Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities the Case of Surendranagar Programme Area

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. unavoidable circumstances.

2 Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities livelihood pattern of these villagers after made substantial financial investment (see annexure AKRSP(I)’s interventions. Ganganagar village is 2) on natural resource management and human yet to be covered by AKRSP(I)’s active resource development during the past several programmes. The study was conducted on 60 years were taken up as sample. The case studies sample respondents, 20 from each village. These were conducted in Nani Morsal village. 20 samples from each village included, Village Profile • 10 women and 10 men • 15 beneficiaries and 5 non-beneficiaries Agriculture is the primary occupation of all the The second study was conducted in 2003, after sample villagers. Around 92 to 97% of the people three consecutive droughts. Two villages in the villages are doing agriculture. The rest of Dhamrashala and Mota Sakhpar in Sayla taluka the people are either in the service sector or are of Surendranagar district where AKRSP(I) has doing business. During lean season, they work as

Defining Drought Proofing in AKRSP(I)s context

Drought is a phenomenon where people face hardships due to unavailability of water for agriculture vis-à-vis drinking needs of human and livestock population. Currently, AKRSP(I)s drought proofing strategy includes securing food, fodder, drinking water and employment so that people are able to meet their needs within the village and do not need to go on distress migration.

Food Security Food security to the household can be defined as availability of food for a family throughout the year either through own farm production or the ability to buy food through income from non food agriculture crops, income from animal husbandry or any other occupation that the family is involved in (including employment within or in nearby villages).

Fodder Security Fodder security to the household is availability of fodder for livestock throughout the year through the own farm production or ability to purchase fodder from agriculture or any other income source available to the household.

Drinking Water Security Drinking Water Security of the family can be defined according to availability of water within the village and to each household throughout the year. The distance for procuring drinking water is the major criterion for drinking water security. However, if water is available within the village and is not far from 1 km distance it can also be called as a drinking water secured village. Here two things need to be considered, one is availability of water source and secondly the supply of water. If water supply is not good then the issue is mostly of management and lack of peoples interest to participate to solve their problems.

Employment Employment security of the household can be defined as the availability of employment within or nearby area by which basic needs for living are met and the members of the household do not need to migrate in search of employment to secure food requirements of the family. In this case the Bharwad and Rabari families that migrate for better opportunities should not necessarily be included as a distress migration, mainly because they migrate even in good rainfall years.

Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities 3 agricultural labourers in their own village or figures given below, out of the total 226 neighbouring villages. Wage labour is a secondary households in Dhamarashala, only 173 households occupation for 82% of the people in the sample are able to meet the food requirements through villages. See annexure-1 for detailed village profiles of their agriculture land and other sources of income. Dhamrashala and Mota Sakhpar villages. Out of these, 33 households face hardships to meet food requirements. As a result of which 32 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY households migrated to Halvad for employment in agriculture. The remaining 20 households are FOOD SECURITY not in a position to buy food on their own, even Situation In First Year Of Drought though they had migrated for employment. These In the first study in 2000, the villagers were asked are the households where agriculture production to prioritise their problems in this year’s drought is less, they have less number of livestock or the on a scale of one to four (1-4), where one (1) family size is big. In order to meet food indicated the most important or top priority and requirements, it is likely that these households will four (4) indicated least priority. take loan from the moneylenders in the village at 36 to 60 per cent interest rate per annum. Table 1: Problems Prioritisation during first drought year Food Availability Status during third year Problems during first drought of drought in Dhamarashala Village Village name Employ- Drinking Fodder Food ment water Vulnerable to Mota Sakhpar 1 2 2 4 get food 9% Nanakandhasar 1 1 2 4 Ganganagar* 1 2 2 4 Face hardships Requirement to buy food met through * Control Village. 15% own production 40%

Employment came across as the main problem in all villages including the control one. Drinking Requirement water was a problem mainly in Nana Kandasar met through own village, while in Ganganagar though the villagers production and/or other income rated 2 for water; the issue was that of timing or 36% management and not availability of drinking water. Fodder and drinking water was given equal Food Availability Status during third year of drought in Mota Sakhpar Village priority in 2 out of 3 villages. From the rating given in the above table, it is clear that during the first Face hardships Vulnerable to to buy food 4% get food 1% drought, food was not a major problem for the villagers. Requirement met through Situation In The Third Year Of Drought own production 33% However, the food situation revealed in the second study is quite different. With 3 consecutive Requirement met through own droughts the food situation has worsened production and/or other income especially for the poor families. As shown in the 62%

4 Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities The situation of Mota Sakhpar is slightly better in was mainly due to last year’s increase in income terms of food security. Out of the total 116 from benefited land, as beneficiaries were able to households in Mota Sakhpar, 110 households are purchase fodder for one and half month to two able to meet their food requirements through their months as compared to the last drought. After that agriculture land and other sources of income. most of them were purchasing fodder on credit as Apart from these households there are 5 the Govt. supplied fodder has given them only households in the village that face hardship to partial some relief for about 6 to 8 days in a month. meet food requirements throughout the year. The Possibly the shift from Bajri and Groundnut remaining one household is vulnerable to get food production to cotton in the benefited lands has throughout the year and 2 members from that affected the availability of fodder to some extent. household have migrated. Table 3: Crop (Fodder) Productivity in FODDER SECURITY Drought Year (1999-2000) in Kg/bigha.

Situation In First Year Of Drought Name Of Village Food Cash Motasakpar Bajri 100 Til 40 TABLE 2: Change in Fodder Situation after Cotton 300 AKRSP(I) interventions Groundnut 0 N.Kandasar Bajri 100 Cotton 300 Name of During previous Due to some income Groundnut 0 village drought Fodder last year fodder Ganganagar* Bajri 80 Til 30 problem started problem started Cotton 200 From(.....) Month from (...... ) Month *Control Village Mota Sakhpar November January N. Kandhasar November 15th January Ganganagar* October December Table 4: Period of availability of fodder from AKRSP(I) intervened agriculture land * Control village Name of village Before AKRSP(I)s After AKRSP(I)s Decrease intervention intervention in lasting Taking two buffaloes and one bullock as average period during period during Of fodder cattle holding per family, most families need at which fodder whichfodder (...... Day) lasted lasted least 80 kg of fodder per day. Furthermore, most Mota Sakhpar Oct-Jan end Oct-Dec end 30 families use crop residue as fodder apart from Nanakandhasar Oct-Dec End Oct-Nov End 30 collecting grass from their farmlands, pasture Ganganagar* Oct-Dec End Oct-15th Nov 15 lands and store it in their houses. While actual data * Control Village and calculations were not done for fodder requirement, shortfall and amount purchased from From the above tables 3 and 4 it is clear that with outside, indications are that most households need the shift from fodder crops to cash crops there has at least Rs 50/- worth of fodder per day from been a decrease in the fodder availability from land January onwards as the stock of collected grass more by 15 days in villages where AKRSP(I) has from the pasture land and fodder from crop intervened. This decrease in fodder availability has residue lasts roughly till December end during however been compensated to an extend by the drought years. increase in incomes from AKRSP(I) intervention. As given in table 5, the extra income in AKRSP(I) In Mota Sakhpar and Nanakandhasar, during active villages was around 33% more than the present drought, fodder problem started only after control village Ganganagar (inspite of it having 15th January 2000. This relief from fodder problem assured source of water). Thus atleast 20% of the

Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities 5 cash requirement for fodder is being met by the Sakhpar and Nanakandhasar, RRWHS has helped extra incomes. people tide over their drinking water problems by at least four months during a normal monsoon Table 5: Compensatory Factor For year and about two months during the first Decrease In Fodder Production drought year (See table below). Name of village Fodder req. M. price Ext. income Money per day per of Req. After required to Table 6: Period of drinking water household Fodder (rs) AKRSP(I) buy fodder availability during the Previous drought (kg) per day intervention for six per hh. (rs) month (rs) (86-87) and Present drought (99-00). Mota Sakhpar 80 80 3500 14,400 Name of village Period of drinking water availability during N.kandhasar 80 80 3060 14,400 Ganganagar* 80 80 2050 14,400 Previous drought Present drought Motasakpar July-Sept end July-Nov. end req = Required M. price = Market Price Nanakandhasar July-Sept end July-Nov. end Ext. income = Extra Income Ganganagar (control) July-Sept end July-Sept. end * Control village

Mota Sakhpar village is situated on the bank of Situation In Third Year Of Drought river Bhogavo. People in this village, during The situation of fodder is worse than food in the normal rainfall years, used to get drinking water third year of drought. In Mota Sakhpar only 15% directly from the river from July to Oct. and after (17 HHs) of the 110 households, which own cattle, that by digging sukdi (small pits in the river bed) are able to meet their fodder requirements through for two months. However, excessive sand mining home production. About 24% (26 HHs) migrate has reduced the sand layer on the riverbed . As a with the cattle to meet the fodder requirements result, since 1999 people are no longer getting and 16% (18 HHs) meet the requirements through water from the river after monsoon. In Mota other income sources. About 15% (17 HHs) of the Sakhpar in 2000, three wells including two private households face problems in buying fodder and wells on the river bed and one panchayat well on they either take loan or get the fodder from the riverbank were the three drinking water relatives on returnable basis. The situation of sources for the whole village. Water from these fodder availability in remaining 29% (32 HHs) is sources was also used for drinking by livestock. bad as they can neither avail loan nor are able to By end 1999, there were 30 RRWHS constructed manage fodder from outside. These households in Motasakhpar which means roughly 30% of the feed less to the livestock, abandon their cattle or village had access to this facility out of a total of send them to the Mahajan (Money lender). 106 households. People are also using it as a water storage tank. Some of them have filled up their DRINKING WATER SECURITY tank from the river or other wells and are sharing Situation In First Year Of Drought it with their neighbours during drought. As a One of AKRSP(I)’s major programmes for drought relief measure, AKRSP(I) started provision of drinking water is construction of Roof supplying water tankers with a contribution Rs Rain Water Harvesting Structures (RRWHS). 60 per structure by people. About 3 to 4 families RRWHS construction includes an underground jointly contributed for each of the RRWHSs with water tank of 10,000 to 12,000 litres capacity that the agreement to share water. All the 30 RRWHSs provides rainwater from Oct. to Jan., if used only were thus filled with water - a total storage of 3 for drinking puposes. In it’s active villages Mota lakh litres in one village! Owners of tanks then

6 Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities shared the water from these tanks with their water. People meet part of their drinking needs neighbours. Hence more than half the village got through these structures. However these are yet drinking water from these RRWHS. Thus, in a not enough to meet the needs as there has been way, these individual assets became a common very less rainfall over the last few years. Almost asset for the people in their time of need. all the households in the village fill well or tanker water in the RRWHS when rainwater storage is In Nanakandhasar, the situation is grim as there over. are only three wells out of which two have brackish water. In the summer of year 2000 all the three WATER FOR IRRIGATION AND INCREASE wells are empty. Thus the villagers were fully IN INCOME FROM CROP PRODUCTIVITY dependent on water supplied by government tankers and one private bore well which is 3 Km Situation In First Year Of Drought from the village is also another source of drinking Table 8: Number Of Neighbouring water for them. However, the distance is a limiting Wells Benefited By AKRSP(I) Built factor for the people. In Nanakandhasar due to less Water Harvesting Structures rainfall in the last year, the 10,000 litre RRWHS Name of village Total number of structures Total number of were half filled. That is why unlike the earlier Benefited Neigh- PT. IT. WHS. CD. drought, beneficiaries did not face drinking water bouring wells Motasakhpar 0 0 4 1 6 problems immediately after September and had Nanakandhasar 1 1 7 0 15 drinking water till November end. Ganganagar* 0 0 0 0 0

In Ganganagar, there are 5 private bore wells that * Control village serve the drinking water needs of the village. Due to low voltage during daytime motors do not The above table shows the total number of function and thus the villagers get drinking water benefited neighbouring wells by PT, WHS, CD, only in the late night and they have to store it for constructed by AKRSP(I). All the above wells are the day. In addition to this there are also two wells located on the beneficiary farmers’ lands. Water in the village, which have brackish water. These of these wells is brackish and these wells are wells are used for giving drinking water to located far from the villages and therefore can be livestock in the rainy and winter season. used only for irrigation or as drinking water for livestock. Table 7: Period of availability of drinking water due to RRWHS in Table 9 : Change In Water Table In Wells normal and drought years Surrounding WHS/CD./PT./IT.

Name of village Before AKRSP After AKRSP After AKRSP Name of village Before AKRSP(I) intervention After AKRSP(I) intervention Intervention Intervention Intervention Month Depth of Water Month W.Table (normal year) (normal year) (in first drought) table (in Feet) (in Feet) Mota Sakhpar Jul.-Sept.end Jul.-Jan. end Jul.-Nov. end Mota Sakhpar 15 Sep.- 1 15 Sep.- 4 Nanakandhasar Jul.-Sept. end Jul.-Jan. end Jul.-Nov end Dec. end Dec. end Ganganagar No RRWHS No RRWHS July-Sept end N.Kandhasar 15 Sep.- 0 15 Sept.- 3 Dec. end Dec. end Situation In Third Year Of Drought Ganganagar* No structure - No structure - In Mota Sakhpar, by end 2002, there were 55 * Control village households that possess RRWHS for drinking

Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities 7 Table 10: Water Tables In The Above Wells This income is calculated in next subsection. In During Previous Drought And Present Drought Ganganagar, there is no such type of structure for irrigation. However, the village has 15 borewells. Name of village Period upto which water remained in Those who do not have borewells, purchase water Surrounding wells during Previous drought Present drought from other farmers. Thus last year they were able (Month) (Month) to save their crops. Motasakpar Till Sept.end Till 15th Nov. Nanakandhasar Till Sept.end Till Oct. End INCOME FROM INCREASE IN CROP Ganganagar* Till Sept.end Till Sept.end PRODUCTIVITY * Control Village Analysis of cropping pattern before and after AKRSP(I) intervention showed a significant In Mota Sakhpar, before AKRSP(I) intervention, difference brought about by the intervention and the water table in wells surrounding the water a significant increase in income per unit cropping harvesting structures (WHS) remained only 1 foot, area (in this case - per bigha) as is evident from from 15th Sept. to Dec. end. After construction of the following tables 12& 13. above structures, water table (volume) in those wells has increased up to 4 feet during same time Table 11: Crop productivity per bigha period, after which it becomes empty. Thus the (0.4acre) before AKRSP(I) intervention volume of water in the wells has gone up after Name of Village Crops before intervention AKRSP(I) intervention. However, the use has also Food Cash correspondingly increased and therefore the Name Productivity Name Productivity period that the water lasts in the well has not (Per Bigha In Kg) (Per Bigha In Kg) changed. Motasakpar Bajri 140 (Sesame) 60 Til In Nanakandhasar, the soil is sandy and therefore Cotton 240 water in those wells remains for less days as Groundnut 140 N.Kandhasar Bajri 140 Cotton 200 compared to Motasakpar. Before AKRSP(I) Groundnut 120 intervention, between 15th Sept. to Dec. end those Ganganagar* Bajri 100 Til 40 wells used to have only one(I) foot of water. After Cotton 200 construction of above structures, water levels in * Control village those wells has increased to 3 feet though the period of availability is still the same (i.e. till Table 12 : Crop Productivity After AKRSP(I) Intervention December end). After that it becomes empty. Last year, due to less rainfall and less water in above Name Of Village Crops After Intervention structures, these wells became empty after end of Food Crop Cash Crop Name Productivity Name Productivity October (See table 5.). (Kg) (Kg) Using water from these wells, last year Motasakpar Bajri 180 Til 60 Cotton 400 beneficiaries of Mota Sakhpar and Nanakandasar Groundnut 140 were able to irrigate their cotton crop at the crucial N.Kandhasar Bajri 180 Cotton 400 flowering stage of the crop. As a result, though Groundnut 120 Ganganagar* Bajri 120 Til 50 there was less production due to small size of Cotton 300 cotton balls there was not a complete crop failure. * Control Village

8 Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities Local unit for land measurement in Surendranagar Last year due to less rainfall people did not grow is Bigha (2.5 bigha = 1 acre) and that of quantity groundnut at all in these three sample villages. measurement is Mon where 1 mon = 20 kg . Bajri There is 20 to 28 % less production of Bajri, 33 to or pearl millet is the staple food which people grow 40 % less in Til and 25 to 33% less in Cotton crop. on their rainfed land alongwith some cash crops In Mota Sakhpar and Nanakandhasar, there is such as groundnut, cotton and sesame. From table decrease of 80 kg in productivity of Bajri per bigha, 7 it is clear that food and cash crops both were 20 kg in Til, and 100 kg in Cotton. grown in these villages before intervention. However, the productivity especially of cash crops Table 14 : Income From Crops (Before AKRSP(I) Intervened) Agriculture Land. was low. Name of Village Crops Before Intervention Total Income After AKRSP(I)’s intervention, there has been a Food Cash From Food & Cash Crops combined positive effect mainly due to land Name Income Name Income Per Bigha (Rs) leveling, well recharge, construction of WHS., PT., (Rs) (Rs) CD., IT., Input Supply (Hybrid Seeds, Organic Mota Sakhpar Bajri 520 Groundnut 1320 1840 N.Kandhasar Bajri 520 Groundnut 960 1480 Manure) etc. on crop productivity. Beneficiaries Ganganagar* Bajri 360 Til 570 930 have levelled their land surrounding the irrigation *Control Village structures; as a result the soil moisture is retained for a longer period. As farmers after rainy season Table 15: Net Income from Crops (After hardly managed to provide more than one AKRSP(I) Intervened) Agriculture Land. irrigation and cotton requires at least three to four Name Of village Crops After AKRSP(I) Intervention support irrigation, Cotton balls were small and Name Income production was less. However, after AKRSP(I)’s Motasakpar Cotton 5000 intervention (table 13) farmers are able to irrigate Til 900 up to three times in normal rainfall. In Mota N.Kandhasar Cotton 5000 Ganganagar* Cotton 2800 Sakhpar and Nanakandhasar productivity has Til 600 increased and there is less chance of complete crop * Control Village failure.

In Ganganagar, there is limited land leveling and There is change in type of crop in those lands of no irrigation structures. However, there is change beneficiaries which are benefited by mainly due to input supply and private borings. WHS.,PT.,CD.,well recharge. Earlier they used to grow Bajri, and groundnut on this land. Now they Table 13: Crop Productivity in Drought are growing cotton and Til in same land. They have Year (1999-2000). not stopped Bajri cropping but are cultivating it Name Of Village Food Cash only in rainfed land. Hence their net income from Motasakpar Bajri 100 Til 40 the benefited land has increased but to some extent Cotton 300 they are getting less Bajri and groundnut and Groundnut 0 therefore less fodder. N.Kandasar Bajri 100 Cotton 300 Groundnut 0 Ganganagar* Bajri 80 Til 30 Cotton 200 * Control Village

Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities 9 Table 16: Crop Wise Expenditure Per Bigha Above table (18) shows the change in income per And Selling Price bigha from the benefited land by AKRSP(I)’s Name Of Crops Expenditure Selling Price activities. In Motasakpar and Nanakandhasar the Per Bigha(Rs) In Rs. Per Kg increase in income is Rs 4,060/- and Rs 3,620/- Bajri 40 4/kg Ground Nut 500 13/kg respectively. In Ganganagar, the increase in Til 180 15/kg income is Rs 2,470/-, this increase is mainly due Cotton 3000 20/kg to input supply by AKRSP(I) and availability of water from private bore wells. In the above two tables income is calculated taking into consideration the expenditure per bigha and Table 18: Change In Income During Present selling price of total production from this land. For Drought crops like Bajri and Til there was no outside Name Of Village During Present Drought expenditure. For cotton their expenditure per Name Of Crops Income bigha is Rs 2,000 /- to Rs 3,000 /-. In Ganganagar Motasakpar Cotton 3000 Til 420 expenditure per bigha is Rs 2,000/- and production Nanakandhasar Cotton 3000 is 12 mon whereas in other villages it is Rs 3,000/ Ganganagar* Cotton 2000 - and 20 mon respectively. Til 170 * Control Village Table 17: Change In Income After AKRSP(I) Intervention Due to drought, last year production was less that Name Of Village Income from Agriculture (Rs./Bigha) is already given in table No 13. The above table Before After Increase In shows the income from the benefited land during AKRSP(I)s AKRSP(I)s Income Intervene. Intervene. last year. Motasakpar 1840 5900 4060 Nanakandhasar 1380 5000 3620 Situation In Third Year Of Drought Ganganagar* 930 3400 2470 The poor rainfall in last four years has had a bad * Control Village impact on agriculture. The area under irrigation in Kharif has been reduced from 340 hectares in Change in Income after AKRSP(I) normal year (with average of 3-4 waterings) to 50 Intervention hectares (with just one watering) in 2003. Similarly

7000 in Mota Sakhpar, area under irrigation in Kharif

6000 has been reduced from 250 hectares in normal year to 94 hectares in 2003. This trend has negatively 5000 Inc ome Bef ore affected the income levels and food availability of AKRSP(I)s 4000 Interventions all the households in general and the agriculturists

3000 Inc ome af ter and agriculture labourers in particular in the study

Income in Rs. AKRSP(I)'s 2000 intervention area

1000

0 Mota Sakhpar N.Kandhasar Ganganagar

Name of Village

10 Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities EMPLOYMENT SECURITY Groundnut in Dec. After AKRSP (I)’s intervention people have shifted to Cotton cultivation. There Situation In First Year Of Drought is high demand for agriculture labourers for Table 19: Creation Of Extra Person Days In Cotton growing during the months of Aug-Sept AKRSP(I) Benefited Agriculture Land Per and Oct to uproot grass from fields and in Jan. to Year pluck Cotton balls. As a result more persons are Name Of Village Before AKRSP(I)s After AKRSP(I)s Extra required for more months. Hence even non- Intervention Intervention Person beneficiaries get employment in the benefited Total Total Days Person Days Person Days Created lands. Number of person days of employment Motasakpar 495 2700 2205 generated is quite high in active sample villages Nanakandhasar 540 2070 1530 as compared to AKRSP(I) control village.(See Ganganagar* 225 300 75 tables 19 and 20). In earlier drought people used * Control Village to get employment in rainy season during Bajri Table 20: Difference Of Employment crop but after that due to no rainfall, people did Between Previous Drought And Present not get any employment locally. Last year in Drought In AKRSP(I) Benefited benefited agriculture land , though demand for Agriculture Land labour was less, for two months Aug., and Dec. Name Of Village During During Extra there was some demand for labour. Thus at least Previous Drought Present Drought person two extra months of employment opportunity has Total person days Total person days days Created been created in Mota Sakhpar and Nanakandasar Motasakpar 330 1800 1470 at the time of drought. Nanakandhasar 360 1380 1020 Ganganagar* 100 150 40 Situation In Third Year Of Drought * Control Village Employment security becomes a crutial Total Person days component to meet food and fodder requirement of the household in the 3rd year of drought. Hence, 2000 the availability of employment for securing food 1800

1600 and fodder is essentially a part of drought 1400 proofing. Most of the households resort to 1200 Before intervention migration as a livelihood strategy in this regard. 1000 total person days

800 After intervention In Mota Sakhpar 26 cattle herders and one

Total Person days total person days 600 agriculturist have after the third year of drought. 400 The main reasons are that these families own less 200

0 or no land and whatever crops they cultivated Mota Sakhpar N.Kandhasar Ganganagar were not enough to meet their food, fodder and

Name of Village other requirements.

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT In the benefited area (i.e. where support irrigation is now possible after intervention) people used to Clearly AKRSP(I)’s natural resource management grow Bajri and Groundnut earlier. For this on an interventions have had a significant impact in average 5-12 people used to work for 15 days a helping people cope with the first drought year month, for Bajri during July and Sept. and for problems. Primarily these interventions have

Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities 11 helped increase crop production due to increased the study villages AKRSP(I) has done considerable availability of water and improved seed varieties work in water resource development, soil and in time leading to increase in income levels as well. water conservation and agriculture input supply. Furthermore, period of availability of drinking The benefits of these activities depend upon water too has increased due to construction of rainfall in particular year. It is important to see RRWHS and due to change in cropping pattern that farmers in the village are benefited from water there has been considerable increase in generation resource activities during normal rainfall year, of employment. Purchasing power of people has however they do not receive same benefits during gone up and hence has helped them to buy fodder drought. So it can be said that benefits of water from the market. Overall the interventions have resource development cannot be considered as the addressed each of the major problems to a greater only solution for drought proofing the village. As or lesser extent and has therefore to that extent we have seen, drought proofing of village means helped people in Surendranagar programme area securing food, fodder, employment and drinking cope up with drought better than before. At the water requirements of the villagers. It is true that same time there are lessons to be learnt from the the activities carried out by AKRSP(I) has provided study. One of the major learning is: opportunities to the households to get food, fodder, drinking water and employment with • Management of water - though there was less some degree of change in both the villages. rainfall there was water available, but people However, it is clear that both the villages are not quickly used it up and did not manage it prop- drought proof in the third consecutive drought erly. This was more so during normal year. The major reason for this is poor natural monsoon years as well as is indicated by the resource base in the area. Any efforts in recharge period of water availability. are not enough to benefit the agriculture • There is a need to scale up the drinking water production vis-à-vis food, fodder and employment programme especially construction of security to people because the recharged water is RRWHS as these work as very useful storage not sufficient in drought years. Again due to low tanks during drought. rainfall, the water harvesting structures are not • Perhaps the shift to cash crops did affect fod- filled upto their capacity. der availability as food crop production especially of Bajri and Groundnut went down in So when it comes to overcome the impact of irrigated areas. However their productivity natural calamities like drought on people, there did increase due to use of improved seeds. are no ready made solutions due to variability in This needs to be followed up with data. Fur- terms of quality of land and water, and variability thermore, there is a trade-off between higher in rainfall in space and time. This constraint makes productivity of cash crops (including employ- any intervention towards drought proofing ment) and consequent higher purchasing dependent on the nature. Nevertheless people power vis-a- vis fodder availability. have their own ways to overcome the natural calamities through migration, seeking support However in the third year of drought, the situation from the relatives and neighbours and depending is quite grim. After reviewing food, fodder, on the social and religious capital. drinking water and employment availability to people during drought in two selected villages, In this context, the most effective approach to cope some of the important trends can be seen. In both with the drought is to build on whatever people

12 Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities possess. In case of the study villages, even though RECOMMENDATIONS there is drought for last three years, people are The study proposes that proper strategy should managing their livelihoods. AKRSP (I)’s role of be introduced to provide food and fodder to the supporting people to irrigate land through water needy in the villages. Food and fodder are resource development and increase crop interrelated as production of both depends upon productivity through soil and water conservation rainfall. In the study area, diet of people is highly and quality and timely agriculture input supply dependent on milk and milk-based products. has been useful to people to secure food and fodder During drought, people tend to depend more on during good rainfall years, which they can use milk as a part of food due to less availability of even in bad years. vegetables within the village. So lack of fodder is However the critical factor is to support the one-way lack of food. resource poor households. The land-based To address these issues households that face interventions do not provide them enough support problems in availing should be supported in to cope with the drought effectively as they get getting food as a coping mechanism and as a long- migrated. This is where the role of any term strategy they should be supported for development agency should be in coming years alternative livelihoods through off farm activities. to provide for cheap credit facilities, either through village institutions or linkage with banks, so that In terms of fodder security necessary steps should people do not go to moneylenders for hefty interest be taken to meet fodder requirements during rates and they are able to secure food, fodder and drought years. Some of the major areas that need employment even during drought. AKRSP (I) or more attention are reducing unproductive cattle for that matter any other agency can not provide and improving cattle productivity as well as 100% solutions to the impacts of drought but it market linkages, especially when animal can certainly provide opportunities to people to husbandry is the second major occupation of the cope with the drought! people in the area.

Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities 13 Part 2

The situation in Surendranagar was at its worst in particular in the study area. As shown in the 2003, with three consecutive droughts since 1999. figures given below, out of the total 226 The livelihoods of the people had been badly households in Dhamarashala, only 173 households affected in terms of food, fodder, drinking water are able to meet the food requirements through and employment opportunities. In 2003 therefore their agriculture land and other sources of income. AKRSP(I)’s felt the need to conduct a study on the Out of these, 33 households face hardships to meet existing situation in the villages so as to formulate food requirements. As a result of which 32 a drought coping strategy with focus to households migrated to Halvad for employment supporting livelihoods of people through support in agriculture. The remaining 20 households are in accessing food, fodder, and water. This study not in a position to buy food on their own, even provided for a comparative analysis and though they had migrated for employment. These recommendations already discussed in the first are the households where agriculture production part of the study. Some additional findings of the is less, they have less number of livestock or the study are being discussed here. family size is big. In order to meet food requirements, it is likely that these households will OBJECTIVE take loan from the moneylenders in the village at The main objective of this part of the study was to 36 to 60 per cent interest rate per annum. assess the current status of food, fodder, drinking The situation of Mota Sakhpar is slightly better in water and employment security levels of drought terms of food security. Out of the total 116 proofing in villages Dhamrashala and Mota households in Mota Sakhpar, 110 households are Sakhpar in Sayla taluka of Surendranagar district. able to meet their food requirements through their agriculture land and other sources of income. Food Security Apart from these households there are 5 The poor rainfall in last four years has had a bad households in the village that face hardship to impact on agriculture. The area under irrigation meet food requirements throughout the year. The in Kharif has been reduced from 340 hectares in remaining 1 household is vulnerable to get food normal year (with average of 3-4 waterings) to 50 throughout the year and 2 members from that hectares (with just one watering) in 2003. Similarly household have migrated. in Mota Sakhpar, area under irrigation in Kharif has been reduced from 250 hectares in normal year Fodder Security to 94 hectares in 2003. This trend affects the food The situation of fodder is worse than food. In availability of all the households in general and Dhamrashala 90 per cent (204 HHs) households the agriculturists and agriculture labourers in own cattle out of which 16 percent (32 HHs) are

Table 1: Fodder Availability Status In Study Area In 2003

Village Total Cattle Requirement Migrate Requirement met through Face Vulnerable HHs Owning met through with the own production and/ hardships to to get HHs own production livestock or other income buy fodder fodder Dhamarashala 226 204 32 25 31 62 54 Mota Sakhpar 116 110 17 26 18 17 32

14 Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities able to meet their fodder requirements through avail loan nor able to manage fodder from outside, home production, 12 per cent (25 HHs) migrate these households feed less to the livestock or with the cattle to meet their fodder requirements abandon the cattle or send them to the Mahajan. and 16 percent (31 HHs) meet their requirements through other income sources. While 30 per cent Drinking Water Security (62 HHs) of the households face problems in In Dhamarashla, there are 23 hand pumps (20 buying fodder, they either take loan or get the private and 3 public) and 1 government bore well fodder from relatives on returnable basis. for drinking water purpose but all of these sources contain saline water. Water requirement for The situation of remaining 26 per cent (54 HHs) is domestic use and cattle is met through the above- particularly bad as they can neither avail loan nor mentioned sources. There is sufficient water in able to manage fodder from outside, these government bore well in 2003 in spite of drought. households end up feeding less to the livestock or There is no issue in access to water requirement abandon the cattle or send them to the Mahajan. It for domestic and cattle as everybody can get water was interesting to observe that the households that from the government bore well. are vulnerable to secure fodder have more number of unproductive livestock. It was revealed during Drinking water requirement of the village the field visits that those who are economically population throughout the year is met through the better off keep only productive livestock and sell Irrigation Tank (IT-1) constructed by AKRSP(I). unproductive cattle. The poor cannot do so as they People get water from the storage during monsoon are not able to buy the cattle they want so they and winter and as soon as the water gets over they usually do not sell cattle. dig virdas in the tank to get water. In this way the drinking water needs of the village are met In Mota Sakhpar 95 per cent (110 HHs) households through the tank. own cattle. Out of which 15 percent (17 HHs) are able to meet their fodder requirements through In Mota Sakhpar, there are 55 households who home production, 24 per cent (26 HHs) migrate possess Roof Rain Water Harvesting Structures with the cattle to meet the fodder requirements (RRWHS) for drinking water. People meet part of and 16 percent (18 HHs) meet the requirements their drinking needs through these structures. through other income sources. While 15 per cent They are not enough to meet the needs throughout (17 HHs) of the households face problems in the year. Almost all the households in the village buying fodder, they either take loan or get the fill well or tanker water in the RRWHS when fodder from relatives on returnable basis. rainwater storage is over. This way these structures are useful to store water through tankers The situation of fodder availability in remaining or by using pumps on the wells to lift water to the 29 per cent (32 HHs) is bad as they can neither tanks. The requirement of water for domestic and

Table 22. Season wise status of potable water through wells in Mota Sakhpar.

Location of Wells Total Monsoon Winter Summer Wells Potable Non Potable Potable Non Potable Potable Non Potable Water Water Water Water Water Water Riverbed of Bhogao river 14 14 0 10 4 2 12 Village Area 20 7 13 3 17 0 20 Total 34 21 13 13 21 2 32

Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities 15 cattle is met through the panchayat well, while in In reference to Dhamarashala, 25 cattle herder summer water from other wells or tankers is filled households migrate along with the cattle to south in this well. The drinking water needs of the Gujarat and 40 households of kolis to Halvad for households that does not possess RRWHS, is met agriculture labour. Similarly in Mota Sakhpar 26 through 2 wells located in the riverbed of Bhogao cattle herders migrate along with their cattle. The river. agriculturist and others (40 from Dhamarashala and 1 from Mota Sakhpar) were migrated as a Employment Security distress migration. The main reasons are that these Employment security is an important part to meet families own less or no land and whatever crops food and fodder requirement of the household. they cultivated were not enough to meet their food, Hence, the availability of employment for securing fodder and other requirements. In this context, it food and fodder is essentially a part of drought is important to note that the cattle herder families proofing. migrate for better opportunities to sell the milk produce and are not necessarily the distress Table 23. Occupation wise Migration migration in search of food and fodder. One trends in Study area in 2003 argument posed by the villagers themselves Village No. of HH Migration justifies this view, “Bharwads will migrate Cattle Agriculturists Total Cattle Agriculturists Total whatever you may do as they find more Herders and others Herders and others Dhamarashala 35 191 226 25 40 65 opportunities when they migrate”. Mota Sakhpar 36 80 116 26 1 27

16 Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities ANNEXURE 1

Profile of Dhamrashala irrigation for kharif crops. Furthermore, 33.52 Dhamrashala is a medium sized village having 226 hectares has been covered under land levelling, households located in the Sayla taluka of 47.14 under contour bunding and 10 hectares Surendranagar district of Gujarat. Dhamrashala under nalla plugs benefiting 40 farmers. The has a heterogeneous community with Kolis - the village institutions (MVM and WSG 1) has agricultural community forming a majority with supplied agriculture inputs worth Rs. 8,75,861/- 184 households, i.e. 81% out of total 226 in order to meet quality and timely requirement households. Besides these, there are 35 Bharwad, of seeds and fertilisers of both members and non 4 Vaghari and 1 Sadhu households in members of the groups. The groups have also Dhamrashala. The main occupation of the people supplied credit of Rs.1, 57,049/- for both is agriculture. About 92% of the population are productive and consumptive purpose in the directly engaged in agriculture. Besides village. agriculture, people are involved in other In Dhamrashala, Mahila Vikas Mandal has 27 occupations like cattle rearing, agricultural labour female members, Watershed Group-1 (WSG) has and construction labour. 46 members and WSG –2 has 44 members.

AKRSP (I)s Intervention in Dhamrashala Profile of Mota Sakhpar AKRSP(I) first intervened in this village in 1989 Mota Sakhpar is a small village having 116 hhs in with the formation of a Gram Vikas Mandal. In Sayla taluka of Surendranagar district of Gujarat. 1991 a Mahila Vikas Mandal was also formed, with The village has a heterogeneous community with the initiation of biogas programme followed by Kolis - the agricultural community and the implementation of other programmes such as, Bharwad - the pastoral community forming a water resources development, soil and water majority. Harijan – scheduled tribe community conservation, agriculture extension, saving and and Kumbhar also form major portion of the ethnic credit and drinking water. In 1997, according to groups of Mota- Sakhpar. The Bharwad the requirements of people to implement population in the village usually migrates outside watershed development activities in the village, with their cattle. Some part of the village is saline. the Gram Vikas Mandal was divided into two The main occupation of the people residing in the groups called Watershed Group (WSG 1 and WSG village is Agriculture. Out of the 140 landed 2). The members of WSGs and MVMs were households in the village around 78% practice actively involved in planning, implementation and rainfed agriculture in 486.32 ha of land. About management of all activities carried out in the 60.72 ha of land falls under irrigated agriculture. village.

Major activities in the village include Water Interventions in Mota Sakhpar Resource Development and Soil and Water In the year 1991 AKRSP(I) started its intervention Conservation as well as agriculture input supply. in this village with the initiation of savings activity 10 small water harvesting structures and 4 with the watershed group. In 1997, AKRSP(I) percolation or support irrigation tanks have started natural resource activities in the village benefited 122 farmers through life saving support involving villagers. One irrigation tank and four

Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities 17 water harvesting structures have been constructed credit, total credit supplied through groups till benefiting 60 farmers in the village in 40 hectares 2002 is Rs.1,83,257/- The groups are also linked of land. The storage capacity of 2.51 mcft has been with the banks and federation. created by these structures. In terms of soil and In addition to the natural resource management, water conservation activities in the village 56.99 Roof Rain Water Harvesting Structure (RRWHS) hectares land of 63 farmers is treated under land were introduced in the year 1996. Later after levelling and 21.15 hectares of land of 14 farmers having realized the potential of the technology and under contour bunding. Village institutions have the gravity of the problem, altogether 55 RRWHS supplied inputs of Rs. 8,06,214/- till 2002 have been built so far in the village. benefiting both members and non-members of the groups with the objective of providing timely In Mota Sakhpar, there is a Mahila Vikas Mandal inputs for agriculture. Agriculture inputs include of 19 women and a Watershed Group consisting seeds of cotton, millet, mung, sesame, etc and 48 male members. Both the groups have organic manure as well as DAP and urea. Both the representatives of Harijan community in the groups in the village are involved in savings and village.

18 Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities ANNEXURE 2

Amount spent by AKRSP (I) in Dhamarashala and Mota Sakhpar villages till March 2003.

Amount in INR Programme Investment* by AKRSP (I) Dhamarashala Mota Sakhpar Water Resource Development (WRD) through Percolation Tanks, Irrigation Tanks, 48,88,000.00 9,65,000.00 Water Harvesting Structures Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) through Land Levelling, Contour Bunding, 2,38,000.00 2,80,000.00 Nalla Plugs Drinking Water Supply (Distribution through tankers) 21,000.00 49,000.00 Roof Rain Water Harvesting Structures (RRWHS) 82,000.00 4,69,000.00 Biogas 42,000.00 00.00 Employment Generation 2,13,000.00 00.00 TOTAL 54,84,000.00 17,63,000.00 * Amount includes only expenses incurred by AKRSP (I) and not the peoples contribution in above-mentioned activities. The amount spent in Trainings and capacity building is also not included above.

Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Drought Coping by Rural Communities 19 AKRSP(I) Publications

No. AKRSP(I) Publications Author Year 1 Impact and Sustainability of Water Resources Development: Sulbha Khanna, Narrotam Prajapati 1996 A Case study of Percolation Tanks in S’nagar B.Jani 2 Check Dams: A Water Harvesting Technique for Sustainable Barry Underwood 1996 Agricultural Development. Sulbha Khanna , et al 3 Credit Systems in Rural Areas: A Study in Bharuch district of Gujarat Sulbha Khanna 1996 Manoj Mishra, et al 4 A Path out of Drudgery for Women: A biogas Programme Sulbha Khanna 1996 Case study in Junagadh area Salima Jethani 5 Village Institutions and Federations: An overview of Barry Underwood 1997 AKRSP’s work in the area of Human Resource Development. 6 Impact Study of Contour Bunding and Land Leveling Vikas Nath 1997 7 Outcome of contour bunds and gully plugs as tools for watershed Sulbha Khanna 1997 development - A case study of Khabji village of Bharuch district 8 Group wells: A water Resource For Small and Marginal Farmers Nand Kishore Agrawal, Bharat Patel 1998 (An outcome study of Sajanvav And Moskut Group Wells in Bharuch) 9 Changing Status of Women: Impact of AKRSP(I)’s Interventions in Sulbha Khanna 1998 Bharuch District, Gujarat. 10 Impact of AKRSP(I) Intervention on Migration in Niraj Joshi 1998 Bharuch Programme Area 11 Institutional and Vegetational issues in Joint Forest Management: Nand Kishore Agrawal 1999 Case study of Khaidipada Village in Bharuch, Gujarat 12 Impact Study of Agricultural Extension Programme in Sulbha Khanna 1999 Surendranagar Area of AKRSP(I) 13 Drip Irrigation - A Beginning (A study in Surendrangar Manoj Mishra, Dinesh P.Mogharia 1999 programme Area of AKRSP(I) 14 The role of land classification criteria in ensuring equity Sulbha Khanna 1999 15 Impact of minor canal irrigation projects of AKRSP(I) in Sulbha Khanna 1999 Bharuch programme area 16 Equity issues in natural resource management : Nandkishore Agrawal 1999 A case of Bharuch district in Gujarat 17 Emergence of joint forest management: Journalistic document Armin Sethna 2000 18 Experience of mango plantation: a case study of Kirit M.Jasani 1999 Katrasa village of Junagadh programme area 19 Cost Benefit Analysis and Water use efficiency - Study Team of AKRSP(I) 2000 A case study of Motasakhpar Village 20 Gender and Irrigation in India: The Women’s irrigation Barbara van Koppen, 2001 group of Jambar, South Gujarat Rashmi K.Nagar, Shilpa Vasavada 21 Common pool resources in Semi-arid India Ashok Kumar Gupta 2001 22 ‘Manavtano Marag’ (in Gujarati) Published by Charkha supported by 2002 AKRSP(I)/Unnati 23 ‘Navi Kshitij’ (in Gujarati) Published by AKRSP(I) / ANANDI 2003 24 Canal Irrigation management by tribal communities Aditi Mukherjee, Shilpa Verma 2003 Prabhat Rath 25 Enhancing entrepreneurship in micro irrigation, mainly drip Sudarshan Panda 2003 irrigation : a case study of AKRSP(I)’s Junagadh programme area IRMA 26 “Anaj Suraksha” – Food security in drought proofing – Experience Kirti Patel , Narayan Bhadreshia 2003 of Mahila Manch of Surendranagar programme area – (Gujarati) Tikhabhai Mob, Surekha Patel et al 27 A study of savings and credit situation in Surendranagar Dharmistha Chauhan 2003 programme area 28 Experience of mango plantation: a case study of Katrasa Kirit M.Jasani 1999 village of Junagadh programme area

The cost of AKRSP(I) Publication is Rs.75/- each within India. Overseas rates are US $5. Handling charges extra.