Constraints in training programme implementation among Farmer Producer Organisations in South Kerala: Implications for extension strategies

1.Introduction

Agriculture has been the backbone of India's economy, supporting the livelihoods of more than half of the population. In India, small and marginal farmers make up the majority of the farming community, representing 82 percent of all farmers. (FAO, 2026) [1] They face numerous challenges, including high input costs, limited market access, low bargaining power, minimal value addition. To address this, various organisational models have been developed to integrate smallholders into agricultural value chain, aiming to boost their incomes and lower transaction costs. These include farmer's clubs, self-help groups, joint liability groups, cooperatives, farmer interest groups, and Farmer Producer Organisations. Over time, Farmer Producer Companies (FPCs) later emerged as a more formalised organisational model, offering farmers a stronger platform for collective decision-making, better market access, and improved bargaining power. (Trebbin et al., 2012) [2] These organisations are registered either under Part IXA of Companies Act or under Co-operative Societies Act of the concerned States are formed for the purpose of leveraging collectives through economies of scale in production and marketing of agricultural and allied sector. (Government of India et al., 2021) [3] Despite their potential, sustainability of most FPOs can be attributed to factors such as the insufficient skills of office bearers, a lack of vision and direction from the Board of Directors, a weak equity base, difficulty in securing working capital from financial institutions, poor marketing strategies, limited expertise in value addition, and the absence of a well-structured business plan (Suresh et al., 2024) [4] . Inadequate training is one of the major factors to the skill gaps in these organisations. (Sawairam, 2016) [5] At the individual level, farmers often struggle to attend training due to seasonal labour demands, travel and accommodation costs, low literacy, and previous experiences of training that felt irrelevant or poorly delivered. (Sawairam, 2016) [5] At the organisational level, weak coordination of group activities and insufficient monitoring by implementing agencies have been identified as key constraints affecting FPO members. (Induja et al., 2024) [6] More broadly, weak governance and inadequate leadership have been cited as root causes of FPO underperformance. (Ramappa et al., 2018) [7] Training programmes for farmers need to be designed according to adult learning principles, giving due importance to the learners' prior experience, contextual knowledge, and need for immediate practical application. (Radhakrishnan, 2026) [8] Conventional lecture and slide show-based instruction alone is inadequate for improving FPO performance, while workshop-based formats paired with small pilot projects are a more effective way to build practical managerial skills. (Kumari et al., 2023) [9] Although South Kerala has a considerable number of operational FPOs, the region has received relatively less research attention compared to Central Kerala. (Kumari et al., 2023; SFAC, 2026) [9,10] This study was therefore undertaken to identify and rank the constraints faced by BoDs and CEOs in implementing training programmes, assess the constraints faced by farmers in participating in these programmes, and formulate extension strategies for the effective design and implementation of training programmes in FPOs.

2.Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in five purposively selected districts of South Kerala, namely Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, Kottayam, Pathanamthitta and Alappuzha. According to statistical reports (Kumari et al., 2023; SFAC, 2026) [9,10] . Central Kerala has the maximum number of FPOs, followed by South Kerala and North Kerala. Since, most of the studies on FPOs have been reported from Central Kerala, South Kerala has been selected as the location of the study. The study followed a descriptive, ex-post-facto research design, as the variables under study had already occurred and were not subject to experimental manipulation by the researcher. A survey method was adopted for data collection using a multi-stage sampling procedure involving the purposive selection of districts, followed by random selection of FPOs and respondents within each district. A list of operational FPOs was obtained from the office of the Project Director, Agricultural Technology Management Agency (PD-ATMA), Government of Kerala. From each district, five crop based FPOs were randomly selected, making a total of 25 FPOs across the study area. From each selected FPO, 7 respondents were randomly chosen, comprising four farmers, two BoDs and one CEO. Primary data were collected through personal interviews using a structured interview schedule comprising both open-ended and closed-ended questions. Constraints faced by BoDs and CEOs in implementing training programmes were first elicited through open-ended questions, allowing respondents to describe them in their own words. Based on the responses obtained and inputs from the review of literature, a consolidated list of constraints was compiled, and respondents were subse-quently asked to rank these constraints in order of severity. The data collected were analysed using Garrett's Ranking Technique (NABARD, 2026) [11] , wherein the ranks assigned by each respondent were converted into percent positions using the following formula: Percent Position = 100 (𝑅𝑖𝑗 -0.5) 𝑁𝑗 R ij = rank provided for the ith constraint by the jth respondent N j = total number of constraints ranked by the jth respondent The percent positions were then converted into Garrett scores using a standard conversion table. The mean score for each constraint was calculated, and constraints were ranked accordingly. Higher mean scores indicated greater severity as perceived by respondents. Constraints faced by farmers in participating in training programmes

were identified through open-ended questions. Their responses were content analysed and grouped into five broad categories. Within each category, responses were subjected to frequency and percentage analysis, calculated as:

where f is the number of respondents reporting a particular constraint and N is the total number of respondents (N = 100).

The percentage of farmers reporting each constraint was calculated, and the Mean Percentage Score (MPS) of the items included under each category was used to rank the categories. Based on the constraints identified across all three respondent groups, suitable extension strategies were developed to improve the design and implementation of training programmes. Each major constraint was linked with a practical and feasible measure to address the specific issue.

3.Results

Constraints faced by Board of Directors in implementing training programme

The analysis revealed that 'Lack of time for farmers', reflected in low member attendance (mean score 66.06), was perceived as the most pressing constraint by the BODs. Lack of contact between the farmers and the experts due to their non-synchronised schedules 35.38 10

Constraints faced by Chief Executive Officers in implementing training programmes

Constraints faced by farmers in attending training programmes

4.Discussion

The finding of the study revealed that 'lack of time for farmers', as reflected in low member attendance was the most severe constraint perceived by the BODs is supported by Babu et al, who highlighted that farmers' year-round engagement in farm operations resulted in poor participation in training programmes. (Babu et al., 2022) [12] The second-ranked constraint, 'Insufficient training budget or financial support', is consistent with the observation that inadequate financial support and low equity contribution severely limit FPOs' ability to conduct training and capacity-building. (NAAS, 2026) [13] Inadequate infrastructure facilities were identified as a significant constraint, which aligns with the findings of (Panda et al) [14] , who reported that inadequate infrastructure for organising meetings and training programmes for member farmers was a major challenge among FPOs in Odisha. Limited support from government departments and institutions, Lack of management professionals was reported by the BODs as further constraints. This is in consonance with the findings of (Yadav et al) [15] , who identified governance and management related constraints such as lack of professionalism, limited support from institutions, and inactive board members affecting ad-versely affected the functioning of FPOs. The observed lack of training need assessment is consistent with (Roy et al) [16] , who identified capacity gaps among the governing members of FPCs and highlighted the need to assess the specific training requirements of Boards of Directors before designing training programmes. Insufficient followup and evaluation after training, lack of demonstrations and exposure visits, and lack of contact between farmers and experts due to nonsynchronised schedules were among the other constraints reported. Similar findings were reported by Radhakrishnan. (Kumari et al., 2023) [9] From the perspective of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), the most severe constraint was the lack of time and opportunity cost for farmers. This finding is consistent with (Sinega et al) [17] , who identified insufficient time as one of the major personal constraints among FPO members. Inadequate financial resources for training were identified as another major constraint, followed by lack of interest and motivation among members. These findings are consistent with (Navisha and Shanthasheela) [18] , who reported that financial limitations as a major constraint affecting the success and sustainability of FPOs. They further reported that lack of training contributed to poor coordination and reduced motivation among members. (Jose and Chathukulam) [19] pointed out that weak board-level training contributed to free-rider behaviour and erosion of trust, which may adversely affect members' motivation to actively participate in FPO activities. Support from government departments, institutions, and external agencies was identified as the next major constraint, followed by inadequate management professionalism, poor coordination, and political interference in the functioning of the BoDs. Similar concerns were reported by (Bhadwal et al) [20] Likewise, (Babu et al) [12] identified lack of coordination among members, domination by a few individuals, and political interference as notable constraints affecting the effective functioning of FPOs. Among farmer members, the prominence of training content and design constraints, particularly the mismatch between training topics and actual field needs, is consistent with the broader observation that effective farmer training should be based on a clear understanding their felt needs rather than on generic content (Suresh et al., 2024) [4] . This finding is also in line with reports that workshop based, hands on learning approaches are generally more effective than conventional lecture-based training for functionaries of these organisations (Radhakrishnan, 2026) [8] . To make up for the shortage of management professionals and coordination support, a panel of empanelled resource persons drawn from state agricultural universities and line departments can be developed to provide managerial and technical guidance. Poor awareness about upcoming training programmes can be improved by enhancing publicity through multiple channels, including SMS, local radio, and FPO meetings, so that farmers are informed well in advance. Finally, to ensure that learning does not end with the training session itself, periodic follow-up visits should be arranged, along with a dedicated helpline or WhatsApp group to address farmers' post-training queries and provide ongoing guidance. Thus, extension strategies formulated address these concerns through practical measures such as season-sensitive scheduling, participatory curriculum development and better utilisation of existing government schemes for financial and infrastructural support. Such convergence with available government programmes has also been recommended for strengthening the functional roles of these organisations more broadly (Ajith et al., 2022) [21] .

Extension strategies for effective design and implementation of training programmes

Conclusion

The study concluded that lack of time on the part of farmer members, resulted in low member attendance, was the foremost constraint perceived by both BoDs and CEOs in implementing training programmes, followed by inadequate financial resources and lack of member interest. Farmer members, in turn are more affected by constraints related to training content and design than by personal, motivational or accessibility related constraints. Based on these findings, extension strategies were formulated for the effective implementation of the training programmes. These include staggered training during slack periods, convergence with government schemes for financial and infrastructural support, and training needs assessment before each cycle. Greater use of field demonstrations, exposure visits, hands-on learning, and participation of farmers and BoDs in curriculum development can further improve the relevance and effectiveness of training programmes.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors gratefully acknowledge the Board of Directors, Chief Executive Officers and farmer members of the Farmer Producer Organisations for their cooperation during data collection. Institutional support from Kerala Agricultural University is also duly recognized. No external funding was received for this study and the sponsors had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.

References

1. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). India at a glance [Internet]. Rome: FAO; 2026.
2. Trebbin A, Hassler M. Farmers' producer companies in India: a new concept for collective action? Environment and Planning A. 2012;44(2):411-27.
3. Government of India, Press Information Bureau. Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) [Internet]. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; 2021.
4. Suresh V, Vivek S, Sreejith SS. Assessing the long-term viability of farmers' collectives in South India. Frontiers in Sociology. 2024;9:1415725.
5. Sawairam P. Training need assessment of members of farmer producer organisation and producer companies in India with reference to Pune district. We'Ken International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2016;1(3):124-136.
6. Induja TR, Senthilkumar R, Bashir BP, George PR, Gleeja VL. Constraints perceived by the shareholders of livestock-based farmer producer organizations in Kerala. Journal of Krishi Vigyan. 2024;12(2):214-219.
7. Ramappa KB, Yashashwini MA. Evolution of farmer producer organizations: Challenges and opportunities. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2018;9(4):709-1.
8. Radhakrishnan A. Training needs assessment for enhancing the impact of farmer trainings. 2026.
9. Kumari N, Bisht K, Naberia S. Capacity building strategies to enhance core managerial competencies of farmer producer companies of NCR of Delhi. Society of Extension Education. 2023.
10. Small Farmers' Agribusiness Consortium (SFAC). FPOs [Internet]. New Delhi: SFAC; 2026.
11. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). NABARD homepage [Internet]. Mumbai: NABARD; 2026.
12. Babu TM, Lakshmi T, Prasad SV, Sumathi V, Murthy BR. Constraints of Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) members in Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh. AATCC Rev. 2022;14:105-10.
13. National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS). Enhancing efficiency and sustainability of farmer producer organizations in India: Challenges and strategies (Policy Paper No. 144). New Delhi: NAAS; 2026.
14. Panda S, Jena A, Mohanty S, Sahoo S, Pragyan S, Behera DJ, Dash SS. Perceived constraints by the board of directors in managing the activities of Farmers' Producer Organizations (FPOs) in Odisha. Educ Adm Theory Pract. 2024;30(4):6939-44.
15. Yadav VK, Mukharjee A, Roy S, Pradhan K, Pan RS, Kumar U, Yadav DK, Kumar A, Singh AK, Raghav DK. Analyzing the constraints as perceived by the board of directors in the initial development phase of the farmer producer organizations. 2022.
16. Roy H, Jirli B, Maji S. Training need assessment of board of directors of farmer producer companies: An application of Borich's model. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2022;58(3):113119.
17. Sinega C, Agila R, Nirmala Devi M, Kanaka S, Gangai Selvi R. Overcoming hurdles: navigating the key challenges faced by FPO members in Tiruvallur district. Int J Agric Ext Soc Dev. 2024;7(8):98-102.
18. Navisha B, Shanthasheela M. Hindrance factors for the success and sustainability of FPO's in Tamilnadu -opinion of CEO's and BODs of Farmer Producer Organization. Biol Forum Int J. 2023;15(9):141-8.
19. Jose AM, Chathukulam J. Farmer producer organisations and institutional economics: institutional economic thought for strengthening sustainable agriculture. Indian Public Policy Review. 2025;6(3):27-84.
20. Bhadwal S, Thakur RK, Kumar V. Farmer producer organization: A potent tool for paradigm shift in the farm sector. Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2022;23(1):11.
21. Ajith A, Bonny BP. Functional roles of farmer producer companies: The stakeholder's perception. Journal of Extension Education. 2022;34(4):6894-6898.
22. Garrett HE, Woodworth RS. Statistics in Psychology and Education. Bombay: Vakils, Feffer and Simons Pvt Ltd; 1969. How to cite this article: Safna P, Somanath G, Thomas A. Constraints in training programme implementation among Farmer Producer Organisations in South Kerala: Implications for extension strategies. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2026;9(9):1216-1221. doi: ht tps://www.doi.org/10.33545/26180723.2026.v9.i9p.4338