WASTE Performance Evaluation 
Circular Economy Model with Black 
and Greywater Recycling in India
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD
AUGUST 2019
Prepared By: Pooja Gupta, Centre for Policy Research
The Kaizen Company | Contract #: AID-OAA-C-15-00011 
www.securingwaterforfood.org | securingwaterforfood@gmail.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 2
INTRODUCTION 3
Waste Intervention 4
Diamond Model 5
BACKGROUND 6
Gender 8
Farm size 9
Farmer’s experience 11
Other occupations or sources of income 11
Family size 12
METHODOLOGY 13
RESULTS 17
EXPERIENCE WITH INNOVATOR 18
BENEFITS OF INNOVATION 21
Agricultural activities benefit 21
Water benefits 22
Crop benefits 25
Income benefits 28
Poverty reduction benefits 31
Difficulty with innovation usage and suggestions 32
Gender differences and benefits perceived 33
Regional differences 35
DISCUSSION 37
Usage and uptake 38
Crop yield and survival 39
Changes in income 40
Gender differences 42
Affordability 44
Impact on poverty 45
Benefits of innovation on community 46
CONCLUSION 47
REFERENCES 51
ANNEX I 53
ANNEX II: SURVEY 55
2 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
WASTE, a Netherlands-based organization in partnership with the Rural Development Organization (RDO 
Trust), Nilgiris District, developed a model for producing high-quality co-compost from wastewater and 
faecal sludge for the cultivation of exotic vegetables by women farmers in the District. To enable target 
consumers to buy the co-compost, WASTE implemented THE DIAMOND MODEL to provide tools for private 
financing and potential market linking strategies in addition to generating quality co-compost and providing 
access to greywater. The innovation received a monetary award and support from Securing Water for Food 
(SWFF). The innovation’s aim is to establish a local circular economy model in sanitation for agriculture 
that is scalable and enables women agri-entrepreneurs to have better crops with market quality compost 
application and an extended crop season to advance green growth in the Nilgiris District. 
This report details the monitoring and evaluation of the recent innovation by WASTE among the small-scale 
farmers of the horticulture district of Nilgiris in the state of Karnataka in July 2019. Fifty independent farmers 
were selected for interviews through a random sampling with a mix of male and female headed households. 
Criteria was established to assess household income, crop yield, water practices, expenses, and perceptions 
and expectations of the circular economy model.
It also measures the innovation’s impact in water-stressed regions and explores the possibilities related to 
soil fertility, gender disparities, climate change, income changes, water management, irrigation practices 
and technologies, and market dynamics of the region. 
Respondents were positive about the innovation’s ability to become sustainable and scalable. With the 
introduction of the innovation, farmers could cultivate an additional part of their farmland. The positive 
impact would largely influence food security, women accreditation, income advancement, and soil 
restoration for the entire region. An additional benefit surfaced when 12 percent of farmers requested the 
installation of solar pumps to power electric fencing to protect crops from wild animals. The innovation also 
helped vegetable farmers by improving crop yield through co-compost application, resulting in higher sale 
prices in the markets.
ABSTRACT
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 3
INTRODUCTION
4 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
The agriculture industry in India faces a severe water crisis and soil fertility declines with high usage of 
chemical fertilizers and there is an immediate need to manage these resources efficiently. To reduce 
irrigation dependence on fertilizers and fresh water sources which have been exploited and reached 
a level of scarcity, focus must be on increasing treatment capacity of solid and liquid waste streams 
for recycling irrigation. While the release of untreated wastewater and faecal sludge creates severe 
environmental damages, channelizing these waste materials as resources for irrigation would not only 
help farmers to earn sustainably but also save catastrophic environmental pollution.
Natural sources of water, such as ground water resources, have been exploited inequitably and 
without considering the sustainability across the country. As a result, their availability is declining 
enormously. Over the years, a shift has occurred from manure or other composting techniques to 
vast usage of chemicals and other fertilizers to speed crop growth which ultimately leads to soil 
fertility decline. Chemicals offer greater control and are used in smaller applications than their organic 
counterparts. However, long term application of chemicals has stripped the soil’s water retention 
capabilities and disturbed soil fertility so as to cause a major shift in crop patterns. There is no life left 
in the soil as rapid depletion of natural resources advances. Farmers are unable to continue to grow 
water intensive crops. Cultivated crops are poorer quality, leading to less than competitive prices at 
the market. 
Acute weather irregularities and climate change have caused rainfall to be unpredictable, resulting in 
a rapid decline in water availability and ultimately reducing groundwater availability. Water availability 
is now limited to four to six months annually. Water crises have resulted in limited availability for 
irrigation purposes. Ultimately, farmers incur exuberant cost in buying water resources which makes 
the cost of inputs crudely high. There is an urgency to mitigate further depletion of resources and 
come up with solutions that cater to the climate’s ever-advancing irregularities. Crops are increasingly 
exported from one state to another and across international borders. Essentially, this is transportation 
of virtual water. 
Specifically, the Nilgiris District in the state of Tamil Nadu, India, is facing a period of dry weather, which 
affects tea plantations, horticulture, and vegetable cultivation. Farmers are in dire need of access to 
water and the return of moisture content to the soil, which has been reduced as high temperatures 
and low humidity increase evaporation. 
Crop cultivation is an interplay of inputs, such as seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, water, and credit which 
determine crop production and productivity. It becomes pragmatic to utilize inputs more efficiently 
and diversify cultivation to more sustainable and higher value crops. 
WASTE Intervention
The intervention has two major technical applications: a) greywater recycling at the local level, and, b) 
faecal sludge recycling with organic solid waste using co-composting methods. Typically, faecal sludge 
was collected and dumped either at open grounds at distant locations or into the nearest body of 
water, resulting in heavy freshwater contamination. The WASTE intervention collects faecal sludge 
from private vacuum truck operators, transports it to the treatment site and feeds into the system. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 5
Diamond Model
The Diamond Model produces nutrient rich co-compost to be used as a soil conditioner for cultivation 
of exotic vegetables by female farmers in the District. The model focuses on four key areas for 
successful implementation and sustainability in the agriculture sector: a) farmers raising the demands, 
b) female Self Help Group (SHG) members involved with companies producing and managing the co￾compost supply, c) agri-marketing companies to manage finances, and, d) government authorities to 
implement the project focused on treatment of faecal sludge and grey water.
The technical innovations within the model involve recycling grey water and using treated water 
for irrigation in critical periods of lower rainfall and dry seasons. The other innovation focuses on 
recycling of faecal sludge in the region’s on-site sanitation systems. Private emptying operators and 
government vacuum trucks regularly empty these containment systems, and the faecal sludge is 
transported for treatment to produce co-compost. The co-compost unit is operated by women in 
cooperation with town panchayats to mix faecal sludge and organic solid waste. Women farmers who 
procure the co-compost are members of the Women Farmers Producer Companies and Groups.
The innovation answers the agriculture challenges of water scarcity and soil productivity in one single 
attempt. It addresses both major challenges and also solves the menace of solid and liquid waste 
management in the region, which is a win-win situation for all stakeholders. Additionally, the model 
incorporates market linkages for continuous business for farmers cultivating exotic vegetables and 
enables mobilization of private financing to overcome economic challenges for the involved stakeholders. 
6 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Growth for any region that depends on agriculture for sustenance encompasses two crucial factors: 
a) inclusive economic growth, and b) poverty reduction. If the sector fares well, both these vital factors 
strengthen, resulting in an inclined economic growth rate for the region. The state of Tamil Nadu 
has always performed well ahead of other states with a stellar record production of 10.1 million food 
grains in 2011 and 2012 and the highest productivity of sugarcane and other important crops, such as 
oilseeds and maize. Unfortunately, the growth rate in agriculture over the last decade has taken a dip 
because of rainfall deficit and limited or non-availability of sufficient water. The continuous shortfall of 
rains in the last few years in Tamil Nadu invariably explains the poor growth rate of returns from the 
agriculture sector (Table 1). 
TABLE 1: RAINFALL IN TAMIL NADU
YEAR
SOUTH – WEST 
MONSOON
NORTH – EAST 
MONSOON ANNUAL
Normal 321.3 440.4 921.0
2009-10 317.0 482.6 937.8
2010-11 383.6 605.2 1165.1
2011-12 300.5 540.8 937.1
2012-13 245.9 370.5 743.1
2013-14 325.4 294.3 790.6
2014-15 305.5 430.3 987.9
2015-16 295.7 695.8 1138.8
Source: India Meteorological Department, Chennai-600 006
The irregular rainfall over time resulted in substandard production of standing crops that are 
dependent on rainfed conditions. There is a need for renewed innovative methods to meet the ever￾increasing requirement of food, in view of the limited scope for expanding cultivation under irrigation. 
BACKGROUND
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 7
INTRODUCTION TO REGION WHERE 
THE INNOVATION HAS TAKEN PLACE
The Nilgiris District (horticulture district) in the state of Tamil Nadu, India, is home to several indigenous 
communities, flora, and fauna whose livelihood and interaction is shaped by the water flow landscape. 
Nilgiris has a population of 7.35 lakhs with over 40 percent of the total working population associated 
directly or indirectly with agriculture, making it the region’s principal source of livelihood (Census 2011). 
Nilgiris is known for cultivating exotic vegetables, such as carrots, potatoes, beans, broccoli, Chinese 
cabbage, beetroot, garlic, strawberries, etc. With population growth, urbanization, and a positive 
shift in exotic vegetable consumption, there is a need to focus on terrains to produce such crops. 
These crops are in demand from the hotel industry. Meeting this need can boost the contribution of 
agriculture sector to Growth State Domestic Product (GSDP) which has rapidly declined in the last few 
years. The Nilgiris water is scattered in between the cast landscape of tea, coffee, and vegetation and 
is heavily exploited for hydroelectric power generation. 
MAP 1: GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF 
NILGIRIS DISTRICT IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
8 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Gender 
There was a mix of male and female respondents, although the majority was male. Of the 50 
respondents, females constituted 44 percent (22 ) respondents, while males comprised 56 percent 
(28) (Graph 1). 
GRAPH 1: GENDER OF INTERVIEWED FARMERS
(n=50)
56%
11%
GENDER OF INTERVIEWED FARMERS
n=50
Female
Male
Across the Nilgiris District, women play an important role in agriculture. They are agriculture 
community leaders and were extremely enthusiastic about the innovation, especially the women agri￾entrepreneurs that formed as a part of innovation. They felt empowered by sustaining themselves 
and their families through agri-businesses and requested further improvements in the innovation in 
the form of seeds, pipes, drips, and other agri-inputs as compared to requests from men. Women 
had an important role in leading the cooperatives formed by RDO Trust. Although men are usually 
the legal owners of the farmland, women almost always head the farming decisions since they were 
involved in the farming practices from the beginning and men typically joined after retiring from 
another professional jobs. Also, men were likely to share technical information on themes, such as the 
quantity and prices of inputs for farming, transportation, and storage. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 9
Farm size 
Most farmers in the region practice mid-scale agriculture, which was consistent with the farm sizes of 
those interviewed (Graph 2).
GRAPH 2: RANGE OF LAND SIZE VISITED BY THE EVALUATOR
(n=50)
RANGE OF LAND SIZE VISITED BY THE EVALUATOR
n=50
40
30
20
10
0
<=0.5 acre 0.5–5 acre >=0.5 acre
NUMBER OF FARMERS
12
36
2
The amount of land owned by the 50 respondents varied, with 20 percent of farms (10) equal to or 
smaller than 0.5 acre, 50 percent (25) larger than 0.5 acre and up to five acres. Only eight percent (4) 
of farmers own farms with an area equal to or greater than five acres. Additionally, 22 percent (11) of 
farmers did not own land (Graph 3). 
GRAPH 3: RANGE OF LAND SIZE OWNED BY FARMERS
(n=50) RANGE OF LAND SIZE OWNED BY FARMERS
n=50
40
30
50
20
10
0
<=0.5 acre 0.5–5 acre >=0.5 acre No ownership
NUMBER OF FARMERS
10
25
4
11
10 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
The average farm size owned by respondents is 2.4125 acre, and the median is 1.75 acre. This 
excludes 11 farmers (6 male, 5 female) who did not own land. 
Of the 50 respondents, women farmers own smaller amounts of land than male farmers (Graph 4). 
Among women, 41 percent (16of 39) have farms up to five acres, while 49 percent of men have farms 
up to five acres. Of those 39 farmers, only three men and one woman own farms larger than five acres, 
which aligns with the observation that Nilgiris has almost if not equal female headed households.
GRAPH 4. SIZE OF FARMS OWNED BY FARMERS OF EACH GENDER
(n=50)
RANGE OF LAND SIZE OWNED BY FARMERS
n=50
0 <=0.5 acre 0.5–5 acre >=0.5 acre no ownership
NUMBER OF FARMERS
5 5 5
1
14
11
3
6
20
15
10
5
Female Male
Farm land in village Dhoodhany
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 11
Farmer’s experience 
Forty-nine of the 50 interviewees reported their primary occupation was farming, with the only 
responding “Retired from the animal department – pension seeker and part time farming.” 
Of the farmers, 68 percent have used the innovation (co-compost) for 12 months or less, 10 percent 
for more than 12 months but less than 24 months, and 20 percent for 24 months or more. Only two 
percent have not used the innovation in their farming practices (Graph 5).
GRAPH 5: RANGE OF MONTHS FARMERS HAVE USED INNOVATION
(n=50)
68%
2%
20%
10%
RANGE OF MONTHS FARMERS HAVE USED INNOVATION
n=50
<=12 months
12-24 months
>=24 months
Not used
Other occupations or sources of income 
Most respondents (58 percent) have no source of household income other than farming (Graph 6). 
In other sectors of the economy, five farmers work as a daily wage laborer on a wealthy farmer’s 
land when they cannot afford agri-inputs or during the dry season to ensure sporadic income in their 
household. Four farmers raise cattle during lean periods or the dry season and sell cow dung as 
manure to other farmers. An additional four farmers receive monthly pensions as retired government 
officials and now are working in agriculture full-time. Three farmers have small enterprises to sell 
agri-inputs, such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to other farmers. Two farmers practice law in 
the afternoons and during time off as a side profession. Two farmers are employed as carrot washing 
executives for additional income, and one farmer practices tea farming in addition to agri-farming. 
12 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
GRAPH 6: PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS WITH 
SOURCES OF INCOME OTHER THAN FARMING
(n=50)
58%
10%
8%
6%
8%
4% 4% 2%
PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS WITH SOURCES OF 
INCOME OTHER THAN FARMING
n=50
Carrot washing
Tea farming
Cattle farming
No other occupation
Professional
12-24 months
>=24 months
Not used
Family size 
With 50 responses, the mean family size was 4.24, and the median was four members. In total, 
212 family members were represented within 50 families. Of these, 66 percent (33) had four or 
more members. Eighteen percent (9) had four to six members. Sixteen percent (8) had six or more 
members (Graph 7).
GRAPH 7: HOUSEHOLD SIZE
(n=50)
66%
18%
16%
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
n=50
>=4 members
4-6 members
>=6 members
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 13
METHODOLOGY
14 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
The questionnaire created for the SWFF-WASTE Evaluation study included questions about 
livelihood, income, crop yield, innovation benefits, innovation accessibility, improvements in innovation, 
water use, agricultural inputs usage, and drawbacks and suggestions associated with the innovation. 
WASTE’s local implementing partner, RDO, keeps the coordinates of the Nilgiris District villages and 
a well-maintained database of the farmers who have used the innovation in the past. Because a few 
interviews were previously conducted, the SWFF team suggested using villages that had not been 
investigated but had used the innovation in the last three years. Farmers that had used the innovation 
was the primary filter because they may have better and specific knowledge of the innovation and 
thus can provide greater details. Of these villages, primary interviews were selected through a 
random sampling of the database provided by SWFF. A translator contacted the selected farmers 
a day in advance to ensure their availability on the day of the scheduled interview. Interviews were 
conducted by visiting farming areas, walking through the fields, and meeting in the farmer’s home in 
the case of heavy rains. All interviews were conducted one-on-one with individual farmers to avoid as 
much bias as possible, such as a respondent with limited knowledge on a specific question looking to 
village level farming leaders to provide the exact answer for the respondent. 
Data was collected through individual interviews with 50 farmers from the eight villages spread 
across Nilgiris district: Dhoodhany, Oranalli, Thilluvaluvar Nagar, Salamoor, Kecketti Hada, Shanthoor, 
Jendamedu, and Ketti Palada (Table 2). All interviews were conducted in-person by the monitoring 
and evaluation intern in the local dialect of Tamil Nadu with the help of local translator, Divya Kartik. 
The questionnaire was designed by SWFF staff and stored in the Fulcrum mobile and website 
application. Responses were stored in Fulcrum and interviews were recorded on a cell phone, which 
also was used to capture still images from the field with the farmer’s consent. 
TABLE 2: SELECTED VILLAGES ACROSS NILGIRIS DISTRICT
VILLAGE NAME
Dhoodhany
Oranalli
Thilluvaluvar Nagar
Salamoor
Kecketti Hada
Shanthoor
Jendamedu
Ketti Palada
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 15
The location covered in the survey was mentioned in the WASTE reports provided to the evaluator. 
The villages were chosen based on innovation use of three to 36 months. Farmers were chosen 
from a randomized list of those who had benefited from WASTE’s grey water and co-composting 
application innovations (Map 2). 
16 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
MAP 2: GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS OF (n=50) FARMERS 
INTERVIEWED IN THE SURROUNDINGS OF EIGHT SELECTED VILLAGES, 
IN THE NILGIRIS DISTRICT IN KARNATAKA. 
Based on information provided by WASTE, with the use of Google Fusion tables. 
Some of the dots are not visible as they overlap each other.
All interviews were scheduled in advance with the help of a translator using the contact information 
provided by the RDO Trust. In a few cases in different villages, the chosen farmer was not available 
and the farmer’s community leader identified farmers who have been supported by the innovation for 
interviews.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 17
RESULTS
18 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
When asked if farmers will use the innovation again in the next five to 10 years, 100 percent agreed on 
using co-compost going forward and did not have any problems understanding co-compost usage. 
Farmers using other sources of compost also indicated they would shift to co-compost in the next 
agricultural cycle. 
Several questions were asked to understand how farmers first heard about the innovation. Among 
the 50 farmers, 96 percent (48) reported hearing about the innovation through an RDO outreach 
program. Fourteen percent (7) reported hearing from a neighboring farmer who know of the 
innovation. One heard from the community’s wealthy farmers and another heard feedback from the 
other villages (Graph 8).
GRAPH 8: WAYS IN WHICH FARMERS FIRST HEARD ABOUT THE INNOVATION
(n=50)
96%
2% 2%
14%
WAYS IN WHICH FARMERS FIRST HEARD ABOUT 
THE INNOVATION
n=50
Innovation personnel
Neighbor
Wealthy farmer
Feedback from other villages
Several factors influenced usage of the innovation, with 36 of 50 farmers observing better yields 
from neighboring farms which encouraged them to use the co-compost. Thirteenfarmers reported 
no access to any alternative source of water, so it was critical to use the grey water as a part of 
innovation. It is interesting to note that the innovator came up with an idea to pilot co-compost in the 
kitchen garden initially. Four out of 50 farmers observed good quality yields in the vegetables. They 
EXPERIENCE WITH INNOVATOR
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 19
cooked them and learned the positive changes in the color, size, and taste of the vegetables and 
flowers, giving them confidence to use co-compost. Three farmers reported using the innovation free 
of cost because it was provided by extension services, and one farmer learned about the innovation 
through word of mouth (Graph 9). 
GRAPH 9: FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCED 
FARMERS FIRST TO USE THE INNOVATION
(n=50)
FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCED FARMERS FIRST 
TO USE THE INNOVATION
n=50
NUMBER OF FARMERS
Demonstration from kitchen gardens
Demonstration as from results in neighbor farm
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
4
36
Innovtion provided free by extension services 3
No alternate water source 13
Word of mouth 1
Texture of Double Beans (Mandra Avarai) after using co-compost in kitchen garden. 
Quality has increased with bigger size and better taste.
20 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Farmers showed a complete willingness to share the knowledge and information about the 
innovation. Twenty-six percent (13 of 50) mentioned the co-compost and its benefits to other farmers, 
friends, family, and other people at periodic village meetings. Twenty-four percent (12 ) shared 
knowledge by word of mouth, while 20 percent (10) disseminated information through RDO self￾help group meetings. Eighteen percent (9) demonstrated the benefits through kitchen garden trials, 
eight percent (4) taught the techniques to other farmers and villagers through outreach programs 
by innovators, and four percent (2) suggested the innovation through discussions with other farmers 
(Graph 10).
GRAPH 10: HOW FARMERS SHARED KNOWLEDGE 
AND INFORMATION ABOUT THE INNOVATION
(n=50)
HOW FARMERS SHARED KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION 
ABOUT THE INNOVATION
n=50
NUMBER OF FARMERS
Demonstration through kitchen garden
Self help group meetings
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
9
10
Discussions with other farmers 2
Village meetings 13
Word of mouth 12
Outreach programs by innovators 4
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 21
In the first year, 215 farmers adopted use of co-compost from blackwater recycling while183 adopted 
treated water by grey water recycling. In the second year, 759 adopted co-compost and 201 adopted 
grey water. 
When asked to explain the benefits gained from using co-compost and grey water, most interviewed 
farmers were positive about the innovation and its various benefits. A few interviewed farmers 
suggested improvements and other problems they are facing , such as market fluctuation, high 
electricity usage charges, high cost of seeds and other inputs, transportation and storage difficulties, 
and access to loans. Overall, farmers experienced multiple benefits from the innovation and have 
observed greater yields and less usage of water. 
Agricultural activities benefit 
The innovation’s effect on agricultural activities was observed through various questions asked by 
the innovator. Among the 50 farmers, 90 percent (45) responded positively about using co-compost 
and 10 percent (5) were not yet using the co-compost (Graph 11). Of these, all intended to use the co￾compost generated from the innovation in the next agriculture cycle. 
GRAPH 11: NUMBER OF FARMERS USING CO-COMPOST
(n=50)
NUMBER OF FARMERS USING CO-COMPOST
n=50
40
30
50
20
10
0
No Yes
NUMBER OF FARMERS
5
45
BENEFITS OF INNOVATION
22 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
The number of farmers growing a particular crop before and after using the innovation demonstrates 
the innovation’s outcome is substantial diversification (Table 3). Farmers had better yield in terms 
of vegetable size, color, skin, and taste. Carrot, the golden crop of the Nilgiris, performed well with 
a 14 percent increase in production after using the innovation. Beetroot has a 12 percent increase 
while garlic and potatoes only saw a two percent increase. Other crops, including beans, cabbage, 
radish, cauliflower, broccoli, and zucchini also increased in production. Crops like flowers, strawberry, 
fenugreek, and capsicum were introduced but were not produced before the access to the innovation. 
Production of peas was unchanged.
TABLE 3: DIVERSIFICATION IN CROPS AS A RESULT OF USING INNOVATION
YEAR
NUMBER OF FARMERS GROWING CROPS 
BEFORE INNOVATION
NUMBER OF FARMERS GROWING CROPS 
AFTER INNOVATION
Carrot 35 42
Radish 2 4
Beetroot 13 19
Garlic 12 13
Peas 1 1
Beans 4 10
Potato 19 18
Cabbage 4 5
Cauliflower 1 2
Broccoli 3 6
Zucchini 1 3
Flowers 0 1
Strawberry 0 1
Capsicum 0 1
Fenugreek 0 1
Water benefits 
Water sources ranged from borewells, rivers, ponds, rainwater, and innovation source (grey water) to 
groundwater. Most farmers used natural sources of water, such as ponds in their lands, nearby rivers, 
and groundwater, to manually irrigate their crops. They also increasingly relied on grey water because 
the region’s extreme climate change and dry season deprive usual sources of irrigation of water. Few 
farmers revealed incurring tremendous losses since the last few agri-cycles because of lack of access 
to water. However, they sometimes invest in water labor costs (cost incurred by farmers to pay daily 
wage labor to transport water from nearby lands) which leads to high cost of inputs.
Using the innovation, 68 percent of farmers had a major change in access to water (Graph 12). 
Only eight percent reported significant improvement in accessing water after introduction of the 
innovation source. Twenty-two percent had no change in access to water after grey water units were 
constructed. Six percent either not used the innovation or found it too early to see changes. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 23
GRAPH 12: CHANGES IN ACCESS TO WATER 
AFTER INNOVATION SOURCE WAS INTRODUCED
(n=50)
64%
22%
8%
6%
4% 2%
CHANGES IN ACCESS TO WATER AFTER INNOVATION 
SOURCE WAS INTRODUCED
n=50
Improved
Had no change
Fundamentally improved
Other
 Not used
 Can’t say
Most farmers complained about water scarcity and requested for more access to grey water. One 
farmer offered his land to RDO Trust free of charge to construct a grey water unit. Most farmers do 
not pay for water because they share water from nearby ponds and wells; however, they do incur 
water labor costs which make the cumulative cost of pre-harvesting practices exuberant. 
Grey water unit in Shanthoor Village
24 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
When asked about the result of using grey water, 16 farmers said they could cultivate additional 
land now (Graph 13). As discussed with the farmer’s community leader, it was becoming a common 
practice to only cultivate one-third to one-fifth of the land because of the area’s deprivation of 
water. The introduction of grey water in some regions, although limited, has allowed farmers to 
cultivate some additional land. Seventeen of 50 farmers said access to grey water could provide 
more irrigation than before. Three farmers cultivated fodder and supported dairy cattle apart from 
irrigation. Due to the high maintenance cost of supporting cattle, many farmers sold their cattle in 
the past. With access to grey water, this practice is making a comeback. Cattle farming also provides 
additional income from selling cow dung to be used as a compost in farming.Twenty farmers did 
not use the grey water facility because the innovation source is not yet in their respective villages. 
However, all have requested access to the innovation source water. A few villages will gain access in 
the next phase, although some villages do not have a cluster of households to generate grey water, 
making it unrealistic to set up a grey water unit. In terms of access to more grey water, households 
are fewer in number or have not generated enough grey water to meet the demand of farmers. One 
farmer used grey water recently but could not identify the results.
GRAPH 13: RESULT OF USING GREY WATER
RESULT OF USING GREY WATER
20
15
10
5
0
NUMBER OF FARMERS
1
16 17
20
3
Can’t say,
it’s too early
Could cultivate 
additional land
Could provide more 
irrigation than before
Could cultivate fodder 
and support dairy cattle Not using
1 16
3 20
17
Of 50 farmers, 68 percent (34) have seen a reduction in the quantity of water used for irrigation 
because the co-compost has increased the soil’s moisture retention ,making it viable to use less water 
(Graph 14). This is an extreme benefit, considering Nilgiris is witnessing its highest recorded dry season 
in the last decade. There was no change in water usage among 12 percent (6) of farmers, each of 
whom used the co-compost for one-tenth of their farmland as a trial and said they would use it 
extensively in the next cycle to see a substantial change. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 25
GRAPH 14: CHANGE IN WATER USAGE AFTER USING INNOVATION
CHANGE IN WATER USAGE AFTER USING INNOVATION (n=50)
n=50
NUMBER OF FARMERS
It saves time and fresh water
Access to water in dry season
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
4
More quantity of water is available now 2
Water from carrot washing 1
1
1
1
No change 6
Reduced 34
Somewhat reduced
Can’t identify
Eight percent (4)now have access to water in dry seasons, something that they did not experience 
before the innovation was introduced in the region. This allows them to practice farming even in dry 
seasons. Four percent (2) reported access to more water for irrigation because they are combining 
grey water with their usual water source for farming. Two percent used water sourced after carrot 
washing, two percent had a reduction in water usage, and two percent could not identify any changes 
in access.
Crop benefits 
An increase in yield over the period prior to the innovation in Nilgiris was experienced by 68 percent 
(34) farmers(Graph 15). Those observing a yield increase felt that crops were better quality or had 
improved survival rates. Twenty-eight percent (14) observed a substantial yield increase while four 
percent (2) reported not using the innovation. 
GRAPH 15: CHANGE IN CROP YIELD AFTER USING INNOVATION
(n=50)
CHANGE IN CROP YIELD AFTER USING INNOVATION
n=50
40
30
20
10
0
Increased Not used Substantially 
Increased
NUMBER OF FARMERS
34
2
14
26 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Farmers who have used the innovation for their most important crops observed better quality yield 
in terms of better, greener, fresher, and qualitative crops after even two months of sowing. Carrot, 
potato and beetroot are the most important crops across Nilgiris and demand for these crops is 
insurmountable. Because farming geography facilitates growth and markets allow competitive prices, 
farmers seem to benefit when growing these crops.
When asked if their three main crops benefited, 98 percent (49) who bought the co-compost ( had 
increased yields, while two percent (1) did not use the co-compost (Graph 16). This shows farmers’ 
confidence in the innovation. With the second most important crop, 64 percent (32) had increased 
yields, while two percent (1) had decreased yields, and 34 percent (17) did not use the co-compost. It 
is important to note that the majority of farmers only used the co-compost for their most important 
crop. They saw merit and wanted to nourish the most important crop as much as possible. This also 
indicates that farmers see the innovation as an extra quality enhancer agri-input rather than an 
essential prerequisite for their farming practice. This tendency can be changed by making them more 
aware of the disadvantage of using chemicals in the soil which essentially speed the process but 
deteriorate the soil over time. Chemicals are still prioritized over co-compost, which require a solid 
foundation of education and training to shift farmers to using co-compost permanently. A training 
and development session can be organized by the innovators as a part of the outreach program. With 
the third most important crop, 50 percent (25) did not use the co-compost , validating the priority of 
chemicals over manure behavior. Forty-six percent (23) had increased yields, while four percent (2) 
saw yields decrease.
Cultivation of Broccoli using co-compost
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 27
GRAPH 16: BENEFITS OBSERVED IN THE FIRST THREE 
IMPORTANT CROPS AFTER USING INNOVATION
(n=50) BENEFITS OBSERVED IN THE FIRST THREE 
IMPORTANT CROPS AFTER USING INNOVATION
n=50
0
First Crop Second Crop Third Crop
NUMBER OF FARMERS
49
1
32
1
17
23
2
25
40
30
20
10
Yes No Not using
50
Farming knowledge is highly valued and was requested by many of the farmers interviewed. Also, of 
note is that 98 percent responded “Yes” when asked if they can project the survival rate of the crops 
(Graph 17). However, two percent answered “No.” The majority said they can observe moisture 
retention in the soil and that using co-compost automatically reduces fertilizer use which enhances 
crop survival rates. However, an extremely important insight resulted when farmers were asked about 
crop survival rates. 
GRAPH 17: SURVIVAL RATES
(n=50)
98%
2%
SURVIVAL RATES
n=50
Yes
No
28 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
In Nilgiris District, the government subsidizes electricity usage up to 200 watts, which primarily is for 
household functions. Farmers utilize this current for fencing to protect the crops from wild animals, which 
can ruin all the vegetation. For example, a female farmer could no longer cultivate beans and cabbage 
as supplementary crops despite an excellent yield of beans. The majority of farmers asked for a solar 
pump to allow them to generate electricity for fencing and use the current provided by the government 
for the household only. Using the government-supplied current for fencing is more dangerous than using 
current from a solar pump. . Although this particular insight was out of the scope of the study, it is worth 
exploring as an extension to the services provided as a part of the innovation. 
Income benefits 
Farmers did not keep close track of their income and expenses. Information was mainly based on 
what farmers could remember sellingrecently or in the previous year. It was more effective to ask how 
muchthey would earn for selling one kilogram of each crop and calculate theincome. However, in some 
cases, farmers stated the total amount they earned in a month or a season.
Prices per kilogram differed depending on the season and market fluctuations and from farmer to 
farmer. Some farmers managed all transportation and storage logistics themselves and generated 
a higher profit. In some cases, farmers relied on middle men to eliminate any risk associated with 
logistical requirements and had less profit. 
During the summer, fewer farmers can produce greater yield quantity because of the extreme climate 
change with no rains and reduced water availability. When asked about the crop prices from last year’s 
production, extreme fluctuations occurred because mandi market is a semi-bondage market where 
prices are controlled by powerful and wealthy agents. Prices can range from 30 to 60 rupees per 
kilogram for carrot (the golden crop), depending on the crop, its condition/quality, and the season. Prices 
for potato ranges from 14 to 40 rupees per kilogram and beetroot is 25 to 40 rupees per kilogram. 
Seedling prices ranged from 25,000 to 30,000 per kilogram for one acre. Farmers have started 
to sell seeds and other inputs themselves because they do not see agriculture as a sustaining 
occupation due to less rains in the last decade. Farmers were apprehensive about sharing annual 
income from farming; however, when asked about changes in income due to the innovation, they 
indicated there was a financial benefit from using the co-compost and grey water. Seventy-six 
percent are categorized as “extreme poor,” 16 percent are “low income,” two percent are“upper 
income” and six percent could not estimate annual income (Graph 18). The exact data is difficult to 
assess because farmers were not comfortable sharing exact annual income and only gave estimates. 
Therefore, the income benefit from the innovation can be inconclusive or misleading.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 29
GRAPH 18: CURRENT ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME AFTER USING INNOVATION
(n=50)
76%
2% 6%
16%
CURRENT ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME AFTER 
USING INNOVATION
n=50
Extreme poor (0-160,000)
Low income (160,001-320,000) 
Upper income (480,000+)
Can’t say
The stated income range is broad because farmers referred to either monthly or seasonal income. The 
smallest stated income was as little as 10000 rupees, while the largest was over 2500000 rupees. 
To assess income benefits from the innovation, farmers were asked about any change in income 
Graph 19).Thirty percent (15 out of 50) reported somewhat increase in income, attributing it to 
reduction in water labor, quantity of water used, and better quality of yield produced as well as to 
the farmers’ own productivity, price variations, and varying weather conditions. O 50 interviews, 14 
farmers reported a significant increase in income, while 11 reported absolutely no benefit in income. 
Five declared a very significant income change, and four were not able to determine a change in 
income, while one hoped for better income in the next cycle. 
GRAPH 19: IMPROVEMENT IN FAMILY INCOME AFTER USING INNOVATION
(n=50)
IMPROVEMENT IN FAMILY INCOME AFTER 
USING INNOVATION
n=50
14
10
6
2
16
12
8
4
Can’t say More income 
needed
NUMBER OF FARMERS
Somewhat
15
Significantly
14
Not at all
11
Very
significantly
5
4
1
0
30 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Thirteen of the 50 farmers responding saw their income increase after the innovation (26 percent), 
three experienced negative income impact (six percent), and two experienced no change (four 
percent) (Table 3). Thirty-two farmers (64 percent) could not concretely monitor the change in 
individual income. Reportedly, farmers believed the income benefit from the innovation was in 
reducing expensive agricultural inputs, such as seeds and pesticides. Some farmers stated that, since 
the crops from the innovation were of better quality, it was easier to sell them. The Self Help Group 
created by the innovators was also considered a benefit, as it provided new knowledge about farming 
practices which was a contributing factor to their income. 
TABLE 3: CHANGE IN INDIVIDUAL FARMER INCOME WITH USING CO-COMPOST
INCOME CHANGE NUMBER OF FARMERS % OF FARMERS
Positive 13 26%
Negative 3 6%
No Change 2 4%
Can’t Say 32 64%
Total 50 100%
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 31
Poverty reduction benefits 
Poverty reduction benefits are estimated by understanding broad farm expenses. To understand 
the household poverty levels, changes in expenses for transportation costs were investigated before 
and after introducing the innovation. Before introducing the innovation, almost the entire farmer 
community of the Nilgiris District used mushroom compost and cow dung as an aggregator for yield. 
Two types of costs are associated with each aggregator: a transportation cost (generally trucks or 
a personal vehicle) from the source to a common area where the bulk material is offloaded and the 
transportation labor cost (human resource cost) from the common areas to the individual farms. 
When asked about the transportation cost for cow dung, most farmers owned cattle and only 
incurred labor cost to individual farms (Table 4). Relative to mushroom compost costs, most farmers 
are incurring both transportation costs from the composting plant to the common areas and a labor 
cost from open area to individual farms. Farmers reported higher cost of transportation because the 
mushroom composting plant is in Coonoor, which is far from the Nilgiris District. 
TABLE 4: TRANSPORTATION COST FOR USING COW DUNG AND MUSHROOM COMPOST
INPUTS
TRANSPORTATION COST 
FOR COW DUNG
TRANSPORTATION 
LABOR COST FOR 
COW DUNG
TRANSPORTATION 
COST FOR MUSHROOM 
COMPOST
TRANSPORTATION 
LABOR COST FOR 
MUSHROOM COMPOST
Number of 
respondents 
paying
6 9 35 10
Price paid IIndian 
National Rupees) 26000 46500 180800 25600
Average (Indian 
National Rupees) 4333 517 5166 2560
When asked about the transportation costs for co-compost, farmers reported less cost because 
resource recovery parks are closer to villages in Nilgiris (Table 5). It is difficult to assess the exact 
change in income and ultimately poverty alleviation, as farmers were not able to recall exact data 
values. Overall, data reflects a certain reduction in transportation cost but better assessment would 
take place in coming cycles when farmers start using the co-compost and eliminate the dependence 
on chemicals.
TABLE 5: TRANSPORTATION COST FOR USING CO-COMPOST
INPUTS
TRANSPORTATION COST 
FOR COMPOST
TRANSPORTATION 
LABOR COST FOR 
CO-COMPOST
Number of 
respondents 
paying
28 9
Price paid IIndian 
National Rupees) 36100 8000
Average (Indian 
National Rupees) 1289 889
32 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Difficulty with innovation usage and suggestions 
Interviewers asked the farmers if they had problems with the co-compost and grey water or had 
any suggestions for improvement. Responses included access to grey water, access to more water, 
reduced prices for co-compost, better road infrastructure, and an increase in the cap of the credit 
services available to farmers as a part of innovation. 
The improvement suggestion related to electricity provision was installation of a solar pump. 
Pumps are available in the market at a higher cost. Farmers suggested regulating them through a 
marketplace for agriculture inputs at a nominal price. This would enable them to install electric fencing 
to save their cultivation from wild animals. Another suggestion was crop insurance facilitated by the 
RDO Trust to avail benefits under National Schemes. Farmers are apprehensive about applying 
for crop insurance benefits given their limited knowledge about the schemes or sometimes lack of 
awareness of the documentation process. Organizations such as RDO Trust can enable the process 
on behalf of the farmers. Individual loans need to be made available, too, apart from group members. 
Another suggestion involved market fluctuations and how farmers are exploited by market agents. 
Such market variations can be controlled if innovators provide transportation and storage logistical 
support to farmers. This would reduce their dependence on the agents and, ultimately, market prices 
can be controlled by farmers. 
Farmers requested group mechanisms to buy diesel motors in a group mobilized by innovators. Every 
group can have six to seven farmers that can use the motor sequentially. This suggestion came to light 
because of exuberant cost of motor diesel. 
Mushroom compost in farmland.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 33
Additionally, farmers suggested that personal loans be made available at lower interest rate, even 
lower than Ujjivan schemes. They also suggested that they do not want to pay equated monthly 
installments. Instead, they prefer quarterly payments that would start after four months of the 
harvesting cycle. Another option would be paying interest every month and the full principle every 
quarter Farmers reported this is happening through informal sources, and they want it to be 
channelized through SHG to reduce any further exploitation of farmers through wealthy agents. Also, 
farmers requested more outreach in terms of SHG loans since some learned of them only recently 
and could not utilize them in the previous cycle.
Finally, seeds at nominal price needs to be channelizedas prices are extremely high. Framers reported 
10 years ago, the price of carrot seeds was 5000 rupees and now is 30000 rupees per kilogram 
but, interestingly, market prices for crops did not inflate at the same rate. This has resulted in them 
incurring huge losses every year. 
Gender differences and benefits perceived
In terms of usage of co-compost, 20 out of 45 (44 percent) women are using co-compost while 
25 out of 45 (55 percent) male farmers used the co-compost(Graph 20). In terms of farmers who 
have not used the co-compost, two out of five (40 percent) female farmers have not yet used the 
innovation but both would like to use it in the next cycle. In fact, through this survey, both learned of 
SHG groups and wanted to become part of it. Three out of five male farmers (60 percent) did not use 
the co-compost because they heavily use mushroom compost; however, they indicated a desire to 
use it the next agriculture cycles. Furthermore, women farmers are more likely than men to use co￾compost because of two factors: Self Help Group formation and the kitchen garden piloting program.
GRAPH 20: GENDER DISPARITY IN USING CO-COMPOST
(n=50) GENDER DISPARITY IN USING CO-COMPOST
n=50
20
15
25
10
5
0
No Yes
NUMBER OF FARMERS
3 2
20
25
Female Male
34 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Women seem to be more enthusiastic about the innovation as they gain farming knowledge and 
techniques through the innovator’s outreach program, making them technically strong since there was 
limited access to such programs initially. When it comes to using or contributing toward grey water, 
only 17 farmers used the grey water. Of those, 70 percent were male and 30 percent were female. 
Eighteen farmers reported not using grey water. Of those, 73 percent were male and 27 percent were 
female. Two farmers reported no access; both were female. Thirteen farmers reported using both 
using and contributing toward grey water. Of those, 77 percent were male and 23 percent were 
female (Graph 21). This poses a challenge to the provision of grey water more generally. This region is 
already challenged with providing enough grey water to households because the clustering of 
households is not feasible in many villages geographically. It becomes imperative to educate farmers 
on the importance of their contribution toward grey water or provide them with the essential means to 
be able to contribute. Due to limited professions available for women, they tend to work as laborers 
more often than men. In order to sustain farming as their primary profession, they requested for 
access to/for more grey water more enthusiastically. Women working as laborers becomes critical to 
understand the difference in the number of farmerscontributing and using grey water and co￾compost, indicating a major gender impact from the innovation. 
Women farmers removing extra plant while cultivating beetroot.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 35
GRAPH 21: GENDER DISPARITY IN USING OR CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS GREY WATER
(n=50)
GENDER DISPARITY IN USING OR CONTRIBUTING 
TOWARDS GREY WATER
n=50
NUMBER OF FARMERS
Both contributed
and used
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
3
10
No access 2
5
5
13
Used only 12
No used
Female Male
Regional differences 
The survey was conducted in eight villages of Nilgiris District where the innovation was active. 
However, questions related to transport and market availability were asked in only four villages 
because these questions were added later. The four villages are Jendamedu, Kecketti Hada, Ketti 
Palada, and Shanthoor, where a total of 19 farmers were interviewed. After conducting the survey, it 
was clear there were differences between the four villages, especially in terms of logistics of carrying 
crops to market and negotiating the right prices for the crops. Farmers in different regions had trouble 
finding markets (Graph 22). Out of 19 farmers, 16 from all four villages reported no trouble finding 
markets while three farmers from Jendamedu reported trouble in finding the right market. 
GRAPH 22: REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN FINDING MARKETS FOR THE CROP
(n=19)
REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN FINDING MARKETS 
FOR THE CROP
n=19
8
6
10
4
2
0
Jendamedu Kecketti Hada Ketti Palada Shanthoor
NUMBER OF FARMERS
4
4
2
6
Yes No
3
In addition, farmers suggestions and experience with markets brought some insight.
For instance, three farmers who reported trouble finding markets have black color soil in their farmland, 
which is extremely geographical and found in some parts of Jendamedu village. These farmers could not 
36 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
find markets given the black color of potatoes and other vegetables they cultivate. Most who reported no 
trouble finding markets share their experiences in terms of dynamic pricing. They operate on the pricing on 
a particular day and incur huge losses if prices are extremely low. Therefore, timing becomes critical. They 
try to go as early as possible. Going later means more competition and lower rates, so there is limited time 
flexibility. Rates are controlled by market-mafias, and farmers have almost no negotiating power in the 
pricing. Wholesale markets are easily identified ,but quality, size, and color are big variants in setting crop 
prices in such markets. Hence, manure that increases crop yields becomes an extremely important agent 
in driving prices in the markets. As part of innovation implemented through the Diamond Model, a key 
linkage is that female SHG members are fully involved with the farmer’s producer company and managing 
the co-compost supply. The model focuses on developing technical and business capacities of women 
across the region. Women mainly are dealing with microfinance and are encouraged to move toward agri￾business under Farmers Producers Groups. Therefore, the price of produce becomes a critical element in 
sustaining the entrepreneuring venture of women farmers. If co-compost application helps steer higher 
prices in the markets, then it becomes a paramount impact resulted through the innovation.
In terms of the regional difference faced by farmers while bringing crops to that market (Graph 23), 
all seven farmers from Jendamedu villages reported trouble carrying crops to the market, while all 
farmers from Kecketti Hada and Ketti Palada villages reported no trouble transporting crops. One 
farmer from Shanthoor village reported trouble, and five farmers from Shanthoor village reported no 
trouble in carrying the crops.
GRAPH 23: REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN BRINGING CROPS TO THE MARKET
(n=19)
REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN BRINGING CROPS 
TO THE MARKET
n=19
8
6
10
4
2
0
Jendamedu Kecketti Hada Ketti Palada Shanthoor
NUMBER OF FARMERS
7
4
2
6
Yes No
1
This is because Jendamedu is geographically located far from other villages. The markets and road 
infrastructure is inadequate, making this village and its farmers inaccessible to various key locations in 
the district. Roads are narrow, they have to hire two tempos instead of one truck, and, ultimately, pay 
higher rental. Farmers have to pay higher transport charges every cycle as compared with farmers 
from other villages. Some farmers suggested they are not comfortable in associating themselves with 
the risks, so they rely on agents for transportation and labor which eventually leads to agents charging 
a massive commission. Since prices fluctuate continuously in the markets and farmers aim to get 
there as early as possible in the day, they must start from their villages at odd hours and take 
inadequate roads, making them vulnerable to adverse situations. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 37
DISCUSSION
38 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Usage and uptake
The idea has addressed two major challenges of the irrigation sector in one consolidated attempt. 
This is a definitive example of leveraging opportunities of a circular economy model where solid and 
liquid waste streams are strategically managed to feed two most crucial input materials (water and 
fertilizer) into the agricultural sector.
Co-compost from treated waste streams also is cheaper than chemical-based fertilizers; thus, 
households could increase their annual income using this model. This is due to multiple stakeholders’ 
interest in treatment of wastewater and faecal sludge. As part of various national and state level 
government schemes, different nodal departments are responsible for treatment of wastewater and 
faecal sludge, and the outputs of the treatment processes need to be managed by the authorities. 
This model could help the authorities and the farmers through establishment of a regular and 
continuous supply chain of the output products in form of co-compost. Farmers have started using 
co-compost generated using both black water and grey water generated from nearby households. 
RDO sells co-compost at 5 rupees per kilogram along with lab test results which attracts farmers and 
gives them certain reliability of the material. Also, the positive experiences of better yield and good 
quality crops in the region contributes to the higher selling of trusts’ co-compost.
Women farmers removing extra plant while cultivating beetroot.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 39
Crop yield and survival 
The tables below are mostly for crops grown in the winter of 2019 and harvested in monsoon, and 
then again sowed in monsoon and harvested in summer. Because of acute climate change and rains 
still not appearing, many planted crops were in danger of being lost. It should be noted that most 
farmers alternate crops every cycle, but “carrot” as the golden crop is sown again by the farmers. 
Carrot has a great market value, has high demand, and offers competitive market prices. Farmers 
suggested that co-compost helped retain moisture in the soil and strengthen it further so they can 
grow carrots in the repetitive cycle. 
Data on yields of diverse crops grown by farmers before using the innovation (Table 6) and after 
using the innovation (Table 7)suggest more farmers were growing beetroot, for example, before using 
the innovation. However, the average yield is higher after using the innovation, suggesting farmers 
are now growing higher yield crops compared to earlier harvesting. Similarly, better yields can be 
observed in major crops such as carrot, beetroot, cabbage, zucchini, and cauliflower. Conversely, other 
major crops such as potato, broccoli, garlic, radish, and peas had a better average before using the 
innovation. It is essential to note that crop yield are a factor of both the sequence of which crops are 
sown in a particular cycle and the usage of co-compost. The figures reflect the total produce from all 
the farmers interviewed.
TABLE 6. FARMERS’ CROPS YIELD BEFORE USING INNOVATION
YEAR CARROT BEETROOT RADISH GARLIC BEANS PEAS CAULIFLOWER POTATO BROCCOLI ZUCCHINI CABBAGE
Number 
of farmers 
growing 
crops 
before 
Innovation
23 14 1 9 3 1 1 14 2 1 0
Total kilos 
harvested 
before 
using 
innovation
109750 49750 2000 23270 6400 1000 2000 70725 3000 500 0
Average 4989 3554 2000 2586 2133 1000 2000 5052 1500 500 0
Crop yield is calculated in kilograms (kg). 
TABLE 7. FARMERS’ CROPS YIELD AFTER USING INNOVATION
YEAR CARROT BEETROOT RADISH GARLIC BEANS PEAS CAULIFLOWER POTATO BROCCOLI ZUCCHINI CABBAGE
Number 
of farmers 
growing 
crops after 
Innovation
35 6 2 10 3 1 3 20 2 1 3
Total kilos 
harvested 
after using 
innovation
278665 40900 3000 15430 1820 500 15000 61070 6000 7000 45000
Average 7962 6817 1500 1543 607 500 5000 3054 3000 7000 15000
Crop yield is calculated in kilograms (kg). 
40 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Changes in income 
The quantity of inputs used before and after using the innovation. raises some important points (Table 
8, Table 9). Quantity of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and seeds remained the same pre- and post￾use of the innovation. Water usage remained more or less the same, with six respondents stating they 
now have better access to water. Respondents could not estimate the reduction in the quantity of water; 
hence, the data is not quantified. Two farmers relied only on grey water, as they had no access to water 
before the innovation. Similarly, two other farmers observed reduction in the quantity of water as co￾compost retains the moisture in the soil. Another farmer reported better access to water as now she is 
using the original source of water (in her case, pond) along with grey water provided additionally.
TABLE 8. TOTAL QUANTITY OF INPUTS USED BEFORE INTRODUCING INNOVATION
INPUTS
FERTILIZERS 
(KG)
PESTICIDES 
+ 
HERBICIDES 
(ML)
WATER (1 
PER WEEKLY)
WATER 
LABOR (PER 
WEEKLY)
SEEDS (KG 
PER CROP)
COWDUNG 
(KG)
MUSHROOM 
COMPOST 
(KG)
Number of 
respondents 
using
48 49 33 23 40 24 35
Total quantity 
used before 
innovation
114 18255 663720 66 43 17770 311000
Average 2 373 20113 3 1 740 8886
All quantities are calculated per actuals per acre.
Interestingly, more than water quantity, it was quantity of water labor that changes effectively after 
the introduction of the innovation. Four farmers reported reducing the water labor as the grey water 
unit is accessible from their farms, and they can access the water themselves. Two farmers reported 
using bio-fertilizers and vermicompost and reduced their quantities after using co-compost.
TABLE 9. TOTAL QUANTITY OF INPUTS USED AFTER INTRODUCING INNOVATION
INPUTS
FERTILIZERS 
(KG)
PESTICIDES 
+ 
HERBICIDES 
(ML)
WATER 
(1 PER 
WEEKLY)
WATER 
LABOR (PER 
WEEKLY)
SEEDS (KG 
PER CROP)
COWDUNG 
(KG)
MUSHROOM 
COMPOST 
(KG)
CO￾COMPOST 
(KG)
Number of 
respondents 
using
48 49 33 23 40 12 22 30
Total quantity 
used after 
innovation
114 18255
could not 
quantify 
the change
58 43 4470 183750 126760
Average 2 373 NIl 3 1 373 8352 4225
All quantities are calculated per actuals per acre.
Now, coming to the input’s usage post-introduction of the innovation, 30 respondents used the co￾compost in recent agri-cycle. Introduction of co-compost decreased the number of farmers opting 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 41
for both cow dung and mushroom compost from 24 to 12 in the case of cow dung and 35 to 22 in the 
case of mushroom compost. Additionally, co-compost replaced the heavy quantities of mushroom 
compost used, and farmers are increasingly opting for co-compost because of cheaper prices and 
better-quality manure. In fact, farmers using bio-fertilizers and vermicompost also reduced their 
quantities and introduced co-compost in their farming practices. Estimations of the change in income 
with respect to inputs used before and after the innovation are below (Table 10). 
Fewarmers (seven out of 50) have paid for the water, as their own sources of water were depleted and 
they started buying water where the average price paid by farmers was rupees 7,114 (Table 10). Water 
labor cost them an average of rupees 1,722. Although, 24 farmers used the cow dung, 50 percent 
owned the cattle; hence, the remaining 50 percent paid for the cow dung with an average of rupees 
25,542. Thirtyfive out of 50 farmers paid for mushroom compost with an average of rupees 62,200. 
TABLE 10. TOTAL PRICES OF INPUTS PAID BEFORE INTRODUCING INNOVATION
INPUTS
FERTILIZERS 
(KG)
PESTICIDES 
+ 
HERBICIDES 
(ML)
WATER (1 
PER WEEKLY)
WATER 
LABOR (PER 
WEEKLY)
SEEDS (KG 
PER CROP)
COWDUNG 
(KG)
MUSHROOM 
COMPOST 
(KG)
Number of 
respondents 
using
48 49 7 23 40 12 35
Total price 
paid 34200 7302000 49800 39600 1062500 306500 2177000
Average 713 149020 7114 1722 26563 25542 62200
All quantities are calculated per actuals per acre.
The change in the price paid for the inputs and eventual impact on the income of farmers is critically 
important (Table 11). Once grey water was introduced, farmers realized reduction in the quantity of 
water used but could not quantify by how much; hence, it was difficult to evaluate the prices paid to 
buy water after the grey water become accessible. 
TABLE 11. TOTAL PRICES OF INPUTS PAID AFTER INTRODUCING INNOVATION
INPUTS
FERTILIZERS 
(KG)
PESTICIDES 
+ 
HERBICIDES 
(ML)
WATER 
(1 PER 
WEEKLY)
WATER 
LABOR (PER 
WEEKLY)
SEEDS (KG 
PER CROP)
COWDUNG 
(KG)
MUSHROOM 
COMPOST 
(KG)
CO￾COMPOST 
(KG)
Number of 
respondents 
using
48 49 33 23 40 6 22 30
Total price 
paid 34200 7302000 Nil 34800 1062500 4470 1286250 633800
Average 713 149020 Nil 1513 26563 745 58466 21127
All quantities are calculated per actuals per acre.
42 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Prices for water labor reduced and farmers paid rupees 1,513 on average as compared to an average 
of rupees 1,722 earlier. Prices paid for cow dung observed a massive reduction after the introduction 
of co-compost. Post-introduction of co-compost, 50 percent (12 out of 24) fewer farmers used cow 
dung. Out of these 12, only six paid for cow dung because the rest owned the cattle. Farmers are now 
paying an average of rupees 745 as compared to an average of rupees 25,542. This explains that 
farmers observed brilliant yields through co-compost as compared to cow dung and want to shift 
completely to co-compost in near future. When it comes to mushroom compost, the same trend can 
be observed. Farmers are now paying an average of rupees 58,466 as compared to an average of 
rupees 62,200 earlier. Thirty farmers started using co-compost with an average quantity 126,760 kgs 
used with an average of rupees 21,127 paid by them. 
Gender differences 
Women do not necessarily own the bigger farm lands in their names, but small-scale agriculture 
has become a gendered activity where women are seen as the main person responsible for farming 
even though they do not always have the final decision or legal status of farming land (Table 4). 
It is important to note that the field evaluator came across more enthusiastic women than men 
while interviewing about the recent innovation. The innovation, as part of their diamond model, 
Micro sprinklers used as a method of irrigation in farmlands.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 43
enables women to become agri-entrepreneurs and sustain themselves financially through selling 
of the innovation to farmers. The innovators have come up with the idea of the Women Self Help 
Group (SHG) to provide credit services to women (a group of 11 women can avail a credit loan up to 
50,000 rupees). This led to ownership of farming practices and a shift of decision making among 
women which was missing earlier. Women across different regions recommended making the RDO 
a marketplace for agricultural inputs, such as seeds which are extremely unaffordable, so they could 
buy them through RDO and pay through EMI services managed by RDO. 
After witnessing the success of women SHGs, men are interested in creating all male SHGs with a 
cap more than 50,000 rupees. Earlier, they were dependent on financing schemes such as Muthoot 
finance, Impact etc, or through informal sources of loans which are often unreliable. In fact, male 
farmers are encouraging their wives to be part of these groups to avail maximum benefits. 
Even though men had higher technical knowledge in terms of quantity and cost of inputs used in 
farming, women are increasingly becoming aware of the technical know-how through the innovator’s 
outreach program. They now have access to ask questions or clarify doubts, something that was 
missing earlier.
Through this study, many farmers got the cognizance of 
initiatives taken by innovators, such as formation of SHGs, credit 
services, benefits of co-compost, and access to grey water 
facilities. Every SHG is a group of six women who eventually 
take care of another six women independently. In total, 36 
women are part of one group. This model enables complete 
ownership of circular economy model/innovation to women 
farmers. Most women farmers showed enthusiasm when they 
learned about loan services through SHGs and committed to 
become part of it as soon as possible. One-time fixed cost to 
join an SHG is 1,000 rupees. Almost all male farmers plan to 
get their wives to become a part of an SHG going forward. Male 
farmers observed that their wives are getting heavily invested 
in the farming practices after joining these groups. A female 
farmer reported to avail 250,000 rupees under loan schemes 
in last few years and plans to avail 500,000 rupees more in 
coming cycles. It was out of scope of this survey to understand 
gender disparities in terms of knowledge and understanding 
of techniques related to farming. It is worth exploring deeper 
how this innovation further benefits women specifically. Also, 
as previously mentioned, confidence in terms of knowledge, 
ownerships, and techniques can be observed after the 
introduction of the innovation, an indirect benefit that also could 
be better researched to bring more benefits to women. For 
instance, a one-stop center can be set up to enable women to 
be trained with newer technologies and practices. 
S Shaguntla, Director of SHG Group formed as part of innovation
44 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Affordability
When asking the interviewees how much they pay for the innovation, 86 percent (43 out of 50) of 
the farmers reported paying Rupees 5 per kilogram for the co-compost. This does not include the 
transportation cost. Fourteen percent (seven out of 50) reported not paying anything. These farmers 
have used the co-compost in the kitchen gardens or during the trial phase when it was provided free 
by extension services (Graph 24). 
GRAPH 24: MONEY IN RUPEES PAID BY FARMERS FOR AVAILING INNOVATION
(n=50)
MONEY IN RUPEES PAID BY FARMERS FOR 
AVAILING INNOVATION
n=50
80
60
100
40
20
0
5 rupees ker Kg Not paid
86
45
When asked about the amount they are willing to pay for the sustained service of the innovation, 
46 percent (23 out of 50) immediately continued the answer by saying that they want a 50 percent 
lower price to afford the service (Graph 25). In fact, 26 percent of the entire sample (13 out of 50) are 
comfortable paying only the market price for the co-compost. They compare it with the cooperative 
society compost, which is 4 rupees per kg but comes with a superior transportation cost and no 
evidence in the form of laboratory test reports. Eighteen percent (9 out of 50) are comfortable paying 
what they repay now, which is essentially the selling price of co-compost (5 rupees per kg). Eight 
percent (four out of 50) willingly pay 4 rupees per kg, which is again the selling price of co-operative 
society compost. One farmer paid nothing for the innovation, as she incurred heavy losses in the last 
cycle because of market prices and the acute dry season. However, most farmers had a positive 
attitude toward the innovation and would like it to continue to be active.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 45
GRAPH 25: FARMERS WILLING TO PAY FOR THE INNOVATION
(n=50)
FARMERS WILLING TO PAY FOR THE INNOVATION
n=50
NUMBER OF FARMERS
50% less
4 rupees ker kg
0 5 10 15 20 25
23
4
Market price 13
Not willing to pay anything 1
Same as what I pay now 9
Impact on poverty 
The innovation had a small impact on poverty alleviation in terms of transport costs, inputs prices, and 
labor costs since most farmers have used the innovation only three to six months and have yet to see 
a major income change. They continued with similar practices but reported to qualitatively observe 
improvement in income. Data shows after the innovation was active, 38 percent of farmers reported 
increased income while income remained the same for for the majority of farmers (Graph 16). On the 
other hand, the diversification of the crops assessed, higher yields, and average earnings of farmers 
after selling their yields showed positive inclination, which also can be seen as beneficial. This is in line 
with the fact that farmers expect that innovation would direct benefits to them after they completely 
shifted to co-compost and eliminated other sources of composting. It is interesting, however, that 
more farmers want to utilize all the benefits of the innovation from grey water to co-compost and 
credit services from SHGs. The data repeatedly showed that farmers would like to obtain any kind of 
help to bring them out of their state of deprivation. One farmer stated he “hopes for a better income 
after every cycle.” When asked if they wanted to continue using the innovation, the majority agreed 
and recommended improvements and supplementary suggestive mechanisms in the innovation. Also, 
for faster and larger production, a large-scale farmer suggested , he would need to use chemicals 
and co-compost might not able to replace them completely. It is worth exploring this target segment 
(upper income) of farmers to make them knowledgeable about co-compost and to develop training 
modules customized for different target groups. 
Benefits of innovation on community 
The impact and benefits of WASTE’s innovation can be noted confidently for farmers across all 
regions. Although, benefits on the community are difficult to measure, one can observe tangible 
community cohesion as a result of the innovation. The grey water unit installed in some villages has 
allowed small groups of farmers to use the water cyclically, which brought community-level sharing 
and adeptness to resources judiciously. For instance, farmers reported the quality of grey water is 
so good that it looks like filtered water. Officials from RDO come weekly to make sure everyone has 
access to water. Additionally, this cyclic process is community-driven, enabling them to take ownership 
of general cleanliness in the village. 
46 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
In most cases, it is observed that women specifically have developed a sense of ownership and pride 
toward learning about the innovation. They now have an agency to learn new techniques from and 
can implement them in the field, making them feel empowered. Good quality yields observed after 
using co-compost are leading to confidence building. For instance, one female farmer said: “My 
sister-in-law has asked for co-compost because the vegetable from my kitchen garden taste. She 
is from Coonoor. I felt very happy and encouraged to tell about this innovation to my family, friends 
and neighbors”
Another farmer stated:
“I plan to use co-compost for tea farming as well now seeing better quality yield from neighbor 
farmers. This will help me improve my family income and give better education to my children”
It was observed that farmers exhibited a lot of trust and faith in the innovation and started to treat it 
as a tool for community engagement. Another benefit was recent involvement of youth in agriculture 
and seeing positive changes, which gives them a sense of hope. They now see farming as a sustained 
profession, which otherwise was becoming difficult to sustain in the past years because of the acute 
dry season and climate change. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 47
CONCLUSION
48 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
WASTE is a SWFF-supported circular economy project that is intended to help farmers with access 
to grey water when fresh water resources are increasingly getting depleted. This allows farmers 
to cultivate better and good quality exotic vegetables with the usage of market quality compost 
application, enabling an extended crop season to advance bringing soil back to life in the Nilgiris 
District. The innovation primarily accounts the concern of limited and expensive resources, such as 
water, seeds, compost, manure, labor, fertilizers, and petrol, and figures out a sustainable, scalable, 
and actionable route map to produce high quality co-compost from waste water and faecal sludge. 
This report analysed the results obtained by the monitoring and evaluation field intern, who 
conducted an evaluation survey in July 2019 in Nilgiris after the project had been active there for two 
years. The report provides insight on various parameters which may become essential to track future 
monitoring and provides insights on various parameters which may become essential to understand 
the future scope.
• Cost of co-compost should be reviewed, as it is important to monitor the market competition 
and operational cost to produce co-compost and understand how it can be reduced to meet the 
farmer’s request for a lesser price. The government stakeholders can be lobbied and the horticulture 
department can come forward to buy co-compost in bulk and eventually sell it at a subsidized price. 
• It becomes imperative to learn about the market pricing and fluctuations; hence, questions as to 
how the market is structured and who controls the pricing of the vegetables become crucial. These 
can be viewed as an extension to the model, as its would provide insights in the semi-bondage 
market of Nilgiris which is essentially an insight into the innovation’s impact. 
• The innovator should consider collaboration with educational institutes to sell the crops cultivated 
by farmers directly to hostels rather than involving middle men to generate better income for 
farmers. Seeds are the most unaffordable input, and farmers outrightly declared not being able 
to afford them in the long run. The RDO Trust, given the trust and their reputation amongst the 
farmers, can be created like a marketplace where farmers can avail them on subsidised price and 
through flexible EMI options. 
• A service center for farmers can be incubated disseminate information about new technologies, new 
and sustainable brands of inputs, and scalable methods of sustainable farming. The center would 
specifically be useful for women farmers who generally are hesitant to learn new technologies or 
largely do not have access to learn new processes. The center also can enable capacity building of 
farmers by teaching them a balanced application of fertilizers.
• Most of the farmers requested more grey water. This depends upon the topology of the villages 
and the contributing number of households. Most farmers wanted to construct a grey water unit in 
their lands as it brings farm ponds automatically in their land. There seems to be flexibility in terms 
of designing and costing grey water units. This insight may be explored further. 
• Access to grey water on farms had become indispensable to them as they had to reduce the 
consumption of fresh water for irrigation and divert it for use as drinking water in state of scarcity. 
Similarly, any region having high depletion of the freshwater sources or seems to be reaching that in 
the future should adopt this model to make the best use of available resources. As the model involves 
multiple stakeholders having a shared goal, implementation has become easy and highly impactful.
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 49
• A majority of farmers immediately asked for a solar pump to enable them to utilize the electricity 
generated by the pump for fencing and use the current provided by the government for household 
use only because using the government current for fencing is more dangerous and harmful than 
using the solar pump. Farmers are losing their entire vegetation because of wild animals. 
• Another extension to the services of note is the recycling of carrot washing water. These recycling 
units need to developed wherever a carrot washing factory is established. Given the acute dry 
season Nilgiris is observing, this assessment can be explored in future. There are 16 units of carrot 
washing alone in Ketty Palada. Private entrepreneurs are majorly operationalizing the unit. A 
collaboration can be followed to recycle the water used for carrot washing, which can lead its way 
to farms or the water used for carrot washing should be recycled in the first place. Private sector 
engagement is crucial in agricultural planning given the shift in available resources.
• When it comes to food security, organic carbon content in soil is essential. Co-compost helps in 
retaining the carbon and helps to sync carbon in the soil. 
• The innovation had an impact on water usage, crops, yields, and farmers’ income. To build it 
further, the capacities of farmer producing companies needs to be strengthened, which would 
eliminate middle men. An EMI or a quarterly system for agri-inputs can be facilitated. Market has a 
huge cultural aspect toward crop pricing. Farmers purely rely on agents because they do not want 
to undergo any stress or risk, thereby willingly losing a massive chunk of profits. 
• With respect to the supply of exotic vegetables, marketing initiatives need to be strengthened to 
promote modern terminals markets that connect to major urban centers. 
50 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
With a high degree of uncertainty of rainfall as the time progresses, right policy interventions and 
Government schemes to implement dry land farming, water conservation through precision farming, 
and diversification of crops become consequential.
When it comes to understanding farmers’ perceived benefits from the innovation, there is a positive 
inclination in totality. 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 51
REFERENCES
52 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
Tn.gov.in. (2019). [online] Available at: https://www.tn.gov.in/dear/Agriculture.pdf [Accessed 28 Jul. 2019].
@businessline. (2019). Tea plantations hit as Nilgiris goes without rain. [online] Available at: https://
www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri-business/tea-plantations-hit-as-nilgiris-goes￾without-rain/article8533275.ece [Accessed 2 Aug. 2019].
Indiawaterportal.org. (2019). Water and livelihoods in the Nilgiris - Part I. [online] Available at: https://
www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/water-and-livelihoods-nilgiris-part-i [Accessed 8 Aug. 2019].
Indiawaterportal.org. (2019). Water and livelihoods in the Nilgiris – Part II. [online] Available at: https://
www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/water-and-livelihoods-nilgiris-part-ii [Accessed 23 Aug. 2019].
mdpi.com. (2019). Groundwater as a Source of Drinking Water in Southeast Asia and the Pacific: A 
Multi-Country Review of Current Reliance and Resource Concerns. [online] Available at: https://www.
mdpi.com/2073-4441/11/8/1605/htm [Accessed 23 Aug. 2019].
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 53
ANNEX I
54 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
TABLE 12. FARMERS’ CROPS YIELD BEFORE AND AFTER USING 
INNOVATION AND PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN THE YIELD
TABLE 13. AVERAGE PRICES OF INPUTS PAID BEFORE AND AFTER 
INTRODUCING INNOVATION AND PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN THE PRICES
INPUTS
FERTILIZERS 
(KG)
PESTICIDES 
+ 
HERBICIDES 
(ML)
WATER (1 
PER WEEKLY)
WATER 
LABOR (PER 
WEEKLY)
SEEDS (KG 
PER CROP)
COWDUNG 
(KG)
MUSHROOM 
COMPOST 
(KG)
Average 
price paid 
before 
innovation
713 149020 7114 1722 26563 25542 62200
Average 
price paid 
after 
innovation
713 149020 NIl 1513 26563 745 58466
Percentage 
change NIl Nil -100% -12.13% Nil -97% -6%
YEAR CARROT BEETROOT RADISH GARLIC BEANS PEAS CAULIFLOWER POTATO BROCCOLI ZUCCHINI CABBAGE
Average 
kilos 
harvested 
before 
using 
innovation
4989 3554 2000 2586 2133 1000 2000 5052 1500 500 Nil
Average 
kilos 
harvested 
after using 
innovation
7962 6817 1500 1543 607 500 5000 3054 3000 7000 1500
Percentage 60% 32% -25% -40% -72% -50% 150% -40% 100% 1300% Nil
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 55
ANNEX II: SURVEY
56 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
FARMER INFORMATION
NAME 
AGE 
DATE TIME 
GROUP INTERVIEW? o Yes o No
GROUP INTERVIEW NOTES
HOW MANY FAMILY MEMBERS LIVE WITH YOU? 
GENDER o Male o Female
WHAT IS YOUR PRIMARY OCCUPATION?
o Farming
o Wage Labor
o Seasonal Migrant Labor
o Small Enterprise
o Other: 
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER OCCUPATION?
o Farming
o Wage Labor
o Seasonal Migrant Labor
o Small Enterprise
o Other: 
SIZE OF FARM (ACRES) 
NAME OF VILLAGE 
HOW MUCH LAND DO YOU OWN? 
HOW LARGE IS YOUR FARM/PLOT? 
o Large
o Medium
o Small
o Very Small
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 57
HOW MUCH IS LAND RENT? 
OTHER LAND NOTES
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN USING WASTE STICHTING? 
DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES THIS YEAR? o Yes o No
HOW MANY MONTHS IS THE PRIMARY GROWING SEASON? 
HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HARVEST PER YEAR? 
FARM INFORMATION
WHAT CROPS DO YOU GROW AS A RESULT OF THE INNOVATION? LIST FROM MOST IMPORTANT 
TO LEAST IMPORTANT:
1.
2.
3.
DID THE MOST IMPORTANT CROP BENEFIT FROM WASTE STICHTING? o Yes o No
DID THE SECOND MOST IMPORTANT CROP BENEFIT FROM WASTE STICHTING? o Yes o No
DID THE THIRD MOST IMPORTANT CROP BENEFIT FROM WASTE STICHTING? o Yes o No
WHAT IS THE WATER SOURCE FOR YOUR IRRIGATION OF CROPS?
o Own pond
o River
o Groundwater
o Innovation Source
o Other: 
WHAT IS YOUR METHOD OF IRRIGATION?
o Drip feed
o Flooding
o Hand watering
o Rainfed
o Other: 
58 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
HOW MUCH HAS YOUR WATER USAGE CHANGED SINCE USING WASTE STICHTING, IF AT ALL?
HAVE YOU CONTRIBUTED OR USED RECYCLED GREY WATER? o Yes o No
WHAT IS THE RESULT OF THE USE OF GREY WATER? 
HAVE YOU BEEN USING CO-COMPOST? o Yes o No
IF SO, HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN USING IT? 
USING WASTE STICHTING HAS YOUR ACCESS TO WATER:
o Had no change
o Improved
o Fundamentally improved (Improved a lot)
o Other: 
PREVIOUSLY GROWN CROPS: DID YOUR FARM PRODUCE DIFFERENT CROPS IN THE PAST THAT 
ARE NO LONGER GROWN HERE? IF SO, WHICH ONES? 
MASS OF PRODUCE: WHAT YIELDS DID YOU HAVE FOR EACH CROP YOU MENTIONED?
MASS OF PRODUCE 2: WHAT YIELDS DID YOU HAVE FOR YOUR CROPS BEFORE USING WASTE 
STICHTING? 
USING WASTE STICHTING HAVE YOU, FOR EACH CROP:
o Used more water
o Had no change in water use
o Used less water
o Other: 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 59
USING WASTE STICHTING HAVE YOUR CROP YIELDS (ASK FOR EACH CROP):
o Declined
o Remained the same
o Increased
o Substantially increased
IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN THE SURVIVAL RATES OF YOUR CROPS DUE TO WASTE STICHTING? 
o Yes o No
HOW MUCH OF YOUR PRODUCE DID YOU CONSUME IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD? (PERCENTAGE – 
NOTE IF DIFFERENT FOR EACH CROP) 
HOW MUCH OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INPUTS DID YOU USE BEFORE WASTE STICHTING?
FERTILIZER (KG)
PESTICIDE (KG)
HERBICIDE (L)
CHARCOAL (KG)
WATER (TOTAL)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INPUTS BEFORE WASTE STICHTING? 
FERTILIZER (KG)
PESTICIDE (KG)
HERBICIDE (L)
CHARCOAL (KG)
WATER (TOTAL)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
HOW MUCH OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INPUTS DO YOU USE AFTER WASTE STICHTING?
FERTILIZER (KG)
PESTICIDE (KG)
HERBICIDE (L)
CHARCOAL (KG)
WATER (TOTAL)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
60 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON THE FOLLOWING INPUTS AFTER WASTE STICHTING? 
FERTILIZER (KG)
PESTICIDE (KG)
HERBICIDE (L)
CHARCOAL (KG)
WATER (TOTAL)
LABOR (DAYS)
OTHER 
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON EQUIPMENT BEFORE AND AFTER WASTE STICHTING? 
HOW MUCH DID YOU SPEND ON TRANSPORT AND STORAGE BEFORE AND AFTER WASTE 
STICHTING? 
DO YOU HAVE PROBLEMS FINDING A MARKET TO SELL YOUR CROPS IN? o Yes o No
PLEASE EXPLAIN. 
DO YOU HAVE PROBLEMS GETTING YOUR CROPS TO THE MARKET? o Yes o No
PLEASE EXPLAIN. 
OTHER FARM NOTES (OPTIONAL).
INCOME AND EXPENDITURES
WHAT IS YOUR ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME? 
HOW MUCH INCOME DID YOU MAKE BEFORE WASTE STICHTING? 
AFTER WASTE STICHTING? 
HAS WASTE STICHTING IMPROVED YOUR FAMILY INCOME? 
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME DO YOU GET FROM NON-FARM SOURCES? 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 61
HOW MUCH PRODUCE DID YOU SELL FOR EACH OF YOUR CROPS IN THE LAST SEASON AND THE 
LAST YEAR? 
WHAT IS THE PRICE PER KILO YOU RECEIVED FOR EACH OF YOUR CROPS FOR THE LAST SEASON?
USING WASTE STICHTING HAS YOUR ACCESS TO CREDIT:
o Not improved
o Improved
o Improved and have been able to repay over a short period
HOW DO YOU CURRENTLY FINANCE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES?
o Own savings
o Credit and savings scheme
o Other credit
HOW MUCH DO YOU PAY FOR WASTE STICHTING? 
HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY FOR WASTE STICHTING?
o Nothing
o WASTE STICHTING is free
o The same as what I pay now
o 50% less
o 50% more
o Other: 
HOW HAVE YOU SPENT YOUR NEW INCOME?
o N/A (if no new income)
o Send children to school or keep children in school
o Social functions (like weddings)
o Investment in farming
o Improving house
o Other: 
OTHER INCOME NOTES (OPTIONAL)
62 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
PERCEPTIONS OF WASTE STICHTING
WILL YOU USE WASTE STICHTING IN THE FUTURE (5 TO 10 YEARS)? o Yes o No
WHY? 
HOW, IF AT ALL, HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR FARMING PRACTICES DUE TO WASTE STICHTING?
o No change
o Introduced new crops
o Changed irrigation system
o Reduced water usage
o It helps me decide when to plant
o It helps me decide which crops to plant
HAVE YOU FACED ANY DIFFICULTIES OR PROBLEMS USING WASTE STICHTING? o Yes o No
HOW CAN WASTE STICHTING BE IMPROVED? 
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT WASTE STICHTING?
o Wealthy farmer
o Neighbor
o Innovation personnel
o Extension worker
o Other: 
WHAT FACTORS INFLUENCED YOU TO TRY WASTE STICHTING?
o Demonstration from neighbor’s farm
o Innovation is free from extension services
o No alternative water source
o Other: 
DO YOU SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE SKILLS FROM WASTE STICHTING WITH OTHERS? o Yes o No 
IF SO, HOW? 
SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019 63
WHAT DO YOU FEEL ARE THE BENEFITS OF WASTE STICHTING? 
HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT CLIMATIC VARIATION? HAVE CHANGES IN RAINFALL OR TEMPERATURE 
AFFECTED YOUR FARMING PRACTICES OR CROP YIELDS COMPARED TO YOUR HISTORICAL 
RAINY/DRY SEASON PERIODS? o Yes o No
PLEASE SPECIFY HOW. 
HOW HAS WASTE STICHTING HELPED YOU? PLEASE RANK THE TOP 3 AND EXPLAIN POSITIVES/
NEGATIVES.
 Makes water reusable 
 Helps women farmers as well as men 
 They made a special effort to include women farmers 
 Helps in producing more of our most important crop 
 Increases my yield through timely forecasts 
 Helps by lowering cost of inputs 
 Improves health and strength of livestock 
 Helps reduce labor 
 Reduces crop wastage 
 Helps me decide when to plant 
 Helps me decide which crops to plant 
 Other: 
WOULD YOU RECOMMEND WASTE STICHTING?
o No
o Yes
o Yes, would strongly recommend
64 SECURING WATER FOR FOOD: WASTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | AUGUST 2019
ARE THERE NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM WASTE STICHTING IN THE COMMUNITY? o Yes o No
PLEASE EXPLAIN IF YES. 
IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS, HAVE EFFORTS BEEN MADE TO RESOLVE THEM? 
o Yes o No
EXPLAIN. 
OTHER
INCOME/POVERTY NOTES
GENDER OBSERVATIONS
QUESTIONS/REQUESTS
OTHER NOTES

Securing Water for Food has sourced and invested in a portfolio of innovative 
solutions that aim to help farmers use water more efficiently and effectively, 
improve water storage for lean times, and remove salt from water to make more 
food. Our cohort of innovators are helping people in 35 low-resource countries 
with tools they need to produce more food with less water.
To learn more about Securing Water for Food, 
visit www.securingwaterforfood.org.