Consolidated report on agroecological codesign of innovations in India

Kumar, G.; Malaiappan, S.; Triomphe, B.; Shamim, Md.; Gadewar, P.; Acharya, S.; Samaddar, A.; Borah, G.; Sikka, A.; Monserrate, F.; Singh, S.; Krishnan, S. 2024. Consolidated report on agroecological codesign of innovations in India. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). CGIAR Initiative on Agroecology. 48p.

This report consolidates insights from the co-design of agroecological innovations under the Agroecology Initiative in India, focusing on Mandla and Andhra Pradesh Agroecological Living Landscape (ALL). The participatory approach engaged diverse stakeholders, particularly women farmers, to address challenges such as poor production and agrobiodiversity, degraded soils, water scarcity, and livelihood insecurity. Key interventions included Agroecological Homestead Models (AHMs), Krishi-Kund for land restoration, Solar Irrigation Systems based diversified farming, Integrated Farming Systems (IFS), Integrated Rice-Fish Farming, and homeopathic formulations for crop improvement.

Preliminary results highlight promising outcomes. AHMs demonstrated income diversification, with gross returns 7.9 to 22.5 times higher and net returns also showing improvement, albeit constrained by high initial costs. Microsite improvements enhanced productivity by 2.39 to 5.71 times compared to control sites, with net returns ranging from 0.74 to 4.36 times higher. Solar irrigation reduced fossil fuel dependence and enabled initial crop diversification. IFS models showed net incomes of ₹22,395 to ₹54,563 (USD 259 to USD 630) with benefit-cost ratios ranging from 1.5 to 1.8, water productivity in the range of INR 5.6 to 10.3 per cubic meter of water used demonstrating the potential to enhance resource use efficiency, resilience, and income diversification. Integrated Rice-Fish Farming improved soil health, dietary diversity, and incomes, while initial farmer trials of a homeopathic solution indicated yield improvements of 1.12 to 1.61 times compared to their own controls. Based on the limited replicates, simple experimental designs and short duration of the trials, these results remain preliminary. Further validations and assessments of cost-effectiveness, return on investment, and performance consistency under multi-seasonal climatic variability and a larger number of samples have been suggested.

Key lessons include the importance of integrating traditional knowledge with scientific practices, leveraging women-led groups for adoption, and implementing targeted capacity-building programs. Challenges such as climatic variability, delayed adoption, and limited market access highlight the need for adaptive strategies and extended experimentation.

Recommendations emphasize a high potential for scaling successful and validated models through collaborative platforms, aligning with government programs, and establishing robust data frameworks for cost-benefit analysis and ecosystem impact assessment. Continued trials and cross-stakeholder collaboration are essential for refining and scaling these practices, ultimately contributing to sustainable livelihoods, enhanced biodiversity, and climate resilience in tribal and rural communities.

This co-design approach offers a replicable model for agroecological transitions and holds promise for broader application across diverse regions.