monitoring and evaluation report - icar

Hkkjrh; Ñf"k uoksUes"kh ifj;kstukNational Agricultural Innovation Project

Hkkjrh; Ñf"k vuqla/kku ifj"knIndian Council of Agricultural Research

ifj;kstuk dk;kZUo;u ,dd@ Project Implementation Unit

Ñf"k vuqla/kku Hkou&2] iwlk@ Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan-II, Pusa

ubZ fnYyh & 110 012@ New Delhi 110 012

http://www.naip.icar.org.in

2014

MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT

ON

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION PROJECT


Lasertypeset by M/s Dot & Design, D-35, Ist Floor, Ranjit Nagar Commercial Complex, New Delhi 110 008; andprinted at M/s Royal Offset Printers, A-89/1, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110 028

Published : November, 2014

Copyright : Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi

Citation : NAIP 2014. Monitoring and Evaluation Report on National AgriculturalInnovation Project. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India.

Published by : Dr. A.P. SrivastavaNational Director In-ChargeNational Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP)Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan II,PUSA, New Delhi – 110 012

Prepared by : Dr. P. Ramasundaram, National Coordinator (M&E), NAIPDr. P. K. Katiha, Principal Scientist (M&E), NAIPDr. M. Kochu Babu, Principal Scientist (M&E), NAIP

Hindi Translation : Sh. Ramjit Ohja, Consultant (Translator), ICAR

Production : Dr. Rameshwar Singh, Project Director (DKMA)Dr. V.K. Bharti, Chief Production Officer (DKMA)Shri Ashok Shastri, Chief Technical Officer (DKMA)

iiiiii

The National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP) is the fourth in the series of the projectsfunded by the World Bank towards improvement of the agricultural research and technology system inIndia. In the backdrop of past projects and challenges facing agricultural R&D, NAIP was launched inSeptember 2007. This is the first and the largest innovation project in agriculture ever to be funded bythe Bank.

The project has effectively responded to Government of India’s objectives expressed in India’sNational Policy on Agriculture (NPA). The project design included appropriate indicators formonitoring progress towards achievement of the Project Development Objective (PDO). The successof a project is not merely in the conception and design, but in implementation, effective monitoring andevaluation for the outcomes and impacts. It had in-built mechanism for concurrent monitoring atdifferent levels. The focus of M&E has shifted from monitoring implementation to tracking results.The implementation processed monitoring included tracking of inputs mobilization, activitiesundertaken & completed, and outputs delivered. The result based system added, monitoring ofproject outcomes in addition to implementation based monitoring.

The M&E system as part of the Organization and Management (O&M) reforms is the hall mark ofthe NAIP distinguishing it from other programmes. A number of M&E specialists were responsible forthe overall M&E effort providing timely and relevant information to the Project Implementation Unit(PIU) in designing and executing baseline surveys, development of M&E manual, and design andcommissioning online Project Monitoring and Tracking System (PMTS). This report is not a merepassive documentation of the outcomes of the project implementation; it offers normative suggestionsin terms of measures for sustainability and scalability of the sub-projects, cross cutting issues,reflections on the M&E strategies of the programme on National Agricultural Research System(NARS), experiences and lessons learnt, etc. that will have implications for planning further improvedmechanisms for future projects and funding agencies.

I appreciate the efforts of the PIU, NAIP led by the National Directors during the implementation– Dr. Mruthyunjaya, Dr. Bangali Baboo, and Dr. D. Rama Rao in evolving and operationalizing aneffective M&E mechanism worth emulating in other programmes too. I congratulate the M&E Unitcomprising Dr. P. Ramasundaram, National Coordinator (M&E), Dr. P. K. Katiha and Dr. M. KochuBabu, Principal Scientists, in bringing out this comprehensive report on entire M&E processes for thesuccessful implementation of the programme.

November, 2014

(S. Ayyappan)

FOREWORD

vv

FOREWORD

NAIP has made significant contributions towards meeting the National objectives ofincreasing farm incomes and eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, which is also a MillenniumDevelopment Goal of the United Nations.

The M&E system as part of the Organization and Management (O&M) reforms is the hall markof the NAIP distinguishing it from other programmes. M&E processes enhance transparencyand accountability, can support budgeting and planning, policy development and policy analysis.M&E is the joint responsibility of all component coordinators, finance and procurement officers ledby the National Director. The purpose is to track the results and facilitate faster and smootherimplementation of the sub-projects than to exercise mere oversight and supervision by the PIU.The M&E team has enabled effective monitoring of implementation process in realization ofoutcome as envisaged in the results framework indicators. The team has overseen thecomprehensive outcome focused impact evaluation projects by an independent consultant firmthrough a stakeholder survey with adequate checks covering more than 5500 respondentsconsisting of participant and control farmers, artisans, scientists, traders, processors, agro-industrialists, etc.

The team has developed a scientific framework for identification and quantification of impactof the programme through structured sampling, relevant analysis and inferences. Besides, it hasalso developed, updated and maintained a data base repository of all information, implementation,achievements, experiences, lessons, post project sustainability options and suggested wayforward.

I appreciate the cooperation and contributions of my colleagues & Component Coordinators –Dr. A. P. Srivastava, Dr. Sudhir Kochhar, Dr. R. Ezekiel and Dr. P. S. Pandey, Sh. Sanchal Bilgrami,Director Finance, and Sh. Kumar Rajesh, Under Secretary in this endeavour.

I congratulate the M&E team led by Dr. P. Ramasundaram, National Coordinator (M&E), andDr. P. K. Katiha, and Dr. M. Kochhu Babu, Principal Scientists, for their painstaking efforts inexecuting the M&E tasks and impact analysis and bringing out this document that will help similarprogrammes in future.

(AP Srivastava)

Dr. AP Srivastava

National Director In-charge (NAIP)

viivii

National Agricultural Innovation Project was launched on 18 September 2007 with the aid ofWorld Bank. This is an innovation project seeking to facilitate, enable and encourage innovation inall spheres of agriculture – production, processing (through value chains), marketing(commercialization of technologies) through partnerships and collaborations with private and non-governmental organizations besides state and central public sectors. In-built monitoring andevaluation (M&E) mechanism is the key aspect that distinguishes NAIP from other projects. While,monitoring is a continuous assessment of project implementation in relation to agreed schedules,use of inputs, infrastructure and services provided by project beneficiaries, evaluation is a periodicassessment of the relevance, performance efficiency and impact of the project in relation to statedobjectives, timelines, outlays and roadmap. Besides, outputs developed - crop and plant varieties,advanced methods of animal breeding, agro-processing, institutions for agri-businessdevelopment, novel agri business models, etc., need to be assessed for impacts, costs, andbenefits. For M&E activities to measure progress over time and the development impact of theproject, three basic requisites are: (i) complete baseline survey; (ii) project monitoring and trackingsystem and (iii) impact assessment. The M&E capacity available in the country is limited and lackthe knowledge, expertise or experience and commitment in this sphere among researchers andinstitutes render it difficult to adequately monitor the performance and evaluate the projectactivities. The NAIP has put in place an M&E system at the project and consortia levels.

The M&E unit has painstakingly built up, maintained and updated the data repository includingperformance, results framework and PAD indicators. The Unit has meticulously over sighted theplanning and execution of an elaborate outcome focussed comprehensive impact assessmentsurvey of the entire programme, coordinating and managing several external and independentconsultancies that involved participation of more than 5000 stakeholders and controls asrespondents across the country by establishing a causal relationship between outputs and benefitsto the end-users (outcome). The Unit has also overseen the organization and synthesis of the datagenerated through well-coordinated and massive interventions in the respondents’ fields/homesteads and the subsequent impact assessment in ‘with’ vis-à-vis ‘without’ mode in a partialbudgeting framework culminating in financial and economic analyses deploying B:C Ratio, InternalRate of Return and Net Present Value. The assessment established that the NAIP earnestlyaddressed crucial issues of food, nutrition, and environmental security and enhancement ofincome and employment, documentation of outputs in terms of scientific and technologicaladvancements and comparison with other systems, institutional development and HRD, innovativeICT measures taken to improve the system’s efficiency, catalogue of technologies, linkages, PPPs,rural industries, and publication and patents, technology commercialization, issues of socialdevelopment – poverty alleviation, income generation, women empowerment, inclusion, etc.

M&E TEAM

PREFACE

ixix

The report on Monitoring & Evaluation of NAIP provides a detailed account of the M&Eprocesses evolved and adopted in the implementation of National Agricultural Innovation Project(NAIP). The chapters on components and monitoring and evaluation are based on the baselinesurveys by the consortia and the M&E consultant, M/s Consultant Engineers Services (CES),contributions from the consortia principal investigators, analytical inputs and suggestions by allNational Coordinators, views of the successive implementation mission, independent evaluator, M/sPricewaterhouse Cooper Pvt. Ltd (PwCPL Ltd), and all the individual consultants for M&Esupplementing the impact assessment efforts of M/s PwCPL and the report by the International FoodPolicy Research Institute (IFPRI), team led by Dr. P. K. Joshi, Director, South Asia on the impact ofNAIP capacity building programmes.

Sincere thanks are due to Dr. P. S. Pandey, National Coordinator, Component-1 and hispredecessors Dr. R. C. Agarwal and Dr. N. T. Yaduraju for shaping up and placing in position an M&Emechanism for the programme. The base line survey reports and comprehensive reports designedand completed by the CES led by Sh. A.K. Agarwal were indeed a wealth of information for writingthis report. The efforts of the PwCPL team led by Sh. Shashi K. Singh in carrying out the macroimpact assessments, case studies, midterm and end term reports and the overall outcome focussedcomprehensive impact assessment are duly and thankfully acknowledged. My sincere thanks are toDr. A. K. Roy, formerly Principal Scientist, CIFA, Bhubaneshwar, Dr. S. C. Tewari, formerly Prof. &Head, Department of Agricultural Economics, Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry,Solan, Dr. Dilip Kumar, formerly Director & Vice Chancellor and Dr. R. S. Biradar, formerly JointDirector, Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai, Dr. V. Mohandoss, formerly Chief GeneralManager, NABARD, Chennai and Dr. C. Chandrasekaran, Independent Economist & Consultant, forresponding to our need and participating in the impact assessment of NAIP.

I place on record my gratitude to Dr. P. S. Pandey, National Co-ordinator, Component-1, Dr. R.Ezekiel and Late Dr. R. K. Goyal, the present and former National Coordinators, Component-2; Dr.A. P. Srivastava, National Coordinator, Component-3; Dr. S. Kochhar, National Coordinator,Component 4, Dr. R. P. Misra and Dr. Yasmeen Basade Principal Scientists for sharing their valuabletime, reports, resources and information and above all showing an unhesitant camaraderie inaccomplishing a common task.

Special thanks are for Late Dr. S. Selvarajan, FAO consultant for his valuable inputs indesigning and executing the impact assessment surveys, Dr. Eliot Mghenyi, World Bank Economistand Dr. Praduman Kumar, Former Professor & Head, Division of Agricultural Economics, IndianAgricultural Research Institute, New Delhi for their critical reviews and constructive suggestions.

The impact assessment part could not have been possible without the willing participation ofmore than 5500 stakeholders – beneficiary and control farmers and farm women, artisans,labourers, processors, traders, industrialists, Scientists, trainees, etc. Thanks to every one of themfor the kind cooperation in the endeavour.

The M&E Unit had received immense support and constant guidance from Dr. Rama Rao,National Director and Dr. A. P. Srivastava, National Director i/c. Their gesture and stewardship areworth remembering forever and I thank them for all the help provided for making the workplacepeaceful and enjoyable. Thanks are to Dr. Mruthyunjaya and Dr. Bangali Baboo, formerly NationalDirectors for their contribution in evolving the M&E processes, M&E manual, developing andoperationalizing Project Monitoring & Tracking System (PMTS), organizing the baseline surveys andreports, etc.

The strategic support and incisive insight of the World Bank Task Teams and Missions led byDr. P. S. Sidhu, Dr. Deepak Ahluwalia and Dr. William Magrath are dutifully acknowledged.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

x


Thanks are due to Sh. Sanchal Bilgrami, Director Finance, Sh. Gurunathagouda Harakangi,Deputy Secretary and Sh. Kumar Rajesh, Under Secretary and Procurement Officer, and theirstaff for providing the M&E Unit the necessary administrative, financial and infrastructural support.The logistical and analytical support and secretarial assistance provided by Dr. Ashutosh Singh,Dr. Kanika Pawar and the Sh. Amit Singh, Research Associate, Sh. Rana Rohit, Economic Analyst,and Ms. Indu Singh, Research Associates are sincerely acknowledged.

The report could not have been possible without the cooperation of Dr. P. K. Katiha, PrincipalScientist in the untiring and humungous efforts in sifting through the documents and data bases,commissioning, executing, monitoring and managing all consultancies, compilation, analysis andsynthesis and Dr. M. Kochu Babu, Principal Scientist, in initiating the M&E work, operationalizingand oversight of M&E consultancy, creating and maintaining a repository of databases includingresults framework and PAD indicators and sharing the same with the team.

The M&E team is thankful to Dr. S. Ayyappan, Secretary DARE and Director General, ICAR;Sh. Arvind R. Kaushal, Additional Secretary, DARE and Secretary, ICAR; Sh. P.K. Pujari, AdditionalSecretary and Financial Advisor, DARE/ICAR for their constant support and encouragement.

National Coordinator (M&E)

xixi

CONTENTS

S. No. Content Page

Foreword by DG, ICAR iiiForeword by ND, NAIP vPreface viiAcknowledgement ixAbbreviations and acronyms xvii

dk;Zdkjh lkjka'k xxiExecutive Summary xxv

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Focus of Monitoring 2

2.1 Institutional structure for M&E 22.1.1 Consortium level M&E 22.1.2 Consortium baseline survey 4

2.1.3 Institutionalization of PME Cells 42.1.4 Functioning of CAC/CIC 52.1.5 Organisation of consortium level M&E meetings 5

2.2 National level concurrent monitoring 62.2.1 Establishment and functioning of M&E Units in PIU and CMU 72.2.2 Holistic benchmark survey 7

2.2.3 Consortia baseline surveys 82.2.4 Base line surveys – to establish ‘before the project’ situation 92.2.4.1 Base line survey report 9

2.2.4.2 Comprehensive report on the baseline data 92.2.4.3 Comprehensive M&E report up to the second MTR 112.2.4.3.1 High impact consortia and case studies 11

2.2.4.3.2 Catalogue of all technologies by activities and themes 112.2.4.3.3 Certification process for development, testing, validation 11

and release of technology, adoption, innovation and rural industry2.2.5 On-line project monitoring & tracking system (PMTS) 11

2.2.6 Coordinating reporting processes 132.2.6.1 Half-yearly reports 132.2.6.2 Annual reports 13

2.2.6.3 Final report of the consortium 132.2.7 Development of M&E manual 142.2.8 Development of results framework and key indicators 14

2.2.8.1 Output indicators 142.2.8.2 Outcome indicators 142.2.8.3 Management process indicators: M&E process 15

2.2.8.4 Project development objective indicators 15

xii


2.2.8.4.1 Component 1 152.2.8.4.2 Component 2 16

2.2.8.4.3 Component 3 162.2.8.4.4 Component 4 172.2.8.4.5 Global Environmental Facility (GEF) funded research 18

2.2.9 Scorecard approach 182.2.9.1 Grading of consortia 192.2.10 Building up data repository 19

2.3 Comprehensive outcome focussed independent impact evaluation 202.3.1 CPI survey 202.3.2 Impact assessment - stakeholder survey with controls 21

2.3.3 Sample size, sampling framework and shortlisting of sub-projects 22for impact assessment

2.3.4 Midterm reporting 22

2.3.5 Macro impact case studies 232.3.6 Project completion and end term reporting 232.3.6.1 Assessment of general performance of consortia 24

2.3.6.1.1 Effectiveness & efficiency of sample sub-projects in realizing objectives 242.3.6.1.2 Objectives - Target vs. achievement 242.3.6.1.3 Project duration and budget 242.3.6.1.4 Fund disbursement & procurement process 25

2.3.6.1.5 Observations on fund disbursement process 252.3.6.1.6 Observations on procurement process 252.3.6.1.7 Publications under NAIP 26

2.3.6.1.8 Patents filed under NAIP 26

2.3.6.1.9 Awareness and marketing activities under sample sub-projects 262.3.6.1.10 Women participation 27

2.3.6.1.11 Employment creation 272.3.6.1.12 Increase in income 272.3.6.1.13 Sustainability of adopted interventions 27

2.3.6.1.14 Overall impact of the subproject interventions 272.3.6.1.15 Adoption rate under component 2 and 3 sample sub projects 272.3.6.1.16 Major result areas of NAIP 27

2.3.6.1.17 Impact on institutional development 282.3.6.1.18 Key contributions 282.3.6.1.19 Key learnings and areas of improvement 29

2.3.6.1.20 Key drivers for sustainability of consortia model 292.3.6.1.21 Infrastructure development under sample sub-project 292.3.6.1.22 Mapping of investment in high value infrastructure 30

2.3.6.1.23 Impact on research system 302.3.7 Highlights of the independent impact evaluation 302.3.8 Financial and economic impact assessment 32

S. No. Content Page

xiii


2.3.8.1 Financial analysis 32

2.3.8.1.1 Identifying project costs and benefits 322.3.8.2 Economic analysis 332.3.8.3 Component wise financial and economic analyses 34

2.3.8.3.1 Component 1 342.3.8.3.2 Component 4 352.3.8.3.3 Component 2 36

2.3.8.3.4 Component 3 and GEF 382.3.8.3.5 Overall NAIP financial and economic impact 412.3.8.3.6 Major impacts 42

2.3.8.3.6.1 Increased productivity level 422.3.8.3.6.2 Access to better inputs 422.3.8.3.6.3 Access to knowledge base 42

2.3.8.3.6.4 Invention of new mode of research 422.3.9 Impact of international and national trainings 422.3.10 Environmental & social management framework 45

3.0 Cross cutting Issues 46

3.1 Cross cutting workshops 46

3.2 Cross cutting experiences 473.3 Intra-component cross cutting 483.4 Inter-component cross cutting 48

4.0 Sustainability and Scalability 49

5.0 Linkages 51

5.1 Government agencies 51

6.0 Social Development 52

6.1 Employment generation 526.2 Poverty alleviation 52

6.3 Women empowerment 546.4 Inclusiveness 546.4.1 Income generation through forest produce 55

6.5 Human capacity development 55

7.0 Experiences and Lessons Learnt 56

8.0 Reflection of NAIP M&E Strategies on NARS 59

9.0 The Way Forward 60

S. No. Content Page

xiv


List of Tables

1. Frequency of M&E meetings conducted per consortium 6

2. Progress of consortia formation over years 6

3. Baseline survey by M&E consultants 8

4. Key indicators having bearing on livelihood security 11

5. Key variable comparison between national and consortium baseline survey 11

6. List of high impact consortia shortlisted for case studies under component 2 & 3 12

7. Overall achievements under component 1 sub-projects 16




11. Overall achievements under GEF component sub-projects 18

12. Grading of the consortia 19

13. Component wise number of sampled projects 21

14. Distribution of sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries for impact assessment 22

15. Tangible and non-tangible benefit across the components 33

16. Estimated benefits from different selected sub-projects of component 1 34

17. Projection of the benefits from selected sub-projects to the whole component 1 35

18. Comparison of costs and potential benefits from selected of sub-projects of component 4 36

19. Projection of economic benefits from sub-projects of component 4 36

20. Results of financial analysis of selected sub-projects under component 2 37

21. Results of economic analysis of selected sub-projects of component 2 38

22. Projection of financial benefits from component 2 sub-projects 38

23. Component 2 economic analysis-projection of total economic benefits 39

24. Results of economic analysis of selected sub-projects of component 3 and 39GEF projects of NAIP

25. Projection of financial benefits from component 3 sub-projects 41

26. Projection of economic benefit from component 3 to the beneficiaries sub-projects 41

27. Final snapshot of financial and economic benefits estimated from 42NAIP (including GEF)

28. Final snapshot of financial and economic benefits estimated from 42NAIP (excluding GEF)

29. Major types of trainings with number of trainees participated 43

30. Cost-benefit analysis of international trainings underwent in a few frontier areas 44

31. Cross cutting workshops and number of consortia participated 46

32. Activities undertaken towards sustainability 50

33. Component wise possible linkages and purpose of linkage 51

34. Employment generated across the selected consortiums 52

35. Average pre and post project income of participating families 53

36. Districts covered with large area under forests dominated by tribal population 55

xv


List of Figure

1. CPI response over post project suitability 50

List of Annexures

1. Component wise list of consortia under NAIP 62

2. Participating institutions in NAIP and GEF 79

3. Major innovations in NAIP 81

4. Mass communication campaigns 83

5. Linkage with KVK and CIC 84

6. Hit rate of the ICAR & SAU websites per month 85

7. Response rate of queries received per month 86

8. List of business planning and development units 88

9. Patents filed 89

10. Technology commercialized and licenses issued through BPD Units 90

11. People attending visioning and policy analysis events 91

12. Procurement cycle of high threshold goods 92

13. Percentage coverage of MIS-FMS Project in ICAR 93

14. Production technologies developed/modified and adopted 93

15. Processing technologies developed/modified and adopted 93

16. Rural industries (including cottage industries) 94

17. Product groups 94

18. List of private sector organisations participating in consortia 95

19. Number of farmers/beneficiaries 97

20. Consortium developed technologies made available in disadvantaged areas 100

21. Improved technologies adopted in disadvantaged areas 102

22. Farmers using NAIP technologies in the disadvantaged areas 104

23. Increase in agriculture services and processing enterprises in project areas 105

24. Increase in agriculture based employment amongst participating 107farming households

25. Farmers groups involved in project activities 108

26. Overseas trainings under frontier areas 110

27. Publications under component 4 in high rated journals 111

28. Patents filed/published under component 4 113

29. Publications under NAIP in high rated journals 115

30. Theses submitted under NAIP 115

31. List of sub-projects selected for impact assessment 116

32. Interventions selected for impact assessment under sampled projects 118

xviixvii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AAU Anand Agricultural University; Assam Agricultural UniversityAFC Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd.AFPRO Action for Food ProductionAHRD Agricultural Human Resource DevelopmentAICRP All India Coordinated Research ProjectANGRAU Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural UniversityAP Andhra PradeshARIS Agricultural Research Information SystemASHOKA Advanced Supercomputing Hub for OMICS Knowledge in AgricultureASRB Agricultural Scientists Recruitment BoardATE Average Treatment EffectATT Average Treatment Effect on the TreatedBAIF Bhartiya Agro Industries FoundationBAU Birsa Agriculture UniversityBCKV Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa VidyalayaBCR Benefit-Cost AnalysisBHU Banaras Hindu UniversityBMCs Biodiversity Management CommitteesBPD Business Planning DevelopmentBPDUs Business Planning Development UnitsB2B Business to BusinessCABin Centre for Agriculture Bio-informaticsCAC Consortium Advisory CommitteeCAU Central Agricultural UniversityCAZRI Central Arid Zone Research Institute.CeRA Consortium for e-Resources in AgricultureCES Consultant Engineering Services (CES)CIC Consortium Implementation CommitteeCIFA Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture CIFT Central Institute of Fisheries TechnologyCIGs Commodity Interest GroupsCIRCOT Central Institute for Research on Cotton TechnologyCIRG Central Institute for Research on GoatsCL Consortium LeaderCMFRI Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute CMU Consortium Monitoring UnitCN Concept NoteCPI Consortium Principal InvestigatorCRIDA Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture CRRI Central Rice Research InstituteCSKHPKV Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi VishvavidyalayaCSIR Council of Scientific and Industrial ResearchCSUAT Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology

xviii


CU Central UniversityDAP Di-ammonium PhosphateDBT Department of BiotechnologyDGS&D Director General of Supplies & DisposalsDOR Directorate of Oilseeds ResearchDSR Directorate of Sorghum ResearchDSS Decision Support System DST Department of Science and TechnologyDWM Directorate of Water ManagementEA Economic AnalysisEBCR Economic Benefit Cost RatioEDP Entrepreneurship Development ProgrammeEMF Environmental Management FrameworkFA Financial AnalysisFAQ Frequently Asked QuestionFGD Focussed Group DiscussionFMS-MIS Financial Management System-Management Information SystemFYP Five Year PlanGADVASU Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences UniversityGBPUA&T G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and TechnologyGDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environmental FacilityGIS Geographic Information SystemGoI Government of IndiaGovt. GovernmentGVT Gramin Vikas Trusthh HouseholdHP Himachal PradeshHRD Human Resource DevelopmentHS Highly SatisfactoryIARI Indian Agricultural Research InstituteIASRI Indian Agricultural Statistics Research InstituteICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research ICAR NEH ICAR Research Complex for North Eastern Hill RegionICAR RCER ICAR-Research Complex for Eastern RegionICMR Indian Council of Medical Research ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid-Tropics ICT Information and Communications TechnologyIGKV Indira Gandhi Krishi VishwavidyalayaIGNOU Indira Gandhi National Open UniversityIIT Indian Institute of TechnologyINR Indian RupeeIPR Intellectual Property RightsIRC Institute Research CommitteeISI Indian Statistical InstituteISM Implementation Support Mission

xix


IRR Internal Rate of ReturnIT Information TechnologyIVRI Indian Veterinary Research InstituteJNKVV Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi VishwavidyalayaKAU-RRS Kerala Agricultural University Regional Research StationKVK Krishi Vigyan Kendra L&CB Learning and Capacity BuildingMAS Marker Assisted SelectionM&E Monitoring and EvaluationmKRISHI Mobile KrishiMoFPI Ministry of Food Processing IndustriesMoP Muriate of PotashMoU Memorandum of UnderstandingMP Madhya PradeshMPUAT Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and TechnologyMS Moderately SatisfactoryMSME Micro, Small and Medium EnterprisesMTR Mid Term ReportNAARM National Academy of Agricultural Research ManagementNAAS National Academy of Agricultural Sciences NABARD National Bank for Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentNABG National Agricultural Bio-informatics GridNAIP National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP)NARS National Agricultural Research SystemNASC National Agricultural Science CentreNATP National Agricultural Technology ProjectNAU Navsari Agricultural University NBRI National Botanical Research InstituteNC National CoordinatorNCAP National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research ND National DirectorNDRI National Dairy Research Institute NFBSFARA National Fund for Basic, Strategic and Frontier Science Research in AgricultureNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNPV Net Present ValueNS Non-SatisfactoryNSC National Steering CommitteeO&M Organization & ManagementO&MAG Organization & Management Advisory GroupO&MPC Organization & Management Program CommitteeOUAT Orissa University of Agriculture and TechnologyPAD Project Appraisal DocumentPCS Production to Consumption SystemPDO Project Development ObjectivesPIP Project Implementation PlanPIU Project Implementation Unit

xx


PMAC Project Monitoring and Advisory CommitteePMC Project Management CommitteePME Priority Setting, Monitoring & EvaluationPMTS Project Monitoring and Tracking SystemPPP Public–Private PartnershipPRT Peer Review TeamPwCPL Price water house Coopers Private LimitedQCBS Quality & Cost Based SelectionQTL Quantitative Trait LociRAC Research Advisory CommitteeR&D Research & DevelopmentRAU Rajendra Agricultural UniversityRFD Result Framework DocumentRKMP Rice Knowledge Management PortalRKVY Rashtriya Krishi Vikas YojanaRPC Research Programme CommitteeRVSKVV RajmataVijayaraje Scindia Krishi VishwaVidyalayaS SatisfactorySAMDI South African Management and Development InstituteSAO Senior Administrative OfficerSAS Statistical Analysis SystemSAU State Agricultural UniversitySBI State Bank of IndiaSC Scheduled CasteSDAU Sardarkrushi Dantiwada Agricultural UniversitySF & AO Senior Finance & Accounts OfficerSHGs Small Help GroupsSLEM Sustainable Land and Ecosystem ManagementSMD Subject Matter DivisionTAG Technical Advisory GroupToR Terms of ReferenceT.N. Tamil NaduTNAU Tamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityTTL Task Team LeaderTV TelevisionUAS (B) University of Agricultural Sciences, BangaloreUAS (R) University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur.UBKV Uttar Banga Krishi ViswavidyalayaUS United StatesUSD United States DollarVCF Venture Capital FundVPKAS Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan SansthanWB West Bengal; World Bank

xxixxi

dk;Zdkjh lkjka'k

jk"Vªh; Ñf"k uoksUes’kh ifj;kstuk ¼,u , vkbZ ih½ eas,d vUr% LFkkfir ¼bu&fcYV½ izcks/ku ,oa ewY;kadu¼,e ,.M bZ½ ra= gS tks rhu vyx&vyx fdUrq fof”k’VLrjksa&dUlksfVZ;e] ih vkbZ ;w ,oa Lora= ewY;kadu ijgSA ,e ,.M bZ izfØ;k dk laLFkkxr <kapk ,u , vkbZ ihds lexz laxBukRed ,oa vfHk”kklu <k¡ps dk vuqdj.kdjrk gSA bldk iz;kstu ifj.kkeksa dks izkIr djuk rFkkih vkbZ ;w }kjk dsoy izcks/ku rFkk i;Zos{k.k djus dslkFk mi&ifj;kstukvksa dk rsths ,oa Bksl :i ls dk;kZUo;udjus esa lg;ksx djuk gSA ?kVd 2] 3 rFkk 4 ds vUrxZrdUlksfVZ;e Lrj dh lfefr;ka xfBr dh xbZ Fkha rFkkdUlksfVZ;e Lrj ij fu/kkZfjr LVkQ vkSj ,d leUo;dds lkFk ,e ,.M bZ bZdkbZ ¼lh ,e ;w½ dh LFkkiukloZizFke dh xbZA ,e ,.M bZ ls lacaf/kr cqfu;knh dk;ksZads fy, vuqeksfnr lHkh dUlksfVZ;eksa gsrq 84 lh ,e ;w dhLFkkiuk dh xbZ] mUgsa LVkWQ ,oa lqfo/kk,a miyC/k djkbZxbZ vkSj iwjh rjg ls ifjpkyu ;ksX; cuk;k x;kAlh,e;w us leorhZ :i ls fufof’V;ksa] vkmViqV fHkUurkvksarFkk ifj.kkeh ladsrdksa ij MkVk lftr fd,A jk"Vªh;,e ,.M bZZ bdkbZ us viuh Lo;a dh fjiksfVZx laca/khvko”;drkvksa dks iwjk djus gsrq lwpuk dks izfdz;kxrcuk;kA

,e ,.M bZ us cSapekdZ losZ dh izfdz;k izkjaHk dh]izcks/ku ,oa ewY;kadu izfØ;kvkssa dk vUrj.k djrs gq, ,dfoLrr ,e ,.M bZ eSuqvy rS;kj fd;k rFkk bl lanHkZ esaizf”k{k.k f”kfoj vk;ksftr fd,A jk’Vªh; Lrj ij ,dizf”kf{kr dsUnzh; bZdkbZ us mi&ifj;kstuk ds Hkhrj lexz,e ,.M bZ iz;klksa vkSj Hkkxhnkjksa dk ekxZn”kZu fd;kAvizSy] 2013 ls ih vkbZ ;w bdkbZ dks ekStwnk iz/kkuoSKkfud ds vykok ,d jk"Vªh; leUo;d rFkk ,diz/kku oSKkfud ¼nksuksa ofj’B Ñf"k vFkZ”kkfL=;ksa½ ds lkFklqn<+ fd;k x;kA

13 ftyksa esa 51 xk¡oksa vkSj 2 }hi lewgksa esa QSys1350 ifjokjksa dks lfEefyr djrs gq,] ?kVd&2 esa 2008&09esa LohÑr 25 dUlksfVZ;k esa ls 10 dUlksfVZ;k esa xSj&ykHkHkksxh Ñ"kdksa dk vk/kkjHkwr losZ{k.k fd;k x;kA ?kVd&3cSapekdZ losZ{k.k Ñf"k&tyok;q {ks+=ksa ds vk/kkj ij 13

DyLVjksa ¼lewgksa½ dks lfEefyr djrs gq,] 150 xzkeh.kftyksa esa fd;k x;kA rnuqlkj] ;knfPNd :i ls 21ftyksa ls 21 rkyqdksa] 62 xkaoksa vkSj 1450 O;fDr;ksa dkp;u fd;k x;kA ?kVd 1 dh mi&ifj;kstuk,avf/kdka”kr% ;k rks voLFkkiuk&ijd Fkha vFkok laxBukRed:i ls lq/kkj&mUeq[kh FkhaA led{k rFkk lh , ;w lfgr56 vkbZ lh , vkj vkSj 25 ,l , ;w ls izfrfØ;k izkIrgqbZ FkhA 91 ftyksa ds fofHkUu LFkkuksa esa dUlksfVZ;e Lrjdk vk/kkjHkwr losZ{k.k Hkh fd;k x;k FkkA lacaf/kr dUlksfVZ;k}kjk fd, x, vk/kkjHkwr losZ{k.k ls izkIr eq[; vk¡dMs+,e ,.M bZ ijke”kZnkrkvksa }kjk fd, x, jk"Vªh;vk/kkjHkwr vkdM+ksa ls esy [kkrs FksA ,e ,.M bZ ijke”kZnkrkvksaus lh ih vkbZ ls fMtkbu fd, x, QkesZVksa esa izkS|ksfxfd;ksa]xzkeh.k m|ksxksa] isVsUVksa] uohu vkStkjksa] mRiknksa vkSj lQyrkdh dgkfu;ksa ij lwpuk izkIr dh rFkk mldk lEiknufd;k vkSj ,d lkj&laxzg ds :i esa ladyu fd;kAxfrfof/k;ksa vkSj fo’k; oLrqvksa }kjk lHkh izkS|ksfxfd;ksa dh,d lwph rS;kj dh xbZA

,e ,.M bZ laca/kh lwpuk ,d= vkSj ifj’Ñr djusgsrq ih ,e Vh ,l iz.kkyh fodflr dh xbZA ;g iz.kkyhLi’V] ifjek.kkRed rFkk izpkfyr vk/kkj&Hkwr vkadM+ksadks ladfyr djus] Hk.Mkj.k djus rFkk iqu% izkfIr] ?kVd2] 3 rFkk 4 ds varxZr igys ls py jgs vk/kkj ijfofHkUu mi&ifj;kstukvksa dh izxfr dk irk yxkus]lexz ,u , vkbZ ih ifj;kstuk dh izxfr dk izcks/kudjus] mi&ifj;kstuk LVkQ ds dk;Z&fu’iknu dk fu;fervkdyu djus rFkk lekiu ds iwoZ rFkk chp esa fu’d’kZrFkk ifj.kke dk ewY;kadu djus ds fy, FkhA ,d lqifjHkkf’kr^^ifj.kke QszeodZ ^ ftls Li’V :i ls fu/kkZfjr y{;ksa lsizkIr fd;k tkrk gS] ;g Hkkoh LVsdgksYMjksa] mn~ns”;ksa]vuqorhZ ladsrdksa ds lkFk fu’d’kksZa rFkk xfrfof/k;ksa] lR;kiuds lk/kuksa ,oa eq[; dYiukvksa ds izR;sd ?kVd ds fy,izkIr vk/kkjHkwr vkadM+ksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA ?kVd&1 usfu’iknu ladsrdksa ds fy, fu/kkZfjr vf/kdka”k y{;ksa dksizkIr dj fy;k FkkA ?kVd&2 us y{;ksa ls vf/kd izkIrfd;k gS ftlesa dUlksfVZ;k dh la[;k ¼15 ds y{; dhrqyuk esa 51½] fjyht ,oa viukbZ x;h mRiknu izkS|ksfxfd;k¡

xxii


¼75 ds y{; dh rqyuk esa 99½] ifj’dj.k izkS|ksfxfd;k¡¼95 ds y{; dh rqyuk esa 173½] LFkkfir xzkeh.k m|ksx¼48½] mRiknu lewg ¼27½] futh {ks= lgHkkxh laxBu¼70½ rFkk dUlksfVZ;k xfrfof/k;ksa esa lac) Ñ"kd “kkfeygSaA ?kVd&3 ds vUrxZr vykHkkfUor {ks=ksa esa miyC/kdjkbZ xbZ fodflr izkS|ksfxfd;ksa dh la[;k 300 ds y{;dh rqyuk esa 409 gSA bl ?kVd us ifj;kstuk ckn dsLFkkf;Ro dh lwpuk nsrs gq,] 7-51 djksM+ :0 dh LFkkf;Rofuf/k ,d= dhA ?kVd 4 esa fofHkUu fo’k; oLrqvksa dsvarxZr izkIr lQyrk ls yxHkx 85 isVsUV vkosnu i=ksavkSj 427 vuqla/kku izdk”kuksa dks mPpJs.kh if=dkvksa esaizdkf”kr fd;k x;kA

okf’kZd vk/kkj ij dUlksfVZ;k ds dk;Z&fu’iknu dhrqyuk djus ds iz;kstu gsrq fo”o cSad }kjk vuqeksfnrpkj ekun.Mksa ls lacaf/kr ,d LdksjdkMZ 2010&11 fodflrfd;k x;kA ;s Ldksj vko”;d :i ls lh ih vkbZ }kjkLo&vkdfyr Fks] ysfdu bl fopkj dk rkRi;Z dUlksfVZ;kij dk;Z&fu’iknu dk nokc Mkyuk FkkA ,u , vkbZ ihus izR;sd mi ifj;kstuk ds fy, foLrr vk¡dM+k&vk/kkj@nLrkost lftr fd,A ,e ,.M bZ izdks’B blizdkj ds lHkh vkadM+ksa@fjiksVksZa ds ,d laxzg dk vuqj{k.kdj jgk gS ftlesa lHkh 203 mi&ifj;kstukvksa dks lEefyrdjrs gq, laxzg.k@ladyu@ltu dk dk;Z fd;k x;kA

izHkko vkdyu gsrq rhu izdkj dk losZ{k.k fd;kx;k &lh ih vkbZ] ykHkkFkhZ rFkk led{k LVsdgksYMlZrFkk {kerk fuekZ.k ¼vUrjkZ’Vªh; izf”k{k.k½ ds ykHkkFkhZ¼vuqla/kku dRrkZ½A lh ih vkbZ losZ{k.k ls irk pyk gS fdvf/kdka”k mi&ifj;kstuk,a fuf/k;ksa dh laforj.k izfÑ;kds eqrkfcd Fkha ftues 19 izfr”kr dk Lrj mPp larks’ktudFkkA fu/kkZfjr eq[; {kerk,a Li’V fn”kk&funsZ”k ¼41 izfr”kr½]bsysDVªkfud fuf/k vUrj.k ¼33 izfr”kr½ rFkk Hkkxhnkjksadks izR;{k vUrj.k ¼24 izfr”kr½ vkadh xbZA vf/kdka”kmi&ifj;ksstuk,a izki.k izfÑ;k ds eqrkfcd Fkha rFkk 70izfr”kr mi&ifj;kstukvksa dk Lrj mPp larks"ktudFkkA izki.k izfØ;k dh eq[; {kerk,a Li’V fn”kkfunsZ”kksa]ikjn”khZ izfØ;k] izR;{k [kjhn ds fy, izko/kku rFkklh ih vkbZ@lh lh ih vkbZ dh Lok;Rrrk ds :i esaik;h x;hA

mPp izHkko okyh if=dkvksa ¼tuZyksa½ esa 542 vuqla/kkuisijksa dk izdk”ku egRoiw.kZ miyfC/k FkhA dqy 118

isVsUV Qkby fd, x,A mi&ifj;kstukvksa esa tkx:drkvfHk;kuksa ds ek/;e ls ykHkkfFkZ;ksa vFkok LVsdgksYMjksadh dqy la[;k eq[;r% ?kVd 2 vkSj 3 esa yxHkx 2-6fefy;u rd igq ¡pus dk vuqeku yxk;k x;kAmi&ifj;kstukvksa esa izR;{k ykHkkfFkZ;ksa ds :i esa yxHkx31 izfr”kr efgykvksa dh Hkkxhnkjh ns[kh xbZA blesaefgyk Ñ"kd] dkjhxj] Lo&lgk;rk lewg ds lnL;rFkk m|eh “kkfey gSaA eq[;r% ?kVd&3 ds vUrxZr dqyefgyk ykHkkfFkZ;ksa esa tutkfr efgykvksa dh la[;k yxHkx42 izfr”kr FkhA

,u , vkbZ ih mi&ifj;kstukvksa ls mi&ifj;kstukvksads varxZr fofHkUu igyksa ds tfj, yxHkx 0-8 fefy;uÑ"kdksa dk thou izHkkfor gqvk gSA dUlksfVZ;k eksMvuqla/kku }kjk yxHkx 84 izfr”kr mi&ifj;kstukvksa esaKku dh Hkkxhnkjh rFkk rduhdh tkudkjh lk>k djusij vuqdwy izHkko iM+kA cqfu;knh volajpuk dh Hkkxhnkjhgsrq] vuqla/kku ds dalksfVZ;k eksM dks 38 izfr”krmi&ifj;kstukvksa }kjk vf/kd izHkko ds :i esa rFkkvuqorhZ vR;k/kqfud izHkko dks 58 izfr”kr rd rFkk deizHkko dks 4 izfr”kr rd vkadk x;kA

volajpuk ltu ds fo”ys’k.k ls irk pyk fd50 izfr”kr volajpuk dk dk;Z ?kVd & 1 ds varxZrfd;k x;kA izki.k izfØ;k ds fo”ys’k.k ls irk pyk fdvf/kdka”k mi&ifj;kstuk,a izfØ;k ds eqrkfcd ¼92 izfr”kr½FkhaA fu/kkZfjr eq[; {kerk,a Li’V fn”kkfunsZ”k] ikjn”khZizfØ;k] izR;{k [kjhn dk izko/kku rFkk lh ih vkbZ@lh lh ih vk bZ dh Lok;Rrrk FkhaA yxHkx 46 izfr”krykHkkfFkZ;ksa us eglwl fd;k fd bu igyksa ds ifj.kke Lo:ijkstxkj esa lUrqfyr c<+ksrjh gqbZ gS rFkk 89 izfr”kr lexzykHkkfFkZ;ksa us crk;k fd blls vk; esa e/;e ls vf/kdc<+ksrjh gqbZA yxHkx 50 izfr”kr izfrokfn;ksa dks ifj;kstuk esaLFkkfir Lo&lgk;rk lewg] Ñ"kd ;qok lewg] vkfn tSlhlaLFkkxr fodkl xfrfof/k;ksa }kjk ykHk izkIr gqvkA

leku vFkok nks&frgkbZ xSj&ykHkkFkhZ ds lkFk 5577izfrokfn;ksa@LVsdgksYMjksa ls MkVk ,d= fd;k x;k ftuesals 90 izfr”kr yksx Ñ’kd FksA ftu fo”ys’k.kkRedlk/kuksa dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k muesa nksuksa ifjek.kRed ,oaxq.kkRed fo”ys’k.k] vkaf”kd ctfVax] cgq&ekun.Mfo”ys’k.k] ch lh vkj] vkbZ vkj vkj rFkk ,u ih oh“kkfey gSaA

xxiii


LVsdgksYMj losZ{k.k ds tfj, izHkko ewY;kadu ifj.kkeksals irk pyk fd ?kVd&1 esa ,d ls vf/kd ykHk&ykxrvuqikr izkIr gqvk vkSj mlus ldkjkRed ,uihoh nhA?kVd&1 dh vkbZ vkj vkj 19-26 izfr”kr cSBrh gSAifj.kkeksa ls irk pyk fd blls dk;Z{ke izkS++++|ksfxfd;ksads lkFk dk;Zuhfrxr vuqla/kku dk;ZØe ¼?kVd&4½ esafuos”k djuk vkfFkZd :Ik ls O;ogkkfjd Fkk ftlls6379-18 fefy;u :0 dk vuqekfur jktLo FkkA ykHkykxr vuqikr 1-75 Fkk vkSj vkbZ vkj vkj 55-33 izfr”krFkhA ?kVd &2 ds lexz fo”ys’k.k ls irk pyk fd dqy2291-20 fefy;u : ds O;; ds fy, izkIr dqy foRrh;ykHk dh jkkf”k 4857-41 fefy;u :0 FkhA blls 2-12 dkfoRrh; ykHk ykxr vuqikr izkIr gqvkA ?kVd Lrj ijvkbZ vkj vkj Hkh 50-08 izfr”kr FkhA ?kVd&2 ls izkIrlexz vkfFkZd ykHk Hkh vf/kd jkstxkj ltu ds dkj.kT;knk FkkA ?kVd&2 ds lexz vkfFkZd ykHk dk ykxrvuqikr ¼bZ ch lh vkj½ 2-15 FkkA ?kVd&3 ls “kq}vkfFkZd ykHk dk ykxr vuqikr 2-02 ds “kq} foRrh;ykHk ykxr vuqikr dh rqyuk esa FkksM+k de gksdj 1-45FkkA ?kVd&3 ds fy, x.kuk dh xbZ vkbZ vkj vkj Hkh43-34 izfr”kr FkhA vuqeku yxk;k x;k Fkk fd lEiw.kZ,u , vkbZ ih ifj;kstuk ds fy, mi&ifj;kstukvksa dscfgoZs”ku ds vk/kkj ij lexz foRrh; ,oa vkfFkZd ykHkykxr vuqikr Øe”k% 1-79 vkSj 1-73 Fkk rFkk vkbZ vkjvkj& 40% FkhA

izf”k{k.k ds ek/;e ls jk’Vªh; ,oa vUrjkZ’Vªh; {kerkfodkl dk;ZØeksa ¼lh Mh ih½ dk mn~s”; 2 lIrkg lsysdj 3 eghusa dh vof/k ds fy, Ñf"k foKku esa 27lhekUr {ks=ksa esa {kerk fodkl djuk gSA izfr izf”k{k.kkFkhZvkSlru 7-86 yk[k :0 dh jkf”k [kpZ djds vUrjkZ’Vªh;izf”k{k.k ds vUrxZr 451 oSKkfudksa ,oa vf/kdkfj;ksa dks23 ns”kksa esa Hkstk x;k FkkA vkdyu ls irk pyk fdfo”ks’krk ds fofHkUu {ks=ksa eas {kerk fodkl ds fy, ch lh vkj1-13 ls 11-35 Fkh rFkk U;wVªkL;wVhdYl ls iz;ksx dstfj, fJEi esa mRiknu dh ykxr esa 15&20% dh cprrFkk ,yhy ekbfuax esa ykxr dk;Z {kerk 25 izfr”krFkhA izf”k{k.k ds iwoZ LohÑr fd, x, okf’kZd tuZyizdk”kuksa dh la[;k 1-15 ¼,lbZ&0-10½ Fkh vkSj izf”k{k.kds ckn ;g la[;k 1-77 ¼,lbZ&0-12½ FkhA izdkf”krvkSlr okf’kZd tuZy ys[kksa ij vkSlr “kks/ku izHkko 0-468

¼”kksf/kr ys[kksa ij vkSlr “kks/ku izHkko 0-357 gS½ rFkkvkSlr okf’kZd izdk”ku lwpdkad ij vkSlr izHkko 1-711¼”kksf/kr ys[kksa ij vkSlr “kks/ku izHkko 1-521½ gSA

fofHkUu ?kVdksa dh mi&ifj;kstukvksa ds chp ijLijppkZ djus gsrq ikap Økl dfVax dk;Z”kkykvksa dk vk;kstufd;k x;k FkkA ftu eqn~nksa dk lek/kku fd;k x;k os Fks¼1½ Hkkoh vuqla/kku] ¼2½ mUu;u] ¼3½ okf.kT;hdj.k] ¼4½izpkj&izlkj] ¼5½ ewY; lao/kZu] ¼6½ foi.ku ¼7½ vkthfodkof}] ¼8½ fu/kkZfjr eqn~nksa ds dk;kZUo;u ds fy, dk;Zuhfr,oa ifjn“;] rFkk ¼9½ ifj;kstuk dk LFkkf;RoA

fu/kkZfjr ?kVd&3 mi&ifj;kstukvksa ds LFkkf;Rods lk/kuksik; Fks& LFkkf;Ro fuf/k dk ltu] lekfo’Vleqnk; vk/kkfjr laxBu dk fodkl] foi.ku ,oa foRrh;lEidZ] vko”;drk vk/kkfjr {kerk fodkl rFkk lkeqnkf;dlsokvksa dk ltu] xzke&Lrjh; oLrq cSdksa dk xBu]lkeqnkf;d volajpuk rFkk izcks/ku ,oa ewY;kadu ds fy,vkSj QszeodZA

,u , vkbZ ih us lkekftd fodkl ds vusd {ks=ksavFkkZr jkstxkj ltu] Hkkxhnkjh] lekos”ku] xjhch esadeh] tsaMj ¼efgyk½ l”kfDrdj.k vFkok lekurk ,oaekuo fodkl dk Hkh lek/kku fd;k gSA dqy feykdj]pquhank xzkeksa esa ,d ifjokj dks ,d o’kZ esa dsoy 167-4Je fnolksa ds fy, Ñf"k xfrfof/k;ksa ij jkstxkj feykFkkA ifj;kstuk ds ckn ;g] izfr o’kZ izfr ifjokj vkSlrujkstxkj 245-83 fnol gks x;h tks 46-64 izfr”kr vf/kdFkhA blesa mu [ksr Jfedksa rFkk lhekUr Ñ’kdksa dks“kkfey fd;k x;k ftUgksus vU; [ksr ¼QkeZ½ Lokfe;ksa ds[ksrksa esa dk;Z djus esa viuk ;ksxnku fn;k FkkA

Ifj;kstuk ds vkjaHk esa vk/kkjHkwr vkenuh rFkk ekStwnkvkenuh dh rqyuk dh xbZA ekStwnk vkenuh dks eqnzkLQhfrds fy, lek;ksftr djus ij ;g dkjd 1-873 FkkAfofHkUu mi&ifj;kstukvksa esa vkenuh esa of} dk izfr”kr75-39 ls 2544-41 ds chp FkkA

vykHkkfUor {ks=ksa esa vkthfodk lq/kkj ds mn~ns”; lsmi&ifj;kstukvksa esa Hkwfeghu] y?kq ,oa lhekUr Ñ"kd]xzkeh.k efgyk,a] vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ,oa vuqlwfpr&tutkfr;ka “kkfey FkhaA fofHkUu dUlksfVZ;ksa }kjk 1]76]185Ñ’kdksa dks ykHkkfUor djrs gq, dqy 5]036 izf”k{k.kdk;ZØe vk;ksftr fd, x,A blesa dkS”ky fodkl] m|ferkrFkk lsok iznkrk Hkh “kkfey FksA

xxiv


vuqla/kkudrkZvksa us ,u,Vhih esa dk;Zdj.k dsle&vuq”kklukRed “kSyh ls cgq&vuq”kklukRedvuqla/kku esa vxzlj gksus ds ckjs esa tkudkjh izkIr dhrFkk vc ,u , vkbZ ih esa cgq&laxBu lg;ksx gq, gSaAvuqla/kkudrkZvksa us dk;Z vuqla/kku esa rqyukRed ykHkizkIr djus ds ckjs esa tkudkjh izkIr dhA lkoZtfud {ks=ds miØe nqxZe {ks=ksa esa yksxksa dks tkx:d djus esaxSj&ljdkjh laxBuksa ¼,u-th-vks½ dh n{krk dk ykHkmBk;kA vuqla/kkudrkZvksa us LFkkf;Ro fuf/k] lkekftd,dtqVrk] Lo&lgk;rk ,oa mRiknd lewgksa ds fy,

ifj;kstukvksa ds foRriks’k.k&Ik”p LFkkf;Ro ds fy, nk;jsls ckgj lkspuk “kq: dj fn;k gSA ifj;kstukvksa esa lHkhLrjksa ij yxkrkj ifjorZu ns[kus esa vk, gS & vHkh Hkhblesa vPNk rkjrE; cuk gqvk gS vkSj ifj;kstuk dksfdlh leL;k dk lkeuk ugh djuk iM+ jgk gSA blls,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd ifj;kstuk izLrko lqfu/kkZfjr ,e,.M bZ ;kstuk ds le; larqfyr FkkA rFkkfi] izHkkohdk;kZUo;u ds fy, lHkh txg Ñf’k vkfFkZd lykgdkjksads lkFk ifj;kstuk ds vkjaHk ls ,d iw.kZ:is.k lqlfTtr,e ,.M bZ bdkbZ gksuh vko';d le>k x;kA

❏❏❏❏❏

xxvxxv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Agricultural Innovation Project hasan in-built Monitoring & Evaluation mechanism thatenables monitoring at three different but distinct levels– consortium, PIU and external independentevaluation. The institutional structure of M&E processfollowed overall organizational and governancestructure of NAIP. The purpose is to track the resultsand facilitate faster and smoother implementation ofthe sub-projects than to exercise mere oversight andsupervision by the PIU. The Consortium LevelCommittees were constituted under Component 2, 3and 4. M&E unit (CMU) with identified staff and acoordinator at the Consortium level was set up as afirst task. Eighty four CMU units were established,staffed and equipped and rendered fully operationalfor all the consortia approved, to the basic worksrelated to M&E. CMUs concurrently generated dataon inputs, output variables and outcome indicators.The national M&E unit processed the information formeeting its own reporting needs.

A detailed M&E manual was developeddovetailing the process of bench mark survey,monitoring and evaluation procedures and trainingswere conducted. A well-equipped and suitably trainedcentral unit at the national level was guiding theoverall M&E efforts within the sub-project andvis-à- vis partners. Since April 2013, the M&E Unit atPIU was strengthened with the accretion of oneNational Coordinator and a Principal Scientist, bothsenior agricultural economists, in addition to theexisting Principal Scientist.

Base line survey of non-beneficiary farmers in 10consortia out of the 25 sanctioned in 2008-09 incomponent 2, covering 1350 households (hh)distributed over 51 villages and two islands in 13districts was conducted. Component 3 benchmarksurvey was done from 150 rural districts, grouped intorespondents 13 clusters on the basis of agro- climaticzones. Accordingly 21 taluks, 62 villages and 1450respondents were selected randomly from 21districts. The component 1 sub-projects were mostlyeither infrastructural or organizational reformsoriented. The response was received from 56 ICARinstitutes and 25 SAUs including deemed and CAUs.Consortia level baseline survey was also conductedat various locations in 91 districts. The values of key

variables obtained from baseline survey conductedby the respective consortia were comparable to keyvariables obtained from national baseline surveyconducted by M&E consultants. The M&E consultantobtained and collated information on technologies,rural industries, patents, novel tools, products andsuccess stories in designed formats from CPIs andcompiled as a compendia. A catalogue wasdeveloped of all technologies by activities andthemes.

PMTS was developed to collect and processM&E- related information. The system was to:facilitate the capture, storage and retrieval of a clear,quantified and operational base-line data; track theprogress of various sub-projects under Components2, 3 and 4 on an on-going basis; monitor the progressof the overall NAIP project; regularly assess theperformance of sub-project staff; and evaluate theoutput and outcome at mid-term and prior tocompletion.

A well-defined ‘Results Framework’ was derivedfrom clearly identified goals and based on the baseline data elicited for each of the components from theprospective stakeholders, objectives, outputs andactivities with corresponding indicators, with means ofverification and key assumptions. The component 1had achieved most of the targets set for performanceindicators. Component 2 surpassed the targetsincluding number of consortia (51 with target of 15),production technologies released and adopted (99against target of 75), processing technologies (173 fortarget of 95), rural industries established (48),product groups (27) private sector participatingorganizations (70) and farmers involved (79758) inconsortium activities. The number of developedtechnologies made available in disadvantaged areasunder component 3 is 409 against the target of 300.The component has raised sustainability fund ofR 7.51 crores indicating post project sustainability ofthe sub-projects. The success achieved acrossvarious themes in component 4 has translated intofiling of 85 patent applications and 427 researchpublications in rated journals carrying NAAS scoresgreater than 6.

A score card involving four criterion approved byWB was developed in 2010-11 onwards for the

xxvi


purpose of comparing the performance of theconsortia on an annual basis. The scores wereessentially a self-assessment by the CPIs, but theidea meant a pressure of performance on theconsortia. NAIP has generated detailed database/documentations for each sub-project. The M&E cell ismaintaining a repository of all such data/information/reports that are getting collected/compiled/generatedcovering all 203 sub-projects.

The impact assessment was conducted in threeparts – CPIs survey, stakeholders’ survey withcontrols and beneficiaries (researchers) of capacitybuilding (international training). The CPI surveyindicated that a majority of the sample sub-projectswas satisfied with the fund disbursement process witha 19 percent reporting high satisfaction levels. Themajor strengths identified are clear guidelines (41percent), electronic fund transfer (33 percent) anddirect transfer to partners (24 percent). A majority ofthe sample sub-projects were satisfied with theprocurement process as well with 70 percentreporting high satisfaction levels. The key strengths ofthe procurement process were identified as clearguidelines, transparent process, provision for directpurchase and autonomy to CPI/CCPI’s.

Significant achievement was evident as regardspublications of 643 research papers in high impactjournals. A total of 118 patents have been filed. Thetotal number of beneficiaries or stakeholders reachedthrough awareness campaigns in the samplesub-projects was estimated to be around 2.6 millionmainly in component 2 and 3. Around 31%participation of women as direct beneficiaries wasnoticed in sample sub-projects. This includes womenfarmers, artisans, SHG members and entrepreneurs.Percentage of tribal women among the total womenbeneficiaries was around 42%, mainly undercomponent 3.

It is estimated that till March 2014, the NAIPsub-projects impacted the life of about 0.8 millionfarmers through various interventions under thesub-projects. About 84 percent of the sample sub-projects considered that consortia mode of researchhad high contribution or impact on sharing ofknowledge & technical know-how. For sharing ofinfrastructure, the consortia mode of research beingrated as high impact by 38 percent sample sub-projects followed by modest impact by 58 percent andlow impact by 4 percent.

Component wise analysis of infrastructurecreation revealed that 50 percent of the infrastructurewas done under component 1. Analysis of theprocurement process revealed that majority of thesample sub-projects were satisfied (about 92%) withthe process. The key strengths identified were clearguidelines, transparent process, provision for directpurchase and autonomy to CPI/CCPI’s.

About 46 percent of beneficiaries felt thatinterventions resulted in moderate increase inemployment and 89 percent of the overall samplebeneficiaries stated that there was medium to higheffect on increase in income. Around 58 percentrespondents were benefitted by institutionaldevelopment activities like the formation of self-helpgroup, farmers group, youth group, etc.

Data were collected from 5557 respondents/stakeholders with equal or two-third controls, of whichmore than 90 per cent was farmers. The analyticaltools that were used include both quantitative andqualitative analysis – partial budgeting, multi-criteriaanalysis, BCR, IRR and NPV.

The results impact analysis through thestakeholders’ survey indicated that component 1yielded a benefit cost ratio of more than 1 and gave apositive NPV. The IRR for component 1 worked out tobe 19.26%. The results showed that it waseconomically viable to invest in the strategic researchprogramme (component 4) with the potentialtechnologies generating expected revenue ofR 6379.18 million. The benefit cost ratio was 1.75 andthe IRR worked out to be 57.33%. The overallanalysis of component 2 indicated that for a totalexpenditure of R 2291.20 million, the total financialbenefit accrued was R 4857.41 million. This yielded afinancial benefit cost ratio (FBCR) of 2.12. IRRcalculated at component level was 50.08%. Theoverall economic benefit accrued from component 2was even higher due to higher employmentgeneration. The overall economic benefit cost ratio(EBCR) of component 2 was 2.15. The net economicbenefit cost ratio from Component 3 was slightly lowerat 1.45 than the net financial benefit cost ratio of 2.02.Also, the IRR for component 3 worked out to be43.34%. It was estimated that the NAIP sub-projectshad an overall financial and economic benefit costratio of 1.79 and 1.73 respectively, based on theextrapolation of the sample sub-projects to wholeNAIP project and the IRR was ~40%.

xxvii


National and international capacity developmentprogrammes (CDPs) through training aimed to buildcapacity in 27 frontier areas in agricultural sciencesfor a duration ranging from 2 weeks to 3 months. 451scientists were sent to 23 countries under openinternational training with an average spending ofR 7.86 lakhs per trainee. The assessment revealedthat BCR for capacity building in different areas ofspecialization ranged from 1.13 to 11.35 and 25%cost efficiency in allele mining and 15-20% saving incost of production in shrimp through use ofnutraceuticals. The mean number of annual journalpublications accepted prior to training was 1.15 (SE-0.10) and following the training it was 1.77 (SE-0.12).The average treatment effect on mean annual journalarticles published was 0.468 (average treatment effecton the treated is 0.357) and the average treatmenteffect on mean annual publication index to be 1.711(average treatment effect on the treated is 1.521).

Five cross cutting workshops were organized tohave interactions among sub projects of differentcomponents. The issues addressed were: i) futureresearch, ii) scaling up, iii) commercialization,iv) dissemination, v) value addition, vi) marketing,vii) livelihood enhancement, viii) strategy and synergyfor implementation of identified issues, and ix)sustainability of the project.

The means of sustainability of component 3 sub-projects identified were - creation of sustainabilityfund, development of inclusive community basedorganisation, marketing and financial linkages, needbased capacity building and creation of communityservices, formation of village level commodity banksand community infrastructure and framework formonitoring and evaluation.

NAIP also addressed several areas of socialdevelopment viz., employment generation,participation, inclusion, poverty reduction, genderempowerment or equity and human capacitydevelopment. On an aggregate, the farmers in theselected villages had employment on farming

activities for only 167.4 days in a year. Post project,the mean employment per household per year was245.83 man days, with an increase of 46.64%.It included those farm labourers and the marginalfarmers, who contributed to work in the fields of otherfarm owners.

The baseline income estimated in 2007-08 andthe current income when the project ended weremade comparable using a common linking factor ofwholesale price indices 1.873, as the base years weredifferent viz., 1993-94 and 2004-05. Subsequently,the current income was adjusted for inflation and theadjusted income over baseline income was comparedfor increase in the income levels. The percentageincrease in income ranged between 75.39 and2544.41 across different sub-projects.

The sub-projects aiming at livelihoodimprovement in disadvantaged areas includedlandless, small and marginal farmers, rural women,scheduled caste and tribes. In all 5036 trainingsbenefitting 176185 farmers were organized byvarious consortia. It also included development ofskill, entrepreneurship and service providers.

Researchers have learnt to shift from uni-disciplinary mode of functioning to multidisciplinaryresearch in NATP and now multi-organizationscollaborations in NAIP. Researchers have understoodabout harnessing comparative advantage in actionresearch. Public sector organisations could leverageon the ability of the NGOs in mobilizing people indifficult areas and executing action research.Researchers have started thinking out of box towardspost funding sustainability of the projects in terms ofsustainability fund, social mobilization, self-help andproducer groups. The project has witnessed frequentchanges at all levels - still continuity was very smoothwithout the project suffering any serious hiccups. Itonly shows that the proposal was robust with well laidout M&E plan. However, for effective implementationthere should be full-fledged M&E Unit with agriculturaleconomists in place throughout.

❏❏❏❏❏

11

1. INTRODUCTION

Agriculture is an important sector of the Indianeconomy as more than half of the labour force in thecountry relies on it for their livelihood and source ofsustenance. Besides, it is the major source of rawmaterial supply for a large number of industries. But interms of GDP share, it has steadily decreased frommore than 50% in 1950s to the present 14% revealingthat with no commensurate decline in the populationdepending on it, rural poverty is inevitable. The robusteconomic growth for more than a decade had impactedmore the urban and literate and skilled populationleaving behind the rural counterparts. The boomingeconomy demands more land for non-agriculture use;the sector has not seen major productivity gainsbarring isolated excellence in a few crops and regions;there has been no net increase in gross capitalformation in agriculture, particularly in terms of stateinvestment; the realised yield levels are far below theeven available potential; the sector has remainedalmost untouched by the economic reforms unleashedin 1991. Besides, it faces multifaceted challenges rightfrom production to consumption. There was a need tointervene in an unconventional way to impact thesector involving public-private partnerships, NGOs,commercialization, promotion of value chains,scientists led extension in disadvantaged areas, etc.Hence, learning from the experience of the pastprojects funded by World Bank, National AgriculturalInnovation Project (NAIP) was launched on 18th

September 2006. The objective of National AgriculturalInnovation Project is to contribute to the sustainabletransformation of Indian agricultural sector from anorientation of primarily food self-sufficiency to one inwhich market orientation is equally important forpoverty alleviation and income generation. The specificobjective is to accelerate the collaborativedevelopment and application of agriculturalinnovations between public and researchorganizations, NGOs, farmers, private sector and other

stakeholders to meet the above-mentioned objective.To achieve these objectives, the project has fourcomponents namely: (1) Indian Council of AgriculturalResearch (ICAR) as a catalyzing agent formanagement of change in the Indian NationalAgricultural Research System (NARS); (2) Researchon production to consumption systems; (3) Researchon sustainable rural livelihood security; and (4) Basicand strategic research in the frontier areas ofagricultural sciences. In addition, three sub-projectsunder component-3 are funded by additional financinggrant from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) TrustFund of the World Bank.

The project developed a results-based M&Esystem to monitor project processes using well-definedi) results framework, ii) strategy regarding informationrequirements, tools and methodologies for datacollection, analysis and reporting, iii) comprehensiveM&E plan with clear roles and responsibilities withrespect to data gathering and reporting and iv) internaland external periodic assessments and evaluationsincluding baseline studies, beneficiary assessments,mid-term evaluations, ex-post evaluations and impactassessments. NAIP promoted participatory monitoringto ensure that project implementation processes areexecuted in a satisfactory manner and that benefits aresustainable.

Monitoring is a continuous assessment of projectimplementation in relation to agreed schedules, use ofinputs, infrastructure and services provided, by projectbeneficiaries. Monitoring usually precedes and formsthe basis for evaluation. Evaluation is a periodicassessment of the relevance, performance, efficiencyand impact (both expected and unexpected) of theproject in relation to stated objectives [SAMDI, 2006].M&E is a facilitating exercise to enable the researcher toshowcase and articulate their achievements in a waythe general public and policy planners can understandand appreciate.

❏❏❏❏❏

22

The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) activitiesof National Agricultural Innovation Project are in tunewith the funding agencies’ objective of tracking theresults than merely overseeing the implementation.Accordingly, it is neither inspectorial nor paternalisticbut more of facilitating in realization of objectives.Focus of M&E has shifted from monitoringimplementation to tracking results. The implementationprocessed monitoring included tracking of inputsmobilization, activities undertaken and completed,and outputs delivered. The result based systemadded, monitoring of project outcomes in addition toimplementation based monitoring. Since 2003, theWorld Bank (WB) has used the results framework,which is a simplified version of the traditional logframe focusing on (a) the Project DevelopmentObjectives (PDO) and (b) intermediate outcomesexpected from implementing each individual projectcomponent, which in turn contribute to theachievement of the PDO. Also, the focus is on alearning approach to M&E that uses achievementsand problems for better decision-making andaccountability. The overall objective is to facilitate fullparticipation in the NAIP by helping the consortiumpartners and consortium monitoring units (CMUs) to(i) understand the basic concepts of the WB resultframework and M&E system of NAIP, (ii) to assistCMU to create the data base on inputs, outputs, andoutcomes of their respective projects, and (iii) toassist the supervision and evaluation teams intheir tasks. Thus, monitoring in NAIP has beenoperationalized by tracking the outcomes as per theresults framework indicators and performanceindicators enlisted in the Project Appraisal Document(PAD) and Project Implementation Plan (PIP)document.

2.1 Institutional structure for M&E

The institutional structure of M&E processfollowed an overall organizational and governancestructure of NAIP. The primary responsibility for M&Ewas with the Project Implementation Unit (PIU), led bythe National Director (ND) and assisted by theNational Coordinators (NCs), and the Finance and

Procurement Officers. The PIU reported to theNational Steering Committee (NSC) and the ProjectMonitoring Committee (PMC) on M&E issues andinformed the Organization & ManagementProgramme Committee (O&MPC) and the ResearchProgramme Committee (RPC). The overallcoordination of project M&E of sub-projects wascarried out as three separate, but distinct efforts. First,the concurrent monitoring was the responsibility of theNational Coordinator (O&M) assisted by a ProjectM&E Consultant (who was charged with theresponsibilities of the day-to-day M&E operations) tillJune 2012, and subsequently the M&E Unit wascreated at PIU to carry out the mandated activities.Second, CMUs regularly monitored and reported onthe sub-project’s physical and financial inputs andoutputs, at the Consortia level. Third, an independententity was charged to carry out comprehensiveoutcome-focused impact evaluations of the NAIP.

The monitoring effort has lent support to:management in its day-to-day operations; developinga project monitoring and tracking system (PMTS);development of information networks; providesupport to the overall NAIP communicationdissemination effort; business development andplanning; learning and capacity building; andconsortium activities in developing concept notes(CN) into full proposals. The M&E system identifiedproblem areas at the National and Consortium levels,helped management administer project processes,project designing and implementation, make mid-course corrections, and achieve its overalldevelopment objective.

2.1.1 Consortium level M&E

The Consortium Level Committees wereconstituted under component 2, 3 and 4. It wasenvisaged that the sub-projects approved undercomponent 1 will be steered and monitored by thePriotization, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) Cellsestablished during the National AgriculturalTechnology Project (NATP) era. However, foreffective monitoring, the PMC in October 2008approved constitution of Programme Monitoring and

2. FOCUS OF MONITORING

3


Advisory Committees (PMACs) (one PMAC for foursub-projects) to monitor the sub-projects ofcomponent 1.

For sub-projects under component 2, 3 & 4 thefollowing committees were constituted:

• Consortium Advisory Committee (CAC)

• Consortium Implementation Committee (CIC)

• Consortium Monitoring Committee (CMU)

Each consortium established a CMU. In thoseinstitutions where PME Cells existed, the CMUconsisted of the existing PME cell with the CPI for theconsortium as an additional member. For thoseinstitutions which did not have the PME Cellsestablished under NAIP, the constitution of CMU wasas follows:

1. In ICAR institutions, the CIC itself functioned asthe CMU without the membership of SeniorAdministrative Officer (SAO) and SeniorFinance & Accounts Officer (SF & AO). Aneconomist was a member and if no economistwas available, any social scientist preferably anextension scientist or a home science scientistwas one of the members of CMU.

2. In the case of State Agricultural Universities(SAUs), the CMU included the Head of theDepartment of Agricultural Economics (of therank of professor) or if not available Head of theDepartment of Agricultural Extension as amember and all other CIC members excludingthe members from the finance andadministration branches.

3. In the case of the private sector and Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) ledconsortia, the CIC excluding the finance andadministration members constituted the CMU. Ifthere was a social scientist in the leadinstitution, he/she was a member of the CMU.

M&E unit (CMU) with identified staff and acoordinator at the Consortium was set up as a firsttask. CMUs needed to identify the output andoutcome variables and finalize a work plan. The workprogramme of the CMU was developed at the PIU inconsultation with NC of the component concernedand approved and cleared by the chairperson of theCAC at the first CAC meeting held during the launchworkshop.

The CMU was responsible for (but not restrictedto):

1. Preparing an M&E work plan and budget

2. Preparing half-yearly and annual reports

3. Undertaking regular field trips to introduce anddocument key M&E practices

4. Planning and developing PME-related trainingprogrammes

5. Designing and conducting M&E exposuresessions

6. Assisting the CPI in all matters relating to M&Eplanning

7. Supporting and assisting in the WB and theNAIP supervision visits.

Eighty four CMU units were established, staffedand equipped and rendered fully operational for all theconsortia approved, to carry out the basic worksrelated to M&E. CMUs planned the baseline datacollection (including the environmental and socialvariables) as per discussion in the manual. CMUsmonitored inputs and outputs from the very start of theoperations and it familiarized and aligned with theonline project monitoring and tracking system set upby the national unit. CMUs concurrently generateddata on inputs, output variables and outcomeindicators. The national M&E unit processed theinformation for meeting its own reporting needs.

CMUs also facilitated the supervision visits of thePeer Review Teams (PRTs) and mid-term evaluationteams. CMUs assisted in identifying case studies andassisted the project completion team to assess theoutput /outcome variables and fulfilment of PDO.

Consortium partners are primarily responsible forcollecting data to update the input / output indicators.Each consortium has gone through roughly threephases: (i) An initial phase of six months for pre-project activities in which the focus was on needsanalysis, orientation and sensitization of people andidentification of targets and suitable output andoutcome indicators; (ii) project implementation per se;and (iii) a final phase of six months for post-projectactivities in which reports containing information onoutputs, outcomes, dissemination, and success arebrought out; and in which planning for follow-upactivities is finalized.

The CMUs submitted to the PIU: (i) quarterlyfinancial and procurement reports summarizingconcurrent monitoring observations; (ii) six-monthlyreports summarizing project M&E for the precedingsix months, cross-cutting issues and recommendations,

4


and updated project indicators; and (iii) threecomprehensive reports—the base-line survey andtwo consortium evaluations (at the project MTR andproject completion).

2.1.2 Consortium baseline survey

Monitoring involves repeated assessments of thesituation over a period of time. Having an initial basisfor comparison helped the project managers toassess what had changed over a period of time. Sowe needed information about the initial starting pointor situation before any intervention had taken place.This information was called baseline information. Thiswas the line of base conditions against whichcomparisons were made later on. The baseline wasthe first critical measurement of performanceindicators and used as a starting point by which thefuture performance of the project was monitored.Baseline data were collected by all the CPIs for theconsortia in components 2&3 at least for eachidentified outcome indicators. A comparison ofbaseline with the target values to be achieved wasdone in the following manner:

1. By comparing the situation before the projectstarted with the situation after its completion(this was mainly done by the CPIs in theirreports). This required clear understanding offactors influencing the outcome.

2. By tracking changes with (inside project area)and without a project process (outside theproject area-control group). This requiredfinding comparable areas (counterfactuals).

3. By comparing the difference between similargroups (inside the project area) and between aproject group & a group outside the projectinfluence (control group). This required findingcomparable group within the same area.

2.1.3 Institutionalization of PME cells

Each consortium established a monitoring unit(CMU) for itself. Besides, those centres, where aPME Cell was functioning also facilitated in planningbaseline surveys to be used for impact assessment atthe end of the project. Improved understanding of theconsequences of investment in agricultural researchwas a focus of NATP, and several cogent innovationsin this domain were strengthened and broadlyinstitutionalized since the mid-1990s, particularlythrough the creation of Prioritization, Monitoring and

Evaluation (PME) cells in many institutesstrengthened these further in component 1. Thepurported need for PME Cells was to articulate,showcase and demonstrate how the agriculturalresearch programs and products had paid theintended rich dividends in terms of strengtheninghousehold welfare and nutritional security, conservingnatural resources and environment, increasingincome and welfare of the rural population,particularly of women and alleviating poverty andproviding competitive advantage at the global level.The need for PME activities was felt during NATP(1999-2005) as it helped in prioritization under limitedresources, proper utilization of project funds, fasttracking of the progress of the project and using newtools for project identification and finalization.Fourteen PME cells were established under NAIP, infive ICAR institutions and nine SAUs. These cellswere primarily discharging the function of evaluationof the impact of a few proven technologies of theinstitution and also helping in the monitoring andevaluation of the NAIP sub-projects. A strategy formaking the 14 PME cells operational was completedby 31 March, 2010. Review of the functioning of thePME cells again indicated that the cells functioned inisolation without integrating with the mainstream andthereby not addressing the specific purposes forwhich they were created. A critical analysis of therecords, performance and personal monitoringdemanded drastic revamping of the set up. As part ofthe project a committee was constituted to evolvemeasures for strengthening and institutionalizationof the PME cells. For participating in the policyarena, a framework for operationalization andinstitutionalization of PME cells in SAUs and ICARInstitutions were developed. ICAR established PMECells with a multi-disciplinary team in all its institutesin 2011. The major measures were identified towardsstrengthening and integration of PME cells and setguidelines regarding the constitution, functioning,financing and activities of the cells were evolved andcommunicated to the ICAR. The implementation ofthe guidelines was imperative to render the cellseffective and functional and to draw the neededauthority and response from all quarters. This wouldavoid turf problems as otherwise there might be atendency to perceive PME as an intrusion and nottaken seriously. The activities identified for the PMEcells included sensitizing the managers andstakeholders on the aims and objectives of PME,

5


develop, provide and use analytical tools for PME,take up activities like visioning, developing Five YearPlan (FYP) and Perspective Plan on a continuousbasis and act like a think tank for the institute /university, inventorise and track allocations ofresources among regions and research programmes,provide analytical base for Research AdvisoryCommittee (RAC) and Institute Research Council(IRC) and facilitate planning and monitoring ofresearch programmes, undertake impact assessmentof institute/university technologies, impactassessment and monitoring of externally funded Planprojects, undertake development of data base onresearch, technologies, adoption, impact, etc., on acontinuous basis along with interface with AgriculturalResearch Information System (ARIS) cell andIntellectual Property Right (IPR) unit for strengtheningdata base and other decision support system, act as anode for information flow within the institute/SAU,Subject Matter Division (SMD) and the NationalAgricultural Research System (NARS) throughnetwork.

Several trainings were conducted during theproject period for scientists in NARS on impactassessment and research prioritization. Fourteencells under the project completed assessment of 40proven technologies for impact in terms of increase inregional production, income, employment, savings incost and inputs, sustainability and risk, and researchprioritization in three universities. PME cell, NationalDairy Research Institute (NDRI) completed anexercise on regional investment priorities for dairydevelopment in Karnataka. Tamil Nadu AgriculturalUniversity (TNAU) PME cell completed priorityranking for sectors and individual crops for resourceallocation. The exercise done on research prioritysetting based on the modified congruence methodwas the first step in identifying and prioritizing cropsfor research resource allocation based on theirpotential to contribute to the agricultural grossdomestic product (GDP).

2.1.4 Functioning of CAC/CIC

Consortium Advisory Committee (CAC)comprising technical experts in the relevant area ofresearch were formed for all consortia undercomponents 2, 3 and 4. Review of the technicalprogress and recommendations for change intechnical programme were the mandated activities ofCAC. Suggestions which emerged for better M&E in

NAIP in the interactive meeting of the chairpersonswere:

• Preparation of comprehensive ‘Result FrameWork Document’ (RFD) for effective monitoring,

• mid-term review by CAC jointly with NationalCoordinator,

• inclusion of stakeholders feedback on theoutputs/ outcomes of the sub-project,

• regular meeting of CAC and visit to actualbeneficiaries,

• joint meeting of M&E consultants and CACmembers,

• establishment of a mechanism for crossmonitoring among sub-projects for crosslearning,

• design sub-project wise internal monitoringmechanism,

• M&E mechanism should always be suggestiveand supportive,

• outcome of the project should be reported inhigh impact journals,

• patenting and commercialization of technologies,

· officials of development departments needed tobe closely associated to transfer the proventechnologies through their schemes,

• M&E proforma should be simple and pre tested,

• CAC meeting be held on rotation basis at thesite in the field to have better understanding ofthe issues and take appropriate decision,

• Interface with the All India CoordinatedResearch Projects (AICRP) to take forward theresults and findings of the consortium,

• explore possible ways to minimize multiplicity ofreporting, while still maintaining a strong M&Emechanism,

• Conducting Entrepreneurial DevelopmentProgrammes (EDPs) to develop entrepreneurs(graduates and post graduates located in ruralareas) in the projects having commercial potential.

At consortia level, monitoring was done by theCAC and CIC assisted by CMUs. Independentconsultants for M&E consolidated the indicators andthe outputs from consortia.

2.1.5 Organisation of consortium level M&Emeetings

It was observed that up to 2007-08, CAC

6


meetings generally discussed the technicalachievements only and that too without linking themto the expected activities-deliverables and outputsduring the period under reference. After the firstNational workshop, CAC chairmen were sensitized toinclude the fund utilization, procurement and M&Erelated issues besides technical achievements. Incase of component 1 projects, PME cells (set upduring NATP time) were not functioning. Therefore,PMAC was constituted in February 2009 and itreviewed 23 projects.

M&E Consultant organized five workshops, fourat Hyderabad and one at Delhi to sensitize theconsortia partners about M&E activities,quantifications of targets and achievements of outputsand online monitoring. The participants were notfamiliar with the role of M&E and result framework.The IT based online monitoring was also new to them.These workshop brought awareness about the M&Eand the way the results framework would be the wayof monitoring under the project. The functioning ofPMTS was also test shown to the participants.Besides, RPC also sensitized CAC chairmen forstrengthening the M&E related activities of the subprojects. Overtime, CACs became more conscious ofthe results framework linking the achievements withthe activities, deliverables and outputs.

CACs were requested to ask the CPIs to make thepresentation of the progress in the results frameworkobjectives, activities, deliverables and outputs andperformance. This encouraged the consortia team tothink quantitatively in line with M&E requirements.

The trend of the frequency with which themeetings were held can be seen from the Table 1.Overall 88% of component 3 and 75% of component2 and 4 consortia reported the frequency of M&Emeetings. For all the three type of meetings, the meanfrequency was maximum for component 3 followed by3 and 4. The variation in the frequency was very highparticularly for CMU meetings. The table revealed

high inter and intra component variation in frequencyof M&E meetings per consortia.

The NCs attended the CAC meetings of theirrespective consortia when NAIP were expecting only15 to 20 consortia in each of components 2, 3, and 4.As the number of consortia in these componentsincreased over years as depicted in Table 2, it was notpossible for all NCs to attend the CAC meeting twicein a year for each consortium. The component wiselist of projects along with their date/month of start andend is given in Annexure 1.

Table 1. Frequency of M&E meetings conducted per consortium

Compo- Con- Repor- CIC CAC CMU Totalnent sortia ted

Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range

2 51 38 5.68 2 - 14 4.24 2 - 12 2.39 1 - 22 12.32 5 - 43

3 33 29 7.69 2 - 25 6.69 3 - 13 4.17 1 - 27 18.55 3 - 43

4 61 46 3.89 1 – 18 2.70 1 - 17 1.15 1 - 17 7.74 1 - 18

Therefore, the vital link between the PIU and theconsortia was broken. However, the NCs obtainedthe agenda note beforehand and sent their inputs forthe meetings. Many times, CAC meetings were notheld as per approved membership and agenda itemswere not circulated in time. NCs of component 2 & 3were advised to organize the CAC meeting of theirrespective consortia by grouping them theme-wise.This enabled the NCs to attend all the meetings andguide the consortia.

CMUs were not mandated for component 4.However, a few consortia of the componentconstituted CMUs on their own.

2.2 National level concurrent monitoring

The primary responsibility for monitoring,evaluation and reporting rested with the NationalCoordinator (O&M) assisted by the M&E Consultant.

Table 2. Progress of consortia formation over years

Comp- 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2013-14 Totalonent1 7 9 24 15 55

2 9 36 6 - 51

3* 6 18 12 - 36

4 10 48 3 - 61

Total 32 111 45 15 203

*including GEF

7


M/s Consultant Engineering Services (CES) Ltd. wasthe M&E consultant till June, 2012 under thesupervision of one Principal Scientist (M&E). Since2013 a separate M&E unit consisting of one NationalCoordinator and two Principal Scientists was lookingafter the M&E activities as part of the O&M. The M&EConsultant was responsible for assisting the NSC,PMC, PIU and helped to coordinate the M&E-relatedinformation needs of the four NCs. The additionalspecific responsibilities of the M&E Consultantincluded:

1. Conducting a benchmark survey

2. Coordinating with the PIU reporting processes

3. Consolidating reports and contributing to theoverall NAIP reporting requirements

4. Providing guidance to M&E activities of theConsortia

5. Contributing to the further development of MISsin the NAIP

6. Ensuring gender-oriented monitoring at thenational and consortium levels

2.2.1 Establishment and functioning of M&EUnits in PIU and CMU

A well-equipped and suitably trained central unitat the national level was guiding the overall M&Eefforts within the sub-project and vis-à- vis partners,provided timely and relevant information to the NAIPmanagement team, stakeholders and sub-projectconsortium partners. Each consortium established itsown M&E capacity and designed its own M&E plans.The issues addressed by all consortium M&E groupswere: consortium formation and management;research plan preparation and implementation;knowledge management; capacity building; productdevelopment and technology transfer; financialmanagement; procurement; and impact evaluation. Inaddition, consortia added further indicators asrequired by their own unique nature of work.

Since April 2013, the M&E Unit at PIU wasstrengthened with the accretion of one NationalCoordinator and a Principal Scientist, both senioragricultural economists, in addition to the existingPrincipal Scientist. Besides, one RA and one Juniorconsultant were in position to carry out the day to daydocumentation and compilation works to assist theM&E team.

Field level implementation was independentlymonitored by CMUs, in consultation with the PIU, by(a) intensive regular periodic monitoring, and (b)regular visits to project sites. As a part of the workplan, the CMUs also were engaged in impactevaluation studies, including beneficiary assessmentsunder the guidance of the NCAP. In thedisadvantaged areas, farmers, farmer's organizationsand NGOs assisting with implementation of theproject were also involved with M&E activities. Theparticipation of the private sector in consortiumactivities was also monitored by the CMUs.

M&E team at the national level continuouslyinteracted with M&E Team of the consortia and leadinstitutions for all the four components. Both M& Eteam at the national level as well as CMUs madePMTS fully operational and alive to the needs of theproject management.

2.2.2 Holistic benchmark survey

According to WB strategy, implementation,monitoring and impact evaluation of variouscomponents of the project was based on actualachievements of the goals. For such M&E exercise, itis essential to have the basic status of variouscomponents and variables prior to implementation ofthe project activities which later on can be comparedwith the achievements to ascertain the efficacy andthe impact of the relevant project activities. Baselinesurveys were conducted in two stages:

(1) National level by M&E consultants

(2) Consortia level by the respective consortia

The national baseline survey was conducted byM&E consultants in the selected districts, taluks andvillages randomly selected in consultation with PIU,Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute(IASRI), National Centre for Agricultural Economicsand Policy Research (NCAP) and using the schedulesprepared with their assistance.

M/s CES Ltd collected primary data from differentstakeholders pertaining to the individual components.The component 1 sub-projects were mostly eitherinfrastructural or organizational reforms oriented.Hence, for collection of primary data with respect toSAU and ICAR Institutes, questionnaires wereprepared in consultation with and approval of PIU andcirculated to 40 SAUs, 92 ICAR institutes, 5 deemeduniversities and one Central Agricultural University

8


(CAU) seeking relevant information for three years,i.e. 2004-2007.

The response was received from 56 ICARinstitutes and 25 SAUs including deemed and CAUs.The aspects covered organizational strength andongoing activities, technology development andknowledge transfer activities, knowledge sharing andpublic awareness capacity, existing linkages with KrishiVigyan Kendras (KVKs) and community informationcentres, publications, financial management system,procurement cycle, information, communication anddissemination system, library system, human resourcedevelopment and business development system. Thedetails about the area coverage are given in Table 3.

In case of components 2 & 3, the bench markdata were needed to be collected at field level. Baseline survey of non-beneficiary farmers in 10 consortiaout of the 25 sanctioned in 2008-09 in component 2,covering 1350 households (hh) distributed over 51villages and two islands in 13 districts was conducted.Ten key indicators viz., cropping intensity, extent ofcoverage of focus commodity, hh income, averageland size, yield, migration, disposal of product, extentof processing of commodity, status of existing valuechain and status of value added products from thefocus commodity were covered.

Component 3 benchmark survey envisagedsampling of farmers based on stratified randomsampling done from 150 rural districts as specified bythe Planning Commission, Govt of India (GoI),grouped into 13 clusters on the basis of agro- climaticzones. The districts, taluk and villages have beenrandomly selected in consultation with PIU, IASRI andNCAP. From each cluster, if there was one zone, onedistrict was selected randomly and one taluk from thisdistrict was selected randomly. A sample of hundredfarmers from 2 to 5 villages was drawn on randombasis for this taluk. If there were more than one zonein a cluster, one district from each zone was selected

randomly and one taluk from each district was selectedrandomly. Fifty farmers from 2 or 3 villages weresampled on random basis for each taluk of the zone.Accordingly 21 taluks, 62 villages and 1450respondents were selected randomly from 21 districts.The farmers were stratified into different farm sizehousehold namely landless and marginal farmers (< 1ha), small farmers (1-2 ha), medium farmers (2-4 ha)and large farmers (> 4 ha). This distribution of selectedfarmers with respect to its category was as follows:landless and marginal (64.41%), small farmers(20.41%) medium (10.83%) and large (4.34%).

Indian national agriculture research system isknown to provide high-quality science in the strategicareas. For a large country like India it is important tobe at and contribute to the frontiers of agriculturalsciences. Component 4 therefore addressed thebasic knowledge gaps that might appear in theabsence of high quality basic and strategic researchin thrust areas: genetic enhancement of plants andanimals, and natural resource management. Sixtyone consortia were funded under this component.During 2008, seven of the eleven consortia in placeresponded to develop baseline status of the outcomevariables of their research by seeking expert opinionand a domain survey of subject matter specialists.They had given the information of outcome variables:

(i) Present level of number of publications inscientific Journal in 2006-07

(ii) Number of applications for patents annually2006-07

(iii) Present level of number of technologies madeavailable for commercialization annually 2006-07.

2.2.3 Consortia baseline surveys

Consortia level baseline survey was alsoconducted at various locations in 91 districts. Thesurvey included the basic information not only fromthe farmers but from various other stakeholders such

Table 3. Baseline Survey by M&E Consultants

Component Completed & submitted Area Coverage

1 May 2008 56 ICAR Institutes and 25 SAUs including deemed andCentral Universities

2 November 2008 1350 households from 51 villages and two islands

3 September 2008 1450 farm household in 62 villages in 21 disadvantaged districtsin 15 states under 13 agro-climatic zones

4 May 2008 7 Consortia

9


as fishermen and the livestock keepers, middlemen,traders and the consumers.

M&E consultants developed the basic format ofthe questionnaires for collection, but the CPI wasadvised to modify the questionnaire according to theactivities of the sub-project being implemented. Theprimary information was collected through aparticipatory approach in a well-structured formatamong selected beneficiaries’ groups or individualsand other stakeholders. The consultants also guidedthe CPI about the sample size and the selection of thefarmers, the beneficiaries and other stakeholders wasdone through purposive random sampling method. Inall 10,096 individuals (farmers and fishermen for aquaculture sub-projects) were covered in component 2and 36,832 households in component 3 from 33consortia across the country and agro-climatic zonesduring 2007-2009.

2.2.4 Baseline surveys – to establish ‘before theproject’ situation

The key indicators identified for component 3were cropping intensity, hh income from agriculture,livelihood security, migration, disposal of produce tolocal buyers, percentage of produce through agroprocessing and availability of micro credit facility anduse. Weighted average household income wasR 33,605/annum while it ranged from R19,018/- toR 43,747/-. Average hh income from agriculture wasR 8220/- while from livestock was R18,545/-. Landlessand marginal hh which constituted 64.41% of the hhsurveyed were below poverty line.

In addition to survey of households, otherrelevant information also was captured throughunscheduled discussions and visits to other elementsof value chain.

Baseline information of sample villages wascollected with a view to capture data on the followingheads:

1. Population statistics

2. Land use pattern

3. Source of irrigation

4. Agricultural activities - prevailing leasing system(crop lands);

5. Cropping system; dairying system; fisheries;farm machinery

6. Infrastructure - educational institutes; otherinstitutions

7. Information and communication

8. Extension services

2.2.4.1 Baseline survey report

The baseline report dealt with baseline data ofsample villages, the household survey baseline data,the socio-economic profile of sample farmers, theprofile of land and water resources of sample farmers,the cropping pattern and net agriculture income of thesample farmers, the status of postharvest activities ofthe sample households, the analysis of data oflivestock, poultry and fisheries activities, income fromother subsidiary occupation and wage employment,the data on source of knowledge for the farmers, theperception of farmers, migration status of farmers,the working of extension services, the micro-creditand extension facilities, information on contractfarming and concluding remarks on the livelihoodstatus of the respondents.

2.2.4.2 Comprehensive report on the baselinedata

The demography of the sampled villagesindicated more or less same percentage of male andfemales (36% & 35% respectively) with 29% beingchildren. The literacy rate was more in malepopulation (56%) while female literacy rate was 38%.The demography of the villages also indicated thatabout two third of the working population was inclinedtowards agriculture sector, mostly with leasing i.e. 50-50 batai system.

For livelihood security, livestock activities werealso considered as a prime source of income in thedisadvantaged villages. Custom hiring of farmmachinery equipment was also prevalent as a meansof livelihood in the disadvantaged villages.

Animal husbandry and agriculture have themaximum extension support in the selected villages,about 46% and 42% respectively. Awareness offertilizers and use of farm machinery equipment werevery high among the farmers and they were using thisinformation to improve the crop production.

Average landholding size of selected farmerswas 1.11 ha, varying between 0.60 ha and 2.30 ha.The family size of the selected hh varied between5 and 15 with weighted average value of 6. Fifty nineper cent hh indicated agriculture as the primaryoccupation; 70% households had kuchha ortemporary houses. Six percent of the hh had cattle

10


sheds; 85% hh used hand pumps and open wells asthe main source of drinking water and 15% of therespondents had drinking water supply.

56% hhs indicated that quality of drinking waterwas good; 88% hh depended on open fields ortemporary sanitation facilities; 13% of the samplehouseholds had electricity connections; The averageannual family expenditure of the selected farmers inthe disadvantaged district was about R24,750/-.Out of this, 52% of the expenditure was under fooditems varying between R5,362/- and R18,468/-.

Farmers of nine out of 23 selected districts had soiltested, mostly under some government programme.Seventy eight per cent indicated about the goodquality of irrigation water and 75% indicated that thesupply of irrigation water was intermittent.

The average cropping intensity of the selecteddisadvantaged districts was 122% ranging between47 in and 212. The market surplus in cereal crops wasvery small while bulk of production of horticulturecrops was marketed.

The average net income from the produce wasabout R8,220/- which varied between R3,367/- toR19,147/-.

Eight four per cent of the hh undertook cleaningand grading manually and the rest used somemachinery and 27 % hhs took their produce to agro-processing units for selling the produce. Eighty percent of the hh disposed the produce to local tradersand 20% of the respondents disposed to the localmoneylenders or fellow farmers. Farmers got marketinformation from fellow farmers or nearby mandiesand used the market information for selling theirproduce. Mostly it was cash transaction.

Most of the respondent farmers owned buffalo,cows, and bullocks. Two third of the milk productionwas sold to village cooperatives or local milkmen.Average family income from milk production rangedbetween R8,281/- and R27,325/-. Average earning ofthe household was about R18,545/- per annumvarying between R5,079/- and R22,485/- throughvarious livestock operations.

Fifty four per cent of the hh indicated the sourceof knowledge on agricultural practices, livestock,fisheries and markets from friends / group discussionat e-chaupal and like facilities. About 8% farmers gotthe information from market middlemen. Radio andprint media were availed as a source of knowledge

only by 7% of the respondents. Self Help Groups(SHGs), Kisan Mela and field demonstration wereother sources. About 40% farmers wanted moreinformation and knowledge on farm practices of thepossible crops in their area. Nine percent farmerswanted information on storage of produce food.

Lack of irrigation facilities was cited as a mainreason for low crop yield by 63% of the respondents.Lack of funds, poor quality seeds, insects anddiseases, high cost and low quality of inputs wereother important reasons. Only 10% of farmers wereusing new crop varieties and replacing their farmproduced seeds. Seed replacement rates were verylow due to lack of proper awareness, poor extensionfacilities and lack of funds.

Nearly 16% respondents reported that theymigrated in search of labour jobs, but 15% indicatedthat they were forced to migrate in distress. Migrationduration varied between 4.38 and 8.85 months in ayear with the average at 6.27 months.

About 15% migrated as skilled labour, 50% asunskilled labourer and 35% as semi-skilled. On anaverage, migrants earned R2,867/- during the 6.27months of migration, better than their earnings at theirvillage.

About 43% of the respondents had taken loanfrom Bank, 22% from local financial institutions likePACs. A large percentage (33%) had borrowed frominformal sources (money lenders) at a very high rateof interest.

The weighted average sample householdincome from all sources was R33,605/- per annum. Itvaried between R19,018/- per annum and R43,707/-per. It was observed that income from livestock wasmore than double that of agriculture, while the sampleaverage household income from agriculture andlivestock were R8,220/- and R18,545/- respectively.Income from subsidiary occupation and labourmigration was also substantial. Thus livelihoodsecurity was largely emanates from the livestock,subsidiary occupation and migration in search oflabour jobs.

The baseline data has shown the following keyindicators (Table 4) which have a bearing onlivelihood security:

The values of key variables obtained frombaseline survey conducted by the respectiveconsortia are also compared to key variables

11


obtained from national baseline survey conducted byM&E consultants and major findings are summarizedin Table 5:

Table 4. Key indicators having bearing on livelihood security

Key Indicators Base value

Cropping Intensity 122%

Household income from Agriculture ‘8,220/-

Livelihood security parameter (ratio of 30.88:69.12Agriculture income to non-agricultureincome)

Migration % (from the migratory households 16% of hhs

- Male 78%

- Female 22%

Disposal of produce to local buyers 80%soon after the harvest

Percentage of produce but through 27%agro-processing

Availability of micro credit facility and use 7% of hhs

Table 5. Key variable comparison between national andconsortium baseline survey

Key variables National Consortiabaseline baselinesurvey survey

Cropping Intensity 123 122

Agricultural income (R) 26,765 24,101

Ratio of agriculture: 69:31 65:35non-agriculture income

Net income R/hh 25380 24,101

Total income R/hh 33605 39,090

% migration 16.0 16.0

Employment (days/year) 222 152

2.2.4.3 Comprehensive M&E report up to thesecond mid term report (MTR)

A comprehensive M&E report for the secondMTR was completed. The mid-term report includedthe following (but is not limited to): Trends towardssocio-economic impact, production aspects,environmental and social aspects, lessons learnt,mid-course corrections and redirection of sub-projects

2.2.4.3.1 High impact consortia and case studies

The M&E consultant identified 25 high impactconsortia in consultation with the PIU and completedthe exercise as advised by the Implementation

Support Mission (ISM) of the WB (Table 6). The 16case studies of component 2 gave an overview ofsub-project at a glance, importance of value chain,key constraints, status of project implementation andachievements, critical interventions and benefits,support to farmers, environmental and social benefits,future programmes, role of private sectors,sustainability and uniqueness of value chain. The 9case studies of component 3 covered sub-project atglance, importance and relevance of sub project,constraints, implementation of programme of work,horizontal expansion of high pay of interventions,achievements, benefits to the stake holders, socialand environmental benefits and fund utilisation.These reports were scrutinized by experts andrevised according to their suggestions.

2.2.4.3.2 Catalogue of all technologies byactivities and themes

The M&E consultant obtained and collatedinformation on technologies, rural industries, patents,novel tools, products and success stories in designedformats from CPIs and compiled as compendia.A catalogue was developed of all technologies byactivities and themes. This served as data base forreference using which publications emerged fromPIU. This data base helped in developing andreleasing a compendium of technologies during Agritech investors meet conducted during July 2013.

2.2.4.3.3 Certification process for development,testing, validation and release of technology,adoption, innovation and rural industry

Many sub-projects reported development/adoption of technologies, innovations, and launchingof agro industries. The ISM desired that themonitoring unit must define a certification process anddevelop guidelines for consistency and analysis incollaboration with selected consortia in component 2& 3. A set of guidelines for defining technology,innovation, adoption and rural/agro-industryestablished or entrepreneurs and certification processconsisting of development, testing, validation andrelease for transfer, adoption or commercializationwere developed and circulated.

2.2.5 On-line project monitoring & tracking system(PMTS)

PMTS was developed to collect and processM&E- related information. The M&E consultant’s first

12


charge was the designing of a PMTS for the NAIPimplementation within the overall managementframework for the NAIP. The system was to facilitatethe capture, storage and retrieval of a clear, quantifiedand operational base-line data; to track the progressof various sub-projects under components 2, 3 and 4on an on-going basis; to monitor the progress of theoverall NAIP project; to regularly assess theperformance of sub-project staff; and to evaluate the

output and outcome at mid-term and prior tocompletion. The PMTS was developed in-house andinclude modules for outreach and informationdissemination, activity profiles, monitoring &evaluation and performance measurement with well-designed protocols for monitoring of inputs use,outputs/outcomes, environment and social impactmonitoring and monitoring of process variables (workplans) for all four components.

Table 6. List of high impact consortia shortlisted for case studies under component 2 & 3

S. No. Title of sub-project

Component 2

1. Creation for demand for millet foods through pcs value-chain

2. Value chain model for bioethanol production from sweet sorghum in rainfed areas through collectiveaction and partnership

3. A value chain in major seed spices for domestic and export promotion

4. A value chain for cotton fibre, seed and stalks: An innovation for higher economic returns to farmersand allied stake holders

5. A value chain on utilization of banana pseudostem for fibre and other value added products

6. Value chain on potato and potato products

7. Value chain in natural dyes

8. A value chain on industrial agroforestry in Tamil Nadu

9. Value chain on biomass based decentralized power generation for agro enterprises

10. Bio-pesticide mediated value chain for clean vegetables

11. A value chain on castor and its industrial products

12. A value chain on production of food-grade nutraceuticals for use as natural antioxidants and foodcolorants

13. A value chain on ginger and ginger products

14. A value chain on murrel production in Tamil Nadu and Orissa

15. Export oriented marine value chain for farmed-seafood production using cobia (Rachycentron canadum)through rural entrepreneurship

16. Value chain on flowers for domestic and export markets

Component 3

17. Sustainable rural livelihoods through enhanced farming system productivity and efficient support systems inrainfed areas

18. Enhancement of livelihood security through sustainable farming systems and related farm enterprisesin north-west himalaya

19. Sustainable rural livelihood security in backward districts of Maharashtra

20. Farming systems for livelihood security of small and marginal farmers in disadvantaged districts of Tamil Nadu

21. Livelihood promotion through integrated farming system in Assam

22. Integrated project for research on development process and sustainability of livelihood in selecteddisadvantaged districts of Gujarat

23. Livelihood and nutritional security of tribal dominated areas through integrated farming system andtechnology models

24. Land use planning for rural livelihood security in selected districts Maharashtra

25. Holistic approach for sustainable rural livelihood security through integrated farming system approach

13


PMTS was a web application intended to provideautomated solution to users. The system was client/server based in which respondents filled or simplyselect the suitable option/s from the list boxes or dropdown boxes. Every respondent had his/her own userid and password to login into the system to interactwith the system. The chief functionalities were to storedata on server side of all the respondents, onlinemonitoring of inputs/outputs and tracking, feedback toconsortia and to generate and print out the variousreports for decision making levels.

The monitoring frequency of variables was asfollows:

1. Input use monitoring on quarterly basis;

2. Output/outcome variable on six monthly basis;

3. Work plan (process variables)

4. Project monitoring on quarterly basis

5. Monitoring of environmental and social variableson half yearly basis;

PMTS developed was fully operational and oninformation feeding, generated M&E reports as wellindicating that a system was in place at project andconsortia levels. Still it was felt that the system wasnot able to generate quality results to monitor projectperformance and evaluate the project impact. ThePMTS later became dysfunctional mainly because ofthe robust data demand that the CPIs were not able tosupply. However, considering the development ofonline half-yearly progress monitoring of individualscientists within ICAR, a PMTS for future projects isvery much feasible.

2.2.6 Coordinating reporting processes

The PIU submitted to the WB: (a) up- to-datephysical and financial expenditure data compared toannual and end-of-project targets; (b) up- to-dateindicators of project performance compared to annualand end of project targets; (c) successes andproblems encountered during the reporting periodwith suggested remedial actions; and (d) social andenvironmental impacts of the project half-yearlyassessment of the progress for each Consortium wasundertaken by the CAC. The responsible NCconsolidated the reports from the CACs in the NAIP-Component under his supervision and sent them tothe concerned Technical Advisory Group (TAG),which in turn submitted these to the RPC. A PeerReview Team (PRT) comprising external expertssubjected each sub-project at the consortium level to

an MTR and an evaluation at the end of the sub-project.

2.2.6.1 Half-yearly reports

Half-yearly reports was prepared by CPIs andsubmitted to the CAC. Under the guidance of PIU, theM&E Consultant prepared a consolidated report toinclude the four components (till June 2012; sincethen the M&E Unit has taken up the responsibility).The final compiled version including the financial andaudit reports were made available to the RPC and tothe WB.

2.2.6.2 Annual reports

Draft annual reports were prepared by consortiain the following manner. The CAC appointed a PRTthat included a representative or designate from thePIU. The PRT prepared a report and submitted to thechairman of the CAC. The CAC organized an annualworkshop to discuss the report to be attended by thePRT, and members of the TAG. Afterwards the CPIprepared the annual report and submitted it throughthe CAC to the PIU. For each NAIP-Component theresponsible NC then compiled an overall annualreport. The M&E Consultant (M&E unit since 2013)prepared a consolidated report covering all the NAIPoperations. At the release of the overall annualreports, a two day annual workshop was organized.The first day’s programme of this workshop hadconcurrent component discussions. Participants atthis event included the CAC chairmen, TAG (forComponents 2, 3 and 4) or O&MAG (for Component1) members, the NCs, and the CPIs. The second dayhad two separate sessions: session 1 focused ontechnical issues while session 2 dealt withadministrative issues. The technical sessionscovered M&E operations, work programme issuesand reporting effectiveness. Based on thedeliberations in the sessions, a comprehensiveannual report was compiled by the ND and submittedto the PMC for review and comments. The report wasthen made available on relevant websites (ICAR/SAU) and submitted to the WB. The workshops in thesecond, fourth and last year of the project coincidedwith the first and second mid-term and, end-of-projectreview missions of the WB, respectively.

2.2.6.3 Final report of the consortium

A completion report at the end of the sub-projectbrought out the results and achievements of the

14


research work and its impact on the science,commerce, society and socio-economic conditions ofthe farmers. The proforma prescribed for submissionof the final report was sent to all CPIs in advance. Thereport was submitted within two months of thecompletion of the sub-project. All reports wereexamined for completeness, attachment of relevantdocuments in support of achievements/claims and theprojected expenditure plan. The CPIs were asked toprovide clarifications/explanations and makeamendments/ modifications. Complete data inelectronic form was passed on to the PIU-NAIP. Theinnovations in technology introduced as a result ofimplementation of the scheme are brought out. Theimpact of Human Resource Development (HRD) indecentralization of research management was alsohighlighted. The report also delineated the trendswhether the improvement/stagnation/reduction inproductivity, profitability, sustainability, environmentalbenefits and HRD (capacity) varied in relation tobench-mark status. The write-up also highlightedimportant milestones achieved and success storiesduring the sub-project period and one set ofpublications was sent to the PIU. The report alsotracked the sources whether the findings were usedand contributed to better decision-making, saving ofthe resources, etc.

For the component 1, in case of the BusinessPlanning Development (BPD) sub-projects, the sameprocedure for half-yearly and the annual reports werefollowed. For other sub-projects, the O&MAG took therole of the CACs. The O&MPC took the role of theRPC.

2.2.7 Development of M&E manual

A detailed M&E manual was developeddovetailing the process of bench mark survey,monitoring and evaluation procedures. The purposewas to facilitate M&E task by bringing about a user-friendly manual which will serve as useful companionfor all the project partners and practitioners. The mainobjectives of the manual were to (i) to understand thebasic concepts of the project result framework andM&E system of NAIP, (ii) to assist consortiummonitoring units (CMUs) to create the data base oninputs, outputs and outcomes of the respectiveprojects and (iii) to assist the supervision missionsand other evaluation team/efforts. The manual dealt indetail monitoring and evaluation system, succinctprocedures for conducting the baseline survey

regarding the sampling methodology, variables andparameters and also the component-wise broadfocus of questionnaires and data collection formats,time schedule, and PMTS. M&E manual wasprepared and training was given.

2.2.8 Development of results framework and keyindicators

The NAIP developed a results-based M&Esystem that monitors project processes using thefollowing methods and tools:

A well-defined ‘results framework’ that is derivedfrom clearly identified goals and based on the baseline data elicited for each of the components from theprospective stakeholders, objectives, outputs andactivities with corresponding indicators, means ofverification and key assumptions.

The baseline data were collected for criticalindicators based on a small representative randomsample. The performance indicators were limited to afew and most critical variables and the system wasable to provide results before and after the project aswell as with and without the project. The baseline datawas used by the PIU to develop the results frameworkindicators and by the CPIs in analysing the ‘before’and áfter’ NAIP impact in their final reports.

2.2.8.1 Output indicators

The M&E focused on the measurement ofoutputs and outcomes and on the quality of themanagement processes in the Consortia. Some ofthe important output categories concern:

1. Improved crop varieties/animal breeds/ treespecies–both numbers and adoption rates;

2. Improved management practices–both numbersand adoption rates;

3. Publications and reports–variety and number;

4. Training events–variety and number;

5. Dissemination (technology transfer) events–variety and number;

6. Public services–variety and number;

7. Professional recognitions–variety and number;and

8. Product development–variety and number

2.2.8.2 Outcome indicators

Research impact is being assessed byestablishing a causal relationship between outputs

15


and benefits to the end-users (outcome). Theseinclude: area expansion (crops) and/or increase innumber (animals); Increase in productivity; reductionin production costs; enhanced profitability to theproducers and other participants in the value chain;sustainability of adoption (technology); enhancedgainful employment; income generation/enhancement;and Improvement in food consumption; andimprovement in access to credit.

PIU was tracking 29 indicators (two projectdevelopment objective indicators and 27 intermediateresults indicators) up to 12th ISM. As pointed out in the13th ISM, the 27 indicators given in PAD for assessingproject performance were also added to the keyindicators and results frame work of NAIP wasfinalized, which formed the basis for assessment. Forthis, detailed back-up data, disaggregated bycomponents/sub-projects is being maintained by theM&E unit for all indicators.

2.2.8.3 Management process indicators: M&Eprocess

Management processes were monitoredthrough the annual reports of the consortium. Focuswas on decision-making in the CAC, the extent towhich the consortium retained or strengthened itsinclusiveness, the internal procedures forovercoming differences of opinion and conflictmanagement, and the quality and timeliness offinancial management and procurement.

Consortium partners assumed the primaryresponsibility of collecting data to update the input/output indicators. The data were consolidated andmanaged by the PIU. Preparation of evaluation studiesfor different NAIP-components was an ongoingprocess culminating in one major interim review of theproject (just prior to the second MTR) and a final projectcompletion review. A base-line survey was carried outby an M&E consultant in coordination with theimplementing entities. The survey was completed anda draft report prepared within six months of projecteffectiveness. A well-defined M&E strategy regardinginformation requirements, tools and methodologies fordata collection, analysis and reporting; and acomprehensive M&E plan with clear roles andresponsibilities with respect to data gathering andreporting were completed.

M&E and performance monitoring indicatorswere consolidated by the PIU and were updated for

the sub-projects periodically. These benchmarkswere developed during the base-line study and furtherrefined as necessary by the PIU and CACs duringproject implementation. For most of the performanceindicators, targets have been achieved. They are filingof patents, number of publications in high impactjournals, number of production and processingtechnologies, commercialized technologies andfarmers involved in consortia activities. The otherindicators in which progress was significant werenumber of new rural industries piloted, areadeveloped for sustainable land management andscientists trained abroad.

2.2.8.4 Project development objective (PDO)indicators

In general the first PDO is the number ofpartnerships between public research system, privatesector and other stakeholders. Out of 203 NAIPconsortia 171 had the partnerships, while 29 weresingle institutions (Annexure 1). The single institutionswere mostly BPD units. The component and categorywise number of institutions are summarised inAnnexure 2. Many innovations (80) were observedunder the project (Annexure 3). These includedtechnical innovations under different components andinnovations in issues related to M & E, institutions,finance and procurement.

The component wise PDO indicators asmentioned in PAD are summarized in followingparagraphs.

2.2.8.4.1 Component 1

Achievements in terms of monitorableindicators and its comparison with the baselinevalues for component 1 are given in Tables 7. Thedetails of each of the monitorable indicator arecompiled in below mentioned Annexures.

The component had achieved most of the targetsset for performance indicators. The number of masscommunication campaigns launched by media typewas many times the target. The number of linkages(%) formed with KVKs and community informationcenters had increased by over 74% against the targetof 50%. The numbers of hits on the ICAR & SAUwebsites per month were over 3.17 lakh against atarget of 55,000. The number of BPDs, technologiescommercialized, people attending visioning andpolicy analysis events were far more than the target.

16


The time for procurement cycle has decreased to 26from 50 weeks. The only pitfall was for FMS due toproblems in adoption of the software.


In component 2 all the target were surpassed(Table 8) including number of consortia (51 with targetof 15), production technologies released and adopted(99 against target of 75), processing technologies(173 for target of 95), rural industries established(48), product groups (27) private sector participatingorganizations (70) and farmers involved in consortium

activities. The high number of consortia enabled thecomponent to achieve the targets. The information onthese indicators are contained in below mentionedannexures.


The sub-projects in component 3 emphasized onimproving the sustainability of the farming systemsand natural resource management in the less-favorable agricultural ecosystems. This componentwas implemented through 33 sub-projects under 7thematic areas. Ninety one backward districts out of

Table 7. Overall achievements under component 1 sub-projects

Monitorable Indicators Baseline Target Achievement Vide Annexure

Number of mass communication campaigns 0 17 1155 4launched by media type (TV, radio, print, email, web)

Increase in number of linkages (%) formed with KVKs 1,000 50% 74% 5and community information centers

The number of hits on the ICAR & SAU websites 50,000 55,000 3,17,239 6per month

Increase in number of queries responded (%) to 1000 75% 101% 7from public, private, organizations’ and NGOsper month

Total number of business development units 0 5 23 8established

Total number of applications for patents and licenses 15 110 331 9, 10

Annual number of people attending visioning and 0 2,850 7,682 11policy analysis events organized through or inassociation with NAIP

Number of weeks for the procurement cycle of 50 30 26 12high thresholds goods

Share of ICAR finance managers (%) that uses 0 100% 80% 13the new financial management software system



Total number of consortia formed in component 2 0 15 51 1

Total number of NAIP production technologies 0 75 99 14released and adopted

Total number of processing technologies released 0 95 173 15and adopted

Total number new rural industries established 0 30 48 16

Total number of product groups for which national 0 25 27 17or regional quality grades have been agreed onthrough NAIP consortia

Total number of private sector organizations 0 40 70 18participating in consortia

Total number of farmers involved in consortium activities 0 12,750 79,758 19

17


150 such districts identified by Planning Commission,GoI for Wage and Self-employment Programmesin 13 out of 15 agro-climatic zones were coveredby the sub-projects under this component. Thefarming models promoted for adoption involvedintegrated farming systems for optimum utilizationof scarce resources, diversification of farmingactivities, natural resource management andadaptation to natural calamities. The achievements ofperformance indicators of the component are given inTable 9.

The number of consortia formed in componentwere 36 including 3 from GEF. The number ofdeveloped technologies made available indisadvantaged areas were 409 against the target of300, farmers using NAIP technologies in thedisadvantaged areas were 0.81 million, whileincrease in agriculture services and processingenterprises in project areas were 45% againsttargeted 20%. The most important was the increase inagriculture based employment amongst participatingfarming households, it was estimated at 1,13,403employment years (more than double the target).Number of farmers groups involved in projectactivities was 3191. The component achievementswere far ahead the targets and very much visible inthe project areas. The component has raisedsustainability fund of Rs. 7.51 crores for post projectsustainability of the sub-projects. The supportdocuments for these monitorable indicators are thecontent of Annexures mentioned in Table 9.


The sub-projects in component 4 emphasized onbuilding capacity to undertake basic and strategicresearch in frontier areas to sustain innovation foraccelerated development and keeping pace withglobal competition in these areas. This componentwas implemented through 61 sub-projects under 16thematic areas. Significant progress made in basicand strategic research in this component in the areasof biotic and abiotic stress tolerance in plants andanimals, molecular genetics and breeding,biodiversity, nano-technology, precision farming, GISapplications, natural resource management,structures and process engineering, animal health/reproduction, social sciences, milk and meatproduction, etc. Also the outputs in many cases werenovel in the context of NARS and also across theglobe with generation of results in short time in amission mode. The success achieved across variousthemes in this component has translated into filing ofaround 85 patents applications and 427 researchpublications in rated journals carrying NAAS scoresgreater than 6 (Table 10).

The number of patents filed under component 4for different consortia are summarised in Annexure 28.

One of the most important output of the project isnumber of publications in different categories of highrated journals and number of students completedM.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees under NAIP. Thesenumbers across different components are given inAnnexure 29 and 30, respectively.



Total number of consortia formed 0 20 33 1

Total number of consortium developed technologies 0 300 409 20made available in disadvantaged areas

Total number of improved technologies adopted 0 80 127 21in disadvantaged areas

Total number of farmers (millions) using NAIP 0 0.6 0.81 22technologies in the disadvantaged areas

Increase in agriculture services and processing 2790 20% 45% 23enterprises in Project areas (%)

Total increase in agriculture based employment 0 18,000 1,13,403 24 amongst participating farming households(employment years)

Total number of farmers groups involved 0 600 3,191 25in project activities

18


2.2.8.4.5 Global environmental facility (GEF)funded research

A component of the WB, Global Environmentfacility (GEF) funded research under NAIP aimed ataddressing the sustainable rural livelihood securitythrough innovation in land and ecosystemmanagement. Three areas were identified within theGEF were biodiversity, conservation, landdegradation and adaptation to climate change. Someof the major achievements under GEF are given inTable 11.

outcomes of the sample sub-projects and then mapthe same to the broad categories so as to provide anoverall understanding of the key result areas.

The major outcomes from sub-projects includedcapacity building through enhanced access toknowledge resources, ICT applications and supportfor commercialization through business planningdevelopment units (BPDUs) under component 1,enhanced profitability to value chain participants,rural industry development, export promotion,private player involvement for commercialization,enhanced income level and employment generationunder component 2, income and employmentgeneration, farmer’s group formation and communityinfrastructure development under component 3, andincreased scientific knowledge stock, enhancedcapacity of scientific and technological problemsolving, patents filing and publications undercomponent 4.

2.2.9 Scorecard approach

The monitoring and evaluation at PIU levelincluded i) evaluation of performance indicators andscore cards (as self-assessed by the CPIs) with theconcurrence of the National Coordinators, ii) reviewand comments on independent comprehensiveoutcome focussed impact evaluation of the NAIP bythe consultants at mid- term and project completionstage.

A score card involving criterion of 5 marks forgovernance, 15 for procurement, 20 for finance and60 for technical progress approved by WB wasdeveloped in 2010-11 onwards for the purpose ofcomparing the performance of the consortia on anannual basis. The scores were essentially a self-assessment by the CPIs, but the idea meant apressure of performance on the consortia. Themeasure nudged the poor performing consortia and



Total number of consortia formed 0 15 61 1

Number of annual overseas exchange visits/training 0 420 487 26programs on basic/strategic research related topicsby Indians scientists

Total number of papers published in high impact 0 190 427 27international scientific journals

Total numbers of patent filed 0 85 85 28

Table 11. Overall achievements under GEF componentsub-projects

Field Description

Backward districts covered 11

Agricultural land brought under 8371 hasustainable land managementpractice including bio diversityconservation and climate change

Rural resource centre established 13

Germplasm Accessions 1700 cropspecies,

4500 animalbreeds and

1862 fish species

A thorough assessment of the major outputs andoutcomes was undertaken for each the sample sub-projects. The diverse nature and focus area of thesample sub-projects, varied target beneficiaries/groups and their geographical spread resulted in awide range of outputs and outcomes. These outputsand outcomes though varied were observed tospecifically orient towards certain key areas ofinterventions depending upon the targeted theme andarea of research of the four components viz.component 1, 2, 3 and 4. The objective of thisanalysis, thus, was to detail the various outputs and

19


gradually lifted them by notches towards betterperformance. The consortia were graded underHighly satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S),Moderately satisfactory (MS) and Non-satisfactory(NS) categories based on performance on annualbasis. To enable improvement in the performance ofMS and NS consortia the consultants visited theconsortia and gave necessary guidance and alsodeveloped an action plan milestones and timelinesto improve the performance of the moderatelysatisfactory consortia.

2.2.9.1 Grading of consortia

As mentioned earlier, grading of consortia basedon their performance on procurement, financialmanagement and technical aspects has been carriedout annually and steps like review of MS/NSconsortia, consortia visits by consultants were takenup for improvement in performance of consortia. Aninteraction meeting of CAC Chairmen with DG washeld on 18 July 2012 wherein it was decided to havereview of the NS and MS graded sub-projects atvarious levels and locations. Accordingly reviews atlocal level were held in various states – Hyderabad(CRIDA) for component 4 consortia alone, Lucknow(NBRI), Bhubaneswar (DWM) and Jodhpur (CAZRI).Subsequently reviews at institute level wereconducted in IARI, New Delhi, IIT, Delhi, IVRI,Izatnagar, NDRI, Karnal and GBPUA&T, Pantnagar.Besides, a review of best and poor consortia wasconducted by RPC Members at NDRI and CRRI.

The grading of consortia as per score cardsi.e., HS (>80 marks), S (60-80), MS (50-60) and NS(<50), i.e. since 2010-11 to end of project (Table 12)revealed that the number of consortia increased bothfor Highly Satisfactory (32 to 44) and Satisfactory(112-148) categories, while decreased for ModeratelySatisfactory category (25 to 10) and Non-satisfactory(<10). This shift was primarily from sub-projects underthe Moderately satisfactory category to Satisfactoryand Highly satisfactory. The rating of one consortiumunder NS was mainly due to poor financialmanagement than technical shortfalls. During first yearof implementation of score cards the number of MSand NS was 35. It reduced to 11 at the end of NAIP.Thus, the scoring and grading, helped in mountingpressure on performance and all the consortia gotupgraded into satisfactory category before the closureof the programme. The final grading of the consortiaat the close of sub-project is mentioned in Annxure 1.

Table 12. Grading of the consortia over period of NAIP

Compo- Year No. of Consortia Undernent Different Categories

HS S MS NS Total

1 2010-11 11 23 4 2 40

2011-12 8 31 3 1 43

2012-13 9 26 5 40

Final 11 44 55

2 2010-11 7 33 8 3 51

2011-12 8 37 6 51

2012-13 7 34 10 51

Final 9 35 7 51

3 2010-11 10 17 2 4 33

2011-12 7 16 5 28

2012-13 4 21 8 33

Final 9 21 2 1 33

GEF 2010-11 3 3

2011-12 3 3

2012-13 3 3

Final 1 2 3

4 2010-11 13 36 11 1 61

2011-12 9 46 6 61

2012-13 17 36 8 61

Final 14 46 1 61

Overall 2010-11 41 112 25 10 188

2011-12 32 133 20 1 186

2012-13 37 120 31 188

Final 44 148 10 1 203

Overall % 2010-11 21.81 59.57 13.30 5.32 100.00

2011-12 17.2 71.51 10.75 0.54 100

2012-13 19.68 63.83 16.49 100

Final 21.67 72.91 4.93 0.49 100

2.2.10 Building up data repository

NAIP has generated detailed database/documentations for each sub-project. This includedconcept note, detailed project proposal, baselinereports, progress reports (half-yearly/annual),component-wise half-yearly reports, final projectcompletion reports, performance indicator tables, allcompiled at consortia level for all sub-projects. Thiswas initially generated and updated online throughPMTS but discontinued after couple of years. Now,these data are compiled at component level. The M&Ecell is maintaining a repository of all such data/information/ reports that are getting collected/compiled/generated covering all 203 sub-projects

20


(including the 3 under GEF). Besides these, theimpact evaluation reports (mid-term and end-term),case study reports and quarterly progress reportsproduced by the external M&E consultants along withthe complete database sets (primary data andsecondary tables) of evaluation and case studyreports are kept in this data repository.

2.3 Comprehensive outcome focussedindependent impact evaluation

There is a need for focused attention and regularmonitoring at project and consortia levels andcomprehensive outcome focused impact evaluationat mid-point of project implementation by anindependent entity. Impact assessment of publicagricultural research has always been viewed as animportant activity to ensure accountability, maintaincredibility, and improve internal decision-makingprocesses and the capacity to learn from pastexperience. Impact assessment is a criticalcomponent of agricultural research in that it helps todefine priorities of research and facilitate resourceallocation among programs, guide researchers andthose involved in technology transfer to have a betterunderstanding of the way new technologies areassimilated and diffused into farming communities,and show evidence that clients benefit from theresearch products.

In view of declining funds for agriculturalresearch and the need for stronger accountability inrecent years, there is now a much greater demand notonly for demonstrating the actual impacts of researchbut also for maximizing impacts through targetingresearch benefits to poor people. Despite the fact thatthe generation and dissemination of agriculturaltechnologies require sustained investments inresearch and extension, publicly funded agriculturalresearch and extension budgets been declining inrecent years. There has been increasing pressure todirect agricultural research towards the R&D - needsof small-scale farmers and the rural poor. Emphasishas more recently been given to sharpening the focusof international agricultural research based on itspoverty alleviation impacts. More important in thisregard has been the need to assess the potentialimpacts of agricultural research on poverty alleviationwith a view to setting priorities of research.

This part outlines a framework to obtain asystematic assessment of the impact of the NAIP and

how the research programmes and products of theNAIP and ICAR Schemes are contributing to thenational development objectives and are making lifebetter for the common folk. A comprehensiveindependent outcome focused impact evaluation wasplanned and commissioned. PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited (PwCPL) was engaged withthe PIU of NAIP to provide consultancy services forcarrying out outcome focused impact evaluation ofNAIP sub-projects. The assignment involvedevaluating NAIP in two phases – a mid-termevaluation conducted in 2012-13 and an end-projectevaluation in 2014. This evaluation focused onevaluation of NAIP through a set of sample sub-projects (30% of total NAIP sub-projects) so as toassess their performance, outcomes and impact andcapture key learnings.

Impact assessment under the NAIP included thefollowing aspects:

1. Documentation of important outputs in terms ofscientific and technological advancements andcomparison with other systems;

2. Impact in terms of institutional development andHRD;

3. Measures taken to improve the system’sefficiency and their impact in enhancing itseffectiveness;

4. Efficiency, sustainability and equity impacts atthe economy, sector and farm level, if possible,over time;

5. Demonstration of these impacts with the casestudies of major technologies developed bydifferent ICAR schemes pertaining to the post-green revolution era; and

6. Efficiency and impact of the NAIP, in revitalizingthe research system and contributing intransforming Indian agriculture more marketdriven.

2.3.1 CPI survey

For selection of sub-projects for field studies, firststratification was component wise and secondstratification was along the themes within acomponent, as feasible (The aide memoire of ISM 13has furnished a list of indicative sub-projects forimpact assessment study). Subprojects wereclassified according to themes and a stratified randomsampling methodology was adopted for selection.The final selection of sample subprojects was

21


validated for representation of NAIP as a whole alongthe following parameters:

Maximum thematic areas of sub-projects acrossdifferent components

• Geographic spread – good representation ofNorth, South, East and West regions of thecountry

• All category sub-projects i.e. HS, S and MS

• Pluralism of consortia

Given the need to focus on components 2 & 3 asper the terms of reference (ToR), 67 percent of thesample sub-projects were selected from components2 & 3, whereas 33 percent of were selected fromcomponents 1 & 4.

The component wise number of selectedsubprojects is given in Table 13, while their title isappended as Annexure 31.

assessment by the beneficiaries, village leaders,producer companies, processors, traders,entrepreneurs, extension personnel and expertopinion in case of other interventions.

Accordingly, stakeholder's survey of participatorybeneficiaries in the NAIP sub-projects wasundertaken with equal or two-third of counterfactualcontrol of non-participants in the programme withinthe same village, if the intervention was at individuallevel or a neighbourhood village in case of communityintervention. The beneficiary list was obtained fromthe CPIs and a purposive random samplingmethodology was used to arrive at the sample ofbeneficiaries. It was ensured that all size and socialcategories of farmers were represented inidentification of both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Sixty five sub-projects were selected forimpact assessment. In each of the sub-projects undercomponents 2&3, 2-4 interventions were identified inconsultation with the CPIs for data collection. Foreach intervention a sample of 30 participants/beneficiaries was chosen and an equal or two-third ofnon-participants/non-beneficiaries was kept as acontrol/ counterfactual/check.

“With” and “without” comparisons: Projectanalysis tried to identify and value the costs andbenefits that would arise with the proposed projectand to compare them with the situation as it would bewithout the project. The difference was theincremental net benefit arising from the projectinvestment. This approach was not the sameas comparing the situation “before” and after” theproject. The before-and-after comparison fails toaccount for changes in production that would occurwithout the project and thus leads to an erroneousstatement of the benefit attributable to the projectinvestment.

For learning and capacity building (L&CB) projectto have impact of international and national trainings,the analyses were performed three ways: before-afterestimation, difference-in-difference estimation, andpropensity score matching, and for two outcomes:journal publications and publication index.

The before-after estimator was calculated for thetreated group alone. The difference-in-differenceapproach estimated the average treatment effectusing pre and post training data from both a treatedsample as well as a control sample. The averagetreatment effect is the difference between pre- and

Table 13. Component wise number of sampled projects

Component Number of sub-projects

1 14

2 21

3 20

4 10

Total 65

2.3.2 Impact assessment - stakeholder surveywith controls

A workshop and group meeting were organizedinvolving expert economists and statistician, allNational Coordinators and consultants to discussabout the impact assessment in terms of prospectivesample, survey planning, designing of instruments,identification of costs and benefits, data alignmentand integration, and analytical methods – partialbudgeting, financial and economic analysesincluding net present value (NPV), benefit: cost ratio(BCR) and internal rate of return (IRR). It was decidedthat the unit of data collection would be ‘interventionarea’ with the stakeholder and the unit of analysiswould be sub-project/consortium/value chain/livelihood model. Besides, elicitation of informationfrom the stakeholders, it was also decided that thehorizontal expansion/adoption area (or percentage)would be decided through various methods like salesfigures on seeds, cuttings, saplings (nurseries),animals or birds in case of varietal/breeds, on

22


post-outcomes of the control group minus thedifference between the pre and post outcomes of thetreated group.

Propensity score matching (PSM) was used toestimate the average treatment effect (ATE) and theaverage treatment effect on the treated (ATT). A logitmodel was used to determine propensity scores ofindividuals using five variables: age, gender, pre-training mean annual journal publications, PhDstatus, and position level. The ATE is the differencebetween the average outcomes of the treated groupand the average outcomes of the control group,where all individuals in both groups have matches.The ATT is the difference between the averageoutcomes of the treated group and the averageoutcomes of their matched group.

Regression analysis was done to assess theimportance of pre-training publications, jobsatisfaction, organizational environment, employmentat a deemed university, subject area of training,frequency of post-training communication with thetraining supervisor, cost, gender, age, position level,whether or not the trainee self-selected into training orwas hand-picked, and whether or not the trainee alsoattended a national training.

2.3.3 Sample size, sampling framework andshortlisting of sub-projects for impact assessment

The sample sub-projects were beingimplemented in 25 states spread across differentregions of country. A number of the sub-projects weremulti-location in nature with spread over more thanone state.

Overall, primary data were collected from 5557respondents/stakeholders with equal or two-thirdcontrols, of which more than 90 per cent was farmers(Table 14). Besides, the survey included respondentsfrom artisans, processors and researchers too. Theother category included traders, nursery owners,paper industry, depuration and solvent extractionunits. The break-up of respondents for the beneficiarylevel evaluation is depicted below:

The list of interventions prioritized for impactassessment in consultation with NCs and CPIs is thesubject matter of Annexure 32. The analytical toolsthat were used include both quantitative andqualitative analysis – partial budgeting, multi-criteriaanalysis, BCR, IRR and NPV.

The overall methodology for impact analysis ofNAIP involved extrapolation of benefits at differentlevels. The primary data collected from thestakeholders in the field was used to calculate thebenefits realized by the participatory stakeholderswith respect to non-participatory stakeholders. Thebenefits accrued were primarily due to increasedincome, productivity and rational use of agriculturalinputs. The benefits realized by the participatorystakeholder were compared with the additional costsincurred by them to calculate net benefit (i.e.additional income – additional cost). This net benefitwas then multiplied with the adoption area under thatintervention or with the total number of participatorystakeholders, to calculate the overall benefit accruedfrom the intervention. Thereafter, BCR was calculated(at the intervention level) on the basis of theinvestment done in that respective intervention. Themethodology adopted for financial and economicanalysis of NAIP as a whole is given in followingparagraphs.

After achieving the BCR at the intervention level,the benefit at the project level was then deduced onthe basis of the total cost of the project (in the sameproportion as that at the intervention level). OnceBCR was calculated for all the selected projects, totalbenefit accrued was summed up from the selectedprojects and BCR was computed based on the totalinvestment made in the selected sub-projects. It wasassumed that the same BCR is applicable at thecomponent level and thus was computed the totalbenefits accrued from that particular component.Similarly, the benefits accrued at the component levelwere blown up to whole NAIP level.

2.3.4 Mid-term reporting

The consultant evaluated the sub-projects of thefour components across the following three key areas

Table 14. Distribution of sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries for impact assessment

Primary survey sample Number

Farmers 4908

Artisans 110

Processors 73

Researchers 406

Others 60

Total 5557

23


of impact: institutional development, research anddevelopment and research uptake and technologytransfer. Selection of sub-projects for field studies wasdone in a way so that maximum thematic areas ofeach component are represented. Four parameterswere used to evaluate performance of various sub-components namely, effectiveness and efficiency,outputs and outcomes, impact (financial andeconomic) and sustainability. Both quantitative andqualitative analytical tools were used whileundertaking evaluation. Multi-criteria analysis, BCR,NPV and IRR were used as quantitative analyticaltools, while dialogue and mutual learning methodwere used as qualitative analytical tools.

The mid-term impact assessment report wassubmitted based on the study in 58 consortia selectedacross the components giving due weightage forcomponent 2 and 3 consortia. The mid-termevaluation report was reviewed three times duringFebruary – May 2013 in in-house, in the presence ofthe external expert and in the presence of the WBEconomist. Several serious suggestions were offeredduring these reviews towards improvement of thereport in terms of scope, sample size, surveymethodology to allow for capturing the incrementalbenefits resulting from the NAIP interventions atsociety level. The suggestions were reflected in theaide memoire of 13th ISM:

The B:C ratio analyses needed a revisit andclarification. The analysis should be simple and clear.It should be done for selected promising technologies.The methodology should be elaborated with anempirical example delineating cost of technology,increase in productivity and benefits. It shouldencompass financial and economic analysesdistinguishing the benefits to the user/adopter of thetechnology and the society, respectively. Thelimitations of the analysis should be explicitly stated.

2.3.5 Macro impact case studies

Report on macro impact assessment of 10technologies was received and reviewed on 8 May2013. It was suggested that the data collection andmethod of analysis for each of the assessment has tobe specific and different and that the data elicitationshould be through survey and personal interview ofthe respondents than focussed group discussion(FGD) than a statistical sampling. The methodologyneeded refinement and would be complete only witheconomic analysis than financial analysis.

The assessment should be detailed on thesampling methodology - number of sample farmersand control. The analysis has been done “before” and“after” mode; it should be in “with” and “without” modewith comparable counterfactuals – adopters vs non-adopters.

Based on the suggestions forty case studieswere taken up by the independent consultant mainlyfor quantification of benefits to the society throughthose sub-projects and in a few cases it was capturingof issues like sustainability, comparison of NAIP vsnon-NAIP NARS performance and institutionalpluralism. The case studies were presented to thePIU, ISM, expert, WB economist periodically forrefinement in methodology and discussion of theresults. The major highlights were:

An estimated R273 million has been saved by acentralized approach to software architectureinstallation through Establishment of IndianAgricultural Statistical Portal.

Twenty two BPDUs have been created forcommercialization of NARS technologies,coordinated and mentored by International CropsResearch Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT).They generated revenue worth R24 crore to NARS onan overall investment of R60 crores within 4 years andhave commercialized 331 agro-technologies.

Establishment of National Agricultural Bio-informatics Grid (NABG) in ICAR was aimed to bringthe biologists, statisticians and computer scientists tograpple the problems from a system biology approachfor effective problem solving. The first supercomputinghub for Indian Agriculture, ASHOKA (AdvancedSupercomputing Hub for OMICS Knowledge inAgriculture) has been established at the Centre forAgriculture Bio-informatics (CABin), IndianAgricultural Statistics Research Institute at New Delhi.The infrastructure developed under NABG wouldsupport the computational requirements ofbiotechnology research in the country. Over the nextten years, analysis of data by this facility could resultin shortening the time lag in development of 100 plantvarieties in different crops by five years and 20 animalbreeds by seven years.

2.3.6 Project completion and end term reporting

As per the aide memoire of 13th ISM, theconsultants have initiated impact assessment casestudies based on refined methodology-primary

24


survey data for ‘with’ and ‘without’ project covering asample of over 5000 farmers including a sample ofabout 550 non-farmer stakeholders as well asconsortia partners and project scientists weresurveyed to quantify the project specific impacts onother stakeholders in a partial budgeting frameworkand cost-benefit and/or cost-effectiveness analysis inconsortia. Thus a sample of 65 sub-projects,accounting for 30% of the total NAIP sub-projects,was drawn to represent all four components. Samplesub-projects and project interventions within thesub-project selected for case studies represented thediversity in consortia performance and was not biasedin favor of better performing sub-projects. Acounterfactual analysis method (participatory/treatedand non-participatory/control) was adopted toundertake end-term evaluation of interventions undersample sub-projects.

Accordingly, the CPI interview as well as theimpact survey were recast and refined during the endterm evaluation. The end term evaluation wassummative in nature and focused on achievementsand value creation achieved by NAIP as a wholebased on detailed evaluation of a set of samplesub-projects. The report captured the following:

1. Assessment and documentation of importantoutputs of 30% of sample sub-projects as wellas NAIP as a whole

2. Assessment of impact in terms of institutionalstrengthening and capacity building

3. Evaluation of the role and contribution ofconsortia formation and recommendations topromote this approach

4. Assessment and documentation of visible ofimpact of major technologies developed byNAIP

5. Assessment of efficacy and impact of NAIP inrevitalizing the agricultural research system andcontributing towards making agriculture in Indiamore market driven

6. Assessment of impact of NAIP on womenparticipation in agriculture

7. Evaluation of handling of environmental andsocial safeguard issues by NAIP

8. Identification of critical issues to be addressedto promote sustainability of interventions takenup by NAIP

9. Documentation of lessons learned, what hasworked well, what have been the weaknessesand what is the way forward

10. Generation and documentation of data oneconomic, financial and other benefits producedby the sample sub-projects and NAIP as awhole

2.3.6.1 Assessment of general performance ofconsortia

2.3.6.1.1 Effectiveness & efficiency of sample sub-projects in realizing objectives

An assessment of the extent to which majortargeted objectives were achieved or were expectedto be achieved was undertaken for the samplesubprojects. These included achievements inpublications and patents, awareness and marketingactivities, commercialisation and handling of socialand environmental safeguards. The objective of thisanalysis was to understand the effectiveness,efficiency and contribution of the sample sub-projectsin realising objectives.

2.3.6.1.2 Objectives- Target vs. achievement

The weighted average expected achievement ofstated targets across all the components for thesample sub-projects was found to be 96.7 percent.The sample sub-projects in component-1 achieved onan average 100 percent of stated targets followed bycomponent-3 achieving 95 percent.

2.3.6.1.3 Project duration and budget

An analysis of the project duration, extension ofthe sample sub-projects while achieving statedtargets undertaken revealed that the average durationof the sample sub-projects (post-extension, if any) forall four components was 62.65 months. Averageduration (post-extension, if any) for sub-projects ofcomponent 3 and component 4 was slightly higher at66 months and 69 months respectively.

The weighted average duration of projectextension, if any across all component was 21months. Highest revision in project duration overoriginal proposal was seen in sample sub-projects ofComponent 4 mainly in view of the intensive researchand development involved in areas of strategic andbasic research. Overall, 97 percent of sample sub-

25


projects (56 sub-projects) have been extended forvarying periods. An analysis of the reasons of projectextension among 56 sub-projects extended revealedmultiple reasons. The major reason for projectextension amongst the sample sub-projects had beendelayed start of project (21 percent) and target beingnot achieved (20 percent). However, it was observedthat the extended period was utilized by majority ofthe sub-projects to upscale project activities (such asreaching to a larger number of beneficiaries underthe various interventions, new project areas, etc.) with73 percent reporting the same.

The analysis of budget revealed that theweighted average increase of budget for the samplesub-projects for all the sub-projects had been 43percent. The major revision in budget over originalsanctioned budget has been in component 4 with 150percent (R58.7 million – 307.7 million) followed bycomponent 1 with 80 percent (R23.33 million- 545.3million).

2.3.6.1.4 Fund disbursement & procurementprocess

An assessment of two key areas viz. funddisbursement and procurement process wasundertaken as they were crucial in achievingoperational efficiency for the sub-projects. Thesample sub-projects were individually analyzed oneach of the above areas on the following parameters:

• Level of satisfaction

• Key weaknesses

• Key strengths

The above analysis provided an in-depthunderstanding of the nuances of fund disbursementand procurement and will assist in taking correctiveactions and leveraging the strengths for the project.

2.3.6.1.5 Observations on fund disbursementprocess

The analysis revealed that a majority of thesample sub-projects was satisfied with the funddisbursement process with a 19 percent reportinghigh satisfaction levels. Only seven percent of thesample sub-projects expressed dissatisfaction withthe existing process.

The existing fund disbursement processexhibited various strengths as stated by the CPI’s andconsortium partners of the sample sub-projects duringthe primary survey. The major strengths identified are

clear guidelines (41 percent), electronic fund transfer(33 percent) and direct transfer to partners (24 percent).

Other significant strengths identified for the funddisbursement process are periodic reporting baseddisbursement and delegation of power to CPIs’ andCCPIs’.

Despite the high level of satisfaction with theexisting fund disbursement process, certain areas ofconcern were highlighted by the concerned executingscientists, which can be improved in future. Suchconcerns mainly related to delay in release of funds,multi-level approval requirement (internal universityprocedures/non-alignment with WB procedures) andnon-availability of fund release letter Other areas ofconcern identified in the fund disbursement processwere:

• Lack of control over poor performing or non-compliant consortia partners due to directrelease of funds to the partners

• Difficulty in changing the utilization of fund fromone expense head to the other with dueapprovals at the sub-project level

• High level of documentation

2.3.6.1.6 Observations on procurement process

Analysis revealed that majority of the samplesubprojects were satisfied with the procurementprocess with 70 percent reporting high satisfactionlevels. Only 6 percent of the sample sub-projectsstated the procurement process as unsatisfactory.

The key strengths of the procurement processwere identified as clear guidelines, transparentprocess, provision for direct purchase and autonomyto CPI/CCPI’s with 60 percent, 24 percent, 16 percentand 22 percent responses respectively. This clearlydepicted that some of the NAIP procurementguidelines such as allowing direct purchase up toUS$ 400 and transparent process coupled with clearguidelines had positively affected the overallprocurement process at consortia level.

Other significant strengths of the procurementprocess identified were:

• Provision for different modes of shopping

• Provision for direct purchase from the DirectorGeneral of Supplies & Disposal (DGS&D) undernational shopping

• Direct contracting for petty items with contractvalue less than US$100

26


Most of the respondent scientists executing thesub-projects commented that during the initial stagesof project implementation, the WB proceduresseemed to be complicated and lengthy, but in the longrun, with appropriate orientation they were found to becritical for successful completion. They were found tobe useful in procuring high quality/appropriateequipment/infrastructure, etc. with much reducedcases of rejections and complaints. Some of the non-NARS implementing partners (such as NGO’s) hadalso adopted the procedures for their internalprocurement.

Some areas of weaknesses identified were:

• Selection of lowest bidder in procurement ofscientific equipment had a bearing on thequality. It was felt that in such cases quality &cost based selection (QCBS) should be allowed

• Difficulty in awarding consultancy services

• Lack of provision to purchase equipment non-planned due to changes/new developmentsduring the course of work or due toimprovement in planned equipment

2.3.6.1.7 Publications under NAIP

Publications from the project were an importantoutput and also an indicator of implementationperformance. Such attention on publications rightfrom project inception stage was a defining element ofNAIP which brought about significant change in themindset of implementing scientists across NARSregarding its importance and role in successfulcompletion of targeted objectives.

Significant achievement was evident as regardspublications of research papers in high impactjournals with a total of 643 numbers (Annexure 29).Under Component 4 which focused on basic andstrategic research contributed for 427 researchpapers in high impact journals with the bifurcationsbetween various National Academy of AgriculturalSciences (NAAS) ratings as follows:

Component 2, with thrust on value chaindevelopment too had 69 research papers in journalswith NAAS rating greater than 6. This was due to thefact that the sub-projects under this component alsoinvolved certain degree of research for development/standardization of technologies, processes andmethodologies under various interventions. Thesubprojects in component 3, involving interventionsfor livelihood security had 49 research papers

published in high impact journals. Component 1 had98 publications in high impact journals.

The number of publications including researchpapers not in high rated journals, presentations(seminars/ symposium/ conference/ workshops),articles (in newspapers, other publications), books,book chapters, manuals and reports, theses andinformation dissemination aids were in large number.

2.3.6.1.8 Patents filed under NAIP

A critical area in research uptake and technologytransfer is the generation of patents for protection ofintellectual property. An analysis of patent generationamongst the NAIP subprojects revealed that a total of118 patents have been filed.

Component 4 has been most successful in filing85 patent applications. This is reflective of the basicand strategic research focus of the sub-projectsleading to patents in frontier area of research anddevelopment. Component 2, which involved a degreeof research orientation in production to consumptionsystems had, 36 patent applications filed undervarious sub-projects.

2.3.6.1.9 Awareness and marketing activitiesunder sample sub-projects

The technical knowledge and know-howdeveloped or standardized within the subprojectswere disseminated amongst the target beneficiariesthrough public awareness activities - trainings/workshops, exhibitions, meets, conferences, medialed awareness campaigns (print / electronic). Thebeneficiaries reached through the above awarenessactivities consisted of mainly farming community,research community, entrepreneurs and SHGs /NGOs / Government officials.

The total number of beneficiaries or stakeholdersreached through awareness campaigns in the samplesub-projects was estimated to be around 1.8 millionmainly in component 2 and 3. About 85 percent of thebeneficiaries targeted through awareness campaignsconsisted of the farming community as theyconstituted the primary beneficiaries in most of thesub-projects of component 2 and 3. The researchcommunity formed 5 percent of the beneficiariesreached through the awareness campaigns mainlythrough component 1 and 4 as these componentsfocused on capacity building of research systems andbasic and strategic research respectively.

27


2.3.6.1.10 Women participation

Women empowerment was an importantobjective under NAIP implementation. Around 31%participation of women as direct beneficiaries wasnoticed in sample sub-projects. This includes womenfarmers, artisans, SHG members and entrepreneurs.Percentage of tribal women among the total womenbeneficiaries was around 42%, as under component 3most of the sub-projects were implemented in tribalareas. The survey had covered 60 districts all overIndia in which around 28 districts had tribal populationin majority. Under component 2, many SHGs wereformed which involved tribal women in primaryprocessing of produce and marketing of theseprocessed products to local markets.

2.3.6.1.11 Employment creation

Around 34 percent of the sample beneficiaries incomponent 2 and 31 percent in component 3responded that subproject interventions resulted insignificant increase in employment. Similarly, 36 and53 percent of beneficiaries in component 2 and 3respectively felt that interventions have resulted inmoderate increase in employment, while 10 percentand 6 percent in component 2 and 3 said that it hadlow impact on employment creation. The increasedemployment was mainly through diversification,introduction of new areas of crop/livestock production,availability of resources like water, seeds, etc., valueadded production, intensive cultivation and throughforging of market linkages.

2.3.6.1.12 Increase in income

As regards the increase in income due to sub-project intervention, 87 percent of the overall samplebeneficiaries in component 2 and 93 percent incomponent 3 stated that there was medium to higheffect on increase in income. Thus, the success of thesub-projects in intervening at the production aspectcan be inferred to be significant.

2.3.6.1.13 Sustainability of adopted interventions

The view of the sample beneficiaries regardingsustainability of adopted interventions showed that 52percent were certain to continue and 40 percent likelyto continue the adopted interventions under therespective sample subprojects in component 2.Similarly, 58 percent of the respondents were certainto continue the adopted interventions with 38 percent

likely to continue the adopted interventions under thesample sub-projects in component 3.

Also 77 percent of the sample beneficiaries incomponent 2 and 97 percent in component 3 are ofthe view that the introduced interventions under therespective sub-projects will be taken up by otherpeople in their peer group or areas.

2.3.6.1.14 Overall impact of the sub-projectinterventions

Among seven major aspects considered forevaluation of impact at beneficiary level in component2 and 3, increased productivity, increased employmentopportunity, increased income and increased technicalknowledge are the major outcome of the interventions,while areas which require further efforts or needsimprovement are market access to farmers andwomen empowerment.

2.3.6.1.15 Adoption rate under component 2 and3 sample sub-projects

Besides the direct beneficiary there were otheradopters of the NAIP technologies/interventions as aresult of horizontal expansion. These adopters belongto nearby areas which got influenced by seeing theoutcome of the interventions at the beneficiary plot.

On the basis of horizontal expansion datacollected from the CPIs of the individual sub-projects,it was seen that till March 2014 the adoption rate forcomponent 2 and component 3 sample sub projectswas 55.8% and 42.43% respectively. Adoption ratevaried according to the sub-projects; in some of thesub-projects of component 2 and 3 the horizontalexpansion rate was very high (nearly 100%) whereexponential growth was seen in horizontal expansionrate year wise since inception of project.

2.3.6.1.16 Major result areas of NAIP

NAIP sub-projects had resulted in multifacetedimpact in accordance to the thematic area of sub-project and overall thrust area of particularcomponent. It was found that component 1subprojects resulted in overall better access toknowledge repository, ICT application for betterefficiency, platform for incubation andcommercialization of technologies, production toconsumption system (PCS) resulted in strengtheningof value chain though customized interventions atcritical stages such as production, processing,

28


packaging, forward linkages, enhanced income levelfor the value chain participants, creation of ruralindustry/companies, and quality enhancement;component 3 sub-projects contributed to enhancedincome, employment generation, formation of farmergroups & SHGs and community infrastructures; andcomponent 4 impacted quality of publication, patentapplication and enhanced capabilities for scientificand technological problem solving.

It is estimated that till March 2014, the NAIP sub-projects impacted the life of about 0.8 million farmersthrough various interventions under the sub-projects.In addition various sub-projects also influenced togreater extent the overall institutional development ofNARS system by capacity building of scientists, betterinformation management, communication anddissemination, increased research capabilities infrontier areas and improving the quality of publication.

2.3.6.1.17 Impact on institutional development

Component-1 of NAIP, primarily focused oncapacity building of research system has taken up anumber of interventions (Information andcommunication technology (ICT) based activities,capacity building activities, BPDU, etc.) that havefacilitated in institutional development. However,institutional development activities taken up as part ofexecuting individual sub-projects within component 1(such as consortia formed, infrastructure developed,training of scientist executing sub-projects ofcomponent 1) have been assessed to arrive at thelarger picture of institutional development.

The distribution of consortia partners amongNAIP indicated a mix in terms of participation ofvarious stakeholders across different types ofinstitutions. As it was seen from the figure thatconsortia constitutes 40% of ICAR institutes, 25% ofthe State Agricultural Universities, 16% NGOs (whichwere involved in most of the component 3 sub-projects); 9% private partners included both privateinstitutions and industries; and 10% other partnersincluding International institute and Central & Statenon-ICAR institutes.

2.3.6.1.18 Key contributions

Analysis of responses received duringstakeholder interaction revealed that, the keycontributions of consortia mode of research includedsharing institutional scientific / technical expertise or

capability, sharing of research infrastructure,exchanging knowledge, better reach of technology tobeneficiaries and direction setting for researchobjectives and goals amongst others. However,stakeholders had ranked these contributions as pertheir appropriateness for their respective projects.

It was evident that consortia mode of researchhad contributed effectively in key areas such assharing of expertise, sharing of infrastructure,knowledge better reach to beneficiary and directionsetting. About 84 percent of the sample sub-projectsconsidered that consortia model of research had highcontribution or impact on sharing of knowledge &technical know-how. Whereas, 16 percent thought ithad modest impacts. For sharing of infrastructure theconsortia model of research being rated as highimpact by 38 percent sample subprojects followed bymodest impact by 58 percent and low impact by4 percent. With 85 percent of sample sub-projectsrating as high, exchanging knowledge had been animportant impact area of consortia mode of research.In the areas of better reach to beneficiaries anddirection setting for research the sample sub-projectsrating for high & modest taken together stood at levelof 100 percent and 98 percent respectively.

Only 5 percent of the respondents in component2 sub-projects had opined that contribution of sharingof expertise was low. In the area of sharing ofinfrastructure for majority of sub-projects across fourcomponents the contribution was rated as either highor substantial. However, for approximately 26 percentsub-projects of component-3, the rating forcontribution made by consortia mode of research wasgiven as low because of the given nature of sub-projects in this component. For remaining keycontribution areas such as exchanging knowledge,better reach and direction setting the contribution wasrated as either high or substantial for majority(approximately 90 percent) of sub-projects.

Analysis of the feedback received duringstakeholder’s interaction revealed that consortiamodel of research possesses certain intrinsicstrengths such as following:

• Sharing knowledge (multi-disciplinary approach)

• Sharing infrastructure

• Efficient usage of time and resources

• Better reach to beneficiaries

• Effective model for commercialization

29


It was found that the consortia model hadinfluenced the setting up of research agenda bysharing of knowledge/information (with 88 percent ofCPIs mentioning this as an important strength of themodel). The other strengths of consortium modelwere better reach (69 percent), sharing ofinfrastructure (57 percent), efficient usage of time andresources (41 percent) and effective model forcommercialization (38 percent).

Operational weaknesses of consortia mode ofresearch included:

• Lack of coordination among partners (71 percent)

• Lack of co-operation amongst researchorganizations with similar work areas (69 percent)

• Conflicting procedures of different organizationstypes (60 percent)

• Intense administrative work (38 percent

• No arrangements for sustained linkages(28 percent)

• Presence of non performing partners (16 percent)

2.3.6.1.19 Key learning’s and areas ofimprovement

The data analysis at components level withreference to key learning revealed thatmultidisciplinary approach was considered the mostimportant learning by stakeholders across fourcomponents of NAIP. Approximately 76 percent oftotal respondents (multiple responses) who hadconsidered multidisciplinary approach as one of thelearning were mostly from compoent-1, 2 & 3, whileremaining 4 percent being from component-4.

Both effective selection of consortia partners andexperience of managing partners were considered assecond most important key learning with 45 percentresponses mostly from component 2 and 3. Effectiveconduct of research project was also considered oneof the key learning with approximately 41 percentresponses half of which are from component 2.

Sixty percent of respondents considered easyprocess of inclusion/removal of partners as anotherimportant area of improvement. Clear guidelinefor PPP was considered as important area ofimprovement by 55 percent of respondents, while48 and 47 percent of responses were for uniformconsortia structure and fund release through leadpartner as the key improvement area. Common rulesfor all clearances be it ICAR or university was

suggested as key improvement area with 33 percentresponses.

2.3.6.1.20 Key drivers for sustainability ofconsortia model

To understand the key drivers for sustainabilitybetter, first the stakeholders responses on promotingconsortia mode was analyzed and it was found thatCPIs of all the sample sub-projects felt that consortiamode of research should be continued. The mainreasons for promoting consortia mode weresynergistic research system (69 percent), reducedoverlapping research efforts (57 percent), better/holistic design of research objectives, development oflinkages for future research (52 percent each) &effective dissemination of technologies (14 percent).

Analysis of stakeholder's perception about thesustainability of consortia model revealed that about98 percent of CPIs agreed that consortia mode was asustainable model of research. Approximately twopercent of CPIs were not sure regarding the degree ofsustainability of this innovative model of research. Noone had responded as disagree on this parameter.

CPIs, CCPIs and partners of sample sub-projects had opined following key drivers forsustainability of consortia mode of research:

• Selection of appropriate partner with requiredcapabilities/motivation

• Clear definition of duties, responsibilities anddeliverables

• Team work in sharing of institutional resourcesand outputs

• Simple procedures for timely implementation

2.3.6.1.21 Infrastructure development undersample sub-project

The project design explicitly recognized theimportance of infrastructure in institutionaldevelopment; adequate provision was made at thesub-project level as necessary. Data was analyzed indepth to understand the type and amplitude ofinfrastructure created under various sub-projects ofNAIP. Analysis focused on three types ofinfrastructure namely scientific equipment, IThardware & software and civil infrastructure forsheltering project activities. Since the life ofinfrastructure is generally longer than the projectduration, we simultaneously enquired as to how thisinfrastructure would help NARS in further research.

30


2.3.6.1.22 Mapping of Investment in high valueinfrastructure

The data analysis pertaining to value ofinfrastructure creation revealed that for 58 samplessub-project infrastructures worth Rs. 1410 millionwere created. Majority of investment in infrastructurei.e. approximately 49 percent of total infrastructurecreated was done in area of IT hardware and softwarescientific and technical equipment. Remaining 51percent of total value of infrastructure created wasaccounted by purchase of scientific equipment (36percent) and civil infrastructure (14 percent).

The analysis of average duration of usage ofthese infrastructures revealed that approximately for19 percent of sub-projects the average life ofinfrastructure created is more than 15 years, while for33 percent of sub-projects the average life is in therange of 10 to 15 years. The average life in the rangeof 5-10 years was observed for 39 percent of sub-projects which was for majority of the infrastructurecreated while for remaining 9 percent of sub-projects,7 percent sample sub-projects had average life periodof less than 5 years.

Component wise analysis of infrastructurecreation revealed that 50 percent of the infrastructurewas done under component 1, majority (84 percent oftotal) of civil and infrastructure were procured undercomponent 1 (23 percent), component 3 (29 percent)and 4 (32 percent) sub-projects. Approximately INR693.7 million of infrastructure was created was underIT hardware and software, of which about 94 percentwas created or procured under component 1.Investment in IT hardware and software werereported at the level of 1.6 percent, 4.1 percent andonly 0.1 percent of total for component 2, 3 & 4respectively. For expenditure made under creation ofscientific equipment, approximately 39 percent of totalvalue was for sub-projects under component 4 and 37percent were for component 2; remaining 24 percentwas split across component 3 and 1 sub-projects withpercentage share of approximately 22 percent and 2percent respectively.

Weighted average percentage of infrastructurecreated was 24 percent, 25 percent and 7 percent forcivil infrastructure, scientific equipment and IThardware and software, respectively.

2.3.6.1.23 Impact on research system

Infrastructure developed under the sub-projects

created enabling conditions for undertaking proposedresearch. In order to know the impact of infrastructureso created on research system, a perceptual mappingwas undertaken for all components and NAIP as awhole along the following four parameters. Theaverage ranking of different components and NAIPwas calculated.

• Increased the technical capacity of scientificresearch & development

• Increased the efficiency of scientists

• Enhanced the capability to execute interventions

• Increased the ability to commercializetechnology & reach beneficiary

Based on the average rating obtained for NAIPand four components a perceptual map was drawn.Analysis of perceptual map revealed that increase inthe technical capacity of scientific research &development was perceived as most important impactof infrastructure for NAIP as whole comprising allcomponents. Enhanced capability to executeintervention was considered next most importantimpact of infrastructure on NAIP. However, increasedefficiency of scientists and increased ability tocommercialize the technology and reach tobeneficiary with almost similar weighted averageranking were perceived comparative less impactful.It was observed that increase in the technical capacityof scientific research and development was perceivedas most important impact for component 1, 2 and 4,while it was ranked at third position for component 3.Enhanced capability to execute interventions wasperceived most important impact for component 3.Increasing ability to commercialization occupied lastplace in terms of impact for components 1, 2 and 4.

2.3.7 Highlights of the independent impactevaluation

NAIP sub-projects had resulted in multifacetedimpact in accordance to the thematic area ofsubproject and overall thrust area of particularcomponent. Component-1 sub-projects resulted inoverall better access to knowledge repository, ICTapplication, development of innovative platform forincubation of technologies, start-ups andcommercialization amongst others. Component-2sub-projects strengthened value chain thoughcustomized interventions resulting in enhancedincome level for the value chain participants, creationof rural industry/companies and quality enhancement

31


among others. Component 3 focussed in enhancedincome, employment generation, formation of farmergroups & SHGs and community infrastructures. Withmajor impact on quality of publication, patentapplication and enhanced capabilities for scientificand technological problem solving, component 4impact was in line with its thematic area of basic andstrategic research in frontier areas of agriculturalsciences. NAIP sub-projects had a number of maideninitiatives or new areas of influence in the context ofNARS which brought in significant positive changesfor undertaking agricultural research andcommercialization and uptake of technologies. Someof such initiatives are consortia mode ofimplementation, BPDU and commercialization, focuson branding and marketing, formation of producercompanies, formation of rural industries,establishment of National Agricultural Bio-informaticsGrid and focus on Basic strategic and frontier areas ofresearch.

The weighted average achievement of targetedobjectives across all the components for the samplesub-projects was around 97 percent by the end of theproject. The weighted average increase of budget forthe sample sub-projects was around 43 percent. Thefund disbursement process was rated as satisfactoryby majority of the sample sub-projects with 93 percentreporting either highly satisfied or satisfied.

The key strengths identified in the funddisbursement process were:

• clear guidleines,

• electronic transfer of funds and

• direct transfer to partners.

Analysis of the procurement process revealedthat majority of the sample sub-projects were satisfied(about 92%) with the process. The key strengthsidentified were clear guidelines, transparent process,provision for direct purchase and autonomy to CPI/CCPI’s.

The project has generated an estimated 5647publications such as research papers and otherpublications (such as presentations, articles, books/contribution to books, theses and informationdissemination aids) in the sample sub-projects.Maximum publications (34 percent) were in seminars/symposium/ conference/workshops, followed bypopular articles in English or local language (31percent) and books/reports (13 percent). Other

categories such as research papers, informationdissemination aids and thesis accounted for theremaining 22 percent. Nearly nine percent ofpublications were in the form of research paperspublished with NAAS rating of more than 6.

Overall NAIP, 118 patents were filed while, 41were either published or granted. Component 4 wasthe most successful in filing patents, with 100 percentof the sample sub-projects filing patents, followed bycomponent 2 with 50 percent of the sample sub-projects filing patents.

Eighty five percent of the 1.15 millionbeneficiaries targeted through awareness campaignswere from farming community (mainly in component 2and 3), 5 percent from the research community(mainly in component 1 and 4). The rest of thebeneficiaries consisted mainly of entrepreneurs,SHGs/NGOs and government officials. The farmingcommunity was majorly reached through exhibitions(79 percent), training/workshops (15 percent) and byother awareness activities (6 percent), the researchcommunity through media led awareness (39percent) and workshops (35 percent) andentrepreneurs through trainings/workshops (57percent) and exhibitions (21 percent). Marketingactivities were for improving the market linkages ororientation of the farming community towards amarket driven approach. These activities wereexclusively undertaken within component 2 and 3 forthe sample sub-projects as these componentsfocused on the development of product specific valuechains and improvement of rural livelihood securityrespectively. An estimated 45940 beneficiaries/stakeholders (consisting of farming community,entrepreneurs, private companies, NGO’s/SHG’s,govt. officials) have been reached through 452marketing activities for the sample subprojects.

Apart from BPDUs’ which facilitated 331 NARStechnology commercialization, sub-projects incomponents 2, 3 and 4 also commercialized numberof technologies in their area of activities with the majorshare going to component 2 on product specific valuechain development have and commercialized 47technologies.

The estimated involvement of women beneficiaryacross component 2 and component 3 was at thelevel of 31 percent. The estimated beneficiariesreached only through capacity building programmesand pilots/adoption is around 0.3 million for the

32


sample sub-projects. About 46 percent ofbeneficiaries felt that interventions resulted inmoderate increase in employment and 89 percent ofthe overall sample beneficiaries stated that there wasmedium to high effect on increase in income. Around58 percent respondents were benefitted byinstitutional development activities like the formationof self-help group, farmers group, youth group, etc.

While 58 percent of the respondents were certainto continue, 40 percent were likely to continue theadopted interventions under the respective samplesub-projects. Also 96 percent of the samplebeneficiaries were of the view that the introducedinterventions under the respective sub-projects wouldbe taken up by other people in their peer group orareas.

The 60 sample sub-projects impacted the life ofabout 0.2 million beneficiaries (directly through pilot)and has resulted in creation of 0.587 million manmonth of employment. In addition various samplesub-projects also impacted to a greater extent theoverall institutional development of NARS system bycapacity building of scientists (379 scientists trained)and improving the quality of publication (130publications with NAAS rating 6+).

The lead role is played by ICAR and SAU/CAU,representing 40 and 25 percent of partners,respectively. Public private partnership has been thenew focus in NAIP as evident from the participation of212 institutions.

The key contributions of consortia mode ofresearch included sharing institutional scientific/technical expertise or capability, sharing of researchinfrastructure, exchanging knowledge, better reach oftechnology to beneficiaries and direction setting forresearch objectives and goals amongst others. Of thetotal scientists involved in implementation of 60sample sub-projects approximately 27 percent weretrained. An estimated 64 percent of respondentsopined that training had very high to high impact onproject delivery. Infrastructure development haveplayed vital role in institutional capacity building withan estimated R1410 million of infrastructure createdwithin the sample sub-projects.

2.3.8 Financial and economic impact assessment

The basic premises for impact assessment ofsub-projects of components 1 and 4 were that thetraining of scientists increased efficiency and enabled

cost and time savings, efficient transfer oftechnologies and information, qualitative improvementin analysing and computing as evidenced bypublishing in high rated journals, building up researchstock and capacity and better and faster developmentof varieties and breeds (reducing the lag inconventional methods).

2.3.8.1 Financial analysis

The financial analysis was all about the benefitsaccruing to the individual participant due to the NAIPintervention at livelihood and value chain modelslevel. Within each of the short listed sub-projects forimpact assessment, 2-4 specific interventions wereidentified in consultation with the NCs and CPIsconcerned. In each of the intervention a sample of 30each of beneficiaries and comparable control farmers(non-participants) were covered under the study. Incase of non-farmer stakeholders, all the participantswere covered. The sampling framework encompassedall the size groups and ecosystems prevalent. The datawere elicited through a pilot tested instrument fromthe respondents and the financial analysis was donein a partial budgeting framework to identify the addedcost, reduced returns, added returns and reducedcosts due to the intervention. The unit of analysis wasthe sub-project/consortium as a whole by aggregatingthe incremental benefits realised across the selectedinterventions.

Four most important aspects of agriculturalproject analysis were taken care of:

2.3.8.1.1 Identifying project costs and benefits

Anything that reduces an objective is a cost, andanything that contributes to an objective is a benefit -the objective of the interventions being maximizingthe net incremental benefit. Thus, anything thatreduces national income is a cost and anything thatincreases national income is a benefit. The objectivefor economic analysis in terms of change in nationalincome is defined in real terms, as opposed to moneyterms, referring to physical, tangible characteristic ofgoods and services.

Identification of costs is rather simple andstraightforward and amounts to just enlistment ofcosts of interventions/ cost of the sub-project forfinancial analysis. NAIP was a huge project (andprobably the first of its kind to be funded by the WB)and its objective was being realized through the sub-

33


projects. Accordingly, there was an array of costs andbenefits – direct and indirect, tangible and intangible,and monetary and non-monetary flowing across thesub-projects and they were mostly specific with fewbenefits and costs being common. The deliberationsin the workshop zeroed in on a check list possibletangible and non-tangible benefit across thecomponents as stated in Table 15.

The list is only illustrative, and it was left to theingenuity of the investigator to capture as much asand as objective as possible the benefits from thespecific intervention/sub-project. The thrust of theinvestigation was capturing the ‘incremental netbenefit’ considering the non-project use of theresources and not merely the net returns. Forexample, Incremental employment was the one thatcame through increased cropping intensity orhorizontal expansion of the intervention in new/wasteland than just substitution.

The net benefit due to the intervention wascomputed through partial/enterprise budgeting takinginto consideration the added cost, reduced returns,reduced cost and added returns because of theintervention. The benefit computed for theintervention was scaled up for the actual or potentialhorizontal expansion under the technology taking intoconsideration without project use of the resources incase of substitutions.

2.3.8.2 Economic analysis

Economic analysis is all about the benefits andcosts accruing to the society due to a projectintervention. It can be more or less than the financialanalysis depending upon the proportion of the itemsdominating in the benefits and costs. Simply, it isfinancial analysis adjusted for transfer payments, i.e.transactions that do not involve real resources e.g.taxes and subsidies. Most of the inputs involved incomponent 3 projects involve adjustment for transferpayments. Saving of a taxed input (like fossil fuel)may show higher financial returns and lessereconomic returns, while that of a subsidised input(irrigation water, electricity, fertilizer, etc.) can show areverse trend. Elimination of middle men in case ofproducer companies and contract farming may meanmore to the farmers and nothing to the society interms net additional income.

While only market prices were used for financialanalysis, in case of economic analysis it wasopportunity cost (shadow price)/accounting price/efficiency price/ marginal value product as the casemay be. The economic values of costs and benefitswere imputed discounting transfer payments andadjusting the distortions in the traded and non-tradednature of the items. In order to assess the sensitivityof the benefit accrual, the analysis was done with andwithout support of NAIP.

Table 15. Tangible and non-tangible benefit across the components

Component Tangible benefits Intangible benefits

1 Productivity, quality, incubation fee, royalty, Increased reach, accessing new marketsnumber of enterprises supported, increase in turnover (migration), reduced learning time,of clients, increase in tax revenues, number of direct increased retention, self-paced, fasterand indirect jobs created, backward linkage rollout, consistent delivery, customisation,(no. of farmers benefited and increase in farmers’ monitoring and evaluation, leveragingincome, import substitution, export revenues, human capital, gender equity,value chains developed, etc.) empowerment, entrepreneurship,

enhanced business opportunities, etc.2 Increase in yield/productivity, price, elimination of New jobs – adding to social status/self-

middle men, incremental employment, change in esteem, accident reduction, drudgerytime, location of sale, and production form, losses reduction, improvement in gender equity,avoided, exportability, value addition, time saving, increase in empowerment, improvement inetc. environment

3 + GEF Increase in yield/productivity, saving in inputs, reduction Reducing risk, better health/nutritionin cost, increase in net income, increase in cropping security, arresting distress migration,intensity, quality improvement (rate and extent), losses reduced diseases, accident reduction,avoided, value addition, time saving, crop diversification, drudgery reduction, improvement inetc. gender equity, increase in empowerment,

improvement in environment, etc.4 Reduced lag in animal/crop improvement, improved Improved research capital stock,

resistance, increased productivity, loss prevention, etc. and trained manpower.

34


The incremental benefit was computed for theintervention for the identified components of thepartial budgeting for the region/society by assessingthrough various sources the adoption percentage/horizontal expansion. The macro benefits thus arrivedwas adjusted for transfer payments (isolating onlythose components involving real resource use incosts and benefits) to compute the net economicbenefits.

2.3.8.3 Component-wise financial and economicanalyses

The impact analysis aimed at quantifying theimpact of the NAIP as a whole. A few sub-projects fromeach component were selected representing allgrades, themes and regions for analysis purpose.component 1 and 4 did not have individual adopters,but benefit the society at large in terms of infrastructure,research capital and human capacity development.Hence, for these two components only economicanalysis has been done. In case of components 2 and3, the sub-projects selected have many interventionsand cooperating centres. However, the samplingframework envisaged selection 2-4 interventions in the

lead centres and by and large an equal sampling ofstakeholders with suitable controls. The benefits atindividual level computed through financial analysisafter adjusting for transfer payments in economicanalysis have been scaled up for computation ofsocietal benefits considering the spread or adoptionpercentage of the intervention advocated.

2.3.8. 3.1 Component 1Out of the total projects in component 1, 12 sub-

projects were selected for financial and economicanalysis. The projects under component 1 primarilyconsist of IT infrastructure development, knowledgeresource development, BPDU and training andcapacity building.

The overall impact analysis of component 1 wasextrapolated from the results derived from these 12sub-projects. Since benefits under these sub-projectsare not actually accrued fully within the project phase,only potential benefit was estimated by calculatingeconomic benefits in terms of net present worth andInternal rate of return along with the potential BCR.The NPV and BCR’s of the 12 sample sub-projectsare shown in Table 16.

Table 16. Estimated benefits from different selected sub-projects of component 1

Name of the sub-project Actual NPV BCRexpenditure (in million R)(in million R)

Consortium for e-Resources in Agriculture (CeRA); 617.29 1015.18 1.64

Development and maintenance of Rice Knowledge 58.48 82.77 1.42Management Portal

Establishment of National Agricultural Bioinformatics Grid 637.32 960.86 1.51(NABG) in ICAR

Business Planning and Development Unit at Anand Agricultural 26.29 34.23 1.30University

Handholding and Mentoring, Planning and Development (BPD); 44.56 58.02 1.30ICRISAT

Learning and Capacity Building; NAARM 574.39 828.00 1.44

Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at IARI 51.11 53.24 1.04

Mobilizing Mass Media Support for Sharing Agro-Information 64.11 126.32 1.97

Strengthening of Digital Library and Information Management under 103.52 167.26 1.62NARS (e-GRANTH)

Strengthening Statistical Computing for NARS 124.79 151.82 1.22

Establishing and Networking of Agricultural Market Intelligence 57.14 84.16 1.47Centers in India

Engaging farmers, enriching knowledge: Agropedia Phase II 37.26 69.92 1.88

Source: PwCPL analysis

35


The analysis shown above clearly indicated thatall the projects in component 1 yielded a benefit costratio of more than 1 and gave a positive NPV. Apositive NPV signify that the projects areeconomically viable. The internal rate of return foreach sample subprojects was computed and on thebasis of that the same is projected for componentlevel based on extrapolation. The IRR for component 1comes out to be 19.26%.

The major impact of component 1 was in terms oftime and cost saving of the scientists and researchscholars through better and convenient availability ofknowledge resources and availability of better computingIT infrastructure. The other impact was in terms ofincrease in efficiency and productivity of scientists andother staff through training and capacity buildinginitiatives taken in component 1. Apart from scientistsand research scholars, individual entrepreneurs werealso benefitted from component 1 through BPDU’swhich helped in dissemination of the new technologydeveloped under NARS and NAIP, to potentialentrepreneurs. The impact of component 1 as a wholewith respect to the total investment made on it and thepotential benefit likely to accrue is shown in Table 17.

their results lead to applied research projects whichwill develop technologies and innovations foreventual commercialization and impact. The basicresearch is characterized by longer time lags buthigher benefits in the long run. The research is in theareas of gene allele mining, vaccine development,pesticide residue detection, precision farming, etc andthey aim to develop cutting edge technologies.

The impact analysis of component 4 was similarto the methodology employed in component 1 sub-projects.

Since sub-projects under component 4 projectswere totally research based where final output oftechnology would take at least 5 year for masscommercialization, so analysis of financial benefitscould not be possible at this stage. The potentialbenefits of component 4 sub-projects were depictedin terms of economic analysis where someassumptions were made on the basis of expertopinions about the technology. These potentialbenefits would be in the form of shortening the timelag in research, saving in costs and increased yields.The present values of the future benefits werediscounted and summed up to arrive at NPV and IRR.The computation of the NPVs and BCRs of the 6 sub-projects is shown in Table 18.

The major benefits expected from sub-projects ofcomponent 4 were better development of varieties,increased capacity of scientific research and technicalproblem solving, publishing of research articles inhigh impact journals and eventual impacts by way ofimproved technologies. Since basic and strategicresearch is exploration of the unknown, with a longgestation period and uncertain outputs, its financialand economic analysis is rather difficult. However,past research evaluations have shown that they resultin slow but heavy returns. It gives us confidence tospeculate about potential benefits based onreasonable assumptions. Based on the ex-anteimpact assessment of the six sample sub-projects,the likely benefits from component 4 as a whole arecomputed and presented in Table 19.

The resulting technologies from research canbenefit the society in a number of ways, includingincrease in farm productivity, creation of agriculturalemployment, increasing cropping intensity, improvinglivestock production, and improvement of quality ofagricultural output. The above financial and economicanalysis was based on empirical evidence and expert


Ten sub-projects from component 4 wereselected and data were collected for financial andeconomic analysis, but finally the information could becompleted only from 6 sub-projects. These sub-projects primarily indulged in strategic and basicresearch. They require longer term investments and

Table 17. Projection of the benefits from selected sub-projectsof the Component 1

Total no. of projects analyzed 12

Total expenditure on the analyzed 2396.25projects (in Million R)

Total net benefit accrued (in Million R) 3685.13

Benefit cost ratio 1.54

Total expenditure to the component 4702.23(in Million R)

Total benefit from the component 7231.48(in Million R)


Economic benefit from component 7231.48(in Million R)


36


opinions about the impacts of new technologies. Theresults showed that it was economically viable toinvest in the strategic research programme. If thepotential technologies were commercialized, it wouldgenerate a benefit of R6379.18 million, with apromising benefit cost ratio of 1.75. Also the IRR forcomponent 4 worked out to be 57.33%.


The projects in component 2 majorly consisted ofdevelopment of the complete value chain of anagriculture commodity. The major commoditiescovered under this component were both agriculturebased like saffron, millets, maize, cotton, custardapple, etc and animal based commodities likepashmina, honey etc. Fourteen sub-projects were

selected for financial and economic analysis undercomponent 2.

The financial analysis was done on the basis ofthe rise in the production level, productivity andincome of the participatory farmers. The major factordifferentiating both the participatory and non-participatory group were the packages of practicegiven to the participatory farmers which helped themin efficient usage of agriculture inputs, betterharvesting techniques and postharvest managementtechniques which lowered the post-harvest losses.The other major stakeholder in the value chain wasthe processor largely responsible for the valueaddition to the agricultural commodity throughprocessing. The major support provided to theprocessors by NAIP was in the form of technology

Table 18. Comparison of costs and potential benefits from selected sub-projects of component 4

Name of the project Budget allocated Economic BCRto the project benefit accrued(in million R) (in million R)

Serological diversity and molecular characterization of 52.59 105.51 2.01Dechelobacter nodosus and development of vaccineagainst virulent footrot

Study of herbal acaricides as means to overcome the 42.17 95.62 2.27development of resistance in ticks to conventional acaricides

Allele mining and expression profiling of resistance - 113.55 257.44 2.27and avirulence - genes in Rice-blast patho-system fordevelopment of race non-specific disease resistance

Design and development of rubber dams for watersheds 76.02 77.12 1.01

Precision farming technologies based on microprocessor 38.69 42.89 1.11and decision support systems for enhancing input applicationefficiency in production agriculture

Development of biosensor and micro-techniques for analysis 23.00 23.74 1.03of pesticide residues, aflatoxin heavy metals and bacterialcontamination in milk


(Rs. Millions)

Table 19. Projection of economic benefits from sub-projects of component 4

Sample Sub-projects Total no. of projects 6

Total expenditure on the selected sample projects (in million R) 346.03

Total benefit accrued of the selected sample projects (in million R) 606.02


Component level Total allocation to the component (in million R) 3642.43

Total economic benefit (in million R) 6379.18



37


development for the processing of the produce. Theprocessors were essentially benefitted by theincreased availability of raw material for processingalong with linkages to the farmers and technologydevelopment for processing of the produce. These allfactors resulted in increased income of theprocessors. The financial analysis and BCR ratio ofthe selected sub-projects is presented in Table 20.

The economic analysis of the component 2projects was on the basis of the total economic benefitaccrued from the project to the society or nation. Thefinancial costs were adjusted by substituting themarket wage rates of labour and rental value of landwith their opportunity costs. This reduced the totalcost of cultivation as the opportunity costs were lowerthan the market rates. In the same way, the marketprices of inputs like fertilizers, plant protectionchemicals, irrigation water, power were replaced bytheir real costs of production, which were higher thanthe market prices due to the subsidies provided by theUnion and State governments in the country. Althoughthe cost of cultivation was pushed up on account ofthis adjustment, it was lower than the reduction due to

the use of opportunity costs of labour in place of theirwage rates. As a result, the cost of cultivationdecreased and the economic benefit was generallyhigher than that of financial cost in case of component2 sub-projects. The results of economic analysis ofthe sub-projects of component 2 are presented inTable 21.

The overall analysis of component indicated thatfor a total expenditure of R2291.20 million, the totalfinancial benefit accrued was R4857.41 million. Thisyielded a financial benefit cost ratio (FBCR) of 2.12 forcomponent 2. Calculation of internal rate of returnwas also done for each sub-project and on the basisof that IRR calculated at component level was50.08%. The projection of benefits to the wholecomponent 2 is summarized in Table 22.

The overall economic benefit accrued fromcomponent 2 was even higher due to higheremployment generation. The employment is largelygenerated at the farm and processing level of thevalue chain. The overall economic benefit cost ratio(EBCR) of component 2 is 2.15. The total economicbenefit accrued from the component 2 amounted to

Table 20. Results of financial analysis of sub-projects under component 2

Name of the sub-project Total expenditure Financial benefit BCR (in million R) (in million R)

Value chain on enhanced productivity and profitability of 111.71 209.8 1.88pashmina fiber

Value chain on value added products derived from 16.52 45.0 2.72Prosopis julifloraA value chain on Kashmir saffron 25.21 136.9 5.43

Value chain on commercialization of maize products 35.65 46.8 1.31

A value chain on banana pseudostem for fiber and other 42.30 45.5 1.08value added products

A value chain on lac and lac based products for domestic 12.86 75.8 5.89 and export market

A value chain on mango and guava for domestic and 38.67 175.1 4.53export market

A value chain on underutilized fruits of Rajasthan 35.23 104.8 2.98

Capitalization of prominent landraces of rice in Orissa 20.73 24.3 1.17through value chain approach

Creation for demand for millet foods through PCS value-chain 79.12 131.9 1.67

A value chain on ginger and ginger products 55.66 124.8 2.24

A value chain on cotton fiber, seed and stalks 67.60 44.4 0.66

A value chain on natural dyes 44.03 30.6 0.69

A value chain on flowers for domestic and export market 28.62 105.8 3.70


38


Table 21. Results of economic analysis of selected sub-projects of component 2

Name of the sub-project Total expenditure Economic BCRon the project benefit accrued(in million R) (in million R)

Value chain on enhanced productivity and profitability 111.71 209.8 1.90of pashmina fiber

Value chain on value added products derived from 16.52 27.0 1.63Prosopis julifloraA Value chain on Kashmir saffron 25.21 141.6 5.60

Value chain on commercialization of maize products 35.65 89.2 2.50

A value chain on banana pseudostem for fiber and 42.30 45.5 1.10other value added products

A value chain on lac and lac based products for 12.86 75.8 5.90domestic and export market

A value chain on mango and guava for domestic 38.67 180.6 4.70and export market

A value chain on underutilized fruits of Rajasthan 35.23 104.8 2.97

Capitalization of prominent landraces of rice in 20.73 27.9 1.30Orissa through value chain approach

Creation for demand for millet foods through 79.12 133.5 1.70PCS value-chain

A value chain on ginger and ginger products 55.66 148.2 2.70

A value chain on cotton fiber, seed and stalks 67.60 34.1 0.50

A value chain on natural dyes 44.03 30.6 0.70

A value chain on flowers for domestic and export market 28.62 50.3 1.80


R4915.20 million. The projection of total economicbenefit accruing from component 2 sub-projects ispresented in Table 23.

2.3.8.3.4 Component 3 and GEF

The projects in component 3 and GEF aimed atdevelopment of sustainable livelihood developmentfor rural population. This was primarily achieved byproviding them with livestock based integratedfarming system, knowledge of better agricultureinputs, increased availability of better agricultureinputs to farmers and by crop diversification and

enhancing the adaptive capacity towards climatechange and improving livelihood of farming community.Overall 16 sub-projects were selected for under thiscomponent.

The financial analysis was done on the basis ofthe incremental net benefit due to the interventions interms of production level, productivity and income ofthe participatory farmers. The major factorsdifferentiating the groups were the packages ofpractice given to the participatory farmers whichhelped them in efficient usage of agriculture inputs,better availability of inputs, knowledge about livestock

Table 22. Projection of financial benefits from component 2 sub-projects

Total no. of sample projects 14

Total benefit on the selected sample projects (in million R) 1301.51

Total investment in the selected sample projects (in million R) 613.91


Component level Total expenditure on the component (in million R) 2291.20

Total financial benefit (in million .) 4857.41


(R millions)

39


based integrated farming system and cropdiversification. The major support provided to thefarmers by NAIP was in the form of increasedavailability of better agriculture inputs. The financialand economic analysis and BC ratio of the selectedsub-projects is shown in Table 24.

The economic analysis of the component 3 andGEF projects was on the basis of the total economicbenefit accrued from the project, not to the individualfarmers but to the society or nation at large. It requiredmaking adjustments by replacing market wage rateswith opportunity costs in case of land and labour andsubstituting the market prices of inputs with the realprices by netting out the subsidies and taxes. For

improving the livelihoods of farmers, intensive andintegrated farming systems were introduced and theyrequired heavy use of inputs. The economic cost ofproduction increased substantially due to thesubsidies involved. The opportunity cost of labourwas lower than their market wage rates. But thesaving on account of labour was far less tocompensate for the increased cost of materials.Hence, the economic cost of production was muchhigher than the financial cost of production in amajority of the cases. As a result, the economic netbenefit was much less than the financial net benefit inmany of component 3 sub-projects. The economicbenefit cost ratio was, in general, lower than the

Table 23. Component 2 economic analysis-projection of total economic benefits

Sample Sub-projects Total no of sample projects 14

Total expenditure on sample projects (in million R) 613.91

Total economic benefit accrued from sample projects (in million R) 1317



Total economic benefit (in million R) 4915.20


Table 24. Results of economic analysis of selected sub-projects of component 3 and GEF projects

Name of the sub-project Total Net Economic Financial Economic budget financial benefit benefit benefit

allocated benefit accrued cost cost (in million accrued (in million ratio ratio

s) (in million s)s)

Farming for livelihood security of small and marginal 85.26 113.44 95.87 1.33 1.12farmers in disadvantaged districts of Tamil Nadu

Enhancing rural livelihood security for sustainability 105.52 309.22 275.65 2.93 2.61through rice based integrated farming indisadvantageous districts of Assam

Ensuring livelihood security through sustainable 69.06 101.64 85.46 1.47 1.24farming system and related enterprises in schedulecastse (SC)/tribal dominated population of Mirzapurand Sonbhadra districts in Vindhyan region

Integrated project for research on development 94.04 221.44 104.40 2.35 1.11process and sustainability of livelihood in selecteddisadvantaged districts of Gujarat State

Sustainable livelihood improvement through need 55.85 35.33 5.95 0.63 0.11based integrated farming system models indisadvantaged districts of Bihar

Livelihood and nutritional security of Tribal 230.68 499.27 184.85 2.16 0.80dominated rural areas through integrated farmingsystems models

40


Nutrition, livelihood security through resource and 48.48 114.94 107.11 2.37 2.21enterprise management in Bidar district

Goat husbandry based integrated approach for 24.94 57.77 105.74 2.32 4.24livelihood security in disadvantages districts ofBundelkhand region (CIRG)

Integrated farming system for sustainable rural 32.35 80.33 36.88 2.48 1.14 livelihoods in undulating and rainfed areas ofJhabua and Dhar districts of Madhya Pradesh

Livelihood improvement and empowerment of rural 236.66 716.48 705.79 3.03 2.98poor through sustainable farming systems inNorth East India

Upscaling and improving livelihood of forest based 22.04 26.01 26.01 1.18 1.18and forest fringe communities through enhancedfarming system productivity and efficient supportsystems in Godda district of Jharkhand

Livelihood security of rural poor in disadvantaged 42.09 43.67 43.67 1.04 1.04Chitradurga district of Karnataka through integratedfarming systems approach

Sustainable rural livelihoods through enhanced 135.23 122.40 53.50 0.91 0.40farming system productivity and efficient supportsystems in rainfed areas (CRIDA)

A comprehensive, multi-enterprise project for 54.18 52.46 32.38 0.97 0.60addressing the agrarian crisis of WayanadDistrict of Kerala

Strategies to enhance adaptive capacity to climate 131.0 173.9 365.3 1.33 2.79change in vulnerable regions (GEF)

Strategies for sustainable management of degraded 99.10 279.99 368.7 2.83 3.72coastal land and water for enhancing livelihoodsecurity of the farming communities (GEF)

Name of the sub-project Total Net Economic Financial Economic budget financial benefit benefit benefit

allocated benefit accrued cost cost (in million accrued (in million ratio ratio

R) (in million R)R)


financial benefit cost ratio. However, for GEF projectsbecause of given nature of projects and reduction insubsidy burden owing to saving of fuel, the economicbenefit cost ratio was higher than financial benefit costratio.

The similar financial and economic benefits forsome of the projects were on account of the projectactivity not involving any extra manpower other thanthe beneficiary him/herself. Therefore opportunitycost adjustment factor was taken into account. Theproject activity did not involve any use of subsidisedinputs, fuel or other materials which eliminated anysubsidy adjustment factors. The project did not

involve any production activity; hence landopportunity cost factor is not available to evaluate theeconomic costs. Therefore some of the projectswhere the economic cost factors were absent for theeconomic analysis, FA and EA are assumed to be thesame.

The computations of financial benefits fromcomponent 3 and GEF sub-projects are summarizedin Table 25.

The overall economic benefit which accrued fromcomponent 3 was lower than the financial benefit asthe economic cost of agricultural inputs like urea, Di-ammonium Phosphate (DAP) and Muriate of Potash

41


(MoP) was higher than the reduction in the cost oflabour. The computation of total economic benefitaccruing from component 3 and GEF is presented inTable 26.

Thus, the net economic benefit cost ratio fromComponent 3 was slightly lower at 1.45 than the netfinancial benefit cost ratio of 2.02. Also, the IRR forcomponent 3 works out to be 43.34%, this iscalculated by taking the weighted average of IRRs ofindividual sample sub-projects.

2.3.8.3.5 Overall NAIP financial and economicImpact

Analysis revealed that NAIP sub-projects hadresulted in multi-faceted impact in accordance withthe thematic area of sub-projects and overall thrustarea of a particular component. The impact incomponents 1 and 4 is evaluated on the basis of thepotential benefits likely to accrue in future due to thedevelopment of technology and IT infrastructure. Thebenefits accrued was in the form of increase inefficiency, increased accessibility to journals, time andcost saving, increased accessibility to knowledgeand information resources and dissemination oftechnology to potential entrepreneurs. It was foundthat component 1 sub-projects resulted in overallbetter access to knowledge repository, ICTapplication for better efficiency, development ofinnovative platform for incubation of technologies,

startups and commercialization amongst others. Incomponent 4, the technologies developed are yet tobe commercialized as they were in the experimentalphase. But potential technologies have shownprospects of reaping heavy benefits in future.Therefore, the impact was measured in terms of NPV(net present value) after discounting the expectedfuture benefits. In component 2, the benefits accruedwere in the form of increase in productivity, linkingfarmers to processors and developing technology forprocessing the commodity. Component-2 sub-projects with overall thrust on production toconsumption system (PCS) had resulted instrengthening of value chain though customizedinterventions at critical stages such as production,processing, packaging, forward linkages, leading toenhanced income levels of the value chainparticipants, creation of rural industry/companies,quality enhancement among others. Component 3focused on sustainable rural livelihood security whichresulted in enhanced income, employment generation,formation of farmer groups and SHGs and communityinfrastructures, while GEF projects resulted in toenhanced adaptive capacity to climate change andlivelihood security of farming communities. With majorimpact on quality of publication, patent application andenhanced capabilities for scientific and technologicalproblem solving, component 4 impacts were in linewith its thematic area of basic and strategic research

Table 25. Projection of Financial Benefits from Component 3 Sub-projects of NAIP


Total expenditure on the selected sample projects (in million R) 1236.38

Total benefit accrued of the selected sample projects (in million R) 2494.39



Total financial benefit (in million R) 4630.67


Table 26. Projection of Economic Benefit from Component 3 to the Beneficiaries of sub-projects of NAIP


Total expenditure on sample projects (in million R) 1236.38

Total economic benefit accrued from sample projects (in million R) 1789.69



Total benefit (in million R) 3322.44


42


in frontier areas of agricultural sciences. Component3 covered farmers mainly followed by artisans,agricultural labourers, women self-help groups andthe benefits accrued were in the form of increasedincome, productivity through better inputs,employment and optimization in input usage. Thefinancial benefits of the technology developed aremeasured in terms of NPV and based on NPV theBCR calculated for components 1, 2, 3, GEF and 4were 1.54, 2.10, 2.02, 1.97 and 1.75, respectively.

It was estimated that the NAIP sub-projects hadan overall financial and economic benefit cost ratioof 1.79 and 1.73 respectively, based on theextrapolation of the sample sub-projects to wholeNAIP project, the total benefit accrued was estimatedto be R23808.81 million on an initial investment ofR 13291.10 million (including GEF component) withan IRR of ~40%. The benefit accrued is about23098.74 million (excluding the GEF component).The final snapshot of the economic and financialbenefit which accrued from NAIP as a whole (with andwithout GEF) are summarized in Table 27 and 28,respectively.

2.3.8.3.6 Major impacts

Apart from these major impacts these samplesubprojects have also resulted in following:

2.3.8.3.6.1 Increased productivity level

The improved and customized productiontechnology had resulted in significant increase in theproductivity levels of various crops under differentsub-projects of NAIP. Among 58 sample sub-projectsalmost all major field crops, pulses and oilseeds werecovered. Specific interventions were made toincrease the yields from dairy, fishery, piggery andgoat farming. The productivity increase had positivelyimpacted the livelihoods of the farmers.

2.3.8.3.6.2 Access to better inputs

Access to better inputs such as seeds, fertilizers,pesticides, bio-fertilizers, etc were among criticalimpacts of NAIP sub-projects. This had resulted inincreased acceptance of improved products byfarmers and thus created a potential for their repeatusage.

2.3.8.3.6.3 Access to knowledge base

ICT application based sub-projects had resultedin better and economical access to qualitypublications for researchers and students. This hadgreatly impacted the overall quality of the researchpublication from NARS system.

2.3.8.3.6.4 Invention of new mode of research

Consortia mode of research had resulted inbetter research implementation and research uptakeat field level. The data analysis revealed that majorityof stakeholders believed that the consortia model ofresearch was a sustainable model for undertakingresearch. Involvement of private sector right fromproject design has also helped in better performanceof project. Thus a new PPP model was establishedfor undertaking research and, further, forcommercializing the technology.

2.3.9 Impact of International and National Trainings

Training is a very critical non-monetary input forincreasing the productivity of the scientist andefficiency of the science system. NAIP designedneed- based and multi-faced capacity developmentprogram based on duration, location and type - shortand long term; national and international;

Table 28. Final snapshot of financial and economic benefitsestimated from NAIP excluding GEF (in million R)

NAIP level (financial) Total allocation 12931.10

Total benefit 23098.74


NAIP level (economic) Total allocation 12931.10

Total economic 21848.31benefit accrued


Source: PwC analysis

Table 27. Final snapshot of financial and economic benefitsestimated from NAIP including GEF (in million R)

Financial returns Total allocation 13291.10

Total financial 23808.81 benefit accrued


Economic returns Total allocation 13291.10

Total economic 22996.64benefit accrued


Source: PwC analysis

43


management, leadership and research policy;open and research consortia based; meetings,conferences, study tours and several other structuredand unstructured learning opportunities to build anduse skills.

National and international capacity developmentprogrammes (CDPs) through training aimed to buildcapacity in 27 frontier areas in agricultural sciencesfor a duration ranging from 2 weeks to 3 months.451 scientists were sent to 23 countries under openinternational training with an average spending ofRs. 7.86 lakh per trainee. Table 29 represents thethree major types of trainings with number of traineesparticipated (international) /trainings imparted(national):

Researchers surveyed a random sample ofscientist’s availed international training. Theresearchers sent questionnaires to 337 traineesrepresenting 69% of the scientists who attended aninternational training and 178 (53%) responded and ofthe 500 scientists who did not attend an internationaltraining program (non-trainee controls) surveyed, 168(34%) responded. The interviews were semi-structured seeking information on hard and soft skills,research outcomes, and changes in attitude,constraints and how the scientist reacted to them.Information was collected on publications between2006 and 2013, regardless of the year of training. Forsome outcomes (connections, collaboration, awards,and promotions), it was only appropriate to collectpost-training data.

SAUs applied training skills in their current workparticularly teaching; training resulted in improvedpresentation/writing skills and had been able to buildnetworks/linkages to enhance research. In ICARinstitutions, there was an increase in the number oftrainees submitting journal articles, applyingtechniques in developing new project proposals andrise in joint publications with the supervisors. Theaverage rating of journals publishing the articles hadincreased - from 1- 4.9 to 5 - 10.9.

The average B-C ratio ranged from 1.13 to 11.35(Table 30). Marker assisted selection had the highestB-C ratio ranging from 9.31 to11.35, followingwith genome resource conservation of 1.85 & 3.88,carbon trading 1.85 & 2.52, nanotechnology 1.13 &1.95, fermentation technology 1.15 &1.40 and 25%cost efficiency in allele mining and 15-20% savingin cost of production in shrimp through use ofnutraceuticals.

The national trainings were of short duration andled by scientists who had attended an internationaltraining program. Ninety two national training courseswere organized each with about 20-25 scientists.Scientists who had attended international trainingswere course directors for 20 of these courses andinvolved 100 international trainees as resourcepersons. Post training, there had been an increase injournal articles published - 18% improvement inacceptance as a first author. Knowledge base hadbeen broadened, linkages developed resulting inexternal projects and private sector collaboration.Through national trainings, about 2800 faculty and

Table 29. Major types of trainings with number of traineesparticipated

Training area No. oftrainings

completed

International open trainings in the 451frontier areas of agricultural sciences

International consortia trainings in 453various sub-projects

National trainings in the frontier 92areas of agricultural sciences

Thirty four slots of consortia training were utilizedfor international training in frontier area of agriculturalsciences.

Maximum number of trainees were from cropsciences (26%) followed by horticulture (22%).Overall, 62% of trainees were senior scientists/Associate Professors with an average age of 41years, a Ph.D. and possessed an experience of 13years. About 81% of the trainees were male and 19%female. In terms of core themes, 52% were from basicsciences followed by processing technology (16%)and biosecurity (10%). Among the sub-themes,marker assisted selection was the topmost as a singletheme (25%). Under international open trainings 451scientists were deputed in twenty seven frontier areasof agricultural sciences such as allele mining,bioinformatics, biomolecules, bioremediation,biosecurity, geoinformatics, molecular diagnostics,nanotechnology, neutraceuticals, carbon trading/carbon sequestration/ climate change, etc.

44


scientists of NARS were reached in the areas ofleadership development, research proposaldevelopment; PME, PPP, IT based decision supportsystems (GIS, data mining, multimedia, e-learning),intellectual property management and supply chainmanagement.

The Directors/Heads of the ICAR institutes whounderwent the international open training onleadership development were also surveyed. Theyfelt that outputs from the training were improvedresearch and technical, soft skills and linkagesdevelopment. This skills developed had been usefulin problem solving, better understanding of leadershipprocess and developing a leadership plan for long-term perspective with effective utilization of instituteresources.

Overall, the results from the study show thatCDPs had resulted in considerable improvement atthe scientists level (trainees), as there had beenincrease in research outputs such as publications,technologies developed, patent submitted posttraining. At the system level, the inter-institutionalcollaborations had been developed which furtherresulted in collaborative projects.

The costs and benefits are estimated as anannual average (undiscounted), or discounted valueor using partial budget framework, or expressingefficiency gains in costs depending on the dataavailability.

The mean number of annual journal publicationsaccepted prior to training was 1.15 (SE-0.10) and

Table 30. Cost-benefit analysis of international trainings underwent in a few frontier areas

S. Theme Conventional New technology B:C SignificanceNo. technology ratio

1. Nano- Biochar, Photo Nano-patterning, 1.13 -1.95 Fertiliser economy,technology degradable polymer, bio-based polymer, enhanced soil health,

fibre production nano-fibre production yield, substitution forplastics, energy saving,utilization of biomass /agro-residues

2. Fermentation Conventional method Improved method of 1.15 -1.40 Import substitution,technology of Nisin Nisin and bioethanol energy security, cost

production effective disposal ofagro-wastes

3. Marker Phenotypic selection, Marker assisted 9.31 -11.35 Saves time, resources,assisted Pusa Basmati selection (MAS) and pesticide use &selection (PB-1121) disease and salt cultivating salt affected

tolerance land

4. Genome Conventional breeding DNA marker analysis 1.85 -3.88 Saves time in cropresource & genetic analysis & automation in improvement, accuracyconservation without automation genetic analysis in results & polymorphism

in mango for economictraits

5. Carbon IPCC Tire-I & Tire-II IPCC Tire-II and II 1.85 - 3.80 Improve ecosystemtrading/ (GC-for estimation services, low carbon,sequestration of GHGs) efficient input use,

carbon credits & reducedGHG emission

6. Nutraceutical Disease control using Development of 15-20% Chemicals and antibiotics(Fisheries) chemotherape-utics nutraceuticals for saving in avoided, reduced cost

and antibiotics aquaculture cost

7. Allele mining Suppression subtractive Microarray 25 times time saving can behybridization (SSH) cost efficient used to identify andcDNA library in gene characterize viral genes

analysis

45


following the training it was 1.77 (SE-0.12). Thedifference between the two means was statisticallysignificant (p-value-0.000). The mean publicationindex value pre-training was 2.00 (SE-0.13), andpost-training was 3.98 (SE-0.23). This difference wasfound to be statistically significant (p-value=0.000).

The average treatment effect was estimated onannual journal articles published to be 0.62.Removing observations for which there was no post-training data, the estimate increases to 0.67. Differentregression estimation techniques showed strongevidence to suggest that the training improvedscientists post-training publication rates. The averagetreatment effect on mean annual journal articlespublished was 0.468 (average treatment effect on thetreated is 0.357) and the average treatment effect onmean annual publication index to be 1.711 (averagetreatment effect on the treated is 1.521).

The focused approach towards learning andcapacity building was unique in NAIP which led toenhanced capacity of NARS for pluralistic and marketoriented research and innovation.

2.3.10 Environmental & social managementframework

A broad environmental management framework(EMF) was developed for the three researchcomponents of NAIP. The EMF not only focused onthe potential environmental risks but also tried to buildon the environmental gains of the earlier project viz.,NATP, into the activities that are to be developedunder the NAIP. However, such a plan depended onspecific activities, scale of operation (both on-farmand off-farm activities) and types of agro-ecologicalzones. Sector-specific issues that may have someimplications due to project interventions were workedout. The environmental management framework wasused during project implementation in mitigating

anticipated impacts. To facilitate the process, outlineswere developed for assessing possible environmentalrisks and putting mitigation measures in place. EMFconsists of 1) Baseline Environmental Profile, 2)environmental impact and risk assessment, 3)mitigation strategies and 4) monitorable indicatorsand institutionalization. For addressing theenvironmental issues, each consortium required toassess and provide the basic information as per theenvironmental checklist. During the bidding process,the consortium leader submitted a detailed report onenvironmental concerns and a plan for managementof environmental crises during the operation as a partof the technical report of the consortium. If theconsortium lacked technical capacity for undertakingcertain interventions for management ofenvironmental concerns, it was its responsibility tooutsource it. There was a separate note by the projectproposal screening committee relating to redressingof environmental concerns in the proposal submittedby the consortium. There was a special clause in thesanction letter/ MoU regarding follow- up ofenvironmental safeguards for each consortium. Thedetails were available on the website of NAIP.

All the consortia were asked to indicate anyenvironment impacts of this research as per thetemplates of the WB and repeated in the M&EManual. As most of the research was going to beconfined to laboratory, consortia did not expect anynegative environmental impacts of this research.

Consortia were asked to indicate if their researchin any way would impact the gender concern again asper the template circulated and also repeated in M&Emanual. None of the consortia envisaged anynegative impact on gender concerns. Again this wasthe case because most of them carried on research inthe labs and hoped to open new vistas for researchand technology development.

❏❏❏❏❏

4646

M&E team organized four cross cuttingworkshops during 2013-14. The issues surfaced andemerged during deliberations in the workshopsinclude - i) innovations in technologies andprocesses, ii) experience for institutional pluralism,how and why it is different from earlier projects; iii)Private/NGO (PPP) experience, why it led to success/failure, iv) opinion of Farmer/processor/client aboutintervention, v) experience of using ICT, vi) commonissues identified with other sub-projects/componentsand with State Departments, financial institutions,private organizations, etc. The successful modelswere identified for cross linking with value chaindevelopments or the initiatives from private sector,organizations other than ICAR, e.g. Council forScientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), IndianCouncil for Medical Research (ICMR), Ministry ofFood Processing Industries (MoFPI), etc. (health &functional portfolio improvement) and public fundedwelfare programmes.

3.1 Cross cutting workshops

The cross cutting workshops were organized tohave interactions among sub projects of differentcomponent. The issues addressed were: i) futureresearch, ii) scaling up, iii) commercialization,iv) dissemination, v) value addition, vi) marketing,vii) livelihood enhancement, viii) strategy and synergyfor implementation of identified issues, and ix)sustainability of the project. Following five crosscutting workshops (Table 31) covered over 60subprojects addressing the innovations andadvancements in selected subprojects and theirrelation to other sub-projects.

The consortium partners shared theirexperiences on technical aspects, partnerinteractions, administrative aspects, problem solving,networking, etc. They learnt the ways and means ofachieving the objectives more efficiently andeffectively. The general opinion was that cross-learning need not be confined to interactions amongthe scientific community. Research results need to becarved into technologies that aimed at improvingstakeholders either by cutting costs or increasingproductivity. In this process, many actors might beinvolved: extension personnel, policy makers,administrators, processing industries, input suppliers,farmer's groups, non-governmental organizations andso on. Since their actions impact up on the viability ofthe technologies, researchers should even try tofollow what is happening in the environment.

Cross-learning from this broad spectrum ofrelevant environment helped the researchers inrefining their strategies. The consortium partnersrealized mutual dependence of researchers and otherstakeholders. It helped to shift the focus from mereresearch to innovation and commercialization so thatthe research products and processes that stand thetests of feasibility and viability were quicklycommercialized and adopted by the farmers,processors and other stakeholders to benefit themand the society at large. It facilitated the formation ofresearch teams across different research institutions,notwithstanding their administrative affiliations, andinvolving other National Institutes, CentralUniversities, IITs, industrial firms, non-governmentalorganizations, farmer interest groups, etc., to addressthe whole value chains and create impact on

3. CROSS CUTTING ISSUES

Table 31. Cross cutting workshops and number of consortia participated

Place Date Comp 1 Comp 2 Comp 3 Comp 4 Total

BAIF Pune September 12-13, 2013 - 7 10 2 19

CIRCOT, Mumbai October 07,2013 - 5 - 2 7

ISI, Kolkata December 04-05, 2013 2 9 5 7 23

NASC, New Delhi December 06-07, 2013 19 - - 1 20

DOR, Hyderabad February 18, 2013 2 2 1 5 10

Consortia participated 23 23 16 17 79

47


production, incomes and consumer welfare. Such aconsortium approach helped cross-learning amongthe partners.

3.2 Cross learning experiences

Some of the NAIP experiences of cross cuttingsworkshops were:

• Establishment of diverse linkages with a widerange of national and international faculty andinstitutions

• Creation of a multi-dimensional and multi-institutional platform

• Linkages within and between ICAR institutesand SAUs for development of e-courses

• Use of Statistical Analysis System (SAS) led tobetter analysis of scientific observations andincrease in high rated publications from NARS

• Existence of different professionals under oneroof, i.e. farmers, fabricators of processingmachines, processors, food industries, SHGsand marketers provided a convenient access to‘production to consumption’ chain

• The openness to work with private and non-ICAR public institutions

• Definite role and responsibility for consortiumpartners; earlier they worked in isolation andindependently without sharing the knowledge

• Mid-term corrections as per advice of CAC andCIC helped in effective implementation

• Multi-tier monitoring system consisting of CIC,CAC, PME, PIU, etc. were effectively controllingthe activities of the project

• Delegation of powers for purchases and otherrelated activities helped in timelyimplementation of projects activities, butsometimes it was negated by late decisionmaking process

• Line Departments did not take up the effectivepart, because of frequent transfer policies

• Outsourcing of activities helped in quickexecution of targets

• Communication through e-mails acceleratedthe implementation process

The sub-projects also resulted in overallattitudinal changes in the research partners whichhad a bearing on their future scientific quest,collaborative team work, goal oriented research and

willingness to subject one-self to monitoring. Goalorientation of the researchers had sharpened furtherbecause of the elaborate planning that went intomidcourse corrections and the systematicimplementation of the planned activities.

Some attitudinal changes were brought about inthe researchers by interaction with other consortia.The prominent among them were willingness to workwith other partners, preparedness to shareexperiences, increased confidence in planning forscaling up, building teams for work execution, etc.

A few examples of linking sub-project outputs tothe identified projects were: learning and capacitybuilding mentioned that the help desk, e-learning, GISdatabases outputs had great potential for crosslearning with all other NAIP sub-projects. Riceknowledge management portal (RKMP) project feltthat their frequently asked questions (FAQ) module,Interactive videos etc., had commonality with otherprojects mentioned. The project outputs from valuechain on commercialization models, pilot modelinghad similarities with other projects. Value chainprojects had common interests in productdevelopment and marketing with other value chainmodels. Sustainable rural livelihoods project hadcommon interest in income and employmentgeneration activities of other livelihood improvementsub-projects of NAIP. The experiences from thesesub-projects may be utilized as example for relevante-courses.

The infrastructure and ICT support undercomponent I provided better access to knowledgeand environment to conduct research. It improved theresearch quality to have better publications. TheBPDs assisted in commercialization of technologiesand addressing IPR issues emerging in othercomponents. The e-courses made available thereading/learning material at desktop of students andteachers. The technologies developed undercomponent II enhanced the productivity and addedvalue to agriculture produce through processing andbetter marketing. These developments alsoincreased the livelihood options for rural mass. Theintegrated farming livelihood models increasedemployment and income. These value addition andlivelihood models may form feed for future basic andstrategic research.

Forming groups of projects with cross-cuttingthemes, planning for periodic interactions and

48


organization of dialogues, brain storming sessions,participation in each other’s workshops, planning forinteractions at the time of development of mile stones,etc., are some of the suggestions for promotion ofcross learning.

3.3 Intra-component cross cutting

The market intelligence network and commodityoutlook model sub-projects of component 1 havescope for synergy in the long run. The marketadvisories through intelligence will have a bearing onsowing and harvesting decisions, while commodityoutlook will have a bearing on the cropping patternitself. So do the sub-projects on e-courses towardscontent and quality improvement and reach. The IFSbased livelihood models under different sub-projectsof the component 3 have a common ground forimmense cross learning if agro-climate and locationspecificity allow for sharing of mutual benefits forimplementation.

3.4 Inter-component cross cutting

The ICT projects, particularly Consortium for

e-Resources in Agriculture (CeRA) and SAS hasbeen leveraged by all projects across the componentsfor literature, computing and analytical support. TheRKMP has synergy with the decision supportingsystem for cotton and rice pests. The NationalAgricultural Bio-informatic Grid (NABG) can supportin a vast manner the gene allele mining and bio-prospecting projects under component 4. The sub-projects on linseed crop improvement and productionunder component 3 and the crop utilization undercomponent 2 (omega 3 content improvement inlinseed oil) is an ideal case for cross cuttingcooperation. The BPDUs of component 1 were theplatforms for the commercialization of value chainsand other technologies. The value chains incomponent 2 developed and commercialized inBusiness to Business (B2B) models and the valuechains through component 3 mainly by socialmobilization and community participation. Many of thesub-projects of components 2 and 3 offeredresearchable issues for basic and strategic researchunder Component 4, like improvement of omega 3 inlinseed oil through biotech and molecular approaches.

❏❏❏❏❏

4949

4. SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALABILITY

Sustainability is the probability of continuity of anintervention or continued long term benefits from NAIPintervention (both for beneficiaries and for NARS). Inother words, the ability of the interventions andtechnologies developed during a program/project, toexist beyond the termination of initial support andcontinue delivering the intended outcome. Ultimateobjective of NAIP was to improve sustainability andscalability of technology and technical innovationsand it was imperative to develop a strategy towardsthat end.

For sustainability of impact, the institutionsdeveloped during the project should continuedelivering output which could trigger outcome at grassroot level. Thus, sustainability of output as well asoutcome was necessary to ensure sustainability of theproject.

For realizing the long term effects of NAIP,promising areas of ongoing research should becontinued and appropriately supported post closure ofNAIP project. Efforts had already started and in manycases the NAIP research themes were being madepart of institutional plan and corresponding budgetallocation were also made for coming years. Requisitetraction was in place to align the potential researchareas of NAIP to the ICAR’s initiatives under the aegisof “platform research”. The analysis revealed thatabout 38 percent of sub-project needed public fundingfor its continuation and same percentage of samplesub-projects can sustain by attracting funds fromprivate sector. Sixteen percent could be sustainedusing its own revenue generated by the technology.The key drivers of sustainability as perceived by thestakeholders were continued funding and institutionalsupport for R&D, standardization of technology/intervention and commercialization, private sectorparticipation, end market maturity and developmentand linkages with public and private organizations. Asa part of project implementation many activities wereundertaken for ensuring sustainability which includescreation of sustainability fund, synergy with ongoinggovernment programmes, linkages with banks andother organizations among others.

Component 3 emphasized on continuity ofinstitutions and processes built around the project forits sustainability whereas component 2 focused onthree dimensions-production, processing andmarketing for ensuring sustainability. In both thecomponents, emphasis was given on skilldevelopment, establishing backward and forwardlinkages, fund management, asset creation andfarmer's group formation for ensuring projectsustainability. Component 2 & 3 sub-projects performhigh on involvement of farmers and deliveringappropriate technologies at grass root level.However, there were certain concerns regardingmarket linkages, synergies with other governmentprograms and agencies which needed to beemphasized for ensuring sustainability of projects. Aproper extension support for horizontal expansion ofproject activities may be needed after projecttermination. Apart from this, management ofsustainability fund in component 3 would be the keyfor sustainability of project activities. The sub-projectsadopted a community based approach by formationof SHGs, Farmer's Business Groups, Producercompanies, cooperatives and common interestgroups which were vital for ensuring sustainability.Several products were commercialized based onNAIP research which had shown good marketacceptability.

Thus, component 2 and 3 interventions had putadequate efforts for sustainability of project activitiesand there was high probability that the projectactivities would be taken forward by the institutionsand human capital, developed during the projectperiod.

The sustainability of institutions and processesbuilt around interventions which could continuedelivering sustainable livelihood to the beneficiaries,particularly in the context of vulnerable sectionsresiding in backward regions with less developedinfrastructure and support system.

This is assured through:

• Creation of sustainability fund

50


• Development of inclusive community basedorganisation

• Marketing and financial linkages

• Need based capacity building and creation ofcommunity services

• Formation of village level commodity banks

• Community infrastructure and framework formonitoring and evaluation

These actions were collectively analyzed byPwC to get an understanding of the steps taken indifferent sub-projects for ensuring sustainability ofsubproject activities as depicted in figure:

The actions taken under different sub-projects forensuring sustainability can be broadly divided underfour heads. The activities under these categorieshave been shown in the Table 32.

It is evident from the above table that most of theefforts have been directed towards, ensuring fund

after project period (sustainability fund), skilldevelopment of beneficiaries and market linkages.

On the basis of this understanding, indicators forcriteria of merit and criteria of worth have beenidentified.

Table 32. Activities undertaken towards sustainability

Categories Activities Contribution to sustainability

Sustainability Beneficiary farmer's contribution for goods and Will help in carrying forward the livelihoodfund services delivered to him based interventions after withdrawal of the

project

Financial linkages Banks (e.g. NABARD), funds from other sources Fund requirements beyond projecttermination

Market linkages Private firms are involved at different stages Ensured market access and expertise of (input/ marketing) private sector beyond the project

termination

Farmer groups SHGs, cooperatives, CIGs formation Enhanced negotiation powers and betterreach to market

Skill development Training and other extension services Better dissemination of technologies anddevelopment of human resource

❏❏❏❏❏

N = 32

Fig. 1. CPI response over post-project sustainability

5151

Linkages indicate the extent of collaboration andcooperation among different stakeholders of the project.In component 3, linkages between Governmentagencies, NGOs, private partners, cooperatives andfinancial institutions play a vital role in ensuringsustainability (Table 32).

5.1 Government agencies

Linkages among different Government agenciesworking in the project areas ensure bettersynchronization of government efforts for realizing theoverall goal of livelihood generation and developmentof beneficiaries (Table 33). Apart from this, governmentagencies are symbols of reliability among beneficiariesand help in increasing the positive responses fromthem. Synergies with government agencies andprograms assure funds, extension workforce andinstitutional support, beyond the project termination.

Nineteen sub-projects have developed synergieswith ongoing programs. This is a remarkable

5. LINKAGES

achievement in terms of convergence with otherorganizations. Some examples are, Linkages withNGOs facilitate the involved institution with extrahands and eyes for better implementation, capacitybuilding and monitoring. Thus, NGOs enhance theability of institutions formed under NAIP for betterimplementation of the sub-projects and assureinvolvement with people.

Private organization can contribute in many ways:research, knowledge management and dissemination,marketing and so on depending upon the needs ofconsortium and nature, strength and interest of theprivate organization.

Thirty seven percent of sub-projects in component3 have developed linkages with private organizations.Out of 36 sub-projects in component 3, nine (9)sub-projects had private partners in consortia. Out ofthese 9, six sub-projects developed new privatelinkages whereas 7 other sub-projects (without privatepartner in consortia) developed new private linkages.

Table 33. Component-wise Possible Linkages and Purpose of Linkage

Component Suggestions/Possibilities

1 CeRA, SAS, NABG, BPD, ASRB – Slated for mainstream budget/institution financing

E-courses – commercialization on content enrichment and reach

ASRB – hire out online exam facilities Regional/study centres like IGNOU

Market Intelligence – being implemented under T.N. Plan Scheme at TNAU and GoI Planscheme at NCAP

Visioning/technology forecasting – National Centre on Technology Foresight established

PME cells - institutionalized in ICAR

2 Actor's share important for project sustainability

Proper technology pricing is vital for products’ sustainability

Captive markets (defence, railways, prisons, mid-day meal scheme, SAU hostels, etc) can ensureproduct's sustainability in case of millet based snacks, health drinks, etc.

VCF, MSME and Pvt industry (Britannia has offered research fund to DSR, Hyderabad) can supportsome

3 Sustainability Fund established

Financial inclusion scheme of GoI Microfinances through SHGs Rice-fish-poultry (T.N. Govt. to implement)

4 Candidate for funding under Plan, National Fund, DBT, DST, National Fellow/Professor Scheme, etc.

DSS on Rice and Cotton based cropping systems – has potential to become a Plan scheme (RashtriyaKrishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) has supported similar scheme in operation by Maharashtra government)

Flexi rubber dam – State Governments

❏❏❏❏❏

5252

National Agricultural Innovation Project hasimpacted the stakeholders, not merely in economicsphere, but also on several social benefits beyondmonetary consideration. The major outcomes wereinnovation, technology development, incomegeneration, productivity enhancement, enhancedprofitability, commercialization through private sector,quality enhancement, increased capacity of scientificand technological problem solving, communityinfrastructure development, to cite a few. Other areasof social development included employmentgeneration, participation, inclusion, poverty reduction,gender empowerment or equity and human capacitydevelopment.

6.1 Employment generation

The base line survey indicated that although allthe consortia are predominantly farming based, thelevel of on-farm employment is very low due toprevalent mono cropping system. On an aggregate,

6. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

the farmers in the selected villages had employmenton farming activities for only 167.4 days in a year.Post project, the mean employment per householdper year was 245.83 man days, with an increase of46.64%. It included those farm labourers and themarginal farmers, who contributed to work in the fieldsof other farm owners.

The interventions, through integrated farmingsystems under Component 3, generated an overallemployment of 13801459 man days/year. The Table34 indicates the employment levels generated acrossthe selected consortiums.

6.2 Poverty alleviation

About 80% of the 260 million people, below thepoverty line in India, live in rural areas and dependupon agriculture for their livelihood, exploiting a fragilebase and seeking to sell their labour. The role ofagricultural R&D is critical, to generate income andemployment for the poor, when there is a limited

Table 34. Employment generated across the selected consortiums

Consortium Participating Employment Incremental Total Total %households generated employment Baseline Final Increase

(man days generated employment employment in /year) generated generated employment

(man days/ (man days/year) year)

Base- Finalline

AAU, Jorhat 4950 193 280 430650 955350 1386000 45.08

Annamalai University 3680 105 225 441600 386400 828000 114.29

BAIF, Pune 22309 152 208 1249304 3390968 4640272 36.84

CIRG, Mathura 6755 115 325 1418550 776825 2195375 182.61

KAU-RS, Wayanad 6469 151 195 283342 976819 1261455 29.14

IGKV, Raipur 4612 118 192 341288 544216 885504 62.71

CRIDA, Hyderabad 2610 113 238 326250 294930 621180 110.62

CSUAT, Kanpur 14754 255 301 678684 3762270 4440954 18.04

Total 66139 - - 5169668 10132428 16258740 -

Weighted mean 167.64 245.83 46.64

Total incremental employment generated per year (n=66139) 5171198

Total incremental employment generated per year for Component-3 13801459(n=176519)

53


scope for area expansion. The component 3 sub-projects have a direct bearing on sustainablelivelihood security through its interventions anchoredin integrated farming system approach aiming toenhance productivity, profitability, employment andinclusion of disadvantaged people and regions.Innovative changes in the approach to research andtechnology transfer were introduced for rural povertyalleviation, income growth and enhanced quality oflife in a market context. Some selected sub-projects

were analyzed for their effect on these parameters.The baseline survey indicated that farming in

these selected areas was just on subsistence with thenet income from agriculture (Table 35) being aroundR24,100/- per household. In terms of per ha income, afamily earned only R20,775/- per year. The totalincome of the family from farm and non-farm sectortaken together was estimated to be aroundR39,090/- only.

Table 35. Average pre and post project income of participating families

Sub-project lead center Annual income Difference over Increase(R per household) baseline (R per in real

household) income (%)

Pre-project Post-project

Current Constant

MPUAT, Udaipur 29817 72275 46810 42458 156.99

BAIF, Pune 49252 100786 65276 51534 132.53

AFPRO, New Delhi 18334 42376 27446 24042 149.70

Annamalai University, 27582 45186 29266 17604 106.10Annamalai Nagar

VPKAS, Almora 30000 110000 71244 80000 237.48

BCKV, Mohanpur 27972 52972 34308 25000 122.65

SDAU, 23347 41791 27067 18444 115.93Sardar Krushinagar

UAS, Raichur 28587 51916 33624 23329 117.62

CSAUAT, Kanpur 28771 43282 28032 14511 97.43

OUAT, Bhubaneswar 18078 31094 20139 13016 111.40

GADVASU, Ludhiana 12500 26000 16839 13500 134.72

RVSKVV, Gwalior 16000 31831 20616 15831 128.85

GVT, Ranchi 13845 16115 10437 2270 75.39

AAU, Jorhat 2000 52000 33679 50000 1683.94

ICAR RCER, Patna 63613 75793 49089 12180 77.17

UAS, Bangalore 18000 32000 20725 14000 115.14

ICAR NEH, Barapani 43534 75000 48575 31466 111.58

UBKV, Cooch Behar 30234 42680 27642 12446 91.43

KAU, Wayanad 34643 47995 31085 13352 89.73

IVRI, Izatnagar 14000 550000 356218 536000 2544.41

IGKV, Raipur 13506 37500 24288 23994 179.83

JNKVV, Jabalpur 13000 21000 13601 8000 104.62

BHU, Varanasi 41268 58364 37801 17096 91.60

AFC, Godda 20422 38998 25258 18576 123.68

BAU, Ranchi 24544 39000 25259 14456 102.91

RAU, Pusa 14100 21750 14087 7650 99.91

CIRG, Mathura 30425 47955 31059 17530 102.08

Weighted mean 29298 77532 50215 48234 171.39

54


The baseline income estimated in 2007-08 andthe current income when the project ended, weremade comparable using a common linking factor ofwholesale price indices 1.873, as the base years weredifferent viz., 1993-94 and 2004-05. Subsequently,the current income was adjusted for inflation and theadjusted income over baseline income was comparedfor increase in the income levels. The percentageincrease in income ranged between 75.39 and2544.41 across different sub-projects.

6.3 Women empowerment

Technologies developed, such as processed andpacked fresh and dry fish, ready to cook or servevalue added fish products, and their marketingthrough kiosks, production of omega-3 enrichedpoultry meat and egg and organic manure promotedtechno-entrepreneurship among fisherwomen incoastal villages and enabled them to play a role in thehousehold economy, as well as to gain decisionmaking power. This has led to an overall improvementin the social, economic as well as health status of thefisher families. Several groups of women wereinvolved in the fisheries based entrepreneurialactivities at Quilon, Ernakulam, and Palghat districtsof Kerala.

Four women SHGs were formed for productionof coconut value added products, and one SHG wasformed for production of Trichoderma. Training andskill development programmes were conducted forthe members of SHGs and for rural women on valueaddition in jasmine and dry flowers, improvisation andintroduction of traditional charkha, sorghum and milletprocessing for bakery products and marketing.Thereby, women SHG owned rural industriesenhanced their income, efficiency and brought downdrudgery.

6.4 Inclusiveness

The sub-projects aiming at livelihoodimprovement of vulnerable section of society indisadvantaged areas included landless people, smalland marginal farmers, rural women, scheduled casteand schedule tribe population in 20 districts with tribalpopulation more than 50 per cent and another 14districts with tribal population between 25-50 per cent.As the farm work was dominated by women group,special focus was made on empowering women.Women SHGs (all consortia), agro processing units

(CRIDA, Hyderabad, UAS, Raichur, etc.), drudgeryreduction, ornamental aquaculture (CIFA,Bhubaneswar, MPUAT, Udaipur, UAS Bangalore,etc.), mushroom production (OUAT, Bhubaneswar,BAU, Ranchi, etc.), value addition of agro forestproduce (AFC, Godda, IGKV, Raipur, etc.), goatmanagement (BAIF, Pune, UAS Raichur, etc.) are afew examples. Some other efforts were as follows:

• UAS Raichur established 24 women basedsmall scale food processing units for primaryprocessing and value addition of farm produce.Training programme on entrepreneurshipdevelopment (EDP), skill up gradation,workshops, buyer seller meet and exposurevisits to small scale food processing units wereconducted for capacity building of theparticipants. The average net profit of the foodprocessing group was estimated at R35,800/month/group during season, for the year 2013-14. Besides, the processing activity hasgenerated an employment opportunity of about200 man-days per year, for 240 members of thegroup.

• MPUAT, Udaipur gave special emphasis forwomen empowerment and 33 trainingprogrammes were organized and 684 girls andwomen were trained in 2013-14 alone. Atpresent 76 trained women have started earningR200-300 per day.

• Through sub-project activities at GADVASU,Ludhiana, eleven farm women were giventraining in bee-keeping and they started thisactivity with materials given out of NAIP funds.Within six months, the trained women startedselling honey worth R5000/- .

• Maize shelling, solely carried by women, onintroduction of a specially designed handoperated sheller, has reduced the activity timeby 60-70 per cent, on regular basis (GADVASU,Ludhiana).

• Women were empowered in mushroomproduction and value addition in fruits andvegetables to reduce their drudgery by sub-project activities at BAU, Ranchi. Altogether,128 tribal women farmers (out of 247) are nowengaged in oyster mushroom cultivation inNAIP villages, which indicates an adoption rateof 51.8%. This includes 46 women under 4SHGs in 3 villages of Jama block and 82 women

55


under 5 SHGs in 2 villages of Dumka block ofDumka district. The harvest is 1-2 kg per bagand the produce is sold @ R80-120 per kg. Thefarm women have made contributions to thegroup fund. Twelve women of Gulab Baha SHGof Karela village of Jama block in Dumka districtproduced the maximum of 678.85 kg oystermushroom from 446 inoculated bags which wassold @ R120-130/kg valuing the produce atR83,146/-.After gaining expertise in oystermushroom cultivation, the tribal lady Smt.Lilmuni Soren of Karela village of Jama block ofDumka district became an expert trainer and isnow actively engaged in diffusion of oystermushroom cultivation in non-NAIP villages. Sofar, she has trained 228 farmers (39 male and189 females) in 12 non-NAIP villages under 3blocks (Jama, Dumka and Ramgarh) of Dumkadistrict. These 228 farmers have startedcultivation of oyster mushroom. Smt. Soren isalso earning money through training fromsponsors like Department of Soil Conservation,Govt. of Jharkhand, local Grameen Banks, etc.Even after withdrawal of NAIP support, MissParvati Baski of Guhiajori village of Dumkablock of Dumka district is coming regularly topurchase mushroom spawn from the ResearchCentre at BAU, Ranchi and is continuingmushroom production. The farm women havealso been trained in preparation of mushroompickle, tomato sauce, jack fruit pickle and papadmaking. They are producing pickles and sauce attheir homes and are selling the products in localvillage markets and line hotels (BAU, Ranchi).

6.4.1 Income generation through forest produce

Forest produce in such areas have vast potential

for livelihood improvement. It is depicted in Table 36.

A very low investment on value addition of forestproduce brought a substantial change in the livelihoodof the community. Following interventions wereimplemented with great success: leaf platemechanization – Godda, Jharkhand; Jackfruit forpickle making- Godda, Jharkhand; Bamboo craft -Godda, Jharkhand; Rope making machines–Hoshiarpur, Punjab; Tasar sericulture–Garhchiroli,Maharashtra; Lac cultivation–Betul (MadhyaPradesh), Dumka and Jamtara (Jharkhand), Bastar(Chhatisgarh); Tamarind processing model–IGKV,Raipur; and Areca leaf plate, arecanut slicing andchipping machines – UAS, Bangalore

6.5 Human capacity development

Effective Capacity building programme is a keyto success in sustainability of any technologydissemination. Capacity building programmes underthe component sub-projects included on-farm trainingprogramme, off- farm training programmes, exposurevisits, vichar gosthies etc. Efforts were made toenhance decision making capability of the farmersby making them understand the technologydemonstrated, source of supply of inputs andmarketing of farm produce at appropriate prices. In all5036 trainings benefitting 176185 farmers wereorganized by various consortia. It also includeddevelopment of skill, entrepreneurship and serviceproviders. The major activities on capacity buildingincluded: pickle making from underutilized fruits ofGodda (Jharkhand), fabrication of agricultural tools,mushroom cultivation, small dal processing machine,spice grinder, embroidery, chilli ponding, flour mill,vermicelli machine, papad /roti machine, paravets,aIl at door steps, laser leveler operators, pashu jankar,krishi jankar etc.

Table 36. Districts covered with large area under forests dominated by tribal population

State District Total Tribal Total Forest areapopulation population (%) area (%) (ha)

Jharkhand Dumka 1,321,096 43 440402 29.2

Jamtara 790,207 35 180200 11.27

Godda 1,311,382 23.62 211000 13.51

Maharashtra Gadchiroli 1,071,795 38.3 1441200 79.36

Madhya Pradesh Betul 1,575,247 34 1004300 40.39

Chattisgarh Bastar 1,411,644 70 875500 75

Punjab Hoshiarpur 168,443 34.3 319820 32.85

❏❏❏❏❏

5656

7. EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS LEARNT

Transparent and objective criteria provedsuccessful and innovative, for sound and objectiveproject approvals.

Identification of consortia partners was a greatchallenge before the project. The NAIP website andthe NAARM helpdesk served as the major source ofinformation in conceptualization of the sub-projects,preparing proposals and formation of consortia.

Concept notes jointly prepared by all theparticipating institutions were reviewed within threemonths time by expert committees. The feedbackreceived from the experts was found to be useful inimproving the technical content and for financialmanagement. The quality of proposals has improveda lot by the suggestions received from the technicalexperts reviewing them.

The consortia promoted pluralism, synergy andvalue addition contributing to strengthening the NARSworking with non-traditional partners like NGOs,private sector and others. Selection of partnerswithout real interest and full commitment hasadversely affected the overall outcome of some of thesub-projects.

The important learning from the PPPimplementation is that private partners understandthe importance of public sector R&D organizationsand up-scaling technologies generated forcommercial application. R&D Institutes understandthe requirements of private sector. This arrangementhas worked very well and that is how technologieswhich were lying on the shelf are now beingcommercialized.

Competitive funding contributed to get creativeideas and quick, quality revision and response.Transparent and responsive governance contributesto public confidence and smooth project managementand considerably reduced the time taken forcompleting the review and approval process. Costingof the project by a Committee is a major reform inrationalizing the budget of the sub-projects.

One of the important reform oriented key changeenvisaged out of NAIP was the empowerment ofCPIs/CCPIs. The empowerment should start with

delegation of financial powers and operationalfreedom. But, in a number of places this did notmaterialise particularly in SAUs. All the SAUs havesigned the memorandum of understanding (MoU) andaccepted to follow the WB procedures and delegatethe powers to the CPI but in practice CPIs were forcedto follow only the university procedures in incurringexpenditures and obtain permissions even for traveland hiring of transport. All this adds to delay in usingthe funds.

Empowering the consortium principalinvestigators (CPIs) for fund utilization has led todecentralization of power and timely action. However,it has been observed in a few cases that when theCPIs approved and sanctioned their own tourprogramme without the knowledge of CLs, this hascreated some hiccups.

Researchers have learnt to shift from uni-disciplinary mode of functioning to multi-disciplinaryresearch in NATP and now multi-organizationscollaborations in NAIP. In the process scientists havelearnt to develop and maintain scientific linkages andalso cross-learnt different work cultures.

Alternately, the researcher's mindset has shiftedfrom the ‘taken for granted’ state funded agriculturalresearch as a social sector spending to work in public-private-partnership mode and even working withNGOs. This has promoted pluralism in the form ofpublic-private-people partnerships.

CPIs have started thinking big – by way ofhandling small number of high budget projects unlikeNATP wherein they were used for more number ofsmall budget projects. Handling big ticket items(projects) is the in thing.

Researchers have understood about harnessingcomparative advantage in action research. Publicsector organisations could leverage on the ability ofthe NGOs in mobilizing people in difficult areas andexecuting action research; but the flip side was thatthey didn’t comply with procedures and norms.

Very strong mechanism has been built into thesub-projects to periodically monitor their progress -technical, financial and infrastructure, internal and

57


external. But, too much of reporting created somepractical problem as the researchers were made tospend more time on report preparation at the cost ofactual research.

Monitoring system by WB in terms ofperformance indicators and agreed actions keptproject pace on track. M&E should be concurrent witha full-fledged M&E Unit with agricultural economists inplace throughout. The comprehensive impactassessment is part of the M&E activity. It is desirablethen, that agricultural economists are involved (notnecessarily as part of PIU) since the beginning ofimplementation. Agricultural economists came intoM&E unit only after March 2013, a year after theindependent evaluation started. They were notinvolved in the drafting of the ToR of the agreementregarding outcome impact assessment leading tomany hiccups in monitoring the activity. Besides, theentire impact is based on the accrual of incrementalbenefits to the society and most of the CPIs could notcomprehend the nuances and distinguish betweennet returns and incremental net returns posingdifficulties for the M&E unit in drafting thequestionnaire, and capturing the benefits resulting incompromises as one races against time for preparingthe final report.

The NAIP M&E is tailor made to suit the needsof the funding agency – a Banker in this case andhas been restricted to specific project analysisformat for assessing the worth of the investment, byan independent external impact assessment. Forprojects like BSR, this evaluation by a consultantcompany may not address the issue adequately.It needs an economist embedded in the project teamwho can evolve sub-project specific bio-economicmodels internalising the basic biological principles ofthe proposal to capture mainly the non-monetaryaspects and externalities of agricultural research -biotic and abiotic stresses, depleting ground watertable, contamination of drinking water, micro nutrientdeficiency, pesticide residues, effects of elevatedcarbon-di-oxide, loss of biodiversity,emerging pests,problem soils, to cite a few. Rather institute PME witha trained economist, if involved in the design andimplementation of these projects, should collaboratewith M&E Unit, NAIP for addressing the issue.

The formats for half-yearly or annual report beinga standard one, CPIs have a tendency to respond forall items in the format regardless of their relevance or

not to his/her sub-project. This poses difficulties forthe M&E in compiling, scoring and grading. Many ofthe indicators designed for the component may not besuitable for all the sub-projects within the component.Hence, the format should have been theme basedthan component based to bring about more clarity andthe basis for indicators should be themes within thecomponent than the component itself.

Besides, as the number of project sanctioned ismore than three times of the envisaged number forcomponents 2, 3, and 4 and they are very diverse,PAD performance indicators need to be revisited toensure that the outputs of all the projects can be takennote of. Hence, the targets for PAD performanceindicators appear to be very modest in relation toachievements reported.

The consortia need to be enlightened well in thebeginning about distinguishing between output-inputratio vs BCR, financial vs economic analyses, netreturn vs incremental net return, output vs outcome,labour as an input vs employment as output, etc thatwill go a long way in capturing and quantifying thecosts and benefits of the interventions and the macroanalyses there on.

The M&E consultant’s contract should have beenrenewed/revived on time for better interaction with theagricultural economists coming much late into thescene, as it was the M&E consultants who did thebase line survey and might have immense fieldknowledge and experience about the NAIPimplementation, that could have helped theeconomists in planning and monitoring the impactassessment part.

The online project monitoring and trackingsystem was commissioned and functioning butceased to exist because PIU demand for robustsupply of information and CPIs felt it was too largeand frequent to respond. As the ICAR hassuccessfully put in place a mechanism for monitoringthe scientist's half-yearly target and achievement andpersonnel information, reviving PMTS in a modifiedand simplified version for project management infuture may not be difficult. A case in hand is thesuccessful online fund transfer in NAIP itself. So, isthe partial implementation of Financial ManagementSystem- Management Information System (FMS-MIS) heading towards complete adoption by thesystem.

58


Concurrent comprehensive independentevaluation in NAIP vs ex-post in NATP is animprovement as the evaluators could see the projectin action and the comprehension is better as ‘seeingis believing’.

IT enabled project management system linkingall the consortia and partners ensured proper andtimely implementation of different activities andupdated information.

PMSS reduced variance in procurementprocessing and ensure adherence with agreed normsand guidelines. Limits of procurement under differentprocurement methods for goods, works and servicesshould be slightly flexible to accommodate the needsof implementing agencies located in distant places.

The procurement of supplies includingequipment through the World Bank (WB) process hasbeen considered to be useful because of moretransparency. As far as petty civil works areconcerned, majority of the sub-projects have notfaced any problem. But, stringent procurementprocedures of WB led to delay in procurement.

All the consortia have expressed greatersatisfaction with online fund transfer to the separateaccount created for the purpose. The flip side is thatsome CPIs have shown less interest to know theefficiency of fund utilization by their partners.

Scientists were also exposed to fiduciary issues(procurement and financial management). This willhelp them in handling of larger projects in future.Transparency and responsive governance underNAIP have contributed to public confidence andsmoother project management.

The project has witnessed frequent changes atall levels – Chairman NSC/PMC, Task Team Leader,National Director, National Coordinators, ConsortiumLeaders/CPIs/CCPIs/Director Finance/ProcurementOfficer, to cite a few. Still continuity was very smooth

without the project suffering any serious hiccups.It only shows that the proposal was robust andimplementation and M&E plan were well laid out.

The task of defining, testing and validatingtechnology, adoption, rural industry was expected ofPIU and it was not equipped for it. Rather it should bedecided in consultation with SMDs and the RPCbased on the inputs from the SMDs should decide onthe claims of the CPIs in this regard. CPIs haveclaimed a lot of technologies to have been generatedunder the project, disproportionately higher to thetime and resources and in the absence of anyonevetting or certifying. This was more difficult if theindicator is related to PAD. This needs to beaddressed to avoid confusion in future projects.

Most of the CMUs were not in direct interactionwith the PIU and operate only through the CPI. Thelinkage between the CMU and PIU should be organicand long lasting for continuous dialogue andconsultations.

Researchers have started thinking out of boxtowards post funding sustainability of the projects interms of sustainability fund, social mobilization, self-help and producer groups, to cite a few. However,venture capital fund (VCF) for value chain projectshould be thought of in future programmes.

The sustainability of the value chain projects,depend upon the stakeholder the different actors inthe chain have in sustaining the model. Unlikeindustry where production, processing and marketing/commercialization is taken up by the same individualstriving for value addition and cost cutting at everystage, in agricultural value chains, the actors aredifferent and unless and otherwise a mechanism isworked out to enhance the share of the producer (outmajor client) in the value addition – there is scope forthe stakeholder to become a shareholder- nosustainability model can be viable.

❏❏❏❏❏

5959

One visible impact of NAIP is that it has stirredif not changed the mindset. National AgriculturalResearch Project (NARP) offered infrastructure forregional research stations, Agricultural HumanResources Development (AHRD) offered anopportunity to train and skill the manpower withadvance techniques and knowledge, NATP enabledpeople to go beyond publication and generatetechnologies (shift from output to outcomes) andNAIP taught people to commercialize technologiesand promote agri business and entrepreneurship.Not that the entire community has been transformedand enabled to put into action all these, but across thesystem these have become the buzz words and timeand again discussed. A beginning has been made – anew research culture has been introduced and it isonly hoped that it will be honed further that will convertagriculture research from being under social sector toindustry level. The pathway traversed is: Publication(pre-NARP) – Infrastructure (NARP) – Training (AHRD)- Technology (NATP) – Commercialization (NAIP)

The concept of consortium mode of research hasbeen introduced and promoted by NAIP. Thestrengths and weaknesses of the concept have beendiscussed in the independent external evaluatorsreport. However, as the strengths of it overweigh theweakness, the model is being emulated in formationof consortium platforms under institutional financing.Besides, many of the M&E concepts and impactassessment methods are being implemented inmonitoring and assessing the projects under NationalFund for Basic, Strategic and Frontier ScienceResearch in Agriculture (NFBSFARA).

The viewership of ICAR journals has creatednew record. The impact factors of the journals of boththe ICAR and the professional societies haveimproved. Article processing time has been reducedfrom 18-24 months to 2-4 months.

The imperativeness of periodical impactassessment has been understood system wide at alllevels considering the global cry for an inbuiltmechanism for internal and external evaluation andthe felt need for transparency and accountability inpublic investment particularly if there is a resourcecrunch. Based on the experience of the PME, theICAR has made it mandatory for all its institutes tohave their own PME Cell. Besides, the SMDs in ICARare all bracing up for an external and independentimpact evaluation as decided in the senior officerscommittee meeting.

With or without NAIP most of these infrastructuraland BSR projects would have been funded by thestate itself and the only difference would have been amatter of timing. NAIP, besides helping in timelyestablishing state of the art facility and infrastructurein high end research, had introduced a string ofOrganization and Management Reforms that hasbeen inculcated from top down to CPI level. M&E isone such reform under O&M and many M&Econcepts have assumed popularity and acceptanceduring the implementation period. This disproportionateimpact of these concepts in the minds of researchersconsidering the miniscule share of the fund in theoverall scheme of NARS outlay may be considered afeat by itself.

8. REFLECTION OF NAIP M&E STRATEGIES ON NARS

❏❏❏❏❏

6060

The NAIP is the world’s biggest innovationproject in agriculture to be ever funded by the WB tillnow. The project has made tremendous impact interms of innovations, partnerships, technologycommercialization, patenting, capacity building, etc.Research is a continuous process and hence, it isnecessary to consolidate the gains of livelihood andvalue chain models and to harness the investment onhuge infrastructure made in ICT and basic andstrategic research. Ideally, an NAIP Phase II wouldhave enabled carrying forward most of theseinnovations in toto.

For the time being, the evolving NationalAgricultural Higher Education Programme (NAHEP)can absorb some of the component 1 projectsparticularly e-courses and capacity building. Themeans of sustaining other components have beendiscussed under the head sustainability and scalability.

Innovations should result in wealth and jobcreation for the country. The vision should be instriving for an agricultural research and educationsystem that imparts skill and incubates the students orscholars who can create jobs than seeking one.Knowledge accumulation and application shouldevolve a whole innovation system in agricultureencompassing all the actors beyond NARS to drivethe development towards sustenance and rapidpoverty reduction and turn agriculture to a morecompetitive, sustainable and inclusive activity.

Agricultural research stations should emerge asinnovation and incubation clusters. Innovation has tobecome a way of life and work culture. This cannot beachieved overnight or by infusion of massiveinterventions alone. It has to come by creativity andenabling mechanism to sustain and build on creativity.The education system should ensure the necessaryskill development towards this end than meremanufacturing of degrees. The traditional linear systemof agricultural R&D keeps away many others actorsneeded and responsible for innovation process.

Constitution of a National Agricultural InnovationFund and its support to innovation clusters will make areal difference in bringing innovative ideas from the

lab to the marketplace. The government plays afundamental role in creating the necessary economic,social and institutional conditions that fosterinnovation through effective policies.

A Venture Capital Fund will go a long way increating and sustaining the value chains in agricultureby private sector.

The results framework indicators identifiedshould be clearly definable, tangible, measurable,and trackable. The researchers should be fullysensitized and oriented for tracking results asmeasured in terms of these indicators right from thestart of the programme without losing sight of thetechnical front.

The ICAR could demonstrate a new way of doingbusiness within the mandated institutional frameworkof diverse partner institutions including PrivatePartners and Institutions other than NARS, Farmer'sCo-operatives, etc. Some of the game changingtransformations are highlighted below:

Massive capacity building opportunities hasinstilled awareness in timeliness of quality service andconfidence to face challenges and equip riskmanagement options enabling ICAR to adopt ISOCertification.

Decentralisation of administrative and financialauthority for timely flow of funds has ushered in a newway of working.

ICT tools have rendered possible tracking theflow of funds and their timely utilization.

Various Advisory Consortia and ImplementationCommittees and the annual review meetings wereextremely relevant for mid-course corrections. Thispractice has now been adopted by the ICAR – by theEducation Division in the management of Niche Areaof Excellence Programme and NFBSFARA in themanagement of its Competitive Grants Programme.

The ICAR was able to carve out a corporate armcalled AgIn to commercialize various technologies,products and processes. Creation of the agribusinessenvironment in NARS has been largely catalysed bythe Project.

9. THE WAY FORWARD

61


Integrating inventors with entrepreneursthrough BPD Units has contributed a new fillip inrevenue generation on account of technologycommercialization from the NARS.

The concepts of sustainability funds andrevolving fund Schemes have now rooted in thesystem.

Knowledge creation and management throughICT platforms and tools and introduction of openaccess policy has brought out global visibility andrecognition.

The NAIP is instrumental in the identification andimplementation of a number of innovations inresearch, project management, technology transfer,and commercialization. A good number of innovationsare being mainstreamed in the ICAR and other NARSinstitutions. In the post-NAIP period, the innovations

in component 1 are largely supported by the ICAR,whereas a variety of innovative arrangements havebeen evolved in the case of innovations in othercomponents.

The Project activities would need a network ofextension services for horizontal expansion. In manyagro-processing sub-projects, lack of varietiessuitable for processing was found to be a majorlimitation in value addition. Producer organizationscould add value addition for higher income. Small-scale processing technologies were generallypreferred in value chains of patchouli, tomato, andpomegranates. Labour-intensive operations need tobe reduced by introducing machines for cost reduction.Entrepreneurship development programmes areessential for sustainability. Maintenance and use ofcommunity assets created during the Project wouldbe a major challenge.

❏❏❏❏❏

62


Ann

exur

e 1

Co

mp

on

ent

wis

e lis

t o

f co

nso

rtia

un

der

NA

IP

Co

mp

on

ent

1

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

1001

01A

gro

web

– D

igita

l Dis

sem

inat

ion

Sys

tem

Nat

iona

l Bur

eau

of P

lant

Gen

etic

01-0

3-08

31-0

3-13

Par

tner

ship

for

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral R

esea

rch

(AD

DS

IAR

)R

esou

rces

(N

BP

GR

), N

ew D

elhi

1002

01C

onso

rtiu

m f

or e

-Res

ourc

es in

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral

Res

earc

h01

-10-

0730

-06-

14S

ole

Agr

icul

ture

(C

eRA

)In

stitu

te (

IAR

I),

New

Del

hi

1003

01D

ecis

ion

supp

ort

syst

em f

or e

nhan

cing

Cen

tral

Soi

l Sal

inity

Res

earc

h12

-05-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ippr

oduc

tivity

in ir

rigat

ed s

alin

e en

viro

nmen

tIn

stitu

te (

CS

SR

I),

Kar

nal

usin

g re

mot

e se

nsin

g, m

odel

ling

and

GIS

1004

01D

evel

opin

g, c

omm

issi

onin

g, o

pera

ting

Agr

icul

tura

l S

cien

tist

Rec

ruitm

ent

01-0

4-10

30-0

6-14

Par

tner

ship

and

man

agin

g an

onl

ine

exa

min

atio

nB

oard

(A

SR

B),

KA

B-I

, P

usa,

syst

em f

or N

ET

/AR

S-P

relim

Exa

m b

yN

ew D

elhi

AS

RB

, IC

AR

1005

01D

evel

opm

ent

and

mai

nten

ance

of

Ric

eD

irect

orat

e of

Ric

e R

esea

rch

01-0

4-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

Kno

wle

dge

Man

agem

ent

Por

tal

(DR

R),

Raj

endr

anag

ar,

Hyd

erab

ad

1006

01D

evel

opm

ent

of B

.Tec

hN

atio

nal D

airy

Res

earc

h In

stitu

te01

-04-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ip(D

airy

Tec

hnol

ogy)

deg

ree

prog

ram

me

(ND

RI)

, K

arna

l

1007

01D

evel

opm

ent

of e

-cou

rses

for

Kar

nata

ka V

eter

inar

y A

nim

al &

01-0

5-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

B.F

.Sc

degr

ee p

rogr

amm

eF

ishe

ries

Sci

ence

s U

nive

rsity

(KV

AF

SU

), B

idar

1008

01D

evel

opm

ent

of e

-cou

rses

for

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ortic

ultu

ral

01-0

5-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

B.S

c (H

ort)

deg

ree

prog

ram

me

Sci

ence

s (U

HS

-B),

Ban

galo

re

1009

01D

evel

opm

ent

of e

-Cou

rses

for

Tam

il N

adu

Agr

icul

tura

l Uni

vers

ity01

-10-

0731

-03-

14S

ole

B.S

c. (

Agr

icul

ture

) de

gree

pro

gram

me

(TN

AU

), C

oim

bato

re

1010

01D

evel

opm

ent

of e

-cou

rses

for

Tam

il N

adu

Vet

erin

ary

& A

nim

al01

-10-

0731

-03-

14S

ole

B.V

.Sc.

& A

.H.

degr

ee p

rogr

amm

eS

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity (

TAN

UV

AS

),C

henn

ai

1011

01D

evel

opm

ent

of I

CT

bas

ed t

ools

/In

dian

Ins

titut

e of

Tec

hnol

ogy

14-1

0-09

30-0

6-12

Par

tner

ship

tech

nolo

gy t

owar

ds a

n in

tera

ctiv

e(I

IT-M

), M

adra

s, R

ural

Tec

hnol

ogy

mul

timed

ia a

gric

ultu

re a

dvis

ory

syst

eman

d B

usin

ess

Incu

bato

r

1012

01e-

Hom

e S

cien

ce C

ours

ewar

e C

onso

rtiu

mA

char

ya N

G R

anga

Agr

icul

tura

l01

-11-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipU

nive

rsity

(A

NG

RA

U),

Hyd

erab

ad

63


1013

01E

-Pub

lishi

ng &

kno

wle

dge

syst

em in

Dire

ctor

ate

of K

now

ledg

e01

-11-

0830

-06-

14S

ole

agric

ultu

ral

rese

arch

Man

agem

ent

in A

gric

ultu

re(D

KM

A),

New

Del

hi

1014

01E

stab

lishm

ent

of N

atio

nal A

gric

ultu

ral

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral S

tatis

tics

01-0

4-10

30-0

6-14

Par

tner

ship

Bio

-info

rmat

ics

Grid

(N

AB

G)

in I

CA

RR

esea

rch

Inst

itute

(IA

SR

I),

New

Del

hi

1015

01In

nova

tions

in t

echn

olog

y m

edia

ted

Indi

ra G

andh

i Nat

iona

l22

-10-

0930

-06-

12P

artn

ersh

iple

arni

ng: A

n in

stitu

tiona

l cap

acity

bui

ldin

gO

pen

Uni

vers

ity (

IGN

OU

)in

usi

ng r

e-us

able

lear

ning

obj

ects

inag

ro-h

ortic

ultu

re

1016

01K

rishi

Pra

bha

- In

dian

Agr

icul

tura

lC

haud

hary

Cha

ran

Sin

gh H

arya

na01

-10-

0731

-03-

12S

ole

diss

erta

tions

rep

osito

ryA

gric

ultu

ral

Uni

vers

ity (

CC

SH

AU

),H

isar

1017

01M

obili

zing

mas

s m

edia

sup

port

for

Dire

ctor

ate

of K

now

ledg

e01

-05-

0930

-06-

14P

artn

ersh

ipsh

arin

g ag

ro-in

form

atio

nM

anag

emen

t in

Agr

icul

ture

(DK

MA

), N

ew D

elhi

1018

01R

e-de

sign

ing

the

farm

er-e

xten

sion

-In

tern

atio

nal

Cro

ps R

esea

rch

07-0

1-08

31-0

3-11

Par

tner

ship

agric

ultu

ral

rese

arch

/edu

catio

n co

ntin

uum

Inst

itute

for

the

Sem

i-Arid

Tro

pics

in I

ndia

with

IC

T-m

edia

ted

know

ledg

e(I

CR

ISA

T),

Hyd

erab

adm

anag

emen

t

1019

01S

tren

gthe

ning

of

digi

tal l

ibra

ry a

ndIn

dian

Agr

icul

tura

l R

esea

rch

01-0

5-09

30-0

6-14

Par

tner

ship

info

rmat

ion

man

agem

ent

unde

r N

AR

SIn

stitu

te (

IAR

I),

New

Del

hi(e

-GR

AN

TH

)

1020

01S

tren

gthe

ning

Sta

tistic

al C

ompu

ting

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral S

tatis

tics

01-0

4-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

for

NA

RS

Res

earc

h In

stitu

te (

IAS

RI)

,N

ew D

elhi

1021

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Ana

nd A

gric

ultu

ral

Uni

vers

ity01

-10-

0930

-06-

14S

ole

(BP

D)

Uni

t at

AA

U, A

nand

(AA

U),

Ana

nd

1022

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Birs

a A

gric

ultu

ral

Uni

vers

ity01

-10-

0930

-06-

14S

ole

(BP

D)

Uni

t at

BA

U,

Ran

chi

(BA

U),

Ran

chi

1023

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Jaw

ahar

lal

Neh

ru K

rishi

01-1

0-09

30-0

6-14

Sol

e(B

PD

) U

nit

at J

NK

VV,

Jab

alpu

rV

ishw

avid

yala

ya (

JNK

VV

), Ja

balp

ur

1024

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Tam

il N

adu

Agr

icul

tura

l Uni

vers

ity01

-10-

0930

-06-

14S

ole

(BP

D)

Uni

t at

TN

AU

, C

oim

bato

re(T

NA

U),

Coi

mba

tore

1025

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Cha

udha

ry C

hara

n S

ingh

01-1

0-09

30-0

6-14

Sol

e(B

PD

) U

nit

at C

CS

HA

U,

His

arH

arya

na A

gric

ultu

ral

Uni

vers

ity(C

CS

HA

U),

His

ar

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

64


1026

01H

andh

oldi

ng a

nd m

ento

ring

of B

PD

Inte

rnat

iona

l C

rops

Res

earc

h01

-10-

0930

-06-

14S

ole

units

of

NA

RS

Inst

itute

for

the

Sem

i-Arid

Tro

pics

(IC

RIS

AT

), H

yder

abad

1027

01Z

onal

tec

hnol

ogy

man

agem

ent

and

Nat

iona

l Ins

titut

e of

Res

earc

h on

01-0

5-09

30-0

6-14

Sol

eB

PD

uni

t at

NIR

JAF

T, K

olka

taJu

te &

Alli

ed F

ibre

Tec

hnol

ogy

(NIR

JAF

T),

Kol

kata

1028

01Z

onal

tec

hnol

ogy

man

agem

ent

and

Cen

tral

Ins

titut

e of

Fis

herie

s01

-04-

0930

-06-

14S

ole

BP

D u

nit

at C

IFT,

Coc

hin

Tech

nolo

gy (

CIF

T),

Coc

hin

1029

01Z

onal

tec

hnol

ogy

man

agem

ent

and

Cen

tral

Ins

titut

e fo

r R

esea

rch

on01

-11-

0830

-06-

14S

ole

BP

D u

nit

at C

IRC

OT,

Mum

bai

Cot

ton

Tech

nolo

gy (

CIR

CO

T),

Mum

bai

1030

01Z

onal

tec

hnol

ogy

man

agem

ent

and

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral

Res

earc

h01

-04-

0930

-06-

14S

ole

BP

D u

nit a

t IA

RI,

New

Del

hiIn

stitu

te (

IAR

I),

New

Del

hi

1031

01Z

onal

tec

hnol

ogy

man

agem

ent

and

Indi

an V

eter

inar

y R

esea

rch

01-0

5-09

30-0

6-14

Sol

eB

PD

Uni

t at

IV

RI,

Izat

naga

rIn

stitu

te (

IVR

I),

Izat

naga

r

1032

01Le

arni

ng a

nd c

apac

ity b

uild

ing

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l01

-11-

0730

-06-

14P

artn

ersh

ipR

esea

rch

Man

agem

ent

(NA

AR

M),

Hyd

erab

ad

1033

01A

sses

smen

t of

fut

ure

hum

an c

apita

lN

atio

nal A

cade

my

of A

gric

ultu

ral

02-0

4-09

31-0

7-11

Par

tner

ship

requ

irem

ents

in

agric

ultu

reR

esea

rch

Man

agem

ent

(NA

AR

M),

Hyd

erab

ad

1034

01A

sses

smen

t of

impa

ct o

f cl

imat

e ch

ange

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t31

-12-

0830

-06-

12P

artn

ersh

ipon

wat

er-e

nerg

y ne

xus

in a

gric

ultu

re(I

IM),

Ahm

edab

adun

der

cana

l irr

igat

ion

syst

em

1035

01D

evel

opin

g a

deci

sion

sup

port

sys

tem

for

Nat

iona

l Cen

tre

for

Agr

icul

tura

l17

-11-

0831

-03-

12P

artn

ersh

ipag

ricul

tura

l co

mm

odity

mar

ket

outlo

okE

cono

mic

s &

Pol

icy

Res

earc

h(N

CA

P),

New

Del

hi

1036

01E

nabl

ing

smal

l sta

keho

lder

s to

impr

ove

Wor

ld A

grof

ores

try

Cen

tre

01-0

6-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

thei

r liv

elih

oods

and

ben

efit

from

car

bon

(IC

RA

F),

New

Del

hifin

ance

1037

01E

stab

lishi

ng a

nd n

etw

orki

ng o

f ag

ricul

tura

lTa

mil

Nad

u A

gric

ultu

ral U

nive

rsity

01-0

4-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

mar

ket

inte

llige

nce

cent

res

in I

ndia

(TN

AU

), C

oim

bato

re

1038

01P

olic

y an

d in

stitu

tiona

l opt

ions

for

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral

Res

earc

h13

-10-

0931

-03-

12P

artn

ersh

ipin

clus

ive

agric

ultu

ral

grow

thIn

stitu

te (

IAR

I),

New

Del

hi

1039

01V

isio

ning

, po

licy

anal

ysis

and

gen

der

Nat

iona

l Cen

tre

for

Agr

icul

tura

l01

-05-

0730

-06-

12P

artn

ersh

ip(V

-PA

Ge)

Eco

nom

ics

& P

olic

y R

esea

rch

(NC

AP

), N

ew D

elhi

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

65


1040

01Im

plem

enta

tion

of m

anag

emen

t in

form

atio

nIn

dian

Agr

icul

tura

l Sta

tistic

s01

-03-

1030

-06-

14P

artn

ersh

ipsy

stem

(M

IS)

incl

udin

g fin

anci

alR

esea

rch

Inst

itute

(IA

SR

I),

man

agem

ent

syst

em (

FM

S)

in I

CA

RN

ew D

elhi

1189

01E

ngag

ing

farm

ers,

enr

ichi

ng k

now

ledg

e:In

dian

Ins

titut

e of

Tec

hnol

ogy

01-0

3-11

30-0

6-14

Par

tner

ship

Agr

oped

ia p

hase

-II

(IIT

-K),

Kan

pur

1190

01D

evel

opm

ent

of e

-Cou

rses

for

B.T

ech.

Ana

nd A

gric

ultu

ral

Uni

vers

ity01

-05-

0930

-06-

14P

artn

ersh

ip(A

gric

ultu

re E

ngg.

)(A

AU

), A

nand

1191

01C

apac

ity b

uild

ing

thro

ugh

natio

nal t

rain

ing

PIU

, N

AIP

, N

ew D

elhi

01-0

1-12

30-0

6-14

Par

tner

ship

1192

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Cen

tral

Pot

ato

Res

earc

h In

stitu

te01

-03-

1330

-06-

14S

ole

(BP

D)

unit

at C

PR

I, S

him

la(C

PR

I),

Shi

mla

1193

01Z

onal

Tec

hnol

ogy

Man

agem

ent

Nat

iona

l Dai

ry R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

01-0

3-13

30-0

6-14

Sol

e(Z

TM

)-B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

(ND

RI)

, K

arna

l(B

PD

) un

it at

ND

RI,

Kar

nal

1194

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Cen

tral

Ins

titut

e of

Agr

icul

tura

l01

-03-

1330

-06-

14S

ole

(BP

D)

unit

at C

IAE

, B

hopa

lE

ngin

eerin

g (C

IAE

), B

hopa

l

1195

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

unit,

Cen

tral

Pla

ntat

ion

Cro

ps R

esea

rch

01-0

3-13

30-0

6-14

Sol

eC

PC

RI,

Kas

arag

odIn

stitu

te (

CP

CR

I),

Kas

arag

od

1196

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Cen

tral

Ins

titut

e of

Pos

t H

arve

st01

-03-

1330

-06-

14S

ole

(BP

D)

unit

at C

IPH

ET,

Lud

hian

aE

ngin

eerin

g &

Tec

hnol

ogy

(CIP

HE

T),

Lud

hian

a

1197

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Cen

tral

Ins

titut

e of

Fre

shw

ater

01-0

3-13

30-0

6-14

Sol

e(B

PD

) un

it at

CIF

A,

Bhu

bane

swar

Aqu

acul

ture

(C

IFA

), B

huba

nesw

ar

1198

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

(BP

D)

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of H

ortic

ultu

re01

-03-

1330

-06-

14S

ole

unit

at I

IHR

, B

anga

lore

Res

earc

h (I

IHR

), B

anga

lore

1199

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of V

eget

able

01-0

3-13

30-0

6-14

Sol

e(B

PD

) un

it at

IIV

R,

Var

anas

iR

esea

rch

(IIV

R),

Var

anas

i

1200

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Nat

iona

l Aca

dem

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l01

-03-

1330

-06-

14S

ole

(BP

D)

unit

at N

AA

RM

, H

yder

abad

Res

earc

h M

anag

emen

t (N

AA

RM

),H

yder

abad

1201

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

(BP

D)

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

pice

s R

esea

rch

01-0

3-13

30-0

6-14

Sol

eun

it, I

ISR

, K

ozhi

kode

(IIS

R),

Cal

icut

1202

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

(BP

D)

Cen

tral

Ins

titut

e of

Bra

ckis

hwat

er01

-03-

1330

-06-

14S

ole

unit,

CIB

A,

Che

nnai

Aqu

acul

ture

(C

IBA

), C

henn

ai

1203

01B

usin

ess

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

(BP

D)

Cen

tral

Ric

e R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

01-0

3-13

30-0

6-14

Sol

eun

it at

CR

RI,

Cut

tack

(CR

RI)

, C

utta

ck

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

66


Co

mp

on

ent

2

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

nP

artn

ersh

ip/

cod

eso

le)

2041

01A

val

ue c

hain

for

cle

an m

eat

prod

uctio

nN

atio

nal R

esea

rch

Cen

tre

on M

eat

01-0

4-08

30-0

9-12

Par

tner

ship

from

she

ep(N

RC

M),

Hyd

erab

ad

2042

01A

val

ue c

hain

for

Kok

um,

Kar

onda

,D

r B

alas

aheb

Saw

ant

Kon

kan

01-0

4-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

Jam

un a

nd J

ackf

ruit

Kris

hi V

idya

peet

h (D

BS

KK

V),

Rat

nagi

ri

2043

01A

val

ue c

hain

in c

ocon

utC

entr

al P

lant

atio

n C

rops

Res

earc

h01

-04-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipIn

stitu

te (

CP

CR

I),

Kas

arag

od

2044

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

lac

and

lac

base

dIn

dian

Ins

titut

e of

Nat

ural

Res

ins

01-0

2-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

prod

ucts

for

dom

estic

and

exp

ort

mar

kets

and

Gum

s (I

INR

G),

Ran

chi

2045

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

linse

ed:

Pro

cess

ing

Bha

ratiy

a A

gro

Indu

strie

s01

-06-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipan

d va

lue

addi

tion

for

prof

itabi

lity

Fou

ndat

ion

(BA

IF)

Dev

elop

men

tR

esea

rch

Fou

ndat

ion,

Pun

e

2046

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

nove

lty p

ork

prod

ucts

Ass

am A

gric

ultu

ral

Uni

vers

ity01

-09-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipun

der

orga

nize

d pi

g fa

rmin

g sy

stem

(AA

U),

Jor

hat

2047

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

pota

to a

nd p

otat

o pr

oduc

tsC

entr

al P

otat

o R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

01-0

4-08

31-1

2-14

Par

tner

ship

(C

PR

I),

Shi

mla

2048

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

prod

uctio

n of

foo

d-gr

ade

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral

Res

earc

h01

-02-

0931

-12-

12P

artn

ersh

ipne

utra

ceut

ical

s fo

r us

e as

nat

ural

Inst

itute

(IA

RI)

, N

ew D

elhi

antio

xida

nts

and

food

col

oran

ts

2049

01P

rote

cted

cul

tivat

ion

of h

igh

valu

e ve

geta

bles

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral

Res

earc

h01

-03-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipan

d cu

t flo

wer

s- A

val

ue c

hain

app

roac

hIn

stitu

te (

IAR

I),

New

Del

hi

2050

01To

mat

o pr

oces

sing

prio

ritiz

atio

ns f

orM

ahat

ma

Phu

le K

rishi

Vid

yape

eth

01-0

9-08

30-0

6-12

Par

tner

ship

glob

al c

ompe

tenc

e(M

PK

V),

Rah

uri

2051

01A

val

ue c

hain

in m

ajor

see

d sp

ices

for

Sar

dark

rush

inag

ar D

antiw

ada

01-0

4-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

dom

estic

and

exp

ort

prom

otio

nA

gric

ultu

ral

Uni

vers

ity (

SD

AU

),S

arda

rkru

shin

agar

2052

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

cash

ew fo

r do

mes

ticC

ashe

w E

xpor

t P

rom

otio

n C

ounc

il01

-04-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipan

d ex

port

mar

ket

of I

ndia

(C

EP

CI)

, E

rnak

ulam

2053

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

enha

nced

pro

duct

ivity

She

r-e-

Kas

hmir

Uni

vers

ity o

f01

-02-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipan

d pr

ofita

bilit

y of

pas

hmin

a fib

erA

gric

ultu

ral S

cien

ces

& T

echn

olog

y(S

KU

AS

T)-

K,

Srin

agar

2054

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

flow

ers

for

dom

estic

Tam

il N

adu

Agr

icul

tura

l Uni

vers

ity01

-09-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipan

d ex

port

mar

kets

(TN

AU

), C

oim

bato

re

2055

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

ging

er a

nd g

inge

rO

rissa

Uni

vers

ity o

f Agr

icul

ture

and

01-0

4-09

31-1

2-13

Par

tner

ship

prod

ucts

Tech

nolo

gy (

OU

AT

), B

huba

nesh

war

67


2056

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

high

val

ue s

hellf

ish

Cen

tral

Mar

ine

Fis

herie

s R

esea

rch

01-0

2-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

from

mar

icul

ture

sys

tem

sIn

stitu

te (

CM

FR

I),

Coc

hin

2057

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

Kas

hmir

saffr

onS

her-

e-K

ashm

ir U

nive

rsity

of

01-0

2-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

Agr

icul

tura

l Sci

ence

s &

Tec

hnol

ogy

(SK

UA

ST

)-K

, S

rinag

ar

2058

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

man

go a

nd g

uava

for

Cen

tral

Ins

titut

e fo

r S

ubtr

opic

al01

-04-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipdo

mes

tic a

nd e

xpor

t m

arke

tH

ortic

ultu

re (

CIS

H),

Luc

know

2059

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

ocea

nic

tuna

fis

herie

sC

entr

al M

arin

e F

ishe

ries

Res

earc

h01

-04-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipin

Lak

shad

wee

p se

aIn

stitu

te (

CM

FR

I),

Coc

hin

2060

01U

tiliz

atio

n st

rate

gy f

or o

cean

ic s

quid

s in

Cen

tral

Mar

ine

Fis

herie

s R

esea

rch

01-0

2-09

31-1

2-13

Par

tner

ship

Ara

bian

sea

: A v

alue

cha

in a

ppro

ach

Inst

itute

(C

MF

RI)

, C

ochi

n

2061

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

mur

rel p

rodu

ctio

n in

St.

Xav

ier’s

Col

lege

, P

alay

amko

ttai

01-0

9-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

Tam

il N

adu

and

Oris

sa

2062

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

prod

uctio

n an

d va

lue

Kar

nata

ka V

eter

inar

y A

nim

al &

10-0

6-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

addi

tion

in I

ndia

n m

ajor

car

ps a

nd p

raw

nsF

ishe

ries

Sci

ence

s U

nive

rsity

(KV

AF

SU

), B

idar

2063

01E

xpor

t or

ient

ed m

arin

e va

lue

chai

n fo

rTa

mil

Nad

u V

eter

inar

y &

Ani

mal

01-0

9-08

31-1

2-13

Par

tner

ship

farm

ed-s

eafo

od p

rodu

ctio

n us

ing

Cob

iaS

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity (

TAN

UV

AS

),(R

achy

cent

ron

cand

um)

thro

ugh

rura

lC

henn

aien

trep

rene

ursh

ip

2064

01A

nov

el f

ood

chai

n us

ing

by-p

rodu

cts

ofIn

dian

Ins

titut

e of

Cro

p P

roce

ssin

g01

-02-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipm

illin

g in

dust

ry f

or e

nhan

cing

nut

ritio

nal

Tech

nolo

gy (

IICP

T),

Tha

njav

ur,

secu

rity

Tam

ilnad

u

2065

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

Alo

e ve

ra p

roce

ssin

gIn

dian

Ins

titut

e of

Tec

hnol

ogy

(IIT

),01

-04-

0930

-06-

12P

artn

ersh

ipK

hara

gpur

2066

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

cast

or a

nd it

sS

arda

rkru

shin

agar

Dan

tiwad

a01

-04-

0930

-06-

12P

artn

ersh

ipin

dust

rial

prod

ucts

Agr

icul

tura

l U

nive

rsity

(S

DA

U),

Sar

dark

rush

inag

ar

2067

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

com

mer

cial

izat

ion

ofU

nive

rsity

of A

gric

ultu

ral S

cien

ces

01-0

4-08

30-0

6-12

Par

tner

ship

mai

ze a

nd m

aize

pro

duct

s(U

AS

-B),

Ban

galo

re

2068

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

com

posi

te d

airy

foo

dsN

atio

nal D

airy

Res

earc

h In

stitu

te01

-03-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipw

ith e

nhan

ced

heal

th a

ttrib

utes

(ND

RI)

, K

arna

l

2069

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

enha

nced

pro

duct

ivity

Aks

hay

Foo

d P

ark

Ltd

(AF

PL)

,01

-04-

0930

-06-

12P

artn

ersh

ipan

d pr

ofita

bilit

y of

pom

egra

nate

Ban

galo

re

2070

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

enric

hmen

t an

dU

nive

rsity

of A

gric

ultu

ral S

cien

ces

01-0

6-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

popu

lariz

atio

n of

pot

entia

l foo

d gr

ains

(UA

S-D

), D

harw

adfo

r ne

utra

ceut

ical

ben

efits

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

68


2071

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

food

pro

duct

s fr

om s

mal

lIn

dira

Gan

dhi K

rishi

01-0

9-08

30-0

6-12

Par

tner

ship

mill

ets

of B

asta

r re

gion

of

Chh

attis

garh

Vis

hwav

idya

laya

(IG

KV

), R

aipu

r

2072

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

seab

uckt

horn

CS

K H

imac

hal P

rade

sh K

rishi

01-0

6-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

(Hip

poph

aeL.

)V

ishv

avid

yala

ya (

CS

KH

PK

V),

Pal

ampu

r

2073

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

sele

cted

aro

mat

ic p

lant

sC

entr

al A

gric

ultu

ral

Uni

vers

ity01

-03-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipof

Nor

th-E

ast

Indi

a(C

AU

), C

olle

ge o

f Agr

icul

tura

lE

ngin

eerin

g an

d P

ost

Har

vest

Tech

nolo

gy,

Gan

gtok

2074

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

unde

rutil

ized

fru

itsM

ahar

ana

Pra

tap

Uni

vers

ity o

f01

-12-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipof

Raj

asth

anA

gric

ultu

re &

Tec

hnol

ogy

(MP

UA

T),

Uda

ipur

2075

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

wild

hon

ey b

eeU

nive

rsity

of A

gric

ultu

ral S

cien

ces

01-0

2-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

(UA

S-B

), B

anga

lore

2076

01C

reat

ion

of d

eman

d fo

r m

illet

foo

dsD

irect

orat

e of

Sor

ghum

Res

earc

h01

-12-

0731

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipth

roug

h P

CS

val

ue-c

hain

(DS

R),

Hyd

erab

ad

2077

01A

val

ue c

hain

for

cotto

n fib

re, s

eed

and

Cen

tral

Ins

titut

e fo

r R

esea

rch

on01

-12-

0731

-12-

12P

artn

ersh

ipst

alks

: An

inno

vatio

n fo

r hi

gher

eco

nom

icC

otto

n Te

chno

logy

(C

IRC

OT

),re

turn

s to

far

mer

s an

d al

lied

stak

ehol

ders

Mum

bai

2078

01A

val

ue c

hain

in n

atur

al d

yeA

char

ya N

G R

anga

Agr

icul

tura

l01

-06-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipU

nive

rsity

(A

NG

RA

U),

Hyd

erab

ad

2079

01A

val

ue c

hain

for

coc

onut

fib

re a

nd it

sN

atio

nal I

nstit

ute

of R

esea

rch

on01

-12-

0831

-12-

13P

artn

ersh

ipby

-pro

duct

s: M

anuf

actu

re o

f di

vers

ified

Jute

& A

llied

Fib

re T

echn

olog

ypr

oduc

ts o

f hi

gher

val

ue a

nd b

ette

r(N

IRJA

FT

), K

olka

tam

arke

tabi

lity

to e

nhan

ce t

he e

cono

mic

retu

rns

of f

arm

ers

2080

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

indu

stria

l agr

ofor

estr

yTa

mil

Nad

u A

gric

ultu

ral U

nive

rsity

01-0

6-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

in T

amil

Nad

u(T

NA

U),

Coi

mba

tore

2081

01R

espo

nsib

le h

arve

stin

g an

d ut

iliza

tion

ofC

entr

al I

nstit

ute

of F

ishe

ries

01-0

1-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

sele

cted

sm

all p

elag

ics

and

fres

h w

ater

Tech

nolo

gy (

CIF

T),

Coc

hin

fishe

s: A

val

ue c

hain

app

roac

h

2082

01A

milk

val

ue c

hain

in a

n un

orga

nize

d se

ctor

Tam

il N

adu

Vet

erin

ary

& A

nim

al01

-04-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipS

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity (

TAN

UV

AS

),C

henn

ai

2083

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

enha

nced

pro

duct

ivity

Jew

argi

Agr

o F

ood

Par

k Lt

d.,

01-0

4-09

30-0

6-12

Par

tner

ship

and

prof

itabi

lity

of p

atch

ouli

(Pog

oste

mon

Ban

galo

reP

atch

ouli)

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

69


2084

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

valu

e ad

ded

prod

ucts

Cen

tral

Arid

Zon

e R

esea

rch

01-0

9-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

deriv

ed f

rom

Pro

sopi

s ju

liflo

raIn

stitu

te (

CA

ZR

I),

Jodh

pur

2085

01A

val

ue c

hain

mod

el f

or b

ioet

hano

lIn

tern

atio

nal

Cro

ps R

esea

rch

01-0

1-08

30-0

6-12

Par

tner

ship

prod

uctio

n fr

om s

wee

t so

rghu

m in

Inst

itute

for

the

Sem

i-Arid

Tro

pics

rain

fed

area

s th

roug

h co

llect

ive

actio

n(I

CR

ISA

T),

Hyd

erab

adan

d pa

rtne

rshi

p

2086

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

fish

prod

uctio

n on

Cen

tral

Ins

titut

e of

Fis

herie

s01

-06-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipfr

agile

agr

icul

tura

l lan

ds a

nd u

n-ut

ilize

dE

duca

tion

(CIF

E),

Mum

bai

agro

-aqu

atic

res

ourc

es in

Kon

kan

regi

onof

Mah

aras

htra

2087

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

utili

zatio

n of

ban

ana

Nav

sari

Agr

icul

tura

l U

nive

rsity

01-0

6-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

pseu

dost

em f

or f

ibre

and

oth

er(N

AU

), N

avsa

riva

lue

adde

d pr

oduc

ts

2088

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

zona

free

clo

ned

Nat

iona

l Dai

ry R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

01-0

2-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

embr

yos

for

qual

ity a

nim

al p

rodu

ctio

n(N

DR

I),

Kar

nal

from

elit

e bu

ffalo

es a

nd p

ashm

ina

goat

s

2089

01C

apita

lizat

ion

of p

rom

inen

t la

ndra

ces

ofM

.S.

Sw

amin

atha

n R

esea

rch

01-0

4-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

rice

in O

rissa

thr

ough

val

ue c

hain

Fou

ndat

ion,

Jey

pore

app

roac

h

2090

01A

val

ue c

hain

on

biom

ass

base

dC

entr

al I

nstit

ute

of A

gric

ultu

ral

01-0

6-08

31-1

2-13

Par

tner

ship

dece

ntra

lized

pow

er g

ener

atio

n fo

rE

ngin

eerin

g (C

IAE

), B

hopa

lag

ro e

nter

pris

es

2091

01B

io-p

estic

ide

med

iate

d va

lue

chai

nC

SK

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

Kris

hi01

-09-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipfo

r cl

ean

vege

tabl

esV

ishv

avid

yala

ya (

CS

KH

PK

V),

Pal

ampu

r

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

70


Co

mp

on

ent

3

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

cod

eso

le)

3092

01S

usta

inab

le li

vest

ock

base

d fa

rmin

gG

uru

Ang

ad D

ev U

nive

rsity

of

01-0

4-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

syst

em f

or li

velih

ood

secu

rity

inV

eter

inar

y an

d A

nim

al S

cien

ces

Hos

hiar

pur

dist

rict

of P

unja

b(G

AD

VA

SU

), L

udhi

ana

3093

01G

oat

husb

andr

y ba

sed

inte

grat

ed a

ppro

ach

Cen

tral

Ins

titut

e fo

r R

esea

rch

on01

-04-

0830

-09-

13P

artn

ersh

ipfo

live

lihoo

d se

curit

y in

dis

adva

ntag

edG

oats

(C

IRG

), M

akhd

oom

,di

stric

ts o

f B

unde

lkha

nd r

egio

nM

athu

ra

3094

01H

olis

tic a

ppro

ach

for

impr

ovin

g liv

elih

ood

Indi

an V

eter

inar

y R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

01-0

4-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

secu

rity

thro

ugh

lives

tock

bas

ed f

arm

ing

(IV

RI)

, Iz

atna

gar

syst

em in

Bar

aban

ki a

nd R

aeba

reli

dist

ricts

of

U.P

.

3095

01S

usta

inab

le r

ural

live

lihoo

d se

curit

yM

ahar

asht

ra A

nim

al S

cien

ce &

01-0

4-09

30-0

6-12

Par

tner

ship

thro

ugh

inte

grat

ed a

ppro

ach

in H

ingo

liF

ishe

ry S

cien

ce U

nive

rsity

and

Nan

ded

dist

ricts

of

Mah

aras

htra

(MA

FS

U),

Nag

pur

3096

01F

arm

ing

syst

ems

for

livel

ihoo

d se

curit

y of

Ann

amal

ai U

nive

rsity

01-0

4-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

smal

l and

mar

gina

l far

mer

s in

dis

adva

ntag

eddi

stric

ts o

f Ta

mil

Nad

u

3097

01Li

ve b

ette

r w

ith t

he f

lood

- A

n ap

proa

ch f

orA

ctio

n fo

r F

ood

Pro

duct

ion,

01-0

4-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

sust

aina

ble

livel

ihoo

d se

curit

y in

dis

tric

tG

uwah

ati

Dhe

maj

i, A

ssam

(A

FP

RO

, N

ew D

elhi

)

3098

01S

usta

inab

le l

ivel

ihoo

d im

prov

emen

t th

roug

hC

entr

al I

nstit

ute

of F

resh

wat

er01

-04-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipin

tegr

ated

fre

shw

ater

aqu

acul

ture

,A

quac

ultu

re (

CIF

A),

Bhu

bane

swar

hort

icul

ture

and

live

stoc

k de

velo

pmen

t in

May

urbh

anj,

Keo

njha

r an

d S

amba

lpur

dis

tric

ts o

f Oris

sa

3099

01E

nhan

cem

ent

of li

velih

ood

secu

rity

thro

ugh

Viv

ekan

and

Par

vatiy

a K

rishi

29-0

6-07

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

sust

aina

ble

farm

ing

syst

ems

and

rela

ted

Anu

sand

han

San

stha

n (V

PK

AS

),fa

rm e

nter

pris

es in

Nor

th-W

est

Him

alay

aA

lmor

a, U

ttara

khan

d

3100

01Li

velih

ood

impr

ovem

ent

and

empo

wer

men

tIC

AR

Res

earc

h C

ompl

ex f

or N

EH

29-0

6-07

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

of r

ural

poo

r th

roug

h su

stai

nabl

e fa

rmin

gR

egio

n, B

arap

ani

syst

ems

in N

orth

-Eas

t In

dia

3101

01Im

prov

ing

livel

ihoo

d qu

ality

in s

alt-

affe

cted

Raj

endr

a A

gric

ultu

ral

Uni

vers

ity01

-07-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipw

ater

shed

s of

Muz

affa

rpur

and

She

ohar

(RA

U),

Sam

astip

ur,

Bih

ardi

stric

ts o

f B

ihar

3102

01M

ulti

ente

rpris

e fa

rmin

g m

odel

s to

add

ress

Ker

ala

Agr

icul

tura

l U

nive

rsity

27-0

5-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

the

agra

rian

cris

is o

f W

ayan

ad d

istr

ict

(KA

U),

Thr

issu

r, K

eral

aof

Ker

ala

71


3103

01A

chie

ving

impr

oved

live

lihoo

d se

curit

yC

haud

hary

Cha

ran

Sin

gh H

arya

na01

-04-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipth

roug

h re

sour

ce c

onse

rvat

ion

and

Agr

icul

tura

l U

nive

rsity

(C

CS

HA

U),

dive

rsifi

ed f

arm

ing

syst

ems

appr

oach

inH

isar

Mew

at (

Pro

pone

nt,

HA

U,

His

sar)

3104

01D

evel

opin

g su

stai

nabl

e fa

rmin

g sy

stem

Birs

a A

gric

ultu

ral

Uni

vers

ity19

-09-

0731

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipm

odel

s fo

r pr

iorit

ized

mic

ro w

ater

shed

s in

(BA

U),

Ran

chi

rain

ed a

reas

of

Jhar

khan

d

3105

01Li

velih

ood

prom

otio

n th

roug

h in

tegr

ated

Ass

am A

gric

ultu

ral

Uni

vers

ity01

-06-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipfa

rmin

g sy

stem

in A

ssam

(AA

U),

Jor

hat

3106

01E

nsur

ing

livel

ihoo

d se

curit

y th

roug

hIn

stitu

te o

f A

gric

ultu

ral s

cien

ces,

01-0

4-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

wat

ersh

ed b

ased

far

min

g sy

stem

mod

ules

Ban

aras

Hin

du U

nive

rsity

(B

HU

),in

dis

adva

ntag

ed d

istr

icts

of

Mirz

apur

and

Var

anas

iS

onbh

adra

in V

indh

yan

regi

on

3107

01Im

prov

emen

t in

live

lihoo

d se

curit

y of

rur

alC

hand

ra S

heka

r A

zad

Uni

vers

ity01

-04-

0831

-03-

13P

artn

ersh

ippe

ople

livi

ng in

dis

adva

ntag

ed d

istr

icts

of

of A

gric

ultu

re &

Tec

hnol

ogy

U.P

. th

roug

h di

vers

ifica

tion

in a

gric

ultu

re(C

SA

UA

&T

), K

anpu

r

3108

01Im

prov

ing

rura

l, liv

elih

ood

secu

rity

Indi

ra G

andh

i Kris

hi30

-06-

0831

-05-

12P

artn

ersh

ipth

roug

h su

stai

nabl

e in

tegr

ated

far

min

gV

ishw

avid

yala

ya (

IGK

V),

Rai

pur

syst

em m

odel

and

alli

ed e

nter

pris

es in

Bas

tar

regi

on o

f C

hhat

tisga

rh

3109

01In

tegr

ated

Far

min

g S

yste

m (

IFS

) fo

r en

hanc

ing

Gra

min

Vik

as T

rust

(G

VT

), R

anch

i01

-04-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipsu

stai

nabl

e ru

ral l

ivel

ihoo

d se

curit

y in

Sah

ibga

nj a

nd P

akur

dis

tric

ts o

f Jh

arkh

and

3110

01In

tegr

ated

far

min

g sy

stem

for

sus

tain

able

Raj

mat

a V

ijaya

raje

Sci

ndia

Kris

hi01

-04-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipru

ral l

ivel

ihoo

ds in

und

ulat

ing

and

rain

fed

Vis

hwav

idya

laya

(R

VS

KV

V),

area

s of

Jha

bua

and

Dha

r di

stric

t of

M.P

.G

wal

ior

3111

01In

tegr

ated

far

min

g sy

stem

mod

ules

to

JNK

VV

, Ja

balp

ur30

-05-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipen

sure

sus

tain

able

live

lihoo

d se

curit

y fo

rth

e pe

asan

ts o

f di

sadv

anta

ged

dist

ricts

of M

adhy

a P

rade

sh

3112

01In

tegr

ated

pro

ject

for

res

earc

h on

Sar

dark

rush

inag

ar D

antiw

ada

01-0

4-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

deve

lopm

ent

proc

ess

and

sust

aina

bilit

y of

Agr

icul

tura

l U

nive

rsity

(S

DA

U),

livel

ihoo

d in

sel

ecte

d di

sadv

anta

ged

Sar

dark

rush

inag

ardi

stric

ts o

f G

ujar

at

3113

01E

ffici

ent

land

use

bas

ed in

tegr

ated

far

min

gN

atio

nal B

urea

u of

Soi

l Sur

vey

&01

-04-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipsy

stem

for

rur

al li

velih

ood

secu

rity

inLa

nd U

se P

lann

ing

(NB

SS

&LU

P),

Aur

anga

bad,

Dhu

le a

nd G

ondi

a di

stric

tsN

agpu

rof

Mah

aras

htra

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

72


3114

02Li

velih

ood

and

nutr

ition

al s

ecur

ity o

fM

ahar

ana

Pra

tap

Uni

vers

ity o

f20

-10-

0731

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

iptr

ibal

dom

inat

ed a

rea

thro

ugh

inte

grat

edA

gric

ultu

re &

Tec

hnol

ogy

(MP

UA

T),

farm

ing

syst

em a

nd t

echn

olog

y m

odel

sU

daip

ur

3115

01Li

velih

ood

secu

rity

of r

ural

poo

r in

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

gric

ultu

ral S

cien

ces

01-0

4-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

disa

dvan

tage

d C

hitr

adur

ga d

istr

ict

of (

UA

S-B

), B

anga

lore

Kar

nata

ka t

hrou

gh in

tegr

ated

far

min

gsy

stem

s ap

proa

ch

3116

01Li

velih

ood

secu

rity

thro

ugh

reso

urce

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

gric

ultu

ral S

cien

ces

01-0

4-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

entr

epre

neur

ship

man

agem

ent

in B

idar

(UA

S-R

), R

aich

urdi

stric

t

3117

01To

pro

mot

e su

stai

nabl

e liv

elih

oods

of

the

Bha

rti S

amru

ddhi

Fin

ance

Ltd

.01

-04-

0930

-06-

12P

artn

ersh

ipsm

all a

nd m

argi

nal f

arm

ers

with

a f

ocus

(BA

SIX

)on

wom

en’s

em

pow

erm

ent

in N

awad

aan

d P

urne

a di

stric

t of

Bih

ar

3118

01S

usta

inab

le f

arm

ing

syst

em t

o en

hanc

eB

idha

n C

hand

ra K

rishi

01-0

4-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

and

ensu

re li

velih

ood

secu

rity

of p

oor

inV

isw

avid

yala

ya (

BC

KV

),P

urul

ia,

Ban

kura

and

Wes

t M

idna

pore

Nad

ia,

Wes

t B

enga

ldi

stric

ts o

f W

est

Ben

gal

3119

01S

usta

inab

le l

ivel

ihoo

d im

prov

emen

t th

roug

hIC

AR

Res

earc

h C

ompl

ex f

or01

-04-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipne

ed b

ased

inte

grat

ed f

arm

ing

syst

emE

aste

rn R

egio

n, P

atna

mod

els

in d

isad

vant

aged

dis

tric

ts o

f B

ihar

3120

01S

usta

inab

le r

ural

live

lihoo

d an

d fo

odO

rissa

Uni

vers

ity o

f Agr

icul

ture

and

01-0

4-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

secu

rity

to r

ainf

ed f

arm

ers

of O

rissa

Tech

nolo

gy (

OU

AT

), B

huba

nesh

war

3121

01S

usta

inab

le r

ural

liv

elih

ood

empo

wer

men

tU

ttar

Ban

ga K

rishi

Vis

wav

idya

laya

01-0

4-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

proj

ect

for

Nor

ther

n di

sadv

anta

ged

(UB

KV

), P

undi

bari

dist

ricts

of

Wes

t B

enga

l

3122

01S

usta

inab

le r

ural

live

lihoo

d se

curit

y in

Bha

ratiy

a A

gro

Indu

strie

s29

-06-

0731

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipba

ckw

ard

dist

ricts

of

Mah

aras

htra

Fou

ndat

ion

(BA

IF)

Dev

elop

men

tR

esea

rch

Fou

ndat

ion,

Pun

e

3123

01S

usta

inab

le r

ural

live

lihoo

ds th

roug

h en

hanc

edC

entr

al R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

For

01-0

4-07

31-0

3-12

Par

tner

ship

farm

ing

syst

ems

prod

uctiv

ity a

ndD

ryla

nd A

gric

ultu

re (

CR

IDA

),ef

ficie

nt s

uppo

rt s

yste

ms

in r

ainf

ed a

reas

Hyd

erab

ad

3124

01U

psca

ling

& im

prov

ing

livel

ihoo

d of

for

est

Agr

icul

tura

l F

inan

ce C

orpo

ratio

n01

-04-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipba

sed

and

fore

st f

ringe

com

mun

ities

Ltd.

(A

FC

)th

roug

h en

hanc

ed f

arm

ing

syst

empr

oduc

tivity

and

effi

cien

t su

ppor

t sy

stem

sin

God

da d

istr

ict

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

73


Co

mp

on

ent

4

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

cod

eso

le)

4128

01B

ovin

e m

astit

is:

Unr

avel

ing

mol

ecul

ar d

etai

lsP

roje

ct D

irect

orat

e on

Ani

mal

01-1

2-08

30-0

6-12

Par

tner

ship

of h

ost-

mic

robe

inte

ract

ion

and

deve

lopm

ent

Dis

ease

Mon

itorin

g an

d S

urve

illan

ceof

mol

ecul

ar d

iagn

ostic

met

hods

(PD

AD

MA

S),

Ban

galo

re

4129

01Id

entif

icat

ion

of o

ncol

ytic

vira

l gen

es a

ndIn

dian

Vet

erin

ary

Res

earc

h In

stitu

te01

-01-

0930

-06-

14P

artn

ersh

ipde

velo

pmen

t of

tum

our

targ

eted

nan

o-(I

VR

I),

Izat

naga

rde

liver

y ve

hicl

e fo

r ca

ncer

the

rapy

inbo

vine

s

4130

01M

anip

ulat

ion

of t

he r

umen

eco

syst

emN

atio

nal I

nstit

ute

of A

nim

al N

utrit

ion

01-0

1-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

thro

ugh

mod

ified

rum

en m

icro

bes

enco

ding

& P

hysi

olog

y (N

IAN

P),

Ban

galo

reno

vel f

ibro

lytic

enz

ymes

usi

ng n

ucle

ic a

cid

base

d te

chno

logi

es f

or t

he im

prov

edut

iliza

tion

of c

rop

resi

dues

4131

01R

umen

mic

robi

al d

iver

sity

in d

omes

ticat

edIn

dian

Vet

erin

ary

Res

earc

h In

stitu

te01

-07-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipan

d w

ild r

umin

ants

and

impa

ct o

f ad

ditiv

es(I

VR

I),

Izat

naga

ron

met

hano

gene

sis

and

utili

zatio

n of

poo

rqu

ality

fib

rous

fee

ds

4132

01S

erol

ogic

al d

iver

sity

and

mol

ecul

arS

her-

e-K

ashm

ir U

nive

rsity

of

01-0

1-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

char

acte

rizat

ion

of D

iche

loba

cter

nod

osus

Agr

icul

tura

l Sci

ence

s &

Tec

hnol

ogy

and

deve

lopm

ent

of v

acci

ne a

gain

st v

irula

nt(S

KU

AS

T)-

K,

Srin

agar

foot

rot

4133

01S

tudy

of h

erba

l aca

ricid

es a

s m

eans

toIn

dian

Vet

erin

ary

Res

earc

h In

stitu

te01

-07-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipov

erco

me

the

deve

lopm

ent

of r

esis

tanc

e in

(IV

RI)

, Iz

atna

gar

ticks

to

conv

entio

nal a

caric

ides

4134

01To

ll-lik

e re

cept

ors

in f

arm

ani

mal

s-Ta

mil

Nad

u V

eter

inar

y &

Ani

mal

01-0

7-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

Evo

lutio

nary

line

ages

and

app

licat

ion

inS

cien

ces

Uni

vers

ity (

TAN

UV

AS

),di

seas

e re

sist

ance

Che

nnai

, M

adra

s V

eter

inar

y C

olle

ge

4135

01To

ll-lik

e re

cept

ors

in p

hylo

gene

tical

lyC

entr

al I

nstit

ute

of F

resh

wat

er01

-01-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipdi

verg

ent

fish

spec

ies-

thei

r co

ntrib

utio

n in

Aqu

acul

ture

(C

IFA

), B

huba

nesw

arm

odul

atin

g th

e in

nate

imm

unity

4136

01A

naly

sis

of m

amm

ary

glan

d tr

ansc

ripto

me

Nat

iona

l Dai

ry R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

and

prot

eom

e du

ring

lact

atio

n an

d in

volu

tion

(ND

RI)

, K

arna

l01

-07-

0830

-06-

2014

Par

tner

ship

in in

dige

nous

cat

tle a

nd b

uffa

lo f

orid

entif

icat

ion

of p

roba

ble

mam

mar

ybi

omar

kers

4137

01C

hara

cter

isat

ion

and

diffe

rent

iatio

n of

Nat

iona

l Dai

ry R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

01-0

7-08

30-0

6-20

14P

artn

ersh

ipem

bryo

nic

and

sper

mat

ogon

ial s

tem

cel

ls(N

DR

I),

Kar

nal

in c

attle

and

buf

falo

es

74


4138

01D

evel

opm

enta

l po

tenc

y of

par

then

ogen

etic

Indi

an V

eter

inar

y R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

01-0

1-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

goat

em

bryo

s(I

VR

I),

Izat

naga

r

4139

01E

luci

datin

g th

e ph

ysio

logi

cal a

nd g

enom

icN

atio

nal D

airy

Res

earc

h In

stitu

te01

-01-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipre

gula

tion

proc

ess

of f

ollic

ular

dev

elop

men

t,(N

DR

I),

Kar

nal

oocy

te m

atur

atio

n an

d em

bryo

gene

sis

inbu

ffalo

4140

01G

enet

ic b

asis

of

infe

rior

sper

m q

ualit

yP

roje

ct D

irect

orat

e on

Cat

tle01

-01-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipan

d fe

rtili

ty o

f cr

ossb

red

bulls

(PD

C),

Mee

rut

4141

01G

enom

ic a

naly

sis

of c

otto

n bo

ll an

d fib

reIn

tern

atio

nal C

entr

e fo

r G

enet

ic01

-01-

0830

-06-

14P

artn

ersh

ipde

velo

pmen

tE

ngin

eerin

g an

d B

iote

chno

logy

(IC

GE

B),

New

Del

hi

4142

01M

olec

ular

bas

is o

f ca

paci

tatio

n lik

e ch

ange

sN

atio

nal D

airy

Res

earc

h In

stitu

te01

-01-

0930

-06-

14P

artn

ersh

ip in

the

ass

essm

ent

and

prev

entio

n of

(ND

RI)

, K

arna

lcr

yoda

mag

e du

ring

cryo

pres

erva

tion

ofbo

vine

spe

rmat

ozoa

(bu

ffalo

and

cros

sbre

d bu

lls)

4143

01B

iosy

stem

atic

s of

the

Gen

era

Vig

na,

Nat

iona

l Bur

eau

of P

lant

Gen

etic

01-0

7-08

30-0

6-14

Par

tner

ship

Cuc

umis

and

Abe

lmos

chus

Res

ourc

es (

NB

PG

R),

New

Del

hi

4144

01D

iver

sity

ana

lysi

s of

Bac

illus

and

othe

rN

atio

nal B

urea

u of

Agr

icul

tura

lly01

-09-

0931

-12-

13P

artn

ersh

ippr

edom

inan

t ge

nera

in E

etre

me

envi

ronm

ent

Impo

rtan

t M

icro

Org

anis

ms

and

its u

tiliz

atio

n in

agr

icul

ture

(NB

AIM

), M

auna

th B

hana

jan,

UP

4145

01S

tudi

es o

n re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

nN

atio

nal

Bot

anic

al R

esea

rch

ecog

eogr

aphy

of

the

chem

otyp

ic v

aria

tion

Inst

itute

(N

BR

I),

Luck

now

01-0

7-08

30-0

3-12

Par

tner

ship

of n

ine

impo

rtan

t bu

t hi

ghly

thr

eate

ned

med

icin

al p

lant

spe

cies

and

pro

spec

ts o

fth

eir

culti

vatio

n

4146

01S

tudi

es o

n th

e ec

olog

y an

d ta

xono

my

Del

hi U

nive

rsity

(D

U),

New

Del

hi01

-04-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipof

whi

tefly

, Be

mis

ia ta

baci

, in

Indi

a, it

ssy

mbi

osis

with

var

ious

obl

igat

e an

dfa

culta

tive

bact

eria

l sy

mbi

onts

4147

01S

tudy

of t

he s

tatu

s an

d na

ture

of

Dr

Bal

asah

eb S

awan

t K

onka

n01

-01-

0930

-06-

12P

artn

ersh

ipva

riabi

lity

in f

resh

wat

er b

ival

ves

inK

rishi

Vid

yape

eth

(DB

SK

KV

),th

e W

este

rn G

hats

and

iden

tific

atio

nR

atna

giri

of s

peci

es w

ith c

omm

erci

al v

alue

4148

01To

und

erst

and

the

natu

re o

f di

vers

ityIn

dian

Ins

titut

e of

Nat

ural

Res

ins

01-0

1-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

in la

c in

sect

s of

Ker

ria S

pp. i

n In

dia

and

Gum

s (I

INR

G),

Ran

chi

and

the

natu

re o

f in

sect

x h

ost

Inte

ract

ion

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

75


4149

01U

tiliz

atio

n of

wee

d flo

ra o

f m

edic

inal

And

hra

Uni

vers

ity,

Vis

akha

patn

am01

-01-

0930

-06-

12P

artn

ersh

ipva

lue

in s

ome

impo

rtan

t cr

oppi

ng s

yste

ms

of A

ndhr

a P

rade

sh

4150

01A

llele

min

ing

expr

essi

on p

rofil

ing

Nat

iona

l Res

earc

h C

entr

e on

01-0

7-08

30-0

6-14

Par

tner

ship

of r

esis

tanc

e an

d av

irule

nce-

gene

sP

lant

B

iote

chno

logy

(N

RC

PB

),in

ric

e-bl

ast

path

osys

tem

for

New

Del

hide

velo

pmen

t of

rac

e no

n-sp

ecifi

cdi

seas

e re

sist

ance

4151

01B

iopr

ospe

ctin

g of

gen

es a

nd a

llele

Nat

iona

l Res

earc

h C

entr

e on

01-0

5-09

30-0

6-14

Par

tner

ship

min

ing

for

abio

tic s

tres

s to

lera

nce

Pla

nt

Bio

tech

nolo

gy (

NR

CP

B),

New

Del

hi

4152

01D

evel

opm

ent

of g

oat

havi

ng k

nock

edM

adhy

a P

rade

sh P

ashu

Chi

kits

a01

-07-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipdo

wn

myo

stat

in g

ene

thro

ugh

RN

AV

igya

n V

ishw

a V

idya

laya

, Ja

balp

urin

terf

eren

ce t

echn

olog

y to

enh

ance

the

mea

t pr

oduc

tion

4153

01G

ene

sile

ncin

g –

A s

trat

egy

for

man

agem

ent

Cen

tral

Ins

titut

e of

Fis

herie

s01

-03-

0931

-03-

13P

artn

ersh

ipof

Whi

te S

pot S

yndr

ome

Viru

s (W

SS

V)

Edu

catio

n (C

IFE

), M

umba

i

4154

01Id

entif

icat

ion

of q

uant

itativ

e tr

ait

loci

for

Nat

iona

l Bur

eau

of A

nim

al G

enet

ic01

-01-

0831

-09-

13P

artn

ersh

ipm

ilk y

ield

, fa

t an

d pr

otei

n pe

rcen

t in

Res

ourc

es (

NB

AG

R),

Kar

nal

buffa

loes

4155

01M

olec

ular

too

ls f

or e

xplo

itatio

n of

het

eros

isIn

dian

Ins

titut

e of

Tec

hnol

ogy

(IIT

),01

-01-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipyi

eld

and

oil q

ualit

y in

ses

ame

Kha

ragp

ur

4156

01To

war

ds d

evel

opm

ent

of a

sin

gle

cell

C4

Jaw

ahar

lal N

ehru

Uni

vers

ity (

JNU

),01

-09-

0830

-06-

12P

artn

ersh

ipph

otos

ynth

etic

sys

tem

in r

ice

New

Del

hi

4157

01U

nrav

elin

g m

olec

ular

pro

cess

es in

volv

ed in

Nat

iona

l Res

earc

h C

entr

e on

Pla

nt01

-07-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipad

vent

ive

poly

embr

yony

tow

ards

gen

etic

Bio

tech

nolo

gy (

NR

CP

B),

New

Del

hien

gine

erin

g fo

r fix

atio

n of

het

eros

is

4158

01B

ambo

o as

a g

reen

eng

inee

ring

mat

eria

lIn

dian

Ins

titut

e of

Tec

hnol

ogy

(IIT

),01

-08-

0830

-06-

12P

artn

ersh

ipin

rur

al h

ousi

ng a

nd a

gric

ultu

ral s

truc

ture

sD

elhi

, D

ept.

of C

ivil

Eng

gfo

r su

stai

nabl

e ec

onom

ic g

row

th

4159

01D

esig

n an

d de

velo

pmen

t of

rub

ber

dam

DW

M,

Bhu

bane

swar

10.0

1.08

30-0

6-14

Par

tner

ship

for

wat

ersh

eds

4160

01D

evel

opm

ent

of s

pect

ral r

efle

ctan

ceP

unja

b A

gric

ultu

ral

Uni

vers

ity01

-11-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipm

etho

ds a

nd lo

w c

ast

sens

ors

for

real

-tim

e(P

AU

), L

udhi

ana

appl

icat

ion

of v

aria

ble

rate

inpu

ts in

prec

isio

n fa

rmin

g

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

76


4161

01D

evel

opm

ent

of w

irele

ss s

enso

r ne

twor

kIn

dian

Ins

titut

e of

Tec

hnol

ogy

(IIT

),01

-07-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipfo

r an

imal

man

agem

ent

Del

hi

4162

01P

reci

sion

far

min

g te

chno

logi

esC

entr

al I

nstit

ute

of A

gric

ultu

ral

01-0

1-09

31-

03-1

4P

artn

ersh

ipba

sed

on m

icro

proc

esso

r an

d de

cisi

onE

ngin

eerin

g (C

IAE

), B

hopa

lsu

ppor

t sy

stem

s fo

r en

hanc

ing

inpu

tap

plic

atio

n ef

ficie

ncy

in p

rodu

ctio

nag

ricul

ture

4163

01E

ffect

of

abio

tic s

tres

ses

on t

he n

atur

alN

atio

nal B

urea

u of

Aric

ultu

rally

01-0

7-08

30-0

6-14

Par

tner

ship

enem

ies

of c

rop

pest

s: T

richo

gram

ma,

Impo

rtan

t In

sect

s (N

BA

II),

Chr

ysop

erla

, Tr

icho

derm

a an

dH

ebba

l, B

anga

lore

Pseu

dom

onas

, an

d m

echa

nism

of

tole

ranc

e to

the

se s

tres

ses

4164

01N

atur

e of

inte

ract

ions

am

ong

the

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral

Res

earc

h01

-01-

0931

-03-

14S

ole

ento

mop

atho

geni

c ne

mat

odes

, ba

cter

ial

Inst

itute

(IA

RI)

, N

ew D

elhi

,sy

mbi

onts

and

the

inse

ct h

ost

Nem

atol

ogy

4165

01N

ovel

str

ateg

ies

for

mol

ecul

ar d

iagn

osis

Indi

an A

gric

ultu

ral

Res

earc

h01

-07-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipof

pla

nt v

iruse

sIn

stitu

te (

IAR

I),

New

Del

hi

4166

01P

oten

tial o

f RN

Ai i

n in

sect

pes

tIn

dian

Ins

titut

e of

Hor

ticul

ture

01-0

3-09

30-0

6-14

Par

tner

ship

man

agem

ent:

A m

odel

in s

ilenc

ing

Res

earc

h (I

IHR

), B

anga

lore

impo

rtan

t ge

nes

spec

ific

to t

omat

o fr

uit

bore

r, H

elic

over

pa a

rmig

era

Hub

ner

(Noc

tuid

ae:

Lepi

dopt

era)

4167

01R

esea

rch

into

dev

elop

men

t of

Cen

tral

Res

earc

h In

stitu

te f

or01

-07-

0831

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipde

cisi

on s

uppo

rt s

yste

ms

for

inse

ctD

ryla

nd A

gric

ultu

re (

CR

IDA

),pe

sts

of m

ajor

ric

e an

d co

tton

base

dH

yder

abad

crop

ping

sys

tem

s

4168

01U

nder

stan

ding

pla

nt-n

emat

ode

inte

ract

ions

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y (I

IT),

01-0

1-08

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

usin

g R

NA

iK

anpu

r

4169

01D

esig

ning

and

stu

dyin

g m

ode

of a

ctio

nIn

dian

Sta

tistic

al I

nstit

ute

(IS

I),

01-0

2-09

30-0

6-14

Par

tner

ship

and

bios

afet

y of

nan

opes

ticid

esK

olka

ta

4170

01N

ano-

tech

nolo

gy f

or e

nhan

ced

utili

zatio

n of

Cen

tral

Arid

Zon

e R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

01-0

7-08

31-

03-1

4P

artn

ersh

ipna

tive

- ph

osph

orus

by

plan

ts a

nd h

ighe

r(C

AZ

RI)

, Jo

dhpu

rm

oist

ure

rete

ntio

n in

arid

soi

ls

4171

01S

ynth

esis

and

cha

ract

eriz

atio

n of

Cen

tral

Ins

titut

e fo

r R

esea

rch

on01

-07-

0831

-03-

12P

artn

ersh

ipna

no -

cel

lulo

se a

nd it

s ap

plic

atio

n in

Cot

ton

Tech

nolo

gy (

CIR

CO

T),

biod

egra

dabl

e po

lym

er c

ompo

site

sM

umba

ito

enh

ance

the

ir pe

rfor

man

ce

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

77


4172

01A

rsen

ic in

foo

d-ch

ain:

Cau

se,

effe

ct a

ndB

idha

n C

hand

ra K

rishi

01-0

7-07

30-0

9-12

Par

tner

ship

miti

gatio

nV

isw

avid

yala

ya (

BC

KV

), N

adia

,W

est

Ben

gal

4173

01A

sses

smen

t of

qua

lity

and

resi

lienc

e of

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of S

oil S

cien

ce01

-07-

0830

-06-

12P

artn

ersh

ipso

ils in

div

erse

agr

o-ec

osys

tem

s(I

ISS

), B

hopa

l

4174

01G

eore

fere

nced

soi

l in

form

atio

n sy

stem

Nat

iona

l Bur

eau

of S

oil S

urve

y &

01-0

5-09

30-0

6-14

Par

tner

ship

for

land

use

pla

nnin

g an

d m

onito

ring

Land

Use

Pla

nnin

g (N

BS

S&

LUP

),so

il an

d la

nd q

ualit

y fo

r ag

ricul

ture

Nag

pur

4175

01M

odel

ing

the

perf

orm

ance

of

a fe

w m

ajor

Oris

sa U

nive

rsity

of A

gric

ultu

re01

-01-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipcr

oppi

ng s

yste

ms

in e

aste

rn I

ndia

in t

hean

d Te

chno

logy

(O

UA

T),

light

of

proj

ecte

d cl

imat

e ch

ange

Bhu

bane

shw

ar

4176

01S

oil o

rgan

ic c

arbo

n dy

nam

ics

vis-

à-vi

sC

entr

al R

ice

Res

earc

h In

stitu

te01

-07-

0831

-03-

13P

artn

ersh

ipan

ticip

ator

y cl

imat

ic c

hang

es a

nd c

rop

(CR

RI)

, C

utta

ckad

apta

tion

stra

tegi

es

4177

01U

nder

stan

ding

the

mec

hani

sm o

fC

entr

al I

nstit

ute

for

Sub

trop

ical

01-0

1-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

off-

seas

on f

low

erin

g an

d fr

uitin

g in

Hor

ticul

ture

(C

ISH

), L

uckn

owm

ango

und

er d

iffer

ent

envi

ronm

enta

lco

nditi

ons

4178

01U

nder

stan

ding

the

mec

hani

sm o

f va

riatio

nIn

dian

Ins

titut

e of

Soi

l Sci

ence

01-0

2-09

31-

03-1

4P

artn

ersh

ipin

sta

tus

of a

few

nut

ritio

nally

impo

rtan

t(I

ISS

), B

hopa

lm

icro

nutr

ient

s in

som

e im

port

ant

food

crop

s an

d th

e m

echa

nism

of

mic

ronu

trie

nten

richm

ent

in p

lant

par

ts

4179

01D

etec

tion

and

miti

gatio

n of

dai

ry p

atho

gens

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y (I

IT),

01-0

2-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

and

dete

ctio

n of

adu

ltera

nts

usin

g ch

emic

alR

oork

eebi

olog

y

4180

01D

evel

opm

ent

of b

iose

nsor

and

mic

ro-

Birl

a In

stitu

te o

f Te

chno

logy

&01

-01-

08 3

0-06

-14

Par

tner

ship

tech

niqu

es f

or a

naly

sis

of p

estic

ide

resi

dues

,S

cien

ce (

BIT

S),

Pila

ni,

afla

toxi

n he

avy

met

als

and

bact

eria

lG

oa C

ampu

sco

ntam

inat

ion

in m

ilk

4181

01D

evel

opm

ent

of n

on-d

estr

uctiv

eC

entr

al I

nstit

ute

of P

ost

Har

vest

01-0

1-08

31-

03-1

2P

artn

ersh

ipS

yste

ms

for

eval

uatio

n of

mic

robi

al a

ndE

ngin

eerin

g &

Tec

hnol

ogy

phys

ico-

chem

ical

qua

lity

para

met

ers

(CIP

HE

T),

Lud

hian

aof

man

go

4182

01N

ovel

app

roac

hes

for

prod

uctio

n of

Nat

iona

l Dai

ry R

esea

rch

Inst

itute

01-0

1-09

31-

03-1

4P

artn

ersh

ipnu

trac

eutic

als

from

milk

and

Ind

ian

(ND

RI)

, K

arna

lhe

rbs

for

pote

ntia

l use

in f

unct

iona

lda

iry f

oods

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

78


4183

01N

ovel

bio

tech

nolo

gica

l pr

oces

ses

for

Gur

u N

anak

Dev

Uni

vers

ity01

-01-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ippr

oduc

tion

of h

igh

valu

e pr

oduc

ts f

rom

(GN

DU

), A

mrit

sar

rice

stra

w a

nd b

agas

se

4184

01S

tand

ardi

zatio

n of

sel

ecte

d et

hnic

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of C

rop

Pro

cess

ing

01-0

1-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

ferm

ente

d fo

ods

and

beve

rage

s by

Tech

nolo

gy (

IICP

T),

Tha

njav

ur,

ratio

naliz

atio

n of

ind

igen

ous

know

ledg

eTa

miln

adu

4185

01S

tudi

es o

n cr

yoge

nic

grin

ding

for

ret

entio

nC

entr

al I

nstit

ute

of P

ost

Har

vest

01-0

1-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

of f

lavo

ur a

nd m

edic

inal

pro

pert

ies

ofE

ngin

eerin

g &

Tec

hnol

ogy

som

e im

port

ant

Indi

an s

peci

es(C

IPH

ET

), L

udhi

ana

4186

01S

tudi

es o

n hi

gh p

ress

ure

proc

essi

ngC

entr

al I

nstit

ute

of F

ishe

ries

01-0

1-09

31-0

3-14

Par

tner

ship

(HP

P)

of h

igh

valu

e pe

risha

ble

Tech

nolo

gy (

CIF

T),

Coc

hin

com

mod

ities

4187

01D

evel

opm

ent

of a

set

of

alte

rnat

ive

ICT

Med

ia L

ab A

sia,

New

Del

hi01

-06-

0931

-03-

14P

artn

ersh

ipm

odel

s ba

sed

on a

stu

dy a

nd a

naly

sis

ofth

e m

ajor

IC

T in

itiat

ives

in a

gric

ultu

re in

Ind

iato

mee

t th

e in

form

atio

n ne

ed o

f th

e In

dian

farm

ers

4188

01R

isk

asse

ssm

ent

and

insu

ranc

e pr

oduc

tsN

atio

nal C

entr

e fo

r A

gric

ultu

ral

01-0

7-08

30-0

6-12

Par

tner

ship

for

agric

ultu

reE

cono

mic

s &

Pol

icy

Res

earc

h (

NC

AP

), N

ew D

elhi

Su

b-

Titl

eC

on

sort

ia l

ead

erD

ate

of

Dat

e o

fTy

pe

of

con

sort

iap

roje

ctst

art

com

ple

tio

n(P

artn

ersh

ip/

Co

de

sole

)

❏❏❏❏❏

7979

Annexure 2

Participating institutions in NAIP and GEF

ICAR : Indian Council of Agricultural Research

SAUs/CAU : State Agricultural University/ Central Agricultural University

II : International Institution

CI : Central Institution

SI : State Institution

Institutions Leader Partner Total

ICAR 106 244 350

Component-1 37 74 111


Component-3 8 33 41


GEF 3 6 9

SAU/CAU 60 150 210




Component-4 7 46 53

GEF 5 5

International Intitutions (II) 5 11 16

Component-1 3 3 6

Component-2 1 1 2

Component-3 0 6 6

Component-4 1 1 2

Central Institutions (CI) 18 60 78

Component-1 3 10 13

Component-2 3 15 18

Component-3 2 7 9


State Institutions (SI) 2 36 38

Component-1 3 3

Component-2 0 9 9

Component-3 13 13

Component 4 2 10 12

GEF 1 1

Private Institutions 5 68 73

Component-1 6 6

Component-2 3 48 51

Component-3 1 4 5

Component-4 1 8 9

GEF 2 2

NGO 7 84 91

Component-1 1 1 2

Component-2 2 18 20

Component-3 4 62 66

Component-4 0 2 2

GEF 1 1

Grand total NAIP 200 638 838

GEF 3 15 18

Grand Total NAIP + GEF 203 653 856


ICAR 37 74 111

SAUs/CAU 11 54 65

International Institutions (II) 3 3 6


State Institutions (SI) 3 3

Private Institutions 6 6

NGO 1 1 2

Total 55 151 206

Component 1

80



ICAR 18 29 47

SAUs/CAU 24 20 44





NGO 2 18 20

Total 51 140 191

Component 2


ICAR 8 33 41

SAUs/CAU 18 25 43





NGO 4 62 66

Total 33 150 183

Component 3


ICAR 40 102 142

SAUs/CAU 7 46 53




Private Sector Org./Inst./Univ. 1 8 9

NGO 0 2 2

Total 61 197 258

Component 4


ICAR 3 6 9

SAUs/CAU 5 5

International Institutions (II)

Central Institutions (CI)

State Institutions (SI) 1 1

Private Sector Org./Inst./Univ. 2 2

NGO 1 1

Total 3 15 18

GEF


ICAR 106 244 350

SAUs/CAU 60 150 210





NGO 7 84 91

Total 203 653 856

Category wise distribution of participating institutions






Grand total NAIP 200 638 838

GEF 3 15 18

Grand Total 203 653 856

NAIP + GEF

Category wise distribution of participating institutions

❏❏❏❏❏

8181

Annexure 3

Major innovations in NAIP

Component 1

1. Consortia for e-resources in agriculture (CeRA)

2. National Agricultural Bio-informatics Grid

3. Incubation (BPDUs & ZTMUs) andCommercialization (agribusiness)

4. ICT applications in agriculture- online publishingscientific journal

5. Development of agri-cat, meta-library and krishikosh repository

6. Development of e-courses

7. Development of repository of Ph.D dissertations

8. Institutionalization of PME cells in ICAR institutes

9. ASRB online entrance exam

10. Enterprise resource planning solution for ICARInstitutes

11. Agricultural knowledge management portal: agro-pedia and Rice Knowledge Management Portal(RKMP)

12. Innovative kisan parivartan yatra for farmer tofarmer dissemination

13. Introduction of knowledge dissemination throughsocial media- facebook, youtube

Component 2

14. Millet foods through PCS value-chain

15. Value chain on flowers for domestic and exportmarkets

16. Value chain on ginger and ginger products

17. Banana pseudo stem for fibre and other valueadded products

18. Enhanced productivity and profitability of pashminafibre

19. Establishment of farmer producer organizations inpromotion of value chains

20. Value chain on agroforestry

21. Biomass based decentralized power generationsystem

22. Value chain on natural dyes

Component 3

23. Agricultural producer companies

24. Sustainability fund

25. A bio-growth enhancer for productivity enhancementof commercial horticultural crops (patented andcommercialized

26. “Kadaknath” conservation technology

27. Integrated rice-fish-poultry/vegetable farmingsystem in Tamil Nadu/Assam mastitis controltechnology (patented and commercialized)

28. Infertility control technology (patented andcommercialized); Pond based farming systems

29. Fish-pig/poultry/goat-vegetable (ICAR NEH,Barapani; AAU, Jorhat; AFPRO, Guwahati)

30. Fish-makhana-singhara/vegetable (ICAR RCER,Patna)

31. Coldwater fish-vegetable

32. Redgram transplanting technology in Bidar districtof Karnataka

33. IFS models for livelihood improvement indisadvantaged districts

34. Value chain approach for livelihood improvement

Component 4

35. Chemical pesticide tolerant, salinity tolerant andtemperature tolerant biopesticides

36. Nanoparticles of major and micronutrients(P, Zn, Fe, Mg):

37. Sensor based detection of residues and contaminantsin milk (technology applicable for similar detection inwater samples)

38. Sensors for precision agriculture; diagnostics; cattleyard management

39. Parentage verification kits for cattle, buffalo andother ruminants

40. Rice blast resistant basmati rice lines:

41. Web enabled decision support system ‘Crop PestDSS’ incorporated with pest forecast models and

82


decision tools: hosted at http://www.crida.in:8080/naip.

42. Embryonic stem cells in buffalo

43. New genetic diversity

44. Technical framework for interactive informationdissemination system (IIDS)

45. Cutting edge research (stem cell, gene therapy)

Institutional

46. Innovative structure of NAIP: Research ProjectCommittee, Organization and Management ProjectCommittee, Project Management Committee forhigher level management of NAIP sub-projects

47. Consortia Advisory Committee and ConsortiaImplementation Committee for each consortiaprojects

48. Multi-intervention by multi-partners for implementingintegrated farming system based consortia projects

49. Participation of non-conventional partners likeprivate sector NGOs, farmers’ groups etc. in R&Dprojects

50. Objective evaluation and transparency in selectionof competitive grand projects

51. Introduction of value chain concepts in agriculturalresearch

52. Organization of Investors Meet for commercialisingagri-technologies

53. Open access policy

54. Human resource development

55. Incubators and entrepreneurship development

56. Synergy with various ongoing programmes

57. Institution building through village level committeesand cluster level committees

Financial

58. Online fund transfer to all consortium partnersdirectly

59. Independent auditing of various subprojects

60. Separate guidelines for NAIP financial management

61. SOE/AUC based budget monitoring and release

62. Funding norms (recurring, non-recurring andestablishment heads) in competitive grant projects

63. Creation of cost committee to rationalize budgetallocation

64. Delegation of powers to CPIs in recruitment,procurement, management and utilization of projectfunds

65. Internal audit by independent auditors includingassessment of risks and suggestion on correctivemeasures

66. In-house development of software using MS Accessas backend database and VB 6.0 as front end forcapturing data related to SoEs from consortiumpartners

Procurement

67. Massive capacity development for procurementprocesses and procedures

68. Pre and post procurement reviews

69. Procurement plan based monitoring

70. Simplification and faster recruitment of researchstaff in projects

71. Outsourcing specialised tasks to experts

72. Procurement of infrastructure for high qualityresearch

73. Geo tagging of assets on NAIP Website

M&E

74. Shifting of focus on tracking results than monitoringimplementation

75. Development of M&E manual and results framework

76. Provision for comprehensive outcome focussedindependent and external impact assessmentthrough exhaustive survey of CPIs, stakeholdersand beneficiaries of HRD activities

77. Scoring and grading of the sub-projects

78. Thrust on financial, procurement and M&Eparameters along with technical outcomes in sub-projects ‘progress monitoring’

79. Cross cutting workshops to identify researchableareas across components, scope for sustainabilityand scalability, document experiences and lessonslearnt

80. Multi-level support monitoring and evaluation;delegation of powers to CAC

❏❏❏❏❏

8383

Annexure 4

Mass communication campaigns

S. No. Media Number Details

1. Magazine 12 India Today, The Week, The Outlook, The Frontline, The Caravan,Rural Marketing, NIABI Newsletter, The Shubh Yatra (Air IndiaInflight Magazine) to popularise NAIP activities

2. News Paper 17 Special campaigns in national English & Hindi daily to populariseNAIP activities

3. Radio Talk/ TV Talk 108 Special campaigns to popularise NAIP activitiesand exhibitions

4. e-mail 946 Campaigns by PIU and consortia leaders/ partners for workshopand trainings

5. Website 55 Campaigns through sub-project websites

6. Others 17 Various portals of NAIP supported sub-projects distinct from sub-project website viz., NAIP, ICAR, NIABI, AgriTech Investors Meetsite, Agri Business Conclave site, Agri-portal TNAU, ASHOKA,ASRB, Unified messaging portal for wider knowledge access

Total 1155

❏❏❏❏❏

8484

Annexure 5

Linkage with KVK and CIC

S.No. Sub-project title Linkagewith KVKand CIC

1. Consortium for e-Resources in Agriculture (CeRA) 284

2. Decision support system for enhancing productivity in irrigated saline environment 12using remote sensing, modelling and GIS

3. Development and maintenance of rice knowledge management portal 158

4. Development of ICT based tools/technology towards an interactive multimedia 10agriculture advisory system

5. Mobilizing mass media support for sharing agro-information 111

6. Re-designing the farmer-extension-agricultural research/education continuum in 95India with ICT-mediated knowledge management

7. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Anand Agricultural University 5(AAU), Anand

8. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Birsa Agricultural University 5(BAU), Ranchi

9. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Jawaharlal Nehru 4Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (JNKVV), Jabalpur

10. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University 15(TNAU) Coimbatore

11. Business Planning and Development Unit (BPD) at CCS Haryana Agricultural 4University (CCSHAU), Hisar

12. Handholding and mentoring of BPD units of NARS 16

13. Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at National Institute of Research on 21Jute & Allied Fibre Technology, Kolkata

14. Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at Central Institute of 32 Fisheries Technology, Cochin

15. Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at Central Institute for Research on 35Cotton Technology, Mumbai

16. Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at Indian Agricultural Research 54Institute, New Delhi

17. Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at Indian Veterinary Research 65 Institute, Izatnagar

18. Developing a decision support system for agricultural commodity market outlook 2

19. Enabling small stakeholders to improve their livelihoods and benefit 72from carbon finance

20. Establishing and networking of agricultural market intelligence centres in India 151

21. Visioning, Policy Analysis and Gender (V-PAGe) 12

22. Engaging farmers, enriching knowledge: Agropedia Phase -II 436

23. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Potato Research 10Institute, Shimla

24. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at National Dairy Research 15Institute, Karnal

85


25. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Institute of 24Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal

26. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Plantation Crops Research 25Institute, Kasargod

27. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Institute of Post-Harvest 20Engineering and Technology, Ludhiana

28. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Institute of Freshwater 24Aquaculture, Bhubaneshwar

29. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Indian Institute of Horticultural 21Research, Bangalore

30. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Indian Institute of Vegetable 13Research, Varanasi

31 Business Planning and Development for Agri-entrepreneurship and Technology 24Management at National Academy of Agricultural Research Management, Hyderabad

32 Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Indian Institute of 10Spices Research, Calicut

33 Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Institute of 15Brackishwater Aquaculture, Chennai

34 Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Rice Research Institute, 12Cuttack

Total 1740

S.No. Sub-project title Linkagewith KVKand CIC

The baseline for number of linkages was 1000, which is increased to 1740, i.e. increase by 74%

Annexure 6

Hit rate of the ICAR & SAU websites per month

Hits on ICAR and SAUs website/month

ICAR Institutes 9896

ICAR 296185

SAUs 11158

Total 317239

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

8686

Annexure 7

Response rate of queries received per month

S.No. Sub-project title Increasein no. ofqueries

1. Consortium for e-Resources in Agriculture (CeRA) 426

2. Decision support system for enhancing productivity in irrigated saline environment 10using remote sensing, modelling and GIS

3. Developing, Commissioning, Operating and Managing an Online System For Net/ARS- 69Prelim Examination By ASRB, ICAR

4. Development and maintenance of Rice Knowledge Management Portal 40

5. Development of e-courses for B.V.Sc. & A.H. degree Programme 105

6. Development of ICT Based Tools/Technology towards an Interactive Multimedia 50Agriculture Advisory System

7. Establishment of National Agricultural Bioinformatics Grid (NABG) in ICAR 48

8. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Anand Agricultural University 15(AAU), Anand

9. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Birsa Agricultural University 25(BAU), Ranchi

10. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Jawaharlal Nehru 20Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (JNKVV), Jabalpur

11. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University 48 (TNAU) Coimbatore

12. Business Planning and Development Unit (BPD) at CCS Haryana Agricultural University 177(CCSHAU), Hisar

13. Handholding and Mentoring of BPD units of NARS 125

14. Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at Central Institute of Fisheries 138 Technology, Cochin

15. Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at Central Institute for Research on 49Cotton Technology, Mumbai

16. Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at Indian Agricultural Research Institute, 109New Delhi

17. Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at Indian Veterinary Research Institute, 156Izatnagar

18. Learning and Capacity Building 170

19. Assessment of Future Human Capital Requirements in Agriculture 10

20. Developing a Decision Support System for Agricultural Commodity Market Outlook 14

21. Enabling Small Stakeholders to Improve their Livelihoods and Benefit from Carbon Finance 149

22. Establishing and Networking of Agricultural Market Intelligence Centres in India 52

23. Visioning, Policy Analysis and Gender (V-PAGe) 5

24. Implementation of Management Information System (MIS) (including Financial 27Management System (FMS) in ICAR

87


25. Engaging farmers, enriching knowledge: Agropedia Phase -II 17

26. Development of e-Courses for B.Tech. (Agriculture Engg.) 49

27. Capacity building through national training 45

28. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Potato Research Institute, 21Shimla

29. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at National Dairy Research Institute, 37Karnal

30. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Institute of Agricultural 5Engineering, Bhopal

31. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Plantation Crops Research 125Institute, Kasargod

32. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Institute of Post-Harvest 88Engineering and Technology, Ludhiana

33. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Institute of Freshwater 49Aquaculture, Bhubaneshwar

34. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Indian Institute of Horticultural 10Research, Bangalore

35. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Indian Institute of Vegetable 11Research, Varanasi

36. Business Planning and Development for Agri-entrepreneurship and Technology 5Management at National Academy of Agricultural Research Management, Hyderabad

37. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Indian Institute of Spices Research, 75Calicut

38. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Institute of Brackishwater 5Aquaculture, Chennai

39. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Central Rice Research Institute, 5Cuttack

Total 2010

S.No. Sub-project title Increasein no. ofqueries

Increase in number of queries responded are 2010 from 1000 (baseline), i.e. increase by 101%

❏❏❏❏❏

8888

Annexure 8

List of business planning and development units

S.No. Sub-project title ConsortiaLeader/Partners

1. Business and Development (BPD) Unit at Anand Agricultural University, Anand AAU, Anand

2. Business and Development (BPD) Unit at BAU, Ranchi BAU, Ranchi

3. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Jawaharlal Nehru JNKVV, JabalpurKrishi Vishwavidyalaya (JNKVV), Jabalpur.

4. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at Tamil Nadu Agricultural TNAU, CoimbatoreUniversity, Coimbatore

5. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at CCS Haryana Agricultural CCSHAU, HissarUniversity, Hisar

6. Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at NIRJAFT, Kolkata NIRJAFT, Kolkata

7. Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at CIFT, Cochin CIFT, Cochin, Kerala

8. Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at CIRCOT, Mumbai CIRCOT, Mumbai

9. Zonal Technology Management and BPD Unit at IARI, New Delhi IARI, New Delhi

10. Zonal Technology Management Center and BPD Unit at IVRI, Izatnagar IVRI, Izatnagar

11. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at CPRI, Shimla CPRI, Shimla

12. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at NDRI, Karnal NDRI, Karnal

13. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at CIAE, Bhopal CIAE, Bhopal

14. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at CPCRI, Kasargod CPCRI, Kasargod

15. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at CIPHET, Ludhiana CIPHET, Ludhiana

16. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at CIFA, Bhubaneshwar CIFA, Bhubaneshwar

17. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at IIHR, Bangalore IIHR, Bangalore

18. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at IIVR, Varanasi IIVR, Varanasi

19. Business Planning and Development for Agri-entrepreneurship and Technology NAARM, HyderabadManagement at NAARM, Hyderabad

20. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at IISR, Calicat IISR, Calicat

21. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at CIBA, Chennai CIBA, Chennai

22. Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit at CRRI, Cuttack CRRI, Cuttack

23. Handholding and Mentoring of BPD units of NARS ICRISAT, Hyderabad

❏❏❏❏❏

8989

Annexure 9

Patents filed through BPD units

S. No. Name Number

1. ZTM & BPDU, CIRCOT, Mumbai 59

2. ZTM & BPDU, IARI, New Delhi 29

3. BPDU CARI, Izatnagar 1

4. BPDU CSWRI, Avikanagar 1

5. ZTM & BPDU IVRI, Izatnagar 25

6. BPDU NDRI, Karnal 7

7. BPDU TNAU, Coimbatore 3

8. BPDU BAU, Ranchi, Jharkhand 2

9. BPDU IISR, Kozhikode, Kerala 8

10. BPDU CCS HAU, Hisar 12

11. ZTM & BPDU, NIRJAFT, Kolkata 33

12. BPDU IIHR, Bangalore 2

13. BPDU CIBA, Chennai 4

Total 186

❏❏❏❏❏

9090

Annexure 10

Technologies commercialized and licensesissued through BPD Units

S. No. ZTM & BPDU/BPD Unit Number

1. AAU 5

2. IVRI 43

3. TNAU 10

4. CCSHAU 28

5. NIRJAFT 14

6. CIRCOT 21

7. CIFT 11

8. JNKVV 2

9. BAU 2

10. IARI 52

11. IIHR 67

12. CPCRI 16

13. IISR 5

14. IIVR 4

15. NDRI 8

16. CIPHET 4

17. CPRI 1

18. CRRI 38

Total 331

❏❏❏❏❏

9191

Annexure 11

People attending visioning andpolicy analysis events

S.No. Sub-project No. of No. of peopleevents attended

organized

1. Assessment of future human capital requirements in agriculture 50 1000

2. Assessment of Impact of Climate Change on Water-Energy 5 100Nexus in Agriculture Under Canal Irrigation System

3. Developing a Decision Support System for Agricultural 6 75 Commodity Market Outlook

4. Enabling small Holders their livelihood and Benefit from 67 4294Carbon Finance

5. Establishing and Networking of Agricultural Market Intelligence 18 866Centres in India

6. Policy and Institutional Options for Inclusive Agricultural Growth 9 400

7. Visioning, Policy Analysis and Gender (V-PAGe) 29 947

Total 184 7682

❏❏❏❏❏

9292

Annexure 12

Procurement cycle of high threshold goods

S.No. Sub-project title Weeks forprocurement cycle

1. Decision support system for enhancing productivity in irrigated saline 24environment using remote sensing, modelling and GIS

2. Development of ICT based tools/technology towards an interactive 6multimedia agriculture advisory system

3. Krishi Prabha - Indian agricultural dissertations repository 16

4. Strengthening statistical computing for NARS 45

5. Business planning and development (BPD) unit at Anand Agricultural 4University (AAU), Anand

6. Business planning and development (BPD) unit at Birsa Agricultural University 8 (BAU), Ranchi

7. Business planning and development unit (BPD) at CCS Haryana Agricultural 20University (CCSHAU), Hisar

8. Handholding and mentoring of BPD units of NARS 26

9. Implementation of management information system (MIS) 145(including financial management system (FMS) in ICAR

10. Business planning and development (BPD) unit at Central Institute of 8Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal

11. Business planning and development (BPD) unit at Central Institute of 2Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology, Ludhiana

12. Business planning and development (BPD) unit at Indian Institute of 20Spices Research, Calicut

13. Business planning and development (BPD) unit at Central Institute of 16Brackishwater Aquaculture, Chennai

Average 26.15

❏❏❏❏❏

9393

Annexure 13

Percentage coverage of MIS-FMS Project in ICAR

Annexure 14

Production technologies developed/modified and adopted

S. No. Type of enterprise Number

1. Agro-forestry and forest products 20

2. Crops 8

3. Horticulture 36

4. Livestock 15

5. Fisheries 20

Total 99

Annexure 15

Processing technologies developed/modified and adopted


1 Agro-forestry and forest products 30

2 Crops 10

3. Horticulture 76

4. Livestock 24

5. Fisheries 33

Total 173

1. Percentage of institutes covered: 56% (62/110)

2. Percentage of employees: 71% (15600/22000)

3. Percentage of finance module users: 68% (1700/2500) - This user includes dealing hand,DDO, audit, payment and SF&AO using the system associated with financial module. 2500 isestimated figure for total ICAR based on phase-II institute's average while 1704 is actualusers in the covered under implementation.

4. Percentage of non-plan budget: 80% (194395.85/242901.74 in lakhs)

5. Percentage of plan budget: 80% (222395.75/277500 in lakhs excluding 450 crores for NAEP)

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

9494

Annexure 16

Rural industries (including cottage industries)



2 Crops 2

3 Horticulture 29

4 Livestock 1

5 Fisheries 7

Total 47

Annexure 17

Product groups



2 Crops 4

3 Horticulture 11

4 Livestock 3

5 Fisheries 5

Total 27

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

9595

Annexure 18

List of private sector organisations participating in consortia

S.No. Consortia NGO Privatepartners

1. A value chain for cotton fibre, seed and stalks: An innovation for higher 1economic returns to farmers and allied stake holders (CL: CIRCOT, Mumbai)

2. A value chain model for bioethanol production from sweet sorghum in rainfed 1areas through collective action and partnership (CL: ICRISAT, Hyderabad)

3. Creation of demand for millet foods through pcs value-chain 1(CL: DSR, Hyderabad)

4. A value chain in major seed spices for domestic and export promotion 2(CL: SDAU, Sardarkrushinagar)

5. A value chain on potato and potato products (CL: CPRI, Shimla) 2

6. A value chain on utilization of banana pseudostem for fibre and other 2value added products (CL: NAU, Navsari)

7. A value chain on seabuckthorn (Hippophae L.) (CL: CSKHPKV, Palampur) 2

8. A value chain on enrichment and popularization of potential food grains for 1 3neutraceutical benefits (CL: UAS, Dharwad)

9. A value chain on industrial agroforestry in Tamil Nadu (CL: TNAU, Coimbatore) 3

10. A value chain on production and value addition in indian major carps and prawns 1 2(CL: KVAFSU, Bidar)

11. A value chain on fish production on fragile agricultural lands and un-utilized 1agro-aquatic resources in konkan region of Maharashtra (CL: CIFE, Mumbai)

12. A value chain in natural dye (CL: ANGRAU, Hyderabad) 1

13. Bio-pesticide mediated value chain for clean vegetables 2(CL: CSKHPKV, Palampur)

14. Tomato processing prioritizations for global competence (CL: MPKV, Rahuri) 1

15. A value chain on food products from small millets of Bastar region of 1Chhattisgarh (CL: IGKVV, Raipur)

16. A value chain on murrel production in Tamil Nadu and Orissa 2(CL: St. Xavier’s College, Palayamkottai)

17. A value chain on flowers for domestic and export markets 4(CL: TNAU, Coimbatore)

18. A value chain on novelty pork products under organized pig farming system(CL: AAU, Jorhat)

19. A value chain on value added products derived from Prosopis juliflora 1(CL: CAZRI, Jodhpur)

20. A value chain on coconut fibre and its by-products (CL: NIRJAFT, Kolkata) 1 1

21. A value chain on underutilized fruits of Rajasthan (CL: MPUAT, Udaipur) 2

22. A value chain on commercialization on maize and maize products 2(CL: UAS, Bangalore)

23. A value chain on lac and lac based products for domestic and export markets 4(CL: IINRG, Ranchi)

24. A value chain on production of food-grade nutraceuticals for use as natural 3antioxidants and food colorants (CL: IARI, New Delhi)

96


25. A value chain on enhanced productivity and profitability of pashmina fiber 1(CL: SKUAST, Srinagar)

26. A value chain on composite dairy foods with enhanced health attributes 1 (CL: NDRI, Karnal)

27. A novel food chain using by-products of milling industry for enhancing 1nutritional security (CL: IICPT, Thanjavur)

28. A value chain on wild honey bee (CL: UAS, Bangalore) 1

29. A value chain on castor and its industrial products (CL: SDAU, S. K. Nagar) 2

30. Capitalization of prominent landraces of rice in Orissa through value chain 2approach (CL: M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Jeypore, Orissa)

31. A value chain for kokum, karonda, jamun and jackfruit (CL: BSKKV, Dapoli) 2

32. A value chain on enhanced productivity and profitability of pomegranate 1(CL: Akshay Food Park Limited, Bangalore)

33. A value chain on linseed: Processing and value addition for profitability 1 1(CL: BAIF, Pune)

34. A value chain on enhanced productivity and profitability of patchouli 1(Pogostemon patchouli) (CL: Jewargi Agro Food Park Ltd., Bangalore)

35. A value chain on ginger and ginger products (CL: OUAT, Bhubaneshwar) 2 2

36. A value chain on aloe vera processing (CL: IIT, Kharagpur) 2

37. A milk value chain in an unorganized sector (CL: TANUVAS, Chennai) 1 1

38. A value chain on mango and guava for domestic and export market 1(CL: TNAU, Coimbatore)

Total 19 51

S.No. Consortia NGO Privatepartners

❏❏❏❏❏

9797

Annexure 19

Number of farmers/beneficiaries

S. Title of the sub-project Total Men Women*No.

1. A value chain for cotton fibre, seed and stalks: An innovation 170 100 70for higher economic returns to farmers and allied stake holders(CL: CIRCOT, Mumbai)

2. A value chain model for bioethanol production from sweet 1050 700 350sorghum in rainfed areas through collective action andpartnership (CL: ICRISAT, Hyderabad)

3. Creation of demand for millet foods through pcs 1500 1100 400Value-Chain (CL: DSR, Hyderabad)

4. Responsible harvesting and utilization of selected small 1156 347 809pelagics and fresh water fishes: a value chain approach(CL: CIFT, Kochi)

5. A value chain on oceanic tuna fisheries in Lakshadweep sea 285 57 228(CL: CMFRI, Kochi)

6 A value chain in major seed spices for domestic and 14431 7401 7030export promotion (CL: SDAU, Sardarkrushinagar)

7. A value chain for clean meat production from sheep 200 130 70(CL: NRC Meat, Hyderabad)

8. A value chain on potato and potato products 145 100 45(CL: CPRI, Shimla)

9. A value chain in coconut (CL: CPCRI, Kasargod) 534 187 347

10. A value chain on biomass based decentralized power 10 10generation for agro enterprises (CL: CIAE, Bhopal)

11. A value chain on utilization of banana pseudostem for fibre 594 294 300and other value added products (CL: NAU, Navsari)

12. A value chain on seabuckthorn (Hippophae L.) 350 150 200(CL: CSKHPKV, Palampur)

13. A value chain on enrichment and popularization of potential 600 275 325food grains for neutraceutical benefits (CL: UAS, Dharwad)

14. A value chain on industrial agroforestry in Tamil Nadu 14215 10864 3351(CL: TNAU, Coimbatore)

15. A value chain on production and value addition in indian major 50 30 20carps and prawns (CL: KVAFSU, Bidar)

16. A value chain on fish production on fragile agricultural lands 93 80 13and un-utilized agro-aquatic resources in konkan region ofMaharashtra (CL: CIFE, Mumbai)

17. A value chain in natural dye (CL: ANGRAU, Hyderabad) 1500 1200 300

18. Bio-pesticide mediated value chain for clean vegetables 3213 694 2249(CL: CSKHPKV, Palampur)

19. Tomato processing prioritizations for global competence 3056 1376 1680(CL: MPKV, Rahuri)

20. A value chain on food products from small millets of 2160 864 1296Bastar region of Chhattisgarh (CL: IGKVV, Raipur)

98


21. A value chain on murrel production in Tamil Nadu and Orissa 138 100 38(CL: St. Xavier’s College, Palayamkottai)

22. Export oriented marine value chain for farmed-seafood 1051 551 500production using cobia (Rachycentroncandum) throughrural entrepreneurship (CL: TANUVAS, Chennai)

23. A value chain on flowers for domestic and export markets 3798 2203 1595(CL: TNAU, Coimbatore)

24. A value chain on novelty pork products under organized 120 70 50pig farming system (CL: AAU, Jorhat)

25. A value chain on value added products derived from 380 200 180Prosopis juliflora (CL: CAZRI, Jodhpur)

26. A value chain on coconut fibre and its by-products 350 123 227(CL: NIRJAFT, Kolkata)

27. A value chain on underutilized fruits of Rajasthan 270 70 200(CL: MPUAT, Udaipur)

28. A value chain on commercialization on maize and maize products 500 230 270(CL: UAS, Bangalore)

29. A value chain on lac and lac based products for domestic and 994 627 367export markets (CL: IINRG, Ranchi)

30. A value chain on production of food-grade nutraceuticals 50 22 28for use as natural antioxidants and food colorants(CL: IARI, New Delhi)

31. Utilization strategy for oceanic squids in arabian sea: A value 58 8 50chain approach (CL: CMFRI, Kochi)

32. A value chain on high value shellfish from mariculture systems 1450 435 1015(CL: CMFRI, Kochi)

33. A value chain on enhanced productivity and profitability of 374 150 224pashmina fiber (CL: SKUAST, Srinagar)

34. A value chain on Kashmir saffron (CL: SKUAST, Srinagar) 12000 3600 8400

35. A value chain on composite dairy foods with enhanced 50 10 40health attributes (CL: NDRI, Karnal)

36. A novel food chain using by-products of milling industry for 3250 1788 1462enhancing nutritional security (CL: IICPT, Thanjavur)

37. A value chain on wild honey bee (CL: UAS, Bangalore) 2520 2300 220

38. A value chain on castor and its industrial products 2200 1210 990(CL: SDAU, S. K. Nagar)

39. Capitalization of prominent landraces of rice in Orissa through 702 316 386value chain approach (CL: M.S. Swaminathan ResearchFoundation, Jeypore, Orissa)

40. A value chain for kokum, karonda, jamun and jackfruit 680 204 476(CL: BSKKV, Dapoli)

41. Protected cultivation of high value vegetables and cut flowers- 12 12a value chain approach (CL: IARI, New Delhi)

42. A value chain on enhanced productivity and profitability of 1500 675 825pomegranate (CL: Akshay Food Park Limited, Bangalore)

43. A Value Chain on Selected Aromatic Plants of North East India 137 30 107(CL: CAU, Gangtok)


99


44. A value chain on linseed: Processing and value addition for 500 240 260profitability (CL: BAIF, Pune)

45. A value chain on enhanced productivity and profitability of 369 167 202patchouli (Pogostemon Patchouli) (CL: Jewargi Agro Food ParkLtd., Bangalore)

46. A value chain on ginger and ginger products 373 168 205 (CL: OUAT, Bhubaneshwar)

47. A value chain on aloe vera processing 215 110 105(CL: IIT, Kharagpur)

48. A milk value chain in an unorganized sector 30 15 15(CL:TANUVAS, Chennai)

49. A value chain on mango and guava for domestic and 375 300 75export market (CL: TNAU, Coimbatore)

Total 79758 41893 37865*(52.5%) (47.4%)


❏❏❏❏❏

100100

Annexure 20

Consortium developed technologiesmade available in disadvantaged areas

S. No. Consortia Number

1. Livelihood & nutritional security of tribal dominated areas through integrated farming 23system and technology models

2. Integrated project for research on development process and sustainability of livelihood 9in selected disadvantaged districts of Gujarat state (SDAU, Sardarkrushinagar)

3. Sustainable rural livelihood security in backward districts of Maharashtra 13(BAIF Development Research Foundation, Pune)

4. Improving livelihood quality in salt-affected watersheds through sustainable agriculture 5(RAU, Samastipur)

5. Farming systems for livelihood security of small and marginal farmers in disadvantaged 10districts of Tamil Nadu (Annamalai University, TamilNadu)

6. Livelihood promotion through integrated farming system in Assam (AAU, Jorhat, Assam) 21

7. Livelihood security through resource and entrepreneurship management in Bidar district 9(UAS, Raichur)

8. Livelihood improvement and empowerment of rural poor through sustainable farming 19systems in North East India (ICAR_RC for NEH Region, Barapani)

9. Developing sustainable farming system models for prioritized micro watersheds in 11rainfed areas in Jharkhand (BAU, Ranchi)

10. Upscaling & improving livelihood of forest based and forest fringe communities through 6enhanced farming system productivity and efficient support systems in Godda district(Jharkhand) (AFC, Delhi)

11. Holistic approach for sustainable rural livelihood security through integrated farming 9system approach (IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly)

12. Live better with the flood-an approach for sustainable livelihood security in 9district Dhemaji, Assam

13. Multi enterprise farming models to address the agrarian crisis of Wayanad district of Kerala 10

14. Efficient land use based integrated farming system for rural livelihood security in 8Aurangabad, Dhule and Gondia districts of Maharashtra

15. Integrated farming system for sustainable rural livelihood in undulating and rainfed areas of 14Jhabua and Dhar districts of Madhya Pradesh

16. Livelihood security of rural poor in disadvantaged Chitradurga district of Karnataka through 14integrated farming system

17. Enhancement of livelihood security through sustainable farming systems and related 24farm enterprises in North-West Himalayas

18. Goat husbandry based integrated approach for livelihood security in disadvantaged districts 19of Bundelkhand region

19. Sustainable rural livelihood and food security to rain fed farmers of Orissa 18

20. Sustainable rural livelihood empowerment project for northern disadvantaged districts of 15West Bengal

21. Improvement in livelihood security of rural people living in disadvantaged districts of 8Uttar Pradesh through diversification in agriculture

22. Sustainable rural livelihoods through enhanced farming systems productivity and 15efficient support systems in rainfed areas

101


23. To promote sustainable livelihoods of the small and marginal farmers with a focus on 8women’s empowerment in Nawada and Purnea district of Bihar (BASIX, Patna)

24. Sustainable farming system to enhance and to ensure livelihood security of poor in 9Purulia, Bankura and West Midnapore districts of West Bengal (BCKV, WB)

25. Integrated farming system modules to ensure sustainable livelihood security for the 7peasants of disadvantaged districts of Madhya Pradesh (JNKVV, Jabalpur)

26. Sustainable livelihood improvement through integrated freshwater aquaculture, horticulture 14and livestock development in selected districts of Orissa (CIFA, Bhubaneswar)

27. Sustainable livelihood improvement through need based integrated farming system 14models in disadvantaged districts of Bihar (ICAR RC for ER, Patna)

28. Ensuring livelihood security through watershed based farming system modules in 11disadvantaged districts of Mirzapur and Sonbhadra in Vindhyan region (BHU, Varanasi)

29. Sustainable livestock based farming system for livelihood security in Hoshiarpur 10district of Punjab (GADVASU, Ludhiana)

30. Achieving improved livelihood security through resource conservation and diversified 16farming systems approach in Mewat ( CCS HAU, Hisar)

31. Integrated farming system (IFS) for enhancing sustainable rural livelihood security in 7Sahibganj and Pakur districts of Jharkhand (GraminVikas Trust, Ranchi)

32. Improving rural livelihood security through sustainable integrated farming system model 21and allied enterprises in Bastar region of Chhattisgarh (IGKV, Raipur)

Total 409


❏❏❏❏❏

102102

Annexure 21

Improved technologies adoptedin disadvantaged areas

S. No. Technology/Process adopted under consortia Number

1. Livelihood & nutritional security of tribal dominated areas through integrated 34farming system and technology models

2. Integrated project for research on development process and sustainability of 4livelihood in selected disadvantaged districts of Gujarat state(SDAU, Sardarkrushinagar)

3. Sustainable rural livelihood security in backward districts of Maharashtra 1(BAIF Development Research Foundation, Pune)


5. Farming systems for livelihood security of small and marginal farmers in disadvantaged 4districts of Tamil Nadu (Annamalai University, TamilNadu)

6. Livelihood promotion through integrated Farming system in Assam (AAU, Jorhat, Assam) 4

7. Livelihood security through resource and entrepreneurship management inBidar district (UAS, Raichur) 1

8. Livelihood improvement and empowerment of rural poor through sustainable farming 8systems in North East India (ICAR_RC for NEH Region, Barapani)


10. Upscaling & improving livelihood of forest based and forest fringe communities throughenhanced farming system productivity and efficient support systems in Godda district(Jharkhand) (AFC, Delhi)

11. Holistic approach for sustainable rural livelihood security through integrated farming 3system approach (IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly)

12. Live better with the flood-An approach for sustainable livelihood security in 3district Dhemaji, Assam

13. Multi enterprise farming models to address the agrarian crisis of Wayanad district of Kerala 3

14. Efficient land use based integrated farming system for rural livelihood security in 5Aurangabad, Dhule and Gondia districts of Maharashtra

15. Integrated farming system for sustainable rural livelihood in undulating and rainfed areas of 1Jhabua and Dhar districts of Madhya Pradesh

16. Livelihood security of rural poor in disadvantaged Chitradurga district of Karnataka through 4integrated farming system

17. Enhancement of livelihood security through sustainable farming systems and related 5farm enterprises in North-West Himalayas

18. Improving livelihood quality in salt-affected watersheds through sustainable agriculture 3

19. Goat husbandry based integrated approach for livelihood security in disadvantaged districts 4of Bundelkhand region

20. Sustainable rural livelihood and food security to rain fed farmers of Orissa 5

21. Sustainable rural livelihood empowerment project for Northern disadvantaged 3districts of West Bengal

22. Improvement in livelihood security of rural people living in disadvantaged districts of 1Uttar Pradesh through diversification in agriculture

103


S. No. Technology/Process adopted under consortia Number

23. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods through Enhanced Farming Systems Productivity andEfficient Support Systems in Rainfed Areas

24. To Promote Sustainable Livelihoods of the small and marginal farmers with a focus 1on women’s empowerment in Nawada and Purnea district of Bihar (BASIX, Patna)

25. Sustainable Farming System to Enhance and to Ensure Livelihood Security of Poor 3in Purulia, Bankura and West Midnapore Districts of West Bengal (BCKV, WB)

26. Integrated Farming System Modules to Ensure Sustainable Livelihood Security for thePeasants of Disadvantaged Districts of Madhya Pradesh (JNKVV, Jabalpur)

27. Sustainable livelihood improvement through integrated freshwater aquaculture, 2horticulture and livestock development in selected districts of Orissa (CIFA, Bhubaneswar)

28. Sustainable Livelihood Improvement through Need Based Integrated Farming System 4Models in Disadvantaged Districts of Bihar (ICAR RC for ER, Patna)

29. Ensuring livelihood security through watershed based farming system modules in 5disadvantaged districts of Mirzapur and Sonbhadra in Vindhyan region (BHU, Varanasi)

30. Sustainable Livestock Based Farming System for Livelihood Security in HoshiarpurDistrict of Punjab (GADVASU, Ludhiana)

31. Achieving Improved Livelihood Security Through Resource Conservation and Diversified 2Farming Systems approach in Mewat ( CCS HAU, Hisar)

32. Integrated Farming System (IFS) for enhancing sustainable rural livelihood security in 2Sahibganj and Pakur Districts of Jharkhand (GraminVikas Trust, Ranchi)

33. Improving rural livelihood security through sustainable integrated farming system 5model and allied enterprises in Bastar region of Chhattisgarh (IGKV, Raipur)

Total 127

❏❏❏❏❏

104


104104

Annexure 22

Farmers using NAIP technologies in the disadvantaged areas

Year Number

2008-09 30000

2009-10 59617

2010-11 109517

2011-12 1,32,881

2012-13 1,43,381

2013-14 186529

Total 661925

Additional farmers 150680

Grand total 812605

❏❏❏❏❏

105105

Annexure 23

Increase in agriculture services and processingenterprises in Project areas

S. No. Consortia Increase inagriculture services

and processingenterprises in project area

1. Enhancing rural livelihood security for sustainability through rice based integrated 9farming in disadvantageous districts of Assam (AAU, Jorhat)

2. Up scaling & improving livelihood of forest based and forest fringe communities 18through enhanced farming system productivity and efficient support (AFC, Godda)

3. Live better with the flood - an approach for sustainable livelihood security in 5district Dhemaji, Assam (AFPRO, Guwahati)

4. Farming systems for livelihood security of small and marginal farmers in 6disadvantaged districts of Tamil Nadu (Annamalai University)

5. Sustainable rural livelihood security in backward districts of Maharashtra 13(BAIF, Pune)

6. Goat husbandry based integrated approach for livelihood security in disadvantaged 8districts of Bundelkhand region (CIRG, Mathura)

7. Improving livelihood quality in salt-affected watersheds through sustainable 19agriculture (RAU, Samastipur)

8. Sustainable farming system to enhance and to ensure livelihood security of 16poor in Purulia, Bankura and West Midnapore districts of West Bengal (BCKV)

9. Sustainable livelihood improvement through integrated freshwater aquaculture, 8horticulture and livestock development in selected districts of Orissa (CIFA)

10. Integrated farming system modules to ensure sustainable livelihood security 3for the peasants of disadvantaged districts of Central India (JNKVV)

11. Achieving improved livelihood security through resource conservation and 29diversified farming systems approach in Mewat (CCSA, HAU Hissar)

12. Integrated farming system (IFS) for enhancing sustainable rural livelihood security 4in Sahibganj and Pakur disricts of Jharkhand (GVT, Ranchi)

13. Development of sustainable livestock farming system for livelihood security in 3Hoshiarpur district of Punjab (GADVASU, Ludhiana)

14. A comprehensive, multi-enterprise project for addressing the agrarian crisis of 3Wayanad district of Kerala (KAU, Wayanad)

15. Livelihood and nutritional security of tribal dominated rural areas through 4integrated farming system models (MPUAT, Udaipur)

16. Integrated farming system for sustainable rural livelihoods in undulating and 15rainfed areas of Jhabua and Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh (RVSKVV)

17. Integrated project for research on development process and sustainability of 56livelihood in disadvantaged districts of Gujarat State (SDAU)

18. Nutrition, livelihood security through resource and enterprise management in 42Bidar district (UAS, Raichur)

19. Livelihood security of rural poor in disadvantaged Chitradurga districts of 13Karnataka through integrated farming systems approach (UAS, Bangalore)

106


20. Enhancement of livelihood security through sustainable farming systems and 9related farm enterprises in North-West Himalaya (VPKAS, Almora)

21. Sustainable rural livelihood empowerment project for northern disadvantaged 8districts of West Bengal (UBKV, West Bengal)

22. Efficient land use based integrated farming system for rural livelihood security in 3Aurangabad, Dhule and Gondia districts of Maharashtra (NBSS&LUP, Nagpur)

23. Ensuring Livelihood security through sustainable farming system and related 832enterprises in SC/tribal dominated population of Mirzapur and Sonbhadra districtsin Vindhyan region (BHU, Varanasi)

24. Livelihood improvement and empowerment of rural poor through sustainable 18farming systems in North East India (ICAR, RC NEH, Barapani)


26. Sustainable rural livelihood and food security to rainfed farmers of Orissa 16(OUAT, Bhubaneswar)

27. Holistic approach for sustainable rural livelihood security through integrated 18farming system approach (IVRI, Izatnagar)


29. Promote sustainable livelihoods of Small and Marginal farmers with a focus on 6women empowerment in Nawada and Purnea District of Bihar (BASIX, Patna)

30. Sustainable Integrated farming system models for improving rural livelihood security 9 in disadvantaged districts of Chhattisgarh (IGKV, Raipur)

31. Sustainable rural livelihoods through enhanced farming system productivity and 19 efficient support systems in rainfed areas (CRIDA, Hyderabad)

32. Improvement in livelihood security of rural people living in disadvantaged districts 15of U.P. through diversification in agriculture (CSUAT, Kanpur)

Total 1269

S. No. Consortia Increase inagriculture services

and processingenterprises in project area

The baseline was 2769 and increase in service units and processing enterprises was 1269, i.e. 45%

❏❏❏❏❏

107107

Annexure 24

Increase in agriculture based employment amongstparticipating farming households

Consortia leader Household Baseline Final Employment Totalemployment employment generated employmentman days/yr man days/yr man days/yr generated

AAU, Jorhat 4950 193 280 87 430650

Annamalai University 3680 105 225 120 441600

BAIF, Pune 22309 152 208 56 1249304

CIRG, Mathura 6755 115 325 210 1418550

KAURs, Wayanad 6469 151 194.8 43.8 283342.2

IGKV, Raipur 4612 118 192 74 341288

CRIDA, Hyderabad 2610 113 238 125 326250

CSAUAT, Kanpur 14754 255 301 46 678684

Total 66139

Weighted mean 167.65 245.81 78.16 5169668

Employment generated (man year from 8 consortia (No. of house holds, n=66139), for 3 years 42490

Employment generated (man year) from 33 consortia (No. of households n=176519) for 3 years 113403

Upto 2012-13 No. of household n= 143381

Additional households adopted during 2013-14 = 33138

Employment generated (man year) from 33 consortia (No. of households n=143381) for 3 years 92114

Employment generated (Man year) for the year 2013-14 from 33 consortia(No. of households n=33138) 21289

❏❏❏❏❏

108108

Annexure 25

Farmers groups involved in project activities


1. Enhancing rural livelihood security for sustainability through rice based integrated 30farming in disadvantageous districts of Assam (AAU, Jorhat)

2. Up scaling & improving livelihood of forest based and forest fringe communities 185through enhanced farming system productivity and efficient support (AFC, Godda)

3. Live better with the flood - an approach for sustainable livelihood security in 48district Dhemaji, Assam (AFPRO, Guwahati)

4. Farming systems for livelihood security of small and marginal farmers in 74disadvantaged districts of Tamil Nadu (Annamalai University)

5. Sustainable rural livelihood security in backward districts of Maharashtra 114(BAIF, Pune)

6. Goat husbandry based integrated approach for livelihood security in disadvantaged 16districts of Bundelkhand region (CIRG, Mathura)


8. Sustainable farming system to enhance and to ensure livelihood security of poor in 232Purulia, Bankura and West Midnapore districts of West Bengal (BCKV)

9. Sustainable livelihood improvement through integrated freshwater aquaculture, 78horticulture and livestock development in selected districts of Orissa (CIFA)

10. Integrated farming system modules to ensure sustainable livelihood security 21for the peasants of disadvantaged districts of Central India (JNKVV)

11. Achieving improved livelihood security through resource conservation and 18diversified farming systems approach in Mewat (CCSA, HAU Hissar)

12. Integrated farming system (IFS) for enhancing sustainable rural livelihood security in 24Sahibganj and Pakur Disricts of Jharkhand (GVT, Ranchi)

13. Development of sustainable livestock farming system for livelihood security in 43Hoshiarpur district of Punjab (GADVASU, Ludhiana)

14. A comprehensive, multi-enterprise project for addressing the agrarian crisis of 78Wayanad District of Kerala (KAU, Wayanad)

15. livelihood and nutritional security of tribal dominated rural areas through 285integrated farming system models (MPUAT, Udaipur)

16. Integrated farming system for sustainable rural livelihoods in undulating and rainfed 129areas of Jhabua and Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh (RVSKVV,)

17. Integrated project for research on development process and sustainability of 99livelihood in disadvantaged districts of Gujarat state (SDAU)

18. Nutrition, livelihood security through resource and enterprise management in 183Bidar district (UAS, Raichur)

19. Livelihood security of rural poor in disadvantaged Chitradurga districts of 129Karnataka through Integrated farming systems approach (UAS, Bangalore)

20. Enhancement of livelihood security through sustainable farming systems and 77related farm enterprises in North-West Himalaya (VPKAS, Almora)

21. Sustainable rural livelihood empowerment project for northern disadvantaged 96districts of West Bengal (UBKV, West Bengal)

109


22. Efficient land use based integrated farming system for rural livelihood Security 28in Aurangabad, Dhule and Gondia Districts of Maharashtra (NBSS&LUP Nagpur)

23. Ensuring livelihood security through sustainable farming system and related 205enterprises in SC/tribal dominated population of Mirzapur and Sonbhadra districts in Vindhyan region (BHU, Varanasi)

24. Livelihood improvement and empowerment of rural poor through sustainable 124farming systems in North East India (ICAR, RC NEH, Barapani)


26. Sustainable rural livelihood and food security to rainfed farmers of Orissa 85(OUAT, Bhubaneswar)

27. Holistic approach for sustainable rural livelihood security through integrated farmingsystem approach (IVRI, Izatnagar)


29. Promote sustainable livelihoods of small and marginal farmers with a focus on 24women empowerment in Nawada and Purnea district of Bihar (BASIX, Patna)

30. Sustainable Integrated farming system models for improving rural livelihood 75security in disadvantaged districts of Chhattisgarh (IGKV, Raipur)

31. Sustainable rural livelihoods through enhanced farming system productivity and 351efficient support systems in rainfed areas (CRIDA, Hyderabad)

32. Improvement in livelihood security of rural people living in disadvantaged districts 81of U.P. through diversification in agriculture. (CSUAT, Kanpur)

Total 3191


❏❏❏❏❏

110110

Annexure 26

Component 4

Overseas trainings under frontier areas

S. Frontier areas Trainings Slots from Total ScientistsNo. approved consortia trainings trained

approved

1. Allele mining 20 2 22 22

2. Apomixis 7 7 6

3. Bioinformatics 21 1 22 22

4. Biomolecules 19 2 21 21

5. Bioremediation 12 12 12

6. Biosecurity 15 1 16 16

7. Carbon trading/carbon 25 4 29 29sequestration/climate change

8. Fermentation technology 15 2 17 17

9. Genome resource conservation 17 17 17

10. Geoinformatics 8 2 10 10

11. Image processing technology for 5 1 6 6characterization of agricultural produce

12. Microbial molecular taxonomy 11 1 12 12

13. Molecular diagnostics 15 1 16 16

14. Mitigation strategies for methane 5 5 5production from livestock

15. Molecular breeding 11 1 12 12

16. Nanotechnology 19 19 19

17. Nutraceuticals 24 3 27 26

18. Non-chemical/non-thermal processing 6 6 6and membrane technology

19. Sensor-based applications 16 2 18 18including bio-indicators

20. Stem cell research 10 1 11 11

21. Smart packaging 6 2 8 8

22. Social sciences 10 2 12 12

23. Transgenic animals 6 1 7 7

24. Gene knock down technology 4 4 4

25. Intellectual property rights 27 27 27

26. Marker assisted selection 122 5 127 126

Total 456 34 490 487

❏❏❏❏❏

111111

Annexure 27

Publications under Component 4in high rated journals

S. No. Consortium/sub-project Number

1. Bovine mastitis: Unraveling molecular details of host-microbe interaction and 4development of molecular diagnostic methods

2. Identification of oncolytic viral genes and development of tumour targeted nano-delivery 11vehicle for cancer therapy in bovines

3. Manipulation of the rumen ecosystem through modified rumen microbes encoding novel 5fibrolytic enzymes using nucleic acid based technologies for the improved utilization ofcrop residues

4. Rumen microbial diversity in domesticated and wild ruminants and impact of additives on 7methanogenesis and utilization of poor quality fibrous feeds

5. Serological Diversity and Molecular Characterization of Dichelobacter nodosus and 4development of vaccine against virulant footrot

6. Study of herbal acaricides as means to overcome the development of resistance in ticks 19 to conventional acaricides

7. Toll-like receptors in farm animals-Evolutionary lineages and application in disease 16resistance

8. Toll-like receptors in phylogenetically divergent fish species-their contribution in modulating 16the innate immunity

9. Analysis of mammary gland transcriptome and proteome during lactation and involution in 8indigenous cattle and buffalo for identification of probable mammary biomarkers

10. Characterisation and differentiation of embryonic and spermatogonial stem cells in cattle 13and buffaloes

11. Developmental potency of parthenogenetic goat embryos 15

12. Elucidating the physiological and genomic regulation process of follicular development, 22oocyte maturation and embryogenesis in buffalo

13. Genetic basis of inferior sperm quality and fertility of crossbred bulls 4

14. Genomic analysis of cotton boll and fibre development 8

15. Molecular basis of capacitation like changes in the assessment and prevention of cryodamage 12during cryopreservation of bovine spermatozoa (Buffalo and Crossbred Bulls)

16. Biosystematics of the genera vigna, cucumis and abelmoschus 11

17. Diversity analysis of Bacillus and other predominant genera in eetreme environment and its 1utilization in agriculture

18. Studies on relationship between ecogeography of the chemotypic variation of nine important 1but highly threatened medicinal plant species and prospects of their cultivation

19. Studies on the ecology and taxonomy of whitefly, Bemisia tabaci, in india, its symbiosis 4with various obligate and facultative bacterial symbionts

20. To understand the nature of diversity in lac insects of Kerria spp. in india and the nature 3of insect x host interaction

21. Allele mining expression profiling of resistance and avirulence-genes in rice-blast 12pathosystem for development of race non-specific disease resistance

22. Bioprospecting of genes and allele mining for abiotic stress tolerance 15

23. Development of goat having knocked down myostatin gene through RNA interference 21technology to enhance the meat production

112


24. Gene silencing – A strategy for management of white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) 3

25. Identification of quantitative trait loci for milk yield, fat and protein percent in buffaloes 13

26. Molecular tools for exploitation of heterosis yield and oil quality in sesame 7

27. Unraveling molecular processes involved in adventive polyembryony towards genetic 2engineering for fixation of heterosis

28. Development of spectral reflectance methods and low cast sensors for real-time application 1of variable rate inputs in precision farming

29. Development of wireless sensor network for animal management 7

30. Precision farming technologies based on microprocessor and decision support systems for 1enhancing input application efficiency in production agriculture

31. Effect of abiotic stresses on the natural enemies of crop pests: Trichogramma, Chrysoperla, 5Trichoderma and Pseudomonas, and mechanism of tolerance to these stresses

32. Nature of interactions among the entomopathogenic nematodes, bacterial symbionts and the 6insect host

33. Novel strategies for molecular diagnosis of plant viruses 3

34. Potential of RNAi in insect pest management: a model in silencing important genes specific 7to tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hubner (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera)

35. Research into development of decision support systems for insect pests of major rice and 13cotton based cropping systems

36. Understanding plant-nematode interactions using RNAi 2

37. Nano-technology for enhanced utilization of native - phosphorus by plants and higher 10moisture retention in arid soils

38. Synthesis and characterization of nano-cellulose and its application in biodegradable 3polymer composites to enhance their performance

39. Arsenic in food-chain: cause, effect and mitigation 26

40. Georeferenced soil information system for land use planning and monitoring soil and land 21quality for agriculture

41. Modeling the performance of a few major cropping systems in eastern India in the light of 1projected climate change

42. Soil organic carbon dynamics vis-à-vis anticipatory climatic changes and crop adaptation 13strategies

43. Understanding the mechanism of off-season flowering and fruiting in mango under different 1environmental conditions

44. Understanding the mechanism of variation in status of a few nutritionally important 7micronutrients in some important food crops and the mechanism of micronutrient enrichmentin plant parts

45. Detection and mitigation of dairy pathogens and detection of adulterants using chemical 2biology

46. Development of biosensor and micro-techniques for analysis of pesticide residues, 4aflatoxin heavy metals and bacterial contamination in milk

47. Development of non-destructive systems for evaluation of microbial and physico-chemical 10quality parameters of mango

48. Novel approaches for production of nutraceuticals from milk and indian herbs for potential 16use in functional dairy foods

49. Novel biotechnological processes for production of high value products from rice straw 1and bagasse

50. Studies on cryogenic grinding for retention of flavour and medicinal properties of some 5important indian species

51. Studies on high pressure processing (HPP) of high value perishable commodities 5

Total 427

S. No. Consortium/sub-project Number

❏❏❏❏❏

113113

Annexure 28

Patents filed/published under Component 4

S. Sub-project No. ofNo. patent filed/

published

1. Bovine mastitis: Unraveling molecular details of host-microbe interaction and development 1of molecular diagnostic methods

2. Manipulation of the rumen ecosystem through modified rumen microbes encoding novel 2fibrolytic enzymes using nucleic acid based technologies for the improved utilization ofcrop residues

3. Rumen microbial diversity in domesticated and wild ruminants and impact of additives on 1methanogenesis and utilization of poor quality fibrous feeds

4. Serological diversity and molecular characterization of Dichelobacter nodosus and 1development of vaccine against virulant footrot

5. Study of herbal acaricides as means to overcome the development of resistance in ticks 4to conventional acaricides

6. Toll-like receptors in farm animals-Evolutionary lineages and application in disease 3resistance

7. Developmental potency of parthenogenetic goat embryos 1

8. Genomic analysis of cotton boll and fibre development 2

9. Diversity analysis of Bacillus and other predominant genera in eetreme environment and 1its utilization in agriculture

10. To understand the nature of diversity in lac insects of Kerria spp. in india and the nature 2of insect x host interaction

11. Allele mining expression profiling of resistance and avirulence-genes in rice-blast 3pathosystem for development of race non-specific disease resistance

12. Bioprospecting of genes and allele mining for abiotic stress tolerance 2

13. Development of goat having knocked down myostatin gene through RNA interference 1technology to enhance the meat production

14. Gene silencing – A strategy for management of white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) 1

15. Identification of quantitative trait loci for milk yield, fat and protein percent in buffaloes 8

16. Design and development of rubber dam for watersheds 2

17. Precision farming technologies based on microprocessor and decision support systems for 1enhancing input application efficiency in production agriculture

18. Effect of abiotic stresses on the natural enemies of crop pests: Trichogramma, Chrysoperla, 4Trichoderma and Pseudomonas, and mechanism of tolerance to these stresses

19. Novel strategies for molecular diagnosis of plant viruses 2

20. Potential of RNAi in insect pest management: A model in silencing important genes specific 1to tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hubner (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera)

21. Research into development of decision support systems for insect pests of major rice and 1cotton based cropping systems

22. Understanding plant-nematode interactions using RNAi 2

23. Designing and studying mode of action and biosafety of nanopesticides 2

24. Nano-technology for enhanced utilization of native - phosphorus by plants and higher 9moisture retention in arid soils

114


25. Synthesis and characterization of nano-cellulose and its application in biodegradable 3polymer composites to enhance their performance

26. Detection and mitigation of dairy pathogens and detection of adulterants using chemical 5biology

27. Development of biosensor and micro-techniques for analysis of pesticide residues, 14aflatoxin heavy metals and bacterial contamination in milk

28. Development of non-destructive systems for evaluation of microbial and physico-chemical 1quality parameters of mango

29. Novel biotechnological processes for production of high value products from rice straw 1and bagasse

30. Standardization of selected ethnic fermented foods and beverages by rationalization of 1indigenous knowledge

31. Studies on high pressure processing (HPP) of high value perishable commodities 3

Total 85

S. Sub-project No. ofNo. patent filed/

published

❏❏❏❏❏

115115

Annexure 29

Publications under NAIP in high rated journals

NAAS Rating Number of publications Total

Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4

6-7 62 24 37 135 258

7-8 18 30 11 197 256

8-9 11 13 1 77 102

9-10 2 1 18 21

>10 5 1 6

Total 98 69 49 427 643

Annexure 30

Theses submitted under NAIP

❏❏❏❏❏

❏❏❏❏❏

Component Master Ph.D. Total

1 14 9 23

2 79 44 123

3 4 1 5

4 67 146 213

Total 164 200 364

116116

Annexure 31

List of sub-projects selected for impact assessment

Component 1

1. Consortium for e-Resources in Agriculture (CeRA);i. Development and maintenance of Riceii. Knowledge management portal

2. Establishment of national agricultural bioinformaticsgrid (NABG) in ICAR

3. Business planning and development unit at AnandAgricultural University (AAU), Anand

4. Handholding and mentoring, planning anddevelopment (BPD), ICRISAT

5. Learning and capacity building, NAARM

6. Zonal technology management and BPD unit at IARI

7. Mobilizing mass media support for sharing agro-information

8. Strengthening of digital library and informationmanagement under NARS (e-GRANTH)

9. Strengthening statistical computing for NARS

10. Establishing and networking of agricultural marketintelligence centers in india

11. Engaging farmers, enriching knowledge: Agropediaphase II

12. Zonal technology management center and BPD Unitat IVRI, Izatnagar

13. Zonal technology management and BPD Unit atCIRCOT, Mumbai

Component 2

14. Value chain on enhanced productivity and profitabilityof pashmina fiber

15. Value chain on value added products derived fromProsopis juliflora

16. A value chain on Kashmir saffron

17. Value chain on commercialization of maize products

18. A value chain on banana pseudostem for fibre andother value added products

19. A value chain on lac and lac based products fordomestic and export market

20. A value chain on mango and guava for domestic andexport market (NAU, Navsari)

21. A value chain on underutilized fruits of Rajasthan(MPUAT, Udaipur)

22. Capitalization of prominent landraces of rice inOrissa through value chain approach

23. Creation of demand for millet foods through PCSvalue-chain (DSR, Hyderabad)

24. A biopesticide mediated value chain for cleanvegetables (CSKHPKV, Palampur)

25. A value chain on composite dairy foods withenhanced health attributes (NDRI, Karnal)

26. A value chain on ginger and ginger products (OUAT,Bhubaneshwar)

27. A value chain on linseed: Processing and valueaddition for profitability (BAIF, Pune)

28. A value chain for cotton fibre, seed and stalks: Aninnovation for higher economic returns to farmersand allied stake holders (CIRCOT,Mumbai)

29. A value chain on mango and guava for domestic andexport (Gujarat)

30. A value chain on wild honey bee (CL: UAS, Bangalore)

31. A value chain in natural dyes (APAU, Hyderabad)

32. A value chain on flowers for domestic and exportmarkets (TNAU, Coimbatore)

33. A value chain on industrial agro-forestry in Tamil Nadu(TNAU)

34. Responsible harvesting and utilisation of selectedsmall pelagics and fresh water fishes (CIFT, Kochi)

35. A value chain on high value shellfish from mariculturesystems (CMFRI, Kochi)

Component 3 & GEF projects

36. Farming for livelihood security of small and marginalfarmers in disadvantaged districts of Tamil Nadu

37. Livelihood promotion through integrated farmingsystem in Assam

38. Ensuring livelihood security through sustainablefarming systyem and related enterprises in SC/tribaldominated population of Mirzapur and Sonbhadradistricts in Vindhyan region

117


39. Integrated project for research on developmentprocess and sustainability of livelihood in selecteddisadvantaged districts of Gujarat state

40. Sustainable livelihood improvement through needbased integrated farming system models indisadvantaged districts of Bihar

41. Livelihood and nutritional security of tribal dominatedrural areas through integrated farming systems models

42. Strategies to enhance adaptive capacity to climatechange in vulnerable regions (GEF)

43. Nutrition, livelihood security through resource andenterprise management in Bidar district

44. Enhancement of livelihood security throughsustainable farming systems and related farmenterprises in North-West Himalaya (VPKAS, Almora)

45. Development of sustainable livestock farmingsystem for livelihood security in Hoshiarpur district ofPunjab (GADVASU, Ludhiana)

46. Integrated farming system for sustainable rurallivelihoods in undulating and rainfed areas of Jhabuaand Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh (RajmataVijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwavidyalaya)

47. Goat husbandry based integrated approach forlivelihood security in disadvantaged districts ofBundelkhand region (CIRG, Mathura)

48. Livelihood improvement and empowerment of ruralpoor through sustainable farming systems in NorthEast India (ICAR-RC for NEH Region, Barapani)

49. Up scaling & improving livelihood of forest basedand forest fringe communities through enhancedfarming system productivity and efficient supportsystems in Godda district (Jharkhand) (AgriculturalFinance Corporation Ltd., Ranchi)

50. Sustainable rural livelihood security in backwarddistricts of Maharashtra (BAIF, Pune)

51. Livelihood security of rural poor in disadvantagedChitradurga district of Karnataka through integratedfarming systems approach (UAS, Bangalore)

52. Sustainable rural livelihoods through enhancedfarming system productivity and efficient supportsystems in rainfed areas (CRIDA)

53. A comprehensive, multi-enterprise project foraddressing the agrarian crisis of Wayanad district ofKerala (KAU, Wayanad)

54. Harmonizing biodiversity conservation and agriculturalintensification through integration of plant, animal andfish genetic resources for livelihood security in fragileecosystems (CSKHPKV)

Component 4

56. Serological diversity and molecular characterizationof Dechelobacter nodosus and development ofvaccine against virulent foot rot

57. Study of herbal acaricides as means to overcome thedevelopment of resistance in ticks to conventionalacaricides

58. Allele mining and expression profiling of resistance -and avirulence - genes in rice-blast patho-system fordevelopment of race non-specific disease resistance

59. Design and development of rubber dams forwatersheds

60. Precision farming technologies based onmicroprocessor and decision support systems forenhancing input application efficiency in productionagriculture

61. Development of biosensor and micro-techniques foranalysis of pesticide residues, aflatoxin heavymetals and bacterial contamination in milk

62. Designing and studying mode of action and biosafetyof nanopesticides

63. Nano-technology for enhanced utilization of native -phosphorus by plants and higher moisture retentionin arid soils

64. Synthesis and characterization of nano-celluloseand its application in biodegradable polymercomposites to enhance their performance

65. Development of a set of alternative ICT models basedon a study and analysis of the major ICT initiatives inagriculture in India to meet the information need of theIndian farmers

❏❏❏❏❏

118118

Annexure 32

Interventions selected for impact assessmentunder sampled projects

S.No. Project Intervention(s)

Component 2

1. A value chain on mango and guava for domestic Guava and mango production and processingand export market

2. Value chain on commercialization of maize Maize production and feed block

3. Capitalization of prominent landraces of rice in orissa Rice productionthrough value chain approach

4. A value chain on banana pseudostem for fibre and Sap fertiliser and banana fibreother value added product

5. A value chain on lac and lac based products for Kusumi lac producer and lac dye preparationdomestic and export market

6. Value chain on value added products derived Livestock feed preparation and milk productionfrom Prosopis Juliflora

7. Value chain on enhanced productivity and profitability Improvisation of traditional charkha andof Pashmina fiber traditional loom

8. A value chain on Kashmir saffron Production and drying of Kashmir saffron

9. A value chain on underutilised fruits of Rajasthan Custard apple and jamun collection andprocessing

10. A value chain on wild honey bee Wild honey harvesting and processing

11. A value chain in natural dyes Raw material collection, indigo growing andnatural colour dye for yarn

12. Bio-pesticides mediated value chain for clean Clean cabbage production and cleanvegetable production cauliflower production

13. A value chain on ginger and ginger products Improved agricultural practice, dried gingerand ginger sap

14. Responsible harvesting and utilization of selected small Fuel efficient propeller, fish maid and omegapelagics and fresh water fisheries 3 products

15. A value chain on industrial agro-forestry in Tamil Nadu Casuarina processing for paper mills andMelia dubia for plywood seedling productionCasuarina and Melia dubia

16. A value chain on flowers for domestic and Production and processing of Jasmine andexport markets Marigold

17. A value chain on high value shellfish from mariculture High value oyster farming, depuration unit/systems processing and marketing

18. Value chain on composite dairy foods with Milk product processing and awarenessenhanced health attributes on Composite dairy foods

19. Value chain on value added products derived from Prosopis juliflora production and processing forProsopis juliflora cattle feed

20. A value chain on linseed: Processing and value Linseed production and processing for linseedaddition for profitability oil and poultry feed

21. A value chain for cotton fibre, seed and stalks: Cotton production and clean pickingan innovation for higher economic

119


Component 322. Ensuring livelihood security through sustainable Introduction of direct seeded rice and breed

farming systyem and related enterprises in improvement of local goatsSC/tribal dominated population of Mirzapur andSonbhadra districts in Vindhyan region

23. Strategies to enhance adaptive capacity to climate Water managementchange in vulnerable regions (GEF)

24. Sustainable livelihood improvement through Establishment of livestock and crop based IFSneed based integrated farming system models models for small farmers and breeding unit ofin disadvantaged districts of Bihar black Bengal goat

25. Integrated project for research on development Crop diversification through vegetableprocess and sustainability of livelihood in cultivation and water conservation through MISselected disadvantaged districts of Gujarat state

26. Livelihood and nutritional security of tribal dominated Seed replacement in maize, wheat, gram,rural areas through integrated farming systems models mustard and pulses; promotion of vegetable

cultivation and water management throughHDPE quick connects pipes and sprinklers

27. Livelihood promotion through integrated farming system Integrated rice-fish-vegetable crop andin Assam Improved piggery, fisheries and vegetable

cultivation

28. Integrated farming system for sustainable rural Kadaknath poultry farming, vegetablelivelihoods in undulating and rainfed areas of Jhabua production and crop farmingand Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh

29. Goat husbandry based integrated approach for livelihood Improved goat husbandry and foragesecurity in disadvantaged districts of Bundelkhand region resources development and management

30. Livelihood improvement and empowerment of rural Fish based farming system, goat rearing, pigpoor through sustainable farming systems in farming and cardamom productionNorth East India (ICAR-RC for NEH Region, Barapani)

31. Strategies for sustainable management of degraded Land shaping for improving rainwater harvestingcoastal land and water for enhancing livelihoodand drainage for enhancing security of farmingcommunities productivity at low lying degradedland and paddy-cum-fish culture and brackishwater aquaculture

32. Up scaling & improving livelihood of forest based Production of bamboo based handicrafts;and forest fringe communities through enhanced Cultivation of elephant foot yam and multilayerfarming system productivity and efficient support vegetable cropping modelsystems in Godda district

33. Enhancement of livelihood security through Introduction of high yielding varieties of wheat &sustainable farming systems and related farm rice and diversification of vegetable farming

34. Harmonizing bio-diversity conservation and Seed and crop production of local land race ofagricultural intensification maize and Bharmaur Rajmash, backyard

poultry farming

35. Sustainable livestock based farming system for Introduction of high yielding varieties of wheatlivelihood security in Hoshiarpur district of Punjab and mineral mixture and UMMB in cattle feed

36. Sustainable rural livelihood security in backward Improved agriculture package and waterdistricts of Maharashtra resource development and value chain on

Livestock development comprising

37. A comprehensive, multi-enterprise project for addressing Paddy cultivation, multilayer farming andthe agrarian crisis of Wayanad district of Kerala agriculture marketing

38. Livelihood security of rural poor in disadvantaged Onion+ INM+IPDM, IFS model and ornamentalChitradurga district of Karnataka through integrated fisheriesfarming systems approach

39. Sustainable rural livelihoods through enhanced farming Farm ponds, check dams and bore well forsystem productivity and efficient support systems in water management, zero tillage in maize andrainfed areas groundnut seed production

❏❏❏❏❏

monitoring and evaluation report - icar

Documents