Farmers using crop residue management machines (CRM) but still setting residual stubble on fire due to concerns such as pest attacks, cost and lack of confidence in alternative methods, also referred as “partial burning”: this behaviour has emerged as a key challenge in tackling pollution due to stubble burning, a latest study has underlined.
Titled ‘Behaviour Change Approaches to Tackle Stubble Burning at Scale: Reimagining Crop Residue Management’, a Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) study made available on Tuesday is based on a survey of 102 farmers across Punjab from Sangrur, Ludhiana and Amritsar, focus group discussions with 36 farmers in Amritsar and Kapurthala, and consultations with 15 agriculture officials.
As per the CEEW, a nonprofit, crop residue (stubble) burning in Northwest India remains one of the most visible contributors to the region’s severe seasonal air pollution, accounting for up to 30-35% of Delhi’s PM 2.5 pollution during the October=November peak season.
What the study shows
According to the latest study, 63% of surveyed farmers reported moving away from complete burning. However, 31% or 1 in 3 continued to partially burn their fields, while 6% still engaged in complete burning, indicating that adoption of crop residue management alternatives remains uneven despite progress.
Among farmers who continue to burn residue either partially or completely, 67% cited pest attack prevention as a key reason. However, 57% of them said they had never personally witnessed increased pest attacks, suggesting that peer narratives and hearsay continue to influence field-level decisions.
According to the study, reported farm-fire incidents have declined since 2022, but it has cautioned that fire counts need to be read alongside a shift in burning behaviour, timing of fires, satellite-detection limitations and actual adoption of alternatives on the ground.
Referring to a 2025 study by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), the report noted that stubble burning is increasingly occurring at different times of the day, potentially affecting satellite-based monitoring of farm fires. Lower reported fire counts alone may not fully capture whether farmers have shifted to sustained no-burn practices.
The Punjab government’s Unnat Kisan app, meant to support machinery rentals, also had low visibility among surveyed farmers. CEEW found that 86% of surveyed farmers had never heard of the app, indicating a gap in promoting digital public infrastructure that is directly linked to CRM adoption.
Not enough training in using CRM machines
Training has been another weak link. The study found that 78% of surveyed farmers were unaware of CRM training schedules.
Among those who attended training, 73% described them as largely lecture-based, with limited practical demonstrations.
The study has recommended that Punjab build on existing IEC — Information, Education, and Communication — activities but shift towards a dedicated ‘Behaviour Change Communication’ strategy under the CRM scheme. This would mean treating farmers not as a single category, but as distinct groups — those who have never used CRM machinery, those who have just started using it, those who use it regularly, those who stopped after negative experiences, and partial burners who are already close to full adoption.
For partial burners, the study has recommended targeted technical reassurance, field demonstrations and peer testimonials to address fears around pest attacks, machine reliability and maintenance costs.
The report has also called for district-specific communication. In low-burn villages, with a low frequency of such incidents, the focus should be on completing the shift to no-burn practices, it said. In medium-burn villages, communication should target farmers who have adopted machinery but continue partial burning. In high-burn or partial-burning districts, messaging should directly address local fears such as pest attacks, machine reliability and operational costs.
CEEW has also recommended reallocating resources towards farmers’ preferred communication channels, especially direct extension visits, peer networks, WhatsApp and social media. However, it has said that digital channels should complement, not replace, face-to-face engagement, particularly for older farmers, smallholders and those with lower digital access.
The study also noted aligning communication with the pre-harvest decision window, especially around August and September. During this period, messages should focus on agronomic benefits, machine access and planning, it said. During the harvest phase, communication should help farmers act quickly through reminders, booking links, custom hiring centre contacts and field-level support.
The study also noted aligning communication with the pre-harvest decision window, especially around August and September. During this period, messages should focus on agronomic benefits, machine access and planning, it said. 
Share
