Marginal, smallholder farmers often lack modern agricultural knowledge that could quickly and easily improve their productivity levels and enhance their livelihoods. This has caused governmental and non-governmental organizations to grapple with the same question: How to disseminate agricultural information to marginal farmers in a way that reaches a large target audience and achieves a high adoption rate of new agricultural practices?
In India there are two main approaches for addressing this question: the Broadcasting approach and the Training and Visits approach. The Broadcasting approach televises generic agricultural techniques. A national audience of farmers is reached through this approach, but the techniques televised fail to take into account the diverse circumstances of different farmer communities. The Training and Visits approach is more interactive, localized and resource-intensive, as it requires field officers to conduct agriculture extension through repeated one-on-one visits with farmers.
The Digital Green (DG) project has developed a new, middle-ground approach that uses locally produced videos and mediated instruction to augment and improve upon the efforts of other agriculture extension methods. By utilizing low-cost technologies (such as handycams, projectors, TVs and DVD players) and taking advantage of pre-existing social networks, DG aims to serve as a platform for disseminating agricultural knowledge to farmers in a manner that is more cost-effective, reaches a larger audience, and achieves a higher adoption rate than alternative approaches. Between April 2007 and April 2008, DG conducted a randomized, controlled evaluation comparing its agriculture extension approach with the Green Foundation’s Training and Visits approach in southeastern Karnataka. The evaluation yielded the following results:
Approach
Cost (INR) /Village/Year
Adoptions /Village/Year
Cost/Adoption (INR)
Training and Visits
Rs 38,258
11%
Rs 1,738.90
Digital Green
Rs 28,693
85%
Rs 168.52
Source: “Digital Green: Participatory Video and Meditated Instruction for Agricultural Extension,” Information Technologies and International Development, vol. 5, no. 1, spring 2009.
In June 2009 DG partnered with BAIF (Soorashettikoppa branch) to implement its agriculture extension approach in the Sandbox. It is currently operating in 8 villages in the Sandbox area.
The Digital Green Process
In every village where DG operates, farmers elect local Community Resource People (CRP) to facilitate the video production and dissemination processes. Throughout these processes, a team of DG and BAIF staff ensure that video content and quality is of an acceptable standard. Finalized videos (8-10 minutes in length) are screened by CRP to groups of, on average, 15 farmers on a weekly basis. The amount of time it takes to get from the video content identification stage to the video screening stage is 1 week.
Digital Green Innovations
Customization of materials based on local needs and resources: DG recognizes that farmer communities are diverse and that agriculture extension videos should reflect this diversity. For example, DG has produced videos for farmers based in southeastern Karnataka on making vermicompost using banana leaf biomass and mud pots. In DG’s Sandbox villages there are no banana leaves, so other materials must be used in the same biomass-to-vermicompost process, and plastic buckets are used instead of mud pots. As a result of these differences in technique, farmer interest and adoption rates were poor when vermicompost videos based in southeastern Karnataka were screened in the Sandbox. When videos accurately reflect local conditions and resources, farmer adoption rates significantly improve. Thus, all the videos DG produces in the Sandbox are a result of local farmer content identification and are filmed in DG’s Sandbox villages.
Integration of CRP: DG trains CRP in public speaking skills, mediated instruction, and video production. CRP are required to critically watch all DG videos prior to screenings to ensure that they are capable of explaining all aspects of video content. Because CRP and the farmers they work with come from the same place and are of similar socioeconomic backgrounds, the comfort level during farmer-CRP interactions is high. During video screenings, CRP make sure that farmers are active rather than passive viewers. CRP pause and replay videos as often as necessary, emphasize and elaborate on key aspects, and clarify points of confusion.
Capitalization of existing social networks: Digital Green does not aim to create new farmer groups, but to capitalize upon the social networks that already exist within BAIF SHGs. When these SHG members watch videos in which they and fellow Sandbox farmers form the cast, and the setting is always a familiar Sandbox village, the viability of the video content is validated. Because DG videos localize expert information, the perceived disconnect between experts and farmers that often characterizes agriculture extension processes is diminished.
Low-cost effectiveness by combining technology with social organization: DG videos are produced using low-cost technologies like handycams and are edited using free, open-source software. Each video screening immediately expands the knowledge base of, on average, 15 farmers. Farmers who view these videos are motivated by the fact that a fellow farmer from their village has already adopted the agricultural practice advertised in the video; this becomes a reason some other farmers choose to adopt the practice themselves. As a critical mass of adoptions builds, other local farmers not present at the video screenings are influenced to adopt the practice as well.
Financial Sustainability: In December 2009 DG began requesting that farmers cover the recurring costs of DG services (e.g. CRP salaries). At the current time this financial model is yet to be fully implemented in the Sandbox. In other DG operational areas, however, DG has successfully incorporated farmer financial contributions. These contributions are collected from SHGs rather than from individual farmers in order to ensure full group commitment. SHGs pay a lump-sum amount each month to cover the recurring costs of screenings; this amount breaks down to Rs8/farmer/month. This lump-sum fee is fixed regardless of the number of screenings individual farmers attend during a particular month.
The Results
Between July and November 2009 30 DG videos were produced in the Sandbox, and an average of 42 screenings took place in each of DG’s 8 Sandbox villages. The total number of screenings was 337, and these screenings yielded 306 adoptions. All videos focused on one of 12 topics; these topics are listed in the Adoption Levels per Technique chart below. This chart reflects aggregate adoption levels for all 8 villages. CRP track farmer adoption rates on an on-going basis, and submit weekly adoption rates reports to DG and BAIF.
As the data in the chart reflects, some techniques were more readily adopted than others. Differences in adoption levels are correlated to two factors: cost and time. Whereas azolla and vermicompost are very low-cost for farmers to adopt, for example, bio gas and wadi require more significant financial investments and time commitments.
Questions for Discussion
1) One of DG’s challenges in changing farmer behavior is addressing the gap in the number of farmers who express interest in adopting new agricultural practices post-video screening and the smaller number of farmers who actually do adopt these practices. For example, between July and November 2009 1,638 farmers attended DG screenings, but only 306 adoptions were achieved as a result. This means that (if each adoption is attributed to a different farmer) only 19% of farmers attending DG screenings have adopted a new agricultural technique. Why does the gap between interest and adoption exist, and how can it be reduced? What is the saturation point for getting people to adopt new agricultural techniques? What is a reasonable target adoption rate for DG?
2) DG contends that if farmers cover the recurring costs of DG services they will value these services more and hold DG to a higher level of accountability. Furthermore, it will enable video production and screenings to continue after DG staff leave a project site. As a result, as DG begins its expansion to 10 other villages in the Sandbox it is stating its expectation of farmer financial contributions from the outset. However, raising this expectation in the 8 villages where it is currently operating in the Sandbox, 6 months after the project began, has produced some negative reactions from farmers. Do you agree with DG’s expectation that farmers should cover the recurring costs of DG services? What measures should DG take to impress upon farmers the value and purpose of making a financial contribution?
