The Background
In early 2020, like many migrant workers across India, Rajendra Nath Goswami, a native of a small village in Champawat district, lost his private-sector job in New Delhi due to the COVID-19 lockdown. Returning home with limited options, he attempted open-field farming. However, the returns were highly inconsistent and insufficient to sustain his family.
With no stable income and rising uncertainty, his situation began to change in mid-2023, when he was selected as a beneficiary under the SBIF-LEAP project, implemented by BAIF Development Research Foundation.
Intervention Details
Infrastructure
Construction of a low-cost, bamboo-based polyhouse (600 sq. ft.) featuring UV-stabilized sheeting.
Resource Efficiency
Installation of a specialized drip irrigation system coupled with a Syntex water tank for optimized water usage.
Input Support
High-yield input kits provided, including cucumber and capsicum seeds, organic manure, and biofertilizers.
Capacity Building
Practical, on-ground training on polyhouse setup, protected cultivation, pest management, and market linkage.
Impact Analysis
| Indicator | Pre-Intervention | Post-Intervention |
|---|---|---|
| Annual Income | ₹10,000 | ₹65,000 (Gross) |
| Employment Type | Migrant, daily-wage worker | Self-employed agri-entrepreneur |
| Cropping Intensity | Seasonal, weather-dependent | 2 cycles/year (protected) |
| Market Access | Through middlemen | Direct sales |
| Community Role | Job seeker | Local agri-mentor |
The Journey of Change
Phase 1
Learning and Setup
Initially unfamiliar with the technology, Rajendra received practical training and regular handholding support from BAIF’s field team. With their guidance, he constructed the polyhouse near his home and began cultivating capsicum, tomato, and cucumber.
Phase 2
Early Success
Over the next 12 months, Rajendra implemented season-specific cropping patterns based on market demand. The polyhouse environment led to higher-quality produce and allowed year-round cultivation. Direct sales in local markets yielded higher returns than his earlier open-field farming.
Phase 3
Sustained Growth
Through two crop cycles, Rajendra earned an annual gross income of ₹60,000–₹65,000. By selling directly in local mandis and weekly haats, he eliminated middlemen. Today, he also serves as a mentor for other returnee migrants considering polyhouse farming by translating his transformational journey.
Why the Intervention Worked
The polyhouse was only one part of the livelihood pathway
The case suggests that the strongest value came from combining infrastructure with practical capability and market access. A protected structure can reduce exposure to some weather variability, but it does not automatically create a viable livelihood. Farmers still need suitable crop choices, water management, pest control, input planning, production skills and a realistic route to buyers.
In Rajendra's case, drip irrigation, crop inputs, field training and continued handholding complemented the physical polyhouse. Direct local sales also changed the commercial side of the model by reducing dependence on intermediaries. This combination is important for rural-livelihood programme design: an asset becomes productive only when the surrounding knowledge, services and market relationships allow the beneficiary to use it effectively.
Replication Considerations
What should be assessed before expanding the model
- Availability and reliability of water for protected cultivation.
- Farmer interest, labour availability and willingness to learn new production practices.
- Local climate, crop suitability, input costs and realistic market demand.
- Access to extension support after the infrastructure is installed.
- Maintenance requirements and the affordability of replacing damaged materials or irrigation components.
- Monitoring of net income, crop loss, input expenditure and asset performance—not gross revenue alone.
Evidence Interpretation
Read the results as a beneficiary-level field case
The income, cropping, market-access and livelihood changes on this page describe Rajendra's documented experience. They are useful for understanding how the intervention functioned in one household and which elements may have contributed to the observed change. They should not be interpreted as a controlled causal estimate or as evidence that every polyhouse investment will generate the same returns.
For stronger programme learning, similar interventions should track baseline conditions, production costs, net income, crop losses, water use, maintenance expenditure, market prices and farmer adoption over time. Comparing these indicators across multiple beneficiaries can help distinguish an individual success story from patterns that are sufficiently consistent to inform scale, redesign or future investment.
Key Institutional Learnings
- ✓
Low-cost polyhouses offer high returns on minimal land and water requirements.
- ✓
Practical training and sustained field support ensure smooth adoption of new technologies.
- ✓
Protected cultivation heavily enhances climate resilience and yield reliability.
- ✓
Empowering returnee migrants can build local rural entrepreneurs and community changemakers.
Explore More Evidence
View all case studies and selected assignments
Related Case Study
Bhawaan Singh's goat-farming journey
Attribution Note
This page presents a beneficiary-level field case associated with the SBIF-LEAP project and the implementation support described in the source material. Programme roles should remain distinct: the funder, implementing organisation, beneficiary and any research, evaluation or audit partner contribute differently to the programme and its documentation. The reported results are therefore presented as case-specific observations rather than claims of sole attribution.