Socio Economic Profile of Upper Kolab and Upper Indravati Irrigation Project Areas

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

http://www.indicus.net	71
http://indicus.net	20
http://www.slideshare.net	2
http://translate.googleusercontent.com	1
http://alef.fiit.stuba.sk	1
http://www.eyestate.in	1

Socio Economic Profile of Upper Kolab and Upper Indravati Irrigation Project Areas

by Indicus Analytics Private Limited

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

6 Embeds 96

Statistics

Socio Economic Profile of Upper Kolab and Upper Indravati Irrigation Project Areas Presentation Transcript