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, [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

Indicus Analytics 1

http://www.indicus.net/

mailto:[email protected]

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 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

Sex ratio 1991 1006 1003 988 938Child population/total pop (%) 17.1 19.7 14.6 16.5Sex Ratio (0-6) 2001 990 997 954 934SC hhd/total hhd (%) 18.87 14.38 16.47ST hhd/total hhd (%) 31.07 57.74 25.98Urban population (%) 7.5 16.8 15.0 27.8Pop. growth rate (81-91) 19.5 19.9 20.1 25.8Pop. growth rate (91-2001) 18.0 14.4 15.9 21.3

ation

Predominantly rural

0

200

400

600

800

Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India

No. of villages/ no. of towns

• Both districts are sparsely populated • Sex ratio is favourable towards females in both

districts

• Child sex ratio is however not as favorable for girls though better than India

• A large share of the population in Koraput and

Kalahandi is accounted for by children • Koraput is mainly a tribal district though it is

more urbanized than Kalahandi • decade, growth rates of population

ased by around 4 percentage points rissa and Koraput; Kalahandi did such a change

dicus Analytics 5

SC/ST = scheduled caste and tribe, hhd = household, pop. = popul

In

In the last have decrein India, Onot witness

1: Disl

m) f blocks f villagesf villages

aphy

density.) n 2001 (s)

Economic well-being Poverty and food insufficiency

0102030405060708090


Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India% population below poverty line 74.9 80.1 48.0 27.1

Food insufficiency (% households) 15.3 5.1 7.0 3.1

Radio (% households) 18.25 18.09 23.66 35.12Television (% households) 7.70 12.47 15.49 31.592 wheelers (% households) 3.69 6.21 7.86 11.714 wheelers (% households) 0.60 1.06 1.08 2.50None of the specified assets (% households) 50.63 68.27 41.00 34.48

Head Count Ratio Food Insufficiency

Households owning none of the specified assets

50.63

68.27

4134.48

01020304050607080


None of the specified assets (% households)

• Koraput has very high levels of poverty, 83 percent households accounting for 80 percent of the population lie below the poverty line

• In Kalahandi, almost 5 times as many households in India and twice that in Orissa, go hungry

• Only half as many households own a radio or transistor as compared to India

• More than half of the households in Koraput and Kalahandi do not own any of the assets that the Census of India had asked about

• Koraput has greater poverty as well as greater asset ownership –this reflects greater inequality levels compared to Kalahandi.

Indicus Analytics 6

Occupational Characteristics (2001) Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India

Cultivators (%) 29.70 32.70 29.70 31.70Agri Workers (%) 50.30 40.20 35.00 26.70Other workers (%) 17.10 25.10 30.40 37.50Household Industry Workers (%) 2.90 1.90 4.80 4.10

• While only one fourth of India is employed

as agricultural workers, in Kalahandi half of the population is an agricultural worker

• Over the last decade the share of cultivators

accounting for total agricultural workers has reduced drastically in the 2 districts

• Kalahandi has lesser percentage of

cultivators but significantly greater number of agriculture workers indicating that the land is concentrated with a few

• Koraput and Kalahandi have a higher share

of agricultural workers and lower share of other workers as compared to rest of Orissa

• Koraput has however witnessed a strong

increase in the share of workers involved in sectors other than agriculture

• Share of other workers in total workforce for

India is almost double the share for Kalahandi

• While the share of household industry

workers has increased for India over the last decade this share has not altered drastically for Kalahandi and Koraput

(1991) Occupation Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India

Cultivators (%) 42.90 48.10 44.30 38.70Agri Workers (%) 41.00 31.30 28.70 26.10Other workers (%) 13.40 19.30 23.90 32.80Household Industry Workers (%) 2.70 1.30 3.10 2.40

Trend in share of cultivators

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Kalahandi Koraput Orissa IndiaCultivators (%) 1991 Cultivators (%) 2001

Indicus Analytics 7

Health care

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


(%)

Health Kalahandi Koraput Orissa India

30 84

2.7 40.2

7.8 54.2

Safe delivery Immunization

Health status

Infant Mortality Rate (per ‘000 live births) 125 125 1

Safe delivery (% receiving skilled attention during birth) 19.3 21.7 3

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


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


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)

Kalahandi Koraput Orissa IndiaRoad connectivity (%) 14.1 10.8 41.2 74.9Electricity (%) 9.8 9.0 33.8 55.8Telephone (%) 1.84 3.80 1.5 9.1Pop. Availing bank services (%) 18.62 27.27 24.21 35.54

Percentage of villages connected by road. Percent households having electricity, telephone and availing bank credit.

Infrastructure Availability

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Access to Bank Services

18.62

27.27

24.21

35.54

Kalahandi

Koraput

Orissa

India

Pop. Availing bank services (%)Road connectivity (%) Electricity (%)

Indicus Analytics 10

Agriculture • Kalahandi & Koraput have a

slightly lower share of cropped area than the country

• Kalahandi has a forest cover

comparable to India though Koraput is much lower

• In the Rabi season the situation

of irrigation in Kalahandi is much worse than rest of Orissa

• Fertilizer consumption is much

lower in Koraput and Kalahandi than in the agriculturally well off state of Punjab

• While 60 percent of the farming

households constitute small and marginal farmers in Kalahandi, in India this share is only 50 percent

Kalahandi Koraput Orissa IndiaNet area sown/ total geographical area (%) 42.44 35.80 39.01 43.26Forest Area/total area (%) 27.0 16.9 31.4 23 Gross Irrigated area/ gross sown area (kharif) (%) 22.1 25.2 27.9

Gross Irrigated area/ gross sown area (rabi) (%) 3.9 14.5 13.0

Fertilizer consumption (tonnes/ha) 9.1% 3.5% 5.7% 32.8%

(Punjab)% SMF households (Rural) 59.01 46.52 55.05 50.53

Marginal Small Semi-

medium Medium Large Total Distributionof householdsover size of land holdings

(Below 1.0 ha.)

(1.0 to 2.0 ha.)

(2.0 to 4.0 ha.)

(4.0 to 10.0

ha.)

(10 ha. & above)

(All Groups)

Kalahandi (%) 43.02 29.70 18.86 7.53 0.90 100Koraput (%) 46.08 29.49 17.88 5.72 0.84 100Orissa (%) 54.08 27.89 13.71 3.93 0.38 100India2 (%) 62.50 19.80 11.90 5.80 0.90 100


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.


Section 2: Socio-Economic Indicators at the sub-district level

Demography Koraput(district) Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma Kalahandi

(district) Dharmgharh Junagharh

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 1,052,740 100,293 135,987Child population (2001) 169,684 10,124 13,676 15,132 12,641 198,307 18,215 26,942

% 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 8.3Population growth rate (91-2001) 14.20 16.01 -4.70 27.78 -30.88 17.20 18.55 28.27

Source Census 2001

Decadal Growth Rate of Population

-40-30-20-10

010203040

KORA

PUT

Kora

put

Jeyp

ore

Kotp

ad

Borig

uma

KALA

HAND

I

Dhar

amgh

arh

Juna

ghar

h

• Growth rate in Boriguma is negative and large - population has decreased considerably from 1991 to 2001

• Population has also decreased in

Jeypore but at slower rate than in Boriguma.

• Junagharh in Kalahandi has the highest

growth rate of population.

• Dharmgharh and Junagharh have lower share of child population than the sub-districts considered under Koraput


Koraput(district) Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma Kalahandi

(district)Dharmgha

rhJunaghar

h

Sex Ratio (2001) (females per ‘000 males)

1,009 1,033 998 993 1,001 1,006 982 1,002

Sex Ratio (1991) (females per ‘000 males)

1,003 1,018 989 984 1,000 1,006 998 1,009

Sex Ratio (0-6 yrs.) (females per ‘000 males)

997 1,002 984 982 1,006 990 981 976

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

sex ratio in the future

Falling sex ratio

940960980

1,0001,0201,040

KORAPUT Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma KALAHANDI Dharmgharh Junagharh

Sex Ratio (2001) Sex Ratio (0-6 yrs.)


Education Koraput(district) Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma Kalahandi

(district) Dharmgharh Junagharh

Literacy rates (males) 39.5 37.7 46.0 43.2 47.1 60.9 60.2 59.7

Literacy rates (females) 16.1 16.4 22.2 15.9 20.2 26.8 24.6 25.0

Female literacy rate/male literacy rate

0.41 0.44 0.48 0.37 0.43 0.44 0.41 0.42

• 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

Ratio of female to total teachers

00.10.20.30.4

KORAPUT Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma KALAHANDI Dharmgharh Junagharh

Indicus Analytics

ol are higher in uma than in ad in the Koraput

istrict unagharh have a f teachers per

d Junagharh the achers in total

all. Generally a emale teachers is ore conducive and is also r quality of

Female teacher pertotal teacher

16

Note: Data for 1996-1997

Agriculture Koraput (district) Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma

Land Utilization Net area Sown (ha) 218,651 11,027 19,832 21,066 29,577Forest Area (ha) 59,081 4,401 8,627 1,802 2,140Grazing Land (ha) 19,146 815 1,483 2,442 1,909Actual Rainfall (M.M) 1,335 1,438 1,476 1,204 1,331Fertilizer consumption (M.T) 3,460 114 1,076 387 490Fertilizer consumption (tonnes/ha) 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.02

Paddy Production (qtls) 2,733,393 101,883 537,575 402,785 494,959Yield (qtls/ha) 21.47 21.13 25.76 19.18 20.85



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 1997

Kalahandi (district) Dharmgharh JunagharhPost office 293 30 39Post office per sq km 3.52 7.77Note: Data for 1998-1999


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

the population.

7 8

Infrastructure Koraput(district) Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma

Post office 223 11 24 16 38Post office per sq km 2.89 2.61 4.71 3.79 6.27


Koraput(district)

Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma Kalahandi(district)

Dharmgharh

Junagharh

Availability of Bicycle 38,950 1,432 5,225 8,684 4,935 130,803 14,148 19,724

% hhds having bicycle 16.11 9.00 27.47 40.96 25.99 42.96 48.25 46.38

Availability of Car, Jeep, Van

1,460

103 153 160 276 1,450

177 259

% hhds having cars 0.60 0.65 0.80 0.75 1.45 0.48 0.60 0.61

Availability of Scooter, Motor Cycle, Moped

5,666

295 1,017 552 723 8,069

1,109 1,327

% hhds having scooters 2.34 1.85 5.35 2.60 3.81 2.65 3.78 3.12

• In Koraput, the availability of bicycles is the lowest. This block has a low percentage of availability of cars and scooters as well.

• Jeypore has a low percentage of bicycles and cars but it is higher on scooters compared to the other blocks.

• Boriguma is also low on bicycle availability and has a higher percent of households owning cars (1.45%).

0123456

KORA

PUT

Kora

put

Jeyp

ore

Kotp

ad

Borig

uma

KALA

HAND

I

Dhar

amgh

arh

Juna

ghar

h

Percentage of scooters available

0

20

40

60

KORA

PUT

Kora

put

Jeyp

ore

Kotpa

d

Borig

uma

KALA

HAND

I

Dhar

amgh

arh

Juna

ghar

hPercentage of bicycles available

19
Indicus Analytics

Koraput (district) Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma

Kalahandi (district)

Dharmgharh

Junagharh

Total number of households 241,724 15,916 19,023 21,202 18,991 304,484 29,321

42,525

Availability of Radio, Transistor 32,377 2,033 4,004 3,517 3,295 52,507 5,335 8,335% hhds having radios 13.39 12.77 21.05 16.59 17.35 17.24 18.20 19.60

Availability of Telephone 2,794 191 426 255 502 2,688 357 407% hhds having telephones 1.16 1.20 2.24 1.20 2.64 0.88 1.22 0.96

Availability of Television 11,396 854 1,987 792 1,258 15,227 1,804 2,499% hhds having televisions 4.71 5.37 10.45 3.74 6.62 5.00 6.15 5.88% hhds availing bank services 22.82 54.93 17.48 31.64 25.21 17.37 17.60 10.14Total number of households availing banking services 55,162 8,742 3,326 6,708 4,787 52,897 5,160 4,313% hhds having none of the specified assets 75.56 80.46 62.81 53.35 65.47 52.12 47.40 48.08None of the specified assets 182,650 12,806 11,949 11,312 12,433 158,688 13,898 20,446

• Peneand tpoorKotp

• Penetelepin thJunaperchoustelep

• The Kotpare aavail

• MorhousacceserviJunaof thacce

• In thdistrhousownspecCens

0

20

40

60

KORAPUT Koraput Jeypore Kotpad Boriguma KALAHANDI Dharamgharh Junagharh

% hhds accessing banks% hhds owning TVs

Indicus Analytics

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.


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.


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.


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

Social Group Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total SC 13 10 17 13 33 18 33 29ST 47 49 24 40 11 8 11 10OBC 6 28 33 22 50 56 44 50Other 30 9 21 20 5 11 4 6Missing 4 4 5 4 1 6 8 5Total sampled 961 840 892 2,693 920 822 879 2,621

% distribution by social groups Kolab

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Zone1 Zone2 Zone3

SC ST OBC Other

% distribution by social groups Indravati

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Zone1 Zone2 Zone3

SC ST OBC Other


Economic Well Being

Indicus Analytics

Kolab • The average per capita monthly

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

Kolab Indravati Type of house Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Kutchha 66 70 71 69 53 55 47 52Semi Pucca 26 26 27 26 42 33 50 42Pucca 6 4 2 4 4 11 3 6Missing 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0Total 173 175 174 522 175 175 175 525

% distribution by type of house Kolab

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Zone1 Zone2 Zone3

Kutchha Semi Pucca Pucca Kutchha Semi Pucca Pucca

% distribution by type of house Indravati

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Zone1 Zone2 Zone3


Kolab • Existence of a separate kitchen in

the house is limited to 40% of the households.

• Zone 2 has a lower proportion of

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

Kolab Indravati Separate room for kitchen Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Yes 45 30 44 39 15 24 14 18No 55 70 56 61 85 76 85 82Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Total Households 173 175 174 522 175 175 175 525

Type of fuel used Distribution of households by type of fuel used∇

Kolab Indravati Type of fuel Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total LPG 8 3 4 5 1 3 4 3Biogas 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0Wood 65 78 80 74 65 61 66 64Others 27 19 14 20 34 35 31 33Total Households 226 215 207 648 268 263 236 767

Sanitation Distribution of households by availability of latrine

Kolab Indravati Latrine Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total

No Latrine 87 97 87 90 97 83 91 90Some Latrine 13 3 13 10 3 17 9 10Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Total 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

% households with separate kitchen Indravati

0% 50% 100%

Zone1

Zone2

Zone3

NoYesYes

LPG Biogas Wood OthersLPG Biogas Wood Others

% distribution by type of fuel used for cooking in Kolab

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Zone1 Zone2 Zone3

% distribution by type of fuel used for cooking in Indravati

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Zone1 Zone2 Zone3

% households with separate kitchen Kolab

0% 50% 100%

Zone1

Zone2

Zone3

No


Kolab • Majority of the population

depend on tube wells for their daily drinking water needs.

• The second major source of

drinking water in the Kolab region is the dug wells.

Indravati • In the Indravati region too, tube

wells are the major source of drinking water.

• Compared to Kolab region a very

small proportion of households depend on dug-wells for their drinking water needs.

Piped water is almost non-existent in the two regions as a source for

drinking water needs. In both regions, only around 30 percent of the households receive electricity.

Drinking Water Distribution of population by drinking water sources Drinking Water Kolab Indravati Source Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Surface 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0Well 28 19 32 27 6 12 5 7Tube well 71 70 66 69 94 87 95 92Pipe water at home 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Others 0 11 1 4 0 0 0 0Total sampled persons 961 840 892 2,693 920 822 879 2,621

Distribution of Households by availability of electricity

Kolab Indravati Availability of Electricity Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total

Yes 29 9 26 21 30 31 22 27No 70 90 73 78 70 69 78 73Missing 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0Total Households 173 175 174 522 175 175 175 525

% population accesing water from tube

wells in Indravati

94

87

95

Zone1 Zone2 Zone3Tube well

% population accesing water from tube wells in Kolab

7170

66

Zone1 Zone2 Zone3Tube well


Education

Indicus Analytics

% distribution by current education level in Indravati

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Zone1 Zone2 Zone3

Distribution of population by level of education attained

30

Education Level Kolab Indravati Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Illiterates 47 58 51 52 52 47 48 49Literate but below primary 17 22 18 19 14 14 17 15Primary 8 8 8 8 9 8 11 9Middle 15 8 14 13 11 14 11 12Secondary 8 4 5 6 8 10 8 9Higher Sec. & above 6 1 4 4 7 6 5 6Total sampled persons 888 839 871 2,598 914 811 854 2,579

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.


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.


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


Distribution of households by place of sale of Khariff crop Kolab Indravati Sale of Khariff

crop Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Local Market 70 92 91 83 39 35 25 33Government 2 1 . 1 3 6 3 4Middle Men 27 7 9 15 11 31 11 18Did Not Sell 1 . . 0 46 27 61 46Total 122 102 90 314 123 124 143 390

Kolab: • Most farmers in Kolab sell their

produce in the local market • In Zone 1, however, a large

share of the farmers sells to the middlemen.

• 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.


Credit Distribution of households availing credit for agriculture purposes by source

Kolab Indravati Source of credit Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Private money lenders 10 10 0 6 9 42 11 18Regional rural bank 17 47 15 26 39 37 34 36Kisan credit card 0 0 3 1 13 0 26 16 Self help group 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 6 Cooperative society 72 43 82 67 17 21 29 23Total 29 30 39 98 23 19 35 77

Distribution of households availing credit for non-agriculture purposes by source

Kolab Indravati Source of credit Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Zone1 Zone2 Zone3 Total Private money lenders 33 0 50 33 23 75 0 41Regional rural bank 8 67 20 20 38 6 25 22Kisan credit card 0 0 20 5 8 0 0 3Self help group 13 17 10 13 8 0 0 3Cooperative society 38 0 0 23 8 0 13 5Others 8 17 0 8 15 19 63 27Total 24 6 10 40 13 16 8 37

Kolab: • In Zone 1 and 3 most credit for

agricultural purposes is taken from cooperatives

• 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.


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.


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.


• 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


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


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


Classification of the sample villages

Putu

ra

Kalia

Gra

m

Sasa

hand

i Sa

nyas

i Kun

dama

l Je

yant

igiri

Nu

agoa

n Ku

sum

i Pi

llikia

Hadi

a Ka

lia G

uda

Goliju

ba

Palas

Ma

tia

Merg

hara

Ba

gad

Mali G

uda

Mahi

chala

At

igao

n Ta

ranj

a Am

bagu

da

Kam

ulip

ut

Jujar

i Tu

lsipa

li Bo

bbiya

Ch

itra

Pera

hand

i Pa

khan

guda

De

hund

i Gh

ator

ala

Nand

agao

n Au

nli

Kuga

on

Moka

put

Majh

ia Ka

lopa

la Jh

arku

ndam

al Bi

ram

ol

Mich

agao

n Gh

urag

am

Shak

ha p

ada

Keba

di

Mald

a

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 1Cooperatives 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 0Other 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 0TVs 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 0Electricity 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 0Yield 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 0Yield Rabi 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LPG 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 0Latrines 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 0Livestock 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 0Sum 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 1Type 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 48Type 3 14 43 28 28 0 43 14 19Type 4 0 43 29 24 29 14 43 29Total 173 175 174 522 175 175 175 525


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.


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.

*


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


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

Business

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