Agricultural research rarely goes beyond production of new technologies and its pilot testing in few select villages. Promoting wider application of the new knowledge it has produced is considered as someone else’s responsibility. This artificial separation has effectively constrained agricultural research from learning about the challenges in promoting large scale adoption of new technologies and also its other potential roles in the innovation process. The sustainable rural livelihoods project recently implemented by the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA) is an exception to this general trend as it was about promoting technological changes at a large scale through development of appropriate institutional arrangements. Dr Sreenath Dixit who played a major role in this initiative reflects on its process and outcomes as well as some of the lessons in this blog.
INTRODUCTION
In the summer of 2006, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), a constituent research unit of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) was invited to submit a proposal for Component 3 (sustainable rural livelihoods theme) of the World Bank assisted National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP). By then CRIDA had successfully led a couple of projects on natural resource management aimed at improving the livelihoods of the rural poor. After several rounds of consultations with potential partners, a comprehensive proposal was prepared for award of sponsorship.
The project “Sustainable rural livelihoods through enhanced farming systems productivity and efficient support systems in rainfed regions of Andhra Pradesh” was developed based on a robust on‐ farm participatory framework for implementation in an action research mode. As desired by NAIP, a consortium of partners was constituted. This included five NGOs, two private extension service providers, one State Agricultural University and one CGIAR centre. Perhaps, no other project had brought on board such diversity of partners (Table 1) with it at that time, as it was largely thought to be safe to have partners only from the government sector.
In early 2007, CRIDA presented its proposal before the project screening committee. When the project outlined its hypothesis of enabling the poor with better NRM options by having an institutional mechanism to support technology adoption, not many in the screening committee could appreciate it. Pat came a question from one of the senior members “where is research in this project, all you are presenting looks like an extension project”. We really had to struggle to get the concept of development research clearly to the screening committee. It was tough for us to convince the ‘hardcore scientists’ who talked and understood research mostly in terms of “ T1 to T 6 with a control”.
Box 1: Project objectives
|
TEETHING TROUBLES
After several rounds of presentations, the project was approved for implementation in eight backward districts of Andhra Pradesh. Initially, it took almost a year’s time to put systems in place. The task was more challenging simply because it was not easy to develop a common vision for a complex project that was to be implemented by a consortium with a large diversity. The job seemed complex, as it involved organisations with different working cultures and capacities.
Table 1: Partners and their roles
| Partners | Strength | Responsibilities |
| CRIDA | Strong expertise in biophysical sciences, experience in leading multi‐disciplinary, multi‐institute projects | Lead Center : Coordination & monitoring; overall technical support to project interventions. |
| ANGRAU | Strong presence across the state, leader in location specific research | CA (Adilabad); technical support & capacity building in Ananthapur and Kadapa clusters. |
| ICRISAT | International presence and experience in soil fertility management | Soil fertility enhancement related interventions and monitoring runoff in watersheds across clusters; capacity building for INM |
| WASSAN | A large network of grassroots NGOs working on watershed development | CA (Rangareddy); institutional innovations & support systems across clusters. |
| MARI | Strong local presence in Warangal with reputation among development departments | CA (Warangal); capacity building on community led rehabilitation of traditional water harvesting structures across clusters. |
| BIRD‐AP | Experience in livestock development and watershed development in rainfed areas | CA (Mahabubnagar & Anantapur); technical support to livestock related interventions across
clusters. |
| SAIRD | Strong local presence in tribal hamlets of Nalgonda district | CA (Nalgonda); technical support to village level seed production across the clusters. |
| CWS | Experience in policy advocacy in rainfed agriculture | CA (Khammam) and capacity building on social regulation of ground water use across clusters. |
| AAKRUTHI | A young private extension service provider
with experience in farmer‐led seed production |
CA (Kadapa); supporting contract farming innovations across clusters. |
| I‐KISAN | Experience in ICT mediation in agriculture, market linkages | ICT and market linkage activities across clusters. |
CA: Cluster Anchoring
When it came to partners’ field exposure, there was disappointment in waiting. Some of the partners that had a very good theoretical understanding of how livelihood systems work had little or no experience to execute on‐field interventions involving farmers. This exposed that the criteria adopted to select partners were not very exhaustive. Although this appeared as an impediment to begin with, it was addressed through enhancing the capacity of the project staff to rise to the occasion. Initially, some of the partners felt that field monitoring by the lead centre (CRIDA) was too close to be comfortable. The very same partners however appreciated it during the later phase of the project, for it imparted confidence to speak more authoritatively about their philosophy.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING
After much thought and deliberation, a unique two‐tier project management framework was developed. Field level monitoring was completely decentralised by assigning one district each to a partner. This was overlaid by another level of monitoring by a team of 3‐4 scientists representing lead centre. These teams called as Cluster Coordination and Monitoring Teams (CCMT) formed for each of the eight districts facilitated technical monitoring. Monitoring was the new mantra to get the project grounded and going in the eight districts.
Many outreach projects suffer for want of close monitoring which depends directly on the mobility of the project staff. Keeping this in mind, a dedicated vehicle was kept at the disposal of the project office. This addressed the issues of delay and denial that such projects face in general in accessing vehicles for mobility from the central pool of vehicles. The project also addressed the issue of adequacy of manpower by funding good number of positions (senior research fellow/research associate). Each partner had 2 or 3 positions and including those with the lead centre the total number of contractual positions was well over 30.
Box 2: Key Interventions
|
The project implementation framework provided for a package of site‐specific and need‐based interventions to evolve so that the local resources and capacities were harnessed to the best extent to address livelihoods of the poor. Keeping participatory processes at the heart of the programme, natural resource management was promoted as the key strategy for addressing livelihoods issues. Within the broad strategy of NRM, sub‐strategies were evolved to harvest and use rainwater to improve crop productivity and cropping intensity.
PROJECT OUTCOMES
These can be largely categorised into two groups: technical and institutional.
Technical Outcomes
On the technical front, the major gain was in terms of rainwater harvesting and its utilization. During the course of the project, nearly 250 rainwater harvesting structures were built, repaired or renovated. This led to the creation of an additional 4,38,000 cu. m rainwater storage capacity which in turn benefited 1600 farmers by bringing over 400 ha into the protective irrigation regime. The overall cropping intensity jumped from 130 to over 180 %. Besides, water productivity was enhanced by promoting micro irrigation systems made available through custom hiring centres; animal productivity increased and mortality came down significantly and diversification of cropping was notably increased by introduction of vegetables, short duration pulses and horticultural crops. We can go on and present numbers to substantiate these. But the focus of the project, unlike other “productivity enhancement initiatives” was not on productivity alone. It was on brining a shift in the approach to these kinds of initiatives. In other words, the emphasis was on ‘doing things differently’ although more or less the same things were done here as well. But it is very difficult to get people to appreciate this subtle difference, as many would say “this is like any other watershed development project”, unless one takes time to understand the processes behind the initiative.
An underground pipeline network connected bore wells owned by seven farmers and delivered water
for protective irrigation to 18 farmers over 40 acres: Malkaipet Thanda, Rangareddy district
Institutional outcomes
The uniqueness of the project was not only its innovativeness in delivery but in setting up a backend that was responsive and dynamic. This was ably assisted by certain radical changes that NAIP had brought in. For instance, NAIP’s effort to empower the Principal Investigator by giving him/her recruitment and financial sanction powers was indeed revolutionary. How earnestly this was done varied greatly among implementing centres. But those that used these powers could see its impact on the ground. This used to be apparent during project review meetings. Most importantly, the flexibility of deciding what needs to done to achieve the set objectives was very crucial to the success of the project. Another unique aspect was that there was no pressure to report only success. Failures, better worded as learning, were openly discussed during reviews. This gave the partners tremendous confidence to try new ideas.
At the implementation level, the process of articulating what kind of support the community needs from the project was institutionalised. The salaha samitis/village action teams (10‐12 member body largely representing all sections of the village) were the ones that voiced what needed to be done. For instance, in Jamistapur cluster, Mahabubnagar villagers asked for support to lay a drying yard and drinking water tub for cattle; in Anantapur, members of a women SHG asked project support to repair an abandoned construction to take up calf rearing as a livelihood activity. This helped the project to ensure that demand‐driven interventions were promoted. Besides, this process also ensured that the community contributed in cash or kind towards part of the required investment.
LESSONS LEARNED
Managing multi‐institute consortia: Formation of the consortium for a mega project like this is very important. Many times the leader of the consortium picks organizations that have been known or working with it without taking an objective assessment of the skills a partner is going to bring along. It is important to have a complete knowledge of the strength of partners particularly in the field and their abilities to transform ideas into workable interventions. One needs to go beyond the rapport being enjoyed between each other although it is important.
Repair of sluice gate enabled farmers to retain water during post rainy season:
Thummalacheruvu Cluster, Khammam
The more diverse the background of the partners, the better it is to address complex issues such as that of rural livelihoods. However, too much diversity can pose issues for coordination, as partners would not be speaking in the same frequency. Respect for partner’s organization and skills besides according due recognition through appropriate credits is the bedrock of trust and confidence within the consortium. A commitment to the participatory philosophy while dealing with partners gave rise to important outcomes. For instance, the innovation of groundwater sharing through underground pipeline networking at Rangareddy district happened only because of this diversity and respect for each other. Allowing partners to deeply commit to the project vision and supporting their ideas was actively pursued all along. And this gave rise to new possibilities of accommodating community needs while promoting better technologies.
Managing multi‐disciplinary team: Over 30 scientists of the lead center (CRIDA) specialized in different disciplines (bio physical and socio economic) were part of the project coordination and monitoring team. They provided the quintessential inter‐disciplinary approach to the project. Many other consortia that were led by one or two scientists could not leverage the strength of partner especially where the project was implemented in more than four districts. Delegation of responsibility to the teams of scientists (CCMT) was very crucial for frequent monitoring which ultimately produced desired outcome.
Technologies do not diffuse in vacuum: This project is an eye‐opener for all those who profess the predominance of technologies in improving the livelihoods of the poor. For, it has been very well brought out by this project that, no matter how good the technology is; it does not work unless the community is supported/ enabled to benefit from it. Many more lessons could be drawn by the organizations engaged in the research‐extension continuum. This brings us to think about the premise on which governments design their development programs. For instance, the project showcased how small investments could revive the defunct rainwater harvesting structures, whereas we see in development projects, provision only for building new structures. Another important lesson for all those organisations engaged in extension as a means to bring about change is the supportive role grassroots institutions can play. So far very little effort has gone into mainstreaming institutional innovations as a strategy to bring about behavioural change. And the outcome of this project makes a strong case for one.
Listen to your stakeholders: Development organizations often consider that the innovations required to trigger development often exist outside of their stakeholder systems. But the project had a different experience. There is enough scope for fostering innovations within the stakeholder environment. There are several instances during the course of the project when innovations came along just by allowing the community to express themselves. One of the most important innovations of the project was to bring back into life the defunct rainwater harvesting structures by investing in them very modestly. This would not have come to the fore if the project has not encouraged the community to suggest ways and means of augmenting water availability.
THE ROAD AHEAD
Though this project scored well in keeping its promise and coming out with innovative solutions to improve rural livelihoods, it had the tag of a “special project”. To this extent, it makes it difficult to mainstream the learnings in the existing system. There is no dearth of learnings from projects like this one. But unless such learnings are internalized in the existing system, such projects won’t serve their objectives. There is a gaping void between the learnings that keep accruing and the existing system. Unless the void is bridged, we may go on implementing such projects for years on without any impact on the system. This brings us to the real issue of how this learning is going to be put to use.
CRIDA at its own level has ploughed these learnings into a large national initiative on climate change (see more on http://www.nicra‐icar.in). For instance, the successful learning of promoting innovative institutions in NAIP has been brought forward to Technology Demonstration Component of National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA) being implemented by 100 KVKs across the country. However, there are other leanings such as delegation of more powers to the Principal Investigators that were followed while implementing NAIP, need policy level commitment for mainstreaming.
The project provided all organizations whether they are at the apex or grassroots level important lessons to carry home. But these need to be well documented for use in posterity. For, learnings at organizational level and their better use will determine how well they will survive in the challenges that future has in the offing.
END NOTE
Personally, this project gave me a gratifying experience. While it helped me put my extension expertise in practice, it honed my inter‐personal and negotiation skills. It also got me to appreciate the strengths of the NGOs in community mobilization and institution building. The overall project management also taught me how deal with budget keeping in view the basics of financial management. Mostly thought as a mundane activity, this is very important in donor perspective. On a much more personal note, the project helped me to develop patience, improved my ability to accommodate divergent views, deal with dissent and look at setbacks not as problems but as challenges to surmount. In all, I would put it as the best project I have ever involved in my career spanning over 20 years.
Dr Sreenath Dixit is with the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), Hyderabad and is currently coordinating a nation‐wide project on promoting strategies towards climate resilient agriculture (Email: sreenathd@yahoo.com). The opinions expressed by the author are his personal ones and not necessarily those of the organisation he represents
Add Comment