1 of 18

Opportunities and Challenges for Enabling a Green Economic Recovery in Odisha

October, 2022

Swosti Premium, Bhubaneswar

Photos: KALIA Portal, USAID/flickr

LEAD is a part of IFMR Society with strategic oversight from Krea University.

2 of 18

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Outline

Objectives and Approach

Feasibility of Green Recovery Strategies

Barriers to Green Recovery Adoption

Mechanisms to Launch GR Strategies

A Collaborative Platform for GR

Part 6

Roles & Responsibilities Across Stakeholders

Part 7

Overall Recommended Strategies

3 of 18

Objectives and Approach

Decentralised GR Action Plan

To prepare an action plan/strategy document for the agriculture and micro-small enterprise sectors on how this green recovery can be achieved through concrete actions across key functional heads of policy making.

Goal

Review of key green practices in Odisha

1

Stakeholder mapping in 4 districts

2

Focus group discussions + Key informant interviews with:

3

13 strategies shortlisted for Green Recovery of the agri-food processing economy

Facilitators

Knowledge partners

Adopters

  • Government departments
  • Finance providers
  • Community based organisations
  • Farmers
  • Small & Micro Enterprises
  • Academics
  • Technical experts

4 of 18

‘Best’ Green Recovery Strategies

  • Strategies selected based on discussions, interviews and FGDs with diverse stakeholders in the 3 districts + a rigorous policy review.
  • Unison across most stakeholder types on strategies.

1

2

3

4

5

Integrated Farming (IF)

Renewable Technology (RT)

Millet Cultivation (MC)

Direct Seeded Rice (DRS)

In-Situ Conservation of Traditional Seeds (CTS)

6

7

8

9

10

Natural Soil Regeneration Practises (NSR)

Agroforestry (AF)

Water Conservation and Storage (WCS)

Non Paddy Processing Units (NPP)

Organic Certification (OC)

11

12

13

Green Entrepreneurship (GE)

Drainage Systems (DS)

Green Economy Advisory Board (GAB)

5 of 18

Barriers to Green Recovery Adoption

5 types of barriers/gaps to adoption of GR practices in Odisha were mentioned:

Lack of motivation among stakeholders

Lack of supporting infrastructure (eg. irrigation systems)

Lack of key evidence on economic and biophysical variables

Lack of key resources like labour, finance, technology

Lack of supportive policies + presence of perverse policies

6 of 18

  1. Financially Feasible Green Recovery Strategies

Integrated Farming

↓ Inputs

↓ Chemicals

↓ Govt. subsidies

↓ Farmer expenditure

Direct Seeded

Rice

↓ Input cost

+ Drought conditions

↓ Govt. and finance

expenditure

20XX

Organic Certification

↓ Cost

+ Tweaks to existing �institutions

Top 3 Financially Feasible Strategies

Is the strategy too costly?�Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

Green Economic Advisory Board

- Needs to be

conceptualised

from scratch

Water Conservation and Storage

↑ Setting up cost

↑ Opport. cost to

marginal land

owners

In Situ Seed Conservation

↑ Expenditure

- Requires storage

facility

- Storage knowledge

Bottom 3 Financially Feasible Strategies

7 of 18

  • Scalable Green Recovery Strategies

Top 3 Scalable Strategies

Can it be scaled to other locations?�Does it require major alterations?

Integrated Farming

+ Any location

+ Merges crop & other husbandry

↓ Input

Natural Soil Regeneration Practices

+ Any location

↓ Low investment

In Situ Seed Conservation

Bottom 3 Scalable Strategies

Green Economic Advisory Board

- Needs to be

conceptualised

from scratch

Organic Certification

↑ Setting up cost

↑ Opport. cost to

marginal land

owners

Agroforestry

↑ Expenditure

- Requires storage

facility

- Storage knowledge

8 of 18

III (a). Impact Driven Green Recovery Strategies (Income gains)

Top 3 Income Gain Strategies

Non-Paddy Processing Units

+ Sustained demand from processing units

+ MSE value addition

Integrated Farming

↓ Input intensive

+ Uses byproducts

↓ Cost of production

Agroforestry

+ Symbiotic benefits from complementary crops

+ Secondary income

Bottom 3 Income Gain Strategies

In Situ Seed Conservation

- Needs good storage facility

↓ Yield

↓ Income in medium / long term

Drainage Systems

↑ Initial investment

↓ Income in short-term

Green Economic Advisory Board

- Needs financial + intellectual support from facilitators

9 of 18

III (b). Impact Driven Green Recovery Strategies (Resilience building)

Millet Cultivation

+ Minimises effects of climate change

+ Food security

+ Survivability

In Situ Seed Conservation

+ Drought resilience

Integrated Farming

↑ Soil fertility & health

+ Long term fertility

↓ Risk of erosion, etc

Top 3 Resilience Building Strategies

Green Entrepreneurship

- Linked to production

- Supply chains easily affected

Non-Paddy Processing Units

- Crops are vulnerable to floods, droughts; affects processing

- Cannot impact status quo of water availability and needs

Bottom 3 Resilience Building Strategies

Green Economic Advisory Board

10 of 18

III (c). Impact Driven Green Recovery Strategies (Emissions reduction)

Renewable Technology

↓ Fuel consumption

↓ Waste

↓ CO2 emission

↓ Fertiliser use

↓ Pesticide use

↓ Petro-chemical fertilisers

↓ Pesticide use

Top 3 Emissions Reduction Strategies

In Situ Seed Conservation

Natural Soil Regeneration Practices

- No renewable tech.

- Based on crude oil

- Process oriented strategy

- No direct / indirect impact on emissions

Bottom 3 Emissions Reduction Strategies

Non-Paddy Processing Units

Organic Certification

Drainage Systems

11 of 18

Mechanisms to Launch GR Strategies

The figure illustrates the preferred incentive mechanism in the decreasing order (most preferred to least preferred) in the context of the 13 GR strategies.

Locals desired knowledge & capacity to undertake the strategies

Easy to access and information is available for subsidies

More difficult to access due to delays in payments, etc

Least preferred as it focuses on the last mile of the GR process (sales)

12 of 18

A Collaborative Platform for Green Recovery

Why is a collaborative platform necessary?

Results from pre- and post-workshop survey of stakeholders

  • Stakeholders tend to overestimate own challenges, underestimate trade-offs for solutions
  • Participation in workshop discussions allowed for exchange of information
  • Greater understanding of trade-offs between feasibility, scalability and impact after workshop

13 of 18

Roles & Responsibilities Across Stakeholders

Ideation

Conceptualisation of strategies

1

Piloting

Identifying key locations in the state and piloting the strategy

2

Implementation

Based on the observed evidences, either implement, scale up, tweak or scrap the strategy

4

Evidence Documentation

Gathering evidence on key attributes which involves collecting, validating and sharing the information

3

Life Cycle of a GR Strategy

  • Each stakeholder plays a key role in each step of the GR strategies.
  • Potential opportunities for strong partnerships were identified.

14 of 18

Overall Recommended Strategies

Bottom 3 Overall Strategies:

  1. Green Advisory Board
  2. Drainage Systems
  3. Green Entrepreneurship

Top 3 Overall Strategies:

  • Integrated Farming
  • Renewable Technology
  • Millet Cultivation

15 of 18

  1. Short-term Strategies

Short-term strategies have

High feasibility

High impact

High scalability

Integrated Farming

(IF)

Lack of awareness and information

Key Barrier

Extension services like training

Preferred Incentive

Millet Cultivation (MC)

Low consumption preference; lack of processing infrastruct.

Key Barrier

Market access

Preferred Incentive

Renewable Technology (RT)

Lack of policy support; presence of diesel & electric tech. policies

Key Barrier

Credit Services

Preferred Incentive

16 of 18

  • Medium-term Strategies

Medium-term strategies have

Low feasibility

High impact

High scalability

Conservation of Traditional Seeds (CTS)

Lack of infrastructure for seed storage

Key Barrier

Extension services like training

Preferred Incentive

Natural Soil Regeneration (NSR)

Lack of soil degradation info. and awareness

Key Barrier

Extension services like training

Preferred Incentive

Water Conservation and Storage (WCS)

Lack of policy support for water harvesting, pond cultivation

Key Barrier

Subsidies

Preferred Incentive

17 of 18

  • Long-term Strategies

Long-term strategies have —

Low feasibility

High impact

Low scalability

Agroforestry (AF)

Lack of information on agroforestry methods

Key Barrier

Market access

Preferred Incentive

Non-Paddy Processing Units (NPP)

Lack of suitable technology

Key Barrier

Subsidies

Preferred Incentive

Direct Seeded Rice (DSR)

Lack of infrastructure to pre germinate seeds effectively

Key Barrier

Community level engagement

Preferred Incentive

18 of 18

Learn more about our work:

Twitter: @leadatkrea Web: www.ifmrlead.org

Thank You

LEAD at Krea University

7th Floor, B Block, IIT-Madras Research Park,

Kanagam Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600113,

Tamil Nadu, India