Assessment of constraints faced by beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers under NGO-led agricultural interventions: Evidence from Marathwada region of Maharashtra

Introduction

Agriculture has been the backbone of the Indian economy and the source of livelihood for millions of rural households for long (Anonymous, 2024) [1] . Despite considerable progress in agricultural technology and growing government support schemes, the sector continues to face a complex set of challenges, viz-scattered landholdings, absence of irrigation, dependence on monsoon rains, stagnating productivity, rising input costs, and poor access to institutional credit (Birthal et al., 2005; Pretty, 2008) [2,13] . These difficulties are not uniform across the country and are particularly acute in ecologically vulnerable areas such as Marathwada in Maharashtra where repeated droughts, erratic weather patterns, declining groundwater reserves and deepening agrarian distress collectively threaten farmers' livelihoods as well as agriculture's long-term sustainability (Shiferaw et al., 2014; Reddy and Mishra, 2009) [14,17] . These problems are further intensified by climate variability and vulnerability in Maharashtra, particularly in droughtprone regions such as Marathwada, where agriculture remains highly sensitive to rainfall uncertainty and resource scarcity (Kavibharathi & More, 2024) [7] . Studies conducted in Maharashtra also highlighted that farmers in droughtprone regions continue to face serious production, technological, and institutional constraints related to quality inputs, labour scarcity, irrigation, and climate uncertainty (Khandagale et al., 2024; Jadhav et al., 2025) [6,10] . Similarly, Kayande et al. (2025) [8] reported that lack of www.extensionjournal.com awareness, inadequate technical guidance, and input-related problems significantly affected the adoption of improved agricultural technologies among farmers in Marathwada region. Over the last few decades, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have emerged as major actors in rural and agricultural development, especially in areas lacking formal institutional support. NGOs frequently complement government efforts by developing farmers' capacities, facilitating technology transfer, connecting communities to markets, and mobilizing grassroots participation in resource conservation (Chambers, 1993; Uphoff, 2000) [4,18] . In vulnerable regions like Marathwada, such organizations can play an important role in strengthening agricultural resilience and improving livelihood opportunities for small and marginal farmers. The Global Vikas Trust (GVT) through its flagship initiative Global Parli is an example of such targeted intervention. GVT has been working in the Marathwada region and has a long history of watershed development, sustainable land management, natural resource conservation and farmer capacity-building. Its programmes include improved seed/ planting material distribution at subsidized rates, water harvesting, training workshops and income diversificationall to equip small and marginal farmers with tools to navigate an increasingly difficult agricultural environment. Nevertheless, even in the context of such active support, farmers still face a range of production, market and institutional challenges that constrain programme outcomes (Kumar et al., 2017; Chauhan et al., 2023) [3,11] . It is important to design effective and targeted policies, and knowing which constraints persist, which fade, and how the experience differs for those who access NGO support and those who do not is crucial. Therefore, the present study aims to examine and compare the constraints faced by beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers in Marathwada region. The study is based on data collected before and after GVT's intervention to provide a nuanced, evidence-based picture of what NGO-led programmes can and cannot address (Verma et al., 2021) [19] .

Objectives of the study

The study was undertaken to identify the major constraints faced by beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers in the study area and to compare the nature and severity of these constraints before and after NGO intervention. It also aimed to examine the effectiveness of NGO-led interventions in addressing agricultural problems and improving the farming situation in the Marathwada region.

Methodology 2.1 Study area and sampling design

The study was conducted in the Marathwada region of Maharashtra, where the activities of Global Vikas Trust are predominantly concentrated. A multistage purposive sampling design was adopted to obtain a representative sample from the NGO's operational area. In the first stage, three districts namely Beed, Nanded, and Dharashiv were selected purposively, as these districts had the highest concentration of GVT beneficiary farmers. In the second stage, two tehsils were selected from each district. Further, four villages from each tehsil were selected based on the criterion of maximum number of beneficiaries. At the village level, simple random sampling without replacement was used to select five beneficiary and five non-beneficiary farmers from each village. Thus, a total sample of 240 farmers comprising 120 beneficiary and 120 nonbeneficiary farmers was selected for the study. Primary data were collected through personal face-to-face interviews using a pre-tested structured schedule. The required information was collected for the agricultural years 2019-20 and 2024-25.

Method of Analysis

The constraints expressed by the respondents were analyzed and prioritized using Garrett's Ranking Technique. In this technique, the respondents were first asked to identify the major constraints perceived by them in agricultural activities. After identifying the constraints, they were asked to assign ranks to each constraint according to the severity and extent of the problem faced by them. These ranks were converted into percent positions by using the following formula and then, were converted into scores using Garrett's conversion table. The mean Garrett score of each constraint was calculated for all the respondents and the constraint having the highest mean score was considered as the most severe one. In this method each respondent ranks all constraints as they see them. These ranks are converted into percent positions as per the formula below and thereafter mapped to Garrett's conversion table to arrive at standardized scores. The average Garrett score for all respondents is used to determine the severity of each constraint; the constraint with the highest average score is considered the most severe. The percent position was calculated using the following formula:

Per cent position = Where, Rij = Rank given to i th constraint by the j th individual and Nj= Number of constraints ranked by the j th individual (Garrett and Woodworth, 1969) [5] . www.extensionjournal.com

Results and Discussion

Constraints Faced by Beneficiary Farmers

The constraints experienced by beneficiary farmers, both before and after GVT's intervention, were analyzed using Garrett's Ranking Technique. Table 1 presents the results in detail. Before the intervention, the challenge that weighed most heavily on beneficiary farmers was a simple but fundamental one: lack of awareness, which recorded the highest mean Garrett score of 66.76. This was closely followed by difficulty in accessing quality seeds and planting material (62.46), insufficient technical knowledge (58.44), labour shortages during peak agricultural seasons (55.93), high input costs (54.61), inadequate farm-gate prices (46.48), crop losses caused by wildlife (42.98), and unreliable electricity for irrigation (34.34). This preintervention profile collectively describes farmers caught in an informational vacuum-they are unaware of better practices, uncertain about improved technologies, and unable to access the quality inputs that would facilitate adoption. But after the intervention, the constraint landscape changed. The main challenge was not lack of knowledge, but high cost of inputs (Garrett score: 67.92), followed by labour shortage during peak seasons (64.88), low farm produce prices (60.51), incidence of pests and diseases (58.35), marketing difficulties (50.41), crop damage from wild animals (45.85), unreliable power supply for irrigation (39.71) and climate variability (34.38). This is a big shift. This indicates that GVT's programme has succeeded in closing the awareness and knowledge gap around adoptionfarmers are now more aware and willing to adopt improved practices. But this very adoption has brought them face to face with a new set of challenges-the economics of scaling up production, the volatility of markets, the unpredictability of weather, and the chronic shortage of agricultural labour. In other words, the NGO intervention helped farmers overcome initial barriers to agricultural development; however, further progress is constrained by broader structural and institutional challenges.

Constraints Faced by Non-Beneficiary Farmers

In contrast, non-beneficiary farmers did not show much significant change in the character or intensity of their problems over the period of study ( They shifted from facing problems due to a lack of information such as ignorance of practices and lack of knowledge, to dealing with operational and economic issues. These include input costs, labor shortages, pest problems, and market uncertainties. This change is generally a good sign. It shows that farmers have adopted better practices and are trying to use them. However, they still face structural challenges that the NGO cannot address directly.

In contrast, non-beneficiary farmers did not experience such a shift. Their challenges stayed largely the same over time, indicating that without external support, they remain stuck. Basic issues like poor irrigation, low seed quality, and lack of technical advice continue to be major obstacles, each one worsening the others. These findings are in close agreement with the studies conducted by Khandagale et al. (2024) [10] , who reported that farmers adopting improved agricultural technologies continued to face constraints related to labour scarcity, high input costs, and technical limitations despite technological interventions. Similarly, Kayande et al. (2025) [8] observed that lack of awareness, inadequate technical guidance, and input-related problems significantly affected the adoption of improved safflower varieties among farmers in Maharashtra. Further, Jadhav et al. (2025) [6] emphasized that climate-resilient agricultural technologies improved farmers' adaptive capacity; however, economic and institutional bottlenecks still persisted in drought-prone regions of Marathwada. The findings are also supported by earlier studies of Kumar et al. (2017) [11] , Prashanth et al.

(2020) [12] , and Chauhan et al. (2023) [3] , who noted that awareness and knowledge constraints dominate during the initial stages of agricultural development, while operational and economic challenges become more important after technology adoption. Likewise, Keshri and Jahanara (2019) [9] , Verma et al. (2021) [19] , and Sheetal et al. (2020) [16] found that non-beneficiary farmers commonly suffer from poor irrigation facilities, lack of quality inputs, and weak institutional support systems, which is consistent with the present findings from Marathwada.

Conclusion

The study shows that NGO support played an important role in improving the farming conditions of beneficiary farmers in the Marathwada region. Before the intervention, farmers mainly faced adoption-related constraints such as lack of awareness, poor technical knowledge, and non-availability of quality seeds and planting material. After the intervention, these problems reduced considerably and the major constraints shifted towards implementation-related challenges such as high input costs, labour scarcity, pest incidence, and marketing difficulties. This indicates that NGO support helped farmers adopt improved farming practices, but difficulties related to managing and sustaining these practices still remained. In contrast, non-beneficiary farmers continued to face the same basic problems related to irrigation, quality inputs, awareness, credit access, and technical guidance throughout the study period. Overall, the study highlights that NGO interventions are effective in reducing knowledge and adoption barriers, but long-term agricultural improvement also requires better market support, irrigation facilities, credit access, and climateresilient farming measures.

Policy implications

The findings from this research convey important insights for policymakers, development workers, and NGOs operating in regions prone to drought. Firstly, it is essential to focus on post-adoption challenges with targeted policy measures. Mechanisms for input subsidies, collective purchasing systems, and enhanced agricultural supply chains can alleviate the financial strain that persists for farmers even after they adopt better practices. Secondly, access to markets remains a significant issue. Expanding farmer-producer organizations, developing rural market intelligence systems, and bolstering agricultural price support initiatives are crucial steps to ensure that farmers can receive fair compensation for their products. Lastly, the persistent issues of labour shortages and climate variability necessitate investments in farm mechanization, climateresilient cropping methods, and integrated pest management technologies that should be made accessible and affordable for smallholder farmers. Fourth, to begin with, access to institutional credit needs significant improvement. Numerous small and marginal farmers in Marathwada find themselves outside the official credit system, compelling them to depend on moneylenders and hindering their ability to invest in superior seeds, inputs, and infrastructure. Lastly, and possibly most crucially, the disparity between beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers underscores the transformative potential of broadly extending NGO-like support. Expanding collaborative platforms that unite government agencies, NGOs, and local institutions would enable more farmers to benefit from the awareness and technology support efforts that have clearly improved outcomes among GVT's beneficiaries.

References

1. Anonymous. Economic Survey of India 2023-24. Ministry of Finance, Government of India. 2024.
2. Birthal PS, Joshi PK, Gulati A. Vertical coordination in high-value food commodities: Implications for smallholders. MTID Discussion Paper No. 85, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. 2005.
3. Chauhan S, Patel R, Singh K. Constraints in adoption of improved agricultural technologies among rural farmers. Indian J Ext Educ. 2023;59(2):112-118.
4. Chambers R. Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications; 1993.
5. Garrett HE, Woodworth RS. Statistics in Psychology and Education. Bombay: Vakils, Feffer and Simons Pvt. Ltd.; 1969.
6. Jadhav V, More SS, Perke DS, Chavan RV, Thombre RF, Pathrikar DT. Impact of climate-resilient agricultural technologies in drought-prone Marathwada region of Maharashtra. In: Compendium of Abstracts, 33rd Annual Conference of Agricultural Economics Research Association (AERA); 2025.
7. Kavibharathi SM, More SS. Assessment and spatial www.extensionjournal.com analysis of agricultural vulnerability to climate change in Maharashtra: A district-level perspective. IOSR J Human Soc Sci. 2024;29(2):1-5.
8. Kayande SK, Perke DS, Rath PK, More SS, Chavan RV, Thombre RF, Pathrikar DT. Constraints in the adoption of PBNS-12 safflower variety in Parbhani district of Maharashtra. In: Compendium of Abstracts, 33rd Annual Conference of Agricultural Economics Research Association (AERA); 2025.
9. Keshri P, Jahanara. Comparative analysis of constraints faced by beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers in agricultural development programmes. J Rural Dev. 2019;38(3):421-430.
10. Khandagale RJ, More SS, Bharati SV. Constraints faced by BBF technology adopter and non-adopter recommended by VNMKV on soybean crop in Parbhani district of Maharashtra in Marathwada region. Int J Res Trends Innov. 2024;8(12):809-815.
11. Kumar A, Singh D, Yadav R. Constraints in adoption of improved farming practices among small and marginal farmers. Indian Res J Ext Educ. 2017;17(4):56-61.
12. Prashanth P, Reddy BS, Kumar M. Farmers' perception regarding technological and economic constraints in agriculture. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2020;9(6):2154-2160.
13. Pretty J. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philos Trans R Soc B. 2008;363(1491):447-465.
14. Reddy DN, Mishra S. Agriculture in the Reforms Regime. In: Reddy DN, Mishra S, editors. Agrarian Crisis in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 3-39.
15. Shah M, Gulati A, Hemant P. Beyond the Headlines: How NGOs Are Reshaping Indian Agriculture. NABARD Policy Brief. Mumbai: National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development; 2020.
16. Sheetal S, Patil V, More S. Institutional and infrastructural constraints faced by non-beneficiary farmers in rural Maharashtra. Agric Econ Res Rev. 2020;33(1):95-102.
17. Shiferaw B, Tesfaye K, Kassie M, Abate T, Prasanna BM, Menkir A. Managing vulnerability to drought and enhancing livelihood resilience in sub-Saharan Africa: Technological, institutional and policy options. Weather Clim Extrem. 2014;3:67-79.
18. Uphoff N. Understanding social capital: Learning from the analysis and experience of participation. In: Dasgupta P, Serageldin I, editors. Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. Washington, D.C.: World Bank; 2000. p. 215-249.
19. Verma R, Sharma P, Meena H. Production and institutional constraints among farmers in semi-arid regions of India. Indian J Agric Sci. 2021;91(7):10481053.