Potential of Sustainable Integrated

Farming System (SIFS) for Living Income

of Indigenous Community in Central India

Organic
Pesticidees

Participatory Feasibility Assessment Report

 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Table of Contents
Abbreviations 5

Preface 6

Introduction 7

A Conceptual framework for studying the SIFS and Living Income 9

Defining Sustainable Integrated Farming System 10

Defining Living Income Concept 11

Living Income for Farmers of Project Community 14

LEVERS FOR IMPROVING INCOMES 19

Socio-Economic Analysis Associated with Farming System for Promotion 21

Non-Market valuation techniques 21

Depletion of Soil as natural capital 21

Farm-budgeting and Farm-planning 21

Project Evaluation techniques 21

Economics of SIFS versus conventional farming in the Area 22

Input Costs (Fertilizer, Labour, Pesticides, Machinery and Fuel) 22

Factors influencing Adoption of SIFS 23

Farmers Characteristics 23

Farm Characteristics 23

Biophysical and Technical Factors 24

Social Factors 24

Information and Knowledge 25

Market Factors 25

Potential of SIFS to address Living Income Gap for Small and 26

Marginal Farmers in the Project Area

Conclusion 28

Table   Potential of SIFS in Financial Terms 30

3
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

4
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Abbreviations
SIFS : Sustainable Integrated Farming System

WHO : World Health Organisation

ILO : International Labour Organisation

UN : United Nations

CBOs : Community Based Organisation

VDCRCs : Village Development Child Rights Committee

SS : Saksham Samooh

HEA : Household Economy Approach

SDG : Sustainable Development Goals

MCA : Multi Criteria Analysis

5
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Preface
Poor tribal families do not have suf icient farmers. VAAGDHARA is a participant within a
resources and appropriate knowledge and skills living income community of practice. Therefore,
to grow diverse and high‐value crops. At the same it planned to taking‐up this study of the feasibility
time, the remaining area remains unattended as of SIFS as a tool to bring living income for small
they do not have adequate resources and suitable and marginal farmers within the indigenous
technological know‐how for proper utilization, community under KKS supported SIFS project.
such as Agro‐Horti‐forestry, etc. Some of the Principles of living income were studied and
critical factors affecting their livelihood are customized to understand "living‐income
sloping land, poor government investment, low benchmarking" for the target community within
capacity for investment, extreme precipitation the study area of 15 villages of Ghatol and
resulting in soil erosion, low water holding Pipalkhunt blocks of Banswara and Pratapgarh
capacity resulting in small production. districts.
VAAGDHARA is dedicated to working with the I hope this report explores the potential of
most deprived indigenous communities and adopting SIFS to shorten the living income gap for
helping them improve against the UN‐SDGs. In small and marginal farmers within the project
terms, it is part of mainstream development area.
within the country and participates in the
We are very much thankful to KKS, Germany, for
commitment of India's government to the UN
their support for this study and bringing out this
towards improving the situation of SDGs.
publication.
Almost one decade has passed since VAAGDHARA
Thanks!
is promoting the concept of adopting a systematic
approach within farming in the name of "True‐
Jayesh Joshi
Farming." This report is an effort to understand Secretary
the experience so far has shown the need to VAAGDHARA
establish the link of the SIFS approach and its
bene it towards the living of small and marginal

6
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Introduction
VAAGDHARA works in the tribal junction of of the land. Most rainfed‐dependent farmers
R a j a s t h a n ( B a n s w a r a , D u n g a r p u r, a n d mainly grow maize, pigeon pea, black gram, and
Pratapgarh), Madhya Pradesh (Jhabua, Ratlam), other local produce. Cotton has traditionally been
and Gujarat (Mahisagar, Dohad, Aravali). It is a a cash crop for people in this area, which Soybean
civil society organization dedicated to tribal is slowly‐slowly replacing. Community re lects
development, focusing on livelihood security, that the signi icant reason behind this is the
child rights, and tribal sovereignty. It has a increasing cost of cultivation in cotton, thus
professional grassroots level team in livelihoods, affecting the income from this crop.
education, child rights, leadership building, and
Poor tribal families do not have suf icient
c o m m u n i t y m o b i l i z a t i o n towa rd s t r i b a l
resources and appropriate knowledge and skills
sovereignty.The area is known for its high
to grow diverse and high‐value crops. At the same
vulnerability on undulating terrain, low‐soil cover,
time, the remaining area remains unattended as
larger area out of production activities, low
they do not have adequate resources and suitable
productivity, hunger, anaemia, malnutrition, poor
technological know‐how for proper utilization,
child growth, low income, exploitative markets,
such as Agro‐Horti‐forestry, etc. Some of the
poor connectivity, and limited access to services.
critical factors affecting their livelihood are
Prevalence of these conditions results in
sloping land, poor government investment, low
instability of livelihoods for poor tribal families,
capacity for investment, extreme precipitation
thus forcing them for stress‐migration to large
resulting in soilerosion, low water holding
urban centers like Ahmedabad, Rajkot, Mumbai,
capacity resulting in small production. The low
Surat.
productivity of land leads to food insecurity in
The area is part of a semiarid to sub‐humid terms of physical and economic access. Adoption
climate with an average rainfall of 700 to 900 mm, of the linear approach of market‐based
precipitate in an average of 30‐35 rainy days agriculture with high input costs makes them
spread over in the four months of monsoon. more vulnerable, particularly in climate change.
Agriculture and allied activities are the mainstays
of life. Geographically the area is undulating with
small mounds and hills, and a large area is out of
production, <30% of the land is under cultivation,
that too without proper land development. The
majority of families in the area have smallholding
(average 2‐4 acres), including various types such
as cultivated, cultivable‐waste, pastures, revenue
wasteland resulting in not enough food. Nearly
60‐70% of land in the area is sloping with reduced
Figure Problem issues of small and marginal farmers
soil depth and a high degree of erosion. Climate
change‐induced extreme events of precipitations Infrastructures such as road, electricity, water
further exaggerate this erosion. Most families supply, an input mechanism, and markets are not
cultivate and concentrate their efforts on 20‐25% suf icient affecting production and prize
1
realization. Limited inancial inclusion; thus, low‐
Area is shown in Annexure‐I
2
Details can be seen on webpage www.vaagdhara.org

7
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

income families cannot invest in development they do not have quality seeds, manure, fertilizers,
works like land, water, and technologies. The labor, market, and cash. Their youth, who went to
above background indicates that the primary cities to work there, to arrange cash income for all
reason behind this is the lack of or limited these preparations, are back without money. They
participation of the tribal community in also said that their resources are dried up, and the
development processes. There are many direct hope for credit is negligible. They do not have
and indirect factors adding to this situation, and suf icient cash to procure seed, prepare ields, buy
the key among them is lack of awareness, manure, etc.
knowledge, skills, and enabling environment
Thus, there is no way instead of keeping these
towards farming system approach. These
lands un‐cultivated. If it happens like this, in the
problems result in limited work opportunities
memories of farmers, VAAGDHARA, and perhaps
within villages and areas, forcing them to depend
we all, probably it will be the irst time that a
mainly upon daily wages in distant urban areas.
considerable number of farmers leave their ield
There is a need to demonstrate community‐
un‐cultivated, due to lack of suf icient resources. It
owned sustainable processes that adapt low‐
is a precarious situation that agriculture, the
input oriented regenerative can building in
largest occupation provider in India, faces a
collaboration, cooperation, integration for
threat. It is not the question of one season of the
sustainable livelihood, and social cohesion.
crop. And instead, it is a matter of trust in
VAAGDHARA recognized the gravity of the agriculture. VAAGDHARA believes that if civil
situation, which may cause chronic poverty for society does not take appropriate, timely steps
these already vulnerable families. In the last week and well‐meaning individuals and institutions, we
of April 2020, we organized rounds of discussions may witness another pandemic in nutrition
with tribal farmers and leaders. During these insecurity for small and marginal indigenous
discussions, most farmers have indicated that communities.

Figure Linear Model of Agriculture adapted from Allen 2015

8
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

A Conceptual framework for studying the SIFS

and Living Income
VAAGDHARA is dedicated to work with the most the study area of 15 villages of Ghatol and
deprived indigenous communities and helping Pipalkhunt blocks.
them improve the UN‐SDGs. In terms, it is part of
mainstream development within the country and
participates in the commitment of India's
government to the UN towards improving the
situation of SDGs.
Almost one decade has passed since VAAGDHARA
is promoting the concept of adopting a systematic
approach within farming in the name of "True‐
Farming." The experience so far has shown the
need to establish the link of the SIFS approach and
its bene it towards the living of small and marginal
farmers. VAAGDHARA is a participant within a Once benchmarking income levels are
living income community of practice. Therefore, established, household economic analysis was
it planned to taking‐up this study of the feasibility carried out for 200 families within ifteen pilot
of SIFS as a tool to bring living income for small villages of two districts. The indings are
and marginal farmers within the indigenous consolidated and analyzed with the lens of living
community under KKS supported SIFS project. income, actual income, and living income gap. The
Principles of living income were studied and report explores the potential of adopting SIFS to
customized to understand "living‐income shorten the living income gap for small and
benchmarking" for the target community within marginal farmers within the project area.

Detailed Discussion Discussion with Key

with Families Informants & Opinion
Leaders

Food and Other

Nutrition for Essential
Family Income Benchmark for Expenses
Small and Marginal Farmers
and actual income survey

Decent Savings for

Housing Emergency

Figure Process of capturing living income benchmark for an indigenous community

From : Anker, M & Anker, R. (2017) Living wages around the world : manual for measurement Edward Eigar Publishing cheltenham, UK

9
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Defining Sustainable Integrated Farming System

Sustainable Integrated Farming System (SIFS) is a  Utilizing the by‐products of one component of
combination of different agricultural activities in a the farming system as an input in other for
unit area of land which aims at: ensuring supplementary and complementary
 Maximizing return from the unit area enterprise relationship

 Maintaining soil status and fertility  Reducing environmental pollution.

System On Farm Soil-Health Sustainability

Production Water Management within
Improvement Management Changing
Climate
Enhancing water Use Location & Crop specific like
Enhancing productivity Crop diversity
efficiency residue management,
and minimizing risks
organic farming
associated with
climatic variabilities
Efficient on farm water
Integrated nutrient
management technologies Occupation Diversity
management
and equipment
Small Ruminants
Low-water demanding Appropriate land use
Livelihood basket
Crops based on land type

Poultry, Agroforestry,
Pasture Agro-forestry Minimizing soil erosion. Risk-reduction

Figure SIFS Major Components

SIFS follows the concept of circularity within the approach of the nutrient and energy cycle.

Figure Sustainable Integrated Farming System and its components

10
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Defining Living Income Concept

The concept of living income goes a step beyond This income needs to cover the costs of decent
traditional poverty alleviation notions concerned living for it to be considered a living income.
with bare subsistence and survival. It puts a strong "The net annual income required for a household
emphasis on the idea of decency and earning in a particular place to afford a decent standard of
enough income to live comfortably.When thinking living for all members of that household. Elements
about income, as opposed to wages, it is crucial to of a decent standard of living include food, water
recognize that a household earns can come from housing, education, transport, clothing, and other
multiple sources. For example, in the case of e s s e n t i a l n e e d s i n c l u d i n g p rov i s i o n fo r
smallholder farmers, income can be earned through unexpected events."
off‐farm business and remittances and crop sales.

Figure Key thought within Living Income Approach

For calculating the cost of a decent standard of  Non‑food non‑housing (such as school and
l iv i n g , t h e m e t h o d o l o g y d e t a i l s c o s t i n g clothing) ‑ Focus groups and secondary data.
approaches for the following areas:  Other Socializing expenses – Travel,
 Decent food ‑ Local market surveys, model Marriages, Communication, etc.
diets, and secondary data  The margin for unforeseen events – Drought,
 Decent Housing ‑ Rental costs, building costs, Fire, health shocks, etc. (dependent on the
c o n tex t u a l a n d i n te r n a t i o n a l h o u s i n g context.)
standards & secondary data.

11
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

These are costed considering international considered, bearing in mind that local de initions
decency standards (e.g., WHO, ILO, and UN‐ of decency may vary geographically. It makes the
Habitat). However, the local context is also decency standards normative Figure‐3 gives a
pictorial representation of decent living.

Figure Key thought within Living Income Approach

Figure 8 Components of Decent Living (captured from living income community

12
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

The living income CoP promotes the Anker components: net farm income, net off‐farm
methodology, which is a robust and cost‐effective income, and other incomes. Figure‐5 shares
methodology for calculating the cost of a decent various sub‐components that are part of the
standard of living is unique. The study followed composition of actual income. The signi icant
some of the basic guidelines provided under the component within actual income is the produce
methodology.The actual income for small and consumed at home, which mostly remains non‐
marginal farmers usually covers three signi icant recognized and unaccounted.

Figure Composition of Actual Income

Three signi icant aspects are income from

primary and secondary cash crops and produce
consumed at home (Figure‐6). It talks about the
various costs such as input, land, labour,
unexpected, etc., and revenues generated in social,
natural, inancial, physical, and human capitals.

Figure Farming as a Business (Source LI‑COP)

13
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Living Income for Farmers of Project Community

Within the above theoretical context of living family of ive members, which is much below the
income for farmers, VAAGDHRA initiated a study poverty line adopted by the world bank, i.e.1.9$
to apply the approach to explore the actual income PPD making a family actual living income of
of the small and marginal farmer's community in Rs.2,56,595. Global MPI 2020 Report 7 indicates
the area. The team conducted focus group that India 8 is 62nd among 107 countries with an
discussion with people's organizations, CBOs, MPI score of 0.123 and 27.9% population
VDCRCs, and SS to capture standard of living identi ied as multi‐dimensionally poor, the
income for the current poverty line in India is Rs number was 36.8% for rural and 9.2% for urban
1,059.42 (62 PPD USD) per month in rural areas, India.
which works out to Rs63565.2 for an average

Table 1 Major Category wise bifurcation of living income at project villages in Ghatol and Pipalkhunt blocks

Sl Particulars Ghatol Peepalkhunt Average

A Food Items 98080 93160 95620
B Decent Housing 13400 14200 13800
C Clothing 8000 8700 8350
D Education & Health 16400 17100 16750
E Communication 6000 2800 4400
F Social Expenses 44000 39300 41650
Total Expenses 185880 175260 180570

VA A G D H A R A u n d e r t o o k a s t a k e h o l d e r factors around farmer circumstances and present

consultation involving local community leaders income situations. 208 samples from 11 Gram‐
indicated an average living income benchmark of Panchayats were studied through intensive
Rs . 1 8 0 5 7 0 ( S ay Rs . 1 8 0 0 0 0 ) fo r p ro j e c t schedule capturing family assets, type of
community in both the blocks Ghatol (Banswara occupations each family member involved,
district) and Pipalkhunt (Pratapgarh district). income generated, various farm produce and their
To capture the actual income and gap scenario consumption pattern, etc. It has helped to clarify
project studied the guidance from "The Living the approaches to measuring actual farm incomes
Income Community of Practice" on the use of the to be compared and analyzed against Living
Household Economy Approach (HEA) to capture Income benchmarks.

Figure 12 Composition of expenditure pattern of small and marginal farmers of an indigenous community

14
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

The expenditure patterns indicate that 53% of expenses on social expenditures. At the same
expenses for the indigenous small and marginal time,the remaining 24% takes care of education,
families are on food items, followed by 23% of housing, clothing, and communication.

Figure 13 Composition of Farm‑income for families with minimum and maximum income categories

Figure 14: Increased in income and composition of family income

15
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Figure‑9 gives a clear link between the other income (66%) contribution to overall family
income and higher income. Families on the lower‐ income followed by 25% part from non‐farm
income extreme do not have a sustained source of income, mostly labour (both MNREGA and Non‐
other income. As the income category changes, MN R E GA ) . O t h e r i n c o m e reve n u e s fro m
one indsa critical contribution of other income. migration, salary, labour work, etc., constitute 9%
Figure‑10 gives a clear predominance of net‐farm of the overall family income.

Figure 15 Income composition percentage of the farm, non‑farm, and other categories of Living income concept

Figure 16 Living Income Gap Concept

16
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Questions answered in this section: as a relatively lexible framework that can it

 What percentage of farmers has household various purposes, depending on the user's needs.
incomes above the living income benchmark in VAAGDHARA has adopted HEA to measure and
their area? analyze incomes, measure household economies
against thresholds/benchmarks (including Living
 What is the gap between reference year
Income), and identify actions to improve income
farmers' incomes and a living income?
using scenario modeling.
 What is the gap between reference year net
The ability of small‐scale farmers to earn a living
income from a crop and the crop income
income is critical to ensure their viability and
benchmark?
economic success. This paper argues that closing
The HEA is an analytical tool developed initially to the living income gap for small‐scale farmers
improve humanitarian assistance and food requires tackling the underlying imbalance in risk
security programming. It can serve some and market power that many faces when engaging
purposes associated with understanding the in food value chains. This imbalance is not
economic situations of target communities. Still, accidental but reinforced by how individual
this guidance,'Applying the HEA to Measure and supply chains, commodity sectors, and public
Address Income Gaps in Agriculture Supply policy agendas are set up and operate. The study
Chains', focuses on how it can be leveraged to identi ies entry points for lead buyers to help close
calculate income gaps and help design and target income gaps for small‐scale farmers.
supply‐chain interventions. In brief, the HEA acts

Figure 17 Situation of Samples studied against the BPL (Indian and WB)

17
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Figure 18 Socio‑Economic Strati ication of surveyed community

The ability of small‐scale farmers to earn a living Underlying the inequality in risks and market
income is critical to ensure their viability and power are structural barriers that disadvantage
economic success. Small‐scale farmers play a small‐scale farmers. At the level of the supply
critical role in the global food system. Their chain, inequities in risk and power are manifested
success depends on having adequate resources to in the captive relationships between a large and
manage the risks of growing food crops, engaging fragmented group of farmers and a concentrated
with pro itable and equitable markets, and a group of buyers in many commodity sectors.
governance environment that supports small‐ At the public policy level, the imbalance between
scale farmers. risk and market power faced by small‐scale
The core of the living income challenge for small‐ farmers is reinforced by a diverse set of policy
scale farmers lies a signi icant imbalance between areas ranging from land rights to access to inputs,
the risks of agriculture shouldered by farmers and market infrastructure, export policies, taxation,
their power to shape their market participation. and investment.
This imbalance is not accidental but reinforced by Women farmers face gender‐speci ic income
structural barriers at individual supply chains, barriers, including restricted access to resources
commodity sectors, and national public policy and services and discriminatory social norms. At
agendas. Based on the framework of risk, power, the same time, however, women farmers
and structural barriers, this paper offers input for represent a crucial investment for raising farmer
discussions and interventions that aim to close incomes, given their expanding role in global
income gaps for small‐scale farmers participating agriculture. It is valid for divorced or widowed
in global food value chains. women who are responsible for their farms when
Disproportionate risk can represent a crucial other family members work elsewhere.
deterrent for farmers to invest in their farms to try Entry points for overcoming these income
and grow their incomes. Small‐scale farmers, in barriers exist. Global buyers are responsible for
particular, are limited in their capacity to ensure addressing their contributions to farmers' income
predictable conditions and buffer against challenges under the UN Guiding Principles on
potential shocks. These farmers face various risks Business and Human Rights. Their incentives to
and include issues related to price, inputs, climate, do so are to ensure a future supply of commodities
and land. for their inal products and to build sustainable
production models and global reach.

18
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Living Income for Farmers of Project Community

It is essential to recognize that there is no silver A recent study by the Sustainable Food Lab and
bullet for driving improvements for smallholder Business ights poverty took input from and
incomes, and neither is any individual actor solely conducted interviews with experts from
responsible for taking actions for change. Despite businesses, NGOs, donors, UN bodies, and
this, various levers and methods exist for research organizations to clarify roles and levers
improving incomes, appropriate for different for different actors to help increase smallholder
actors that can be applied holistically and incomes. These ive levers are:
implemented in various combinations depending
on the context.

19
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Figure 19 Living Income Approach and its SDG linkages

20
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Socio-Economic Analysis Associated with

Farming System for Promotion
Small and marginal farmers' promotion and the full range of behavioural responses (Freeman,
adaptation of a Sustainable Integrated Farming 1993). When farmers adopt SIFS, numerous
System demand comprehensive socio‐economic ancillary changes can be expected, such as crop
analysis against convention farming practices. switching, changes in pest control measures,
This analysis can have the following components; shifts in cropping duties for household members
(by gender), etc. For this reason, comparative
Non‑Market valuation techniques
analyses of SIFS and alternative practices should
It is common to use non‐market valuation adopt a whole farm approach to capture the full
techniques to incorporate the bene its and costs of range of these behavioural changes (Sorenson,
farming practices that are not priced in markets. 2001).
Examples include downstream siltation from soil
Diebel et al. (1993) argue that analysis of
erosion or loss of organic fertilizer where dung is
individual practices in isolation can even provide
used as a fuel instead of farm ields. The valuation
misleading results when certain factors combine
practices most appropriate to comparisons of
synergistically to raise barriers to adoption that
SIFS and conventional farming practices include
are not otherwise evident.
replacement cost, changes in productivity; direct
and indirect substitute approaches, preventive or Project Evaluation techniques
mitigative expenditures, and hypothetical or While project work uses cost‐bene it analysis
constructed market techniques (IIED, 1994). universally, other project evaluation techniques
Depletion of Soil as natural capital hold promise for the appraisal of SIFS projects or
technologies. These include multi‐criteria
Economic analyses at the project level can
analysis (MCA), cost‐effectiveness analysis,
incorporate soil depletion as a form of natural
decision analysis, environmental impact
capital under conventional tillage practices,
assessment, and participatory methods. MCA
enabling fairer comparisons with SIFS. This
recognizes that government decision‐makers and
depletion constitutes a cost of non‐sustainable
smallholders have many objectives in mind when
cropping in addition to regular production costs.
deciding about agricultural project viability and
It is a user cost as it yields short‐term gains at the
on‐farm management practices, respectively;
expense of future income (Daly, 1996). Omitting
more than a cost‐bene it analysis alone can
user costs results in an overstatement of the net
capture. In addition, various trade‐off techniques,
economic bene its of current cropping practices
such as trade‐off curves or more sophisticated
that deplete soils. Several techniques are available
analytical techniques, can help assess the trade‐
to calculate the user cost of depleting natural
offs amongst competing objectives. For example,
resource stocks. Two common approaches are the
Van Kooten et al. (1990) use this method to
net price method and the marginal user cost
examine the trade‐offs between net returns and
method.
stewardship motivations amongst farmers in
Farm‑budgeting and Farm‑planning S a ska tc hewa n , Ca n a da , in a dop t in g soil
Proper environmental analysis requires assessing conservation practices.
changes in environmental conditions in terms of

21
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Economics of SIFS versus conventional offs amongst competing objectives. For example,
farming in the area Van Kooten et al. (1990) use this method to
While project work uses cost‐bene it analysis examine the trade‐offs between net returns and
universally, other project evaluation techniques stewardship motivations amongst farmers in
hold promise for the appraisal of SIFS projects or S a ska tc hewa n , Ca n a da , in a dop t in g soil
technologies. These include multi‐criteria conservation practices.
analysis (MSIFS), cost‐effectiveness analysis, Input Costs (Fertilizer, Labour, Pesticides,
decision analysis, environmental impact Machinery and Fuel)
assessment, and participatory methods. MSIFS Present‐day farmers are facing challenges in
recognizes that government decision‐makers and managing inputs within conventional farming like
smallholders have many objectives in mind when a seed, fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, and fuel.
deciding about agricultural project viability and The approach of SIFS provides scope for reducing
on‐farm management practices, respectively; input costs on these aspects. Thus, SIFS helps
more than a cost‐bene it analysis alone can small and marginal farmers explore the full
capture. In addition, various trade‐off techniques, potential of their farming system and livelihoods.
such as trade‐off curves or more sophisticated
analytical techniques, can help assess the trade‐

22
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Factors influencing Adoption of SIFS

The Sustainable Integrated Farming System adoption, Gould et al. (1989) emphasize
(SIFS) approach primarily focuses on the low cost, awareness of farm operators to soil erosion or
thougful, and 24x7 approach, which demands other soil problems as an obvious prerequisite to
continued thoughtful farming. The present a d o p t i o n . I n d e e d , fa r m e r awa re n e s s o r
conventional farming is more or less perception of soil problems is frequently found to
industrialized farming in which a large number of correlate with SIFS adoption positively. Similarly,
activities and components are service‐oriented. the central place of information and knowledge in
Many factors shape the choice of farmers, which is SIFS adoption, in terms of being aware of soil
also the application of the adoption of SIFS. Given problems and potential solutions, should lead the
below are some of the speci ic factors that are level of education of a farm operator to correlate
important for farmer's choice; positively with adoption.
Farmers Characteristics A study of farmer's adopted SIFS in the Anandpuri
block showed that more experienced women
Since Ryan and Gross (1943) irst showed that the
farmers have raised more concern about the soil
adoption of agricultural innovations is typically
problem than their male and younger colleagues.
uneven from farmer to farmer, researchers have
However, they were less likely than their younger
directed attention to speci ic characteristics and
colleagues to address the problems once
attributes of farmers to explain this unevenness.
recognized.
In the case of soil conservation technology

Farm Characteristics positively with conservation tillage adoption

(Stonehouse, 1991). However, farmer awareness
Studies of the adoption of conservation tillage and
of and concern for soil problems is probably the
other SIFS‐type practices have often given
more critical factor affecting adoption. Another
signi icant attention to farm size (or sometimes
important farm characteristic is underlying land
planted area). Many studies have found that farm
productivity. In the case of no‐till and mulch
size correlates positively with adoption (Westra
tillage, Uri (1997) shows that in the United States,
and Olson, 1997). However, other studies have
adoption is more likely on farms with low rather
shown no signi icant relationship (Agbamu, 1995;
than high levels of soil productivity. In addition, a
Uri, 1999b) or even a negative correlation (Shortle
good it between SIFS and the farm's production
and Miranowski, 1986). Hence, the overall impact
goals encourages adoption.
of farm size on adoption is inconclusive.
Some studies have found that soil erosion and
other soil problems on the farm correlate

23
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Biophysical and Technical Factors

In technical terms, the characteristics and common property resources, even private land
availability of appropriate SIFS technologies are use may follow various aspects of farm
crucial factors in adoption. However, de Harrera management. For example, farm‐bunding,
and Sain (1999) note that availability does not contours, hedgerow, agro‐forestry, contour‐
imply individual ownership of the necessary plowing, stone lines, and other structural works
m a c h i n e r y a s l e a s e / h i re a r ra n g e m e n t s require peer cooperation amongst farmer groups
proliferate. Furthermore, potential adopters must to be effectivestrategies. Many dimensions of SIFS
believe that the technology will work. Technical it the group approach, including the formation
factors interact with biophysical factors, e.g., soil and operation of farmers' groups, dissemination
type, rainfall, or topography can of information, following speci ic practices.
encourage/facilitate, or discourage/limit SIFS Learning from different pilots indicated that the
adoption. While some studies have shown that promotion of SIFS requires collective action or
farm operations located within regions of steep high levels of social organization to help it gather
slopes and erodible soils have a greater tendency momentum. Widespread adoption may be related
to use SIFS practices, other studies have found to a society's social capital.In the broadest sense,
these variables to be insigni icant. social capital refers to individuals'
Social Factors interconnectedness and considers relationships
as a type of asset. Several studies have examined
SIFS adoption is seldom strictly a function of
the in luence of social capital on technology
individual pro it maximization alone and can
adoption in either developed or developing
re lect non‐individual or societal interests. It
countries. For example, kinship, or
usually re lects a compromise between private
`connectedness to others, can in luence
economic utility and collective utility. A number of
conservation technology adoption. Some studies
farmers from the area indicated that adaptation of
have shown that the expectation of farmland
speci ic approach in farming is controlled both by
inheritance can have a bearing on conservation
family level drivers and collective drivers. Within
behaviour amongst farmers. However, other
the indigenous community farmers, the collective
studies testing for this have not shown a positive
drivers can be seen in cultural norms or peer
correlation.
interest. It is also supported by the pride
associated with stewardship of traditional food Similarly, higher levels of social capital help
above the inancial rewards. explain the adoption of SIFS. Interaction with the
core group of tribal farmers indicates that the
Most women farmers indicated that collective
approach of Janjatiya Swaraj Sangathan and Tribal
action can also be important to adopt SIFS on a
Development Forum may be crucialsocial capital
large scale and stewardship motives. Peer groups,
for SIFS adaptation in indigenous communities.
kinship, and signi icant movement govern
Such institutions at the local level have been a
numerous activities within agricultural systems.
signi icant catalyst
Although the discussion usually focuses on

24
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Information and Knowledge

Adopting adoption is an essential factor in other hand, some women groups also indicated
knowing the practices associated with SIFS via that the ease of obtaining information is
some information or communication channel. sometimes not suf icient for adoption.
Indeed, discussions with Swaraj Mitra
Market Factors
(Community Resource Persons) and Saksham
Samooh (Women Farmers Groups) have indicated At present, farmers' decisions regarding crops are
that information plays a key role in adapting not only decided somewhat controlled by the
speci ic technologies. Harrera and Sain, 1999 have market. The slowly‐slowly market has become the
indicated that information availability is typically most critical decision‐making factor. The primary
found to correlate with adoption. Information decision‐making questions affecting the farming
becomes vital as the degree of complexity of the system are the type of seeds to procuring, what
technology and know‐how increases (Nowak, pesticides are to apply, what variety is to cultivate,
1987).Information sources that positively where to sale, what can be sold, and what cannot
in luence the adoption of SIFS‐type practices can be sold. A market‐linked decision cannot be
include other farmers, media; meetings; and avoided and should not be, but in conventions,
extension of icers. However, scientists from Krishi farming decisions are not linked to the
Vigyan Kendra and the Department of Agriculture market;instead,market forces in their favour
share that contact alone is not suf icient for dictate them.
adoption if information dissemination is
ineffective, inaccurate, or inappropriate. On the

25
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Potential of SIFS to address Living Income Gap

for Small and Marginal Farmers in the Project Area
As re lected in the section above on components of conventions farming which has ultimately pushed
SIFS and the factors which impact adaptation of small and marginal indigenous farmers to present
SIFS by farmers indicates high potentials over miserable status.

Figure 20 SIFS and its Sustainability Outcomes

The components of SIFS outcomes, as re lected in benchmarkreference. All the above potential
igure‐15, establish a clear link with living income outcomes have sustainability returns, i.e.,
and its potential to reduce the gap against the economic, social, and environmental returns.

26
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Figure Wider bene its of SIFS approach and its potential for better impact over Living Income

27
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

SIFS provides higher scope for promotingfarm demonstrates the long‐term bene its of SIFS
economics models, where changes to farming over its alternatives.
systems and other drivers of household income  The study also hints towards possible
can be tested (modeled) to see how much speci ic economic returns, but detailed studies are
improvements could move farming households required. It will demand including indicators
toward a living income. In other words, a living like depletion of the natural capital.
income benchmark could be a target for broader
 They facilitate income growth for the
livelihood interventions.
economically disadvantaged by developing
Conclusion agriculture infrastructure and support
The interaction with the community at Ghatol and services, creating productive assets, and
Peepalkhunt blocks gives the potential to developing skills and entrepreneurship. Social
promotethe SIFSapproach to achieve living protection measures and mitigation of risks
income for small and marginal farmers. Thus, from natural and other disasters aim to ensure
promoting SIFS must identifyvarious factors that that unforeseen exigencies do not disrupt the
impeded adoption, including economic net poverty reduction efforts.
returns, even in inancial terms.  Adopting the principles ofreducing the living
 The bene its of SIFS are support biodiversity income gap establishes the importance of SIFS
and living income for small and marginal to address nutrition and food security with
families of the indigenous community. This economically viable options. It helps farmers
community assessment about the bene its of make appropriate farming choices, something
SIFS suggests that its expansion in tribal‐ impossible in a simple comparison of
dominated agro‐ecological zones makes good conventional farming and SIFS.
sense from a social perspective.  There is a wide‐scale lack of in‐depth studies
 The social capital bene its of Saksham Samooh, on economic analysis of different organic and
SHGs, farmer's club, peer group learning, natural farming, including the approach of
farmers ield school, participatory learning, SIFS. There is a need to take up proper studies.
and action are probably under‐appreciated Although there appears to be some cost
towards promoting SIFS. VAAGDHARA has advantage in general terms, results can
demonstrated the importance of these group‐ luctuate widely from farmer to farmer.
based PLA in the successful diffusion of SIFS, Evidence towards the cost advantage
efforts to strengthen the enabling conditions isprimarily insuf icient for large‐scale
that foster these activities can pay signi icant adoption from a social perspective.
dividends. Finally, the study proves the worthiness of using
 In devising appropriate policies relating to SIFS living income to promote the adoption of SIFS on
and, more generally, sustainable agriculture, one side of the coin. In contrast, the adoption of
there is a need for improved policy analysis and SIFS lay the foundation for small and marginal
information for decision making. Economizing farmers to achieve living income targets for
the bene its incurred from the SIFS approach families.
against the living income concept

28
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Domestic Business: Migration to

Market Sewing, Embroidery,
Papad,
Service local labor Metropolis

Nrega Wages
Shop

Figure Participatory Format for understanding farmers' livelihood scenario

29
 Potential of Sustainable Integrated Farming

Table   Potential of SIFS in Financial Terms

Sl Particulars Quantity Rate Total Particulars Quantity Rate Total
A Food Items 98900 130700
A.1 Cereals 500 25 12500 Cereals 400 30 12000
A.2 Pulses 60 100 6000 Pulses 100 100 10000
A.3 Milk 380 40 15200 Milk 500 40 20000
A.4 Oil/Butter 40 220 8800 Oil Seed 100 80 8000
A.5 Vegetables & Fruits 52 400 20800 Vegetables 300 40 12000

Eggs 100 20 2000

A.6 Meat/Egg/Fish/Chicken 20 800 16000
A.7 ??? /Coffee 12 400 4800 Goat 2 5000 10000
A.10 Processed items 12 400 4800 Chicken 20 1000 20000
A.11 Spices 12 400 4800 Turmeric 50 200 10000
A.12 Sugar/Jaggary 52 100 5200 Chili 10 50 500
B Decent Housing 13400 Fruits
B.1 Maintenance 2 1500 3000 Banana 50 30 1500
B.2 Electricity 12 400 4800 Papaya 100 30 3000
B.3 Furnishing etc 2 1000 2000 Guava 20 60 1200
B.3 Water 12 300 3600 Lamon 10 50 500
C Clothing 8000 Other fruits 100 40 4000
C.1 Clothing’s 10 500 5000 Fodder 600 10 6000
C.2 Shoes etc 10 200 2000 0
C.3 Gifts 2 500 1000 Amchuretc 100 100 10000
D Education & Health 16400 Non-Farm 32000
D.1 Health 5 1000 5000 MGNREGA 100 200 20000
D.2 School 2 4000 8000 Labour 40 300 12000
D.3 education material 12 200 2400 0
D.4 Toys etc 2 500 1000 0
E Communication 6000 0
E.1 Net & Mobile Recharge 12 500 6000 0
F Social Expenses 44000 Other 6000
F.1 Notra 10 1000 10000 Sanman 6000
F.2 Gifts 10 800 8000 0
F.3 Insurance 5 400 2000 0
F.4 Savings for Capital 12 2000 24000 0
Total Expenses 186700 168700

30
 Head Of ice:
Village and Post Kupra, District Banswara, Rajasthan (India)
Ph: 9414082643 | Email: vaagdhara@gmail.com | Web: www.vaagdhara.org

State Coordination Of ice:

A‐38, Bhan Nagar, Near Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Ph: +91 141 2351582
32