Socio Economic Profile of
Upper Kolab and Upper Indravati Irrigation Project Areas1
Abstract
The construction of the irrigation system both in Kolab and Indravati regions in the Koraput and Kalahandi districts of Orissa had a significant impact
on the irrigation potential of the cultivated lands in these areas. However, the actual impact it has had in terms of the lifestyles of the inhabitants of this
area is not very clear. This paper attempts to focus on the socio-economic characteristics of the regions and the socio-economic conditions of the
people in this area and also how should local participation in operation and maintenance and sharing of water be encouraged or supported. The first
section of this paper provides a backdrop of the two regions. This section compares major socio-economic indicators for the two most backward
districts (Koraput, Kalahandi) with those for the state of Orissa as well as with those for India. The irrigation systems set up in collaboration with JBIC
cover certain blocks within the districts. The second section presents the available indicators of social and economic conditions for these blocks. The
third section presents the results of the analysis of the primary data collected across the identified villages within the JBIC region. The last section
identifies probable intervention programs that may be developed for the villages. It also presents a means of classification of villages based on certain
social and economic parameters.
Key Words: Socio, Economic, Kolab, Indravati, Irrigation, Koraput, Kalahandi, Orissa,, Backward, Demography, Health, Education, Infrastructure,
Agriculture, Occupation, Poverty, Village, Sample, Sex Ratio, Bank, Immunization, Mortality, Literacy, Teacher. Laveesh Bhandari, Indicus Analytics,
JBIC
i NDICUS ANALYTICS
B - 17 GREATER KAILASH ENCLAVE 2, NEW DELHI -110048
New Delhi 110048, India
HTTP://WWW.INDICUS.NET, INDIC@INDICUS.NET, (91-11) 29222838/63
1
A Report by Indicus Analytics in Association with Indian Society of Agri-business Professionals for Japan Bank for International
Cooperation (JBIC), October 2003
Indicus Analytics 1

Contents
Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................4
Section 1: District level comparisons ...............................................................................................................................5
Physical .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Demography............................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Economic well-being............................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Occupational Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Health...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Education ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Infrastructure Availability .................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Summary Section 1................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Demography.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Education .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Health.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
Summary Section 2................................................................................................................................................................................ 21
Section 3: Primary data analysis- Characteristics of the zones ...................................................................................22
Social group characteristics of the three zones .................................................................................................................................... 23
Economic Well Being............................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 26
Education .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Health.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 32
Credit .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Summary Section 3................................................................................................................................................................................ 36
Section 4: Categorization of villages...............................................................................................................................37
Indicus Analytics 2

Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Classification of the sample villages .................................................................................................................................................... 41
Distribution of households by village categories ................................................................................................................................. 41
Section 5: Directions for intervention programs............................................................................................................42
Appendix............................................................................................................................................................................44
Appendix 1: Sample Size..................................................................................................................................................44
Appendix 2: List of Villages .............................................................................................................................................44
Appendix 3: Questionnaires.............................................................................................................................................44
Appendix: In separate files
Indicus Analytics 3

Introduction
Background
The construction of the irrigation system both in Kolab and Indravati regions in the Koraput and Kalahandi districts has had a
significant impact on the irrigation potential of the cultivated lands in these areas. However, the actual impact it has had in terms of
the lifestyles of the inhabitants of this area is not very clear. This is so because of the differential impact on different types of farmers
– large and small and located near or farther from the canals. The impact of the system of canals/irrigation facilities would also to a
large extent be dependent upon the practices and norms of water usage in the area. For instance cooperative ways of allocating water
are likely to have a significant positive impact on growth and equity in the region. The first set of insights are related to these issues:
What are the socio-economic characteristics of the regions and the socio-economic conditions of the people in this area?
It is likely that in a region where rain-fed agriculture was the norm for many centuries, cooperative institutions and mechanisms would
not be evolved. In that sense one aspect of the proposed study is to find insights that will help answer the following question:
How should local participation in operation and maintenance and sharing of water be encouraged or supported?
In order to bring the community together it is essential to identify characteristics, and activities both social and economic that are
common across the regions. To identify these a detailed socio-economic profiling of the two regions is presented.
The first section provides a backdrop of the two regions. The two districts of Koraput and Kalahandi are amongst the most backward
districts of the country (Debroy and Bhandari, 2003; Planning Commission, 2002). This section compares major socio-economic
indicators for the two districts with those for the state of Orissa as well as with those for India. The irrigation systems set up in
collaboration with JBIC cover certain blocks within the districts. The second section presents the available indicators of social and
economic conditions for these blocks. The third section presents the results of the analysis of the primary data collected across the
identified villages within the JBIC region. The last section identifies probable intervention programs that may be developed for the
villages. It also presents a means of classification of villages based on certain social and economic parameters.
Indicus Analytics 4

Section 1: District level comparisons
Physical Predominantly rural
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India 800
Area (sq km) 7920 8807 155707 3166285 600
Number of blocks 13 14 400
Number of villages/area(%) 28.0 22.7 33.0 20.2 200
Number of villages/ number 0
738 399 372 123
of towns Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India
No. of villages/ no. of towns
Demography • Both districts are sparsely populated
(Rural) Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India
Population density (persons • Sex ratio is favourable towards females in both
156 111 200 234 districts
per sq. km.)
Sex ratio in 2001 (females per
1006 1009 986 946 • Child sex ratio is however not as favorable for
1000 males)
girls though better than India
Sex ratio 1991 1006 1003 988 938
Child population/total pop (%) 17.1 19.7 14.6 16.5 • A large share of the population in Koraput and
Sex Ratio (0-6) 2001 990 997 954 934 Kalahandi is accounted for by children
SC hhd/total hhd (%) 18.87 14.38 16.47
• Koraput is mainly a tribal district though it is
ST hhd/total hhd (%) 31.07 57.74 25.98 more urbanized than Kalahandi
Urban population (%) 7.5 16.8 15.0 27.8
Pop. growth rate (81-91) 19.5 19.9 20.1 25.8 • In the last decade, growth rates of population
have decreased by around 4 percentage points
Pop. growth rate (91-2001) 18.0 14.4 15.9 21.3
in India, Orissa and Koraput; Kalahandi did
SC/ST = scheduled caste and tribe, hhd = household, pop. = population not witness such a change
Indicus Analytics 5

Economic well-being
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India 90 Poverty and food insufficiency
80
% population below poverty
74.9 80.1 48.0 27.1 70
line
60
Food insufficiency (%
15.3 5.1 7.0 3.1 50
households) 40
Radio (% households) 18.25 18.09 23.66 35.12 30
Television (% households) 7.70 12.47 15.49 31.59 20
10
2 wheelers (% households) 3.69 6.21 7.86 11.71
0
4 wheelers (% households) 0.60 1.06 1.08 2.50 Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India
None of the specified assets 34.48
50.63 68.27 41.00 Head Count Ratio Food Insufficiency
(% households)
Households owning none of the
• Koraput has very high levels of poverty, 83 percent households
specified assets
accounting for 80 percent of the population lie below the
80
poverty line 68.27
70
• In Kalahandi, almost 5 times as many households in India and 60 50.63
twice that in Orissa, go hungry 50 41
• Only half as many households own a radio or transistor as 40 34.48
compared to India 30
• More than half of the households in Koraput and Kalahandi do 20
not own any of the assets that the Census of India had asked 10
0
about
• Koraput has greater poverty as well as greater asset ownership – Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India
this reflects greater inequality levels compared to Kalahandi. None of the specified assets (% households)
Indicus Analytics 6

Occupational Characteristics
(2001)
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India
Cultivators (%) 29.70 32.70 29.70 31.70 • While only one fourth of India is employed
as agricultural workers, in Kalahandi half of
Agri Workers (%) 50.30 40.20 35.00 26.70
the population is an agricultural worker
Other workers (%) 17.10 25.10 30.40 37.50
Household Industry Workers • Over the last decade the share of cultivators
(%) 2.90 1.90 4.80 4.10 accounting for total agricultural workers has
reduced drastically in the 2 districts
(1991)
Occupation Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India • Kalahandi has lesser percentage of
Cultivators (%) 42.90 48.10 44.30 38.70 cultivators but significantly greater number
of agriculture workers indicating that the
Agri Workers (%) 41.00 31.30 28.70 26.10 land is concentrated with a few
Other workers (%) 13.40 19.30 23.90 32.80
Household Industry Workers • Koraput and Kalahandi have a higher share
(%) 2.70 1.30 3.10 2.40 of agricultural workers and lower share of
other workers as compared to rest of Orissa
Trend in share of cultivators
• Koraput has however witnessed a strong
60 increase in the share of workers involved in
50 sectors other than agriculture
40
30
• Share of other workers in total workforce for
India is almost double the share for
20 Kalahandi
10
0 • While the share of household industry
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India workers has increased for India over the last
decade this share has not altered drastically
Cultivators (%) 1991 Cultivators (%) 2001
for Kalahandi and Koraput
Indicus Analytics 7

Health
Health care
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India
60
Infant Mortality Rate (per ‘000 125 125 130 84 50
live births)
Safe delivery (% receiving 40
19.3 21.7 32.7 40.2
skilled attention during birth)
(%)
30
Immunization (% 1 year olds 54.9 55.1 57.8 54.2 20
fully immunized)
10
0
• Health situation in the two most backward Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India
districts of India is much worse than the rest of
Safe delivery Immunization
India
• The situation of immunization is similar to rest
of India though it is worse that the rest of Orissa
• Infant mortality rate is comparable for Koraput
and Kalahandi though it is much worse than the Health status
160
rest of India
• Only around a fifth of births that take place in 120
Kalahandi and Koraput are assisted by trained
IMR
medical personnel 80
Though immunization rate is comparable with 40
the rest of India, infant mortality rates are still
0
quite high. In adequacy of health care facilities
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India
is also indicated by the low share of births being
assisted professionally. Infant Mortality Rate
Indicus Analytics 8

Education
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India
• Orissa has similar literacy rate as India, though
Literacy rates (%) 46.2 36.2 60.44 59.21 Koraput and Kalahandi do much worse
Male literacy rate (%) 62.9 47.6 75.9 75.6
Female literacy rate (%) 29.6 24.8 51.0 54.0 • Female literacy rate in Orissa is however lower
than that for India
Enrollment ratio (elementary) 126.4 175.1 90.54 81.58
Number of schools/ pop (%) 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.14 • While half of the women in India are literate
Teacher – Pupil Ratio 28.4 23.3 34.3 36.7 only a third of those in Kalahandi and a fourth
Number of female teachers/ of those in Koraput are able to read and write
16.0 29.0 22.0 30.9
tot teachers (%)
• Enrollment rates at the elementary level in the
Enrollment ratio is the number of students in elementary school as a percentage of
children in the 6 to 9 year age group. A ratio greater than 100 implies that older or
two districts are however much higher than
younger children are also in elementary school. In all likelihood this reflects that many those for India and Orissa
students are not graduating on to higher (middle) levels or are entering school late.
• Number of students per teacher is higher than
in India or Orissa as a whole, implying adverse
Literacy Rate
quality of education
80 • Further, female teachers constitute a very small
share of total teachers in Kalahandi; the share
60 of female teachers in Kalahandi is half as
much the share in India, though Koraput
40 performs in comparison to India as a whole
20
• Literacy is low, enrollments are high, there are
0
comparable number of schools but quality of
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India
education is not very good in Kalahandi and
Koraput
Total literacy rate (%) Male literacy rate (%) Female literacy rate (%)
Indicus Analytics 9

Infrastructure Availability
• Habitations in Kalahandi and Koraput are
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India
poorly connected by roads
Road connectivity (%) 14.1 10.8 41.2 74.9
Electricity (%) 9.8 9.0 33.8 55.8 • Unlike overall India, where almost 56 percent
Telephone (%) 1.84 3.80 1.5 9.1 households have electricity, in Koraput and
Kalahandi there are barely 10 percent of such
Pop. Availing bank
18.62 27.27 24.21 35.54 households
services (%)
Percentage of villages connected by road. Percent households having electricity, • Kalahandi is worse than Koraput in terms of
telephone and availing bank credit.
telephone connectivity
• Greater telephone penetration in Koraput
Infrastructure Availability (compared to Kalahandi) is not surprising
given greater levels of inequality in that district
(first noted in pg. 7)
80
70
Access to Bank Services
60
50
India 35.54
40
30
Orissa 24.21
20
10 Koraput 27.27
0
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India Kalahandi 18.62
Road connectivity (%) Electricity (%) Pop. Availing bank services (%)
Indicus Analytics 10

Agriculture
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India • Kalahandi & Koraput have a
slightly lower share of cropped
Net area sown/ total
area than the country
geographical area (%) 42.44 35.80 39.01 43.26
Forest Area/total area (%) 27.0 16.9 31.4 23 • Kalahandi has a forest cover
Gross Irrigated area/ gross comparable to India though
22.1 25.2 27.9
sown area (kharif) (%) Koraput is much lower
Gross Irrigated area/ gross
3.9 14.5 13.0
sown area (rabi) (%) • In the Rabi season the situation
Fertilizer consumption 32.8% of irrigation in Kalahandi is
9.1% 3.5% 5.7%
(tonnes/ha) (Punjab) much worse than rest of Orissa
% SMF households (Rural) 59.01 46.52 55.05 50.53
• Fertilizer consumption is much
lower in Koraput and Kalahandi
than in the agriculturally well
Distribution Semi- off state of Punjab
of Marginal Small medium Medium Large Total
households • While 60 percent of the farming
(4.0 households constitute small and
over size of (Below (1.0 to 2.0 (2.0 to 4.0 (10 ha. & (All
to 10.0 marginal farmers in Kalahandi,
land 1.0 ha.) ha.) ha.) above) Groups)
ha.) in India this share is only 50
holdings
Kalahandi percent
(%) 43.02 29.70 18.86 7.53 0.90 100
Koraput (%) 46.08 29.49 17.88 5.72 0.84 100
Orissa (%) 54.08 27.89 13.71 3.93 0.38 100
India2 (%) 62.50 19.80 11.90 5.80 0.90 100
2
Source: Cultivation practices in India, 1998-99, NSSO
Indicus Analytics 11

Summary Section 1
The Koraput and Kalahandi belt are among the poorest parts of not only the state of Orissa but of the whole country.
They have a small economy that is largely dependent on agriculture, manufacturing activity has yet to take off and services are also
highly dependent on agriculture activity. This is even more so of rural areas. The share of Agriculture has also not dropped as in most
parts of the country.
The two districts also lower population density than in other parts of Orissa. Economic activity in general has lower capability to
generate high value added (wages + profits + rent + interest) given the predominance of rain-fed agriculture. The small size of the
economy, high dependence on agriculture and also small landholdings would indicate high levels of poverty, low consumption levels
as well as asset ownership. Data from different sources show precisely these characteristics. This part of Orissa has among the lowest
consumption levels in the country.
Low incomes and low consumption also indicate that health conditions would not be good. For instance, the two districts have among
the highest infant mortality rates, significantly higher than the all India average.
Education characteristics traditionally have been poor. However, enrolment has gone up in recent years, and gross enrolment rates in
both the districts are greater than 100. This indicates that many children in the higher age groups are also in elementary schools.
Literacy rates are lower than that for the state of Orissa.
Poor infrastructure completes the picture of deprivation in the two districts. Roads and access to electricity are both quite low when
compared to the rest of the state and the country.
Agriculture conditions are also quite poor. Apart from low cropped area, less than a quarter of cultivating households have irrigation
in the kharif season and between 4 to 14 percent in rabi. Almost three fourths of the households have cultivable land of less than 2
hectares.
Indicus Analytics 12

Section 2: Socio-Economic Indicators at the sub-district level
Koraput Kalahandi
Demography Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma Dharmgharh Junagharh
(district) (district)
Population (2001) 979,835 59,191 79,800 89,035 78,788 1,234,095 118,900 174,435
Population (1991) 857,872 51,021 83,747 69,677 113,983 1,052,740 100,293 135,987
Child population
169,684 10,124 13,676 15,132 12,641 198,307 18,215 26,942
(2001)
% child population 17.32 17.10 17.14 17.00 16.04 16.07 15.32 15.45
% urban population 16.8 49.0 14.3 7.5 8.3
Population growth
14.20 16.01 -4.70 27.78 -30.88 17.20 18.55 28.27
rate (91-2001)
Source Census 2001
40
• Growth rate in Boriguma is negative
Decadal Growth Rate of Population and large - population has decreased
30
considerably from 1991 to 2001
20
10 • Population has also decreased in
0 Jeypore but at slower rate than in
-10 Boriguma.
-20
• Junagharh in Kalahandi has the highest
-30
growth rate of population.
-40
KALAHANDI
KORAPUT
Jeypore
Koraput
Kotpad
Boriguma
Dharamgharh
Junagharh
• Dharmgharh and Junagharh have lower
share of child population than the sub-
districts considered under Koraput
Indicus Analytics 13

• Unlike most of India,
Koraput Kalahandi Dharmgha Junaghar
Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma Koraput, Boriguma and
(district) (district) rh h
Junagharh have a sex ratio
that is favourable for females
Sex Ratio (2001)
(females per ‘000 1,009 1,033 998 993 1,001 1,006 982 1,002
males) • In Junagharh the ratio has
fallen over the last decade.
Sex Ratio (1991) This is also apparent from the
(females per ‘000 1,003 1,018 989 984 1,000 1,006 998 1,009 child sex ratio in Junagharh
males) which is not as favourable for
Sex Ratio (0-6 yrs.) females
(females per ‘000 997 1,002 984 982 1,006 990 981 976
males) • Dharmgharh has the lowest
Population (2001) 979,835 59,191 79,800 89,035 78,788 1,234,095 118,900 174,435 sex ratio among all the sub-
districts considered here
Area (sq km) 7,708 421 510 422 606 8,319 386
Population Density • In case of all the districts
(2001) (persons per 127 141 156 211 130 148 308 and sub-districts, child sex
sq. km.) ratio is lower than the overall
sex ratio
• Though Boriguma has the
highest population it has the
1,040 Falling sex ratio lowest population density
1,020
1,000 While sex ratio has not
980 been a problem
960
historically, the child sex
940
ratio is indicative of low
KORAPUT Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma KALAHANDI Dharmgharh Junagharh
sex ratio in the future
Sex Ratio (2001) Sex Ratio (0-6 yrs.)
Indicus Analytics 14

Koraput Kalahandi
Education Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma Dharmgharh Junagharh
(district) (district)
Literacy rates
39.5 37.7 46.0 43.2 47.1 60.9 60.2 59.7
(males)
Literacy rates
16.1 16.4 22.2 15.9 20.2 26.8 24.6 25.0
(females)
Female literacy
rate/male 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.37 0.43 0.44 0.41 0.42
literacy rate
• Both Dharmgharh and Junagharh have much
Literacy Rates
higher male literacy rates than Koraput, Jeypore,
70
Kotpad and Boriguma
60
50 • Dharmgharh and Koraput are the best and the
worst in terms of male literacy respectively
40
30 • In terms of female literacy, however, Junagharh
20 and Kotpad are the best and worst respectively
10
• Except for Junagharh, not even a quarter of the
0 females are literate
KALAHANDI
KORAPUT
Jeypore
Kotpad
Koraput
Dharmgharh
Junagharh
Boriguma
• The sub-districts where male literacy rate is high
the female literacy rate is also high in relation to
other sub-districts
Male literacy rates Female literacy rates
Indicus Analytics 15

Koraput
Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma • Teachers per school are higher in
(district)
Jeypore and Boriguma than in
Number of schools 1,687 486 129 1,073 170 Koraput and Kotpad in the Koraput
district
Number of teachers 4,145 281 375 311 463
Teachers per school 2.46 0.58 2.91 0.29 2.72
• In the Kalahandi district
Female teacher per total
0.27 0.31 0.27 0.15 0.13 Dharmgharh and Junagharh have a
teacher (ratio)
comparable ratio of teachers per
Number of female teachers 1,115 88 102 48 60 school
Note: Data corresponds to the year 1996-97
• In Dharmgharh and Junagharh the
Kalahandi share of female teachers in total
Dharmgharh Junagharh
(district) teachers is very small. Generally a
Number of schools 1,753 142 182 larger number of female teachers is
Number of teachers 4,636 453 562 considered to be more conducive
Teachers per school 2.64 3.19 3.09 for female literacy and is also
Female teacher per total indicative of better quality of
0.12 0.10 0.09 education
teacher (ratio)
Number of female teachers 575 45 51
Note: Data corresponds to the year 1998-99
Ratio of female to total teachers
0.4
0.3
0.2 Female teacher per
0.1 total teacher
0
KORAPUT Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma KALAHANDI Dharmgharh Junagharh
Indicus Analytics 16

Boriguma
Agriculture Koraput (district) Koraput Jeypore Kotpad • Agricultural productivity in
Land Utilization Kotpad is much lower than
Net area Sown (ha) 218,651 11,027 19,832 21,066 29,577 other sub-districts in Koraput
Forest Area (ha) 59,081 4,401 8,627 1,802 2,140
• As compared to the other sub-
Grazing Land (ha) 19,146 815 1,483 2,442 1,909
districts, Dharmgharh gets
Actual Rainfall (M.M) 1,335 1,438 1,476 1,204 1,331 much lower level of rainfall
Fertilizer consumption (M.T) 3,460 114 1,076 387 490
Fertilizer consumption • In the sub-districts of Kalahandi
0.02 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.02
(tonnes/ha) agricultural productivity is
Paddy lower than those in Koraput,
Production (qtls) 2,733,393 101,883 537,575 402,785 494,959 while fertilizer consumption per
Yield (qtls/ha) 21.47 21.13 25.76 19.18 20.85 hectare is higher
Note: Data for 1996-1997
Kalahandi Junagharh
Dharmgharh
(district)
Paddy yield
Land Utilization 40
Net area Sown (ha) 259,165 22,494 26,719
20
Forest Area (ha) 64,793 718 4,104
Grazing Land (ha) 21,702 1,464 3,156 0
Actual Rainfall (M.M) 1,210 669 1,101 Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma
Fertilizer consumption (M.T) 10700 860 1360
Fertilizer consumption 40
0.04 0.04 0.05
(tonnes/ha) 20
Paddy
0
Production (qtls) 2,424,489 224,625 197,317
Dharmgharh Junagharh
Yield (qtls/ha) 10.80 10.11 7.98
Note: Data for 1998-1999
Indicus Analytics 17

Health Koraput (district) Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma • While there are many post
Number of PHC 46 3 4 3 4 offices per square
kilometer in the sub-
Number of PHCs per sq km 0.79 0.71 0.64 0.47 0.77 districts there is not even
Number of Hospitals per sq km 0.66 0.95 0.98 0.71 0.82 1 PHC or Hospital in the
Number of Hospitals 51 4 5 3 5 sub-districts of Koraput
Note: Data for 1996-1997
Kalahandi Both blocks urgently require
Dharmgharh Junagharh
(district)
hospitals and PHCs to cater
Number of PHC 46 5 6
to the health care needs of
Number of PHCs per sq km 0.55 0.32
the population.
Number of Hospitals per sq km 0.85 1.81
Number of Hospitals 71 7 8
Note: Data for 1998-1999
Koraput
Infrastructure (district) Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma
Post office 223 11 24 16 38
Post office per sq km 2.89 2.61 4.71 3.79 6.27
Note: Data for 1997
Kalahandi (district) Dharmgharh Junagharh
Post office 293 30 39
Post office per sq km 3.52 7.77
Note: Data for 1998-1999
Indicus Analytics 18

Koraput Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma Kalahandi Dharmgh Junaghar • In Koraput, the availability of
(district) (district) arh h bicycles is the lowest. This
Availability of Bicycle 38,950 1,432 5,225 8,684 4,935 130,803 14,148 19,724 block has a low percentage of
availability of cars and
% hhds having bicycle 16.11 9.00 27.47 40.96 25.99 42.96 48.25 46.38
scooters as well.
Availability of Car, • Jeypore has a low percentage
Jeep, Van 1,460 103 153 160 276 1,450 177 259 of bicycles and cars but it is
higher on scooters compared
% hhds having cars 0.60 0.65 0.80 0.75 1.45 0.48 0.60 0.61
to the other blocks.
Availability of Scooter, • Boriguma is also low on
Motor Cycle, Moped 5,666 295 1,017 552 723 8,069 1,109 1,327 bicycle availability and has a
% hhds having higher percent of households
2.34 1.85 5.35 2.60 3.81 2.65 3.78 3.12
scooters owning cars (1.45%).
60 6 Percentage of scooters available
Percentage of bicycles available 5
40 4
20 3
2
0 1
0
KORAPUT
Jeypore
Boriguma
Dharamgharh
Koraput
Kotpad
KALAHANDI
Junagharh
KALAHANDI
Koraput
KORAPUT
Kotpad
Boriguma
Dharamgharh
Junagharh
Jeypore
Indicus Analytics 19

Koraput Kalahandi Dharmghar Junaghar
(district) Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma (district) hh
Total number of 42,525 • Penetration of radios
households 241,724 15,916 19,023 21,202 18,991 304,484 29,321
and televisions is very
Availability of Radio,
Transistor 32,377 2,033 4,004 3,517 3,295 52,507 5,335 8,335
poor in Koraput,
Kotpad, and Boriguma
% hhds having radios 13.39 12.77 21.05 16.59 17.35 17.24 18.20 19.60
• Penetration of
Availability of Telephone 2,794 191 426 255 502 2,688 357 407 telephones is also low
% hhds having in the blocks. In
telephones 1.16 1.20 2.24 1.20 2.64 0.88 1.22 0.96 Junagharh not even 1
percent of the
Availability of Television 11,396 854 1,987 792 1,258 15,227 1,804 2,499 households have
% hhds having telephones
televisions 4.71 5.37 10.45 3.74 6.62 5.00 6.15 5.88
• The blocks, Koraput,
% hhds availing bank
services 22.82 54.93 17.48 31.64 25.21 17.37 17.60 10.14 Kotpad and Boriguma,
Total number of are all low on
households availing availability of radio.
banking services 55,162 8,742 3,326 6,708 4,787 52,897 5,160 4,313 • More than half of the
% hhds having none of households in Koraput
the specified assets 75.56 80.46 62.81 53.35 65.47 52.12 47.40 48.08 access banking
None of the specified services while in
assets 182,650 12,806 11,949 11,312 12,433 158,688 13,898 20,446 Junagharh only a tenth
of the households
60 % hhds owning TVs % hhds accessing banks access banks.
• In the Koraput sub-
40 district, majority of the
20
households do not
own any of the assets
0 specified by the
KORAPUT Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma KALAHANDI Dharamgharh Junagharh Census of India
Indicus Analytics 20

Summary Section 2
Demography
Population growth is negative in Boriguma and Jeypore, this is in all likelihood due to out-migration. Whereas Junagadh and
Kalahandi have the highest population growth.
Unlike most of India, Koraput, Boriguma and Junagharh have a sex ratio that is favorable for females. While sex ratio has not
been a problem historically, the child sex ratio is indicative of low sex ratio in the future
Education
Generally literacy rates are low, male literacy rates are high and female literacy rates are extremely low.
In the sub-districts where male literacy rate is high the female literacy rate also tends to be high. In other words, there is some
association between male and female literacy, even though female literacy is significantly lower.
Agriculture
In the sub-districts of Kalahandi agricultural productivity is lower than those in Koraput.
Agricultural productivity in Kotpad is much lower than other sub-districts in Koraput
Health Infrastructure
Despite many post offices in the sub-districts there is not even 1 PHC or Hospital in the sub-districts of Koraput
There is an urgent requirement of hospitals and PHCs to cater to the health care needs of the population
Asset Ownership
Penetration of transport vehicles as well as modes of communications tends to be very low in the area. There are some inter-
block differences, but the overall conditions is one of low access to means of communication and transport.
In the Koraput sub-district for instance the majority of the households do not own any of the assets specified by the Census.
OVERALL
Significant inter-block differences notwithstanding, the overall picture is that of extreme deprivation with great infrastructure
requirements. Intra-block differences (village level conditions) will be the key determining factor of success possibilities of future
community-building activities.
Indicus Analytics 21

Section 3: Primary data analysis- Characteristics of the zones
The availability of water to villages covered by the two irrigation systems depends on the location of the villages. The villages located
near the head section of the canal have abundant water while those located at the tail have water scarcity. The problems of the villages
particularly with respect to agriculture and irrigation would thus vary considerably. Based on this premise, each of the project areas
under the two irrigation systems was first divided into three zones. The zones and their composition are given below:
The Kolab (Kolab) and Indravati (Indravati) project areas under JBIC, have been divided into 3 zones each (1 zone with abundant
water, one with scarce water availability and one with medium level water availability). The six zones created are
Kolab
Zone 1 – Jeypore Block – Abundant water availability
Zone 2 – Kotpad Block – Medium water availability
Zone 3 – Beriguma Block – Scarce water availability
Indravati
Zone 1 – mainly Junagadh Block – Medium water availability
Zone 2 – Dharamgarh Block – Abundant water availability
Zone 3 – Dharamgarh Block, tail section – Scarce water availability
From each of these zones a set of seven villages was identified for conducting the household survey. While identifying the villages it
was ensured that no two villages were from the same gram panchayat. In each of these villages 25 households were surveyed. A total
of 1047 households were covered under the survey. The distribution of total individuals surveyed across the social groups is presented
below.
Indicus Analytics 22

Social group characteristics of the three zones Structured Sampling
Sample households by social groups across zones in the two project areas (Nos.) • Designed to capture inter-zone
Project Area-> Kolab Indravati differences
Social Group Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total
SC 22 17 30 69 57 34 56 147 • Sample sizes large enough to
ST 87 85 41 213 19 14 25 58 measure differences in a robust
OBC 11 49 57 117 90 98 70 258 manner
Other 46 17 38 101 7 18 8 33
Missing* 7 7 8 22 2 11 16 29 • Ensured representation for
Total 173 175 174 522 175 175 175 525 different caste groupings
Missing denotes missing information on the caste of the respondent.
• Random sampling within a
village
Indicus Analytics 23

Distribution of social groups across zones in the two project areas (%)
Kolab
• Tribal population accounts for
Project area-> Kolab Indravati
around 40% of the population in
the Kolab project area.
Social Group Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total
SC 13 10 17 13 33 18 33 29
• Zone 3, which comprises of the
ST 47 49 24 40 11 8 11 10 Boriguma block, is the
OBC 6 28 33 22 50 56 44 50 exception where there are more
Other 30 9 21 20 5 11 4 6 Other Backward Caste’s (33%)
Missing 4 4 5 4 1 6 8 5 than Scheduled Tribes (28%).
Total sampled 961 840 892 2,693 920 822 879 2,621 • Other Backward Castes are the
least in Zone 1.
% distribution by social groups Kolab % distribution by social groups Indravati
Indravati • OBC’s are the prominent social
group in the Indravati area
(50%).
SC ST OBC Other SC ST OBC Other
100 100% • Zones 1 and 3 have also a
90 90%
higher percentage of Scheduled
Castes.
80 80%
70 70%
60 60% The forward castes are present
50 50% more in zone 1 of the Kolab
region. Zone 1 has abundant
40 40%
supply of water. This may also be
30 30%
an indirect reference to a
20 20% phenomenon where rich farmers
10 10% tend to shift to water abundant
0 0% places.
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Zone1 Zone2 Zone3
Indicus Analytics 24

Economic Well Being Kolab
Average per capita expenditure by social group in the zones (Rs.)
• The average per capita monthly
expenditure (PCME) is Rs. 379 in the
Project area-> Kolab Indravati
Kolab region.
Social Group Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total
• The Scheduled Tribes have
SC 331 311 318 321 324 439 395 375
ST 382 299 294 333 376 353 350 361
comparatively lower PCME than
OBC 504 341 429 401 335 411 396 380 people from other social groups across
Other 488 321 506 470 424 636 854 622 all the three zones.
Total 417 315 399 379 338 433 407 391 • The economically poorest group in the
Kolab region is the scheduled tribes in
Zone 2.
Indravati
Average PCME by social groups Average PCME by social groups • The average per capita monthly
Kolab Indravati expenditure (PCME) is Rs. 391 in the
Indravati region.
SC ST OBC Other SC ST OBC Other • The economically poorest group in the
850 850
Indravati region is the scheduled castes
800 800 in Zone 1.
750 750
700 700 People in the Indravati region are
650 650 relatively better economically than
600 600 those in the Kolab region. The
550 550 scheduled tribes are the economically
500 500 worst off in both the project areas.
450 450 People in Zone 2 of Kolab region are
400 400 economically the worst off.
350 350
The forward castes are economically
300 300
better off than other social groups
250 250
across the zones.
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Zone1 Zone2 Zone3
Indicus Analytics 25

Infrastructure
Kolab
Distribution of households by type of houses across zones • Approximately 70% of the
Kolab Indravati households in the Kolab region
Type of house Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total live in kutcha houses.
Kutchha 66 70 71 69 53 55 47 52
Semi Pucca 26 26 27 26 42 33 50 42 • Zone 3 has the lowest population
Pucca 6 4 2 4 4 11 3 6 living in pucca houses.
Missing 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Total 173 175 174 522 175 175 175 525 Indravati
• Half the households in Indravati
area live in kutcha houses.
% distribution by type of house Kolab % distribution by type of house
Indravati • Zone 2 has the maximum
proportion of households living in
Kutchha Semi Pucca Pucca Kutchha Semi Pucca Pucca pucca houses
100% 100%
More than 90% of the households
80% 80% in the two-project area do not have
permanent houses.
60% 60%
The Kolab region has a much
higher percentage of households
40% 40%
living in kutchha houses than the
Indravati region. This
20% 20% characteristic is common across
the zones.
0% 0%
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Zone1 Zone2 Zone3
Indicus Analytics 26

Kolab
• Existence of a separate kitchen in
Availability of Kitchen
the house is limited to 40% of the
Distribution of households by availability of separate kitchen
households.
Separate room Kolab Indravati
for kitchen Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total • Zone 2 has a lower proportion of
Yes 45 30 44 39 15 24 14 18 households having separate
No 55 70 56 61 85 76 85 82 kitchen than the other two zones.
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Total Households 173 175 174 522 175 175 175 525 Indravati
• Almost 80% of the households in
Type of fuel used the Indravati region do not have a
Distribution of households by type of fuel used∇ separate kitchen.
Kolab Indravati
Type of fuel Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Majority households do not have a
LPG 8 3 4 5 1 3 4 3 separate room for the kitchen. This
Biogas 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Wood 65 78 80 74 65 61 66 64
proportion is almost double in
Others 27 19 14 20 34 35 31 33 Indravati than the Kolab region.
Total Households 226 215 207 648 268 263 236 767 Though wood is more expensive
most households use wood rather
Sanitation than LPG for cooking. A common
Distribution of households by availability of latrine problem across the two regions is
Kolab Indravati
lack of sanitation facilities in the
Latrine Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total
No Latrine 87 97 87 90 97 83 91 90
houses. Only about 10% of the
Some Latrine 13 3 13 10 3 17 9 10 households have some form of
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 latrine available.
Total Households 173 175 174 522 175 175 175 525
∇
There may be more than the stipulated number of households due to multiple fuels being used for cooking
Indicus Analytics 27

% distribution by type of fuel used % distribution by type of fuel used
for cooking in Kolab for cooking in Indravati
100% 100%
80% 80%
60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Zone1 Zone2 Zone3
LPG Biogas Wood Others LPG Biogas Wood Others
% households with separate % households with separate
kitchen Kolab kitchen Indravati
Zone3 Zone3
Zone2 Zone2
Zone1 Zone1
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
Yes No Yes No
Indicus Analytics 28

Drinking Water Kolab
Distribution of population by drinking water sources • Majority of the population
Drinking Water Kolab Indravati depend on tube wells for their
Source Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total daily drinking water needs.
Surface 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Well 28 19 32 27 6 12 5 7 • The second major source of
Tube well 71 70 66 69 94 87 95 92 drinking water in the Kolab
Pipe water at home 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 region is the dug wells.
Others 0 11 1 4 0 0 0 0
Total sampled
persons 961 840 892 2,693 920 822 879 2,621
Indravati
• In the Indravati region too, tube
wells are the major source of
Distribution of Households by availability of electricity
drinking water.
Availability of Kolab Indravati
Electricity Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total
• Compared to Kolab region a very
Yes 29 9 26 21 30 31 22 27
small proportion of households
No 70 90 73 78 70 69 78 73
depend on dug-wells for their
Missing 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
drinking water needs.
Total Households 173 175 174 522 175 175 175 525
% population accesing water from tube % population accesing water from tube
wells in Kolab wells in Indravati Piped water is almost non-existent
71
70 95 in the two regions as a source for
94
drinking water needs. In both
66 87 regions, only around 30 percent of
the households receive electricity.
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Zone1 Zone2 Zone3
Tube well Tube well
Indicus Analytics 29

Education
Distribution of population by level of education attained
Education Level Kolab Indravati Kolab:
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total • More than half of the
Illiterates 47 58 51 52 52 47 48 49 population is illiterate
Literate but below primary 17 22 18 19 14 14 17 15 in Kolab except for
Primary 8 8 8 8 9 8 11 9 zone 1.
Middle 15 8 14 13 11 14 11 12 • A large share of the
Secondary 8 4 5 6 8 10 8 9
children is not
Higher Sec. & above 6 1 4 4 7 6 5 6
attending school
Total sampled persons 888 839 871 2,598 914 811 854 2,579
• In zone 2 none of the
children are in higher
Distribution of children by current level of education secondary or above.
Education Level Kolab Indravati Indravati:
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total • A large proportion of
Not attending 41 50 48 46 43 41 39 42 the children are not
Literate but below primary 21 28 21 23 22 19 19 20 attending school, but
Primary 13 9 10 10 12 12 18 14 this share is slightly
Middle 7 9 11 9 10 10 10 10
lower than in Kolab.
Secondary 9 5 7 7 7 10 5 7
Higher Sec. & above 10 0 3 5 6 9 8 8
A large portion of the
Total 289 258 263 810 326 242 203 771
population is illiterate and the
Total children of age 6-24 393 337 325 1,055 373 314 336 1,023 next large set is of those that
% distribution by current education % distribution by current education level in Indravati are literate but below
level in Kolab primary. Though there is no
100% 100%
90% 90%
dearth of schools in the two
Higher Sec. & above
80% 80% blocks the number of children
Secondary
70% 70% who are currently not
Middle
60% 60%
Primary
attending school is very high.
50% 50%
40% Literate, below primary
40%
30% 30% Not attending
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0% Indicus Analytics 30
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Zone1 Zone2 Zone3

Health
Distribution of population by distance of nearest health facility
Education Level Kolab Indravati Kolab:
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total • In Zone1 and Zone3, a large
Within the village 70 28 56 52 85 75 86 70 portion of the population has
Less than 1 Km 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 access to a health facility
1Km to 5Km 30 44 14 29 15 25 14 30 within their own village.
5Km to 10Km 0 15 30 14 0 0 0 0
• In Zone 2 and Zone3 more
10Km+ 0 14 0 4 0 0 0 0
Total sampled
than a quarter of the
persons 961 840 892 2,693 920 822 879 961 population has to travel
greater than 5 kilometers to
access health facilities.
Indravati:
• Health care situation is much
better in Indravati than in
Kolab.
• Health care facilities are
either available in the village
or at a distance of less than 5
kilometers.
Health care is a problem in
terms of emergency care in both
blocks, Kolab, however, is much
worse off.
Indicus Analytics 31

Kolab:
• In Khariff season, almost 40
percent of the households in
Agriculture the Kolab region are semi-
Distribution of households cultivating land by area sown during Khariff medium cultivators.
• Half of the households
Area sown in Kolab Indravati cultivating in the Kharif
Khariff season Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total season are either small
cultivators or medium to large
<1 ha (Marginal) 10 4 7 7 4 3 3 3
cultivators.
1-2 ha (Small) 26 31 24 27 43 26 28 32 • None of the sample
2-5 ha (Semi- cultivators from Zone 2
medium) 38 47 39 41 37 44 40 40 cultivate land in the Rabi
>=5 ha (Medium season.
to large) 26 18 30 24 16 27 29 24
Total Households
Indravati:
cultivating land 136 128 117 381 134 135 146 415
• In Zone 1 the small farmers
account for the largest share
in the Kharif season
• In zone 2 marginal farmers
constitute a large share during
Distribution of households cultivating land by area sown during Rabi the Rabi season, while none
of the medium to large
Area sown in Kolab Indravati
farmers cultivate then
Rabi season Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total
<1 ha (Marginal) 9 . 5 7 . 14 . 3 Most marginal and small
farmers cultivate during the
1-2 ha (Small) 26 34 32 29 33 29 29 32
2-5 ha (Semi- Rabi season. Marginal farmers
medium) 42 44 32 41 38 57 71 47 account for a very small portion
>=5 ha (Medium
to large) 23 22 30 24 29 . . 18
of cultivators in either season.
Total Households
cultivating land 111 32 37 180 24 7 7 38
Indicus Analytics 32

Distribution of households cultivating own land during Khariff
Own land Kolab Indravati Kolab:
cultivated in • Semi-medium farmers
Khariff season Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total
account for the largest share
<1 ha (Marginal) 17 4 9 10 5 3 3 4 if cultivators during the
Khariff season in Kolab
1-2 ha (Small) 26 37 24 29 46 24 30 33 • In Zone 2 a small farmers
2-5 ha (Semi- also account for a large
medium) 32 43 41 39 34 46 38 39
share.
>=5 ha (Medium
to large) 24 16 27 22 15 27 28 24 • On an average Zone 1
Total households farmers receive a higher
cultivating own price for their produce than
land 121 119 113 353 130 130 144 404 those in Zone 2 or Zone 3
• Yield is also relatively
higher in Zone 1.
Indravati:
Average yield and price during Khariff season • In Zone 1, small farmers
Kolab Indravati account for a large share of
Khariff season Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total cultivators during Khariff
Mean Yield season.
(quintals per
acre) 15.43 11.66 11.14 12.73 8.61 11.1 7.82 9.23 • Zone 3 has the lowest yield.
Mean Price of
major crop (Rs. Farmers in Kolab region have
per quintal) 410 387 403 400 377 395 367 382
higher yield and the produce
also fetches better price than
that from Indravati
Indicus Analytics 33

Distribution of households by place of sale of Khariff crop
Sale of Khariff Kolab Indravati Kolab:
crop • Most farmers in Kolab sell their
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total
Local Market 70 92 91 83 39 35 25 33 produce in the local market
Government 2 1 . 1 3 6 3 4 • In Zone 1, however, a large
Middle Men 27 7 9 15 11 31 11 18 share of the farmers sells to the
Did Not Sell 1 . . 0 46 27 61 46 middlemen.
Total 122 102 90 314 123 124 143 390 • Almost all farmers produce
crops for sale in Kolab
Indravati:
• Unlike in Kolab, here a large
share of the farmers does not
cultivate khariff crops for sale.
• In Zone 2 a large share of the
farmers sells to the middle men.
Only a very small share of the
farmers sells their produce to the
government.
Most cultivate the khariff crop for
self-consumption or sell it in the
local market.
Indicus Analytics 34

Credit
Distribution of households availing credit for agriculture purposes by source
Kolab Indravati Kolab:
Source of credit Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total • In Zone 1 and 3 most credit for
Private money agricultural purposes is taken from
lenders 10 10 0 6 9 42 11 18 cooperatives
Regional rural • In Zone 2 agricultural loans are
bank 17 47 15 26 39 37 34 36
taken from RRBs.
Kisan credit card 0 0 3 1 13 0 26 16
• A major share of the credit for
Self help group 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 6
Cooperative reasons other than agricultural
society 72 43 82 67 17 21 29 23 inputs is taken from cooperatives,
Total 29 30 39 98 23 19 35 77 RRBs and Private money lenders
in Zone 1,2 and 3 respectively
Indravati:
Distribution of households availing credit for non-agriculture purposes by source • Here loans for agricultural inputs
Kolab Indravati are availed largely from RRBs.
Source of credit Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total • Private banks are significant
Private money contributors for agricultural input
lenders 33 0 50 33 23 75 0 41 loans for Zone 2.
Regional rural • Loans for reasons other than
bank 8 67 20 20 38 6 25 22
agricultural inputs is availed
Kisan credit card 0 0 20 5 8 0 0 3
mainly from RRbs, Private Banks
Self help group 13 17 10 13 8 0 0 3
Cooperative and Other sources.
society 38 0 0 23 8 0 13 5
Others 8 17 0 8 15 19 63 27 Self help groups are not playing
Total 24 6 10 40 13 16 8 37 a key role in provision of loans.
Zone 2 in Indravati is especially
dependent on private banks or
moneylenders for loans.
Indicus Analytics 35

Summary Section 3
Social Group
• In Both the project areas we see that the forward castes are present more in the Zone 1 as compared to the other two zones. Zone 1 is the
area where there is abundant water supply
• The tribal population is more in Kolab region. Other backward castes are the other prominent social group in the two regions. They are
more concentrated in the Indravati area.
Monthly Expenditure
• People in the Indravati region are relatively better economically than those in the Kolab region.
• The scheduled tribes are the economically worst off in both the project areas.
• The forward castes are economically better off than other social groups across the zones.
House
• More than 90% of the households in the two-project area do not have permanent houses.
• Zone 1 in both the project areas has higher proportion of households having permanent houses.
• The Indravati area has a higher proportion of semi-pucca and pucca houses as compared to Kolab.
Drinking water
• Majority of the population in both the project areas depend on tube well for their drinking water needs. Only 1% of the entire population
in the two project areas has pipe water available to them.
Sanitation
• Approximately 10% of the households have availability of any type of latrines. Zone 2 in both Kolab and Indravati areas has the lowest
proportion of households having access to latrines.
Electricity
• Availability of electricity is limited to 21 5 of the households in Kolab region and 27% of the households in the Indravati area.
Approximately 90% of the households in Zone 2 of the Kolab area do not have electricity.
OVERALL
There is some geographical concentration of different social groups. The relatively better off-sections (higher castes and higher
expenditure households) tend to be more likely to be located in Zone 1. The other zones contain a relatively higher share of the
dis-privileged.
Indicus Analytics 36

Section 4: Categorization of villages
The information that has been collected can be used to identify intervention programs for the villages. The information is first used to
classify villages across the following four categories:
1. Type I Relatively Progressive Villages
2. Type II Relatively Developing Villages
3. Type III Relatively Emerging Villages
4. Type IV Relatively Conventional Villages
This categorization seeks to classify the villages on the basis of their openness to new ideas or willingness to change that could lead to
betterment of their community. Such a categorization should enable us to identify those villages where an intervention could lead to
more immediate outcomes and those that may be slower to react, and therefore, to reform. As per the categorization the conventional
village is one where introducing an intervention would be most difficult. A progressive village is one that has already accepted many
new ideas, for example, a typical progressive village would be one which has a self help group, that has experimented with crops other
than the traditional paddy, has high education levels and also a larger share of the households have amenities such as a proper latrine.
Community participation, agriculture experimentation, education level, and economic conditions incorporating the following variables
were used for the classification:
Community participation
• Presence of self-help groups: Whether the village has a self-help group based in the village.
• Presence of cooperatives: Whether the village has a credit cooperative society, agricultural cooperative society, fishermen’s
cooperative society, or a milk cooperative society based in the village itself.
Agriculture experimentation
• Cultivation of crops other than paddy: Whether farmers in the village grow crops other than the traditional paddy crop.
Indicus Analytics 37

• Average crop yield: The median crop yield from the household level survey is considered as the average crop yield for the
village. This variable was taken separately for the Rabi and Khariff season.
Education level
• Population attaining middle school: This is calculated from the household survey as population having attained at least middle
school, divided by total population minus population less than 14 years.
Economic conditions
• Penetration of electricity: This is calculated as the share of households in the village having electricity in the house.
• Penetration of LPG: This is calculated as the share of households in the village having reporting LPG as a source of cooking
fuel in the household survey.
• Penetration of TV: This is calculated as the share of households in the village having electricity in the house.
• Penetration of latrines: This is calculated as the share of households in the village reporting a service latrine, septic tank or a
pour flush pit as a percentage of all households.
• Livestock: This is the total stock of cows or buffalos owned by the sampled households as a percentage of all households that
were surveyed.
The Characterization: A summary
Type Label Characteristic
Type 1: Relatively Progressive Villages Villages that are most likely to participate in and benefit from community building efforts
Type 2: Relatively Developing Villages Villages that are fairly likely to participate in and benefit from community building efforts
Type 3: Relatively Emerging Villages Villages that are less likely to participate in and benefit from community building efforts
Type 4: Relatively Conventional Villages Villages that are least likely to participate in and benefit from community building efforts
Indicus Analytics 38

Methodology
Using the above mentioned variables a composite index was calculated in order to facilitate the categorization of the villages into
conventional, emerging, developing and progressive villages. The classification of the villages into the 4 categories involved the
following steps:
Step 1: Data for the variables identified above were extracted at the village level. In order to ensure that the data were comparable
across villages, appropriate normalization was done. Generally the population of the village or the total sample population from the
household survey was used as the normalizing variable. All ratios that were eventually used were such that a higher value indicated
that the village was better off.
Step 2: In order to construct an index all the villages were assigned a value of 1 if they performed better than an average (median)
village or 0 if their performance was worse than an average village. The median values are presented below. In case of variables such
as presence of self help groups and cooperatives, presence lead to a value of 1 and absence was assigned a 0 for the village. This step
led to each village having a value of 1 or 0 against it for each of the eleven variables that were considered.
Median/ Average village
Presence of SHG --
Presence of Cooperatives --
Whether cultivating other crops apart from paddy in village --
Percentage households with TV 6
Percentage households with electricity 11
Average yield of major crop in Kharif (quintals per acre) 11
Average yield of major crop in Rabi 10
Percentage households using LPG for cooking 4
Percentage of households having latrines 6
Number of owned cows and buffaloes to total households 8 cattle per 10
households
Percentage population of age >14 that has attained at least middle school 33
Indicus Analytics 39

The Characterization: How to identify villages – a dummy guide
Median/ Allocation of points Example
Average
village
1. Presence of SHG -- If Yes then allocate 1 point If No then allocate 0 points 1
2. Presence of Cooperatives -- If Yes then allocate 1 point If No then allocate 0 points 0
3. Whether cultivating other crops apart from paddy in village -- If Yes then allocate 1 point If No then allocate 0 points 1
4. Percentage households with TV 6 If >6 then allocate 1 point If <=6 then allocate 0 points 1
5. Percentage households with electricity 11 If >11 then allocate 1 point If <=11 then allocate 0 points 0
6. Average yield of major crop in Kharif (quintals per acre) 11 If >11 then allocate 1 point If <=11 then allocate 0 points 0
7. Average yield of major crop in Rabi 10 If >10 then allocate 1 point If <=10 then allocate 0 points 0
8. Percentage households using LPG for cooking 4 If >4 then allocate 1 point If <=4 then allocate 0 points 1
9. Percentage of households having latrines 6 If >6 then allocate 1 point If <=6 then allocate 0 points 1
10. Number of owned cows and buffaloes to total households 8 /10 If >0.8 then allocate 1 point If <=0.8 then allocate 0 points 1
11. Percentage population of age >14 that has attained at least 33% If >33 then allocate 1 point If <=6 then allocate 0 points 0
middle school
TOTAL Marks Sum of
above = 6
Step 3: To arrive at the composite index a sum of all the values over the eleven variables was considered. The villages were then
ranked on the basis of the sums. A larger summed value reflecting greater openness to villagers in accepting changes in the interst of
their overall welfare. That is, higher values indicate that the village is more conducive for introduction of interventions. The villages
can then be divided into 4 categories – The lowest being categorized as Type 4 and the highest as Type 1 villages.
Index Value Type
1 to 2 4
3 to 4 3
5 to 7 2
8 or above 1
Indicus Analytics 40

Classification of the sample villages
Sanyasi Kundamal
Jharkundamal
Shakha pada
Pakhanguda
Nandagaon
Kalia Gram
Kalia Guda
Michagaon
Ambaguda
Sasahandi
Jeyantigiri
Ghuragam
Kamuliput
Perahandi
Mahichala
Mali Guda
Ghatorala
Merghara
Nuagoan
Kalopala
Mokaput
Tulsipali
Dehundi
Golijuba
Bobbiya
Atigaon
Kugaon
Biramol
Kusumi
Taranja
Kebadi
Putura
Pillikia
Majhia
Bagad
Chitra
Malda
Hadia
Jujari
Palas
Matia
Aunli
SHG 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
Cooperatives 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other crops 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TVs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Electricity 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Yield Khariff 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Yield Rabi 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LPG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Latrines 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Livestock 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Education 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Sum 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
Type 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Distribution of households by village categories
Kolab Indravati
Category Zones Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total
Type 1 43 0 29 24 0 14 0 5
Type 2 43 14 14 24 71 29 43 48
Type 3 14 43 28 28 0 43 14 19
Type 4 0 43 29 24 29 14 43 29
Total 173 175 174 522 175 175 175 525
Indicus Analytics 41

Section 5: Directions for intervention programs
The following directions are a result of mapping of requirements, abilities, and potential for success given the field level realities.
These are broad directions and will depend critically upon the field level realities, perceptions of the residents, and socio-economic
conditions at the village level.
Sanitation
Only 10 percent of population has any type of sanitation facility access. This has important gender, health and lifestyle implications.
Working with the community to improve access to sanitation facilities would have a significant impact. There is also a proposed
action on similar lines by the government; however, past efforts of the government have not incorporated community building in an
important enough manner. Community building will have to be an integral part if this is to be successful.
LPG connections
Expenditures on fuel are extremely high – in the range of Rs 400-500 per family of 5 persons. This has implications on household
consumption (potential diversion of funds from nutrition), adverse health impact, and drudgery for women, as well as cleanliness.
LPG if accessible will be cheaper, healthier, and will make lives simpler for women. Constraints in greater LPG access include non-
availability in villages and more important high-entry costs. Involving village community in developing a revolving fund type of a
system can reduce these. This will also bring in a need for dealership development at the village level.
Education
Improving quality of education and making it more contextual for the poor. This would involve working with the gram panchayats in
better overseeing of the schools as well as teachers. Community involvement is essential for better quality, as well as relevant
teaching. The 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments place primary schooling in the hands of the local elected bodies. However
currently the skill base is not there in the panchayats to better oversee the functioning of the schools and teachers.
Information
Poor education, means of communications, and low access to transport have all contributed to low levels of awareness of government
policies and programs aimed at development of the area. Simply better information will enhance conditions as well as greater
appreciation for community-based activities. Information provision would enhance the credibility of community building efforts.
Indicus Analytics 42

Interface with government
Ground level policy/procedural changes can have an impact on the economic conditions as well as ‘build community’. For instance if
community groups can purchase food meant for subsidized below the poverty line (BPL) households could be purchased from the
vicinity. This would also cut governments costs and is likely to make the community better off.
Infrastructure: Roads, water and power
Access to roads, water, and electricity are important elements in the overall development of the region, but more important in ensuring
better lifestyles for all concerned. JBICs past efforts have also led to the building of roads and this has also led to an appreciation of
the efforts by the people. If community groups can better pressurize the state-government for access to other infrastructure, it would
have a three pronged impact – better lifestyles, greater progress, and greater appreciation of community building efforts of JBIC.
Expanding scope of agri-production
Foods such as mushrooms already have a market in the area that is currently being fed through gathering of mushrooms from forest
areas. Community efforts could help in the growing of mushrooms in the vicinity of forestlands. This could be used both for self-
consumption and the improvement of nutrition profile as well as improve incomes. Those not currently having cultivable land could
potentially gain the most from such an act. The self-help or community groups could also identify other such products.
Better usage of canal water
Many who are not too far off from the canal are still not able to access it effectively. This is due to many factors – technical as well as
operational. The village community could allow the use of non-mechanized means of drawing water from the canals. This would
ensure that smaller farmers whose farms are higher than the canal can irrigate their small lands through devices such as treadle pumps
non-mechanized lift irrigation. The poorest small farmers who require less water could then be better off.
OVERALL
There is a lack of appreciation of the fact that access to water is not a zero sum game. That is better lifestyles brought about by greater
access to water by the poorest farmers also have a beneficial impact on the lives of all others. This is due to availability of larger
consumer products, income earning activities, as well as better infrastructure – the richer households will also gain in many ways.
Such awareness will be critical in the success of community building efforts.
*
Indicus Analytics 43

Appendix
Appendix 1: Sample Size
Sample households by social groups across zones in the two project areas (Nos.)
Project Area-> Kolab Indravati
Social Group Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total
SC 22 17 30 69 57 34 56 147
ST 87 85 41 213 19 14 25 58
OBC 11 49 57 117 90 98 70 258
Other 46 17 38 101 7 18 8 33
Missing 7 7 8 22 2 11 16 29
Total 173 175 174 522 175 175 175 525
Appendix 2: List of Villages
See file: Appendix2_List of villages.doc
Appendix 3: Questionnaires
See file: Appendix3_Questionnaires.doc
Indicus Analytics 44