Skip to main content

Sri Lanka: Classes Alone Failed, Small Groups Worked

Jegatheesary Gunasingam, World Vision Sri Lanka (World Vision Lanka on the slide) · Sri Lanka

A World Vision Sri Lanka staff member reports on a 2013–2015 project, funded by World Vision Korea and KOICA, that brought natural farming (which she calls 'neo-organic') to 600 farm families in Vaharai, a war-affected coastal division. After a year of training only a handful of farmers had taken it up; small groups, close follow-up and training the government agriculture instructors turned it around. The final evaluation shows wide use of homemade fertilizers and pesticides, more home gardens and water access, and weekly chemical-free vegetable markets, but no yields, costs or incomes.

What they found

The question

Can a development project get farmers in a postwar Sri Lankan division to take up natural farming, and what changes when they do?

How they tested it

Vaharai divisional secretariat area, Sri Lanka (slide: 23,616 people in 7,051 families, about half of households poor, 550 km², coastal lowlands, rainy season Nov–Feb). Funded by World Vision Korea and KOICA, run by World Vision Lanka, 2013 to 2015, targeting 600 farm families. Core practices taught: low or zero tillage, mulching, IMO and the other homemade solutions, and no chemicals. 300 farmers selected in year one; later 10-member groups with key farmers, and training for government agriculture instructors, university research students and local economic development officers. Outcomes come from a final evaluation (she says independent, by a university) comparing baseline, beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Sample sizes, survey method, crops, yields, costs and incomes: not stated.

Results
  1. After one year of training, only a few farmers had adopted; both transcripts heard 'only two'

    300 farmers were selected in the first year. Farmers called the method a long, time-consuming process. Training alone did not work; 10-member groups, close monitoring and key farmers did.

    ▶ 9:35 As spoken

  2. Households using organic (homemade) fertilizer: 67.37% at baseline, 99.0% among beneficiaries

    Project Outcomes table; non-beneficiaries 54.6%.

    ▶ 13:36 From the slides

  3. Organic pesticide use: 62.13% to 96.1%

    Non-beneficiaries 32.8%. Organic weedicide 77.82% to 81.6% (non-beneficiaries 32.8%). Not using inorganic weeding: 24% to 81.6%.

    ▶ 14:12 From the slides

  4. Households farming as a business with any post-harvest or value-chain system: 1.18% to 53.4%

    Project Outcomes table; the non-beneficiary figure was hidden by the speaker.

    ▶ 13:36 From the slides

  5. Poor and vulnerable households: 65% at baseline, 50% among beneficiaries

    Non-beneficiaries stayed at 65%.

    ▶ 13:36 From the slides

  6. Food measures rose, but non-beneficiaries rose as much

    Adequate food frequency 73.9% to 91.9% (non-beneficiaries 92%); sufficient diet diversity 42.26% to 66% (60%); year-round access to enough organic food 20.06% to 80% (81.5%). Share of farmers eating 'regularly' 73% at baseline to 92% at evaluation (pie charts).

    ▶ 13:36 From the slides

  7. Why farmers took it up: economic reasons 45%, health 37%, environment 18%

    Community value pie chart; sociological and other 0%.

    ▶ 14:30 Said and shown on the slides

  8. Beneficiaries grew mostly for both eating and sale (64.7% vs 33.6%) and sold mostly fresh (84.8% vs 34.9%)

    Production table, beneficiary vs non-beneficiary: consumption only 26.9 vs 36.6%, business only 1.9 vs 2.5%, both 64.7 vs 33.6%; sold raw/fresh 84.8 vs 34.9%, processed 1 vs 0.4%.

    ▶ 14:47 From the slides

  9. 438 families set up home gardens with natural farming practice; 680 households trained

    Bar chart, baseline 0 for each; 438 practicing skills learned for livestock farming. Year-round water for cultivation 20.5 to 70; increased water harvest 0 to 72.2 (units not shown, likely %).

    ▶ 16:15 From the slides

  10. A weekend chemical-free vegetable market in town, supplied by the project's farmers

    Set up with partner NGOs; also a weekly stall at the divisional secretariat on its Wednesday public day. She says almost all the vegetables come from the 600 farmers.

    ▶ 15:31 As spoken

  11. Slide: spending for neo-organic farming 'much less' than conventional, and crop production higher where the methods were adopted

    Lessons slide; no figures were given for either.

    ▶ 17:45 From the slides

Hold it loosely
  • A project report, not a trial: no yields, costs, incomes or soil data were shown.
  • Survey method, sample sizes and who the non-beneficiaries were are not stated; no statistics.
  • On food frequency, diet diversity and year-round food access, non-beneficiaries scored about the same as beneficiaries, so those gains cannot be credited to the project.
  • The project mixed natural farming with home gardens, water tanks, wells, livestock, nutrition and business training; the outcomes cannot be laid on the farming method alone.
  • 'Organic fertilizer/pesticide' in the table is not broken down; which homemade solutions farmers used, and how, is not stated.
  • 680 households trained is more than the 600 targeted families; not explained.
  • The land-distribution slide gives units of 'square meter', which cannot be right for a 550 km² area; probably hectares.
For your farm
  • Training sessions alone did not get farmers to change. Small groups of about ten, frequent visits and a few quick-adopting key farmers did.
  • Bring the local government agriculture instructors in early; farmers listen to them, and here they had never heard of natural farming.
  • Farmers here took up the practices mainly for economic and health reasons.
  • A local chemical-free market gave growers a reason to keep going.
  • Basic record-keeping helped farmers see their input costs and income.

Next to Master Cho's teaching

  • Agrees

    Zero tillage and mulching Cho's soil rule is no mechanical tillage: arrange conditions so microbes, worms and small animals till the soil, and mulch with rice straw. The project taught the same, and still saw some farmers plowing.

    Cho, IMO and Vital Power of Crops and Livestock, p. 30–32

  • Agrees

    Lower spending than conventional farming Cho names lower cost, from homemade materials, as one of natural farming's greatest strengths. The talk asserts this but gives no numbers.

    Cho, Janong Natural Farming (2003), p. 61

  • Differs

    Calling it 'neo-organic' rather than natural farming Cho draws a sharp line: natural farming is a complete system with its own inputs, Nutritive Cycle theory and practice, while organic farming is a vague concept. The renaming blurs that line.

    Cho, Janong Natural Farming (2003), p. 53

  • Agrees

    Natural farming as a tool against poverty Cho presents natural farming as an effective tool for poor countries and cites Vietnam as a case of community development. This project used it the same way.

    Cho, Janong Natural Farming (2003), p. 39–46

“As we all are listening from this morning, we all know about the benefits and everything. But when we enter into the field, there are many challenges.”

▶ 6:54

“Then we found giving these trainings only will not work.”

▶ 9:54

In this talk

  1. 0:00World Vision Sri Lanka in Vaharai
  2. 0:45Project profile
  3. 2:17Vaharai area profile
  4. 2:48Objectives: the neo-organic concepts
  5. 5:13What the project did
  6. 6:54Year one: few farmers adopted
  7. 9:54Small groups and key farmers
  8. 10:30Training the agriculture instructors
  9. 12:58Research and evaluation
  10. 13:30Outcomes table
  11. 14:00Adoption and reasons
  12. 14:47Chemical-free markets
  13. 16:15Home gardens, water, photos
  14. 16:53Business training
  15. 17:45Lessons and next steps

Transcript

Transcribed and checked by hand against the recording. Click any time to play from there.