Report Impact Assessment Study KWDP Phase II (Final)

8/6/2019 Report Impact Assessment Study KWDP Phase II (Final)

1/93

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background of Study

The Project Agreement for Phase II of the Danida supported Karnataka Watershed

Development Project came into force in June 1997 for a period of seven years ending 31st

May 2004 with a total budget allocation of Rs.210 million. The project covered an area of

45,000 ha (area of about 28,000 ha was defined as treatable) in 12 watersheds in as manytalukas in the districts of Bijapur (4), Bagalkot (1) and Gulbarga (7). The overalldevelopment objective was to enable land users in the selected watersheds to practice

sustainable management of natural resources on both private and common lands.

The primary beneficiaries of the project included all rural farming households in theselected watersheds with special emphasis on the resource poor farmers. To facilitate

participation of the beneficiaries in project activities, the project organised the

community members into village level institutions like Village Watershed Development

Committees (VWDCs), male and female Self Help Groups (SHGs), User Groups (UGs)and Cattle Breeders Associations (CBAs). The community organisation activities in the

project were implemented primarily by the government staff deputed to the project.

The project was driven through the regular system with Department of Agriculture up to

31.7.2003 as the lead agency and in collaboration with the GoK's Departments of

Forestry, Horticulture and Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services. From 1.8.2003 theProject was under the administrative control of the Watershed Development Department.

The Project Director (Joint Director of Agriculture) was the chief executive of the project

at the project level. The Project Director was supported by a management team consistingof Assistant Project Director, Project Forest Officer, Project Horticulture Officer, Project

Livestock Officer, Project Training Officer and Project Sociologist. An Adviseremployed by Danida, supervised by and reporting to WDCU, provided technicalguidance and support, as per the Danida guidelines to the Project Director.

The Joint External Review 2003 of the project carried out in September October 2003had recommended an extension of 18 months to the project for carrying out

Consolidation and Sustainability related activities and also proposed a draft plan for the

same. However, as a consequence of an agreement between the Governments of India

and Denmark in August 2003 to phase out Danish development assistance to India byDecember 2005, Danida decided not to grant an extension to the project. Consequent to

this, a decision was taken by the Project Empowered Committee (PEC) to recommend to

the Government of Karnataka to fund the extension phase of the project.WDCU had offered to support the project in planning and documentation in case the GoK

agreed to fund the extension. The Government of Karnataka has subsequently passed the

order to fund the extension phase of the project in a project mode under the overalladministration of the Department of Watershed Development, GoK.

1


2/93

The project adopted the following implementation strategies to ensure participation of all

stakeholders in the project:

1. Participatory approach - Active involvement of all the stake holders in the projectprocess (planning, execution, monitoring and evaluation) through establishment and

use of village level institutions like SHGs, VWDCs and WDCs.

2. Catchment approach - Treatment of the land started from the upper catchment of thewatershed and proceeded towards the lower reaches.

3. In situ soil and moisture conservation - More emphasis on biological (agronomic)

measures than physical measures for soil and moisture conservation. Potentialinterventions were based on the existing land use practice, local knowledge, which

improved the crop and animal yields and also protected the lands against degradation.

4. Farming systems and income generation - Emphasis on biomass based income

generating activities to increase the income of weaker groups and also to reducemigration. Preference was given to women, youth and landless agricultural groups.

5. Farmers contribution - Deciding the nature and extent of contribution by the

farmers / villagers for identified activities during preparation of village plans. This

was a strategy to enhance ownership of the interventions proposed. In other words atransfer of responsibility to the beneficiary.

6. Stakeholder Training - Enhancing the capacity of the government staff, farmers andother categories by conducting project specific tailor-made training.

7. Implementation, Monitoring and ReviewsConsidering the flexibility in planning

and implementation, an effective monitoring system with identified indicators was

developed for periodical reviews for mid-course improvements.

Based on the objectives and strategies of the project, the following nine activities have

been implemented in the project:1. Development of common land and drainage lines - Through implementation of

appropriate soil and moisture conservation activities, establishing trees (forest and

horticulture) and pastures. The focus is on conservation for production.2. Development of private arable land - By implementing appropriate soil and moisture

conservation activities to support crop production and ensuring that soil and moisture

is conserved3. Holistic demonstration - Establishing demonstrations on the principles of farming

system approach in every village and in a topo sequence.

4. Participatory Research - Multi-disciplinary scientists, identify the indigenous

practices followed by villagers in conserving soil and moisture, refine them andsuggest suitable technology to the field staff. There is ample scope for participatory

technology development in conserving natural resources.

5. Nurseries - Establishing farmers nurseries in all the watersheds and two projectnurseries to cater to the needs of planting material required in the project.

6. Livestock management - Emphasis on increased fodder production, improvement of

livestock management and the quality of livestock.7. Survey and investigationBio-physical baseline data collection, farming system

study, socio-economic survey and impact assessment are important surveys and

studies in the project.

2


3/93

8. Training - Trainings on subject matter areas of watershed development, participatory

approaches, group management, communication and other need based subjects are

conducted for training staff, committee members, farmers, women etc.9. Support to VWDCs and income generating activities (IGA) - Technical and financial

support to poorer sections of the village and women for taking up income generating

activities. The monitory assistance provided gives the VWDC a sound financialfooting.

Since poverty reduction is the overall goal of Danidas assistance to India, technical andfinancial support to the poor for income generating activities were one of the major

interventions of the project. These included the following activities:

1. Grant support of Rs. 2350 to each household identified as landless to undertake some

income generating activity;2. Contribution of Rs. 1000 per beneficiary household to the Village Development Fund

(VDF) to be used as a revolving fund to extend credit to members for undertaking

income generating activities;

3. Formation of Self Help Groups (both for women and men) to promote incomegenerating activities; and

4. Training to SHG members and beneficiary households on income generatingactivities and management of funds

During the Main Phase and the Consolidation Phase the project achievement with respect

to these activities is given in Table 1.1.1 below (Annex 1 and 2).

Table 1.1.1 Physical and Financial Achievements of KWDP Phase II in IGA

Sl. No. Name of Activity Physical

Achievement

Financial

Achievement (Rs.)

1 Income Generating Support toPoor Households 1823 Households 4,283,950

2 Contribution to VDFs 8626 Households 8,292,825

3 No. of SHGs Formed 368 Groups 9,145,0541

Source: Project Progress Report 2004 KWDP Phase II

In the present study it is proposed to systematically study the impact of these income

generating activities and to recommend on the feasibility and opportunity of scaling up

these interventions in the National watershed development programmes in the State andthe country.

1.2 Objective of Study

The objectives of the study are as follows:

1. Impact of the income generating activities of the project on sustainable watershed

development in the project area assessed and described.

1This is the amount collected by the SHG members through monthly savings. The Project has not

contributed any funds towards it.

3


4/93

2. Feasibility and opportunity of scaling up the income generating activities in National

watershed development programmes in the State and the country assessed and

described.

The study specifically focuses on the aspects outlined below:

1. Analysis of the impact of the income generating activity support of Rs. 2350 perhousehold on the productivity and socio-economic condition of the beneficiary

households

2. Analysis of the impact of VDF on the productivity and socio-economic condition ofthe beneficiary households

3. Assess the role of the men and women SHGs in enhancing productivity and

improving socio-economic conditions of its members

4. Assess the system of contribution from among the poor and landless to avail thebenefits under IGA, and to suggest / propose the optimum scale of contributions.

5. Assess the impact of IGA interventions on environment and in building resource base

at watershed level.

6. Assess the potential for up scaling the project strategy and interventions related toincome generating activity into the National Watershed Development programmes as

an alternate model.

1.3 Project Profile

1.3.1 Geographical LocationThe project area lies in north-eastern part of the state of Karnataka, India (Annex 3). Thegreater part of the project area lies between 440 to 600 m above mean sea level. The area

is generally undulating and Bijapurtaluka has comparatively steeper slopes.

1.3.2 Project Area

The project covered an area of 45,000 ha (an area of about 28,000 ha was defined astreatable) in 12 watersheds in as many talukas in the districts of Bijapur (4), Bagalkot (1)

and Gulbarga (7). The details of project area are given in the table below.

Table 1.3.1 Watershed Wise Details of the Project Area

Watershed / Taluk No. of Villages Geog. Area (ha) Households

District Bijapur

Somadevarhatti / Bijapur 1 4800 610

Korahallihalla / Sindagi 3 2434 681

Kallahalla / Indi 6 3440 1,082

Vanakkiahalla / Muddebihal 8 6391 476District Total 18 17065 2,849

District Bagalkot

Hirehalla / Hunugund 2 6043 1,421

District Total 2 6043 1,421

District Gulbarga

Amarza Nala / Afzalpur 4 3379 671

Dogiban Nala / Aland 3 2537 464

4


5/93

Bennur B. Nala / Chitapur 4 3826 695

Shivapur Nala / Jewargi 5 4300 817

Budnur Chandapur / Shahapur 5 3346 883

Karibhavinala / Surpur 5 2210 430

Huvinabhavinala / Chincholi 4 2406 401

District Total 30 22004 4361Source: Project Implementation Plan, PIP, (1997) KWDP Phase II

1.3.3 Climate

The project area enjoys broadly tropical steppe, semi-arid hot climate. The Dogiban Nala

and Huvinabhavi Nala watersheds of Aland and Chincholi talukas of Gulbarga districtare classified as northern transition zone under agro-climatic classification of Karnataka

where the average annual rainfall varies from 700 to 900 mm. The average minimum and

maximum temperatures are 220C and 350C, respectively. The Amarza Nala, Bennur B.

Nala, Shivapura Nala, Budnur-Chandapur and Karibhavinala of Afzalpur, Chitapur,Jewargi, Shahapur and Shorapurtalukas of Gulbarga district fall under north-eastern dry

zone that receives annual rainfall of about 500 to 600 mm. The annual average minimumand maximum temperatures in this region are 230C and 380C, respectively. Kallahalla,Korahallihalla, Somadevarahatti, and Vankihalla watersheds of Bijapur district and

Hirehalla watershed of Bagalkot district fall under northern dry zone which receives

annual rainfall of 500 to 600 mm and experience annual average minimum and maximumtemperatures of 180 and 390C, respectively.

The project area lies in drought-prone zone. There is generally a partial drought once in

three years and severe drought once in five years. The area receives low to moderaterainfall with a minimum of about 500 mm in Bijapurtaluka and about 900 mm in

Chincholi taluka (Table 1.3.2). The contribution of south-west monsoon and north-east

monsoon to annual rainfall is about 64% and 24%, respectively and the rest is receivedduring summer season as local showers. Most of the rainfall is received between August

and October. Sometimes torrential rains occurs causing soil erosion and run-off.

Table 1.3.2 Rainfall Pattern in the Project Area

Watershed / Taluk Average Rainfall (mm) Peak Rainfall Months

Somadevarahatti / Bijapur 550 July - October

Kallahalla / Indi 564 July - October

Koralihalla / Sindagi 550 July - October

Vanakihal / Mundebihal 550 June - October

Hirehalla / Hunagund 573 July - October

Dogiban Nala / Aland 750 July-September Amarja Nala / Afzalpur 607 July - October

Huvunbhavi Nala / Chincholli 910 July - October

Bennur- B Nala / Chitapur 800 July-September

Chandpur Nala / Shahapur 734 July-September

Karibhavi Nala / Surpur 750 August-September

Shivpur Nala / Jewargi 750 September Source: Impact Evaluation Study Report (2005), WDCU

5


6/93

1.3.4 Population

Details of the demography of the project area are given in the table below.

Table 1.3.3 Demographic Details of the Project Districts (Population in Million)

Demographic Parameters Gulbarga Bagalkot Bijapur

Total Population 3.12 1.39 1.81Rural Population 2.28 1.01 1.42

Urban Population 0.84 0.39 0.39

Scheduled Caste 0.61 0.21 0.45

Scheduled Tribe 0.10 0.02 0.08

Source: Impact Evaluation Study Report (2005), WDCU

Density of human population in Gulbarga and Bijapur districts is 193 and 171 per km2,

respectively. On the basis of sample households data, about 53 % of the population in

Bijapur district lives below the poverty line and the corresponding figure for Gulbargadistrict is reported to be 58 % (Farming System Study, 1998 KWDP Ph II). The incidence

of poverty is the highest among landless agricultural labourers; 64 % of such householdsin Bijapur and 83 % in Gulbarga district are below poverty line. Poverty generallydeclines with an increase in the size of holding; even farmers owning


7/93

1.3.6 Land Use Statistics

Land use statistics of the project area is as given in the table below.

Table.1.3.5 Land Use Statistics of the Project Area (in ha)

Land Use Bijapur * Gulbarga

Geographical area 1,712,000 2,610,000Forest 83,000 (4.85 %) 68,000 (2.60 %)

Cultivable waste 8,000 (0.5 %) 12,000 (0.46 %)

Permanent pastures 13,000 (0.76 %) 41,000 (1.57 %)

Net cultivated area 1,385,000 (80.90 %) 1,152,000 (44.14 %)

Fallow land 111,000 (6.48 %) 218,000 (8.35 %)

Non cultivable land 112,000 (6.54 %) 119,000 (4.56 %)Figures in parenthesis are percentage of geographical area.* Includes Bagalkot district also

Source: Impact Evaluation Study Report (2005), WDCU

The project area in both districts have very little forest and cultivable waste lands. Forests

constitute 4.85 % and 2.60 % of the geographical area of the districts Bijapur and

Gulbarga, respectively. Similarly, cultivable wastes constitute 0.5 % and 0.46 % of thetwo districts, respectively. In contrast, however, is cultivated area in the two districts.

While in district Bijapur cultivated area constitutes 80.90 % of its geographical area in

district Gulbarga cultivated area constitutes only 44.14 % of its geographical area.

In both districts the area outside cultivated land is highly degraded because of over-

exploitation to meet ever increasing demand for grazing. Such common lands also are theprimary resource that meets the subsistence needs of the landless and the poor.

1.3.7 Agriculture

About 80 % of the geographical area in district Bijapur and 44 % in district Gulbarga areunder cultivation. As the project area lies in drought prone zone, dry land farming is

practiced here. Irrigated area constitutes only 16.6 % and 9.7 % in Bijapur and Gulbarga

districts, respectively.Kharifcrops normally grown are green gram, bengal gram, groundnut,jowar,bajra, cowpea, sunflower, sesame, horse gram, red gram, and mataki.Rabi

crops are chickpea and wheat.

The land holdings are small from dryland agriculture point of view. The details of

households on the basis of land holding are given in the table below.

Table 1.3.6 Number of Households Under Different Landholding Categories in the

Project Area

Watershed / Taluka Number of households

Big

farmers

Small

farmers

Marginal

farmers

Landless Total

Somadevarahatti / Bijapur 114 84 236 176 610

Kallahalla / Indi 198 157 466 261 1,082

Koralihalla / Sindagi 141 119 195 126 681

7


8/93

Vanakihal / Mundebihal 140 61 164 111 476

Hirehalla / Hunagund 309 195 604 313 1,421

Dogiban Nala / Aland 77 55 194 138 464

Amarja Nala / Afzalpur 184 125 243 119 671

Huvunbhavi Nala Chincholli 126 141 59 75 401

Bennur-B Nala / Chitapur 137 87 283 188 695Chandpur Nala / Shahapur 147 179 400 157 883

Karibhavi Nala / Surpur 144 42 193 51 430

Shivpur Nala / Jewargi 212 117 365 123 817

Total for Project Area 1,929 1,362 3,402 1,938 8,631

Percentage of FarmingHouseholds

28.8 % 20.3 % 50.8 %

Percentage of the Total 22.4 % 15.8 % 39.4 % 22.4 %Source: Impact Evaluation Study Report (2005), WDCU

Big farmers, small farmers and marginal farmers constitute 28.8 %, 20.3 % and 50.8 %,

respectively of the total farming households in the project area. The marginal farmers andthe landless, which constitute the target group under the project, together account forabout 62 % of the total households in the project area.

1.3.8 Animal Husbandry

Livestock forms the backbone of agriculture in the project area and is an important sourceof livelihoods for the landless. The livestock population in the project area in 1997 and

2003 is given in the table below.

Table 1.3.7 Livestock Population in the Project Area

Livestock Bijapur District Gulbarga District Bagalkot District

1997 2003 1997 2003 1997 2003Cattle 252,499 232,510 823,309 819,620 271,721 238,338

Buffalo 125,077 146,099 217,876 224,109 198,170 200,808

Sheep 254,165 270,290 488,186 459,515 378,129 409,559

Goat 357,769 322,400 573,227 562,104 267,268 266,913Source: Impact study of livestock management interventions in KWDP Phase II, May 2005

The table shows that there is a general trend in decrease of livestock population in all the

three districts during this period except in case of buffaloes, which shows increase in

numbers in all of them. Sheep also show increase in population in the districts Bijapur

and Bagalkot during this period.

1.4 Structure of the Report

The report is divided into seven chapters. Chapter one introduces the subject matter of the

study and delineates its objectives. It also provides a brief description of the project area

being studied. Chapter two details the design of the study and the method of datacollection, sampling and data analysis. Chapter three provides the socio-economic profile

of the sample of beneficiaries and sample of control group studied. Chapter four to six

8


9/93

respectively present the analyses of the study hypotheses related to the IGA support to the

landless, IGA supported through the VDF and IGA supported through the SHGs along

with the specific findings related to them. Chapter seven provides the overall findings ofthe study and makes recommendations towards scaling up the lessons learnt.

9


10/93

Chapter 2 Methodology of the Study

2.1 Design of the Study

Under KWDP Phase II IGA interventions were carried out through three processes. For

the landless in the project community the project provided financial assistance of Rs.2350.00 per household as a grant to take up IGA. Separately from this, the project also

promoted formation of Self Help Groups as thrift and credit groups. Members of the SHG

could avail loans at nominal rates of interest for IGA or non-IGA purposes out of thesavings of their group. In the third process, the project established a Village Development

Fund in each project village under the management of the Village Watershed

Development Committee from which members could avail loans at nominal rates of

interest for IGA purposes.

To measure the impact of the IGA interventions in KWDP Phase II, it is proposed to take

a sample of beneficiaries of each of these three processes and study their experience in

detail.

The present study design is adapted from the Manual Assessment Tool for MicrofinancePractitioners developed by Management System International for assessing the impact

of micro enterprise services (AIMS)2. The AIMS conceptual framework assesses how

micro enterprise programmes contribute to enterprise stability and growth, family /

household security, individual well-being and the economic development ofcommunities.

The conceptual framework used in the present study places the household at the center ofits analysis because the IGA is firmly embedded in the household, especially among the

poor. Hence, searching for impacts of IGA requires an assessment of the full range of

household economic activities. How the IGA fits into overall economic strategies of thehousehold depends on the following factors:

1. The composition of the household, which will show great variation from one

case to another. Household composition and relationships affect how IGAs aremanaged, as well as how their benefits are allocated. It is therefore important to

understand the nature of households within the programme community as a

foundation to determining where and how impacts might show up.

2. Decision-making within the household about investments and the selection ofproductive activities. Some decisions are made jointly by husband and wife (or other

combination of adults managing the household); others may be made separately.

3. Situations such as how resources flow into the household, who controls them,and whose efforts are invested in managing those resources are affected by gender,

age, and status, and they may generate cooperation or conflict affecting, in turn, the

outcomes and who benefits from them.

2The work was funded by the Micro enterprise Impact Project (PCE-0406-C-00-5036-00) of USAIDs

Office of Micro enterprise Development. The Project was conducted through a contract with Management

Systems International, in cooperation with the Harvard Institute for International Development, the

University of Missouri, and the Small Enterprise Education and Promotion Network.

10


11/93

4. How the household is linked externally to larger social networks through

which it gives and receives resources.

The intimate connection of the IGA with the household makes it difficult to analyze it or

understand it as a separate and distinct entity. The study framework, therefore, posits that

impact occurs in different arenas connected to the household:1. At the household level, IGA contribute to net increases in household income, asset

accumulation, and labour productivity.

2. At the IGA level, impact is represented by changes in income, employment, assets,and volume of production.

3. At the individual level, change is measured by the beneficiarys capacity to make

decisions and investments that improve business performance and personal income,

which in turn, strengthen the household economic conditions and often translate intopersonal empowerment.

4. At the community level, IGA can provide new employment opportunities, stimulate

backward and forward linkages to other community enterprises, and attract new

income from outside the community. To the degree that the poor benefit from suchincreased economic activity, IGA interventions can have additional equity impacts.

These relationships clarify paths of impact by which IGA interventions can contribute to

the goals of poverty alleviation and economic growth:

1. Households improve their economic security;

2. IGAs gain viability, stability, and growth;3. Individuals increase their control over resource allocations and improve their well-

being; and

4. Communities develop economically through IGA activity that provides goods andservices, attracts income, and creates jobs.

To assess change within these relationships, the study framework has defined threedomains household, IGA and individual. Within each domain, indicators are identified

to measure the impact. Based on these indicators the hypotheses to be tested by the study

are given in the table below.

Table 2.1.1 The Study Hypotheses

Hypothesis Participation in IGA leads to

1 At Household level Increased income

Increased assets

Increased welfare (in such aspects as food

security / housing / etc.)2 At Individual level Increased control of resources on part of thebeneficiary

Increased enterprise skills and empowerment

on the part of the beneficiary

3 At IGA level Increased net worth

Increased net cash flow

11


12/93

Other than this, two more issues will be analysed in the study i.e. impact of IGA on the

environment and the contribution made by the landless and the poor to avail IGA

assistance.

Considering the impact of IGA on environment first, only biomass based IGAs would

have any significant impact on the environment such as agriculture and livestock keeping.Since agriculture would be practiced by the beneficiary whether he / she takes any IGA

assistance or not, as the assistance is used to purchase agricultural inputs, it would be

very difficult to segregate the impact on the environment caused by agriculture supportedby IGA and that not supported by it. Hence, the only impact on environment caused by

IGA intervention is related to livestock keeping, especially as the IGA assistance has

been used to purchase livestock, thereby increasing the stocking rates in the project

villages. Livestock keeping can impact the environment directly in three ways, i.e. byway of creating water and fodder needs for the livestock and by providing organic

manure as soil nutrient. Here too, making an estimate will be difficult as the livestock

purchased through IGA is only a portion of the total livestock in the project villages.

Only a detailed survey of the livestock population in the project villages, pre and postIGA assistance, would allow such an analysis. Even in such a scenario, all increase in

livestock population can not be attributed to IGA assistance. On the other hand, with theproject lacking baseline data on the livestock holdings of the beneficiary households, it is

not possible to make this study. Consequently, the present study is unable to make an

assessment of the impact of the IGA on the environment. However, on the long run, if

production and supply of fodder is not supplemented and availability of water is notaugmented then the increase in stocking rates of livestock could have significant adverse

impact on the environment, especially as the region is semi-arid and suffers from frequent

droughts.

The issue of the contribution made by the landless and the poor in IGA intervention is

relevant only in the case of the IGA assistance and not in the case of the VDF or SHGloans. In the latter two cases, the amount availed for the IGA intervention is in the form

of loans at nominal rates of interest. Hence, ultimately the entire amount availed for the

IGA is the investment of the beneficiary. In the case of the IGA assistance data will becollected on the amount of investment made by the beneficiary on his / her own over and

above the financial assistance provided from the project. A comparative analysis of the

different levels of beneficiary investment against net value of the IGA assets will be

made. Through this analysis it will be determined how the different levels of beneficiaryinvestments have affected the returns and sustainability of the IGA.

2.2 Data Collection and Sampling

To study the impact of IGA at the defined three domain levels data for a sample of

beneficiaries from the three IGA processes was collected using a questionnaire. Separatequestionnaires (Annex 4 and 5) were prepared for IGA supported by financial grants andthose through loans from SHGs and VDF. Data from a sample of control group was also

collected for the purpose of providing a comparative reference to the general socio-

12


13/93

economic profile of the area. The control group was selected out of members of SHGs

who have not availed any loans either from the SHG savings or the VDF.

The study was carried out in five villages spread over four project watersheds covering

two of the project districts - Bijapur and Gulbarga. The samples taken from each study

village is given in the table below.

Table 2.2.1 Village Wise Distribution of the Study Samples (Households in Nos.)

Taluk /

Watershed

Village Landless

IGA Sample

VDF

Sample

SHG

Sample

Control

Group

District Bijapur

Indi Hadalsang 15 10 5 9

Hadalsang

LT 2 / 3

5 10 5 1

Sindigi Bableshwar 20 10 5 5

Muddebihal Aremural /

Kawadimatti

9 7 7 6

District Gulbarga

Jewargi Shivapur LT 5 10 5 5

Total 54 47 27 26

2.3 Method of Analysis

After collection of the data it was tabulated in master data sheets prepared in Microsoft

Excel for analysis. Separate MS Excel master data sheet were prepared to tabulate datafor each of the three IGA process beneficiaries and the control group. After tabulation,

the data was subject to statistical analysis using the SPSS software.

Based on these statistical analysis each of the hypotheses defined above were tested(Annex 6). The data used to test each hypothesis is given in the table below.

Table 2.3.1 Data Used to Test Hypotheses

1 Participation in IGA leads to

increase in income atHousehold Level

Total household income

Variation in household income from IGA during

the last two years

Variation in total annual income during the last

two years

Reasons for increase in annual income

Income made in the last year from the IGAundertaken


increase in assets at HouseholdLevel

Household assets purchased during the last two

years

Distribution of expenditure of income made from

IGA in the last year by purpose


increase in welfare at

Repairs / improvements / additions made to

house (costing < Rs. 500)

13


14/93

Household Level Nature of repairs / additions / improvements

were made to the house

Change in level of food intake by household

members in the last two years

Nature of change in the food intake by household

membersDistribution of expenditure of income made from

IGA in the last year by purpose


increase in control of resources

at Individual level

Decision making in the beneficiary households

Beneficiaries making personal cash savings(other than SHG savings)

Trend in the personal cash savings in the last twoyears

5 Participation in IGA leads toincrease in enterprise skills and

empowerment at Individual

level

Factors considered while deciding on IGA to betaken up

Changes made to IGA during the last 12 months

Enumerators assessment of beneficiarys abilityto estimate incomes, costs and sales

Decision making in the beneficiary households

6 Participation in IGA leads toincrease in net worth at IGA

level

Total sales made from the IGA in the last oneyear

The present net value of the IGA (July 2005)


increase in net cash flow at

IGA level

Production cost for the IGA in last one year

Total sales made in the IGA in last one year

Income made from the IGA in last one year

14


15/93


16/93

The Table below gives the frequency distribution of the beneficiary households according

to their adult and child members.

Table 3.2.1 Distribution of IGA Beneficiary Sample Households by Their Adult and

Child MembersNumber of

Persons

Adults Children

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

0 0 0.00 8 14.81

1 1 1.85 8 14.81

2 18 33.33 13 24.07

3 14 25.93 13 24.07

4 10 18.52 5 9.26

5 6 11.11 3 5.56

6 2 3.70 2 3.70

7 1 1.85 1 1.85

8 1 1.85 0 0.009 0 0.00 0 0.00

10 1 1.85 0 0.00

11 0 0.00 0 0.00

12 0 0.00 1 1.85

Total 54 100.00 54 100.00

As the table shows, the size of the households of the beneficiaries varied a great deal. The

number of adults in the households ranged from 1 to 10, while for the children it rangedfrom 0 to 12.

In terms of working members in the beneficiary households, they range from 1 to 9. Thetable below gives the frequency distribution of the beneficiary households by the number

of workers in them.

Table 3.2.2 Distribution of IGA Beneficiary Sample Households by Total Working

Members

Number of Persons

Number of Workers

Frequency Percent

1 8 14.8

2 26 48.1

3 9 16.7

4 5 9.3

5 3 5.6

6 2 3.7

7 0 0.0

8 0 0.0

9 1 1.9

Total 54 100.0

16


17/93

Occupation wise the beneficiary households show much diversity. The distribution of the

beneficiary households by the different occupations and by the number of workers in

each occupation is given in the table below.

Table 3.2.3 Distribution of IGA Beneficiary Sample Households by Number of Workers

in Different OccupationsNumber of

Workers

Farming Livestock Rearing Non Farm IGA

Numbers Percent Numbers Percent Numbers Percent

0 54 100.00 10 18.52 53 98.15

1 0 0.00 24 44.44 1 1.85

2 0 0.00 13 24.07 0 0.00

3 0 0.00 4 7.41 0 0.00

4 0 0.00 2 3.70 0 0.00

5 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

6 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

7 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

8 0 0.00 1 1.85 0 0.00Total 54 54 54

Number of

Workers

Agricultural Labour /

Irregular WageEmployment

Salaried Work /

Regular WageEmployment Other Work


0 16 29.63 50 92.59 51 94.44

1 13 24.07 4 7.41 1 1.85

2 14 25.93 0 0.00 2 3.70

3 7 12.96 0 0.00 0 0.00

4 2 3.70 0 0.00 0 0.005 1 1.85 0 0.00 0 0.00

6 1 1.85 0 0.00 0 0.00

7 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

8 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Total 54 54 54

As the table shows, there is no farmer among the beneficiaries. Agricultural labour and

livestock rearing is the most common occupation among them.

The table below gives the distribution of the IGA beneficiary households by their total

annual household income (2004-05).

The table shows that the maximum annual income earned is Rs. 80,000, although 92.6

percent of the beneficiaries earn less than Rs. 50,000 annually. Occupation wise, farming

does not contribute any income to the beneficiaries, while livestock rearing andagricultural labour / irregular wage employment makes the maximum contribution. The

two beneficiary households showing more than Rs. 50,000 annual income receive their

comparatively higher income from salaried work / regular wage employment.

17


18/93

Table 3.2.4 Distribution of IGA Beneficiary Sample Households by Total Annual

Household Income (2004-05)

Total AnnualHousehold

Income


Agricultural Labo

Irregular Wag

Employment

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Perc0 54 100.00 9 16.67 53 98.15 10 18.

1 - 12000 0 0.00 44 81.48 1 1.85 21 38.

12001- 20000 0 0.00 1 1.85 0 0.00 18 33.

20001- 50000 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 9.

50001- 75000 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.

75001- 80000 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.

Total 54 100.00 54 100.00 54 100.00 54 10

Total Annual

HouseholdIncome

Salaried Worker /

Regular Wage

Employment Others TotalFrequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

0 48 88.89% 48 88.89% 0 0.00%

1 - 12000 2 3.70% 3 5.56% 11 20.37%

12001- 20000 1 1.85% 1 1.85% 19 35.19%

20001- 50000 1 1.85% 2 3.70% 20 37.04%

50001- 75000 1 1.85% 0 0.00% 3 5.56%

75001- 80000 1 1.85% 0 0.00% 1 1.85%

Total 54 100.00% 54 100.00 54 100.00

A more critical aspect emerging from the table is that 20.4 percent of the beneficiaries

have less than Rs. 12,000 annual income, which is the recognised poverty line for ruralareas by the Government of Karnataka.

3.3 Profile of the VDF Assistance Beneficiaries Studied

To assess the impact of the income generation activity undertaken through loans from the

VDF in the project we studied a sample of 47 beneficiaries. Of the 47 beneficiaries

studied 34 (72 %) were women and 13 (28 %) were men. In terms of distribution bycommunity 2 (4 %) beneficiaries belonged to the Scheduled Tribe, 23 (49 %) belonged to

the Scheduled Caste and the remaining 22 (47 %) belonged to other communities.

The Table below gives the frequency distribution of the beneficiary households accordingto their adult and child members.


number of adults and children in the households ranged from 1 to 12.

18


19/93

Table 3.3.1 Distribution of VDF Beneficiary Sample Households by Their Adult and

Child Members

Number of

Persons

Adults Children


0 0 0.00 6 12.77

1 0 0.00 8 17.022 9 19.15 14 29.80

3 4 8.51 3 6.38

4 15 31.91 7 14.89

5 6 12.77 2 4.25

6 6 12.77 3 6.38

7 2 4.25 2 4.25

8 1 2.13 1 2.13

9 1 2.13 0 0.00

10 1 2.13 0 0.00

11 0 0.00 0 0.00

12 2 4.25 1 2.13Total 47 100.00 47 100.00

In terms of working members in the beneficiary households, they range from 1 to 12. The

table below gives the frequency distribution of the beneficiary households by the numberof workers in them.

Table 3.3.2 Distribution of VDF Beneficiary Sample Households by Total Working

Members

Number of Persons

Number of Workers

Frequency Percent

1 5 10.642 17 36.17

3 8 17.02

4 9 19.15

5 1 2.13

6 1 2.13

7 2 4.25

8 2 4.25

9 0 0.00

10 1 2.13

11 0 0.0012 1 2.13

Total 47 100.00




19


20/93

Table 3.3.3 Distribution of VDF Beneficiary Sample Households by Number of Workers

in Different Occupations

Number of

Workers



0 40 85.11 9 19.15 46 97.87

1 3 6.38 28 59.57 1 2.132 3 6.38 5 10.64 0 0.00

3 1 2.13 1 2.13 0 0.00

4 0 0.00 2 4.25 0 0.00

5 0 0.00 1 2.13 0 0.00

6 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

7 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

8 0 0.00 1 2.13 0 0.00

Total 47 100.00 47 100.00 47 100.00

Number of

Workers


Irregular WageEmployment

Salaried Work /

Regular WageEmployment Other Work


0 9 19.15 40 85.11 42 89.36

1 9 19.15 5 10.64 4 8.51

2 12 25.53 2 4.25 0 0.00

3 4 8.51 0 0.00 0 0.00

4 6 12.77 0 0.00 0 0.00

5 4 8.51 0 0.00 0 0.00

6 2 4.25 0 0.00 0 0.00

7 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

8 1 2.13 0 0.00 1 2.13

Total 47 100.00 47 100.00 47 100.00

As the table shows, 7 beneficiary households have farming as occupation. Among the

other occupations, agricultural labour and livestock rearing is the most common.

The table below gives the distribution of the VDF beneficiary households by their total



percent of the beneficiaries earn less than Rs. 50,000 annually. Occupation wise, farmingcontributes only modest income to the concerned beneficiary households, while livestock

rearing and agricultural labour / irregular wage employment makes the maximum

contribution. The beneficiary households showing more than Rs. 50,000 annual income

receive their comparatively higher income from salaried work / regular wageemployment.

20


21/93

Table 3.3.4 Distribution of VDF Beneficiary Sample Households by Total Annual


Total Annual

HouseholdIncome

Farming Livestock Rearing Non Farm IGA Agricultural Lab

Irregular Wag

Employmen

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Per

0 36 76.60 11 23.40 46 97.87 5

1 - 12000 7 14.89 33 70.21 1 2.13 19

12001- 20000 3 6.38 2 4.26 0 0.00 11

20001- 50000 1 2.13 1 2.13 0 0.00 11

50001- 75000 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1

75001- 100000 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

100001 - 146000 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

Total 47 100.00 47 100.00 47 100.00 47 1

Total Annual

HouseholdIncome

Salaried Worker /Regular Wage

Employment Others Total

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

0 39 82.98 43 91.50 0 0.00

1 - 12000 2 4.25 0 0.00 8 17.02

12001- 20000 1 2.13 2 4.25 10 21.28

20001- 50000 3 6.38 2 4.25 23 48.94

50001- 75000 1 2.13 0 0.00 2 4.25

75001- 100000 1 2.13 0 0.00 3 6.38

100001 - 146000 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.13

Total 47 100.00 47 100.00 47 100.00


have less than Rs. 12,000 annual income, which is the recognised poverty line for rural

areas by the Government of Karnataka.

3.4 Profile of the SHG Assistance Beneficiaries Studied

To assess the impact of the income generation activity undertaken through SHG loans inthe project we studied a sample of 27 beneficiaries. Of the 27 beneficiaries studied 16 (59

%) were women and 11 (41 %) were men. In terms of distribution by community, 15 (56

%) beneficiaries belonged to the Scheduled Caste and the remaining 12 (44 %) belongedto other communities.

The Table below gives the frequency distribution of the beneficiary households according

to their adult and child members.

21


22/93


number of adults in the households ranged from 2 to 8, while for the children it ranged

from 0 to 5.Table 3.4.1 Distribution of SHG Beneficiary Sample Households by Their Adult and

Child Members

Number ofPersons

Adults ChildrenFrequency Percent Frequency Percent

0 0 0.00 5 18.53

1 0 0.00 4 14.81

2 7 25.93 7 25.93

3 7 25.93 6 22.21

4 6 22.21 3 11.11

5 3 11.11 2 7.41

6 2 7.41 0 0.00

7 0 0.00 0 0.00

8 2 7.41 0 0.00

Total 27 100.00 27 100.00

In terms of working members in the beneficiary households, they range from 1 to 8. Thetable below gives the frequency distribution of the beneficiary households by the number

of workers in them.

Table 3.4.2 Distribution of SHG Beneficiary Sample Households by Total Working

Members

Number of Persons

Number of Workers

Frequency Percent

1 2 7.4

2 13 48.163 5 18.52

4 3 11.11

5 1 3.70

6 2 7.41

7 0 0.00

8 1 3.70

Total 27 100.00




As the table shows, only 2 beneficiary households have farming as occupation. Among

the other occupations, livestock rearing and agricultural labour / irregular wage

employment is the most common.

22


23/93

Table 3.4.3 Distribution of SHG Beneficiary Sample Households by Number of Workersin Different Occupations

Number of

Workers


Numbers Percent Numbers Percent Numbers Percent0 25 92.60 10 37.04 27 100.00

1 2 7.40 16 59.26 0 0.00

2 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

3 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

4 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

5 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

6 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

7 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

8 0 0.00 1 3.70 0 0.00

Total 27 100.00 27 100.00 27 100.00

Number ofWorkers

Agricultural Labour /Irregular Wage

Employment

Salaried Work /Regular Wage

Employment Other Work


0 5 18.53 25 92.60 25 92.60

1 7 25.93 1 3.70 2 7.40

2 9 33.33 0 0.00 0 0.00

3 3 11.11 1 3.70 0 0.00

4 2 7.40 0 0.00 0 0.00

5 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

6 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

7 1 3.70 0 0.00 0 0.00

8 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Total 27 100.00 27 100.00 27 100.00

The table below gives the distribution of the SHG beneficiary households by their total


Table 3.4.4 Distribution of SHG Beneficiary Sample Households by Total Annual



Income


Agricultural Labour

Irregular Wage

Employment

Frequenc

y Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

0 25 92.59 10 37.04 27 100.00 3 11.1

1 - 12000 2 7.41 15 55.56 0 0.00 14 51.8

12001- 20000 0 0.00 1 3.70 0 0.00 9 33.3

23


24/93

20001- 50000 0 0.00 1 3.70 0 0.00 1 3.7

50001- 55500 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0

Total 27 100.00 27 100.00 27 100.00 27 100.0


Income

Salaried Worker /

Regular WageEmployment Others Total


0 25 92.59 26 96.30 0 0.00

1 - 12000 0 0.00 1 3.70 7 25.93

12001- 20000 0 0.00 0 0.00 12 44.44

20001- 50000 2 7.41 0 0.00 7 25.93

50001- 55500 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.70

Total 27 100.00 27 100.00 27 100.00


percent of the beneficiaries earn less than Rs. 20,000 annually. Occupation wise, farmingcontributes only modest income to the concerned beneficiary households, while livestock

rearing and agricultural labour / irregular wage employment makes the maximumcontribution. The beneficiary household showing more than Rs. 50,000 annual income

receives its comparatively higher income from salaried work / regular wage employment.


have less than Rs. 12,000 annual income, which is the recognised poverty line for rural

areas by the Government of Karnataka.

3.5 Profile of the Control Sample Studied

To assess the impact of the income generation activity support provided by the project westudied a control sample of 26 households. Of the 26 persons interviewed, 11 (42 %)

were women and 15 (58 %) were men. In terms of distribution by community, 8 (31 %)

of the households belonged to the Scheduled Caste and the remaining 18 (69 %) belongedto other communities.

The Table below gives the frequency distribution of the control sample householdsaccording to their adult and child members.

Table 3.5.1 Distribution of Control Sample Households by Their Adult and Child

MembersNumber of

Persons

Adults Children


0 0 0.00 5 19.23

1 0 0.00 4 15.38

2 4 15.38 5 19.23

3 5 19.23 7 26.92

4 6 23.09 1 3.85

24


25/93

5 4 15.38 0 0.00

6 4 15.38 3 11.54

7 2 7.69 0 0.00

8 1 3.85 1 3.85

Total 26 100.00 26 100.00

As the table shows, the size of the households of the control samples varied a great deal.The number of adults and children in the households ranged from 1 to 8.

In terms of working members in the control samples households, they range from 1 to 8.The table below gives the frequency distribution of the control samples households by the

number of workers in them.

Table 3.5.2 Distribution of Control Sample Households by Total Working Members

Number of Persons

Number of Workers

Frequency Percent

1 6 23.082 7 26.92

3 5 19.23

4 6 23.08

5 0 0.00

6 1 3.85

7 0 0.00

8 1 3.85

Total 26 100.00

Occupation wise the control samples households show much diversity. The distribution

of the control samples households by the different occupations and by the number ofworkers in each occupation is given in the table below.

As the table shows, 7 control samples households have farming as occupation. Among

the other occupations, agricultural labour and livestock rearing is the most common.

Table 3.5.3 Distribution of Control Sample Households by Number of Workers inDifferent Occupations

Number ofWorkers



0 19 73.08 11 42.31 25 96.15

1 5 19.23 12 46.15 0 0.002 2 7.69 1 3.85 1 3.85

3 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

4 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

5 0 0.00 1 3.85 0 0.00

6 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

7 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

25


26/93

8 0 0.00 1 3.85 0 0.00

Total 26 100 26 100.00 26 100

Number ofWorkers


Irregular Wage

Employment

Salaried Work /

Regular Wage

Employment Other Work Numbers Percent Numbers Percent Numbers Percent

0 10 38.46 22 84.62 21 80.77

1 5 19.23 2 7.69 3 11.54

2 3 11.54 2 7.69 1 3.85

3 5 19.23 0 0.00 0 0.00

4 2 7.69 0 0.00 1 3.85

5 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

6 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

7 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

8 1 3.85 0 0.00 0 0.00

Total 26 100 26 100 26 100.00

The table below gives the distribution of the Control Sample households by their totalannual household income (2004-05).

The table shows that the maximum annual income earned is Rs. 230,000, although 76.92percent of the control samples households earn less than Rs. 50,000 annually. Occupation

wise, farming contributes only modest income to the concerned households, except for

one household which earns Rs. 50,000 from it. Otherwise, livestock rearing and

agricultural labour / irregular wage employment makes the maximum contributiontowards the annual incomes. The control samples households showing more than Rs.

75,000 annual income receive their comparatively higher income from salaried work /regular wage employment, farming and others.

Table 3.5.4 Distribution of Control Sample Households by Total Annual Household

Income (2004-05)

Total Annual

Household

Income


Agricultural Lab

Irregular Wa

Employmen

Frequenc

y Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Frequenc

y Perc

0 19 73.08 12 46.15 26 100.00 4

1 12000 1 3.85 14 53.85 0 0.00 1312001- 20000 3 11.54 0 0.00 0 0.00 5

20001- 50000 3 11.54 0 0.00 0 0.00 4

50001- 75000 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

75001- 100000 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

100001 150000 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

150001 230000 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0

26


27/93

Total 26 100.00 26 100.00 26 100.00 26 1


Income

Salaried Worker /

Regular WageEmployment Others Total


0 21 80.77 21 80.77 0 0.00

1 - 12000 0 0.00 3 11.54 5 19.23

12001- 20000 0 0.00 1 3.85 5 19.23

20001- 50000 3 11.54 0 0.00 10 38.46

50001- 75000 2 7.69 0 0.00 3 11.54

75001- 100000 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 7.69

100001 - 150000 0 0.00 1 3.85 0 0.00

150001 - 230000 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.85

Total 26 100.00 26 100.00 26 100.00

A more critical aspect emerging from the table is that 19.23 percent of the control

samples households have less than Rs. 12,000 annual income, which is the recognised

poverty line for rural areas by the Government of Karnataka.

27


28/93

Chapter 4 Impact Assessment of IGA Undertaken Through IGA Assistance toLandless

As delineated in Chapter 2 the impact of IGA on the beneficiaries will by assessed

through the testing of the following hypotheses:

1. Participation in IGA leads to increase in income at Household Level2. Participation in IGA leads to increase in assets at Household Level

3. Participation in IGA leads to increase in welfare at Household Level

4. Participation in IGA leads to increase in control of resources at Individual level5. Participation in IGA leads to increase in enterprise skills and empowerment at

Individual level

6. Participation in IGA leads to increase in net worth at IGA level

7. Participation in IGA leads to increase in net cash flow at IGA level

4.1 Hypothesis 1. Participation in IGA leads to increase in income at HouseholdLevel

The table below presents the annual household income of the landless IGA beneficiaries

and control group.

Table 4.1.1 Total Annual Household Income

Amount (Rs)

Farming Livestock Rearing

Non Farm IGA AgriculturalLabour/Irregular

wage

employment

IGA Control IGA Control IGA Control IGA Control

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency

0 54 19 9 12 53 26 10 40 - 10000 1 44 14 1 16 13

10001 - 20000 3 1 23 5

20001 - 50000 3 5 3

50001 - 75000

75001 - 80000

80001 - 150000

150001 - 230000

Total 54 26 54 26 54 26 54 26

Amount (Rs)

Salaried

worker/Regularwage employment

Others Total Annual

Income

IGA Control IGA Control IGA Control

Frequency Frequency Frequency

0 48 21 48 21

0 - 10000 1 2 11 5

10001 - 20000 2 2 3 19 5

20001 - 50000 1 3 2 1 20 10

28


29/93

50001 - 75000 1 1 3 3

75001 - 80000 1 1 1 2

80001 - 150000 1

150001 - 230000 1

Total 54 26 54 26 54 26

The range of income observed for the landless IGA beneficiary is from Rs. 0 to Rs.80,000 while that for the control group is Rs. 0 to Rs. 230,000. It may be observed that

among the landless IGA beneficiaries, livestock rearing and agricultural labour / irregular

wage employment was the predominant income source, while no IGA beneficiary showsany income from farming. For the control group also the predominant income sources are

livestock rearing and agricultural labour / irregular wage employment. However, 7

households among the control group show income from farming. This combined withsalaried worker / regular wage employment and others contribute towards the high annual

income seen in some of control group households. This clearly demonstrates that non

farm income generating activity is of critical importance to the landless beneficiaries

other than wage income.

Landless IGA beneficiaries were asked about the variation shown by their annual income

from the IGA over the last two years. The response to the question is given in the tablebelow.

Table 4.1.2 Variation in Household Income from IGA During the Last Two Years

Response

IGA

Frequency Percent

Don't Know

Stayed the same

Increased 51 94.44

Increased greatly 3 5.56

Total 54 100

94 % landless IGA beneficiaries (51) reported increase in annual income from IGA overthe last two years, while 6 % landless IGA beneficiaries (3) reported great increase. As

the control group did not undertake any IGA activity supported by the project, the

question was not relevant for them.

Query was also made about the variation shown by the total annual income over the last

two years. The response to the question is given in the table below.

Table 4.1.3 Variation in Total Annual Income During the Last Two Years

Response

IGA Control


Don't Know 1 3.85

Stayed the same 2 7.69

Increased 48 88.89 21 80.77

29


30/93

Increased greatly 6 11.11 2 7.69

Total 54 100 26 100

100 % of landless IGA beneficiaries (54) reported increase in total annual income overthe period of last two years. Off these, 89 % of landless IGA beneficiaries (48) reported

increase and 11 % of landless IGA beneficiaries (6) reported great increase. Incomparison, among the control group only 81 % (21) reported increase in the total annualincome over the last two years and 8 % (2) reported great increase. In the control group 8

% (2) also reported that their income stayed the same over the last two years and 4 % (1)

could not respond to the query.

The landless IGA beneficiaries were asked the reason for the increase shown in their

annual income over the last two years. The response is given in the table below.

Table 4.1.4 Reasons for Increase in Annual Income

Expanded

ExistingIGA

Undertooknew IGA

Able to buy

inputs atcheaper price

Sold in newmarkets Got a job Other Don't kn

Percent

(Frequency)

Percent

(Frequency

)

Percent

(Frequency)

Percent

(Frequency

)

Percent

(Frequency

)

Percent

(Frequency

)

Percent

(Frequen

Yes 94.4 (51) 3.7 (2) 0 (0) 11 (6) 33.33(18) 0 (0) 0

No 5.56 (3) 96.3 (52) 100 (54) 89 (48) 66.67 (36) 100 (54) 100 (

94 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (51) mentioned expansion of existing IGA as thereason for increase in income, while 33 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (18) also

reported getting a new job. Undertaking new IGA and selling in new markets were also

reasons given by a few.

Income made by the landless IGA beneficiaries in the last year from the various activities

undertaken by them after deducting the costs from the total annual sales were/was?computed. The table below gives the IGA activity wise income made.

Table 4.1.5 Income Made in the Last Year from the Various IGAs Undertaken

Amount (Rs) Goat keeping Dairy Cattle

Agricultural

Inputs Tailoring Others

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency

0 6 50 54 52 54

1 -1000 31001-2000 21

2001-5000 20

5001-10000 3 2 2

10001-15000 1 2

Total 54 54 54 54 54

30


31/93

The range of income made from the IGA is Rs. 1000 to Rs. 15000. The maximum

number of beneficiaries (42) made incomes between Rs. 1000 to Rs. 5000. Interestingly,

the beneficiaries undertaking cattle dairy and tailoring as IGA made higher incomescompared to goat keeping, although one of the beneficiary making the highest income of

Rs. 15000 has undertaken goat keeping. However, since goat keeping entails building up

a flock, low incomes do not necessarily denote less profitability, as will be seen when theasset value of the IGA is computed.

As already observed earlier the main source of income for the landless IGA beneficiariesis from livestock rearing and wage employment. The above analysis shows that while

supporting livestock keeping under the IGA to the landless is effective in increasing

household incomes, it will take time before it can replace wage labour as the primary

source of income.

The above analysis clearly shows that participating in IGA by the landless IGAbeneficiaries has increased their income at the household level.

4.2 Hypothesis 2. Participation in IGA leads to increase in assets at HouseholdLevel

To assess the extent of increase in household assets the beneficiaries were queried on

household assets purchased during the last two years. The response to the question is

given in the table below.

Table 4.2.1 Household Assets Purchased During the Last Two Years

Land Livestock Pucca House

Cycle /

Vehicles

Radio / TV /

Electric Fans Others

Percent(Frequency) Percent(Frequency) Percent(Frequency) Percent(Frequency) Percent(Frequency) Percent(Frequency)

Yes 3.7 (2) 38.89 (21) 16.67 (9) 7.41 (4) 12.96 (7) 0 (0)

No 96.3 (52) 61.11 (33) 83.33 (45) 92.59 (50) 87.04 (47) 100 (54)

4 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (2) reported that they had purchased land in the last

two years. Similarly, 39 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (21) reported purchase of

livestock other than that acquired from the IGA assistance, 17 % of the landless IGAbeneficiaries (9) reported construction of pucca house, 7 % of the landless IGA

beneficiaries (4) reported purchase of cycles / vehicles and 13 % of the landless IGA

beneficiaries (7) reported purchase of a electrical appliance such as radio / TV / electric

fan.

To further assess the increase in household assets the landless IGA beneficiaries were

asked how they had spent the income made from the IGA activity and in what amounts.The response is given in the table below.

31


32/93

Table 4.2.2 Distribution of Expenditure of Income Made from IGA in the Last Year by

Purpose

Amount (Rs)

Buy

Food

Buy

Clothes

Buy

Animals

Buy

Medicines

Buy

Items

for

House

Reinvest

in IGA Pay

school

fees Save Others

Do

kn

0 7 10 53 16 43 54 19 46 52

1-1000 32 36 37 3 34 4 2

1001-2000 10 7 1 1 5 1

2001-4000 4 1 2 1 1

4001-5000 1 1

5001-10000 2

Total 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54

Out of the various purposes for which IGA income was used buying animals, buying

items for house and saving would lead to increase in household assets. The table above

shows that one beneficiary has purchased animal, 11 beneficiaries have purchased itemsfor house and 8 beneficiaries have made savings. Two of the beneficiaries who have

made savings have saved between Rs. 5000 to Rs. 10000. The remaining beneficiaries

have spent between Rs. 1000 and Rs. 5000 on building up household assets.

However, as the table shows most of the IGA income has been spent in buying

consumption items for the house.

The above analysis shows that participating in IGA by the landless IGA beneficiaries

has increased their assets at the household level.

4.3 Hypothesis 3. Participation in IGA leads to increase in welfare at HouseholdLevel

To assess increase in welfare of the beneficiary household they were asked whether they

had made any repairs / improvements / additions to their house in the last year costing

more than Rs. 500. The response to the question is given in the table below.

Table 4.3.1 Repairs / Improvements / Additions made to House (Costing < Rs. 500)

Frequency Percent

Don't Know 4 7.41

Yes 29 53.70No 21 38.89

Total 54 100

54 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (29) answered yes to the query, while 39 % of the

landless IGA beneficiaries (21) responded no. 7 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (4)did not respond to the query.

32


33/93

The beneficiaries were also asked about the nature of the repairs / improvements /

additions to their house. The response is given in the table below.

Table 4.3.2 Nature of Repairs / Additions / Improvements were Made to the House

Housing

Repairs /Improvements HouseExpansion

Improved Water

and Sanitationsystem Lighting /Electricity Something Else

Percent

(Frequency)

Percent

(Frequency)

Percent

(Frequency)

Percent

(Frequency)

Percent

(Frequency)

Yes 27.78 (15) 14.81 (8) 0 (0) 37.04 (20) 5.56 (3)

No 72.22 (39) 85.19 (46) 100 (54) 62.96 (34) 94.44 (51)

Of the landless IGA beneficiaries who made repairs / additions / improvements to their

house, 28 % (15) repaired the house, 15 % (8) made additions to the house and 37 % (20)got electric connection and lighting to the house. None of the beneficiaries made any

improvement in the water supply and sanitation system in the house.

The other area of household welfare that was studied was on food intake by the

household members. The response to the query is given in the table below.

Table 4.3.3 Change in Level of Food Intake by Household Members in the Last TwoYears

Frequency Percent

Don't Know 2 3.7

Worsened 0 0.0

Stayed the Same 0 0.0

Improved 52 96.3

Total 54 100.0

96 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (52) reported improvement in level of food intakeby household members in the last two years. The remaining 3.7 % (2) said that they did

not know whether there has been any change.

To analyse the nature of improvement in the food intake the beneficiaries werequestioned on the changes made in their food consumption pattern. The response is given

in the table below.

Table 4.3.4 Nature of Change in the Food Intake by Household Members

More

Cereals

More

Vegetables /

Pulses

More Meat /

Milk / Eggs /

Etc.

Able to getfood all

year

around

Able to eat

two full meals

per day Others

Don't

know

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

Don't know 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85

Yes 98.2 98.2 98.2 98.2 98.2 35.2 0

33


34/93

No 0 0 0 0 0 63 100

98 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries reported consumption of more cereals, vegetables

and pulses, meat, egg and milk. 98 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries also reportedability to eat food all year round and two meals a day.

To get a clear picture of the impact of IGA on the welfare of the household of thebeneficiaries they were questioned about the utilization of the income made from the IGA

in the last year. The response to the question is given in the table below.

Table 4.3.5 Distribution of Expenditure of Income Made from IGA in the Last Year byPurpose

Amount (Rs)

Buy

Food

Buy

Clothes

Buy

Animals

Buy

Medicines

BuyItems

for

House

Reinvest

in IGA

Pay

school

fees Save Others

Do

kn

0 7 10 53 16 43 54 19 46 521-1000 32 36 37 3 34 4 2

1001-2000 10 7 1 1 5 1

2001-4000 4 1 2 1 1

4001-5000 1 1

5001-10000 2

Total 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54

The table shows significant number of landless IGA beneficiaries reported expenditure onbuying food (47), clothes (44), medicines (38) and in paying school fees for the children

(35). The amount of money spent is also substantial ranging between Rs. 1000 and Rs.

5000. All these expenditures would lead to improved welfare of the household members

of the beneficiaries.

The above analysis shows that participating in IGA by the landless IGA beneficiaries hasincreased their welfare at the household level.

4.4 Hypothesis 4. Participation in IGA leads to increase in control of resources atIndividual level

To test the hypothesis that IGA led to increase in control of resources the landless IGA

beneficiaries were asked who the usual decision maker in the household is and who takes

decisions related to various aspects of the IGA. The responses are given in the tablebelow.

34


35/93

Table 4.4.1 Decision Making in the Beneficiary Households

DecisionMaker in the

Household

Decision on

FurtherInvestment in

IGA

Decision on

WhetherLoans for

IGA

Decision onWhere to Sell

Products

Decision onHow to Use

IGA Income

Percent(Frequency)

Percent(Frequency)

Percent(Frequency)

Percent(Frequency)

Percent(Frequency)

Self 51.86 (28) 87.04 (47) 81.48 (44) 68.52 (37) 51.86 (28)

Others 48.14 (26) 12.96 (7) 18.52 (10) 31.48 (17) 48.14 (26)

52 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (28) reported that they are the decision maker in

their household while 48 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (26) reported that someother household member was the decision maker. However, in relation to various aspects

of the IGA a much higher percent of the beneficiaries reported self as the decision maker,

except for who decides on how to use the IGA income, which is the same of the overalldecision making in the household. To the query on who takes decision for further

investments in the IGA and whether a loan should be taken 87 % (47) and 81 % (44) ofthe landless IGA beneficiaries reported as self. Even to the query on who decides on

where to sell the products 68 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (37) reported as self.From this it is clear that the beneficiaries as individuals have started increasingly to take

control of their IGA resources.

Beneficiaries were also questioned on the personal savings made by them out of their

IGA income (other than as SHG member) and the trend in the savings over the last two

years. The responses are given in the table below.

Table 4.4.2 Beneficiaries Making Personal Cash Savings (Other than SHG Savings)

Percent (Frequency)Yes 51.85 (28)

No 48.15 (26)

Total 100 (54)

Table 4.4.3 Trend in the Personal Cash Savings in the Last Two Years

Percent (Frequency)

Stayed the same 38.89 (11)

Increased 53.70 (15)

Increased Greatly 7.41 (2)

Total 100 (28)

The tables shows that 52 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (28) make personal cash

savings out of their IGA income. Of these, 54 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (15)

reported that their personal savings had increased over the last two years, while 7 % ofthe landless IGA beneficiaries (2) reported that their personal savings had increased

greatly.

35


36/93

The above analysis shows that participating in IGA by the landless IGA beneficiaries hasled to increase in their control over the IGA resources at the individual level.

4.5 Hypothesis 5. Participation in IGA leads to increase in enterprise skills andempowerment at Individual level

To assess the impact of IGA on the enterprise skills of the beneficiaries they were first

questioned about the reason for the selection of the particular IGA they are pursuing. The

response is given in the table below.

Table 4.5.1 Factors Considered While Deciding on IGA to be Taken Up

Work You

are

Familiar

With

Product is

in Demand

/ Profitable

How Much

Investment is

Needed

You Can DoIt and Take

Care of Your

Family Other

Don't

Know

Percent 88.89 1.85 0.0 1.85 0.0 7.41

Frequency 48 1 1 4

89 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (48) reported that they decided on the particular

IGA as they were familiar with the work. This indicates that commencing on an IGAentailed a priori existence of some knowledge of the IGA.

The beneficiaries were also questioned on the changes they have made to their IGA in thelast one year. The response is given in the table below.

Table 4.5.2 Changes Made to IGA during the last 12 months

Expanded

ExistingIGA

Added

NewProducts

Hired

MoreWorkers

ImprovedQuality

ofProduct

ReducedCosts with

CheaperInputs

ReducedCosts with

CheaperCredit

DevelopedNew IGA

So

NMa

Percent 42.59 3.7 3.7 5.56 3.7 1.85 3.7

Frequency 23 2 2 3 2 1 2

Most of the landless IGA beneficiaries did not report any significant changes made bythem in their IGA in the last one year except in the case of expanding the existing IGA,

which was reported by 43 % of the landless IGA beneficiaries (23). This indicated that

while the beneficiaries have started developing better skills to expand their present IGAthey still lack improved enterprise skills to make their IGA more efficient and profitable.

The enumerators of the questionnaires were asked to grade the ability of the beneficiariesin making calculations of their incomes, costs and sales. The grading made by the

enumerators is given in the table below.

36


37/93

Table 4.5.3 Enumerators Assessment of Beneficiarys Ability to Estimate Incomes,

Costs and Sales

Great Difficulty Some Difficulty No DifficultyPercent 0.0 0.0 100.0

Frequency 0 0 54

As the table shows all the landless IGA beneficiaries were able to make their calculationsof the incomes, cost and sales without any difficulty. This shows that the basic enterprise

skills were already there or have been developed in all the beneficiaries.

Also a re-look at the data on decision making presented above provides significant

insights on the level of empowerment achieved by the beneficiaries.

Table 4.5.4 Decision Making in the Beneficiary Households

Decision

Maker in theHousehold

Decision on

Further

Investment inIGA

Decision on

Whether

Loans forIGA

Decision on

Where to SellProducts

Decision on

How to UseIGA Income

Percent(Frequency)

Percent(Frequency)

Percent(Frequency)

Percent(Frequency)

Percent(Frequency)

Self 51.86 (28) 87.04 (47) 81.48 (44) 68.52 (37) 51.86 (28)

Others 48.14 (26) 12.96 (7) 18.52 (10) 31.48 (17) 48.14 (26)

The data shows that a significant number of the landless IGA beneficiaries have started

taking decisions on vital aspects of their IGA thereby demonstrating increasedempowerment among them.

The above analysis shows that participating in IGA by the landless IGA beneficiaries hasled to increase in their enterprise skills and empowerment at the individual level.

4.6 Hypothesis 6. Participation in IGA leads to increase in net worth at IGA level

While increase in the net value of the IGA would appear to be natural over a period of

time, it is not always necessary. Especially, in case of goat keeping, the worth of the flock

depends on the age of the goats. Hence it is the enterprise skill of the beneficiary in

selling the goats at the right time, which allows making the best incomes and maintainingthe value of the flock. The total sales were computed as well as the net value of the IGA

to make an assessment of the effectiveness of the IGA. The responses are given in the

table below.

Table 4.6.1 Total Sales Made from the IGA in the Last One Year

Amount (Rs) Goat Keeping Dairy Cattle Agriculture Tailoring Others

0 6 50 54 52 54

37


38/93

1 - 1000 1

1001 - 5000 27

5001 - 10000 16 2 2

10001 - 15000 3 2

15001 - 18000 1

Total 54 54 54 54 54

The table above shows that in the last year sales have ranged between Rs. 500 and Rs.

18000. The number of landless IGA beneficiaries making sales more than Rs. 5000 is 26.Interestingly, all the landless IGA beneficiaries who undertook dairy cattle and tailoring

made sales more than Rs. 5000, while only 20 landless IGA beneficiaries undertaking

goat keeping made sales more than Rs. 5000. However, with the IGA having completedonly two to three years, most of the beneficiaries keeping goats are in the process of

building up their flocks, which can be judged from the computation of the net value of the

flocks.

The table below gives the present net value of the IGA.

Table 4.6.2 The Present Net Value of the IGA (July 2005)


0 - 2000 5 2 1

2001 - 5000 8 1

5001-10000 22 1 1

10001 - 25000 13

Total 48 4 0 2 0

From the above table it can be seen that the present net value ranges from Rs. 0 to Rs.

25000. It also shows that 37 landless IGA beneficiaries have a net value of their IGAmore than Rs. 5000. Specially, in the case of goat keeping 35 of the landless IGA

beneficiaries have their flock value more than Rs. 5000, out of which 13 beneficiaries

have flocks of net value more than Rs. 10000, i.e. more than double the value of theinitial invested amount (Table 4.8.1).

Combining the present net value of the IGA and the sales made in the last one year shows

that the landless IGA beneficiaries have been able to increase the net worth of their

IGAs.

4.7 Hypothesis 7. Participation in IGA leads to increase in net cash flow at IGA

level

To measure the net cash flow in the IGA, the total costs, sales and income made in thelast one year were computed. The figures are given in the tables below.

Table 4.7.1 Production Cost for the IGAs in Last One Year


0 6 50 54 52 54

38


39/93

1-1000 5

1001-2000 1 2 1

2001-5000 33 1

5001-7500 7 1 1

7501-8500 2

Total 54 54 54 54 54

The table shows that the production cost in the last one year ranged from Rs. 0 to Rs.

8500. 45 landless IGA beneficiaries reported production costs exceeding Rs. 2000.Interestingly, the beneficiaries keeping goats reported higher level of production costs

compared to dairy keeping and tailoring.

Table 4.7.2 Total Sales Made in the IGAs in Last One Year


0-1000 7 49 54 52 54

1001-5000 27 3

5001-10000 19 2 210001-15000

15001-18000 1

Total 54 54 54 54 54

In terms of total sales, as already discussed above, in the last year it has ranged between

Rs. 500 and Rs. 18000. The number of landless IGA beneficiaries reporting total sales

more than Rs. 5000 is 26.

Table 4.7.3 Income Made from the IGAs in Last One Year

Amount (Rs) Goat keeping Dairy Cattle

Agricultural

Inputs Tailoring OthersFrequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency

0 6 50 54 52 54

1 -1000 3

1001-2000 21

2001-5000 20

5001-10000 3 2 2

10001-15000 1 2

Total 54 54 54 54 54

The table shows that the income made by the landless IGA beneficiary ranges from Rs.

1000 to Rs. 15000. 10 landless IGA beneficiaries made incomes more than Rs. 5000,while the remaining 44 landless IGA beneficiaries make income less than Rs. 5000.

Combining the total production costs, total sales made and the incomes made in the last

one year shows that there is significant cash flows taking place in the IGAs. Comparing

it with the initial investment made (Table 4.8.1), shows that there has also been an

increase in the cash flow taking place.

39


40/93

This when considered with the computation of the net worth of the IGAs made in theprevious section indicate that IGAs are in the process of establishing themselves as

sustainable enterprises, although each individual beneficiary still has a long way to go

before becoming self sufficient on their respective IGAs.

4.8 Impact of the contribution made by the beneficiaries on the IGA andassessment of optimum level of beneficiary contribution

To assess the impact of the beneficiary contribution on the IGA data has been collectedon the amount of investment made by the beneficiary on his / her own over and above the

financial assistance provided from the project. From this the percentage of beneficiary

contribution has been calculated. Further, from the data on the net worth of the IGA, its

percentage growth from the beneficiary investment has also been calculated. Finally, acomparative analysis of the different levels of beneficiary investment against net worth of

the IGA assets and the percentage growth of the net worth of the IGA has been made.

Through this analysis it has been determined how the different levels of beneficiary

investments has affected the returns from the IGA.

The table below gives the distribution of the investments made by the landless IGAbeneficiaries in their IGAs.

Table 4.8.1 Investment Made by the beneficiary in the IGA

Amount (Rs.) Frequency Percent

380 1 1.9

1,000 4 7.4

1,150 2 3.7

1,200 1 1.9

1,750 1 1.92,000 3 5.6

2,100 2 3.7

2,150 36 66.7

2,200 1 1.9

2,880 1 1.9

3,000 1 1.9

4,500 1 1.9

Total 54 100.0

The table shows that the beneficiary investment ranged from Rs. 380 to Rs. 4500, with a

maximum of 36 landless IGA beneficiaries making an investment of Rs. 2150.

The computed percentage of beneficiary investment is given in the table below.

Table 4.8.2 Percentage of Beneficiary Investment to the Total Investment in the IGA

Percentage of Beneficiary

Investment

Frequency Percent

14 1 1.9

40


41/93

30 4 7.4

33 2 3.7

34 1 1.9

43 1 1.9

46 3 5.6

47 2 3.748 36 66.7

48 1 1.9

55 1 1.9

56 1 1.9

68 1 1.9

Total 54 100.0

As the table shows the percentage of beneficiary investment made by the landless IGA

beneficiaries range from 14 % to 68 % depending on the type of IGA undertaken and the

amount of total investment required.

The present net worth of the assets is presented in the table below.

Table 4.8.3 The Present Net Worth of the IGA (July 2005)


0 - 2000 5 2 1

2001 - 5000 8 1

5001-10000 22 1 1

10001 - 25000 13

Total 48 4 0 2 0

From this the percentage of growth of the net worth of the IGA from the initialinvestment made by the landless IGA beneficiary has been calculated, which is given in

the table below.

Table 4.8.4 Percentage of Present Net Worth of IGA to the Initial Investment Made by

the Beneficiary

Percent Net Worth of IGAto Beneficiary Investment

Frequency Percent

0 100 8 14.8

101 250 9 16.7

251 500 23 42.5

501 1000 12 22.2

1001 1500 1 1.9

1501 - 2000 1 1.9

Total 54 100.0

The table shows that the percentage of growth of the present net worth of the IGA against

the initial investment made by the landless IGA beneficiaries ranges from 0 to 2000

41


42/93

percent. A maximum number of 23 IGAs show percentage growth of net worth between

251 and 500 %, with 9 and 12 IGAs showing percentage growth of net worth between

101 250 % and 501 1000 %, respectively. This in

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rahul-sen
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Report Impact Assessment Study KWDP Phase II (Final)

Documents