Impact Assessment _Agar_MadhyaPradesh

Impact assessment study
Agar cluster, M.P.
Anjali Kumar
10/22/2013

RF BIJ: Impact at Agar, M.P. 22nd
, October 2013 1
CONTENTS PAGE
NUMBER
CONTENTS
I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2
II ACRONYMS 3
III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
LIST OF TABLES 7
LIST OF GRAPHS 8
1.INTRODUCTION 9
2.BACKGROUND
2.1 OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM
2.2OBJECTIVE OF IMPACT STUDY
11
11
12
3. STUDY AREA: BRIEF OVERVIEW 13
4.METHODOLOGY 15
5.EVALUATION AND FINDINGS
5.0
5.1LAND
5.2YEILD
5.3FERTILIZER
5.4FYM / POND SILT
5.5INCOME
5.6VFA CONTRIBUTION
5.7CROPPING INTENSITY
5.8FOOD WATER SHORTAGE(PRE / POST RF)
5.9QUALITATIVE
19
19
22
28
32
35
37
42
47
49
52
6.CONCLUSION 63
7.REFERENCES 64
8.ANNEXURES
8.1CHANGE IN TOTAL CULLTIVATED LAN –CLASS 1
8.2 CHANGE IN TOTAL CULTIVATED LAND – CLASS 2
8.3VILLAGEWISE CHANGE IN CULTIVATED LAND – CLASS1 AND CLASS
2
8.4 CHANGE IN NET INCOME –AGAR CLASS 1
8.5 CHANGE IN NET INCOME AGAR CLASS 2
8.6VILLAGE WISE CHANGE IN NET INCOME ACROSS ALL LAND
CATEGORIS
8.7CHANGE IN COST OF FYM / PONSD SILT APPLICATION AGAR CLASS 1
8.8CHANGE IN COST OF FYM / PONSD SILT APPLICATION AGAR CLASS 2
8.9 VILLAGE WISE CHANGE IN COST OF FYM / PONSD SILT APPLICATION
ACROSS LAND CATEGORIS
8.10CHANGE IN COST OF FERTILISER APPLICATION-AGAR CLASS 1
8.11CHANGE IN COST OF FERTILISER APPLICATION-AGAR CLASS 2
8.12VILLAGE WISE CHANGE IN COST OF FERTILISER APPLICATION
ACROSS LAND CATEGORIES
8.13CHANGE IN CROP YEILD ACROSS LAND CATEGORIES – CLASS 1
8.14 CHANGE IN CROP YEILD ACROSS LAND CATEGORIES – CLASS 2
8.15 VILLAGE WISE YEILD FOR CLASS 1 AND CLASS 2
8.16QUALITATIVE
8.17AGAR SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
65
65
65
66
68
68
69
72
74
75
77
77
78
80
81
82
84
85

, October 2013 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A major part of the report is based on the field surveys conducted in Agar cluster in from mid-August
to mid-September. I am thankful to Mr Giriraj Shah and the entire team for their support and would
like to, in particular, extend my heartiest thanks to Mr Upendra Kharpuse , Mr Umesh Paliwal and Mr
Abhishek Sakalle who helped get the work completed in time. I would also like to acknowledge the
support from Para workers who helped in the survey and Kamal for fast data entries.
I would like to thank Sudarshan sir for allowing me to explore my potential and allowing me to take
on the task of impact assessment and Nishi for always lending a helping hand when needed.
Last but not the least; I would like to thank Mr Ravindranath Rangoori for helping with the study
wherever I needed guidance.

, October 2013 3
ACRONYMS
 BK1: BASELINE KHARIF CROP 1
 BK2:BASELINE KHARIF CROP 2
 BK3:BASELINE KHARIF CROP 3
 BK:TOTAL BASELINE KHARIF
 BR1:BASELINE RABI CROP 1
 BR:BASELINE RABI TOTAL
 FFK1: FARMER’S FIELDS WITHOUT VFA SUPPORT KHARIF CROP 1 (YEAR 2011)
 FFK2: FARMER’S FIELDS WITHOUT VFA SUPPORT KHARIF CROP 2(YEAR 2011)
 FFK3: FARMER’S FIELDS WITHOUT VFA SUPPORT KHARIF CROP 3(YEAR 2011)
 FFK: FARMER’S FIELDS KHARIF TOTAL (YEAR 2011)
 FFR1: FARMER’S FIELDS WITHOUT VFA SUPPORT RABI CROP 1(YEAR 2011)
 FFR: FARMER’S FIELDS RABI TOTAL(YEAR 2011)
 DFK1:DHARTI FARM KHARIF CROP 1(YEAR 2011)
 DFK2: DHARTI FARM KHARIF CROP 2(YEAR 2011)
 DFK3: DHARTI FARM KHARIF CROP 3(YEAR 2011)
 DF:DHARTI FARM TOTAL KHARIF(YEAR 2011)
 DFR1: DHARTI FARM RABI CROP 1 (YEAR 2011)
 DFR2: DHARTI FARM RABI CROP 2(YEAR 2011)
 DFR3: DHARTI FARM RABI CROP 3(YEAR 2011)
 DFR: DHARTI FARM TOTAL RABI(YEAR 2011)
 FF12K1: FARMER’S FIELDS WITHOUT VFA SUPPORT KHARIF CROP 1(YEAR 2012)
 FF12K: FARMER’S FIELD TOTAL KHARIF(YEAR 2012)
 FF12R1: FARMER’S FIELDS WITHOUT VFA SUPPORT RABI CROP 1(YEAR 2012)
 FF12R:FARMERS FIELD TOTAL RABI(YEAR 2012)
 DF12K1: DHARTI FARM KHARIF CROP 1(YEAR 2012)
 DF12K: DHARTI FARM TOTAL KHARIF(YEAR 2012)
 DF12R1: DHARTI FARM RABI CROP 1(YEAR 2012)
 DF12R:DHARTI FARM TOTAL RABI(YEAR 2012)

, October 2013 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Agar is one of the oldest clusters of Reliance Foundation BIJ. The objective to carry out an
impact assessment study was to assess the direction the team is working on and the short term
impacts in terms of
 Income levels from baseline to after the project has been implemented
 Change in production and yield
 Changes in the food consumption patterns
 Food and water relates issues pre and post RF
 Water level trends in the project areas
 A general perception of well-being from the stakeholders themselves
 To develop internal capacity of monitoring and evaluation.
Methodology:
 Villages with minimum one year of interventions till end of 2012 were taken,
members classified as per the baseline data available at cluster level. Classification
was done on the per capita land holdings and classified into small marginal (SM),
semi medium (SD) and medium large (MD) category.
 Form the categories list, 25% of the people were randomly selected for interviews.
 Survey was conducted with the help of Para workers from villages and data entry
done at the cluster level. A total of 471 VFA members were surveyed for the study.
 Classified later into CLASS 1 and CLASS 2. CLASS 1 comprises of people with
whom DHARTI farm interventions started in the year 2011. For CLASS 2 the
Outcomes of the impact assessment study at Agar cluster have been majorly positive with a little scope for
improvement. The total land under cultivation increases over the impact year/s. Production and per Ha
yield have gone up, above the national and M.P averages. The net income, over the year/s, shows a
positive trend across all land categories. The small and marginal land holding class has witnessed a
significant jump of about 273%. Assets increase post RF interventions. The usage of FYM / pond silt to
increase fertility is one the rise, albeit in proportion to VFA help received. Fertiliser usage per Ha is high
and gives scope of improvement. A general positive response is observed from beneficiaries when it comes
to water and food availability post RF activities and a ray of hope even in the poorest of the poor about a
bright future ahead.97% of the people surveyed feel there has been an increase in the income levels.
Around 90% of them feel that crop yield and soil health have improved after RF interventions. Around 70%
people admit to having an increased awareness about health related issues and an increase in fruits and
vegetables in diet after RNG at homes.

, October 2013 5
DHARTI farms have been in existence only for 1 year as the intervention happened in
2012 for the first time.
As a result of the activities done in the fields of the VFA members, there has been a change in
the cultivated land holding, yield, production and income levels on the whole.
Land and assets:
The per capita land under cultivation has increased from baseline levels to the final impact
year across all land categories. The assets have increased majorly in terms of big farm
implements like tractors. The communication technology has seen a positive boost with 11%,
23% and 15% in SM, SD and MD categories respectively. Disposable income seems to have
increased as assets bought have shown a significant increase in entertainment section.
Yield:
Production has increased over the years at par with the cultivated land. The good part is the
increase in yield. The national average for soybean is 11.85q per Ha and M.P averages are
11.5 but the average yield for DHARTI farms is 12.75Q and 13.12Q in the CLASS 1 and
CLASS 2 fields respectively.
Same is the case with wheat where an average yield from DHARTI farms is about 32.2Q and
38.8Q in CLASS 1 and CLASS 2 respectively as compared to the national average of 31.4Q
per hectare.
Food and water shortage in the operational villages have gone down after BIJ interventions in
DHARTI farms.
Fertiliser and FYM/ pond silt:
Fertiliser application is prevalent in the DHARTI farms against the sustainable practices. Per
hectare application in fields is higher in Rabi season than the Kharif. The Kharif season sees
a somewhat similar application of fertilisers in DHARTI farms as well as fields where VFA
support is not sought by the farmer. This, however, changes in Rabi season where the
expenses on DHARTI farms on fertilisers go significantly higher from the farmers’ field
where VFA has not supported. FYM / pond silt usage shoots up with the proportion of
support received from the VFA. The application, however, has helped decrease the fertilisers
applied in Kharif season as most of the application of FYM and pond silt takes place in the
Kharif season.

, October 2013 6
Income:
The net incomes of all the farmers have increased significantly across all land categories. The
numbers per capita are higher in the MD category but the percentage increase in incomes per
capita has been highest in CLASS 1. The different land categories show a different increase
with SM category showing an increase of 273 %, SD 190% and MD 140% from the baseline
per capita income levels. In CLASS 2, which has been supported for only one year, the
increase has been of 71% in SM, 103% in SD and 94 5 in md category.
VFA contribution:
The VFA support to the farmers shows a corresponding increase in the total net incomes. The
vfa support sees a corresponding increase in the net incomes in the ratio of 1.47, 5.50 and
1.75 in class 12010-2011, CLASS 1 2011-2012 and CLASS 2 2011-2012 respectively. This
can be a good return on RF investments in the lives of a marginal farmer.
Conclusion:
The activities show a positive impact within a short span of 2 years. If the activities continue
with a strong institution building process simultaneously, the adoption of sustainable
practices by all land category classes can be achieved. The fertiliser usage can be reduced and
the proportion of FYM and pond silt to improve fertility of soil can be increased over the
years. BIJ still is in nascent stages of growth and it would take some time to bring about a
positive change in the farming practices that have been done in the past green revolution
boom.
Awareness about the ill effects of chemical on fertility of soil in the long term is low.
Wherever present, it was not practiced for the fear of compromising the present benefits of
high production and high incomes. Water levels show a positive trend as per qualitative
study.
Methodology of the study could be altered and instead of using 1 surveyor per village, 5 good
surveyors could be involved on a per day basis to complete survey of 1- 2 villages per day
depending on the numbers of people to be surveyed in a village.

, October 2013 7
LIST OF TABLES PAGE
NUMBER
1 AGAR CLUSTER AT A GLANCE 14
2 LAND CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION 15
3 LIST OF VILLAGES WITH TOTAL HH,MEMBER HH AND
NUMBER SURVEYED
16
4 LAND CATEGORY WISE LIST OF TOILETS 20
5 LAND CATEGORY WISE SOURCE OF POTABLE WATER 20
6 PER CAPITA CULTIVABLE LAND HOLDING SIZE 22
7 VILLAGE WISE PER CAPITA HOLDING 26
8 LAND DETAILS OF SURVEYED FARMERS 27
9 TOTAL LAND, PRODUCTION AND YEILD CLASS 1 SOYBEAN
2010-2012
28
10 TOTAL LAND, PRODUCTION AND YEILD CLASS 1 WHEAT 2010-
2012
29
11 TOTAL LAND, PRODUCTION AND YEILD CLASS 1 GRAM 2010-
2012
29
12 TOTAL LAND, PRODUCTION AND YEILD CLASS 2 SOYBEAN
2011-2012
30
13 TOTAL LAND, PRODUCTION AND YEILD CLASS 2 WHEAT 2011-
2012
30
14 TOTAL LAND, PRODUCTION AND YEILD CLASS 2 GRAM 2011-
2012
31
15 PER CAPITA FERTILISER EXPENSES CLASS 1 2010-2012 34
16 PER CAPITA FERTILISER EXPENSES CLASS 2 2011-2012 34
17 TOTAL PER CAPITA INCOMES IN CLASS 1 2010-2012 40
18 TOTAL PER CAPITA INCOMES IN CLASS 2 2011-2012 41
19 ACTUAL EXPENSES ON CLASS 1 2010-2012 43
20 ACTUAL EXPENSES ON CLASS 2 2011-2012 44
21 VFA EXPENSES V/S INCOMES CLASS 1 2010-2011 44
24 RATE OF RETURN ON VFA EXPENSES 46
25 CROPPING INTENSITY CHANGE IN CLASS 1 2010-2012 47
26 CROPPING INTENSITY CHANGE IN CLASS 2 2011-2012 48
27 COMMON WATER STRUCTURES IN AGAR CLUSTER 58

, October 2013 8
S.
NO.
LIST OF GRAPHS PAGE
NUMBER
1 AREA UNDER CULTIVATION IN DIFFERENT YEARS FOR CLASS 1 (2010-
2012)
22
2 % CHANGE IN PER CAPITA LAND HOLDING UNDER CULTIVATION FOR
CLASS 1(2010-2012)
23
3 ACTUAL RAINFALL IN 2012 ALONG WITH THE DEVIATION FROM LONG
TERM AVERAGE OF THE AREA.
23
4 AREA UNDER CULTIVATION IN DIFFERENT YEARS FOR CLASS 2 (2011-
2012)
24
5 % CHANGE IN PER CAPITA LAND HOLDING UNDER CULTIVATION FOR
CLASS 2 (2011-2012)
24
6 YIELD PATTERN IN SOYBEAN CLASS 1 (2010-2012) 28
7 YIELD PATTERN IN WHEAT CLASS 1 (2010-2012) 29
8 YIELD PATTERN IN GRAM CLASS 1 (2010-2012) 29
9 YIELD PATTERN IN SOYBEAN CLASS 2 (2011-2012) 30
10 YIELD PATTERN IN WHEAT CLASS 2 (2011-2012) 30
11 YIELD PATTERN IN GRAM CLASS 2 (2011-2012) 31
12 FERTILISER USAGE COST PER CAPITA FOR CLASS 1(2010-2012) 32
13 FERTILISER USAGE COST PER CAPITA FOR CLASS 2 (2011-2012) 33
14 EXPENSE ON FYM/POND SILT OVER THE YEARS IN CLASS 1 (2010-2012) 35
15 EXPENSE ON FYM/POND SILT OVER THE YEAR IN CLASS 2 (2011-2012) 36
16 PER CAPITA INCOMES OF CLASS 1(2010-2012) 37
17 % INCREASE IN INCOMES CLASS 1(2010-2012) 38
18 PER CAPITA INCOME FOR CLASS 2(2011-2012) 38
19 % INCREASE IN INCOMES CLASS 2(2011-2012) 39
20 VFA EXPENSES CLASS 1 (2011) 42
23 VFA SUPPORT V/S NET INCOME INCREASE 46
24 RATIO OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT 46
25 CHANGE IN CROPPING INTENSITY IN CLASS 1(2010-2012) 47
26 CHANGE IN CROPPING INTENSITY IN CLASS 2(2011-2012) 48
27 AVERAGE MONTHS OF FOOD SHORTAGE IN VILLAGES PRE AND POST RF
INTERVENTIONS
49
28 AVERAGE MONTHS OF WATER SHORTAGE IN VILLAGES PRE AND POST
RF INTERVENTIONS
50
29 AVERAGE GRAPH OF QUALITATIVE QUESTIONS AGRA OVERALL 52
30 VILLAGE WISE INCOME INCREASE 53
31 INCREASE IN ASSETS 53
32 DECREASE IN MIGRATION 54
33 INCREASE IN YIELD 54
34 ADDITION OF FRUITS AND VEG TO DIET POST RF 55
35 INCREASE IN VARIETY OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES POST RF 55
36 INCREASE IN AWARENESS ABOUT HEALTH ISSUES AFTER RF 56
37 INCREASE IN WATER LEVELS POST RF 57
38 IMPROVEMENT IN HEALTH POST RF 61
39 IMPROVEMENT IN SOIL HEALTH POST RF 61

, October 2013 9
1. INTRODUCTION
Indian agriculture is a major source of livelihood to the rural areas where around 70% of our
population lives. The share of agriculture as a part of the total GDP has been shrinking. The
share of agriculture in national GDP has shrunk from around 30% share in 1990-1991 to 17%
in 2012-2013. This however does not mean that the work force employed has reduced in
actual number. Even at a 17% share of GDP, it employed about 51% of the total workforce.
There has been a divergence between the growth trends in other sector of the economy and
the agriculture and allied services sector which indicates an under performance.
It suggests that unlike the overall economy, the growth in the agriculture sector has been very
volatile. The CV (coefficient of variation) has been 1.6 in 2000-2011 from 1.1 in 1992-2000
meaning that the agriculture has deviated more in the recent years from the overall economic
growth. Agriculture being dependent on many variables and majority farmers falling in the
rain fed agriculture practices category, the variation is expected to widen in the wake of
climate change events.
Crop yield per unit area of all crops have grown since 1950, due to the special emphasis
placed on agriculture in the five-year plans and steady improvements in irrigation,
technology, application of modern agricultural practices and provision of agricultural credit
and subsidies since the Green Revolution in India. However, international comparisons reveal
the average yield in India is generally 30% to 50% of the highest average yield in the world.
(Datt and Sundaram, 2009, pp499-501) even the green revolution impacted the states where
large landholdings and credit was available and the impacts were clearly visible in states like
Punjab and Haryana. The average marginal person with small landholding and vulnerable to
vagaries of monsoon was left behind. The average land holding as per the agriculture census
2010-2011 has come down to 1.23 Ha in all land size groups from an average of 1.16Ha in
2005-2006 census in a short span of 5years.This has happened due to continuous
fragmentation of land that has led to a decrease in cultivable land per household. The
government programs aimed to cater to this group of people often does not reach the actual
beneficiaries. There have been many funding agencies who have tried to respond to this
through NGOs working in developmental programs. The government itself has been trying to
provide assistance through MNREGS and RKVYs. Funds have been invested through
different channels to make farming more lucrative so that the next generation does not feel it
a compulsion to take to farming but sees it as a viable income source. A major concern had
been depletion of natural resource base and unsustainable farming practices in the areas

, October 2013 10
which not only put a strain in terms of input cost but also reduced the overall income of the
family.
However the situation is still bad in areas where rain fed agriculture is being practiced for
lack of resources to have a modern assured irrigation source in the farm. The problem
aggravates when climate change induced weather calamities occur in these areas. The areas at
times experience too much or too little of rains, both of which adversely affect the crop. Even
in cases of normal average rainfall, the distribution becomes a source of concern as the
rainfall received is distributed over a short span of time and not when critical irrigation is
needed for the crops to give a good production output. The marginal farmer is dependent on
uncertain monsoons, ever rising cost of cultivation, water table depletion and unsustainable
farming practices in practice extensively. This uncertainty of so many variables leaves the
farmer with not much choice but to pay heavily for inputs that are overpriced. All these
factors combined together, bring down the net income of the farmer from his piece of land
from agriculture. It is thus the reason behind the unwillingness of the farmers to hope for
their sons to follow in their footsteps in the professional sphere. Farmer suicides are common
so much so that it is not breaking news anymore.
To address the issue, Reliance Foundation has taken up the cause to work in the area of rural
transformation. Present in 10 states and 24 clusters, the foundation reaches out to 29000
farmers from about 366 VFAs as on date. RF aims to transform the lives by stabilizing the
livelihoods of the marginal farmer through farming and allied services. RF has tried to
address the issue with the help of on farm and off farm practices to make a move towards
sustainable agriculture practices. RF BIJ aims to improve the livelihoods of the marginal
farmers through different land development and soil moisture conservation techniques to
improve the soil health. The on farm activities include bunding of the farm, silt application,
FYM application, trenches along the bunds to trap the top soil in run off in case of heavy
rains. The off farm activities include promotion of cattle herding as a source of alternate
livelihood as it also provides clean fuel if dung is converted to biogas and can reduce the
drudgery of women in rural areas. The sludge can be of use in fields as a nutrient application
material. These all integrated farm practices aim towards empowering the farmer and helping
him attain a better way of life for himself and his family.

, October 2013 11
2. BACKGROUND:
2.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAMME
Reliance foundation is a not for profit organisation focuses on five core pillars of Rural
Transformation, Education, Health, Urban Renewal and Arts, Culture & Heritage. Reliance
Foundation launched Reliance BIJ in October 2010. BIJ stands for 'Bharat India Jodo' and
aims to bridge the gap between rural and urban India. Reliance Foundation BIJ seeks to
achieve this by focusing on supporting marginalized farmers who are plagued by constraints
of low farm productivity and increasing natural resource degradation. The vision is “to make
farming first choice profession”. Objectives of RF BIJ are:
1. Income and well-being of farmers
2. To attain nutritional self-sufficiency and food security
3. To have an improved natural resource base.
4. To build sustainable community institutions.
These objectives are attained through activities like soil and water conservation (bunding,
levelling, trenches, farm ponds, dug wells, contour farming, seeds), RNGs (Reliance
Nutrition Gardens) VFAs (Village Farmer Associations) etc. The soil water conservation
activities done in a farmer’s field would help de risk him from the vagaries of monsoon,
increase his productivity in a sustainable manner and would help achieve well-being of the
family. The village farmers’ institution would be a community institution working for the
betterment of the village as a whole.
After these interventions it was expected that the soil erosion would decrease, moisture level
in the soil would increase, water level would increase, production from the farm would
increase, the area of land under cultivation would increase, and cropping pattern and cropping
intensity would change and would help the farmer. It would help the farmer by helping him
increase his production, increase his income, attain food security and along with RNGs attain
nutritional self-sufficiency.
Quantitative impacts would be in terms of
 Increase in income and asset base
 Increase in sustainable production
 Irrigation coverage provided

, October 2013 12
 Change in cropping intensity
 Change in the cultivable area
 Change in yield
Qualitative impacts could be in terms of
 Nutritional self sufficiency
 Health related incidents
 Food consumption pattern of the family
 Effects of RNG
 Water level- a trend (since data has to be maintained yearly for a quantitative result)
2.2OBJECTIVE OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY:
The impact assessment study was aimed to assess how far RF has been able to achieve its
goal towards rural transformation in broader terms of
 Income levels from baseline to after the project has been implemented
 Change in production and yield
 Changes in the food consumption patterns
 Food and water relates issues pre and post RF
 Water level trends in the project areas
 A general perception of well-being from the stakeholders themselves.

, October 2013 13
3. STUDY AREA: AGAR
Agar is located in the heart of Malwa plateau of Agar district (elevation of about 500m).
Cluster spreads across 4 tehsils, namely; Agar, Nalkheda, Susner and Badod. Location is as
shown in the map.
Agar has red soil (murram) with patches of black soil. Deforestation has led to soil erosion
and shallow soil depth.
RF BIJ at the time of cluster selection for study was operational in 31 villages through 31
villages Farmers Association (VFA) and with 2561 farmers. Reasons for selecting the cluster
for the study:
 It is an old cluster having been formed in 2010.
 Soil and water conservation activities have been done in the cluster.
 DHARTI farm activities have been taken up. (Land preparation, FYM tank silt
application, seed distribution etc.)
 Reliance Nutrition Gardens have been made in the cluster
 Nurseries have been established in the cluster.
Agro Ecological Region: Central Highlands (Malwa), Gujarat Plain And Kathiawar
Peninsula, Semi-Arid Eco-Region

, October 2013 14
Agro Ecological Sub Region: Madhya Bharat Plateau, Western Malwa Plateau, Eastern
Gujarat plain, Vindhya and Satpura range and Narmada valley
Rainfall: 800-1000mm
Soil type: medium and deep, clayey black soils (shallow black soils as inclusion)
Major crops: Soybean, Wheat, Jowar, Groundnut, Cotton, Maize
Table 1: Agar cluster at a glance
Activity Figures as on
September,2013
No. Of VFAs formed 35
No. Of HHs reached by RF BIJ 2976
Amount of membership fees collected 585000
Total extent of area under DF (Ha.) 2725.18
No. Of RNGs established 1417
Facility created for rainwater storage (lakh cum) 11.53
New farm pond / dug wells made 552
Number of trees planted on individual lands 157264
Number of vermin compost units 3
Compost pits /NADEP units 406
Biogas units 89

, October 2013 15
4. METHODOLOGY:
Area for study was selected based upon the availability of criteria under study which in this
case would be the activities done for which the impacts need to be studied. Area selection
would be followed by a pilot study. Based on the pilot study on a small number of farmers
and the response and time consumed, questionnaire was improved. The study was then
conducted in all the villages of the cluster with VFA members selected through justified
random sampling.
 All the villages in the cluster were taken for the survey which had been taken up till
2012-2013.
 In the villages itself, the members were selected based on the land holding and
classified as per regulations into marginal ,small, semi medium and medium. Farmers
with marginal and small land holding were clubbed together into small marginal
category with land holdings of upto2Ha. The second category formed was of farmers
with land holding between 2-4 Ha. The third category would comprise of mainly
farmers with land holding between 4-10Ha and above.
Table 2: Land category classification
CATEGORY LAND HOLDING (Ha)
MARGINAL < 1 Category
one
SMALL 1-2
SEMI MEDIUM 2-4 Category
2
MEDIUM 4-10 Category
3
BIG >10
 Big farmers constitute a very small margin and were taken up with the medium
category farmers.
 Categorisation based on land classes was preferred over income classes for several
reasons.
1. Land classes are a standard practice for categorization.

, October 2013 16
2. Income based classification was not accurate and the incomes varied
widely within a land category group.
3. As per our classification, almost all the members are marginal but the category
classification based on land classes as per government of India regulations makes it
easily comprehensible even by a non RF employee.
 The table below shows the number of respondents for each village which was
calculated based upon the membership base as per the last working year 2012-2013.
In villages the respondents fell in two sets. SET 1 was the set which had people with
whom RF worked in the very first year i.e. 2011. For this category of people, the
baseline data was for 2010 when they practised agriculture as they did without our
interventions. This set has received VFA help in two consecutive years in some form
or other.
 The second SET 2 comprises of VFA members with who RF worked for the first time
in 2012. For this category of people, RF has intervened for only one year i.e. 2012 till
the survey was conducted. For this category of people, the baseline year was 2011.
 The names of farmers were shortlisted from the baseline data maintained at the cluster
level. The shortlisted names with whom we had at least worked in 2011 or 2012 or
both were shortlisted village wise and the list was given to the respective surveyors to
carry out the survey. This number came out to be around 425 for 25% of the
membership base. The actual numbers surveyed were 471 which are 28% of the
members till 2012 end with whom we had worked. The names of the villages where
we had worked were decided in line with discussions with senior members of the
team and came out to be 24 in all.
Table 3: List of villages with total HH, member HH and numbers surveyed.
S. No. VILLAGE NAME
Total number
of HHs
Member HHs
% HH
covered
NUMBER OF
MEMBERS
SURVEYED
1 AHIRBARDIYA 242 152 62.81 23
2 AMLA 284 140 49.30 17
3 BADGONE 148 128 86.49 20
4 BAPCHA 179 129 72.07 16
5 BHADKA 43 43 100.00 9
6 BHANPURA 79 79 100.00 16
7 DABADIYA 400 159 39.75 35
8 DEVLI 165 140 84.85 20
9 JAGATPURA 105 80 76.19 14

, October 2013 17
10 JHALARA 32 206 643.75 31
11 JHIKADIA 99 87 87.88 15
12 KANKARIYA 178 80 44.94 13
13 KARWAKHEDI 134 63 47.01 19
14 KASAI DEHARIYA 125 97 77.60 29
15 MAHUDIYA 112 84 75.00 16
16 NIPANIYA 550 138 25.09 11
17 RAIPURIYA 67 67 100.00 18
18 RATANKHEDI 130 62 47.69 14
19 ROJHANA 83 75 90.36 15
20 ROJHANI 140 115 82.14 20
21 SALRI 157 154 98.09 30
22 SEMLI 158 53 33.54 11
23 SHIVGARH 289 76 26.30 18
24 SIRPOI 275 166 60.36 41
TOTAL 4174 2573 61.64 471
The member HH details is as per July, 2013
 Village level youth were employed for the survey work, one from each village which
made the total to be 24. At a later stage 3 more Para workers were trained to complete
the villages that were lagging behind.
 Survey forms were filled and data entry was done by 2 people at the cluster.
 A pilot study was taken up first to asses if the questionnaire and the data entry sheets
need any change to improve it further, if need be. Then a full-fledged survey was
taken up in all the villages simultaneously. 6 days later, the data entry also could be
taken up simultaneously with the survey work.
 The data was then compiled based on the base year and the first impact year. For
people who joined us in 2010 and got VFA support in 2011 for the first time and 2012
for the second time were in one category. The second category was of people who
received support in 2012 for the first time i.e. only one impact year has been spent
with them.

, October 2013 18
A mock training exercise at Badgone
One to one interaction with surveyors and beneficiaries

, October 2013 19
5. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
All the data received was compiled and checked for entry errors. It was then totalled and
averages recorded so that a meaningful analysis can be done. Analysis of major parameters
has been done as to what trend is being seen in the overall data for agar cluster as well as
village wise changes over the years of our association with the VFA. The major parameters
are per capita cultivable land each season, the yield from per Ha land, the expenses on
fertilisers and FYM/pond silt to give us a trend of the sustainable practices. Incomes per
capita are then plotted for total cluster as a whole and village wise difference in incomes from
the baseline in the Kharif and Rabi season have been recorded. This gives us a general idea of
the fertility of the land per village if we see the Kharif income levels.
Similarly consumption difference in baseline and final impact year has also been calculated
to record changes in patterns. The changes in DF12R area from BR area would give the
actual impact we have been able to make in a water scarce area.
5.0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
Household size of the area is somewhat constant with the average family size in each land
class category being similar. In SM category the average family size comes out to be 4.34, in
SD category it is 4.90 and in MD category it is around 5.14.
However the composition of the family is not the same. In SM category the ratio of children
to adults in a family is .49, in SD it is .45 and in MD it is the lowest .31. This tells us that the
dependent children in case of SM and SD category per adult are high. However it is less in
MD category.
Hygiene is a cause of concern as open defecation is the most prevalent modes of defecation
across all land class categories. Flush toilets are virtually absent for the Small and Marginal
land category class. It is in practise by some families in the medium land category as it is
expensive to construct. This is the land class category where they have slightly more incomes
to dispose of, which send their children to school and in general are ready to accept the
modern ways of living. They also seem to be slightly more aware of the perils of open
defecation. The percentage usage of toilets by each land class category of people is shown in
percentage and the average usage across all land categories is shown in the table below:

, October 2013 20
Table 4: Land category wise list of hygiene practices
Category Open defecation (%) Community toilets (%) Flush toilets (%)
SM 98.95 1.05 0.00
SD 98.09 0.00 1.91
MD 96.36 0.00 3.64
Averages across land
categories
97.80 .35 1.85
The source of potable varies from hand pump to rivers to streams. But the table shows the
most preferred water source within land category classes as well as across land classes.
Table 5: Land category wise source of potable water
Land class Common
well
Hand
pump
Open well River Tap water Tube well
SM 31.94 52.88 5.76 0.52 7.85 1.05
SD 33.12 56.05 2.55 0.00 7.01 1.27
MD 36.36 55.45 2.73 0.00 5.45 00.00
Across all land
categories
33.41 54.59 3.93 0.22 6.99 0.87
Hand pumps seem to the most favoured among all categories for clean source of water
closely followed by common wells. And the trend continues across and within land category
classes.
ASSET BASE:
Asset base has seen an increase in tractors in all the land category classes. However, SM
category has seen only 2 additions as compared to 3 in SD category and 6 in the MD
category. With the advent of technology, the bullock carts are slowly decreasing in number.
The numbers pre and post RF are somewhat constant in SM category with a decrease in
number y only 2. However, the decrease in SD (55 to 42) and MD (58 to 40) category has
been considerable.

, October 2013 21
The SD category has invested most in sprayers. The numbers have gone up from 76 to 88 pre
and post RF. The MD category seems to be going for pipelines (17 to 20) with other assets
more or less constant.
The most commonly bought asset across all land categories seems to the motor bike. It has
gone from 23 to 30 in SM category, from 33 to 42 in SD category and from 54 to 58 in the
MD category. Percentage wise, the maximum per cent increase has been in the SM category
(30%) followed by SD category (27 %) and MD category (7%).
The entertainment section also seems to have been a big hit with the number of VCD and
DVD players increasing in from 10 to 17 in the SM category with an increase of 70%. The
SD category shows an increase of 81% from 11 to 19. The MD category already had the
items but the numbers have not shown a positive increase. The reason could be the additional
income from farming which has now enabled the SM and SD category to be able to invest in
assets that were considered a luxury and hence were not bought earlier.
The communication has been revolutionised in the villages by mobile phones. The numbers
have increased by 11% in SM category from 138 to 153.
In SD category the increase has been from 121 to 149 showing an increase of 23%
The MD category shows an increase of 15% with the numbers increasing from 109 to 125.
These increases in asset numbers are not mere numbers but they show the income levels, the
thought process of the marginal farmers who not only think about assets to be bought but also
are also being able to buy them. Finances seem to be improving with money left to be spent
on items that were beyond the reach earlier. The change in the thoughts of the community
which earlier could not afford these items is more important than the actual numbers.
Enabling in thinking has a more deep rooted impact than the numbers themselves. Numbers
show a trend quantitatively.

, October 2013 22
5.1 LAND
Land is the source of livelihood for agriculture based economy in Indian villages. As per
government of India classification there are 4 categories of people with different land
holdings in their names. The classes are marginal (<1Ha), small (1-2Ha). Semi medium (2-
4Ha), medium (4-10Ha) and big (>10Ha) . The average land holding in each category as per
agriculture census 2010-2011 and as per our membership records is in the table below
Table 6: Comparison of per capita land holding sizes
Land
classes
Average land holding
size per capita
(all India)
size per capita (M.P.)
size per capita (Agar
cluster)
Marginal 0.38 0.49 0.66
Small 1.42 1.41 1.34
Semi
medium
2.71 2.73 2.67
Medium 5.76 5.76 5.44
Big 17.37 15.73 15.52
Graph 1: Area under cultivation in different years for CLASS 1 (2010-2012)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Total
Farmer Field Dharti Farm Farmer Field Dharti Farm
Base Year 2010 Impact year 2011 Impact year 2012
PER CAPITA AVERAGE AREA (in Ha )UNDER CULTIVATION
Small Farmer (27) Medium Farmer (33) Large Farmer (41)

, October 2013 23
Graph 2: % change in per capita land holding under cultivation for CLASS 1(2010-2012)
As seen from the graph total land under cultivation in SM category of farmers increased
from the baseline in 1st
year of impact then decreased in the second year especially in Rabi
season. For the SD and MD categories the change has not been significant in the totals. It
explains that the effect of uncertain monsoons majorly affect the poor farmer who does not
have a sustained water source for irrigating his fields. The year 2011records an increase in all
the categories but the year 2012 shows a decrease in the SM category presumably due to the
year being deficient in rainfall and almost all the months deviating negatively from normal in
terms of average monthly rainfall of the area as is seen from the graph below that tells us the
average rainfall and the deviation from normal.
Graph 3: Actual rainfall in 2012 along with the deviation from long term average of the area.
Source: Indian Meteorological Department
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
52.04
31.44
4.73
32.29 28.40
17.59
% CHANGE IN PER CAPITA CULTIVATED LAND HOLDING
% INCREASE IN FIRST YEAR % INCREASE OVERALL
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
RAINFALL DEVIATION FROM NORMAL AVERAGES
ACTUAL RAINFALL AVERAGES FOR THE DISTRICT(IN mm)

, October 2013 24
The change in land area under cultivation for different categories has been different even in
the CLASS 1 where RF interventions started in the same year 2011 and continued in 2012.
The different land category classes viz. SM (small marginal) SD (semi medium) and MD
(medium and big) experienced different growth rates.
Graph 4: Area under cultivation in different years for CLASS 2 (2011-2012)
Graph 5: % change in per capita land holding under cultivation for CLASS 2 (2011-2012)
In CLASS 2, it is seen that there has been only one year of intervention with this group of
farmers till the study was taken up. It can be seen from the graph that the average land
holding in case of the SM category is the least and in a majority of the cases it was seen that
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Total
Farmer Field Farmer Field Dharti Farm
Base year 2011 Impact year 2012
PER CAPITA AVERAGE LAND (IN Ha) UNDER CULTIVATION
Small Farmer (164) Medium Farmer (125) Large Farmer(70)
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
Small Farmer (164) Medium Farmer
(125)
Large Farmer(70)
13.85
16.37
11.58
% CHANGE IN PER CAPITA CULTIVATED LAND HOLDING
% INCREASE IN LAND HOLDING

, October 2013 25
the entire land that was under cultivation was supported by VFA hence the graph in farmer’s
field in 2012 in case of SM category is very low and almost all the fields have been converted
to DHARTI farms. There has not been much increase in the land from baseline as the land
developed is almost equal to the land owned by the category of people and the low rainfall in
the impact year. In both SD and MD categories, the land under cultivation for Kharif has
increased as they are the people in the villages who have spare land that can be converted for
agricultural purpose.
These are cumulative figures for the entire cluster. Village wise change differs from one
village to other. The village wise difference in Kharif and Rabi baseline to the final impact
year have been plotted for different baseline years and are shown below.
The highest difference in Kharif can be seen I case of Shivgarh (Avg 11) where it has
increased by 2.54Ha per capita and lowest in case of Semli (Avg 10) where the land has gone
down by 1.4Ha.
In Rabi the highest impact has been for Sirpoi where cultivated land increased by 3.21Ha and
the lowest in this is Jhikadiya where the land under cultivation in 2012 decreased due to low
rainfall.
Bunding in Kankariya Village
Stone Bunding
Hamari banjar bhumi me levelling karai aur kali mitti dalwai jiske baa dab zamen dono fasal dene lagi
hai.Pehle 1 beegha me rabi kar paate the ab 2 beeghe me kar lete hain.
Jor Singh Driyav Singh, Badgone

, October 2013 26
Table 7: Village wise per capita change in cultivated land holding
VILLAGE base year
DIFFERENCE
KHARIF
DIFFERENCE RABI
Shivgarh Avg11 2.54 -0.86
Dabadiya Avg10 2 2.47
Mahudiya Avg10 1.99 2.37
Bhadka Avg11 1.73 1.53
Salri Avg11 1.64 0.49
Ratankhedi Avg10 1.51 2.21
Bapcha Avg11 1.3 1.73
Jhkadiya Avg11 1.3 2.23
Nipaniya baijnath Avg10 1.3 -1.2
Rojhana Avg10 1.13 -0.4
Kankariya Avg10 1.11 1.85
Kankariya Avg11 1.11 1.26
Karwakhedi Avg11 1.11 1.26
Badgone Avg11 1.05 1.22
Dabadiya Avg11 0.94 2.42
Kasaidehariya Avg10 0.92 -0.89
Ratankhedi Avg11 0.88 2
Rojhani Avg11 0.86 0.92
Amla Avg10 0.83 0.1
Mahudiya Avg11 0.81 0.71
Badgone Avg10 0.8 0.8
Karwakhedi Avg10 0.75 -1.1
Bhanpura Avg10 0.73 0.55
Raipuriya Avg11 0.72 0.62
Sirpoi Avg10 0.72 1.15
Sirpoi Avg11 0.72 3.21
Jhalara Avg10 0.7 1
Rojhani Avg10 0.65 1.2
Amla Avg11 0.54 1.26

, October 2013 27
Shivgarh Avg10 0.52 0.6
Jhalara Avg11 0.49 0.87
Bhadka Avg10 0.47 0.53
Semli Avg11 0.46 -0.41
Kasaidehariya Avg11 0.41 -1.04
Jhkadiya Avg10 0.4 -1.27
Jagatpura Avg11 0.39 0.14
Salri Avg10 0.35 0.5
Bhanpura Avg11 0.27 0.79
Deoli Avg10 0.12 -0.38
Ahirbardiya Avg11 0 0.22
Nipaniya baijnath Avg11 -0.09 0.6
Rojhana Avg11 -0.09 1.74
Semli Avg10 -1.4 0.33
Table 8: The Land details as per the people surveyed
Land type Area in Ha.
Irrigated 715.1
Unirrigated 370.5
Cultivable wasteland 228.2
Total 1313.8
Of this total area, an additional 97.3 Ha of area has been brought under irrigation due to farm
ponds and dug wells made on private land with the help of VFA.
There is also a category where well deepening has been done. As a result the area which was
already under irrigation was improved upon. As a result, the area of 116 Ha which was
irrigated but deficient in irrigation has now become well irrigated but is overlapping with the
already reported irrigated area hence cannot be reported as brought under irrigation as solely
by VFA efforts.

, October 2013 28
5.2YEILD AND PRODUCTION
The yield and hence the overall production varies from year to year. In case of agar, the
economy depends upon soybean which is the major crop of the area and reaps a good price of
about 3000 per quintals. This increase in price has been a recent phenomenon where the price
hike has seen a steep slope in the past 2 - 3 years from around 1800 per quintal in 2010 to
around 3000per quintal in 2012.Overall this has impacted the farmers in a positive way. He
farmers not only has experienced an increase in the production thanks to the VFA support in
land development activities but has also seen an increase in yield due to the soil water
conservation techniques being implemented in the field. The trend has been generally
upwards in both the fields where VFA (DHARTI farm) has supported and where the VFA
has not supported but the increase is more in case of DHARTI farms. The change in yield can
be seen from the graph below.
Graph 6: Yield pattern in Soybean CLASS 1 (2010-2012)
Table 9: The actual land and production details of soybean are as follows:
Soybean Baseline year 2010 Farmers field 2012 DHARTI farm 2012
Production (Q) 2710.65 1834.75 1917.75
Land (Ha) 255 152.1 150.4
Yield (Q/Ha) 10.63 12.062 12.751
10.63
12.06
12.75
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
soybean per Ha yeild
SOYBEAN
BASELINE FARMERS FIELD 2012 DHARTI FARM 2012

, October 2013 29
Graph 7: Yield pattern in wheat CLASS 1 (2010-2012)
Table 10: Actual land and production details of wheat
Wheat Baseline year 2010 Farmers field 2012 DHARTI farm 2012
Production (Q) 3046.7 2227.9 1726.05
Land (Ha) 102.9 88.4 53.6
Yield (Q/Ha) 29.60 25.20 32.20
Graph 8: yield pattern in Gram CLASS 1 (2010-2012)
Table 11: Actual land and production details of Gram
Gram Baseline year 2010 Farmers field 2012 DHARTI farm 2012
Production (Q) 460 342.5 213
Land (Ha) 57.9 31.80 21.90
Yield (Q/Ha) 7.94 10.77 9.73
29.6
25.2
32.2
0
10
20
30
40
wheat per Ha yeild
WHEAT
baseline 2010 farmers field 2012 farmers field 20122
7.94
10.77
9.72
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
GRAM YEILD PER Ha
GRAM
BASELINE 2010 FARMERS FIELD 2012 DHARTI FARM 2012

, October 2013 30
Graph 9: Yield pattern in Soybean CLASS 2 (2011-2012)
Table 12: The actual land and production details of soybean are as follows
Soybean Baseline year 2011 Farmers field 2012 DHARTI farm
2012
Production (Q) 7701.35 4505 5483.95
Land (Ha) 687 345.8 418.1
Yield (Q/Ha) 11.21 13.03 13.12
Graph 10: Yield pattern in Wheat CLASS 2 (2011-2012)
Table 13: Actual land and production details of Wheat
Wheat Baseline year 2011 Farmers field 2012 DHARTI farm 2012
Production (Q) 9641 4734 7058.5
Land (Ha) 278.9 140.2 181.9
Yield (Q/Ha) 34.57 33.77 38.80
11.21
13.03 13.12
10
11
12
13
14
YEILD
SOYBEAN
BASELINE 2011 FF12K DF12K
34.57
33.77
38.8
30
32
34
36
38
40
YEILD
WHEAT
BASELINE 2011 FF12K DF12K

, October 2013 31
Graph 11: Yield pattern in gram CLASS 2 (2011-2012)
Table 14: Actual land and production details of Gram
Gram Baseline year 2011 Farmers field 2012 DHARTI farm 2012
Production (Q) 1271 863.9 907.6
Land (Ha) 123 68.3 80.3
Yield (Q/Ha) 10.17 12.65 11.30
10.17
12.65
11.3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
YEILD
GRAM
BASELINE 2011 FF 12 K DF 12 K
Maine samiti ki sahayata se apne khet par med bandhan tatha plough ka kaam karaya hai jis se
mere zameen k utpadan me bahut vridhhi hui hai.
Mai samiti ki gatividhiyon se bahut khush hun.
Mukesh Pannalal , Salri

, October 2013 32
5.3FERTILIZER USAGE
Graph 12: Fertiliser usage cost per capita for CLASS 1(2010-2012)
Average cost of fertiliser usage was high in baseline. It shows positive increase in the first
impact year more so in the DHARTI farms. The logical reason for this increase could be the
basic assumption that since a lot of interventions had been already been supported on the
same patch of land by VFA, it would give more benefits to invest on fertilizers on the same
patch. But the usage per capita in spite of an increase in the land per capita has gone down. It
has gone down also keeping in mind an increase in fertiliser prices over the years. This is a
positive trend towards sustainable practice. The same is the case with semi medium land
category group. It can be said that they are moving towards sustainability if the trend is
followed over a few years. However, a cause for concern is the continuous rise in the per
capita investment by the medium and big farmer category. It keeps on increasing over the
years as compared with the small marginal and semi medium category. RF has been able to
convince the small marginal farmers but the big farmers it seems are not ready to
compromise on the output they have been getting with the extensive usage of fertilizers.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi
Total Farmer Field Dharti Farm TOTAL Farmer Field DHARTI FARM TOTAL
BASE YEAR 2010 IMPACT YEAR 2011 IMPACT YEAR 2012
PER CAPITA FERTILISER USAGE IN DIFFERETN FIELDS

, October 2013 33
Graph 13: Fertiliser usage cost per capita for CLASS 2 (2011-2012)
There has been a negligible change in the per capita consumption of fertilisers in case of SM
category. It can be considered positive as the land per under cultivation has increased and the
cost of fertiliser has also increased but the corresponding change in the per capita cost on
fertiliser usage has not been that high. This is not the case with SD category of people where
the per capita consumption has increased. In case of MD category the per capita change in
fertiliser cost has slightly increased which is good keeping in mind the highest amount of per
capita land under this category.
In Kharif, the per hectare cost in both CLASS 1 and CLASS 2 are lower in DHARTI farms
than the farmer’s field. When it comes to Rabi, per Ha cost of fertiliser goes up in DHARTI
farms as compared to the farmers’ field without VFA support. A logical reason could be the
application of FYM /pond silt by VFA support in the Kharif season hence the decrease in per
Ha cost in DF as compared to the farmers field without VFA support. In Rabi season, there is
hardly any support from the VFA in terms of FYM/pond silt application. The general trend is
higher cost of fertiliser application in Rabi season as compared to the Kharif season.
However, the increase in DHARTI farm per hectare expenses on fertiliser for the same year
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi total
PER CAPITA COST OF FERTILIZER APPLICATION IN FIELD

, October 2013 34
and season are far more than the farmers field expenses on which he cultivated without any
VFA support.
Table 15: Per hectare cost of fertiliser usage for CLASS 1:
Change in the cost of Fertilizer application from 2010 to 2012
Land Category
Total
Kharif
Total
Rabi
Total
Kharif Kharif DF
Total
Rabi Rabi DF
Small Farmer (27) 34,950 27,300 34,900 32,400 30,300 29,800
Medium Farmer (33) 1,12,500 85,610 1,03,300 57,800 1,20,500 94,100
Large Farmer (41) 2,59,200 2,85,285 2,45,500 89,600 2,68,180 96,200
Total (101): 4,06,650 3,98,195 3,83,700 1,79,800 4,18,980 2,20,100
Per capita Cost: 4,026 3,943 3,799 1,780 4,148 2,179
Area in Ha. 258 172 306 153.76 215 84.50
Cost per Ha. : 1,575 2,311 1,253 1169.35 1,946 2604.73
Table 16: Per hectare cost of fertiliser usage for CLASS 2:
Change in the cost of Fertilizer application from 2011 to 2012
Land Category
Total Kharif Total Rabi
Total
Kharif
Kharif
DF
Total
Rabi
Rabi
DF
Small Farmer (164) 2,91,030 2,24,985 3,13,690 2,44,860 2,61,970 2,16,070
Medium Farmer (125) 4,26,260 3,53,220 5,66,260 3,10,360 4,59,332 2,63,452
Large Farmer(70) 6,16,020 3,54,850 6,13,330 1,86,280 4,59,520 2,30,070
Total (360): 13,33,310 9,33,055 14,93,280 7,41,500 11,80,822 7,09,592
Per capita Cost: 3,704 2,592 4,148 2,060 3,280 1,971
Area in Ha. 702 433 786 432.00 506 282
Cost per Ha. : 1,899 2,156 1,901 1,716 2,333 2,516
It is interesting to note that the per capita expenses on farmers field without VFA support is
higher than that of DHARTI farm but the per hectare cost in DHARTI farm is higher when
both the fields are compared. This means that the intensity of fertilizer application is more in
DHARTI farms.

, October 2013 35
5.4FYM USAGE
Graph 14: Expense on FYM/pond silt over the years in CLASS 1 (2010-2012)
The above graph shows the per capita and per hectare expenses on FYM/Pond silt application
over the years keeps pace with the VFA support. It has shown a direct proportion to the VFA
support. The peaks in FYM/tank silt application tend to match with the peaks in VFA
contribution for that particular season in that year.
In the baseline years, as expected, the per capita expenditure on FYM and pond silt has been
the highest in the MD category followed by the SD category and the lowest in SM category.
The SM category farmers seem to be spending more percentage share on per Ha land as the
land holding in this group is very low. As compared, the per Ha expense on FYM and tank
silt seem to be on the lower side in the SD and MD category as their expense is high but the
per capita land is also much higher. So a per Ha would give somewhat similar expenses by
both categories in spite of having a greater capacity to afford in case of the MD category.
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Kharif Rabi Kharif VFA Rabi VFA Total Kharif Rabi Kharif VFA Rabi VFA Total
Kharif Rabi Total Farmer
Field
Dharti Farm Farmer
Field
Dharti Farm
Per capita expense on FYM/POND SILT

, October 2013 36
Graph 15: Expense on FYM/pond silt over the year in CLASS 2 (2011-2012)
The expense over the year keeps pace with the VFA support for the same. The graph rises
where the VFA support graph rises in proportion. However, over the year of interventions
with the farmers, the per capita expense on FYM and pond silt have increased considerably
for each category of farmers be it small or big. In SM category, the increase has been from
1000 per capita to 4000per capita. In SD category it has increased from around 2000 to
around 7000 per capita. In MD category it has been an increase from around 4000 per capita
to 8000 per capita.
0.00
1000.00
2000.00
3000.00
4000.00
5000.00
6000.00
7000.00
8000.00
9000.00
Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Kharif VFA Rabi VFA Total
Per capita expense on FYM /pond silt

, October 2013 37
5.5INCOME
Graph 16: Per capita incomes of CLASS 1(2010-2012)
The incomes in all the classes show a positive trend throughout the impact years. The average
income of SM category has increased from around 10,000 to around 40,000 per annum which
are significant. The most significant increase has however been in the big farmer category in
the set 1 group where the per capita incomes have changed from around 110,000 in 2010 to
220,000 per farmer household in 2012, an increase of 100%.
The net increase in the incomes of the farmers across all categories has been due to
 Increase in area of cultivation
 Increase in application of FYM/Tank silt+ land development activities-increase in
yield
 Increase in sale price of the major cash crop like soybean. (From 1800-2000 in 2010
to an average of 3000 per quintals in 2012
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
Kharif Rabi Total Farmer
Field
Dharti
Farm
Total Farmer
Field
Dharti
Farm
Total

, October 2013 38
Graph 17: % increase in incomes CLASS 1(2010-2012)
Even though the actual per capita incomes remain highest in the biggest land category group
that is MD category, the percentage increase in per capita income levels in two years of
interventions have been in the small marginal category of people with the minimum land
holding. The phenomenal increase is partly because of our interventions and partly because of
the price rise. A reason also is the ultra-low income levels before RF interventions.as result
even if the increase is low in actual numbers; the percentage increase is the highest in all the
categories.
Graph 18: Per capita income for CLASS 2(2011-2012)
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
Small Farmer (27) Medium Farmer
(33)
Large Farmer (41)
272.91
190.01
139.51
% INCREASE IN INCOMES:CLASS 1
% INCREASE IN INCOMES
0.00
20000.00
40000.00
60000.00
80000.00
100000.00
120000.00
140000.00
160000.00
180000.00
200000.00
Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Total

, October 2013 39
The incomes of SM category farmers have risen from around 18000 per capita per annum to
around 30000 per annum in just a year, an increase of 67%. For the SD category of farmers
the change has been from 40000/annum/family to around 80000/annum/family which is
around a 100 % increase. For the big farmer category the change has been from around
96000per household per annum to 185000 per household per annum which is also an increase
of around 100%.
The net increase in the incomes of the farmers across all categories has been due to
 Increase in area of cultivation
 Increase in application of FYM/Tank silt+ land development activities-increase in
yield
 Increase in sale price of the major cash crop like soybean. (From an average selling
price of around 2500/Q to an average of 3000/Q in 2012.)
Graph 19: % increase in incomes CLASS 1(2011-2012)
The number of small and marginal land category of farmers has increased in the class 2 as
these were the people who had very low income levels, who could not experiment with a new
design and methods initially till they saw some proof of concept working for others. These
are people who did not and in many cases, could not be helped in the first year of
intervention. In the first year of interventions which formed class1 the majority of big farmers
came forward and the lowest number was of small and marginal land holding category. This
gets reversed in the second year when the small and marginal category of land holding people
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
71.00
102.59
93.97
% INCREASE IN INCOMES:CLASS 2
% INCREASE IN INCOMES

, October 2013 40
forms the chunk of the total numbers we worked with. The percentage increase is high but
not as high as the class 1 as the prices in base year 2011 were higher than class where base
year was 2010.
The numbers in CLASS 1 for SM category was also low so even if a few of them were very
poor, the entire per capita average would come down below 10000 per annum. This income
however, also includes the Rabi crop which is entirely for consumption in case of wheat. This
does not get depicted in the net income levels of the graph as they do not earn revenue but the
expenses get accounted for. The self-consumption amounts have gone up after RF
intervention in fields in SM category the highest as they were the poorest of the poor and the
impact is thus highest in their case.
Table 17: Total incomes for CLASS 1 (2010-2012)
Land Category
Total Kharif
Total
Rabi Total
Total
Kharif
Total
Rabi Total
Small Farmer (27) 1,77,150 68,764 2,45,914 6,83,340 2,33,710 9,17,050
Medium Farmer
(33) 5,13,100 4,92,290 10,05,390 17,68,072 11,47,660 29,15,732
Large Farmer (41) 19,48,885 17,89,958 37,38,843 75,10,675 26,90,540 1,02,01,215
Total (101): 26,39,135 23,51,012 49,90,147 99,62,087 40,71,910 1,40,33,997
Per capita Income: 26,130 23,277 49,407 98,635 40,316 1,38,950
Area in Ha. 258 172 306 215
Income per ha. 10,221 13,645 32,528 18,913

, October 2013 41
Table 18: total incomes for CLASS 2 (2011-2012)
Land Category
Total
Kharif
Total
Rabi Total
Total
Kharif Total Rabi Total
Small Farmer (164) 16,09,670 13,40,795 29,50,465 31,53,714 18,91,716 50,45,430
Medium Farmer
(125) 25,38,125 25,07,425 50,45,550 57,27,480 44,94,280 1,02,21,760
Large Farmer(70) 32,65,440 34,84,625 67,50,065 74,99,134 55,93,777 1,30,92,911
Total (360): 74,13,235 73,32,845 1,47,46,080 1,63,80,328 1,19,79,773 2,83,60,101
Per capita Income: 20,592 20,369 40,961 45,501 33,277 78,778
Area in Ha. 701.93 432.8 786 506
Income per Ha. 10,561 16,943 20,845 23,671
The difference in Kharif in baseline to the impact year per Ha is seen because of mainly 2
reasons: one is the improvement in soil health due to emphasis on sustainable practices in
DHARTI farm plus the fact that the main Kharif crop is soybean and the prices have shot up
from the baseline years. So per hectare production and the net income per hectare has gone
up. As with Rabi, the yield has increased a lot in the DHARTI farms for wheat which is a
major crop for Rabi season.as a result the per capita consumption and also the saleable
quintals have gone up along with the selling price. The net income increase is thus seen in
both the classes of farmers.
Kheti se avak badhi hai. Ab hum karz nahi lete. Apna makan bhi pakka karaya hai humne.gadi
kharidi hai. Samiti dwara sahayata se bio – gas banwaya hai. Mahila ko bahut aram hua is se.
Kalu Singh, Ratankhedi
Hamari banjar padi zameen par kaarya hone se hamari aamdani double ho gayi hai. Bahut fayada
hua hai.
Maan Singh, Mahudiya

, October 2013 42
5.6 VFA CONTRIBUTION
Contribution occurred for two CLASSES of people. For the first CLASS, VFA support was
given for 2 years for different interventions. For CLASS 2 group members with who work
started in 2012 for the first time, VFA contribution happened only once. The pie chart below
shows the assistance provided by VFA to CLASS 1 people in 1st
year of intervention i.e.
2011.
Graph 20: VFA expenses CLASS 1 (2011)
Farm pond expenses form the major chunk as the farm ponds made initially were of bigger
dimensions and the primary focus went on securing water for the second crop.
The trend shifted in the second year of assistance when land development seemed to be a
major area of concern and a major chunk was deployed in land development activities like
ploughing levelling and bunding activities. It can be very clearly seen from the pie chart
below which depicts the percentage share of each assistance provided in the second phase to
CLASS 1 members. Land development and border bund together account for around 51% of
the total support provided by the VFA to farmers for different activities.
12%
14%
0%
9%
65%
IMPACT YEAR 2011
LAND DEVELOPMENT
FYM POND SILT
SEED SUPPORT
BORDER BUND
FARM POND

, October 2013 43
The actual contribution on VFA members in the first and second year of intervention for the
first set is as follows under expense headings:
Table 19: actual expenses on CLASS 1(2010-2012)
EXPENSE HEADING VFA CONTRIBUTION TO
MEMBER (INR)
VFA CONTRIBUTION TO
MEMBER (INR)
Year 2011 2012
LAND DEVELOPMENT 2,45,150 4,64,805
FYM/POND SILT 2,91,750 3,80,661
SEEDS 0 5,300
BORDER BUND 1,76,200 98,232
FARM POND 13,16,981 1,52,375
There was a second set of people for whom the interventions happened for the first time in
the year 2012. So for this category the base year was 2011 and the first and only impact year
till the study was conducted has been 2012.the contribution has been under the same heads
with the percentage expenses are as follows:
42%
35%
0%
9%
14%
IMPACT YEAR 2012
LAND DEVELOPMENT
FYM/POND SILT
SEEDS
BORDER BUND
FARM POND

, October 2013 44
The actual contribution for the year 2012 for the second set of members is as follows under
various headings:
Table 20: Actual expenses on CLASS 2 (2011-2012)
HEADING VFA CONTRIBUTION TO MEMBER (INR)
LAND DEVELOPMENT 19,55,307
FYM/POND SILT 15,36,005
SEEDS 38,985
BORDER BUND 7,07,148
FARM POND 35,58,471
The investment versus corresponding increase in incomes for class 1 in the year 2011 is as
follows:
Table 21: VFA expenses V/S incomes CLASS 1 (2010-2011)
VFA EXPENSES V/S INCOME CHANGE : CLASS 1
LAND
CATEGORY
BASELINE NET
INCOMES 2011 NET INCOMES
DIFFERENCE IN
INCOMES (2010-2011)
SM 245914 687290 441376
SD 1005390 2424560 1419170
MD 3738843 4865850 1127007
TOTALS 49,90,147 79,77,700 29,87,553
25%
20%
-1%
9%
46%
IMPACT YEAR 2012
LAND DEVELOPMET
FYM/POND SILT
SEEDS
BORDER BUNDS
FARM POND

, October 2013 45
The investment in the year 2011 was 20, 30,081 rupees against which a total of increase in
incomes has been 29, 87,553 rupees.
The support by RF in the year 2012 to class 1 group of members was to the tune of11, 01,373
rupees. The corresponding increase in income levels is shown in the table below:
LAND
CATEGORY 2011 NET INCOMES 2012 NET INCOMES
DIFFERENCE IN
INCOMES (2011-2012)
SM 6,87,290 9,17,050 2,29,760
SD 24,24,560 29,15,732 4,91,172
MD 48,65,850 1,02,01,215 53,35,365
TOTALS 79,77,700 1,40,33,997 60,56,297
The support by RF in the year 2012 to CLASS 2 group of members was to the tune of
77,95,917 rupees. The corresponding increase in income levels is shown in the table below:
CLASS
BASELINE PER
CAPITA INCOMES
(ACROSS ALL
CLASSES)
IMPACT YEAR 2012 PER
CAPITA INCOMES
(ACROSS ALL CLASSES)
DIFFERENCE IN INCOMES
(2011-2012)
SM 29,50,465 50,45,430 20,94,965
SD 50,45,550 1,02,21,760 51,76,210
MD 67,50,065 1,30,92,911 63,42,846
TOTALS 1,47,46,080 2,83,60,101 1,36,14,021
This group of farmers has benefitted only for a year as the first time work done was in the
year 2012.

, October 2013 46
Table 24: Rate of return
CLASS VFA CONTRIBUTION
INCREASE IN
INCOMES
RATIO OF
INVESTMENT TO
RETURN
CLASS 1 (10-11) 20,30,081 29,87,553 1.47
CLASS 1 (11-12) 11,01,373 60,56,297 5.50
CLASS 2 (11-12) 77,95,917 1,36,14,021 1.75
Graph 23: VFA support v/s net income increase
Graph 24: Ratio of return on investment
0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 12000000 14000000
class 1 (10-11)
class 1 (11-12)
class 2 (11-12)
2030081
1101373
7795917
2987553
6056297
13614021
VFA SUPPORT AND NET INCOME INCREASE
increase in incomes vfa contribution
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
class 1 (10-11)
class 1 (11-12)
class 2 (11-12)
1.47
5.50
1.75
Ratio of investment to return
Ratio of investment to return

, October 2013 47
5.7CROPPING INTENSITY:
Cropping intensity is defined as a fraction of the cultivated area that is harvested. (FAO)
Or in simpler terms, it is the gross cropped area for a net sowing area available.
Hence
Cropping intensity= Gross cropped area × 100
Net sown area
Where gross cropped area is the area on which crop has been taken in one year.
Net sown area is the actual land available for sowing.
Table 25:For Class 1 the cropping intensity comes out to be:
Land class category BASELINE 2010 IMPACT YEAR 2011 IMPACT YEAR 2012
SM 143.69 172.59 142.20
SD 158.01 166.58 160.25
MD 172.81 167.31 178.56
Graph 25: change in cropping intensity in CLASS 1(2010-2012)
Cropping intensity increases as the sown area in Rabi increases for the same patch of land
that was cultivated in Kharif also. As a result the more land under cultivation in Rabi season,
the more will be the cropping area. In Rabi wheat is the major crop and gram seems to be the
second most favoured crop of the region. Wheat is a water intensive crop. The cropping
intensity seems to vary with the land category and hence the income levels of the
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
SM SD MD
BASELINE 2010
IMPACT YEAR 2012

, October 2013 48
respondents. The respondents with small marginal land holding show a less intensity as
compared to their bigger land holding counterparts. The general trend shows an increase in the
cropping intensity over the years. However there is a small dip in case of small and marginal category
due to less rainfall.
Table 26: For Class 2 the cropping intensity comes out to be:
Land category classes BASELINE 2011 IMPACT YEAR 2012
SM 157.69 161.63
SD 164.35 167.69
MD 161.47 162.97
Graph 26: Change in cropping intensity in CLASS 2(2011-2012)
152%
154%
156%
158%
160%
162%
164%
166%
168%
170%
SM SD MD
BASELINE 2011
IMPACTT YEAR 2012

, October 2013 49
5.8FOOD AND WATER SHORTAGE
Graph 27: Average months of food shortage in villages’ pre and post RF interventions
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
ahirbardiya
amla
badgone
bapcha
bhadka
bhanpura
dabdiya
deoli
jagatpura
jhalara
jhikdiya
kankariya
karwakhedi
kasaidehriya
mahudiya
nipaniya
raipuriya
ratankhedi
rojhana
rojhani
salri
semli
shivgarh
sirpoi
average post
average pre
Mere jeevan me kabhi aisi company nahi aayi jo hum gareebo ki arthik sthiti me sudhar laye.pehle
mujhe bhojan ki kami hoti thi savan bhadva k mahine me.Aaj wo karki nahi rahi. Sahib ke samjhane
se mai kheti pe dhayna bhi dene laga. Ab achhi paidawaar aane lagi hai.
Shyam Singh Nain Singh, Devli Piplon

, October 2013 50
Graph 28: Average months of water shortage in villages’ pre and post RF interventions
0 1 2 3 4 5
ahirbardiya
amla
badgone
bapcha
bhadka
bhanpura
dabdiya
deoli
jagatpura
jhalara
karwakhedi
kasaidehriya
mahudiya
nipaniya
raipuriya
ratankhedi
rojhana
rojhani
salri
semli
shivgarh
sirpoi
average post
average pre

, October 2013 51
Well excavation at Rojhana
Dam full of water at Ratankhedi
Hamare yahan utpadan me vridhhi hui hai mittti dalne se.Jahan ek quintal soyabean hota tha
waha aaj 4 quintal tak soyabean hota hai. Jahan 2 quintal tak gehu hota thaw aha aj 8 quintal
tak aata hai.
Manohar Yadav, Nipaniya Baijnath

, October 2013 52
5.9 QUALITATIVE
Graph 29: Average graph of qualitative questions Agra overall
Overwhelming positive response is seen in terms of income, yield, water levels and soil health where
it reaches close to hundred when we compile the data received from all the villages. Almost all of the
respondents feel that these parameters have shown a positive change over the past year/years of
intervention. The activities done to make farming a profitable livelihood option include improving the
soil fertility through application of FYM/pond silt, bringing cultivable wasteland under agriculture by
land levelling border bunds and farm ponds. All these activities help improve the fertility, increase the
yield and directly increase the net income of the farmer hence the positive responses.
RNG seems to be improving the lives but the issue is non-availability of water in the hotter months of
the year. The soil is loose murram soil and loses moisture content very soon. As a result, the RNGs
that are established are short lived and not perennial. They are difficult to sustain in the harsh
conditions where the temperature reach around 50 degrees in May.
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00
HAS THE INCOME INCREASED AFTER BIJ
INTERVENTIONS?
HAS THERE BEEN AN ADDITION TO THE ASSET BASE
AFTER RF INTERVENTIONS?
HAS THE INCIDENCE OF MIGRATION DECREASED
HAS THE CROP YEILD INCREASED
HAS THERE BEEN AN ADDITION OF FRUITS AND
VEGETABLES IN THE DIET OF PEOPLE?
HAS THE VARIETY OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
INCREASED AFTER RF INTERVENTION?
HAS THE WARENESS ABOUT NUTRITIONAL DIET
INCREASED AFTER RF?
HAS THE WATER LEVEL INCREASED AFTER RF
ACTIVITIES
HAS THE EXPENSE ON VEGETABLES DECREASED
AFTER RNG
HAS THE HEALTH IMPROVED?
HAS THE SOIL HEALTH IMPROVED AFTER RF
ACTIVITIES?
AVERAGE OF AGAR CLUSTER
AVERAGE OF AGAR CLUSTER

, October 2013 53
Graph 30: Village wise income increase
Income from the sale of crops has increased considerably after RF intervention. The primary reason is
the increase in quantity as well as the quality of the farm land. Quantity was increased by conversion
of cultivable wastelands into farm land and quality was ensured through adoption of sustainable
farming practices.
Graph 31: Increase in assets
The increase in asset base would not necessarily mean an addition of big farm equipment. It could
also imply the addition to the general household stuff like mobile phones, motorcycles, and increase
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
AHIRBARDIYA
AMLA
BADGONE
BAPCHA
BHADKA
BHANPURA
DABDIYA
DEOLI
JAGATPURA
JHALARA
JHIKADIYA
KANKARIYA
KARWAKHEDI
KASAIDEHARIYA
MAHUDIYA
NIPANIYA
RAIPURIYA
RATANKHEDI
ROJHANA
ROJHANI
SALRI
SEMLI
SHIVGARH
SIRPOI
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO RESPONDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
HAS THE INCOME INCREASED AFTER BIJ INTERVENTIONS?
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
AHIRBARDIYA
AMLA
BADGONE
BAPCHA
BHADKA
BHANPURA
DABDIYA
DEOLI
JAGATPURA
JHALARA
JHIKADIYA
KANKARIYA
KARWAKHEDI
KASAIDEHARIYA
MAHUDIYA
NIPANIYA
RAIPURIYA
RATANKHEDI
ROJHANA
ROJHANI
SALRI
SEMLI
SHIVGARH
SIRPOI
HAS THERE BEEN AN ADDITION TO THE ASSET BASE AFTER RF INTERVENTIONS?

, October 2013 54
in number of general farm needs. It could also mean addition to the existing livestock or the
improvement in the livestock quality.
Graph 32: Decrease in migration
Graph 33: Increase in yield
Yield of crops shows a positive increase in all cases under normal circumstances because of major
land development activities being taken up by the VFA with RF support.
Almost all crops have shown an increase in yield. The major crops being soybean in Kharif and wheat
and gram in Rabi season.
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
AHIRBARDIYA
AMLA
BADGONE
BAPCHA
BHADKA
BHANPURA
DABDIYA
DEOLI
JAGATPURA
JHALARA
JHIKADIYA
KANKARIYA
KARWAKHEDI
KASAIDEHARIYA
MAHUDIYA
NIPANIYA
RAIPURIYA
RATANKHEDI
ROJHANA
ROJHANI
SALRI
SEMLI
SHIVGARH
SIRPOI
HAS THE INCIDENCE OF MIGRATION DECREASED
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
AHIRBARDIYA
AMLA
BADGONE
BAPCHA
BHADKA
BHANPURA
DABDIYA
DEOLI
JAGATPURA
JHALARA
JHIKADIYA
KANKARIYA
KARWAKHEDI
KASAIDEHARIYA
MAHUDIYA
NIPANIYA
RAIPURIYA
RATANKHEDI
ROJHANA
ROJHANI
SALRI
SEMLI
SHIVGARH
SIRPOI
HAS THE CROP YEILD INCREASED

, October 2013 55
Graph 34: Addition of fruits and veg to diet post RF
Graph 35: Increase in variety of fruits and vegetables post RF
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
HAS THERE BEEN AN ADDITION OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES IN THE DIET OF PEOPLE?
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
HAS THE VARIETY OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES INCREASED AFTER RF INTERVENTION?
Krishi bhoomi sudhri hamari jis se aamdani badhi hai. Aarthik sthiti majboot hui hai. Reliance
RNG se hari sabjiyon ki jankari prapt hui jiske karan swasth ko vitamin milne laga.
Kripal Singh Karan Singh, Badgone

, October 2013 56
Graph 36: Increase in awareness about health issues after RF
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
AHIRBARDIYA
AMLA
BADGONE
BAPCHA
BHADKA
BHANPURA
DABDIYA
DEOLI
JAGATPURA
JHALARA
JHIKADIYA
KANKARIYA
KARWAKHEDI
KASAIDEHARIYA
MAHUDIYA
NIPANIYA
RAIPURIYA
RATANKHEDI
ROJHANA
ROJHANI
SALRI
SEMLI
SHIVGARH
SIRPOI
HAS THE WARENESS ABOUT NUTRITIONAL DIET INCREASED AFTER RF?
TYPE 1 RNG AT JAGATPURA
VEGETABLES FROM RNG AT BADGONE

, October 2013 57
Graph 37: Increase in water levels post RF
The cluster is a plateau region which receives around 800-1200 rainfall per year but the soil
type is light murram soil which has a tendency to lose water very soon. As a result, the area
experienced acute water scarcity in summer months to an extent that people would decrease
the number of cattle to be maintained for lack of water availability.
Later on before RF, a lot of work on common land was done with the initiative of FES
(Foundation for Ecological Security) which secured the common land from becoming barren
and supplied them with seasonal fruits. Water conservation strategies were also planned out
and dams and lakes constructed. RF initiated work on commons s well as private lands of the
farmers. This along with the works done by FES have brought the area from an acute water
shortage area to an area where water is available and gradually the water table is getting
higher in places where interventions have happened. The VFAs have, at places, constructed
new water structures or renovated some existing water structures. This combined with the
dug wells and farm ponds constructed on individual lands will help increase the water table to
a higher level. As of now, the monitoring of wells has not been done so the results are
qualitative with the perception of the villagers being taken into account for survey.
No. Of new farm ponds and dug wells made: 552
Number of old wells renovated (as on 31st
July, 2013): 355
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
AHIRBARDIYA
AMLA
BADGONE
BAPCHA
BHADKA
BHANPURA
DABDIYA
DEOLI
JAGATPURA
JHALARA
JHIKADIYA
KANKARIYA
KARWAKHEDI
KASAIDEHARIYA
MAHUDIYA
NIPANIYA
RAIPURIYA
RATANKHEDI
ROJHANA
ROJHANI
SALRI
SEMLI
SHIVGARH
SIRPOI
HAS THE WATER LEVEL INCREASED AFTER RF ACTIVITIES

, October 2013 58
Table 27: Common water structures Agar cluster
New Earthen Dam
Expenses Total water
storage
capacity (Cum)
(Rs.)
Jhalara 5200000 480000
Mahudiya 299000 21762.048
Bhanpura 3300000 380000
Dabadiya 211000 22000
New Masonry Dam
Ratankhedi 650000 16982
Bapcha 3800000 45225
Shivgrah 1000000 31878
Renovated Earthen Dam
Rojhana 67227 4481
Rojhani 119436 2288
Kasai dehriya 444191 29613
Rojhani 3000
Rojhani 31500
Bhanpura 12000
Bhanpura 12000
Bhanpura 400
Water harvesting from desiltation of tanks
Salri 204315 2043.15
Mahudiya 35565 355.65
Amla 58495 584.95
Raipuriya 46880 468.8
Sirpoi 14932 149.32
Deoli 260611 2606.11
Badgaon 99469 994.69
Semli 22350 223.5
Bhanpura 6442 64.42
Nipaniya Baijnath 56115 561.15
Kankariya 128775 1287.75
Dabadiya 583743 5837.43
Ratankhedi kheda 17800 178
Karwakhedi 112090 1120.9
Kasai dehriya 675881 6758.81
Jhikdiya 239013 2390.13
Rojhani 1200 12
Rojhana 1600 16
Ahir badiya 11300 113

, October 2013 59
Abhaypurkheda 92619 926.19
Kundlakheda 106472 1064.72
Pachora 84262 842.62
Farm ponds and dug wells
Salri 72750 780
Mahudiya 58862 840
Amla 93276 1650
Jagatpura 37924 540
Bhadka 60830 450
Shivgarh 7562 300
Jhalara 78311 540
Sirpoi 201600 1530
Deoli 328549 3900
Badgaon 14965 270
Bhanpura 41718 450
Nipaniya Baijnath 78412 690
Bapcha 384116 2610
Dabadiya 99638 1800
Ratankhedi kheda 166130 1080
Karwakhedi 155100 1260
Kasai dehriya 108000 810
Jhikdiya 171000 1440
Rojhani 333522 2880
Rojhana 242322 1620
Ahir badiya 584612 4770
Abhaypurkheda 20867 270
Kundlakheda 77990 900
Dhandeda 11514 90
TOTAL 2,13,80,353 11,53,198.34

, October 2013 60
Fishing at Jhalara dam : Multi purpose umbrella

, October 2013 61
Graph 38: Improvement in health post RF
Graph 39: Improvement in soil health post RF
DHARTI farms promote sustainable on farm activities such as application of FYM and pond silt to
increase the fertility. Bunds along the border of the farm along with trenches help retain the runoff
water as well as soil in times of high rainfall and help stop top soil erosion.
It also is a good method of soil water conservation as the water that is trapped in the trenches
percolates down and the soil that gets deposited in the trenches is the fertile loosely bound layer of top
soil which when applied to the farm helps increase the fertility. Hence, when soil and water are
conserved in the farm, the productivity of the fields increases. This is agreed upon by around 98 per
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
HAS THE HEALTH IMPROVED?
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
AHIRBARDIYA
AMLA
BADGONE
BAPCHA
BHADKA
BHANPURA
DABDIYA
DEOLI
JAGATPURA
JHALARA
JHIKADIYA
KANKARIYA
KARWAKHEDI
KASAIDEHARIYA
MAHUDIYA
NIPANIYA
RAIPURIYA
RATANKHEDI
ROJHANA
ROJHANI
SALRI
SEMLI
SHIVGARH
SIRPOI
HAS THE SOIL HEALTH IMPROVED AFTER RF ACTIVITIES?

, October 2013 62
cent of farmers interviewed who say that the same field which earlier would not yield more than 1.5
quintals of soybean now yields around 3 quintals per bigha which comes to around 15 quintals per
hectare from 7.5 quintals earlier.(5bighas= 1 Ha of land)

, October 2013 63
6.0 CONCLUSION
The study brings to light the efforts the entire team is putting in helping the rural transformation goal
come true. Cultivable waste lands have been converted to cultivable lands on which crops are being
taken by farmers who, as they themselves admit, would never have been able to develop the land
without Reliance Foundation’s initiative in rural India. Irrigation support has either been provided on
completely rained part or, in some instances, where irrigation source was already present but in a sad
shape. With both the efforts, area was brought under irrigation, either completely with our assistance
or by joined efforts of farmer and RF.
The yield and production show a positive trend in both the classes. Class one is the group who we
have worked with for 2 years till the survey was conducted and class2 has been with us for 1 year till
completion of survey. The degree of increase varies in both the cases but overall the increase in seen
in spite of 2012 being a rainfall deficient year and deviations from normal rainfall going up to 100%
in some months. There has been an increase in the cultivable land per capita in all the cases. Incomes
have increased significantly majorly due to the increase in yield and production and also due to the
increase in selling price of major cash crop of the area Soybean.
A considerable amount of money has been spent on water harvesting structures in common land as
well as on individual lands. This has improved the food and water shortage in the cluster as observed
by the average shortage months of pre and post RF interventions. It has considerably gone down.
Food security has majorly been brought about in the lives of small and marginal people majorly but
the water woes of all the land categories have been addressed to a considerable extent as of now.
Major water structures have also been constructed post 2012 which would bring the water levels to
even better levels than before.
However, a point of concern is the application of chemical fertilisers in DHARTI farms and the per
hectare cost exceeding the cost of application in farmers field for the same year. RNGs seems to be
another area which needs attention as the water scarcity has, till now , restricted the RNGs to be of
seasonal kinds instead of the year round RNGs we envisage. Type I RNGs seem to be hit with the
community with over whelming numbers as compared to type II RNGs.
Kheti me to badlav aaya hi. Sabse bada badlaav aaya ki gaon ek sangathan ki tarah kaam karne laga
hai.
Gopal Singh Joravar Singh, Deoli Piplon

, October 2013 64
7. REFERENCES
 Agriculture census 2010-2011-all India report on number and operational land
holdings
 Monsoon report 2012 –edited by D. S. Pai and S. C. Bhan
 www.imd.gov.in
 Indian Agriculture : performance and challenges
(pib.nic.in/archive/others/2012/mar/d2012031302.pdf)
 Farm size and productive efficiency-booklet number 516-agriculture situation in India

, October 2013 65
Change in total cultivated land from 2010 to 2012 –AGAR CLASS 1
Land Category Total Land
Base Year 2010 Impact year 2012
Kharif Rabi Total
Farmer Field DHARTI Farm
Total
Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total
Small Farmer (27) 32.80 22.20 9.70 31.90 3.30 2.00 5.30 26.40 10.50 36.90 42.20
Medium Farmer (33) 90.80 62.40 36.20 98.60 26.60 17.60 44.20 52.40 30.00 82.40 126.60
Large Farmer (41) 248.60 173.60 126.40 300.00 122.60 111.20 233.80 74.96 44.00 118.96 352.76
Total (101): 372.20 258.20 172.30 430.50 152.50 130.80 283.30 153.76 84.50 238.26 521.56
Comparison of Kharif: 258.20 306.26
Comparison of Rabi: 172.30 215.30
Change in total cultivated land from 2011 to 2012 – AGAR CLASS 2
Land Category Total Land
Farmer Field Farmer Field
DHARTI
Farm Total
Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total
Small Farmer (164) 193.10 159.80 92.20 252.00 29.40 17.70 47.10 148.10 91.70 239.80 286.90
Medium Farmer (125) 328.30 254.53 163.80 418.33 120.60 84.70 205.30 169.70 111.80 281.50 486.80
Large Farmer(70) 405.90 287.60 176.80 464.40 203.60 121.70 325.30 114.40 78.50 192.90 518.20
Total (360): 927.30 701.93 432.80 1134.73 353.60 224.10 577.70 432.20 282.00 714.20 1291.90
Comparison of Kharif: 701.93 785.80
Comparison of Rabi: 432.80 506.10
ANNEXURES

, October 2013 66
VILLAGE
Land_category
TOTAL
BK
TOTAL
BR
TOTAL
FFK
TOTAL
FFR
TOTAL
DFK
TOTAL
DFR
TOTAL
FF12K
TOTAL
FF12R
TOTAL
DF12K
TOTAL
DF12R
AHIRBARDIYA Avg11 1.17 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.82
AMLA Avg10 2.57 3.40 1.80 2.00 1.53 1.40 1.80 2.00 1.60 1.50
AMLA Avg11 2.26 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72 2.33 1.08 1.60
BADGONE Avg10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.80
BADGONE Avg11 2.16 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 1.65 1.19 1.14
BAPCHA Avg11 2.39 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 1.60 2.25 1.87
BHADKA Avg10 1.23 1.57 1.20 1.03 0.87 1.45 1.10 1.50 0.60 0.60
BHADKA Avg11 2.27 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.10 2.20 1.90 0.60
BHANPURA Avg10 3.04 2.37 2.80 1.79 0.91 0.90 2.69 2.23 1.09 0.68
BHANPURA Avg11 2.23 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.93 2.02 0.57 0.40
DABADIYA Avg10 3.93 4.27 3.20 3.20 1.87 2.53 4.20 4.20 1.73 2.53
DABADIYA Avg11 2.97 2.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.21 3.48 1.70 1.56
DEOLI Avg10 3.37 6.68 6.10 10.00 2.45 2.23 6.60 18.00 2.88 2.18
JAGATPURA Avg11 1.09 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 1.07 0.64
JHALARA Avg10 1.60 1.30 1.60 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.30 0.70 1.00
JHALARA Avg11 3.80 3.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10 2.25 1.19 1.68
JHKADIYA Avg10 1.14 1.27 0.60 0.00 1.34 1.57 0.00 0.00 1.54 0.00
JHKADIYA Avg11 1.35 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 1.00 1.58 2.48
KANKARIYA Avg10 2.85 4.00 3.10 3.00 0.78 0.90 3.10 5.00 0.86 0.85
KANKARIYA Avg11 2.54 2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76 3.01 0.89 0.90

, October 2013 67
KARWAKHEDI Avg10 6.25 4.60 5.00 3.80 0.70 0.40 5.50 11.50 1.50 0.00
KARWAKHEDI Avg11 2.54 2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76 3.01 0.89 0.90
KASAIDEHARIYA Avg10 3.00 4.44 1.88 1.67 1.34 1.36 2.05 1.57 1.87 1.98
KASAIDEHARIYA Avg11 1.53 3.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.76 0.93 1.31
MAHUDIYA Avg10 1.83 1.43 2.05 1.73 1.06 1.80 2.13 2.13 1.69 1.67
MAHUDIYA Avg11 2.04 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 2.25 2.49
NIPANIYA
BAIJNATH Avg10 2.70 3.40 2.60 1.20 1.20 1.20 2.80 1.20 1.20 1.00
NIPANIYA
BAIJNATH Avg11 1.86 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 1.37 0.61 0.97
RAIPURIYA Avg11 1.39 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 1.71 2.04
RATANKHEDI Avg10 3.10 3.34 3.80 4.57 0.97 0.90 3.64 4.95 0.97 0.60
RATANKHEDI Avg11 2.07 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 2.00 1.07 2.00
ROJHANA Avg10 2.87 2.60 2.80 1.50 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.20 1.00 1.00
ROJHANA Avg11 2.79 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 2.08 0.92 1.13
ROJHANI Avg10 1.03 1.00 0.65 0.80 0.77 0.80 0.65 1.00 1.03 1.20
ROJHANI Avg11 1.38 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 1.20 1.34 1.18
SALRI Avg10 1.90 0.80 1.15 0.20 0.95 0.87 1.15 0.40 1.10 0.90
SALRI Avg11 2.36 2.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.03 2.08 0.96 0.63
SEMLI Avg10 4.40 0.80 0.00 0.60 3.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.13
SEMLI Avg11 1.80 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.26 1.10
SHIVGARH Avg10 3.73 3.33 3.33 4.67 1.80 0.60 3.13 3.13 1.12 0.80
SHIVGARH Avg11 3.23 3.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.62 1.88 2.16 0.68
SIRPOI Avg10 2.64 2.10 1.73 1.53 1.52 2.40 1.40 1.40 1.96 1.85
SIRPOI Avg11 2.14 1.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 3.22 1.36 1.71

, October 2013 68
Change in net income from 2010 to 2012-AGAR (across all land categories) CLASS 1
Land Category
Total Kharif Total Rabi Total Total Kharif Total Rabi Total
Small Farmer (27) 1,77,150 68,764 2,45,914 6,83,340 2,33,710 9,17,050
Medium Farmer (33) 5,13,100 4,92,290 10,05,390 17,68,072 11,47,660 29,15,732
Large Farmer (41) 19,48,885 17,89,958 37,38,843 75,10,675 26,90,540 1,02,01,215
Total (101): 26,39,135 23,51,012 49,90,147 99,62,087 40,71,910 1,40,33,997
Per capita Income: 26,130 23,277 49,407 98,635 40,316 1,38,950
Area in Ha. 258 172 431 306 215 522
Income per ha. 10,221 13,645 11,592 32,528 18,913 26,908
Change in net income from 2011 to 2012- AGAR (across all land categories) CLASS 2
Land Category
Total Kharif Total Rabi Total Total Kharif Total Rabi Total
Small Farmer (164) 16,09,670 13,40,795 29,50,465 31,53,714 18,91,716 50,45,430
Medium Farmer (125) 25,38,125 25,07,425 50,45,550 57,27,480 44,94,280 1,02,21,760
Large Farmer(70) 32,65,440 34,84,625 67,50,065 74,99,134 55,93,777 1,30,92,911
Total (360): 74,13,235 73,32,845 1,47,46,080 1,63,80,328 1,19,79,773 2,83,60,101
Per capita Income: 20,592 20,369 40,961 45,501 33,277 78,778
Area in Ha. 701.93 432.8 1134.73 786 506 1,292
Income per Ha. 10,561 16,943 12,995 20,845 23,671 21,952

, October 2013 69
VILLAGE WISE CHANGE IN INCOMES ACROSS ALL LAND SIZES
VILLAGE
LAND_
CAT
TOTAL
BK
TOTAL
BR
TOTAL
FFK
TOTAL
FFR
TOTA
L DFK
TOTA
L DFR
TOTAL
FF12K
TOTAL
FF12R
TOTA
L
DF12K
TOTA
L
DF12R
AHIRBARDIYA
11
PER
HA. 14,203 4,928 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,862 3,942
AMLA 10
PER
HA. 12,010 8,627 9,278 3,383 19,466 8,833 15,019 2,517 25,285 7,067
AMLA 11
PER
HA. 11,497 6,069 0 0 0 0 13,000 9,514 18,509 6,802
BADGONE 10
PER
HA. 0 0 0 0 17,225 0 0 0 36,450 7,275
BADGONE 11
PER
HA. 10,024 5,397 0 0 0 0 7,604 3,422 27,288 11,579
BAPCHA 11
PER
HA. 5,731 8,024 0 0 0 0 1,577 983 21,595 25,513
BHADKA 10
PER
HA. 14,497 14,209 22,389 24,042 4,288 4,253 24,273 16,011 20,417 7,167
BHADKA11
PER
HA. 14,576 15,289 0 0 0 0 15,095 14,659 4,070 7,414
BHANPURA 10
PER
HA. 4,129 5,497 7,073 8,872 3,175 -2,025 16,546 13,488 8,995 3,007
BHANPURA 11
PER
HA. 1,553 2,615 0 0 0 0 16,721 14,767 33,815 -3,071
DABADIYA 10
PER
HA. -5,530 -125 3,083 2,021 8,643 3,658 6,087 8,984 11,462 7,855
DABADIYA 11
PER
HA. -250 -15 0 0 0 0 4,752 2,476 7,410 3,798
DEOLI 10
PER
HA. 13,362 6,708 5,148 2,591 18,496 12,761 5,417 685 20,793 20,369
JAGATPURA 11
PER
HA. 11,186 11,244 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 22,649 14,081
JHALARA 10 PER 1,750 26,615 21,250 30,692 31,500 10,250 16,844 33,192 16,286 17,275

, October 2013 70
HA.
JHALARA 11
PER
HA. 9,425 15,214 0 0 0 0 12,047 12,406 24,752 18,312
JHKADIYA 10
PER
HA. -905 10,362 1,143 0 20,048 37,782 0 0 20,921 0
JHKADIYA 11
PER
HA. 6,952 7,240 0 0 0 0 10,388 411 21,695 22,175
KANKARIYA 10
PER
HA. 14,547 9,450 20,226 13,427 23,846 12,222 24,574 7,240 32,767 13,859
KANKARIYA 11
PER
HA. 30,680 40,579 0 0 0 0 36,751 41,245 32,324 7,917
KARWAKHEDI
10
PER
HA. 6,360 12,152 7,330 21,908 -6,429 -1,875 11,882 10,478 18,767 0
KARWAKHEDI
11
PER
HA. 30,680 40,579 0 0 0 0 36,751 41,245 32,324 7,917
KASAIDEHARI
YA 10
PER
HA. 8,566 3,056 9,144 9,147 3,660 4,884 10,868 16,157 16,221 12,144
KASAIDEHARI
YA 11
PER
HA. 5,222 1,481 0 0 0 0 8,531 5,606 11,543 3,959
MAHUDIYA 10
PER
HA. 8,406 5,088 9,840 3,808 23,473 9,611 9,382 1,446 25,833 15,000
MAHUDIYA 11
PER
HA. 21,649 24,592 0 0 0 0 2,010 0 33,921 32,813
NIPANIYA
BAIJNATH 10
PER
HA. 9,111 -265 -6,346 -417 5,458 3,000 7,152 333 22,500 5,400
NIPANIYA
BAIJNATH 11
PER
HA. 1,317 2,098 0 0 0 0 11,569 -2,122 36,230 11,381
RAIPURIYA 11
PER
HA. 13,095 21,922 0 0 0 0 1,125 0 23,044 29,626
RATANKHEDI
10
PER
HA. 14,156 8,790 9,262 3,664 16,055 18,015 13,791 6,608 18,798 8,658
RATANKHEDI
11
PER
HA. 8,698 6,496 0 0 0 0 12,480 5,592 26,719 4,338
ROJHANA 10 PER 9,924 994 1,393 4,400 3,303 -4,433 7,467 222 23,083 3,600

, October 2013 71
HA.
ROJHANA 11
PER
HA. 20,103 13,933 0 0 0 0 23,535 7,534 32,594 6,956
ROJHANI 10
PER
HA. 15,694 4,883 14,615 4,750 15,413 11,542 14,718 3,250 19,806 8,222
ROJHANI 11
PER
HA. 18,109 9,486 0 0 0 0 2,465 943 19,237 8,420
SALRI 10
PER
HA. 14,382 18,813 9,326 6,619 23,868 16,455 14,674 9,938 30,068 44,658
SALRI 11
PER
HA. 14,800 12,928 0 0 0 0 13,243 13,135 18,273 18,913
SEMLI 10
PER
HA. 1,985 -2,375 0 -333 13,644 3,171 0 0 26,200 8,441
SEMLI 11
PER
HA. 7,135 3,994 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,385 7,321
SHIVGARH 10
PER
HA. 22,223 22,580 28,400 25,593 2,407 2,944 33,670 38,936 10,595 9,375
SHIVGARH 11
PER
HA. 15,177 22,396 0 0 0 0 26,840 35,696 5,844 20,812
SIRPOI 10
PER
HA. 4,841 6,981 5,763 8,876 4,197 3,950 6,643 11,529 15,827 8,761
SIRPOI 11
PER
HA. 4,617 9,868 0 0 0 0 5,437 1,852 20,437 11,282
The FFK FFR DFK DFR fields are zero for some villages. This is because the villages where interventions happened in 2012 for the first time, the baseline is
2011. Hence, the fields are empty and the data is instead in baseline columns as BK and BR.

, October 2013 72
Change in the cost of FYM/Pond silt application from 2010 to 2012 –AGAR CLASS 1
Land Category
Total
Land
Base Year 2010 Impact year 2011
Kharif Rabi Total
Total
Kharif Rabi Total Kharif VFA Rabi VFA Total
Small Farmer
(27) 32.80 32,400 3,200 35,600 1,000 1,000 2,000 1,03,350 71,250 5,200 4,000 1,08,550 1,10,550
Medium Farmer
(33) 90.80 51,800 4,000 55,800 18,400 1,700 20,100 1,53,700 1,02,100 4,000 4,000 1,57,700 1,77,800
Large Farmer
(41) 248.60 86,500 26,300 1,12,800 43,200 8,300 51,500 1,42,900 93,400 21,200 17,000 1,64,100 2,15,600
Total (101): 372.20 1,70,700 33,500 2,04,200 62,600 11,000 73,600 3,99,950 2,66,750 30,400 25,000 4,30,350 5,03,950
Per capita Cost: 1,690 332 2,022 620 109 729 3,960 2,641 301 248 4,261 4,990
Area in Ha. 372.20 258.20 172.30 430.50 158.50 104.10 262.60 135.20 94.50 229.70 492.30
Cost per Ha. : 661.12 194.43 474.33 394.95 105.67 280.27 2958.21 1973.00 321.69 264.55 1873.53 1023.66

, October 2013 73
Land Category
Total
Land
Impact year 2012
Total
Kharif Rabi Total Kharif VFA Rabi VFA Total
Small Farmer (27) 32.80 - - - 62,450 54,950 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Medium Farmer (33) 90.80 58,200 - 58,200 1,71,611 1,55,611 - - 58,200 1,16,400
Large Farmer (41) 248.60 88,450 5,500 93,950 1,79,600 1,61,100 - - 93,950 1,87,900
Total (101): 372.20 1,46,650 5,500 1,52,150 4,13,661 3,71,661 9,000 9,000 1,61,150 3,13,300
Per capita Cost: 1,452 54 1,506 4,096 3,680 89 89 1,596 3,102
Area in Ha. 372.20 152.50 130.80 283.30 153.76 84.50 238.26 521.56
Cost per Ha. : 961.64 42.05 537.06 2690.30 2417.15 106.51 106.51 676.36 600.70
For baseline year 2010 both the impact years have been shown as FYM / pond silt application happened majorly in the first year through VFA support. Once
the FYM / tank silt is applied it need not be applied in consecutive 2 years. hence representation of both the years.

, October 2013 74
Change in cost of FYM/Pond silt application from 2011 to 2012 – AGAR CLASS 2
Land Category
Total
Land
Farmer Field Farmer Field DHARTI Farm
Total
Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total Kharif VFA Rabi VFA Total
Small Farmer
(164)
193.1
0
1,77,60
0 15,200
1,92,80
0 21,300
11,50
0 32,800 6,07,400 5,13,600
29,57
2
11,87
2 6,36,972 6,69,772
Medium Farmer
(125)
328.3
0
2,16,20
0 42,700
2,58,90
0
1,08,30
0
39,30
0
1,47,60
0 6,68,783 5,92,783
29,40
0
16,00
0 6,98,183 8,45,783
Large Farmer(70)
405.9
0
2,15,50
0 86,500
3,02,00
0
1,17,52
0
17,30
0
1,34,82
0 4,12,430 3,89,750
17,00
0
12,00
0 4,29,430 5,64,250
Total (360):
927.3
0
6,09,30
0
1,44,40
0
7,53,70
0
2,47,12
0
68,10
0
3,15,22
0
16,88,61
3
14,96,13
3
75,97
2
39,87
2
17,64,58
5
20,79,80
5
Per capita Cost: 1,693 401 2,094 686 189 876 4,691 4,156 211 111 4,902 5,777
Area in Ha. 701.93 432.80
1,134.7
3 353.60
224.1
0 577.70 432.00 3,463.27 282 141 714 1,292
Cost per Ha. : 868 334 664 699 304 546 3,909 3,463 269 141 2,471 1,610
Change in application from baseline 2011 to impact year 2012.

, October 2013 75
VILLAGE WISE CHANGE IN FYM/POND SILT APPLICATION ACROSS LAND CATEGORIES:
VILLAGE
TOTA
L BK
TOTA
L BR
TOTA
L
FFK
TOTA
L FFR
TOTA
L
DFK
TOTAL
VFA
SUPPORTD
FK
TOTA
L
DFR
TOTAL
VFA
SUPPORTD
FR
TOTA
L
FF12
K
TOTA
L
FF12
R
TOTA
L
DF12
K
TOTA
L
DF12
K
TOTA
L
DF12
R
TOTA
L
DF12
R
AHIRBARDIY
A 1654 3333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1989 0 2449 0
AMLA 1169 588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4682 0 0
AMLA 3931 6177 0 0 0 0 0 0 4935 643 3250 4717 1438 0
BADGONE 0 0 0 0 7500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BADGONE 1513 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1872 818 4040 8722 4211 877
BAPCHA 2717 2469 0 0 0 0 0 0 1724 0 3563 3385 0 963
BHADKA 1216 128 417 0 1212 0 828 0 0 0 1667 0 0 0
BHADKA 2132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 526 1316 0 0
BHANPURA 1182 0 0 0 3951 3841 0 4444 2634 0 0 3673 0 0
BHANPURA 1795 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1037 0 0 5542 0 0
DABADIYA 1102 0 1406 0 0 2893 0 0 1429 0 3029 2596 0 0
DABADIYA 1265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1684 0 1473 3659 0 6395
DEOLI 1670 2244 0 0 1684 4082 0 0 0 0 0 5208 0 0
JAGATPURA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1089 1633 0 0
JHALARA 1979 38462 0 0 0 8500 0 0 5146 0 8571 0 0 0
JHALARA 833 16324 0 0 0 0 0 0 2659 0 5045 9081 0 2377
JHKADIYA 10500 0 0 0 3500 10283 0 0 0 0 0 9711 0 0
JHKADIYA 9444 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9678 0 0
KANKARIYA 2281 1250 613 1083 4274 5769 4444 5000 6796 1100 0 5233 0 4706
KANKARIYA 1351 1449 0 0 0 0 0 0 1293 1294 2366 4367 0 2222
KARWAKHED
I 0 0 0 0 34286 57143 0 0 0 0 0 6667 0 0
KARWAKHED 1351 1449 0 0 0 0 0 0 1293 1294 2366 4367 0 2222

, October 2013 76
I
KASAIDEHAR
IYA 980 0 2385 0 3731 4478 0 4426 1683 0 0 10924 0 0
KASAIDEHAR
IYA 2424 3215 0 0 0 0 0 0 2629 0 2159 29231 0 0
MAHUDIYA 2256 1570 2927 0 6243 5014 0 0 2656 0 2595 4864 0 3000
MAHUDIYA 2480 1919 0 0 0 0 0 0 7500 0 3889 4148 2011 3218
NIPANIYA
BAIJNATH 0 0 0 0 9250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NIPANIYA
BAIJNATH 2016 1149 0 0 0 0 0 0 2457 2073 2459 28503 1546 4091
RAIPURIYA 1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 571 0
RATANKHEDI 1935 0 855 0 0 3972 0 0 1374 0 4138 5000 0 0
RATANKHEDI 1573 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1401 1100 3609 2203 0 0
ROJHANA 0 1077 0 1867 11100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROJHANA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROJHANI 0 0 0 0 0 5217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROJHANI 5430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2233 0 0 0
SALRI 0 1250 3478 0 0 3158 0 0 2174 0 0 0 0 0
SALRI 5055 1436 0 0 0 0 0 0 659 0 4538 9120 0 0
SEMLI 909 0 0 0 0 1383 171 0 0 0 1000 2017 0 0
SEMLI 833 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0
SHIVGARH 0 0 0 0 0 1111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SHIVGARH 762 525 0 0 0 0 0 0 618 1673 1750 464 0 0
SIRPOI 1212 1429 2308 1109 1809 5263 0 0 0 0 2551 9184 0 0
SIRPOI 1513 1572 0 0 0 0 0 0 1170 668 1954 4423 1989 0

Impact Assessment _Agar_MadhyaPradesh

Impact Assessment _Agar_MadhyaPradesh

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (14)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Impact Assessment _Agar_MadhyaPradesh

Similar to Impact Assessment _Agar_MadhyaPradesh (20)

Impact Assessment _Agar_MadhyaPradesh