Socio-Economic Impact of CA Technology and Role of ICT to Improve Dissemination of Technology - S

7/31/2019 Socio-Economic Impact of CA Technology and Role of ICT to Improve Dissemination of Technology - S

1/35

Socio-economic impact of CA technology

and role of ICT to improve dissemination oftechnology

SEP teamCIMMYT


2/35

Key questions on RCT adoption raised by CIMMYT

agronomists

(CSISA-SEP meeting, June 2010)

1. Despite economic benefits of new RCTs, early adopters are

less. Why ?

2. How to reduce time lag in technology dissemination?

3. How do we overcome the social barriers?

4. If there are risks in CSISA Technologies how to mitigate and

communicate? How to compensate the farmer for any loss

due to slippages in technology transfer?

5. How to make efficient use of contact farmers in technologydissemination?


3/35

Adoption of RCTs: How different is the process from

conventional technologies?

Input-saving (e.g. Tractor) and land-saving (e.g. hybrid

seed) technologies: Are they perceived similarly by

farmers? CA is knowledge intensive and complex system to learn

Small/marginal farmers vs. Large farmers: How does the

resource ownership affect adoption pattern? Local adaptations of CA practices (e.g. reduction in tillage

after introduction of ZT drills), Technology-specificity.

Understanding the constraints (information, social,

financial, technical, infrastructural, policy etc.) is alsochallenging at times.

A simple answer to these questions is that the answer is not

that simple.


4/35

Categories of individual innovativeness

Pioneers/Innovators

2.5%

Early adopters

13.5%

Early majority

34%Late majority

34%

Laggards

16%

Source: Surrey, 1997.


5/35


6/35

Association of scale of operation and adoption of ZT

technology (Haryana- ZT Case study)


7/35

Major factors affecting adoption of CA

1. Education of farmer: +ve

2. Age of farmer: -ve (,,)

3. Farm size: +ve (,,)

4. Tenure: almost no impact

5. Off-farm income: almost no impact.

6. Experience with CA: +

7. Technical assistance: +ve (mostly)

8. Rainfall: +ve (mostly)

9. Income: +ve (mostly)

10. Program participation: +ve


8/35

What is Impact assessment?

Studies whether the change in well-being are indeed due to

the program intervention and not to other factors.

Problem of assessing counterfactual (A beneficiarysoutcome in the absence of the intervention)

Different evaluation methods:

Randomized evaluations (experiments)

Propensity Score Matching

Double difference methods

Instrumental variable method

Regression discontinuity and pipeline methods etc


9/35

Case study- Adoption and impacts of ZT wheat in West

Bengal


10/35


11/35


12/35


13/35

Different studies conducted on ZT during 2009-2011 period

Conducted household survey among 180 households of Haryana(NW India) to study the impacts of and constraints for adoption of

ZT wheat, and the results are compared with another ZT adoptionstudy (IFAD funded) from NE Indo-Gangetic Plains

Ambala, Kurukshetra and Karnal districts of Haryana formed thestudy districts.

Other efforts on-going in CIMMYT on ZT wheat: CSISA baseline household survey (n = 1296) includes questions on

awareness and adoption of ZT across hubs.

Case-studies on improved zero and reduced tillage studies are on-

going in Bangladesh (power tiller operated seeder) and Nepal(direct seeded rice)


14/35

Yield (t ha-1

) effect of zero tillage at different nutrient levels

ZT CTdifference and

significance

# mean (sd) # mean (sd) % over CT sig *

N @ 0 kg ha-1 17 2.9 16 2.0 48.2 0.03(0.9) (1.0) [0.01]

N @ 180 kg ha-1 51 4.5 75 4.3 6.1 0.08(0.8) (0.9) [0.21]

P @ 0 kg ha-1 17 4.2 16 4.1 4.2 0.58(0.9) (0.9) [0.72]

P @ 90 kg ha-1 51 4.1 57 3.7 9.7 0.14(1.1) (1.4) [0.32]

K @ 0 kg ha-1 10 4.6 31 4.0 13.7 0.03(0.7) (0.7) [0.03]

K @ 100 kg ha-1 51 4.1 66 3.8 6.7 0.30(1.2) (1.4) [0.66]

Source of data: field trials conducted in Punjab and Haryana (2009-10 season) (Jat ML and the hub

staff). *p-value from parametric t-test [from non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis rank test]


15/35

Impacts of Laser Land Levellers in North WesternIndo- Gangetic Plains:

the use of a laser land leveller for land levelling enables higher yields and a

lower use of resources and inputs like water and fertilizer compared to the

traditional levelling practices

In areas like Western Indo-Gangetic plains where the yields are tapering off

and resources like water are under increasing pressure, such a technology

holds tremendous potential for saving scarce water resources and increasing

the stagnating yields Objectives:

(a) Explore the costs and benefits of using Laser Land Leveler in Haryana and

Punjab

(b) Evaluate the impacts of LLL on (i) water use (ii) yields (iii) input use

Sample size: 90 farmers in Punjab and Haryana each

In districts where CSISA baseline surveys have been conducted

Punjab: Bhatinda, Amritsar, Sangrur

Haryana: Karnal, Kurukshetra, Yamunanagar


16/35

Some findings It is observed that farmers of all sizes are using the technology

including marginal and small farmers

Cost per acre on average is around Rs 500 per hour inclusive of

driver and diesel Average Time taken to level is about 1 -2 hrs per acre

Most of the farmers in the sample had got it done in 2009: Arecently expanding technology

Private service providers are the most common source of laserland leveller; in Punjab some get from cooperative society aswell

On average, yield differential in laser levelled land andtraditionally levelled land was reported to be around 2 qtls/acre

in rice and 1 qtl/acre in wheat. Water saving: Each irrigation takes about 1 hours less per

acre than before

Not much change in the use of other inputs like fertilizer


17/35

Economics of using LLL in an average case

On average if we assume :

- rice-wheat cropping pattern: rice in kharifand wheat in rabi

- life of one levelling as 4 years

- yield differential in laser levelled land and traditionally levelled land to bearound 2 qtls/acre in rice and 1 qtl/acre in wheat

- current MSPs of Rs 1100/qtl of rice and Rs 1170/qtl of wheat remain constant

- discount rate as one

- cost of levelling per hour as Rs 500 per hour and time taken to level one acre ofland as 2 hrs on average, then

The total cost of levelling one acre = Rs 1000

The incremental benefit stream of the farmer then is:

(pR1yR1 +p w1 yw1)+ (pr2yR2 +pw2 yw2)+ (pr3yR3 +pw3 yw3)+(pr4yR4 +pw4

yw4 )

whereyRi and ywi is the additional yield of rice and wheat due to laser land

leveller in year i, respectively;pRi is the price of rice in year i; pwi is the price of

wheat in year i;

The monetary benefit or net present value of the income stream resulting fromlaser levelling one acre of land can be Rs 12, 480 per acre on average


18/35

Information constraints

CA contradicts so much of the knowledge a farmer has

learned. CA principles and concepts are counterintuitive

and contradict the common tillage-based farmingexperience.

CA improves its performance over time. Hence practical

experience with CA is directly correlated with positive

attitude towards the technology.

Least experienced farmers anticipated more hurdles with

CA (Study among European and American farmers by Tebrugge and

Bohrnsen, 2000). Public knowledge about CA is much lower than other ways

of agriculture like organic farming.


19/35

Technology Adoption- role of literacy,

social networks and ICT


20/35

Source: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, as on March 31, 2011

Penetration of ICT in India


21/35

Opportunities that ICT opens


22/35

Evolution of modern ICT models in India


23/35

Pre-requisite Identify farmers present information networks

and their information needs that help them tomitigate production and market risk.

Identify existing ICT based innovations in the

agriculture sector, key players and theinstitutional arrangements.

Characterization of current formal and informal

risk management strategies employed by the

rural poor in the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP).


24/35

Results from Scoping Study Increasing mobile phone and mobile phone based services

enhances the availability of content specific information and

further help in improving awareness, education, betteradoption of technology, better health and efficiency, reducedtransaction costs, better market efficiencies and betterclimate linked risk management.

Realising full potential of use of mobile phones will requiresignificant improvements in the supporting infrastructure andalso in capacity-building-particularly for small farmers-toenable them to use the information they access moreeffectively.

The effectiveness of ICT in passing on information to farmers,particularly small landholders, holds the key to theirsuccessful utilization as a complementary disseminationmechanism for extension services.


25/35

Results from Survey- Demographic and economic

characteristics of the surveyed farmers

Variable

All Surveyed

States Bihar Haryana Punjab

Uttar

Pradesh

West

Bengal

Age Category (Years)

less than 25 135 11 20 46 36 2226 to 40 443 100 93 100 64 86

41-55 404 80 87 54 80 103

more than 55 217 48 40 40 60 29

Mean Age 42 45 43 40 44 42

Education level (Years)

Illiterate 146 11 34 38 44 19

Primary schooling 235 32 41 61 30 71

Secondary & high school 673 141 146 122 138 126

Graduate & above 146 56 19 19 28 24

Land-holdings

Marginal (less than 2.47 acres) 436 80 32 24 132 168

Small (2.47-4.94 acres) 361 81 55 109 59 57

Semi medium (4.94-9.88 acres) 237 58 76 55 33 15Medium (9.88-24.7 acres) 135 20 62 39 14 0

Large(more than 24.7 acres) 31 1 15 13 2 0

Mean size of land holdings (acres) 5 4 10 7 3 2

Average no of plots 3 4 2 1 3 5

Average plot size (acres) 1.75 1.1 4 5 1.2 0.45

Notes: Only 6 females were reported in survey of 1200 interviewed farmers. Sample covers 240 farmers from each stateSource: Own Computation from CIMMYT survey 2011

Unit: no. of Farmers


26/35

Pattern of Farmers Access to Basic

ICTs across surveyed states

Access to ICT gadgets*All SurveyedStates Bihar Haryana Punjab Uttar Pradesh West Bengal

Radio 381 196 85 12 53 35

Television 948 168 237 237 150 156

Landline Phone 79 4 19 26 16 14

Mobile Phone 1188 239 239 238 234 238

Computer/Internet 56 13 11 24 7 1

Unit: no. of Farmers

* Farmers have access to multiple sources


27/35

Information Needs of Farmers

Source: Mittal S, Gandhi S, Tripathi G (2010)


28/35

Information need/demand identified in IGP

Information need Wheat Rice Maize

Pre sowing 23.44 20.12 20.99

Input supply 38.04 33.67 21.48

Input prices 12.49 11.94 17.53

Sowing 12.47 14.66 12.47

Agronomy and farm

practices 5.09 9.15 10.99

Harvesting 1.66 1.83 1.60

Packaging and storing 6.18 7.78 11.85

Marketing 0.63 0.84 3.09

No response ( number of

Farmers) 132 67 1040

Unit: Percentage of Respondent/Farmers

Note: Multiple Responses of the farmers were recorded.


29/35

Farmers assessment on quality of Information

Other farmers are still the most useful and timely available source of information

Farmers rank television as amore useful source in comparison to mobile phones but for timeliness mobile phones are ranked better.

In the sample of 1200 farmers only 41 % farmers are suing mobile phones for agricultural information. As this percentage increase,

we expect that usefulness of mobile phones for delivering agricultural information to increase.


30/35

Benefits of mobile phone based information

States

Percent of farmers

using mobile phonefor agricultural

information

Get betterconnected to

markets

Getting

better prices

Increasing

Yield

Bihar 51 99.2 65.9 21.1

Haryana 65 99.4 79.5 42.9Punjab 26 77.8 82.5 49.2

Uttar

Pradesh 45 69.7 69.7 29.4

West Bengal 17 65.9 48.8 34.1

Total 41 87.2 71.7 34.6

Note: This percent of farmers is from the 41% of farmers, who are using mobile phone to access agricultural information (CIMMYT survey 2011),Farmers have multiple responses

Unit: Percentage of Respondent/Farmers


31/35

Role of information in managing risk


32/35

Mobile based Information Delivery

system

Voice (IKSL)

Costlier than SMS Rate of technical failure is

more

Cant be stored, need to callback to retrieve

information

Timely delivery not assured

SMS (RML)

Literacy Localised language

Clarity of information- too

short Compatibility with mobile

handsets


33/35


34/35

Case Studies

Source: Mittal. S (2011) Scoping Study (forthcoming)


35/35

Thank You

[email protected]

Documents

Socio-Economic Impact of CA Technology and Role of ICT to Improve Dissemination of Technology - S