigeon pea, and vegetables in
small scale); supply of agriculture inputs to members (seeds, fertilizers, agrochemicals, imple-
ments). Besides, FPCs provide farm extension services especially for the production of Respon-
sible Crops (as per RCI protocol), farm advisories through SMS, community radio and call cen-
tre. At present, all these services are provided through grant support. For each FPC, there is a
professional team called Board of Directors to manage the business. The support of the profes-
sional team for three years is given as grant support by ASA (gradually phasing out over three
years) and the FPC is expected to cover their operational cost subsequently.
In September 2014, a federation of the FPCs, called Madhya Bharat Consortium of Farmer Pro-
ducer Co. Pvt. Ltd. It was created by ASA jointly with Rabo Bank Foundation, as an apex insti-
tution to provide marketing and other service linkages to the member FPCs so as to leverage the
benefits of aggregation in the market place. This federation also pursues the policy interventions
with the government that are required for continuous improvement in an enabling environment
for the FPCs.
8
Three business lines/value chain that the state level company pursues are –
Marketing of crop seeds produced by the member FPCs
Backward integration of the agriculture inputs for the member FPCs
Marketing of specialized agriculture produces (responsible soybean, better cotton, etc.).
ASA Programmes – A Review
A few evaluation or impact assessment studies were conducted of ASA projects/activities peri-
odically. In this section, we provide a summary of the recent studies for which we could find re-
ports. The evaluation or impact assessment studies were either conducted by ASA staff or by
third parties. The study reports provide some insights into the programme activities and the im-
pact of ASA intervention programmes. The studies are broadly classified under three heads: wa-
ter resources related (dug well and minor irrigation programmes), crop cultivation and produc-
tion (mainly soybean and cotton) and microfinance and livelihoods.
Dug Well and Related Studies
A study was conducted by Shiv Malviya and Sarah Gettings about the Dug Well Programme
(DWP) of Action for Social Advancement (ASA), which was in operation since 1997. The objec-
tive of the study was to assess the socioeconomic and livelihoods impact of dug wells on the
farmers. The study was conducted in November 2007 on 50 dug well owners in eleven villages
of two Districts, namely Jhabua and Ratlam of Madhya Pradesh. The method used was individu-
al qualitative interviews. The study claimed that prior to the DWP just 13% of beneficiary farm-
ers’ land was irrigated and following the DWP, it increased to 57%, a growth of 44 percentage
points. Subsequent to the DWP, the area under rabi crops of the sample farmers increased con-
siderably from just 14 acres to 137 acres. The additional crops and income from this provided
farmers short term food security without the need for seasonal migration. Prior to the dug well
programme, about 44 percent of the households were forced to migrate to earn enough money
to survive but after the installation of the dug well, the proportion of households migrating re-
duced to below 20 percent. Another observation made was that the percentage of farmers who
owned pucca houses increased to 54 percent. Other investments included 58 percentage of farm-
ers purchased water pump and 30 percent acquired small livestock. Another social impact men-
tioned was that the number of children attending school increased by 70 percent, from 53 during
pre-DWP period to 90 during post-DWP period.
A study was conducted by Dr. C. Ravikumar, Bangalore in April 2012 with the objective of em-
pirically establishing the impact of watershed interventions (dug wells) on sub-surface water
availability and of assessing the utilization potential in Ratlam district of western Madhya Pra-
desh. The study observed that the dug well intervention was effective in terms of its success, in
providing water for 9-12 months in a year for irrigation and domestic requirements including
livestock. Owing to the increased availability of water for irrigation, households were able to
provide protective irrigation for kharif crops, assured irrigation for rabi crops and limited area
irrigation for summer crops. There was almost a 73% increase in rabi and summer cropping area.
There was also considerable degree of diversification of crops and cropping pattern and practices
in the project villages. Cotton crop farmers obtained better prices due to improvements in quali-
ty. The area under wheat expanded and wheat became the main rabi crop. The study also brought
out that line sowing of onion, garlic, chilies was carried out as against broadcasting of seed earli-
er. There was also a change in the pattern of migration – from the entire family migrating to far
9
off urban areas for long durations to limited members migrating to nearby urban areas for short
durations. The dependence on income from agriculture increased gradually over income from
migration. All the above improved the local economy and livelihoods in the project villages.
There were significant improvements in the quality of life, such as children’s education, bathing
practices, clothing, food habits, household hygiene, and reduction in consumption of local liquor
and so on.
Yet another case study highlighted the pre and post dug well situation of the beneficiaries, par-
ticularly its impact on agriculture pattern, socioeconomic aspects, migration and education. The
case study was conducted in Ratlam, Barwani, Jhabua, Alirajpur and Nagda districts of Madhya
Pradesh and it was found that in all the study areas, yield per acre of wheat increased from 3-4
quintals to 6 quintals, cotton in kharif increased from 2 quintals to 4-6 quintals and maize from 2
quintals to 4 quintals per acre. In a few cases, farmers were not opting for a rabi crop earlier, but
due to dug wells, they started cultivating wheat in rabi and a few started planting summer crops.
One more study was conducted by Mr. Abhishek Samal, a Consultant, Development Sector,
Bhopal in June 2011. The study adopted stratified random sampling method to have an overview
of the changes triggered in the economic and social standing of the farmers. In all, 51 primary
beneficiaries (total 115 beneficiaries including primary and secondary beneficiaries) were inter-
viewed from 18 villages of the three programme districts- Ratlam, Jhabua and Barwani. The
study found positive changes in the cropping pattern, agriculture inputs and value addition of
assets (cow, motor cycle, bullock, radio, buffalo, TV, poultry, fan, plough, thresher, cycle, tractor,
etc.), increase in income and improvements in drinking water supply, shift from kuchcha houses
to semi-pucca and pucca houses and better social status. There were also changes in the migration
pattern, food and nutritional security and access to basic services like health and education.
ASA’s convergent actions also assisted the farmers through supplying seeds and pipes, fencing
support and developing kitchen gardens.
Another study was conducted by Bhaswati Chakravorty, an Independent Researcher from New
Delhi during October-November 2011. It aimed to assess the effectiveness of canal restoration
of five tanks initiated by ASA in Barwani district, MP in 2008 by participatory methodology to
ensure the perspective and insights of all stakeholders, particularly the target groups (Water Us-
ers Association and farmers) and the project implementation team. The study showed that the
Water Users Association played a responsible role in irrigation management and that there was
an increase in irrigation, increase in income and increase in wage employment.
One more study on Land and Water resource development was conducted by Mr. Manab
Chakraborty, Consultant, on food security of 1000 tribal families in Chakai, Jamui district in Bi-
har in July 2013. The key objective of the study was to carry out an end evaluation of the project
to assess the success of the project in achieving the overall goal and objectives of the project, and
the effectiveness of the interventions. The study brought out that the project had improved food
security in 1013 households. The project execution was of high quality and responsive to the
needs of the community and the drought situation in Chakai. The relevance of the project to
LWRD was enhanced and ASA was capable of delivering more than what was envisaged in the
project. The project’s efficiency was satisfactory, money, allocation of resources was appropriate
and the project delivered on most of the expected short-term impacts.
A study on Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) project impact evaluation was conducted
by Ms. Bhaswati, Delhi, Ms. Sangeetha Dhar, Delhi and Ms. Soma Dutta, Noida in June 2011 in
the following geographical areas - Satak Tank (in Khargone district), medium irrigation projects,
10
Samrat Ashok Sagar Dam (in Vidisha and Raisen districts), Segwal Tank Project in Badwani dis-
trict. The Consultants documented the PIM implemented during 2003-2007. The key findings of
the study were that the contract for rehabilitation of the main canal was carried out as part of
Water User Association itself and they accomplished that task effectively. In the Satak Tank Pro-
ject command area, farmers contributed 20% of the cost of physical work, which was in excess
of the contribution agreed by the funding agency. The tail end village on the main canal also re-
ceived irrigation water on time during the rabi season and farmers received four (times) irrigation
waters. The farmers were getting better yield because of water availability. Strategic planning by
ASA for community mobilization helped to generate the interest of farmer-members in the pro-
ject and sustain it.
Mr. Ravi, TASS Manager, SRTT, Mumbai conducted a study, ‘The Impact of Canal Restoration
Project in Barwani District, Narawala and Anjad Villages’ in February 2011 and collected key
inputs from the farmers, Sarpanchs, Members of Water User Association, Sub Divisional Officer
of Water Resource Development and Land and Water Resource Development Team of ASA.
From the inputs it was found that ASA was perceived as an action oriented organization and the
farmers were forthcoming and adapted the Participatory Irrigation Management in the true
sense. There was an average increase of 227 % income per acre according to the Cost Benefit
Analysis in Narawala village. The quality of the crop was better due to the availability of canal
water at the right time in the right quantity, which encouraged cultivation of cash crops like cot-
ton and chili. The restoration phase offered considerable employment, putting a check on migra-
tion. As an indirect impact, it was found that the domestic conditions improved, violence re-
duced and school attendance of the children improved.
Better cotton and better soybean initiatives
A study was conducted to showcase the changes experienced by farmers in cotton cultivation
during a one year period since their association with Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), in terms of
increase in knowledge, discarding of old practices in favour of new effective ones, their changed
financial status, their future plans, expectations and concerns. About 20,000 smallholders were
covered by this project. The study was conducted in two districts and four locations in Madhya
Pradesh, Barwani (Ojhar), Khargone (Thikri), Barwani (Rajpur) and Khargone (Kasarwad). It
was reported that 5135 producers were trained on BCI principles and criteria, 249 Learning
Groups were formed and nurtured as institutions, 193 LGs (80%) qualified in meeting BCI crite-
ria by third party audit and 5632 tons of BCI cotton produced. Producers reported savings in
cost of production of about $150 per hectare due to practice of good agriculture practices.
Another study was conducted by Lucy Wilmot, ASA, Bhopal in 2009 to assess the cost of soy-
bean cultivation in Madhya Pradesh. The study area was Malwa region (Ujjain and Ratlam dis-
tricts) of Madhya Pradesh. These two districts were stated to be the largest producers of soybean
with 99% of kharif cultivated area. The sample comprised 25 farmers divided by district and by
marginal-small-large holdings. It was stated in the study that the reasons for adopting soybean
were less labour requirements, less disease, less irrigation requirement and greater profit than
other kharif crops. After implementation of the programmes, the yield was around 15-20 quintals
per hectare in Ujjain, 20-30 quintals per hectare in Ratlam and it was an increase of about 10
quintals per hectare, or 4 quintals per acre. Fertilizers like urea, (Di-ammonium Phosphate
(DAP), potash and super phosphate were commonly used, which was not the case earlier. The
market price for soybean was high as compared to other kharif crops. It was predicted that the
11
continuing spread of soybean and the production and prices of soybean may be stable with re-
spect to the future market environment.
Microfinance and Livelihoods
Lewis Cameron, ASA Volunteer did a case study in Shajapur district of Madhya Pradesh on
‘Market Potential Assessment for Quality Seed for Four Crops in Madhya Pradesh’. The study
was conducted during November to February 2008-09. The objective of the study was to know
about the establishment of the demand and supply of quality seeds and ascertain the factors lim-
iting both demand and supply of quality seeds for small, medium and large farm size farmers in
three blocks of Shajapur. The main finding of the study was that a gap existed between demand,
production and supply of quality seeds and low demand for quality seeds.
Mr. Astad Pastakia conducted an evaluation study on arresting poverty through microfinance,
titled, ‘ASA’s Microfinance Programme in the Tribal District of Jhabua’, in May-June 2008. The
methodology adopted for the study was desk review of project documents, project reports and
other relevant literature, consultation with project staff, federation office bearers and field visit to
interact with members of sample SHGs, and a debriefing session with senior officers of the pro-
gramme. The sample consisted of 13 SHGs from five villages. The major findings of the study
were that around 80 percent of the people migrated for 6-8 months to a nearby city for unskilled
labour work. ASA had formed SHGs and federations. The federations kept the book records of
SHGs. SHGs addressed the short-term credit needs. Long-term needs such as building a new
house or meeting the expense of marriage were met by the informal sector (money lender). Since
the SHG was able to take care of their annual credit requirements, the women had stopped tak-
ing loans from the moneylender. The rate of repayment to SHG was 100 percent.
A study was conducted by Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Development Consultant in Four Farmer Pro-
ducer Companies (FPCs) in Shajapur, Guna, Tikamgarh and Chhattarpur districts of MP in Sep-
tember 2010 to review the functioning of FPCs, the support provided by ASA and to bring out
the way forward for promoting new companies. The study found that ASA had achieved signifi-
cantly in establishing and supporting 17 producer companies and their experience of providing
continued support was extremely intensive and useful. ASA played a significant role in the be-
ginning for setting up those companies along with the District Poverty Initiatives Project staff.
ASA’s technological expertise and long experience of working with improved varietal selection
helped set the agenda and the business for the companies. The main business of all the four
companies was improved seed production, which was very important and useful for farmers, and
where they found that the most significant expansion potential existed. The second line of busi-
ness for the FPCs was supply of fertilizers to farmers and members, but it was said that due to
the agriculture policy of not allowing any mark up on fertilizers, the sale of fertilizers as a busi-
ness was not profitable. Naturally, FPCs were seen as competition by both agricultural coopera-
tives and officials of the agriculture department and in many cases, bureaucratic delays were ob-
served in FPCs getting the fertilizer subsidy. The study suggested that policy changes were re-
quired for the FPCs to operate in this business. As compared to the seed and fertilizer business-
es, the pesticide business was relatively risk free (as it was based on commission), profitable and
required low capital. It was suggested that FPC could explore into expanding the pesticide busi-
ness for improving the company bottom-line. Depending on the area, crop, farmers’ current
practice and willingness to change, promotion of organic and environment friendly pesticides
should be explored.
12
A review of studies of ASA’s intervention programmes
indicated that ASA had worked with marginal and small
farmers, specifically with tribal communities.
Its dug well and minor irrigation programmes contributed
to increase in the area under cultivation especially in the
rabi season and increased crop yield. Its better cotton
and soybean initiatives contributed to the increase in
crop yield and better income and improved livelihoods.
ASA also helped to get the communities organized into
SHGs and farmer producer companies that contributed
to empower women.
An organizational assessment and review for ASA was conducted by Mr. Anish Kumar, PRA-
DAN Development Services, Delhi, commissioned by Sir Dorabji Tata Trust in the light of
ASA’s proposal for grant support in May 2011. The study brought out that ASA emerged as a
competent organization with promise for the future. Though enough time had not elapsed to
observe sufficient impact, ASA’s livelihood strategies appeared to be delivering and the initial
progress was encouraging and their works in areas of watershed development, participatory irri-
gation management, PVSP were found to be example-setting. It was found that ASA leveraged
its strengths in planning and solid implementation with high quality work on the ground to un-
lock “potential” from the existing government programmes. There was significant focus on ro-
bust physical structures like check dams, dugwells and canal restorations which were very well
implemented and relevant in the context and such structures helped in building the confidence
of the community.
ASA’s agricultural productivity enhancement interventions aimed at increasing crop productivity
expanded as ASA’s largest programme in terms of staff strength and outreach. Its focus was on
bringing more and more farmers to adopt better production practices and gain remunerative ac-
cess to markets. Observations and interactions with farmers and team members indicated signifi-
cant increase in yield and adoption of agronomic practices like seed replacement, seed treatment
and line sowing. Over the last six years, ASA had been working for establishing farmers’ collec-
tives for Agribusiness Promotion and 40000 small farmers were organized into eighteen farmer
producer companies, FPCs. The typical business lines in the FPCs were seed production, aggre-
gation of agriculture produce and selling, supply of agriculture inputs, and agriculture extension
services.
Summary findings of the review
The review of studies indicated that ASA had worked with marginal and small farmers, with par-
ticular reference to tribal communities, for improving irrigation facilities, better crop initiative,
higher crop production and better remunerative prices for the produce. In addition, ASA has
also worked towards socioeco-
nomic advancement of house-
holds including women empow-
erment through community
based organizations like SHGs
and linking them with micro-
finance activities. The dug well
and minor irrigation programmes
contributed to increase in the ar-
ea under cultivation especially in
the rabi season and increase in
crop yield. Its better cotton and
soybean initiatives contributed to
increase in the crop yield, better income and improved livelihoods. ASA also helped to get the
communities organized into SHGs and farmer producer companies that contributed to empower
women in the villages.
13
Chapter 2
Study Design and Study Locations
In this chapter, we present the research questions (objectives of the study), research method,
sampling, field operations, and an account of the study locations and the study subjects (FGD
participants and interviewed respondents).
Objectives/Research Questions
The objectives or research questions for the study are
1. The implementation approach of ASA vis-a-vis the results: How far has ASA been successful in learning and developing strategies and implementing them on a bigger scale effectively (management effectiveness and cost-effectiveness)?
2. What is the impact of ASA’s interventions on the livelihood of families with respect to area under cultivation, yield increment, food security, reduction in forced migra-tion and creation of more jobs at the farm level and increase in income?
3. Has there been any impact on the environment with respect to land brought under cultivation, on-farm water management, good agriculture practices (GAP), introduc-tion and adoption of modern technology, restoration of common land/common re-sources (like water bodies, forest), diversification of agriculture (like crop varieties, cropping pattern – vegetable cultivation and horticulture) and promotion of minor crops such as millets?
4. How far has ASA’s approach taken the Panchayat into consideration and used re-sources like NREGS? And, how far has ASA’s approach contributed to departmental resources for convergence?
5. To what extent is ASA’s community-institutional model relevant?
6. To what extent has ASA been successful in replicating/scaling up its strategies into a bigger programme?
7. To what extent has ASA influenced government/donors’ policies in scaling up its approach/model/strategies either fully or partially?
8. How does one identify the weak-links in the programme/approach and how can ASA scale-up (double its size) in the next five years?
14
The main objective of the study was to assess the impact
of ASA’s interventions on improving the livelihood of fam-
ilies and to what extent the ASA’s community-institutional
model is relevant.
To fulfill the objectives, a number of FGDs with women
and men, in-depth interviews with community leaders
and programme functionaries and a sample household
survey of 1500 families were conducted.
Methodology
The study involved the following four components
1. A review of findings of earlier studies and observations of ASA programmes (already
presented in Chapter 1)
2. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with farmers/learning group members (men) and
SHG members (women) who were the focus of ASA programmes.
3. In-depth interviews with key stakeholders like village leaders, influential persons, Pan-
chayat/Ward members, government officials in charge of agriculture, water resources
and so on.
4. A household survey (interviews with ASA beneficiary and non-beneficiary households)
to ascertain the benefits and impact of ASA programmes.
Study Area and Sampling
At the outset it must be mentioned that for the implementation of programmes, ASA generally
selected a cluster of about twenty potential villages in a taluk or district, and worked from a cen-
tral place in the area and this central place together with the selected villages is often referred to
as ‘location’ by ASA and the same term is used in this study as well.
The study was conducted in Madhya Pradesh where ASA had contributed the most. In this state,
it was proposed to select a sample of districts and locations of ASA’s intervention programmes
in such a way that the selected
locations represented different
regions, programme components
and durations of implementation
(around three years and seven+
years). Accordingly, from the
three different regions namely
west, east and north, seven dis-
tricts were selected, and from
each selected district one location was selected for field study. In the next stage, from each se-
lected location, 2-7programme villages were selected depending on the number of ASA pro-
gramme locations and villages covered in the district. Accordingly, a total of 34 villages were se-
lected from 7 locations of 7 districts. The list of districts and locations selected and the numbers
of villages covered from each selected location are given in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: List of Locations and Number of Villages Selected for the Sample Study
Region District Location No. of Villages
West Ratlam Ratlam 6
West Jhabua Pitol 7
West Barwani Rajpur 6
East Mandla Mandla 6
East Narsinghpur Saikheda 2
North Tikamgarh Jatara 3
North Chhatarpur Bijawar 4
15
In the selected villages, FGDs with SHG members (women) and learning groups (men) and in-
depth interviews with leaders and ASA functionaries were conducted. In addition, a household
survey was conducted on a sample of 1870 households. A sample of 55 households per village
was considered with the understanding that we will be able to interview around 50 of them.
Probability proportionate to size sampling method was adopted for the selection of villages and
systematic sampling method was adopted for the selection of households. The latest electoral list
served as the sampling frame for the selection of households. With systematic random sampling
method, voters were selected from the list and the households represented by the selected voters
were the households selected for the study.
Study Team and Field work
The study team consisted of two senior faculty members as principal investigators, one senior
research officer as study coordinator, and three research officers as field supervisors (all from
TISS) and 18 field staff of ASA worked as field investigators. It is to be noted that the number
of field investigators was reduced to 14 due to dropouts during the course of field work. The
deployed ASA staff were from different locations, including a few from Bihar where the pro-
gramme had been discontinued and they were used primarily for administering the household
questionnaire.
The planning process for the study started in early November 2014, the training for field staff
was held for one week at Bhopal in mid-December and the survey was conducted between 20th
December 2014 and 21st January 2015.
Coverage of FGDs and Households
With respect to FGDs, the standard protocol for conducting FGD was followed. The partici-
pants were asked to sit in a semi-circle and one moderator (field supervisor) conducted the FGD
with the assistance of one or two investigators as note-takers. A FGD check list was used and
the participants were encouraged to participate actively in the proceedings. The duration of the
FGD session was 60-90 minutes.
The participants were more or less
from a homogenous group; most of
them were middle aged, neo-
literates and marginal and small
farmers. In all, 66 (33 male + 33
female) FGDs were conducted in
33 out of 34 selected villages.
With respect to the household sur-
vey, of the 1870 households select-
ed, a total of 1499 households were interviewed and the coverage worked out to 80 percent. Lo-
cation-wise, the coverage was more than 85 percent in Pitol and Jatara and Bijawar locations, 83
percent in Ratlam location, 76 percent in Mandla and Saikheda locations and only 70 percent in
Rajpur location. The low coverage in Rajpur location and also in a few villages of other locations
was due to seasonal migration after the kharif season. More details are presented in the section
on ‘Seasonal Migration’ in Chapter 4.
16
Limitations of the Study
The land and water resources development (LWRD) programmes of ASA such as check dams
and dug wells are expected to have maximum impact on agricultural production and household
economy, but these programmes were limited to specific areas and to selected households (main-
ly marginal farmers) in the villages. As such, the impact may not reflect much or show significant
differences overall as the beneficiaries are very few.
The agricultural extension and community organization programmes were applicable to all inter-
ested households in the villages and around 50 percent of the households were beneficiaries of
these programmes. The impact of these extension activities depended heavily on how far the
households had actually practised them, which was not assessed (not an objective) in this study.
We could not select ASA beneficiaries and comparable non-beneficiaries in advance as we did
not have the sampling frame. The ASA beneficiary and non-beneficiary classification was made
after the survey (the basis of classification follows in the next section) and therefore, a separate
programme-based analysis of the beneficiaries of specific ASA programmes, especially of LWRD
programme, could not be undertaken as the numbers were small.
The investigators for the household survey were the present and past field workers of ASA,
mainly Village Resource Persons (VRPs). However, we found that they were not favoring ASA
in asking questions and in recording answers for various reasons such as quality checks of the
canvassed questionnaires, strict training and supervision, inclusion of questions to check con-
sistency and above all the commuting distances involved as the area allotted to them was far
from their own work area. Besides, as mentioned above, the ASA beneficiary and non-
beneficiary classification was not made in advance (before field work) and so there was less
scope for the field investigators to be in favour of ASA.
The FGDs were organized with the help of ASA field functionaries, mainly VRPs, but conduct-
ed by the TISS field supervisors. Though the VRPs and sometimes other ASA staff were present
in the group, yet they did not participate in the discussions. They were permitted in the FGDs
mainly to facilitate communication between the participants and moderator because the FGDs
were conducted mainly in tribal villages and the people’s dialect was marginally to substantially
different from the normal Hindi dialect. As such, there may be some bias in the responses of the
FGD participants due to the presence of ASA staff and/or in the interpretation of the responses
by ASA staff and, if any, were unavoidable.
Crop related information such as crop yield and expenditure are based on the farmers’ recall re-
sponses. Usually farmers understate the yield and overstate the expenditure. If so, the estimates
of yield per acre would be lesser and expenditure per acre would be higher. However, if there
were any underestimation or overestimation, it was common between ASA beneficiaries and
non-beneficiaries; therefore the comparison between the two groups is valid but the level of es-
timates may not be real.
ASA Beneficiary Defined
An ASA beneficiary household, or an ASA beneficiary, is a household with one or more of its
members (male, female, or both) enrolled by ASA in any of the ASA promoted self help groups
(SHGs), learning group (LG) and/or farmer producer company (FPC). The benefits were mainly
17
An ASA beneficiary household or an ASA beneficiary, is a
household with one or more of its members (male, female,
or both) enrolled in the ASA promoted self help group
(SHG), learning group (LG) and/or farmer producer com-
pany (FPC), irrespective of whether they have received
some benefits or not.
The benefits were in the form of training, demonstration
and services in agricultural extension activities, small sav-
ings and bank linkages, women empowerment, participa-
tory irrigation management, supply of agricultural inputs
and irrigation facilities.
in the form of training, guidance, demonstration and services in agricultural extension activities,
small savings and bank linkages, women empowerment, participatory irrigation management,
supply of agricultural inputs, and irrigation facilities like dug well, stop/check dam and pond and
field bunding. Generally, the
members have the opportunity
to participate in the
SHG/LG/FPC activities and
benefit from ASA education
and/or service programmes. As
such, in this study, an ASA
beneficiary (household) is a
member household of any of
the three organizations namely
SHG, LG and FPC irrespective
of whether they had actually
participated and benefitted from the programmes or not. The ASA beneficiary concept does not
apply to Ratlam location because these institutions did not exist in the present form when ASA
was active in this location.
It is seen from Table 2.1 that, excluding Ratlam location, overall, 40 percent of the households
were ASA beneficiary households and it ranged from 50 percent in Jatara (Tikamgarh district)
and Bijawar (Chhatarpur district) to 43 percent in Rajpur (Barwani district) and 34 percent in Pi-
tol (Jhabua district), Mandla (Mandala district) and Saikheda (Narsinghpur district) locations. It
was observed in the survey that out of the total households, 77 percent were landholding
(farmer) households (details presented later) and the ASA beneficiaries accounted for 47 percent
of farmer households and 12 percent of landless households. An analysis of ASA beneficiaries by
landholding of households indicated that ASA beneficiaries constituted 38 percent of marginal
farmers with less than 1 acre of land, substantially higher at 50-54 percent of marginal/small
farmers with 1-5 acres of land, slightly less at 46 percent of medium/large farmers (with a land-
holding of more than 5 acres). So it is clear that ASA beneficiaries were not only from marginal
and small farmers but also from medium and large farmers.
Table 2.1: Percentage of ASA Beneficiary Households by Location and Caste Class, Classified by Landholding of Household
Location/ Caste class Size of Landholding
Total Nil <=1.0 1.1-2.5 2.6-5.0 5.1+ >0
All 40.0 11.9 38.3 50.3 54.1 46.3 46.7
District/Location
Pitol 33.7 15.8 29.7 36.6 44.1 50.0 34.8
Rajpur 42.9 7.0 36.6 67.3 50.0 48.6 51.4
Mandla and Saikheda 34.6 14.7 40.9 52.9 51.0 8.3 45.2
Jatara and Bijawar 50.0 8.8 52.9 58.6 63.6 60.0 58.7
Caste Class
Scheduled Caste 30.8 7.0 33.3 54.8 43.8 0.0 42.2
Scheduled Tribe 39.8 16.1 34.6 49.1 52.4 51.3 44.6
Other Backward Class 45.5 7.1 55.0 51.2 58.7 48.6 53.9
General class 30.3 8.3 50.0 57.1 66.7 14.3 42.9 Notes: ASA beneficiary classification is not applicable to Ratlam location where ASA stopped its
interventions before the introduction of SHG/FPC concept. Caste class and landholding pattern of households is discussed later in this chapter and subsequent ones.
18
A further analysis of ASA beneficiaries by caste class of households indicated that ASA benefi-
ciaries constituted 46 percent among Other Backward Class (OBC) households, 40 percent
among Scheduled Tribes and 30 percent among Scheduled Castes and general class. Within
landholding households (farmers), the proportion of ASA beneficiaries was 54 percent among
Other Backward Class (OBC) and 42-45 percent among all other caste classes including Sched-
uled Tribes. However, among landless households, a larger proportion of 16 percent of ST
households as against 7-8 percent of non-ST (SC, OBC and General class) households were ASA
beneficiaries.
Study Locations - A Brief Account
Before looking at the study findings, it is worthwhile to have an understanding of the topogra-
phy, type of people and agricultural facilities in the locations studied. In this section, we provide
a brief account of the study locations, namely Ratlam in Ratlam district, Pitol in Jhabua district,
Rajpur in Barwani district, Mandla in Mandla district, Saikheda in Narsinghpur district, Jatara in
Tikamgarh district and Bijawar in Chhatarpur district. The ASA programme locations and the
TISS study locations are depicted in the map given below.
Ratlam location in Ratlam district, situated in the Malwa Plateau, extends up to the Vindhya
ranges. The soil of the area is predominantly black. The harsh summer causes the forest to dry.
For the present impact assessment study, six villages of Ratlam block were selected and the six
selected villages had very little or no forest cover. No river flows close to the sample villages.
However, there are a few streams that flow through these villages and they are used by ASA for
19
irrigation in the villages by constructing masonry dams on these streams. The villages have a
mixed population consisting SC, ST, OBC and general category, including a number of Muslims.
Among the OBCs, Patidar and Gurjar communities are dominant, and Bhil tribals are largely
found in this area. In the villages, the different caste communities are located in different colo-
nies and the caste boundaries influence the social mobility of the villagers.
Jhabua district is located in the western part of Madhya Pradesh and it is a hilly area and the
study location, Pitol is also a hilly area. In this area, people are predominantly tribal belonging to
the Bhil community, houses are scattered and households are economically backward. Though
there is connectivity, most of the roads are kuchcha. Piped water supply is rare in the villages and
people depend on hand pumps and open wells to meet their household water requirements.
Primary school and anganwadi centres are available within or very near to the villages but for
medical care people have to travel long distances.
Most of the households in Rajpur location of Barwani district are Scheduled Tribes (largely be-
longing to Bhilala and Barela communities) and a few belonging to OBC. This location is largely
a plain area with water facilities from a dam and dug wells. For most of the villages in this loca-
tion, Rajpur is the nearest town for marketing and buying agricultural goods. Farming is the main
occupation for most of the households. All villages have a primary school, but health facilities
are far away from their villages. The villages are well connected by road, and private transport
facilities (bus/jeep/auto) are available in the villages.
Mandla is a tribal district and is situated in the south-eastern part of Madhya Pradesh. The study
villages are mainly tribal villages located at a distance from each other and the houses are scat-
tered. Gond among STs is the predominant tribal community found in the villages, followed by
the Yadav community (OBC).
Saikheda location in Narsinghpur district is situated in the loop of River Narmada, located in the
south-east of Madhya Pradesh. The black soil of Narsinghpur is blessed by River Narmada. Ow-
ing to the availability of Narmada water, paddy and sugarcane are cultivated in this region. Most
of the people belong to the Gurjar (OBC) community and a few belong to Karar and Thakur
communities.
The districts, Tikamgarh and Chhatarpur are adjacent to each other and located in the northern
part of Madhya Pradesh. The study locations are away from the urban nodes but the households
within the villages are clustered (not scattered). The villages have electricity and people depend
on open wells and hand pumps for their household water requirements. Transportation facilities
are available but are mainly private buses, jeeps and tempos. The internal roads in the villages are
kuchcha but the nearby towns are connected by pucca roads.
Socioeconomic Profile of Households
In this section, a profile of the households and population of the study locations based on the
household survey is presented. The socioeconomic profile of the households was captured
through the household questionnaire.
A few socioeconomic aspects of the households as per the survey such as caste class, type of
house, electrification of house, sources of water for household use, toilet facility and possession
of modern articles in the households are presented. Generally, ASA works in areas where people
are predominantly tribal and backward. The households in the sample also confirmed the same.
20
Overall 60 percent of the study population belonged to tribal
communities ranging from over 90 percent in west-MP to 50-60
percent on East MP to just around 10 percent in north-MP.
Three-fourths of the households live in kuchcha houses, but 80-
90 percent of the houses are electrified.
The source of water for household use was largely tap in Ratlam
and Rajpur locations, hand-pump in Pitol location and a combi-
nation of tap, hand-pump and open well in the other locations.
Most of the households possessed mobile phones followed by
electric fan. Other items including TV were possessed by only a
few households.
Table 2.2 gives the caste class composition of the households by location. Overall, 60 percent of
the study population belonged to tribal communities, ranging from 94-97 percent in Rajpur and
Pitol locations, 52-56 percent in Ratlam, Mandla and Saikheda locations and just 11 percent in
Jatara and Bijawar locations. In Jatara and Bijawar locations as many as 61 percent of the study
population belonged to Other Backward Class (OBC). The tribals in Tikamgarh and Chhatarpur
districts as a whole were few and hence the study locations also have less ST population.
Table 2.2: Caste Composition of Households by Location
Caste class
Total
Location
Ratlam Pitol Rajpur Mandla & Saikheda
Jatara & Bijawar
Total (N) 1499 275 335 226 335 328
Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Scheduled Caste 12.6 20.4 2.7 0.0 15.2 22.3
Scheduled Tribe 60.2 56.0 97.3 93.8 51.9 11.0
Other Backward Caste 23.8 17.1 0.0 5.8 29.3 60.7
None (General) 3.4 6.5 0.0 0.4 3.6 6.1
Table 2.3 presents (location-wise) socioeconomic factors of the study population such as type of
house, electrification of house, toilet facility, sources of water for household use and modern ar-
ticles possessed. With respect to type of house, only 12-17 percent of the households live in
RCC/pucca houses except in Pitol location where it was just 2 percent and most (around three-
fourths) of the households live in kuchcha houses. With respect to electrification of house, it was
observed that 80-90 percent of the households were electrified except in Pitol location where it
was only 61 percent.
The source of water for household use was largely tap (household/common) in Ratlam and Raj-
pur locations (around 85 percent), largely hand-pump in Pitol location (88 percent) and a combi-
nation of tap, hand-pump
and open well in the other
locations (Mandla,
Saikheda, Jatara and Bija-
war). Very few house-
holds in the study popula-
tion had toilet facility (of
any type including pit toi-
let) and it varied from 34
percent in Ratlam location
to 15-20 percent in Raj-
pur, Mandla and Saikheda
locations, and just 1-5
percent in the other locations - Pitol, Jatara and Bijawar. Though Jatara and Bijawar are largely
non-tribal areas, they have the least number of households with toilet facility.
Among the many modern household items listed, only mobile phone was possessed by most of
the households (80-90 percent). Electric fan was possessed by around 70-74 percent of the
households in Ratlam and Rajpur locations, 40-50 percent of the households in Mandla,
Saikheda, Jatara and Bijawar locations and just 6 percent of the households in Pitol location.
Other items like Television Set, Scooter/Bike/Moped were possessed by around 50 percent of
the households in Ratlam and Rajpur locations and only 25 percent of the households in the
other locations.
21
Table 2.3: Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Study Population by Location
Socioeconomic factors
Total Ratlam Pitol Rajpur
Mandla and
Saikheda
Jatra and
Bijawar
ASA Beneficiary
Yes No
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Type of House
RCC/Pucca 12.3 17.1 1.8 17.3 11.6 16.2 12.2 10.5
Semi-Pucca 14.8 24.7 2.4 32.7 14.0 7.6 14.9 11.0
Kuchcha 72.9 58.2 95.8 50.0 74.3 76.2 72.9 78.5
House Electrified 81.7 95.3 60.9 93.4 84.8 80.2 85.7 73.8
Toilet Facility
Flush 11.0 29.1 0.3 14.6 11.3 4.0 8.0 6.3
Pit/Community 3.4 4.7 0.3 0.9 8.4 2.1 2.9 3.3
None 85.6 66.2 99.4 84.5 80.3 93.9 89.2 90.5
Sources of Water for HH Use*
Tap own/common 42.0 82.9 0.6 86.7 47.5 13.7 27.3 36.5
Hand pump 52.0 53.1 88.4 23.9 38.2 47.6 49.4 53.4
Open Well 25.8 19.6 10.1 9.7 37.0 46.3 34.7 22.1
Household Items Possessed*
Landline / Mobile Telephone 84.1 91.3 78.5 91.2 79.1 83.8 84.3 81.2
Electric Fan 45.1 70.5 6.0 74.3 40.6 48.2 47.3 34.1
Television Set 28.5 47.3 2.1 60.2 25.1 21.3 28.4 21.5
Scooter / Bike / Moped 23.5 35.3 9.9 56.6 13.4 14.9 24.3 18.5
Cable / DTHConnection 22.9 33.8 2.1 56.2 20.9 14.0 24.1 18.0
None of The Above 11.5 5.1 20.3 4.0 17.0 7.6 9.8 15.1 * Multiple responses applicable. Note: Other HH items like Air cooler, Mixer/Grinder, Refrigerator, etc. were owned by less than 4% of the house-
holds
It was observed that ASA beneficiary households were marginally better off than non-beneficiary
households according to most of the indicators and socioeconomic factors analyzed. The pro-
portion of households living in RCC/pucca or Semi-pucca houses was 27 percent among ASA
beneficiary households as compared to 21 percent among non-beneficiary households. While 86
percent of the beneficiary households were electrified, it was only 74 percent among non-
beneficiary households. Similarly, a slightly higher proportion of beneficiary households than
non-beneficiary households possessed modern articles. However, regarding other factors such as
toilet facility and piped drinking water supply, there was not much difference between the two
groups.
22
Chapter 3
Reach of ASA Programmes
In the first chapter, we presented a broad account of ASA’s activities and the experiences of
ASA beneficiaries in different locations. The activities and experiences presented here are in the
voices of ASA (provider of services) and ASA beneficiaries (farmers in the villages). For this we
have adopted two methods - discussions with ASA functionaries and focus group discussions
(FGDs) with farmers (men and women). Needless to say that people report only what they have
seen directly and/or received, and as such the whole gamut of ASA’s activities may not be re-
flected in the FGDs and functionary interviews.
Common Activities of ASA across Locations
From the FGDs and discussions with ASA functionaries, it was evident that the ASA pro-
grammes in different locations were basically the same, though there were some differences de-
pending on the local topography, irrigation potential, cropping pattern and the like. Further, the
programmes were in operation in different locations for different durations and the programme
components were also changed or modified from time to time. As the programme components
were same or similar, we have decided to present the FGD cum in-depth discussion reports on
the whole rather than location-wise. However, area specific programmes are discussed separately.
ASA was building on mainly three types of institutions, namely learning group for men, SHGs
for women and farmer producer companies for agriculture-marketing. Water users group as ac-
tivity based groups were also formed by the members of self-help groups (SHGs) and learning
groups (LGs) in the villages to look after works related to stop dams, tanks, lift irrigation and
canal restoration.
SHGs and Learning Groups
ASA formed SHGs with women as the basic institution in the villages. SHG is used as a founda-
tional platform for all interventions of ASA. In Ratlam, however, the activities were withdrawn
before such an institution took root in the villages. ASA went to some places, especially, in Raj-
pur and Narsighpur, with Better Cotton Initiatives and Responsible Soybean Project, under
which they had to form Learning Groups to start the activities. They strategized the programme
over a period of time and formed SHGs with woman headed households from the families of
learning groups. Over a period, the LGs were completely replaced with the SHGs. Through the
SHG formation, ASA wanted to empower women by involving them in social participation,
household decision making, financial control and small savings. In addition, the participation of
women in the SHGs was utilized to disseminate information of good agricultural practices and
also equip them to manage their agricultural activities.
23
According to FGD participants, ASA provided training on better cotton initiative (BCI), responsible crop initia-tive (RCI), record keeping of SHGs, land preparation, preparation of matka khad, panch patti khad, use of safety kits, line sowing, space cultivation method, burn-ing of waste at a corner of the field instead of burning crop residue in the whole field, seed treatment and so on.
Farmer Producer Companies
In order to facilitate the farmers with marketing facilities for agricultural inputs (like seeds, ferti-
lizers and pesticides) and outputs (mainly sale of crop yield and seed production), ASA estab-
lished a farmer producer company (FPC) in each location in which it was working with farmers.
The members of SHGs can become shareholders in the FPCs, and most of the women FGD
participants informed that they were members of the respective FPCs.
Every ASA programme location (consisting of 20-25 villages) has a farmer producer company
(FPC) and most of the SHG members are shareholders of the FPC with a minimum sharehold-
ing of Rs. 500, or 25 shares with a face value of Rs. 20 each. In some FGDs, it emerged that ear-
lier the minimum shareholding was Rs. 200, and now it has increased to Rs. 500. The FPCs have
their own names in different locations. The objective of the FPC is to facilitate the farmers to
obtain quality agricultural inputs like seeds, fertilizers and pesticides at reasonable prices and to
sell their crop produce at remunerative prices with minimized role of middlemen. Whatever
profits the FPC makes go back to it at least partly in terms of bonus and additional shares to its
members.
Capacity Building on Good Agricultural Practices
The participants in many FGDs said that they took part in different ASA sponsored training
programmes such as training on better cotton initiative (BCI), responsible crop initiative (RCI),
record keeping (SHG), land prepa-
ration, preparation of matka khad
(organic manure), panch patti khad
(pesticide), use of safety kits, line
sowing, space cultivation method,
burning of waste at a corner of the
field instead of burning crop resi-
due in the whole field, seed treat-
ment, and so on. In some FGDs, the participants said that ASA had distributed safety kits to the
farmers. Majority of the participants agreed that ASA had given them hands on experiences and
field demonstrations in various aspects of agricultural practices.
Most of the participants claimed that they were aware of how to use pesticides in the farm, to
avoid health hazards by covering the face with mask, wearing gloves and spraying in the direc-
tion of the wind. They mentioned that earlier they did not use masks or gloves and they were
getting skin diseases, fever, headache and breathing problems and after the training they started
using safety kits supplied by ASA or wearing mask and gloves to protect themselves from skin
and respiratory diseases. Farmers who did not receive safety kits said that they were using plastic
bags while applying chemical pesticides and fertilizers as taught by ASA to prevent skin prob-
lems and other health hazards. ASA has also distributed a yellow sticky card (traps) for insect
control as insects would stick in the traps and thus the farmer’s crop could be saved. However,
the distribution of the yellow card was not widespread.
Matka khad was one of the activities in the villages. However, not all the farmers were making
matka khad due to limitations and practical difficulties. All farmers did not have a number of live-
stock and so it was not possible for them to make matka khad for their entire field. Those who
reported that they were using organic fertilizer (Matka khad) said that their crop yield had in-
creased substantially.
24
Preparation of Matka Khad (fertilizer) and Panch Patti Khad (pesticide) in the field
Mustard crop under RCI at Jatara
The respondents who participated in the household survey (Table 3.1) also confirmed their par-
ticipation in ASA activities and training programmes. Around 50 percent of the respondents
mentioned that ASA has conducted activities like responsible crop initiative drive and seed
treatment demonstration/education in their villages. In addition, distribution of kisan safety kit,
nutrient and pest management and soil conservation measures were mentioned by 15-25 percent
of the respondents. Apart from these, vegetable garden, minor irrigation, sprinklers/drip sys-
tems, NREGS, water harvesting structures, horticulture/agro forestry, group lift irrigation and
microfinance were also reportedly promoted in some locations.
25
Location Specific Activities of ASA
Location specific activities of ASA are mainly related to land and water resources development.
These activities differ from location to location and we highlight them only in the study loca-
tions. However, it is to be mentioned that according to ASA, funding for land and water re-
sources development activities are scarce nowadays and so there is a shift in the programme
components towards good agricultural practices. Here we provide an account of what our survey
team has learned from the FGD participants and/or observed in the study locations. It may not
be concluded that these are the only activities of ASA and it may have undertaken some more
activities in the same locations, which the study team failed to capture due to some limitations.
Ratlam
ASA’s activities in Ratlam location were largely related to land and water resources development.
In most of the villages, the organization had implemented watershed projects under which check
dams and ponds were constructed. Among the six sample villages studied, the organization had
constructed check dams in four villages and ponds in the other two villages. ASA had withdrawn
its activities from these villages a few years ago but now it has resumed its activities in a few vil-
lages with different programme components such as organizing SHGs and Farmer Producer
Company.
In the FGDs, participants stated that the organization worked hard to complete the construction
works in the given time with the help of the villagers. Each dam built by ASA brought 60+ acres
of land under irrigation. The agricultural land located on the banks of the stream on which the
dam was constructed, could be watered with the help of a motor pump. Subsequently, the water
table in the nearby wells increased. Participants said that earlier the wells used to dry up by Oc-
tober/November but after building the dams, water was available even for rabi crops. In Dharad,
Kaneri and Sagod villages, a dam cum bridge was constructed. Road facility that did not exist
earlier between these villages was made available with this bridge. Similarly, the pond constructed
in Morwani village increased the water table in the nearby wells.
Unfortunately, in two of the sampled villages, the water users groups formed by ASA for the
maintenance of dams ceased to exist due to internal disputes among the villagers, leaving the
dams dysfunctional.
Pitol
There were three small lift irrigation projects
in the study villages, namely Ghatiya, Kala-
pan and Lembella and each project irrigates
7-10 acres of land. According to ASA func-
tionaries there were check dams in three vil-
lages, Lembella, Gavsar and Nagankhedi
Ratna with irrigation capacity of 29 acres, 17
acres and 12 acres respectively. They also
reported that ASA had given a total of 16
drip sets (nearly one acre each) free of cost to
the farmers in the study villages (Piplipada-3,
Ghatiya-2, Kakradara khurd-4, Gavsar-2,
Nagankhedi Ratna-1, Kalapan-3,Lembella-1). Cropped area with field bunding, Pitol (presentation by villagers)
26
The participants in four villages Gavsar, Kalapan, Lembella and NaganKhedi Ratna said that
ASA has done field bunding in their villages. Nearly half of the FGD participants in three villag-
es Lembella, Gavsar and Nagankedi Ratna said that because ASA had constructed the Check
dams, there was a rise in the water level in their wells, which was used for irrigation.
Rajpur
ASA took participatory irrigation management (PIM) project in Rajpur and formed Water Users
Group (WUG) for canal irrigation. The farmers said that with this the area under irrigation in-
creased. Many farmers said
that earlier they were culti-
vating only kharif crops,
but now they were able to
cultivate rabi crops as well.
While the WUG took care
of the functioning of PIM,
the expenditure on gates,
electrification and required
technical support was pro-
vided by ASA. In addition,
according to the FGD par-
ticipants, in Atarsambha
village three dug wells were
constructed by ASA and 8
to 10 acres of land was irrigat-
ed. In Bajjata, 11 dug-wells were made and 30 acres of land was brought under irrigation. Similar-
ly in Limbai village, 15 acres of land was brought under irrigation with two dug-wells.
Mandla
ASA aptly recognized the need for creating a sustainable source of water supply and thus in one
of the villages, Bakshera Dona, a Lift Irrigation project was implemented. The water from Nar-
mada River was lifted to irrigate approximately 200 acres of land.
Recognizing the need for advancing paddy cultivation, System of Rice Intensification (SRI) Pro-
gramme was introduced. The organization identified active and needy farmers to involve them
directly into the programme. The selected farmers were organized into Farmers Field School.
The schools organized learning sessions by delivering regular lectures, demonstrations, practical
hands-on training and exposure tours. SRI techniques were taught to the farmers to cut the cost
of cultivation and eventually increase the crop production.
With the successful implementation of SRI and positive developments in paddy cultivation, the
organization intervened to improve rabi cultivation with System of Wheat Intensification and
System of Intensification programmes. Further, the scope of ASA’s work broadened with the
introduction of programmes such as Dug wells, Wadi Project (NABARD)3 and Participatory
Water Management.
3Wadi is a Gujarati word and it means a small orchard. Wadi project is a tree-based farming system that
consists of fruit trees suitable to the area or a combination of trees with forestry species.
Water user group meeting in Rajpur location
27
The Wadi Project initiated by NABARD was effectively implemented by ASA at the ground lev-
el in Mandla location. In each village, many of the farmers associated with ASA are benefited by
the said project. Under this project, farmers were supplied with 30 saplings of mangoes and 30
lemons to develop a wadi. Few farmers also received amla, guava, vegetable seeds, etc. Financial
assistance and expert guidance were offered to the farmers by ASA’s functionaries. Villagers who
used to migrate to nearby towns during the rabi and summer seasons are now busy with horticul-
ture and vegetable cultivation in their own land.
Saikheda
In Saikheda location, in the initial years, ASA approached the villagers for building check dams.
In the FGDs, it was noted that a dam was built by ASA with a contribution of 75 percent from
ASA and the remaining 25 percent by the villagers. According to the FGD participants, interest-
ed and financially able farmers were organized and a water user group (WUG) was formed.
However, the dam was not well maintained by the WUG. The Water User Group is dysfunction-
al now. The participants said that most of the farmers have tube well to draw water and very few
used the dam water. Later, considering the large cultivation of paddy in this area, ASA focused
on improving the paddy cultivation by introducing ‘System of Rice Intensification’ programme.
In addition, the SHG women benefitted with bio-gas schemes and poultry business that were
implemented by ASA in these villages. These programmes were said to have been funded by M.
S. Swaminathan Research Foundation under a grant from the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust.
Jatara and Bijawar
With regard to land and water resources development, according to the FGD participants ASA
had provided 10 dug wells in three out of the 4 villages studied in Bijawar location of Chhat-
tarpur district and 24 dug wells in 3 selected villages of Jatara location in Tikamgarh district.
These dug wells together irrigated about 150 acres of land belonging to nearly 90 farmers. In ad-
dition, ASA had constructed 1 check dam in Gulat village irrigating 150 acres and benefitting 50
to 60 farmers. In Jatara location of Tikamgarh district ASA had constructed 4 check dams in the
study villages which have the Water User’s Group and adjoining fields are irrigated with the wa-
ter. A few FGD participants reported that the check dams were having less water for the rabi
season so they were unable to irrigate the rabi crop completely.
A check dam in Jatara location built with the assistance of ASA
28
Majority of the FGD participants were happy with ASA’s interventions in their villages.
They are now growing crops in rabi season more often due to the LWRD programmes.
The quantity of cotton seed required per acre reduced almost by half due to line sowing.
The main crop is prevented from the direct attack of insects by planting border crops.
The bottom-up method of plucking cotton has reduced the damage of cotton at the bottom side.
Use of chemical fertilizer and pesticide has re-duced and many farmers apply own organic products.
ASA also provided 13 drip sets to the farmers. Further in four of the seven study villages namely
Mastapur, Nadhiya, Patan and Gulat, ASA has done field bunding and land leveling. Because of
the bunding there is more moisture retention in the land and as a result the villagers were able to
plant a rabi crop on residual moisture, mainly Mustard or Chick Pea; thus the cropping intensity
has increased.
The household survey participants (Table 3.1) also confirmed the land and water resources de-
velopment activities of ASA. Across the location, around one-third of the respondents men-
tioned construction of group dug-wells as ASA’s activity in their villages. In addition, stop-
dam/check-dam, earthen tank, watershed, dug out pond/farm pond and soil conservation
measures were mentioned by 15-25 percent of the respondents. Apart from these, minor irriga-
tion, sprinklers/drip Systems, NREGS, water harvesting structures, horticulture/agro forestry,
group lift irrigation and credit linkage of SHGs with the banks were also reportedly promoted in
some locations.
Benefits Received
Majority of the FGD participants were happy with ASA’s interventions in their villages. They
said that they are growing crops in the rabi season more often now due to the land and water re-
sources development programmes. It was understood from the responses of the FGD partici-
pants that while ASA did not introduce
any new crop except to some extent in
some areas, they contributed to new
methods and techniques of cultivation
such as line sowing, border crops, safe
application of fertilizer and pesticides,
change in plucking method (of cotton),
proper method of storage and so on.
According to the FGD participants, all
these contributed to increase in crop
yield and safe storage of grains and
thereby, their household income and
savings have improved.
In a few FGDs, farmers reported that the quantity of cotton seed required per acre reduced al-
most by half after ASA’s intervention. Earlier they used to broadcast the seeds but now they
adopted line sowing, distant method and/or putting one or two seeds only per pit, due to which
the seed requirement per acre reduced significantly. Line sowing also cuts the cost of cultivation
as the expenditure on seeds has reduced and farmers could save up to Rs.1800-2000 on cotton
seeds per acre. A few farmers started growing border crops as well. They mentioned that plant-
ing border crops prevented a direct attack on the main crop by insects. Men FGD participants
said that they changed the cotton plucking method as advised by ASA, and now they plucked
cotton from the bottom to the top of the plant rather than from top to bottom. This method of
plucking cotton has reduced the damage of cotton at the bottom. They have also learnt that cot-
ton should not be stored close to the wall and agriculture waste should be burnt in a corner of
the field rather than putting fire to the whole field.
According to FGD participants, the use of chemical based products has reduced in the wake of
ASA’s interventions. Majority of the farmers trained by ASA now prepare and apply their own
29
With the formation of SHGs by ASA, women are now more empowered and they participate in social activities more often than earlier.
Now SHGs have become the best source to save a small part of their household income.
The financial needs of many households are at least partly taken care of by the SHGs as they are linked with banks.
organic products. Participants also stated that preparation of organic products has put organic
waste into right use. However, farmers face practical problems, not all farmers have enough cat-
tle to make the organic products. For vermi compost, worms were provided by ASA once. Both
men and women participants shared that use of chemical products is hazardous to their soil and
to their health.
In Mandla, ASA has also focused on horticulture and vegetable cultivation to make alternate op-
tions available for traditional agriculture practitioners. Under the wadi project, farmers received
mango and lemon saplings to develop
wadis, and also financial assistance. In Bak-
shera Dona as many as 46 wadis were estab-
lished on the hill top that was earlier a bar-
ren land. The beneficiaries are extremely
satisfied over investing in horticulture and
are optimistic about the benefits they will
receive in the future. It was also noted that
the migration in rabi season has reduced as
the farmers are now engaged in rabi cultivation or plantation. However, they found that vegeta-
ble cultivation was more suitable for small farmers since the returns are received seasonally, in a
short span of time. On the other hand, horticulture is a long term investment and the benefits
are not enjoyed immediately; therefore only those who have large landholdings can do plantation
alongside cultivating other crops.
SHGs and Credit Linkages with Banks for Financial Inclu-sion
With the formation of SHGs by ASA, women are now better empowered to come out of their
houses and participate in social activities. The SHG meetings are held regularly, twice a month,
by the respective VRPs. Suitable training and guidance is offered for on-going agriculture activi-
ty. In many FGDs, women participants said that training programmes were held in December
2014, in tune with the rabi cultivation (FGDs were conducted in January 2015).
Women also believed that it was the best source to save a small part of their household income,
as money was not saved earlier. The average amount saved in the SHGs varied between Rs 30 to
Rs 50 per month. Being a part of SHGs, some women have been empowered to do bank trans-
actions and other related activities independently. In some locations, women said that they are
involved in the household decision making process and also hold the financial powers, and in
other locations like Mandla, the decision making powers still remained in the hands of male head
who took decisions related to agriculture and household expenses.
Women said that earlier they availed of huge loans from money lenders for marriage and agricul-
ture due to which they were not able to come out of the economic crisis but now their financial
needs are partly taken care of by the SHGs. Further, the farmers’ requirement of loans was at
least partly fulfilled because of SHGs promoted by ASA through bank linkages. Most of the
SHGs are said to have been linked to banks. The organization aims to improve the socioeco-
nomic status of women farmers and also to create income generating opportunities.
30
Many farmers prefer to buy fertilizer, pesticide, seed and other agricultural products from the FPC as they get quality products at reasonable prices.
Farmers also sell their produce through FPCs and get a remunerative price.
However, as of now, only a few FPCs are very active and many others are at their development stage.
Experience with Farmer Producer Companies
The confidence of the marginalized tribal farmers was boosted as they are given a vital role to
play in running the Farmer Producer Company (FPC). The stakeholders of FPCs preferred to
buy fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and other agricultural products from FPC. The reasons stated by
the FGD participants for the preference of FPC were quality products, reasonable prices and
convenient supply (often products are supplied in their villages itself). In a few FGDs, partici-
pants said that private shop-keepers charge Rs. 100 to 150 extra on Urea bag by creating an arti-
ficial crisis at peak demand period and do black marketing, so also of other items, but from FPC
they get quality items with only Rs. 10-Rs.15/bag on top of Government price as handling
charge.
Most of the FGD participants said that the village resource person (VRP) makes a list of the
farmers who wanted to buy seeds, fertilizers and pesticides from FPC, and supply them in the
villages itself, thereby reducing travel time and cost.
However, there were few instances that the delivery of the products was delayed and in such cas-
es, the farmers had to buy the products from open market. Further, in a few FGDs, participants
complained that the quality of seeds sold in the FPC outlet was not good. They said that good
quality seeds are generally covered with some powder but the seeds distributed by the FPC do
not have that. When the matter was cross checked with ASA functionaries, they mentioned that
the seeds came in large quantities and they had to make smaller quantity bags to suit the need of
the small farmers, otherwise it was nothing like supplying low quality seeds. ASA is promoting
Ajeet 455 (cotton seed) and according to them the price for Ajeet was Rs. 930 in the open mar-
ket but the FPC was selling it for Rs. 890 per bag to the farmers.
Farmers who recently sold their cotton to the FPC said that they got Rs.5100 per quintal at farm
gate and they were happy as the rate was higher than that in the open market (ranging from
Rs.4500-Rs.4700 per quintal). ASA got BCI license for the BCI farmers and due to good demand
of BCI certified cotton, the farmers gained more in comparison to the non-BCI farmers. It is
worth mentioning that ASA in Rajpur
location of Barwani has been working
with over 12000 farmers for BCI cot-
ton cultivation. Even the companies
were also demanding for BCI cotton.
It appears that as of now FPC deals
mainly with the procurement of cot-
ton along with seeds of soybean,
wheat, paddy and chick pea, which the
farmers produce under their technical guidance, get them certified and procure for further pro-
cessing to sell in the market. In Rajpur location, the FPC, in collaboration with a big company, is
producing BT Cotton seeds with the farmers of the area. The net gain per acre is about
Rs.40000.They did it for 7 acres in 2013 and for 21 acres in 2014. Linkage with the company is
strengthened for more demand so that the area can be developed as a cluster of BT and hybrid
seed production hub.
In some FPCs especially in Saikheda, some farmers expressed their disappointment over the
functioning of the FPC. The men were unhappy with the supply of products. It was said in the
FGDs in Saikheda that the demand for Urea was sent this year, the FPC also accepted, but even-
tually it did not fulfill the requirements and at the last moment farmers had to buy it from the
31
open market. On the same issue, ASA functionaries informed us that there was a shortage of
urea in the open market too.
Table 3.1: ASA Activities in the Villages as perceived by Farmers Classified by Location and RCI Membership
ASA Activities
District/Location RCI member
Total Ratlam Pitol Rajpur Mandla& Saikheda
Jatara& Bijawar Yes No
Landholding Households 1154 165 316 183 219 271 462 527
Formation of SHG 54.4 18.8 41.8 76.0 59.8 72.0 87.2 36.8
Responsible Crop Initiative 48.6 7.9 47.8 57.4 31.5 82.3 77.5 36.1
Seed Treatment 47.7 8.5 31.0 71.6 45.7 76.4 75.3 35.7
Formation of FPC 46.5 4.2 41.5 63.4 44.3 68.6 77.7 32.4
Training/Exposure Events 34.7 2.4 27.8 34.4 26.0 69.4 56.7 25.4
Group Dug-Wells 31.8 6.7 46.5 23.5 3.7 58.3 45.0 28.1
Varietal Selection&Promotion 30.4 4.8 31.0 46.4 21.5 41.7 49.1 22.0
Seed Processing(Value Chain) 27.6 1.2 22.5 58.5 29.2 27.3 46.5 19.2
Stop Dam/Check Dams 23.7 17.0 25.6 11.5 8.7 45.8 30.3 19.9
Dist’n of Kisan Safety Kit 23.6 1.2 12.7 44.8 17.4 40.6 40.5 15.7
Nutrient and Pest Management 21.5 0.0 13.3 26.2 17.8 43.9 37.4 14.2
Earthen Tank 20.9 9.7 28.2 18.0 3.7 35.1 27.1 19.0
Watershed 19.4 12.7 38.3 0.0 1.8 28.8 27.1 14.8
Dug out Ponds/Farm Ponds 19.2 9.7 26.6 9.8 0.5 38.0 26.0 16.3
Soil Conservation 18.0 3.6 32.9 12.0 1.8 26.6 27.7 14.0
Vegetable Garden 14.7 0.0 13.9 27.3 11.0 19.2 26.8 8.7
Minor Irrigation 14.3 6.7 27.8 3.3 0.5 21.8 21.2 10.6
Sprinklers/Drip Systems 13.0 0.6 13.9 39.3 3.7 9.2 23.6 7.6
NREGS 12.2 0.0 12.3 16.9 5.0 22.1 21.0 8.3
Water Harvesting Structures 12.1 2.4 25.9 3.3 0.0 17.7 17.7 10.2
Horticulture/Agro Forestry 10.1 0.0 7.0 21.3 12.3 10.3 18.6 5.7
Group Lift Irrigation 9.8 3.0 16.5 5.5 5.9 12.2 15.6 6.8
Microfinance 7.1 0.0 2.2 24.0 6.8 5.9 13.6 3.6
Boundary Walls Making 1.4 1.2 1.9 1.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.7
32
In the study areas, more than three-fourths of the households possessed agricultural land and it varied from 60 to 94 percent in different locations. Around a half of the land possessed by the households was irrigated.
The proportion of farmers possessing more than 5 acres of land was 10-20 percent only in different locations, indicating that most of the farmers were marginal and small farmers.
The landholding pattern did not differ much between ASA beneficiary households and non-beneficiary households.
Agricultural land transfer was very minimal in the study areas.
Chapter 4
Impact of ASA Interventions
This chapter provides an account of the impact of ASA interventions on landholding and irriga-
tion, crop cultivation and crop yield, food security and seasonal migration as per the household
survey. The interviewed households were divided into two groups, namely ASA beneficiary
households and non-beneficiary households, and also into five survey locations. The survey loca-
tions were Ratlam in Ratlam district, Pitol in Jhabua district, Rajpur in Barwani district, Mandla
in Mandla district, Saikheda in Narsinghpur district, Jatara in Tikamgarh district and Bijawar in
Chhatarpur district and the district and location names are used interchangeably. It is to be noted
that for purposes of analysis, Mandla and Saikheda locations are combined into one group, Jatara
and Bijawar locations are combined into another group, and Ratlam, Pitol and Rajpur locations
are retained as three different groups. In this analysis, the “Total” is based on all surveyed
households including those in Ratlam location, but the “ASA beneficiary households” and “non-
beneficiary households” are based on all households excluding those in Ratlam location.
Landholding
ASA activities are reportedly centered on farmers with marginal and small landholdings. Further
ASA helps farmers to increase their agricultural landholding in general and irrigated landholding
in particular by providing services for land development and irrigation potential (dug wells and
minor irrigation) activities. So it is important to look at the landholding pattern of households,
increase in land under irrigation in recent years.
Table 4.1a shows that in the study population, nearly 77 percent of the households had agricul-
tural land and it was as high as 94 percent in Pitol, 81-83 percent in Rajpur, Jatara and Bijawar
locations and 60-65 percent in Ratlam, Mandla and Saikheda locations. While 94 percent of the
ASA beneficiary house-
holds possessed land, it was
only 72 percent among
non-beneficiary house-
holds, which is expected
because ASA works mostly
with marginal and small
farmers. Among the land-
holding households (farm-
ers), about 70 percent pos-
sessed up to 2.5 acres of
land (marginal farmers) including one-third of the households who possessed only up to one
acre of land (not shown in table). On the other hand, the proportion of farmers possessing more
than 5 acres of land was 17-19 percent in Ratlam and Rajpur locations and less than 10 percent
33
in the other locations. That is, only a small proportion of the households were medium and larg-
er farmers. In other words, most of the farmers in the study areas except Ratlam and Rajpur lo-
cations were marginal and small farmers.
The average landholding was 2.9 acres and it ranged from 1.9 acres in Pitol location, 2.6 to 3.0
acres in Mandla and Saikheda and Jatara and Bijawar locations, around 4.0 acres in Ratlam and
Rajpur locations. The landholding pattern of households did not differ much between ASA ben-
eficiary households and non-beneficiary households.
With respect to irrigated landholding (Table 4.1a), the proportion of landholding households
having irrigated land was 57 percent and it was as high as 85 percent in Rajpur, 72 percent in
Jatara and Bijawar, 60 percent in Ratlam, 54 percent in Mandla and Saikheda, and just 29 percent
in Pitol location. The proportion of landholding households having irrigated land was substan-
tially higher at 67 percent among ASA beneficiaries as against only 48 percent among non-
beneficiaries and a similar difference was also observed between locations. The percentage of
agricultural land irrigated worked out to 65 percent and it was 83 percent in Rajpur, 76 percent in
Ratlam, 62-68 percent in Mandla, Saikheda, Jatara and Bijawar and just 22 percent in Pitol loca-
tion. The proportion of land irrigated did not differ much between ASA beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries, though the figures were slightly higher for non-beneficiary households of Rajpur,
Mandla and Saikheda locations.
Except for a few cases, the land possessed by the households was their own or inherited and not
leased-in. The households possessed the land for many years (more than 20 years) and only 2
percent of the households reported that the land was acquired within the past 20 years (table not
shown). It is clear that agricultural land transfer was minimal in the study areas.
Table 4.1b shows that open-well/dug-well and bore well/tube well were the two major sources
of irrigation in the study locations accounting for 88 percent of the total irrigated area (58 per-
cent due to dug well and 30 percent due to bore well). However, the pattern differed from loca-
tion to location and between ASA beneficiary and non-beneficiary households. While, dug well
was more popular in Rajpur and Jatara and Bijawar locations (88-90 percent), bore well was more
popular in Ratlam and Mandla and Saikheda locations (64-70 percent). Further, dug well was
more popular among ASA beneficiaries (77 percent) than among non-beneficiaries (62 percent)
and within locations it was relatively more popular in Pitol (56 percent among ASA beneficiaries
as against 44 percent among non-beneficiaries) and Mandla and Saikheda (42 percent among
ASA beneficiaries as against 6 percent among non-beneficiaries). Lake/pond/watershed irrigated
40-48 percent of the irrigated land of ASA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in Pitol location
whereas in the other locations it was very low or negligible.
Of the irrigated land possessed by households, only 10 percent of the land area was irrigated
within the past ten years and it was more than 13 percent among ASA beneficiaries as against
less than 9 percent among non-beneficiaries. Further, among the land area irrigated within the
past ten years, 31 percent of the land was irrigated with the assistance of ASA and another 22
percent was irrigated through NREGS in which ASA’s contribution was reported as substantial
(table not shown). In general, among ASA beneficiary households who added irrigation facilities
in the past ten years, irrigation potential created with the assistance of ASA was higher (53 per-
cent) than the irrigation potential created without the assistance of ASA. The major irrigation
potential created with the assistance of ASA was dug well and it has boosted the overall addi-
tional irrigation facilities of households in villages to the tune of 77 percent as against 62 percent
among non-beneficiaries.
34
The major crops cultivated (in terms of percentage of cropped area) were wheat (26 percent), soybean (19 percent) and maize (17 percent). The other significant crops grown were paddy, gram, cotton and black gram (each 5-9 percent).
The major kharif crops were soybean (33 percent), Maize (26 percent) and Paddy (15 percent) and the major rabi crops were wheat (62 percent) and gram (20 percent).
The cropping pattern did not differ much between ASA bene-ficiaries and non-beneficiaries of different locations.
It is to be noted that minor irrigation facilities created by ASA were restricted to specific villages
and within the villages to specific locations and not all the villages have the potential for minor
irrigation and/or dug well. Among the study locations, majority of the irrigation potential created
by ASA were in Pitol location. It is also to be noted that minor irrigation includes canal-flow,
river/stream flow, canal/river/lake lifting, lake/pond/watershed and farm pond. As we did not
have location-specific data on the irrigation facilities created by ASA and the list of beneficiary
households, we had to go in for the sample representing the whole village. Though the overall
difference observed is small, if we restrict to ASA facilitated minor irrigation areas, the contribu-
tion of ASA would be larger because most of the beneficiaries would be from that area.
Crop Cultivation
In this survey, information on crop cultivation in kharif, rabi and summer seasons of 2013-14 and
in kharif and rabi seasons of 2014-15 was obtained. It is to be noted that the survey was conduct-
ed during late December 2014 to late January 2015 and for each plot and crop, information on
cropped area, intercrop and percentage area it occupied if any, nature of farming (own or share
cropping), type of cultivation (irrigated or rain-fed), type of seed used, expenditure on cultivation
(equipment, seed, fertilizer, pesticide, water, labour, other) and crop yield and its value were ob-
tained. As the rabi crops of 2014 were just growing at survey, information on expenditure was
incomplete and crop yield and value was not applicable, and so they are not included in the anal-
ysis expenditure on raising crop and crop yield. In case of inter/mixed crops, the net cropped
area for each of the mixed/inter-crop was worked out and used in this analysis.
Crops Cultivated
Table 4.2a and 4.2b give the percentage of cropped area under different crops (in 2013 and 2014
combined) by ASA beneficiary status, classified by season and type of cultivation and Table 4.2c
gives the figures classified by location. Overall, the major crops cultivated irrespective of season
and year (in terms of percentage of cropped area) were wheat (26 percent), soybean (19 percent)
and maize (17 percent). The other significant crops grown were paddy, gram, cotton and black
gram, each grown in 5-9
percent of the cropped area.
Whereas the percentage of
area cultivated with wheat,
gram, cotton and black gram
did not differ between ASA
beneficiaries and non-
beneficiaries, the percentage
of area cultivated with soy-
bean was substantially high-
er among ASA beneficiaries and the percentage of area cultivated with maize and paddy was sub-
stantially higher among non-beneficiaries.
The major crops grown during kharif season (in terms of percentage of cropped area) were soy-
bean (33 percent), maize (26 percent) and paddy (15 percent). The other crops grown in at least 5
percent of cropped area during kharif season were cotton (11 percent) and black gram (9 per-
cent).On the other hand, the major crops grown in rabi season were wheat (62 percent) and gram
(20 percent). In addition, maize was also grown in rabi season and it accounted for 5 percent of
35
the cropped area in this season. The other crops cultivated in a small proportion of land area
were red gram (arhar), sugarcane, chili, onion, masur (lentil), pea (matar) and garlic (each crop was
cultivated in less than 5 percent of cropped area in any season of 2013 and 2014).
We have already seen that in the study areas, 65 percent of the land was irrigated and the major
crop grown under irrigation was wheat (in 42 percent of irrigated area) and the major crops
grown under non-irrigated/rain-fed cultivation were soybean (35 percent) and maize (26 per-
cent). The irrigated crops did not differ between ASA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries but
among the rain-fed crops, soybean cultivation was more among ASA beneficiaries (29 percent
of cropped area) than among non-beneficiaries (19 percent of cropped area) and maize cultiva-
tion was more among non-beneficiaries (38 percent of cropped area) than among ASA benefi-
ciaries (23 percent of cropped area).
Table 4.2c gives the percentage of cropped area under major crops (2013 and 2014 combined) by
ASA beneficiary status, classified by location. Table 4.2d gives the percentage of cropped area
under major crops in kharif and rabi seasons, classified by location and type of cultivation. The
crops cultivated differed marginally to substantially between locations/regions. The predominant
kharif crops (in terms of proportion of area cultivated) were soybean (88 percent under irrigation
and 81 percent under rain-fed cultivation) in Ratlam, maize (each 86 percent under irrigation and
rain-fed cultivation) in Pitol, maize and cotton (each 40-50 percent) in Rajpur under irrigation,
paddy (82-95 percent) in Mandla and Saikheda and soybean (around 60 percent) and black gram
(around 30 percent) in Jatara and Bijawar. However the rabi crops under irrigation did not differ
much between the locations and it was 60-90 percent wheat in all the locations. However, under
non-irrigated cultivation in rabi, the major crops grown was gram in Ratlam, Pitol, Jatara and Bi-
jawar, maize in Rajpur and Pea (watana) in Mandla and Saikheda. The differences in the cropping
pattern between ASA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries among the regions/locations was very
small except for the earlier observation that a larger proportion of ASA beneficiaries were culti-
vating soybean and a larger proportion of non-beneficiaries were cultivating maize.
One reason for the higher gram cultivation in Pitol is because the area had higher field bunding
work and as a result there is higher moisture retention in the soil which leads to higher gram cul-
tivation where irrigation facilities are limited. One can infer that field bunding in the rain-fed are-
as can ensure the second cropping without irrigation. This is a welcome strategy in the rain-fed
areas to enhance crop production because not all farms can be irrigated due to resource con-
straints and technical reasons.
Sources of Seed
The source of seed is an important factor in the cultivation of crops for increasing crop yield,
because other things being equal, the better the quality of seed, the higher the yield. The farmer
producer companies promoted by ASA supply quality seeds and they are available to ASA bene-
ficiaries. However many FPCs are at the initial stages of their services and as of now the extent
of farmers depending on FPCs is very small except in some selected areas. Table 4.3a gives the
percentage of cropped area (of ASA beneficiaries) sown with seed obtained from Farmer Pro-
ducer Company (FPC) and Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) and Agro-
centre, during 2013 and 2014 and Table 4.3b gives the percentage of cropped area (of ASA bene-
ficiaries) sown with seed obtained from Farmer Producer Company (FPC) by location.
Except for cotton, about 40-50 percent of the farmers have used the previous year grain from
their own farm as seed and another 40-50 percent of the farmers obtained seed from the open
36
The crop yield per acre as per survey was wheat 902 kg, soybean 327 kg, maize 502 kg, paddy 772 kg, cotton 592 kg and gram 298 kg.
The figures as per India Agricultural Statistics 2007-08 were wheat 686 kg, maize 528 kg, paddy/rice 388 kg, cotton 280 kg and gram 290 kg.
The per acre crop yields as obtained from the study are substantially higher than the figures reported in the Agricultural Statistics except for maize.
The crop yield reported by ASA beneficiaries was marginally higher than that by non-beneficiaries for most of the major crops.
market. The percentage of farmers who depended on FPC (including APMC and Agro-centre
and the like in a few cases) for seed was about 10 percent only among ASA beneficiaries and
negligible among non-beneficiaries (not shown in table). In terms of percentage of cropped area
sown with seed obtained from FPC, it is seen from Table 4.3a that about 13 percent of the
cropped areas were sown with seeds obtained from FPC and the crops grown with FPC seeds
were wheat, soybean, maize, gram, paddy and cotton. Location-wise, Rajpur topped the list with
as much as 27 percent of the cropped area sown with FPC seeds and in the other regions it was
only around 10 percent. In Rajpur, of the total area cultivated, 44 percent of the wheat crops, 33
percent of the gram crops and 28 percent of the maize crops were cultivated with seeds obtained
from FPC.
Crop Yield
In this section per acre of crop yield, crop value, expenditure on raising crops and net income
(crop value minus expenditure) of major crops are analyzed. Table 4.4a gives average crop yield
(in kgs) per acre by ASA beneficiary status, classified by location, and Table 4.4b gives the value
of crop yield per acre, expenditure on raising crop per acre and percentage expenditure to crop
value, net crop income per acre and difference in these figures between ASA beneficiaries and
non-beneficiaries for major crops by ASA beneficiary status.
At the outset, it is to be noted that crop yield, crop value, expenditure on raising crops and net
income are not applicable or incomplete for the rabi crops of 2014 as the survey was conducted
while the crops were growing. Further, for calculating per acre values, we have considered only
the crops for which at least some yield was reported. That is, crops that reported no yield were
excluded from the calculation. As
per the survey (figures not shown in
table), nil crop yield was reported
for 18 percent of cropped area of
soybean of ASA beneficiaries and
29 percent of cropped area of non-
beneficiaries. Further, 13 percent of
cropped areas of gram of ASA ben-
eficiaries and 8 percent of cropped
area of non-beneficiaries were also
reported with no crop yield. The
figures were negligible in respect of
other major crops. In addition, around 5 percent of cropped area of other crops (other than ma-
jor crops) of ASA beneficiaries and as much as 32 percent of cropped area of non-beneficiaries
were also reported with no crop yield. So, it is clear that no crop yield instances were far less
among ASA beneficiaries than among non-beneficiaries and it may be attributed to appropriate
choice of crop for cultivation and better crop management.
The per acre crop yield (combined for kharif 2013, rabi 2013 and kharif 2014) worked out to
wheat 902 kg, soybean 327 kg, maize 502 kg, paddy 772 kg, cotton 592 kg and gram 298 kg. As
per India Agricultural Statistics4for Madhya Pradesh for the year 2007-08 (latest year for which
4http://www.indiaagristat.com
37
data available), the per acre crop yield was wheat 686 kg, maize 528 kg, paddy/rice 388 kg, cot-
ton 280 kg and gram 290 kg. The per acre crop yield obtained from the study are substantially
higher than the figures reported in the Agricultural Statistics except for maize.
Between ASA beneficiary and non-beneficiary households, the crop yield reported by ASA bene-
ficiary households was marginally higher for most of the major crops. The increase in crop yield
for ASA beneficiaries as compared to non-beneficiaries was as high as 29 percent for soybean, 15
percent for maize and gram, just 5 percent or less for the other major crops, namely cotton,
wheat and paddy. The increased yield was seen more in the west (Pitol and Rajpur locations)
whereas in the east and north, the differences were negligible or slightly negative especially for
paddy, and the reason for which is not clear but it may be partly due to small sample size.
We have seen that in the FGDs, the participants claimed that after ASA’s intervention, their crop
yield increased, sometimes even doubled. This was in comparison with their own land before
and after irrigation and not in comparison with the irrigated land of other households. The study
also confirms that, with the irrigation potential created, the crop yield of many households, who
shifted from non-irrigated to irrigated cultivation, increased substantially or doubled. For exam-
ple, even among ASA beneficiaries, maize crop yield increased from about 430 kg per acre under
non-irrigated cultivation to 684 kg per acre under irrigated cultivation, an increase of about 60
percent. However, within irrigated cultivation also, ASA beneficiaries did differ from non-
beneficiaries in terms of crop yield by 7 percent.
Table 4.4b gives the expenditure on raising crops and percentage expenditure to crop value.
Generally the expenditure was higher for raising cotton and soybean crops than for many other
crops. Further, the expenditure was slightly higher for ASA beneficiaries than for non-
beneficiaries except for wheat and paddy and it may be due to the better agricultural practices
followed by ASA beneficiaries. The reported expenditure on raising crop as against the crop val-
ue was 30-40 percent for the major crops except for soybean for which it was more than 50 per-
cent. The expenditure on raising crop reported by ASA beneficiaries as compared to non-
beneficiaries with respect of the crop value was substantially lesser for some major crops (soy-
bean and paddy) but slightly higher for some other major crops. Similarly, the net income from
crops (measured in terms of crop value minus expenditure) for ASA beneficiaries as compared
to non-beneficiaries was higher by 55 percent for soybean, around 20 percent for maize and
gram, 3 percent for cotton but less (negative) by about 10 percent for wheat and paddy.
In general, ASA beneficiaries reaped higher crop yield, met lesser expenditure on raising crops
and ensured higher income as compared to their counterparts (non-beneficiaries). However, the
overall differences can be said to be only marginal due to the observation that ASA beneficiaries
were better placed for some crops while non-beneficiaries were better placed for other crops.
Food Security
Under food security aspects, we have considered possession of PDS card, availing of PDS ration,
frequency of consumption of different food items, extent of crop yield (food grains) kept/used
for household consumption and months of food shortage if any. Table 4.6a gives the percentage
of households possessing public distribution system (PDS) card, percentage of households
availed PDS ration and percentage of households experienced food shortage and months of
food shortage by ASA beneficiary status. With regard to food habit, Table 4.6b gives frequency
of consumption of food items by ASA beneficiary status. In addition, Table 4.6c presents aver-
38
Irrespective of ASA beneficiary status and harvest-ing of grains, households have availed themselves of whatever ration provided in the PDS shop.
Most households reported that they did not experi-ence any problem of food shortage during the year that preceded the survey.
The most staple food appears to be wheat followed by maize and rice.
Both ASA beneficiary and non-beneficiary house-holds have set apart some amount of own farm pro-duced grain for household consumption but the quantity of grain used for household consumption was higher by ASA beneficiary households than by non-beneficiary households.
age crop yield and average quantity of grain kept for household use and percentage of crop yield
used for household consumption by ASA beneficiary status.
In the study areas, 93 percent of households possessed PDS ration card and it did not differ
much between ASA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Further, almost 90 percent of the
households possessing ration card
availed themselves of ration from the
PDS shop almost regularly. That is,
irrespective of ASA beneficiary status
and harvesting of grains, households
have availed themselves of whatever
ration was provided in the PDS shop.
To a question on “In the last one
year, did you face any problem of
having normal food?”, around 90 per-
cent of the ASA beneficiary and non-
beneficiary households replied “No”,
meaning that most households did
not face any serious problem of hav-
ing their normal food in any part of the year. This may probably due to two factors, namely the
households have availed themselves of PDS ration regularly and most households possessed ag-
ricultural land and cultivated food grains.
With respect to shortage of food (Table 4.6a), around 90 percent of ASA beneficiary and also
non-beneficiary households reported that they did not experience any problem of food shortage
during the year that preceded the survey and the remaining 10 percent of the households report-
ed that they reduced normal quantity of food, reduced number of meals per day, changed to low
cost or low quality food, took loans to buy food, borrowed grain from others, etc. The months
the households faced food shortage were during April to September and the proportion of
households reporting food shortage in these months were around 18-35 percent among those
who faced problems. However, the proportions were higher for non-beneficiary households than
for ASA beneficiary households.
With regard to food habits of household members (Table 4.6b), the most staple food appears to
be wheat followed by maize and rice (from paddy) and these grains were consumed almost on a
daily basis by around 70 percent, 46 percent and 35 percent of the households respectively and it
did not differ between ASA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. However, around 90 percent of
the households consume wheat at least a few times in a week, and the other grains consumed
frequently (at least a few times a week) are rice (80 percent) and maize (45-50 percent). It is to be
noted that Jowar is rarely used by the households in the study locations. Among the 14 food
items listed in the questionnaire, the other food items consumed frequently by households are
dal/gram items, tea/coffee/milk, potato and green leafy vegetables.
It was also ascertained as to how much of the crop yield (grains/pulses) was set apart for house-
hold use (Table 4.6c). It is seen from the table that wheat cultivating households have used near-
ly 800 kg of wheat, maize cultivating households have used more than 500 kg of maize and pad-
dy cultivating households have used 550-700 kg of paddy for household consumption irrespec-
tive of the quantity of crop yield they harvested. The absolute quantity of grain used for house-
hold consumption was higher in ASA beneficiary households than in non-beneficiary house-
holds. In terms of percentage too, the proportion of crop yield used for household consumption
39
In the study population about 10 percent of the house-holds (as a whole) migrated for livelihood and remained outside in the month of January.
Among the households remaining in the villages, 17 percent of the persons in the age group 10-59 worked outside during the one year period before the survey. It was 19 percent among males and 15 percent among females, and 25 percent in the age group 20-39 and around 10 percent in the age groups 10-19 and 40-59.
The percentage of households/persons migrated was substantially higher in Rajpur, Pitol and Jatara and Bi-jawar locations than in the other study locations.
The main reason for migration was work for livelihood. The nature of work the migrated members doing was predominantly non-agriculture casual labour work.
was higher in ASA beneficiary households than in non-beneficiary households with respect to
wheat and paddy but not maize.
Seasonal Migration
Table 4.7a gives the percentage of household members aged 10-59 years who worked outside
during the year preceding the survey by age, sex and ASA beneficiary status. Table 4.7b gives the
percentage of households who migrated at the time of the survey, percentage of members who
worked outside for one year preceding the survey by sex, nature of work, duration of work and
reasons for migration, by location and ASA beneficiary status.
We have used the latest electoral list for the selection of households. From this list, a systematic
sample of 55 voters per village was selected and the households represented by the selected elec-
torates were the selected households. Accordingly, of the total 1870 households selected, only
1698 households (90.7 percent) were traceable (identified as households of the village irrespec-
tive of their current residential status) and of them, 1499 households (88.4 percent) were success-
fully interviewed. One of the major reasons for the non-coverage of the remaining households
was out migration (78 percent).
With respect to migration of households (all members), it is seen from Table 4.7b that the per-
centage of (traceable) households that out migrated at the time of survey was 9 percent and it
was as high as 19 percent in Rajpur location, followed by Jatara and Bijawar and Pitol (each 10
percent). Outmigration of house-
holds in the other regions was very
low, hardly 3 percent. As the out
migrated households were not
contacted, it is not known whether
they were landless or the migration
was due to lack of agricultural la-
bour work or distress. However,
the main reason for migration was
work and livelihood. It means that
in the study population, about 10
percent of the households migrat-
ed for livelihood and remained
outside their villages in the month
of January. The percentage of
households that migrated was substantially higher in Rajpur, Pitol and Jatara and Bijawar loca-
tions than in the other study locations.
While some members of the households migrated, others remained in the villages. A brief de-
scription of seasonal migration adopted in this study is as follows. The survey was conducted
after the sowing activity of the rabi season from late December 2014 to late January 2015. During
this period people tended to migrate if they were not going in for rabi crops, or some went after
the sowing. This process of migration accelerates during the summer. It is to be noted that
‘working outside’ means ‘working at a distant place and not returning home every day’, but per-
haps visiting home on weekends or less frequently.
40
Accordingly, it is seen from Table 4.7a that overall, among the persons in the age group 10-59, as
many as 17 percent had worked outside during the past one year before the survey and it was 19
percent among males and 15 percent among females, and 25 percent in the age group 20-39 and
around 10 percent in the age groups 10-19 and 40-59. The proportion of persons aged 60+, who
worked outside was negligible and hence not included in the analysis. Location-wise (Table 4.7b),
the proportion of persons (10-59 age group) who worked outside during the year that preceded
the survey was as high as 48 percent in Pitol location, followed by 18 percent in Jatara and Bija-
war and in the other locations including Rajpur it was very low (around 5 percent or less). In all
these locations, the extent of female migration was very close to that of male migration and thus
it appears that many middle-aged men and women migrate together, leaving the young and the
old in their villages. Between Rajpur and Pitol locations, the pattern of migration appears to be a
large scale household migration in Rajpur location and a large scale household members’ migra-
tion in Pitol location. The seasonal migration was substantially lower at 16 among ASA benefi-
ciary households as compared to 25 percent among non-beneficiary households. The figures (not
shown in the Table) for landholding households were slightly less at 15 percent among ASA
beneficiary households and 21 percent among non-beneficiary households.
The nature of work the migrated members were doing was predominantly non-agriculture casual
labour work and it accounted for 80 percent or more in Pitol, Mandla and Saikheda, and Jatara
and Bijawar and in the other two locations, Ratlam and Rajpur, it was both casual labour work
and business related. The migrated members reportedly worked for 228 days on an average dur-
ing the year that preceded the survey and it varied substantially between the locations. The pro-
portion of members who worked outside for up to 180 days was 36 percent and others worked
for longer duration; 25 percent who worked more than 360 days. The duration of work data
shows that household members who worked outside were working outside for most of the year
and it has less relevance for seasonal migration; it is not merely confined to distress migration.
However, the duration of migration was relatively less for members of ASA beneficiary house-
holds than for members of non-beneficiary households. The reasons stated for migration was
mainly lack of work opportunities in the local areas (63 percent) and another 33 percent men-
tioned off season or no farming activity. Owing to less requirement of labour for agriculture,
some members of the family were working outside for the whole year and probably some other
members were joining them during the lean period.
An Impact Assessment of Agriculture Interventions in tribal areas in Madhya Pradesh done by
Catalyst Management Services, Bhopal in 2009 reports that the overall migration has increased
from 29 percent to 32 percent in the five year period prior to the study. In tribal dominated vil-
lages, migration is higher than that in villages with less tribal population. Overall, the highest
proportion of migration is reported in women-headed households, tribal households, and land-
less and marginal farmers (around 40% in these categories).
41
Table 4.1a: Percentage of households having total, irrigated and non-irrigated land, percentage dis-tribution of households by size of total landholding, mean landholding of total, irrigated and non-irrigated land (among respective landholding households), percentage of irrigated and non-irrigated landholding households having up to 2.5 acres of respective land, percentage of land irri-gated by location, classified by ASA beneficiary status
Region/District/ Location
Total land (acres) Non-irrigated(acres) Irrigated land (acres) % land irrigated %HHs ≤ 2.5 2.6-5.0 5.1+ Mean %HHs ≤ 2.5 Mean %HHs ≤ 2.5 Mean
All
Total 77.0 68.9 21.6 9.5 2.87 54.5 83.6 1.85 57.2 62.9 3.26 64.8
Ratlam 60.0 65.5 17.6 17.0 4.05 49.7 84.1 1.97 60.0 57.6 5.13 75.9
Pitol 94.3 86.1 10.8 3.2 1.85 86.1 90.1 1.67 29.1 92.4 1.41 22.3
Rajpur 81.0 49.2 31.7 19.1 3.76 26.8 63.3 2.36 84.7 50.3 3.69 83.2 Mandla and Saikheda 65.4 71.2 23.3 5.5 2.61 48.4 81.1 1.73 53.9 64.4 3.29 67.9
Jatara & Bijawar 82.6 62.4 28.4 9.2 2.96 44.3 79.2 2.10 72.3 60.7 2.81 68.6
ASA Beneficiary
Total 94.3 66.0 25.8 8.2 2.69 49.8 80.0 1.97 67.1 64.8 2.55 63.6
Pitol 97.3 81.8 13.6 4.5 2.07 84.5 88.2 1.77 46.4 96.1 1.24 27.8
Rajpur 96.9 51.1 30.9 18.1 3.50 25.5 58.3 2.69 88.3 53.0 3.19 80.4 Mandla and Saikheda 85.3 72.7 26.3 1.0 2.04 40.4 80.0 1.81 61.6 70.5 2.13 64.3
Jatara & Bijawar 97.0 59.7 30.8 9.4 3.03 45.9 76.7 2.06 72.3 56.5 2.87 68.7
Non-Beneficiary
Total 71.8 72.5 19.2 8.3 2.67 60.2 86.1 1.74 47.6 62.5 3.40 60.7
Pitol 92.8 88.3 9.2 2.4 1.72 86.9 91.1 1.61 19.9 87.8 1.62 18.7
Rajpur 69.0 47.2 32.6 20.2 4.02 28.1 68.0 2.04 80.9 47.2 4.26 85.8 Mandla and Saikheda 54.8 70.0 20.8 9.2 3.08 55.0 81.8 1.69 47.5 57.9 4.53 69.8
Jatara & Bijawar 68.3 66.1 25.0 8.9 2.88 42.0 83.0 2.17 72.3 66.7 2.72 68.4 Note: Percentage of households having land (total/irrigated/non-irrigated) up to 2.5 acres was almost equally divided
between landholding categories ≤1 acre and 1.1-2.5 acres.
42
Table 4.1b: Percentage distribution of irrigated land by source of water for irrigation, classi-fied by location and ASA beneficiary status
Total
Open Well/ Dug-Well
Bore/ Tube Well
Canal-Flow
River/ Stream
Flow
Lake/ Pond/
Water-shed
Canal/ River/ Lake
Lifting Other
Total
Total 100.0 58.4 29.9 1.3 3.1 4.4 2.1 0.8
Ratlam 100.0 24.0 68.9 0.0 2.3 1.8 0.0 3.1
Pitol 100.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 4.4 43.8 1.5 0.4
Rajpur 100.0 88.1 4.3 0.0 0.7 4.1 2.8 0.0
Mandla and Saikheda 100.0 17.9 64.2 7.0 5.7 0.3 4.8 0.3
Jatara and Bijawar 100.0 89.9 3.5 0.0 4.3 0.9 1.4 0.0
ASA Beneficiary
Total 100.0 76.6 6.9 1.7 5.3 5.6 4.0 0.0
Pitol 100.0 55.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 39.7 3.2 0.0
Rajpur 100.0 85.8 2.6 0.0 0.8 5.2 5.7 0.0
Mandla and Saikheda 100.0 41.9 22.7 10.2 16.5 0.8 7.9 0.0
Jatara and Bijawar 100.0 86.9 5.5 0.0 5.1 1.2 1.2 0.0
Non-Beneficiary
Total 100.0 62.1 28.0 1.6 1.6 5.0 1.5 0.2
Pitol 100.0 44.4 0.0 0.0 7.1 47.7 0.0 0.8
Rajpur 100.0 90.1 5.9 0.0 0.7 3.1 0.3 0.0
Mandla and Saikheda 100.0 5.7 85.1 5.4 0.2 0.0 3.2 0.4
Jatara and Bijawar 100.0 94.3 0.5 0.0 3.1 0.5 1.7 0.0
Table 4.2a: Percentage of cropped area under different crops (2013 and 2014 combined) by ASA beneficiary status, classified by season, type of cultivation.
Crops
Total Season Type of Cultivation
Kharif Rabi Irrigated Non-irrigated
All* ASA Non-ASA All* ASA
Non-ASA All* ASA
Non-ASA All* ASA
Non-ASA All ASA
Non-ASA
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Wheat 26.4 27.1 25.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.7 62.3 61.5 41.6 41.0 40.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
soybean 19.0 15.8 9.4 33.3 28.0 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 9.0 3.6 35.2 29.1 19.1
Maize 17.1 16.6 23.8 25.8 24.5 35.9 5.5 6.5 6.9 12.2 13.7 15.3 25.6 22.5 38.2
Paddy 8.7 9.0 12.5 15.3 15.9 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 7.8 11.2 10.4 11.3 14.8
Gram 8.7 8.3 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 19.1 17.4 9.7 8.8 6.7 7.0 7.5 8.2
Cotton 6.8 7.0 6.9 10.7 11.2 10.4 1.5 1.6 2.0 8.5 9.5 10.2 3.8 2.2 1.4
Black Gram 5.1 6.6 5.9 8.7 11.7 9.8 0.2 0.0 0.5 2.4 3.0 2.8 9.8 13.8 11.1
Pea (Watana) 2.1 2.5 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.8 5.6 4.8 2.3 3.2 1.4 1.7 1.2 2.9
Red Gram (Tur) 1.7 3.0 1.1 2.3 4.7 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.8 3.6 8.2 1.5
Sugarcane 1.0 0.3 2.1 1.1 0.5 2.1 0.9 0.1 2.1 1.6 0.5 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.1
Others 3.4 3.6 3.4 2.8 3.5 3.2 4.2 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.9 2.9 4.4 2.7
Note: * 'All' includes Ratlam location for which ASA beneficiary status not applicable. So, the figures for 'All" may not lie
between the figures of 'ASA' and 'Non-ASA'.
43
Table 4.2b: Percentage of cropped area under different crops (2013 and 2014 combined) by ASA beneficiary status, cross classified by season and type of cultivation.
Crops
Total Kharif-Irrigated Kharif-rain-fed Rabi-irrigated Rabi-non-irrigated
Total ASA Non-ASA Total ASA
Non-ASA Total ASA
Non-ASA Total ASA
Non-ASA Total ASA
Non-ASA
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Wheat 26.4 27.1 25.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.1 68.5 70.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
soybean 19.0 15.8 9.4 24.9 22.4 8.5 39.6 32.9 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maize 17.1 16.6 23.8 23.3 25.1 27.1 27.7 23.9 43.1 5.2 6.0 6.8 8.5 11.4 7.6
Paddy 8.7 9.0 12.5 20.1 19.5 26.7 11.6 12.7 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gram 8.7 8.3 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 14.6 11.5 64.2 64.7 59.8
Cotton 6.8 7.0 6.9 19.3 21.1 21.2 4.2 2.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.3 0.5 0.7 0.0
Black Gram 5.1 6.6 5.9 5.9 7.4 6.2 10.9 15.6 12.7 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 1.0
Pea (Watana) 2.1 2.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 3.7 5.3 2.4 14.7 8.9 21.4
Red Gram (Tur) 1.7 3.0 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.6 3.7 8.5 1.4 0.6 0.5 1.0 3.1 5.3 2.0
Sugarcane 1.0 0.3 2.1 2.4 1.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Others 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.2 5.0 2.2 3.8 1.8 3.8 3.2 3.1 8.5 8.9 8.2
Table 4.2c: Percentage of cropped area under different crops (2013 and 2014 combined) by ASA beneficiary status, classified by location.
Crops
Ratlam Pitol Rajpur Mandla & Saikheda Jatara & Bijawar
All All ASA Non-ASA All ASA
Non-ASA All ASA
Non-ASA All ASA
Non-ASA
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Wheat 26.7 4.7 4.9 4.6 31.6 34.7 28.5 25.0 16.9 30.2 37.6 37.1 38.3
soybean 46.7 5.4 8.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 1.1 31.8 33.2 29.6
Maize 3.5 62.9 56.1 67.8 30.5 28.9 32.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Paddy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.5 51.9 43.1 1.8 0.2 4.3
Gram 12.9 22.5 24.4 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 6.3 4.2 4.9 6.3 2.7
Cotton 5.8 1.2 1.6 1.0 32.1 31.4 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Black Gram 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 17.6 15.4 21.0
Pea (Watana) 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 13.8 6.4 0.6 0.3 1.0
Red Gram 0.0 1.7 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.8 0.8 2.4 3.6 5.7 0.4
Sugarcane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 1.8 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Others 3.1 1.3 2.0 0.9 5.8 5.1 6.5 5.8 8.1 4.4 2.1 1.8 2.6
44
Table 4.2d: Percentage of cropped area under major crops (2013 and 2014 combined) in kharif and rabi seasons, classified by location and type of cultivation.
Major Crops
Irrigated Cultivation Non-irrigated Cultivation
Total Ratlam Pitol Rajpur
Mandla & Sai-kheda
Jatara & Bija-
war Total Ratlam Pitol Rajpur
Mandla & Sai-kheda
Jatara & Bi-jawar
Kharif
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Wheat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
soybean 24.9 87.8 7.6 0.0 1.9 64.1 39.6 81.3 8.5 0.0 0.8 54.0
Maize 23.3 4.6 86.1 40.7 0.0 0.0 27.7 6.4 85.9 63.0 0.0 0.0
Gram 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Paddy 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.4 5.3 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.7 2.5
Cotton 19.3 6.9 3.2 52.1 0.0 0.0 4.2 11.7 1.1 35.2 0.0 0.0
Others 12.4 0.6 3.1 7.2 15.7 30.6 16.9 0.6 4.5 1.9 4.5 43.5
Rabi
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Wheat 68.1 63.3 18.3 74.4 61.3 91.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
soybean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maize 5.2 0.5 22.8 12.8 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 15.8 81.3 0.0 0.0
Gram 15.9 26.8 56.1 0.0 10.3 5.9 64.2 89.2 83.6 0.0 14.0 82.9
Paddy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cotton 1.6 0.0 0.7 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Others 9.3 9.5 2.1 4.6 28.3 3.1 26.8 7.7 0.0 18.8 86.0 17.1 Note: Significant other crops include Black Gram (udad) in Jatara & Bijawar locations during kharif season and Pea (watana) in Mandla & Saikheda locations during rabi season.
Table 4.3a: Percentage of cropped area of ASA beneficiaries, sown with seed ob-tained from Farmer Producer Company (FPC) and Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC), Agro-centre, etc. during 2013 and 2014.
Major Crops Farmer Producer Company APMC, Agro-centre, etc.
All 2013 2014 All 2013 2014
Total 12.6 12.4 12.8 2.0 2.4 1.6
Wheat 17.2 19.2 15.3 2.0 3.2 0.8
soybean 8.9 8.6 9.1 0.8 1.0 0.7
Maize 17.8 15.1 20.4 0.5 0.3 0.7
Gram 12.0 8.0 16.0 1.5 0.0 3.1
Paddy 10.0 11.6 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cotton 5.3 6.3 4.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 Notes: On the whole, the seeds were obtained from own/other’s farm (37%) and open market (48%).
45
Table 4.3b: Percentage of cropped area of ASA beneficiaries, sown with seed obtained from Farmer Producer Company (FPC) by location.
Crops Total Pitol Rajpur
Mandla & Saikheda
Jatara & Bijawar
Total 12.6 10.6 26.8 8.3 7.8
Wheat 17.2 11.4 44.3 7.1 6.6
soybean 8.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 9.1
Maize 17.8 12.2 27.6 0.0 0.0
Gram 12.0 9.1 33.3 10.7 14.1
Paddy 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0
Cotton 5.3 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 Note: FPC does not apply to Ratlam location.
Table 4.4a: Average crop yield per acre by beneficiary status and by location
Major Crops % area
cultivated
Crop yield per acre (in kg)
Total Ratlam Pitol Rajpur Mandla & Saikheda
Jatara & Bijawar
Total
Wheat 26.4 902 908 463 963 940 885
soybean 19 327 418 228 * * 225
Maize 17.1 502 384 368 833 * *
Gram 8.7 298 402 233 * 396 316
Paddy 8.7 772 * * * 792 461
Cotton 6.8 592 151 383 683 * *
ASA beneficiary
Wheat 27.1 914 NA 548 1008 864 902
soybean 15.8 251 NA 237 * * 252
Maize 16.6 561 NA 378 884 * *
Gram 9 288 NA 248 * 387 350
Paddy 8.3 779 NA * * 789 292
Cotton 7 691 NA 550 697 * *
Non-beneficiary
Wheat 25.6 885 NA 372 901 968 861
soybean 9.4 177 NA 211 * * 172
Maize 23.8 472 NA 363 787 * *
Gram 12.5 245 NA 220 * 402 174
Paddy 7.2 768 NA * * 774 472
Cotton 6.9 652 NA 211 669 * *
% difference
Wheat NA 3.2 NA 32.1 10.6 -12.0 4.6
soybean NA 29.2 NA 11.1 * * 31.7
Maize NA 15.8 NA 4.1 10.9 * *
Gram NA 15.0 NA 11.0 * -4.0 50.2
Paddy NA 1.4 NA * * 1.9 -61.9
Cotton NA 5.6 NA 61.6 3.9 * * Notes: Crops not grown in a location or not appeared in the sample are marked with asterisk ( * ). '% area cultivated' is combined for all locations and for kharif and rabi seasons of 2013 and 2014 and the figures may not add to 100 due to exclusion of some crops. Crop yield per acre is combined for 2013 (kharif and rabi) and 2014 (kharif only). ‘% difference’ is defined as 100 * difference in the figures between ASA beneficiary and non-beneficiary divided by the figure for ASA beneficiary. ASA and Non-ASA figures may not tally with ‘Total’ due to the presence of ‘Ratlam’ location in ‘Total’
46
Table 4.4b: Value of crop yield per acre, expenditure on crop per acre and percentage expenditure to crop value, net crop income per acre and difference in these figures between ASA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries for major crops by ASA beneficiary status
Major crops
Value of yield per acre (Rs) Expenditure per acre (Rs) % expenditure/crop value Net income per acre
Total ASA Non-ASA %diff Total ASA
Non-ASA %diff Total ASA
Non-ASA %diff Total ASA
Non-ASA %diff
Wheat 13208 12948 13937 -7.6 4991 4767 4872 -2.2 37.8 36.8 35.0 5.0 8217 8181 9065 -10.8
soybean 9541 7483 5260 29.7 5134 3715 3575 3.8 53.8 49.6 68.0 -36.9 4406 3768 1685 55.3
Maize 5791 6662 5322 20.1 2281 2457 2087 15.1 39.4 36.9 39.2 -6.3 3510 4204 3235 23.1
Gram 8619 7878 6460 18.0 3464 2898 2313 20.2 40.2 36.8 35.8 2.7 5156 4980 4147 16.7
Paddy 10803 9520 11731 -23.2 3141 2322 3733 -60.8 29.1 24.4 31.8 -30.5 7661 7197 7997 -11.1
Cotton 22625 26422 24767 6.3 6176 6969 5823 16.4 27.3 26.4 23.5 10.9 16449 19453 18944 2.6 ‘% diff’ is defined as 100 * difference in the figures between ASA beneficiary and non-beneficiary divided by the figure for ASA benefi-ciary. ASA and Non-ASA figures may not tally with ‘Total’ due to the presence of ‘Ratlam’ location in ‘Total’
Table 4.5a: Percentage of households possessing PDS card, availed ration, experienced food shortage and months of food shortage by ASA beneficiary status
Food security Total ASA Non-ASA
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
PDS/Ration Card Possessed
APL card 17.4 19.4 16.1
BPL card 68.9 67.3 69.9
Antyodaya / BBPL card 6.3 8.2 5.0
Applied/Not yet received 3.2 2.2 3.8
None / Not applicable 4.2 2.9 5.2
Avail Ration From PDS?
Yes, regularly 90.4 92.5 88.9
Yes, sometimes 1.7 0.9 2.2
No 7.9 6.7 8.8
Having Normal Food
No problem 89.5 90.8 88.7
Reduced normal quantity 1.3 0.8 1.6
Reduced no. of meals/day 3.4 3.6 3.2
Changed to low cost/quality food 0.6 1.0 0.4
Took loan to buy food grain 2.2 1.8 2.4
Borrowed grain from others 3.0 2.0 3.7
Months Faced Problems
January 15.3 4.3 21.2
February 17.6 6.5 23.5
March 17.6 8.7 22.4
April 22.1 26.1 20.0
May 21.4 23.9 20.0
June 17.6 23.9 14.1
July 28.2 32.6 25.9
August 35.1 34.8 35.3
September 26.7 26.1 27.1
October 3.1 4.3 2.4
November 0.8 0.0 1.2
December 1.5 2.2 1.2
47
Table 4.5b: Frequency of consumption of food items by ASA beneficiary status.
ASA beneficiary Non-beneficiary
Food Items Daily
At least few days a week Daily
At least few days a week
Wheat 77.1 91.0 70.7 87.0
Maize 42.6 44.3 47.2 49.9
Rice 36.0 82.0 33.8 76.1
Jowar 2.7 2.7 2.5 3.8
Dal/Gram items 51.3 83.6 43.8 76.8
Bean Items 9.3 28.8 10.3 26.5
Tea/Coffee with Milk 78.6 85.2 74.1 81.1
Other Milk Products 11.3 28.0 9.4 20.9
Potato 11.3 51.8 13.9 48.9
Green Leafy Veg 21.7 51.9 18.8 47.7
Banana Fruit 0.4 9.4 0.4 8.2
Other Fruits 0.8 6.2 0.9 5.0
Egg 0.0 7.4 0.4 7.4
Fish/Chicken/Meat 0.6 8.8 0.4 8.1
Table 4.5c: Average crop yield and average quantity of grain kept for household use and percentage of crop yield used for household consumption by ASA beneficiary status
Crop
ASA beneficiary Non-beneficiary
Mean quantity of yield
Mean quantity for
HH use % quantity for HH use
Mean quantity of yield
Mean quantity for
HH use % quantity for HH use
Wheat 2023 785.9 38.8 2780.4 778.8 28.0
Maize 927 521.1 56.2 750.9 502.4 66.9
Paddy 1328 716.5 54.0 1927.5 542.1 28.1
Black Gram 672 114.6 17.0 406.4 53.8 13.2
Gram 459 97.6 21.3 347.2 125.4 36.1
48
Table 4.6a: Percentage of household members aged 10-59 years worked outside during the past one year before the survey by age, sex and ASA beneficiary status.
Age group
Total Male Female
All ASA Non-ASA All ASA Non-ASA All ASA Non-ASA
Total 16.8 15.5 24.5 18.5 17.3 26.6 14.9 13.5 22.1
10-19 11.7 10.2 17.2 11.3 10.1 16.5 12.0 10.4 17.9
20-39 25.2 24.7 36.2 28.0 28.1 39.3 22.1 20.9 32.8
40-59 8.0 6.3 12.5 10.2 7.9 16.1 5.8 4.5 8.9 Note: Proportion working outside in the age group 60+ was negligible and hence excluded from the table
Table 4.6b: Percentage of households migrated at survey, percentage of members worked out-side in the past one year before the survey by sex, nature of work done, duration of work and reasons for migration by location and ASA beneficiary status
Migration Details District/Location ASA beneficiary
Total Ratlam Pitol Rajpur Mandla & Saikheda
Jatara & Bijawar Yes No
% HHs migrated at survey * 9.1 3.3 9.9 18.9 3.4 10.4 NA NA
Total (migrants) 1058 7 720 31 71 229 328 723
Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
% members worked outside **
Total 16.8 0.6 47.7 3.3 5.3 17.5 15.5 24.5
Male 18.5 0.9 50.3 4.1 7.8 20.3 17.3 26.6
Female 14.9 0.2 45.0 2.5 2.8 14.0 13.5 22.1
Nature of Work
Agricultural labour 14.3 0.0 19.4 9.7 0.0 3.5 18.3 12.6
Non-agriculture/Casual Labour 81.5 42.9 79.6 58.1 81.7 91.7 75.9 84.4
Salaried/Artisan/Business 4.3 57.1 1.0 32.3 18.3 4.8 5.8 3.0
Days Worked Outside
Up to 180 days 35.6 28.6 33.8 3.2 59.2 38.9 45.7 31.1
181-300 days 39.5 0.0 41.9 6.5 21.1 43.2 35.1 41.9
301-365 days 24.9 71.4 24.3 90.3 19.7 17.9 19.2 27.0
Mean 228 299 229 351 180 222 203 239
Reason for Migration
Off season (no farming activity) 33.4 0.0 43.1 32.3 7.0 12.6 41.0 30.3
Lack of local work opportunities 62.7 100.0 53.3 45.2 93.0 83.9 56.6 65.1
Attraction of higher wages 3.9 0.0 3.6 22.6 0.0 3.5 2.4 4.6 * Households (HHs) migrated at survey were those HHs (with all its members) reportedly staying elsewhere for work at survey and hence not available for interview. ** Members worked outside are those who stayed outside and worked for at least some time in the past one year before the sur-vey but their families (at least some members) were available locally at survey (and interviewed).
49
Chapter 5
Case Studies
In this chapter, we provide case studies of a few programmes of ASA that received the attention
of the research team. There were many such programmes but only a sample of them are present-
ed here.
Dug well Programme in Pitol, Jhabua District
Action for Social Advancement (ASA) started the Dug Well Programme (DWP) in 1997 in
Madhya Pradesh and in Pitol cluster of Jhabua district in 2012. Since its inception till the date of
survey in December 2014, about 170 dug wells (including new constructions and renovations)
were given to the farmers in this cluster. The dug wells programme was funded by Jamsetji Tata
Trust and Saraswati Waney Charitable Trust; the financial support given for new construction
was Rs. 40000 to Rs.45000 and for renovation Rs.22000. The contribution by the beneficiaries
ranged from Rs.50000-Rs.70000 depending upon the soil strata in case of new dug well and Rs.
2000-Rs.25000 in the case of renovation wells. Total area irrigated with these dug wells was
about 300 to 350 acres. The number of dug wells given under the scheme was comparatively
higher in two villages, namely Kalapan (26) and Kakradara Khurd (25) with 102 beneficiaries and
150 to 180 acres of land irrigated.
Each dug well was shared by two to three farmers mostly within the same family (between
brothers, father and son, etc.) and sometimes with neighbors. The selection process of farmers
for dug wells was initiated and decided in the SHG meetings with the consent of all SHG mem-
bers. The dug well was given mostly in the name of males as the land was in their names. The
amount was given by cheque in installments depending on the progress of construction of dug
well. The additional amount and labour required for the construction of the dug well is shared by
the beneficiary farmers of the dug well. In order to avoid or minimize dispute among the partner
farmers, ASA made a tri-party agreement between ASA, the farmer on whose land well was con-
structed and the other beneficiary farmer(s).
With the help of dug wells, farmers were able to irrigate not only kharif crops but they started
growing rabi crops and sometimes even summer crops. The crops irrigated with the dug well are
mostly wheat, gram and maize. ASA has started promoting vegetable cultivation like ladyfingers,
chilly, brinjals and beans for household consumption. During the summer, farmers could irrigate
the land only once or twice due to low water level in the wells. For optimum use of water, ASA
had supplied drip sets to the farmers. The cost of each drip set was around Rs.20,000 which was
funded by Jamsetji Tata Trust and with these drip sets, farmers are growing vegetables like lady-
finger, chilly, brinjal, beans, etc.
Before ASA’s intervention, farmers did not have much irrigation facilities and thus agriculture
was highly dependent on rain. In kharif, maize was the common crop and cotton in small quanti-
50
ties was cultivated under rain-fed cultivation. Rabi cultivation was rare and those who were doing
it used to simply broadcast the gram seeds. After ASA implemented the dug well programme,
the farmers started cultivating crops such as soybean in kharif and wheat, gram and maize in rabi.
Availability of water resources along with farm bunding and application of good methods taught
by ASA rendered a healthy environment for paddy cultivation. It was noted that in recent years,
few farmers in four study villages started cultivating paddy for their household use.
Barwani Farmer Producer Company, Rajpur
The Rajpur location of ASA programmes in Barwani district has a farmer producer company
(FPC), named as ‘Barwani Farmer Producer Company’. The company was registered on 15th May
2012 under the Companies Act, 1956 and it covers all the 21 villages in which ASA is working in
Rajpur. This FPC is one of the oldest and best performing FPC with a total annual turnover of
business of Rs. 3 crores.
Any interested farmer (male or female) who is a member of the ASA promoted SHG or learning
group can become a member of the FPC. The per share face value is 10 rupees and a sharehold-
er is supposed to buy at least 20 shares. This Rs.200 is one time amount only, which increased to
Rs.500 recently at the time of survey. Until our survey in the area in December 2014, a total of
1173 male and 294 female farmer members (shareholders) had joined the company. In the main
office at Rajpur, the Board of Directors of FPC meets every month and makes a business plan as
well as a seasonal plan. In the meeting, the target for selling seeds, fertilizer and pesticides is
fixed.
The objective of the BFPC is packaging, storage, marketing, selling, distribution and trading of
major agricultural products such as agricultural equipment, seeds, fertilizer, pesticide and the
yield. The role of VRP is crucial in the marketing of agricul-
tural goods. The target for selling products by VRPs is fixed
by company and the VRPs call a meeting of ASA SHGs in
their respective villages to fulfill the target. The VRP informs
the SHGs and also puts up information on the village notice
board, about the availability of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides,
etc. and their prices. The farmers need to book their require-
ments in advance. Barwani FPC currently markets cotton,
wheat and chili products and seeds.
Seeds: Cotton, Wheat, Mess, Chilly, Vegetables Fertilizer: DAP, Super, Potash, Urea Pesticides: Biyolta, Neem-oil etc.
FPC is promoting “Ajeet 455” cotton seed. According to FPC the market price of Ajeet 455
seeds is Rs. 930 per kg bag but the FPC sells it for Rs. 890 to the farmers. ASA Company people
go to the village and buy cotton from the farmers at remunerative prices and thereby, the farm-
ers are relieved from transporting their goods to taluk places by incurring transport cost and
middlemen.
Benefits: The shareholders get the benefits while buying agriculture goods such as seeds, ferti-
lizers and pesticides from the FPC only. For instance, if the cost of DAP is Rs.1200 in the open
market, the shareholder get the DAP bag for Rs. 1000 to Rs.1100 from the FPC.
51
If the farmer is selling cotton to the FPC, then the FPC people go to the farmer village and buy
cotton; thus the traveling time, cost and labour required for this purpose will be saved because all
labour and transporting cost will be taken care of by the FPC.
Another benefit for the shareholder is that if the ginner is giving a higher price to the FPC when
they sell, they give a bonus of Rs. 100 per quintal to the farmer not in cash but in the form of
shares which goes to their shareholding account.
FPC is also selling the fertilizers, seeds (wheat, maize, onion, chilly) pesticide, neem oil, vegetable
seeds, water tank to the farmers and in each item, the shareholder benefits in terms of saving
some money.
During 2014-15, the Barwani FPC purchased 4500 quintals of cotton from the farmers at a re-
munerative price of Rs. 4100 per quintal and the total turnover for cotton was 1.8 crores. In the
previous year also (2013-14) the FPC purchased 4500 quintals of cotton from the farmers at a
remunerative price of Rs. 4000 per quintal.
Lift Irrigation in Bakshera Dona, Mandla District
ASA’s watershed project in Bakshera Dona village in Mandla is one of a kind. Agriculture here
was mainly rain fed before the implementation of the watershed project by ASA. The massive
land was barren and was not used for any agriculture purpose. Initially, when ASA intervened
they introduced SRI in the first year, in the following year it was clubbed with SWI and then by
seed production. Despite introducing good practices and modernizing agriculture, the major
problem of scarcity of water for cultivation remained the same. Thus, ASA functionaries strongly
felt the need of creating a sustainable water resource.
Fortunately, the village was blessed with river Narmada flowing nearby and ASA could foresee
the possibility of bringing the water for irrigation of the area around this village. Thus in 2011,
the organization proposed a lift irrigation project and the villagers instantly embraced the idea of
lifting the water from the river to irrigate maximum land in the village. As many as 42 able and
interested farmers were organized into a Water Users group. As per ASA’s norms, ASA contrib-
uted up to 75% of the expenses and the remaining 25% of the expenses were to be borne by the
participating farmers. On that basis a project proposal was designed (as shown in the figure be-
low) and executed jointly by ASA and the villagers.
52
The river Narmada flows on the outskirts of the village. The river water was pumped and drawn
with a 300m long pipeline to store in a tank. The tank was situated in the middle of farm land
and from there the water was distributed to individual farms through two water channels. This
particular storage tank irrigates about 100 acres of land in that area. In addition, a stop dam was
built and a storage well (16,000 litres) was built on a stream that flows on the other side of the
village, which irrigates 18 acres of land. The water from the storage well and stop dam is then
lifted through the pipelines to the hill top, stored in to two water tanks situated at a distance
from each other. The first water tank irrigates land up to 13 acres and the second situated on lit-
tle distance from the first, irrigates up to 23 acres. ASA has developed 46 Wadis on the hill top,
which was made possible with the Lift Irrigation project.
The hill which was earlier barren without any cultivation is now put to right use. As many as 46
wadis have been developed on the hill. Mango, amla and lemon are planted. Bamboo is also plant-
ed on the hill. Water availability round the year is ensured and it renders a suitable atmosphere
for vegetable cultivation. Many farmers benefitted from lift irrigation facilities and started culti-
vating tomatoes, cabbages, onion, egg-plants, beans, leafy vegetables etc. and the farmers are re-
ceiving good returns from the vegetable cultivation. Many of these farmers have enhanced their
farms with modern inputs such as drip sets, drums, small equipment etc., as they generated more
income.
53
The dependency on rain-fed agriculture has reduced drastically and it is replaced with irrigation
facilities. The soil on the hill was full of stones and agriculture was impossible, but with the in-
volvement of ASA the agriculture scenario has changed. ASA also assisted wadi owners with the
cleaning and leveling of land. There are regular visits by ASA functionaries and time to time
guidance is offered to beneficiaries. “Almost all the farmers have the water facility reaching their
farms due to the lift irrigation project”, said one of the beneficiaries of lift irrigation. The villag-
ers feel that the organization has made the optimum use of available natural resources. During
the FGDs, farmers also stated that the project when initiated seemed very ambitious; however,
the villagers are impressed by the way ASA has crafted the irrigation project to reality.
The villagers said that they are expecting to see a lot of greenery on the barren hilltop in the near
future. The sweet fruits of these plantations will be tasted by their next generations, expressed
the determined plantation owners.
54
Chapter 6
Summary of Findings
In this chapter, we summarize the findings and present it along the lines of the research ques-
tions of the study. It is to be noted that the research team was well aware of the difficulties inves-
tigating all the research questions adequately, as many of them needed more time, more re-
sources, different research designs and lots of inputs from ASA and donor agencies. With the
limited resources available, the research team tried its best in exploring answers for the research
questions and whatever the team could achieve are summarized and presented in this chapter.
Our impact assessment is more of people’s perception of the services received from ASA, their
agricultural practices, output from their field and their current socioeconomic condition and not
much of ASA’s managerial aspects. We have eight research questions and we list them below one
by one and present the findings from the study.
1. Implementation approach of ASA vis-a-vis the results: How far has ASA been suc-
cessful in learning and developing strategies and implementing them in a bigger
scale effectively – management effectiveness including cost-effectiveness.
The research team was briefed about the broad approach of ASA but little statistical infor-
mation was provided about its activities and performance. Earlier research studies did not
go into the details of managerial aspects, but they claimed that the programmes were suc-
cessful and results substantial.
The present study also indicates that ASA has increased its field operation not only in
Madhya Pradesh but also to the neighboring states - Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
Now ASA is reportedly operational in 29 districts - 15 in Madhya Pradesh, 3 in Chhattis-
garh, 6 in Jharkhand and 5 in Bihar and covers over 1300 villages and 130 thousand (1.3 lac)
households. This speaks volumes for its tireless efforts in serving the rural community in
general and marginalized farmers and tribal households in particular.
The research team visited many locations in Madhya Pradesh and found that the programme
worked well in most of the locations with respect to land and water resources development,
SHG formation, capacity building of SHG members in community participation, small sav-
ing, good agricultural practices and agribusiness through farmer producer companies. How-
ever, the team could not go into the details of management effectiveness and cost effective-
ness of these programmes due to limited time and input data.
In the initial years, ASA started with land and water resources development. More specifical-
ly, it created minor irrigation facilities such as check dams, watersheds and lift irrigation
structures wherever possible and they helped many farmers, specifically marginal farmers, to
improve their irrigation facilities. Further, in order to manage the created water resources,
they formed Water User Groups and most of them were functioning satisfactorily. For indi-
vidual and small group of marginal farmers, dug well programme was implemented. Water
conservation structures like farm ponds, sprinklers, drip sets were also provided, but not in
55
large numbers. These activities created confidence in the farmers, more specifically among
marginal farmers in the villages.
The FGD participants were appreciative of ASA activities in their villages and the house-
hold survey data also showed that the ASA beneficiaries were mainly marginal farmers in the
villages, who are now very close or equal to other farmers in the villages in terms of their
overall development and agriculture related activities, which are positive changes.
Subsequently, ASA had started community organization and community education pro-
grammes in the form of learning group (LG) or farmer field school for men and self-help
group (SHG) for women. Through these institutions, ASA provided education to farmers
on good agricultural practices and empowered women in decision making, financial control,
small savings and taught them good agricultural practices. Through the participation of
women in SHGs, ASA has made many illiterate and neo-literate women in the villages to
come out and participate in group activities and small savings, which the women considered
a great achievement and a step towards women empowerment.
Third, ASA has recently introduced ‘farmer producer company’ (FPC) with farmers, more
specifically SHG women, as shareholders. There are FPCs in each location but many have
been formed recently and so much impact could not be assessed. As of now, though the
impact is not substantial except in some locations, the intentions are encouraging, in that it
supplies certified seeds, quality fertilizer and pesticide, agricultural implements and also pro-
cures crop produce at attractive prices.
With respect to achievement as against interventions, there are positive results, but much
cannot be said as we do not know the quantum of input. However, some assessments are
based on a household survey and the results are summarized under the next research ques-
tion. In general, the assessment of the research team is that the implementation approach of
ASA is laudable.
2. What is the impact of ASA interventions on improving the livelihood of families
with respect to area under cultivation, yield increment, food security, reduction in
forced migration and creation of more jobs at the farm level, increase in income,
etc.?
Overall, in most of the study areas, the research team observed that ASA has formed institu-
tions like SHGs and Learning groups (LGs) in the villages and also conducted training pro-
grammes related to agriculture. Good agriculture practices are also taught to the farmers and
the farmers reportedly applied the methods in their fields and got good results including im-
provements in crop yield.
For example, with regard to line sowing method, farmers saved seeds and reduced expendi-
ture on seeds, ensured better growth of plants, and harvested higher yield. Similarly, those
who got irrigation facilities such as dug-wells with the assistance of ASA, have shifted to
better remunerative crops and a few of them who had sufficient water in the wells have
started growing rabi crops. With rabi crop cultivation, seasonal migration has reduced to
some extent.
Household survey data showed that though the total landholding of households did not
show any significant increase over a period, the irrigated landholding (from rain-fed to irri-
gation) increased and the proportion of households who increased irrigated landholding was
more among ASA beneficiaries than among non-beneficiaries, besides, a higher proportion
56
of ASA beneficiaries have gone in for rabi crops. As a result, yield per acre increased sub-
stantially and expenditure on raising crops decreased marginally. Further, as compared with
rain-fed cultivation, irrigated cultivation had increased the crop yield substantially. With the
irrigation facilities created with the assistance of ASA, farmers could double to triple their
crop yield (kharif and rabi combined with a rain-fed shift from to irrigation) and household
income increased.
The farmers continue to cultivate more food crops (maize, wheat, paddy and gram) than
commercial crops (cotton, soybean, sugarcane) and they sold the produce after keeping suf-
ficient stock of grains for their household consumption. Further, many households started
cultivating vegetables at least for their own household needs. So, not only did the agricultur-
al income of the households increase but also the food security of households improved
with the irrigation facilities introduced by ASA intervention.
3. Has there been any impact on environment with respect to land brought under cul-
tivation, on-farm water management, good agriculture practices (GAP), introduc-
tion and adoption of modern technology, restoration of common land /common re-
sources (viz. water bodies, forest, etc.), diversification of agriculture (like crop vari-
eties, cropping pattern – veg. cultivation, horticulture) and promotion of minor
crops-millets?
For this research question, we depend mainly on the FGDs and in-depth interviews. The
minor irrigation facilities created by ASA have improved the water table in the nearby areas
and facilitated many farmers to shift from rain-fed cultivation to irrigated cultivation not on-
ly in the kharif season but also in the rabi season. The study team has also seen water in
watersheds and check dams even during our survey period in late December to late
January. Further, due to the watersheds and check dams, a large stretch of barren land be-
came pasture land in the villages for the sake of the cattle population. These water resources
are said to be managed by WUGs effectively with the assistance of ASA functionaries.
The ASA beneficiaries were briefed about good agricultural practices in the SHG and LG
meetings and were taken for field demonstration that helped them understand good agricul-
tural practices. However, according to majority of the farmers they could not practice all of
them or could practice them only partially due to many constraints like time consuming ac-
tivities, large labour requirements, no cattle population or insufficient cattle to produce suf-
ficient quantities of bio-fertilizer, bio-pesticides and the like.
As such the ASA programmes have made some impact on the environment in terms of in-
crease in water table, increase in pasture land, soil fertility and the like, but the study could
not go into a detailed investigation of these aspects for the reasons already mentioned.
With regard to introduction and adoption of modern technology, restoration of common
land/common resources (viz. water bodies, forest, etc.), diversification of agriculture (like
crop varieties, cropping pattern-vegetable cultivation, horticulture) and promotion of minor
crops-millets, etc., the study team with its limited observations found that they are not wide-
spread but found in some study locations. For example, in Mandla location, with the help of
lift irrigation facilities, farmers now cultivate vegetables and also developed wadis of mango
and lemons plantations. In Pitol location, farmers in the study villages used to cultivate
mostly maize but after getting dug wells provided by ASA, they started growing vegetables
and cotton with the added irrigation facilities. However, the household survey indicated that
57
crop diversification was very limited as the area under millets, vegetables and horticulture
crops was very small.
4. How far has ASA’s approach taken the Panchayat into consideration and used re-
sources like NREGS, etc.? And, how far has ASA’s approach contributed to de-
partmental resources for convergence?
Owing to the limited time available with the study team, we could not collect much infor-
mation from the Panchayats and government functionaries about ASA’s involvement in the
activities of government sponsored programmes such as NREGS. However, one question
addressed in the household questionnaire was about people’s participation in NREGS and it
revealed that the farmers’ participation in NREGS was minimal if not nil. It appeared that
NREGS work was rarely undertaken in many villages. Further, very few farmers have bene-
fitted from NREGS in creating or renovating farm pond and farm bunding. However, dis-
cussions with ASA functionaries showed that they could get permission from Gram Pan-
chayats for land development activities and for constructing check dams and watersheds in
many villages. So, it appears that ASA’s contribution to departmental resources for conver-
gence especially NREGS was minimal or area specific.
5. To what extent is ASA’s community-institutional model relevant?
ASA formed community organizations namely LGs, SHGs and FPCs in the villages and
worked through them for the implementation of their programmes. It is also true that
community organizations other than those formed by ASA were rare in the villages (except
SHGs formed under Ajeevika). When ASA started its activities in the villages, it formed
people into some groups like SHGs for women and Learning Group for men. These groups
were then used for imparting training on good agricultural practices. The SHG members are
also shareholders of FPCs at the location level. Most of the SHGs are linked to banks.
The FGD participants were more appreciative of ASA as they are members of SHGs, and
they have benefitted not only from education/training on agricultural activities but also agri-
culture related supplies due to their extended membership in FPC. In a few FGDs, women
reported that they socialized more because of their membership and participation in the
SHG and started coming out of their houses and met each other often. They also reported
that they were taught good agricultural practices and they have applied the knowledge to
some extent in their fields and got good results.
On the whole, it is clear from the study that the institutional models of LG, SHG and FPC,
more specifically SHG, are working satisfactorily. However, it would be more beneficial if
the scope of these institutions were broadened to include improvements in schooling of
children, especially girls at least up to Standard X, better health care, improvements in the
nutritional status of children and women, reduction in social evils like drinking habits and
caste discrimination and the like. At the same time, it should be kept in mind that the focus
should not be lost due to the broadening of its activities ultimately leading to non-
performance of the system (SHG) itself.
6. To what extent has ASA been successful in replicating/scaling up its strategies into a
bigger programme?
The study team was informed that ASA has expanded its activities within and beyond
Madhya Pradesh and now it covers about 1300 villages in 4 states. This in itself is a testimo-
ny of ASA’s success in replicating or scaling up its strategies. However, the LG and SHG
58
meetings are often organized or conducted by the VRPs, and the FPCs are largely managed
by the ASA functionaries at least for the first three years, or they are deeply involved. For
sustainability of these institutions, it is desired that the involvement of ASA functionaries be
reduced and people’s involvement in the management of these institutions be increased step
by step. However, it was expressed by ASA functionaries that now ASA makes less invest-
ment in land and water resources development and more in community organization and
training, and more and more of people’s involvement is sought.
If the scaling up is stated to be successful, ASA needs to try its strategies in some locations
with minimal inputs or decreasing its inputs over a period of time and eventually withdraw-
ing from the scene to see how the system works. This will also help us in understanding the
sustainability of the ASA strategies and programmes.
7. To what extent has ASA influenced government/donors’ policies in scaling up its
approach/model/ strategies either fully or partially?
In order to seek the opinion of the donors (who provided financial, technical and/or other
services) to ASA, the study team emailed a semi-structured questionnaire to 15 donor agen-
cies of ASA (as per a list provided by ASA). In the questionnaire, information on the sup-
port provided to ASA and opinion about the effectiveness of the work done by ASA (as
perceived by them) and its cost effectiveness, were sought. In spite of reminders, only two
of them responded and even their answers were not specific to the questions asked and their
responses were very brief.
One of the two agencies said that its association with ASA was long (more than 6 years) ago
and they did not remember the details, but appreciated ASA’s work under the leadership of
Mr. Ashis Mondal, and the experience was positive. The other agency said that ASA was
one of their most effective Resource Institutions, and, it has not only worked towards
strengthening the community organizations involving farmers but also initiated business
transactions through FPCs to achieve sustainable status of the farmers.
8. How can one identify the weak-links in the programme/approach? Suggest how
ASA can scale-up (double its approach) in the next five years.
Though ASA is implementing a number of activities related to better agricultural practices
and for the betterment of marginal and tribal farmers, sustainability of the same after ASA
withdraws from the village is a big question. It is found in the villages in Ratlam, where ASA
withdrew its activities and left the management of the programmes to the villagers, most of
the facilities created became defunct because the groups could not take them further in a
sustainable manner. Often the groups did not meet and discuss the functioning of the water
resources structures as they had differences of opinion among the water user group mem-
bers themselves and there was nobody to bring them to a common platform. This problem
cannot be attributed to ASA because they did their job during their presence in the villages
but the villagers did not remain together on their own. It shows that in many cases the re-
sources created in the villages by external agencies require sustained external monitoring
even if the resources are maintained by the villagers. So sustainability of the programmes af-
ter withdrawal of the activities is a problem and it is not only in case of ASA villages but al-
most everywhere.
If this is the case with water resources management, when farmers directly benefit to aug-
ment their food security and household income, what will be the status of institutions like
SHGs and FPCs and programmes like capacity building of farmers, after the withdrawal of
59
ASA? As of now these institutions are young and managed by ASA and it remains to be
seen what happens in due course.
One option for ASA is to withdraw from the activities slowly rather than suddenly. Another
approach is to try the programmes with lesser input (persons and materials) from ASA and
greater participation from the farmers or beneficiaries. The third option is to work with
government departments like the Gram Panchayat, with the government taking over the
strategies and programmes slowly and ASA providing technical guidance.
Overall Observations
It must be mentioned that ASA programmes have definitely had a positive impact on social
movement, agricultural improvements and people’s livelihoods. While its success may not be
phenomenal, we have to accept the fact that it is very difficult for any organization to ensure a
total transformation of the community, especially a tribal community in a few years. But ASA has
sown the seeds of social and economic progress in the backward and tribal areas of central India
and people will reap many benefits in the years to come.
In our assessment, ASA’s interventions of land and water resources development have benefitted
the farmers more than the educational and capacity building activities. Because of the water re-
sources, farmers could shift from non-irrigated cultivation to irrigated cultivation and also culti-
vate crops in the rabi season. Because of these, the beneficiary farmers could double or even tri-
ple their crop yield annually and their household income also increased. On the other hand, edu-
cational programmes like good agricultural practices, capacity building and demo plots had only
limited impact as many of these activities are labour and resource intensive, which the farmers
are not very anxious to follow.
In the study locations, farmers were cultivating food crops such as wheat, maize, paddy and gram
more often than commercial crops like cotton, sugarcane and soybean. Further, the farmers had
kept aside adequate quantities of food grain for household use and sold only the excess grains
and thus they could ensure better food security of their households. However, there is no con-
clusive evidence to prove that seasonal migration has substantially decreased in the study loca-
tions due to better agricultural practices, higher yield and increased income of households. It is
because substantial increase in yield applies mainly to a few farmers who had large landholdings
and had shifted from non-irrigated to irrigated cultivation.
Though the study did not show marked differences between ASA beneficiary and non-
beneficiary households, it is evident that earlier, ASA beneficiary households were more marginal
and small farmers as compared to their counterparts. With ASA interventions, the farmers could
enhance their irrigation potential and at least come to the level of other farmers. This can be
considered a contribution to the rural community in the backward areas. Further, women could
come out of their houses and participate in social activities, small savings and capacity building
activities through the ASA promoted SHGs.
