1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) - Germany

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture) - Kenya

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Ecociate Consultants (Ecociate Consultants) - India

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Bioresource Center (BRC) is an enterprise model to promote the preparation and commercialization of bio-inputs to help farmers adopt natural and sustainable agriculture practices. The bio-inputs and composting material under such models are prepared using locally available material at very affordable prices.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Bioresource Center (BRC) is a community-led enterprise to produce bio-inputs and compost from locally available bioresources for improving soil health and fertility, managing pest and disease, and meeting the nutrient requirement for the crops. BRCs have been envisaged as a potential enterprise solution to meet the requirements of small and marginal farmers who do not have time and resources to make their own bio-inputs and composting material. Such farmers can purchase the bio-inputs at very affordable prices from the BRCs being operated by either individual entrepreneurs or community-based institutions of male and female farmers.

Essentially it is an enterprise-led platform that can create the necessary conditions to scale the adoption of better farming practices. The technology for bioresource units is applied in both natural and human environments to promote sustainable agriculture and improve livelihoods in rural communities. The establishment and maintenance of a bioresource unit require inputs such as organic waste materials, earthworms, inoculants, and water, as well as activities such as vermicomposting, biofertilizer and biopesticide production, training and capacity building, and monitoring and evaluation.

The technological inputs produced include various type of tried and tested local formulations like microbial preparations such as Jeevamrut (Soil life elixir), Ghana Jeevamrith(compact and aggregated form of Soil Life Elixir), Beejamrut (Microbial Seed Dressing), Waste Decomposer, etc.; botanical decoctions like Panchagavya ( 5 cow based products formulation - Milk, Curd, cow-urine, cow-dung, ghee), Dashparni (Extract of 10 leaves available locally), Neemastra (Extarct of Neem leaves and seeds (Azadirachta indica), Brahmastra (Referes to the highly effective pest controlling material made out of chilli, garlic and other local materials), agniastra (Refers to the fire powering material for controlling pest), NSKE (Neem seed kernel extract) ; and biopesticides cultures like Beauveria, Verticillium, Trichoderma, Pseudo-monas, NPV formulations/cultures. Beyond this, the platform enables the supply of seeds of green manuring crops, vermiculture/compost, Neem / karanj cake, Cow dung/cow urine, briquets, seeds/seedlings of trap crops, etc. For a detailed list of different sub-technologies - preparations, their ingredients and processing one can refer to BIO-INPUT RESOURCE CENTER MANUAL FROM NATIONAL COALITION FOR NATURAL FARMING at: (https://indiaclimatecollaborative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/BRC-Technical-manual.pdf)

This technology does not require much investment and material. 2-3 plastic containers of 200 litres and 2-3 containers of 100 litres or any other locally available utensil are good enough to make these bio-inputs. The preparation method for each of the inputs is a bit different from each other, while some of the inputs are being prepared by extracting the paste from leaves or other materials like chilli, garlic etc, others are prepared by mixing them with cow dung and cow urine. Cow urine is one of the most important substances for preparing these inputs. The urine of indigenous cows are considered more effective for preparing these inputs. The document shared above can be refereed to for the preparation method of each of the bio-inputs.
The bioresource unit technology has numerous benefits and impacts, including improved soil health, reduced dependence on synthetic inputs, increased crop yields, reduced environmental impact, enhanced biodiversity, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and improved human health. Land users generally appreciate the benefits of the bioresource unit technology, particularly its cost-effectiveness, improved soil health, and reduced environmental impact. However, there are also challenges related to the labor-intensiveness of the technology, the need for technical knowledge, and the dependence on local resources.

By using natural inputs and locally available resources, this technology can help to create a more sustainable and equitable food system for people and for land also. These functions contribute to a healthier environment, healthier crops, and healthier communities.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2018

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation
• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

• Control pest and diseases

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

Comments:

The technology has enabled farmers to get easy access to bio-inputs, which has led to the adoption of natural and sustainable farming practices in the field. This has also promoted mixed farming systems among the farmers as natural farming is more suited to such cropping systems.

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

Comments:

The land use pattern remained same. Farmers are cultivating the crops both before and after the intervention.

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

Most farmers cultivate under rainfed conditions due to the unavailability of any external irrigation facility. There are a few farmers who apply irrigation.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated crop-livestock management
• integrated soil fertility management
• integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Bio-inputs are an effective alternative to reduce or replace the use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides. The use of these inputs ensure lesser pollution of air and water, safe food and improved biodiversity.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Control over pest and disease along with improved soil microbial activity as an outcome of vermicompost application has ensured better soil health and improved production.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

82.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Digging for vermicompost pits	October
2.	Construction of vermicompost pit	October
3.	Construction of Cattle Management Shed	March

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Digging for vermicompost pit	piece	2.0	1000.0	2000.0	100.0
Labour	Construction of vermicompost pit	piece	2.0	4000.0	8000.0	100.0
Equipment	Drum 500 lts	piece	5.0	600.0	3000.0	100.0
Plant material	Pulse flour	Kg	3.0	70.0	210.0	100.0
Plant material	Jageery	Kg	3.0	60.0	180.0	100.0
Plant material	Turmeric	Kg	0.5	100.0	50.0	100.0
Plant material	Ginger paste	Kg	0.5	120.0	60.0	100.0
Plant material	Asafoetida	Gramm	10.0	3.0	30.0	100.0
Plant material	Chillies	Kg	1.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Plant material	Garlic	Kg	0.5	160.0	80.0	100.0
Plant material	Tobbaco	Kg	0.5	200.0	100.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Cow dung	Kg	120.0	2.0	240.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Cow urine	Litre	25.0	5.0	125.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Lime	Gramm	50.0	0.25	12.5	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Farm Yard Manure for Vermicompost	Kg	1000.0	10.0	10000.0	100.0
Construction material	Brick	Piece	100.0	10.0	1000.0	100.0
Construction material	Cement	Sack	3.0	300.0	900.0	100.0
Construction material	Stone	Sack	2.0	500.0	1000.0	100.0
Other	Vermi inocules	Kg	40.0	450.0	18000.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					45087.5
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					549.85

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Preparations	Every season
2.	Packaging and Selling	Everyseason
3.	Capacity building	Every season
4.	Application at field	Kharif and Rabi Seaon
5.	Harvesting of vermicompost	In every 3 months
6.	Filling of pit	In every 3 months after Harvesting

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Preparation of bio-inputs	Person days	50.0	200.0	10000.0	100.0
Labour	Packaging, marketing	Person days	10.0	250.0	2500.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Cow dung or FYM for filling pit	Kg	100.0	10.0	1000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Different material to prepare bio-inputs	kg	200.0	15.0	3000.0	100.0
Other	Packaging and Selling	Sack	100.0	5.0	500.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					17000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					207.32

Comments:

After harvesting of vermicompost, maintenance of the pit is required by refilling pit with farm yard manure (FYM). For selling biofertilizers and biopesticides new batch preparation incl. all input materials is required.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The availability of locally available raw materials and labor

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The topography of the project area consists of a hilly area and a forest area. Mandla district is hilly and forested (Satpura hill range) and highly undulating with a narrow strip of cultivated plains in the valley portion of the river. The plateau is in the northern part formed by basalt, and east-west trending hills in the southern part. The highest elevation is 934 m amsl in the northern part, and the lowest is around 400 m amsl in the northwestern part of the area. The elevation of the studied block Bichhiya is 453 m amsl.
Source: District at a glance; Ministry of water resources, Government of Madhya Pradesh

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil Testing Parameter status (Average) 2017-20 for the project areas is as follows. This data is based on the soil samples tested by the FES in its soil labs from the project villages:

Soil pH:- 5.906548628; EC (electrical conductivity):- 0.122993577; Soil Organic Carbon:- 0.83%; Nitrogen:- 293.3696598; Phosphorus:- 25.77762582; Potassium (K):- 139.6696636; Sulphur (S):-18.93457993; Zinc (Zn):- 0.955246706; Boron (Bn):- 0.490850376

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

The groundwater status is within the safe limits as per the reports by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. People use water from rivers, streams, and traditional small wells for domestic purposes. In the absence of good vegetative cover, the rainwater washes off the fertile topsoil from the farmlands making the land barren and resulting in the siltation of ponds and other water bodies. Further, a heavy infestation of invasive species such as Lantana Camara compounds the degradation.

The studied block Bichhiya is in a better position in terms of stage of groundwater Development with 17%, while the district average is 7%.

Source: http://cgwb.gov.in/District_Profile/MP/Mandla.pdf

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

The bio-input resource unit or center is present nearby the forest area of Kanha National Park. The high biodiversity present in the technology implementation area. Ecological assessment report in Mandla (where this Technology is applied) showed improved biodiversity on common lands under village governance compared to open-access or commons under government ownership. On average, the Shannon diversity index of managed common lands was 1.45 compared to 0.42 for the open access or ungoverned commons. Most of the sites under open access lands are infested by Lantana camara, which is the main reason for the lower biomass and diversity of the ungoverned lands.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

Some of the land parcels are ancestral land units while some have been transferred by the State Government over the years.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	moderately
seasonal temperature	summer	increase	moderately
annual rainfall		decrease	very well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

8

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 91-100%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Yes

If yes, indicate to which changing conditions it was adapted:

• changing markets

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

New variants of locally produced bio-based enzymes, catalysts, fertilizers, pest repellants

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The technologies reduce costs and increase savings.
Improved crop production and quality through sustainable management.
Reduces exposure to hazardous chemicals.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Protection and sustainable use of local biodiverse resources.
Adoption of sustainable and organic practices.
Local circular economy and strengthened institutions.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Low demand for produced inputs.	Increase extension efforts for agroecological practices
Labor shortages.	Improved technologies and automation of production and delivery
Availability of raw materials.	Improved common land management

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Disadoption threats.	Increase demand for products
Spurious input production.	Standardization and certification

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Bio-input Resource Center Manual from National Coalition for Natural Farming

URL:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MpJGpyIm1oq1ro-GKvhJVNMqCSjkCE99/view?usp=share_link

Title/ description:

Glimpse into the Bio-Input Resource Centre of South India by National Coalition for Natural Farming

URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfHeecl6OEo