A small farmer from Milkowaal village in Ludhiana struggles each year with the high costs and limited access to equipment needed to manage crop residue. Many crop residue management (CRM) machines require highhorsepower tractors, which small farmers like him cannot afford. He explained, “I own a 45-horsepower tractor, so I cannot use in-situ machinery. I incur additional costs of INR 700 per acre for labour and diesel for ex-situ CRM, all from my pocket. The nearest custom hiring centre (CHC) is about 9 km away, further complicating my access to subsidised equipment.” Another farmer added, “Managing paddy residue, particularly through in-situ methods, demands additional costs from farmers. While CHCs offer machinery, finding labour to operate these on large plots remains challenging. Moreover, the cost of fuel is also quite high.” Additionally, uncertainty over machine availability, delivery timelines, and lengthy documentation processes – combined with the short 15–18-day window between harvesting and sowing – often compels farmers to burn crop residue. These logistical and psychological barriers highlight the constraints many farmers face.

Every winter, during the kharif harvest, farm fires become a recurring subject of discussion in northern India. From the media to politicians and citizens alike, a key question persists: What informational, psychological, social, and structural barriers prevent farmers from adopting alternatives they may genuinely want to pursue? Crop residue burning (CRB) in northwestern states worsens air quality, contributing up to 30–35 per cent of PM2.5 levels in Delhi during the peak burning season (~20 days annually) (Govardhan et al. 2023). In response, the Government of India launched the Crop Residue Management (CRM) scheme in 2018 to subsidise machinery such as super seeders and assist farmers in transitioning away from burning their crop residues. Since the scheme’s launch, fire counts have declined in hotspot states such as Punjab and Haryana, while states such as Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh have witnessed an increasing trend. However, despite financial and material assistance, almost half of Punjab’s farmers continue to burn or partially burn crop residue due to several reasons (Kurinji et al. 2024). This persistence reflects not only structural and logistical constraints but also behavioural barriers such as loss aversion, social norms, and time scarcity (Sharma et al. 2020; Lopes et al. 2023).

To enhance farmers’ awareness of the harms of burning and promote alternative residue management options (in-situ¹ and ex-situ²), the CRM scheme allocates funds for detailed information, education, and communication (IEC) activities, in line with its third objective (Figure 1). Annually, state governments develop and disseminate information through various channels to increase awareness and uptake of the scheme. However, the reach and effectiveness of these channels remain inadequately measured and evaluated.

The Punjab State Action Plan (Government of Punjab 2024) and several studies (Sharma et al. 2020; Singh et al. 2024; CII 2022; Kurinji et al. 2024) identify behaviour change as a key enabler of a transition away from CRB. However, the CRM scheme currently lacks a dedicated and structured behaviour change communication (BCC) strategy, relying solely on generic IEC activities to raise awareness. These initiatives have been sporadic but have yielded some positive behavioural shifts. Annually, the government allocates a budget and sets targets for various IEC activities under the CRM scheme (Table 1), including television programmes, printed literature, and village- and block-level camps. For example, the Punjab government allocated INR 4.5 crore for IEC activities out of the total INR 375 crore allocated for CRM in the state, amounting to only 1.3 per cent of the budget (Annexure I). Similarly, the 2025 CRM operational guidelines provide financial assistance of INR 6,000 per hectare for field demonstrations of CRM machinery (MoAFW 2025); however, attendance remains low, and the effectiveness of these interventions remains untracked.

However, evidence shows that education alone is insufficient to bring about lasting behavioural change (Arlinghaus and Johnston 2017). A well-defined IEC strategy goes beyond awareness-building to disseminate information about available schemes and guide citizens on how to access them. Its objective is not only to inform but also to influence attitudes and enable sustained positive behavioural change. Accordingly, IEC strategies use a range of communication tools tailored to the distinct needs of rural and urban populations (MoHFW 2018).

Effective IEC employs multiple approaches, ranging from mass media campaigns that inform or establish positive norms within the general population to targeted interpersonal communication (IPC) designed to help individuals assess their behaviours and develop new personal skills.

In this sense, IEC activities serve as a means of ‘marketing’ the scheme, making it more attractive and generating demand among various target groups through awarenessbuilding exercises.

In this issue brief, we assess the reach and effectiveness of the government’s IEC efforts under the CRM scheme in Punjab and offer recommendations to design more powerful, relevant, and accessible IEC materials going forward.

This brief is intended for the Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare (DoAFW), state agriculture departments, communications professionals, consultants, and designers engaged in implementing the CRM scheme. It informs current policy discourse by assessing the effectiveness of IEC activities under the scheme and highlighting the need to move beyond awareness-building towards structured, evaluative BCC. By integrating behavioural insights, the brief offers actionable recommendations to make CRM communications more timely, engaging, relevant, and attractive. Policymakers, extension officers, creative agencies, and development partners can benefit from these insights in designing campaigns that not only inform but also enable farmers to adopt sustainable, no-burn residue management practices.

Box 1. From information, education and communication (IEC) to behaviour change communication (BCC)

The transition from IEC to BCC addresses the limitations of linear communication approaches, which often incorrectly assume that knowledge automatically drives action. Unlike IEC’s top-down dissemination of information, BCC employs theories such as the Stages of Change model (Prochaska and DiClemente 1983) to support individuals across a continuum – from awareness to sustained behavioural change. Rather than relying solely on information dissemination, BCC emphasises two-way communication, social support, and enabling environments that make desired behaviours easier to adopt and sustain.

This section presents the findings from our survey of 102 farmers across Amritsar, Ludhiana, and Sangrur. To provide a structured analysis of the current IEC landscape and behavioural trends, we have categorised the findings using a 4C framework: coverage, clarity, credibility, and conversion.

3.1 Coverage: Are messages reaching farmers?

Digital channels play a central role in farmers’ information ecosystems. Farmers were asked to identify the channels (listed in the CRM guidelines) through which they had interacted, as well as their top three preferences. As shown in Figure 4, WhatsApp and social media emerged as the most widely accessed media channels, while direct visits from agriculture officials and word of mouth among farmer peers were the most widely used mediums. This indicates the importance of maintaining strong field-level engagement alongside digital outreach. Traditional media, such as radio and pamphlets, show comparatively lower reach. When asked about their preferences, 55 per cent of farmers reported that digital media are more engaging and accessible than traditional ones.

Visibility of the Unnat Kisan mobile application remains low. While machinery rental is a critical need, awareness of digital solutions is limited. Most surveyed farmers were unaware of the platform, with 86 per cent reporting they had never heard of the Unnat Kisan mobile application. This indicates a significant gap in the promotion of digital public infrastructure intended to support CRM.

Crop residue management trainings remain underutilised. Most surveyed farmers (78 per cent) did not attend CRM training, primarily because they were unaware that the training was taking place in their village. Low attendance is further driven by time constraints, the perceived irrelevance of training content, and personal or logistical barriers.

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

Farmers are most receptive to information shared during the pre-harvest phase, yet timing of communication remains a major friction point. Around 63 per cent of surveyed reported never receiving CRM-related information when they needed it. While 30 per cent identified the pre-harvest phase as the ideal decision-making window, current communication efforts often fail to align with this period (Figure 4). Since CRM-related decisions can directly impact crop yields, soil health, and incomes, farmers prefer taking careful, deliberate decisions during the pre-harvest phase, when they are in a cold state³. As loss aversion is a key behavioural barrier, decisions made during the harvest phase (hot state⁴) may be perceived as ‘hurried’. Messages showcasing the concrete agronomic benefits of no-burn practices should therefore be prioritised during the pre-harvest phase, while information on the ease of shifting to no-burn practices through easy machine access and positive social norms should be emphasised during the harvest phase, helping farmers translate intent into action.

Partial burners represent the most immediate opportunity for behaviour change and can be considered low-hanging fruit. Current communications often treat farmers as a monolith, but the data reveal a critical need for strategic segmentation. Partial burners (31 per cent of farmers) represent the most immediate opportunity for impact. These farmers are already ‘semi-converted’–they practice CRM using machines–but resort to burning residue due to specific, unfounded concerns, primarily regarding pest attacks.

Management practices vary significantly across geographical areas. According to our survey, management practices differ based on local agricultural practices and proximity to machinery and industries. As seen in our survey, farmers in Amritsar have naturally gravitated towards ex-situ methods (70 per cent) due to shorter crop windows (Figure 5). The trend of partial burning has emerged in areas where in-situ management remains the primary option. As management practices shift across district areas, communication strategies must be geographically targeted.

Excessive information leads to cognitive overload. Farmers expressed a strong preference for simplicity, with 73 per cent of those surveyed preferring IEC materials that focus on one or two key messages rather than complex, text-heavy content. Our audit of existing pamphlets revealed they are often generic and cluttered, leading to information overload and subsequent dismissal.

Messages that emphasise agronomic benefits are more likely to resonate with farmers. Farmers prioritise tangible on-farm outcomes. When considering alternative CRM methods, respondents ranked yield, soil health, and crop quality as the most important factors. Conversely, ‘prestige’ or social judgement was rated as least important. Current messaging often fails to clearly link CRM adoption to these primary agronomic motivators (productivity and soil health).

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

Agriculture officers and extension workers are the most trusted sources of information. A majority of surveyed farmers reported receiving information from agriculture officers and identified them as the most credible messengers, with 62 per cent citing them as their primary source, followed by fellow farmers. This preference is reflected in communication preferences as well: 39 per cent of farmers identify direct engagement with DoAFW officials as their preferred communication mode. While digital platforms, such as WhatsApp, offer wide reach, face-to-face interactions with officials continue to play a critical role in establishing credibility.

Burning is often driven by misinformation. Credibility is undermined by peer-to-peer misinformation. Among farmers who continue to burn residue, 67 per cent of surveyed farmers cited pest attack prevention as a primary reason. However, 57 per cent of these farmers admitted that they had never personally witnessed increased pest attacks, relying instead on exaggerated peer narratives and hearsay. These informal information channels exhibit a stronger network effect than official scientific assurances from institutions such as krishi vigyan kendras (KVKs) and state agricultural universities (SAUs).

Visible burning weakens the credibility of anti-burning norms. A distinct gap exists between injunctive norms (what people believe should happen) and descriptive norms (what people observe in practice).

•  Injunctive: Around 90 per cent of surveyed farmers personally disapprove of burning, and 95 per cent believe that officials also disapprove of the practice.

•  Descriptive: Despite this, 73 per cent of surveyed farmers continue to observe their neighbours burning crop residue. This visibility normalises burning behaviour and undermines the credibility of antiburning norms, even in the presence of high personal disapproval..

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

Adoption of alternative CRM methods is rising, but fragmentation persists. Our survey indicates a positive trend in conversion, with 63 per cent of surveyed farmers reporting that they have completely moved away from burning. Farmers attribute this shift primarily to fears of enforcement penalties and to the improved availability of alternative CRM solutions. However, 31 per cent of farmers practice partial burning, while 6 per cent continue to engage in complete burning.

Farmers rely primarily on informal rental systems to access CRM machinery. About 38 per cent of surveyed farmers reported incorporating residues by renting CRM machinery. Of these, 56 per cent rent from fellow farmers, while 34 per cent rely on CHCs. Farmers rely primarily on informal rental systems to access CRM machinery.

To increase rental behaviour and simplify the booking process of CRM machines, the DoAFW launched the Unnat Kisan mobile application, which provides a platform for both machinery owners and farmers seeking rentals. However, we found that 86 per cent of surveyed farmers had never heard of the application. A recent CEEW study found that of 65 CHCs surveyed in Punjab, only ~15 per cent were aware of digital tools, such as Unnat Kisan, and fewer than half of these were actually using them. Traditional communication channels, such as phone calls and in-person visits, remain dominant, while ~10 per cent of CHCs reported using WhatsApp to rent CRM machines and sell agricultural inputs (Jain et al. 2025).

Theoretical lectures fail to build practical confidence. Among farmers who attended CRM trainings, 73 per cent described them as lecture-based, with limited practical demonstrations. This reduces the likelihood that knowledge translates into field practice.

5.1 Redirect resources towards preferred communication channels

• Encourage communications through farmers’ preferred channels: Currently, budgets do not allocate dedicated funds for social media engagement or WhatsApp outreach (Annexure I). Our survey indicates that farmers prefer digital channels; for example, social media and WhatsApp, compared to traditional media, such as radio and pamphlets. Reallocating resources to preferred media, such as interpersonal communication channels and social media platforms, such as YouTube, Facebook, and WhatsApp, can significantly improve the effectiveness of IEC efforts.

• Prioritise trusted, high-impact messengers: Agriculture development officers and extension workers emerge as the most trusted information sources (62 per cent of surveyed farmers rely on them, and 39 per cent prefer them as the first point of contact). Allocating a larger share of IEC budgets to doorstep visits, group meetings, and village-level events can improve credibility and adoption.

• Leverage hybrid engagement models: While direct, face-to-face communication should remain the backbone of IEC, 55 per cent of surveyed farmers find digital media more engaging. A hybrid model that combines social media campaigns with WhatsAppbased information sharing and SMS nudges can extend the reach and frequency of messaging.

• Utilise flexi-funds to pilot BCC strategies: Under the CRM operational guidelines, states can optionally allocate up to 25 per cent of the total budget (both central and state shares) as flexi-funds for any subscheme, component, or innovation aligned with the overall objectives of the CRM scheme. These flexifunds provide a viable financial mechanism for piloting a BCC strategy, which falls under the IEC component.

5.2 Deploy district-specific communications, with a focus on highburn districts

While generic messaging plays an important role, IEC efforts must also be tailored to district-specific farmer concerns. As shown in Figure 9, concerns about alternative CRM methods are not uniform across districts. Communications efforts should therefore focus the most intensive campaigns in districts such as Sangrur, where 69 per cent of farmers continue to partially burn residues.

• Prioritise conversion pathways based on district typologies: Focus first on converting low-burn villages to no-burn practices, where behavioural shifts are already underway, and on medium-burn villages, where farmers have adopted machinery but continue partial burning.

• Highlight aggregator success stories: In early-harvest districts, such as Amritsar, highlight aggregator success stories and the operational and economic benefits of early baling (since crops mature early here).

• Address district-specific fears in partial-burning districts: In districts where partial burning is prevalent, such as Sangrur, communication should directly respond to concerns around machine reliability, maintenance costs and pest attacks through field demonstrations and peer testimonials.

• Reinforce positive norms in districts with higher in-situ adoption: In districts such as Ludhiana, where in-situ adoption is higher, reinforce and celebrate early adopters as role models to strengthen norms.

5.3 Complement IEC with a behaviour change communication approach

• Adopt a segmented approach based on farmer archetypes: A ‘one-size-fits-all’ communication strategy is ineffective because farmers are not a homogeneous group. To strengthen conversion outcomes, IEC must move beyond generic mass messaging and segment the audience into distinct behavioural archetypes, targeting them with identity-specific appeals. Based on observed patterns of CRM adoption, farmers can be broadly categorised into four archetypes:

- Never used CRM machinery: These farmers have never used CRM machines for residue management. The reasons could include resistance to change, loss aversion, fears of pest attacks, or yield loss. For these farmers, awareness campaigns alone are insufficient. Communication strategies should prioritise technical demonstrations, peer testimonials and evidencebased reassurance to reduce perceived risks and build confidence in alternative practices.

- Always/Mostly using CRM machinery: Farmers in this group primarily prefer to use machines to manage residue and are motivated by efficiency and modernisation. Digital platforms, such as WhatsApp and Unnat Kisan, can be leveraged to reinforce noburn practices among this segment. Messaging should frame no-burn CRM adoption as both aspirational and economically beneficial strengthening positive behavioural reinforcement.

- Just started using CRM machinery: Farmers in this group have recently started using CRM machines. These farmers are highly influenced by social cues. They are unlikely to be the first to change but will follow if they perceive a shift in the community. Moreover, avoiding penalties and fines is a significant motivator for farmers who have recently shifted to no-burn CRM. For them, visibility is key; showing that neighbours are changing is more effective than relying solely on economic arguments.

- Stopped recently: Many farmers may have stopped using CRM machinery after facing negative consequences, such as increased operational costs, or on-field impacts, such as reduced yields, increased pest attacks, or difficulty accessing CRM machinery.

• Target specific, high-impact ‘key behaviours’ using behaviourally informed IEC: During the COVID-19 campaigns, specific communications efforts were designed to drive uptake of specific, high-impact behaviours, such as mask-wearing, handwashing, and social distancing, to contain the spread of the virus. Similarly, achieving the policy objective of achieving zero farm fires requires identifying and targeting a small set of critical behaviours that directly influence CRM outcomes.

• Simplify messaging to reduce cognitive load: Farmers report a preference for receiving only one or two key messages at a time. The current information overload leads to disengagement. Existing IEC materials must be redesigned to focus on single, actionable micro-behaviours. For example, rather than a dense manual on the scheme, a campaign should focus solely on targeted messages, such as ‘Timely access to balers ensures residue clearing’ or ‘Level fields without burning – here’s how’.

• Leverage positive social norms and identity: Survey findings indicate that farmers respond strongly to success stories, with 81 per cent of respondents describing them as believable and motivating. Communication strategies should utilise:

- Descriptive norms: Highlight that the majority of farmers’ behaviours are shifting (for example, ‘100 out of 150 farmers in this block now use Super Seeders’).

- Injunctive norms: Showcase disapproval of burning by key influencers, such as village leaders and family members.

- Shift the narrative from achieving ‘compliance’ to ‘pride’: Frame the non-burning farmer not just as lawabiding, but as guardians of their soil. This appeals to the farmer’s self-identity.

- Institutionalise collective decision-making to overcome individual hesitation. Efforts related to IEC should facilitate village-level CRM agreements, such as group commitments. Encouraging sarpanches, along with farmer groups, to pass formal resolutions against burning through public pledges can create a binding social contract. When a decision is made collectively by the village, it reduces the social risk for individual farmers and establishes a community-enforced standard.

• Make CRM benefits visible and tangible: Farmers are strongly influenced by visual evidence during the harvest season. Since the benefits of improved soil health are often invisible in the short term, IEC materials must make them tangible. This can include before-andafter visuals, short case films shared via WhatsApp, and field demonstrations that visibly compare soil texture and crop health in burnt and unburnt fields.

• Align communication timing with the pre-harvest decision window: Information is most effective when delivered at the moment of decision-making. Farmers report being most receptive during the pre-harvest phase, yet 63 per cent feel that information never reaches them at the right time. Messaging calendars should therefore be aligned with this window (August– September) to maximise attention before the harvest rush.

• Acknowledge and address locally relevant barriers: Around 74 per cent of surveyed farmers perceive current IEC efforts as disconnected from their lived realities. To build trust, communication strategies must validate these barriers rather than dismiss them. Whether the barriers relate to costs, labour, or pest concerns, the messaging should offer specific solutions, such as cost-sharing models, rental CHC links, or targeted pest control advice, rather than reiterating the prohibition on burning.

• Synchronise interventions across the ‘influence triad’: Behaviour change does not occur in a vacuum. Our findings highlight that peer pressure (interpersonal) and machinery access (structural) are as critical as individual intent. Communication interventions must therefore operate in parallel across distinct actor categories to prevent bottlenecks.

- Primary actors: For the individual farmer, interventions must focus on ‘ability’. Even when motivated, farmers cannot switch if the transaction costs remain high. Interventions here must focus on removing frictions, such as simplifying enrolment processes under the CRM scheme and the Unnat Kisan app, providing direct financial incentives, and ensuring technical support for machinery-related concerns.

- Influencers: Since peers dictate norms, communication strategies should target these influencers directly. Progressive farmers can be positioned to act as credible, vocal advocates who validate the safety of no-burn CRM methods. Additionally, engaging family members (especially village-level or household messengers) can create an internal echo chamber of approval within the household, countering negative external peer pressure.

- Gatekeepers: At the ecosystem level, interventions must improve access and devise or communicate appropriate incentives. Informal machinery lenders and CHCs control the physical means of adoption. If they do not effectively promote or supply CRM machines, farmer intent stalls. Policy must incentivise these gatekeepers not merely to own machines, but to actively market them – perhaps through performance-linked bonuses for CHCs that service the highest number of small and marginal farmers.

5.4 Evaluate the outcomes and impacts of deployed IEC activities

• Shift focus from activity counts to behavioural outcomes: Instead of merely tracking the number of wall paintings, posters, or social media posts, measure actual changes in burning behaviour, CRM adoption rates, and intent to adopt CRM methods.

• Establish a robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework: A comprehensive M&E framework should be established at the campaign’s outset, outlining what will be measured, how, when, and by whom. This framework should track progress across the entire results chain. Preliminary assessment of evaluation metrics occurs during key behaviour selection; teams subsequently refine them further and evaluate them across four metrics: inputs, outputs, outtakes, and impact.

• Introduce farmer feedback loops: Regularly collect farmer satisfaction data on IEC content in terms of clarity, timing, and relevance to ensure that campaigns are adaptive and responsive.

• Measure recall and salience: Track the number of farmers who remember the key IEC messages and whether they disapprove of burning by neighbours and village leaders, or approve of no-burn alternative CRM methods.

Table 9. Sample M&E framework with example behavioural metrics for ongoing CRM interventions