Upload
vandung
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 Head Office: No. 19, 1st 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. Acres
Ca Calcium
CFCD Child Focussed Community Development
FYM Farm Yard Manure
FMD Foot and Mouth Disease
ISF Integrated Sustainable Farming
K Potash
Kg. Kilogram
k.m. Kilometre
KNH Kindernothilfe
MBT Mutual Benefit Trust
N Nitrogen
Nos. numbers
P Phosphorous
Rs. Rupees (Indian Currency)
SC Scheduled Cate ‐ The lowest social status in the society; also called ‘harijans’ or ‘dalits’. Usually they are in lowest economic status.
SHG Self Help Group
SJDT St. Joseph’s Development Trust
Sq.ft. square foot / feet
ST 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. No.
Actions Process Vrutti SJDT KNH
1
Demonstration of viable models with farmer friendly technology and practices
Field models demonstrating integrated sustainable farming though enterprise approach established
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
2
Capacity Building of communities, children and child focussed interventions
Farmers, Women, Children and Child focussed interventions in Nagapattinam District and other area supported to adopt ISF through enterprise mode
Developing training modules, delivery of trainings
Organising the communities, identifying participants, feedback and follow‐up
Monitoring the process
3
Enterprise promotion around sustainable agriculture
Labour and women in the district benefit through substantial employment
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. No.
Actions Process Vrutti SJDT KNH
and returns from the enterprise
4 Knowledge Management and Research
Federation of Women SHGs in the District capacitated to own and manage community farm sustainably
Providing capacity building training in governance and management of the farm.
Organising the communities, formation of SHGs linking them to federations and MBTs.
Monitoring the process and progress
5 Use of product and Services
The outputs of the community farm (products and services) are effectively utilised by the targeted communities.
Need based trainings, capacitation
Participation in market channel development
Monitoring the process
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.
1
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
First five years – Income and Expenditure – Details:
No Particulars 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
A Incomes:
1 Coconut 8,400 32,800 2,35,890 5,90,810 8,08,704
2 Mango 1,05,000 4,12,500 9,83,125 14,97,375 21,96,150
3 Dairy 8,04,000 13,26,900 14,36,805 15,56,561 16,87,097
4 Fish pond 1,00,000 2,00,000 3,50,000 3,67,500 3,85,875
5 Vermicompost 1,34,500 1,41,225 1,48,286 1,55,701 1,63,486
6 Goatery (20 Nos.) 1,87,500 2,62,500 2,75,625 2,89,406 3,03,877
7 Fodder 2,25,000 2,83,500 2,97,675 3,12,559 3,28,187
8 Sheep 1,50,000 1,57,500 1,65,375 1,73,644 1,82,326
Total Income 17,14,400 28,16,925 38,92,781 49,43,556 60,55,700
B Expenditure
1 Coconut 46,000 48,300 50,715 53,251 55,913
2 Mango 2,45,500 2,62,725 2,80,511 2,96,187 3,12,811
3 Dairy 12,26,300 12,87,615 13,51,996 14,19,596 14,90,575
4 Fish pond 42,700 85,400 1,28,100 1,34,505 1,41,230
5 Vermicompost 65,400 68,670 72,104 75,709 79,494
6 Goatery (20 Nos.) 1,05,340 1,10,607 1,16,137 1,21,944 1,28,041
7 Fodder 1,86,000 1,95,300 2,05,065 2,15,318 2,26,084
8 Sheep 1,03,700 1,08,885 1,14,329 1,20,046 1,26,048
Total Expenses 20,20,940 21,67,502 23,18,957 24,36,555 25,60,198
C Net Income
1 Coconut (37,600) (15,500) 1,85,175 5,37,559 7,52,790
2 Mango (1,40,500) 1,49,775 7,02,614 12,01,188 18,83,339
3 Dairy (4,22,300) 39,285 84,809 1,36,966 1,96,522
4 Fish pond 57,300 1,00,000 2,21,900 2,32,995 2,44,645
5 Vermicompost 69,100 72,555 76,183 79,992 83,991
6 Goatery (20 Nos.) 82,160 1,51,893 1,59,488 1,67,462 1,75,835
7 Fodder 39,000 88,200 92,610 97,241 1,02,103
8 Sheep 46,300 48,615 51,046 53,598 56,278
Net Income (3,06,540) 6,34,823 15,73,824 25,07,001 34,95,502
3
Capital Expenditure Required:
Details of the enterprise investments:
No. Particulars Unit of
measure
Qty Rate Amount
A A Block , 29.85 Acres
1Borewell with submersible
Pump ‐ 2nosNo 2 1,25,000 2,50,000
2 Drip l ine work LS 1,75,000
3 Sprayer No 1 35,000 35,000
4Purchase of additional
milch animals 10 nosNo 10 50,000 5,00,000
5
Purchase of milch
animals for replacemnt of
the existing
No 8 30,000 2,40,000
6Purchase of additional
goats 20 nosNo 20 5,000 1,00,000
7 Goat shed erection LS 2,00,000
8 Live fencing work LS 20,000
9 Vermicompost ‐ Siever No 1 20,000 20,000
10 Bag closure No 1 7,500 7,500
11 Electornic scale No 1 10,000 10,000
12 Name board charge LS 10,000
13 Trolley ‐ 2nos No 2 7,500 15,000
14Desktop computer with
data cardNo 1 50,000 50,000
15Electrification of the
security shedsNo 2 10,000 20,000
16
Budget for technical
specialist consultant,
capacity building etc.,
LS 1,00,000
17 Cost of LCD Projector LS 1 50,000 50,000
18 Contingencies 5% 90,125
Sub Total ‐ A Block 18,92,625
Total Capital Expenditure:
Total of Rs. 45,92,625.
Cash Flow:
No Particulars 2014‐15 2015‐16
1 Land ‐ ‐
2 Building & Facilities ‐ ‐
3 Enterprises ‐
4 Equipments/ Others 18,92,625
5 Working Capital Needs ‐ ‐
6 Fish Pond 12,00,000 15,00,000
Total 30,92,625 15,00,000
No Particulars 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 2020‐21 2021‐22
A Opening Balance Cash ‐ (48,48,165) (72,92,642) (74,72,108) (66,51,242) (50,10,488) (25,70,268) 10,03,494
B Cash Inflow
Income from Enterprises 17,14,400 28,16,925 38,92,781 49,43,556 60,55,700 71,70,647 86,44,919 105,01,307
Other Income ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Grant Recipts ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cash Inflow 17,14,400 28,16,925 38,92,781 49,43,556 60,55,700 71,70,647 86,44,919 105,01,307
C Cash Outflow
Expenditure on Enterprises 20,20,940 21,67,502 23,18,957 24,36,555 25,60,198 26,90,204 28,26,910 29,70,672
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
Capital Expenditure 30,92,625 15,00,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total Cash Outflow 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
5
Risk Analysis:
No. Type of Risks Implications Potential Impact
(High/ Medium/
Low)
Probabilty
(High/
Medium/ Low)
Mitigation Measures
1 Natural diasters such
as flood and drought
Can cause crop failure
which in turn can affect
yield and profitability of
the farm
Medium to High Medium to High 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.
2 Major disease
outbreak for crops or
livestock in the area
Can cause crop failure
and death of animals
which in turn can affect
yield and profitability of
Medium Medium Preventive measures to be adopted in the field. The
enterprises will be insured against all risks.
3 Macro‐economic
market trends and
policies
Could affect returns Low Medium Largely linkage to local markets and though established
channels. Periodical market intelligence and using
these as opportunities
4 Local market
fluctuations
Input costs, outputs
prices
Medium Medium Organic agriculture methods; farm based inputs; soil
fertility development
5 Restrictions by
Government on the
functioning of NGOs
and non‐profits
Can hinder the progress. High 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.
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.
No Particulars Units Nos. Rate
Amount
Agency/ Team
Other Possible Linkages/ Revenues
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
A Farm Level Enterprises Expenses
1 Mango Acres 10 1,40,500
‐
‐
Vrutti
2 Coconut Acres 4 37,600
15,500
‐
Vrutti
3 Dairy 4,22,000
‐
‐
Vrutti
6 Farm Overheads LS 14,49,000
15,93,900
17,53,290
Vrutti
B Farm Level Investments
1 Equipment & Others 18,92,625
Vrutti
2 Fish Pond and Land Levelling 12,00,000
15,00,000
Vrutti
C Farm‐Based Capacity Building
1 Customisation of Modules ‐ Children
Nos 2000 25 50,000
55,000
60,500
Vrutti
2 Food and Refreshment for participants ‐ Children
Nos 2000 50 1,00,000
1,10,000
1,21,000
Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT
3 Travel Expenses ‐ Children Nos 2000 50 1,00,000
1,10,000
1,21,000
Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT
7
No Particulars Units Nos. Rate
Amount
Agency/ Team
Other Possible Linkages/ Revenues
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
4 Customisation of Modules ‐ Farmers/Youth
Nos 600 100 60,000
66,000
72,600
Vrutti
5 Food and Refreshment for participants ‐ Farmers/Youth
Nos 600 150 90,000
99,000
1,08,900
Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT
6 Travel Expenses ‐ Farmers/Youth
Nos 600 150 90,000
99,000
1,08,900
Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT
7 Customisation of Modules ‐ Women
Nos 600 100 60,000
66,000
72,600
Vrutti
8 Food and Refreshment for participants ‐ Women
Nos 600 150 90,000
99,000
1,08,900
Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT
9 Travel Expenses ‐ Women Nos 600 150 90,000
99,000
1,08,900
Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT
10 Customisation of Modules ‐ CFCDs
Nos 150 200 30,000
33,000
36,300
Vrutti
11 Food and Refreshment for participants ‐ CFCDs
Nos 150 250 37,500
41,250
45,375
Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT
12 Travel Expenses ‐ CFCDs Nos 150 1500 2,25,000
2,47,500
2,72,250
Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT
13 Accomodation ‐ CFCDs Nos 150 750 1,12,500
1,23,750
1,36,125
Vrutti/CFCD/ SJDT
D Village‐Based Mobilisation & Capacity Building
1 Farmers Nos 200 200 40,000
44,000
48,400
SJDT
2 Federations Nos 25 500 12,500
13,750
15,125
SJDT
3 Mobilisation of communities in the 10 villages (one person per village @3000)
Nos 10 36000 3,60,000 3,96,000 4,35,600 SJDT
No Particulars Units Nos. Rate
Amount
Agency/ Team
Other Possible Linkages/ Revenues
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
E Community Level Enterprises Support
Milch Animals Nos 30
20,000 6,00,000
6,60,000
7,26,000
Vrutti (CIKS / SJDT)
Mr.Labonte
Community Composting Nos 10
20,000 2,00,000
2,20,000
2,42,000
Vrutti (CIKS / SJDT)
NABARD
F Value Addition Possibilities and Marketing
Palmyrah Leaf products Nos 10
10,000 1,00,000
1,10,000
1,21,000
Vrutti (CIKS / SJDT)
NABARD
Dairy Products Nos 10
10,000 1,00,000
1,10,000
1,21,000
Vrutti (CIKS / SJDT)
NABARD
Rice Based Products Nos 10
10,000 1,00,000
1,10,000
1,21,000
Vrutti (CIKS / SJDT)
NABARD
Other Community lead initiatives
Nos 10
10,000 1,00,000
1,10,000
1,21,000
Vrutti (CIKS / SJDT)
NABARD
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 PT‐Person Months
1 30000 3,60,000
3,96,000
4,35,600
Vrutti
Technical Specialist ‐ Sus Agri PT‐Person Months
1 40000 4,80,000
5,28,000
5,80,800
Vrutti (CIKS)
Advisor ‐ Sus Agri PT‐Person
1 10000 1,20,000 1,32,000 1,45,200 Vrutti (CIKS)
9
No Particulars Units Nos. Rate
Amount
Agency/ Team
Other Possible Linkages/ Revenues
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Months
Technical Specialist ‐ Agri PT‐Person Months
1 30000 3,60,000
3,96,000
4,35,600
Vrutti
Field Supervisors PT‐Person Months
1 20000 2,40,000
2,64,000
2,90,400
SJDT
Travel and Related Expenditure Monthly 1 27000 3,24,000
3,56,400
3,92,040
Vrutti
Travel and Related Expenditure Monthly 10000 1,20,000
1,32,000
1,45,200
Vrutti (CIKS)
Travel and Related Expenditure Monthly 5000 60,000
66,000
72,600
SJDT
Organisational Overheads 12.50% 2,58,000
2,83,800
3,12,180
Vrutti
TOTAL 103,51,225
88,39,850
80,56,785
Project Funds From KNH 91,51,225
75,19,850
66,04,785
Project Funds From Lebonte, Others
12,00,000
13,20,000
14,52,000
TOTAL FOR 3 YEARS from KNH
232,75,860
10. PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK:
Objectives Summary Indicators Means of Verification Key Assumptions
A GOAL:
To promote integrated and sustainable agriculture for economic and environmental security for children and marginalsied communities
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.
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
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 for the overheads and enterprise costs
Project Reports
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
C KEY RESULTS
11
Objectives Summary Indicators Means of Verification Key Assumptions
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.
1) Number of viable enterprises in the farm 2) Number of models developed and demonstrated in the farm 3) Number of enterprises that increased profitability than what is available in the locality
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.
2 Farmers, youth, women and children trained in sustainable agricultural practices, technologies and enterprise models
1) No. of training modules developed 2) No. of participants trained in the farm 3) No. of models replicated in the communities' farms / livelihoods
The project performance report, field observation
3 Community‐level farm enterprises facilitated in project area
1) No. of different enterprises adopted by 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.
The project performance report, field observation
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 effort 2) No. of SHGs / FIGs formed in the villages around the farm 3) No. of community leaders that show up for leadership trainings
The project performance report, field observation
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
The project performance report, field observation