proposal for implementation - vrutti documents/community... · integrated farming and...

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


Amount

Agency/ Team



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


Amount

Agency/ Team



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


NABARD

F Value Addition Possibilities and Marketing

Palmyrah Leaf products Nos 10

10,000 1,00,000

1,10,000

1,21,000


NABARD

Dairy Products Nos 10

10,000 1,00,000

1,10,000

1,21,000


NABARD

Rice Based Products Nos 10

10,000 1,00,000

1,10,000

1,21,000


NABARD

Other Community lead initiatives

Nos 10

10,000 1,00,000

1,10,000

1,21,000


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


Amount

Agency/ Team



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


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


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


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.


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


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


proposal for implementation - vrutti documents/community... · integrated farming and...

Documents