impact study_jagmoda_rajasthan
TRANSCRIPT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY OF
JAGMODA VFA IN SAWAI MADHOPUR,
RAJASTHAN
Anjali Kumar
RF DSS
Page | 1
Table of Contents
Contents Page No.
Contents 1
Acknowledgements 2
Acronyms 3
Executive summary 4
List of tables 6
List of graphs 6
List of maps 7
List of annexures 7
Background 8
Objective of study 9
Introduction to the study area 10
Methodology 15
Results 16
Conclusion 28
Page | 2
Acknowledgements
The report is based on field survey conducted at Jagmoda VFA, Sawai Madhopur cluster,
Rajasthan. The support and enthusiasm of the team has been paramount in data
collection and survey without which the study would not have been possible. The VFA
members helped conduct the survey and also helped in the mapping of individual plots.
I would also like to thank Ravindranath Rangoori for giving me the opportunity to
conduct this study and providing guidance and the entire DSS team for support.
Page | 3
Acronyms used:
RF: Reliance Foundation
VFA: Village Farmer’s Association
DF: Dharti farm (Farm where VFA support is provided)
NDF: Non Dharti Farm (member farmer’s field where VFA support is not sought)
GIS: Geographical Information Systems
Page | 4
Executive Summary
In India, agriculture in the major source of livelihood in rural areas. The situation
becomes precarious where agriculture is rainfall dependent in absence of lack of resources
to have modern irrigation facilities in the farm. The problem is furthermore aggravated
when rainfall is spatially and temporally not evenly distributed. The marginal farmer’s
dependency on uncertain monsoons, ever rising cost of cultivation, water table depletion
and unsustainable farming practices is a major concern as it has impacted the overall
income of the family to a greater extent.
The report evaluates the impact of various interventions implemented by Reliance
foundation through Bharat Jodo program in Jagmoda VA of Sawai Madhopur, a semi-
arid region of Rajasthan in a span of three years to improve the productivity and economic
status of the farmers through sustainable agricultural practices using GIS technology. The
study also attempts to capture the farm level changes using cadastral maps and Google
Earth images in GIS. This would help in validating the changes spatially and temporally
between pre and post years of RF interventions. RF has extended a development
investment of about 50 lakh so far and out of which 36% was for the land development
and 22% for fencing of the farm lands. RF has tried to address the issue with the help of
on farm and off farm practices. The major activities for first year were bunding, land
levelling for decreasing salinity. Plantation and RNG for basic nutritional needs of the
family were also planned. The most important activity for enhancing soil quality was pond
silt application, planned in the first year of interventions. Fencing of patches of
agriculture land was done to protect from blue bulls so that land can be brought to use in
kharif cropping season also.
The impact as the result of RF intervention has been significant. Rabi crop was affected
during the assessment year due to the incessant rains/hail storms at the time of crop
harvesting. Inspite of rains/hailstorm, the damage of DF farm lands were less compared
to that of NDF farm lands. The farmers say that they would have got 30% more
productivity had been the crop was not damaged due to the rains. The area brought under
wheat cultivation was 29.5 Ha after RF intervention as compared to 16 Ha before RF
intervention. Mustard cultivation surpasses the national average productivity of around
Page | 5
11.88 Ha .The positive impact was more in Kharif season in DF farms as the farmers were
not taking the crop due to menace of blue bulls. RF assistance in fencing the farmlands
and construction of bunds has helped the farmers in taking kharif crops. The result shows
that the area under kharif has increased by 27 Ha after RF intervention in DF area as
compared to only 2 Ha in NDF area.
Another significant change was an increase in cropping intensity of 10.2 % in DF areas as
compared to an increase of 1.3% in NDF areas over the baseline years.
Income per hectare has also increased significantly. Kharif DF shows a net increase of
84% as compared to NDF increase of 66%. Rabi DF shows an increase of 23% as compared
to NDF increase of 11%. Inspite of the damage of the crop, the increase of net income per
hectare of DF is Rs.11,456 and that of NDF is Rs.5,318.If the income be compared in the
different land holding categories, income has increased the maximum in higher land
classes. The small marginal categories of farmers are the maximum affected in adverse
situations. However, even in the least land holding category, the net increase in DF is
much higher than the change in NDF which is a mere Rs.1,475/Ha compared to DF farmer
which is Rs.7,759 per ha.
The area converted from wasteland to cultivable land has been mapped using Google
Earth images of pre (2010) and post (2014).The area converted into cultivable land was 9
Ha as reported by the community. However when mapped in GIS, the area converted
came out to be 31.93 Ha.
ROI: Total net income of the farm lands supported by RF are Rs.27.63 lakh for the year
2014-15. The cost of 1 ha area of wasteland was Rs.1.60 lakh which has now increased to
Rs.5.00 lakh after its conversion to cultivable land. Thus, the total cost of wasteland
converted to agricultural land becomes Rs.160.00 lakh. The ROI thus becomes about
Rs.1.87 crores which is almost four times gain over investment of Rs.50.00 lakhs without
considering other tangible and intangible benefits.
The positive transformation in the area brought under cultivation in kharif and rabi
season, increase in income of farmer/Ha, wasteland converted to cultivable land can be
attributed to the efforts of RF interventions.
Page | 6
List of tables
Tables: Page No
Table 1: Land based classification Page 12
Table 2: Total VFA expenditure Page 13
Table 3: DF cropping intensity Pre RF Page 18
Table 4: NDF cropping intensity Pre RF Page 18
Table 5 : Net income per Ha before & after RF interventions in DF and NDF
Page 23
Table 6 : % change in income- DF v/s NDF Page 26
List of graphs:
Graphs Page No.
Graph 1: Land classification in Hectare Page 12
Graph 2: Land category wise VFA support Page 13
Graph 3: VFA support- % share of activities Page 14
Graph 4: Area under kharif cultivation Page 16
Graph 5: Area under Rabi cultivation Page 16
Graph 6: Area under cultivation Pre RF Page 17
Graph 7: Area under cultivation Post RF Page 17
Graph 8: DF cropping intensity Page 18
Graph 9: NDF cropping intensity Page 19
Graph 10: Change in irrigated area in Rabi Pre and post RF Page 19
Graph 11: Wheat productivity before and after RF Page 20
Graph 12: Mustard productivity before and after RF Page 21
Graph 13: Income comparison per Ha-DF/NDF kharif and rabi Page 22
Graph 14: % change in income per hectare DF and NDF kharif and Rabi Page 24
Graph 15: % change in income per hectare (INR) Pre and Post RF Page 25
Graph 16: % change in income per hectare (INR) across land classes Page 26
Page | 7
List of Maps:
S. No. Name of map Page No.
1. Location map of Sawai Madhopur cluster 10
2. Watershed map of Sawai Madhopur cluster: Jagmoda location 11
3. Crop Kharif Pre (2001) and Post RF intervention(2014) 17
4. Production of major crops Rabi Pre RF (2001) & Post RF (2004) intervention
21
5. Map showing increase of Net Income in (%) 23
6. Map showing Cultivable Wasteland patches of part of Jagmoda marked on Google Earth image of the year 2010
27
7. Map showing Cultivable Wasteland patches converted into cultivable land of part of Jagmoda marked on Google Earth image of the year 2015
27
Page | 8
1. Background
Indian agriculture is a major source of livelihood to the rural areas where around 70% of
our population lives. The share of agriculture as a part of the total GDP has been
shrinking. The share of agriculture in national GDP has shrunk from around 30% share
in 1990-1991 to 18% in 2013-2014. This however does not mean that the work force
employed has reduced in actual number. Even at a 18% share of GDP, it employed about
51% of the total workforce.
The average marginal person with small landholding and vulnerable to vagaries of
monsoon was left behind. The average land holding as per the agriculture census 2010-
2011 has come down to 1.23 Ha in all land size groups from an average of 1.16Ha in 2005-
2006 census in a short span of 5years.This has happened due to continuous
fragmentation of land that has led to a decrease in cultivable land per household. The
government itself has been trying to provide assistance through MNREGS and RKVYs.
Funds have been invested through different channels to make farming more lucrative so
that the next generation does not feel it a compulsion to take to farming but sees it as a
viable income source. A major concern had been depletion of natural resource base and
unsustainable farming practices in the areas which not only put a strain in terms of input
cost but also reduced the overall income of the family.
However the situation is still bad in areas where rain fed agriculture is being practiced for
lack of resources to have a modern assured irrigation source in the farm. The problem
aggravates when climate change induced weather calamities occur in these areas. The
areas at times experience too much or too little of rains, both of which adversely affect the
crop. Even in cases of normal average rainfall, the distribution becomes a source of
concern as the rainfall received is distributed over a short span of time and not when
critical irrigation is needed for the crops to give a good production output. The marginal
farmer is dependent on uncertain monsoons, ever rising cost of cultivation, water table
depletion and unsustainable farming practices in practice extensively. This uncertainty of
so many variables leaves the farmer with not much choice but to pay heavily for inputs
Page | 9
that are overpriced. All these factors combined together, bring down the net income of
the farmer from his piece of land from agriculture. It is thus the reason behind the
unwillingness of the farmers to hope for their sons to follow in their footsteps in the
professional sphere. Farmer suicides are common so much so that it is not breaking news
anymore.
To address the issue, Reliance Foundation through its Bharat India Jodo (BIJ) program
has taken up the cause to work in the area of rural transformation. Present in 12 states
and 26 clusters, the foundation reaches out to about 50,000 farmers from about 525 VFAs
as on date. RF aims to transform the lives by stabilizing the livelihoods of the marginal
farmer through farming and allied services. RF has tried to address the issue with the help
of on farm and off farm practices to make a move towards sustainable agriculture
practices. RF BIJ aims to improve the livelihoods of the marginal farmers through
different land development and soil moisture conservation techniques to improve the soil
health. The on farm activities include bunding of the farm, silt application, FYM
application, trenches along the bunds to trap the top soil in run off in case of heavy rains.
The off farm activities include promotion of cattle herding as a source of alternate
livelihood as it also provides clean fuel if dung is converted to biogas and can reduce the
drudgery of women in rural areas. The sludge can be of use in fields as a nutrient
application material. These all integrated farm practices aim towards empowering the
farmer and helping him attain a better way of life for himself and his family.
2. Objective of study
After three years of implementation of various interventions by RF it is proposed to assess
the impact on the livelihoods of the marginal farmers especially in semi-arid region of
Rajasthan. Sawai Madhopur is selected for this study as the cluster was initiated in Jan
2012 and had undertaken various initiatives to improve the economic status of the
farmers through sustainable agricultural practices. Out of 24 village institutions with
whom RF associates, Jagmoda VFA has been selected for this study. The village
Page | 10
institution was formed in April 2012 and implemented various land based and water
based interventions.
This objective of the study is:
To study the impact of various RF interventions on the improvement of
productivity and economic status of the farmer at farm level using GIS
technology
3. Introduction to the study area
Sawai Madhopur is a district in the eastern region of Rajasthan with subtropical dry
climate and distinct seasons. Rainfall in the region is around 800mm per annum. It is
divided into 8 tehsils, of which, Chauth ka Barwara is project area of Reliance
Foundation for BIJ (Bharat India Jodo). RF started operations in the region in January
2012. By the end of first year, RF was working with 1600 farmers in 24 villages.
Map 1: Location map of Sawai Madhopur cluster
Page | 11
The work area has meena (ST) and gurjar (OBC) community predominantly for which
institutions are formed mainly on caste and religion basis. RF introduced the concept of
institutions for common benefit and development of all. The village, Jagmoda, is around
34Km from district headquarters and is approachable from 3 sides. However, during
heavy rainfall, the river overflows the bridge and connectivity becomes an issue. The
village itself traces its history to 500 years ago. Rajputana influence can be seen in the
fortress which is inhabited by their descendants. Total population of Jagmoda is around
1000 people in 178 households (HH). Of the 178, 144 are members.
Map 2: Watershed map of Sawai Madhopur cluster: location of Jagmoda in
the cluster
Page | 12
The land holding per member HH is as follows:
A majority of the member HH population falls in
the marginal category i.e has landholdings below
2Ha. The second largest member base is of
medium farmers falling in the land holding 2-
5Ha category. Only 9 farmers are big farmers
with land holding more than 5 Ha.
Land classification of member HH is as follows:
Almost entire land of
member HH is under
cultivation; wasteland
constituting just 3.28% of
the total land area of
member HH. Of this,
Kharif is grown on around
8 % of the land as the soil
has high salinity making it
less porous. As a result
Graph 1: Land classification in Hectare water stagnation in
the heavy rains becomes a problem. Mustard is the key cash crop of the region occupying
around 95% of the land in rabi season. The average productivity of mustard in the region
surpasses that of the country and state. However, the cropping season of mustard is such
that the fields where mustard is sown are left fallow in the kharif. Some plots are sown in
kharif. As a result, the blue bulls feed on the crops sown in kharif and since the area sown
is less, crops are damaged by the blue bull extensively. Hence, the area sown in kharif
reduced considerably over the years.
Major cops in kharif: Bajra, green ram, black gram
Major crops in rabi: mustard, wheat
162.88148.13
10.56
Land classification (In Ha)
Seasonal irrigated Perennial irrigated Wasteland
Total land No. of HH members
Av. Land holding / HH
< 1Ha 33 0.74
1-2Ha 35 1.75
2-5Ha 55 3.18
>5Ha 9 6.76
Table 1: Land based classification
Page | 13
Medical facility is not available in the village. Anganwadi is available in nearby village.
Minor checkups and medicines are available at Chauth ka Barwara.
Discussion with the community regarding agriculture issues faced by them came out to
be:
Soil health improvement through land levelling and bunding
Critical irrigation cost (water for irrigation is provided by people with resources at
a premium price)
Fencing of patches of agriculture land to protect from blue bulls so that land can
be brought to use in kharif also
After initial discussions, the VFA formally came into existence on April 27, 2012. The total
member HH are 144 as on date. The major activities for first year were bunding, land
levelling for decreasing salinity. Plantation and RNG for basic nutritional needs of the
family were also planned. The most important activity for enhancing soil quality was pond
silt application, planned in the first year of interventions.
The actual monetary support is high for bigger farmers as their land owning is bigger.
However, per hectare support is highest in the small marginal farmer category, in line with
RF strategy of uplifting the poor.
Table 2: Total VFA expenditure
Graph 2: land category wise VFA support
Activity
Amount spent in village
Land development
1,875,337
Fencing 1,164,840
Irrigation support 479,567
Manure 279,593
Orchard 155,047
RNG 98,942
Seeds 467,226
Others 702,671
Less than1Ha
1-2Ha 2-5Ha More than5Ha
17822 16225 16926
13598
VFA SUPPORT/ HA
Page | 14
Graph 3: VFA support- % share of activities
Critical irrigation for the crops was an issue as irrigation facilities were not available with
all. Farmers had to buy the water from other farmers who had the source. This increased
the dependency and cost of cultivation inspite of a river passing close by. Keeping this in
mind, so far 35 farmers have been supported with 8,718 meters of pipeline. 4684 MT of
tank silt/ pond silt has been applied to the DFs till March 31, 2015. This tank silt provides
nutrients to the top layer and acts as fertilizer with long term effects. It also help loosen
the compacted top soil layer. Water retention is enhances with the porosity increase.
Majority of the farmers are members of the VFA. Meeting regularly for the development
discussions, the village has shown signs of progress in the first year. In the second year
also, even in the face of untimely rain during flowering season of mustard, the crops were
damaged but not completely devastated; especially in DF where sustainable farming
practices were being employed for the past 2 years.
36
22
9
53
2 9
13
VFA support- % share of activities
Land development Fencing Irrigation support ManureOrchard RNG Seeds Others
Page | 15
4. Methodology
Study outline has been prepared and shared it with cluster team. Based on which
questionnaire has been developed and tested it with community. This has been finalized
with the field inputs. The uniqueness of the survey was to collect the data for each farm
plot of the member household which was quite intensive.
The village cadastral map was procured and digitized with its details. The same was
superimposed on the google map of same scale. A hard copy of the map was printed in
full color and taken along for survey.
Community was trained in map reading and survey. Data collected was entered in the
designed format.
Cross checking of survey was done in the presence of multiple stakeholders for authentic
mapping. Ground truthing was done for some samples at random to assess accuracy. The
collected data also has been validated with the member profile data (MPM) earlier.
The details of each farm plot of the member household was compiled and analyzed.
Trends and results obtained. The results were linked with the individual plots of the
member farmer. Trend maps were constructed in GIS based on the data obtained to show
trends being followed in dharti and non dharti farms.
Page | 16
5. Results:
5.1 Area under cultivation:
Graph 4: Area under Kharif cultivation (in Ha)
Graph 5: Area under Rabi cultivation (in Ha)
27
8
35
54
10
64
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
DF NDF Total
Area in Ha : Kharif cultivation
K pre K Post
219
85
304
230
91
321
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
DF NDF Total
Area in Ha : Rabi cultivation
R Pre R Post
Page | 17
Graph 6 & 7: Area under cultivation Pre and Post RF intervention
Map 3: Map showing Crop Kharif Pre (2001) and Post (2014) RF intervention
34.56
321.46
Area under cultivation Pre RF
Kharif in Ha Rabi in Ha
64.19
321.46
Area under cultivation Post RF
Kharif in Ha Rabi in Ha
Page | 18
cultivation has increased in kharif and the crops taken are black gram, til and bajra; bajra
being the highest. There has been a significant increase in the area brought under
cultivation where RF support was provided, known as DHARTI farms (DF). A 100%
increase is seen in the area under cultivation in kharif before and after, from 27Ha to 54
Ha. For the same assessment period, the increase in farms not supported by RF, Non
Dharti Farms (NDF) is of 2 Ha. only. This was the land that used to remain unused as the
damage from blue bulls to the kharif crops was very high. A lot of care and vigil was
needed constantly to save the standing crops as they provided perfect fodder for the blue
animals, mostly blue bulls. So instead of taking a kharif crop, people used to plant
mustard in late kharif which was not affected by blue bulls. However, after group fencing
was done to protect the cop damage in the DFs, the cropped area increased by a 100%.
However, in rabi season, the mustard and wheat remain the major crops for the village.
5.2 Cropping intensity:
Cropping intensity:
Table 3: DF cropping intensity Pre RF
Graph 8: DF cropping intensity
As compared to a 10.26 % increase in cropping intensity in DF, the NDF recorded an
increase of 1.3% over the baseline years. The actual area for NDF is tabulated below:
Cropping intensity of NDF pre 109.46
Cropping intensity of NDF post 110.93
Table 4: NDF cropping intensity Pre RF
106.00 108.00 110.00 112.00 114.00 116.00 118.00 120.00 122.00 124.00 126.00
C.I pre
C.I post
DF cropping intensity
Cropping intensity of DF pre 112.10
Cropping intensity of DF post 123.61
Page | 19
Graph 9: NDF cropping intensity change
5.3 Irrigated area:
Irrigated area does not show a very steep increase over the baseline years as farmers used
to arrange water for critical irrigation by buying it from neighbors with irrigation facility.
So although the net area increase is not very significant, the irrigation now is done by the
farmer and is not bought from the neighboring farmer at a high price. Major support
provided in this region was pipelines which were then used to lift water from the nearby
river. The similar change in area brought under irrigation is also because of the fact that
the farmers would use the pipelines provided by VFA support for his fields that are not
otherwise supported by RF. Hence, an increase of 6Ha in DF and an increase of 5Ha in
NDF for area brought under irrigation support.
Graph 10: Change in irrigated area in Rabi Pre and post RF
108.50 109.00 109.50 110.00 110.50 111.00 111.50
C.I pre
C.I post
NDF cropping intensity
187
73
260
193
78
271
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
DF NDF Total
Change in Irrigated area in Rabi Ha
R Pre R Post
Page | 20
5.4 Productivity
Wheat is a major crop of Rabi season. In DF, it was sown in 16Ha before RF interventions.
After RF interventions, the area under wheat went upto 29.25Ha, an increase of around
83%.
Graph 11: Wheat productivity before and after RF
In the non dharti farm fields (NDF), the area under wheat before and after arrival RF was
6.5Ha and 7.38 respectively, an increase of around 14%. When we compare the
productivity of the fields before and after RF interventions, the DF show an increase of
yield of around 2.74Q per hectare or an 11% increase. The same is not visible in the NDF
where productivity remains somewhat constant, going down by 0.30Q per hectare.
The average yield for wheat for India is 30.7Q/Ha. In the village, the yield is lesser than
the national average. There is an increase seen in the DF yield but the NDF yield remains
constant. The tank silt application, land levelling, bunding, availability of water through
pipelines for critical irrigation has increased the productivity for DFs. Since the same
conditions of sustainable agriculture practices was not available to the NDF, the fields
show a slight decrease in the productivity which take the average to be somewhat
constant.
Wheat Q/Ha pre Wheat Q/ Ha post
24.1426.88
21.44 21.12
WHEAT PRODUCTIVITY Q/HA
DF NDF
Page | 21
Graph 12: Mustard productivity before and after RF
Map 4: Map showing production of major crops Rabi Pre (2001) and
Post(2014) RF intervention
Mustard Q/Ha pre Mustard Q/ Ha post
14.96
14.30
15.92
14.10
MUSTARD PRODUCTIVITY
DF NDF
Page | 22
The national average productivity of mustard is around 11.88 Ha. SWM region surpasses
the national averages. The village specific yields were between 14-15Q/Ha before RF
interventions. The fields on which support was extended show a lesser yield than the ones
on which support was not given. It is because, the general trend in villages is to take
support from VFA for the fields that are not doing very well and aim for an increase in the
productivity. For the fields that are already doing well, farmers tend to request more for
technical advice in meetings than for actual financial support. Last assessment year, there
were unseasonal rains during the flowering stages of the crop. As a result, the crop and
yields suffered. But if we compare the yields in DF and NDF, we see that inspite of the
heavy unseasonal rains, there has been a dip of around 0.60Q/Ha only. Whereas, the
decrease in NDF yields have been around 2Q/Ha.
5.5 Incomes:
Graph 13: Income comparison per Ha-DF/NDF kharif and rabi
Area pre Income pre
Net income
/Ha Area post Income post
Net income post
Kharif DF 27.75 314,138 11,320 56.25 1,172,835 20,850 Kharif NDF 6.81 101,012 14,833 7.94 195,644 24,640 Rabi DF 240.025 8,244,651.5 34,349 240.025 10,148,996.6 42,283 Rabi NDF 81.4375 2,968,943.8 36,457 81.4375 3,295,862.25 40,471
Kharif DF Kharif NDF Rabi DF Rabi NDF
1132014833
34349 36457
2085024640
42283 40471
INCOME PER HECTAREIncome/Ha pre Income/ Ha post
Page | 23
Table 5: Net income per Ha before and after RF interventions in DF and NDF.
Map 5: Map showing Increase of Net Income in(%)
Income/Ha pre Income/ Ha post % change Kharif DF 11,320 20,850 84 Kharif NDF 14,833 24,640 66 Rabi DF 34,349 42,283 23 Rabi NDF 36,457 40,471 11
Page | 24
Income per Ha. has increased across. However, the changes in DF and NDF are different.
Kharif DF shows a net increase of 84% as compared to NDF increase of 66%. Rabi DF
shows an increase of 23% as compared to NDF increase of 11%.
Graph 14: % change in income per hectare DF and NDF kharif and Rabi
Kharif DF Kharif NDF Rabi DF Rabi NDF
8466
2311
% CHANGE IN INCOME/HECTARE
Page | 25
Overall net income changes as compared to the baseline period 2010-2011 and
assessment period of 2014-2015 are depicted in the graph beside. We can see that the net
change in income is higher in the DF plots but the overall increase per hectare is pulled
down because of a low increase in
incomes in the NDF. Last year,
unseasonal rainfall damaged the
mustard crop which is the main
cash crop of the area. As a result,
the average increase has gone
down in 2014-2015. In case of
2013-2014, the yield had increased
but for many farmers the yield
decreased in the subsequent years
bringing the average of the village
down. The damage has been more
in the NDF than in the DF as seen
in the graph and shared by the
farmers. Inspite of the damage,
farmers were optimistic and shared Graph 15: Change in Income /Ha Pre & Post RF
the opinion that had the rains not damaged the crops, the results would have been even
better than last year.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Change / HaTotal
Change / HaDF
Change / HaNDF
10047
11456
5318
Change in income Per Ha (INR) Pre and Post RF
Page | 26
Graph 16: % change in income per hectare (INR) across land classes
Land holding Total change/Ha DF change/Ha NDF change/Ha
<1Ha 5,251 7,759 1,475
1-2Ha 8,946 9,142 8,602
2-5Ha 13,175 12,191 3,196
>5Ha 11,480 12,782 8,268
Table 6: Percentage change in income –DF v/s NDF
If we compare the different land holding categories, the income has increased the
maximum in higher land classes. The small marginal categories of farmers are the
maximum affected in adverse situations. However, even in the least land holding
category, the net increase in DF is much higher than the change in NDF which is a mere
1,475/Ha.
5251
8946
13175
11480
77599142
14758
12782
1475
8602
3196
8268
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
<1Ha 1-2Ha 2-5Ha >5Ha
Change in income /Ha across land clsses
Total change/Ha DF change/Ha NDF change/Ha
Page | 27
5.6 Wasteland conversion:
Page | 28
The area converted from wasteland to cultivable land has been mapped using Google
Earth images of pre (2010) and post (2014). The community has reported this area as 9ha
whereas the mapping of this area in GIS resulted as 31.93 ha. It has been shown in the
above map. This has not only indicates the improvement of livelihoods through double
cropping but also brings economic improvement of the land through the increase of land
value.
ROI: Total net income of the farm lands supported by RF are Rs.27.63 lakh for the year
2014-15. The rabi crop which got damaged due to hail storm else the net income would
have been another 30% more as per the communities. The cost of 1 ha area of wasteland
was Rs.1.60 lakh before RF interventions which has now increased to Rs.5.00 lakh after
its conversion to cultivable land. Thus, the total cost of wasteland converted to
agricultural land alone becomes Rs.160.00 lakh. The ROI thus becomes about Rs.1.87
crores which is almost four times gain over investment of Rs.50.00 lakhs without
considering other tangible and intangible benefits. If we consider only the production the
recovery period is two years.
Conclusion:
The study was undertaken in Jagmoda VI of Sawai Madhopur to assess the impact of RF
interventions especially the improvement of crop productivity there by increase of
economic condition of the marginal farmers. It was also to capture the farm level changes
using cadastral maps and Google Earth images in GIS. This would help in validating the
changes spatially and temporarily between pre and post years of interventions.
The study shows significant impact on farm lands due to the initiatives of RF and however,
the change in Rabi crop was affected due to the incessant rains/hail storms at the time of
harvesting the crop. The damage of DF farm lands were less compared to that of NDF
farm lands. The farmers say that they would have got 30% more productivity had been
the crop was not damaged due to the rains.
RF has extended a development investment of about 50 lakh so far and out of which 36%
was for the land development and 22% for fencing of the farm lands. The actual monetary
Page | 29
support is high for bigger farmers as their land owning is bigger. However, per hectare
support is highest in the small marginal farmer category, in line with RF strategy of
uplifting the poor
The impact was more in Kharif season in DF farms as the farmers were not taking the
crop due to menace of blue bulls. RF has assisted many farmers in fencing the farm lands
along with the construction of bunds. This has helped the farmers taking kharif crop thus
increased the area from about 27 ha to 54 ha in pre to post year an increase of almost
100% in DF area which is only 2 ha in case of NDF.
As compared to a 10.26 % increase in cropping intensity in DF, the NDF recorded only an
increase of 1.3% over the baseline years.
Wheat is a major crop of Rabi season. In DF, it was sown in 16Ha before RF interventions.
After RF interventions, the area under wheat went upto 29.25Ha, an increase of around
83% which is only 14% in case of NDF.
The national average productivity of mustard is around 11.88 Ha. SWM region surpasses
the national averages. The village specific yields were between 14-15Q/Ha before RF
interventions. Last assessment year, there were unseasonal rains during the flowering
stages of the crop. As a result, the crop and yields suffered. But if we compare the yields
in DF and NDF, we see that inspite of the heavy unseasonal rains, there has been a dip of
around 0.60Q/Ha only. Whereas, the decrease in NDF yields have been around 2Q/Ha
Income per Ha. has increased across. However, the changes in DF and NDF are different.
Kharif DF shows a net increase of 84% as compared to NDF increase of 66%. Rabi DF
shows an increase of 23% as compared to NDF increase of 11%.
Inspite of the damage of the crop, the increase of net income per hectare of DF is Rs.11,456
and that of NDF is Rs.5,318. Farmers were optimistic and shared the opinion that had the
rains not damaged the crops, the results would have been even better than last year.
If we compare the different land holding categories, the income has increased the
maximum in higher land classes. The small marginal categories of farmers are the
maximum affected in adverse situations. However, even in the least land holding
Page | 30
category, the net increase in DF is much higher than the change in NDF which is a mere
Rs.1,475/Ha compared to DF farmer which is Rs.7,759 per ha.
The area converted from wasteland to cultivable land has been mapped using Google
Earth images of pre (2010) and post (2014). The community has reported this area as 9ha
whereas the mapping of this area in GIS resulted as 31.93 ha (including fallow lands). This
has not only indicates the improvement of livelihoods through double cropping but also
brings economic improvement of the land through the increase of land value by four
times.
These positive impacts could be attributed to the initiatives of Reliance Foundation.