Executive summary

Crop residue burning remains an important air quality and public health concern across northern India. Recent government data indicate a notable decline in reported incidents since 2022 (PIB 2025), suggesting progress in ongoing mitigation efforts.

At the same time, emerging evidence points to evolving patterns in burning practices, including shifts in the timing of fires, that may influence satellite-based detection and, consequently, reported fire counts (Singh et al. 2025). Complementing this, CEEW’s research indicates that satellite-derived fire counts may underestimate the total number of burning events under certain conditions (Ignatious et al. 2025).

Taken together, these insights highlight the importance of interpreting trends in reported incidents alongside measurement and behavioural dynamics. Against this backdrop, this study, based on research conducted in 2025, examines the behavioural barriers and enablers shaping farmers’ decisions, with a view to informing more effective strategies for alternative crop residue management across Indian states.

The Government of India’s CRM scheme includes information, education, and communication (IEC) activities as one of its core pillars, aiming to raise awareness, promote alternative residue management practices, and reduce air pollution. Currently, IEC activities are conducted with the aim of raising awareness for a homogenous farmer population. But we ask, is a onesize-fits-all information dissemination strategy sufficient to induce behaviour change? The Punjab government in 2024-2025 allocated INR 4.5 crore to IEC activities out of the total INR 375 crore allocated to CRM in the state, amounting to only 1.3 per cent of the budget (Annexure I).

Existing evidence suggests that farmers face a combination of structural and behavioural barriers. Structural constraints include short cropping windows, limited or no access to machinery, and high fuel costs (Kurinji et al. 2024). These findings from the literature are also reflected in the responses to the current survey. Key behavioural barriers include loss aversion (Diyyala et al. 2025; He et al. 2023; Patil and Veettil 2024), social norms (Lopes et al. 2020; Mor et al. 2023; Erbaugh et al. 2024), present bias (Clot et al. 2014), misinformation, and cognitive overload. While the government has attempted to address structural challenges by subsidising CRM machinery and establishing machine rental models, a concerted focus must also include a behaviourally informed communication strategy to meet the target of zero-burn Punjab.

This study aims to assess the effectiveness and reach of current IEC activities and offer targeted recommendations to bridge the gap between information provision and behaviour change. Our findings draw on a primary survey (102 farmers) and focus group discussion (FGD) with farmers, as well as consultations with government officials, conducted in Punjab in 2024 and 2025. The analysis examines the reach and effectiveness of existing IEC efforts under the CRM scheme, farmers’ information preferences, and the behavioural and practical challenges they face in adopting sustainable residue management practices.

We acknowledge that the study design has constraints. The findings of this study are non-representative, but exploratory in nature, covering insights from four districts of Punjab. Selection bias stems from purposive village selection based on prior CRM training exposure, likely inflating estimates of reach and awareness compared to state averages. The non-probability sampling method, though stratified by landholding size, limits generalisability beyond the surveyed population. Finally, self-reported burning behaviour data may underestimate actual incidents due to social desirability bias given the issue’s sensitivity.

Key findings

We categorise the survey findings using a 4C framework: coverage, clarity, credibility, and conversion. The 4C framework helps enhance IEC effectiveness by linking observed gaps to four actionable levers: optimising coverage (channel reach), sharpening clarity (message design), leveraging credibility (trusted messengers), and facilitating conversion (support systems).

Coverage: Are messages reaching farmers?

• Farmers most commonly receive CRM-related information through peers, social media, and WhatsApp. While WhatsApp and social media are the most widely accessed digital channels, peer-to peer communication remains the most prevalent source of information (Figure ES1). This indicates the importance of maintaining a strong field-level engagement alongside digital outreach.
  
  Traditional channels, such as radio and pamphlets, have comparatively lower reach, with the latter accounting for 6.15 per cent of the IEC budget outlay in 2024-2025. When asked about their preferences, 55 per cent of surveyed farmers reported that digital media are more engaging and accessible than traditional channels. From a budget perspective, there is not a direct allocation towards digital channels (Table 1)

• Awareness of the Unnat Kisan app remains low, with 86 per cent of surveyed farmers reporting that they had never heard of it, indicating a significant gap in the marketing of digital solutions for CRM.
• Lack of awareness is the primary barrier to training attendance, with 78 per cent of surveyed farmers unaware of training schedules. Other factors affecting attendance include time constraints, the perceived irrelevance of training content, and personal or logistical concerns. Although direct field engagement activities comprising village and block-level camps and ASHA mobilisation account for 35.6 per cent (1.62 crore) of the total IEC outlay budget making trainings underutilised.

Clarity: Is the information easy to understand, timely, and relevant to farmers’ needs?

• Information often fails to reach farmers during the critical pre-harvest decision window. About 63 per cent of surveyed farmers reported not receiving information when they actually needed it. While 30 per cent identified the pre-harvest phase as the ideal time to receive communication, campaigns are rarely deployed in this period.
• Partial burners’ represent an immediate opportunity for behaviour change. Generic messaging fails to target ‘partial burners’ (31 per cent) – farmers who already use machinery but continue to burn residue due to unfounded fears of pest attacks. This group requires specific technical reassurance and fear alleviation, in addition to general awareness.
• Farmers prefer simplified, low-text communication materials. Respondents expressed a strong preference for simplicity, rejecting complex manuals in favour of materials that convey one or two key messages.
• Agronomic benefits drive decisions more than social prestige. Farmers are primarily motivated by improvements in yield and soil health (Figure ES2). However, current messaging often emphasises generic appeals, such as ‘don’t burn’ or ‘avoid fines’, overlooking the primary motivator: on-farm benefits.

Credibility: Do farmers trust the source and believe the message?

• Direct engagement remains the most trusted source of information. Direct visits by agriculture extension officers are the most trusted channel (62 per cent), followed by fellow farmers. While digital platforms expand coverage, in-person interactions provide the credibility necessary to influence behaviour.
• Hearsay about pest attacks undermines confidence in alternative CRM methods. Among surveyed farmers who burn residue, either partially or completely (n = 38), 67 per cent cite pest attacks as the key reason. However, more than half reported that they had never personally witnessed such attacks, relying instead on peer narratives.
• Visible burning weakens the credibility of anti-burning norms. Despite widespread personal disapproval of burning (90 per cent), 73 per cent of surveyed farmers report observing their neighbours burn residue. This gap between stated values and observed practices normalises burning and undermines collective action.

Conversion: Are farmers successfully adopting or willing to adopt no-burn CRM practices?

• Adoption of alternate CRM methods is increasing, but remains uneven. Our survey indicates a positive trend in conversion, with 63 per cent of surveyed farmers moving away from burning completely. However, 31 per cent of surveyed farmers continue to partially burn their fields.
• Informal rental systems are currently favoured, driven by peers and custom hiring centres (CHCs). 56 per cent of surveyed farmers renting (n = 47) rely on fellow farmers, while 34 per cent use formal CHCs to access machines. This suggests that peer-to-peer machine rental is currently the primary driver of conversion.
• Lecture-based training fails to build practical confidence. Farmers who attended training described sessions as largely theoretical, lacking the practical field demonstrations required to overcome the fear of using new machinery. This gap is reflected in the financial allocation, where field demonstrations account for only 6.59 per cent (INR 0.3) of the total IEC outlay in 2024-25.

Table ES1. Key recommendations for strengthening Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) efforts for crop residue management

Source: MoAFW. 2025. “Revised Operational Guidelines 2025 of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme on Crop Residue Management in the States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and NCT of Delhi.” Mechanization and Technology Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.

While financial assistance and generic information campaigns have initiated adoption, findings indicate they are insufficient to curb crop residue burning effectively, as information provision alone typically yields only marginal behavioural shifts. To achieve sustained impact, the scheme must adopt a dedicated Behaviour Change Communication (BCC) strategy that actively addresses underlying psychological biases, social norms, and logistical constraints to end crop residue burning. This inclusive approach ensures that the most vulnerable farmers are not left behind, turning awareness into a sustained, communitywide shift in farming behaviour.