Natural Resources Systems Programme Project Report1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NATURAL RESOURCES SYSTEMS PROGRAMME PROJECT REPORT1 DFID Project Number R8084 Report Title Enhancing livelihoods and NR management in peri-urban villages near Hubli-Dharwad. Scientific report. Annex A of the Final Technical Report of project R8084. Report Authors Brook, R. and Allen, A Organisation School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales Date 2005 NRSP Production System Peri-Urban Interface 1 This document is an output from projects funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries. The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID. Annex A Research report Annex A Research report Robert Brook with Adriana Allen Contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................................2 2. The project report.......................................................................................................2 3. Methodology..............................................................................................................3 3.1. Research team .........................................................................................................3 3.2. Research site ...........................................................................................................5 3.3. Enhancing participation: community mobilization.................................................5 3.4. Measuring change ...................................................................................................6 4. Results and discussion ...............................................................................................7 4.1. Livelihood strategies and opportunities for the poor in the PUI.............................7 4.2. Testing the effectiveness of the participation process ..........................................17 4.3. Validity of the new knowledge about natural resources based production and livelihoods....................................................................................................................35 4.3.1. Sewage irrigation ...............................................................................................37 4.3.2. Agroforestry.......................................................................................................39 4.3.3. Village Forest Committees ................................................................................41 4.3.4. Crop demonstrations ..........................................................................................42 4.3.5. Soil and water conservation...............................................................................43 4.3.6. Vermi-composting .............................................................................................45 4.3.7. Livestock............................................................................................................46 4.3.8. Concluding comments about role of natural resources......................................49 4.4. Summary of Findings on Governance and Institutional Change.........................50 4.4.1. History of Involvement of Key Institutions.......................................................51 4.4.2. Methodology for the Research on Institutional Change ....................................53 4.4.3. Overview of the Institutions for Planning and Natural Resource Management 54 4.4.4. Summary of Main Findings ...............................................................................56 4.4.5. Concluding Remarks..........................................................................................59 5. References................................................................................................................62 Page A1 Annex A Research report 1. Introduction The main report addressed to what extent the project purpose and outputs had been met, in prescribed DFID format. Where relevant, findings from the research were presented. This research report presents a consolidated review of the research assignment, drawing together the main findings from the annexes which follow, and setting the research in the context of current understanding and debate. 2. The project report This consists of five volumes. The first contains the final technical report in DFID stipulated format. This Annex A consists of an account of the research findings. The final annex in this volume, Annex B, provides some geographical and administrative structure background and a section of colour plates to illustrate some of the plans of action and other project activities, nearly all taken by the project manger. The second volume consists entirely of Annex C, the process documentation, written by Best Practices Foundation. This is a comprehensive account of project activities insights and analysis, and contains numerous testimonies and opinions from project participants and many other stakeholders. The other annexes are as listed below. Volume 3 contains Annex D (Participatory monitoring and evaluation), Annex E (Livelihoods), Annex F (Self help group financial analysis) and Annex G (Self help groups: livelihood strategy study). Volume 4 contains Annex H (MOVE), Annex I (Institutions and administration), Annex J (Political capacity study), Annex K (Agroforestry), Annex L (Crop demonstrations) and Annex M (Soil and water conservation). The final volume consists of Annex N (Vermicomposting), Annex O (Motivation study: agroforestry), Annex P (Motivation study: markets), Annex R (Nutrition study), Annex S (Sewage irrigation), Annex T (Stone quarry study), Annex U (Household fuel study) and Annex V (In-migration study). There is no Annex Q; somehow this was missed out when allocating reference letters to each annex. The only action plan that was not written up as an annex of its own was livestock, although this is covered in sections of Annexes C and D. Annexes C and onwards are written by other team members, and as it was considered too large a task to closely edit them and format them in a consistent style, this will be found to vary from annex to annex. This preserves the insights that each author wished to contribute to the knowledge generated by the project. Several of the annexes describe small studies undertaken by team members on particular aspects of interest to them. These include the studies on the effects of social organisation on livelihoods (Annex G), political capacity of the poor in Mugad and Keligeri (Annex J), motivation of some primary beneficiary groups (Annexes O and P), nutrition of poor households in Kotur (Annex R), sewage irrigated farming systems (Annex S), workers in stone quarries in Mandihal (Annex T), fuel consumption in Daddikamalapur (Annex U) and in-migration of Muslim groups in Kotur (Annex V). Although these were not strictly part of the original action plans, they add a valuable additional richness to the knowledge generated by this project, demonstrate the enthusiasm for research by academic team members and display their creativity. Page A2 Annex A Research report The research approach is described in section 5 of the FTR main report. As will be evident from the number and length of the annexes, the quantity of data and other information is very large, and much remains to be analysed in detail. In the time available, this report represents the first run through the data. Further and deeper analyses will follow, to emerge as locally published articles, academic papers and briefing documents. Three databases are included on the CD with this report, FIS1, FIS2 and the SHG database. 3. Methodology 3.1. Research team The research team was multi-disciplinary, consisting of natural resource and social scientists. Most of the team had worked on previous projects, and participants are listed in Table A1. The UK team was responsible for overall project management (Robert Brook), and specific research inputs (Fiona Nunan, policy analysis, Adriana Allen, institutional analysis; Bianca Ambrose-Oji, livelihoods analysis; Karen Hillyer, participatory monitoring and evaluation). Visits to the research site were made by UK team members once or twice a year, as funds and circumstances allowed. Fiona Nunan left the project after a year due to leaving the University of Birmingham to take up a position in Uganda. Three other members of the UK team also had official leaves of absence for periods during the project. The UAS team provided technical input, suggested or modified interventions and collected data. Initially, the UAS team leader, Dr C. S.. Hunshal, managed the project within India and acted as the contact point for the UK team until he was transferred by UAS to Bijapur, a distant campus, creating a significant hiatus in management. The role of Best Practices Foundation was to document the processes and undertake specific aspects of the research, such as development of participatory monitoring and evaluation, helping to establish MOVE and institutional analysis. Following the transfer away of Dr Hunshal in 2002, Dr S. Purushothaman managed the project within India. Due to excessively difficult administrative procedures within the UAS Finance Office, only salaries and honoraria were paid through there and all operating expenses (communications, transport, materials) were managed by Best Practices Foundation. The two development NGOs, BAIF and IDS, were responsible for community level development. Their modus operandi was to allocate community organisers (CO) to each village and require them to live there. Page A3 Annex