Socio Economic Profile of Upper Kolab and Upper Indravati Irrigation Project Areas 1 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
44
Embed
Socio Economic Profile of Upper Kolab and Upper Indravati Irrigation Project Areas
A detailed socio-economic profiling of the two regions in one of the most backward parts (Koraput and Kalahandi districts) of the country was carried out using both primary survey as well as secondary data in 2003. Sponsor - Indian Society of Agribusiness Professionals, on behalf of Japan Bbank of International Cooperation
The study identifies characteristics, and activities both social and economic that are common across these regions. It also provides directions on how should local participation be encouraged in various socio-economic activities in general, and operation and maintenance of social and physical infrastructure in particular.
Socio Economic Profile of Upper Kolab And Upper Indravati Irrigation Project Areas:- 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 attempted 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 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.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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, [email protected], (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
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 2: List of Villages .............................................................................................................................................44
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 trict level comparisons Physica Kalahandi Koraput Orissa IndiaArea (sq k 7920 8807 155707 3166285Number o 13 14Number o /area(%) 28.0 22.7 33.0 20.2Number o / number of towns 738 399 372 123
Demogr(Rural) Kalahandi Koraput Orissa IndiaPopulation (persons per sq. km 156 111 200 234
Sex ratio i females per 1000 male 1006 1009 986 946
Immunization (% 1 year olds fully immunized) 54.9 55.1 5
• Health situation in the two most backward districts of India is much worse than the rest of 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 rest of India
• Only around a fifth of births that take place in
Kalahandi and Koraput are assisted by trained medical personnel
Though immunization rate is comparable with the rest of India, infant mortality rates are still quite high. In adequacy of health care facilities
is also indicated by the low share of births beingassisted professionally.
0
40
80
120
160
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India
IMR
Infant Mortality Rate
Indicus Analytics 8
Education • Orissa has similar literacy rate as India, though
Koraput and Kalahandi do much worse • Female literacy rate in Orissa is however lower
than that for India
• While half of the women in India are literate only a third of those in Kalahandi and a fourth of those in Koraput are able to read and write
• Enrollment rates at the elementary level in the
two districts are however much higher than those for India and Orissa
• Number of students per teacher is higher than
in India or Orissa as a whole, implying adverse quality of education
• Further, female teachers constitute a very small
share of total teachers in Kalahandi; the share of female teachers in Kalahandi is half as much the share in India, though Koraput performs in comparison to India as a whole
• Literacy is low, enrollments are high, there are
comparable number of schools but quality of education is not very good in Kalahandi and Koraput
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa IndiaLiteracy rates (%) 46.2 36.2 60.44 59.21Male literacy rate (%) 62.9 47.6 75.9 75.6Female literacy rate (%) 29.6 24.8 51.0 54.0Enrollment ratio (elementary) 126.4 175.1 90.54 81.58Number of schools/ pop (%) 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.14Teacher – Pupil Ratio 28.4 23.3 34.3 36.7Number of female teachers/ tot teachers (%) 16.0 29.0 22.0 30.9
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 younger children are also in elementary school. In all likelihood this reflects that many students are not graduating on to higher (middle) levels or are entering school late.
Literacy Rate
0
20
40
60
80
Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India
Total literacy rate (%) Male literacy rate (%) Female literacy rate (%)
Indicus Analytics 9
Infrastructure Availability • Habitations in Kalahandi and Koraput are
poorly connected by roads • Unlike overall India, where almost 56 percent
households have electricity, in Koraput and Kalahandi there are barely 10 percent of such households
• Kalahandi is worse than Koraput in terms of
telephone connectivity
• Greater telephone penetration in Koraput (compared to Kalahandi) is not surprising given greater levels of inequality in that district(first noted in pg. 7)
2 Source: Cultivation practices in India, 1998-99, NSSO
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
Population (2001) 979,835 59,191 79,800 89,035 78,788 1,234,095 118,900 174,435Area (sq km) 7,708 421 510 422 606 8,319 386 Population Density (2001) (persons per sq. km.)
127 141 156 211 130 148 308
• Unlike most of India, Koraput, Boriguma and Junagharh have a sex ratio that is favourable for females • In Junagharh the ratio has fallen over the last decade. This is also apparent from the child sex ratio in Junagharh which is not as favourable for females
• Dharmgharh has the lowest sex ratio among all the sub-districts considered here
• In case of all the districts and sub-districts, child sex ratio is lower than the overall sex ratio
• Though Boriguma has the highest population it has the lowest population density
While sex ratio has not
been a problem historically, the child sex ratio is indicative of low
• Both Dharmgharh and Junagharh have much higher male literacy rates than Koraput, Jeypore, Kotpad and Boriguma
• Dharmgharh and Koraput are the best and the
worst in terms of male literacy respectively
• In terms of female literacy, however, Junagharh and Kotpad are the best and worst respectively
• Except for Junagharh, not even a quarter of the
females are literate
• The sub-districts where male literacy rate is high the female literacy rate is also high in relation to other sub-districts
Literacy Rates
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
UT ut re ad ma DI
rh
Juna
ghar
h
dicus Analytics 15
KO
RA
P
Kor
ap
Jeyp
o
Kot
p
Bor
igu
KA
LAH
AN
Dha
rmgh
a
Male literacy rates Female literacy rates
In
Note: Data corresponds to the year 1996-97
Koraput(district) Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma
Number of schools 1,687 486 129 1,073 170
Number of teachers 4,145 281 375 311 463
Teachers per school 2.46 0.58 2.91 0.29 2.72 Female teacher per total teacher (ratio) 0.27 0.31 0.27 0.15 0.13
Number of female teachers 1,115 88 102 48 60
Note: Data corresponds to the year 1998-99
Kalahandi(district) Dharmgharh Junagharh
Number of schools 1,753 142 182 Number of teachers 4,636 453 562 Teachers per school 2.64 3.19 3.09 Female teacher per total teacher (ratio) 0.12 0.10 0.09
Number of female teachers 575 45 51
• Teachers per scho
Jeypore and BorigKoraput and Kotpdistrict
• In the Kalahandi d
Dharmgharh and Jcomparable ratio oschool
• In Dharmgharh an
share of female teteachers is very smlarger number of fconsidered to be mfor female literacyindicative of betteeducation
Land Utilization Net area Sown (ha) 259,165 22,494 26,719Forest Area (ha) 64,793 718 4,104Grazing Land (ha) 21,702 1,464 3,156Actual Rainfall (M.M) 1,210 669 1,101Fertilizer consumption (M.T) 10700 860 1360Fertilizer consumption (tonnes/ha) 0.04 0.04 0.05
Paddy Production (qtls) 2,424,489 224,625 197,317Yield (qtls/ha) 10.80 10.11 7.98
Paddy yield
0
20
40
Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma
0
20
40
Dharmgharh Junagharh
• Agricultural productivity in
Kotpad is much lower than other sub-districts in Koraput
• As compared to the other sub-
districts, Dharmgharh gets much lower level of rainfall
• In the sub-districts of Kalahandi
agricultural productivity is lower than those in Koraput, while fertilizer consumption per hectare is higher
17
Indicus Analytics
Health Koraput (district) Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma
Number of PHC 46 3 4 3 4Number of PHCs per sq km 0.79 0.71 0.64 0.47 0.77Number of Hospitals per sq km 0.66 0.95 0.98 0.71 0.82Number of Hospitals 51 4 5 3 5Note: Data for 1996-1997
Note: Data for 1998-1999
Note: Data for 1997
Kalahandi (district) Dharmgharh JunagharhPost office 293 30 39Post office per sq km 3.52 7.77Note: Data for 1998-1999
Kalahandi(district) Dharmgharh Junagharh
Number of PHC 46Number of PHCs per sq km 0.55 0.32Number of Hospitals per sq km 0.85 1.81Number of Hospitals 71
5 6
• While there are many post offices per square kilometer in the sub-districts there is not even 1 PHC or Hospital in the sub-districts of Koraput
Both blocks urgently require hospitals and PHCs to cater to the health care needs of
tration of radios elevisions is very in Koraput, ad, and Borigumatration of hones is also low e blocks. In gharh not even 1 ent of the eholds have hones blocks, Koraput, ad and Boriguma, ll low on ability of radio. e than half of the eholds in Koraput ss banking ces while in gharh only a tenth e households ss banks. e Koraput sub-ict, majority of the eholds do not any of the assets ified by the us of India
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
Structured Sampling
• Designed to capture inter-zone differences
• Sample sizes large enough to
measure differences in a robust manner
• Ensured representation for
different caste groupings
• Random sampling within a village
Social group characteristics of the three zones 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 147ST 87 85 41 213 19 14 25 58OBC 11 49 57 117 90 98 70 258Other 46 17 38 101 7 18 8 33Missing* 7 7 8 22 2 11 16 29Total 173 175 174 522 175 175 175 525
Missing denotes missing information on the caste of the respondent.
Indicus Analytics 23
Kolab • Tribal population accounts for
around 40% of the population inthe Kolab project area.
• Zone 3, which comprises of the Boriguma block, is the exception where there are more Other Backward Caste’s (33%) than Scheduled Tribes (28%).
• Other Backward Castes are the least in Zone 1.
Indravati
• OBC’s are the prominent social group in the Indravati area (50%).
• Zones 1 and 3 have also a higher percentage of Scheduled Castes.
The forward castes are present more in zone 1 of the Kolab
region. Zone 1 has abundant supply of water. This may also be
an indirect reference to a phenomenon where rich farmers tend to shift to water abundant
places.
Distribution of social groups across zones in the two project areas (%) Project area-> Kolab Indravati
expenditure (PCME) is Rs. 379 in the Kolab region.
• The Scheduled Tribes have comparatively lower PCME than people from other social groups across all the three zones.
• The economically poorest group in the Kolab region is the scheduled tribes in Zone 2.
Indravati
• The average per capita monthly expenditure (PCME) is Rs. 391 in the Indravati region.
• The economically poorest group in the Indravati region is the scheduled castes in Zone 1.
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. People in Zone 2 of Kolab region are
economically the worst off. The forward castes are economically
better off than other social groups across the zones.
Average per capita expenditure by social group in the zones (Rs.) Project area-> Kolab Indravati Social Group Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total SC 331 311 318 321 324 439 395 375 ST 382 299 294 333 376 353 350 361 OBC 504 341 429 401 335 411 396 380 Other 488 321 506 470 424 636 854 622 Total 417 315 399 379 338 433 407 391
25
Average PCME by social groups Kolab
250300350400450500550600650700750800850
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3
SC ST OBC Other SC ST OBC Other
Average PCME by social groups Indravati
250300350400450500550600650700750800850
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3
Infrastructure Kolab
• Approximately 70% of the households in the Kolab region live in kutcha houses.
• Zone 3 has the lowest population
living in pucca houses. Indravati
• Half the households in Indravati area live in kutcha houses.
• Zone 2 has the maximum
proportion of households living in pucca houses
More than 90% of the households
in the two-project area do not have permanent houses.
The Kolab region has a much
higher percentage of households living in kutchha houses than the
Indravati region. This characteristic is common across
the zones.
Distribution of households by type of houses across zones
households having separate kitchen than the other two zones.
Indravati
• Almost 80% of the households in the Indravati region do not have a separate kitchen.
Majority households do not have a separate room for the kitchen. This
proportion is almost double in Indravati than the Kolab region. Though wood is more expensive
most households use wood rather than LPG for cooking. A common problem across the two regions is lack of sanitation facilities in the houses. Only about 10% of the households have some form of
latrine available.
Availability of Kitchen Distribution of households by availability of separate kitchen
Distribution of children by current level of education Education Level Kolab Indravati Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Not attending 41 50 48 46 43 41 39 42Literate but below primary 21 28 21 23 22 19 19 20Primary 13 9 10 10 12 12 18 14Middle 7 9 11 9 10 10 10 10Secondary 9 5 7 7 7 10 5 7Higher Sec. & above 10 0 3 5 6 9 8 8Total 289 258 263 810 326 242 203 771Total children of age 6-24 393 337 325 1,055 373 314 336 1,023
Kolab: • More than half of the
population is illiterate in Kolab except for zone 1.
• A large share of the children is not attending school
• In zone 2 none of the children are in higher secondary or above.
Indravati: • A large proportion of
the children are not attending school, but this share is slightly lower than in Kolab.
A large portion of the
population is illiterate and the next large set is of those that
are literate but below primary. Though there is no dearth of schools in the two
blocks the number of children who are currently not
attending school is very high.
% distribution by current education level in Kolab
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Zone1 Zone2 Zone3
Higher Sec. & aboveSecondaryMiddlePrimaryLiterate, below primaryNot attending
Health Distribution of population by distance of nearest health facility Education Level Kolab Indravati Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Within the village 70 28 56 52 85 75 86 70Less than 1 Km 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Km to 5Km 30 44 14 29 15 25 14 305Km to 10Km 0 15 30 14 0 0 0 010Km+ 0 14 0 4 0 0 0 0Total sampled persons 961 840 892 2,693 920 822 879 961
Kolab: • In Zone1 and Zone3, a large
portion of the population has access to a health facility within their own village.
• In Zone 2 and Zone3 more than a quarter of the 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
Agriculture Distribution of households cultivating land by area sown during Khariff
Kolab Indravati Area sown in Khariff season Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total
<1 ha (Marginal) 10 4 7 7 4 3 3 3
1-2 ha (Small) 26 31 24 27 43 26 28 322-5 ha (Semi-medium) 38 47 39 41 37 44 40 40>=5 ha (Medium to large) 26 18 30 24 16 27 29 24Total Households cultivating land 136 128 117 381 134 135 146 415
Distribution of households cultivating land by area sown during Rabi
Kolab Indravati Area sown in Rabi season Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total
<1 ha (Marginal) 9 . 5 7 . 14 . 3
1-2 ha (Small) 26 34 32 29 33 29 29 322-5 ha (Semi-medium) 42 44 32 41 38 57 71 47>=5 ha (Medium to large) 23 22 30 24 29 . . 18Total Households cultivating land 111 32 37 180 24 7 7 38
Kolab: • In Khariff season, almost 40
percent of the households in the Kolab region are semi-medium cultivators.
• Half of the households cultivating in the Kharif season are either small cultivators or medium to large cultivators.
• None of the sample cultivators from Zone 2 cultivate land in the Rabi season.
Ind vra ati:
• 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 the Rabi season, while none of the medium to large farmers cultivate then
Most marginal and small
farmers cultivate during the Rabi season. Marginal farmers account for a very small portion of cultivators in either season.
Indicus Analytics 32
Distribution of households cultivating own land during Khariff Kolab:
• Semi-medium farmers account for the largest share if cultivators during the Khariff season in Kolab
• In Zone 2 a small farmers also account for a large share.
• On an average Zone 1 farmers receive a higher price for their produce than those in Zone 2 or Zone 3
• Yield is also relatively higher in Zone 1.
Indravati: • In Zone 1, small farmers
account for a large share of cultivators during Khariff season.
• Zone 3 has the lowest yield.
Farmers in Kolab region have higher yield and the produce also fetches better price than
that from Indravati
Kolab Indravati Own land cultivated in Khariff season Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total
<1 ha (Marginal) 17 4 9 10 5 3 3 4
1-2 ha (Small) 26 37 24 29 46 24 30 332-5 ha (Semi-medium) 32 43 41 39 34 46 38 39>=5 ha (Medium to large) 24 16 27 22 15 27 28 24Total households cultivating own land 121 119 113 353 130 130 144 404
Average yield and price during Khariff season
Kolab Indravati Khariff season Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Mean Yield (quintals per acre) 15.43 11.66 11.14 12.73 8.61 11.1 7.82 9.23Mean Price of major crop (Rs. per quintal) 410 387 403 400 377 395 367 382
Zone1
Indicus Analytics 33
Distribution of households by place of sale of Khariff crop Kolab Indravati Sale of Khariff
• In Zone 2 agricultural loans are taken from RRBs.
• A major share of the credit for reasons other than agricultural inputs is taken from cooperatives, RRBs and Private money lenders in Zone 1,2 and 3 respectively
Indravati:
• Here loans for agricultural inputs are availed largely from RRBs.
• Private banks are significant contributors for agricultural input loans for Zone 2.
• Loans for reasons other than agricultural inputs is availed mainly from RRbs, Private Banks and Other sources.
Self help groups are not playing 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 villagePresence 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 10Percentage 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/ Average village
Allocation of points Example
1. Presence of SHG -- If Yes then allocate 1 point If No then allocate 0 points 12. Presence of Cooperatives -- If Yes then allocate 1 point If No then allocate 0 points 03. Whether cultivating other crops apart from paddy in village -- If Yes then allocate 1 point If No then allocate 0 points 14. Percentage households with TV 6 If >6 then allocate 1 point If <=6 then allocate 0 points 15. Percentage households with electricity 11 If >11 then allocate 1 point If <=11 then allocate 0 points 06. Average yield of major crop in Kharif (quintals per acre) 11 If >11 then allocate 1 point If <=11 then allocate 0 points 07. Average yield of major crop in Rabi 10 If >10 then allocate 1 point If <=10 then allocate 0 points 08. Percentage households using LPG for cooking 4 If >4 then allocate 1 point If <=4 then allocate 0 points 19. Percentage of households having latrines 6 If >6 then allocate 1 point If <=6 then allocate 0 points 110. 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 111. Percentage population of age >14 that has attained at least
middle school 33% If >33 then allocate 1 point If <=6 then allocate 0 points 0
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
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 147ST 87 85 41 213 19 14 25 58OBC 11 49 57 117 90 98 70 258Other 46 17 38 101 7 18 8 33Missing 7 7 8 22 2 11 16 29Total 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