the rivers/backwaters, prawn farms, coconut leaf mat- making, copra preparation, etc. .... Few of the coconut trees have stated yielding. ..... and death of animals.
Integrated Farming and Eco‐friendly Agriculture for Economic and Environmental Security for Children and Marginal Communities
Community‐led Resource Centre for Integrated and Sustainable Farming in Coastal Eco‐System in Tamil Nadu Supported by KNH
Proposal for Implementation (April 2014 to March 2017)
Project Implementation Lead Vrutti, Livelihoods Resource Centre st
Head Office: No. 19, 1 Main, 1st Cross, Aswath Nagar, RMV II Stage, Bangalore – 560 094, India Ph: + 91 80 2341 9616; Email: raghu@cms‐india.org ;Web: http://www.cms.org.in Branch Offices ‐ New Delhi, Bhopal, Hyderabad, Madurai, and Project Offices at various locations in India
(In partnership with local communities and civil society organisations)
CONTENTS CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.
BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMUNITY-LED RESOURCE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE FARMING ............................. 4
3.
PROJECT FRAMEWORK AND APPROACH ............................................................................................................ 9
4.
DETAILS OF STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES:....................................................................................................... 10
4.1
DEMONSTRATION OF VIABLE ENTERPRISE MODELS ON SUSTAINABLE FARMING .......................................... 10
4.2
CAPACITY BUILDING OF COMMUNITIES, YOUTH AND CFCD STAFF: ................................................................. 18
4.3
ENTERPRISE PROMOTION AT COMMUNITY LEVEL: ........................................................................................... 19
4.4
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH: ................................................................................................. 19
5.
GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT: .................................................................................................................. 20
6.
USE OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES: .................................................................................................................. 20
7.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT: .................................................................................................................................. 21
8.
FARM BUSINESS PLAN:...................................................................................................................................... 22
9.
PROJECT BUDGET: .............................................................................................................................................. 6
10.
PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK: ..................................................................................................................... 10
ABBREVIATIONS
Ac. Ca CFCD FYM FMD ISF K Kg. k.m. KNH MBT N Nos. P Rs. SC SHG SJDT Sq.ft. ST
Acres Calcium Child Focussed Community Development Farm Yard Manure Foot and Mouth Disease Integrated Sustainable Farming Potash Kilogram Kilometre Kindernothilfe Mutual Benefit Trust Nitrogen numbers Phosphorous Rupees (Indian Currency) Scheduled Cate ‐ The lowest social status in the society; also called ‘harijans’ or ‘dalits’. Usually they are in lowest economic status. Self Help Group St. Joseph’s Development Trust square foot / feet Scheduled Tribes
1. BACKGROUND An Integrated Sustainable Community Farm in Nagpattinam District of Tamil Nadu has been funded by the Kindernothilfe (KNH) since 2007. This support had the financial backing of Thyssenkrupp, (a multinational corporate) till March 2013. The farm was intended to be an enterprise that will generate employment in the locality, provide knowledge inputs to the communities around, while without dilution of the focus on profitability and sustainable agricultural practices. Land was acquired from the year 2006 onwards, and after the initial infrastructure developmental activities like fencing, land preparation, the perennial crops planned for the farm i.e., Mango and Coconut were planted during September 2009. The project was implemented by St. Joseph’s Development Trust SJDT) from the beginning. SJDT made good progress in procuring the land and taking up the development activities. However, there have been challenges in running the farm, particularly orienting the actions towards the objectives of the farm. Considering the high stake on the farm by the key stake holders and the emerging opportunities available to the project particularly from the improved awareness and priorities for sustainable agriculture from the government and the general public, the donors of the project felt the necessity to bring in a management to the farm which has technical & human resource capabilities and high level of orientation of intentions to the objectives of the farm. CCCYC and KNH identified the Centre for Indian Knowledge System (CIKS), and CIKS took charge of the operations from December 2011 onwards till August 2012, but could not continue due to internal reasons. From September 2012, the project was implemented by Vrutti with technical support from few staff members of CIKS. KNH expressed it willingness to consider the project as a measure for three years starting April 2014, with expanded scope of capacity building to the communities who will become the ultimate owner of the farm and benefits reaching to large number of communities, particularly to the children through various avenues of capacity building and community engagement. Vrutti, the agency that is implementing the project currently will work in coordination with SJDT towards achieving these objectives.
2. RATIONALE FOR THE COMMUNITY-LED RESOURCE CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE FARMING The children in greatest trouble are those whose parents lack the earnings, assets, services or social support systems required to consistently meet their families’ needs. Most of these children are growing up in impoverished communities that are disconnected from the economic mainstream. In India, over the past decades, there have been several policy and programme initiatives by the central and state governments aiming at social and economic inclusion of the communities that
are weaker in these areas and more specifically targeting the women and children of these families. These initiatives have brought about appreciable changes at the grass roots. However, the dynamic changes of environment and the complexities of the social and economic developments create situations for uncertainties among the underprivileged. The multi sector and multipronged approaches of the governments, NGOS and other actors are lifting people out of poverty and providing better care for the children. However, what need to be achieved or the road to be travelled requires consistent and innovative approaches so as to achieve reasonable level of equity in development to the children from these underprivileged families. In addition the communities and children need to be capacitated to face the emerging and new threats that affect their growth and expose them to new dangers. Nagapattinam district in Tamil Nadu though have experienced enormous developmental interventions particularity over the past decade as rehabilitation and development as part of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Response Programme, the climatic vagaries and the poor soil conditions, make a larger population of the rural communities live in conditions of poverty and women and children exposed various forms of challenges in the families and in the society. In Nagapattinam District, around 74% of the cultivators have less than one hectare of land, and another 15% hold between one to two hectares. The remaining 11% of the households own above two hectares of land. Though the area receives an average of 1337 mm of rainfall annually, nearly 76% occurs during the Northeast Monsoon, followed by 17.3% during the Southwest Monsoon. The soil is predominantly sandy in texture, and clayey in certain pockets, with slight salinity/alkalinity; dark brown to brown, deep, sandy and possessing characteristics, of mild to moderate alkalinity levels. The area lying between Nagapattinam and Vedaranyam, dominated by sand dunes, and cultivated soils mostly sandy in texture. Regarding the water table, fresh water is overlying saline ground water. The cultivation depends primarily on rainfall, supplemented by underground water. The area lying between north of Nagapattinam, to the border of Cuddalore District is covered under the Delta Irrigation System. Agriculture in this region is dominated by rain fed and canal irrigated cultivation, supplemented by tank irrigation for the main crop of rice, and small‐scale irrigation using underground water for the secondary crop viz pulses, gingelly, groundnut etc. Paddy is the primary subsistence crop, being traditionally cultivated in different methods. More than two third of the farming community are small and marginal landholders, and paddy is the most suitable staple crop. Groundnut, coconut, cashew, mango, vegetables like brinjal, cluster bean, lady’s finger etc are cultivated using small scale irrigation. Cotton, and Casuarina are the other commercially important crops. In some of the areas, pulses like green gram, black gram and cowpea are cultivated as secondary crops (relay crop) after first season paddy, or finger millet, gingelly, sun hemp etc. are grown.
The district is prone to climate vagaries as drought and cyclone. Because of these factors in the district, agriculture is not promising. The farmers are losing interest in agriculture. The agriculture in the district can be characterized as subsistence farming. People with small cultivable land holdings find it difficult to make ends meet. People go for traditional varieties of crops and desi varieties of livestock which have capacity to withstand climate vagaries but will give poor yield thus often ending up in loss. Most of the marginal farmers do not realize this as their self and family labour cost are not counted and they do not make adequate progress in their life and livelihoods. Livestock played a major role in strengthening their livelihoods, particularly the small ruminants. Generally small ruminants are reared in stall‐fed system, using tree fodder, supplemented during lean season by open grazing in the agricultural fields. Agricultural work is the major livelihood for the agricultural labourers, supplemented by major multiple livelihoods like seasonal fish catch in the rivers/backwaters, prawn farms, coconut leaf mat‐ making, copra preparation, etc. Many interventions in the past by the government as crop rotation, improved varieties, subsidies, extension services etc. haven’t produced expected results as these efforts were most of the time found to be not addressing the key issues that affect the success of agriculture. Any interventions therefore in this context have to comprehensive and should provide solutions to the factors that makes agriculture unattractive. The intervention thus planned should be able to reduce the cost of cultivation, improve yields, should not be exploiting the prospects of agriculture by damaging the soil and the environment and also should have an inclusive approach of creating opportunities for the weaker sections like the poor, women and in particular greater opportunities for the landless and dalits. In addition to the scenarios explained above in the locality of the community farm, the recent evaluation of the child focused community development projects (CFCD) throws open a number challenges that need to be addressed. While these projects have provided huge value for the communities and their children, there are a number of new challenges that need solutions so as the progress of development are sustained. The projects’ foci on the direct child care and child development components have performed well. The interventions towards improving the household economy of the communities, particularly the ones towards revitalizing the agriculture prosperities have unfinished agenda, mainly because of lack of adequate models of household integrated agriculture practices. Some of the salient points that emerge out of the evaluation studies are:
There have been efforts of kitchen garden and nutrition garden, providing training for raising these gardens and also supply of seed materials. The communities have grown these
during a season and after harvesting the crop, the efforts are not sustained as the communities reported lack of irrigation infrastructure or seeds.
The kitchen garden have mostly benefitted those families who received the seeds as these gardens have been raised for their domestic consumption. There have been limited efforts to promote these gardens as enterprises and send the produce to the markets so that the benefit are passed on to the communities consistently.
The communities report that they have been traditionally consuming locally available food (fish, pulses and millets) and they had fewer cases of illness. But the change in food habits, consuming rice from the public distribution system and vegetables purchased from the markets, have made them consume chemical polluted food and there are more cases of diseases like diabetics, blood pressure and cancer.
Interventions targeting the youth have been limited to their recreational activities and their involvement in securing their entitlements and benefits from the government and that too not fully. Further, all the children who pursue their education in schools may not end up securing a salaried job. These points towards greater efforts required to promote employment opportunities for the youth. Employment opportunities promoted around agriculture and locally available raw materials will not only provide income for those who get involved in these enterprises but also promote growth of local economy.
An intervention that provide solutions to the above challenges will be much value in providing better opportunities for the communities to carry forward the progress that have been made already in providing better opportunities for the children to realize their rights. Eight CFCD projects funded by KNH will complete their project time of 7 years in less than a year from now (March 2015). Sustainable agriculture models and business plans that exploit all possible opportunities and provide solutions that can overcome / reduce the magnitude of the challenges will be of great value to the beneficiaries of these CFCDs. The project has been designed to contribute to the solutions for some of the challenges mentioned above. While the farmers and women from general communities will also part of the project as pioneers and will bring in scale, the projects will target with priority farmers and women from dalit communities. Children and youth from these communities will be the ultimate beneficiaries of the project. There is a need for a ‘technical resource centre’ that is dynamic and innovative, and able to address the emerging needs and challenges of the farming communities, thereby ensuring
livelihood security for the marignalised groups and their children. Given the strategies that work effectively for the uptake of the agricultural technologies and practices, it is important to have these demonstrated in the farm and the results are disseminated through exposure to the farm. There is a need to build capacities of the farming community from time to time, season to season at a scale – not just in technologies and practices, but more importantly to imbibe the culture of Entrepreneurship in agriculture. Farmers should see the best way to operate the agricultural enterprises through an integrated and business‐based approach. This farm is expected to do this. There are also possibilities of bulking up milk from various villages and linking up with dairies for higher incomes for farmers is a possibility. Through Vrutti, there have been opportunities emerging from other NGOs such as BEDROC, SNEHA, CCD and others. There are number of producers groups which can also benefit from this initiative. There are possibilities from NABARD and other agencies for conduct of training for Farmer Producer Organisations or training on technical areas of agriculture. This initiative is expected to address some of the key questions and provide solutions, given the enormous challenges of coastal agro ecological system and the vulnerabilities to disasters:
Can agriculture and farming be profitable enterprises to ensure economic security for the children and communities in disaster‐prone areas?
What kind of enterprises that can address the sustainability of the farms – the soil health, reduced dependence on external inputs?
How does the farmer plan for an integrated farming – one enterprise feeding to the other, and also a combination of seasonal and perennial crops?
What kind of readiness measures that one can put in place to face disasters – such as drought, flood, salinity, etc.
What are good agricultural practices (GAP) that farmers can adopt?
What are good soil and water conservations methods and techniques, etc.
What kind of quality and products that consumers demand and pay premium on?
What are the short term and long‐term benefits and costs of sustainable farming operations?
How do we reach out to more farmers with these practices and create a mass to reach out to market with these products?
The idea is to make these as ‘enterprises driven’ approach, rather than just a demonstration plots. The uniqueness of this project is about that. The farmers can see the costs and benefits of the enterprises and how to approach agriculture as an enterprise mode.
3. PROJECT FRAMEWORK AND APPROACH It is important to note here that even though the original idea of this farm was limited to looking at Tsunami affected labourers, given the challenges in coastal farming, needs of the communities and also the requirements of livelihood security approaches in CFCDs, it is envisaged that this initiative will be made more dynamic and impactful addressing these key needs. A dynamic resource centre operating at the district level, and also addressing needs of the CFCDs and communities around the farm is being planned, building on the work already done on the field. Three types of sustainability that this farm‐based initiative is focusing on:
Sustainable farming practices, so that the soil health, water quality, product quality, and environmental benefits are ensured
Reasonable Rate of Internal Returns, so that the farm can operate on its own without any external funding (at least taking care of the overheads and enterprise costs) – financial sustainability
Community governed and managed – so that the ownership and benefits go to community and they are not dependent on the external support over a period of time.
While these are expected, it is also envisaged that the experiences from the farm is not just limited to a few, but reach out to large number of farming communities, marginalized groups and youth in the area and beyond. Building on these the project framework is designed, in consultation with the stakeholders and the experiences from the field. The Goal of the project is: “To promote integrated and sustainable agriculture for economic and environmental security for children and marginalsied communities” The Specific Objective of the Project is: “A community‐led integrated sustainable farm established and learnings adopted among farming communities within and beyond the district” To achieve this objective, the project envisages Five Result Areas:
Result area 1: Enterprise models, sustainable agricultural technologies and practices established for demonstration in the farm. Farm generates adequate incomes to manage its overheads and enterprise costs to demonstrate business viability.
Result Area 2: Farmers, youth, women and children trained in sustainable agricultural practices, technologies and enterprise models, both in the farm and in the communities. Communities from CFCDs, SJDT and other NGOs will be trained based on the demand.
Result Area 3: Community‐level farm enterprises facilitated and established in project area. The enterprises that are demonstrated in the farm will be facilitated in the project areas through SJDT and other NGO partners. Enterprises such as vermin compost, community vermin compost, fodder, milch animals, etc. The financing mechanisms available with each of the partners will be used by them. In addition, as available any revolving fund may be provided by KNH from time to time, based on demand and performance.
Result Area 4: Communities around the farm mobilised and the office bearers of federations trained to govern and manage farm in the long run. This will be mainly undertaken in the SJDT area (MBT and around the farm) by the partner so that the community leaders are readied to take over management of farm in the coming years.
Result Area 5: Models, Experiences and Practices tested and documented and shared for replication. This component will be handled by Vrutti with the farm team.
4. DETAILS OF STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES: 4.1
DEMONSTRATION OF VIABLE ENTERPRISE MODELS ON SUSTAINABLE FARMING
This intervention aims at carrying forward the efforts made in the community farm over the last seven years. The enterprises that have been established and the trials made in the farm have provided rich knowledge and these will be carried forward and the community farm will be made economically viable. All the operations in the farm will follow sustainable organic practices with organic inputs. Before presenting the proposed activities in the farm, the following section provides an update of the community farm. Status Update: This section provides an overview of the progress in development of the farm. The salient progress and facilities in the farm are Infrastructure: A total of 44.30 acres of land had been purchased. The total area of 44.30 acres is in two patches of 29.85 acres (referred as Block A in this document) and 14.45 acres (named Block B).
The entire boundary of block A, has been fenced with RCC pillars and barbed wire. The fencing requires strengthening, a regular maintenance effort. There are three bore wells and are energised with tariff free connections, but only one bore well yield water that too inadequate and gets dry in summer. Construction of administrative complex with administration office, watchman quarters, separate storage rooms for inputs and outputs and a lodging facility with attached bathroom for the farm manager to stay has been completed. The administrative building has a training hall that can accommodate 30 trainees. The farm has two security quarters, each a two storeyed building with 100 sq.ft plint area in each of the floors. These buildings need to be electrified. There are two animal sheds that can accommodate 20 milch animals. In addition, there is one shed that can accommodate 10 calves. There is one vermi compost shed with floor area of 800 square feet. There is a fish pond for 0.6 acres. There is a drip irrigation system laid for the 14 acres under Mango and Coconut, but this need replacement particularity the laterals and emitters. Enterprises: Mango (1600 Nos.) and Coconut (420 Nos.) are planted in 14 acres of land. Three out of the five varieties of mangoes have started yielding. Few of the coconut trees have stated yielding. There are 9 animals (lost one last year to Foot and Mouth Disease) in the productive stage and 14 calves in various stages of growth. Trials on growing fish has yielded positive results but rabbit, poultry and turkey have helped understand challenges from the environment, practices and market fronts. In the same way trails with some fodder varieties and cotton have produced positive results while that with traditional varieties of paddy, improved varieties of paddy and grams have not been encouraging. New enterprises like goat farming and sheep fattening have been identified and costing done. Human Resources: Competent technical staff (1 Farm Manager and 2 Farm Assistants) are managing the farm. Labours for animal care has been a persistent challenge. Trainings organised in the farm have resources support from Vrutti and CIKS.
Concept behind the models promoted: The project is built on the principle of sustainable agriculture, which will generate employment for the house holds including women and will provide food and ensures nutrition to the women and children:
Integrated – the activities within the farm will not be restricted to one single crop or activity, but based on agriculture‐allied system of operations. Therefore, the activities will include agriculture, horticulture, fishery and livestock. One activity of the farm will feed to the other. For example, cultivation of fodder as an enterprise will feed to the milch animals in the farm, the dung of the animals feed to vermin compost production which feeds to cultivation of crops.
Sustainable – The farm is designed in such a way that three areas of sustainability will be achieved. The first one being the commercial sustainability, i.e. the farm should earn enough profits to manage its own operations and future investments. The second one being the environmental sustainability, wherein the farm will work towards using organic farming practices which does not affect environment. The third area being the institutional sustainability, i.e. the farm will work with the community organisations and their federations so that these institutions can carry forward the activities over a long period of time.
Community Managed – the farm will eventually be managed by the community and to this effect the federation of Self Help Groups will be involved very closely in governance and operations.
Brief of Organic Practices in the Farm: A key principle that the farm has been practising and promoting over a period of time is ‘Organic Farming’. A brief on this concept and operationalization are given below: Indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers for decades in the cultivation of crops have resulted in the reduction of organic matter content in the soil to less than 1 percent. Further, excessive use of chemical pesticides resulted in polluting the environment including land, water and the ecosystem affecting the living beings. It affects the health of people; particularly the children are very vulnerable. Hence, there has been growing awareness about the importance of organic, sustainable and integrated farming systems in India. The Nagapattinam district being the Cauvery River basin area, the farmers have been using chemical fertilizers, pesticides for decades. It is felt important to promote sustainable agriculture, integrated farming systems by using the organic farming principles. Therefore, the project proposes training and capacity building of the farmers in the villages in the nearby areas of the farm and other farmers in Nagapattinam district. The organic farming practices emphasis in the use of organic manures, green manures, use of degradable bio wastes etc. The recycling of wastes will bring in the sustainability of agriculture with eco‐friendliness.
Organic farming is production of crops, live stocks by excluding the use of synthetically compound fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators and live‐stock feed additives. To the maximum extent possible, organic farming systems rely upon crop rotation, crop residues, animal manures, off‐farm organic wastes, judicious mechanical cultivation, mineral bearing rocks and aspects of biological pest control to maintain, soil productivity and to supply plant nutrients and to control insects, weeds and other pests. Organic manures improve physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil. Addition of organic manures improves structure aeration, and water holding capacity of soils reduces phosphorous fixation in acidic soil forms, chilates with metallic ions and reduces their toxicity in crops. Integrated farming system components are crops, animals, birds, fisheries, and horticulture and forestry. These systems integrate crops, animals, tree biomasses and organic wastes for recycling and using it back to the soil. For substituting the chemical fertilizers various forms of organic manures and bio‐fertilizers are explained below: (a) Farm Yard Manure (FYM): Cow dung, Goat droppings are important sources of plant nutrients. FYM is composed of dung, urine, bedding and straw. FYM contains approximately 5‐6 kg. N (Nitrogen), 1.5‐2 kg Phosphorus, and 5‐6 kg Potash/ton. It builds up soil health considerably. Rearing of 20 Nos. of sheep is considered and these animals will be allowed to graze in the mango and coconut filed. By doing this the goat dropping will add organic content to the soil and improve nutrition in the soil. Further, the cost for weeding also will reduce as the sheep graze the fields. (b) Green Manuring: There are crops like Sun hemp and other green manure crops for mulching them in to the soil and are good source of ‘N’ (Nitrogen) and it increase the availability of P (Phosphorus) .K (Potash) and other micronutrients to the soil. Green manure crop will be grown in the fields during the monsoon season and off season for crops. (c) Vermicompost: This is 5 times richer in N, 7 times in P, 11 times in K, 2 times in Mg.2 times in Ca & 7 times in antinomy than ordinary soil. It is a rich source of vitamins and growth hormones like gibberelic which regulates the growth of plant and microbes. The compost prepared by using earth worm is called vermicompost. As the farm has good infrastructure for producing vermicompost throughout the year, the available capacity will be utilized to the full extend to produce
vermicompost and will be utilized in the farm. The project will also provide training and support to the communities for producing vermicompost as an enterprise. The community farm can also provide space for the communities to get engaged in this activity. (d) Bio‐fertilizers: It is a part of Organic Manure. These are living cells of different types of microorganisms which have an ability to mobilize nutritionally important elements from non‐usable to usable form. They influence the availability of major nutrients like Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium and Sulphur to the plants. Rhizobium, Azatobactr, Azospyrillum, Blue Green Algae, Azolla, Myorrhizae, and Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria can be used as Bio‐fertilizers to increase the crop production. These micro‐organisms require organic matter for their growth and activity in the soil and provide valuable nutrients to the plants in the soil. As there are no initiatives in this area that promotes these systems of agriculture, the proposed centre provides opportunities for training and supporting farmers in the locality and members of the communities who will become the actual owners of the farm later. The project will produce bio‐fertilizers and at the same time will also train and support the farmers in producing bio‐fertilizers in an enterprise mode. Keeping these concepts in mind, the strategic directions and the plan are developed. Enterprise Plan for the Farm: The details of the enterprises proposed for the farm is given below:
Site Layout of the Farm:
Plan of Action for the Farm: The A block measuring 29.85acres is already fenced and infrastructure developed will continue to attract development in the next three years while the B block measuring 14.45 acres will be under conventional practice of paddy followed by grams. The B block land is in three patches and no investment in infrastructure is considered in the next three years. The farm area is under organic way of cultivation and along with the infrastructure created will provide the platform for organising training in the farm. The community farm over the years have developed the farm infrastructure for engaging the communities and also transfer of knowledge. While the perennial crops are growing well and have started yielding, there have been challenges in between as release of funds timely by the donor, outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease (FMD) in the district which took the life of one animal and two calves and the milk production took a beating. Trials on establishment of enterprises like poultry, rabbit rearing, dove rearing and vegetable cultivation have shown these enterprises have challenges both in soil and climatic conditions and also in the market. The trails have thrown open pointers for intervention. The community farm will conduct more trials on its own and also with research institutions and develop technology and package of practices for developing these and such enterprises in the locality and in the district. The community farm will continue with the orchard established and continue the animal enterprises. Some of the animals in the farm will be replaced as their milk yield is low. Additional 10 numbers of animals will be added to the herd. The number of goats in the farm also will be raised to 20 and 20 sheep will be reared on seasonal basis. Fodder will be grown in 9 acres so as to feed the animals in the farm. As water logging is experienced in the farm, the need to raise the ground level by at least one foot is felt and this will be done by excavating earth in the farm to dig a pond in which fish can be reared. Two acres of land has been set aside for trials and seed production. The cost of trials and seed production are not shown in the business plan as the details of crops and the varieties are yet to be decided. However, all these trails may not require investment in infrastructure and will be self‐supportive and hence no extra cost is considered in the business plan towards this. While the farm will not lose its focus on profitability of the farm, there will not be any compromise in using sustainable and organic agricultural practices in the farm though the returns may as good if conventional practices are followed. As the soil is found to be with very poor carbon content and is alkaline to saline in nature, there is thrust on adding copious quantities of farm yard manure in the farm. Hence, animals’ enterprises are considered in the farm in adequate size.
4.2 CAPACITY BUILDING OF COMMUNITIES, YOUTH AND CFCD STAFF: The community farm has been practicing organic way of cultivation. The farm has demonstration units like the plants that are grown in the farm, the farm based enterprises in the farm, the value added products like the vermicompost, panchakavyam, amirthakarasal etc. The farm practices biological control of pests and diseases and have demonstration units for farmers to see and try this in their farms. The farm is sourcing expert advice and technological solution for sustainable agriculture. These knowledge available with the farm can be transferred to the communities that visit the farm both for organised trainings and meetings and also out of self‐interest and needs. Training for Farmers and Farm Women: The project will organise trainings for farmers and women involved in agriculture. The trainings will focus on sustainable farming and inputs production for sustainable farming, production of value added products, value addition of farm produce, etc. The list of trainings that can be organised in the community farm has been appended to this proposal under the Appendix A. Training for Youth and Children: The community farm is an ideal location for schools in nearby areas to organise recreation and exposure visit to the children. The project will actively engage schools to organise motivational programmes for children to make them aware of the need to preserve trees, cultivate organic crops and consume nutrient rich vegetables in their homes. Models of nutrient / kitchen garden will be demonstrated in the farm. The project will also actively engage the child focussed interventions of KNH/CCCYC like the CFCD projects and the residential care centres for establishing nutrient gardens in their centres. Training for Youth: The community farm will also organise capacity building programmes for the youth in rural areas to set up enterprises that will promote sustainable agriculture and also engage them as active members for development of the rural communities and their economies. Training for CFCDs: As mentioned in the rationale for the project, the CFCD projects of CCCYC/KNH require inputs in preparation of business plan for enterprises, technologies and practices in sustainable agriculture, marketing of farm produce and value addition. These trainings can be organised in the community farm and also in their respective centres as needed.
4.3 ENTERPRISE PROMOTION AT COMMUNITY LEVEL: Women SHG in a few the villages under the intervention of CIKS, tried their fortune in rearing milch animals and making revenue from not only the milk but also efficient utilization of the dung from the animals. Explorations of possible opportunities led them to an innovative idea of a group vermi compost production unit. The community farm is extending credit to the beneficiaries identified by CIKS and the Sirkazhi Organic Farmers Association. The community engagement will be scaled up and members of the mutual benefit trusts promoted by St.Joseph’s Development Trust also will be covered. The objective is to promote household enterprises and village level group enterprises in the interest of promoting sustainable agricultural practices. Resource Centre for Inputs in Sustainable Agriculture: The community farm will be producing and sourcing inputs for organic agriculture and the same will be available for sale in the farm. In addition to the trainings in the farm, the project will also be available for the communities around the farm and the MBT members providing handholding support in establishing enterprises in organic agriculture. Action Hub for Enterprise Development and Market Facilitation for Enterprises around the Community Farm: As enterprises are promoted, the community farm will provide a platform for enterprises to market their products. For example milk produced in the areas around the farm can be channeled through the community farm as the community farm itself will be selling milk. The community farm can also facilitate sale of other produce and products if any produced by the communities. Generation of Employment and Returns: The activities in the community farm will progress in a mutually beneficial pattern in way the farm benefits the communities and the communities grow the farm to higher levels of outreach and outputs. The farm while providing training for the communities will also provide the farmers inputs and handholding support for enterprise promotion. The farm will also play a key role in collectivizing the farmers’ efforts in a way that provides economies of scale, collective bargaining, value chain intervention etc.
4.4 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH: The community farm will also take up trials and research for providing solutions to the farmers’ problems. The training programmes organised in the farm and the exposure sessions provided to the trainees will form the platform for farmers to share their concerns and challenges. The challenges could be on the technology front, inputs management or in the market front. These sessions will capture the issues that require solutions and at appropriate decision making forum
with representation of farmers, the project will identify experiments / studies that needed to be taken up in the farm. The project will also on its own and in partnership with other agencies look for resources to take up studies and experiments. While KNH will be providing funds for carrying out the farm operation in the initial years, the farm will generate revenue for all its operation. The farm will sell its own farm produce, charge users for the services offered by the farm be it training other than what have been planned or consultancy or supply of inputs and marketing of their produce. Only a minimum cost for the research and trainings have been considered in the proposal. The project will also look for additional source of funding (like the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development and responding to calls for proposal from other donor agencies) for taking up studies, research or organising additional trainings in the farm.
5. GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT: The community farm while developed as a profitable enterprise and a resource centre in organic agriculture, the communities’ involvement in the farm is crucial for achieving the objectives and for the sustenance of the farm. The role of the communities will be at two levels. Firstly, the communities will get involved in developing and managing the farm as farm labours and as entrepreneurs setting up their own individual and group enterprises both in their own place and also in the farm. The second level of involvement would be in governance of farm as key contributors of ideas and decision makers. All the above mentioned activities with the community farm is possible only with the involvement and cooperation of the communities. As for the engagement of communities, SJDT will get involved in coordinating with the communities. The role of the community farm will be limited to providing all knowledge inputs and supports for establishing and managing enterprises by the communities. Also, by mentioning that the communities will be involved in managing the farm as farm labourers, the project does not intend to hire labours only from the communities around. It is expected that in about three to five years period of time, the governance and management of the farm could be handed over to the communities.
6. USE OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES: The farm products would include milk, coconut, mangoes and other vegetables and seeds which are produced in the farm. The community farm will produce inputs in sustainable agriculture like panchakavyam, vermicompost, amirthakaraisal and also will source and supply inputs used in bio‐control of pests and diseases. The farm will engage the communities around the farm and also from other places in Nagapattinam district for production and supply of organic inputs.
7. PROJECT MANAGEMENT: The project will be managed by Vrutti for the next three years (April 2014 to March 2017), and Vrutti will work with SJDT and other local partners as per the plan above. SJDT being the project holders, the periodical reviews and steering will be done jointly by Vrutti, KNH representation and SJDT. Each partner will bring in their respective strength and contribute towards achieving the objectives of the project. While Vrutti will take complete responsibility for managing the farm and all the services it offers for the entire project period, SJDT will organise the communities around the farm and prepare the communities along with the MBTs to take charge of the farm beyond the project period. Vrutti will be supported by two members from the The Centre for Indian Knowledge Systems (CIKS) bringing their technical expertise and farm management. The roles and key actions each of the partner will take charge is given in the table below. Sl. Actions No.
1
Process
Field models Demonstration demonstrating integrated of viable sustainable models with farmer friendly farming though enterprise technology and practices approach established
2
Capacity Building of communities, children and child focussed interventions
3
Enterprise promotion around sustainable agriculture
Farmers, Women, Children and Child focussed interventions in Nagapattinam District and other area supported to adopt ISF through enterprise mode Labour and women in the district benefit through substantial employment
Vrutti
SJDT
KNH
Management of the Farm, Overall in‐charge for management of the farm, demonstration units, creating scope for community managed enterprises in the farm
Participation in steering committee meetings
Monitoring the progress, participation in steering committee meetings, approval of reports
Developing training modules, delivery of trainings
Organising the communities, identifying participants, feedback and follow‐up
Monitoring the process
Employment generation in the farm, conducting market studies, identifying markets
Organising the communities, identifying participants, feedback and follow‐up
Monitoring the process and progress
Sl. Actions No.
4
5
Process
and returns from the enterprise Federation of Women SHGs in the District Knowledge capacitated to Management own and and Research manage community farm sustainably The outputs of the community farm (products Use of product and services) are effectively and Services utilised by the targeted communities.
Vrutti
SJDT
KNH
Organising the Providing capacity communities, formation of building training Monitoring the SHGs linking in governance process and progress and management them to federations and of the farm. MBTs.
Need based trainings, capacitation
Participation in Monitoring the market channel process development
Project Monitoring and Evaluation: The project will be having a robust monitoring and evaluation system. The M&E system will be developed by Vrutti using the logical framework and the business plan of the farm. While Vrutti will implement the system, collect and collate the data, these data will be shared with all the key stake holders on a periodic basis and will be reviewed during the review meetings and steering committee meetings. The monitoring system will be participative and data will be fed to the system by the respective field agencies as per their role in implementing the project. KNH will monitor the progress of operations.
8. FARM BUSINESS PLAN: A detailed business plan has been prepared for a period of 12 years starting the financial year 2014‐2015. The following table gives the details of income and expenditure for the financial year 2014‐2015 to 2025‐2026.
Highlights of the Business Plan: (Excel Sheet Attached) Income and Expenditure Statement:
No Particulars 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 2022‐23 2023‐24 2024‐25 2025‐26 1 Income from Sale of Products 17,14,400 28,16,925 38,92,781 49,43,556 60,55,700 71,70,647 86,44,919 105,01,307 114,41,968 124,71,222 135,97,654 148,30,694 2 Expenditure on Activities 20,20,940 21,67,502 23,18,957 24,36,555 25,60,198 26,90,204 28,26,910 29,70,672 31,21,863 32,80,879 34,48,138 36,24,082 3 Gross Income
(3,06,540) 6,49,423 15,73,824 25,07,001 34,95,502 44,80,443 58,18,008 75,30,635 83,20,105 91,90,343 101,49,516 112,06,612
4 Farm Overheads
14,49,000 15,93,900 17,53,290 16,86,135 18,54,749 20,40,223 22,44,246 24,68,670 27,15,537 29,87,091 32,85,800 36,14,380
5 Net Income
(17,55,540) (9,44,477) (1,79,466) 8,20,866 16,40,754 24,40,220 35,73,762 50,61,965 56,04,568 62,03,252 68,63,715 75,92,232
1
First five years – Income and Expenditure – Details: No A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Particulars Incomes: Coconut Mango Dairy Fish pond Vermicompost Goatery (20 Nos.) Fodder Sheep Total Income
2014‐15
2015‐16
2016‐17
2017‐18
2018‐19
8,400 1,05,000 8,04,000 1,00,000 1,34,500 1,87,500 2,25,000 1,50,000 17,14,400
32,800 4,12,500 13,26,900 2,00,000 1,41,225 2,62,500 2,83,500 1,57,500 28,16,925
2,35,890 9,83,125 14,36,805 3,50,000 1,48,286 2,75,625 2,97,675 1,65,375 38,92,781
5,90,810 14,97,375 15,56,561 3,67,500 1,55,701 2,89,406 3,12,559 1,73,644 49,43,556
8,08,704 21,96,150 16,87,097 3,85,875 1,63,486 3,03,877 3,28,187 1,82,326 60,55,700
B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Expenditure Coconut Mango Dairy Fish pond Vermicompost Goatery (20 Nos.) Fodder Sheep Total Expenses
46,000 2,45,500 12,26,300 42,700 65,400 1,05,340 1,86,000 1,03,700 20,20,940
48,300 2,62,725 12,87,615 85,400 68,670 1,10,607 1,95,300 1,08,885 21,67,502
50,715 2,80,511 13,51,996 1,28,100 72,104 1,16,137 2,05,065 1,14,329 23,18,957
53,251 2,96,187 14,19,596 1,34,505 75,709 1,21,944 2,15,318 1,20,046 24,36,555
55,913 3,12,811 14,90,575 1,41,230 79,494 1,28,041 2,26,084 1,26,048 25,60,198
C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Net Income Coconut Mango Dairy Fish pond Vermicompost Goatery (20 Nos.) Fodder Sheep Net Income
(37,600) (1,40,500) (4,22,300) 57,300 69,100 82,160 39,000 46,300 (3,06,540)
(15,500) 1,49,775 39,285 1,00,000 72,555 1,51,893 88,200 48,615 6,34,823
1,85,175 7,02,614 84,809 2,21,900 76,183 1,59,488 92,610 51,046 15,73,824
5,37,559 12,01,188 1,36,966 2,32,995 79,992 1,67,462 97,241 53,598 25,07,001
7,52,790 18,83,339 1,96,522 2,44,645 83,991 1,75,835 1,02,103 56,278 34,95,502
Capital Expenditure Required: Details of the enterprise investments: No.
Particulars
Unit of measure
Qty
No
2
Rate
Amount
A A Block , 29.85 Acres
2
Borewell with submersible Pump ‐ 2nos Drip line work
3
Sprayer
1
LS
1,25,000 2,50,000 1,75,000
No
1
35,000 35,000
No
10
50,000 5,00,000
No
8
30,000 2,40,000
No
20
5,000 1,00,000
7
Purchase of additional milch animals 10 nos Purchase of milch animals for replacemnt of the existing Purchase of additional goats 20 nos Goat shed erection
LS
2,00,000
8
Live fencing work
LS
20,000
9 Vermicompost ‐ Siever 10 Bag closure 11 Electornic scale
No
1
20,000 20,000
No
1
7,500 7,500
No
1
10,000 10,000
4 5 6
12 Name board charge 13 Trolley ‐ 2nos 14 15 16 17
Desktop computer with data card Electrification of the security sheds Budget for technical specialist consultant, capacity building etc., Cost of LCD Projector
18 Contingencies
Sub Total ‐ A Block
LS
10,000
No
2
7,500 15,000
No
1
50,000 50,000
No
2
10,000 20,000
LS LS 5%
1,00,000 1
50,000 50,000 90,125
18,92,625
3
Total Capital Expenditure: No
Particulars
2014‐15
2015‐16
1 2 3 4 5 6
Land Building & Facilities Enterprises Equipments/ Others Working Capital Needs Fish Pond Total
‐ ‐ ‐ 18,92,625 ‐ 12,00,000 30,92,625
‐ ‐
‐ 15,00,000 15,00,000
Total of Rs. 45,92,625. Cash Flow: No Particulars A Opening Balance Cash
2014‐15 ‐
2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22 (48,48,165) (72,92,642) (74,72,108) (66,51,242) (50,10,488) (25,70,268) 10,03,494
17,14,400 ‐ ‐
28,16,925 ‐ ‐
38,92,781 ‐ ‐
49,43,556 ‐ ‐
60,55,700 ‐ ‐
71,70,647 ‐ ‐
86,44,919 ‐ ‐
105,01,307 ‐ ‐
17,14,400
28,16,925
38,92,781
49,43,556
60,55,700
71,70,647
86,44,919
105,01,307
20,20,940 14,49,000 30,92,625
21,67,502 15,93,900 15,00,000
23,18,957 17,53,290 ‐
24,36,555 16,86,135 ‐
25,60,198 18,54,749 ‐
26,90,204 20,40,223 ‐
28,26,910 22,44,246 ‐
29,70,672 24,68,670 ‐
65,62,565
52,61,402
40,72,247
41,22,690
44,14,946
47,30,427
50,71,156
54,39,342
D Net Cashflow
(48,48,165) (24,44,477) (1,79,466) 8,20,866
16,40,754
24,40,220
35,73,762
50,61,965
E Closing Balance Cash
(48,48,165) (72,92,642) (74,72,108) (66,51,242) (50,10,488) (25,70,268) 10,03,494
60,65,459
B Cash Inflow Income from Enterprises Other Income Grant Recipts Total Cash Inflow C Cash Outflow Expenditure on Enterprises Farm Overheads Capital Expenditure Total Cash Outflow
Risk Analysis: No.
Type of Risks
Implications
Potential Impact Probabilty (High/ Medium/ (High/ Low) Medium/ Low)
1
Natural diasters such Can cause crop failure Medium to High as flood and drought which in turn can affect yield and profitability of the farm
Medium to High
2
Can cause crop failure Major disease Medium outbreak for crops or and death of animals livestock in the area which in turn can affect yield and profitability of
Medium
3
Macro‐economic market trends and policies Local market fluctuations Restrictions by Government on the functioning of NGOs and non‐profits
Medium
4 5
Could affect returns
Low
Input costs, outputs Medium prices Can hinder the progress. High
Medium
Mitigation Measures
Diversity of crops and activities. Within the crops, choice of right flood and drought resistant varieties, crops and management techniques. Wherever insurance is possible, particulalry for livestock, to be taken. Drainage systems to drain flood water quickly, and also multiple water points for irrigation are planned. In terms of water conservation, measures such as soil treatment, mulching, and rain water harvesting, etc. are planned. Preventive measures to be adopted in the field. The enterprises will be insured against all risks.
Largely linkage to local markets and though established channels. Periodical market intelligence and using these as opportunities Organic agriculture methods; farm based inputs; soil fertility development
Low
Overall, the project can be categorised as 'Medium to High Risk'. Given that the project is focussed on agriculture, the straegies used and risk mitigation measures have brought the high risk to a medium risk. The project is also taken up as a challenge to demonstrate viable model for farmers who are facing these risks every season and every year. These risks will be periodically monitored. Reviews and reflection meetings will focus on these also, apart from the project progress.
5
9. PROJECT BUDGET: The project budget is given below. This includes the Farm Management, the training and other technical support. The budget is projected for three years. Vrutti will manage the budget. Amount No A
Particulars
Units
Nos.
Rate
Mango
Acres
10
2
Coconut
Acres
4
3
Dairy
6
Farm Overheads
LS
Farm Level Investments
1
Equipment & Others
2
Fish Pond and Land Levelling
Farm‐Based Capacity Building
1
Customisation of Modules ‐ Children
Nos
2000
2
Food and Refreshment for participants ‐ Children
Nos
2000
3
Travel Expenses ‐ Children
Nos
2000
C
Year 2
Year 3
‐ 15,500 ‐ 15,93,900
‐ ‐ ‐ 17,53,290
Agency/ Team
Farm Level Enterprises Expenses
1
B
Year 1
Other Possible Linkages/ Revenues
25
1,40,500 37,600 4,22,000 14,49,000 18,92,625 12,00,000
Vrutti
Vrutti
Vrutti
Vrutti
Vrutti
15,00,000
Vrutti
50,000
55,000
60,500
Vrutti
1,10,000 1,10,000
1,21,000 1,21,000
1,00,000 50 1,00,000 50
Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT
Amount No
4 5 6 7
Particulars Customisation of Modules ‐ Farmers/Youth Food and Refreshment for participants ‐ Farmers/Youth Travel Expenses ‐ Farmers/Youth Customisation of Modules ‐ Women
Units
Nos.
90,000 150 90,000 100 60,000
99,000 99,000 66,000
1,08,900 1,08,900 72,600
90,000 150 90,000 200 30,000
99,000 99,000 33,000
1,08,900 1,08,900 36,300
41,250 2,47,500 1,23,750
45,375 2,72,250 1,36,125
44,000 13,750
48,400 15,125
3,96,000
4,35,600
Nos
600
150
Nos
600
Nos
600 600
9
Travel Expenses ‐ Women
Nos
600
10
Customisation of Modules ‐ CFCDs
Nos
150
11
Food and Refreshment for participants ‐ CFCDs
Nos
150
12
Travel Expenses ‐ CFCDs
Nos
150
13
Accomodation ‐ CFCDs
Nos
150
Year 3 72,600
100
Nos
Year 2 66,000
600
Food and Refreshment for participants ‐ Women
Year 1 60,000
Nos
8
D
Rate
150
37,500 1500 2,25,000 750 1,12,500 250
Agency/ Team
Vrutti
Other Possible Linkages/ Revenues
Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT Vrutti
Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT Vrutti
Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT
Village‐Based Mobilisation & Capacity Building
1
Farmers
Nos
200
2
Federations
Nos
25
3
Mobilisation of communities in the 10 villages (one person per village @3000)
Nos
10
40,000 500 12,500
200
36000 3,60,000
SJDT
SJDT
SJDT
7
Amount No
Particulars
Units
Nos.
Rate
Agency/ Team
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
20,000 20,000
6,00,000 2,00,000
6,60,000 2,20,000
7,26,000 2,42,000
Vrutti (CIKS / SJDT) Vrutti (CIKS / SJDT)
10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
1,00,000 1,00,000 1,00,000 1,00,000
1,10,000 1,10,000 1,10,000 1,10,000
1,21,000 1,21,000 1,21,000 1,21,000
Vrutti (CIKS / SJDT) Vrutti (CIKS / SJDT) Vrutti (CIKS / SJDT) Vrutti (CIKS / SJDT)
Other Possible Linkages/ Revenues
E
Community Level Enterprises Support
Milch Animals
Nos
30
Community Composting
Nos
10
F
Value Addition Possibilities and Marketing
Palmyrah Leaf products
Nos
10
Dairy Products
Nos
10
Rice Based Products
Nos
10
Other Community lead initiatives
Nos
10
G
Monitoring and Evaluation
Training for the team
Days
3
20,000
60,000
66,000
72,600
Vrutti (Steering Committee)
Review Meetings
Days
4
20,000
80,000
88,000
96,800
Vrutti (Steering Committee)
H
Project Management
Project Manager
Technical Specialist ‐ Sus Agri
Advisor ‐ Sus Agri
PT‐ Person Months PT‐ Person Months PT‐ Person
Mr.Labonte NABARD
NABARD NABARD NABARD NABARD
1
30000
3,60,000
3,96,000
4,35,600
Vrutti
1
40000
4,80,000
5,28,000
5,80,800
Vrutti (CIKS)
1
10000 1,20,000
1,32,000
1,45,200
Vrutti (CIKS)
Amount No
Particulars
Units
Nos.
Rate
1
1
Agency/ Team
Other Possible Linkages/ Revenues
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
30000
3,60,000
3,96,000
4,35,600
Vrutti
20000
2,40,000
2,64,000
2,90,400
SJDT
3,56,400 1,32,000 66,000 2,83,800
3,92,040 1,45,200 72,600 3,12,180
Vrutti
Vrutti (CIKS)
SJDT
Vrutti
103,51,225 91,51,225 12,00,000
88,39,850 75,19,850 13,20,000
80,56,785 66,04,785 14,52,000 232,75,860
Months PT‐ Person Months PT‐ Person Months
Technical Specialist ‐ Agri
Field Supervisors
Travel and Related Expenditure
Monthly
1
Travel and Related Expenditure
Monthly
Travel and Related Expenditure
Monthly
Organisational Overheads
12.50%
3,24,000 10000 1,20,000 5000 60,000 2,58,000
TOTAL
Project Funds From KNH
Project Funds From Lebonte, Others TOTAL FOR 3 YEARS from KNH
27000
9
10. PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK:
Objectives Summary
Indicators
Means of Verification
A
GOAL: To promote integrated and sustainable agriculture for economic and environmental security for children and marginalsied communities
B
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: A community‐led integrated sustainable farm established and learnings adopted among farming communities
Enterprises in the farm are yielding as per business plan
Farm Records and Accounting Information
C
KEY RESULTS
Key Assumptions
The office bearers of the SHG/ federation demonstrate capacity to manage the farm
Rating of the leadership team
Learning from farm adopted in at least 20 villages around the farm
Field visits, Observation
No natural calamities in the locality that affect the enterprises No disease outbreak reported that has a bearing on the yield and output No major change in the Government policies that govern the NGO operations and rural markets. No natural calamities in the locality that affect the enterprises No disease outbreak reported that has a bearing on the yield and output No major change in the Government policies that govern the NGO operations and rural markets.
Income and products from farm able to pay Project Reports for the overheads and enterprise costs
Objectives Summary
Indicators
Means of Verification
1 Enterprise models, sustainable agricultural technologies and practices established for demonstration in the farm. Farm generates adequate incomes to manage its overheads and enterprise costs to demonstrate business viability. 2 Farmers, youth, women and children trained in sustainable agricultural practices, technologies and enterprise models
1) Number of viable enterprises in the farm The project performance 2) Number of models developed and report, field observation demonstrated in the farm 3) Number of enterprises that increased profitability than what is available in the locality
3 Community‐level farm enterprises facilitated in project area
1) No. of different enterprises adopted by The project performance report, field observation the communities. 2) No. of enterprises promoted by the farm by credit assistance 3) No. of enterprises that are started / expanded without assistance from the project.
4 Communities around the farm mobilised and the office bearers of federations trained to manage farm in the longrun
1) No. of villages coverd in the mobilization The project performance effort report, field observation 2) No. of SHGs / FIGs formed in the villages around the farm 3) No. of community leaders that show up for leadership trainings
5 Models, Experiences and Practices tested and documented and shared for replication
1) Number of trials / model development taken up in the farm 2) Number of models documented and shared for replication
1) No. of training modules developed 2) No. of participants trained in the farm 3) No. of models replicated in the communities' farms / livelihoods
Key Assumptions
The project performance report, field observation No natural calamities in the locality that affect the enterprises No disease outbreak reported that has a bearing on the yield and output No major change in the Government policies that govern the NGO operations and rural markets.
The project performance report, field observation
11
