Docstoc

CONCURRENT MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT SUNSHINE

Document Sample
CONCURRENT MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT SUNSHINE Powered By Docstoc
					    CONCURRENT MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE
                 PROJECT SUNSHINE


                                      A SUMMARY


Although the Indian seed market is one of the largest, it is almost exclusively supplied by
locally produced seeds. Farmers retain seed of major food crops (wheat, rice, sorghum,
millet, corn, and pulses) and commercial crops for many years, and the largest volume of
seed trade involves local exchanges of established self-pollinating varieties. The seed
replacement rate in most crops is very low, with the exception of cotton and some
vegetables. The use of hybrid seeds is mostly confined to rice and cotton, and to some
extent to corn, millet, sunflower, and few vegetables. However, awareness about the high
yield and quality of produce from hybrid seeds, attracting farmers to switch over to
hybrids, is growing. The Indian seed industry used to be dominated by public sector seed
companies. It was soon found that the effective deployment of hybrid varieties in India
could not be possible without a strong commercial seed industry. There was a growing
recognition of this fact and an increasing number of efforts to lend support to the
industry. It was also important that these efforts be well coordinated in the scenario when
seed industry was facing a range of problems, but a major deficiency was with working
capital. However, following the easing of government regulations and the implementation
of a new seed policy in 1988, the private sector seed companies have started playing a
major role in seed development and marketing. The composition of the seed industry, by
volume of turnover, has reportedly reached a ratio of 60:40 between the private and
public sectors.


Gujarat is one of the five major maize growing states of our country. In the state, it is
chiefly grown by socio-economically poor tribal farmers in the districts of Panchmahals,
Dahod, Vadodara, Sabarkantha, Banaskantha and Kheda. Maize being the staple food,
tribals have certain ethnic preferences for color, texture, taste, etc., and prefer only those
varieties which fulfill these criteria. Though traditionally, it was a kharif crop from past
few years. It was also being cultivated in Rabi season because of high yield levels and



                                              1
low cost of production. There is an increased diffusion of hybrid maize seeds. However
diffusion of technology of using improved seed variety has not taken place in tribal
districts of Gujarat. The yield growth however has remained moderate in the rain-fed
systems. Farmers still use traditional low- yielding varieties in a large proportion of such
area and use fertilisers in suboptimal amounts when they adopt modern varieties due to
the uncertainty of returns from investments and the limited capacity of risk taking at the
subsistent level. This is the main reason behind the low yield and the large yield gap in
the rain-fed systems. This led to the innovation in the area of maize cultivation wherein
Tribal Development Department of Gujarat had entered into a partnership with Monsanto
Company with the aim of providing hybrid seed to marginal and small farmers in isolated
agricultural production environments. The name of this project is Project Sunshine which
states one of the examples of public private partnership. This project was implemented in
the rainfed areas of Dahod and Panchmahal regions of Gujarat, where the government
procures seeds from the private seed companies and fertilisers from the line department
and distributes the same to farmers. Dairy Cooperative and NGOs helped department in
distributing identifying beneficiaries, agricultural inputs and so on.


1.2. Objectives of the Study:
The overall goal of this study was to understand the increase in benefits accrued to
farmers growing maize using hybrid seed as against that earned by growing conventional
seed variety. As this project sunshine was in the nascent stage, this study would examine
the full process of seed distribution for identifying strength, weakness, opportunities for
establishing effective seed delivery system for increasing the productivity of maize crop
with dual purpose of food-feed varieties/hybrids, particularly with the rural poor. The
specific objectives of the study were to:
   a. study the existing linkages between private seed companies and the government
       and its benefits for increased yield of dual purpose food-feed crop for the rural
       poor
   b. study the strengths and weakness, opportunities and constraints to make these
       linkages beneficial to all stakeholders




                                              2
   c. Develop/suggest a way forward for harnessing the synergies through private
       sector seed companies and the government.


1.3. Data Collection
The analysis draws from a database of 3000 beneficiaries of Project Sunshine (Phase I)
which was implemented in rainfed areas of Dahod and Panchmahal districts of Gujarat.
The programme was executed by Tribal Development Department, Gujarat with the aim
to increase income of marginal and small farmers. Under this project, free Dekalb corn
seeds and fertilisers were given were given to 30,000 farmers residing in 7 talukas and
497 villages of Dahod and Panchmahal districts. For the purpose of this study, we
selected 10 per cent of total beneficiaries which totaled to 3000. The list of beneficiaries
was obtained from the TDD. The actual list had the names and villages of 27, 290
beneficiaries. As these beneficiaries were scattered across 7 talukas and 497 villages, we
arranged villages in ascending order of beneficiaries. Villages with median number of
beneficiaries of the project were selected for an in-depth interview along with couple of
villages above and below the median. Total of 3000 households were selected. The
sample household were selected following proportional stratified sampling method. Thus
we selected the sample of 2465 farmers from Dahod district and 535 farmer beneficiaries
from Panchmahal districts.


1.4. About The Project Sunshine
With the aim to double the income of tribal farmers of Dahod and Panchmahal districts of
Gujarat State within five years, an initiative in public private partnership was undertaken
under the project named Project Sunshine. This goal was aimed at providing modern farm
inputs to farmers with a belief that it would result in an increase agricultural productivity.
Steps to develop infrastructure to facilitate linkages of inputs and outputs were
considered. Monsanto was invited to play a key role in the project along with NGOs and
the Government. In the year 2007, Tribal Development Department reviewed the pilot
study on the performance of Monsanto in the project named Project Rainbow. Under this
project, Dekalb corn seeds were given as free samples to farmers in 13 taluka covering




                                              3
300 villages. Through this project a safety net was created for the poorest and vulnerable
households in the form of providing free inputs to farmers.


The study showed that Dekalb hybrids were suitable to the agro-climatic condition of the
tribal belt and demonstrated the value to farmers. In 2007 the income of the farmers has
gone up by 100% by using the Dekalb corn hybrids. A few observations like (a) tribal
farmers have low purchasing power and hence initial investment support was required for
seeds and fertilizers. (b) Education on the right cultivation practices was felt as a vital
component of the project as most of the farmers would be the first time users of yellow
corn hybrids and majority of the population were illiterate and lack awareness. (c) The
absence of agriculture dealer and final produce purchaser in the area inhibits them from
experimenting with new seeds. Therefore Upstream/Downstream linkages form a critical
input for taking the project sustainability. (d) it was felt that for the sustainability of the
project, the achievement of “Critical Mass” was essential. The generation of economic
surplus for the farmers, the commercial viability of the procurement of the grain
purchasers were very critical elements. Hence high density was more important than the
spread. Successful observations of the project encouraged the government to widen the
scope of the work. This extended their partnership with the Monsanto Company.

Under this project, nearly 27, 290 farmer beneficiaries from 2 districts falling in 7
Talukas and 497 villages were selected. These beneficiaries were provided with free
Dekalb corn hybrid seed, fertilisers and so on. The project was sponsored by TDD.

1.5. Characteristics of the Study Area
Agriculture was the predominant source of income for the household. Thus any
intervention in this activity would go a long way to increase their income. When enquired
about area under cultivation, it was found that nearly 99 percent of total farmers have
reported to have grown maize crop in kharif season. Of the crops cultivated during 2008-
09, nearly 90 percent of total households cultivated maize during kharif season. Out of
total beneficiary farmers, nearly 74 percent of households have reported to have grown
conventional variety of maize seed in their plots of land. This shows that majority of
farmers have grown both the variety of maize in their small tract of land. As farmers were


                                              4
given hybrid seed free of cost, they were encouraged to cultivate it. However this did not
deter them from cultivating conventional variety of paddy.


Cent per cent farmers confirmed that hybrid variety of maize seed named Dekalb was
given to them free of cost. Nearly 94 per cent have stated that it was given in the month
of June before the onset of monsoon. Consequently, they could cultivated it in Kharif
while the rest 6 percent have complained of not getting seed on time. Majority of these
farmers were in Zalod taluka. As a result, they cultivated it in Rabi season. When
enquired, nearly 98 per cent of the total households have reported to have received hybrid
maize seed. However, nearly 90 per cent of the households have actually cultivated it in
their fields. Free inputs like seeds, fertilisers and so on encouraged farmers to experiment
with growing the new variety of seed along with their conventional variety. When asked
about the quantity of seeds given by implementing agencies to farmers, nearly 87 percent
have reported to have been given 10 kgs of hybrid maize seed. Out of the rest, nearly 106
farmers have reported to have obtained 5 kilograms of seeds only while other 27 farmers
have obtained less than 5 kilograms. There were 9 farmers who have received less than 1
kg of seed. On the other hand, there were 8 farmers who had received 20 kilograms of
maize. There was one farmer who had reported to have received 40 kilograms of maize.
As against this, nearly 8 percent farmers which were considered to be the beneficiary of
this programme have reported to have been left out in getting this benefit of hybrid seed
of maize. as this project aims to check leakages, such an observations emphasises the
need for better monitoring of the work of input distribution.


In order to understand the leakages of seed that has been distributed among farmers, we
asked questions relating to quantity of seeds used by farmers, reasons for the use and so
on. 79 percent of farm households reported that they have used seeds given to them and
the rest said that they used less than or equal to 5 kilograms of seed. Nearly 293 farmers
have reported to have not used the hybrid maize seed that was given to them. When asked
about the reason, out of 252 farmers who have reported some reasons, nearly 31 per cent
of farmers have stated that they have kept for Rabi season and the same per cent of
farmers have reported to have given it away to their relatives. As seed was given for free,



                                             5
farmers were not convinced about the returns accruing from the hybrid maize.
Consequently, some farmers stored hybrid seed variety to be used in the Rabi season. this
means that high returns earned from maize crops grown using hybrid seed would
motivate farmers to cultivate hybrid seed stored during Rabi season also. As hybrid seed
was cultivated on an experimental basis, they used some quantity of seed and shared the
rest among their relatives or kept it for Rabi season


Majority of households have reported to have obtained seeds and fertilisers from the
fertiliser depot. Before distributing seeds and other inputs to beneficiaries, NGOs had
devised various methods to verify the beneficiary household. They cross validated the
names obtained from BPL list with school leaving certificate of children of beneficiaries,
ration cards and so on. This was reported by almost all the study households. Such a
verification and proper selection of the beneficiary helped in addressing the target group
and prevented leakages to a large extent.



Besides seeds, implementing agency was also required to distribute 150 kilograms of
chemical fertilisers. In order to understand the quality of distribution process and trace
the leakages, we tried to enquire about the actual quantity of fertilisers received by farmer
beneficiaries. Nearly 92 percent of the respondents agreed of having received chemical
fertilisers. Nearly 96 percent of farmers have reported to have received 150 kilograms of
fertilisers while 2 percent have reported to have received less than 150 kilograms. From
this analysis it appears many nearly 4 percent of beneficiary farmers have either received
less than the required quantity of fertilisers or more than the required norm specified by
the department. After isolating these cases, we found that there were 8 cases where
farmers have reported to have received more than 150 kgs of fertilisers (7 farmers who
have reported to have received 300 kgs of fertiliser and one farmer who have received
160 kgs of fertilisers), 3 of them belong to Fatehpura taluka of Dahod district and 2
farmers from Kadana taluka of Panchmahal district. One farmer each from Zalod, Dahod
and Limkheda talukas of Dahod have reported to have obtained fertilisers more than the
norm specified. There were 107 farmers in the total study area who have reported to
have received less than the required quantity of chemical fertilisers, highest being in


                                             6
Zalod taluka (46 farmers) followed by Garbada (22 farmers), Limkheda (19 farmers),
Kadana (9 farmers), Fatehpura (8 farmers) and Santarampur (3 farmers). These farmers
have received fertilisers within the range of 0.5 kilogram to 125 kilograms, highest being
50 kilograms.


We tried to ask the source from which they have obtained chemical fertilisers. Nearly 47
percent of farmer beneficiaries who have received chemical fertilisers have stated that
they have received from Sarpanch, while 31 percent have reported to have obtained it
from dairy secretary. Nearly 94 percent of farmers have reported to have obtained
chemical fertilisers during the month of June. This had helped them in cultivating maize
seed on time. Nearly 6 per cent of farmer beneficiaries, mainly belonging to Zalod and
Garbada have reported to have received in the month of July. This made it difficult for
them to cultivate maize during monsoon.

When asked separately about the constituents of chemical fertilisers and the quantity of
each, nearly 91 per cent of farmers stated that they have obtained urea and nearly 92
percent of farmer beneficiaries have reported to have obtained DAP and Potash. While
the rest have reported to have not received urea, DAP and Potash


We have attempted to obtain information separately for urea, DAP and Potash. Out of
2762 farmers who have used urea in their field (97 percent), nearly 93 percent have
reported to have used urea between the range of 25 to 50 kilograms. Nearly 93 per cent of
farmer beneficiaries have utilised the full quantity that they have received i.e. 50
kilograms while the rest utilised some of it and stored the rest for future use. Out of the
total quantity of urea received farmers of Zalod taluka used less than the given quantity
of fertilisers. 97 percent of farmers reported to have used the amount of DAP given by
the department in their field for cultivating maize crop. Out of them, nearly 94 percent of
farmers have used total quantity of DAP that was given to them, while the same
percentage of farmers have utilised Potash in their field for cultivation of maize crop.




                                             7
Some farmers had reported that they partially used hybrid seeds of maize, DAP, Urea and
potash while cultivating hybrid maize in their field. We asked them question regarding
the reasons for partial use of seeds, fertilisers like DAP, urea and Potash and so on. Fifty
percent farmers have reported that as they were not convinced with the quantity of seeds
to be used in their field, they relied on their past experience and used the required
quantum of seed and stored the rest for future years. As farmers themselves were
experimenting with the hybrid seed, nearly 22 per cent had given it to their relatives to
experiment and cultivate the new seed. The rest 15 per cent have stated that as seeds were
given late, they would cultivate it in the coming season or year. Approximately, one third
of the farmers using urea stated that they use it at different stages of the growth of the
plant. While nearly 78 per cent farmers have reported of using DAP along with potash
and urea and 69 per cent of farmers have reported to be using potash with DAP.

It was reported that out of 13,480 acres of total land cultivated by farmers in Dahod and
Panchmahal districts, nearly 47 per cent of the land was irrigated and the rest was
unirrigated. The need for irrigation during Rabi and summer season was high which was
reflected by greater percentage of cultivated area under irrigation in both these seasons.
Out of total land in the study area, area of land by farmers of Dahod district was higher
than Panchmahal. This has resulted due to the sampling. The selection of farmer
beneficiaries for the study in both the districts was in proportion to the total farmers who
have benefited from the hybrid seed. The number of beneficiaries in Dahod district was
greater than that of Panchmahal. Consequently, more number of farmers from this district
were selected for the study and hence the greater area under cultivation and irrigation.
Thus inter district comparison will not be of much significance. Intra district variations in
pattern would reflect on the characteristics of population, land use pattern, and so on with
its implication on nature of diffusion of new hybrid technology among farmer
beneficiaries.

Out of total land cultivated in Dahod district, nearly 42 percent was irrigated and the rest
was unirrigated land. The cropping pattern of the study area was 183 while irrigation
intensity was 149. Out of total cultivable area, in kharif season, nearly 66 per cent of area
was cultivated under Hybrid maize. Majority of this area was rainfed. Contrary to this, in


                                             8
Rabi season, only 19 per cent of the total cultivated area was under hybrid maize. The
dependence on sources of irrigation was relatively higher during Rabi season as
compared to Kharif. Well form a predominant source of irrigation followed by rivers,
ponds and so on.


Thus, hybrid maize was dominantly a kharif rainfed crop. As it was also the staple food
for the tribal belt, yield and production of unirrigated kharif maize assumes importance.
Hence, any intervention in area of increasing the yield of the crop would go a long way to
increase the food security and income of tribal population of the area.


When enquired, we found out that yield of maize obtained from hybrid seed was nearly
37 percent higher than that obtained from traditional maize seed. When converted yield to
gross returns by multiplying yield with price, we observed that gross returns obtained
from hybrid seed was nearly 38 per cent higher than that of maize grown using traditional
seed. The total cost of production of maize was Rs. 7806 Rs. per acre. Cost of production
of maize by farmers in Panchmahal district was higher than that of Dahod district.


Out of the total households reported to have benefited by hybrid seed distributed by
Monsanto Company, all except 56 households were found to be not using the seeds that
were given to them. When asked about the reasons for not using, 49 have stated that they
had received late after the onset of monsoon. Consequently, they plan to use it in the next
year. Same response was given when households were asked about the reason for not
using the chemical fertilisers.

The Project sunshine however not only calls for distribution of seeds and fertiliser but
also agricultural extension services. The aim of agricultural extension were to provide
farmers with information that enables them to make good decision in farming, to transfer
appropriate technologies from research and other sources and ultimately to eliminate
poverty and hunger by improving their production and food security. When we asked
about the types of agricultural extension services provided, types of agencies rendering




                                             9
these services and so on, we were surprised to know that no attention was paid to such an
important component of the programme.

1.6. Some of the other weaknesses of the programme were

   •   Farmers stated in the discussion that release of varieties of maize were not
       superior over the popular varieties currently grown by farmers
   •   Lack of inter-institutional coordination/network for development and promotion
       of new varieties through better utilization of available germplasm across R&D
       institutions
   •   No village shows an evidence of having a village cooperative
   •   No special incentives for plant breeders to produce enough breeder seeds
   •   Regulation on pricing of seeds by the public sector
   •   Lack of farmers’ protection against unfair seed business

1.7. Conditions that Facilitate Public Private Partnership:
From the above mentioned analysis, we tried to make assumption regarding conditions
that facilitate public private partnerships. The main assumption were the following
1. Existence of a common interest space.
2. Expectation of positive private cost-benefit ratios by the private sector entities
   and public sector participating in the partnership. This can be understood by
   examining direct cost of implementation this project by the department. Total cost
   per beneficiary was Rs. 7354. This cost was not inclusive of other transaction
   costs—that is, costs of information search for partners, negotiation, screening,
   monitoring, coordination, and enforcement of contracts and institutions, interpreted
   as structures and rules of the game As cost of production was borne by government,
   the increase in yield accounted for an increase in returns to the farmers of Rs. 2921
   per acre. Comparing the cost of implementation of this project per beneficiary
   growing one acre of land, it was evident that farmers have gained from such a
   partnership. In absence of government intervention, these additional earnings would
   get reduced to Rs. 1094 per acre. However, this shows that gain in income of farmers
   due to hybrid was not significant to motivate farmers to adopt modern maize variety.
   Though this figure needs to be viewed with precaution. As these were initial years of
   partnership, there lies an every possibility of benefits outweighing the cost of
   intervention. This would happen only when there is a greater synergistic effect from


                                           10
   mutual contribution resulting in greater benefits than could be achieved if the activity
   were carried out by each partner on its own. Such an effect can be built over time. In
   the present scenario, when Monsanto Company have benefited in terms of their entry
   into the new market and cost of implementation of the project outweighed the benefit,
   Monsanto company could take up the role of providing agricultural extension
   services in the study area. This would help them in understanding agro climatic and
   socio-economic characteristics of the area which would go a long run in making
   improvisation of hybrid seeds to suit the needs of the area. Moreover, in the situation
   when government has been grappling with some of the constraints of providing
   agricultural extension services, such a move by the private partner would strengthen
   their partnership with the government. This would go a long way to improve the
   efficiency of farmers in cultivation of maize. Such an effort would result in
   synergistic effects from active collaboration between public research organizations
   and private sector entities.


1.8. Recommendations

The following were the recommendation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
the seed delivery system

   •   Initiation of an inter-institutional coordination and networking research for the
       variety testing and release
   •   Reviewing of the variety release process to shorten the breeding cycles and also
       ensuring more participation of farmers in the varietals evaluation programmes
   •   Strengthening the infrastructure (modern processing and storage, and additional
       manpower) for breeders seed production to meet the growing demand, provision
       of financial incentives to breeders for the promotion of breeder’s seed production
   •   Introducing block demonstrations and agricultural extension services immediately
       after the release of new hybrid seed as a parallel activity to breeder seed
       production to help familiarize the farmers with new seed variety.
   •   Strengthening the regulatory mechanism for imported seeds to prevent
       entry of potentially damaging new pests, diseases and weeds




                                           11
    CONCURRENT MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT
                        SUNSHINE



1.1. Introduction

Seed delivery system in general and hybrid maize seed delivery system in particular were
important for agricultural development in rainfed areas of Dahod and Panchmahal
districts of Gujarat. Continuous saving of seeds from own harvest as seed for sowing in
subsequent period without proper cleaning seriously affects the seed health. This leads to
lower crop yields from such seeds. An ideal seed system ought to serve farmers with five
key roles i.e. adequate supply of quality seeds of modern varieties at affordable prices in
the right time. An ideal seed system needs supportive institutional and policy conditions
for active participation of all key entities and for strengthening the public-private
interface to play their basic roles in an efficient way. There are four basic elements of
seed system, namely, production and import of improved varieties, quality control of
seed, marketing of improved seeds, and improvement in the quality seed kept by farmers.


In India, till recently, private seed company development has been hampered until
recently by national policies. There felt a need to address regulatory and other issues. An
important factor missing in the current effort to achieve that balance was the participation
of farmers (and attention to consumer education and consumer protection). Seed
companies depend on poorly developed marketing network. Many stockists do not have
sufficient training or information to handle sophisticated seed products. In some cases
national regulations prohibit seed dealers from going where farmers look for seed (e.g.
local periodic markets). Access to technology for producing small seed packs has given
an important boost to the ability of the industry to reach more farmers. Use of simple
information technology (posters, pamphlets, FM radio) should bring additional benefits to
farmers.


Seed companies almost always emerge (and experience their early growth) through
marketing high-value products that offer repeat sales as in case of hybrids. This may at



                                            12
times be at odds with the goal of bringing useful technology to the poorest (who are least
likely to participate in commercial markets). But there is good evidence that seed
companies can expand to take on lower-value products if they have a strong base to begin
with. Linking commercial seed production to activities that promote crops for local or
export markets, where seed quality is important, was one possible strategy. Following
this argument, Monsanto Company had signed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
with Tribal Development Department (TDD) to provide access to hybrid maize seed
named Dekalb Corn to farmers of Dahod and Panchmahal. Since 2008, several NGOs in
Gujarat have signed MoU with TDD to have access to hybrid seed developed by
Monsanto Company with the aim to distribute and provide extension services to farmers
in Dahod and Panchmahal districts of Gujarat. These seeds have been certified by
Navsari Agricultural University. For such partnership to become successful, partners
have to share authority, responsibility, and risks; jointly contribute resources and funding;
and mutually benefit from the goods and services provided. Thus, such partnerships
require common objectives, active partners, interdependent and complementary
contributions from the partners, and a commitment to open relationships under the
criteria of equity and clear, mutually agreed rules.


The larger aim of such public-private partnerships were to provide range of advantages
i.e., by pooling resources, the two sectors can form critical masses in research capacity
and resource endowment that enable relevant and successful transfer of technology to
farmers. In long run, such collaboration with practitioners from the private sector, R&D
on hybrid seeds would be directed toward innovations that are of practical use, and more
relevant for actual adoption.



Given the benefits that can be derived from partnering for innovation, governments
initiated to provide public private partnership in tribal areas of Gujarat with the aim of
developing private sector activities and agriculture at the local level. However, despite
the conceptual attractiveness of partnerships in form of Project Sunshine, the question
that we tried to ask in this study was whether public-private partnerships really constitute



                                             13
an institutional solution to the development of innovations in agriculture in these areas.
Do such partnerships respond to more than just the interests of a Monsanto Seed
Company or the larger interest of the community? Has the public expenditure been
justified? Has this partnerships in fact contributed to the primary goal of the TDD such as
increasing the income of small land holders from agriculture or meeting broader social
goals like creating value for commodities produced in the tribal areas?

This report aims to respond to these questions by providing empirical evidence from
3000 farmers of Dahod and Panchmahal districts of Gujarat. It characterizes the types of
partnership arrangements that exist and assesses whether these partnerships have led to
benefits for farmers. With this analysis, the report addresses policymakers in agriculture,
private company managers; and donors, farmer, and nongovernmental organizations
interested in joining or promoting such partnerships.

This report summarises the implementation process of the project sunshine implemented
by Tribal Development Department in Dahod and Panchmahal districts of Gujarat. With
the brief background history of the seed industry and public private partnership in Latin
American countries and in India in Chapter I, the report goes on to describe the project
sunshine in Chapter II. chapter III gives a detailed investigation of the study area,
methods adopted to distribute hybrid seeds in the area, types and quantity of seeds,
fertilisers and other inputs distributed, benefit accrued to farmers growing hybrid maize
with respect to conventional maize variety, total costs incurred if they grow incurring
costs on inputs and so on. In chapter IV, we tried to discuss ways in which public private
partnership would result in agricultural development of the area. This helped us to list
recommendations in order to make the implementation and impacts of the project
effective.

1.2. Objectives of the Study:


The overall goal of this study was to understand the increase in benefits accrued to
farmers growing maize using hybrid seed as against that earned by growing conventional
seed variety. As this project sunshine was in the nascent stage, this study would examine
the full process of seed distribution for identifying strength, weakness, opportunities for



                                            14
establishing effective seed delivery system for increasing the productivity of maize crop
with dual purpose of food-feed varieties/hybrids, particularly with the rural poor. The
specific objectives of the study were to:


   d. study the existing linkages between private seed companies and the government
       and its benefits for increased yield of dual purpose food-feed crop for the rural
       poor
   e. study the strengths and weakness, opportunities and constraints to make these
       linkages beneficial to all stakeholders
   f. Develop/suggest a way forward for harnessing the synergies through private
       sector seed companies and the government.


1.3. Literature Review

1.3.1. Experience of Hybrid Maize Development in Latin American Countries

Argentina and Brazil were the first Latin American countries that mastered hybrid
technologies (Miguel A. et al 1997). As early as 1923, a US researcher was reported to be
working on the subject in Argentina. By 1945, two locally developed double hybrids
were registered: The Santa Fe 2 and Santa Fe 3. By the late 1940s, the private sector was
increasingly involved in maize hybrid seed. For example, Cargill, USA, created a seed
production facility in Argentina. Later, the University of Buenos Aires registered several
hybrid varieties. The lines used to produce these hybrids were transferred to the private
seed industry and were used for a substantial time as the genetic base of private hybrids
(Miguel A. et al 1997).


In the 1960s, a hybrid seed industry had already consolidated in Argentina, partly due to
the large market it served. By acquiring national companies, transnational corporations
have been extensively involved. A permanent stream of newly developed hybrids has
characterized the industry from that time until the present.




                                             15
Brazilian seed industry also goes back to the early decades of the century. During the late
1920s, a maize breeding unit was established at the Instituto Agronomico de Campinas
(IAC), in the State of Sao Paulo. Some of its researchers studied genetics in US
universities and, upon their return to Brazil, established a maize breeding programme. In
the late 1930s and early 1940s, the combination of Brazilian with other Latin American
germplasm led to superior hybrid varieties, such as the Cateto and Azteca. In 1946, the
first double crossed hybrid was officially released by the IAC. In 1945, the main two
breeders of the University of Viscosa started a new company, AGROCERES, with
financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation. This company is now the most
important seed company in Brazil, and one of the largest agribusiness conglomerates in
the country. By the decade of the 1960s, the maize seed industry in Brazil was firmly
established, with AGROCERES holding a dominant share of the market. During this
decade, two major transnational corporations, Cargill and Pioneer HiBred, USA, entered
the market. EMBRAPA, the national agricultural research institute, had also released
hybrids (Miguel A. et al 1997).


In these two countries, the maize economy can be characterized as a commercial one,
with high input production systems and varieties that can take advantage of these inputs.
In 1990, Argentinean maize production was based cent per cent on improved varieties
and hybrids. In Brazil, this figure was much lower (57 per cent), reflecting the presence
of a small scale subsector in the North of the country. Most breeding efforts have taken
place in, and has been directed to the relatively advanced South and Central areas of the
Brazil (Miguel A. et al 1997).


Mexico's maize production has followed a different path. The typical farm in Mexico is
much smaller than in Brazil or Argentina. The Mexican government supplied these
farmers with seeds through a specialized corporation, Productora Nacional de Semillas
(PRONASE). This corporation had the mandate to produce and distribute commercial
seed of all varieties created by the National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA). In
fact, PRONASE's distribution of these varieties was a quasimonopoly. Private sector
involvement in the seed industry developed slowly, constrained by lack of access to



                                            16
INIA's maize germ plasm. Adoption of improved varieties and hybrids in Mexico's main
staple crop has been very low, even by Latin American standards. One of the reasons
could be the lack of private sector involvement in the seed industry, together with the
predominance of small scale farmers. Additionally, maize was grown under many
different agro ecological conditions. Because of its importance as food, many different
traditional varieties exist, adapted to the different conditions and specific final uses.
Recently, the seed industry regulations in Mexico have been completely overhauled,
resulting in PRONASE loosing its monopoly privileges. As a consequence, a very active
private seed industry has sprung up in the last two years (Bhuiyan et al., 2002).


In the rest of Latin America and in the developing world in general, the adoption of
HYVs by small scale farmers has been slow. The reasons for this were many, such as,
low farmer's expectations of gains in yields brought by HYVs, and higher costs of the
seed and additional inputs. Even if hybrids or improved open pollinated varieties looked
profitable, some producers, especially small scale farmers, found it difficult to adopt
them, simply because of a lack of access to credit. Nevertheless, experiences in China,
Venezuela and Zimbabwe, where hybrid seed is relatively cheap, suggest a high potential
of HYVs to be adopted by different types of producers. As the seed industry develops and
matures, and most farmers increasingly adopt hybrids, seed prices increase, encouraging
private involvement in maize breeding and propagation. The experience of industrialized
countries, where the ratio seed/grain price doubles the ratio typical of developing
countries, suggests that seed price sensitiveness among farmers was a function of access
to resources, and the farmers' positive view on the yield response of hybrid seeds. For the
increase of maize production by small scale farmers, the yield difference between open -
pollinated varieties and hybrids was not as relevant as the difference between modern
varieties (open pollinated varieties or hybrids) and non improved ones. But, the
difference between open pollinated varieties and hybrids was very important in terms of
who will invest how much in maize improvement. In other words, an important question
was how to guarantee a continuous production of improved technology, both in terms of
new germ plasm and its associated inputs and agronomic practices. The inborn protection
that hybrids have compared to open pollinated varieties makes them very attractive for



                                            17
the private plant breeding sector. In fact, the development of the hybrid technology
permitted the creation of a private seed industry (Miguel A. et al 1997).


On the other hand, it was cheaper to produce open pollinated variety seed than hybrid
seed. This motivated many governments in Latin America during the 1960s and 1970s to
generate open pollinated varieties. For example, nearly 70 per cent of maize varieties
released by Central American and Mexican national agricultural research systems
(NARS) during the period 196680 were open pollinated. More recently, there has been a
shift toward more hybrid release. During the 1980s, nearly 50 per cent of the released
materials in Central America were hybrids. This change of priorities might reflect the fact
that, from the point of view of more commercial farmers, hybrids can be more profitable
than open pollinated varieties.

1.3.2. Private and Public Sector

Private sector investment in research has been a major driving force in the increase in
productivity of commercial maize production. In the USA, it has been estimated by
CIMMYT that this investment increased from US$ 8 million (rate 1990) in 1955 to US$
110 million in 1990. In terms of its share of output value, it has grown from less than 0.1
to over 0.5 per cent of the value of total maize production in the USA. It has been
estimated that in the mid1970s public sector maize research expenditures in developing
countries on all aspects of maize production was 0.23 per cent of the value of maize
production in developing countries, or about US$ 70 million (rate 1990). CIMMYT
estimates that twenty years (1990) later about US$ 85 million was spent on maize
improvement in developing countries, and that the private sector accounted for about one
quarter of these expenditures. Surprisingly, there are about 9 breeders per million tonnes
of maize produced in developing countries, compared to 4 in the USA, with most of this
difference being accounted by the public sector.

Although the Indian seed market is one of the largest, it is almost exclusively supplied by
locally produced seeds. Farmers retain seed of major food crops (wheat, rice, sorghum,
millet, corn, and pulses) and commercial crops for many years, and the largest volume of



                                            18
seed trade involves local exchanges of established self-pollinating varieties. The seed
replacement rate in most crops is very low, with the exception of cotton and some
vegetables. The use of hybrid seeds is mostly confined to rice and cotton, and to some
extent to corn, millet, sunflower, and few vegetables. However, awareness about the high
yield and quality of produce from hybrid seeds, attracting farmers to switch over to
hybrids, was growing. The Indian seed industry used to be dominated by public sector
seed companies. It was soon found that the effective deployment of hybrid varieties in
India could not be possible without a strong commercial seed industry. There was a
growing recognition of this fact and an increasing number of efforts to lend support to the
industry. It was also important that these efforts be well coordinated in the scenario when
seed industry was facing a range of problems, but a major deficiency was with working
capital. However, following the easing of government regulations and the implementation
of a new seed policy in 1988, the private sector seed companies have started playing a
major role in seed development and marketing. The composition of the seed industry, by
volume of turnover, has reportedly reached a ratio of 60:40 between the private and
public sectors.


Gujarat is one of the five major maize growing states of our country. In the state, it is
chiefly grown by socio-economically poor tribal farmers in the districts of Panchmahals,
Dahod, Vadodara, Sabarkantha, Banaskantha and Kheda. Maize being the staple food,
tribals have certain ethnic preferences for color, texture, taste, etc., and prefer only those
varieties which fulfill these criteria. Though traditionally, it was a kharif crop from past
few years. It was also being cultivated in Rabi season because of high yield levels and
low cost of production. However diffusion of technology of using improved seed variety
has not taken place in tribal districts of Gujarat. The yield growth however has remained
moderate in the rain-fed systems. Farmers still use traditional low- yielding varieties in a
large proportion of such area and use fertilisers in suboptimal amounts when they adopt
modern varieties due to the uncertainty of returns from investments and the limited
capacity of risk taking at the subsistent level [Zeigler and Puckridge 1995]. This was the
main reason behind the low yield and the large yield gap in the rain-fed systems. Many
public sector R and D institutions across Asia have started investing more public



                                             19
resources in the 1990s to explore new frontiers of hybrid seed, super seed of maize, to
reverse productivity trend in rainfed and irrigated systems.


Based on early experiences it was reported that many farmers in India and Brazil
[Hussain, et al 2001] who grew hybrid maize initially for one or two seasons have started
dropping out from hybrid rice cultivation. Therefore, the rate of hybrid rice adoption by
the farmers was too limited and scattered in these countries. The slow and lingering
nature of hybrid maize adoption raised a serious concern on whether currently available
hybrid maize technology could sustain productivity growth in the Asian tropics.


Many countries recognize that ensuring an effective agricultural extension system was
critical, especially in view of the major challenges facing the agricultural sector today.
Rapidly growing populations have unleashed a spiraling demand for food, while the
food-producing capacity in many nations was increasingly constrained both by
diminishing opportunities to bring new land into production and by the declining
productivity of over-cultivated areas caused by natural resource degradation (Crosson and
Anderson 1992, Brown and Kane 1994). The major dilemma for most governments,
however, is who should sit in the driver's seat in the extension system-the public sector,
the private for-profit sector, the private nonprofit sector, or some combination of the
three.


1.3.3. Structure of the Indian Seed Industry: Public Sector Seeds Companies


Public sector involvement in the seed industry on a national scale began at the beginning
of the “green revolution” with the establishment of the National Seed Corporation (NSC)
in 1963, which was charged with the responsibility of promoting seed industry
development from production through processing, storage and marketing, and
establishing a system of quality control. Before that, the Indian seed industry was little
developed apart from a small number of private companies dealing with high value
vegetable and flower seeds. In the initial years of operation, the NSC concerned itself
mainly with foundation seed production and with seed certification after the enactment of



                                            20
Seed Act in 1966. The State Seed Corporations (SSC) were established later with support
from the World Bank, initially in nine states, and later expanded to cover 13 states, for
production and handling of seed in their respective states.


The role of public sector seed companies was now mostly confined to certified seeds of
high volume, low value segment of high yielding varieties of cereals, pulses, and cotton
with a limited presence in the high value hybrid sectors of cotton, cereals, and vegetables.
Wheat and paddy seed constitutes a major share of the seeds handled by them. The NSC
and SSCs work closely together to coordinate procurement and sales prices as well as
variety demand and supply. Their presence was considered necessary by the government
to ensure the availability of reasonably priced seeds of major crops throughout the
country and to make sure that private sector seed companies do not enjoy and exploit
unreasonable market power. The public sector seed companies, however, lag behind in
research. They were mostly dependent on public research institutions, under the aegis of
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and State Agricultural Universities
(SAUs) for their breeder seed requirements.



Based on feed back from dealers and end-users, the public sector seed companies/state
governments forecast seed demand for various crops three years in advance and a
requirement for breeder seeds was placed with the GOI’s Ministry of Agriculture. Using
the breeder seeds supplied by government research institutes, the public sector seed
companies produce foundation seeds on government farms or reliable, well-trained
contract farms. These were further multiplied in contract farmers’ fields next year as
certified seeds for commercial distribution. If for some reasons (drought or other weather
calamities) the supply of certified seeds falls short of requirements, the public sector seed
companies source commercial grain from the market, upgrade the quality, and after
proper testing distribute it as quality seeds. All seed grown by contract growers for seed
corporations meeting the specified standards attract a premium price over and above the
commercial grain price for that crop. The premium can vary between 25 percent for
cereals to over 100 percent for hybrids. In the public sector, NSC was usually the retail
price setter with the SSCs following NSC prices in determining their own for similar or


                                             21
substitute varieties. For self pollinated field crops, an accepted basis was to add a margin
of 15 to 25 percent on production costs. For hybrid seeds of cereals and vegetables, prices
to some degree reflect market trends. However, there is government intervention in the
pricing of seeds produced by public sector corporations with the degree of intervention
varying from state to state. Some states are now thinking of giving greater autonomy to
their seed corporations to make them financially viable by allowing them to market
private branded seeds, domestically produced or imported. An advantage to the
government seed companies was that they have a vast distribution network and trusted
brand image. The reason why they were losing market share was because seeds by
private companies often outperform the publicly available varieties. Some SSCs have
started their own research to evolve superior propriety hybrids.



1.3.4. Private Sector Seed Companies


Easing of government regulations in the late 1980s spurred enormous development
within the seed industry by attracting several foreign seed companies to India. While
some of them (like Cargill) entered through joint venture partnerships with Indian seed
companies, some others already had a presence in India through affiliate companies (like
Hindustan Lever).

They identified potential crops for hybridization and started research and development
activities. Typically they concentrated on hybrids, mainly corn, cotton, sunflower,
vegetables, and flowers (more recently on rice), and they now account for a major share
of commercial production of these seeds in India. The basic reason for the private
sector’s focus on these crops was that it involves low production volume and higher
margins. Concomitantly, they had little interest in developing self-pollinated crops, which
involve high volume and low margin and were more prone to piracy in the absence of an
effective Plant Variety Protection regime in India. Furthermore, there was no significant
government intervention in the pricing of these hybrids, and the Indian seed regulations
permit marketing of truthfully labeled seeds. Currently, some 500 hybrids of field crops
and vegetables are being marketed, as truthfully labeled seeds, mostly by private seed



                                            22
companies. The private seed sector now comprises some twenty or so large players (with
sales turnover exceeding rs. 200 million), several medium companies (sales turn over
between Rs. 200 million and 20 million), and a large number of small, unorganized
players (sales turnover less than Rs. 20 million) with local presence.


The private seed industry is now undergoing a transition following the Indian
government’s focus on biotechnology research, as a means of increasing agricultural
production and also driven by trends in the domestic and world seed market. Intensifying
international competition, increasing R&D costs, and the complexity of biotechnology
have led to increase in consolidation of the Indian seed industry with several of the large
and medium companies merging or being taken over by multinational seed companies.
Most large multinational seed companies now have their presence in India (either as a
joint venture or with 100 percent equity) with their main focus on biotechnology. These
include Monsanto, Bayer Crop Science, Syngenta, Advanta, Hicks-Muse-Tate, Emergent
Genetics, Dow Agro, Bioseed Genetics International Inc., Tokita Seed Co, and Nunhems
Zaden BV. Agro climatic conditions and abundant skilled and unskilled labor were
factors that have attracted international seed companies to India.


1.3.5. Public-Private Sector Cooperation


Public-private partnerships have become increasingly popular in development policy and
practice as a means of addressing issues as diverse as health, education, environment,
finance, governance, and agriculture (e.g., Fiszbein and Lowden, 1999; Bennett,
Grohmann, and Gentry, 1999; Buse and Walt, 2000). They also have become popular as a
way to foster the development of innovations through collaborative R&D (Faulkner and
Senker, 1994; Hagedorn and Schakenraad, 1994; Hall, Bockett, Taylor, Sivamohan, and
Clark, 2000; Spielman and von Grebmer, 2004). However, many public private
partnership approaches, in a privatization-like manner, seek to outsource public services
to private companies. In contrast, public-private partnerships were understood as
arrangements that support the autonomy of public research organizations by rendering
their work more relevant, demand-oriented, and efficient.


                                            23
Cooperation between private sector seed companies and public research institutes under
ICAR, SAUs, and the International Crop Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT), supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR), is growing. Under the “consortium” model with ICRISAT, private companies
can jointly fund research that results in publicly available parental lines, which they often
cross with in-house genetics to produce proprietary hybrids. ICRISAT recently
introduced a live-in campus for private sector researchers to use the institutions’ facilities
and expertise. ICRISAT is focusing more on private sector partnerships for funding
reasons and also because of private companies’ effectiveness in getting the research result
out to farmers. ICRISAT is currently reviewing its policy of keeping all research in the
public domain and is considering licensing/royalties/exclusive rights. Private companies
can also fully fund research at SAUs for exclusive rights on the results and/or hire
professors as consultants, although the degree of cooperation varies from state to state.


The new institutional economics literature sees the partnership as a strategy to minimize
transaction costs associated with developing and enforcing contractual relations in
provision of a good or service. The transaction costs were mainly determined by the
frequency and uncertainty of a transaction, limit to rational behaviour of economic
agents, and asset specificity of the transaction (Williamson, 1975). For example, a private
seed company has to transact with public plant breeding programs for new varieties and
source seed. A high transaction cost with high asset specificity of establishing a plant
breeding program may help develop partnership with public plant breeding programs (see
ICRISAT model). On the other hand, a low transaction cost will favour market based
transactions, while low asset-specificity can lead to vertical integration, bringing seed
production and plant breeding under a hierarchical structure.



The second important conceptual framework used was the recent developments in the
theory of organisational behaviour. The analysis blurs the classical difference between
public and private sectors, and underlines the need for partnerships for efficient provision
of a good or service with equitable social benefits, whilst maintaining higher flexibility,


                                             24
and accountability of the private sector and social interest of the public sector (O’Looney,
1992). Other approaches focus on the traditional welfare analysis in use of scarce
resources, development of networks of innovations for the given social and economic
institutions, and incentives and relationships that shape the flow of knowledge and
information (for details, see Spielman and Grebmer, 2004).             One may infer that
incentives, problems and risks associated with incentives, contextual realities and nature
of goods or services are important for developing and enforcing partnerships. Since plant
breeding is a risky activity with high asset-specificity, contractual relations that shape the
flow of knowledge and material were critical for establishing research partnerships.
Macro-economic policies and social and economic institutions further influence the
attitudes and pace of research partnerships. For example, a greater reliance on market
forces and the enabling institutions like IPRs may facilitate research partnerships, while
public and private sector will continue to maintain a negative perception in an inward
looking economic environment.



The ICAR, as an apex agricultural R&D organisation of the country, has initiated
dialogues with private R&D organisations, NGOs and other stakeholders to develop
partnerships. A number of policy decisions have been taken through a consultative
process. These decisions underscored continuity of dialogue, sharing of resources,
expertise and cost and benefits of technologies in a transparent manner, capacity building,
and developing a culture of mutual confidence and trust. Although these initiatives were
quite comprehensive and path breaking in several ways, there were only a few examples
of successful partnerships. In the case of hybrid rice, ICAR, SAUs, IRRI and national
private seed companies collaborated for development of male sterile lines, development
of hybrids and refinement of seed multiplication technologies. The partnership upscaled
the hybrid rice technology and intensified plant breeding and seed multiplication
activities in the private sector. The technology has been commercialized and being
adopted even in marginal areas of eastern India because of significant yield advantage. Dr
Partha Dasgupta felt that it was imperative to develop Public-Private Partnerships in
order to a) meet the challenge of food and nutritional security, b) seek new discoveries



                                             25
and inventions, c) find innovative crop solutions, and d) eventually reach out to the
masses.


In spite of the above-mentioned successes, literature has the mention of certain
constraints and rigidities. The private sector would appreciate and value a timely
response from the public organisations which is possible only in a decentralised system.
Delay and uncertainty in establishing a partnership may enhance transaction cost. In
order to avoid this, the private sector would prefer to enter into some kind of agreement
with other private companies, or an international organisation. Perhaps the ICRISAT’s
consortium of private seed companies reflects this concern. A group of private seed
companies, both national and international, has formed a consortium to fund the plant
breeding program of ICRISAT for pearl millet and sorghum. The member companies pay
annual fee and have access to advanced breeding material. The material is available to
the public plant breeding programmes, but not to non-member seed companies. Private
seed companies benefit from advanced breeding material and minimize their research
cost, while ICRISAT is able to generate resources to fund its breeding programs for the
crops. In addition to addressing technical issues like freedom to operate in an era of IPRs,
development of mutual confidence and trust among the partners is a major issue which
shall build over a period of time.     However, it requires transparent procedures and
commitment to honour the contract and confidentiality of information. While all these
issues were important for working in a partnership mode, there were other modes of
partnerships which were largely governed by markets. The markets for technologies
provide ample opportunities to work independently, but complement each other’s
activities through market-based contracts. It has been emphasised in literature that some
forms of public-private partnerships can be of mutual benefit and can serve the farming
community in a more effective manner. There is a need to promote such partnerships in
provision of improved seed to marginal and small farmers in the isolated agricultural
production environments. One example of this has been the public delivery of private
seed, mostly of maize, under the programme Project Sunshine. This project is
implemented in the rainfed areas of Dahod and Panchmahal regions of Gujarat, where the
government procures seeds from the private seed companies and fertilisers from the line


                                            26
department and distributes the same to farmers. Dairy Cooperative and NGOs helped
department in distributing identifying beneficiaries, agricultural inputs and so on. This
report would try and highlight benefits and weaknesses of this programmes


1.4. Methodology and Data

Based on the theoretical considerations presented in the previous section, four main
hypotheses were tested:
   •   H1. The private sector becomes actively involved in public-private partnerships
       only if there were clear prospects of profits (e.g., gains from improved sales, cost
       reduction, exclusive use of technology).
   •   H3. In many cases the public sector provides funding to partnerships even though
       there was no clear analysis/expectation of a positive social cost-benefit ratio.
   •   H4. The good functioning of a partnership depends on internal leadership and
       effective internal monitoring and evaluation.

1.4.1. Data Collection

The analysis draws from a database of 3000 beneficiaries of Project Sunshine (Phase I)
which was implemented in rainfed areas of Dahod and Panchmahal districts of Gujarat.
The programme was executed by Tribal Development Department, Gujarat with the aim
to increase income of marginal and small farmers. Under this project, free Dekalb corn
seeds and fertilisers were given were given to 30,000 farmers residing in 7 talukas and
497 villages of Dahod and Panchmahal districts. For the purpose of this study, we
selected 10 per cent of total beneficiaries which totaled to 3000. The list of beneficiaries
was obtained from the TDD. The actual list had the names and villages of 27, 290
beneficiaries. As these beneficiaries were scattered across 7 talukas and 497 villages, we
arranged villages in ascending order of beneficiaries. Villages with median number of
beneficiaries of the project were selected for an in-depth interview along with couple of
villages above and below the median. Total of 3000 households were selected. The
sample household were selected following proportional stratified sampling method. Thus
we selected the sample of 2465 farmers from Dahod district and 535 farmer beneficiaries
from Panchmahal districts. Table 1.1 shows the total number of beneficiaries and samples
selected by talukas and villages.



                                            27
            Table 1.1: Distribution of Beneficiaries by Talukas and Districts

 No.     District     Taluka        Implementing        Village          Beneficiaries       Total
                                    agency         Total Sample         Total       Sample   sample
                                                                                             under
                                                                                             study
 1       Panchmahal   Santarampur   Panchmahal     113    10        5088           345       535
                                    dairy
                      Kadana        Panchmahal     67     6         2862           190
                                    dairy
 2       Dahod        Fatepura      Panchmahal     55     9         4000           510       2465
                                    dairy
                      Zalod         GRISERV        66     11        3762           480
                      Limkheda      GVT            120    23        5000           637
                      Garabada      SADGURU        30     5         3000           382
                      Dahod         Mahatama       46     6         3578           456
                                    Gandhi
                                    Pratisthan
 Total         2           7                       497         70      27290        3000     3000




1.5. Maize Cultivation in Gujarat

Maize is not only a staple food for tribals of North Gujarat, but also a major source of income
and employment for rural households. Therefore, the development of maize sector was always
a priority for the government to address concerns of increasing productivity of the crop,
increase in income earned from cultivation and food security.

The birth of the Green Revolution can be traced to hybrid maize. Henry Wallace, the
initiator of the Rockefeller Foundation's agricultural research programme in Mexico in
the 1940s was the founder of one of the first and most successful hybrid maize seed
companies in the USA. When the Rockefeller Foundation shifted its attention to India,
the initial emphasis was also on hybrid maize. As we trace the history of hybridization in
India, Maize was the first cereal crop to undergo rapid and widespread technological
transformation. The experience gained with maize deeply influenced other crops. The
success of technological change in maize production on a global scale, reflected in
continuing yield increases, was heavily based on the use of so called high yielding
varieties (HYVs).



                                           28
Notwithstanding this success, many important maize producing areas of the country like
remained largely untouched by these new technologies. Two types of maize agriculture
could roughly be distinguished: firstly, the commercial, high input production maize
grains and the small-scale, semi-subsistence production exemplified by most of the maize
producers in tribal belts of Gujarat. In the year 2005, a maize yield in Gujarat was close
to 1581 kg per hectare per year (Table 1.2).

     Table 1.2: Area and Average Yield per Hectare of High Yielding Varieties of Crops

 Year                             Area (’00 hectares)         Percent of Hybrid to total   Maize to total   Yield
                                  Total      HYV                                           cropped area     (kg/ha.)
 1987-88                          3420       1223             35.76                                         330
 1988-89                          3550       1574             44.33                                         1363
 1989-90                          3563       1550             43.50                                         1536
 1990-91                          3662       2103             57.42                                         1406
 1991-92                          3834       2150             56.08                                         1199
 1992-93                          3829       2300             60.07                                         1537
 1993-94                          3883       2350             60.52                                         1077
 1994-95                          3960       2360             59.60                                         889
 1995-96                          4154       2000             48.15                                         1030
 1996-97                          4185       2108             50.37                                         1591
 1997-98                          4308       2300             53.39                                         1660
 1998-99                          4424       2865             64.76                                         1695
 1999-00                          4456       2770             70.84                                         1317
 2000-01                          4620       2470             53.46                                         800
 2001-02                          4904       2818             57.46                                         1969
 2002-03                          4645       3086             66.44                                         1706
 2003-04                          4845       2666             55.03                                         1717
 2004-05*                         4595       2980             64.85                                         898
 2005-06*                         4600       3230             70.22                                         1581
 Mean                             4181       2363                                                           1332
 Std. Deviation                   464        542                                                            408
 Variance                         215593 293556                                                             166564
 Minimum                          3420       1223                                                           330
 Maximum                          4904       3230                                                           1969
 compound growth rate             1.02       1.04                                                           1.03
* Figures are based on final forecast report.
Source: Directorate of Agriculture, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar.




For the whole of Gujarat state, the percentage change in maize in the year 2005 was
nearly 10 percent of the area grown in the year 1995. During these years, Panchmahal
showed the decline of 36 percent of its area under Maize crop. However, production of


                                                           29
maize crop in Gujarat during these years has shown an increase of 69 per cent while yield
has shown an increase of 54 per cent. In Panchmahal production increased at 76 per cent
while yield has shown a decline of nearly 37 per cent. Year wise analysis shows that the
percentage change in growth rate of area under maize for Gujarat increases in the year
2001 after which it declines (Table 1.3). Compound growth rate of area, yield and
Production under Maize crop in Gujarat shows very little variations. The growth rate of
Panchmahal district for with respect to area and yield was lower than the rate of
compound growth rate of Gujarat state.          In spite of this difference, increase in
productivity of maize assumes importance as it was the staple food for the people.

In the year 2005, 70 percent of area under total maize crop in Gujarat was cultivated
using hybrid maize seed. This has shown an increase over 17 years. From table 1.4 it was
clear that net irrigated area in both Dahod and Panchmahal was declining over years. This
might be one of the reasons that constrained the area under maize cultivation in
Panchmahal districts.




                                           30
Table 1.3: Percentage Change in Area, Production and Yield and Compound Growth Rate of Area, Production and Yield of Maize (Kharif) in Gujarat
                                                           (Year 1995-96 to 2005-2006)

Districts       Dahod        Panchmahal        Gujarat     Dahod      Panchmahal       Gujarat      Dahod      Panchmahal        Gujarat
                                 Area                                   Production                                  Yield
1995-96
1996-97                                 53.5         0.7                        55.5         55.7                          4.1         54.5
1997-98                                 11.3         2.9                         6.9          7.4                         -6.5          4.3
1998-99                                 -2.2        -5.2                         4.5         -2.7                          5.0          2.7
1999-2000                              -39.8        -4.2                        35.2        -27.6                        -47.5        -24.4
2000-2001                                0.3        -2.1                       -49.4        -42.8                        -49.6        -41.5
2001-2002                               10.9        15.8                       267.1        206.6                        231.4        164.6
2002-2003                                7.3         4.7                        11.1        -10.4                          3.6        -14.5
2003-2004                              -51.4         4.3                       -66.0          5.0      -65.0             -30.0          0.6
2004-2005              0.2               7.8        -5.2      -64.9            -46.5        -50.4      124.8             -50.4        -47.7
2005-2006            -12.3               2.1        -0.6       97.3             99.7         75.1     -100.0              95.8         76.1
1995-2005            -12.0             -35.9        10.0      -30.6             76.3         68.9      -21.2             -36.8         53.5
 Yearly               -4.0              -3.3         0.9      -10.2              6.9          6.3       -7.1              -3.3          4.9
growth rate
Compound          0.938**          0.913***      1.02***      0.833          1.03***     1.02***       0.888         0.936***      1.000***
growth rate




                                                                      31
  Table 1.4: Growth Rates of Net Area Irrigated in Tribal Districts of Gujarat between the Years
                                       1990-91 to 2003-04.


Districts                                 Intercept                  Slope (b)
Panchmahal                                3843.74***                 (-) 0.72*
Dahod                                     4215.16***                 (-) 0.56
Southern region*                          1986.58***                 5.51**
Central Region**                          1994.71***                 2.63
Northern region***                        2014.91***                 0.01
                                          1980.20***                 5.90**
Total Tribal districts****
All Gujarat                               1959.93***                 1.28***


To sum up, there was very little increase in net irrigated area in Central and northern
regions of Gujarat. However, there was an increased diffusion of hybrid maize. However
area, production and productivity have not changed over years. The reasons for this might
be due to number of factors like socio-economic factors, agro climatic conditions and so
on.




                                               32
                                       CHAPTER II

                          ABOUT THE PROJECT SUNSHINE


With the aim to double the income of tribal farmers of Dahod and Panchmahal districts of
Gujarat State within five years, an initiative in public private partnership was undertaken
under the project named Project Sunshine. This goal was aimed at providing modern farm
inputs to farmers with a belief that it would result in an increase agricultural productivity.
Steps to develop infrastructure to facilitate linkages of inputs and outputs were
considered. Monsanto was invited to play a key role in the project along with NGOs and
the Government. In the year 2007, Tribal Development Department reviewed the pilot
study on the performance of Monsanto in the project named Project Rainbow. Under this
project, Dekalb corn seeds were given as free samples to farmers in 13 taluka covering
300 villages. Through this project a safety net was created for the poorest and vulnerable
households in the form of providing free inputs to farmers.


The study showed that Dekalb hybrids were suitable to the agro-climatic condition of the
tribal belt and demonstrated the value to farmers. In 2007 the income of the farmers has
gone up by 100% by using the Dekalb corn hybrids. A few observations like (a) tribal
farmers have low purchasing power and hence initial investment support was required for
seeds and fertilizers. (b) Education on the right cultivation practices was felt as a vital
component of the project as most of the farmers would be the first time users of yellow
corn hybrids and majority of the population were illiterate and lack awareness. (c) The
absence of agriculture dealer and final produce purchaser in the area inhibits them from
experimenting with new seeds. Therefore Upstream/Downstream linkages form a critical
input for taking the project sustainability. (d) it was felt that for the sustainability of the
project, the achievement of “Critical Mass” was essential. The generation of economic
surplus for the farmers, the commercial viability of the procurement of the grain
purchasers were very critical elements. Hence high density was more important than the
spread. Successful observations of the project encouraged the government to widen the
scope of the work. This extended their partnership with the Monsanto Company.




                                              33
Scope of the Project Sunshine in 2008

Under this project, nearly 27, 290 farmer beneficiaries from 2 districts falling in 7
Talukas and 497 villages were selected. These beneficiaries were provided with free
Dekalb corn hybrid seed, fertilisers and so on. The project was sponsored by TDD.

Inputs distributed were as follows:
   • 612 MT of seed which was acquired from Monsanto Company.
   • Fertilizer of 12,000 million tonnes was acquired GSFC
   • 720 Corn Shellers were purchased with the aim of providing in these villages
       (One sheller per village).

The key partners in the Projects were
   • Monsanto, the Dekalb Corn hybrid seeds supplier; GSFC, the fertilizer supplier;
      DASG, the Nodal agency to act as central point for all transactions, NGOs
      (SADGURU, Gram Vikas Kendra, GRISERV, Mahatma Gandhi Pratisthan) and
      Panchmahal dairy to play a critical role in project implementation and farmer
      education; NABARD to provide insurance coverage to the project against
      irregular rainfall. GSFC will also conduct soil testing in the villages.
   • Monsanto in addition to the supply of seeds promised to provide support to the
      farmers, train members of other partners and facilitate the process of procuring
      the output through the coordination with the other stake holders.
   • Support from Government Extension officials was sought to hasten the hybrid
      adoption process and improving socio economic status of the farmers.
   • The Apex body comprising of members from D-SAG, Monsanto, Panchmahal
      Dairy, District Collector, GSFC, Panchmahal Dairy & NGOs was set up to review
      the progress periodically. Initially the progress was planned to be monitored every
      15 days and once the input distribution was complete the review would be on
      monthly basis.
   • This project has envisaged formation of the Village committees in each of these
      villages and would form the nodal point for all transactions. Village committee
      would also support in all operations, education and training programs and
      maintaining records.
   • The project was for the period of 5 years. The plan was to add approximately
      50,000 acres every year. Through the Project Rainbow initiative, Monsanto has
      demonstrated the benefits through its technology. Going forward in Project
      Sunshine, Monsanto and GSFC would continue to be the exclusive suppliers of
      Dekalb Corn Hybrid Seeds and Fertilizers respectively, during the project
      duration.




                                           34
Project Overview

                                                         TDD



            Apex Body/ Review committee                                                                  Nodal Agency
TDD, NGOs, Monsanto, District Collector, Panchmahal                                                        D-SAG
Dairy, GSFC


Project Implementation, Review and Tracking
Source: D-SAG, Gandhinagar




Functions and Scope of Various Partners


        Organisations                           Functions                                              Scope

Monsanto Company                     Was required to provide seeds,           •    will supply the Dekalb corn hybrid seeds through D-
                                     manpower, extend crop-technical               SAG at distributor invoice price.
                                     support and facilitate linkage for       •    Monsanto’s liability will be limited to providing
                                     output purchase.                              quality seeds (Genetic and physical purity) only.
                                                                              •    Provide technical knowledge & managerial staff to
                                                                                   work with ground level staff of NGO, Panchmahal
                                                                                   Dairy etc. Provide farmer education on cultivation
                                                                                   practices.
                                                                              •    Monsanto will conduct farmer meetings in villages
                                                                                   • on crop management/ Agronomy etc.
                                                                                   • on post harvest care etc.
                                                                              •    Monsanto will coordinate with the output industry and
                                                                                   facilitate procurement of output.
NGOs/ Panchmahal Dairy:              were      required   to    recruit       •    Identify the villages and form Village Committees.
                                     supervisors and coordinate with               Provide villages wise seed and fertilizer requirement
                                     Gram Mitra, Monsanto and                      to D-SAG. Receive the seeds on behalf DSAG and
                                     District Administration which                 distribute to the villages.
                                     would help facilitating in proper        •    Provide Manpower and work with Monsanto for
                                     implementation of the project.                farmer support.
                                     They also distributed seeds to           •    Report periodically to district authorities, Apex body
                                     target farmers                                and TDD.

Gujarat      State      Fertiliser   to supply fertilizer at village      Will supply directly to the village committees against the advice
Corporation (GSFC):                  level                                of the DSAG.


National Agricultural Bank of        will provide insurance coverage
Rural Development (NABARD):




                                                         35
Tribal Development Department   was      supposed    to    supply         •    Select the taluka, provide funds for the project to
                                mechanical shellers in each                    DSAG. All project costs will be borne by TDD,
                                village. Moreover, for the proper              including project insurance.
                                implementation        of      the
                                programme, it was planned to set          •    Form the Apex body. The Apex body under the
                                up the Village Level Committee.                leadership of TDD will coordinate and periodically
                                District level review committee                review the progress of the project.
                                was supposed to carry out the
                                review of the programme.



D-SAG                           Receive funds from TDD and                •    Receive funds from TDD to purchase inputs.
                                make payments against inputs
                                                                          •    Take village wise demand from NGOs, Panchmahal
                                                                               Dairy and raise purchase order to Monsanto (with 50%
                                                                               advance and delivery advise), GSFC etc. After receipt
                                                                               of the stocks make balance payments against the
                                                                               inputs procured.


Others
i. Role of Village Committee         (a) Consisting of 4-5 members from the village
                                     (b) Facilitate input distribution with NGO/Gram mitra
                                     (c) Facilitating farmer meeting- informing, gathering farmers
                                     (d) Facilitating end produce selling
                                     (e) Identify and finalize community hall for storage of seed (timeline to be decided). Ensure
                                         that the hall is in proper condition with no leakage/moisture
                                     (f) Seed & fertilizer should be properly stored covered with Tarpaulins
                                     (g) Prepare list of interested farmers(beneficiaries) & projected demand to NGO
                                     (h) Distribute fertilizer to farmers with all records
                                     (i) Collect original invoice from GSFC & distribute to farmers providing a copy of same to
                                         DSAG
                                     (j) Work with Monsanto MDO for technical training for the village

ii. Role of Gram Mitra          The guideline specifies that there should be one gram mitra responsible to carry out his duties in two
                                villages. The project manager, on behalf of TDD at district level would review the work undertaken
                                by him every fortnightly. His functions were:

                                     a.    Prepare Village committee in targeted villages
                                     b.    Closely work with village committee for finalising beneficiaries and their purchase
                                           requirement
                                     c.    Coordinate with GSFC for soil testing by providing 5 soil samples from each village
                                     d.    Ensure availability of community hall in proper condition
                                     e.    Facilitate NGO, village community for seed distribution
                                     f.    Working closely with farmers at village level for proper agronomic management.

iii. Role of Project Manager         a.    Dedicated resource for project in DSAG payroll.
                                     b.    In charge of the project on behalf of TDD at the district level.
                                     c.    Coordinating with NGO, Panchmahal Dairy
                                     d.    Review progress of Gram Mitra and Supervisors of the NGO.
                                     e.    Review crop data of farmers from NGO and Gram Mitra with the team of Monsanto
                                     f.    Coordinating with Monsanto team for the implementation of the work
                                     g.    Collect purchase order from Supervisors and submit to Project In-charge



iv. Role of Project In-charge        a.    Dedicated resource for the project in DSAG payroll.
                                     b.    In-charge of the project on behalf of TDD at the state level.
                                     c.    Would be a part of apex body and would be responsible for the follow up of meetings and
                                           decisions taken by the apex body at the district level
                                     d.    Review progress of Project Manager.



                                                     36
                                         e. Coordinating with Monsanto at State level for further scheme
v. Role of Supervisor                There is one supervisor for 10 gram mitra. His duties were the following:

                                         a.  Would be in NGO payroll.
                                         b.  Supervise Gram mitra
                                         c.  Coordinate with Gram mitra for committee formation
                                         d.  Taluka-wise village identification
                                         e.  Coordinating with gram mitra for meetings with farmers and distribution of Inputs
                                         f.  Support farmers in sowing crop and managing agronomic requirements
                                         g.  Facilitate Gram mitra in collecting and reporting crop performance data
                                         h.  Facilitate Monsanto MDO for conducting field shows.
                                         i.  Support village committees in selling farm produce.
                                         j.  Facilitate in collecting 50 per cent of the total credit requirement to purchase inputs on
                                             behalf of villagers.
                                          k. Responsible for the Maize Sheller
                                          l. Identify depot for fertilizer storage and distribution
                                          m. Compile village committee purchase orders and submit to NGO/Project Manager
                                          n. Compile monthly crop update report and submit to NGO/Project
vi. Manager/Monsanto TM              15 days plan for reviewing the project needs to be prepared by NGO and the project manager. They
                                     have to review it every fortnightly
vii. Role of Project Administrator   Would be in DSAG payroll
                                     Already existing

Transaction Model




Source: D-SAG, Gandhinagar




                                                         37
                                       CHAPTER III

               CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA UNDER THE STUDY




3.1. Characteristics of Population


The total population of the study area was 21,273 and the average family size was 7.1
(Table 3.1). Compared to Panchmahal, Dahod district had on an average 7.2 people per
household, the highest being in Dahod taluka (8.1 people per household). Out of total
population studied, majority of them were residing in Dahod (84%). This has resulted due
to bias in sampling.


          Table 3.1: Characteristics of Population by Talukas and Districts

 Taluka                    Males    Females       Children      Percentage to total (%)   Family size
                           Percentage to total population (%)
 Fetahpura(tpopu=3354)     33.0     32.6          34.4          18.8                      6.6
                           (507)    (499)         (411)         (510)
 Dahod (Tpopu=3677)        29.3     29.1          41.7          20.6                      8.1
                           (453)    (456)         (407)         (456)
 Garbada (tpopu=3070)      29.5     28.4          42.0          17.2                      8.0
                           (380)    (381)         (356)         (382)
 Limkheda (Tpopu=4411)     30.4     29.4          40.1          24.7                      6.9
                           (634)    (631)         (544)         (637)
 Zalod (Tpopu=3348)        30.6     30.6          38.8          18.7                      7.0
                           (470)    (477)         (408)         (480)
 Dahod district            30.6     30.0          39.5          84.0                      7.2
 (Tpopu=17860)             (2444)   (2444)        (2126)        (2465)
 Santarampur(tpopu=2239)   35.3     33.3          31.4          65.6                      6.5
                           (342)    (342)         (272)         (345)
 Kadana (tpopu=1174)       33.8     31.1          35.1          34.4                      6.2
                           (189)    (188)         (158)         (190)
 Panchmahal district       34.8     32.5          32.7          16.0                      6.4
 (Tpopu=3413)              (531)    (530)         (430)         (535)
 Total (tpopu=21273)       31.2     30.4          38.4          100.0                     7.1
                           (2975)   (2974)        (2556)        (3000)



Nearly 59 per cent of total population was workers engaged in various activities. Out of
these, 51 percent were male workers and the rest constitutes female workers (Table 2.3).
District wise analysis shows that percentage of total workers was higher in Panchmahal
compared to that of Dahod. Of all the study area, Santarampur (63%) in Panchmahal has




                                              38
highest number of workers to total population followed by Fatehpura (61%) in Dahod
district (Table 3.2).

            Table 3.2: Characteristics of Workers by Talukas and Districts
 Taluka                            Workers
                                   Males        Females Children   All      % of Worker   Males        Females
                                   Percentage to total (%)                  Population    Percentage to total
                                                                                          population (%)
 Fetahpura (T workers=2043)        19.4       19.8      40.9       19.6     60.9          50.4         49.6
                                   (506)      (494)     (28)       (508)
 Dahod (T workers==2084)           20.0       20.0      11.6       20.0     56.7          50.8        49.2
                                   (451)      (450)     (9)        (455)
 Garbada (T workers=1753)          17.0       16.6      17.1       16.8     57.1          51.3        48.7
                                   (380)      (378)     (12)       (382)
 Limkheda (T workers=2582)         24.9       24.6      20.1       24.8     58.5          51.1        48.9
                                   (633)      (624)     (16)       (636)
 Zalod (T workers=1965)            18.7       19.0      10.4       18.8     58.7          50.4        49.6
                                   (467)      (475)     (8)        (478)
 Dahod district (TWorkers=10427)   82.6       83.4      68.3       83.0     58.4          50.8        49.2
                                   (2437)     (2421)    (73)       (2459)
 Santarampur (Tworkers=1415)       65.9       66.4      35.5       66.2     63.2          52.1        47.9
                                   (342)      (337)     (11)       (345)
 Kadana (Tworkers=724)             34.1       33.6      64.5       33.8     61.7          52.6        47.4
                                   (183)      (181)     (23)       (184)
 Panchmahal district (T            17.4       16.6      31.7       17.0     62.7          52.3        47.7
 workers==2139)                    (525)      (518)     (34)       (529)
 Total (T workers=12566)           100.0      100.0     100.0      100.0    59.1          51.0        49.0
                                   (2962)     (2939)    (107)      (2988)




As the aim of Project Sunshine by the Tribal Development Department was to increase
the income of marginal and small farmers of Scheduled Tribe population living below the
poverty line, programme made it mandatory for the implementing agency to distribute
hybrid seed of maize crop along with inputs like fertilisers, pesticides and so on among
these groups on the basis of the priority. Therefore, it was vital to explore caste
composition and BPL status of beneficiary households in selected tribal districts. Table
3.3 shows that out of 3000 beneficiary of this project, 99 percent were families living
below the poverty line. Taluka wise analysis also shows the same trend. Barring three
households, the rest belonged to the Scheduled Tribe. The reason for such a distribution
could be due to the sampling procedure, where beneficiaries of the project which was
directed to benefit ST population, were selected for the detailed study.




                                              39
Table 3.3: Percentage Distribution of Households Living below Poverty Line and Caste by
                                        Districts

      BPL                       Dahod taluka                        Panchmahal taluka              Districts       Total
            Fetahpura   Dahod     Garbada      Limkheda   Zalod   Santarampur    Kadana   Dahod       Panchmahal
               98.8      99.8       100.0         99.5     96.9          97.7    100.0     99.0             98.5    98.9
 Yes          (504)     (455)       (382)        (634)    (465)         (337)    (190)    (2440)           (527)   (2967)
               1.2       0.2         0.0          0.5       3.1          2.3      0.0       1.0             1.5       1.1
 No             (6)       (1)         (0)          (3)     (15)           (8)      (0)     (25)              (8)     (33)
               20.7      18.5        15.5         25.8     19.5          64.5     35.5     82.2             17.8    100.0
 Total        (510)     (456)       (382)        (637)    (480)         (345)    (190)    (2465)           (535)   (3000)
 Caste
 Schedule   100.0       100.0     100.0        99.8       100.0   99.4          100.0     100.0      99.6          99.9
 Tribe      (510)       (456)     (382)        (636)      (480)   (343)         (190)     (2464)     (533)         (2997)

 Other                                         0.2                0.6                     0.04       0.4           0.1
 Backward                                      (1)                (2)                     (1)        (2)           (3)
 Caste
 Total      20.7        18.5      15.5         25.8       19.5    64.5          35.5      82.2       17.8          100.0
            (510)       (456)     (382)        (637)      (480)   (345)         (190)     (2465)     (535)         (3000)



3.1.2. Major and Subsidiary Sources of Income

In order to understand the extent of dependency of households on the different
occupations, each household was asked about the various sources of income during the
previous year of the survey. The household was also asked to mention the major or the
most important source of income. The household that reported more than one source of
income was asked to rank different sources of income in order of their importance to that
household. For the purpose of the present analysis, however, the major source of income
and two subsidiary sources of income were considered.


Table 3.4 provides the distribution of households in Gujarat by their major source of
income. Very limited diversification of economic activities was observed in the area.
Around 93 per cent of the households have reported their major source of income during
the previous year of the survey to have come from cultivation. In Limkheda taluka of
Dahod for instance, more than 88 percent of the households depended on agriculture
which was lowest compared to other talukas of the area under the study. At the subsidiary
level too, dependency on agriculture labourers and animal husbandry was pronounced
(Table 3.4). In the absence of very little diversification of economic activities, but a high
dependency on agricultural sector in both the districts, one would expect the farmers to



                                                     40
be receptive to newer methods of agricultural practices in general and use of hybrid seed
in particular. Whether and to what extent these households derive benefits due to this
programme was examined in later chapters.

Table 3.4: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Major Source of Income and
                           Subsidiary Source of Income


 Major Source                    Dahod taluka                Panchmahal taluka       Districts    Total
 of Income      Fetahpura   Dahod Garbada Limkheda   Zalod   Santara  Kadana     Dahod Panch
                                                             mpur                        mahal
 Major Source of Income
               96.3         92.8    97.6    88.2     89.2    97.1      98.4      92.4     97.6    93.3
 Agriculture   (491)        (423)   (373)   (562)    (428)   (335)     (187)     (2277)   (522)   (2799)
               3.7          7.2     2.4     11.8     10.8    2.9       1.6       7.6      2.4     6.7
 Others        (19)         (33)    (9)     (75)     (52)    (10)      (3)       (188)    (13)    (201)
               20.7         18.5    15.5    25.8     19.5    64.5      35.5      82.2     17.8    100.0
 Total         (510)        (456)   (382)   (637)    (480)   (345)     (190)     (2465)   (535)   (3000)
 Secondary Source of Income
 Animal-        65.3        26.1    35.3    21.5     40.2    70.1      72.6      37.2     71.0    43.2
  husbandry     (333)       (119)   (135)   (137)    (193)   (242)     (138)     (917)    (380)   (1297)
 Agricultural   25.3        59.2    56.8    61.2     41.0    23.5      24.2      48.8     23.7    44.3
 labourers      (129)       (270)   (217)   (390)    (197)   (81)      (46)      (1203)   (127)   (1330)
                9.4         14.7    7.9     17.3     18.8    6.4       3.2       14.0     5.2     12.4
 Others         (48)        (67)    (30)    (110)    (90)    (22)      (6)       (345)    (28)    (373)
                20.7        18.5    15.5    25.8     19.5    64.5      35.5      82.2     17.8    100.0
 Total          (510)       (456)   (382)   (637)    (480)   (345)     (190)     (2465)   (535)   (3000)



Partly, the type of activity of workers was also influenced by the level of education.
Overall, the proportion of illiterate persons (56%) was high in sample households (Table
3.5). Out of the literate population, only 18 percent households had received primary
education and 23 per cent have obtained secondary and higher secondary education. It
was believed that education contributes to agricultural production and productivity
through worker and allocative effects. Its contribution to productivity was much higher in
a modernizing environment than in traditional agriculture.




                                            41
          Table 3.5: Percentage Distribution of Households by Education Qualification


     Education                              Dahod taluka                                             Districts      Total
                                                                              Panchmahal taluka
                        Fetah-     Dahod     Garbada      Limkheda   Zalod   Santaram- Kadana     Dahod    Panch-
                        pura                                                 pur                           mahal
 Upto Standard          18.0       14.7      11.0         22.1       15.0    19.7       25.3      16.8     21.7     17.7
 VII                    (92)       (67)      (42)         (141)      (72)    (68)       (48)      (414)    (116)    (530)
                        35.7       8.8       17.3         13.7       24.8    45.5       27.4      20.0     39.1     23.4
 VIII-XII Standard      (182)      (40)      (66)         (87)       (119)   (157)      (52)      (494)    (209)    (703)
                        4.1        0.4       2.4          1.6        3.1     5.2        0.5       2.3      3.6      2.5
 Others*                (21)       (2)       (9)          (10)       (15)    (18)       (1)       (57)     (19)     (76)
                        42.2       76.1      69.4         62.6       57.1    29.6       46.8      60.9     35.7     56.4
 Illiterate             (215)      (347)     (265)        (399)      (274)   (102)      (89)      (1500)   (191)    (1691)
                        20.7       18.5      15.5         25.8       19.5    64.5       35.5      82.2     17.8     100.0
 Total                  (510)      (456)     (382)        (637)      (480)   (345)      (190)     (2465)   (535)    (3000)
* Others include technical, graduate, post graduate and so on.




3.3. About the Distribution and Actual Use of Hybrid Maize Seed

In order to understand conventional variety of seeds grown by farmers of Dahod and
Panchmahal, we asked farmers about the varieties of seeds before Dekalb hybrid corn
seed was distributed to them. It was found that nearly 99 percent of total farmers have
reported to have grown maize crop in kharif season and 32 per cent have cultivated maize
during Rabi season (Table 3.6). Of the crops cultivated during 2008-09, nearly 90 percent
of total households cultivated maize during kharif season. Of this 81 per cent was
cultivated in Dahod district. Out of total beneficiary farmers, nearly 74 percent of
households have reported to have grown conventional variety of maize seed in their plots
of land. This shows that majority of farmers have grown both the variety of maize in
their small tract of land. As farmers were given hybrid seed free of cost, they were
encouraged to cultivate it. However this did not deter them from cultivating conventional
variety of paddy.




                                                           42
   Table 3.6: Percentage Distribution of Respondents reporting Quantity of Seeds Used in
            Cultivating Maize using Conventional and Monsanto Seed Varieties

 Types of Seeds     Kharif                                                                 Rabi
                    Dahod         Panchmahal    Total                                      Dahod        Panchmahal   Total
 Maize cultivated in the last year (2007-08)
 Hybrid             1.0           7.3           2.1                                        1.4          13.7         3.3
                    (24)          (39)          (63)                                       (11)         (21)         (32)
 Local (Desi)       99.0          92.7          97.9                                       98.6         86.3         96.7
                    (2423)        (495)         (2918)                                     (802)        (132)        (934)
 Total              82.1          17.9          100.0                                      84.2         15.8         100.0
                    (2447)        (534)         (2981)                                     (813)        (153)        (966)
                    [81.6]        [17.8]        [99.4]                                     [27.1]       [5.1]        [32.2]
 Conventional Maize cultivated in the current year (2008-09)
 Local (Desi)       86.0          14.0          100.0                                      100.0                     100.0
                    (1908)        (311)         (2219)                                     (260)                     (260)
                    [63.6]        [10.4]        [74.0]                                     [8.7]                     [8.7]
 Maize using Monsanto seed (2008-09)
 Hybrid             81.5          18.5          100.0                                      100.0                     100.0
                    (2195)        (499)         (2694)                                     (65)                      (65)
                    [73.2]        [16.6]        [89.8]                                     [2.2]                     [2.2]
Figures in parentheses indicate number of observations and figures in [] indicate percentage to total




Guidelines of the project sunshine state that hybrid seed Dekalb was given to farmers by
the implementing agency. In order to cross check this claim, an attempt was made to
examine variety of maize seed, time during which it was given, agencies in charge of
seed distribution and so on. Table 3.7 shows that cent per cent farmers who have obtained
seed have reported that the hybrid variety of maize seed named Dekalb was given to
them. Nearly 94 per cent have stated that it was given in the month of June before the
onset of monsoon. Consequently, they cultivated it in Kharif. While the rest 6 percent
have complained of not getting seed on time. Majority of these farmers were in Zalod
taluka. As a result, they cultivated it in Rabi season.


46 per cent of farmers reported to have been received maize seed from the Sarpanch of
the village (Table 3.7) and 30 percent had received it from Dairy Secretary.




                                                                  43
 Table 3.7: Percentage Distribution of Households Reporting Sources of Obtaining Hybrid
                   Seeds, Month of Seed Distribution and Type of Seeds

  Rwse             Taluka by Dahod                                           Taluka by             District
                                                                             Panchmahal                               Total

                   Fetahpura        Dahod       Garbada   Limkheda   Zalod   Santaram     Kadana   Dahod      Panch
                                                                             pur                              mahal
 Who gave the seeds
 Sarpanch    25.7                   82.1        67.5      35.8       81.1    0.3                   56.3       0.2     46.1
             (126)                  (353)       (247)     (192)      (356)   (1)                   (1274)     (1)     (1275)
 Dairy       71.8                               0.3                  2.1     90.7         100.0    16.0       94.0    30.2
 Secretary   (352)                              (1)                  (9)     (292)        (180)    (362)      (472)   (834)
 NGOs                                           11.5      34.5                                     10.0               8.2
                                                (42)      (185)                                    (227)              (227)
 Taluka            2.2              17.4        19.7      11.5       10.5    9.0                   11.8       5.8     10.7
 Panchayat         (11)             (75)        (72)      (62)       (46)    (29)                  (266)      (29)    (295)
 Others            0.2              0.5         1.1       18.2       6.4                           5.9                4.8
                   (1)              (2)         (4)       (98)       (28)                          (133)              (133)
 Total             21.7             19.0        16.2      23.7       19.4    64.1         35.9     81.8       18.2    100.0
                   (490)            (430)       (366)     (537)      (439)   (322)        (180)    (2262)     (502)   (2764)
                                                                                                                      [92.1]
 When did they give the seed
 June 2008         98.4             94.7        95.6      93.5       88.4    92.5         100.0    94.1       95.2    94.3
                   (482)            (407)       (350)     (502)      (388)   (298)        (180)    (2129)     (478)   (2607)
 July 2008         1.6              5.3         4.4       6.5        11.6    7.5                   5.9        4.8     5.7
                   (8)              (23)        (16)      (35)       (51)    (24)                  (133)      (24)    (157)
 Total             21.7             19.0        16.2      23.7       19.4    64.1         35.9     81.8       18.2    100.0
                   (490)            (430)       (366)     (537)      (439)   (322)        (180)    (2262)     (502)   (2764)
                                                                                                                      [92.1]
 Type of seeds given
 Hybrid       100.0                 100.0       100.0     100.0      100.0   100.0        100.0    100.0      100.0   100.0
 (Monsanto    (490)                 (430)       (366)     (537)      (439)   (322)        (180)    (2262)     (502)   (2764)
 Dekalb                                                                                                               [92.1]
 Yello)
 Total        21.7                  19.0        16.2      23.7       19.4    64.1         35.9     81.8       18.2    100.0
              (490)                 (430)       (366)     (537)      (439)   (322)        (180)    (2262)     (502)   (2764)
Figures in parentheses indicate number of observations


In order to validate claims of the implementing agency about distributing seeds among
farmers, we asked farmers about the quantity of hybrid maize seeds that they have
obtained from implementing agency, quantity they had actually put to use, time of
distributing seed, agency which was distributing seeds, reasons for not utilizing the given
quantity and so on. Table 3.8 shows that nearly 98 per cent of the total households have
reported to have received hybrid maize seed. However, nearly 90 per cent of the
households have actually cultivated it in their fields. Free inputs like seeds, fertilisers and
so on encouraged farmers to experiment with growing the new variety of seed along with
their conventional variety.




                                                          44
 Table 3.8: Percentage Distribution of Households Reporting Getting the Hybrid Seed and
                                         Using It
Details    Taluka by Dahod                                    Taluka by            District            Total
                                                              Panchmahal
           Fetahpura   Dahod    Garbada   Limkheda    Zalod   Santaram   Kadana    Dahod       Panch
                                                              pur                              mahal
Received Hybrid Maize Seed
Yes       96.1         94.3     95.8      84.3        91.5    93.3       94.7      91.8        93.8    98.0
          (490)        (430)    (366)     (537)       (439)   (322)      (180)     (2262)      (502)   (2764)
No        3.9          5.7      4.2       15.7        8.5     6.7        5.3       8.2         6.2     2.0
          (20)         (26)     (16)      (100)       (41)    (23)       (10)      (203)       (33)    (236)
Total     20.7         18.5     15.5      25.8        19.5    64.5       35.5      89.2        19.4    100.0
          (510)        (456)    (382)     (637)       (480)   (345)      (190)     (2465)      (535)   (3000)
Used Hybrid Maize Seed
Yes        92.7        93.0     95.0      81.8        88.8    93.0       94.7      89.5        93.6    90.3
           (473)       (424)    (363)     (521)       (426)   (321)      (180)     (2207)      (501)   (2708)
No         7.3         7.0      5.0       18.2        11.3    7.0        5.3       10.5        6.4     9.7
           (37)        (32)     (19)      (116)       (54)    (24)       (10)      (258)       (34)    (292)
Total (%   20.7        18.5     15.5      25.8        19.5    64.5       35.5      89.2        19.4    100.0
to total   (510)       (456)    (382)     (637)       (480)   (345)      (190)     (2465)      (535)   (3000)
given)




When asked about the quantity of seeds given by implementing agencies to farmers,
nearly 87 percent have reported to have been given 10 kgs of hybrid maize seed (Table
3.9). Out of the rest, nearly 106 farmers have reported to have obtained 5 kilograms of
seeds only while other 27 farmers have obtained less than 5 kilograms. There were 9
farmers who have received less than 1 kg of seed. On the other hand, there were 8
farmers who had received 20 kilograms of maize. There was one farmer who had
reported to have received 40 kilograms of maize. As against this, nearly 8 percent farmers
which were considered to be the beneficiary of this programme have reported to have
been left out in getting this benefit of hybrid seed of maize. as this project aims to check
leakages, such an observations emphasises the need for better monitoring of the work of
input distribution.


In order to understand the leakages of seed that has been distributed among farmers, we
asked questions relating to quantity of seeds used by farmers, reasons for the use and so
on. Table 3.9 shows that 79 percent utilised seeds given to them and the rest 11 per cent
of the farmers used less than or equal to 5 kilograms of seed. Nearly 293 farmers have
reported to have not used the hybrid maize seed that was given to them. When asked
about the reason, out of 252 farmers who have reported some reasons, nearly 31 per cent



                                            45
of farmers have stated that they have kept for Rabi season and the same per cent of
farmers have reported to have given it away to their relatives. As seed was given for free,
farmers were not convinced about the returns accruing from the hybrid maize.
Consequently, some farmers stored hybrid seed variety to be used in the Rabi season. this
means that high returns earned from maize crops grown using hybrid seed would
motivate farmers to cultivate hybrid seed stored during Rabi season also. As hybrid seed
was cultivated on an experimental basis, they used some quantity of seed and shared the
rest among their relatives or kept it for Rabi season


   Table 3.9: Percentage Distribution of Households Reporting Quantity of Seeds Given,
                   Quantity of Seeds Used and Reasons for the Change

Details                         Taluka by Dahod                       Taluka by        District
                                                                     Panchmahal                     Total
              Fetahpura    Dahod    Garbada   Limkheda   Zalod   Santaram Kadana   Dahod    Panch
                                                                 pur                        mahal
Quantity of seed given
Did not get    3.9          5.7      4.2      15.7       8.5     6.7      5.3      8.2      6.2     7.9
               (20)         (26)     (16)     (100)      (41)    (23)     (10)     (203)    (33)    (236)
Less than or 1.8                     6.5      7.1        9.6     0.6      3.2      5.1      1.5     4.4
equal to 5kg   (9)                   (25)     (45)       (46)    (2)      (6)      (125)    (8)     (133)
10 kg          93.7         94.3     88.7     77.1       81.7    92.8     90.5     86.4     92.0    87.4
               (478)        (430)    (339)    (491)      (392)   (320)    (172)    (2130)   (492)   (2622)
10+ kg         0.6                   0.5      0.2        0.2              1.1      0.3      0.4     0.3
               (3)                   (2)      (1)        (1)              (2)      (7)      (2)     (9)
Total          20.7         18.5     15.5     25.8       19.5    64.5     35.5     82.2     17.8    100.0
               (510)        (456)    (382)    (637)      (480)   (345)    (190)    (2465)   (535)   (3000)
Quantity of seed used
Did not get    7.3          7.0      5.0      18.2       11.5    7.0      5.3      10.5     6.4     9.8
               (37)         (32)     (19)     (116)      (55)    (24)     (10)     (259)    (34)    (293)
Less than or 6.1            5.9      10.5     16.2       22.1    4.6      3.7      12.5     4.3     11.0
equal to 5kg   (31)         (27)     (40)     (103)      (106)   (16)     (7)      (307)    (23)    (330)
10 kg          86.1         87.1     84.3     65.6       66.3    88.4     90.0     76.8     89.0    79.0
               (439)        (397)    (322)    (418)      (318)   (305)    (171)    (1894)   (476)   (2370)
10+ kg         0.6                   0.3                 0.2              1.1      0.2      0.4     0.2
               (3)                   (1)                 (1)              (2)      (5)      (2)     (7)
Total          20.7         18.5     15.5     25.8       19.5    64.5     35.5     82.2     17.8    100.0
               (510)        (456)    (382)    (637)      (480)   (345)    (190)    (2465)   (535)   (3000)
Reasons for using partially the seed
Given late     32.3         66.7     6.3      33.8       18.4                      30.4             27.4
               (10)         (18)     (1)      (26)       (14)                      (69)             (69)
Stored for     48.4         3.7      6.3      39.0       19.7    60.9     50.0     27.3     60.0    30.6
Rabi           (15)         (1)      (1)      (30)       (15)    (14)     (1)      (62)     (15)    (77)
Given to       6.5          22.2     75.0     14.3       56.6    8.7      50.0     32.6     12.0    30.6
relatives      (2)          (6)      (12)     (11)       (43)    (2)      (1)      (74)     (3)     (77)
Others         12.9         7.4      12.5     13.0       5.3     30.4              9.7      28.0    11.5
               (4)          (2)      (2)      (10)       (4)     (7)               (22)     (7)     (29)
Total          13.7         11.9     7.0      33.9       33.5    92.0     8.0      90.1     9.9     100.0
               (31)         (27)     (16)     (77)       (76)    (23)     (2)      (227)    (25)    (252)




                                              46
Place of Getting Seeds and Fertilisers

Majority of households have reported to have obtained seeds and fertilisers from the
fertiliser depot. Before distributing seeds and other inputs to beneficiaries, NGOs had
devised various methods to verify the beneficiary household (Table 3.10). They cross
validated the names obtained from BPL list with school leaving certificate of children of
beneficiaries, ration cards and so on. This was reported by almost all the study
households. Such a verification and proper selection of the beneficiary helped in
addressing the target group and prevented leakages to a large extent.


Table 3.10 Percentage Distribution of Respondents Reporting Method of Distributing Seeds
                        and Chemical Fertilisers among Farmers
Details                 Dahod taluka                                            Panchmahal taluka         District      Total
                        Fetahpura    Dahod       Garbada   Limkheda   Zalod   Santarampur   Kadana   Dahod Panch
                                                                                                                mahal
Distribution            100.0            100.0   100.0     99.6       100.0   100.0        99.4      99.9       99.8    99.9
from(ngo,               (490)            (435)   (370)     (540)      (443)   (322)        (179)     (2278) (501)       (2779)
certificate to
beneficiaries and
others) fertilizer
depot
Others*                                                    0.4                             0.6       0.1      0.2       0.1
                                                           (2)                             (1)       (2)      (1)       (3)
Total                   21.5             19.1    16.2      23.8       19.4    64.1         35.9      100.0    100.0     100.0
                        (490)            (435)   (370)     (542)      (443)   (322)        (180)     (2280)   (502)     (2782)
Chemical Fertiliser
 Distribution from
(ngo, certificate to
                            98.5          99.8    100.0       99.3     99.8        97.2      98.9     99.4      97.8     99.1
 beneficiaries and
                           (473)         (434)    (371)      (537)    (443)       (312)     (179)    (2258)    (491)    (2749)
 others) fertilizer
       depot
                            1.5           0.2      0.0        0.7      0.2         2.8        1.1       0.6      2.2       0.9
        Others*              (7)           (1)      (0)        (4)      (1)         (9)       (2)      (13)     (11)      (24)
                            21.1          19.2     16.3       23.8     19.6        63.9      36.1     100.0    100.0     100.0
         Total             (480)         (435)    (371)      (541)    (444)       (321)     (181)    (2271)    (502)    (2773)
Chemical fertilisers given
Yes                    96.3              94.3    96.1      83.5       91.9    92.8         95.3      91.7     93.6      92.1
                       (491)             (430)   (367)     (532)      (441)   (320)        (181)     (2261)   (501)     (2762)
No                     3.7               5.7     3.9       16.5       8.1     7.2          4.7       8.3      6.4       7.9
                       (19)              (26)    (15)      (105)      (39)    (25)         (9)       (204)    (34)      (238)
Total                  20.7              18.5    15.5      25.8       19.5    64.5         35.5      82.2     17.8      100.0
                       (510)             (456)   (382)     (637)      (480)   (345)        (190)     (2465)   (535)     (3000)
Quantity of chemical fertilisers given
Less than 150 kg        0.2              1.2     4.4       3.2        0.5     0.6          0.6       1.8      0.6       1.6
                        (1)              (5)     (16)      (17)       (2)     (2)          (1)       (41)               (44)
150 kg                  98.4             98.6    94.0      96.2       89.3    99.1         95.0      95.4     97.6      95.8
                        (483)            (424)   (345)     (512)      (394)   (317)        (172)     (2158)   (489)     (2647)
Others                  1.4              0.2     1.6       0.6        10.2    0.3          4.4       2.7      1.8       2.6
                        (7)              (1)     (6)       (3)        (45)    (1)          (8)       (62)     (9)       (71)
Total                   21.7             19.0    16.2      23.5       19.5    63.9         35.5      81.9     18.1      100.0
                        (491)            (430)   (367)     (532)      (441)   (320)        (181)     (2261)   (501)     (2762)*
                                                                                                                        [92.1]




                                                           47
Who gave chemical fertilisers
Sarpanch               25.7           82.1    67.5     36.9        86.7     0.3                       57.5     0.2     46.9
                       (126)          (353)   (247)    (191)       (358)    (1)                                (1)     (1276)
Dairy Secretary        72.0                   0.3                  2.2      90.6           100.0      16.4     94.0    30.7
                       (353)                  (1)                  (9)      (290)          (181)      (363)    (471)   (834)
ngo                                           11.5     34.9                                           10.1             8.2
                                              (42)     (181)                                          (223)            (223)
Taluka Panchayat       2.2            17.4    19.7     12.0        11.1     9.1                       12.0     5.8     10.9
                       (11)           (75)    (72)     (62)        (46)     (29)                      (266)    (29)    (295)
Others                                0.5     1.1      16.2                                           4.1              3.3
                                      (2)     (4)      (84)                                           (90)             (90)
Total                  22.1           19.4    16.5     23.4        18.6     63.9           36.1       81.6     18.4    100.0
                       (490)          (430)   (366)    (518)       (413)    (320)          (181)      (2217)   (501)   (2718)
                                                                                                                       [98.4]
When did they give chemical fertilisers
June                   98.4           94.7    95.6     93.2        88.4     92.5           100.0      94.1     95.2    94.3
                       (483)          (407)   (351)    (496)       (390)    (296)          (181)      (2127)   (477)   (2604)
July                   1.6            5.3     4.4      6.8         11.6     7.5                       5.9      4.8     5.7
                       (8)            (23)    (16)     (36)        (51)     (24)                      (134)    (24)    (158)
Total                  21.7           19.0    16.2     23.5        19.5     63.9           36.1       81.9     18.1    100.0
                       (491)          (430)   (367)    (532)       (441)    (320)          (181)      (2261)   (501)   (2762)
                                                                                                                       [92.1]
* Others include ---
* the rest 238 farmers (7.9 percent) did not get chemical fertilisers
Figures in parentheses indicate number of observations and figures in [] indicate percentage to total 3000 farmer
households.



Besides seeds, implementing agency was also required to distribute 150 kilograms of
chemical fertilisers. In order to understand the quality of distribution process and trace
the leakages, we tried to enquire about the actual quantity of fertilisers received by farmer
beneficiaries. Table 3.10 shows that nearly 92 percent of the respondents agreed of
having received chemical fertilisers. Nearly 96 percent of farmers have reported to have
received 150 kilograms of fertilisers while 2 percent have reported to have received less
than 150 kilograms. From this analysis it appears many nearly 4 percent of beneficiary
farmers have either received less than the required quantity of fertilisers or more than the
required norm specified by the department. After isolating these cases, we found that
there were 8 cases where farmers have reported to have received more than 150 kgs of
fertilisers (7 farmers who have reported to have received 300 kgs of fertiliser and one
farmer who have received 160 kgs of fertilisers), 3 of them belong to Fatehpura taluka of
Dahod district and 2 farmers from Kadana taluka of Panchmahal district. One farmer
each from Zalod, Dahod and Limkheda talukas of Dahod have reported to have obtained
fertilisers more than the norm specified. There were 107 farmers in the total study area
who have reported to have received less than the required quantity of chemical fertilisers,
highest being in Zalod taluka (46 farmers) followed by Garbada (22 farmers), Limkheda



                                                      48
(19 farmers), Kadana (9 farmers), Fatehpura (8 farmers) and Santarampur (3 farmers).
These farmers have received fertilisers within the range of 0.5 kilogram to 125 kilograms,
highest being 50 kilograms.


We tried to ask the source from which they have obtained chemical fertilisers. Table 3.10
shows that nearly 47 percent of farmer beneficiaries who have received chemical
fertilisers have stated that they have received from Sarpanch, while 31 percent have
reported to have obtained it from dairy secretary. Nearly 94 percent of farmers have
reported to have obtained chemical fertilisers during the month of June. This had helped
them in cultivating maize seed on time. Nearly 6 per cent of farmer beneficiaries, mainly
belonging to Zalod and Garbada have reported to have received in the month of July.
This made it difficult for them to cultivate maize during monsoon.

 Table 3.11: Percentage Distribution of Households Reporting Having Gotten Urea, Potash
                                         and DAP

Urea,          Taluka by Dahod                                    Taluka by         District           Total*
potash,                                                           Panchmahal
chemical       Fetahpura     Dahod   Garbada   Limkheda   Zalod   Santaram Kadana   Dahod      Panch
fertiliser                                                        pur                          mahal
given
Urea           96.1          93.4    92.7      82.3       91.5    92.5     95.3     90.6       93.5    91.1
               (490)         (426)   (354)     (524)      (439)   (319)    (181)    (2233)     (500)   (2733)
DAP            96.3          94.3    95.5      82.3       91.5    92.5     94.2     91.2       93.1    91.6
               (491)         (430)   (365)     (524)      (439)   (319)    (179)    (2249)     (498)   (2747)
Potash         96.3          94.1    94.2      83.5       90.8    92.5     93.7     91.2       92.9    91.5
               (491)         (429)   (360)     (532)      (436)   (319)    (178)    (2248)     (497)   (2745)
Total (N)      510           456     382       637        480     345      190      2465       535     3000

* Rest households were not given


When asked separately about the constituents of chemical fertilisers and the quantity of
each, nearly 91 per cent of farmers stated that they have obtained urea and nearly 92
percent of farmer beneficiaries have reported to have obtained DAP and Potash. While
the rest have reported to have not received urea, DAP and Potash (Table 3.11).


We have attempted to obtain information separately for urea, DAP and Potash. Out of
2762 farmers who have used urea in their field (97 percent), nearly 93 percent have
reported to have used urea between the range of 25 to 50 kilograms (Table 3.12). Nearly



                                                  49
93 per cent of farmer beneficiaries have utilised the full quantity that they have received
i.e. 50 kilograms while the rest utilised some of it and stored the rest for future use. Out
of the total quantity of urea received farmers of Zalod taluka used less than the given
quantity of fertilisers.


Table 3.12 shows that 97 percent of farmers reported to have used the amount of DAP
given by the department in their field for cultivating maize crop. Out of them, nearly 94
percent of farmers have used total quantity of DAP that was given to them, while the
same percentage of farmers have utilised Potash in their field for cultivation of maize
crop.
  Table 3.12: Percentage Distribution of Households Reporting Having Used Urea, Potash
                                         and DAP
 Using chemical fertilisers
 Given                                Talukas of Dahod                   Talukas of Panchmahal            District         Total

                 Fetahpura    Dahod      Garbada   Limkheda     Zalod   Santarampur   Kadana     Dahod        Panchmahal
 Yes             99.0         99.8       99.5      99.1         99.5    99.7          100.0      99.3         99.8         99.4
                 (486)        (429)      (365)     (527)        (439)   (319)         (181)      (2246)       (500)        (2746)
 No              1.0          0.2        0.5       0.9          0.5     0.3                      0.7          0.2          0.6
                 (5)          (1)        (2)       (5)          (2)     (1)                      (15)         (1)          (16)
 Total           21.7         19.0       16.2      23.5         19.5    63.9          36.1       81.9         18.1         100.0
                 (491)        (430)      (367)     (532)        (441)   (320)         (181)      (2261)       (501)        (2762)
                                                                                                                           [92.1]
 Using quantity of urea
 Less than 50    4.8          0.9        2.6       2.9          16.9    13.2          8.9        5.6         11.6          6.7
 kgs             (23)         (4)        (9)       (15)         (74)    (38)          (16)       (125)       (54)          (179)
 50 kgs          94.6         99.1       97.4      96.9         83.1    86.8          89.9       94.2        88.0          93.1
                 (457)        (421)      (342)     (501)        (363)   (250)         (161)      (2084)      (411)         (2495)
 50+             0.6                               1.1                                1.1        0.2         0.4           0.2
                 (3)                               (2)                                (2)        (4)         (2)           (6)
 Total           21.8         19.2       15.9      23.4         19.7    61.7          38.3       82.6        17.4          100.0
                 (483)        (425)      (351)     (517)        (437)   (288)         (179)      (2213)      (467)         (2680)
                                                                                                                           [97.0]
 Quantity of DAP used
 Less than 50    2.7            0.9       3.3      3.7          17.3    6.6           3.9        5.5         5.6           5.5
 kgs             (13)           (4)       (12)     (19)         (75)    (21)          (7)        (123)       (28)          (151)
 50 kgs          96.7           99.1      96.7     96.1         82.7    93.4          95.0       94.3        94.0          94.2
                 (467)          (425)     (351)    (496)        (359)   (298)         (170)      (2098)      (468)         (2566)
 50+             0.6                               1.1                                1.1        0.2         0.4           0.2
                 (3)                               (2)                                (2)        (4)         (2)           (6)
 Total           21.7           19.3      16.3     23.2         19.5    64.1          35.9       81.7        18.3          100.0
                 (483)          (429)     (363)    (516)        (434)   (319)         (179)      (2225)      (498)         (2723)
                                                                                                                           [97.0]
 Quantity of Potash used
 Less than 50    2.9            0.9       2.8        3.5        17.1    12.3          3.4        5.4         9.1           6.0
 kgs             (14)           (4)       (10)       (18)       (73)    (38)          (6)        (119)       (44)          (163)
 50 kgs          96.4           99.1      97.2       96.4       82.9    87.7          95.5       94.4        90.5          93.7
                 (460)          (424)     (347)      (502)      (355)   (272)         (168)      (2088)      (440)         (2528)
 50+             0.6                                 0.2                              1.1        0.2         0.4           0.2
                 (3)                                 (1)                              (2)        (4)         (2)           (6)
 Total           21.6           19.4      16.1       23.6       19.4    63.8          36.2       82.0        18.0          100.0
                 (477)          (428)     (357)      (521)      (428)   (310)         (176)      (2211)      (486)         (2697)
                                                                                                                           [97.0]



                                                           50
Some farmers had reported that they partially used hybrid seeds of maize, DAP, Urea and
potash while cultivating hybrid maize in their field. We asked them question regarding
the reasons for partial use of seeds, fertilisers like DAP, urea and Potash and so on. Table
3.13 shows that nearly 47 percent farmers have reported that as they were not convinced
with the quantity of seeds to be used in their field, they relied on their past experience and
used the required quantum of seed and stored the rest for future years. As farmers
themselves were experimenting with the hybrid seed, nearly 22 per cent had given it to
their relatives to experiment and cultivate the new seed. The rest 15 per cent have stated
that as seeds were given late, they would cultivate it in the coming season or year.


Table 3.13 shows that one third of the farmers using urea stated that they use it at
different stages of the growth of the plant. While nearly 78 per cent farmers have reported
of using DAP along with potash and urea and 69 per cent of farmers have reported to be
using potash with DAP (Table 3.13).


Table 3.13: Percentage Distribution of Reasons Reported by Households for Partially Using
                         Different Types of Chemical Fertilisers

Details                                        Taluka by Dahod                  Taluka by Panchmahal   District                Total
                           Fetahpura   Dahod       Garbada   Limkheda   Zalod   Santarampur   Kadana   Dahod      Panchmahal
Reasons for Partially Using Chemical Fertilisers
Stored and will use in     33.3                              4.3        15.7    82.1          85.7     16.2       82.7         46.5
another season             (10)                              (1)        (8)     (69)          (12)     (19)       (81)         (100)
Gave to relatives          6.7         75.0        100.0     26.1       47.1    2.4           7.1      37.6       3.1          21.9
                           (2)         (3)         (9)       (6)        (24)    (2)           (1)      (44)       (3)          (47)
Received late and so       20.0        25.0                  47.8       17.6    7.1                    23.1       6.1          15.3
would use during Rabi      (6)         (1)                   (11)       (9)     (6)                    (27)       (6)          (33)
season
Other Reasons*            40.0                               21.7       19.6    8.3           7.1      23.1       8.2          16.3
                          (12)                               (5)        (10)    (7)           (1)      (27)       (8)          (35)
Total                     25.6         3.4         7.7       19.7       43.6    85.7          14.3     54.4       45.6         100.0
                          (30)         (4)         (9)       (23)       (51)    (84)          (14)     (117)      (98)         (215)
Reasons for Partially Using Urea
Used at different          61.2        98.6        98.0      85.9       62.3    61.6          43.3     80.3       55.0         75.6
stages/after 20 days       (292)       (419)       (343)     (452)      (271)   (197)         (78)     (1777)     (275)        (2052)
Used along with DAP,       36.7        1.4         1.4       1.0        22.3    25.3          21.1     13.0       23.8         15.0
urea and potash at the     (175)       (6)         (5)       (5)        (97)    (81)          (38)     (288)      (119)        (407)
time of sowing during
monsoon
Used along with potash     2.1                     0.6       13.1       15.4    13.1          35.6     6.7        21.2         9.4
during different periods   (10)                    (2)       (69)       (67)    (42)          (64)     (148)      (106)        (254)
Total                      21.6        19.2        15.8      23.8       19.7    64.0          36.0     81.6       18.4         100.0
                           (477)       (425)       (350)     (526)      (435)   (320)         (180)    (2213)     (500)        (2713)
                                                                                                                               [90.4]
Reasons for Partially Using DAP
With Potash                64.         98.5        97.3      88.5       58.5    48.1          53.3     82.0       50.5         77.5




                                                             51
                             (242)          (399)      (327)        (448)         (216)      (87)             (81)         (1632)    (168)   (1800)
 Used along with urea at     22.1           1.2        0.3          11.3          34.7       23.8             35.5         13.8      29.1    16.0
 different periods           (83)           (5)        (1)          (57)          (128)      (43)             (54)         (274)     (97)    (371)
 Used along with urea        13.3           0.2        2.4          0.2           6.8        28.2             11.2         4.3       20.4    6.6
 and potash at different     (50)           (1)        (8)          (1)           (25)       (51)             (17)         (85)      (68)    (153)
 periods
 Total                       18.8           20.3       16.9         25.4          18.5       54.4             45.6         85.7      14.3    100.0
                             (375)          (405)      (336)        (506)         (369)      (181)            (152)        1991)     (333)   (2324)
                                                                                                                                             [77.4]
 Reasons for Partially Using Potash
 Used along with urea        100.0                     100.0                      96.3                                     92.3              69.2
 and DAP at different        (45)                      (1)                        (26)                                     (72)              (72)
 periods
 Used along with urea at                    100.0                                 3.7        100.0            100.0        7.7       100.0   30.8
 different periods                          (5)                                   (1)        (4)              (22)         (6)       (26)    (32)
 Total                       57.7           6.4        1.3                        34.6       15.4             84.6         75.0      25.0    100.0
                             (45)           (5)        (1)                        (27)       (4)              (22)         (78)      (26)    (104)
                                                                                                                                             [3.4]
* Other reasons include small land holding, unaware about the use of fertilisers, fertilisers used in growing other crops, believed that
excess use of fertilisers will adversely affect the productivity of crops,




3.4. Total Area under Cultivation, Area under Conventional and Hybrid Maize


Table 3.14 shows that out of 13,480 acres of total land cultivated by farmers in Dahod
and Panchmahal districts, nearly 47 per cent of the land was irrigated and the rest was
unirrigated. The need for irrigation during Rabi and summer season was high which was
reflected by greater percentage of cultivated area under irrigation in both these seasons.
Out of total land in the study area, area of land by farmers of Dahod district was higher
than Panchmahal. This has resulted due to the sampling. The selection of farmer
beneficiaries for the study in both the districts was in proportion to the total farmers who
have benefited from the hybrid seed. The number of beneficiaries in Dahod district was
greater than that of Panchmahal. Consequently, more number of farmers from this district
were selected for the study and hence the greater area under cultivation and irrigation.
Thus inter district comparison will not be of much significance. Intra district variations in
pattern would reflect on the characteristics of population, land use pattern, and so on with
its implication on nature of diffusion of new hybrid technology among farmer
beneficiaries.

Out of total land cultivated in Dahod district, nearly 42 percent was irrigated and the rest
was unirrigated land (Table 3.14). On the other hand, area under irrigation (63%) in
Panchmahal district was greater than that of unirrigated land (37%). Farmers of



                                                                   52
Limkheda have larger proportion of cultivable and irrigated land followed by that of
Fatehpura and Zalod talukas. However, cultivation of crops in summer season in
Fetahpura compared to other talukas of Dahod district. This was clear from table 3.15
which shows that cropping intensity and irrigation intensity was reported to be higher for
Fetahpura followed by Limkheda in Dahod district. This throws light at the better
availability of sources of irrigation in Fetahpura compared to other study areas of Dahod
district. The cropping pattern of the study area was 183 while irrigation intensity was 149
(Table 3.15).




                                            53
                        Table 3.14: Percentage Distribution of Cultivated Area by Seasons and Status of Irrigation: Districts and Talukas

 Taluka by District                          Kharif                                     Rabi                                     Summer                             Total
                              Total       Irrigated Unirrigated         Total      Irrigated Unirrigated         Total       Irrigated  Unirrigated   Total    Irrigated Unirrigated

 Dahod
 Fetahpura                    20.9        32.7         18.3             22.6       24.1         17.4             59.2        64.2          73.5       22.5     27.5      18.8
                              (510)       (166)        (413)            (479)      (435)        (100)            (74)        (60)          (25)       (510)    (437)     (415)
  Dahod                       20.3        0.6          24.5             15.8       10.0         33.7             2.5                       3.7        18.1     7.4       25.8
                              (456)       (4)          (452)            (366)      (188)        (173)            (3)                       (1)        (456)    (188)     (452)
  Garbada                     17.6        0.3          21.5             14.1       12.2         19.2             3.7         4.9                      15.9     9.1       20.9
                              (381)       (3)          (377)            (303)      (205)        (101)            (7)         (6)                      (381)    (205)     (377)
 Limkheda                     22.4        46.4         17.2             26.2       33.1         4.9              20.1        21.1          3.4        23.9     35.9      15.0
                              (635)       (245)        (446)            (598)      (583)        (1)              (33)        (21)          (1)        (635)    (587)     (446)
 Zalod                        18.9        20.1         18.5             21.1       20.7         24.8             14.5        9.7           19.3       19.7     20.2      19.6
                              (478)       (114)        (405)            (439)      (361)        (121)            (16)        (11)          (7)        (478)    (362)     (405)
 Total                        82.1        59.9         88.5             83.2       81.5         82.7             41.5        36.5          42.7       80.7     72.2      86.5
                              (2460)      (532)        (2093)           (2185)     (1772)       (537)            (133)       (98)          (34)       (2460)   (1779)    (2095)
                                          [18.0]       [81.6]                      [75.8]       [23.3]                       [61.1]        [25.9]              [42.4]    [56.7]
 Panchmahal
 Santarampur                  65.4        67.9         57.3             67.8       67.9         50.3             72.4        71.9          76.4       67.2     68.5      57.5
                              (344)       (230)        (180)            (282)      (264)        (65)             (113)       (94)          (33)       (344)    (294)     (183)
 Kadana                       34.6        32.1         42.7             32.2        32.1        49.7             27.6        28.1          23.6       32.8     31.5      42.5
                              (190)       (92)          (133)            (148)      (130)        (64)             (47)        (39)          (16)       (190)    (144)     (150)
  Total                       17.9        40.1         11.5              16.8      18.5         17.3             58.5        63.5          57.3       19.3     27.8      13.5
                              (534)       (322)         (313)           (430)       (394)        (129)            (160)       (133)         (49)       (534)    (438)     (333)
                                          [55.3]       [48.7]                      [84.9]       [24.1]                       [75.5]        [24.7]              [63.2]    [[37.0]
 Total (sum in acres)         7572        1866         5735             5290       4089         1241             617         429           156        13480    6384      7132
                              (2994)      (854)        (2406)           (2615)     (2166)       (666)            (293)       (231)         (83)       (2994)   (2217)    (2428)
                                          [24.6]       [75.7]                      [77.3]       [23.5]                       [69.5]        [25.2]              [47.4]    [52.9]
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate number of observations and figures in [] indicate percentage of irrigated and unirrigated area to its total




                                                                                                   54
           Table 3.15: Cropping Intensity and Irrigation Intensity by Talukas and Districts


 Talukas / District                                                 Cropping Intensity   Irrigation intensity

 Dahod
 Fetahpura                                                          193.1                150.8
                                                                    (510)                (435)
 Dahod                                                              161.4                102.1
                                                                    (456)                (188)
 Garbada                                                            163.1                102.6
                                                                    (381)                (205)
 Limkheda                                                           190.3                143.3
                                                                    (635)                (583)
 Zalod                                                              184.5                134.7
                                                                    (478)                (361)
 Total                                                              180.2                134.3
                                                                    (2460)               (1772)
 Panchmahal
 Santarampur                                                        200.5                224.3
                                                                    (344)                (264)
 Kadana                                                             188.8                200.9
                                                                    (190)                (130)
 Total                                                              196.4                216.6
                                                                    (534)                (394)
 Total                                                              183.1                149.3
                                                                    (2994)               (2166)
Note: figures in parentheses indicate number of observations




Out of total cultivable area, in kharif season, nearly 66 per cent of area was cultivated under
Hybrid maize (Table 3.16). Majority of this area was rainfed. Contrary to this, in Rabi season,
only 19 per cent of the total cultivated area was under hybrid maize. Table 3.17 shows that
the dependence on sources of irrigation was relatively higher during Rabi season as compared
to Kharif. Well form a predominant source of irrigation followed by rivers, ponds and so on.




                                                               55
   Table 3.16: Percentage Distribution of Land under Maize Crop to Total Crop Cultivated by Season
 Talukas/Districts        kharif                                Rabi
                          Total cultivated       Irrigated      Total cultivated      Irrigated
 Dahod                                         (% of maize cultivated to total)
 Fetahpura                56.3                   8.1            9.8                   12.2
                          (507)                  (15)           (116)                 (116)
 Dahod                    76.9                                  2.3                   4.8
                          (453)                                 (12)                  (12)
 Garbada                  71.0                                  3.6                   4.9
                          (381)                                 (23)                  (22)
 Limkheda                 61.0                                  44.1                  45.8
                          (627)                                 (474)                 (474)
 Zalod                    63.4                                  19.4                  25.9
                          (479)                                 (188)                 (185)
 Total                    65.5                   2.6            18.8                  24.5
                          (2447)                 (15)           (813)                 (809)
 Panchmahal
 Santarampur              65.6                   43.5           24.1                  28.2
                          (344)                  (123)          (139)                 (139)
 Kadana                   70.2                   4.5            4.5                   5.4
                          (190)                  (3)            (14)                  (14)
 Total                    67.2                   31.0           17.8                  20.9
                          (534)                  (126)          (153)                 (153)
 Total
 Total                    65.8                   14.0           18.6                  23.8
                          (2981)                 (141)          (966)                 (962)
Note: figures in parentheses indicate number of observations


  Table 3.17: Percentage Distribution of Respondents reporting Sources of Irrigation Used in
              Cultivating Maize using Conventional and Monsanto Seed Varieties
 Sources of irrigation                      Kharif                               Rabi
                         Dahod         Panchmahal       Total       Dahod    Panchmahal       Total
 Conventional Maize cultivated in the last year (2007-08)
 Well                    100.0         96.8             97.2        83.1     90.8             84.3
                         (15)          (122)            (137)       (672)    (139)            (811)
 River/ Kotarl                         0.8              0.7         12.1     5.2              11.0
                                       (1)              (1)         (98)     (8)              (106)
 Talav (pond,tank)                     0.8              0.7         3.2      1.3              2.9
                                       (1)              (1)         (26)     (2)              (28)
 Canall                                1.6              1.4         1.6      2.6              1.8
                                       (2)              (2)         (13)     (4)              (17)
 Total                   10.6          89.4             100.0       84.1     15.9             100.0
                         (15)          (126)            (141)       (809)    (153)            (962)
 Conventional Maize cultivated in the current year (2008-09)
                         94.4          96.8             96.3        75.1                      75.1
 Well                    (17)          (60)             (77)        (190)                     (190)
                         5.6           3.2              3.8         24.9                      24.9
 River/ Kotar            (1)           (2)              (3)         (63)                      (63)
                         22.5          77.5             100.0       100.0                     100.0
 Total                   (18)          (62)             (80)        (253)                     (253)
 Maize using Monsanto seed (2008-09)
                         94.7          96.6             96.3        76.9                      76.9
 Well                    (18)          (112)            (130)       (50)                      (50)
                         5.3           3.4              3.7         23.1                      23.1
 River/ Kotar            (1)           (4)              (5)         (15)                      (15)
                         14.1          85.9             100.0       100.0                     100.0
 Total                   (19)          (116)            (135)       (65)                      (65)
Note: figures in parentheses indicate number of observations




                                                               56
Thus, hybrid maize was dominantly a kharif rainfed crop (Table 3.18). As it was also the
staple food for the tribal belt, yield and production of unirrigated kharif maize assumes
importance. Hence, any intervention in area of increasing the yield of the crop would go a
long way to increase the food security and income of tribal population of the area.




                                              57
 Table 3.18: Percentage Distribution of Area under Maize Cultivation using Conventional and
                                        Monsanto Seeds

 Report             Conventional Maize cultivated in the      Conventional Maize cultivated in the      Maize using Monsanto seed (2008-09)
                           last year (2007-08)                     current year (2008-09)
                        Kharif               Rabi                 Kharif               Rabi                     Kharif                 Rabi
                   Total     Irrigated   Total    Irrigated   Total    Irrigated   Total    Irrigated   Total      Irrigated   Total     Irrigated
 Fetahpura         17.9      100.0       11.8     12.0        15.4     91.9                             21.4       100.0
                   (507)     (15)        (116)    (116)       (366)    (18)                             (474)      (19)
 Dahod             23.8                  1.6      1.6         22.0                 3.4      3.6         17.5                   12.8      12.2
                   (453)                 (12)     (12)        (411)                (10)     (10)        (420)                  (4)       (4)
 Garbada           19.1                  2.3      2.1         16.3                 4.8      2.0         14.5                   5.1       4.9
                   (381)                 (23)     (22)        (331)                (12)     (6)         (363)                  (4)       (4)
 Limkheda          20.8                  51.7     51.8        17.2     2.1         91.7     94.4        16.5                   82.1      82.9
                   (627)                 (474)    (474)       (430)    (2)         (238)    (234)       (513)                  (57)      (57)
 Zalod             18.0                  18.3     18.3        17.2                                      13.6
                   (479)                 (188)    (185)       (371)                                     (425)

 Dahod             81.8      11.3        83.9     83.8        86.0     25.5        100.0    100.0       79.0       13.2        100.0     100.0
 district          (2447)    (15)        (813)    (809)       (1909)   (20)        (260)    (250)       (2195)     (19)        (65)      (65)
                   [4071]    [30]        [825]    [817]       [2174]   [23]        [251]    [240]       [2125]     [19]        [45]      [45]
 Santarampur       63.8      95.3        91.8     91.8        60.8     99.6                             65.0       99.2
                   (344)     (123)       (139)    (139)       (192)    (61)                             (319)      (115)
 Kadana            36.2      4.7         8.2      8.2         39.2     0.4                              35.0       0.8
                   (190)     (3)         (14)     (14)        (119)    (1)                              (180)      (1)
 Panchmahal        18.2      88.7        16.1     16.2        14.0     74.5                             21.0       86.8
 district          (534)     (126)       (153)    (153)       (311)    (62)                             (499)      (116)
                   [909]     [232]       [158]    [158]       [354]    [67]                             [564]      [127]
 Total (sum in
                    [4980]      [261]    [984]     [974] [2528]           [90]     [251]     [240] [2690]            [146]       [45]         [45]
 acres)
Note: figures in parentheses indicate number of observations and figures in [] indicate sum of total area cultivated and irrigated
area in acres




3.5. Yield and Returns on Maize Crop


Table 3.19 shows that yield of maize obtained from hybrid seed was nearly 37 percent higher
than that obtained from traditional maize seed. The difference in yield was lowest in
Fatehpura (29%) and highest in Dahod taluka (53%). District wise analysis shows that this
difference was highest in Panchmahal than in Dahod. When converted yield to gross returns
by multiplying yield with price, we observed that gross returns obtained from hybrid seed
was nearly 38 per cent higher than that of maize grown using traditional seed. Farmers
growing maize using hybrid seed in Panchmahal taluka enjoy higher gross returns from the
crop.




                                                               58
 Table3.19: Average Yield of Maize Grown using Traditional and Hybrid Seed, Labour Day, Labour Cost, Total Costs and Gross and Net Returns
                                      Earned from Maize Cultivated using Traditional and Hybrid Seed
 Taluka/Districts            Yield of Maize             Yield of Maize              Yield difference             Total           Gross returns of             Gross returns of           Difference of Gross         Net
                             grown using                grown using Hybrid          grown using hybrid           Cost            Maize using                  Maize using                Returns earned in           Returns
                             Traditional Seed           Seed (per acre)             and traditional seed         (Rs/acre)       traditional seed             hybrid seed                Maize grown using           from
                             (per acre)                                                                                                                                                  hybrid and                  hybrid
                                                                                                                                                                                         traditional seed            seed
                             Kharif       Rabi          Kharif      Rabi            Kharif                       Kharif          Kharif          Rabi         Kharif       Rabi          Kharif                      Kharif
 Dahod
 Fetahpura                   633          748           853                         104                          8032            7637            9065         10322                      {28.0}                      1374
                             (494)        (115)         (471)                       {28.5}                       (507)           (488)           (114)        (462)                                                  (507)
                             [347]        [404]         [459]                                                    [2276]          [10739]         [10611]      [14572]                                                [13927]
 Dahod                       341          486           537         827             14                           7945            3805            6204         5989         4356          {52.3}                      -2445
                             (430)        (12)          (418)       (4)             {53.1}                       (453)           (430)           (12)         (416)        (3)                                       (453)
                             [244]        [317]         [337]       [787]                                        [2748]          [3015]          [4820]       [4116]       [1078]                                    [4946]
 Garbada                     402          609           610         544             114                          8136            4647            17076        7249         8008          {49.4}                      -1286
                             (378)        (23)          (363)       (4)             {45.7}                       (381)           (376)           (23)         (360)        (2)                                       (381)
                             [814]        [628]         [704]       [420]                                        [3311]          [9609]          [42516]      [10126]      [11]                                      [9754]
 Limkheda                    483          606           721         1015            91                           7442            4778            5970         7171         9964          {21.5}                      -1792
                             (611)        (473)         (500)       (57)            {22.2}                       (627)           (610)           (472)        (494)        (54)                                      (627)
                             [315]        [330]         [423]       [1123]                                       [2274]          [3134]          [3235]       [4077]       [11483]                                   [5007]
 Zalod                       483          587           700                         109                          7578            5112            6289         7469                       {35.9}                      -1170
                             (448)        (186)         (418)                       {35.2}                       (479)           (442)           (184)        (411)                                                  (479)
                             [408]        [320]         [541]                                                    [2272]          [5178]          [5235]       [6635]                                                 [7090]
 Dahod Total                 476          620           692         975             546                          7792            5236            6802         7691         9612          {34.2}                      -1056
                             (2361        (809)         (2170)      (65)            {33.6}                       (2447)          (2346)          (805)        (2143)       (59)                                      (2447)
                             [457]        [354]         [509]       [1075]                                       [2565]          [7047]          [9066]       [8977]       [11052]                                   [8797]
 Panchmahal
 Santarampur                 616          883           940                         97                           7919            11784           21403        17873                      {43.0}                      8395
                             (336)        (139)         (317)                       {44.0}                       (344)           (333)           (136)        (314)                                                  (344)
                             [351]        [677]         [513]                                                    [2115]          [16981]         [32111]      [26332]                                                [25516]
 Kadana                      590          638           923                         58                           7785            6031            6335         9778                       {55.1}                      1273
                             (187)        (13)          (178)                       {48.9}                       (190)           (184)           (13)         (176)                                                  (190)
                             [405]        [247]         [406]                                                    [2111]          [4315]          [2650]       [8372]                                                 [8728]
 Panchmahal Total            607          862           934                         155                          7871            9737            20088        14965                      {55.1}                      5861
                             (523)        (152)         (495)                       {45.6}                       (534)           (517)           (149)        (490)                                                  (534)
                             [371]        [654]         [477]                                                    [2113]          [14133]         [30972]      [22000]                                                [21392]
 Total                       499          659           737         975             712                          7806            6049            8877         9045         9612          {37.5}                      183
                             (2884)       (961)         (2665)      (65)            {36.5}                       (2981)          (2863)          (954)        (2633)       (59)                                      (2981)
                             [445]        [425]         [512]       [1075]                                       [2490]          [8927]          [15544]      [12788]      [11052]                                   [12346]
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate number of observations, figures in [] indicate standard deviation and figures in {} indicate difference between yield and gross returns earned from hybrid and traditional seed and
percentage change in yield and gross returns earned from hybrid seed



                                                                                                           59
Table 3.19 shows that total cost of production of maize was Rs. 7806 Rs. per acre. Cost of
production of maize by farmers in Panchmahal district was higher than that of Dahod district.
Majority of cost incurred was on labour. Input wise cost was given in Table 3.20.




                                             60
                                           Table3.20: Average Total Quantity of Inputs and Average Costs of Inputs by Talukas and Districts

Taluka/Distri                Quantity in Kg/acre                   Labour days               Watering                                             Cost in Rs./acre
cts
                    Seed       Urea        DAP         Potash                         Required          Received     Seed      Urea     DAP     Potash    Total       Total Labour cost    Total Cost
Fetahpura         11          52          29          48          24                 5                 5            127      234      348      144       559         7396                 8032
                  (507)       (461)       (434)       (5)         (510)              (111)             (110)        (500)    (461)    (434)    (5)       (464)       (507)                (507)
                  [4]         [43]        [19]        [32]        [3]                [1]               [1]          [100]    [194]    [228]    [95]      [369]       [2218]               [2276]
Dahod             12          43          25                      22                 5                 5            134      194      306                470         7364                 7945
                  (453)       (431)       (389)                   (456)              (10)              (10)         (453)    (431)    (389)              (431)       (453)                (453)
                  [6]         [33]        [19]                    [4]                                               [89]     [147]    [226]              [333]       [2709]               [2748]
Garbada           12          55          29                      22                 5                 5            134      248      349                593         7417                 8136
                  (381)       (376)       (372)                   (382)              (17)              (16)         (379)    (376)    (372)              (376)       (381)                (381)
                  [17]        [126]       [64]                    [4]                [1]               [1]          [191]    [567]    [769]              [1321]      [2939]               [3311]
Limkheda          11          55          29          44          22                 5                 5            113      246      350      131       553         6812                 7442
                  (627)       (585)       (516)       (1)         (637)              (465)             (465)        (626)    (585)    (516)    (1)       (586)       (627)                (627)
                  [4]         [36]        [22]                    [4]                [1]               [1]          [41]     [163]    [268]              [373]       [2251]               [2274]
Zalod             12          49          27          18          23                 5                 5            124      221      320      53        507         6984                 7578
                  (479)       (444)       (399)       (3)         (480)              (184)             (181)        (472)    (444)    (399)    (3)       (445)       (479)                (479)
                  [7]         [57]        [30]        [2]         [4]                                               [86]     [255]    [364]    [6]       [583]       [2238]               [2272]
Total             12          51          28          37          23                 5                 5            125      229      336      112       537         7163                 7792
                  (2447)      (2297)      (2110)      (9)         (2465)             (787)             (782)        (2430)   (2297)   (2110)   (9)       (2302)      (2447)               (2447)
                  [8]         [64]        [34]        [27]        [4]                [1]               [1]          [106]    [289]    [408]    [81]      [660]       [2461]               [2565]
Panchmahal
Santarampur       11          50          32          18          23                 5                 5            173      224      390      53        600         7212                 7919
                  (344)       (303)       (298)       (2)         (344)              (135)             (134)        (341)    (303)    (298)    (2)       (307)       (344)                (344)
                  [5]         [33]        [21]        [11]        [3]                [1]               [1]          [198]    [151]    [256]    [32]      [382]       [2072]               [2115]
Kadana            12          43          32                      24                 5                 5            124      194      378                550         7178                 7785
                  (190)       (168)       (158)                   (190)              (14)              (14)         (187)    (168)    (158)              (168)       (190)                (190)
                  [6]         [33]        [27]                    [3]                [1]               [1]          [78]     [150]    [321]              [403]       [2103]               [2111]
Total             11          47          32          18          24                 5                 5            156      213      386      53        582         7200                 7871
                  (534)       (471)       (456)       (2)         (534)              (149)             (148)        (528)    (471)    (456)    (2)       (475)       (534)                (534)
                  [6]         [34]        [23]        [11]        [3]                [1]               [1]          [168]    [151]    [280]    [32]      [390]       [2081]               [2113]
Total             12          50          29          34          23                 5                 5            131      226      344      101       544         7169                 7806
                  (2981)      (2768)      (2566)      (11)        (2999)             (936)             (930)        (2958    (2768)   (2566)   (11)      (2777)      (2981)               (2981)
                  [8]         [60]        [32]        [26]        [4]                [1]               [1]          [120]    [271]    [389]    [77]      [622]       [2397]               [2490]
Figures in parentheses indicate number of observations and figures in [] indicate standard deviation




                                                                                                               61
3.6. Weakness in the Distribution Process

3.6.1. Use of Seeds and Chemical Fertilisers

Out of the total households reported to have benefited by hybrid seed distributed by
Monsanto Company, all except 56 households were found to be not using the seeds that were
given to them (Table 3.21). When asked about the reasons for not using, 49 have stated that
they had received late after the onset of monsoon. Consequently, they plan to use it in the
next year. Same response was given when households were asked about the reason for not
using the chemical fertilisers.

 Table 3.21: Distribution of Respondents Reporting Reasons for not Using Seeds and Chemical
                            Fertilisers Given by Monsanto Company

 Details                    Dahod taluka                                   Panchmahal    District           Total
                                                                           taluka
                            Fetah-   Dahod   Garbada    Limkheda   Zalod   Santarampur   Dahod      Panch
                            pura                                                                    mahal
 Given late to seed         15       6       3          13         11      1             87.3       100.0   87.5
                                                                                         (48)       (1)     (49)
 Others*                    2                           3          2                     12.7               12.5
                                                                                         (7)                (7)
 Total                      17       6       3          16         13      1             98.2       1.8     100.0
                                                                                         (55)       (1)     (56)
 Chemical fertilisers
 Given late to Fertiliser                                                                10         0       10
 Others                                                                                  5          1       6
 Total                                                                                   15         1       16
 16 out of which




Thus, in this chapter the method of agricultural inputs like hybrid maize seed, chemical
fertilisers, urea and DAP was considered. The Project sunshine however not only calls for
distribution of seeds and fertiliser but also agricultural extension services. The aim of
agricultural extension were to provide farmers with information that enables them to make
good decision in farming, to transfer appropriate technologies from research and other
sources and ultimately to eliminate poverty and hunger by improving their production and
food security. When we asked about the types of agricultural extension services provided,
types of agencies rendering these services and so on, we were surprised to know that no
attention was paid to such an important component of the programme (Table 3.22).




                                                   62
 Table 3.22: Percentage Distribution of Households Reporting Training and Exposure Visits Undertaken,
Types of Training Provided, Sources of Training, Activities Learnt, Duration of Training, Subject Matter of
                     the Training and Level of Implementation of Learnt Information

 Details                                                            District                            Total
                                                                    Dahod               Panchmahal
 a. Training Received
 Yes                                                                2.3                 5.6             2.9
                                                                    (56)                (30)            (86)
 No                                                                 97.7                94.4            97.1
                                                                    (2409)              (505)           (2914)
 Total                                                              82.2                17.8            100.0
                                                                    (2465)              (535)           (3000)
 b. Exposure Visits
 No                                                                 100                 100             100
                                                                    (2465)              (535)           (3000)
 Total                                                              82.2                17.8            100.0
                                                                    (2465)              (535)           (3000)
 c. Activities Learnt During the Training
 Method of Maize sowing                                             100.0               100.0           100.0
                                                                    (56)                (30)            (86)
 Total                                                              65.1                34.9            100.0
                                                                    (56)                (30)            (86)
 d. Duration of the Training
 1 day                                                              98.2                90.0            95.3
                                                                    (55)                (27)            (82)
 2-3 days of training                                               1.8                 10.0            4.7
                                                                    (1)                 (3)             (4)
 Total                                                              65.1                34.9            100.0
                                                                    (56)                (30)            (86)
 e. Time When Such Training was Given
 On maize distribution time                                         100                 100             100
                                                                    (56)                (30)            (86)
 Total                                                              65.1                34.9            100.0
                                                                    (56)                (30)            (86)
 f. Sources of Providing Such A Training
 Training to Panchmahal dairy                                       57.1                80.0            65.1
                                                                    (32)                (24)            (56)
 Others*                                                            42.9                20.0            34.9
                                                                    (24)                (6)             (30)
 Total                                                              65.1                34.9            100.0
                                                                    (56)                (30)            (86)
 g. Subject Matter of the Training
 To maintain proper distance of the maize seed while sowing         84.1                93.3            87.8
                                                                                        (28)            (65)
 Others                                                             15.9                6.7             12.2
                                                                    (7)                 (2)             (9)
 Total                                                              59.5                40.5            100.0
                                                                    (44)                (30)            (74)




 h. Implemented the advice given during the training session




                                                    63
 Sowing as per the information                                                   100                     100                 100
                                                                                 (43)                    (28)                (71)
 Total                                                                           60.6                    39.4                100.0
                                                                                 (43)                    (28)                (71)
 i. Benefits received by following the advice
  Better growth of HYV maize                                                     97.4                    95.8                96.8
                                                                                                         (23)                (61)

  Save seed through proper distance                                              2.6                     4.2                 3.2
                                                                                 (1)                     (1)                 (2)
  Total                                                                          61.9                    38.1                100.0
                                                                                 (39)                    (24)                (63)
* Others include 16 respondents reporting that they have received t raining from staff of Monsanto company, 11 stated that
NGO named
Sadguru trained them and the rest 3 did not know who trained them.




3.6.2. Other Weaknesses of the Programme

     •    Farmers stated in the discussion that release of varieties of maize were not superior
          over the popular varieties currently grown by farmers
     •    Lack of inter-institutional coordination/network for development and promotion of
          new varieties through better utilization of available germplasm across R&D
          institutions
     •    No village shows an evidence of having a village cooperative
     •    No special incentives for plant breeders to produce enough breeder seeds
     •    Regulation on pricing of seeds by the public sector
     •    Lack of farmers’ protection against unfair seed business




                                                             64
                                         CHAPTER IV

    PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AS A MEANS FOR AGRICULTURAL
                         DEVELOPMENT


Partnerships constitute a complex decision problem; each partner looks not only at its own
costs and benefits, but also at those of the other partners. In order to increase benefits, each
partner saw that the others were providing the greatest inputs possible to the partnership.
Furthermore, it is important to understand partnerships not as a static arrangement, but as a
process that moves gradually from general ideas about “profiting one from another” to
concrete arrangements with defined objectives. Hartwich, Janssen, and Tola (2003) suggest
that there were five steps to consider: (1) identification of the common interest space; (2)
negotiation and design of the partnership contract, including legal, funding, and governance
issues; (3) implementation; (4) evaluation of achievement; and (5) deciding whether the
partnership will continue if the objectives were not yet achieved, or if there were new and
promising objectives to pursue in the partnership arrangement. Barring the last step, each of
these steps was followed by TDD and Monsanto Company in the project sunshine. There is a
need for the Monsanto Company to travel an extra mile by providing extension services to
farmers growing hybrid maize. Proper monitoring and control of the programme by
government and NGOs at different levels helped in proper selection of beneficiaries and
plugging leakages. Over time, such a partnership has the potential to earn profit from
gradually improving work relationships and becoming strategic. Otherwise, since partnership
is a flexible arrangement that is a means to an end, it may simply be phased out. Based on
the preceding theoretical considerations, a model was developed to explain the behavior of
actors involved in public-private partnerships. From the above mentioned analysis, we tried
to make assumption regarding conditions that facilitate public private partnerships. The main
assumption were the following

1. Existence of a common interest space. Monsanto company had the interest of
   marketing hybrid seed of maize. In absence of this partnership, diffusion of this
   technology for cereals like maize was costly in rainfed areas of Dahod and Panchmahal.
   Such a diffusion of technology had the potential to increase the income of small and
   marginal farmers of the study area. This would result meeting the objective of the
   government.




                                              65
2. Expectation of positive private cost-benefit ratios by the private sector entities and public
    sector participating in the partnership. This can be understood by examining direct cost of
    implementation this project by the department. Total cost per beneficiary was Rs. 7354.
    This cost was not inclusive of other transaction costs—i.e., costs of information search
    for partners, negotiation, screening, monitoring, coordination, and enforcement of
    contracts and institutions, interpreted as structures and rules of the game (Hoff and
    Stiglitz, 1990).


               Table 4.1: Details of the Types of Costs Incurred and the Amount Spent

Details                                     Volume (million tonnes)      Cost (Rs. lakh)   Percentage to total

Soil testing cost                           1000                         0.674                            0.04
Seeds                                       612                          612                              35.2
Mechanical Sheller                          720                          144                               8.3
Fertilisers*
Urea                                        10800                        512.2                            29.5
DAP                                         36000                        336.2                            19.3
MOP                                         2880                         134.1                             7.7
Fertilisers total                                                        982.5                            56.5
Total input cost                                                         1739.2                         100.0
                                                                                                        (91.0)
Implementation Cost
Monsanto                                                                 97.04                            56.1
NGO and Dairy Cooperative                                                48.4                             28.0
D-SAG                                                                    17.6                             10.2
Storage cost                                                             10.0                               5.8
Total Implementation Costs                                               173.0                           100.0
                                                                                                          (9.0)
Total project cost                                                       1912.2                          100.0
Cost per beneficiary was Rs.7354
Cost per acre was Rs. 2655.8 acres
* Standard per acre dose of fertiliser: Urea=150 kg; DAP=50 kg; MOP=40
* Standard cost per kg: Urea=Rs. 4.80; DAP=Rs. 9.34; MOP=Rs. 4.44
* Seed cost= Rs. 100/kg
Sheller cost@ Rs. 20,000
3 villages per cluster: Rs. 2000 per cluster for input distribution
Insurance cost was Rs. 47.84 lacs,
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total project cost
Source: D-SAG, Gandhinagar



    From table 3.19, it was clear that average change in yield of hybrid as compared to
    Monsanto was 712 kgs/acre. As cost of production was borne by government, the
    increase in yield accounted for an increase in returns to the farmers of Rs. 2921 per acre.
    Comparing the cost of implementation of this project per beneficiary growing one acre of
    land, it was evident that farmers have gained from such a partnership. In absence of
    government intervention, these additional earnings would get reduced to Rs. 1094 per



                                                          66
   acre. This shows that gain in income of farmers due to hybrid was not significant to
   motivate farmers to adopt modern maize variety.


   Though this figure needs to be viewed with precaution. As these were initial years of
   partnership, there was an every possibility of benefits outweighing the cost of
   intervention. This would happen only when there was a greater synergistic effect from
   mutual contribution resulting in greater benefits than could be achieved if the activity
   were carried out by each partner on its own. Such an effect can be built over time. In the
   present scenario, when Monsanto Company have benefited in terms of their entry into the
   new market and cost of implementation of the project outweighed the benefit, Monsanto
   company could take up the role of providing agricultural extension services in the study
   area. This would help them in understanding agro climatic and socio-economic
   characteristics of the area which would go a long run in making improvisation of hybrid
   seeds to suit the needs of the area. Moreover, in the situation when government has been
   grappling with some of the constraints of providing agricultural extension services, such
   a move by the private partner would strengthen their partnership with the government.
   This would go a long way to improve the efficiency of farmers in cultivation of maize.
   Such an effort would result in synergistic effects from active collaboration between
   public research organizations and private sector entities.


To sum up, the incentive driving public and private agents to enter partnerships was usually
the interest in profiting from innovation rents, be they private or social benefits. Here it was
important to distinguish between benefits resulting from the innovation itself and from the
partnership arrangement. Private benefits from innovations consist of (a) increased farm
production and productivity, (b) cost reduction (c) increased income from sales and profits
for various actors (d) development of new products (e) employment opportunities. Private
benefits from partnering include (a) joint learning (b) access to knowledge and technology
(c) access to market. Social benefits from innovations include (a) increased agricultural
production and productivity of maize for small farmers (b) sufficient food supply for the poor
(c) decrease in the rate of migration (d) ensure food security (e) poverty levels reduced as
income from agriculture increased. Social benefits from partnering include (a) joint
learning; (b) improved market for sale of the produce (c) improving agricultural extension
services (d) reduced time lags in the adoption of technology



                                              67
While public-private partnerships can offer a number of advantages, it must also be kept in
mind that these schemes are complex to design, implement, and manage. These were by no
means the only or preferred option in the generation of innovation, and should be weighed
against other alternatives such as contract research, outsourcing, hiring of researchers, and
the acquisition of the R&D departments of entire companies.


Given the constraints, there would be no exaggeration of the fact that increasing farmers'
incomes through improved productivity is an important element in agricultural development
and poverty reduction strategies. Any method which improves adoption of improved
technologies like use of improved variety of seeds and sustainable farm management
practices opens new opportunities to meet these challenges. Public private partnership is one
such vehicle for diffusion of technology among small and marginal farmers. However, vital
element of agricultural extension system needs to be weaved into the programme of private
public partnership and should be given the same importance as input distribution policy.

Recommendations

The following were the recommendation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
seed delivery system

   •   Initiation of an inter-institutional coordination and networking research for the variety
       testing and release
   •   Reviewing of the variety release process to shorten the breeding cycles and also
       ensuring more participation of farmers in the varietals evaluation programmes
   •   Strengthening the infrastructure (modern processing and storage, and additional
       manpower) for breeders seed production to meet the growing demand, provision of
       financial incentives to breeders for the promotion of breeder’s seed production
   •   Introducing block demonstrations and agricultural extension services immediately
       after the release of new hybrid seed as a parallel activity to breeder seed production to
       help familiarize the farmers with new seed variety.
   •   Strengthening the regulatory mechanism for imported seeds to prevent entry
       of potentially damaging new pests, diseases and weeds




                                              68
                                    REFERENCES


Bennett, E., P. Grohmann, and B. Gentry. 1999. Public-Private Partnerships for the Urban
Environment: Options and Issues. PPPUE Working Paper Series No. 26,
www.undp.org/pppue/, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Bhuiyan M.S.A. and M. Amiruzzaman 2002. Changes in Priorities Maize Research in
Bangladesh and Relation to CIMMYT Regional Activities. Maize Breeder Maize
Improvement Programme, in Proceedings of the 8th Asian Regional Maize Workshop,
Bangkok, Thailand: August 5-8

Brown, Lester R., and Hal Kane. 1994. Full House: Reassessing the Earth’s Population
Carrying Capacity. Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series. New York: W.W. Norton and
Company.

Buse, K., and G. Walt. 2000. Global Public-Private Partnerships: Part 1—A New
Development in Health? WHO Bulletin, 78(4).

Crosson, Pierre, and Jock R. Anderson. 1992. Resources and Global Food Prospects: Supply
and Demandfor Cereals to 2030. World Bank Technical Paper 184. Washington, D.C.

Derek Byerlee and Miguel A. LopezPereira 1993. Technical Change in Maize: A global
perspective. Presented at the First International Maize Symposium, March 1619, 1993,
Guadalajara, Mexico.

Faulkner, W., and J. Senker. 1994. Making Sense of Diversity: Public-Private Sector
Research Linkage in Three Technologies. Research Policy, 23.

Fiszbein, A., and P. Lowden. 1999. Working Together for a Change: Government, Business,
and Civic Partnerships for Poverty Reduction in Latin America and the Caribbean. Version
PPP 182. Washington, D.C.: Economic Development Institute of the World Bank.

Hagedorn, J., and J. Schakenraad 1994. The Effect of Strategic Technology Alliances on
Company Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15.

Hall A., G. Bockett, S. Taylor, M.V.K. Sivamohan, and N. Clark. 2000. Why Research
Partnerships Really Matter: Innovation Theory, Institutional Arrangements and Implications
for Developing New Technology for the Poor. World Development, 29(5), 783–797.

Husain, Muazzam, M Hossain and A Janaiah 2001. ‘Hybrid Rice Adoption in Bangladesh: A
Socio-Economic Assessment of Farmers’ Experiences’, a Monograph # 18, BRAC, Dhaka
and IRRI, Philippines.

Miguel A. LopezPereira and Joao Carlos Garcia 1997. The Maize Seed Industries of Brazil
and Mexico: Past performance and future prospects. Lynne Rienner Publishers

Miguel A. LopezPereira and Alejandro Espinosa Calderon 1993. Análisis Económico de la
Producción y Uso de Semilla Mejorada de Maíz: El caso de Mexico. Paper presented at the
PCCMCA, March 1993.



                                           69
Spielman, D.J., and K. von Grebmer 2004. Public-Private Partnerships in Agricultural
Research: An Analysis of Challenges Facing Industry and the Consultative Group of
International Agricultural Research. Discussion Paper No. 113, IFPRI Environment and
Production Technology Division, Washington, D.C.

Williamson, 1975. Markets and Hierarchies, Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A Study in
the Economics of Internal Organization. Free Press, New York

Zeigler, R S and D W Puckridge 1995. ‘Improving Sustainable Productivity in Rice-Based
Low-Land Systems of South and South-East Asia’, Geo journal, 35(3), pp 307-24.




                                           70

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:13
posted:7/31/2011
language:English
pages:70