POST PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUJALA I …watershed.kar.nic.in/SujalaIII_Stud_files/Post...

FINAL REPORT

POST PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT

SUJALA I PHASE III WATERSHED PROJECT

Submitted to

THE COMMISSIONER

WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED

SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, BANGALORE

DECEMBER 2011

Final_Report_DVJ_Final_3_59_PM_1-12-11

Page 1

AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION BANGALORE


SUJALA I PHASE III WATERSHED PROJECT

CONTENTS

Page No.

ACRONYMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………….. 1-13

CHAPTER I ………………………………………………… 1- 2

• Introduction

SUJALA Watershed Project - Overview

CHAPTER 2 ………………………………………………… 3-11

METHODOLOGY

• Study Perspective

• Study approach and methodology

• Primary Survey

• Beneficiary Survey

• Sample Size

• Beneficiary Selection

• SHGs

• IGA Beneficiaries

• Project Implementing Agencies

• Focussed Group Discussions

• Cost sharing –Special study

• Others

• Limitations

CHAPTER 3 …………………………………………………….. 12-70

SUJALA - AN OVERVIEW

• Project Development Objectives

• Project implementation

• Classification of land

• Area Covered

• Classification wise Land Treated

• Project Interventions (Financial)

• Participatory Project Implementation

• Self Help Groups

• Area Groups

• Executive Committees.

• Entry Point Activities

• Knowledge Enhancement

• Physical Achievements

• Watersheds Treated under all phases

• Land Treatment- Private and community

• Project Monitoring and Evaluation and Learning

Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd, SRO, Bangalore (2)

IMPACT ASSESSMENT ( Phase III )

1 Cost Sharing

• Status and process

• Cost sharing Pattern - Special study

• Composition of Watershed Works

• Contribution and Beneficiaries

• Cost Sharing -Common Lands 2 Benefit Sharing by Farmers 3 Impact Analysis a) Intensive Agriculture

• Cropping Intensity :

• Crop Diversification

• Yield Improvements:

• Contributory Factors

• Organic Farming

• Other Benefits

• Poverty Alleviation through Income Generating Activities

• Milk Yield :

• Fish Production

• Average Incremental Income

• Average Family Income

• Labour Migration

• Macro Impact of the Project

• Households benefitted across the micro watersheds

• Ground Water Development

• Soil and Moisture Conservation

• Employment Generation

• Non- Farm sector benefits

• Other Benefits

• Social Forestry

• Horticulture Sustainability

• Technical

• Economic : sustainability

• Ecology and environmental Sustainability.

• Financial Sustainability

• Institutional

• Social and Environmental:

• Maintenance of Common Property Resources

CHAPTER 4 ……………………………………. 71-85

COMPARATIVE AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT

• Issues identified and addressed

• Comparative Performance (Phase I ,II and III) A: Agriculture intensification

• Cropping pattern change/diversification

• Crop Yield improvement

• Comparative impact on Ground water


• Duration of Water availability

• Reduction in Soil Erosion

• Sustainability of CBOs PAD AND PROJECT OUTPUTS

• Social and Institutional Aspects

• NGO Role

• Limitations

• Role of Panchayats

CHAPTER 5 …………………………………………… 86-92

SOCIOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS

Introduction Methodology A. BENEFIT SHARING- SOCIAL FACTORS

• Socio –Economic Improvement

• Equity in Benefit Sharing

• Institutional System

• SHGs’ Programme Components

• Gender Equity B. COST SHARING- IMPACT

• Key Role

• Obstacles to Implement

• Success Factors

• Limitations C. BEHAVIORAL IMPACT

• Institution System

• Formation of CBOs

• Effective Participation

• Emergence of Egalitarian Relations

• Emergence of Social Discipline

• Rising Aspirations

• Power to the People CHAPTER 6 …………………………………………………. 93-101

• Success Stories and Case Studies CHAPTER 7 ..................................................................... 102-104

• Conclusions & Suggestions ANNEXURES 1 - 5

APPENDICES 1 - 2


ACCRONYMS

AG Area Group AFC Agricultural Finance Corporation ATMA Agriculture Technology Management BPL Below Poverty Line CBOs Community Based Organisations CDZ Central Dry Zone DWDO District Watershed Development Officer EC Executive Committee EPA Entry Point Activity EDP Entrepreneurship Development Programme EDZ Eastern Dry Zone FGD Focussed Group Discussions FYM Farm Yard Manure Ha Hectare HRD Human Resources Development IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) ICR Implementation completion report IDA International Development Assistance IGA Income Generating Activity ISRO Indian Space Research Organisation KVK Krishi Vigyan Kendra MFP Minor Forest Produce ME &L Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MIS Management Information System MWS Micro Watershed NGOs Non Governmental Organisation NREGA: National Rural Employment Guaranty Scheme Nos Numbers NTZ Northern Transition Zone PAD Project Appraisal Document PPP Public Private Participation SHG Self help group SWAP Sujala Watershed Action Plan SWS Sub watershed SC Scheduled caste ST Scheduled Tribes WDD Watershed Development Department ICR Implementation completion report IDA International Development Assistance IGA Income Generating Activity ISRO Indian Space Research Organisation KVK Krishi Vigyan Kendra MFP Minor Forest Produce ME &L Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MIS Management Information System MWS Micro Watershed NGOs Non Governmental Organisation NREGA: National Rural Employment Guaranty Scheme Nos Numbers NTZ Northern Transition Zone PAD Project Appraisal Document PPP Public Private Participation SHG Self help group SWAP Sujala Watershed Action Plan SWS Sub watershed SC Scheduled caste ST Scheduled Tribes WDD Watershed Development Department


Page 1


SUJALA I WATERSHED PROJECT - KARNATAKA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction :Karnataka has huge responsibility of meeting the challenges of food se-

curity through sustained agriculture growth. Effective exploitation of natural resources

available has received primacy in planning. Karnataka implemented a World Bank

(IDA ) funded Watershed development project under participatory mode in as many as

742 micro watersheds coming under 77 sub watersheds in 38 taluks of six districts

namely Kolar, Chikkaballapur, Tumkur, Chitradurgarga, Haveri and Dharwad. The project

covered 5.19 lakh hectares of geographical area , benefited over 4.19 lakh households

inhabiting 1270 villages in three phases..

The first phase had a modest target of 10 Sub watersheds while second covered

another 20 Sub watersheds. Major part of the project was implemented in phase III

covering as many as 47 Sub watersheds (over 67% of the all targeted Sub watersheds

and as many as 469 Micro watersheds (out of 742). The project covered about 3.32 lakh

hectares of area under all the three phases with an average of 82% private and 18%

common land.

Project interventions: Over 60 per cent of the investments were earmarked on crea-

tion of watershed treatment structures. Social mobilization and institutional building had

next major share of expenditure (around 15% of the total outlay), followed by Income

generating Activities (around 13%). Overall financial achievement of around 88% fell

short by 12%, mainly on account of lower achievement in respect of Treatment of wa-

tersheds (84%) and farming systems intensification (68% achievement).

Sujala had some unique features in respect of planning, execution, monitoring, cost and

profit sharing aspects with multi agency creation and involvement. Bottom up approach

was the key factor. Non Governmental Organisations played good role and newly cre-

ated community based organizations like Area Groups, use of existing and newly

formed SHGs and specially constituted Executive Committees all became effective

tools for the success of the project. In all around 170,000 farmers were covered under

the 4300 plus Area groups. As many as 741 Executive Committees were formed to

plan and carry out the works . As many as 6640 Self Help Groups were involved (some


of them newly formed and many older SHGs). Their role in mobilizing and pooling

human and material resources is more than established.

The project provided Rs 1,162 lakhs for community assets creation under EPA.

Physical achievements: Central focus of the project was to bring about significant

improvements in the land and water resources through need based assessment of

the type and number of civil and vegetative measures. The works comprised desilt-

ing of village ponds (14,600), Revetment (54,900 rmt) / Bunding in 123,735 hectares,

Construction of farm ponds (14,370), as many as 12,200 recharge pits, around 1400 na-

la bunds and check dams, 2,335 mini percolation tanks, around 4.90 lakh RMT meter of

boulder bunds and some repairs to the existing structures.

Knowledge enhancement: Main focus of this project was to motivate communities

inhabiting the watershed villages to assume responsible roles in implementation of the

project. A basic project requirement was to address the issue of lower level of

understanding by the community of the advantages of group actions and their knowledge

enhancement not only through hands on training but also exposure to the new

concepts. This was done through a number of innovative training capsules specially

devised to meet the specific needs of specific groups. As many as 18,651 stake hold-

ers were brought under skill development and another 68,852 were covered under IGA

thus taking the cumulative figure to 87,503.

Monitoring and Learning: The project had an in-built and comprehensive system of

progress/ process monitoring as a part of the implementation . Apart from concurrent

monitoring, the project had scope to use other generally adopted evaluation methods

involving going into the impact -benefit aspect of the project.

The system followed by the ME & L agency included (i) ascertainment of physical tar-

gets and achievements in terms of inputs and outputs expected to be generated under

the phases. This involved collection and collation of periodic data using MIS and GIS

packages. Use of software packages for progress tracking (Sujala Mahiti), audio con-

ferences were some of the most effective methods adopted. Development of special

software package for Action Plans (SWAP) to develop plans for various activities under

the project including micro level (individual unit wise- farmer wise), cost and other related

information helped effective implementation of the projects. Data generated in the form

of process monitoring reports were studied and corrective measures, wherever neces-

sary, were suggested by the M and E agencies / WDD. In addition to the M E & L


agency, the Community based organizations were also encouraged to carry out periodical

self assessment of the project in terms of its status, progress, ground level problems /

issues that need to be addressed to and discuss the same in their meetings and arrive

at decisions that best suited to successful implementation of the project.

One of the most satisfying aspect of the project was the adoption of transparency in

all the transactions and activities by all those involved in the project implementation. Ac-

countability and financial management aspects of the project implementation were found

to be highly useful in success of the project

Project Impact: Cost Sharing: The project had emphasis on cost sharing concept as

a key factor in creating (i) sense of responsibility (ii) feeling of ownership of and (iii) obliga-

tion to participate in the development programmes right in their local communities both on

their private/ individual and common resources of livelihood. The basic approach of

social inclusiveness, local participation, and community driven programme was the first

step towards creating favourable condition. Secondly, the institutional arrangement

adopted by the project was a major breakthrough which further strengthened its scope

for easy acceptance by the people. The official functionaries of the department too had

played a crucial role in clearing prevailing disbelief about peoples contribution to their

own community development programme. the Agencies received very good response

and this created conditions for willingness to contribute their share whatever the per-

centages depending upon the nature and type of work and their land holdings status. The

social impact of cost sharing concept on the local community so far as private prop-

erty improvement was concerned, has been very positive and fully successful. How-

ever, the same thing cannot be concluded in respect of community responsibility towards

common property. There appeared to be no commitment built around this concept of

cost sharing for the development of common resources. The concept has been fol-

lowed rather mechanically to fulfill obligation contained in the approved project guidelines

during the project period. Neither specially formed community groups nor elected bod-

ies like panchayats made any objective move towards maintaining the spirit of cost sharing

nor maintaining the structures created under the project.

In case of beneficiary farmers, the prescribed percentage share in the cost of struc-

ture/material/planting material and other elements of cost was collected through a trans-

parent and agreed method in cash and kind. The kind component also included, in

many cases, own labour and material. The mode and method of determining individual


contribution was left to the concerned AGs/ and some amount of flexibility and

adjustments could not be ruled out.

Benefit sharing by farmers: Impact study has vividly revealed the significant changes in

the socio-economic aspects of the community groups inhabiting the watershed areas.

The equity issue has received desired focus in the project. The Programme component of

supporting the weaker sections in the non-farm sector has gone a long way in making the

equity objective very popular with rural communities. The project not only supported the ex-

isting SHGs, but also encouraged the formation of new ones by providing revolving fund ,

training for capacity building and skill development. In all 6,640 SHGs representing as

many as 90,000 women members were covered under the project with financial assis-

tance of Rs 75,000 per SHG to be on-lent to its members. Thus, an estimated 65,000

(taking an average of Rs 7,500/-per member) women were facilitated to take up one or

the other economic activities . The SHGs have emerged as very strong micro-economic

institution in providing with gainful economic activities leading to increased household in-

come among vulnerable sections of the village communities. Especially, the women folk

have taken leading interest in making SHGs very strong and sustainable. They are success-

fully managing their micro-financial institutions. Majority of them acknowledged that their

standard of living has improved because of SHGs. They have proved themselves as the

best Managers of their financial institutions. They have realized that the standard of their

food and clothing has improved and they are making use of better health care services and

sending their children to schools instead of putting them to work. Such an improvement was

possible mostly due to SUJALA Project, which added further strength to already existing

SHG movement. This programme has created a visible impact on the life of the women folk

in the rural community. As the managers of their homes they collectively expressed a strong

feeling that because of such programme, today they stand liberated from their men folk as

the sole providers of domestic needs. Some of the case studies illustrated in their reports

proved this trend. The Sujala Policy to involve the SHGs has really added to the popularity

of the scheme as comprehensive social movement to bring about transactions in the quality

of life of all groups of villagers.

Project Impact- Farm Economy: The main objective of the project was to improve

the natural resources and make them more productive to be used for the betterment

and development of the communities. Even within these groups, disparities in benefits

are quite possible due to predominant say of large and medium farmers and those

wielding some influence on the rural communities. The other aspect of the project


benefit is coverage of deprived and marginalized sections of the society who deserve

equal if not better deal in benefit distribution. Among the land holders three main

categories are involved in the project implementation, cost and benefit sharing namely,

Marginal farmers, small farmers and large farmers. The direct impact of the project

certainly is expected to be on agriculture, horticulture and other on farm activities.

Intensive Agriculture : cumulative effect of the project interventions is improved moisture

conservation due to measures aimed at checking soil erosion and run off, recharge of

ground water in the selected watershed areas, due to percolation effect and from

availability of water for irrigation wherever farmers have their own irrigation facilities.

Based on the beneficiary study and assessment, it is estimated that an average rise

of 18 to 30 meters could be possible in ground water table but it varies with agro-climatic

zones and amount of precipitation on an year to year basis.

Treatment in arable lands accounted for 270,000 hectares. While the study in respect of

Phases I and II estimated an average crop intensity of 144% (15% over the previous

crop intensity of 129%), under the III phase very moderate increase improvement is vis-

ible in so far as intensity is concerned. The crop intensity of phase III is 117% showing

an increase of 6% over the previous project intensity of 111% Taking weighted aver-

age for all the phases, the crop intensity for the project as a whole could be esti-

mated at 127 per cent (assuming proportion of treated area in different phases to total).

Crop Diversification: Thanks to opening up of markets for wide ranging agriculture

and horticulture products, farmers who had no alternative to low yielding dry land

crops like jowar, ragi, minor millets etc. are now taking high value crops like pulses,

oilseeds groundnut, maize, sunflower and others like vegetables; Fruits (Banana) flowers

etc Increase in the area under oilseeds, pulses and vegetables ranged between 3 to 19

per cent indicating diversion to high income crops (however, area under sunflower had

shown decline in some AC zones during the reference period) (Chapter 3 for details).

..

Yield improvements: yield levels of crops increased at different ranges in different

agro climatic zones. Increase in yield per hectare reported was 27 per cent for cere-

als,37 per cent for pulses, 41 for oilseeds and around 48 per cent in respect of other

crops (Chapter 3 for details).


Contributory Factors: While the above changes are largely on account of interven-

tions under SUJALA, quite a number of other factors seem to have contributed to the

over all improvement in production, yield improvements, crop diversification etc., that

need to be considered in evaluation process. Two important components, namely, adap-

tive research and Farmers Field Schools have been going on both within and outside

the watersheds and are meant to cover entire state and not necessarily restricted to

Watershed areas alone. Therefore, it is a combination of various factors that has worked

under the project. The Rasthriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, The ATMA, the KVKs and similar

other interventions on transfer of technologies also have added to the success of this

project. An analysis of the before and after project scenarios shows there is some

impact of these programmes in ”without Project “ areas also, though the process was

accelerated under SUJALA.

Organic Farming: Karnataka is one of the pioneering states in respect of adoption of

organic farming and in recent years focused programmes are being formulated and

implemented across the state including the watersheds under SUJALA. The project also

included a training capsule on techniques of organic farming. This also has contrib-

uted to reduction in cost and use of fertilizers.

Other Benefits: There is always an urge and need for not only small holders but also

big farmers to enhance income by taking up supplementary land based activities. Dairy

and small animal rearing is almost integral part of the farming systems and it was ob-

served that livestock rearing such as dairy, sheep and goat rearing, fisheries, silk worm

rearing etc provided sizeable income to the farmers. The incremental income averaged

at 71% (Chapter 3 on impact assessment of III phase). Besides, the changed crop-

ping pattern also generated agriculture by products which constitute fodder for cattle.

It was observed that the small and marginal farmers and those owning livestock (both

small and large animal) could maintain their stock with adequate availability of fodder.

Incremental availability of fodder varied among districts and depended on the extent of

community lands, types of tree plantations taken up and types of crop combinations

adopted by the farmers.


Fuel wood and Timber: Implementation of treatment plans incorporating plantation with

forest species such as silver oak, teak, honge, timber and other fuel wood trees formed

an important programme. As a result, the aggregate area under forest tree/ species is

estimated at 29,000 hectares. Even though no yields were reported from these areas, it

is expected that harvesting of some of the forest products would commence in the

coming years, more importantly fruit species like cashew nut, gooseberry and non fruit

species like timber, fuel wood, fodder. Yields can be estimated depending on the year

of harvest/cutting. It is estimated that at full development stage the total volume of

fuel wood, timber and fodder is estimated at Rs 3,850 lakhs annually.

Other allied Activities. Equity being major concern of the project interventions, a num-

ber of activities allied to agriculture also were supported under Income Generating

Activities such as dairy, poultry, sheep and goat rearing, piggery and in some areas,

sericulture and fisheries etc. The IGA package provided scope to such households to

take up one or other income generating activities . Predominantly women dominated

community based organizations, both existing and newly created SHGs were used as

vehicles of change. The interventions were focused on marginal farmers, agricultural

labour, rural artisans and other self employed persons. It was observed that over

23,000 women and other vulnerable group households were motivated through training

and skill development / EDP and other HR programmes and provided financial assis-

tance in the form of revolving fund through Self Help Groups. In all around 6,640 self

Help Groups were covered with membership restricted to 20 and average member-

ship is between 14 dan18, thus covering as many as 80,000 women. Main self em-

ployment activities included tailoring and outfitting, petty shops, repairs and servicing

eateries. For comparatively educated youth opportunities were made available to take

up servicing and computer operation through training and skill development pro-

grammes.

Milk yield : It was observed that average milk yield from milch animals had

increased from 1.70 liters to 2.80 liters/ day in case of local breeds and between 6-7

litres in respect of cross breds. Assuming a lactation of 200-220 days the incremental

milk production from a local milch animal ranged between 350 and 550 liters (200 litres

increase /lactation) valued at Rs 3,000 which added to the family income. Similar in-

crease was also seen in case of cross breds (details in Chapter 3).


Employment: On farm employment generation ranged among zones and averaged

at 45 mandays/hectare or around 21000 mandays/micro watershed. Off farm additional

employment generated was around 29 days. At project level, additional employment in

the on farm sector is estimated at 12.15 million man days/year while it is 1.29 million

mandays/year in respect of off- farm sector.

Besides serving agriculture and drinking water for livestock, some of the minor water

bodies have also become sources of fish production. Aquaculture is part of additional

income to some farmers particularly in eastern and central dry zones. With availability

of fish seed (fries and fingerlings) and technical support & training on improved fish pro-

duction techniques, number of farmers were encouraged to take up fish production in

these mini water bodies. An average farm pond can produce around 25 to 40 kg of fish

valued at Rs. 2000/3000, which is an addition to the family income. In many cases

farmers who produced surplus fodder sold to fellow farmers.

Average Incremental Income: Majority of the landless labour and those belonging to

marginal farmer groups did not have full time employment and consequently meager

incomes, mainly from menial labour which again depended on seasonal fluctuation of

rainfall and agricultural activities. It was estimated that the average labour wages earned

by an individual ranged between Rs 60 and 80 (for males) and Rs 50-70 (for women

labour) with around 90-100 days of employment the year, intermittently. Average in-

come was around Rs 6,000 to 10,000 in respect of male and Rs 5,000 to 7,500 for

women. Instances of such households migrating to nearby villages or towns were ob-

served in all the districts (partial). In case of landless labour who eked out their liveli-

hood mainly on income earned through farm labour (mainly women), their annual in-

come was estimated at Rs 6,000 (100 person days of employment at Rs 60/ day). Due

to her joining the group there was substantial rise in income. Case studies highlighted

that a women member provided with a sewing machine makes around Rs 2,500 per

month and around Rs 30,000 a year. During season she/he has the option to resort

to farm labour too which gets her another Rs 3,000 (assuming increased labour at

Rs 75/- for 40 days / season). Depending on IGA, annual income is estimated in the

range of Rs 15,000 to Rs 35,000/-.


Macro impact: Interventions in the watershed treatments spread over six districts

covered 59,000 hectare of community lands Private lands accounted for 2.73 lakh

hectares. Taking an average per capita holding at 1.95 hectares (for all the six dis-

tricts), the number of farmers benefitted can be estimated at 1.67 lakh, comprising

marginal, small and large farmers (Over 80 per cent of the beneficiaries come under

marginal and small groups). The Cost sharing special study conducted in 16 MWS cov-

ering 3650 farmers also confirmed this figure.

A comparative analysis of Phase I, II and III was carried out using the data from three

sources namely PAD Projections, Antrix Corporation and Phase III analysis, compari-

sons indicated that the PAD projections, the indicators of, Impact assessment in

respect of Phases I and II and those of Phase III are by and large same with very

minor deviations, especially in terms of economic benefits projected by PAD., A

comparative study of Phase I and II and III also indicated the same trend in respect

of economic gains at farmers level, groundwater recharge, IGA beneficiaries and others.

.

Environment benefits: The project interventions provided for plantation of tree crops

under silvi- horti-forestry. The impact from the interventions is improved tree cover, bet-

ter ecological conditions, and biomass production in the long run. Around 88,000

hectares (59,000 ha under horticulture crops and 29,000 ha under forestry), assuming 60%

survival, the effective area could be around 52,000 hectare) out of 519,000 hectares of

geographical area). The cumulative effect is 10% addition to tree cover to the existing

percentage. Additionally, construction of civil structures and repairs to the existing ones

resulted in soil moisture conservation leading to extended availability of water for tak-

ing additional crop or two short duration crops (However, this was observed only in

few cases during the survey). Extended period of water availability ranged between 2 to

2.5 months. Farmers survey indicated that Soil erosion has reduced by about 30-40

per cent over previous percentage (3.5% to 2.5%) (Chapter 3). .

Sustainability: Rural development projects with community participation and manage-

ment generally are confronted with the issue of sustainability in the post implementation

period due to lack of interest and initiative of the communities. The same is true to

some extent, in case of this project also. Even though success stories are seen here

and there, a general pessimism pervades across the watersheds under study. SUJALA

is a multi agency dependent project involving village communities.


The project also assumed that the maintenance of the structures created would be

taken over by CBOs with the assistance of Panchayats once they are handed over and

such structures would be properly maintained. The user groups when working were

expected to generate adequate savings/ revenues to meet the maintenance cost and

build up some resources and the Panchayats would ensure this happening. As a re-

sult, the worst sufferers were community lands where a number of interventions were

initiated and completed with the involvement of the community, but the structures created

are not being adequately maintained. While plantations in private holdings are expected

to be maintained, the same in community lands face the risk of being neglected and

eventually get degraded.

Financial: At individual level, it was observed that financial sustainability was achieved

by large majority of farmers irrespective of their size of holdings. Crop diversification,

cropping intensity enhancement have been possible and the levels of outputs per unit

of holding or per unit of productive asset (like milk production in case of dairy) have

been sustained over a period of time due to the initial interventions and efforts put in

by the project.

Institutional : The project heavily relied on community approach to management and

sought active participation right from the stage of planning, selection of interventions,

execution, monitoring progress and self assessment. This system worked well during

the currency of the project. The CBOs were expected to develop into a type of per-

manent bodies to look after the development and management of community assets/

properties and build their own resources from the profits generated as a result of the

project interventions. But could not sustain and survive beyond project period in gen-

eral, with few exceptions. The withdrawal brought in gradual liquidation of these insti-

tutions one after the other since there was no financial stake nor a common cause.

The role of NGOs was very prominent and to a large extent they performed their ob-

ligations in motivating and bringing the individuals to the community groups to ensure

sustainability of the project. The NGOs left the scene in the post project period since

their involvement was only up to the withdrawal stage. There are cases where AGS

are still functional but their activities have changed to collective borrowing from the

banks on SHGs pattern. Even these surviving institutions are not serious nor have any

inclination to maintain community / common lands but are engrossed only in getting

financial support from the banks and other lending institutions . Therefore, sustainability

of these institutions largely hinges on the financial interest and financial stakes of

individual members and not otherwise.


CBOs: Mobilisation process of rural communities in Karnataka, was already set in motion

by various development programmes especially the SHGs as the micro-credit system meant

for vulnerable sections of villages, particularly among the women folk and labour class. It

was at this point of time “Sujala” project came into force with its policy thrust on social mobi-

lization for local community participation in planning, executing, monitoring and maintaining

the productive assets created in the selected watersheds. This further, added to the intensi-

fication of social mobilization for over all development of the rural communities. Therefore, it

was easy way for NGO and DWD agencies to adopt and practice social mobilization efforts

among village communities of selected watersheds. The message of new approach of Su-

jala Project with the locally based institutions like the Area groups and the Executive Coun-

cils with required responsibility and power to plan, execute and monitor the development of

their own local resource-private as well as community-was something which brought enthu-

siastic response from the villagers. This initial success augured well for the ultimate success

of the Sujala Project; because it was the base on which community driven concept of the

project had been practiced. Credit for this initial success should go to the field functionaries

of the DWD. For having worked in the area, they were already conversant with the bio-

physical and socio-economic environment which had influenced the village communities.

This knowledge helped them to approach the villagers with the new message of the SUJALA

project.

NGO: Since the participation of the villagers had to be real and effective in all the processes

of the project implementation, such as planning, budgeting, execution and monitoring, the

local people needed services of the NGOs continuously. The NGOs have met this require-

ment very successfully by playing their designated role effectively. They have functioned as

the motivators and organizers of community groups educators and trainers for capacity

building among the beneficiaries and coordinators of field functionaries of Govt and the local

groups in executing the programmes. Some of them are reported to have been best in their

role in bringing unity of purpose, understanding and functioning among the community

stakeholders – individuals’ community groups of all categories.


In Conclusion:

� A multi agency participatory project of this nature and magnitude throws many

challenges in the course of its implementation. In general, the community

approach to project implementation has been a great success;

� Variations are observed between SWAP and actual works completed in all the

sub watersheds in respect of I and II Phases;

� The project has generally succeeded in ensuring equitable sharing of cost and

benefits among different sections of the communities; However, there seems to

be no relation between the size of holding and contribution in terms of cost shar-

ing since it depended on type of intervention availed by individual farmer;

� Highest percentage of beneficiaries belonged to small holders groups in re-

spect of on- farm interventions indicating that the benefit spread was horizontal.

The objective of restoring/ rejuvenating natural resources is largely fulfilled;

� Economic gains from the project are significant and have boosted the house-

hold income across the watersheds –both in respect of landed and landless

community members;

� A very positive impact is seen among the community groups understanding

and knowledge enhancement, inclusive approach and mutual understanding for

a common cause as is evidenced from near total absence of local differences

and issues;

� The social objective of better equity among partners is discernible and augurs

well for all the future interventions;

� On the economic front, very encouraging changes are seen in respect of crop-

ping pattern, crop intensity, crop diversification, yield improvement across water-

sheds;

� Income generating activities have helped large number of vulnerable sections of

the society including tribal and women in improving their economic status;

� Transparency in the processes and implementation has proved that the commu-

nity can be roped into any development programmes;

� Incremental income accruals to women entrepreneurs has resulted in their

economic independence and consequently greater say in household decision

making processes;

� Off- farm activities, mainly dairy and livestock rearing, have resulted in incre-

mental milk production to meet growing need and increasing population;

� Sujala model has created “Demonstration Effect” in the region with more and

more people adopting the tested and improved practices in agriculture and hor-


ticulture activities, leading to incremental income earning and enhanced knowl-

edge;

� Effective monitoring and evaluation , self assessment and conflict resolution

systems are major attributes of success of the project;

� Greater responsibility discharged by the WDD personnel deserves to be appre-

ciated but for whose motivation and hardwork, community mobilization on such a

large scale could not have been possible; ands

� The role of NGOs by and large, is positive and effective as most of them have

responded to the demands and expectations placed on them.

Lessons to be learnt

� Sustainability of the interventions particularly maintenance and upkeep of the

community resources;

� Mechanism to ensure commitment by the community groups ;

� Hand holding some time beyond project period;

� Avoiding congesting of activities in later part of project phase;

� Ensure realistic plans that can be implemented


Page 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Overview

With over 70 per cent of its agriculture dependent on rains and dry land farming pre-

dominating agrarian economy, Karnataka has huge responsibility of meeting the

challenges of food security through sustained agriculture growth. Harnessing and effec-

tive exploitation of natural resources available in the ten agro climatic zones has re-

ceived primacy in planning. Among various measures, Karnataka has adopted Water-

shed Development in line with national strategy for accelerated growth and sustainable

crop yields from dry land agriculture. Watershed based planning and development is

over a quarter century old in the state.

While significant improvements in the living standards of rural masses are taking place,

Karnataka implemented a unique World Bank (IDA) funded Watershed development pro-

ject under participatory mode under which the stake holders were provided opportunities

to actively involve themselves in all the processes of project implementation. The pro-

ject was implemented between 2002 and 2009 in three Phases (I, II and III) in as many

as 742 micro watersheds coming under 77 sub watersheds in 38 taluks of six districts

namely Kolar, Chikkaballapur, Tumkur, Chitradurgarga, Haveri and Dharwad. The project

covered 5.19 lakh hectares of land under treatment, benefited over 4.19 lakh house-

holds inhabiting 1270 villages.

An External agency (ANTRIX Corporation Bangalore) was engaged to provide expert

service in respect of Monitoring and evaluation of the project. The Corporation conducted

evaluation study of two phases namely Phases I and II. In respect of Phase III, the ser-

vices of Agricultural Finance Corporation were engaged for post project impact evalua-

tion. Broad scope of the study are:

1) Assess the flow of project benefits to farmer and non farmer groups through

desk work in respect of Phase I and II using the M and E and MIS data. For

phase III relevant field data to be collected from project areas using statistically

sound sampling frame and follow a comparable methodology for earlier work

done in the project. For all the three phases, the project fund flow will be eva-

luated on an aggregate level and levels of benefit per hectare of land based on

farm holding size. Non farmer groups will focus mainly on SHGs.


2) Quantification of cost sharing among community groups - contributions through

desk analysis for earlier phases and for phase III, relevant field data will be col-

lected from project areas as in the above case;

3) Carrying out impact evaluation by developing estimates of phase III impacts

based on field work to complement existing data from M and E agency. This will

cover social, economic and environmental indicators. Brief report will be prepared

on key impacts from Phase III and identify major differences between three

phases.

The study was taken up from middle of May 2011. An Interim Report was submitted

during July 2011 and presented before the committee and representatives of World

Bank. Field surveys and FGDs were held between June and July 2011. A Draft

Report was presented on 29th August 2011. Suggestions made by the WDD were

considered. In view of special focus on cost sharing, a detailed study of cost sharing in

respect of 14 selected micro watershed (about 30 per cent of the sample MWS covered

under survey) was carried out. Available data was collected from WDD and Antrix Cor-

poration for analysis and preparation of the Final Report.

.

The consultant is grateful to the WDD for entrusting this task and supporting the study

team with cooperation and making available data. During the field visits the District

level officials provided excellent cooperation and supported the team in field visits by

the survey and core teams. This deserves to be placed on record. Some NGOs asso-

ciated with the implementation shared their experiences and provided valuable inputs to

enhance the quality of the analysis. These NGO deserve special commendation.


CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

Study Perspective

The main focus of the project is on enhancing production and productivity, resource use

maximization and community benefits at all levels and mainstreaming private participation.

Major thrust is on peoples’ participation in wide ranging processes and activities in for-

mulation, execution, supervision, monitoring and evaluation of watershed project, achiev-

ing production and productivity gains by way of backward and forward linkages and ensure

equity in benefit sharing by all the communities inhabiting the water shed villages by

providing complementary incomes and multiple activities that provide avenues of income

and employment to the vulnerable groups, more specifically women and other marginal-

ised communities.

Basic objective of the study is to assess overall impact of the participatory project

interventions aimed at improving natural resources use, enhanced agricultural activities,

yield increases, employment generation, soil and water management, equity in benefit

sharing by communities in the water shed areas, poverty alleviation, and identify is-

sues that need to be addressed in future projects

Study approach and methodology

In order to meet the above objectives, and cover the three broad areas namely

(i) Cost sharing by the beneficiaries and non beneficiaries;

(ii) Benefit sharing by the communities;

(iii) Impact of interventions on land, soil, water, agriculture and allied activities,

technology adoption, income and employment generation

AFC evolved proper sequencing of steps with the objective of meaningful use of time. A

multi disciplinary team of experts 1/

was constituted to carry out the task To support this

core team, a six-member field investigating team to perform assessment at grass root level

was also put in place. The team spent quite some time with the District level functionar-

ies of the Watershed Development Department.

1/ Core Team Members vide Annexures 1 & 2

.____________________


As per Terms of Reference, some available information on the first and second phase

project implementation and other details were collected at the State Directorate of Wa-

tershed Development. Desk - based analysis of empirical data was carried out.

The consultant had to cover all stake holders and players in the project implementation

at different levels , mainly at District/ sub water/ micro watershed levels. To meet this

requirement, following steps were taken to collect relevant secondary data: Devising

checklist/ questionnaires/ schedules to elicit information from

i) District Watershed Development Officers

ii) Field NGOs

iii) Self Help Groups

iv) AGs/ECs/ Panchayats

Core team met and held the following officials

District Officials

Kolar District Watershed Development Officer and field staff

Chikkaballapura District Watershed Development Officer and field staff

Tumkur District Watershed Development Officer and field staff

Chitradurga District Watershed Development Officer and field staff

Haveri District Watershed Development Officer and field staff

Dharwad District Watershed Development Officer and field staff

Primary Survey

Major task of the consultant was generating first hand / primary information from the pro-

ject beneficiaries across the six districts. This comprised (i) Farmers survey (ii) survey

of IGA beneficiaries (iii) survey of selected Self Help Groups (SHGs). Understanding

ground realities was of immense importance to arrive at conclusions. The core team under-

took extensive field visits to large number of villages and watersheds in the six study districts

in two spells.


Beneficiary Survey

This included survey of landed beneficiaries and landless beneficiaries.

Beneficiary survey was conducted as per sampling strategy adopted in respect of

Phases I and II. The Third Phase covered 47 sub water sheds and 460 micro water-

shed blocks. The M and E L Agency (ANTRIX Corporation) had covered around 10 per

cent of the micro water sheds in 9 sub water sheds. While the same 10% norm was

followed in respect of micro watersheds, it was decided to give wider representation by

covering all the 47 sub watersheds and one Micro watershed from each SWS. Thus,

47 Micro water sheds were selected for detailed farmers studies. In each of the micro

watersheds, between 30 and 35 beneficiary farmers were covered aggregating to 1,325

beneficiaries. Survey work was started on 15th June 2011 and was completed by third

week of July 2011 by six investigators 2/ .Field visits by core team were taken up in

three laps between 15th June 2011 and 15th July 20113

2/

Details of the Investigating Team in Annexures 1 & 2. 3/

Core team itinerary in Annexure 2


Table 1 : Selected Sample Watersheds under III Phase

A C Zone District Sub watershed Micro watershed

Kolar Palar River RB Palar River LB Huldenahalli SWS Mustarahalli Mastur tank sws Nilathore

Belaganahalli Ankathatti Araleri Battalpalli Ganganahalli Hogalagere

Chikkaballapura Seegehalli Setti halli Gowdanahalli Kanthihalli Mindivalavaddu Kachamachanahalli Vandamana RBC Kushavati R SWS Papagni

Bommanahalli Dadamgatta Jangamarappahalli Doddamarali Byrasandra Singanahalli Ramanapadi Yerrahalli Minchalahalli

Eastern Dry

Tumkur Boranakanive Kandikerehalli Muthurayanakere Yeliyoor Chikkobanahalli Hebbakka Nagavalli Sarigehalli Kenganapallya(Madhugiri) Siddadaragallu Gummagatta Changavarakodihalli

Nandihalli Kamanahalli Muttenahalli Kadasinganahalli Naganahalli Burudugutta Ramanahalli Banasandra Bevinahalli Badamuddanahalli Bodrahalli Bommasandra

Central Dry Chitradurgarga Kunabena BR Halli Jodichikkanahalli Hirehalla Harihareshwara Boganahalli Veerapura MD Kote Gandhinagar

Hunsekere 2 Dandinakurubahatti Channapatna Hotragondanahalli Devireddihalli Veerapura Aimangala Dindavara 1

District Sub watershed Micro watershed

Haveri Kanakpura Mellagatti Mannangi Konanatambige Sankaripura Kanavi siddapura Guddada channapura

Hirelingadahalli Huralikoppa 1 Mathur 2 Hirebidri 2 Manasangi Malagi Singapura 7

Northern Transition

Dharwad Amblikoppa Amblikoppa Devargudihalli Bennihalli

Parsapura Amblikoppa Gangiwara Kundagola II

Total 46 46

(Note : Selection Criteria –Statistical frequency eg. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7).


Sample Size

District- wise sub watersheds, Micro water sheds and number of beneficiaries were

selected using the data from SWAP as indicated below:

Table 2

Farmers Category

ZoneTotal

Farmers Number % Number % Number % Number %

EDZ 760 218 29% 174 23% 199 26% 169 22%

CDZ 247 66 27% 33 13% 74 30% 74 30%

NTZ 318 111 35% 60 19% 103 32% 44 14%

Total 1325 395 30% 267 18% 376 30% 287 22%

Small Farmers Marginal Farmers Medium Farmers Large Farmers

Beneficiary Selection

The survey covered as many as 1,325 farmers in different categories and agro cli-

matic zones as detailed below:

Table 3 : Coverage of Beneficiaries

Farmer Category - Land Holdings (Hectares)

Type of Farmers

Number of

Farmers

Total Land

holding

(hectares)

Number of

Farmers

Total Land

holding

(hectares)

Number of

Farmers

Total Land

holding

(hectares)

Number of

Farmers

Total Land

holding

(hectares)

% to Total

Holding

% to Total

Farmers

SF 66 95.39 218 274.67 111 165.35 395 535.41 15% 30%

MF 33 22.25 174 106.46 60 35.63 267 164.34 4% 20%

MeF 74 190.58 199 490.24 103 262.89 376 943.71 26% 28%

LF 74 495.29 169 1204.14 44 338.15 287 2037.58 55% 22%

Total 247 803.51 760 2075.51 318 802.02 1325 3681.04

TotalCDZ EDZ NTZ


Table : 4: Social Status of Beneficiaries

Education and Caste Wise Breakups

CDZ EDZ NTZ Total % of Total

SC

PUC 1 3 1 5 3%

SSLC 6 20 1 27 14%

Primary 24 93 7 124 66%

Illiterate 5 25 2 32 17%

SC Total 36 141 11 188 14%

ST

PUC 0 1 3 4 2%

SSLC 4 13 10 27 14%

Primary 31 56 20 107 57%


ST Total 43 81 44 168 13%

OBC

PUC 0 8 0 8 4%

SSLC 6 27 12 45 24%

Primary 15 81 47 143 76%


OBC Total 21 150 68 239 18%

Others

PUC 0 7 8 15 8%

SSLC 22 68 28 118 63%

Primary 117 238 122 477 254%

Illiterate 8 75 37 120 64%

Others Total 147 388 195 730 55%

Grand Total 247 760 318 1325

% of Total 19% 57% 24%

Over 76 per cent of the cultivated area depended on rainfall while 22 percent had irri-

gation facility. Fallow land accounted for just 2 percent.

Table : 5 Land Classification of beneficiaries by Zones

Land Details (Hectares)

Dry Land

Irrigated

Land

Fallow

Land

Total

Land

Holding % of Total

CDZ 623.33 167.54 12.64 803.51 22%

EDZ 1632.08 396.98 46.45 2075.51 56%

NTZ 553.695 244.38 3.95 802.03 22%

Total 2809.10 808.90 63.04 3681.04

% of total 76% 22% 2%


SHGs

One to one interactions with SHG members were held in all the six districts and cov-

ered as many as 60 SHGs .

IGA Beneficiaries

In each Micro watershed between 2 to 3 IGA beneficiaries were covered under pri-

mary survey while group discussions with equal number were also held .

Project Implementing Agencies

They included DWDO officials NGOs and AGs. The primary one to one discussion in-

cluded collection of information in questionnaires devised for this purpose. In all 25

DWDO officials, and 6 NGOs were covered under the survey.

In addition, DWDO officers in all the six districts were provided with questionnaires with

a request to provide useful information on various aspects of project implementation

and their opinions and views were recorded 4/.

Focussed Group Discussions

Apart from the one to one interviews conducted with the above, good number of

FGDs with the scheme beneficiaries formed the agenda for the team in all the districts.

Discussions with the District Watershed Development officials involved in project imple-

mentation were held in two spells - the first during the conduct of beneficiary survey

and the second after its completion .

Visits to civil structures both in private and community lands were also made to as-

certain types, adequacy, present status, maintenance of the same. Interactions were

held with the villagers and field functionaries of the DWDOs in respective districts.

The surveys involved collection of primary data through questionnaires/response sheets.

Recall method formed the basis of information gathering.

4/

Annexure 3- for details


Thus, the consultant could document benefits accrued at grass root level viz., income,

employment, social capital etc. Important indicators were developed for each of the ob-

jectives/ activities to ascertain the degree of success achieved and tangible and intan-

gible benefits that accrued both at micro and macro levels.

Cost sharing –Special study

Major thrust of the project was on cost sharing by the communities, from the point of

view of future strategies, besides serving as a test case of committed community

participation. Therefore, in addition to the overall assessment of the response to this

concept, and at the suggestion of the WDD the consultant carried out detailed study

of 16 selected micro watersheds (two to three in each of the six districts) representing

around 30% of the total sample MWSs. Under this study, all details relating to the

types of works, number of structures were studied together with project contribution, cost

sharing and overall share in respect of marginal, small and large farmers.

Others

The team undertook desk analysis of the phase I and II reports wherever available,

(mainly Project Appraisal Document (PAD) of the World Bank, Impact assessment re-

port from ANTRIX Corporation (both Mid Term and Final Reports), Research papers,

MIS Reports for I II and III phases, Implementation Completion Report (ICR) of the

WDD, collected other secondary data from the Departments of Agriculture and Horticul-

ture/ Forestry to vet the findings and survey outputs in respect of yields, production,

cropping pattern and related information

Limitations

During the process of conduct of the study the consultant had to confront a number of

limitations / deficiencies in data availability. Besides, the farmers surveys had certain

problems in terms of capturing data from the respondents. Since the process involved

recall method, very few farmers could remember about their activities before project

implementation due to time lag. To this extent, there could be some deficiencies in

arriving at net incremental yield, income and employment.


Due to elapse of time, data at sub watersheds and districts was not available

uniformly and wherever it was received, there were many discrepancies and data

gaps.

Due to the transfer of the departmental personnel from the watershed areas as a

routine departmental procedure, the one to one and one to many interactions with officials

could not be held fully and the consultant had to contend with available staff .

No useful information could be gathered from the Community Based Organisations,

more specifically the AGs and ECs in view of their not functioning and the consultant

had limited option to interact with the SHGs and Panchayats.

Since NGOs involved in the project implementation had withdrawn their staff from the

area, important input from them in terms of the ground realities and constraints and

problems in mobilizing and sustaining the CBOs could not be gathered. However, due

to good offices of district in charges of the WDD some of them were requested to meet

the team and provide some useful inputs to arrive at conclusions.


CHAPTER 3

SUJALA - AN OVERVIEW

Project Development Objectives

As per IBRD Appraisal report the key development objective of the project was to

improve productive potential of selected watersheds including the other natural and

human resources, with active participation of local communities. The other objectives

included (i) Improve production and productivity of agriculture lands (ii) Reduce poverty

through large scale income generating activities (iii) increase the productivity of non ar-

able lands (iv) Improve skills levels of the stake holders with a view to enabling them to

take up self employment activities, especially focusing on vulnerable sections of the so-

ciety including gender development (v) develop and strengthen community based or-

ganizations (CBOs) at grass root levels to ensure sustainability of the project.

The project aimed at expanding and up-scaling of areas of operation in a gradual

manner so that lessons learnt could be addressed to and improvements in delivery sys-

tem brought out.

An important feature of SUJALA was its participatory approach under which communi-

ties were fully involved right from planning till completion of the project interventions.

During the first few months, the communities were trained and educated on participa-

tory implementation through various publicity and propaganda measures, street plays,

wall writings, display boards, exhibition of beneficiaries lists and circulation of handouts

which made the people to understand SUJALA in its spirit and Mission.

Project implementation

The first phase had a modest target of 10 Sub watersheds (around 12% of the total)

while second covered another 20 Sub watersheds (around 25% of the total). Major part

of the project was planned and implemented under Phase III covering as many as 47

Sub watersheds (over 67% of all targeted Sub watersheds and as many as 469 Micro

watersheds (out of 742) forming about two thirds of the project targets. Thus, Phase III

assumes greater importance from the point of view of impact evaluation (details vide

Table below):


Table 6: District wise Selection of Watersheds

District Taluks Villages Sub water-sheds

Micro water-sheds

Total area ( ha )

Chitradurga 6 127 14 131 106,684

Dharwad 5 79 9 81 59,360

Haveri 6 111 13 118 75867

Kolar 5 310 10 88 75,951

Chikkaballapur 6 268 12 122 67,000

Tumkur(includes Madhugiri)

10 375 19 202( 134,856

Total 38 1270 77 742 519,720

Source : ICR

Classification of land

For purpose of planning for treatment, the land in the 742 micro watersheds was clas-

sified as below:

Table: 7 (Area in ha)

Treatable area Sl. No.

District(Sub water-sheds)

Actual Geo-graphical area Private land

Common land Total Treatable area

I Phase

1 Chitradurga(2) 18249.66 14614.95 1745.5 16360.45 1889.21

2 Dharwad(2) 13278.14 6835.43 721.41 7556.84 5721.3

3 Haveri(2) 9257.98 6524.53 214.2 6738.73 2519.25

4 Tumkur(1) 6690.00 5969.00 48.00 6017.00 673.00

5 Madhugiri(1) 7772.63 6507.65 238.5 6746.15 1026.48

6 Kolar(1) 9975.56 5223.17 208.03 5431.2 4544.36

7 Chikkaballapura (1) 6185.58 2420.04 2238.18 4658.22 1527.36

Total (10) 71409.55 48094.77 5413.82 53508.59 17900.96

II Phase

1 Chitradurga4) 21463.95 16548.16 1741.13 18289.29 3174.66

2 Dharwad(3) 19801.29 17788.90 538.44 18327.34 1473.95

3 Haveri(4) 22639.00 19383.00 2366.00 21749.00 890.00

4 Tumkur(2) 13922.26 8190.24 1789.26 9979.50 3942.76

5 Madhugiri(2) 9052.00 6852.01 955.19 7807.20 1244.80

6 Kolar(3) 16339.05 11558.84 2090.14 13648.98 2690.07

7 Chikkaballapura(2) 8951.00 5656.82 2717.84 8374.66 576.34

Total (20) 112168.55 85977.97 12198.00 98175.97 13992.58


Sl. No.

District(Sub water-sheds)

Actual Geo-graphical area Treatable area Treatable area

III Phase

1 Chitradurga(8) 66970.67 48818.41 11393.55 60211.96 6758.71

2 Dharwad(4) 26281.21 18027.8 2788.91 20816.71 5464.50

3 Haveri(7) 43970.962 37699.72 2505.72 40205.44 3765.52

4 Tumkur(9) 76082.17 52466.69 7496.62 59963.31 16118.86

5 Madhugiri(4) 29432.17 20153.67 3961.27 24114.94 5317.23

6 Kolar(8) 53090.99 33419.36 10526.7 43946.01 9144.98

7 Chikkaballapura(7) 40313.75 24686.23 9157.71 33843.94 6469.81

Total (47) 336141.92 235271.88 47830.48 283102.31 53039.60

All Phases

Chitradurga(8) 106684.28 79981.52 14880.18 94861.70 11822.58

Dharwad(4) 59360.64 42652.13 4048.76 46700.89 12659.75

Haveri(7) 75867.94 63607.25 5085.92 68693.17 7174.77

Tumkur(9) 96694.43 66625.93 9333.88 75959.81 20734.62

Madhugiri(4) 46256.80 33513.33 5154.96 38668.29 7588.51

Kolar(8) 79405.60 50201.37 12824.87 63026.19 16379.41

Chikkaballapura(7) 55450.33 32763.09 14113.734 46876.824 8573.506

Total (77) 519720.02 369344.62 65442.304 434786.87 84933.14

Source : Mid Term (Final) Report- Antrix Corporation

Area Covered

As against the treatable area of around 4.35 lakh hectares, the project covered about

3.32 lakh hectares of area under all the three phases .Treated area to total treatable

area constituted around 76 plus percent with an average of 82% private and 18%

common land. The district wise coverage of area is presented below:

Table 8: Treated area (ha) by Districts and Phases

District Phase I Phase II Phase III Total % of III

Phase to to-

tal

Kolar 5965 9515 27469 42049 66% Chikkaballapura 4680 7241 39836 51757 72% Tumkur 5971 9785 54043 Madhugiri 6730 7661 24492 Total Tumkur 12701 17446 78535 108682 75% Chitradurgarga 14155 15697 47403 77255 60% Haveri 4225 11066 7564 22755 55% Dharwad 3334 9012 17640 29986 60% Total 44150 69977 218447 332484 65%

Source : ICR


% Phase III to total

66

72

75

60

55

60Kolar

Chikkaballapura/Tumkur/Madhugiri

Total Tumkur

Chitradurga

Haveri

Dharwad

Classification wise Land Treated

It is useful to look at the break up of land treated under Phase III to assess the eco-

nomic and other gains expected to accrue in short and long run periods (as in the case

of plantation and forestry plantations whose gestation period is longer, spreading over

many years). It would also be relevant to study the sustainability and post project

maintenance aspects envisaged in the project.

Table 9: Break up of land treated by districts (area ha) during Phase III

District Private Common Total % of common

land to total

Kolar 23460 4009 27469 15%

Chikkaballapur 28650 11186 39836 28%

Tumkur+Madhurigi 67865 10670 78535 14%

Chitradurgarga 37068 10384 47403 22%

Haveri 7094 470 7564 06%

Dharwad 15618 2022 17640 11%

Total/overall 179685 38691 218447 18%

Source: ICR


% Of Common Land to Total

15%

28%

14%

22%

6%

11% Kolar

Chikkaballapur

Tumkur+Madhurigi

Chitradurga

Haveri

Dharwar

Project Interventions (Financial)

It was observed that over 60 per cent of the investments were earmarked on creation

of different watershed treatment structures like soil and water conservation structures

both in private and community lands, vegetative plantations etc. In view of major role of

community groups in project implementation, social mobilization and institutional building

had next major share of expenditure (around 15% of the total outlay), followed by Income

generating activities (around 13%). Farming systems intensification accounted for about

4% of the project expenditure.

In terms of financial achievement, the targets fell short at an overall achievement of

around 88%, mainly on account of lower than average achievement in respect of treat-

ment of watersheds (84%) and farming systems intensification (68% achievement).


Table 10 - PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION (All phases) 5/

(Rs lakhs) SL

No.

COMPONENT PROJECT

TARGET

ACTUAL EX-

PENDITURE

%

ACHIE-

VEENT

A A : Participatory watershed Development Social mobilization and institutional building Entry Point activities Treatment of watersheds Sub total

8793.37 1199.84 31068.46 41061.67

8470.46 1111.43 26237.65 35819.54

96.33 92.63 84.63 87.23

B Farming system Intensification Farming System Demonstration Participatory research Sub total

2023.35 889.70 2913.05

1266.52 728.43 1994.95

62.60 81.87 68.48

C Income Generating Activities 7147.70 6669.66 93.31

D

Institutional strengthening

Training and Tech. Assistance Project Management and Coordination Subtotal

2093.20 2484.89 4578.62

1821.13 2592.38 4413.51

87.00 104.33

96.39

Grand Total 55701.03 48897.67 87.79

Source : ICR

Participatory Project Implementation

Though participatory project implementation is not new to the state, Sujala had some

unique features in respect of planning, execution, monitoring, cost and profit sharing

aspects with multi agency creation and involvement. As in other cases, bottom up

approach which has come to be regarded as most effective system, was the key factor

that ensured successful implementation, effective monitoring and inclusive coordination.

The time tested approach of involving Non Governmental Organisations paid rich divi-

dends in successful implementation of the project at all levels and therefore role of NGOs

together with newly created community based organizations like Area Groups, use of

existing and newly formed SHGs and specially constituted Executive Committees all

5/

Break up of financial achievements under Phase III in Annexure-4.


became effective tools for the success of the project. The phase-wise set up of

CBOs is given in the following Table:

Table 11 : Phase-wise Sujala Watershed Sanghas

and Executive Committees formed

Phase Projected Actual

I 80 80(11%)

II 184 184(24%)

III 477(60%) 477(65%)

Total 741 741(100%)

Source : ICR (figures in parenthesis represent percentages to total)

Self Help Groups

These grass root level institutions have carved niche for themselves in the rural eco-

nomic scenario in recent years and are regarded as prime movers in any social de-

velopment activity. Their role in mobilizing and pooling human and material resources

is more than established by now. The project, therefore, roped in this institution for

participatory implementation and as many as 6,641 SHGs were involved in the imple-

mentation, again major share accounted for during phase III of the project as indi-

cated in the following Table:

Table 12; Self Help Groups involved by Phases Phase Proposed Actual

I 794 794(11)

II 1607 1607(24%)

III 4020 4020(65%)

6641 6641

Source : ICR. (Figures in parenthesis represent percentages to total)


% of SHGs involved by Phases

11%

24%

65%

Phase I

Phase II

Phase III

Each Group was encouraged to limit the membership to 20, as a result, in a vil-

lage more number of SHGs were formed or those existing prior to implementation of

the project were involved . Since the membership of each SHGs had a ceiling, addi-

tion of new members was not possible. A revolving fund of Rs 75,000 was provided

to each of the selected SHGs. Thus, an estimated Rs 49.80 crores was put at the dis-

posal of the SHGs by way of Revolving Fund which could be used by the SHGs to

on-lend to their members. It was observed that such benefit was restricted to Rs

7,500 per member and thus facilitating as many as 66,000 members to take up self

employment

Area Groups

These were special vehicles to deliver the project activities and programmes in partici-

patory mode under which all activities relating to the project planning, execution moni-

toring and self evaluation were vested with these groups. They consisted members

owning lands and covered an average of 100 to 120 hectares. Each MWS had one

or more such groups working. In all 4,311 such groups were formed with over two

thirds accounting for in respect of III phase.


Table 13 : Area Groups formed in different Phases

PHASE PROJECTED ACTUAL

I 504 504(11%)

II 1057 1057(24%)

III 2750 2750(65%)

4311 4311(100%)

Source : ICR. (figures in parenthesis represent percentages to total)

% of Area Groups formed by Phase

12%

25%

63%

Phase I

Phase II

Phase III

Each Area Group had around 40 members (land owners of different size groups and

comprised marginal, small, medium and large farmers). In all around 175,000 farmers

were covered under the 4,300 plus Area Groups.

What was more important, clarity and transparency of roles and responsibilities of vari-

ous players in the project was more visible. Since the role of community was central to

the project and the bottom up approach ruled the decisions, it can be safely said that

the project success was not only quantitative but also qualitative.


Executive Committees.

These committees had representatives from different institutions such as AGs, SHGs,

Panchayats and they were responsible for formulation, implementation of the SWAP

and deciding on IGA , EPA and other programmes. Each group had one Executive

Committee comprising 14 members representing from the community based organiza-

tions as above.

The main agenda of these committees was to carry out works and approve expendi-

ture for various programmes including income generating activities.

Entry Point Activities

Village communities need motivation to take initiative in participatory processes of

development projects. One such way of motivating the people is meeting some of their

community needs. As the title goes, Entry point goes a long way in roping in villagers

in Indian context and therefore, this component creates some background for the

things to be achieved. In recent years this strategy has helped PIAs/ Governments in

seeking and ensuring peoples participation in community projects. Each Panchayat may

have more than one village whereas MWS may cover only one village. Therefore, the

project provided funds to each of the village irrespective of whether they are covered

under MWS or not. This project intervention in case of SUJALA also helped in suc-

cessful mobilization of communities . Phase- wise and district-wise money spent on EPAs

show that over 70 per cent of the money was spent during Phase III.

Table 14 : Entry Point Activities supported under all Phases

(Amounts in lakh Rs )

District Phase I Phase II Phase III Total

Kolar 22.93 81.95 194.59 304.47

Chikkballapur 12.93 10.00 177.42 200.35

Tumkur 18.80 27.00 216.82 262.62

Madhugiri 15.41 4.79 61.57 81.77

Chitradurgarga 16.00 36.69 66.99 119.68

Haveri 12.00 34.00 67.55 113.55

Dharwad 16.00 30.00 34.46 80.46

Total 119.14 224.43 819.40 1162.62

Source : ICR


Entry Point Activity Supported under all Phases

0

50

100

150

200

250

Districts

Am

ou

nt

in R

s L

ak

hs

Phase I 22.93 12.93 18.8 15.41 16 12 16

Phase II 81.95 10 27 4.79 36.69 34 30

Phase III 194.59 177.42 216.82 61.57 66.99 67.55 34.46

Kolar Chikkballapur Tumkur Madhugiri Chitradurga Haveri Dharw ad

Interactions with village communities indicated that they were very much appreciative of

this gesture on the part of the project since the money earmarked for this purpose was

spent to the benefit and use of the community at large. It was also observed that the

Southern Dry Zone namely Kolar (subsequently divided into two districts) had a major

share. It was also observed that most of the EPAs were taken up during III phase

(almost about 70 percent of the amount spent under the project). An amount of Rs 1.00

lakh was provided to each of the Village on an average with some variations between

them.


Central focus of the project was to bring about significant improvements in the land

and water resources through need based assessment of the type and number of civil

and vegetative measures. With a view to achieving this objective project took up works

on the selected private and community lands coming under the selected micro water-

sheds.

Table 15 : Water Harvest Structures completed under all Phases of SUJALA

STRUCTURES Units Private land Common land Total

Desilting village ponds Nos 12361(85%) 2238(15%) 14599

Revetment RMT 54899(100%) 0 54899

Sunken pond /drought pond No 393(60%) 182(40%) 575

Bunding Ha 122486(99%) 1248(1%) 123734

Farm Ponds No 13868(97%) 502(3%) 14370

Recharge pits Nos 5608(98%) 115(2%) 5723

Bore well recharge pits Nos 5407(100%) 0 5407

Open well recharge Nos 1381(100%) 0 1381

Nala Bund Nos 52(16%) 274(84%) 326

Check dam Nos 152(14%) 920(86%) 1072

Boulder checks Nos 12921(76%) 4181(24%) 17102

Loose boulder checks Nos 1705 (100% 0 1705

Mini Percolation tanks Nos 850(36%) 1486(64%) 2336

Rock filled dams Nos 907(82% 198(18%) 1105

Ravine Reclamation Structures Nos 442(85%) 117(15%) 759

Boulder Bunds Rmt 483709(84%) 7687(16) 491396

Rainwater harvesting Nos 144(68%) 69(32%) 217

Check dam repairs Nos 0 57(100%) 57

Source : ICR (figures in parenthesis represent percentages to total ).

Farm pond


In case of common lands, major works included repairs to check dams, construction of

nala bunds, mini percolation tanks, check dams while major works carried in private

lands included bunds, revetments, boulder bunds, ravine reclamation, recharge pits

(bore well and open well recharge) etc.

Phase wise achievements indicate that the project activities intensified only from 2006

through 2008 while during 2004 no activities were reported and in the next year a small

beginning was made. Interactions with the CBOs and WDD staff indicated that com-

munity mobilization and formation of groups and CBOs took considerable amount of

time (as can be seen from the details of CBOs formed during the third phase)

In respect of Phases I and II there was variation between the SWAP and actual

works executed. The percentage of shortfall ranged between 20 to 30.

Knowledge Enhancement

Main focus of this project was to motivate communities inhabiting the watershed villages

to assume responsible roles in implementation of the project. A number of other pro-

grammes implemented earlier had helped the community mobilization process and this

project gave further impetus. A basic project requirement was to address the issue of

lower level of understanding by the community of the advantages of group actions and

their knowledge enhancement not only through hands- on- training but also exposure to

the new concepts. This was done through a number of innovative training capsules

specially devised to meet the specific needs of specific groups.


As many as 18,651 stake holders were brought under skill development and another

68,852 were covered under IGA, thus taking the cumulative figure to 87,403 (around

40% of 2.25 lakh targeted households) in the three phases with major share in the

third phase (72%). Specially devised modules included in the following Matrix:

Group Modules Duration Major Topics

Self Help Groups T S1 to T S 9 One day Orientation of Sujala SHG-meetings-roles –gender responsi-bilities IGA planning-Leadership-decision making- conflict resolution-institutional linkages-Book writing, EDP Skill training

Area Groups A1 to A 10 One day Participatory concept-organising meetings. Preparation of SWAP Gender issues- book keeping and financial mgt,and linkage with banks- understanding of crop pro-duction, social and environmental safeguard issues- leadership decision making- conflict resolu-tion Livestock promotion- fodder pas-ture development- environmental and social safeguard issues- link-ages AG management

Executive Committee E 1 to E 8 One day Orientation of SUJALA-CBOs con-cept, office bearers roles and re-sponsibilities, equity and gender issues- SWAP Preparation-IGAs- social and environmental safe-guard issues- Book keeping- integrated crop management-arable and non arable silvi-horti forest crop mgt-Livestock –fodder pasture and forest development- leadership decisions-linkages- comprehensive watershed man-agement

Common training For CBOs

C 1 to C 5 One day Vision building Swap preparation Tele conferencing Withdrawal

Source : ICR


Table 16 : Skill Training

Skill training IGA Set up

(Nos.)

Phase Target Achievement % Target Achievement % I 2430 2036 83.78 7272 5328 73.27 II 5520 4493 90.45 17920 17691 98.72 III 12447 12122 97.38 45833 45833 100 Total 20397 18651 91.44 71025 68852 96.94

Source: ICR

It was observed that these programmes also included visits to adjoining watersheds suc-

cessfully completed with community participation. Common issues and topics covered

included understanding of SUJALA concepts, roles and responsibilities of the commu-

nity, gender issues, resources management, social and environmental safeguard is-

sues etc.

The surveys and Focused Group Discussions with cross sections of the community

confirmed the fact that wide spread effect of the training programmes was visible

among beneficiaries as also project implementing NGOs and CBOs (Details discussed

in working paper on beneficiary survey).

Physical Achievements

The Third phase had a target to cover a geographical area of 3.32 lakh hectares

(forming about 62% of the total area). The estimated treatable area was around 2.84 lakhs

of which area covered under various treatments (both in arable and non arable ar-

eas, Government and private lands ) was 2,18,447 hectares, or around 77% of treatable

area was covered.

Table:17

WATERSHED AREAS TREATED UNDER PHASE III (Area in ha)

Sl.

No.

District Geographi-

cal Area

Treated

Area (Pvt)

Untreatable

Area

Kolar 41168 27469 7431 2 Chikkaballapur 52237 39835 8183 3 Tumkur 76244 54043 15854 4 Madhugiri 30133 24492 5804 5 Chitradurgarga 66971 47403 6759

6 Haveri 43971 7564 3766 7 Dharwad 26281 17640 4397 Total 327005 218446 52194

Source : ICR


Watersheds Treated under all phases

The first and second phase could cover 10 and 20 sub watersheds respectively. The

achieved area under treatment in the First, Second and Third phases is as below :

Table 18: Treatment by Phases (Area in ha)

District Phase I Phase II Phase III Total

Kolar 5066 9515 27469 42050 Chikkaballapur 4600 7241 39835 51676 Tumkur 5971 9785 54043 69799 Madhugiri 6730 7662 24492 38884 Chitradurgarga 14155 15697 47403 77275 Haveri 4225 11066 7564 22855 Dharwad 3334 9012 17640 29986 Total 44082 69975 218446

332503

% area to

Total

13.25 21.00 65.75 100

Source : ICR – WDD.

Cumulative area treated under all the phases was 3.32 lakh hectares of geographical

area of the selected 77 sub watersheds and 742 micro watersheds.

Land Treatment- Private and community

Of the 3.32 lakh hectares of area treated under all the three phases, the area (non

arable) belonging to community/ common land treated constituted as much as 19% as

may be seen from the table below.

Table 19 : Land Treatment by Classification

(Area in ha)

District Treated Private Community

Kolar 42050 34481 7569(18%)

Chikkaballapura 51676 36605 15691(35%

Tumkur 69799 61126 8673(12%)

Madhugiri 38884 33977 4907(13%)

Chitradurga 77275 55845 21430(28%)

Haveri 22855 21889 966(4%)

Dharwad 29986 26888 3098(10%)

Total 332503 270169 62334(19%) Source: ICR

Largest area under common land treated was in Chitradurga while smallest area

accounted for was in respect of Haveri District.


Project Monitoring and Evaluation and Learning

It was observed that the project had an in-built and comprehensive system of progress/

process monitoring as a part of the implementation. Apart from concurrent monitoring,

the project had scope to use other generally adopted evaluation methods involving

going into the impact - benefit aspect of the project.

The system followed by the ME L agency included (i) ascertainment of physical targets

and achievements in terms of inputs and outputs expected to be generated under the

phases. This involved collection and collation of periodic data using MIS and GIS pack-

ages. Use of software packages for progress tracking (Sujala Mahiti) and audio con-

ferences were some of the most effective methods adopted.

Development of special Software Package for Action Plans (SWAP) to develop plans

for various activities under the project including micro level (individual unit wise- farmer

wise), cost and other related information helped effective implementation of the projects.

It was also observed that physical verification through personal visits of concerned

officials and the M & E agency and documentation of the physical targets and progress

including measurements etc were carried out to ensure that the project activities are

followed as per plans developed earlier. Data generated in the form of process moni-

toring reports were studied and corrective measures wherever necessary, were sug-

gested by the M and E agencies / WDD.

An Impact / Benefit assessment exercise was carried out by ANTRIX Corporation

(a unit of Indian Space Research Organisation –ISRO) Bangalore as a part of M E and

L for the first and second phases of the project implementation. It was also gathered

(during interactions with the District Watershed Officers/ Sub Water shed officers of se-

lected SWS visited by AFC team) that some of the quick impressions and issues to be

addressed were taken into consideration while implementing the third phase of the

project.

In addition to the M E & L agency, the Community Based Organizations were also

encouraged to carry out periodical self assessment of the project in terms of its sta-

tus, progress, ground level problems / issues that need to be addressed to and discuss

the same in their meetings and arrive at decisions that best suited to successful imple-

mentation of the project.


One of the most satisfying aspect of the project was the adoption of transparency in

all the transactions and activities by all involved in the project implementation. Account-

ability and financial management aspects of the project implementation were found to

be highly useful in multi-faceted success of the project such as (i) mutual trust and

understanding among the individuals and groups, and groups & NGOs and NGOs &

Watershed Department.


IMPACT ASSESSMENT ( Phase III )

Impact assessment is divided into three major sections namely (i) Cost sharing by

the beneficiaries (ii) Benefit sharing by the beneficiaries and equity aspects and

(iii) Impact of the project on the farming and other village communities. For the purpose of

impact analysis, it is necessary to review the interventions taken up in all the phases

and analyse their status and impact on the selected watersheds namely:

1 Cost Sharing

The project had placed emphasis on cost sharing concept as a key factor in creat-

ing (i) sense of responsibility (ii) feeling of ownership and (iii) obligation to participate in

the development programmes right in their local communities both on their private/ indi-

vidual and common resources of livelihood. But this concept has always been a difficult

process to be implemented in the field because of some of the mental and material

constraints prevailing in the local communities. The socio political mindset prevalent in

the rural community acts as an obstacle to accept this proposal willingly.

Firstly there is very strong notion held in common that any programme sponsored by the

Government should be totally funded by itself and local communities do not have any

obligation to share the cost. Secondly, the prevailing conditions of poverty in rural areas

prevent them from accepting this concept spontaneously. Thirdly, local communities do

not generally trust the financial estimates of project work prepared by the Government

agencies for which they are supposed to make their contributions and this disbelief

plays crucial adverse role in creating unwillingness to share the cost. Thus it is their

mental condition more than material status that acts as an obstacle to accept the

cost sharing responsibility in its letter and spirit. This explanation is considered as

necessary backdrop to understand the impact of Sujala project in this regard. The basic

approach of social inclusiveness, local participation, and community driven programme

was the first step towards creating favourable condition. Secondly, the institutional ar-

rangement adopted by the project was a major breakthrough which further strengthened

its scope for easy acceptance by the people. Thirdly, the role of NGOs in giving proper

training and guiding them in all processes of planning, implementation and monitoring

brought a new thinking among the local people about cost sharing. Particularly, the finan-

cial transparency which was demonstrated in all its forms nullified whatever misgivings

the people suffered with. The official functionaries of the department too had played a

crucial role in clearing prevailing disbelief about peoples contribution to their own

community development programme.


For the first time the Agencies received very good response and this created condi-

tions for willingness to contribute their share whatever the percentages depending upon

the nature and type of work and their land holdings status. Hence cost sharing has been

effectively implemented during phase III . The social impact of cost sharing concept on

the local community so far as private property improvement was concerned, has been

very positive and fully successful. However, the same thing cannot be concluded in re-

spect of community responsibility towards common property. There appeared to be no

commitment built around this concept of cost sharing for the development of common

resources. The concept has been followed rather mechanically to fulfill obligation con-

tained in the approved project guidelines during the project period. But it is glaringly

ignored by the community groups though there are few exceptions where due to ef-

forts of local community leaders, NGOs and DWDD officials, common properties like

forest plantations have been successfully maintained. The project focused on training and

awareness creation among the people about the social responsibility of cost sharing in

respect of common properties but there is no discernible change in the mindset of the

community as yet. Neither specially formed community groups nor elected bodies like

panchayats made any objective move towards maintaining the spirit of cost sharing nor

maintaining the structures created under the project.

Status and process

The project cost had an inbuilt arrangement of sharing of costs by the beneficiaries.

Beneficiary contribution was a pre condition in the project. In respect of direct benefici-

aries of the works to be taken up in their holdings, the rates were fixed as per

norms and were strictly followed. The prescribed ratios were as shown in Table 20.

Table 20: Contribution from Community

Particulars Project Grant

(%)

Beneficiary

Contribution

(%)

Entry point activities 90 10

Demonstrations 80 20

Land Treatment(Private)In respect of SC/ST)

90 10

Land Treatment (Pvt)SF/LF 80 20

Dry land Horticulture SC ST/ MF

90 10

Dry land Horticulture(SF/LF) 65 35

Common land 90 10

IGA Training 100 0

IGA Revolving Fund 90 10


Contributions were collected from the farmers depending on the type of structure and

eligibility on the basis of their holdings ranging between 10 and 35 per cent of the cost.

The inbuilt system of collecting contribution from the beneficiaries through the AGs/

ensured hassle free implementation of all the works. In case of beneficiary farmers, the

prescribed percentage share in the cost of structure/ material/ planting material and other

elements of cost was collected through a transparent and agreed method. The contri-

bution included cash and kind component aggregating to the prescribed percentage.

The kind component also included, in many cases, labour and material (cement,

bricks, stones and other construction material locally available). The mode and method

of determining individual contribution was left to the concerned AGs/ and some amount

of flexibility and adjustments could not be ruled out. Once cash component was de-

termined, the concerned farmer was required to deposit the amount in the designated

bank account. Once the work was approved in the EC, the beneficiary was paid full

amount of the cost after due process of check measurement and quality certification

by the WDD staff. It was observed that since the onus of payment of individual contri-

bution was on the beneficiary, no delays were caused in executing the work since the

beneficiaries were too willing to pay their contribution in return of which they would be

reimbursed full cost of the work. As such cost sharing arrangement was successfully

and effectively implemented in respect of private lands.

Cost sharing Pattern - Special study

A special study of cost sharing was carried out in addition to the sampled beneficiar-

ies. This covered 16 Micro watersheds in six districts and around 3570 farmers com-

ing under Marginal, Small and large farmer categories. Average cost per category of

farmer and overall average of the contribution from the project, contribution from individual

beneficiaries and total cost were studied. The following was the pattern of cost sharing.


Table 21 : Cost of works, project contribution and beneficiary contribution in

Selected MWS

(Rupees)

Watershed Type of Farmer Data Total

Ankathalli Big Farmer Project Contribution 1010385

Own contibution 312976

Number of Farmer 57

Marginal Farmer Project Contribution 506896


Number of Farmer 105

Small Farmer Project Contribution 532897


Number of Farmer 69

Ankathalli Project Contribution 2050178

Ankathalli Own contibution 662062

Ankathalli Number of Farmer 231

Araleri Big Farmer Project Contribution 394308


Number of Farmer 52



Number of Farmer 21



Number of Farmer 59

Araleri Project Contribution 687728

Araleri Own contibution 184355

Araleri Number of Farmer 132

Bathahalli Big Farmer Project Contribution 693185


Number of Farmer 50



Number of Farmer 47



Number of Farmer 78

Bathahalli Project Contribution 1396175

Bathahalli Own contibution 310211

Bathahalli Number of Farmer 175



Belaganahalli Big Farmer Project Contribution 772542


Number of Farmer 58



Number of Farmer 92



Number of Farmer 60

Belaganahalli Project Contribution 1607503

Belaganahalli Own contibution 415306

Belaganahalli Number of Farmer 210

Boganahalli Big Farmer Project Contribution 1211217


Number of Farmer 81



Number of Farmer 12



Number of Farmer 50

Boganahalli Project Contribution 1742970

Boganahalli Own contibution 451086

Boganahalli Number of Farmer 143

Doddamarali Marginal Farmer Project Contribution 397867


Number of Farmer 86




Doddamarali Project Contribution 878413

Doddamarali Own contibution 253494

Doddamarali Number of Farmer 186

Hebbakka Big Farmer Project Contribution 514223


Number of Farmer 42







Hebbakka Project Contribution 2383309

Hebbakka Own contibution 524395

Hebbakka Number of Farmer 379

Hogalagere Big Farmer Project Contribution 405639


Number of Farmer 28



Number of Farmer 91



Number of Farmer 72

Hogalagere Project Contribution 1374898

Hogalagere Own contibution 348342

Hogalagere Number of Farmer 191

Sangenaralli Big Farmer Project Contribution 404045


Number of Farmer 26



Number of Farmer 76



Number of Farmer 37

Sangenaralli Project Contribution 1285742

Sangenaralli Own contibution 323990

Sangenaralli Number of Farmer 139



Sidaragallu Big Farmer Project Contribution 920464


Number of Farmer 59



Number of Farmer 65



Number of Farmer 61

Sidaragallu Project Contribution 1693067

Sidaragallu Own contibution 457385

Sidaragallu Number of Farmer 185

Veerapur Big Farmer Project Contribution 1280062


Number of Farmer 65



Number of Farmer 27



Number of Farmer 34

Veerapur Project Contribution 2059050

Veerapur Own contibution 378649

Veerapur Number of Farmer 126

YARRAHALLI Big Farmer Project Contribution 653625





Number of Farmer 93




YARRAHALLI Project Contribution 1452454

YARRAHALLI Own contibution 351580

YARRAHALLI Number of Farmer 553

Total Project Contribution 18611487

Total Own contibution 4660855

Total Number of Farmer 2650


Composition of Watershed Works

Field bunds and plantations (horticulture and forest plantations) had higher share in

the total number of structures. The “other structures” represented assorted water har-

vest structures in the private lands as indicated in the following table.

Table No. :22

Details of Works carried out in Selected

Micro Sheds

Farm Pond (nos.) 1091

Farm Bund (RMT) 513537.7

Boulder check (RMT) 3438.8

Waste weir (nos) 417

Mini PC tank (nos) 54

Water Reachable Pit (nos) 152

Sericulture (Ha) 133

Forest (Ha) 631

Horticulture (Ha) 1,420

Water Ways (RMT) 3,986

Compost Pit (nos) 22

Rain Water Harvesting (nos) 9

Nala Revetment (RMT) 713

Open well/Borewell (nos) 55

Hemata (Kgs.) 388.51

nika 16

Check Dam (nos) 1

Diversion Channel (RMT) 179

Recharge Pit (nos) 44

Boulder Bund (RMT) 4774

Rubble check (RMT) 84

Vegetative Bund (RMT) 1477

Contribution and Beneficiaries

The following Table provides details of total cost of t he works, project contribution and

sharing of cost by different size groups in the three zones.


Table:23

COST SHARING MATRIX

(Amount in Rupees Thousands)

No of

farmers

Total

Contribution

Per

Farmer

Total

Contribution

Per

Farmer Total Cost

Cost per

Farmer

Big Farmer 733 8259.70 11.27 2186.26 2.98 10445.95 14.25

Marginal Farmer 935 4315.50 4.62 980.87 1.05 5296.37 5.66

Small Farmer 982 6036.29 6.15 1493.73 1.52 7530.02 7.67

Total 2650 18611.49 7.02 4660.86 1.76

Project Own


COST SHARING MATRIX (contd…)

Total Contribution Per Farmer Total Contribution Per Farmer

Big Farmer 69 735.49 10.66 144.62 2.10

Marginal Farmer 181 806.50 4.46 157.74 0.87

Small Farmer 166 1,021.57 6.15 204.08 1.23

Sub total 416 2,563.57 6.16 506.44 1.22

Big Farmer 24 374.18 15.59 72.73 3.03

Marginal Farmer 74 310.44 4.20 54.71 0.74

Small Farmer 39 231.30 5.93 45.37 1.16

Sub total 137 915.92 6.69 172.81 1.26

Big Farmer 640 7,150.02 11.17 1,968.91 3.08

Marginal Farmer 680 3,198.55 4.70 768.43 1.13

Small Farmer 777 4,783.43 6.16 1,244.28 1.60

Sub total 2097 15,132.00 7.22 3,981.61 1.90

Grand Total 2650 18,611.49 7.02 4,660.86 1.76

Project Own

No. of Farmers

Others

ST

SC

The project had spent an amount of Rs 186.12 lakhs among 2650 beneficiaries in se-

lected 12 micro watersheds with per capita project contribution of Rs 11,234 in case

of large farmer, Rs 6,146 in case of small farmer and Rs 4,615 in case of marginal

farmer. Individual contribution in respect of large small and marginal farmers were

Rs 2982, Rs 1521 and Rs 1049 respectively. It was also observed that this was, more

or less, nearer to the findings of the general survey of the 1,325 farmers where con-

tributions from the in respect of large, small and marginal farmers were Rs 3,250,

2,080 and Rs 980 respectively).


Cost Sharing -Common Lands

In the case of community lands where works were taken up ( such works were to be

benefiting certain section of the communities under EPA), there was general and positive

response from the families to share the cost. But, in other cases there was general

reluctance among the villagers to bear cost and therefore, AGs/ECs had to try very

hard to convince the communities on the advantages and need for contribution. Contribu-

tions from the community could not be enforced on account of lack of willingness. Never-

theless, small token per household was collected from each family irrespective of the

benefit accrual by the Area Groups to pool some common fund to meet the project

requirement of 10% of community contribution. In a few cases AGs did generate re-

sources to meet margin requirement for works in CPRs. By and large, In such cir-

cumstances, some kind of “adjustments” could not be avoided . But Overall, concept

of cost sharing was generally acceptable to the communities and was successfully

implemented. The strategies adopted in sharing of cost by the community have largely

succeeded.

Overall performance in respect of sharing of cost for community land was not effec-

tive. The collection of contribution from the beneficiaries had been effective only in

Phase III. In case of Phases I and II it was reported to be not effective and could

not be implemented.. This was a major change in the working of the project in

Phase-III.

Since the type of structures necessary on the land was major criterion, the cost shar-

ing cannot strictly be related to size of holdings.

The Social and Environmental Study Report (TERI) had found that farmers had ex-

pressed their unwillingness to contribute any cash towards their share while majority of

them had agreed for kind component like labour. However, the successful implementa-

tion of cost sharing in phase III demonstrated that given proper training, awareness

and motivation, the stake holders could be persuaded to part with their contribution in

cash also as was evidenced .

In many cases a number of farmers whose holdings fell within the micro water sheds

refused to make any contribution towards their share of the cost and the AGs/ ECs had

to exclude them from treatment plans. .


2 Benefit Sharing by Farmers

The study has vividly revealed the significant changes in the socio-economic conditions of

the community groups inhabiting the watershed areas. Significant improvement in socio-

economic conditions are observed among all categories of villagers namely marginal, small

and large farmers owning land and labourers, artisans, petty traders, service categories of

land-less class. The average household income has registered 30 to 40 percent increase

during the project period in case of land owners and around 40-45 per cent in case of

landless IGA beneficiaries. It has also manifested in the improvement in the material condi-

tions (life style) of villagers viz. food, clothing, shelters, health care, schooling for children

etc., indicating reduction in poverty. One aspect that points to the equity is the spread

of benefits. By and large, between 50 and 60 per cent of the beneficiaries belonged to

small holders groups across the MWSs who derived economic benefits in terms of in-

cremental yield from their small holdings and additional employment to their family

members.

The equity issue has received needed focus in the project. The size of holding was taken as

main basis of deciding the type of works to be undertaken on their farm and the quantum of

financial support provided by the Sujala Project. The capping of the area and per hectare

eligibility has resulted in judicious use of resources in horizontal manner. That is, the

need to adopt the principle of equity to reach out to the economically and socially weaker

sections including women members was recognized, accepted and favoured by the commu-

nity at large. That all the Government sponsored development programmes had to follow

the equity norm effectively is known to the people and they have reached a stage of making

their rightful claim in this regard. What is required is the institutional arrangement to take the

benefits to really deserving groups. And the “Sujala Project “ had made such an institutional

mechanism of socially inclusive participatory model to work. And this has really worked ef-

fectively and so the equity objective is by and large successfully achieved. It is observed in

almost all watersheds that the farmers did react favourably to the limit of maximum fund en-

forced on larger farmers.

The Programme component of supporting the weaker section in the non-farm sector has

gone a long way in making the equity objective very popular with rural communities. The

project not only supported the existing SHGs, but also encouraged the formation of new

ones by providing with revolving fund to SHGs, training for capacity building and skill devel-

opment. The SHGs have emerged as very strong micro-economic institution in providing

with gainful economic activities leading to increased household income among vulnerable


sections of the village communities. Especially, the women folk have taken leading interest

in making SHGs very strong and sustainable. They are successfully managing their micro-

financial institutions. Majority of them acknowledged that their standard of living has im-

proved because of SHGs. They have proved themselves as the best managers of their fi-

nancial institution. They have realized that the standard of their food and clothing, has im-

proved and they are making use of value health care services and sending their children to

schools instead of patting them to work. Such an improvement was possible mostly due to

SUJALA Project, which added further strength to already existing SHG movement.

This programme has created a visible impact on the life of the women folk in the rural com-

munity. Their awareness, knowledge and activities are at once observable in their outspoken

positive reaction to the questions put to them by any outsiders like impact assessment team.

As the managers of their homes they collectively expressed a strong feeling that because of

such programme, today they stand liberated from their men folk as the sole providers of do-

mestic needs. Some of the case studies illustrated in their report proved this trend. The Su-

jala policy to involve the SHGs has really added to the popularity of the scheme as compre-

hensive social movement to bring about transitions in the quality of life of all groups of

villagers.

Equitable sharing of project benefits is key to qualitative success of interventions. The

SUJALA aimed at achieving this by widening its scope of coverage of beneficiaries, not

only landed households but also those having no or meager chunk of land and eke

out their livelihood under poverty. Even within these groups, disparities in benefits are

quite possible due to predominant say of large and medium farmers and those wield-

ing some influence on the rural communities. The other aspect of the project benefit

is coverage of deprived and marginalized sections of the society who deserve equal if

not better deal in benefit distribution. The study aims at assessing the benefit accruals

to different economic groups .

Among the land holders three main categories are involved in the project implementa-

tion, cost sharing and benefit sharing viz. marginal farmers, small farmers and large

farmers. Attempts are made to assess the benefits gained by these groups separately

and costs shared to establish whether the same correspond with each. Secondly, the

economic gains in the form of incremental income generation is studied to see how

the project outputs have been equitably distributed among the stake holders .


The proportionality of benefits shared by different categories of stake holders was dif-

ferent for different districts and zones from their holding in respect of the selected

micro watersheds. The results indicated that land holders had shared almost equal

benefit from the interventions in terms of incremental income and employment as is

presented in the table below:

Table No.24

Annual Income (in lakhs) Farmer Categorywise

Annual Income (in Lakhs) Farmer Category wise

No. Before After

%

increase Before After

%


increas

e Before After

%

Increase

SF 218 128.46 153.77 20% 19.64 37.40 90% 8.29 10.59 28% 156.39 201.75 29%

MF 174 80.20 101.17 26% 12.97 22.43 73% 2.78 5.09 83% 95.95 128.69 34%

MeF 199 131.08 160.02 22% 12.49 25.38 103% 1.54 1.77 15% 145.11 187.17 29%

LF 169 134.82 171.11 27% 11.55 20.86 80% 4.27 6.67 56% 150.65 198.63 32%Total 760 474.56 586.06 23% 56.66 106.07 87% 16.88 24.11 43% 548.09 716.23 31%

SF 66 33.23 42.10 27% 4.34 4.35 0% 1.32 1.44 9% 38.89 47.89 23%

MF 33 11.55 14.65 27% 2.20 3.41 55% 0.60 1.22 103% 14.35 19.28 34%

MeF 74 52.00 64.63 24% 4.34 4.68 8% 2.50 3.02 21% 58.85 72.33 23%

LF 74 95.64 129.92 36% 3.39 4.92 45% 1.23 1.29 5% 100.25 136.13 36%Total 247 192.42 251.30 31% 14.27 17.35 22% 5.66 6.97 23% 212.35 275.62 30%

SF 111 58.29 90.42 55% 5.13 7.77 52% 4.59 5.53 20% 68.01 103.72 53%

MF 60 19.05 33.02 73% 1.08 1.89 75% 2.23 4.13 85% 22.36 39.04 75%

MeF 103 91.75 153.48 67% 5.12 7.99 56% 4.89 6.06 24% 101.76 167.53 65%

LF 44 77.74 89.70 15% 2.55 3.54 39% 2.96 3.62 22% 83.25 96.86 16%Total 318 246.82 366.63 49% 13.88 21.19 53% 14.68 19.34 32% 275.38 407.16

Average 304.60 401.33 32% 28.27 48.20 71% 12.40 16.80 35% 345.27 466.34 35%

No. of

farmers Before After

%


%


%

increas

e

Total

Before

Total

After

%

Increase

Income

Before (per

beneficiary)

Income

After (per

beneficiary)

SF 395 219.98 286.29 30% 29.11 49.52 70% 14.20 17.55 24% 263.29 353.36 34% 0.67 0.89

MF 267 110.80 148.84 34% 16.25 27.73 71% 5.61 10.43 86% 132.66 187.00 41% 0.50 0.70

MeF 376 274.83 378.13 38% 21.96 38.05 73% 8.93 10.85 22% 305.71 427.03 40% 0.81 1.14

LF 287 308.19 390.73 27% 17.50 29.32 68% 8.46 11.57 37% 334.15 431.62 29% 1.16 1.50

Total 1325 913.80 1203.99 32% 84.81 144.61 71% 37.21 50.41 35% 1035.82 1399.01 35%

All Zones

Total

EDZ

CDZ

NTZ

Live Stock Others (fodder,fym etc)Agriculture

Agriculture Live Stock Others (fodder,fym etc) Total Income

Income per Beneficiary

in Lakhs (Rs.)

Source: Beneficiary survey


3 Impact Analysis

With a view to understanding the impact of the project on natural resources and eco-

nomic gains both at micro and macro levels, an attempt is made to study each of

the project objectives, interventions and outputs in the following Matrix:

Project objectives Interventions Outputs

Sustainable alleviation of rural poverty- through improvement in productive potential of degraded lands

Implementing Participatory wa-tersheds development in se-lected micro watersheds; Maintaining community assets

Arable and non arable lands status improved significantly Land productivity enhanced by :about 30 per cent depending on agro cli-matic zone; Soil erosion reduced by about 20 per cent depending on location Soil moisture retention enhanced;

Enhance production and liveli-hood systems Strengthening local communities

Transfer of technologies through research demonstrations, farm-ers field schools, training and exposure visits for farmers

Farm Management practices im-proved – agri productivity enhanced between 30% and 40% depending on crops Farm Employment increased by 56 days/hectare Family labour employment increase for Marginal and Small farmers by 50 days

Women, landless and other vul-nerable groups to be supported with IGA and their involvement in social and economic activities to be enhanced

Formation of self help groups of women and vulnerable groups Provide Revolving fund to take up economic activities’ Support SHGs to promote IGAs among members through provi-sion of Revolving fund Skill development programmes

Income generation activities taken up by women resulted in their earning additional income of Rs 2000 to 3500 per month. Women members contribution to monthly thrifts increased SHGs Reserves enhanced

Strengthening the capacity of communities to participate in local level development programmes in socially inclusive manner

Implementation of target group specific training pro-grammes, exposure visits

Skills of Target groups (managerial and technical) improvement. Communities gain knowledge about management of their units / organiza-tions Marginal farmers, landless labour and vulnerable sections benefit from en-hanced awareness

Ensuring sustainability of project interventions through participatory involvement of communities

Formation of Area and commu-nity groups, training and orien-tation, building up resources (community funds)

User Groups and other CBOs were expected to take over community as-sets for maintenance (created under EPA and Watershed treatment plans). But this could not be achieved ex-cept for the EPA assets.


Keeping the objectives, interventions and outputs in mind, Impact analysis is carried out

in respect of improvements brought about both in the on-farm and off-farm sectors.

The direct impact of the project certainly is expected to be on agriculture, horticulture

and other on-farm activities. Improved agriculture production and productivity are ana-

lysed using the following variables (1) Crop intensity (2) crop diversification (3) Yield

improvement (4) other contributory factors.

a) Intensive Agriculture

Watershed works and participatory adoptive research together with FFS had resulted

in overall improved performance of agriculture. The recharge of ground water in the

selected watershed areas, due to percolation effect, availability of water for irrigation whe-

rever farmers have their own irrigation facilities, were main outputs of the project.

Based on the beneficiary study and assessment it is estimated that an average rise

of 15 to 20 meters could be possible in ground water availability but it varies with

agro climatic zones and amount of precipitation on an year to year basis. Rainfall data

for the years 2005-2010 indicated that during four out of six monsoons recorded more

than average rainfall. This had resulted in improvement in Ground water table and con-

sequently improved agriculture activities.

1 Cropping Intensity :

While the study in respect of Phases I and II estimated an average crop intensity of

145%, no significant improvement is visible in so far as Phase III was concerned as

indicated by the study of farmer beneficiaries in different agro climatic zones. Crop

intensity in respect of Phase III was around 117%,with inter zone variations.


Table : 25

Crop Intensity by Zones

Zones

Before

(Area in Ha)

After

(Area in Ha)

Crop

Intensity

(%)

759.24 848.21 111.72

1441.63 1831.64 127.05

1032.77 1105.28 107.02

3233.64 3785.13 117.05

Note - Perrinials occuping 404.26 Ha during post project excluded

Average

NTZ

CDZ

EDZ

Phase III

Source: Beneficiary survey

2 Crop Diversification

Water being the main and critical input in agriculture operations, once the farmer has this

assured source in adequate quantity, his first choice would be crop diversification from

low to high return crops. Thanks to opening up of markets for wide ranging agriculture

and horticulture products across the state and outside, the demand for pulses, vegetables

and short duration fruit crops has increased many folds creating huge gaps as a

result of which prices of such products are moving upward. Responding to the expand-

ing markets, farmers are who had no alternative to low yielding dry land crops like

jowar, ragi, minor millets etc, are now taking high value crops like pulses, oilseeds

vegetables, fruits like Banana, flower crops, groundnut, maize, sunflower and others (de-

tails in Farmers survey). Crop diversification ranged between 3% to 19% in respect of

different crops as can be seen from the following table.. Pulses, Maize and Vegetables

had registered higher increase in area..However, among oilseeds, decline was seen in

case of sunflower which was unusual since this is one of the high return crops..


Table 26

(Area in Ha)

Zones Before After Before After Before After Before After % change

Ragi 92.03 92.66 662.69 679.53 0.2 0.2 754.92 772.39 2%

Cotton 19.9 20.25 4.6 4.8 202.96 217.16 227.46 242.21 6%

Maize 203.76 287.96 67.11 67.61 231.59 242.69 502.46 598.26 19%

Jowar 76.73 65.59 9.5 11.65 174.99 186.22 261.22 263.46 1%

Groundnut 167.38 150.32 451.86 455.06 101.27 97.78 720.51 703.16 -2%

Sunflower 52.15 30.53 5.8 5.8 18.7 18.7 76.65 55.03 -28%

Other Oil Seeds 0 0 7.45 8.68 36.73 40.64 44.18 49.32 12%

Redgram 0 0 11.01 13.11 0.94 0.94 11.95 14.05 18%

Green gram 1 1 113.68 119.64 29.78 30.22 144.46 150.86 4%

Vegetables 96.3 100.54 73.68 82.33 14.43 19.97 184.41 202.84 10%

Others 94.02 99.36 367.73 383.43 247.93 250.76 709.68 733.55 3%

Total 803.27 848.21 1775.11 1831.64 1059.52 1105.28 3637.9 3785.13

Cropping Pattern change by Zones

CDZ EDZ NTZ All Zones

3 Yield Improvements:

Yield improvements can be achieved by a combination of factors such as (a) adoption

of new package of practices/ technologies (b) use of irrigation water. It was observed

that the project beneficiaries had the two of these factors. The Agriculture intensifica-

tion component of the project provided the farmers improved technology and use of

INM practices under both semi-dry and dry cropping conditions. Availability of water for

longer duration (ranging from 4 to 6 months as reported by the farmers) helped farmers

take high value crops. As a result, yield levels of crops increased at different ranges

in different agro climatic zones. The overall average incremental estimated yield per

hectare ranged from 28 per cent in case of cereals, 37 percent for pulses, 41 per cent

for oilseed, of crops ,and 42% in case of vegetables. Similar productivity gains are also

observed in other crops.


Table No.27

Average Annual Crop Yield - Cereals (Qintals/Hectare)

Avg.

Crop Before After change Before After change Before After change tons/Ha Before After

%

change

Jowar 8 9 1 10 13 3 9 12 3 1.67 27 33 0.22

Maize 10 12 2 7 9 2 32 41 9 4.33 49 62 0.27

Paddy 20 28 8 21 27 6 36 43 7 7.00 77 98 0.27

Ragi 8 11 3 12 15 3 4 6 2 2.67 24 32 0.33

wheat 6 8 2 0 8 10 2 2.00 14 18 0.29

Total 52 66 14 50 64 14 89 112 23 191 242

Average 38.20 48.40 28%

Average Annual Crop Yield - Oil seeds (Qintals/Hectare)

Avg.


%

change

Castor 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 3 4 33.33

Ground nut 9 10 1 5.4 7 1.6 12 18 6 2.87 26.4 35 32.58

Mustard 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 2 4 100.00

Soya 0 0 0 4 3 -1 12 17 5 2.00 16 20 25.00

Sunflower 9 10 1 5 7 2 13 18 5 2.67 27 35 29.63

Yellu 5 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 5 6 20.00

Other Oil seeds 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 1.00 2 3 50.00

Total 28 34 16.4 20 37 53 81.4 107

Average 11.63 15.29 42%

PHASE III

EDZCDZ

PHASE III

CDZ EDZ

Total Yield -

All Zones

Total Yield -

All Zones

NTZ

NTZ


Average Annual Crop Yield - Vegetables (Qintals/Hectare)

Avg.


%

change

Chilly 12 16.5 4.5 24 29 5 12 13 1 3.50 48 58.5 21.88

Onion 43 54 11 6 7 1 11 14 3 5.00 60 75 25.00

Tomato 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1.00 1 2 100.00

Other Vegetables 0 0 0 605 717 112 72 66 -6 53.00 677 783 15.66

Total 55 70.5 15.5 635 753 118 96 95 -1 44.17 786 918.5

Average 196.5 229.625 41%

Average Annual Crop Yield - Pulses (Qintals/Hectare)

Avg.


%

change

Bengal Gram 8 9 1 0 0 0 4 7 3 2.00 12 16 33.33

Black Gram 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 2 2.00 3 5 66.67

Green Gram 2 3 1 3 4 1 6 8 2 1.33 11 15 36.36

Horse Gram 4 5 1 4 6 2 2 3 1 1.33 10 14 40.00

Red gram 3 4 1 3 4 1 4 5 1 1.00 10 13 30.00

Sorgram 10 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.00 10 13 30.00

Thurdal 4 5 1 5 6 1 0 0 0 1.00 9 11 22.22

Total 31 39 8 15 20 5 19 28 9 65 87

Average 9.29 12.43 37%

CDZ EDZ

PHASE III

CDZ EDZ NTZ

Total Yield -

All Zones

Total Yield -

All ZonesNTZ

PHASE III


Average Annual Crop Yield - Others (Qintals/Hectare)

Avg.

Before After change Before After change Before After change Qnt/Ha Before After

%

change

Other Crops 1.88 1.36 -0.52 137.84 208.06 70.23 61.05 87.86 26.80 32.17 200.77 297.275 48.07

Average 200.77 297.28 48%

PHASE III

CDZ EDZ

Total Yield -

All ZonesNTZ

Note: others included fruits and other perennials

4. Contributory Factors

While the above changes are largely on account of interventions under SUJALA,

quite a number of other factors seem to have contributed to the over all improvement in

production, yield improvements, crop diversification etc. which need to be considered in

evaluation process.

The Agriculture Intensification component aimed at achieving the above levels and

changes included two important components namely adaptive research and Farmers

Field Schools. These programmes have been going on both within and outside the

watersheds and are meant to cover entire farm sector and not necessarily restricted to

Watershed areas alone. Therefore, it is combination of various factors that has worked

under the project.

The Rasthriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, The ATMA, the KVKs and similar other programmes

also have added to the success of this project.

An analysis of the without project scenario ( control areas ) indicates that though the

process was accelerated under SUJALA, there is positive impact of these programmes

in ”without Project “ areas.


The Integrated Farming Systems approach adopted under the other programmes like

RKVY, did influence the watershed areas also and boosted livestock activities across

these districts though with accelerated pace. Thanks to resources provided (for IGA,

SHGs) and large scale training and exposure visit programmes under this project.

Organic Farming

Karnataka is one of the pioneering states in respect of adoption of organic farming and

in recent years focused programmes are being formulated and implemented across the

state including the watersheds under SUJALA. The National Organic Farming Mission

is promoting organic farming aimed at improvement of soil health and reduction in use

of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Organic products have come to be in good de-

mand due to changing tastes of the consumers and growing health consciousness. The

project also includes a training capsule on techniques of organic farming. This also

has contributed to reduction in cost and use of fertilizers.

Other Benefits

By tradition, farming communities do not entirely depend on agriculture activities alone

for their livelihoods, more so, the small and marginal farmers. There is always an urge

and need for them to enhance income by taking up supplementary land based activities.

Dairy, and small animal rearing is almost integral part of the farming systems and it was

observed that livestock rearing provided sizeable income to the farmers. Livestock rear-

ing depends mainly on availability of fodder and agriculture residues/ by product gener-

ated on farm. Livestock rearing, therefore, is limited to availability of fodder. Treatment

plans included substantial percentage of plantation under silvi-horti-forestry species main-

ly in community lands in addition to supply of Hemata, an important fodder species.

Most of the livestock rearers (irrespective of whether holding any land or not) use the

fodder available in common land (such as grass and other browsables) for feeding

their cattle. Besides, the changed cropping pattern also generated agriculture by-

products which constitute fodder for cattle. It was observed that the small and mar-

ginal farmers and those owning livestock(both small and large animal) could maintain

their stock with adequate availability of fodder. Incremental availability of fodder var-

ied among districts and depended on extent of community lands, types of tree planta-

tions taken up and types of crop combinations adopted by the farmers. Largely, the fol-

lowing was the status with regard to incremental fodder, fuel and timber availability in

the districts.


Table No.28

FODDER, FUEL WOOD AND TIMBER

Fodder Availability

Own land

Community

forest Purchased

EDZ 425.438 267.54 1.095

CDZ 299.727 16.4 63.4

NTZ 506.99 4 20.5

Total 1232.155 287.94 84.995

Fuel Availability

Own land

Community

forest Purchased

EDZ 124.213 152.91 0.015

CDZ 47.227 0.6 -

NTZ 267.8 2 -

Total 439.24 155.51 0.015

Wood Availability

Own land

Community

forest Purchased

EDZ 4.436 0.51 -

CDZ 9.562 - -

NTZ 4 - -

Total 17.998 0.51 -

Zone

Zone

Wood (in tons)

Zone

Fodder (in tons)

Fuel (in tons)


Value of Fodder and FYM

(Rupees in Thousands)

Before After Increment Before After Increment

EDZ 30.00 38.00 8.00 1687.61 3013.25 1325.64

CDZ - - - 565.80 870.80 305.00

NTZ 557.37 883.60 326.23 931.00 1468.70 537.70

Total 587.37 921.60 334.23 3184.41 5352.75 2168.34

Total 1174.74 1843.20 668.46 6368.81 10705.50 4336.69

% Increase 57% 68%

Zone

FYM (in Rs.) Fodder (in Rs.)

Implementation of treatment plans incorporating plantation with forest species such as

silver oak, teak, honge, timber and fuel wood trees formed an important programme. As

a result, the aggregate area under forest tree/ species is estimated at 29,000 hectares

which covers fuel wood, timber, fodder, MFP and fruit species. Even though no yields

were reported from these areas, it is quite possible that harvesting of some of the

forest products would commence in the coming years, more importantly fruit species like

cashew nut, gooseberry and non fruit species like, timber, fuel wood, fodder. It can be

estimated depending on the year of harvest/cutting.

Among the forest produce, fodder crops yield faster and instances of farmers getting

some fodder for their animals are visible (Farmers / IGA beneficiaries surveys). While

tree cover would not be disturbed from such of the forest trees that yield leaves / fodder

material, annual/ periodical harvesting of fodder was reported.

Poverty Alleviation through Income Generating Activities

Acceleration of rural poverty alleviation is one of the main objectives of this project

through a series of economic activities to be taken up by those disadvantaged groups

having meager or no landed resources to depend on. The IGA package provided scope

to such households to take up one or other income generating activities. An estimated

6,700 plus SHGs, predominantly women dominated community based organizations, both

existing and newly created were used as vehicles of change. The interventions were

focused on marginal farmers, agricultural labour, rural artisans and other self employed

persons. It was observed that over 11,000 women and other vulnerable group house-


holds were motivated through training and skill development / EDP and other HR pro-

grammes and provided financial assistance in the form of revolving fund through Self

Help Groups. In all around 6,650 self Help Groups were formed with an average

membership restricted to 20 and average membership is between 14 and 18, thus

covering as many as 80,000 persons under skill and IGA training programs. As a result,

those whose income from their holdings were meager or nil and those eking out their

livelihood on menial job like agriculture labour, received benefits from the project.

Main self employment activities taken up were livestock rearing, mainly dairy farming,

sheep and goat rearing, fisheries, piggery (particularly by scheduled tribes), petty shops

and eateries, tailoring, etc. For comparatively educated youth opportunities were made

available to take up servicing and computer operation through training and skill

development programmes.

Milk Yield :

It was observed that average milk yield from milch animals had ranged from 1.76

liters/day to 2.80 liters/day in case of local milch animals and from 5 litres to 7 llitres

in respect of cross bred cows ). Assuming a lactation of 200-220 days the incremental

milk production from a milch animal ranged between 250 and 550 liters in respect of

local and 900 and 1100 litres per lactation in case of cross breds, valued at Rs 3000


Table - 29

Incremental Milk production (day/animal)

Milch Animals

Before After Increment Before After Increment Before After Increment Before After

Number of Cows 168 182 14 850 1068 218 240 151 -89 1258 1401

Number of Buffalos 177 140 -37 248 276 28 281 143 -138 706 559

Total 345 322 -23 1098 1344 246 521 294 -227 1964 1960

Milk Production

('000 ltrs/lactation) 114 112 171 344 173 79 90 363 545

Milk Production/animal/lactation659 698 40 311 511 200 302 609 307 370 557

Milk Production/day/animal (Ltrs.)3.14 3.33 0.19 1.48 2.43 0.95 1.44 2.90 1.46 1.76 2.65

TotalCDZ EDZ NTZ

Fish Production

Check dams, Nala bunds, farm ponds and other water harvest structures form major

portion of interventions. Besides serving agriculture and drinking water for livestock ,

these minor water bodies have also become sources of fish production. Fisheries de-

velopment is an important component of the RKVY and is being promoted. Aquaculture is

part of additional income generating avenues to some farmers particularly in eastern

and central dry zones. With availability of seeds and technical support, training on im-

proved fish production inbuilt into this project, good number of farmers and others were

encouraged to take up fish production in these mini water bodies. Aquaculture also

provides additional nutritional source to the farmers whose staple diet include fish.


From the survey and interactions with the PIA officials / University of Agriculture Sci-

ences it was ascertained that :

• Fish culture in farm ponds can be taken as a complementary activity (in larger

size ponds) and the farmer can harvest around 25 to 40 kg of fish of different

species valued at around Rs 2000 - 3000;

• The pond dykes can be used for production of green fodder, vegetables, canopy

forming trees etc.

• By use of integrated farming system the farmers can earn between Rs 26,000

and 28,000 from a pond size of 15 m x 15 m x 3 m.

Average Incremental Income

Majority of the landless labour and those belonging to marginal farmer groups did not

have full time employment and consequently meager incomes, mainly from menial

labour which again depended on seasonal fluctuation of rainfall and agricultural activi-

ties. It was estimated that the average labour wages earned by an individual ranged

between Rs 60 and 80 (for males) and Rs 50 - 70 (for women labour) with around 90-

100 days of employment round the year intermittently. Average income remained

around Rs 6,000 to 10,000 in respect of male labour and it was between Rs.5,000 and

7,500 for women labour. Instances of such households migrating to nearby villages or

towns were observed in all the districts. The NREGA and other rural employment

guarantee programmes being implemented across the country under the rural em-

ployment guarantee scheme also has provided opportunities to the rural poor to bet-

ter their household income.

Average Family Income

This consists of income from main occupation such as agriculture, horticulture, agricul-

ture related activities like dairy, poultry, fisheries etc. in case of landed households

while in case of those not owning any lands main source of income comes from self

and family labour, income from new income generating activities taken up etc. The av-

erage household income rose by different percentages in both categories. Family in-

come of large farmers had risen significantly in the post project scenario. Correspond-

ing rise was also noticed in case of medium, small and marginal farmers but with lesser

degree. In case of landless labour and self employed households, the income rise

mainly came from change in their activity, from labour income to entrepreneurial in-

come. Zone-wise income of different categories of respondents was:


Table No.30

Incremental Annual Income by Zones

(Rupees in Lakhs)

Zones

no. of

farmers Before After

%


%


%


%

increase

EDZ 760 474.56 732.58 54% 56.66 132.58 134% 16.88 30.13 79% 548.09 895.29 63%CDZ 247 192.42 284.48 48% 14.27 21.69 52% 5.66 8.71 54% 212.35 314.88 48%NTZ 318 246.82 458.28 86% 13.88 26.49 91% 14.68 24.17 65% 275.38 508.95 85%Total 1325 913.80 1475.34 63% 84.81 180.76 92% 37.21 63.01 66% 1035.82 1719.12 65%

Income Per

Farmer 0.69 1.11 0.06 0.14 0.03 0.05 0.78 1.30

Total IncomeAgriculture Live Stock Others (fodder,fym etc)

Livestock rearing also included rearing of sheep, goats, and backyard poultry keeping

which had raised household income to substantial level.

Labour Migration

With economic advancement and changing outlook of rural households towards life

styles, there is always an inherent desire to lead a comfortable life. Inadequate job

opportunities in on-farm sector had been compelled to migrate to urban centres. With

the implementation of the project and availability of self employment opportunities,

there is tendency of landless labour and marginal and small farmers to seek better

sources of livelihood within the rural set up. The IGAs and other opportunities have

certainly reduced the incidence of migration (however no precise figures could be ob-

tained from the survey nor from the Agencies). It was only understood that migration

of labour to nearby towns has come down by over 80 per cent. The large number of

people in the project area acknowledged that increase in employment and household

income has reduced the migration in search of work outside their community. Especially,

seasonal migration to the nearby towns and villages has reduced to the extent of about 80

to 85 percent (except in cases not involving search for livelihood). However, higher

wages in the nearby towns continues to attract.


Macro Impact of the Project

One of the main objectives, increasing production potential of land and other natural re-

sources, aims at achieving food security and meeting the increasing demand for food

grains, more particularly, high value and high nutrient / protein content agriculture pro-

duce such as pulses, oilseeds, fruits vegetables etc. With economic progress and

growth consumption pattern of even lower middle and middle class population is chang-

ing faster and demand for better food grains, fruits vegetables and other high value

crops is increasing. Farmers across the state in general and project areas in particular,

have realized and responded to this trend in consumption and accordingly are trying

to adopt best combination of crops so as to maximize the output returns from their

holdings. As a result, production of food and non food products has been showing

changes. This holds good for the project area too. A macro analysis of the trends of

production shows marked difference between two periods namely before and after the

project. An attempt is made to assess such benefit from the macro angle.

Area treated 332,000 hectares

Area equivalent under Horticulture 59,000 hectares

Estimated area under agriculture 273,000 hectares

Crop intensity(average of 3 phases

23% of gross cropped area)

336,000 hectares

Per hectare incremental production (assorted crops (cereals, pulses, oilseeds ) at average incremental yield at 40%

0.8 tons (-)prodn before 0.55 ton=0.25 ton

Estimated incremental production of all crops 0.084 million tons(84,000 tons)

Note: Plantation of forest species in private land generally is on boundaries and peripheries which is not reckoned.

Households benefitted across the micro watersheds

Interventions in the watershed treatments spread over six districts covered over 3.32

lakh hectares of area (of which about 18% or 59,000 hectare accounted for community

ownership). Private lands accounted for 2.73 lakh hectares. Taking an average per

capita holding at 1.95 hectares (for all the six districts), the number of farmers benefit-

ted can be estimated at 1.67 lakh, comprising marginal, small and large farmers, as

shown in the following table


Table : 31

Estimated Farmer Beneficiaries

District Area treated

Private land Average holding size

Number of beneficiaries

Remarks

Kolar 42050 34480 1.2 28730

Chikkaballapur 51676 35985 1.2 29990

Tumkur 69799 60050 1.5 40035

Madhugiri 38884 33975 1.5 22650

Chitradurgarg 77275 56572 2.0 28285

Haveri 22855 21889 2.8 7820

Dharwad 29986 26808 2.8 9575

332503 270,000 1.90 167065

Note. Over 60 per cent of the beneficiaries come under marginal, small, and medium size groups .

The special cost sharing study indicated that the number of beneficiaries per Micro

watershed was 225 farmers under different categories. Taking this average the esti-

mated number of farmers benefitted comes to 1,66,725, which nearly tallies with the es-

timates as detailed in the above table.

Ground Water Development

Four out of six districts come under dry zone and available groundwater is being ex-

ploited as a result of which depth of water table has decreased significantly, more

importantly in districts like Kolar where GW exploitation is higher. During the drought

years this level further goes deeper. One of the biggest benefits from this project is

significant improvement in water availability in the open and bore wells in and around

water shed areas. A number of defunct wells got rejuvenated on account of raise in

ground water table. Depending on the monsoon and agro climatic zones, increase in

water table can be estimated (based on the farmers survey).


Table No.32

Change in Water level by Zones

Zones Before After

% increase in

Water Level

CDZ 300 180 40%

EDZ 233 120 48%

NTZ 223 150 33%

Average 252 150 40%

(Figures in Ft.)

Note: These are estimates based on the farmers experience and versions as re-

vealed uring the survey and as observed during field visits by the team.

Apart from recharge of ground water, availability of water has increased by two to

three months in the wells and bore wells. It was indicated by the respondents that

drinking water for livestock and village communities also has shown improvement due

to groundwater recharge .

Interactions with the farmers and outputs generated through primary study indicated

that a number of defunct wells ,particularly in EDZ and CDZ had become functional

due to rise in water table. Between 30-35 wells are reported to be rejuvenated in a

MWs. Taking this norm, the estimated 20,000 wells could have become functional in

the 741 MWS covered (however, this was not supported by improved crop intensity in

respect of Phase III of the project).

Soil and Moisture Conservation

The interventions included a number of structures to prevent soil erosion due to run

off and these structures were need based and location specific. These measures are

community as also individual farmer based. Community based interventions included

structures on water courses, nalas, wastelands etc In respect of private lands they were

contour bunds, gully checks. The survey revealed that run off of soil had reduced to


significant extent in the treated areas in farmers fields. The zone wise estimated per-

centage reduction in soil erosion is given in the following table.

Table : 33

Reduction in Soil Erosion by Zones

(in %)

Zone Before After Reduction

CDZ 2.75 1.53 44.36

EDZ 3.76 2.83 24.73

NTZ 3.5 2.68 23.43

Average 3.34 2.35 30.84

Table : 34 - Employment Generation

Employment Generation

Before After Increment Before After Increment

EDZ 84 136 52 32 47 15

CDZ 145 202 57 124 130 6

NTZ 191 250 59 120 180 60Average 140 196 56 92 119 27

% increase 40% 29%

On Farm (days) Off Farm (days)

On- Farm [Arable (Class I to IV)]

On the basis of outputs generated by the consultant (in respect of Phase III as also

Antrix Corporation (in respect of Phases I and II) the estimated additional employment

generated as a result of the project is arrived at with following assumptions:

Area Treated 332,000 hectares

Common land 62,000 hectares

Cultivated land 270,000 hectares

Per hectare incremental

Employment 45 man days

Cumulative MDs Emp 12.15 million Mandays/year

Family labour (80%) 0.972 million man days/ year


In view of predominance of marginal and small holders, additional labour component in

farming operations is assumed to come from the family itself.

Non- Farm

Additional employment opportunities were created as a result of the beneficiaries tak-

ing up one or other of the following income generating activities. The major IGAs taken

up by the beneficiaries were

1 Dairy /livestock rearing

2 incense stick making

2 Petty shops/ eateries

3 Tailoring and garment production

4 Repair shops

5 Computer services

6 Beauty parlour

7 Food based (Papad, Condiments)

Keeping these activities in view and on the basis of the outputs generated through bene-

ficiary surveys in respect of Phase III and those estimated by ANTRIX Corporation in

respect of Phases I and II, estimated employment generated can be put in following

ranges:

No of beneficiaries 25,000

Incremental employment 30 days/year

Cumulative employment 0.75 million man days year

Total on farm + off farm 1.29 million man days/year

or 51,600 person years

Other Benefits

The project interventions were also provided for plantation of tree crops under silvi-

horti development programmes. As per ICR over 59,000 hectare (equivalent) of area

was brought under different horticulture crops during all the three phases(separate fig-

ures for individual phases not available ) (arable and non arable), with a view to

• reduce land degradation on account of soil erosion

• Improved tree coverage


• Improved physical structures through physical work involving construction of

wide variety of civil structures and repairs to the existing ones resulting in soil

moisture conservation

The interventions resulted in improved ecology and environment. Tree cover devel-

oped through plantation programmes bears testimony to the physical environmental im-

provement across the watersheds which is one of the most important outcomes of the

project.

Social Forestry

During the preprocess period, when Agro forestry was started, there was no awareness

among the villagers about the advantages of this system. Over the years, species

having commercial value and increased demand like teak, silver oak, and honge (pon-

gamia) are gaining importance. Bund planting with its luxurious growth and promising plan-

tations are good sources of income to the beneficiaries. The project supported the planta-

tion of these species both in private and community lands. As a result of utilization of

land on bunds, hither to barren were planted with such species. Works under the forestry

sector, planting of trees on farm bunds of individuals, private lands, community lands, along

road side(avenue plantation), in school premises were taken up. One notable feature is that

high economic value bio-fuel species like jetropha have been planted on farm bunds and

vacant agricultural lands. In all the watersheds the common species planted are teak, honge

(pongamia), neem, and silver oak. The overall survival rate on an average is about 60%.

The protection given to agricultural crop also helps forestry plants.

There is no definite pattern in planting of seedlings. Adaptation of Agro –forestry practices in

Sujala has helped farmers in conservation of soil and water from the land surface and ulti-

mately resulted in increase in productivity, especially to small and marginal farmers. As the

name suggests, Agro –forestry is a collective name for land use system in which perennials

(forestry and horticultural plants) and herbaceous plants (agricultural, fodder plants) are

planted. The main benefits of agro-forestry plantings are providing shade, acting as wind

shield, prevention of run off of water, control of soil erosion, maintenance and improvement

of soil fertility and provide supplementary income to the beneficiaries. The tree crop on ma-

turity yield variety of much needed produce like timber, fuel wood, and bio-fuel seeds, which

fetch a handsome income to the beneficiaries. It is the optimum land use practice generat-


ing employment and income to the poor farmers. This has also helped to reduce migration

of labour force to other districts. The rain fall in all the districts was also satisfactory to

achieve overall success. The intercropping of forestry crops with agricultural crops produce

higher yield on a given piece of land by making use of resources that would have been util-

ized by single crop. Agro forestry has played a major role as diversified system with ample

scope for vertical productivity of the land. The intangible benefits driven from the plantings

on bunds and common lands will directly help relieve some pressure on native forests. As

the development is not confined just to agricultural lands, and covers the area, starting from

the highest point of the tract (ridge line) to the outlet of the nasal or the natural stream.

Watershed management programme not only helped in the economic upliftment of rural

people but also in stopping further degradation of natural resources and improve environ-

ment in the watershed.

As per ICR, area brought under forestry is estimated at 29,000 hectares across the

districts. The long term gains from these plantations is expected to be realized. The

methodology adopted for the current study is by collecting primary data regarding each Mi-

cro Watershed area related to the study by an intensive field visit to observe the practices

adopted during project implementation. Most of the plantings and aforestation programmes

were analyzed. Detailed interaction was also made with the community to understand the

status of community organization, and traditional management practices of community

resources. It was observed that beneficiaries do not generally take any adequate care to

maintain plantation, more importantly fuel wood and other timber yielding species are

ignored even in their holdings and are left to vagaries of nature. In respect of commu-

nity lands no maintenance is observed in spite of the fact that the villagers do

collect usufructs like fodder, small timber and other forest products.

In forestry crops the income from the accruals come only after a gap of time , as these

species have longer gestation periods and take pretty long time to give returns to the

investments. Even though teak has a long rotation period of about 80 years, the beneficiar-

ies were content and happy with the choice of species for planting programmes on bunds.

The study indicated that for loppings from seedlings and pole crop there are no worth-

while returns from the growing stock to the beneficiaries except perhaps biomass as well

as in the form of fuel wood and fodder, that too in negligible quantities. But the future bene-

fits in a long run from the forest species outweigh the benefits from plantings of pure horti-

culture species. Instead, silvi-horticulture species, such as jack/wild jack are preferred for

the reasons that not only they are evergreens capable of growing in any habitat but also

yield very useful timber while being the sources of yielding fruits and other minor forest


products year in and year out as long as the trees are not harvested, having smaller rotation

when compared to the species like teak.

Forestry practices in the management of watersheds have long term salubrious impacts.

Soil erosion, for example, is a slow process in many ways and the benefits of retarding the

same may not be so easily discernible. Recharging groundwater, stabilizing slopes through

vegetative cover, and increasing sub soil moisture and contributing towards getting organic

matter peat soil and green manure are distinct possibilities, though time-consuming. Even

though It is not that easy to assess the economic impact of such project benefits, yet a

crude estimate can be had to quantify the likely economic benefits to the community.

While main benefits accrue mainly from increase in the productivity of the agricultural

crops, following table gives a crude estimate of likely benefit accruals.

Table No. : 35

Estimated periodical returns from products of different forest crops and plantations be-

longing to several age- groups & age- gradations (Rs. in ‘000)

Crop Area

(ha)

1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-18

Years

19-25

Years

30-40

Years

Silver Oak

3500 105 175 225 300 500

Teak

2000 50 200 350 500 1000

Honge 3000 125 250 350 500 750

Other fodder Crops

2500 100 200 300 400 500

Cashew 500 25 50 100 300 500

Tamarind 500 30 75 150 400 600

Gooseberry 500 40 75 160 300 400

Others 1500 110 250 375 450 600

Total 14000 435 950 1475 2400 3850

Note: Estimated areas are based on the beneficiaries’ surveys/ SWAP reports and other data generated. Out of the total area covered (29,000 ha) 50% is taken under consideration for the reason that half of the planted population had been found established.


Horticulture

During Phase III of the project, emphasis had been given on increased horticultural activi-

ties as suggested by the midterm evaluation team. Fruit plants yielding substantial in-

come were recommended to be planted in private lands inclusive of field bunds. The fruit

plants commonly preferred are mango, sapota, lime and coconut which are sure sources of

income to the beneficiaries. The survival rate on an average also being high, plantations are

found always well-stocked. Beneficiaries are found taking the required care to maintain and

manage such plantations, thus getting direct income from many byproducts as well. Addi-

tionally, soil structure and fertility is enhanced to a substantial extent, resulting in soil con-

servation and prevention of soil erosion. With a view to ensure holistic approach In low

lying areas where water is available due to construction of water harvest structures, farmers

have switched over to cultivation of vegetables, horticulture crops especially mango and co-

conut and in some water sheds floriculture.

The Change in cropping pattern is due to rise in water levels of bore wells and availability of

water in the water harvesting structures. In fact, it was stated by the village community and

field observations indicated that most of the land presently with horticulture crops and is be-

ing intercropped was idle before the project. During interactions with the beneficiaries it was

revealed that cultivation of mango and coconut is most profitable. The project areas have

coconut and areca nut gardens which are irrigated due to increased water in bore wells

and water harvesting structures. The beneficiaries are happy due to execution of field bund-

ing work in their fields which has increased the sub soil moisture and increased the produc-

tion of coconut and areca nut in their gardens. The bunding acts as demarcation of the

fields which has given them feeling of security. The beneficiaries are also practicing Agri-

Horti system with mango and cow pea and other agricultural crops. The annual income of

the beneficiaries has increased due to sale of usufructs from horticultural plants and floricul-


ture. The findings reveal that the income generated from horticultural crops stands third

after agriculture and dairy earnings in Sujala Project.

Sustainability

Rural development projects with community participation and management generally are

confronted with the issue of sustainability in the post implementation period due to lack

of interest and initiative of the communities. The same is true to some extent, in case

of this project also. Even though success stories are seen here and there, a general

pessimism pervades across the watersheds under study. Also, a number of World

Bank funded projects have exhibited satisfying, if not good, results and strengthened

Government policies of decentralised governance. SUJALA is a multi agency depend-

ent project involving village communities. The study has brought to the fore, the follow-

ing issues:

a) Technical : The project aimed at improving the soil and water management

through a series of physical measures with community involvement. The project

also assumed that the maintenance of the structures created would be taken

over by CBOs with the assistance of panchayats once they are handed over and

such structures would be properly maintained with periodical repairs as a

routine exercise in order to derive benefits by the community. The user groups

when working were expected to generate adequate savings/ revenues to meet

the maintenance cost and build up some resources and the panchayats would

ensure this happening. However, the specially created institutions like the area

groups and executive committees became non-functional/ defunct with the

withdrawal of the project. As a result, the worst sufferers were community lands

where a number of interventions were initiated and completed with the involve-

ment of the community, since the structures created are not being adequately

maintained. Interactions with panchayats revealed that they are not in a position

to maintain these structures due to inadequacy of resources. Since there is no

provision for earmarked funds in the post project period, communities were ex-

pected to generate such resources voluntarily. This did happen in some cases

but by and large, the structures remain unattended resulting in gradual dete-

rioration in their conditions.


b) Economic : sustainability: Main objective of the project was to enhance eco-

nomic gains from natural resources in an equitable manner, more importantly,

major benefit accruals were to come from agriculture as a result of better soil

and water management practices, application of appropriate and improved

package of practices to crop production processes. The farmers were provided

training to take best advantage of the transfer of technologies by research

institutions and the departments concerned. Similar enhanced economic benefits

were also envisaged through income generating activities.

c) Ecology and environmental Sustainability.

The project interventions include large scale plantation of horticulture and

forestry species (like mango, guava, cashew nut, gooseberry), honge (pongamia),

silver oak, teak (to limited extent), tamarind etc. The cumulative area was es-

timated at 59,000 ha of horticulture and 29,000 ha of forest plantations aggre-

gating to around 88,000 hectares. Assuming an average survival of 60%, the

tree cover is estimated at about 52000 hectares constituting about 10% of the

geographical area. This additional tree cover would have positive impact on

ecology and environment in the long run and (subject to their upkeep and main-

tenance) these plantations would :

i) Reduce run off

ii) Check soil erosion

iii) Enhance tree cover

iv) Influence local weather conditions

v) Provide additional revenue to be able to maintain them.

d) Financial Sustainability

At individual level, it was observed that financial sustainability was achieved

by large majority of farmers irrespective of their size of holdings. Crop diversi-

fication, cropping intensity enhancement have been possible and the levels of

outputs per unit of holding or per unit of productive asset (like milk production in

case of dairy) have been sustained over a period of time due to the initial inter-

ventions and efforts put in by the project .


However, most of the community lands where interventions were carried out are

not properly maintained (this observation is based on the basis of field surveys as

also interactions with AGS/ SHGS/NGOS/WDD officials) and as a result of which

economic benefit accruals cannot be said to be sustainable or sustained. Even

though the project anticipated community’s active involvement in the management

of common properties but the passive attitude has affected economic sustain-

ability of such common properties largely, though a number of exceptions were

reported in the project districts.

e) Institutional : The project heavily relied on community approach to management and

sought active participation right from the stage of planning, selection of interven-

tions, execution, monitoring progress and self assessment. Besides, sharing of cost

was a precondition for any works to be taken up in private and community lands.

For this purpose, local Area Groups and executive committees with wider represen-

tation from SHGs, Panchayats, AGs were formed. The project provided abundant op-

portunities to the grass root level institutions to develop institutional capabilities so as

to be able to take over the responsibility in the long run. The training and orientation

by the NGOs and WDD officials and motivation afforded to them was expected to

prepare the communities to take initiative in serving common cause.

This system worked well during the currency of the project. These institutions were

expected to develop into a type of permanent bodies to look after the development

and management of community assets/ properties and build their own resources

from the profits generated as a result of the project interventions. However, as dis-

cussed earlier, these institutions could not sustain and survive beyond project pe-

riod in general, with few exceptions. The withdrawal brought in gradual liquidation

of these institutions one after the other since there was no financial stake nor a

common cause. The role of NGOs was very prominent and to a large extent, they

performed their obligations in motivating and bringing the individuals to the community

groups to ensure sustainability of the project. The NGOs left the scene in the post pro-

ject period since their involvement was only up to the withdrawal stage and they

were not expected to volunteer their involvement without any remunerative package.

In a few cases (as in the case of some AGs/ECs in Dharwad district) the NGOs

made all out efforts to motivate the groups to continue their activities. There are

cases where an AG having 40 members was divided into two groups (20 each) in


order to qualify for some loan assistance (on the lines of SHGs). Even these surviv-

ing institutions are not serious nor have any inclination to maintain community /

common lands but are engrossed only in getting financial support from the banks

and other lending institutions. Therefore, sustainability of these institutions largely

hinges on the financial interest and financial stakes of individual members and not

otherwise.

f) Social and Environmental: The project supported institutional capacity building

and raising awareness among communities so that they get involved actively in

the project implementation. The formation and nurturing of such institutions did

strengthen community participation. It was observed that the mechanism evolved to

ensure participation by even marginalised groups of the villages in decision making

processes, income and employment generating activities for landless and vulnerable

segments, especially women households, and transparency measures in decision

making all did contribute cohesive working environment. The strong bondage and

mutual understanding among members with different economic status created a

socially desirable environment during the project implementation period which needs

to be appreciated. No differences nor any problems were reported which augurs

well.

g) Maintenance of Common Property Resources

The community assets are divided into (i) category I assets and (jj) category II as-

sets. The first included those used by few families (user groups ) like farm ponds,

check dams, Nala bunds, MPT, and Entry Point Assets comprising community

bore wells, horticulture plantations, /forest plantations etc., which should be main-

tained by respective user groups. The users were to contribute towards mainte-

nance of such assets both by cash and kind like shramadan. They should also

generate revenue for maintenance by using mini water bodies by taking up fish

culture during the season.

The second category of assets comprising forestry and horticulture plantation that

yield usufructs, fish ponds, nala revetment, gully plugging, biomass from common

lands, road side plantations etc. The project created large number of such assets

during the three phases which need to be maintained by the communities.


The project envisaged that these assets would require watch and ward to be

provided by the community including SHGs and their regular maintenance. How-

ever, interactions with ECs AGs, SHGs, NGOs and WDD staff at different micro

water shed locations indicated that the strategies and arrangements proposed un-

der the project are not being followed by the community. Isolated efforts (with

local initiatives) are noticed in effective maintenance of these structures. Wher-

ever usufructs are being produced, some community groups and Village Pan-

chayats are making efforts to maintain the assets. By and large, the strategies

envisaged do not seem to have worked resulting in deterioration of community

assets, on which good amount of financial resources were spent. This perhaps is

one of the major setbacks to the participatory approach.


CHAPTER 4

COMPARATIVE AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT

During the course of implementation of I and II phases, a number of deficiencies and

issues had surfaced at ground level. They had a direct bearing on the qualitative and

quantitative achievement of the project targets and objectives. Major differences be-

tween the Phase I & II and Phase III were in the form of policy changes and changes

in strategies. Following matrix provides some salient aspects between the two

periods.

Issues identified and addressed

The M E and L agency which closely monitored the project implementation came out

with a number of issues that needed to be addressed while implementing Phase I

and II. Some of the measures initiated during the III phase are:

Issues identified Mid course corrections Outcomes in III Phase

Over emphasis on select interventions

Holistic approach integrating all sectors with emphasis on horticulture, forestry, live-stock and agriculture

Horticulture, forestry, livestock compo-nents received priority

Ambiguity in cost sharing in respect of private and community works

Development of norms for cost sharing and benefit sharing mechanism

Implementation of the norms pre-scribed through a transparent and acceptable mechanism of cost sharing. Enhanced allocations for IGA and SHGs

Ambiguity in carrying out physical works

Norms for engaging labour and discouraging use of machines

Large scale employment generated through the works carried out strictly as per norms. Ban on use of ma-

chines (general) 6/

Irregular progress reporting system

Introduction of MIS and its mandatory application with periodicity

Regular progress tracking, and review facilitate problem solving /performance accounting

Watershed Development plans suffered from deficiencies

Introduction of customized SWAP system

Community Based Organisations facilitated and guided in preparation of SWAPs as per norms

6/ : Works costs Rs 2637 million. Assumed labour component 60% =1582 million. Labour

wages Rs 80/manday –estimated employment generation during project period 19.75 mil-lion mandays


Issues identified Mid course corrections Outcomes in III Phase

Irregular release of funds to SHGs/ for IGAs

Guidelines developed for speedy release of funds to SHGs

SHGs functions and activities accelerated due to timely availability of funds and helped support members with revolving fund for income generating activities

Deficiencies in Training programmes

Development and restructuring of Training modules with bet-ter contents and capsules suited to the trainees

Exclusive and special Training modules developed and used under the programme -enhanced knowledge gained by community groups

Publicity and transparency gaps

Development of methods of publicity-wall paintings and other methods

All SWAPs invariably used this method to create awareness about the programmes and ensure trans-parency

NGOs role not satisfac-tory and lack of commit-ment

System of Performance Review put in place

NGOs performance improved significantly during the II and III phases of the project

Comparative Performance

SUJALA was implemented in three phases. Impact assessment for the first and sec-

ond phases was carried by the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Agency (Antrix

Corporation - ISRO) Bangalore as a part of the Terms of Reference of the assign-

ment. The present study is an assessment of the impact of the last phase i.e. Phase

III. The coverage of activities and areas for treatment, formation of community groups

had lion’s share during phase III and accounted for over two thirds of the targets and

achievements. Therefore, the outputs generated for this phase may largely hold good

to other phases also. However, a number of mid course corrections were carried out

on the basis of lessons learnt during implementation of the earlier two phases. It is

worthwhile to look at the outputs of the project in a holistic approach.

While interventions during all the phases have been analysed in the foregoing chap-

ters, a comparative analysis of phase wise outputs and benefit accruals is attempted

using the data available in the Impact Assessment report of the ANTRIX Corporation.

This analysis covers the following:

� Agriculture- crop intensities, cropping pattern changes, yield improvements, incre-

mental income

� Soil and water- extent of reduction in soil erosion, ground water recharge, water

table improvement and other natural resources related aspects


� Income Generation Activities- types- household income from different activities

� Community Based organizations- SHGs, IGAs, others

� Sustainability

� Equity aspects

� Maintenance of common assets

A: Agriculture intensification

This is a major beneficiary of the project and therefore, major impact is expected on

this sector. Augmentation of additional water and its extended availability over longer

periods of important crop seasons provides opportunities to the farmers to take more

than one crop from their holdings. The intensity of crops during the three phases in the

following table indicates that there was marginal to moderate improvement in the crop

intensity in different zones.

Table No.36

Crop Intensity by Zones

Zones Phase I&II

Before

(Area in

Ha)

After

(Area in

Ha)

Crop

Intensity

(%)

155.30% 759.24 848.21 111.72

130.30% 1441.63 1831.64 127.05

135.80% 1032.77 1105.28 107.02

140.46% 3233.64 3785.13 117.05

Note - Perrinials occuping 404.26 Ha during post project excluded

Average

NTZ

CDZ

EDZ

Phase III

It was observed that crop intensity in phases I and II was higher than in phase III . The

overall crop intensity at 22% augurs well for the dry land area of the project(arrived at

using weighted average method using the number of sub watersheds covered in two

periods namely 35% and 65% in respect of Phases I & II and Phase III).


Cropping Pattern Change/ Diversification

Improved soil moisture retention and reduced run off of rain water also helped the

farmers to switch over from traditional and low yield/low price crops to high value and

commercial crops. Farmers were also motivated by the training and Farmers Field

Schools and ventured into newer crops that command good prices and ready market

like vegetables, oilseeds, horticulture crops etc. The phase wise crop pattern shift

shows gradual shift in favour of market driven cropping system .

Table : 37

Change in Cropping Pattern by Phases

(Areas in Ha)

Crop Before After

Change

% Before After

Change

% Before After

Change

% Before After

Change

% Before After

Change

% Before After

Change

%

Ragi 27 22.2 -18% 92.03 92.66 1% 19.5 17.2 -12% 662.69 679.53 3% 0 0 0% 0.2 0.2 0%

Cotton 3.1 3.9 26% 19.90 20.25 2% - - 0% 4.60 4.80 4% 20.9 24.2 16% 203.0 217.2 7%

Maize 55.8 48.2 -14% 203.76 287.96 41% 10.5 8.9 -15% 67.11 67.61 1% 24.2 18.8 -22% 231.6 242.7 5%

Jowar - 3.4 - 76.73 65.59 -15% - - 0% 9.50 11.65 23% 11.7 8.3 0% 175.0 186.2 6%

Groundnut - 6.2 - 167.38 150.32 -10% 45.3 40.7 0% 451.86 455.06 1% 9.3 12.6 0% 101.3 97.8 -3%

Sunflower - 3.8 - 52.15 30.53 -41% - 1.5 0% 5.80 5.80 0% - 1.5 0% 18.7 18.7 0%

Other Oil Seeds - - - - - - - - - 7.45 8.68 17% - - - 36.7 40.6 11%

Redgram 4.2 5.2 24% - - - - 1.6 0% 11.01 13.11 19% - 0.2 0% 0.9 0.9 0%

Green gram - - - 1.00 1.00 0% - - 0% 113.68 119.64 5% - 1.8 0% 29.8 30.2 1%

Vegetables - 0.8 - 96.30 100.54 4% - 2.6 0% 73.68 82.33 12% - 1.2 0% 14.4 20.0 38%

Others 9.9 6.3 -36% 94.02 99.36 6% 24.7 27.5 11% 367.73 383.43 4% 33.9 31.4 -7% 247.9 250.8 1%

CDZ EDZ NTZ

Phase I &II Phase IIIPhase IIIPhase I &II Phase I &II Phase III

Crop Yield improvement

Combination of factors influencing crop yields such as use of high yield varieties of

seeds, technology adoption, better farm management practices in addition to enriched

soil and enhanced water availability had worked in the project areas as a result of

which crop yields showed significant improvements among the zones and crops. The

range was between 20 and 50 per cent depending on the season, crop and zones.

This was true in all the three phases as is borne out from the following table.


Table No.38

Average Annual Crop Yield - Cereals (Qintals/Hectare) by Phases

CDZ EDZ NTZ CDZ EDZ NTZ Avg.

Total Yield -

All Zones

Crop Average Average Average Average Average Average Before After change Before After change Before After change tons/Ha Before After

%

change

Jowar 13.9 23.6 24.6 23.5 17.7 11.6 8 9 1 10 13 3 9 12 3 1.67 27 33 0.22

Maize 19.1 19 19.7 13.5 14.5 16 10 12 2 7 9 2 32 41 9 4.33 49 62 0.27

Paddy - - - - - - 20 28 8 21 27 6 36 43 7 7.00 77 98 0.27

Ragi 11.4 23.1 15.4 13.2 10.8 17.9 8 11 3 12 15 3 4 6 2 2.67 24 32 0.33

wheat - - - - - - 6 8 2 0 8 10 2 2.00 14 18 0.29

Total 14.8 21.9 19.9 16.73 14.33 15.17 52 66 14 50 64 14 89 112 23 191 242

Average 18.87 15.41 38.20 48.40 28%

NTZEDZCDZ

PHASE IIIPhase I Phase II

Average Annual Crop Yield - Oil seeds (Qintals/Hectare) by Phases

CDZ EDZ NTZ CDZ EDZ NTZ Avg.

Total Yield -

All Zones

Crop Average Average Average Average Average Average Before After change Before After change Before After change tons/Ha Before After

%

change

Castor 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 3 4 33.33

Ground nut 17.5 20.1 28.3 40.3 25.6 29.5 9 10 1 5.4 7 1.6 12 18 6 2.87 26.4 35 32.58

Mustard 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 2 4 100.00

Soya 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 -1 12 17 5 2.00 16 20 25.00

Sunflower 18.2 18.3 24.7 11.4 17.1 15 9 10 1 5 7 2 13 18 5 2.67 27 35 29.63

Yellu 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 5 6 20.00

Other Oil seeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 1.00 2 3 50.00

Total 17.85 19.2 26.5 25.85 21.35 22.25 28 34 16.4 20 37 53 81.4 107

Average 21.18 23.15 11.63 15.29 42%

NTZEDZ

PHASE III

CDZ

Phase I Phase I


Comparative impact on Ground water

As a result of a number of structures constructed to arrest run off of water and water

impounding structures like farm ponds, check dams and others, substantial volume of

running water could be harvested and stored at different points within the micro

watersheds. As per technical norms, a farm pond measuring 30x30x3 meters could

water to the extent of 325 cum. The check dams and other percolation tanks helped in

ground water recharge. Ground water recharge takes place mainly due to (i) storage

water (ii) excess amount of water percolating. The large number of structures both in

private and community lands had improved ground water status significantly. An

attempt has been made to assess the estimated recharge of ground water and resul-

tant rise in water table during the three phases. While precise techniques were used

for First and Second phases, the assessment in respect of phase III is based broadly

on (i) beneficiary survey (ii) interactions with the WDD and NGO officers and (iii) per-

sonal verification and interactions with AGs, and Focused Group Discussions with

village communities.

Table No.39

(Average Ground water status-ft )

Agro climatic zone

Phase I&II Before after

Phase III Before after

Average Before after

Eastern Dry 233 143 233 120 233 132

Central Dry 300 235 300 180 300 205

Northern Tran-

sition

223 173 223 150 223 162

Note: Figures in respect of Before project adopted from Antrix Findings in the absence of confirmed information during the survey


Duration of Water availability

As a result of construction of a number of water harvest structures and other water

saving techniques used, the duration of water availability had increased significantly

and the assessed period of water availability was:

Table : 40

Duration of water availability in wells (units in months)

AC zone

Phases I / II Water avail-

ability Before

Water availability After(I and

II)

Incremental Duration (I and II)

Phase III

Water availability

before

Water availability After(III)

Incremental Duration

(III)

EDZ 4.5 7 2.5 5 8 3 CDZ 5 7 2 5 8 3

NTZ 5 7 2 5 8 3

(Source: Beneficiary study, FGDs and discussions with AG/EC members)

Reduction in Soil Erosion

Annual erosion of soil due to rain fall and consequent run off is a common phenome-

non across the micro watersheds and the project has addressed this issue. As a re-

sult, degradation of land due to soil loss (top soil) has reduced considerably. The study

in respect of phases I and II and also Phase III have attempted to capture some in-

formation from the farmers based on their observations and experience. Though not

scientifically precise, the assessment gives some indicative gains as shown in the fol-

lowing table.

Reduction in Soil Erosion by Zones

(in %)

Zone Before After Reduction

CDZ 2.75 1.53 44.36

EDZ 3.76 2.83 24.73

NTZ 3.5 2.68 23.43

Average 3.34 2.35 30.84


Table No. 41

Changes in Runoff Depth (Q) and Volume (cu.m) across the micro-watersheds Phase I & II

For phase I and II, data available in the Impact assessment study are used while for

phase III, beneficiaries experiences and interactions with the NGOs and WDD officials

are considered. It is observed that the assessments made by both sources are similar

and nearly accurate.

Sustainability of CBOs

They comprise Sujala Watershed Sanghas (SWS), Self Help Groups (SHGs) and Area

Groups (AGs). SWS were basically user groups comprising those who are benefitted

by the project interventions directly like farmers and members of SHGs while SHGs

are groups formed mainly by women. Both are registered institutions. The Area groups

are special purpose institutions formed mainly to implement the project.

The impact assessment study in respect of Phase I and II indicates that almost 95%

of the SWS and AGs have become defunct with effect from close of the project. In

case of SHGs the study estimates about 80 per cent of them to be functioning. The

field surveys, interactions with the NGOs, Panchayats, WDD officials indicated that

almost all the SWS and AGs/ECs are defunct while more than 95% of the SHGs are

functioning and carrying out their activities.

Table No. 42

Groups Phase I+II Phase III Functioning Defunct Functioning Defunct

Sujala Water-shed Sanghas

5 95 2% 98%

Area Groups 16% 84% 0 100% SHGs 85% 15% 95% 5%


The first and second institutions had a single and specific agenda and were consti-

tuted with the objective of taking over the responsibility of planning and execution of

works and their maintenance once the project closed. Since there was no specific

condition for their sustainability, they became defunct at the close. Since there was

no financial stake, these institutions did not continue due, mainly, to lack of interest of

the village communities in spite of a very clear understanding being given to them

about the imperatives of their sustainability. This has been amply observed and delib-

erated in the IA report by ANTRIX Corporation and the same factors hold good in

respect of Phase III also.

But the status of Self Help Groups is somewhat different. These institutions have

long history of evolution and have come to stay in the rural economic scenario more

importantly since they champion the cause of women and vulnerable groups of the

society. The fundamental principle of the SHGs is thrift and saving, mutual adjustments

and cooperation in pursuing economic activities etc. Hence, there is financial stake and

interest among them which has successfully cemented the relationship among the

members of the groups. Group formation under SUJALA project was mainly to take

advantage of this rural institution in carrying out the implementation process. Therefore,

SHGs have emerged as sustaining rural micro credit institutions with or without SUJALA.

The project provided required impetus to accelerate their progress and to that extent

the project can credit.

PAD AND PROJECT OUTPUTS

The project processes and outputs as envisaged by the bank PAD and actual imple-

mentation were studied to assess the extent to which the objectives and goals have

been achieved. On the basis of the exercise, following matrix is developed to highlight

the project achievements.


PAD projec-

tions/objectives

Actually achieved Deviations Factors influencing

deviations

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Household income increased

Household income increased by 30-35 % in respect of far-mers

Near to projections

Further validation necessary

Overall level of income increased

Family income of all the stake holders increased sig-nificantly- many BPL fami-lies cross the line

Near to projections Further validation necessary

Crop yields Increased by 40 per cent

Crop yield increase ranged between 28 and 42 per cent

Near to projections Further validation necessary

Ground water re-charged

GW recharge resulted in water table rise between 50 and 90 ft.

Fairly achieved Further scientific analysis needed

Number of dug wells

recharged

Estimated 55,000 wells be-

came

functional

Fairly achieved Detailed study

necessary

Soil erosion reduced Reduction in soil erosion

by20 to 50%

Fairly achieved Scientific studies

necessary

Cropping pattern deviation

High value crops replaced low value cereals. Vegetable pulses and oilseeds gained larger area

Fairly achieved Nil

Milk, fodder and fuel wood production increased

Per day milk yield increased between 1 and 2 liters

Satisfactory Further studies needed

Non arable land productivity improved

Better tree cover and water harvest structures enabled recharge of ground water. Fodder availability enhanced

Satisfactory Detailed studies desirable

Project created CBOs sustained Technical sustain-ability

Poor survivability of CBOs Structures created in private and community lands as per SWAP

Majority of CBOs ex-cept SHGs created under project be-came defunct Sustainability of CPRs and some of the private struc-tures not ensured

Lack of commitment and interest among village communities Lack of interest by farmers to spend additional money for maintenance of the structures cre-ated –needs to be addressed


LESSONS LEARNT AND INCORPORATED IN THE PROJECT AND ACTUAL

OUTCOME

Sustainability of CBOS Project aimed at participatory commitments from community and provided opportunities

During the project implementation commitment and participation was highly encour-aging. Once the pro-ject was over the CBOs could not sustain.

New lesson to be learned is to ensure commitment with financial stakes

Targeting poor Project prioritised equitable benefit sharing

Achieved to a large extent in respect of landed and landless stake holders

Good development model and needs to be further strengthened

Comprehensive

Development

approach

Project addressed

all issues and sec-

tors to ensure

inclusive benefits

This was largely

achieved with active

participation by the

village communities

Good development

model and needs to

be strengthened

Joint Decision

Making

Project provided

equal opportuni-

ties to all sections

of the society to

actively participate

in all decision

making processes

including financial

transparency

Fairly good

achievement

Needs to be further

galvanized

Developing partners The project cre-ated CBOs and involved NGOs and the WDD in pursuing the pro-ject objectives and goals

Fairly achieved with committed involve-ment of all (with ex-ceptions of some NGOs whose performance was not up to expected levels) especially the CBOs

Creation of CBOs and retention of NGOs needs to be revisited to ensure commitment and sustainability

Inter agency linkage The project implementation process included inter agency commitment and involvement

Fairly successful Needs further strengthening


Social and Institutional Aspects

Apart from the routine approach to the study, the study team felt that field level officials of

the Watershed Development Project SUJALA, were very significant source of information on

the project work, especially the qualitative dynamic forces, which were at work during the

processes of executing the project. The field level officials had experience of having worked

in person in all the processes and with all the partners involved in planning and extension of

the Project. It was assumed that their work experience with the local communities and its

formal and informal groupings, the NGOs and the beneficiaries at large would be very valid

source of information. Hence, they were contacted in person, shared their experiences and

opinion on various topics relevant to the study and the same is considered as one of the

valid empirical basis for our conclusions.

The “Sujala” has rightly focused on the social mobilization process as the vital input to begin

with the project work. The training contents covered are (1) information on project objectives

and approach (2) new institutional arrangement (3) capacity building (4) knowledge dissemi-

nation (5) motivation etc. The functionaries were in fact trained adequately to play their role

effectively to realize the basic objective of the project, namely when implemented, to make it

really a community driven, socially inclusive and participatory.

Mobilisation process of rural communities in Karnataka, was already set in motion by various

development programmes especially the SHGs as the micro-credit system meant for vulner-

able sections of villages, particularly among the women folk and labour class. This further,

added to the intensification of social mobilization for overall development of the rural com-

munities. Therefore, it was easy way for NGO and DWD agencies to adopt and practice so-

cial mobilization efforts among village communities of selected watersheds. Soon the pro-

ject dissemination activities of the concerned Govt officials and the NGO became popular.

As a result, the village meetings to start with particularly the Grama Sabhas were conducted

successfully and the response of the most of the gram sabhas were reported to be very posi-

tive and they were easily convinced of the advantages of the project and their participation

role in them. The message of new approach of Sujala Project with the locally based institu-

tions like the Area groups and the Executive Councils with required responsibility and power

to plan, execute and monitor the development of their own local resource-private as well as

community was something which brought enthusiastic response from the villagers. This ini-

tial success augured well for the ultimate success of the Sujala Project, because it was the

base on which community driven concept of the project had been practiced.


The study team has come to conclusion that credit for this initial success should go to the

field functionaries of the DWD, as they were first to be introduced to the SUJAL PROJECT

and its objectives and methodology of institutional arrangement for its implementation. For

having worked in the area, they were already conversant with both the bio-physical and

socio-economic environment which had influenced the village communities. This knowledge

helped them to approach the villagers with the new message of the SUJALA SCHEME.

Their established rapport with the villagers paved way for convincing them about the advan-

tages inherent in the project.

NGO Role

As the community driven project; SUJALA envisaged that the NGOs would have to play a

vital role in the process of implementing the programmes in the local watershed area. As

such the NGOs were considered and retained as the integral part of Institutional structure

approved in the project. The impact analysis revealed that the NGOs were greeted by the

villagers as well as the official functionaries. Since the participation of the villagers had to be

real and effective in all the processes of the project implementation, such as planning, budg-

eting, execution and monitoring, the local people needed services of the NGOs continuously.

The NGOs have met this requirement very successfully by playing their designated role ef-

fectively. They have functioned as the motivators and organizers of community groups, edu-

cators and trainers for capacity building among the beneficiaries and coordinators of field

functionaries of Govt and the local groups in executing the programmes.

Thus the NGOs have functioned effectively and their commitment to their expected function

was quite obvious and it was widely acknowledged by the beneficiaries and the officials who

worked with them. They are reported to have been best in their role in bringing unity of pur-

pose, understanding and functioning among the community stakeholders – individuals’

community groups of all categories, formally established groups like area groups, SHGs,

ECs and even the village panchayat. Secondly, the NGOs played significant role in image

building about financial aspect of the project. The financial transparency in the operation of

the project was a major factor in building natural trust among all the participants in the pro-

ject work and it was the factor in creating most favourable image among the communities at

large. Apart from its achieving its physical targets, unlike other development programme,

SUJALA stands out in the mindset of common villagers as the most clean and uncorrupt

programme. This was mostly due to openers in financial transaction and this was mostly


due to NGO’s role in educating and convincing the beneficiaries and coordinating with the

Department functionaries.

Both government functionaries and local beneficiaries expressed that majority of them

have done their job very sincerely and effectively, especially in creating awareness, capacity

building among the villagers and the local functionaries and formation of community groups

and the Area groups, SHGs and Executive Groups. They did their best in making commu-

nity participation really effective. The beneficiaries became more responsible in paying their

role because of their constant interaction in educating and guiding them to act according to

the provisions of the scheme especially executing the works and maintaining accounts and

other records. They were successful in motivating them in favour of cost sharing on their

private land. It is because of NGOs, there was a check and balance in operating the project

particularly transparency in financial transaction. The problems like delay, negligence, mis-

management and misuse of funds which very often characterise the execution of develop-

ment programmes were almost solved. They have performed coordination work so well that

all the three important partners beneficiary groups, Government functionaries and NGO had

shown their commitment to their respective works. In brief, the NGO did their best in bring-

ing about unity of purpose, understanding and functioning among all the stake holders-

community groups of all categories, SHGs, village panchayat, executive council. More im-

portantly they have played key role in positive image building about the project in the com-

munity at large by their effort to inform and popularize the transparency in financial transac-

tions and guided them in achieving better quality in works. Their role was acknowledged by

all more popularly in planning, prioritizing, monitoring processes. The financial transparency

was very effectively achieved mostly through their intervention and efforts clearly informing

the people about it and not keeping anything secret, which was single most important factor

creating trust among the communities and individuals to participate in the programme. The

NGOs have been regarded by almost all as the civic organizations which demonstrated

more commitment for welfare of the local community than for themselves.

However, there was one glaring limitation in their integrated effort. That is about educating

the people and motivating them for sustainability of the institutions and to maintain and con-

serve the works that have been executed in the watersheds. In fact no partner involved in

this project viewed seriously about sustainability.


Limitations

The study has revealed certain limitations. The local groups and institutions that they were

formed for the purpose of implementing the Sujala project ceased to exist as soon as the

project period was over, there by there was neither collective thinking nor any effort to

maintain and protect or improve the resource of production especially the community

resources. Neither the policy formulators nor the implementing authorities seemed to have

any loud thinking about their crucial aspect. Only those who were involved in execution of

the project at the field level and that too at the far end of the project period began to reflect

over this serious limitation. It was observed now that practically no one including the

community stake holders was serious about this problem.

The Village Panchayat which was supposed to be the responsible organization for maintain-

ing practically every common property and resources had not taken seriously the problem of

maintaining the works that completed and handed over to them after the project period.

Practically there was institutional vacuum and attitudinal neutrality in this regard. This as-

pect has to receive immediate attention of the policy makers. After the project period what

next to cause sustainability of the project works.

Role of Panchayats

Going away from the conventional approach of involving the quacy government bodies

like the Village Panchayats, Taluk Panchayats and ZPs, this project made a departure

in project implementation. This was meant to minimize the interference and involvement

these quacy govt bodies which have come to be dominated by one or other group, or

communities and upper echelons of the rural economic strata (landed gentry). This

approach worked well in successful implementation of the project. However, difficulties

have now surfaced with the closure of the project and withdrawal of agencies in the

hope the Panchayats would eventually take over the interest of the CPRs. However,

this could not be achieved in large majority of cases . Exclusion of these bodies from

the beginning has resulted in their lukewarm / lack of interest in maintaining CPRs in

general. In a kind, it is a lesson to be learnt from this project. There might be need to

remodel project implementation strategies and approaches with (i) minimal interference

of these bodies in the project implementation but (ii) ensure protection of CPRs by

them since it ultimately the responsibility of the QGAs to respond to the need of the

society.


CHAPTER 5

SOCIOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS

Introduction

The Assessment of social and institutional impact of Karnataka Watershed Development

Project – Sujala – from the perspective of developmental sociology, focused mainly on some

of the key issues of development and of the constraints of sustainable development identi-

fied by World Bank’s Project Appraisal Document (PAD).

Method

Since the assessment of social and institutional aspect is mostly qualitative, the techniques

adopted for data collection from concerned groups and individuals consisted of (1) personal

interviews (2) focus groups discussion (3) field observations (4) perusal of various reports

including ME and proceedings of AG and EC Groups. Apart from the routine approach to

the study, the study team felt that field level officials of the DWD were very significant source

of information on the project work, especially the qualitative dynamic forces, which were at

work during the processes of executing the project.

A. BENEFIT SHARING- SOCIAL FACTORS

(i) Socio –Economic Improvement

The improvement in socio-economic conditions are observed among all categories of villag-

ers namely marginal, small and large farmers of land owning class and the labourers, arti-

sans, petty traders, service categories of land-less class. In addition, the project benefits

have reached the most unreachable categories namely SC and ST.

The average household income has registered 25 to 30 percent increase during the project

period. It has also manifested in improvement in the material conditions (life style) of

villagers viz. food, clothing, shelters, health care, schooling for children etc., indicating reduc-

tion in poverty. The Field Study has revealed that out of 1,325 sample beneficiaries studied,

the percentage share of different categories of beneficiaries was 27% SC & ST (14% +

13%), 18% OBC and 55% others, respectively. As regards land holding categories the per-

centage share was 30% small, 20% marginal, 28% medium and 22% large farmers, respec-

tively.


Large number of people in the project area acknowledged that increase in employment as

well as in the household income has reduced the migration in search of work out side their

community. Especially seasonal migration to the nearby towns and villages has reduced to

the extent of 50 to 60 per cent. However, higher wages in the nearby towns continues to

attract.

(ii) Equity in Benefit Sharing

The size of holding was taken as main basis of deciding the type of works to be undertaken

on their individual farms and the quantum of financial support provided by the Sujala Project.

Provision of such a policy component was made known to the local people in advance. That

is, the requirement of following the equity principle in order to reach over to the economically

and socially weaker sections including women members, was accepted and favoured by the

community at large. That all the Government Sponsored Development Policy and

programmes had to follow the equity norm effectively is known very well by the people and

they have reached a stage of making their rightful claim in this regard.

(iii) Institutional System

What was required is the institutional arrangement to take the benefits to really deserving

groups, and the Project had made such an institutional mechanism of socially inclusive

participatory model to work, i.e. functioning of integrated triple organizations viz. CEOs,

NGOs and GOs with collective responsibility and authority at the local level. And this has

really worked effectively and so the equity objective is by and large successfully achieved. It

is observed in almost all watersheds that the farmers did react favourably to the limit of

maximum grant ie. Rs 70,000/- enforced on large farmers.

(iv) SHGs’ Programme Components

The Programme component mainly dairy, poultry, sheep rearing, tailoring, petty trade of

supporting the weaker section in the non-farm sector has gone a long way in making the eq-

uity objective very popular with rural communities. The project not only supported the exist-

ing SHGs, but also encouraged the formation of new ones by providing with revolving fund

and training for capacity building and skill development. The Sujala Policy to involve the

SHGs has really added to the popularity of the scheme as comprehensive social movement

to bring about transformations in the quality of life of villagers in the selected watersheds.


(v) Gender Equity

This programme has created a visible impact on the life of the women folk in the rural

community. Their awareness, knowledge and activities are at once observable in their out-

spoken positive reaction to the questions put to them by any outsiders like impact assess-

ment team. The women folk have taken leading interest in making SHGs very strong and

sustainable. They are successfully managing their micro-financial institutions. Majority of

them acknowledged that their standard of living has improved because of SHGs support

income generating activities. They have proved themselves as the best Managers of their

financial institutions. They have realized that the standard of their food and clothing, has

improved and they are making use of available health care services and sending their chil-

dren to schools, instead of putting them to work. Such an improvement was possible mostly

due to SUJALA Project, which added further strength to already existing SHG movement. As

the managers of their homes they collectively expressed a strong feeling that because of

such programmes, today they stand liberated from their men folk as the sole providers of

domestic needs. Some of the case studies illustrated in the report proved this trend.


B. COST SHARING- IMPACT

i) Key Role

The “Sujala” Project has duly placed its emphasis on cost–sharing concept that the local

people/ beneficiaries should contribute their share in the cost of improvement and conserva-

tion of their resources of production. It is a key factor in creating (1) a sense of responsibility

towards the project (2) a feeling of ownership and (3) an obligation to participate in the de-

velopment programmes right in their local communities, both on their private/ individual and

common resources of livelihood.

ii) Obstacles to Implement

But the concept of cost-sharing has always been a difficult process to be implemented in the

field both in its letter and spirit, because of some of the mental and material constraints

prevailing in the local communities. The socio-political mindset prevalent in the rural com-

munity acts as an obstacle to accept this proposal willingly by the people. First, there is a

very strong notion held in common that any programme sponsored by the Govt should be

totally subsidized by the Govt itself and the local people should not have any obligation to

meet. Second, the prevailing conditions of poverty in the local communities prevent them

accepting this concept spontaneously. Third, the local people do not generally trust the

financial estimate of the project works, prepared by the Govt agencies, for which they are

supposed to make their contribution and this disbelief plays a crucial role in creating unwill-

ingness for cost sharing. Thus it is their mental condition more than material status that acts

as an obstacle to accept the cost-sharing responsibility in its letter and spirit.

iii) Success Factors

The above explanation is a necessary backdrop to understand the impact of Sujala Pro-

gramme in this regard. The basic approach of social inclusiveness, local participation and

the community driven programme was the first step towards creating favourable condition.

Second, the institutional arrangement adopted by the project further strengthen its scope

for easy acceptance by the people. Third, the role of NGO in giving proper training and

guiding them in all the processes of planning, implementation and monitoring brought a new

thinking among the local people about cost-sharing. Particularly the financial transparency

which was demonstrated in all its forms nullified whatever the misgivings the people suffered

from. Fourth, the official functionaries of the DWD Department too had played a crucial role

in clearing the prevailing disbelief about people’s contribution to their development

progrmmes. For the first time the officials were trusted by the local people and this made


easy way for their willingness to contribute their share, whatever the percentages, depending

upon the nature and the type of work and their land holding status. Hence, cost sharing has

been effectively implemented in so far as individually owned landed property was concerned.

Hence, the social impact of cost sharing concept on the local community is so far as the pri-

vate individual property improvement was concerned, has been very positive and successful.

iv) Limitations

But the same thing cannot be concluded in respect of community responsibility towards

common property was concerned. There appeared to be no commitment built around this

concept of cost-sharing for the development of common resources of production. The con-

cept has been followed rather mechanically to fulfill the obligation consisted in the approved

project guidelines, during the project period. But it is glaringly ignored / neglected by the

community groups, people and the village panchayat. However, there are few exceptions in

some districts, where due to the efforts particularly of watershed department staff, common

property such as forestry and horticulture programmes in Dharwad and Haveri districts have

made a success in this regard. There are records of training programme and discussion

contents indicative of creating awareness among people about this responsibility of cost

sharing for community resources development schemes. However, it has not changed the

mindset yet. Neither specially formed community groups, nor the elected body like Village

Panchayat made any objective move towards maintaining the spirit of cost-sharing for either

maintaining the already improved works or taking up of such works in future.

C. BEHAVIORAL IMPACT

(i) Institution System

What distinguished the SUJALA Project from other such development programmes in the

rural area, was its single most important component of Institutional arrangement proposed

and adopted in its implementation. In order to make the project really community driven and

participatory at the local level and reach over to the unreachable a new model of Institu-

tional system was adopted. Accordingly the whole process of implementation of the

SUJALA Scheme was entrusted to the institutions formed by the local people i.e. CBOs with

required authority and responsibility. Other supporting integral institutions were the

(1) NGOs as intervening agency for training, awareness creation, capacity building, dissemi-

nation of information and guiding the local groups in execution and (2) the Govt Department

functionaries of DWD to provide all technical guidance and act as sustained facilitators in all

aspects of the project execution. The village Panchayat role was limited to the extent of its

two elected members finding place on Executive Committees.


(ii) Formation of CBOs

The community based groups such as Area Groups, Executive Committees and SHGs were

formed successfully after conducting several Gram Sabhas (Village Councils) meetings

where in, the messages of Sujala project was popularized and positive baseline support from

the village communities coming under the watersheds was enlisted. After several visits,

group interactions, personal discussions with rural elite groups, the functionaries of Govt

Department created a favorable environment in the rural society. This work was carried out

during the preparatory period much before the NGO entered the local fields though the nodal

NGOs were involved to train and give orientation to Govt functionaries right from the start.

Thus the local institutions- CBOs, NGOs and Govt were integrated functionally to achieve

the objectives of Sujala Project.

As per Guidelines and Norms suggested by the project CBOs were successfully formed.

The Area groups and Executive Councils were deliberately formed for the purpose of plan-

ning, implementing and monitoring the project schemes in the watershed area. The villagers

had already experience of forming and working with SHGs and the project involved the

already existing SHGs, but also formed new SHGs with provision of revolving fund, espe-

cially for income generating activities. Formations of CBOs was a most successful pro-

gramme of social mobilization with a dominant motive force generated among the village

community in general to participate willingly in the programmes to build and improve their

resources of production and engaged in income generating activities. The village Pancha-

yats were involved to the extent of two of their elected members finding representation on

Executive Councils.

(iii) Effective Participation

Because of the above institutional arrangement, the study revealed that the local people

were effectively involved in the carrying out of SUJALA project, once they were convinced of

the advantages of the project at least to improve their individual/private enterprises – both on

farm and outside the farm. Their participation both as individual stakeholders and as mem-

bers of the Executive Councils or SHGs reported to have been very spontaneous and mean-

ingful. While Sujala’s main thrust was more on building and preserving the land based re-

sources of production, the scheme seemed to have achieved a greater degree of success

for its employment and income generating activities taken right to the doors of vulnerable

classes in the villages.


(iv) Emergence of Egalitarian Relations

Secondly, the social significance of this institutional arrangement is emergence of egalitarian

norms of relationship between development agencies and the recipients of development

benefits. For the first time Govt functionaries created impressions among the local people

that their primary function was to serve the local people as the facilitators and not to boss.

Integrated work carried out by the CBOs, NGOs and GOs appeared to have brought about

“Social Discipline” especially among the local people, with the thrust on the principle of

“Bottom up” path adopted in the Sujala project.

(v) Emergence of Social Discipline

The “Democratic Planning” and implementation strategy of this kind would succeed only

when “social discipline” is strengthened among participating partners – CBOs, NGOs and

GOs. The way in which the project has functioned and image created among the rural popu-

lation seemed to have nearly maintained the discipline by all the partner institutions. And

this is no mean achievement at this stage, where the macro-level atmosphere is beset with

problems of mismanagement and misuse of project resources.

(vi) Rising Aspirations

The study has further revealed that there has been significant increase in the awareness of

interest in and knowledge about the Sujala project among the village communities. Aspira-

tion to get benefits from the scheme were very high among all the categories of people and

it was observed even among those people who belonged to neighbouring villages of the

selected watersheds, especially for support to income generating activities.

(vii) Power to the People

However, these positive trends are in favour of the project not only due to the visible bene-

fits of improvement in employment and income but also due to their continuous involvement

in all the processes of the project work. The transaction and transparency of the project

process of planning, decision making, execution and monitoring was at once, a new phe-

nomenon hitherto not practiced at the local level by any agency of development. That the

local people, the actual stakeholders/ beneficiaries, were accorded the role of planning and

execution of their development programme was a new phenomenon of power to the people,

which was more often than not heard as a mere slogan of grass root democratic norm than

as a practicing principle of the development agency. The villagers did express their satis-

faction over this institutional arrangement which invoked a new confidence in the efficacy of

the programmes at their doorsteps- a real non material- behavioural impact of the SU-

JALA Project.


CHAPTER 6

SUCCESS STORIES

In general, the project resulted in overall success and met the set objectives of ac-

celerated alleviation of rural poverty, rejuvenating the degraded lands, checking soil

erosion and run off of rain water leading to ground water recharge, higher productiv-

ity of arable and non arable land. While the on-farm developments and benefit

accruals have been amply exhibited and discussed in the foregoing chapters, this chap-

ter deals with the impact of the project on the landless and vulnerable groups of the

communities.

The trends indicated in the impact assessment study by ANTRIX Corporation continued

in the third phase too, in terms of the above tangible outputs. More importantly, the

avowed objective of reducing the income disparities among the landed and landless

has been fulfilled. While this is a general observation, there are a number of success

stories that establish the fact that participatory projects would ensure inclusive growth

and sustainability. This Chapter deals with such success stories across the project

area.

Common Property Management

Together We can make it !- the Nigadi Experiment

A community based programme under Sujala Watershed Project in Amblikoppa sub-

watershed was proposed in R.S.No.116 of Nigadi village. Owing to the interest evinced by

the community and the benefits to be derived in the near future this community based

programme was made successful by development of Agro Forestry, Horticulture and Silvi

Pasture. A total land of 18 ha in the Nigadi village R.S.No. 116 is a hilly slope and the

water flows towards west. The valuable forestry lands covered by Teak, Matti, Heddi and

Kendal roots found in this area of land which were damaged due to cattle grazing and fire

etc. The total landscape had become very hard due to soil erosion. The land was totally

unfruitful and there was no natural growth. Thus, the land was in a barren state. The

villagers were digging the land for stones etc. Even during the rainy season the rain water


was to be drained as there were no checks and such water used to flow towards nearby

tanks and ponds with precious soil.

To know the previous status of land use of this region, the localities were contacted as a part

of baseline survey. It was ascertained that earlier also this area was covered by thick forest

with plenty of shrubs and trees of good economic and medicinal value. However, due to

passage of time, the ignorant miscreants started cutting the trees recklessly and this fact is

proved based on the root stock. An analysis of the entire area has transpired certain amaz-

ing facts such as growth of natural trees is more visible than the planted seedlings. With this

background an idea was evolved with a view to restoring the last forest resource leading to

this community driven programme under Sujala Watershed Project.

Treatment

The 18 ha land was surveyed in detail, 8 m trenches in between were dug vertically with a

size of 4.00 x 0.50 x 0.50 and 2,600 trenches have been opened with a view to allowing sto-

rage of water coming from the upper ridge. The nursery seedlings viz., Phyllanthus

emblica, drumstick, pongamia, tamarind, cashew, honne, shivani, nelli, mango & sesbania

have been planted in the trench. The other species which are useful Agro Forest products

have also been planted in the area. Grass seeds like Stylo and jantas have been sown on

mounds to encourage fodder development. To prevent cattle grazing, cattle proof trenches

have been opened around the area as a measure of protection. The community have

employed the services of a watchman. A Nala bund structure is also created to store the

excess water.

Community Participation

The Villagers, Self Help Groups and area groups with a lot of deliberations at their level have

developed the area with mutual consent, co-operation and total participation. The Sujala

Sanghas have taken the responsibility to protect the area.

Social Agreement

A Social Agreement was entered into on 18-10-2006 between the Kanavi Basaveshwar

Sangh, Nigadi and Sarasevati Sujala Self Help Group Nigadi to share the Forest Produce in

future and also to safeguard the area systematically. This waste land is now covered with

many plants giving a look of greenery across and there is a healthy growth of all the plants


with a successful growth of 3 feet grass. Due to planned afforestation, soil erosion has

been considerably reduced which has paved way for healthy growth of plants. The area

around this has become useful for cultivation due to increase in ground water level. The

basic needs like fodder, fruits and forest produce have helped to fulfill the acute need of local

people.

Learning

The community efforts with the timely intervention of the department staff, the silvi-Horti-

pasture is now being developed as a thick forest and has become a safe zone for wild ani-

mals & birds. Peacock & rabbits are the common inhabitants of this forest. The trenches

opened for planting trees have been filled with rain water giving no room for draining a drop

of water. This has resulted in rejuvenation of well and bore wells in the adjacent fields.

The people residing around this area have now realized the great mystery of forests and are

evincing interest to develop and also to protect with great care and caution. With the ser-

vices of the present watchman continued for another 3-4 years the sustainability at the for-

est as well as forest resources will be assured. The village communities have agreed to

ensure that this plantation would be protected against any damage or rampant use

of usufructs. In another five years, this plantation would start yielding economic benefits

to the community. Since all the neighbouring farmers have been covered under the pro-

ject, there is a sense of commitment by them to take care of this community planta-

tion. Sharing of the usufructs is agreed at fifty- fifty basis between the DWD and Vil-

lage CBOs.

A visit to this plantation would prove that together we can make it !

IGA Some Success stories

In general SUJALA has opened up many avenues to the vulnerable groups and

afforded opportunities for income generation through self employment. The training

programmes organized under the project have been effectively used to women among

whom are most vulnerable with fragile economic status. Therefore, innumerable success

stories can be narrated mainly attributed to the project. However, a few deserve to be

highlighted. The success stories are unique in themselves since they do not represent

usual traditional activities but speak of transforming rural scenario.


1 Food Processing- Road to Prosperity

Gangambika, an educated housewife had been yearning for earning additional income

for quite some time. The SUJALA campaign for promoting Self Help Groups came

handy to her. She joined Mahalakshmi Self Help Group and started saving by borrow-

ing from her relatives. Not happy with borrowing and saving, she decided to start her

own food processing unit. She could not join any service since she had a small child

to look after. She finally decided to take up self employment. She decided to prepare

papads. She took advantage of the EDP and joined the awareness programme and

selected food processing as an avocation with the guidance of the NGO. She

received training in making papad of different types and also spices and condiments,

pickle making, and other savories. Gangambika was provided a loan assistance of Rs

7,500 from the revolving fund provided by SUJALA. She started her business in right

earnest and her daily production reached 1000 papads. After providing for the cost at

Rs 230/- and earns Rs 270/ per day and around 6,300 a year. She is not only en-

gaged throughout the year, but also has given employment to another lady to assist

her. Initially she had to confront a number of difficulties mainly (b) sales at lower price

(ii) inferiority complex (iii) quality problems. Finally she decided to go to nearby Korata-

gere town to find market. As the luck would have it, she came in contact with a hotel-

ier who started purchasing all her produce every day. Due to good quality there was

good demand from neighbouring shops and she has been supplying papad to many

such buyers and earning between Rs. 6,500 and 12,000/month from sale of papad

alone. She has plans to add other spices and sell under her own brand name. She

has all praise for SUJALA and particularly the SHG that came to her help.

2 Changing Face of Rural India

This is a success story of an young lady with grit and guts to enter into new

domain, i.e. setting up of a beauty parlor in a village!. We have seen beauty parlors

flourish in urban areas but taking this profession to rural area and successfully manag-

ing is a real challenge.

Savita, who completed her secondary education, had a long cherished ambition of tak-

ing training in beauty parlor but had no wherewithal. After her marriage she was

compelled to return to her parental home due to her husband’s accident. She along with

her two young children lived with her parents. She had a challenge of supporting her

family, including her cancer affected father , and small children.


SUJALA came to her help. She joined Shri Mata Self Help Group. She was spon-

sored for a training in beauty parlor management and EDP organized by the NGO

and successfully completed the course. She studied many beautification techniques

like eyebrow, facials and bleaching, hair trimming etc. On completion of her training

she was provided Rs 7500 from the SUJALA Revolving fund. She borrowed another

Rs 5000 from SHG and arranged additional Rs 10,000 from friends and relatives

(around Rs 22,000) and invested in the business. She started hiring out equipments for

functions which gave her around Rs 2,500/- a month. In addition, she is engaged in

running the parlor which gives her around another 2,000/- a month, thus her monthly

income is around Rs 4500/- She repaid her loan in monthly installment of Rs 1500/.

She is earning an average annual income of Rs 50,000 /- She has also taken an

Insurance policy of the value of Rs 1.50 lakhs to secure her future. She attributes this

change of luck to SUJALA which gave her an opportunity of realizing her dream. Ms

Savita wants to expand her business to dealing with bangles and other essentials of

the women folk in the area. She also wants to train some young women in this skill so

that they also can benefit from IGAs.

3. Spreading the Fragrance

This is the story of Mrs Kamala, a member of Durgamba SHG in Irakasandra in Korata-

gere taluk of Tumkur District, a married woman with three young children to look after.

An agriculture labour by tradition was struggling hard to meet the two ends. She could

not continue her agriculture labour as it required her being away from her home and

leaving her small children either at the care of somebody or carrying them with her

thus exposing the tiny tots to sun, rain and adverse weather conditions. She wanted to

do something at home so that her income is assured and her children are taken care

of.

The skill development programme being implemented under SUJALA gave her an

opportunity to think seriously to take up Agarbatti (incense sticks). She attended a

fifteen-day Agarbatti making skill training programme and successfully completed it.

She set up her unit and initially used the material supplied in the training programme.

Her daily production started with 1,000/2,000 incense sticks. Since she was not ex-

posed to marketing, she stored the product at home. She was guided by the marketing

specialist of the NGO who introduced her to an Agarbatti dealer in the nearby town of

Dobaspet. The dealer was requested to start a small Agarbatti procurement centre in

her village so that others in the nearby villages could also take advantage of the mar-


ket. The dealer provided assured market to her product. Her daily output increased

to 6,000 sticks and income rose from Rs 30 to 90 to a monthly income of Rs 2,700/-

after providing for the cost of material. Taking a cue from the success story of Ka-

mala, as many as 30 women in surrounding villages also took to Agarbatti making

and their daily output is around 4,000 sticks. This is purchased at Rs 15/- per 1000

sticks. Average earning of these women now is Rs 2,000 per month.

4 Media Messenger

Media, more importantly, electronic media has become a part of our life and has

spread across rural areas too. Changing economic environment and enhanced income

has given rise to use of electronic gadgets even in rural areas as much as in urban

centres. Time and labour saving equipments have adorned rural kitchens with grinders

and mixers thus giving great relief to the women folk. There is hardly any home where

there is no electronic gadget like TV, radio, tape recorder and so on. Considering this

changing rural scenario, an young man, Mr Kiran, a resident of Seegepalya, in Ken-

ganapalya Micro Watershed area, was attracted to the profession of servicing of such

electronic equipments by setting up his repair shop within the village itself so that

people do not have to rush to urban centres for repairs. Mr Kiran joined skill devel-

opment programme organized under SUJALA and successfully completed a thirty-

day course.

Influenced by the training, he approached the local SHG, Parvati Stree Shakti and got

Rs 7,500 as loan. He mobilized another Rs 5,000 from his own source and set up his

electronic repair shop. He invested Rs 7,500 in purchase of equipments.

Right from the beginning, he has been earning between Rs. 200 and 300 per day. He

is providing financial support to his family. His monthly earning is around Rs. 6,000

from repairs.

He is now cherishing the dream of opening an electronic goods shop so that he can

earn some margin from sale and also income through repairs.

This certainly is the changing face of rural India !


5. Designing life through outfitting

This is the story of a housewife with marginal land holding, a resident of Sankenhally

in Tumkur District. A family of five members was eking out livelihood from whatever

they got from - a small patch of 0.3 hectare of land. Only one person of the family was

the sole bread earner. Prompted by local women and the NGO, Mrs Sharadamba,

joined Shri Bhagyalakshmi Self Help Group. She was sponsored from IGA training /

EDP and opted for dress designing and tailoring. She had some basic knowledge of

tailoring before she was married. This training provided her an excellent opportunity to

specialize in dress designing and outfitting of wide range of garments and hosiery like

frocks, churi dar, under garments etc and various other types but specialized in Churi

dar designing. After completion of the training, she bought a sewing machine at a cost

of Rs. 4,000. She worked very hard to meet orders and started earning around

Rs. 200/- day. Encouraged by her success, two more women approached with a re-

quest to train them in her skill. She willingly agreed to help them and as a result, the

two women are trainees with her. Nearby schools recognized her skill and started plac-

ing orders for bulk supply of school uniforms. Her daily output is between 3 and 4

blouses and churidar. She spends an amount of Rs 70/75 per day for material for out-

fits and her net earning is around Rs 200/-

She is cherishing a dream of purchasing one more sewing machine, engaging some

trainee tailors and improving her economic status. She has plans to support another

10 women with training in dress designing.

She has great respect and acknowledges the help rendered by SUJALA and the

team that motivated her to change her life.

POND RELATED SUCCESS STORIES

1 Naryanappa Kurudi - Use of Pond for Fish Culture

Mr. Naryanappa is a large farmer in Kurudi, Micro watershed of Gauribindur Taluk. He has a

wife, 4 sons and 1 daughter belongs to Golla caste. He owns 8.8 ha of land. He has a pair of

bullocks, sheep and a he owns a tractor. He has two bore wells irrigates about 4 ha of land.

He has a water storage tank of 220m2. During Sujula fisheries project intervention, stock fish

juveniles, Catla 8, (137.5 gm each), common Carp – 71 (66.2 gms each) harvested from wa-

ter reduced farm pond of P Srinivasmurthy ( Anoodi) under resource integration. He used

agriculture water an kitchen waste as feed for fishes.


After 3.5 months of raring, he harvested 17.5 kgs of fishes and found common carp inbred in

his storage tank, there by there is continuous, breeding raring and harvest of fishes. He has

periodically harvested fishes and used for home consumption and additional income. He has

harvested 110 kgs of fishes from his storage tank in a year worth Rs 4000. Still there is con-

tinuous raring of fishes and he is still enjoying fish culture.

2 Rangappa –Use of pond water for agriculture-horticulture

Mr. Rangappa, one of the small farmers in Papaganahalli Micro watershed of Gauribindur

Taluk in Kumudwati water shed area has made an attempt for effective use of water through

farm pond. He owns 1.3 ha of land. His family consists of wife 2 sons and 1 daughter and

belongs to upper caste. He himself constructed a farm pond of size 15 x 15 x 3n under the

supervision of Watershed Development Department. In the rainy season, the pond har-

vested 14 lakh liters of water in a year. He has utilized farm pond water for growing Napier

grass, tomato and green vegetables on the pond bund and inside the pond bund (waste

land).

He has harvested 625 kgs of Napier grass, 43 kgs of tomato and 10 kgs if green vegetables

and sold for Rs 625/-, Rs 305/-, and Rs 60/- respectively achieving total earnings of Rs 990/-

by using waster land of farm pond dyke.

In addition, he has utilized farm pond of water for supplementary irrigation maize crop grown

in the adjacent land of 0.3 ha during the scarcity of rainfall, by this he has earned Rs 1750/-

extra money, when compared to other farmers supplementary irrigation in the same area. In

this way he has earned Rs 2740/- by utilizing farm pond water. He acknowledged that sujala

water shed programme has provided access to water in his dry land through farm pond and

fisheries project for continue technical supporters


3 Aswathappa- Use of Pond for Horticulture

Mr. Aswathappa used farm pond water for chili crop planted in about 2300 m2 area. He

pumped farm pond water using 2 HP Kerosene pump as follows:

Table : 43

Sl No

Date QTY of water pumped

Time taken

Motor rate / hr in Rs

Kerosene Petrol Transport chare

Total Ex-penditure

1 2-8-06 2 ft 3 hrs 50 x 3 = 150 4 x 10 = 40 ¼ = 13 Rs 60 Auto Rs 263

2 14-8-06 1.5 ft 2.5 50x 2.5 =125 3 x 10 =30 ¼ = 13 Brought by cycle

Rs 168

3 28-08-06 2 ft 4.5 50x4.5 = 225 5x10=50 ¼ = 13 Rs 60 by auto

Rs 348

Total Rs 779

4 2-10-06 1.5 ft 2.5 50x2.5=125 3x10 = 30 ¼ = 13 Brought by cycle

Rs 168

5 25-10-06 2 ft 3 Rs 200 3.5x10=35 ½ =13 Brought by cycle

Rs 248

Total 9 ft Total Rs 1195

Chilies Harvested

Table : 44

Date Qty in

bags

In kgs x per kg Selling

Rate

(Rs)

18-09-06 1 10x76 760/-

23-09-06 2 20x62 1240/-

30-09-06 3 30x62 1860/-

7-10-06 2.5 25x53 1325/-

20-10-06 3 30x61 1830/-

1-11-06 2 20x62 1240/-

Total 8255/-

Mr Aswathappa received an additional income of around Rs 7000 within three months

using pond water for a cash crop and enhanced his overall income from his small

holding.


CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

� A multi agency participatory project of this nature and magnitude throws many

challenges in the course of its implementation. In general, the community approach

to project implementation has been a great success.

� The project has generally succeeded in ensuring equitable sharing of cost and

benefits among different sections of the communities. Average family income

has increased between 30 and 50 per cent depending on the on farm and non

farm activities of individual farmers. In some cases income has risen by 100%

but such cases are far and wide.

� Role of community groups, more importantly the Self Help Groups and Area

Groups in all the phases of implementation was spontaneous and positive.

� The objective of restoring/ rejuvenating natural resources is largely fulfilled. This

is reflected in reduced soil erosion by about 40% over the pre project period,

elongated water availability by two months to the village communities for multiple

use, better tree cover and enhanced ecological status, rising water table, reduc-

tion in the number of defunct wells etc.

� In respect of works, the project, rushing the execution in the last phase created

difficulties in meeting the deadline.

� Shortfall between planning and achievement of SWAP is significant ranging

between 20 and 30%.in respect of Phase I and II. But it is near to target during

III phase.

� Economic gains from the project are significant and have boosted the house-

hold income across the watersheds –both in respect of landed and landless

community members. More importantly, over 25,000 IGA beneficiaries and over

80,000 SHG members have been benefitted by the project in terms of incre-

mental income and employment. This has resulted in reduced incidence of mi-

gration to urban centres in search of livelihood.


� A very positive impact is seen among the community groups’ understanding

and knowledge enhancement, inclusive approach and mutual understanding for

a common cause as is evidenced from near total absence of local differences

and issues.

� The social objective of better equity among partners is discernible and augurs

well for all the future interventions.

� On the economic front, very encouraging changes are seen in respect of crop-

ping pattern, crop intensity, through mono to multi cropping system, crop diversi-

fication, yield improvement across watersheds.

� Income generating activities have helped large number of vulnerable sections of

the society including tribals and women in improving their economic status.

� Transparency in the processes and implementation has proved that the commu-

nity can be roped into any developmental programmes.

� Incremental income accruals to women entrepreneurs has resulted in their eco-

nomic independence and consequently greater say in household decisions

and processes.

� Off farm activities, mainly dairy and livestock rearing, have resulted in incre-

mental milk production to meet growing need for the increasing population.

� Sujala model has created “Demonstration Effect” in the region with more and

more people adopting the tested and improved practices in agriculture and

horticulture, leading to incremental income earning and enhanced knowledge.

� Effective monitoring and evaluation, self assessment and conflict resolution sys-

tems are major attributes of success of the project.

� Greater responsibility discharged by the WDD personnel deserves to be appre-

ciated but for whose motivation and hard work, community mobilization on such

a large scale could not have been possible.


� The role of NGOs by and large, is positive and effective as most of them have

responded to the demands and expectations placed on them.

� The SUJALA model is worth replicating in other regions for effective and better

results in time bound manner with the following issues to be addressed.

• A disturbing feature of the project is its failure to motivate communities

and ensure maintenance of community properties while they get benefit

out of the same.

• Agriculture Intensification and related research programmes need to be

extended to longer periods and continuous feedback system necessary to

ensure that transfer of technology and participative research is carried

out in specific areas and for specific crops.

• Huge sums of money invested in building / developing these lands/

structures might go waste if not properly maintained;

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

� Sustainability of the interventions particularly maintenance and upkeep of the

community resources.

� Mechanism to ensure commitment by the community groups.

� Hand holding some time beyond project period.

� Avoiding congesting of activities in later part of project phase to ensure quality

and quantity of works.

� Sustainability of community based organisations.

� Rising labour wages and shortage causing serious problems to the farmers.

� SHGs role in organised marketing and value addition to their advantage.

� Greater role for CBOs in the project implementation and maintenance of CPRs.

� Realistic SWAP preparation to avoid shortfall.

� Fixing targets based on the need of the MWS to ensure holistic development and not partial. � Coverage of entire treatable land should be considered as far as possible. In the

event of funds constraints, the number of Sub Water sheds could be reduced. � Agri intensification research programmes need intensification and concurrent

monitoring and feedback from farmers.

Annex_1_DVJ_Nov_28_11 ANNEXURE-1

Page 1

Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd, SRO, Bangalore

POST PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT- SUJALA WATERSHED PROJECT

CORE TEAM

1. Co-ordinator - Shri K T Srinivasaiah, Officer Incharge, AFC

2. Prof. Chandrasekhar Buggi - Sociologist 3. Dr B Raghotham Rao Desai, IFS (Retd) - Forestry 4. Dr T V Reddy - Horticulture Expert 5. Dr Ramanagowda (Partly) - Agriculture Expert 6. Shri D V Jahagirdar - Economist ___________________________________________________________________

INVESTINGATING TEAM

1. Kolar / Chikkaballapura - 1. Shri G B Karweer (NSSO)

2. Shri Sanjeeva Reddy (Retd. AO)

2. Tumkur - Shri D T Horagallaiah (Retd. AO)

3. Chitradurga - Shri (Late ) Habibulla (Retd. DCF)

4. Haveri – Dharwar - Shri D B Kulkarni/ P.B. Salunke (BAIF)

___________________________________________________________________

DATA PROCESSING

1. Smt Salma Nasreen

2. Shri N R Kaushik

___________________________________________________________________

Annex_1_DVJ_Nov_28_11 ANNEXURE-1

Page 2


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

1. Shri Gopala Krishnegowda (IAS) - Commissioner – Watershed Development Dept. Bangalore

2. Shri Gowdar (IFS) - Commissioner- Watershed Development Dept.

3. Shri Rajeev Ranjan (IFS) - Executive Director and CCF

4. Shri Satish (IFS) (CCF) - Executive Director and CCF Watershed Devt. Dept.

5. Shri Nagaraj - CCF, Watershed Development Dept.

6. Shri Biradar - DWDO – Dharwar

7..Shri B Manjunath - DWDO- Haveri

8. Shri Krishnamurthy - DWDO- Chitradurga

9. Shri Dasappa - DWDO- Tumkur

10. Mrs.Taramani - DWDO- Chikballapur

11.Shri Ramchandriah - DWDO- Kolar

12.Shri Ranganath - Antrix Corporation (ISRO)

13.Shri Prakash - Antrix Corporation (ISRO)

14. Shri Dr D Seenappa - Professor & Head Fisheries (UAS, Bangalore)

15. NGOs, Area Groups, Executive Committee Members, Panchayat Members in respective

Districts

References:

ICR - Watershed Development Department

PAD - IBRD

MT & E Reports - Antrix Corporation

SEA Study - Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI)

Annex_2_Desai_Nov_15_11 ANNEXURE-2

Page 1



ITINERARY OF AFC TEAM

Officials / Office bearers who were met and with whom discussions were held, quite

a few of whom accompanied on our visit to watersheds/ sub-watersheds/ micro-

watersheds from 04.06.2011 (AFC Team Members):

1. Shri K T Srinivasaiah, Incharge of SRO

2. Dr T V Reddy, Head & Dean Horticulture (Retd)

3. Prof. Chandrasekhar Buggi (Agri. University (Retd)

4. Shri D V Jahagirdar, (Retd). AGM, AFC

5. Shri M Syed Habibulla, DCF (Retd), since expired

6. Shri G B Karweer (Chikkaballapura/ Kolar), (Land Supervisor, Superintendent

Retd)

7. Shri D P Kulkarni (Dharwad/ Haveri)

8. Shri D P Salunke (Dharwad/ Haveri)

9. Shri D T Horagallaiah (Tumkur and Chitradurga)- (Retd. AO, Watersheds)

10. Dr Ramanagowda, Agriculture / Horticulture Expert (Partly )

A. At Honnenahalli (Koratagere Taluk, Madhugiri Sub divn)

(i) Shri Chandranna ( on behalf of NGO)

(ii) Shri Hanumaiah, AAO

(iii) Shri Anwar, Tracer

(iv) Shri Basavaraj, AA

B. At Neelagondanahalli

(v) Shri Jaganathagowda, AO ( also accompanies to Seegalaya under Kenganpalli Panchayat)

C. At Tumkur

(vi) Shri Dasappa, DWDO (JDA)

(vii) Shri Gaganna ( who spoke on behalf of DWDO) (viii) Shri Nagaraja Reddy President of Kenganpalli GP (Also covered

Ajjigondanahalli) D. At Badamuddanapalya (Koratagere Taluk Ridge Point)

(x) Kempehowdappa, AO, Madhugiri along with SHG Representative

Annex_2_Desai_Nov_15_11 ANNEXURE-2

Page 2


E. At Irrangala (Chitradurga District)

(xi) Shri Aslam / Sanjeeva Reddy (of Watershed Dept, located at Hiriyur)

(xii) Shri Lalitamma ( Parlour corner at Hiriyur, Beautician, got immense help from Sujala Scheme)

(xiii) Smt Parvathamma (SHG Member and a roadside in owner) (xiv) Shri Mylarappa ( runs a roadside laundry, helped by Sujala Scheme)

F. At Chitradurga (xv) Dr R Krishnamurthy, DWD, Chitradurga (xvi) Shri Veerabhadra Reddy belongs to Challakere NDP (xvii) Dr Rajagopal (JDA Retd, presently with HO, Bangalore)

G. At Kolar

(xviii) Shri T Ramachandraiah, DWDO (xviii) Shri Srinivas, ADH (xix) Shri Pramod Babu, T.A to DWDO (xx) Shri Chandrappa, Office Asst. (xxi) Shri Bhaskar, Tracer (xxii) Dr Sriramaiah, (ADA) HQA to DWDO

H. At Ankathatti Village (Microwatershed)- Left Bank of Palar

(xxiii) Shri Bhupathigowda, President (xxiii) Shri H T Kushalappa, ACF, DWD, Kolar

I. At Chikkaballapur

(xxiv) Shri G H Taramani, DDA (DWDO) (xxiv) Shri A Narayana Reddy, TA to DWDO (xxv) Shri Kaishvareddy, ADA (xxvi) Shri Sadashiva Hegde, ACF (xxvii) Shri Srinivasaiah, AO (TWDO).

J. At Dharwad

(xxviii) Dr S B Biradar, DWDO (JDA) (xxviii) Dr B Manjunath, DWDO, Haveri (en route Dharwad) (xxix) Shri S T Balleri, AAO, Haveri (xxx) Shri Danappanerar, AAO, Haveri (xxxi) Shri L V Prakash

(xxxii) Shri HS Prabhu

(xxxiii) Shri SS Narajji, TA, (AO

(xxxiv) Shri Basappa Tamanakere, Orchard Owner (at Hulikatte, Microwatersheds) (xxxv) Gowrashanthappa/ Dyamma/ Shyamana Mallappa/ (xxxvi) Savanur – Farmers

(xxxvii) Shri Narendra / Shri S N Pujar (TWDO) (xxxviii) Somrao Desai, President (xxxix) Shri Srirangaiah of Chikkballapur, WDO

Annex_3_Format_Opinion_buggi_Nov_24Sheet1 Annexure-3

Page 1


Opinion of Field Level Officials in the Study Area on Various aspects of the Sujala Project- Expressed in 3 dimension of Good, Average and Poor

(Total No. of Field Officials who expressed their opinion in the format - 42 )

Sl

NoIssue Good Average Poor

I Role of NGOs in Sujala Project

a) 30 70 0 100

b) 90 10 0 100

c) 0 60 40 100

d) 0

1 Executive Community Formation 80 20 0 100

2 Area Group Formation 78 22 0 100

3 Self Help Group formation 90 10 0 100

e) 95 5 0 100

f) 45 55 0 100

g) 55 40 5 100

h) 95 5 0 100

i) 70 30 0 100

j) 40 45 15 100

k) 10 20 70 100

l)10 60 30

100

II Involvement of Panchayat Raj Institution in Sujala Project

a) Planning of Project 25 75 0 100

b) Resource Mobilisation 25 60 15 100

c) Financial Progress Monitoring 20 60 20 100

d) Implementation of Project 0 75 25 100

e) Monitoring of Sujala Project Works 25 75 0 100

f) Over all attitudinal support 100 0 0 100

III

a) Technical Support 100 0 0 100

b) Coordination 100 0 0 100

c) Support to EC, AG and SHGs 100 0 0 100

d) Reorganization, rewarding of field staff 0 10 90 100

e) Training of field staff by WDD/ NGO 90 10 0 100

Format- I

Format- II

Format- III

Commitment to Project

Awareness Creation

Financial Accountability

Transparency in financial transaction

Gram Sabha Meetings

Role in Group Formation

Training to Capacity building

Guiding Groups in functions

Role of Watershed Development Department Field

Functionaries

Coordination with WDD officers and staff

Implementation of project works as per required standard

Measures to sustain project works

Retained Field functionaries for full project period


Annex_3_Format_Opinion_buggi_Nov_24Sheet1 Annexure-3

Page 2

Sl

NoIssue Good Average Poor

IV Role and Functioning of Village Groups

Executive Committees

a) Planning 75 20 5 100

b) Execution 60 30 10 100

c) Monitoring Works 55 25 20 100

d) Transparency in financial transactions 85 15 0 100

e) Monitoring of cost sharing 60 25 15 100

f) Monitoring of benefit sharing 80 20 0 100

g) Actions for sustainability of project works 0 25 75 100

h) Guiding and monitoring of AGS, SHGs 70 30 0 100

V Role of Functioning of Area Groups

a) Project resource appraising 40 50 10 100

b) Identification of project works in 0

1 Community work 40 40 20 100

2 Soil and Water Management 75 25 0 100

3 Forest Activity 40 60 0 100

4 Horticulture Activity 60 40 0 100

5 Animal Husbandry 55 35 10 100

c) Gender Equity 75 25 0 100

d) Encouraging Vulnerable Group participation 90 10 0 100

e) Formation of SHGs 100 0 0 100

f) Project works implementation by 0

1 Beneficiaries themselves 75 25 0 100

2 Migrated Labour 0 40 0 40

3 Mechanisation 0 65 35 100

4 Cost Sharing as per project Norms 65 35 0 100

VI Status of Income Generation Activities

a) Employment 65 25 10 100

b) Income Generation 100 0 0 100

c) Savings 20 55 25 100

d) Expenses on 0

1 Food 75 25 0 100

2 Clothing 65 35 0 100

3 Education 50 40 10 100

4 Investment for future Improvement 40 40 20 100

VII Growth of Partnership Commitment among the Stakeholders

a) Local Groups 90 10 0 100

b) Gram Panchayath 10 50 40 100

c) NGO 90 10 0 100

d) Watershed Department Officer 40 50 10 100

VIII Overall Impact of Project on Neighbouring Villagers

a) Awareness 90 10 0 100

b) Knowledge 90 10 0 100

c) Attitude 100 0 0 100

d) Aspiration of Future 100 0 0 100

Format- VII

Format- VIII

Format- IV

Format- V

Format- VI


Annex_4_Sujala%20III-MIS%20Summary%20%282%29(1)Dhar_Haver_Chitra_4_1,2,3 ANNEXURE-4

Page 1


SUJALA III PHASE - Sector Wise Investments Made at Sub-Watershed Level

(Rs. Lakhs)

Total

Amblikoppa

BDSS

Bennihalla

MOTHER

Devaragudihalla

BIRDS All SWS

A Individual land

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

A.1 Soil & Water Conservation 201.39 245.48 91.15 538.02

A.2 Drainage line 18.19 1.59 2.19 21.97

A.3 Horticulture 74.29 5.43 74.95 154.67

A.4 Forestry 37.06 8.33 86.66 132.05

A.5 Livestock 4.38 11.19 13.34 28.91

Others 6.07 15.01 17.75 38.83

Demonstration 1.15 1.00 1.21 3.36

Total 342.54 288.04 287.25 917.81

B Common Land

B.1 Soil & water conservation 7.29 0.19 2.48 9.96

B.2 Drainage line 48.69 22.04 40.86 111.59

B.3 Forestry 9.05 4.88 22.63 36.56

B.4 Other Activities 0.10 0.10

Livestock 2.25 1.29 2.63 6.17

Demonstration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 67.28 28.48 68.61 164.37

Grand Total 409.83 316.52 355.86 1082.21

Sub Watershed NGO

DHARWAD

Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd


Page 2

POST PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT- SUJALA WATERSHED PROJECTPOST PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT- SUJALA WATERSHED PROJECT

SUJALA III PHASE - Sector Wise Investments Made at Sub-Watershed LevelSUJALA III PHASE - Sector Wise Investments Made at Sub-Watershed Level

(Rs. Lakhs)

Total

Guddadach

annapur

SPANDAN

A

Kanakapur

POWER

Kanavasid

dageri

SPOORTY

Konanatam

bigi

NEEDS

Mannangi

IRADS

Melagathi

PSI

Shankaripu

r

NAVACHE

TANA

All SWS

A Individual land

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

A.1 Soil & Water Conservation 137.64 114.00 191.64 119.57 175.19 224.55 155.88 1118.46

A.2 Drainage line 7.88 2.22 52.26 26.67 32.76 17.27 6.44 145.50

A.3 Horticulture 62.96 38.10 45.89 60.59 49.65 64.24 69.41 390.84

A.4 Forestry 44.52 31.94 67.65 29.88 41.29 52.78 40.06 308.12

A.5 Livestock 14.15 8.87 11.60 8.68 12.96 8.00 10.95 75.22

Others 18.33 7.44 10.33 2.23 7.51 20.97 1.48 68.29

Demonstration 1.52 0.70 2.00 1.00 1.99 1.09 0.93 9.23

Total 287.01 203.27 381.36 248.62 321.34 388.84 285.15 2115.59

B Common Land

B.1 Soil & water conservation 32.67 6.90 4.15 5.37 0.14 1.07 9.33 59.63

B.2 Drainage line 4.40 12.39 18.48 2.86 17.39 3.96 7.46 66.93

B.3 Forestry 21.72 11.82 42.67 16.37 9.42 10.08 0.70 112.78

B.4 Other Activities 3.50 1.98 0.27 0.38 0.00 10.81 2.45 19.40

Livestock 4.71 2.47 2.73 1.00 2.00 1.04 2.97 16.92

Demonstration 0.00 0.30 0.09 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.66

Total 66.96 35.36 68.59 26.08 28.95 27.24 33.11 286.29

Grand Total 353.96 238.84 449.95 274.70 350.29 416.08 318.26 2402.08

Sub Watershed NGO

HAVERI



Page 3



(Rs. Lakhs)

Total

Boganahall

i BROAD

Chinnahag

ari Left

JMECT

Gandhinag

ara HELP

Hariharesw

ara Temple

SURD

Hirehalla

MYRADA

Jodichikke

nahalli

TRDF

Kunabenu

BR Halli

Nala - SJM

MD Kote -

GRAMA All SWS

A Individual land

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

A.1 Soil & Water Conservation 225.53 78.35 150.40 211.11 213.05 213.11 127.58 258.24 1477.37

A.2 Drainage line 66.08 17.30 11.14 27.21 6.77 39.54 113.14 257.91 539.08

A.3 Horticulture 20.04 14.29 34.35 30.92 51.49 33.56 16.66 14.01 215.32

A.4 Forestry 23.58 5.83 33.42 8.76 51.15 36.45 12.78 17.23 189.21

A.5 Livestock 10.28 8.08 7.82 11.31 9.48 10.00 12.00 24.17 93.14

Others 6.39 0.03 0.01 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.56 10.83 18.38

Demonstration 0.85 0.62 0.62 3.26 2.06 0.82 0.45 4.00 12.68

Total 352.74 124.50 237.76 293.12 334.01 333.47 283.17 333.13 2291.89

B Common Land

B.1 Soil & water conservation 10.55 16.75 31.01 19.04 23.63 2.30 5.73 0.18 109.19

B.2 Drainage line 47.23 71.92 18.36 10.87 218.36 4.30 52.77 1.84 425.65

B.3 Forestry 62.25 94.57 106.89 18.11 62.17 46.00 59.53 18.76 468.27

B.4 Other Activities 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 59.44 0.00 59.65

Livestock 2.12 2.47 2.27 8.92 5.91 3.05 3.11 2.45 30.30

Demonstration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17

Total 122.15 185.71 158.53 57.32 310.06 55.61 121.13 23.22 1033.73

Grand Total 474.90 310.21 396.29 350.44 644.07 389.08 404.29 356.35 3325.63

CHITRADURGA

Sub Watershed NGO


Annex_4_Sujala%20III-MIS%20Summary%20%282%29(1)Tumkur_Madhu_Kolar_4_4,5,6 ANNEXURE-4

Page 4



(Rs. Lakhs)

Total

Bornanakanive

BIRDS

Hebbakka

WLARS

Chikka

Honnavalli

BMSSS

Kandikerehall

a

SAMUDAYA

Muthuraya

nakere

SAMUDA

YA

Nagavalli

VIKASA

Nittur

Kere

ABHIVRU

DDI

Sarigehalli

Tank

VIKASA

Yaliyur

IYD All SWS

A Individual landT

ota

l

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

A.1 Soil & Water Conservation 254.13 169.35 110.37 134.41 70.18 70.46 230.27 201.19 71.84 1312.20

A.2 Drainage line 13.58 3.55 5.55 15.59 2.24 4.55 14.81 13.28 3.48 76.63

A.3 Horticulture 68.53 82.98 33.16 48.77 55.68 32.56 82.30 61.80 95.07 560.85

A.4 Forestry 49.34 75.49 67.89 43.77 77.94 87.64 51.90 69.59 105.12 628.68

A.5 Livestock 5.39 10.54 2.86 10.39 8.53 4.32 8.19 10.90 5.86 66.98

Others 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28

Demonstration 3.87 1.00 2.91 0.78 0.38 1.03 0.95 1.28 3.47 15.67

Total 395.08 342.91 222.77 253.64 214.95 200.57 388.42 358.04 284.84 2661.22

B Common Land

B.1 Soil & water conservation 8.85 10.65 5.53 39.29 25.83 4.28 4.50 2.79 5.30 107.02

B.2 Drainage line 17.13 51.23 8.44 74.32 51.65 47.70 6.90 19.64 42.40 319.41

B.3 Forestry 2.41 0.37 2.76 15.00 0.85 2.78 2.00 2.95 5.52 34.64

B.4 Other Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02

Livestock 2.40 2.29 1.58 3.99 1.93 2.74 2.58 2.30 1.95 21.76

Demonstration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.03

Total 30.70 72.06 18.32 131.14 80.89 57.65 16.14 27.72 55.43 490.05

Grand Total 425.77 414.97 241.09 384.78 295.84 258.22 404.57 385.76 340.26 3151.26

Sub watershed NGO

TUMKUR



Page 5



(Rs. Lakhs)

Total

CHENGAVARA

NARENDRA

Gummaghata

Tank -

NARENDRA

KENGANPL

AYA - KIND

HEARTS

SIDDARALUGA

LLA - KIND

HEART

All SWS

A Individual land

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

A.1 Soil & Water Conservation 150.02 107.57 112.65 124.53 494.77

A.2 Drainage line 41.18 1.59 3.66 17.50 63.93

A.3 Horticulture 59.55 54.41 63.90 59.46 237.32

A.4 Forestry 51.36 34.25 39.14 40.80 165.55

A.5 Livestock 5.68 8.24 4.23 5.68 23.83

Others 0.81 0.05 0.00 0.18 1.04

Demonstration 3.80 0.63 2.65 0.81 7.89

Total 312.39 206.75 226.24 248.51 993.89

B Common Land 0.00

B.1 Soil & water conservation 3.03 24.47 2.95 17.84 48.29

B.2 Drainage line 5.48 39.57 56.40 52.63 154.08

B.3 Forestry 38.00 23.00 36.00 28.94 125.94

B.4 Other Activities 0.25 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.32

Livestock 2.57 1.56 2.25 1.51 7.89

Demonstration 0.00 0.12 0.18 0.01 0.31

Total 48.82 88.56 98.61 100.93 336.92

Grand Total 361.21 295.31 324.85 349.44 1330.81

MADHUGIRI

Sub watershed NGO



Page 6



(Rs. Lakhs)

Total

Huladena

halli

BMSSS

Mustrahall

i Nala

MYRADA

Mustoor

PRAKRU

THI

Neelatoor

IYD

Palar River

Right Bank -

MYRADA

Palar River

Left Bank -

MYRADA

All SWS

A Individual land

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

Ac

hie

v

em

en

t

To

tal

A.1 Soil & Water Conservation 77.90 97.85 146.55 70.74 112.27 99.04 604.35

A.2 Drainage line 2.41 24.32 7.99 1.01 3.64 1.75 41.12

A.3 Horticulture 30.25 12.81 41.12 32.72 19.71 43.14 179.75

A.4 Forestry 55.36 28.50 43.31 21.43 22.06 38.03 208.69

A.5 Livestock 7.17 10.60 9.38 10.36 8.94 12.03 58.48

Others 2.42 5.91 3.22 0.07 10.49 6.19 28.30

Demonstration 0.46 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.04 0.00 1.07

Total 175.97 180.00 252.13 136.35 177.15 200.17 1121.77

B Common Land 0.00

B.1 Soil & water conservation 19.20 7.52 3.10 16.03 5.72 6.53 58.10

B.2 Drainage line 146.13 43.13 17.87 24.55 22.58 48.50 302.76

B.3 Forestry 15.36 6.72 8.56 15.93 10.71 11.60 68.88

B.4 Other Activities 2.17 0.35 2.52

Livestock 2.02 2.00 1.79 2.37 1.25 1.60 11.03

Demonstration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 182.94 61.54 31.68 59.00 41.86 69.69 446.71

Grand Total 358.91 241.54 283.81 195.35 219.01 269.86 1568.48

KOLAR

Sub watershed NGO



Page 7



(Rs. Lakhs)

Total

Gowdanahalli -

RDATS

Mindagal Vaddu

- DPG

Papagni River -

SUNANDA

Kanitha Halli -

SAMUDAYA

Kushavathi -

DPG

Shethi Halli -

NRDS

Siggehalli -

IYD

Kachamac

henahalli -

Samudaya

Vandaman

River All SWS

A Individual land

To

tal

Ach

ie

vem

en

t

To

tal

Ach

ie

vem

en

t

To

tal

Ach

ie

vem

en

t

To

tal

Ach

ie

vem

en

t

To

tal

Ach

ie

vem

en

t

To

tal

Ach

ie

vem

en

t

To

tal

Ach

ie

vem

en

t

To

tal

Ach

ie

vem

en

t

To

tal

Ach

ie

vem

en

t

To

tal

A.1 Soil & Water Conservation 62.70 111.08 111.60 61.14 109.43 69.27 92.30 52.56 142.64 812.72

A.2 Drainage line 5.30 8.82 13.16 3.19 5.20 3.99 0.55 1.73 48.21 90.15

A.3 Horticulture 18.41 80.70 42.59 29.83 50.62 129.37 80.00 40.09 39.19 510.80

A.4 Forestry 12.18 37.11 9.17 31.00 42.04 64.47 59.26 34.74 34.21 324.18

A.5 Livestock 10.55 10.29 6.62 9.83 7.30 12.42 11.32 11.66 13.45 93.44

Others 2.08 3.53 2.39 2.22 1.96 0.23 0.32 2.50 0.36 15.59

Demonstration 1.16 4.02 1.02 0.75 0.59 0.89 0.00 0.00 2.18 10.61

Total 112.39 255.55 186.55 137.96 217.14 280.64 243.75 143.95 280.23 1858.16

B Common Land

B.1 Soil & water conservation 2.22 4.72 10.91 2.78 10.16 31.58 0.22 1.99 4.10 68.68

B.2 Drainage line 61.08 65.99 49.90 93.14 33.67 103.64 51.39 37.55 19.50 515.86

B.3 Forestry 97.00 27.00 25.00 37.00 24.44 100.00 22.03 47.82 52.00 432.29

B.4 Other Activities 0.13 0.19 1.17 0.56 0.86 0.33 0.00 0.84 0.00 4.08

Livestock 2.43 1.37 2.72 2.55 1.98 2.96 2.83 2.13 3.73 22.70

Demonstration 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.13 0.00 1.03

Total 162.37 99.47 90.24 136.23 71.11 240.53 77.83 90.46 79.32 1047.56

Grand Total 274.75 355.02 276.79 274.19 288.25 521.17 321.58 234.41 359.55 2905.71

Sub watershed NGO

CHIKKABALLAPURA



Page 8


DISTRICTWISE SUMMARY OF ACHIEVEMENTS

(Rs lakhs)

DistrictPrivate Land Common Land TOTAL

Private Land Common Land

1 CHIKKABALLAPURA 1858.16 1047.56 2905.72 63.95 36.05

2 KOLAR 1121.77 446.71 1568.48 71.52 28.48

3 TUMKUR 2661.22 490.05 3151.27 84.45 15.55

4 MADHUGIRI 993.89 336.92 1330.81 74.68 25.32

5 CHITRADURGA 2291.79 1033.73 3325.52 68.92 31.08

6 HAVERI 2115.59 286.29 2401.88 88.08 11.92

7 DHARWAR 917.81 164.37 1082.18 84.81 15.19

TOTAL 11960.23 3805.63 15765.86 75.86 24.14

Percentage



Page 9


Annex_5_IGA_SHG_Dec_7_11Anx_5_A ANNEXURE-5 A

Page 1


SELF HELP GROUPS COVERED UNDER THE SURVEY

Sl No Village Block District Name of SHG Year of

Formation

Skills Members

1 Channapatna Holalkere Chitradurga Sri Laxmi 2006 Writing a books 15

2 Nallaguntlapalli Bagepalli Chikballapur Sri Gangamma Stree Swasahaya Group 2005 Tailoring, Dairying, Rearing of Sheep, Piggery etc 14

3 Ramanapuri Bagepalli Chikballapur Savithramma Street Swasahaya Group 2005 Tailoring, Dairing, Rearing of sheep 13

4 Byrasandra Chinthamani Chikballapur Mallige Swasahaya Sangha 2006 Tailoring, dairying 17

5 Taridhalu Gouribidanur Chikballapur Laxmi Sujala Swasahaya Sangha 2005 Tailoring, dairying (Live stock), candle making,

sheep rearing, pig rearing

20

6 Devsettihalli Chikballapura Chikballapur Amrutha laxmi Sujala Swasahaya Group 2005 Tailoring. Rearing of live stock/ Retail/ Trading/

Small Scale applam & pickles production.

20

7 Devsettihalli Chikballapura Chikballapur Ishwarylaxmi Mahila Swasahaya Sanghh 2004 Tailoring, Dairying, self sustaining activities like

Trading, Beauty Parlour

20

8 Yeluvalli Doddamarali Chikballapur Vishwabharathi Mahila Swasahaya Sanghh 2004 Tailoring/ Cattle Rearing etc/ dairying 17

9 Beedgunhalli Chikballapura Chikballapur Shambhavi Swasahaya Sangha 2005 Tailoring/ Rearing milk animals / Retail Trade/

Making of pickles etc

15

10 Bomanahalli Sidlgatta Chikballapur Kasturbai S. Sangha 2004-2005 Tailoring 12

11 Bomanahalli Sidlgatta Chikballapur Sree Rama AG Group 2004 - 17

12 Bomanahalli Sidlaghatta Chikballapur Indrajith S Sangha 2004-2005 Tailoring 14

13 Beeraganahalli Chikballapura Chikballapur Vinayaka Swasahaya Sangha 2005 Tailoring/live stock rearing/sericulture

rearing/trading etc

15

14 Reddy gollarahalli Chikballapura Chikballapur Ganapathi Sujala Swasahaya Sangha 2005 Tailoring, rearing of sheep/goat/livestock/trading

etc

18

15 Kariganpallya Chikballapura Chikballapur Sharada Swasahaya Group 2005 Tailoring, dairying/retail/trading 16

16 Doddamanagatta Sidlgatta Chikballapur Sree Laxmi Swasahaya Sangha 2004 - 2005 Dairying 10

17 Doddamanagatta Sidlgatta Chikballapur Shree Shiva Swasahaya Sangha 2004 Dairying 14

18 Manchilhalli Chinthamani Chikballapur Sampige Stree Swasahaya Sangha 2005 Tailoring/dairying 12

19 Gangewal Hubli Dharwad Saraswathi S.M.S.S.G. 2004 Leaf plates 11

20 Gangewal Hubli Dharwad Satya Saibaba Swasahaya Sangha 2004 Bangles marketing, tailoring, furniture making,

vegetables

19

21 Kundagol Kundagol Dharwad Ganagamata SHG 2004 Bangles marketing, petty shop, kasuti, agarabatti 10

22 Amblikoppa - Dahrwad Basaveshwara Sujala Makila Sangha 2004 - 20

23 Bodarahalli Pavagada Tumkur Adarsha Sujala SHG 2004 Dairying/sheep rearing/Petty shop/Tailoring 12

24 Bodarahalli Pavagada Tumkur Nandagiri Sujala Sri Shakthi Sangha 2004 - 15

25 Ramanahalli Tumkur Tumkur Sri rama Sujala Sanghha 2005 Sheep Rearing / House Trading / Arecanut,

Dairying

10


Annex_5_IGA_SHG_Dec_7_11Anx_5_A ANNEXURE-5 A

Page 2

Sl No Village Block District Name of SHG Year of

Formation

Skills Members

26 Ramanahalli Tumkur Tumkur Gangalaxmamma 2005 Dairy 15

27 K.G. Mulhena Kunigal Tumkur Sri Kalikamba Sujala Sangha 2004 - 2005 - 15

28 Nagatihalli Kunigal Tumkur Sri Laxmi Sujala Sangha 2004 - 2005 - 19

29 Araleri Malur Kolar Srishivashakthi 2004 Commercial 15

30 Belagomahally Kolar Kolar Chamundeshwari Sangha 2006 - 2007 Animal husbandry 14

31 Ankalhalli Kolar Kolar Chowdeshari Mahila self Group 2004 Composite Earth Verm compost 18

32 Ganganahalli Mulbagilu Kolar Ganganahalli Mahila Sangha 2004 - 15

33 Battalpalli Bangarpet Kolar Dhanalakshmi Sujala selfhelp Group 2004 Animal husbandry 14

34 Hogalagere Srinivaspur Kolar Mother Theressa 2004 - 2005 I.G Sheep Rearing/ plantation 2035 Hogalagere Srinivaspur Kolar Kaveri Sangha 2004 - 2005 Animal husbandry 2436 Hunasekatte Chitradurga Chitradurga Guruthipparasa 2004 Individual, Farming / marketing 15

37 Hunasekatte Chitradurga Chitradurga Bharatham 2004 Organic 12

38 Dindavara Hiriyur Chitradurga Marikamba 2004 Dairy/Agarbatti/ Sheep Rearing 20

39 Dandina kurubanahalli Chitradurga Chitradurga Beerappa Mahila SHG 1998 Dairying/ Sheep rearing 20

40 Dandina kurubanahalli Chitradurga Chitradurga Mylaralli Naganad 1998 Tailoring 38

41 Dindevanur Hiriyur Chitradurga Ag Mulers 2004 Lamination Business 14

42 Dindavara Hiriyur Chitradurga Vagdevi Stree SHG 2004 Petty shop 16

16


Annex_5_IGA_SHG_Dec_7_115_B ANNEXURE-5 B


INCOME GENERATION ACTIVITIES - INCREMENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY

THE BENEFICIARIES FROM DIFFERENT OCCUPATIONS

IGA Units IGA Units IGA Units

(Skilled) (unskilled) Livestock

Related

Tailoring 53 Box Shop 93 Cow 144 52

Home Products 6 Catering 4 Buffaloe 10 4

Agarbatti 29 Vegetable vending 64 Sheep Rearing 115 41

Driving 12 Flower Vending 61 Swine (Piggery) 8 3

DTP 30 Sericulture 8 Poultry 2 1

Food Products 45 Bangle Sale 13

Cloth Shop 23

Beauty Parlor 4 Hotel 20

Coconut Sale 11

Embroidery 14 Rice Trade 17

Electrical Wiring 8 Handloom 19

STD Booth 2

Motor 10 Chappal Shop 6

Carpentry 6 Tailoring 9

TV 3 Tea Stall 4

Tamarind Shop 4

Candle 12 Floriculture 8

Bag making 5 Fruit Sale 4

2 Wheeler Repairs 4 Petty Shop 8

Vermi Compost 30 Plate Making 23

Knitting 12 Cane Works 13

Video Parlour 2 Onion Trade 11

Brooms Making 15

Plates Making 8 Papad Making 12

Rolling 10 Plantain Leaf 12

Publicity 4 Brick Kiln 6

Sales 8 Ragi Products 11

Book Binding 5 Agarbatti Making 14

Others 12 Others 85

Total 332 580 279 100

Units %age

i) IGA Skilled 332 28

ii) IGA Un- skilled 580 49

iii) IGA Livestock related 279 23

Grand Total 1191 100

Major Income Generating Activities Taken by the Beneficiaries

%age

Total


Annex_5_IGA_SHG_Dec_7_115_C_ ANNEXURE-5 C

Page 1


INCOME GENERATION ACTIVITIES - INCREMENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE BENEFICIARIES FROM DIFFERENT OCCUPATIONS

Monthly

Income (Rs) J. Halli S. Palya CP halli Sanken Morgan KG B Margond Eleram S Golla D Nagen Vaddar Chikka

halli Halli Halli halli pur halli halli halli doddwadi

Poor 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fair 1000- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000

Satisfactory 2000- 33 0 34 17 22 14 25 27 22 8 15 6 223 19

3000

Good 3000 32 25 40 60 40 50 60 23 62 15 40 28 475 40

3500

Very Good 3500+ 28 30 35 45 33 48 48 57 38 38 46 47 493 41

Total 93 55 74 112 107 97 133 98 141 61 93 80 47 1191 100

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: K Palya IGA Performance- Tumkur

Micro -Watersheds (No of Persons)

Total No. of

Beneficiarie

sMWS

%age to

Total


APPENDIX_1 APPENDIX -1

Page 1



SALIENT HIGHLIGHTS OF THE SELECTED MICRO WATERSHEDS

COVERED UNDER THE SURVEY

The beneficiary survey covered 46 micro watersheds in equal number of sub

watersheds in the three agro climatic zones and six districts. Some baseline

information accessed during the survey covered the following:

Population Coverage

Total number of households in the selected MCs as per 2001 Census was 14,970

comprising 2,351 Scheduled Castes, 1,961 Scheduled Tribes and 8,801 others .

Among the livestock, sheep and goats constituted more than half of the 47,000 plus

livestock in the MC areas. Among large animals cows predominated while buffaloes

had very small representation in the livestock wealth of the MC villages.

Treated Area

Area taken for treatment was 27,000 hectares of which 22,300 plus was private land

and 3,500 plus community land. .

CBOs

In all 46 Executive Committees were constituted to carry out the work and 270 Area

Groups were formed with around 11,000 plus members representing all the villages.

The Area Groups were motivated to save and collect from the members and thus had a

saving of Rs 26.62 lakhs collected from members and other beneficiaries. They also had

provided credit from own fund to the extent of Rs 6.58 lakhs .

The project had provided opportunities to the EC members to undergo training in wide

ranging programmes to acquaint them with the participatory project management. As

many as 3400 members of the executive committee were covered under various

programmes with 350 exposure visits.

APPENDIX_1 APPENDIX -1

Page 2


Self Help Groups

In all 381 Self Help Groups with 6,715 members comprising 1,192 Scheduled Castes,

860 Scheduled Tribes and 4,663 others were involved in the project. Motivation and

training was provided to the SHG members mainly in respect of (i) management of

the group (ii) EDP and (iii) skill development programme. These Groups participated

in the 46 Executive Committees and provided useful inputs in formulation of action plans

and execution. These Grass Root level organizations had successfully raised savings

aggregating to Rs 1.91 crores (with an average saving of Rs 3000/-per person ). The

Groups had advanced a sum of Rs 3.00 crores of loan to their members to take up

income generating activities. Cumulative loan disbursal amounted to Rs 4.91 crores of

which nearly 50 per cent had been paid and balance was being recovered in agreed

instalments. Overall performance of these groups was very satisfactory and almost

95% are successfully carrying out their other activities after the project closure.

Apndx_1_Anx_1_Sep_5_SUJALA- MC - POPULATION-1Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-1

Page 1

POST PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT- SUJALA WATERSHED PHASE-III

SC ST Others Total SC ST Others Total

Tumkur Kunigal Yaliur tank Kadasinganahalli 16 9 244 269 16 0 583 599

Muthurayanakere Muthenahalli 120 121 183 424 110 40 214 364

Tumkur Hebbaka Burudughatta 70 49 123 242 80 54 127 261

Nagavalli Ramanahalli 132 33 231 396 137 39 270 446

Chikkanayakanahalli Kandikere Salkatte 90 60 320 470 637 18 972 1606

Boranakanive B Nandihalli 54 68 310 432 169 229 725 1555

Thuruvekere Sarigehalli Banasandra 172 19 225 446 180 27 257 464

Tiptur Chikkahonavalli Kodihalli 112 0 458 570 125 0 479 604

Sub Total 766 359 2094 3249 1454 407 3627 5899

Madhugiri Koratagere Kenganapalya Bevinahalli 27 49 197 273 29 49 207 285

Madhugiri Sidadaragallu Badamuddanapalya 26 25 137 188 78 117 328 523

Pavagada Gummagatta Bodarahalli 73 68 113 254 127 37 147 311

Sira Changavara Bramhasandra 32 3 237 272 41 3 527 571

Sub Total 158 145 684 987 275 206 1209 1690

Chitradurga Chitradurga Konabevu B R Halla Hunasekatte-2 24 270 123 417 29 303 145 477

Jodi chikkenahalli Danndinakurubarahatti 45 47 374 466 57 54 420 531

Challakere Boganahalli Devireddyhalli 74 65 197 336 90 70 360 520

Hiriur Gandhinagara Dindavara 97 49 347 493 107 59 422 588

MD Kote Imangala 74 97 204 375 102 120 254 476

Holalkere Hirehalla Channapattana 78 95 198 371 102 105 235 442

Hosadurga Harihareswara Hotragondanahalli 12 1 172 185 20 2 385 407

Molakalmur

Veerapura,Chinnahagari left

bank Veerapura 83 92 128 303 201 198 165 564

Sub Total 487 716 1743 2946 708 911 2386 4005

Haveri Haveri Kanakapura Kanakapura 27 62 401 490 75 176 1273 1524

Savanur Mallighatti Mallighatti 9 17 836 862 21 39 2298 2358

Manangi Challala 3 25 189 218 6 61 677 744

Hirekerur Kanavisiddageri Malagi 12 1 172 185 20 2 385 407

Byadagi Shankarapura Masanagi 27 5 476 508 67 13 1312 1392

Siggav Guddadachannapura Singapura 9 15 85 109 23 40 263 332

Ranibennur Konanathumbige Hirebidari 48 36 277 361 74 81 624 763

Savanur Savanur Savanur 39 28 334 401 62 58 1359 1489

Sub Total 174 189 2770 3134 348 470 8191 9009

Dharawad Huballi Devaragudihal Parasapura 9 56 125 190 19 120 207 346

Huballi Devaragudihal Devaragudihal 14 11 110 155 12 3 336 351

Dharawad Ambalikoppa Ambalikoppa 12 14 153 179 23 18 306 347

Kundagol Bennihall Kondagol-2 39 28 334 401 62 58 1359 1489

Sub Total 74 109 722 925 116 199 2208 2533

District Taluk Sub watershed Micro watershed

No of families No of Men

POPULATION BY MC

Total population of MC



Annex-1

Page 2

Kunigal Yaliur tank Kadasinganahalli

Muthurayanakere Muthenahalli

Tumkur Hebbaka Burudughatta

Nagavalli Ramanahalli

Chikkanayakanahalli Kandikere Salkatte

Boranakanive B Nandihalli

Thuruvekere Sarigehalli Banasandra

Tiptur Chikkahonavalli Kodihalli

Sub Total

Koratagere Kenganapalya Bevinahalli

Madhugiri Sidadaragallu Badamuddanapalya

Pavagada Gummagatta Bodarahalli

Sira Changavara Bramhasandra

Sub Total

Chitradurga Konabevu B R Halla Hunasekatte-2

Jodi chikkenahalli Danndinakurubarahatti

Challakere Boganahalli Devireddyhalli

Hiriur Gandhinagara Dindavara

MD Kote Imangala

Holalkere Hirehalla Channapattana

Hosadurga Harihareswara Hotragondanahalli

Molakalmur

Veerapura,Chinnahagari left

bank Veerapura

Sub Total

Haveri Kanakapura Kanakapura

Savanur Mallighatti Mallighatti

Manangi Challala

Hirekerur Kanavisiddageri Malagi

Byadagi Shankarapura Masanagi

Siggav Guddadachannapura Singapura

Ranibennur Konanathumbige Hirebidari

Savanur Savanur Savanur

Sub Total

Huballi Devaragudihal Parasapura

Huballi Devaragudihal Devaragudihal

Dharawad Ambalikoppa Ambalikoppa

Kundagol Bennihall Kondagol-2

Sub Total

Taluk Sub watershed Micro watershed


SC ST Others Total SC ST Others Total Men Women Children Total

16 0 558 574 0 0 87 91 599 574 91 1264

90 39 275 404 105 99 279 483 364 404 483 1251

82 57 124 263 90 65 130 548 743 1421 2842 5006

133 40 269 442 147 50 297 494 446 442 494 1382

607 20 935 1562 254 23 443 443 1606 1562 443 3611

143 216 784 1143 153 274 794 1221 1555 1143 1221 3919

177 30 280 487 194 40 310 544 464 487 544 1495

122 0 475 150 125 0 523 648 604 150 648 1402

1370 402 3700 5025 1068 551 2863 4472 6381 6183 6766 56636

52 47 187 286 32 54 209 295 285 286 209 780

63 61 267 391 0 0 0 0 523 291 0 914

126 32 131 289 123 28 117 268 311 289 268 868

46 6 540 571 0 0 0 0 571 592 0 1103

287 146 1125 1537 155 82 326 563 1690 1458 477 3665

22 265 273 560 30 320 250 600 477 560 600 1637

50 52 422 524 70 65 374 509 531 524 509 1564

85 69 357 511 102 74 403 579 520 511 579 1610

103 57 412 572 107 67 420 594 588 572 594 1754

99 117 253 469 90 107 217 414 476 469 414 1359

99 102 227 428 105 123 270 498 442 428 498 1368

22 2 340 364 27 4 378 409 407 364 409 1180

173 185 155 513 179 192 167 538 564 513 538 1615

653 849 2439 3941 710 952 2479 4141 4005 3941 4141 12087

43 165 1297 1505 0 0 0 0 1524 1505 0 3029

25 49 2433 2507 0 0 0 0 2358 2507 0 5867

5 50 495 550 0 0 0 0 744 550 0 1294

22 2 340 364 0 0 0 0 407 364 0 771

69 18 1236 1333 0 0 0 0 1392 1333 0 2725

18 41 232 291 0 0 0 0 332 291 0 623

81 65 519 681 0 0 0 763 681 0 1444

61 59 1061 1181 0 0 0 0 1489 1181 0 2670

324 449 7613 8412 0 0 0 0 9009 8412 0 18423

17 90 202 309 26 133 267 426 346 309 426 1081

14 4 287 305 28 8 335 371 351 305 371 1027

18 24 204 248 0 0 0 0 347 248 593

61 59 1061 1181 0 0 0 0 1489 1181 0 2670

110 177 1754 2043 54 141 602 797 2533 2043 1390 4778

No of women

POPULATION BY MC


No of Children Total Population (No)



Annex-1

Page 3

SC ST Others Total SC ST Others Total

District Taluk Sub watershed Micro watershed

No of families No of Men


Chikkaballapur Sidlaghatta Settyhally Bommanahalli 36 15 183 239 110 53 472 625

Basettihalli Dadmghatta 83 92 128 303 201 198 165 564

Chikkaballapura Gowdanahalli Jangamarapalli

Chikkaballapura Kanthihalli Doddamarali 107 87 284 478 247 234 677 1302

Chinthamani Mindivalavaddu Byrasandra 28 75 107 210 143 125 200 468

Gouribidnur Kachamachanahalli Singanahalli

Bagepalli VandamanaRBC Ramanspadi 39 0 181 220 49 0 328 377

Gudibande Kushavati R Yerrahalli 130 7 162 299 80 0 44 124

Chinthamani Papagni Minchalahalli 97 49 347 493 107 59 422 588

Sub Total 520 325 1392 2242 937 669 2308 4048

Kolar Kolar Palar river right bank Belaganahalli 115 7 354 476 186 9 703 898

Kolar Palar river left bank Ankathatti 39 0 181 220 49 0 328 377

Malur Huldenahalli Araleri 109 102 284 495 198 182 568 948

Bangarapete Mustarahalli Battalapalli 70 9 152 231 94 27 252 373

Mulabagilu Mastur tank Ganganahalli 0 0 27 27 0 0 56 56

Srinivasapura Nilathore Hogalagere 19 0 18 37 49 0 17 66

Sub Total 352 118 1016 1486 576 218 1924 2718

TOTAL 2531 1961 8801 14969 4414 3080 21853 27369



Annex-1

Page 4

Taluk Sub watershed Micro watershed

Sidlaghatta Settyhally Bommanahalli

Basettihalli Dadmghatta


Chikkaballapura Kanthihalli Doddamarali

Chinthamani Mindivalavaddu Byrasandra


Bagepalli VandamanaRBC Ramanspadi

Gudibande Kushavati R Yerrahalli

Chinthamani Papagni Minchalahalli

Sub Total

Kolar Palar river right bank Belaganahalli

Kolar Palar river left bank Ankathatti

Malur Huldenahalli Araleri

Bangarapete Mustarahalli Battalapalli

Mulabagilu Mastur tank Ganganahalli

Srinivasapura Nilathore Hogalagere

Sub Total

TOTAL

SC ST Others Total SC ST Others Total Men Women Children Total

No of women


No of Children Total Population (No)

107 56 406 569 0 0 0 625 569 0 1194

173 185 155 513 0 0 0 564 513 0 1077

140 137 300 1099 126 167 388 524 1302 1099 524 2975

53 135 260 448 67 147 297 511 468 448 511 1427

45 0 386 431 65 0 140 205 377 431 205 1023

74 0 40 114 87 0 47 134 124 114 134 372

103 57 412 572 107 67 420 594 588 572 594 1754

695 570 1959 3746 452 381 1292 1968 4048 3746 1968 9822

187 7 591 785 172 7 419 598 898 785 598 2371

45 0 386 431 65 0 140 205 377 431 205 1023

185 185 504 874 126 202 388 716 948 874 716 2538

86 24 240 350 103 23 274 400 373 350 400 1123

0 0 69 69 0 0 25 25 56 69 25 183

46 0 23 69 35 0 18 53 66 69 53 188

549 216 1813 2578 501 232 1264 1997 2718 2578 1997 7426

3988 2809 20403 27282 2940 2339 8826 10345 30384 28361 16739 112837


Apndx_1_Anx_3_SUJALA - Mc- IRRIGATION DATAs-3Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-3

Page 1


SUJALA SW-MC WISE IRRIGATION DETAILS

District Taluk Sub WatershedMicro Watershed

Rain fed Irrigated Waste land Total Bore wells Open well tanks Total

Tumkur Kunigal Yaliyur Kadasinganahalli 354 61 70 485 80 15 1 96

Muthurayanakere Muttenehalli 383 14 1 397 40 0 0 40

Tumkur Hebbaka Burudughatta 450 37 40 527 45 0 15 60

Tumkur Nagavalli Ramanahalli 390 15 49 438 0 0 0 0

Chikkanayakanahalli Kandikere halla Salkatte 504 46 134 685 39 7 0 46

Boranakanive B Nandihalli 550 52 35 585 45 12 0 52

Thuruvekere Sarigehalli Banasandra 669 215 85 754 75 140 215

Tiptur Chikkahonavalli Kodihalli 363 55 64 427 55 0 0 55

3663 495 477 4297 379 34 156 564

Madhugiri Koratagere Kenganapalya Bevinahalli 344 15 45 404 15 0 0 15

Madhugiri Sidadaragallu Badamuddanapalya 341 30 125 496 55 12 0 67

Pavagada Gummagatta Bodarahalli 563 52 91 706 11 4 52 67

Sira Changavara Bramhasandra 547 60 47 607 20 0 56 76

Sub Total 1795 157 308 2212 101 16 108 225

Chitradurga Chitradurga Konabevu B R Halla Hunasekatte-2 599 23 12 634 23 0 0 23

Jodi chikkenahalli Danndinakurubarahat

ti

920 75 130 1025 75 0 0 75

Challakere Boganahalli Devireddyhalli 506 44 46 596 44 0 0 44

Hiriur Gandhinagara Dindavara 495 45 343 883 45 0 0 45

MD Kote Imangala 744 54 37 835 54 0 0 54

Holalkere Hirehalla Channapattana 450 23 241 714 23 0 0 23

Hosadurga Harihareswara Hotragondanahalli 450 22 14 486 22 0 0 22

Molakalmur Veerapura,Chinnaha

gari left bank

Veerapura 28 18 39 85 18 0 0 18

Sub Total 4192 304 862 5259 304 0 0 304

Haveri Haveri Kanakapura Kanakapura 564 98 12 675 98 0 0 98

Savanur Mallighatti Mallighatti 708 100 15 718 125 0 0 125

Manangi Challala 567 9 0 576 9 0 0 9

Hirekerur Kanavisiddageri Malagi 412 15 57 484 85 0 10 95

Byadagi Shankarapura Masanagi 372 48 43 462 48 48 0 48

Siggav Guddadachannapura Singapura 391 100 137 628 91 0 0 91

Ranibennur Konanathumbige Hirebidari 537 300 66 894 100 0 200 300

Sub Total 3552 671 329 4438 556 48 210 766

CULTIVATED AREA (ha) IRRIGATED AREA (ha)


Apndx_1_Anx_3_SUJALA - Mc- IRRIGATION DATAs-3Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-3

Page 2


SUJALA SW-MC WISE IRRIGATION DETAILS

District Taluk Sub WatershedMicro Watershed

CULTIVATED AREA (ha) IRRIGATED AREA (ha)

Dharawad Kundagol Bennihall Kondagol-2 614 4 15 634 4 0 0 4

Huballi Devaragudihal Gangiwal 487 45 133 598 45 0 0 45

Huballi Devaragudihal Devaragudihal 354 63 29 424 54 0 0 54

Dharawad Ambalikoppa Ambalikoppa 696 56 111 863 56 0 0 56

Sub Total 2150 168 289 2519 159 0 0 159

Chikkaballapur Sidlaghatta Settyhally Bommanahalli 665 24 36 725 137 0 23.9 161

Basettihalli Dadmghatta 288 16 324 687 40 0 50 90

Chikkaballapura Gowdanahalli Jangamarapalli 440 21 150 650 40 0 0 66

Chikkaballapura Gowdanahalli Kariganapalya 375 37 17 429 37 0 0 37

Chikkaballapura Kanthihalli Doddamarali 634 45 324 703 45 0 0 45

Chinthamani Mindivalavaddu Byrasandra 552 37 137 726 37 0 0 37

Gouribidnur Kachamachanahalli Singanahalli 500 22 176 700 35 0 0 35

Tharidal 474 44 186 704 44 0 0 44

Bagepalli VandamanaRBC Ramanspadi 493 37 73 603 37 0 0 37

Gudibande Kushavati R Yerrahalli 434 114 92 640 114 0 0 114

Chinthamani Papagni Minchalahalli 441 32 13 486 32 0 0 32

Sub Total 5296 429 1528 7052 598 0 74 698

Kolar Kolar Palar river right bank Belaganahalli 288 77 41 407 77 0 0 77

Kolar Palar river left bank Ankathatti 158 68 42 269 0 0 0 0

Malur Huldenahalli Araleri 650 12 8 670 0 0 0 0

Bangarapete Mustarahalli Battalapalli 500 39 26 121 0 0 0 0

Mulabagilu Mastur tank Ganganahalli 230 12 5 247 0 0 0 0

Srinivasapura Nilathore Hogalagere 330 10 2 342 0 0 0 0

Sub Total 2157 219 124 2055 77 0 0 77

TOTAL 22805 2441 3916 27833 2174 98 548 2792


Apndx_1_Anx_2_Geographical_Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-2

Page 1


LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE PROJECT AREA

(Area in ha)

District Taluk Sub Watershed Micro Watershed

Geographical area Private

Community

land Total Treated area Non treated area

Tumkur Kunigal Yaliyur Kadasinganahalli 6482.21 5052.26 963.27 6015.53 5773.52 466.68

Muthurayanakere Muttenehalli 9089.81 4592.05 41.50 4633.55 4636.61 4456.26

Tumkur Hebbaka Burudughatta 9294.25 5952.52 556.98 6519.50 6167.18 2800.46

Tumkur Nagavalli Ramanahalli 7517.10 5405.01 879.53 6284.54 5216.43 1232.56

Chikkanayakanahalli Kandikere halla Salkatte 8004.00 4399.10 1907.71 6306.81 5979.36 1697.19

Boranakanive B Nandihalli 9925.00 7888.01 610.60 8498.61 7536.78 1426.39

Thuruvekere Sarigehalli Banasandra 9097.00 6813.38 935.15 7748.53 6288.67 1348.47

Tiptur Chikkahonavalli Kodihalli 5756.24 4793.76 880.50 5673.81 5146.13 82.43

Total 65165.61 44896.09 7496.62 51680.88 46744.68 13510.44

Madhugiri Koratagere Kenganapalya Bevinahalli 7055.34 4919.62 1088.62 6008.24 5565.97 1047.10

Madhugiri Sidadaragallu Badamuddanapalya 7954.17 4025.79 1996.62 6022.41 5957.12 1931.76

Pavagada Gummagatta Bodarahalli 5391.72 3915.76 750.45 4666.21 4615.91 725.51

Sira Changavara Bramhasandra 9731.80 7506.47 125.58 7632.05 8353.31 2099.70

Total 30133.03 20367.64 3961.27 24328.91 24492.31 5804.07

Chitradurga Chitradurga Kunabenu BR Halli nala Hunasekatte-2 7553.81 5886.65 1192.16 7078.81 5139.24 475.00

Jodichikkenahalli nala Danndinakurubarahat

ti

8816.99 8225.93 460.39 8686.32 740.25 130.67

Challakere Boganahalli Devareddyhalli 12108.02 7760.13 697.88 8458.01 6390.34 3650.01

Hiriur Gandinagar Dindavara 6230.00 3222.96 2635.74 5858.70 5528.83 371.30

MDKote Aimangala 6078.00 5617.00 167.00 5784.00 4786.11 294.00

Holalkere Hirehalla Channapatana 13004.28 9719.22 2986.82 12706.04 9156.99 298.24

Hosadurga Harihareswara temple Hotragondanahalli 5836.00 4791.60 819.17 5610.69 4741.47 225.23

Molakalmur Veerapura, Chinnahagari

left bank

Veerapura 7343.57 3594.92 2434.39 6029.37 4619.54 1314.26

Total 66970.67 48818.41 11393.55 60211.94 41102.77 6758.71

Haveri Haveri Kanakapura Hirelingadahalli-1 4912.91 4332.55 151.03 4483.58 2888.00 429.33

Savanur Mallighatti Huralikoppa-1 6187.18 5793.14 276.61 6069.75 4656.00 117.43

Mannangi Mathur-2 5815.47 5689.79 58.70 5748.49 4636.00 66.98

Hirekerur Kanavisiddapura Malagi 6614.80 5625.08 472.98 6098.00 4196.00 516.74

Byadagi Sankaripura Manasangi 7729.37 6488.97 675.75 7164.72 4281.00 564.65

Shiggaon Guddadachannapura Singapura 5016.90 4380.91 393.40 4774.31 3782.00 242.59

Ranibennur Konanathumbige Hirebidari 7694.33 5389.28 477.25 5866.53 4092.00 1827.80

Total 43970.96 37699.72 2505.72 40205.38 28531.00 3765.52

Treatable area


Apndx_1_Anx_2_Geographical_Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-2

Page 2


Geographical area Private

Community

land Total Treated area Non treated area

Treatable area

Dharawad Kundagol Bennihall Kondagol-2 5187.74 5138.08 28.86 5166.94 5074.14 20.80

Huballi Devaragudihal Gangiwara 6868.46 4742.80 569.37 5312.17 4386.47 1556.29

Huballi Unkal Amaragol 5327.32 2686.59 86.36 2772.95 756.91 2554.37

Dharawad Ambalikoppa Ambalikoppa 8897.69 6523.29 2108.79 8632.08 7422.44 265.61

Total 26281.21 19090.76 2793.38 21884.14 17639.96 4397.07

Chikkaballapur Sidlaghatta Seegehalli Bommanahalli 6231.24 3962.64 643.65 4606.29 4391.29 1624.95

Sidlaghatta Settyhally Dadmghatta 7606.15 4047.40 3439.37 7486.77 6465.00 119.38

Chikkaballapura Gowdanahalli Jangamarapalli 5279.00 2349.90 1807.23 4157.13 3762.00 1121.87

Chikkaballapura Kanthihalli Doddamarali 5210.13 3384.42 676.98 4061.40 4620.30 1148.73

Chinthamani Mindivalavaddu Byrasandra 6633.25 4019.07 1123.06 5142.13 5006.06 1491.12

Gouribidnur Kachamachanahalli Singanahalli 4724.89 3001.14 732.82 3733.96 3005.10 990.93

Bagepalli VandamanaRBC Ramanspadi 6107.84 4026.92 830.92 4857.84 4427.00 1250.00

Gudibande Kushavati R Yerrahalli 5154.50 3913.81 1026.74 4940.55 3815.98 213.95

Chinthamani Papagni Minchalahalli 5290.00 3639.50 1428.00 5067.50 4343.00 222.50

Total 52237.00 32344.80 11708.77 44053.57 39835.73 8183.43

Kolar Kolar Palar river right bank Belaganahalli 4522.00 3218.34 1113.93 4332.27 3569.45 189.73

Kolar Palar river left bank Ankathatti 7795.20 4742.63 2340.96 7083.59 4544.00 711.61

Malur Huldenahalli Araleri 8488.54 6241.35 1070.22 7311.52 6322.00 1177.02

Bangarapete Mustarahalli Battalapalli 5935.00 3265.60 1854.12 5119.72 3947.00 815.28

Mulabagilu Mastur tank Ganganahalli 5648.00 3119.08 432.98 3552.06 3319.46 2095.94

Srinivasapura Nilathore Hogalagere 8779.00 5173.79 1163.43 6337.22 57676.05 2441.78

Total 41167.74 25 760.79 7975.64 33736.38 27468.96 7431.36


Apndx_1_Anx_4_Sep_5_SUJALA- Mc WISE- LIVESOCK DATA-4Livstock_Anx_4 Appendix-1

Annex-4

Page -1


SUJALA SWS, MC WISE LIVESTOCK DETAILS

Local

breeds

Cows Local

breeds

Buffaloes Sheep Goats Bullock Others Total Poultry

Tumkur Kunigal Yaliyur Kadasinganahalli 23 12 29 0 48 120 12 0 995 237Muthurayanakere Muttenehalli 34 15 17 0 124 100 10 0 300 300

Tumkur Hebbaka Burudughatta 25 10 14 0 144 94 20 0 307 230Tumkur Nagavalli Ramanahalli 37 14 21 0 123 73 22 0 290 277

Chikkanayakanahalli Kandikere halla Salkatte 27 23 22 0 127 112 25 0 336 330Boranakanive B Nandihalli 44 12 19 0 127 49 14 0 265 240

Thuruvekere Sarigehalli Banasandra 25 27 27 0 149 74 18 0 320 234Tiptur Chikkahonavalli Kodihalli 17 34 22 0 197 94 22 0 386 324Sub Total 232 147 171 0 1039 716 143 0 3199 2172

Madhugiri Koratagere Kenganapalya Bevinahalli 22 0 14 0 120 44 20 0 230 300Madhugiri Sidadaragallu Badamuddanapalya 30 0 37 37 218 184 24 0 530 169Pavagada Gummagatta Bodarahalli 12 0 49 75 394 227 66 2 813 421Sira Changavara Bramhasandra 17 0 60 97 714 556 82 0 1509 224Sub Total 81 0 160 209 1446 1011 192 2 3082 1114

Chitradurga Chitradurga Konabevu B R Halla Hunasekatte-2 122 0 127 0 444 127 44 0 864 302Jodi chikkenahalli Danndinakurubarahatti 137 23 197 0 457 109 58 0 981 475

Challakere Boganahalli Devireddyhalli 201 0 202 0 544 143 64 0 1154 332Hiriur Gandhinagara Dindavara 247 0 227 0 527 122 34 0 1157 247

MD Kote Imangala 277 0 197 0 477 178 28 0 1157 244Holalkere Hirehalla Channapattana 301 0 247 0 297 97 64 0 1006 279Hosadurga Harihareswara Hotragondanahalli 279 0 177 0 304 79 38 0 877 439

MolakalmurVeerapura,Chinnahagari left

bank Veerapura 232 0 234 0 467 94 42 1069 217

Sub Total 1796 23 1608 0 3517 949 372 0 8265 2535

Haveri Haveri Kanakapura Kanakapura 520 0 225 158 814 165 0 1882 3025Savanur Mallighatti Mallighatti 1570 40 422 73 1314 764 564 3327 8074 918

Manangi Challala 475 41 353 385 440 215 0 1909 269Hirekerur Kanavisiddageri Malagi 97 20 109 89 168 52 0 535 200Byadagi Shankarapura Masanagi 250 80 225 50 280 76 265 0 1226 339Siggav Guddadachannapura Singapura 25 10 52 7136 560 52 0 7835 43Ranibennur Konanathumbige Hirebidari 46 36 40 1105 150 40 0 1417 200Sub Total 2983 227 1426 123 10467 2972 1353 3327 22878 4994

Dharawad Kundagol Bennihall Kondagol-2 45 145 163 0 344 71 270 0 1038 256Huballi Devaragudihal Gangiwal 24 80 63 10 20 70 0 267 211Huballi Devaragudihal Devaragudihal 150 5 100 0 0 2000 50 2305 200Dharawad Ambalikoppa Ambalikoppa 79 10 67 11 63 39 60 0 329 74Sub Total 298 240 393 11 417 2130 450 2305 1834 541

Total Livestock details (Nos)District Taluk Sub Watershed Micro-Watershed


Apndx_1_Anx_4_Sep_5_SUJALA- Mc WISE- LIVESOCK DATA-4Livstock_Anx_4 Appendix-1

Annex-4

Page -2

Local

breeds

Cows Local

breeds

Buffaloes Sheep Goats Bullock Others Total Poultry

Total Livestock details (Nos)District Taluk Sub Watershed Micro-Watershed

Chikkaballapur Sidlaghatta Settyhally Bommanahalli 596 13 73 0 44 891 236 0 1853 944Basettihalli Dadmghatta 86 17 20 0 359 182 164 2 830 272

Chikkaballapura Gowdanahalli JangamarapalliChikkaballapura Gowdanahalli Kariganapalya 122 21 47 0 347 121 73 9 740 344Chikkaballapura Kanthihalli Doddamarali 127 12 34 0 297 147 44 12 673 457Chinthamani Mindivalavaddu Byrasandra 264 24 48 0 457 152 57 7 1009 371Gouribidnur Kachamachanahalli Singanahalli

Tharidal 154 22 75 0 302 174 38 14 779 234Bagepalli VandamanaRBC Ramanspadi 122 12 87 0 344 129 48 17 759 257Gudibande Kushavati R Yerrahalli 134 17 94 0 324 137 42 37 785 110Chinthamani Papagni Minchalahalli 112 13 49 0 297 144 36 19 670 129Sub Total 1717 151 527 0 2771 2077 738 117 8098 3118

Kolar Kolar Palar river right bank Belaganahalli 264 12 189 0 697 102 126 5 1395 344Kolar Palar river left bank Ankathatti 140 14 106 0 104 0 22 0 386 145Malur Huldenahalli Araleri 361 17 48 0 327 58 14 0 825 365Bangarapete Mustarahalli Battalapalli 446 12 8 0 205 110 30 9 820 65Mulabagilu Mastur tank Ganganahalli 37 14 6 0 20 23 2 0 102 31Srinivasapura Nilathore Hogalagere 36 22 2 0 13 12 20 0 105 22Sub Total 1284 91 359 0 1366 305 214 14 3633 972

TOTAL 5372 810 4287 333 19670 9867 3268 5751 47461 14496


Apndx_1_Anx_5_SUJALA -Mc WISE-FODDER,FUEL DATA -5Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-5

Page -1


SUJALA SWS MC WISE FODDER AND FUEL USE IN PROJECT

From Private

Land

From

Common

Land

Total

TumkurKunigal Yaliyur Kadasinganahalli 122.00 147.00 63.16 79.75 411.91

Muthurayanakere Muttenehalli 134.00 157.00 43.75 23.89 358.64

Tumkur Hebbaka Burudughatta 127.00 177.00 37.59 19.37 360.96

Tumkur Nagavalli Ramanahalli 129.00 195.00 47.32 22.76 394.08

Chikkanayakanahalli Kandikere halla Salkatte 122.00 174.00 39.74 14.74 350.48

Boranakanive B Nandihalli 139.00 200.00 67.47 23.79 430.26

Thuruvekere Sarigehalli Banasandra 197.00 257.00 79.34 3475.00 4008.34

Tiptur Chikkahonavalli Kodihalli 147.00 212.00 54.32 29.94 443.26

Total 1117.00 1519.00 432.69 3689.24 6757.93

MadhugiriKoratagere Kenganapalya Bevinahalli 120.00 1144.00 72.00 17.00 89.00

Madhugiri Sidadaragallu Badamuddanapalya 154.00 146.00 52.00 236.00 288.00

Pavagada Gummagatta Bodarahalli 1165.00 1547.00 99.60 123.00 222.60

Sira Changavara Bramhasandra 96.00 151.00 70.00 150.00 220.00

Total 1535.00 2988.00 293.60 526.00 819.60

ChitradurgaChitradurga Konabevu B R Halla Hunasekatte-2 124.79 149.24 64.20 23.50 361.73

Jodi chikkenahalli Danndinakurubarahatti 137.23 177.30 47.50 17.90 379.93

Challakere Boganahalli Devireddyhalli 200.23 243.10 39.70 19.30 502.33

Hiriur Gandhinagara Dindavara 294.60 327.70 44.90 20.70 687.90

MD Kote Imangala 197.40 244.90 37.40 12.60 492.30

Holalkere Hirehalla Channapattana 145.80 197.25 23.50 17.40 383.95

Hosadurga Harihareswara Hotragondanahalli 197.34 237.30 45.20 13.90 493.74

Molakalmur Veerapura,Chinnahagari left

bank

Veerapura

173.20 202.70 39.50 27.30 442.70

Total 1470.59 1779.49 341.90 152.60 3744.58

Annual Fuel Consumption (Tons)

Annual Fodder

Production (Tons)

Annual fodder

requirement

(Tons)



Apndx_1_Anx_5_SUJALA -Mc WISE-FODDER,FUEL DATA -5Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-5

Page -2

SUJALA SWS MC WISE FODDER AND FUEL USE IN PROJECT

From Private

Land

From

Common

Land

Total

Annual Fuel Consumption (Tons)

Annual Fodder

Production (Tons)

Annual fodder

requirement

(Tons)


Haveri Haveri Kanakapura Kanakapura 357.70 229.95 584.00 127.75 711.75

Savanur Mallighatti Mallighatti 398.00 434.00 36.00 12.00 48.00

Manangi Challala 798.00 982.00 109.86 0.00 108.96

Hirekerur Kanavisiddageri Malagi 143.00 156.00 500.00 50.00 550.00

Byadagi Shankarapura Masanagi 3300.00 4197.00 450.00 540.00 990.00

Siggav Guddadachannapura Singapura 6000.00 5250.00 9500.00 700.00 10200.00

Ranibennur Konanathumbige Hirebidari 300.00 280.00 80.00 10.00 90.00

Total 11296.70 11528.95 11259.86 1439.75 12698.71

Dharawad Kundagol Bennihall Kondagol-2 56.26 45.82 54.20 21.90 76.10

Huballi Devaragudihal Gangiwal 30.00 50.00 36.80 45.00 81.80

Huballi Devaragudihal Devaragudihal 180.00 250.00 40.00 55.00 95.00

Dharawad Ambalikoppa Ambalikoppa 1261.00 1681.00 80.00 112.00 192.00

Total 1527.26 2026.82 211.00 233.90 444.90

Chikkaballapura Sidlaghatta Seegehalli Bommanahalli 125.50 152.00 60.00 21.20 358.70

Sidlaghatta Settyhally Dadmghatta 125.00 140.00 31.00 45.00 341.00


Chikkaballapura Gowdanahalli Kariganapalya 77.23 97.00 47.00 19.20 240.43

Chikkaballapura Kanthihalli Doddamarali 34.40 44.00 64.00 34.00 176.40

Chinthamani Mindivalavaddu Byrasandra 46.50 67.00 83.50 43.00 240.00


Tharidal 34.70 43.70 74.30 23.00 175.70

Bagepalli VandamanaRBC Ramanspadi 22.50 37.90 67.50 37.00 164.90

Gudibande Kushavati R Yerrahalli 63.00 79.30 76.30 39.00 257.60

Chinthamani Papagni Minchalahalli 74.30 97.30 33.40 42.70 247.70

Total 603.13 758.20 537.00 304.10 2202.43

Kolar Kolar Palar river right bank Belaganahalli 4.19 48.00 347.70 23.00 422.89

Kolar Palar river left bank Ankathatti 90.00 54.00 174.00 44.00 362.00

Malur Huldenahalli Araleri 1350.15 190.15 192.30 32.00 1764.60

Bangarapete Mustarahalli Battalapalli 62.00 63.00 155.50 42.00 322.50

Mulabagilu Mastur tank Ganganahalli 37.00 26.50 103.00 37.00 203.50

Srinivasapura Nilathore Hogalagere 63.22 8.60 82.11 39.00 192.93

Total 1606.56 390.25 1054.61 217.00 3268.42


Apndx_1_Anx_6_SUJALA-Mc WISE SHG SAVING DATA-8_Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-6

Page 1


SUJALA SWS MC WISE SHG SAVINGS

No of SHGS

involved

SC ST OTHERS Total

Tumkur Kunigal Yaliyur Kadasinganahalli 8 6 0 130 136 333 48 1827 498 289.5

Muthurayanakere Muttenehalli 9 43 14 101 158 463200 1120000 1548720 555410 993760

Tumkur Hebbaka Burudughatta 9 12 22 75 109 22344 45000 45000 45000 0

Tumkur Nagavalli Ramanahalli 9 23 20 120 163 385350 45000 1032350 312090 720260

C.Nayakanahalli Kandikere halla Salkatte 12 92 11 78 181 503780 1492280 2213000 1819374 0

Boranakanive B Nandihalli 9 7 4 134 145 404100 786550 1190650 401050 291550

Thuruvekere Sarigehalli Banasandra 15 6 15 226 247 310.8 180 606.6 357.2 249.7

Tiptur Chikkahonavalli Kodihalli 5 10 0 75 85 292720 517500 517500 184545 332955

Sub Total 76 199 86 939 1224 2072138 4006558 6549654 3318324 2339064.2

Madhugiri Koratagere Kenganapalya Bevinahalli 6 26 10 68 104 1111 0 2580 41 198.7

Madhugiri Sidadaragallu Badamuddanapalya 7 33 43 46 122 227 393 832 655.6 176.7

Pavagada Gummagatta Bodarahalli 7 45 19 38 102 35000 72000 72000 72000 0

Sira Changavara Bramhasandra 7 24 4 70 98 368 540 671 437 233.9

Sub Total 27 128 76 222 426 36705 72933 76083 73134 609.3

Chitradurga Chitradurga Konabevu B R Halla Hunasekatte-2 7 5 83 8 96 286 32 839 79 116.2

Jodi chikkenahalli Danndinakurubarahatti 9 24 13 123 160 158 90 393 132 260.8

Challakere Boganahalli Devireddyhalli 9 27 15 93 135 3589 1326 1273 692 581.4

Hiriur Gandhinagara Dindavara 8 46 1 79 126 226 719.6 802 160 642.2

MD Kote Imangala 11 56 21 49 126 709540 945500 1457500 371100 1086400

Holalkere Hirehalla Channapattana 2 12 8 14 34 133680 437782 722245 594767 950012

Hosadurga Harihareswara Hotragondanahalli 5 5 10 58 73 166635 287500 380905 4006 376899

Molakalmur Veerapura,Chinnahagari

left bank Veerapura 7 10 27 62 99 197213 64781 55000 55000 0

Sub Total 58 185 178 486 849 1211327 1737730 2618957 1025935 2414911.6

Haveri Haveri Kanakapura Kanakapura 9 23 19 115 157 37000 293050 132900 660000 453700

Savanur Mallighatti Mallighatti 9 4 37 130 171 327600 338500 338500 276000 62500

Manangi Challala 9 0 6 104 110 43000 2063756 2047500 419016 1629484

Hirekerur Kanavisiddageri Malagi 9 2 6 94 102 190780 840000 840000 96039 743961

Byadagi Shankarapura Masanagi 15 16 2 121 139 433650 1083557 550640 359905 190735

Siggav Guddadachannapura Singapura 9 15 25 93 133 45000 350000 350000 350000 0

Ranibennur Konanathumbige Hirebidari 9 1 21 100 122 43000 42000 42000 33000 9000

Sub Total 69 61 116 757 934 1120030 5010863 4301540 2193960 3089380

Dharawad Huballi Devaragudihal Parasapura 9 2 28 65 95 393500 232700 954550 450400 504150

Huballi Devaragudihal Gangivala 5 6 1 42 49 125670 438330 401080 203260 289060

Dharawad Ambalikoppa Ambalikoppa 8 5 9 90 104 43000 2063756 2047500 419016 2142660

Kundagol Bennihall Kondagol-2 9 61 2 74 137 433650 1083557 550640 359905 190735

Sub Total 31 74 40 271 385 995820 3818343 3953770 1432581 3126605

Recovered

loan (Rs)

Balance loan

(Rs)

District Taluk Sub Watershed Micro Watershed No of Members Total Savings

(Rs)

Loan from

Common

Fund (Rs)

Total

distributed

loan (Rs)


Apndx_1_Anx_6_SUJALA-Mc WISE SHG SAVING DATA-8_Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-6

Page 2

No of SHGS

involved

SC ST OTHERS Total

Recovered

loan (Rs)

Balance loan

(Rs)

District Taluk Sub Watershed Micro Watershed No of Members Total Savings

(Rs)

Loan from

Common

Fund (Rs)

Total

distributed

loan (Rs)

Chikkaballapur Sidlaghatta Settyhally Bommanahalli 11 57 5 112 174 613530 2063756 2047500 419016 1629484

Basettihalli Dadmghatta 4 7 35 20 62 293050 132900 663300 450400 132900


Chikkaballapura Chikkaballapura Kariganapalya 6 34 11 54 99 163042 638145 571000 205000 366000

Chikkaballapura Kanthihalli Doddamarali 9 47 61 42 150 614060 1680000 1566100 314150 1251950

Chinthamani Mindivalavaddu Byrasandra 10 20 87 53 160 429510 1293600 1723110 800850 922260


Tharidal 7 20 35 50 105 278820 1013820 1795850 973300

Bagepalli VandamanaRBC Ramanspadi 7 39 44 25 108 125358 723096 636220 112050 524170

Gudibande Kushavati R Yerrahalli 6 51 8 35 94 163042 638145 571000 205000 366000

Chinthamani Papagni Minchalahalli 3 12 7 11 30 65340 302070 280300 16000 264300

Sub Total 63 287 293 402 982 2745752 8485532 9854380 3495766 5457064

Kolar Kolar Palar river right bank Belaganahalli 14 70 0 159 229 1187967 1820925 9807323 6471298 3336025

Kolar Palar river left bank Ankathatti 12 28 7 163 198 853706 1545371 6362300 4273354 2088946

Malur Huldenahalli Araleri 13 57 49 93 199 927225 810000 871900 238650 528750

Bangarapete Mustarahalli Battalapalli 7 39 5 79 123 255476 1200464 2988300 1840551 1147749

Mulabagilu Mastur tank Ganganahalli 5 24 0 54 78 205000 598000 340500 716000 709000

Srinivasapura Nilathore Hogalagere 6 40 10 38 88 320025 1181329 1445004 375661 1069343

Sub Total 57 258 71 586 915 3749399 7156089 21815327 13915514 8879813

TOTAL 381 1192 860 4663 6715 11931171 30288048 49169711 25455214 25307447


Apndx_1_Anx_7_SUJALA - Mc WISE AG SAVING-9_Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-7

Page 1


AG Savings (MC and SWSwise)

District Taluk Sub Watershed Micro Watershed No of members

Total No of

AGS

SC ST others Total Total

Savings

Loans from

common fund

Total loan

distributed

Loan

recovered

Balance loan

Tumkur Kunigal Yaliyur Kadasinganahalli 6 33 0 622 655 55 0 0 0 0

Muthurayanakere Muttenehalli 6 55 0 511 566 199889 0 0 0 0

Tumkur Hebbaka Burudughatta 6 88 72 327 493 37500 0 0 0 0

Tumkur Nagavalli Ramanahalli 6 113 38 300 451 23590 0 0 0 0

Chikkanayakanahalli Kandikere halla Salkatte 10 79 36 169 284 89000 0 0 0 0

Boranakanive B Nandihalli 6 13 15 75 103 63582 13733 54309 41110 13811

Thuruvekere Sarigehalli Banasandra 6 21 6 143 124 135401 124871 0 0 0

Tiptur Chikkahonavalli Kodihalli 6 60 0 168 228 24307 0 0 0 0

Sub Total 52 462 167 2315 2904 573324 138604 54309 41110 13811

Madhugiri Koratagere Kenganapalya Bevinahalli 6 26 10 68 104 111500 0 438000 41000 198700

Madhugiri Sidadaragallu Badamuddanapalya 6 38 40 184 262 89000 0 66000 53000 13000

Pavagada Gummagatta Bodarahalli 6 126 75 204 405 27400 0 0 0 211700

Sira Changavara Bramhasandra 6 29 8 249 286 146460 0 34548 33573 29361

Sub Total 24 219 133 705 1057 374360 0 538548 127573 29361

Chitradurga Chitradurga Konabevu B R Halla Hunasekatte-2 6 56 136 45 237 73750 1050 20000 20000 0

Jodi chikkenahalli Danndinakurubarahatti7 28 18 87 133 131190 72000 184000 178000 6000

Challakere Boganahalli Devireddyhalli 6 53 11 135 199 38400 4573 35500 35500 0

Hiriur Gandhinagara Dindavara 6 19 3 174 196 65675 5675 93500 79750 13750

MD Kote Imangala 6 7 11 96 114 52900 3455 30500 21800 8700

Holalkere Hirehalla Channapattana 3 3 5 57 65 37630 0 0 0 0

Hosadurga Harihareswara Hotragondanahalli 6 7 7 96 110 18860 25000 33856 18015 10010

Molakalmur Veerapura,Chinnahaga

ri left bank

Veerapura

5 25 16 71 112 11455 0 0 0 0

Sub Total45 198 207 761 1166 429860 111753 397356 353065 38460

Haveri Haveri Kanakapura Kanakapura6 10 8 244 262 18860 0 0 0

Savanur Mallighatti Mallighatti6 3 9 486 498 168200 0 121000 63250 67750

Manangi Challala4 2 29 197 228 11455 0 0 0

Hirekerur Kanavisiddageri Malagi6 1 4 273 278 32250 0 58500 58500 0

Byadagi Shankarapura Masanagi6 10 8 244 262 12000 0 0 0 0

Siggav Guddadachannapura Singapura5 5 31 196 233 1350 0 0 0

Ranibennur Konanathumbige Hirebidari6 0 23 209 232 1500 800 0 0 0

Sub Total39 31 112 1849 1993 245615 800 179500 121750 67750

(Rs)


Apndx_1_Anx_7_SUJALA - Mc WISE AG SAVING-9_Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-7

Page 2

District Taluk Sub Watershed Micro Watershed No of members

Total No of

AGS

SC ST others Total Total

Savings

Loans from

common fund

Total loan

distributed

Loan

recovered

Balance loan

(Rs)

Dharawad Kundagol Bennihall Kondagol-25 25 16 71 112 22000 4573 0 0 0

Huballi Devaragudihal Gangiwal6 3 9 486 498 12900 800 0 0 0

Huballi Devaragudihal Devaragudihal3 3 5 57 65 14000 4152 0 0 0

Dharawad Ambalikoppa Ambalikoppa7 25 8 198 231 175640 3000 0 221400 81468

Sub Total21 56 38 812 906 224540 12525 0 221400 81468

Chikkaballapur Sidlaghatta Settyhally Bommanahalli 5 49 0 217 266 39200 43500 29000 0 29000

Basettihalli Dadmghatta 7 41 81 99 221 79820 14700 133400 87500 8900


Chikkaballapura Gowdanahalli Kariganapalya 3 32 15 45 92 10300 0 0 0 0

Chikkaballapura Kanthihalli Doddamarali 7 39 82 80 201 0 0 0 0

Chinthamani Mindivalavaddu Byrasandra 4 39 58 156 253 0 0 0 0 0


Tharidal 6 13 71 262 346 38600 37500 45500 14500 31000

Bagepalli VandamanaRBC Ramanspadi 6 63 37 161 267 29650 34100 26200 4000 22200

Gudibande Kushavati R Yerrahalli 7 128 7 160 295 0 0 0 0 0

Chinthamani Papagni Minchalahalli 5 1 45 173 219 9553 17680 0 0 0

Sub Total 50 405 396 1353 2160 207123 147480 234100 106000 91100

Kolar Kolar Palar river right bank Belaganahalli 10 37 0 210 247 189236 11818 180500 129760 50740

Kolar Palar river left bank Ankathatti 7 25 8 198 231 204128 3000 0 221400 81468

Malur Huldenahalli Araleri 7 22 29 178 229 21659 0 0 0 0

Bangarapete Mustarahalli Battalapalli 6 40 5 120 165 147827 228022 726630 410280 316350

Mulabagilu Mastur tank Ganganahalli 4 47 2 149 298 50200 4152 84000 44000 36000

Srinivasapura Nilathore Hogalagere 5 80 25 74 179 0 0 0 0 0

Sub Total 39 251 69 929 1349 613050 246992 991130 805440 484558

TOTAL 270 1522 1160 8524 11206 2667872 658154 2394943 1904438 821408


Apndx_1_Anx_8_ok_SUJALA- Mc- GROUP WISE TRINING-11Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-8

Page -1


SUJALA SWS MC WISE EC TRAINING

District Taluk Sub Watershed Micro watershed

Name of EC Group Study tour

E1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 Total

Tumkur Kunigal Yaliur tank Kadasinganahalli Sri Basaveswar sujala jalanayana

sangha

14 9 10 11 4 3 14 14 79

Muthurayanakere K J Muthenahalli Byraweswara sujala jalanayana

sangha

14 14 10 11 11 11 11 0 82 14

Tumkur Hebbaka Burudughatta Sri Basavanagudihalla sujala

jalanauyana sangha

14 12 10 13 8 11 9 12 89 0

Nagavalli RamanahalliMalinapalyad

akatte su.ja.sangha

14 13 14 13 12 11 12 10 99 0

Chikkanayakanahalli Kandikere halla Salkatte 10 10 10 10 0 0 10 10 60 10

Boranakanive B Nandihalli Sri Nandi basaweswara sujala

njalanayan nsangha

13 13 13 1 0 0 14 14 68 1

Thuruvekere Sarigehalli Banasandra Gangothri 14 12 14 1 0 0 14 14 69 14

Tiptur Chikkahonavalli Kodihalli Sri Visweswarayya sujala

jalanayanasanga

11 12 10 13 12 10 9 12 89 5

Total 104 95 91 73 47 46 93 86 635 44

Madhugiri Koratagere Kenganapalya Bevinahalli Jayamangali nadi sujala jalanayana

sangha

13 11 14 12 10 9 11 14 94 0

Madhugiri Sidadaragallu Badamuddanapalya Sri Kanneramma sujala jalanayana

sangha

14 13 0 12 0 0 0 12 51 0

Pavagada Gummagatta Bodarahalli Sri Alumandi Akkammadevi 14 14 14 12 13 14 14 13 108 1

Sira Changavara Bramhasandra Sri Rama sujalajalanayana sangha 14 13 11 14 13 13 11 14 103 0

Total 55 51 39 50 36 36 36 53 356 1

Name and No. of Training



Annex-8

Page -2



E1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 Total


Chitradurga Chitradurga Konbavu B R Halla

nala

Hunasekatte-2 Gadri palanayaka sujala jalanayana

sangha

12 10 7 1 0 0 11 10 51 0

Jodichikkenahalli Danndinakurubarahatti Marikamba sujalajalanayana sangha 12 13 11 13 0 0 14 14 77 14

Challakere Boganahalli kere Devareddy halli Sir M Visweswarayya sujala

jalanayana sangha

14 14 12 12 12 11 13 14 102 0

Hiriur Gandhi nagara Dindavara Sri Venkateswara sujalajalanayana

sangha

14 14 14 1 0 0 14 14 71 9

MDKote Imangala Neeraghanti Kariyamma sujala

jalanayana sangha

13 13 12 1 0 0 11 11 61 0

Hoplalkere Hirehalla Channapattana Sri Vigneswara sujala jalanayana

sangha

11 10 13 2 0 0 12 12 60 1

Hosadurga Harihareswara

devasthana

Hotharagondanahalli Sri Jattilingeswara jalanayana sangha 14 13 14 12 13 14 14 14 108 11

Molakalmur Veerapura,Chinnahag

ari left bank

Veerapura Sri sujala Rameswara jalanayana

sangha

14 12 12 13 14 13 14 11 103 14

Total 104 99 95 55 39 38 103 100 633 49

Haveri Haveri Kanakapura Kanakapura Kanakapur kirujalanayana sangha 14 14 14 1 14 0 14 0 71 14

Savanur Mallighatti Mallighatti Sri Rajendra singh 14 14 14 13 14 13 12 0 94 13

Manangi Challala Sri Bagyalaxmi 12 14 14 1 12 0 0 0 53 14

Hirekerur Kanavisiddageri Malagi Sri Bagyalaxmi 14 14 14 1 14 0 14 0 71 14

Byadagi Shankarapura Masanagi Sri Cheelappa kiru jalanayana

sangha

12 14 14 1 12 0 0 0 53 14

Siggav Guddadachannapura Singapura Sri Someswara kiru jalanayana

sangha

13 12 14 14 4 14 13 13 97 14

Ranibennur Konanathumbige Hirebidari Sri Kithur Rani channamma

kirujalanayanasangha

12 12 12 13 14 11 14 0 88 12

Total 91 94 96 44 84 38 67 13 527 95

Dharawad Kundagol Bennihall Kondagol-2 Nisarga kiru jalanayan sangha 12 14 14 1 12 0 0 0 53 14

Huballi Devaragudihal Gangiwal Sri Mallikarjuna sujala kirujalanayana

sangha

14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 112 14

Huballi Devaragudihal Devaragudihal Sri mMilaralingeswara kiru

jalanayana sangha

13 12 14 14 4 14 13 13 97 14

Dharawad Ambalikoppa Ambalikoppa Amblikoppa kirujalanayana sangha 12 14 14 1 12 0 0 0 53 14

Total 51 54 56 30 42 28 27 27 315 56



Annex-8

Page -3



E1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 Total


Chikkaballapur Sidlaghatta Seegehalli Bommanahalli Gowdanakere sujala jalanayana

sangha

14 12 11 11 0 0 10 11 69 2

Sidlaghatta Settyhally Dadmghatta Sir M Visweswarayya sujala

jalanayana sangha

12 11 12 2 0 0 11 12 60 0


Kariganapalya Gavisiddappa sujala jalanayana

sangha

10 10 10 10 0 0 10 10 60 10

Chikkaballapura Kanthihalli Doddamarali Sir M Visweswarayya sujala

jalanayana sangha

13 14 13 1 0 0 13 13 67 6

Chinthamani Mindivalavaddu Byrasandra Sapthamatha sujalajalanayana

sangha

13 10 11 1 0 0 10 8 53 11


Tharidal Chowdeswari sujala jalanayana

sangha

12 11 13 1 0 0 12 12 61 8

Bagepalli VandamanaRBC Ramanspadi Sri Maramma sulala kiru jalanayan

sangha

13 12 13 13 11 11 12 11 96 2

Gudibande Kushavati R Yerrahalli Sri Manjunatheswara sujala kiru

jalanayana sangha

13 11 12 13 12 11 12 11 95 3

Chinthamani Papagni Minchalahalli Sri Chowdeswari sujala kiru

jalanayana sangha

12 10 10 1 0 0 12 12 57 12

Total 112 101 105 53 23 22 102 100 618 54

Kolar Kolar Palar river right bank Belaganahalli Sri Kempgowda sujala jalanayana

sangha

12 11 11 1 0 0 13 12 60 12

Kolar Palar river left bank Ankathatti Anka thatti sujala kiru jalanayana

sangha

11 10 8 1 0 0 9 8 47 1

Malur Huldenahalli Araleri Sri Vinayaka sujala kiru jalanayana

sangha

13 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 12

Bangarapete Mustarahalli Battalapalli Sri veeranjaneya sujala jalanaya

sangha

13 10 11 1 0 0 10 8 53 11

Mulabagilu Mastur tank Ganganahalli Gongothri sujala jalanayana sangha 13 12 10 1 0 0 13 12 61 0

Srinivasapura Nilathore Hogalagere Swamy Vivekananda sujala

jalanayana sangha

13 15 13 15 0 0 15 10 81 5

Total 75 68 53 19 0 0 60 50 325 41


Apndx_1_Anx_9_SUJALA- MC -TRAINING 12_Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-9

Page 1

POST PRJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT- SUJALA WATERSHED PHASE-III

SUJALA SWS, MC AG WISE TRAINING

A1 A2Study.

Tour A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

Tumkur Kunigal Yaliur tank Kadasinganahalli 6 190 241 50 219 203 175 3 3 167 3 122 1326

Muthurayanakere K.G.Muthenahalli 7 450 468 450 396 50 410 443 0 0 0 0 2667

Tumkur Hebbaka Burudughatta 6 154 188 0 209 150 100 139 220 179 143 163 1645

Nagavalli Ramanahalli 6 158 152 160 129 49 158 4 0 155 0 123 1088

Chikkanayakanahalli Kandikere halla Salkatte 60 2320 2350 548 2345 2375 2396 55 0 2051 0 2006 16446

Boranakanive B Nandihalli 6 240 240 234 217 45 191 6 0 39 0 35 1247

Thuruvekere Sarigehalli Banasandra 6 140 154 54 148 143 159 0 0 154 0 139 1265

Tiptur Chikkahonavalli Kodihalli 6 170 150 154 192 49 195 50 99 171 106 160 1496

Subtotal 103 3822 3943 1650 3855 3064 3784 700 322 2916 252 2748 27180

Madhugiri Koratagere Kenganapalya Bevinahalli 6 172 189 228 245 198 367 253 381 330 282 2645

Madhugiri Sidadaragallu Badamuddanapalya 6 127 135 136 0 117 111 0 125 117 174 1042

Pavagada Gummagatta Bodarahalli 6 132 120 148 132 90 100 103 136 100 131 1192

Sira Changavara Bramhasandra 6 323 343 50 329 249 255 232 215 201 200 202 2599

Subtotal 24 754 787 50 841 626 660 810 571 843 747 789 7478

Chitradurga Chitradurga KunabinaB R Halli Hunasekatte-2 6 148 136 135 124 0 117 6 0 116 0 127 909

Jodichikkenahalli Danndinakurubarahatti 7 188 174 40 163 196 204 0 0 161 0 152 1278

Challakere Boganahalli Devireddyhalli 6 146 97 50 161 172 156 6 0 159 0 153 1100

Hiriur Gandhinagara Dindavara 6 163 146 60 137 140 169 61 0 174 0 170 1220

M D Kote Aimangala 6 78 78 79 78 42 74 6 0 67 0 69 571

Holalkere Hirehalla Channapattana 3 45 52 3 52 53 53 37 0 53 0 44 392

Hosadurga Harihareswara Hotragondanahalli 6 108 132 102 96 108 126 144 138 132 120 132 1338

Molakalmur Veerapura,Chinnahagari left bank Veerapura 5 92 99 90 92 101 101 100 103 91 89 106 974

Subtotal 45 968 914 559 903 812 1000 360 241 953 209 953 7782

Name and No of Training

Total

Sub watershedDistrict Taluk Micro watershed No of Area

groups


Apndx_1_Anx_9_SUJALA- MC -TRAINING 12_Sheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-9

Page 2

A1 A2Study.

Tour A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

Name and No of Training

Total

Sub watershedDistrict Taluk Micro watershed No of Area

groups

Haveri Haveri Kanakapura Kanakapura 7 116 145 50 172 131 128 7 0 157 0 0 1102

Savanur Mallighatti Mallighatti 6 220 249 63 238 244 234 243 234 222 0 0 2103

Manangi Challala 7 123 117 40 152 144 122 6 95 118 0 194 1111

Hirekerur Kanavisiddageri Malagi 6 175 188 50 186 182 183 5 144 0 0 0 1063

Byadagi Shankarapura Masanagi 6 125 117 50 152 157 144 6 95 118 0 194 1108

Siggav Guddadachannapura Singapura 6 181 177 185 182 30 176 0 175 162 0 182 1092

Ranibennur Konanathumbige Hirebidari 6 197 195 183 194 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 909

Sub Total 44 1137 1188 621 1276 888 1127 267 743 777 0 570 8488

Dharawad Kundagol Bennihall Kondagol-2 4 145 121 0 121 121 140 3 0 100 0 103 854

Huballi Devaragudihal Gangiwal 5 220 249 63 238 244 234 243 234 222 0 0 2103

Huballi Devaragudihal Parasapura 5 125 117 50 152 157 144 6 95 118 0 194 1108

Dharawad Ambalikoppa Ambalikoppa 6 123 117 40 152 144 122 6 95 118 0 194 1111

Sub Total 20 613 604 153 663 666 640 258 424 558 0 491 5176

Chikkaballapur Sidlaghatta Seegehalli Bommanahalli 5 204 139 158 156 40 57 3 0 121 0 0 821

Sidlaghatta Settyhally Dadmghatta 7 116 145 50 172 131 128 7 0 157 0 183 1089


Kariganapalya 4 83 81 65 72 86 72 3 0 45 0 65 572

Chikkaballapura Kanthihalli Doddamarali 6 147 153 139 210 192 203 6 0 228 0 218 1496

Chinthamani Mindivalavaddu Byrasandra 4 163 158 50 142 111 124 4 0 136 0 153 1041


Tharidal 6 112 118 54 117 116 121 6 0 97 0 112 853

Bagepalli VandamanaRBC Ramanspadi 6 201 181 12 169 166 166 161 0 131 125 0 1312

Gudibande Kushavati R Yerrahalli 7 201 195 50 196 202 178 7 0 181 0 189 1399

Chinthamani Papagni Minchalahalli 5 127 140 40 156 153 152 5 0 148 0 119 1040

Sub Total 50 1354 1310 618 1390 1197 1201 202 0 1244 125 1039 9623

Kolar Kolar Palar river right bank Belaganahalli 10 140 149 182 203 203 151 10 0 131 0 174 1600

Kolar Palar river left bank Ankathatti 7 211 187 183 212 62 197 5 0 156 0 176 1627

Malur Huldenahalli Araleri 7 148 170 0 166 179 168 0 0 129 0 110 1341

Bangarapete Mustarahalli Battalapalli 6 130 119 54 119 132 123 0 0 100 0 119 1077

Mulabagilu Mastur tank Ganganahalli 4 145 121 0 121 121 140 3 0 100 0 103 1057

Srinivasapura Nilathore Hogalagere 5 174 142 112 128 14 133 0 0 157 0 141 1216

Sub Total 39 948 888 531 949 711 912 18 0 773 0 823 7918

TOTAL 39 948 888 531 949 711 912 18 0 773 0 823 7918


Apndx_1_Anx_10_SUJALA -Mc- SHG TRINING-13 - CopySheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-10

Page 1


SUJALA MC WISE SHGs TRAINING

S1 S2 S3 S4 S.Tour S5 S6 S7 S8 59 S10

Tumkur Kunigal Yaliyur Kadasinganahalli 8 119 116 128 127 72 50 121 124 4 72 33 0 847

Muthurayanakere Muttenehalli 9 157 149 153 155 148 65 65 151 144 0 0 0 1030

Tumkur Hebbaka Burudughatta 9 145 111 96 85 98 0 91 97 86 101 85 89 939

Tumkur Nagavalli Ramanahalli 9 145 103 144 114 111 25 110 102 5 0 0 0 714

Chikkanayakana

halli

Kandikere halla Salkatte 11 176 1350 614 1325 1336 1169 1312 50 50 0 0 7206

Boranakanive B Nandihalli 9 159 146 98 137 138 40 127 115 4 0 0 0 805

Thuruvekere Sarigehalli Banasandra 9 145 103 144 114 111 25 110 102 5 0 0 0 714

Tiptur Chikkahonavalli Kodihalli 5 528 83 81 85 83 36 82 78 10 77 82 69 766

Total 69 1574 2161 1458 2142 2097 241 1875 2081 308 300 200 158 13021

Madhugiri Koratagere Kenganapalya Bevinahalli 9 130 114 102 105 116 116 117 110 101 84 129 1094

Madhugiri Sidadaragallu Badamuddanapalya 7 131 117 117 116 117 115 130 99 99 89 92 1091

Pavagada Gummagatta Bodarahalli 7 105 93 91 99 96 100 103 88 76 93 88 927

Sira Changavara Bramhasandra 7 93 93 91 86 79 66 68 83 82 87 78 813

Total 30 459 417 401 406 408 397 418 380 358 353 387 3925

Chitradurga Chitradurga Konabevu B R Halla Hunasekatte-2 7 122 111 88 91 92 0 96 97 7 0 0 0 582

Jodi chikkenahalli Danndinakurubaraha

tti

9 142 125 104 99 0 0 72 125 118 0 0 0 643

Challakere Boganahalli Devireddyhalli 9 142 141 111 112 121 0 127 127 9 127 63 0 938

Hiriur Gandhinagara Dindavara 6 76 76 76 71 26 0 90 83 4 80 7 0 513

MD Kote Imangala 11 152 115 89 123 124 40 128 116 0 7 0 0 742

Holalkere Hirehalla Channapattana 2 36 33 33 34 34 2 34 34 24 0 0 0 228

Hosadurga Harihareswara Hotragondanahalli 5 73 60 60 60 58 60 60 59 57 60 60 0 594

Molakalmur Veerapura,Chinnaha

gari left bank

Veerapura 7 99 94 95 87 95 93 93 83 87 77 92 94 990

Total 56 842 755 656 677 550 195 700 724 306 351 222 94 5230

Haveri Haveri Kanakapura Kanakapura 9 157 150 145 154 143 53 147 153 142 0 0 0 1087

Savanur Mallighatti Mallighatti 9 166 146 145 145 163 53 164 153 166 0 0 0 1135

Manangi Challala 7 132 129 121 127 112 30 116 114 5 0 0 0 754

Hirekerur Kanavisiddageri Malagi 9 108 108 0 0 108 40 108 108 0 0 0 0 432

Byadagi Shankarapura Masanagi 9 139 131 123 132 113 40 116 114 5 0 0 0 774

Siggav Guddadachannapur

a

Singapura 9 132 114 120 121 126 35 125 129 0 0 0 0 735

Ranibennur Konanathumbige Hirebidari 9 124 110 66 71 122 0 110 114 0 0 0 0 993

Total 61 958 888 720 750 887 251 886 885 318 0 0 0 5910

Total

Training

District Total

Members

Name and No of TrainingNo. of

SHGs

Micro WatershedSub WatershedTaluk


Apndx_1_Anx_10_SUJALA -Mc- SHG TRINING-13 - CopySheet1 Appendix-1

Annex-10

Page 2

S1 S2 S3 S4 S.Tour S5 S6 S7 S8 59 S10

Total

Training

District Total

Members

Name and No of TrainingNo. of

SHGs

Micro WatershedSub WatershedTaluk

Dharawad Kundagol Bennihall Kondagol-2 7 104 93 97 98 98 45 89 82 7 99 9 0 717

Huballi Devaragudihal Gangiwal 4 44 40 42 39 30 16 30 30 2 29 6 0 308

Huballi Devaragudihal P-arasapura 12 95 77 60 73 69 0 73 74 0 0 0 0 426

Dharawad Ambalikoppa Ambalikoppa 8 104 99 100 103 91 84 23 86 88 6 90 90 860

Total 31 347 309 299 313 288 145 215 272 97 134 105 90 2311

Chikkaballapura Sidlaghatta Seegehalli Bommanahalli 11 186 185 114 36 176 69 150 0 0 0 0 0 730

Sidlaghatta Settyhally Dadmghatta 4 67 65 63 64 64 40 62 62 4 32 1 0 457


Chikkaballapura Gowdanahalli Kariganapalya 6 111 106 102 103 91 84 86 88 6 90 90 846

Chikkaballapura Kanthihalli Doddamarali 9 147 150 139 149 138 116 147 136 9 105 31 0 1120

Chinthamani Mindivalavaddu Byrasandra 10 164 164 116 115 111 10 124 111 10 113 114 0 988


Tharidal 7 103 93 97 98 98 45 89 82 7 99 9 0 717

Bagepalli VandamanaRBC Ramanspadi 7 109 107 102 112 100 14 102 100 98 102 101 103 1041

Gudibande Kushavati R Yerrahalli 6 94 83 77 88 84 39 87 82 6 0 80 0 626

Chinthamani Papagni Minchalahalli 2 30 30 30 30 30 16 30 30 2 29 6 0 233

Total 62 1011 983 840 795 892 433 791 689 224 486 432 193 6758

Kolar Kolar Palar river right bank Belaganahalli 15 659 206 202 219 221 75 226 206 15 160 34 0 1358

Kolar Palar river left bank Ankathatti 14 252 224 68 222 223 55 138 193 10 131 17 0 1281

Malur Huldenahalli Araleri 15 265 217 140 294 241 0 202 206 0 0 0 0 1300

Bangarapete Mustarahalli Battalapalli 7 130 109 78 111 91 32 96 89 0 181 0 0 787

Mulabagilu Mastur tank Ganganahalli 5 82 77 60 73 69 0 73 74 0 0 0 0 426

Srinivasapura Nilathore Hogalagere 6 120 88 71 79 73 37 90 89 0 0 0 0 527

Total 62 1508 921 619 998 918 199 825 857 25 472 51 0 5679


Apndx_1_Anx_11_Sujala IGA details tumkur_pAGE_1 Appendix-1

Annex-11

Page -1



Poor 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fair 1000(-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000

Satisfactory 2000(-) 33 0 34 17 22 14 25 27 22 8 15 6 223

3000

Good 3000 32 25 40 60 40 50 60 23 62 15 40 28 475

3500

Very Good 3500(+) 28 30 35 45 33 48 48 57 38 38 46 446

Total 93 55 74 112 107 97 133 98 141 61 93 80 1144

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: K Palya IGA Performance- Tumkur

S. Palya CP halli Sanken halli Morganhalli KG B Halli Margondhalli Elerampur S Gollahalli Total

Grading Monthly

Income

(Rs)D Nagenhalli Vaddarhalli Chikkadoddw

adi

Micro-Watersheds

J. Halli


Apndx_1_Anx_11_Sujala IGA details tumkur_pAGE_2 Appendix-1

Annex-11

Page -2



Major Income Generating Activities taken by the Beneficiaries

IGA Units IGA Units Units

(Skilled) (Unskilled)

Tailoring 53 Box Shop 93 Cow 144

Home Products 6 Chandrike 4 Buffaloe 10

Agarbatti 29 Vegetable Vending 64 Sheep rearing 115

Driving 12 Flower Vending 61 Swine 8

DTP 30 Sericulture 8 Poultry 2

Food Products 45 Bangle Sale 13

Cloth Shop 23

Beauty Parlor 4 Hotel 20

Coconut Sale 11

Embroidery 14 Rice Trade 17

Electrical wiring 8 Handloom 19

STD Booth 2

Motor 10 Chappal Shop 6

Carpentry 6 Tailoring 9

TV 3 Tea Stall 4

Tamarind Shop 4

Candle 12 Floriculture 8

Bag 5 Fruit Sale 4

Two Wheeler 4 Petty Shop 8

Vermi Compost 30 Plate Making 23

Knitting 12 Cane Works 13

Video 2 Onion Trade 11

Decoration Brooms Making 15

Plates Making 8 Papad Making 12

Rolling 10 Plantain Leaf 12

Publicity 4 Brick Kiln 6

Sales 8 Ragi Products 11

Book Binding 5 Agarbatti Making 14

Others 8 Others 85

328 580 279

Total: Skill related 328328

Unskilled 580

Livestock related 279

TOTAL 1187

IGA

LIVESTOCK RELATED


APPENDIX_2_Sujala_Rev_Dec_7_11 APPENDIX -2

Page 1



PART I

BASELINE HIGHLIGHTS- TERI (TATA ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

UNDER SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY

Main Highlights of Baseline Survey cover the following aspects:

� Occupation status: those engaged in agriculture ranged from 54.4 per cent in

Haveri to as high as 79.5 per cent in respect of Chitradurga, followed by Dharwar

(78%) and Tumkur (68%). Those engaged in labour (both agriculture and non-

agriculture constituted 64% in Kolar, 54.7% in Haveri, 50% in Chitradurga with

Tumkur accounting about 38% of the labour engaged in agriculture and non

agriculture.

� Highest percentage of those engaged in Dairy was found in Dharwad (22%) followed

by Haveri (20.9%) and Kolar (19.3%). Similar higher percent was also found in

respect of Poultry in case of Haveri and Dharwad. Kolar and Tumkur districts

had larger number of households engaged in sheep and goat rearing. Households

engaged in floriculture accounted as high as 8% per cent again in Dharwad followed

by Tumkur (around 5%).

� About 70 percent of the vulnerable groups work as labour (agriculture as well as

non agriculture) to supplement their income apart from agriculture.

� Per Capita Income: The data for the year 1997-98 as presented in the report

indicated that the per capita income of the districts varied marginally. Overall,

the PCI for the study area was estimated at Rs.10,103/- against the State

average of Rs.13,621/-. None of the districts had per capita income nearer to the

State average. Lowest per capita income was reported from Tumkur

(Rs.9011/-) while highest was in respect of Chitradurga (Rs.10,989/-).

� Land Use: As per the survey, the project study area accounted for larger

barren land than state average. Kolar and Tumkur accounted for higher

barren lands at 8.11% and 6.34% respectively as against State average of


Page 2


about 4.2%. Percentage of cultivable waste land, and land under permanent

pastures is higher than state average and particularly in Tumkur. Consequently,

net area sown has lower percentage and varies among districts. Among the

districts, percentage of area sown more than once was as high as 20% in

Dharwar and Haveri against a meagre 2.67 and 2.9% in case of Kolar and

Tumkur.

Land use in Study districts:

(in percentage)

Classification Study area State average Change

Forest 7.64 16.08 -Higher

Not available for Cultivation

7.04 6.74 Higher

Non agriculture-barren 4.75 4.21 Higher

Other uncultivated

Culturable Waste 2.75 2.31 Higher

Permanent Pasture 8.80 5.28 Higher

Trees and Groves 1.32 1.64 Lower

Fallow

Current Fallows 8.87 8.77 Marginally higher

Other Fallows 2.27 2.09 Higher

Net Sown 56.54 52.89 Higher

More than once 8.48 8.51 Marginally lower

� It was seen that in respect of all types of land use, the study area had higher

percentage including net sown area which was higher than state average by

about 4 per cent. Current fallows were almost 9% of the geographical area. However,

permanent pastures did have higher than State average share indicating that

livestock rearing was being supported in the study area.

� Land holding pattern: In respect of land holdings also the study area had a

number of deviations from the state averages as detailed in the following table:

(in percentages)

Size group Study area State Average Deviation

Marginal 11.35 10.30 Higher Small 21.18 20.50 Higher Semi Medium 27.45 27.20 Marginally higher

Medium 28.13 28.80 Marginally lower Large 11.90 13.20 Lower

Total area (ha) 3028,858 12108,667 -

o The study also brought out the fact that between 2 to 121% of those cultivating

land are tenants. Highest percent of land owners was seen in Chitradurga and


Page 3


Tumkur (72% each) an lowest in Haveri (62%). Consequently, tenancy was

observed to be higher in this district while in case of Tumkur it was just 2%.

o Among the study districts, Tumkur had highest landless households (37%)

followed by Haveri (25%), Chitradurga (24%), Kolar (21%) and Dharwad (21%).

� Irrigation Sources: Borewells constituted largest source of irrigation water in

the study districts ranging between 30 to as high as 56% of all sources used

for irrigation. This was much higher than the state average of 17.4%. The second

largest source was wells which predominated in Kolar and Tumkur. In Kolar

(88%) major source of irrigation is accounted by open and bore wells followed

by Tumkur 72%, Chitradurga (53%) while Dharwad and Haveri accounted for

about 48% of the irrigation source coming from tanks and canals. The net

area irrigated was lower in all the study districts than state average of 23.45%,

the lowest being Haveri and Dharwad (16.33%).

� 6 Cropping Pattern: Major crops in the study districts were Ragi, Maize, Paddy

and Jowar (kharif cereals), groundnut, sunflower (kharif), cotton, and sugarcane .

Among Rabi crops: Jowar, wheat, maize and to some extent Ragi (Kolar and

Tumkur) dominated cereal crops while horse gram, green gram and bengal gram

among pulses, sunflower, safflower (oilseeds) and cotton were major rabi crops

taken in almost all the districts.

� Crop Yields: The study indicated that land productivity in the project districts was

very poor as compared to the state average, particularly Haveri, Dharwad and

Tumkur where productivity was still lower. Land productivity ranges shown

below indicate comparative performance of each of the crops.

Crops Chitradurga Haveri and

Dharwad

Kolar Tumkur Study

area

State

average

Cereals and minor Millets (Tons)

1.95 1.12 1.76 1.32 1.44 1.40

Pulses (Tons) 0.50 0.31 0.34 0.41 0.36 0.30

Other crops including cotton (Bales) and Sugarcane (Tons)

5.52 2.03 3.91 2.27 3.20 16.39

Land Productivity 3.01 1.29 2.31 1.40 2.00 4.31


Page 4


� If crops like cotton and sugarcane are excluded the per hectare yield for the

study districts, would be around 1.25 tons (around 5 quintals/hectare). Sugarcane

is an irrigated and annual crop and occupies smaller areas than all the cereals,

pulses and oilseeds put together and therefore, its impact on the productivity may

not be significant in so far as dry land cultivation is concerned.

Common Property Resources (CPRs): They include Gomal (Pasture) and village forest

lands. They are either owned by Panchayats or the Revenue Department. As per

study, maintenance of the CPRs was very poor due to (i) exploitation by the villagers to

meet their fodder and fuel wood requirement and (ii) encroachment. In many cases

they were also encroached without any check. The village communities were also not

interested in maintenance of the CPRs collectively or through Panchayats.


Page 5


PART II

BASELINE SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS - ANTRIX CORPORATIOIN

A baseline study conducted by Antrix Corporation in selected sub watersheds in six

districts was studied with a view to assessing the impact of the project. Details in

respect of the SWS in Kolar, Chikkaballapura, Tumkur, Chitradurga, Haveri and Dharwad

were analysed. Main objective of this exercise was to confirm bench marks as

observed during the post project impact assessment study under Phase III. The field

surveys conducted under Pase III and output generated from the farmers one to one

interactions were compared with the bench mark surveys carried out earlier by Antrix

Corporation. The outputs related to average income per household, fuel and fodder

requirement and availability, livestock and other wealth available with the farmers.

Average Household Income

The average household income in respective sub watersheds showed that about 56

per cent of the control farmers (small, marginal and large) had an average income range

between Rs 5000/- and Rs.25000/- in all the six districts. Farmers with income

bracket between Rs 25000-Rs.50,000/- accounted for about constituted about per cent

while those above Rs 50,000/- income bracket were very small in number across the

districts (7%). As indicated in the following Table

Table: Average Household Income

Income/Dist Kolar Tumkur Chitradurga Haveri Dharwar Total

Less than Rs.5000/-

1 0 0 0 2 03 (3%)

Rs.5000-10000/- 4 1 2 1 7 15 (17%)

Rs.10000-15000/- 4 2 6 2 9 23 (26%)

Rs.15000-25000/- 4 4 5 5 7 25 (28%)

Rs.25000-50000/- 5 1 1 5 5 17 (19%)

Rs.50000-75000/- 0 0 1 3 0 04 (4%)

Over Rs 75000/- 1 0 0 2 0 03 (3%)

Total 19 8 15 18 30 90 (100%)


Page 6


Table: Land Holding and Land Use (Area: ha)

Particulars Kolar Tumkur Chitradurga Haveri Dharwar Total

Kharif 3442 3303 4498 3324 4908 19475

Fallow 194 64 165 13 56 492

Double cropped area

1569 1418 670 796 782 5235

Plantation 197 2934 151 44 181 3507

Wasteland 351 191 1564 120 876 3102

Scrub forest Other Rocky land

105 439 0 0 1587 2131 3648

Total 6901 9378 7755 4790 8766 37590

Crop intensity: This ranged between 95 per cent to 105 per cent among the five

districts. The project areas had about 2% fallow lands.

Livestock Wealth: Livestock rearing is predominant among rural households both

land owners and landless households. Composition of livestock reared by households

was different in respect of different districts. Predominant among them were small

animals (sheep and goat) with 44 percent share followed mulch animals with 32 per cent

share as indicated in the following Table:

Table: Livestock Rearing Pattern in selected SWS of Project districts (%age)

Livestock Kolar Tumkur Chitradurga Haveri Dharwad Average

Cows 22 26 9 13 39 22

Buffaloes 10 09 13 8 11 10

Sheep 31 28 52 28 11 30

Goat 13 17 19 12 07 14

Poultry 23 15 05 29 14 17

Others 04 05 02 10 18 07

Population by Socio- Economic Categories

The household survey indicated that households could be put to the following

categories:

Big farmers : 30- per cent, Small farmers -30 percent, Marginal farmers-25 percent and

Landless -15 per cent. This varied among districts. Small and Marginal farmers accounted

for about 60 percent while large farmers represented 25 of the total household. Landless

labour percentage varied between 15 to 20 percent.

POST PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUJALA I …watershed.kar.nic.in/SujalaIII_Stud_files/Post...

Documents

Transcript of POST PROJECT IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUJALA I …watershed.kar.nic.in/SujalaIII_Stud_files/Post...