New Upland Rice Varieties for India Rainfed Agriculture Impact Study No. 1 Monitoring Impact ...

173 Pages·2009·1.18 MB·English

New Upland Rice Varieties for India
Rainfed Agriculture Impact Study No. 1
Monitoring Impact Assessment and Learning
Component (MIL) 2.2 of the Research into Use
Programme (RiU)
Contents
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................i
Abbreviations.........................................................................................................................ii
PARTASYNTHESIS OFSTUDY FINDINGS.......................................................................1
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1
GENERALOVERVIEW OFTHEMETHODOLOGY........................................................1
CASESTUDYFINDINGS...................................................................................................2
INSIGHTS.............................................................................................................................7
Theinnovationprocess......................................................................................................7
Seeddisseminationandextension.....................................................................................7
Thenatureofthebenefits..................................................................................................8
ANNEXA1TheStudyMethodology....................................................................................9
PARTBREPORTONTHESTRUCTUREDSURVEY..........................................................1
EXECUTIVESUMMARY...................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................4
METHODS............................................................................................................................9
Selectionofstates anddistricts..........................................................................................9
Selectionofvillages.........................................................................................................10
Selectionofhouseholds forinterview..............................................................................11
Groupdiscussions............................................................................................................11
Householdsurvey.............................................................................................................12
Selectionofhouseholds...................................................................................................12
Povertyindex...................................................................................................................13
Administrationofquestionnaires.....................................................................................14
RESULTS ANDDISCUSSION..........................................................................................15
Seedspread......................................................................................................................15
Persistenceofuse.............................................................................................................21
Extent ofUseintheSurveyAreas...................................................................................23
EstimatedExtent ofUseBeyondtheSurveyAreas.........................................................28
What ricevarieties dotheAshokavarieties replace?......................................................34
Environmental impact......................................................................................................37
Benefits toUsers..............................................................................................................37
Characteristics ofUsers andnon-Users...........................................................................40
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................42
ANNEXES...........................................................................................................................43
Annex B1GroupDiscussioninprimaryvillages............................................................44
Annex B2RFAHouseholdSurveyQuestionnaire: AshokaRiceGrowers....................46
Annex B3RFAHouseholdSurveyQuestionnaire: Non-AshokaRice Growers.............53
Annex B4Povertyindex..................................................................................................58
PARTC: REPORTONTHEQUALITATIVESTUDY........................................................60
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................60
METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................60
FINDINGS...........................................................................................................................63
Extent ofinnovationwithinsurveyvillages....................................................................63
Whoaretheinnovators?..................................................................................................64
Impact ofinnovations......................................................................................................65
What arefactors influencingthe growingofAshoka?....................................................65
INSIGHTS...........................................................................................................................67
ANNEXES - FIELDREPORTS byDr.M. BASUandDrA.DEY...................................69
Acknowledgements
In additiontotheauthorsof the different partsof this case study, a large number of staff
members of GraminVikasTrust were involved in conducting thefieldworkfor thestructured
survey. Thefieldwork was coordinated byDr JP Yadavendra of GVT. In easternIndiathe
survey team was led byDr. SCPrasad, andwesternIndia byShri HKTomar. Senior
managersof GVT, ShriAmar Prasadand ShriKS Sandhu, attended a10-daysurvey
planning workshop in June 2008 andgave theirgeneral support tothestudy. Weare
extremelygrateful tothem all.
Thefieldwork for thequalitative study was carried out under thesupervision of theStudy
Team’s social development advisor, Dr MarleneBuchy. TheIndianresearchershiredfor this
studywere Dr Malika Basu and Dr AniruddhaDey. Dr Deywas assisted by Mr Albert Xalxo,
and logistical support (locating villages and introducing researchers) wasprovided byGVT
local staff.
Wearegrateful toDr SheelaghO’Reillyof IODfor her continual support, advice and
encouragement throughout the study.
i
Abbreviations
AAU Anand Agricultural University(Gujarat)
AICRP All India Coordinated Research Project
BAU Birsa AgriculturalUniversity
BVD Birsa VikasDhan(release suffixes of uplandricevarieties
CAZS NR CAZS-Natural Resources
CBO Community-basedorganisation
COB Client-oriented breeding
CRI Central researchinstitutes
CRURRS Central RainfedUplandRice Research Station,Hazaribag
CRS Catholic Relief Services
CSC Central Sub-Committeeor Central Seed Committee
CVRC Central VarietyRelease Committee
DFID Departmentfor International Development
DoA Department of Agriculture in a state
EIRFP EasternIndia RainfedFarming Projects
FGD Focusgroupdiscussion
GAU Gujarat Agricultural University
GD Groupdiscussion
GOI Government of India
GVT Gramin VikasTrust
HH Household
ICAR Indian Councilfor Agricultural Research
IRRI International Rice ResearchInstitute
JNKVV Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (Madhya Pradesh)
KVK Krishi Vigyan Kendra
MP Madhya Pradesh
MPRLP Madhya Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project
MPUAT Maharana Pratap Universityof Agriculture &Technology(Rajasthan)
MV Modern variety
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NREGA National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
NSC National Seed Corporation Limited
PPB Participatoryplant breeding
PSP Plant Sciences Research Programme of DFID
PTD Participatorytechnologydevelopment
PVS Participatoryvarietal selection
RF Rockefeller Foundation
RIUP Research intoUse Programme
RNRRS Renewable Natural Resource Research Strategyof DFID
SAU State Agricultural University
SHG Self-helpgroups
SSCA State SeedCertificationAgency
SSSC State SeedSub-Committee
SVRC State VarietyRelease Committee
WIRFP WesternIndia RainfedFarming Project
ii
PART A SYNTHESIS OF STUDY FINDINGS
Prepared by:
Czech Conroy
Natural ResourcesInstitute
Universityof Greenwich, ME4 4TB
UK
INTRODUCTION
This casestudyis an impact assessment of two rice varieties, Ashoka200F and Ashoka 228.
These varieties were bred through client-oriented breeding in DFID Renewable Natural
Resource Strategy(RNRRS) supported projectsof the Plant SciencesResearch Programme.
Thisstudyuseda varietyof structuredand semi-structuredmethods. PartB of thecase
study describesthemethodologyandfindingsof fieldwork undertaken bythe Universityof
Bangor’sCAZS-NaturalResources, in collaboration with theIndian NGO, Gramin Vikas
Trust. Part C describes asubsequent semi-structured andmorequalitative piece of fieldwork
undertakenbyDr Marlene Buchy, asocial development consultant, andtwo Indian
consultants, Dr Malika Basu and Dr AniruddhaDey. Thispart of the casestudy(part A):
 describesthe overall methodologyused inthis case study;
 synthesizes thekeyfindingsfrom thetwo field studies, identifying bothsimilarities
and differences; andalso
 draws lessons/insights from the findings relating to technologydevelopment and
innovation processes.
This is one of seven case studies on rainfed agriculture innovations in south Asia, which are
part of a broader ‘cluster study’. Each case study, and the broader cluster study, aims to
obtain information regarding:
1. extent of useof theinnovation
2. whothe innovatorsare and arenot
3. impact (including benefits and disbenefits) of the innovation
4. factors explaining extentof innovation (factorsinfluencing use)
5. factors explaining differential impact among potential users/innovators
6. Sustainability of use of innovations byfarmers.
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY
Theimpact assessment was done infive districtslocated infour statesof India, Banswara,
Rajasthan; Mayurbhanj, Orissa;West Midnapur, West Bengal; and, Ranchi and Hazaribag,
Jharkhand.Thestudy covered 20 ‘project’ villages (alsocalled ‘primary’ villages) where
activities related tothe Ashokavarieties hadbeen implemented –4 villages in eachdistrict;
a larger number of ‘secondary’ non-project villages towhich cultivation of the Ashoka
varieties had spreadfrom the primaryvillages; and afew‘tertiary’ villages towhich Ashoka
cultivation had spreadfrom the secondaryvillages.
All four states were covered: (a) in case differences in innovation systemsbetween the
statesinfluencedtheimpact of thetechnology; and (b) to cover awide geographical areain
1
case differencesin agro-ecological conditionsinfluence impact.Two districts were selected
in Jharkhandstate because that iswhere most of theAshoka work hadbeen done.The
surveymethods are described below.
Thestructuredsurvey comprisedthreemethods (see AnnexA1for furtherdetails). First,
village-level groupdiscussions todetermine thevarietal composition of rice among upland
and/or medium landricegrowers, andtheextent to which the Ashoka varieties were being
grown.Second, group discussions in primaryvillagestoidentify themain secondaryvillages
to which primaryvillage rice growers hadsupplied Ashoka seed. Third, aquestionnaire-
based household surveyof current upland/medium landricegrowers in the primaryvillages,
comprising 10current Ashokausers andfive non-users per village.
Inthe qualitative (semi-structured) study all the‘primary’ villages surveyed during the
structuredwork, as well as a selection of ‘secondary’ villages were visited. Threemethods
were used in thisstudy:
 group discussions, including farmersgrowing Ashokavarieties, thosewho might
have grown them andstopped andthose who might want togrowit in thefuture;
 in depth interviews of ‘interesting’ individual households if any, such as
households having experienced dramaticchangesin their livelihoods or farming
systems or householdsthat have testedtheseedsfor afewyears anddecided to
stop;
 cross-checking somedata with other actorssuchas: primaryhealthcare nurse or
health visitor, trader, extension worker, nearbyresearchstation.
CASE STUDY FINDINGS
This section synthesizes the findings from the structured survey (found in Part B) and the
semi-structured, qualitative survey (Part C). By and large the two sets of findings are
consistent andcomplementary: where discrepancies occur theyhave been noted.
1. Extent of Use
Within a household’s rice-growing areaThehousehold surveyfoundthat farmers whogrew
the varieties adoptedthem ona high proportion of their suitable land(onaverage 75% of
their upland andover 50% of their medium land). In contrast, thequalitative survey authors
concluded that: “ ..though thenumber of farmerswho growAshokahasincreased, the
proportion of thepotentiallysuitable land allocatedbyhouseholds togrowing Ashoka
remainssmall. In Kud (Hazaribagh district) for example only25% of thesuitable land is
under Ashokaand inBenjara (Ranchi district) it is 20%”.This studyfoundthat in allthe
FGDs acrossthe5 districts,farmersmaintained that theywill continue togrowtheir local
Desi rice varieties. Farmers want to spreadtherisksbymaintaining avarietydiversitybut
also Desi rice still has somequalities valued bylocal people such asfor example, those
presentedinTable C(inAnnex C11) in thecaseof Benjara village.
Within and between survey villages Intheprimaryand secondary villages, 14 to53% of
householdsgrewtheAshokavarieties on 2to 24% of thetotalrice area, depending on the
district and village. Inthesurveyof individual farmers, over onethirdof those who grewan
Ashokavarietydistributed seedto other householdsfrom the2007harvest. Inthe structured
group discussionsfarmersreportedthat, onaverage, farmersin everystudyvillage (i.e.
primaryvillage) haddistributed seedtoabout two newvillages(secondaryvillages).This
processextendedfurther asfarmers haddistributed seedto new(tertiary) villagesfrom
2
these secondaryvillages. Theprimaryand secondaryvillages hadmore or lessequivalent
levels of usedespitethere having beennoformalseed supplyin thelatter case.
Within and beyond survey districts Given that there was high village-to-villagespreadand a
largenumber of villageshad been supplied with seed byNGOs andother organisations,
adoption was extrapolatedfrom thesample tothedistrict and statelevels. It was estimated
that about 177,000farmers weregrowing about26,600 haof Ashokavarieties inthefive
studydistricts.
If farmers adopt these varieties to a similar extent across the four states that were studied
then about 420,000 ha would be devoted to them by the 2,800,000 households. Moreover,
the varieties have already been widely distributed in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat,
Chhattisgarh, and Uttar Pradesh, and they will have spread across borders to neighbouring
stateswith important upland ricegrowing areas such as Bihar.
2. Factors explainingextent of innovation
Several factors influencing the extent of use of the varieties were identified. These can be
grouped into two categories: (a) those preventing or discouraging use, and (b) those leading
farmers to choose other crop-related options. The most important of the former is difficulty in
accessing seed. The latter include: agro-ecological conditions for which other rice varieties
are more appropriate; and crop options that give better returns. Each of these will now be
discussed.
Accessto seed Ashokaseed spreadinthe surveyvillages was almost entirelyfarmer to
farmer andtherewas nocommercialmarketing of theseed. Farmers withAshokaseed
apparentlygave it primarilytorelatives, rather than to neighboursorfriends. Thus, inthe
short-term at least, thesefactorsmayhave prevented somefarmers insurveyblocksfrom
obtaining seed.
Agro-ecological conditions The household surveyfoundthat inone district,West Midnapur,
Ashokavarieties were not grown in the medium lands.This appearsto be becausefarmers
had better alternative rice varietiesfor this situation. Inthe uplands of this district Ashoka
was widelyused, but thefact that other modern varieties (MVs) were alsowidely grown here
mayhave discouraged even wider use. Thegrowth of other MVs was apparentlydue tothe
fact that it is possible togrowlonger-duration, medium-land varieties inthis situation asthe
duration of themonsoonis longer.Therearefivemonthsof significant rainfall here
comparedwith 3 to4months inJharkhandand other morewesterlydistricts.
Alternativecropoptions In thestudydistrictsof RajasthanandOrissa, wherethe structured
group discussionshadrevealed that therewas no upland rice, the Ashokavarieties would
onlybe grown if theyreplaced other crops. Thesewere reportedtobe: predominantlymaize
in Rajasthan; mainlySabai grass, Ischaemum augustifolium,grownfor paper making, in
Orissa; and, in Hazaribag, awide varietyof cropswith Niger,Guizotia abyssinica, themost
important.Thequalitative studyfoundthat in Jaria village (Ranchi district) an NGO hasbeen
supporting different livelihoods activities, such asflower growing, which provide further
opportunities; vegetablefarming has been developed on upland plots inthekharif seasonas
well. In Hutkona(Hazaribaghdistrict) people reportedstoppinggrowing Ashoka ricebecause
growing vegetablesupland was moreprofitable and provided a longer stream of income. In
Baripada – alsofoundinthe structuredsurvey - manyfarmersusetheir upland togrowsabai
grassfor ropemaking, which securesagoodmarket price, and Ashokaisnot competitive.
3. Sustainability- continuityof Ashoka use
3
The household survey found that the Ashoka varieties were still being grown by the great
majority of farmers (95%) who were first given seed 4 to 6 years earlier. This was despite
little, or no, subsequent outside interventions for these varieties in their villages. Similarly,
farmers that obtained seed from other farmers continued to grow the varieties once they had
gained accesstotheseed.
The household survey found that the great majority of farmers who discontinued their use of
Ashoka rice said it was because of lack of access to seed. This constraint was confirmed by
the qualitative study. For example, in Bahja and Huktona villages (Hazaribagh district),
farmers reported losing all their seeds after the drought in 2006. Not all farmers kept seeds
for the following year, consuming what they had; and when they ran out there was no
alternative seed supply.
Thequalitative surveyidentifiedmanycases of discontinuersand severalotherfactorsas
being responsible. These included Bad earlyexperience duetoinappropriate practice, which
led somefarmerstostopgrowing Ashokarice. Inprimaryvillages thishappened because
technical advicefrom GVT onthe cultivation of Ashokawas limited: furthermore, someof the
GVT staff employedfor this work were non-agriculturists, hence theymaynot have always
give appropriate advice. Farmers in secondary villages sometimes plantedthe seeds onthe
wrong type of land or followed inappropriate practices, leading tofailure of the crop.
Other reasonsgiven byfarmersfor ceasing togrowAshoka varieties, included:
 damage byelephants, which prefer Ashoka varieties to all others
 pronetoflies(Gandhi bug), onetype of grain borer which destroys the crops.
According tofarmersinHulsi, Ranchi district, possible reasonswhy elephants prefer Ashoka
varieties and whyAshokafieldstendto bethefirst point of attack bytheelephants were:
a) as theplants aretall it was easier toremove with their trunks
b) softness andtasteof thefodder andgrains
c) sweet smellfrom thematured plants.
4. Who aretheinnovators?
There was no significantdifferencein the povertystatusof users andnonusers of the
Ashokavarieties when theywere compared using thepovertyindex developedfor the study.
Of the200respondents in thehousehold survey, 198 (99%)fell inthe poor1 class(defined
as having apovertyscore of lessthan 12.5): thehighest score of anyhousehold was 14.
Using other povertyindicators, i.e. BPLstatusand NREGA card holder, slightlyhigher
percentagesof usersthan non-users would be classifiedas poor (seeTable A?): however,
as notedearlier, these indicatorsarenot entirelyreliable. Regarding ethnicity, a lower
proportion of users belongedtoscheduledtribes(seeTable), anda higherproportion
belongedto ‘other backward castes’.
Overall, thefindings suggest that thevarieties are verywell suited totheneeds of resource-
poor farmers. Thequalitative surveyalso identified someAshokauserswho would probably
have been classified asbetter off if theyhad been scoredagainst thepovertyindex.
1Thiswasnotsurprisinggiventhatthevillagestowhichtheseedwasdistributedwereallselectedby
GVT(intheDFID-supportedEIRFPandWIRFPbilateralprojects)onthebasisofbeingverypoor.
4
Table A1 Characteristics of users of Ashoka varieties andnon-users
Characteristic Users Non-Users
Povertyindex 6.54 6.33
Belowpovertyline (%) 68 54
NREGA cardholder (%) 82 76
Tribal(%) 63 74
5. Differential impact
Neither poverty/wealth status nor ethnicityhave adifferential effect on ahousehold’s
capacitytogrowthe Ashokavarieties. Theextent towhich a household can benefitfrom
them seemsto dependprimarilyon theareaof suitable land that it hasfor cultivating them;
and also perhaps ontheprevailing agro-ecological conditions, which mayaffect the yield.
6. Benefits andImpact of Ashoka Rice Varieties
Benefits
Thehousehold surveyfound that better qualitygrain was the benefit ranked highest bymost
farmers: therewas a consistent highranking of grain qualityin all districts (Part B,Table 33).
This was followed byearlier harvest andthenbetter quality fodder, bothof which were
frequentlymentioned inthequalitative survey. Inaddition, about half of thefarmers identified
‘morerice’ (i.e. higher yield) as abenefit.
Thevast majorityof Ashokagrain waskept for home consumption, apparentlydue to:
1. the perceived highqualityof Ashokagrain; and
2. because the early harvesting of the Ashoka grain takes place at a time when
households areshort of foodgrainsgenerally.
The first point was mentioned in many FGDs in the qualitative survey, with repeated
references to the tastiness of Ashoka rice. According to a FGD with women growers in
Bhuyan Tola: “Even if they don’t have any vegetables or pulses only rice can be consumed
with a littlesalt. It is sotastythat even ricewith soup can betaken without anyside dish”.
The second point was also reported in various villages covered by the qualitative survey, for
example: Ashoka can be harvested “during the usual lean season… During Dusherra (the
main festival of the Hindus), now at least they have some food to eat” (Kud village,
Hazaribagh); the fact that it is an early maturing variety “ensure[s] food security during lean
season” (Benjara, Ranchi).
Inthe householdsurvey 83% of Ashokausersreportedincreasesin riceavailability, with a
mean increase inrice self-sufficiencyof almost one month, or 17%. Thefindings of the
qualitative surveywere similar:
“The direct positive result of the introduction of Ashokais anincreaseingrain
production which extends thegrainself-sufficiency of the household by 2weeks to
1 month in Banswara district, for example ; andfor upto2months evenfor
marginalized farmersin Hazaribagh district, depending onthesize of theland
available”.
Thehigher food availabilityreported bythemajorityof thefarmerswas reflected inthe
higher reportedgrain yield in atypical growing year of the Ashokavarieties comparedwith
5