Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities the Case of Surendranagar Programme Area
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities The Case of Surendranagar Programme Area Niraj Joshi Ashok Pingle Biswaranjan Patnaik Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India) Preface Surendranagar district in Gujarat is one of the most drought-prone districts in the state, as all the blocks in this district are classified as drought-prone. In fact the term “normal year” becomes irrelevant, because it seems to be an exception rather than the rule. Rainfall has been below average in 7 out of the last 10 years, and the community finds it difficult to “progress” economically as the surplus income of any good year is quickly wiped out in the drought years. Furthermore, if there are 2-3 years of continuous drought, then villagers incur debt to survive and the next “normal” year(s) are used to pay off the debts or repurchase assets which were sold off. During drought years, the state provides drought relief, in terms of employment generation works, subsidized fodder supply and water supply through tankers. However, recurrent droughts also create a dependency syndrome amongst the community, wherein they stop taking any initiative to deal with their problems and expect the state to provide relief all the time. AKRSP (I), which has been working in this area for the last two decades has been struggling to evolve approaches which can help the rural communities overcome the impact of drought. Much of AKRSP (I)’s work has helped reduce this attitude of dependency. Drought not only affects employment availability, and hence food security, but also creates a shortage of fodder and drinking water. To help develop strategies to support rural communities to cope with drought, it is essential to understand what happens to availability of food, fodder and water during drought years, and examine whether interventions for water conservation are effective during the second and third year of drought. This study helps us understand the impact of drought in 3 villages of Surendranagar, and shows that water conservation does help communities cope better during drought years. However during the third consecutive drought year, there is little impact of such interventions. We hope that this study is useful to all those who are engaged in providing support to drought-affected communities throughout India. Apoorva Oza Chief Executive Officer Table of Contents Part 1 Background. 1 Need for the Study . 2 Scope of the Study . 2 Methodology . 2 Findings of the Study . 4 Drinking Water Security . 6 Water for Irrigation and Increase in Income from . 7 Crop Productivity Income from Increase in Crop Productivity . 8 Employment Security . 11 Conclusions and Lessons Learnt . 11 Recommendations . 13 Part 2 . 14 Annexure. 17 Part 1 BACKGROUND AKRSP (I) hence began its intervention with Surendranagar district is one of the four major renovation of tanks constructed by the drought prone districts in the country. The government. It launched its programme with the livelihood of people in Surendranagar has been renovation of the lift irrigation project at largely affected due to less than average rainfall Bamanbore. AKRSP (I)’s efforts initially focussed since 1999 (see graph below). Except in 2001, when on setting up of fodder farms and renovation of inspite of 569 mm rainfall, which is more than the percolation tanks as the area was hit by a severe average, agriculture production was badly affected drought for 2 to 3 years. After 1987 when there due to untimely rainfall. The area under irrigation were good rains the focus was shifted to formation has drastically reduced leading to lower food and of village institutions, soil and water conservation fodder production within the village which forces work and agricultural extension work. The period people to migrate in search of employment or meet from 1985 to 1990 was a learning phase for AKRSP their needs through loan. (I) in the district. The fodder farms became non viable after a few years and hence they were Rainfall Pattern in Surendranagar abandoned. Similarly, due to shortage of water, Programme Area over last 20 years promotion of biogas plants was also stopped. Thus 800 790 there were many learning lessons during the initial 717 690 700 670 years of programme implementation in 600 600 569 Surendranagar. Many programmes were taken up 532 500 447 439 on a pilot basis and later had to be abandoned due 419 404 400 381 332 327 to varied reasons such as caste conflict, inter- 300 267 257 253 Rainfall in mm 211 village conflicts, lack of expertise, lack of 200 177 154 100 responsibility on the part of villagers, etc. 0 From 1990 onwards watershed development work 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 was initiated. Furthermore, savings and credit AKRSP (I)s intervention in Surendranagar activity was started with the village institutions Programme Area including women’s groups. However, from 1994 Realizing the importance of developing two onwards focus on water harvesting, soil important natural resources land and water, conservation, strengthening village institutions AKRSP (I) had commenced operations in Sayla, and initiation of drinking water programme have Muli and Chotila talukas of Surendranagar district been reasonably successful in this area. The village in 1985. It was observed that as part of drought institutions including women’s groups have taken relief measures, the government had spent up a number of activities related to natural millions of rupees on the construction of resource management and others resulting in percolation tanks and minor irrigation projects. increased confidence and empowerment of these This was done primarily with the aim of groups. Savings and credit activities too have generating employment. However, the technical helped people to cope with erratic rainfall and quality and cost effectiveness of the project, was uncertainty in agricultural activities. Increasingly under question, thus not achieving the desired AKRSP (I) has realised that focus on water results. harvesting as well as proper management of the Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities 1 water harvested should be one of its key This study is thus divided into three parts. The interventions in the area. It has also been realised first part deals with the impact of AKRSP(I)’s NRM that it is crucial to focus on non-agricultural/non- interventions on drought coping in the first year farm activities that are not dependent on water. of drought, with some inferences on the situation in the third year of drought. The second part is NEED FOR THE STUDY the documentation of the status in the villages after 1999 was a drought year as the rains played truant the 3rd consecutive drought; in quantitative terms all over Gujarat. June 1999 to July 2000 was one of as well as in the form of case studies. the worst drought years for Surendranagar district. SCOPE OF THE STUDY Only 150 mm of rain fell which is much below the annual average of 490 mm and left the district with The study mainly looks into the natural resource multiple problems for humans and livestock. As management interventions including soil and Surendranagar district generally receives scanty water conservation, water harvesting, agricultural rainfall (20 inches in a normal monsoon year), the input supply, drinking water etc. and does not district has been officially declared as drought assess the impact of AKRSP(I)’s work in the area prone. Furthermore, there are no major perennial of Human Resource development especially the rivers in the district and therefore no major role of village institutions and the savings and irrigation projects. In this context, a study was credit programme in drought coping as these conducted in May’00 which seeks to investigate issues will form part of a separate study. the impact of AKRSP(I)’s natural resource management interventions on drought coping by METHODOLOGY people in Surendranagar programme area. Data collection has been done mostly through It was realised over the years that although these individual interviews with the help of a efforts did benefit the villagers it helped them to questionnaire, focused group discussions and cope with drought only to a certain extent. Also it different Participatory Rural Appraisal techniques was realised that focus on interventions like water in the study with different stakeholders across harvesting structures did not always benefit the class (wealth ranking categories), caste and gender. poorest. The poorest were worst hit during The first study was done during the drought of drought and the situation worsened with 1999-2000. For this study, two active and one consecutive droughts. In late 2002, AKRSP(I) had control villages were chosen randomly1 . The organised an internal workshop for Surendranagar active villages were Mota Sakhpar (Sayla) and programme area staff to define Drought Proofing Nana Kandasar (Chotila), and the control village strategy in the area. In this workshop it was felt Ganganagar (Sayla). Mota Sakhpar and Nana necessary to document the current status of food, Kandhasar are villages where AKRSP(I) continues fodder, drinking water and employment security to work as facilitator, it is therefore expected that in the drought affected villages for better there would have been an increase in the capacity formulation of the strategy for drought proofing. to cope with drought due to the changes in Thus another study was conducted in May’03 to assess the current status of food, fodder, drinking water and employment security levels during the 1 Active villages are those villages where AKRSP (I) works presently rd and control villages are those villages where it has yet to start, has 3 drought in villages where AKRSP(I) has been just started its activities or has abandoned its activities due to some working for many years.