Evaluation of the Role of Government Policies, Institutional Support, and Extension Services in Promoting Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) in India

Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) combine crop, livestock, aquaculture, agroforestry, and other components into a holistic approach to enhance productivity, sustainability, and profitability. In India, several mechanisms promote IFS, but their effectiveness varies significantly based on implementation, farmer awareness, and resource availability.

1. Government Policies

Positive Roles:

• National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA): Promotes IFS under sustainable practices to increase productivity and resource use efficiency.
• Sub-Mission on Agroforestry (SMAF): Encourages tree-based farming models integrated with crops and livestock.
• Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY): Supports organic and integrated farming, which aligns with IFS principles.
• Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY): Offers financial assistance for diversified farming practices, infrastructure development, and innovation in agriculture.
• Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs): Operate under ICAR to demonstrate and disseminate IFS models at the district level.

Limitations:

• Fragmented policy implementation across states.
• Low fund allocation for marginal farmers.
• Limited convergence among schemes focused on different IFS components.

2. Institutional Support

Positive Roles:

• ICAR and SAUs: Research institutions have developed region-specific IFS models and provide technical support to farmers.
• NABARD: Provides refinancing and financial incentives for IFS components like dairy, poultry, and aquaculture.
• Cooperative societies and Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs): Facilitate input procurement and marketing of diverse farm outputs.

Limitations:

• Poor institutional outreach in remote rural areas.
• Inadequate linkage between research and field-level application.
• Weak capacity building and limited farmer training programs.

3. Extension Services

Positive Roles:

• ATMA (Agricultural Technology Management Agency): Conducts farmer field schools, training, and demonstrations on IFS.
• KVKs and NGOs: Actively promote awareness and practical knowledge on integrating various farm enterprises.
• Digital Initiatives: Platforms like m Kisan and e NAM help in information dissemination and market linkage.

Limitations:

• Inconsistent quality and availability of extension workers.
• Language and literacy barriers among farmers limit digital outreach.
• Lack of individualized advice tailored to small landholdings.

Major Bottlenecks and Challenges Faced by Marginal Farmers in Adopting IFS Models

Challenge Explanation Small Landholdings Limited space restricts diversification and integration of multiple components.Initial Investment Costs High cost of setting up integrated components (e.g., animal shed, fish pond, bio gas unit) deters adoption.Knowledge and Skill Gaps Many farmers lack technical know-how and training to manage diversified systems effectively.Labour Intensity IFS requires skilled labor and year-round management, which is hard for marginal families with limited manpower.Market Access Lack of reliable and remunerative markets for diverse outputs like milk, vegetables, or fish affects profitability.Credit Constraints Difficulty Difficulty in obtaining timely credit from banks and limited awareness of subsidy schemes.Climate Vulnerability Unpredictable Unpredictable weather can severely affect multiple integrated components simultaneously.