Livelihood Improvement through Water Harvesting

www.jankalyana.org www.jankalyana.org www.jankalyana.org www.jankalyana.org

JANAKALYAN www.jankalyana.org

LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT THROUGH WATER HARVESTING IN TAIL END

FINAL REPORT

Volume XI April 2013 – March 2014

14/04/2014

[

Volume XI: Final Report (April 2013 – March 2014) P a g e | 2

JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

Project Title : LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT THROUGH WATER HARVESTING IN TAIL END Name of Grantee : Janakalyan Donor : Deshpande Foundation Fund Grant Amount : Approved - US$ 13,181 (Received US$13,161) Grant Period : April 15, 2013 to March 31, 2014 Grantee Fiscal Year End : 31 March

Final Report Due Date: May 1, 2014 Date of this Report : April 14, 2014

This grant will be used to excavate irrigation canals to improve water usage and productivity, as well as to train and build the capacity of participating farmers in water conserving techniques and leveraging government initiatives.

The separate general ledger account used solely for Give2Asia funds had a balance of $0 (USD) on 03.31.2014.

Did your organization comply with the terms of the Grant Agreement during this project? □ Yes If no, please explain: Please list any other funders who supported this project.

Funders Amount Farmers Share generated Rs. 668,074

GIVE2ASIA FINAL GRANT REPORT


3 | P a g e

Final Report Volume XI

(April 2013 - March 2014)

I. Final Narrative Report: Janakalyan, with the support of Deshpande Foundation (through Give2Asia), initiated an innovation integrated inspiring intervention in Gadag district of North Karnataka with the small & marginal farmers of tail end of Malaprabha Irrigation Project to address two extremes of water availability. The intervention started in April 2010 in 5 villages with 10 farmers which have now spread across 3 taluks of Gadag and Dharwad districts in more than 55 villages. This report is prepared at the end of 4th year to document the progress during the reporting period (April 2013 – March 2014) for the grant that was approved for 2013-14. It was made possible to reach out to so many farmers of these villages to sustain their lives & livelihoods by the grants provided by Deshpande Foundation (through G2A) during these periods. The summary of all such grants and respective outputs are furnished below- Grant Amount Grant Period Deliverables Achievement Status of Grant

$13181 ($13,161 received)

15.4.2013 - 31.3.2014

35 tanks out of 100 agreed in 2011-14

cycle of grant

45 tanks excavated against the target of 35 during the year

Completed and this is the Final Report of

the grant

A. Project Implementation: During the current financial year, a grant of $13,181 was approved to complete 35 water harvesting structures in tail end of Malaprabha Irrigation Project. Though we have received $13161 during the project period, we have successfully excavated 45 irrigation tanks against the target of 35. This volume of the report is Final Report of the grant (actually received $13,161) that was provided during the current financial year.

1. Please describe the project activities The activities those were completed during the reporting period are not many as the focus was mainly on creation of more number of water harvesting structures. However, this report is prepared at the end of the grant cycle to document the achievement as well as to assess the benefits of those structures created in the previous years.

1.1. Project Concept Orientation to the new villages: In addition to the existing project villages, Janakalyan field team extended their extension services to other villages of Naragund & Ron taluks of Gadag district and Navalagund taluk of Dharwad district; i.e. Janakalyan has now reached its activities in 3rd taluk in 2nd district of Sandbox. Many strategic decisions were taken during the year in order to achieve the target set for the year under reporting. Reaching far away villages in the tail end was one such strategy which helped a lot to achieve the set target.

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

1.2. Selection of eligible farmers for water harvesting structures: The selection of farmers for excavation of water harvesting structures are done in 2 stages - 1) Technical Feasibility by visiting the site proposed for excavation of the water harvesting structure and 2) Social Feasibility by visiting the house of the farmer to assess the interest of the family members and their willingness to participate in all activities under the project.

1.2.1 Technical Feasibility: Technical feasibility of the site proposed for excavation of the water harvesting structure is assessed by our technical experts by visiting the site along with the farmer. While assessing the site, we look at many angles of the site such as watershed area, soil condition, catchment area, etc.

1.2.2 Social Feasibility: Once, the technical feasibility is through, the team then visits the house of the farmer to assess the social feasibility in terms of interest of the family members to excavate a water harvesting structure, their interest in participating all other agriculture-allied activities proposed as part of this intervention, socio-economic status of the family and such other factors contributing success of the project.

1.3 Excavation of water harvesting structures: The commitment was to excavate about 35 water harvesting structures during the reporting period while the team succeeded to excavate 45 structures during April 2013 – March 2014; thus the team could achieve a total of 10+27+8+45= 90 structures since commencement of the program in 2010.



5 | P a g e

But the process was not that easy as explained in 1 single sentence; during the 1st quarter of the project period, the team could excavate only 4 water harvesting structures, 8 structures in 2nd quarter and only 1 structure in 3rd quarter. There are various reasons for such a slow progress and few of these are documented below so that we do not commit the same mistakes in future too- • Break of 1 year compelled many farmers to take a back step: There were many farmers

interested to excavate water harvesting structures during 2012-13 but since there was funding gap, we failed to take up excavation of the structures with these farmers. When we started excavation in April 2013 (after a break of 1 year), the farmers were not prepared for investing their share of contribution and also had already lost faith on us. It took some time to regain the faith.

• Consecutive Drought: Consecutive drought resulted into crop failure and thus most of the farmers who were interested to excavate the structure were expressing their inability to contribute for diesel and tractor expenses.

• Farmers Share: Farmers share of contribution in terms of diesel and tractor expenses is about 70-75% - too high for them to manage.

• Delayed sanction: The project approval was in mid-April, thus half of the productive period was lost.

• Early Monsoon: Early commencement of monsoon made the farmers to think more of the crops (as they lost it consecutively for 2 years) than investing in excavation of structures.

These are some of the important factors which resulted in very poor performance of the team in the 1st 3 quarters; even the first half of the 4th quarter was also not productive as the farmers had crops in their farms. The progress was accelerated only during last half of the 4th quarter where we have completed 45 structures. Based on the field experiences, there was a shift in our strategies from quarter to quarter and farmer to farmer. Some of these strategies in their order of execution are listed below-

1. Strategy-1: Machine ours rest yours: This is the strategy based on which the excavator was purchased. It was assumed that we will take the excavator to the farm of the farmer and they will use it with diesel and other incidentals. The drawbacks of this strategy were many and some of these are listed below-

• Only one structure can be excavated at a time; thus the progress becomes slow. • Shifting cost becomes very high when single farmer comes forward from a village to

excavate a water harvesting structure. • If the operator falls ill or remain absent from duty or the machine gives trouble, the

progress hinders. • Sometimes the farmers delays to arrange their share of contribution and thus the

excavator remains idle. • Sometimes the farmer fails to arrange tractors and again the machine remains idle. • Due to rain also, the excavator and tractors cannot move for few days and again the

loss of productive periods.

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

It was due to all these reasons, Janakalyan Team took a strategic decision in 2nd quarter and adopted the 2nd strategy as under-

2. Strategy-2: Complete structure of specified dimension and hours, get part hire charge of the excavator: Identified few excavators (both wheel mover and chain mover) and farmers and given them the specifications of the structures to be excavated. Once the farmer reports completion of the structures of required dimensions, Janakalyan Team visits and measures the dimension. If found satisfactory, part cost of the hire charges is paid to either farmer or excavator owner vide cheque.

3. Strategy-3: Identify interested farmers from new and remote villages: Most of the farmers who had shown interest reported that due to consecutive drought for 2 years they are not able to invest their share of contribution. All those farmers who are capable of investing are already excavated water harvesting structures in old villages and thus requested the team to reach out to more number of new villages where there would be at least few farmers available, who would be interested and also be capable of investing for his structures despite consecutive drought.

4. Strategy-4: Convert farm ponds to water harvesting structure: There are many existing small farm ponds in the farms of small and marginal farmers excavated long back but are silted up and thus not being used by the farmers. The land used for such farm ponds are neither used for cultivation nor can be used for storing water. A strategic decision was taken to convert all such farm ponds into water harvesting structures.

5. Strategy-5: Assess need of the farmers and create flexible sizes of water harvesting structures with hired JCBs: With all the above strategies, we could only excavate 13 water harvesting structures in 3 quarters; there were other factors too described in previous section of the report. Since the project period was nearing towards its end, another strategic decision was taken to hire few JCBs to reach out to the demands of small farmers from far away villages. About 5 JCB worked simultaneously for few days in the month of February – March 2014 and reached far more than the target.



7 | P a g e

Finally, the water harvesting structures created during the reporting period with the current cycle of grant are furnished below- Sl.

No.Name of the

farmer Village Phone

Number Survey

number Land

holding (acres)

Size of the tank

(mXmXm)

Starting Date

Completion date

Total Expense

(Rs)

Project grant (Rs)

Farmers Contribution (Rs)

Water Harvesting Structures created during 2013-14 1 Girish Patil Amregul 9663438281 221 2.15 78X68X6 04-05-13 08-05-13 37900 13000 24900 2 Sharana Heremath Berbettigi 9964313295 339 7 250X90X5 08-05-13 16-05-13 107800 13000 94800 3 Shivareddy Kanakikoppa 9901428933 85 7.33 70X50X10 10-06-13 13-06-13 47550 13000 34550 4 Chandrashekar Kanakikoppa 8746860135 127/2 4.39 68X51X10 13-06-13 16-06-13 45700 13000 32700 5 Mallappa Jagapur 9686234460 92 4.26 70X70X10 10-07-13 24-07-13 48600 18420 30180 6 Siddappa Jagapur 9686234460 67 3 35X34X7 26-07-13 27-07-13 8900 3895 5005 7 Hirematha Siddapur 9481814299 80 22 100X100x9 28-07-13 03-08-13 70350 22527 47823 8 Manju M T Patil Jagapur 9535830054 110 18.15 40X35X9 15-08-13 16-08-13 11900 3760 8140 9 Basappa Jagapur 210 4.5 60X45X80 21-08-13 22-08-13 13960 4919 9041 10 Eshappa Hadli 112 10 80X50X5 25-08-13 26-08-13 11470 4760 6710 11 Rachayya Hadli 9900299106 110 6 78X60X4 27-08-13 01-09-13 15470 3643 11827 12 Dharmappa Hadli 9482551170 255 3 49X46X8 03-09-13 04-09-13 8660 3300 5360 13 Veeranna Hadli 9482984871 56/1 3 32X30X7 18-01-14 18-01-14 7170 4495 2675 14 Chandrashekarappa Belawaniki 8792623649 183 2.3 60X48X12 20-01-14 26-01-14 64130 14365 49765 15 Rayappa Daknal 9620481101 198 9.1 75X40X8 11-02-14 13-02-14 21800 1400 20400 16 Basawaraj Kardapur Daknal 0 146 6 60X40X5 14-02-14 14-02-14 7200 3577 3623 17 Ramesh Daknal 9986284005 151 20 75X60X11 15-02-14 21-02-14 56800 15306 41494 18 Gurusiddappa Daknal 8105751232 153 11.2 40X40X5 22-02-14 22-02-14 5520 2690 2830 19 Basappa Daknal 8861164076 155 8 26X26X9 23-02-14 23-02-14 4600 4199 401 20 Siddappa Daknal 9535433565 195 4.2 40X35X10 24-02-14 24-02-14 10800 0 10800 21 Yallappa Barker Daknal 198 6.3 60X45X40 27-02-14 28-02-14 25600 3713 21887 22 Somappa sajjana Kouchgiri 9008076115 255 7.3 31x31x10 18-03-14 18-03-14 10850 3500 7350 23 Shankarappa bingi Belawaniki 7760794584 293 5.4 33x30x9.5 18-03-14 18-03-14 10850 3500 7350 24 Mahantesh chared Belawaniki 9880078765 119 3.34 30x30x10.5 18-03-14 19-03-14 11600 3750 7850 25 Somappa binigi Belawaniki 8722006962 481 7 31X31X9.5 19-03-14 19-03-14 10850 3500 7350 26 Basavan gouda Kouchgiri 9535479288 207 10 35X31X9 19-03-14 19-03-14 10850 3500 7350 27 Siddappa Badami Kouchgiri 9008620489 195 4 30X30X9.5 20-03-14 20-03-14 10850 3500 7350 28 Hanumantappa puri Belawaniki 8722006962 143 6.4 30X30X9.5 20-03-14 20-03-14 10850 3500 7350 29 Shanmukappa kuri Belawaniki 9972449072 135 8 31X31X9.5 20-03-14 20-03-14 10850 3500 7350 30 Chandrashekharappa Belawaniki 8105746489 102 4 33X30X10 23-03-14 23-03-14 11600 3750 7850 31 Virupakshappa bitta Kouchgiri 190 8.24 35X25X10 21-03-14 21-03-14 10850 3500 7350 32 Gopal Reddy hargab Belawaniki 9902474327 318 9 35X35X9.5 21-03-14 21-03-14 10850 3500 7350 33 Kalappa jiganuru Adli 9663422735 413 1.39 34X34X10 22-03-14 22-03-14 7850 3750 4100 34 Virappa Hadali Belawaniki 9741302263 426 14.7 36X30X10 23-03-14 23-03-14 10850 3500 7350 35 Shankarappa Hadali Belawaniki 9980658283 199/2 30 31X31X10 24-03-14 24-03-14 10850 3500 7350 36 Mayappa bonnur Kouchgiri 9535870338 03-Jun 2.7 30X30X9.5 24-03-14 24-03-14 10850 3500 7350 37 Mallikarjun gouda Adli 7259576678 6 4.37 33X30X10 24-03-14 24-03-14 7850 3500 4350 38 Allah sahab nadab Belawaniki 8748998422 232 4.2 29X29X9.5 25-03-14 25-03-14 10850 3500 7350 39 Erappa pattanshetty Belawaniki 9980583272 170 4 36X35X7 25-03-14 25-03-14 9350 3500 5850 40 Parappa kuri Belawaniki 8970528493 472 3.4 37X30X9 26-03-14 26-03-14 10850 3500 7350 41 Basavaraj hannigiri Belawaniki 9611384530 422 3.15 31X31X9.5 26-03-14 26-03-14 7850 3500 4350 42 Ismail sahab mulla Belawaniki 265 4.8 31X31X10 26-03-14 26-03-14 10850 3500 7350 43 Basavaraj bhimappa Daknal 8105935622 155 8 40x40x9 02-03-14 03-03-14 13850 5079 8771 44 Somalingappa charad Belawaniki 9945162405 377 4.6 80x54x11 18-03-14 21-03-14 41920 14916 27004 45 Viranna Belawaniki 9482235102 237 4 50X40X8 24-03-14 28-03-14 26800 4012 22788 Total 933300 265226 668074 % 28% 72%

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

The above table depicts that the team has been successful to raise the farmers’ contribution to the tune of Rs.668,074 (72%) in terms of excavation of 45 water harvesting structure during the reporting period while the project share remained Rs.265,226 (28%). Though we have achieved the agreed target, the less cost sharing by the farmers is a factor for more excavation of tanks during the year in addition to all other factors stated elsewhere in this report.

1.4 Demonstration of effective water usage methods: The belief of Janakalyan team to implement this program are- 1. Give ‘water’ to farming communities, they will feed the nation 2. Built a ‘water harvesting structure’ for your child than a house 3. Like ‘house’ to a urban family, “water harvesting structure” is for a rural family/ farmer 4. Cost sharing brings ownership among the participating farmers and sustainability to the

initiative.

With these beliefs, Janakalyan initiated the interventions in Malaprabha Tail end and thus the focus was only on creation of water harvesting structure to provide water and nothing else with cost sharing approach. However, farmers required some sort of orientation and exposure to various productive units to make effective use of scarce resources like land & water in order to enhance productivity and in turn the livelihood security. The cropping pattern that is seen with these set of farmers during the year are as under-

Sl. No.

Name of the farmer

Crop Sown during 2013-14 (area in acre) Bengal Gram

Sunflower

Onion Seeds Cotton Onion Maize Sorgh

um Cotton Seed Chilly Vegeta

ble Wheat Groundnut Total

Crop Diversification in the farms of farmers of 1st batch 1 Ashok Udikeri 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 Basavaraj Gali 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 Mallappa Hada 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 Shanmukhapp 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 Shankrayya S 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 Bapu Gouda P 0 0 0 0 3.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.75 7 Earanna Sanna 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 3.5 8 Siddappa Barik 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 Dyamanna G 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

10 Bailappa Vittap 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Crop Diversification in 2013-14 (current crop year)

Sub Total 0 0 0 19 13.75 10 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 43.25 Percentage 0% 0% 0% 44% 32% 23% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 100%

Crop Diversification in 2012-13 (previous crop year) 13 1 0 2 2 1 34 0 0 0.5 4 0 57.5 23% 2% 0% 3% 3% 2% 59% 0% 0% 1% 7% 0% 100%

If we compare the crop diversification figures of these 10 farmers with the previous crop year, sorghum (59%) was the major crop while cotton (44%) occupied the place during the current crop year followed by onion (32%) and maize (23%). Bengali gram (23%) was the second largest crop during previous crop year.



9 | P a g e

The farmers selected from subsequent years have different results at the end of 2nd crop year excluding the year of excavation. The data furnished in the table below for ready reference- Sl. No.

Name of the farmer


Sunflower




Crop Diversification in the farms of farmers of 2nd batch 11 Gurappa 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 12 Suresh Gouda 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 13 Rudrappa 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 14 Ashok 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 15 Sushila 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 16 Nagalingaredd 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 17 Akkamma 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 18 Shamburao 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 19 Venkareddy 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 20 Phakirappa 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21 Veerappa 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 22 Duragappa 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 23 Basavaraj Ron 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Basavaraj Ona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Parappa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Suresh Kulkarn 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 27 Sharana Basap 0 0 10 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 28 Mahanthapapa 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 29 SB Chikkaredd 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 30 SiddalingeshU 0 5 0 0 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 24 31 Gopalreddy 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 32 Aanand Gouda 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 33 Jagadish Bhokl 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 34 Sangappa Irap 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 35 Irappa 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 36 Yallappagowda 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 37 Madappa 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Crop Diversification in 2013-14 (current crop year) Sub Total 23 8 15 44 19 72 7 0 0 0 4 0 192 Percentage 12% 4% 8% 23% 10% 38% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 100%

Crop Diversification in 2012-13 (previous crop year) Sub Total 85.5 1.5 0 8.5 0 12 76 4 0 0 17 1 205.5 Percentage 42% 1% 0% 4% 0% 6% 37% 2% 0% 0% 8% 0% 100%

Bengal gram (42%), which was in the 3rd place during last year, has taken the 1st place, which was occupied by Maize (38%) during the last year while cotton was the 2nd largest crop during previous year but sorghum (37%) has occupied it during the current year. The 1st batch of farmers has gone mostly for cotton while the inclination of 2nd batch of farmers towards cotton is very small.

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

The 3rd batch of farmers cropping pattern is provided below- Sl. No.

Name of the farmer


Sunflower




Crop Diversification in the farms of farmers of 3rd batch 38 Srikant 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 39 Laxmikant 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 40 Pravin Kuma 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 14 41 Shivappa 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 42 Shiva Reddy 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 43 Somappa N 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 44 Savitri S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 45 Shankarapp 0 0 0 8 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

Crop Diversification in 2013-14 (current crop year) Sub Total 0 27 17 8 0 10 0 7 4 0 0 0 73 Percentage 0% 37% 23% 11% 0% 14% 0% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Crop Diversification in 2012-13 (previous crop year) Sub Total 24 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 4 0 67 Percentage 36% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 58% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 100%

None of the farmers has gone for sorghum which was the largest (58%) crop during previous year; sunflower (37%) is the largest crop during the year followed by Onion Seeds (23%) while Bengal gram (36%) was the 2nd largest crop during previous year. Change in Crop Diversification: The trend in cropping pattern during the year against that of previous year is furnished in the following table.

Particulars Bengal Gram

Sunflower

Onion Seeds Cotton Onion Maize Sorghu

m Cotton Seed Chilly Vegeta


Crop Diversification in 2012-13 (previous crop year) Acre 122.5 2.5 0 10.5 2 13 149 4 0 0.5 25 1 330

% of total 37% 1% 0% 3% 1% 4% 45% 1% 0% 0% 8% 0% 100% Crop Diversification in 2013-14 (current crop year)

Acre 23 35 32 71 32.75 92 7 7 4 0.5 4 0 308.25 % of total 7% 11% 10% 23% 11% 30% 2% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 100%

The table and the graphs above depicts that there is shift in cropping pattern among the farmers who have excavated the water harvesting structures in last 3 years.



11 | P a g e

The farmers selected during current year have different results at the end of 1st year. The data furnished in the table below for ready reference- Sl. No.

Name of the farmer


Sunflower




Crop Diversification in the farms of farmers of 4th batch 46 Girish Patil 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 47 Sharana Herema 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 48 Shivareddy 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 49 Chandrashekar 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 50 Mallappa 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 51 Siddappa 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 52 Hirematha 0 0 0 0 0 0 18.5 0 0 0 0 0 18.5 53 Manju M T Patil 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 54 Basappa 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 55 Eshappa 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 56 Rachayya 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 57 Dharmappa 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 58 Veeranna 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 59 Chandrashekara 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 60 Rayappa 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 61 Basawaraj Karda 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.5 62 Ramesh 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 63 Gurusiddappa 0 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 11 64 Basappa 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 65 Siddappa 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 66 Yallappa Barker 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 67 Somappa sajjana 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 68 Shankarappa bin 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 69 Mahantesh chara 3.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.75 70 Somappa binigi 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 71 Basavan gouda 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 72 Siddappa Badam 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 73 Hanumantappa p 4.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.25 74 Shanmukappa ku 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 75 Chandrashekhar 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 76 Virupakshappa bi 2.5 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 77 Gopal Reddy har 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 78 Kalappa jiganuru 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 79 Virappa Hadali 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 80 Shankarappa Ha 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 81 Mayappa bonnur 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 82 Mallikarjun gouda 0 0 0 0 0 4.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.75 83 Allah sahab nada 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 84 Erappa pattansh 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 85 Parappa kuri 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 86 Basavaraj hannig 0 0 0 3.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.25 87 Ismail sahab mull 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 88 Basavaraj bhima 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 89 Somalingappa ch 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 90 Viranna 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Sub Total 81 25 5 52.25 8 37.25 48 0 0 0 0 0 256.5 Percentage 32% 10% 2% 20% 3% 15% 19% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

This is the baseline for the new and 4th set of farmers, who have excavated their water harvesting structures during the year, is collected during the year to assess the impacts of our intervention in future.

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

Productivity Analysis: Productivity and profitability analysis at the end of the cropping season after harvesting the crops are furnished in the following table against the data of previous cropping year- Sl. No

Name of the Farmers

Land holding (acre)

2012-13 2013-14 Cropped

area Expendi

ture Yield Return Net

Profit Cropped area

Expenditure

Yield Return Net Profit

1st batch Farmers 1 Ashok Udikeri 7.17 5.5 120000 170000 50000 5 89688 80 188000 98312 2 Basavaraj Gali 10.18 8 100000 120000 20000 7 88008 140 182000 93992 3 Mallappa Hadapad 9.11 10 300000 300000 0 6 71270 40 200000 128730 4 Shanmukhappa M 7.10 9 65000 5000 -60000 0 122700 60 300000 177300 5 Shankrayya Sali 4.14 6 15000 15000 0 4 71320 41 205000 133680 6 Bapu Gouda Patil 3.30 3 18000 2000 -16000 3.75 71220 39 195000 123780 7 Earanna Sanadeni 4.32 6 20000 40000 20000 3 60000 40 196000 136000 8 Siddappa Barikar 2.20 3 15000 10000 -5000 2 44100 45 220500 176400 9 Dyamanna Gudigi 3.23 3 15000 18000 3000 3 60700 15 61500 800

10 Bailappa Vittappan 3.05 4 20000 38000 18000 3 32840 60 78000 45160 Total 53.8 57.5 688000 718000 30000 36.75 711846 560 1826000 1114154 Percentage 107% 104% 4% 68% 257% 157%

The table above depicts that the net profit during previous year was only 4% while that during the current crop year is 157%; further the incremental income for these 10 farmers is Rs.10,84,154/- against that of last year. The net incremental income per farmer during the year is Rs.1,08,415/-.



13 | P a g e

Productivity and profitability analysis for 2nd batch of farmers at the end of the current cropping season after harvesting the crops are furnished in the following table-

Sl. No.

Farmers Land holding (acre)

2012-13 2013-14 Cropped

area Expendi


Profit Cropped area

Expenditure


2nd batch farmers 11 Gurappa 4 9 40000 20000 -20000 2 32380 8 39200 6820 12 Suresh Gouda 10 7 50000 0 -50000 12 79675 45 172500 92825 13 Rudrappa Sankoppad 6.11 12 25000 50000 25000 8 159000 61 298900 139900 14 Ashok Hugar 6.01 8 50000 60000 10000 6 131700 72 352080 220380 15 Smt.Sushila Kannur 11.28 14 50000 60000 10000 24 284156 430 559000 274844 16 Nagalingareddy 7.06 4 90000 190000 100000 12 151428 200 260000 108572 17 Akkamma Khajjidoni 7.07 7 40000 60000 20000 6 131700 72 352080 220380 18 Shamburao 20 10 25000 75000 50000 8 96480 160 208000 111520 19 Venkareddy 5 4 24000 50000 26000 5 69720 100 130000 60280 20 Fhakirappa 12.32 0 0 0 0 3 30504 100 370000 339496 21 Veerappa 11 4 20000 30000 10000 4 71270 40 200000 128730 22 Duragappa 4 3 19000 36000 17000 6 131700 72 352080 220380 23 Basavaraj Ronad 9 9 50000 30000 -20000 0 0 0 0 0 24 Basavaraj Onagiri 8 4 8000 3500 -4500 0 0 0 0 0 25 Parappa 11 11 60000 100000 40000 0 0 0 0 0 26 Suresh Kulkarni 4.2 4 15000 20000 5000 4 32125 11 55000 22875 27 Sharana Basappa 17.29 11 87000 110000 23000 17 313900 500 1500000 1186100 28 Mahanthapapa 4 4 15000 30000 15000 4 49576 80 104000 54424 29 SB Chikkareddy 22.7 20 120000 120000 0 11 98370 44 198000 99630 30 Siddalingesh U S 24 18 115000 156000 41000 24 284156 430 559000 274844 31 Gopalreddy 23 8 40000 60000 20000 5 91600 60 180000 88400 32 Aanand Gouda 4 5 20000 20000 0 6 115700 40 200000 84300 33 Jagadish Bhokla 11 16 120000 280000 160000 10 128940 180 234000 105060 34 Sangappa Irapp 2.1 5.5 40000 130000 90000 3 52000 30 147000 95000 35 Irappa 6 1 6500 15000 8500 3 51750 25 122500 70750 36 Yallappagowda 2.25 3 20000 30000 10000 3 50350 27 132300 81950 37 Madappa 7.8 4 25000 0 -25000 3 47600 22 105600 58000

Grand Total 260.19 205.5 1174500 0 1735500 561000 189 2685780 2809 6831240 4145460 Percentage 79% 148% 48% 73% 254% 154%

The net profit during the year is 154% for the farmers selected by Janakalyan in 2nd batch for excavation of water harvesting structures which was 148% during last year; this means, an investment of Re.1 fetched Rs.1.54 during the year to the farmers having an assured source of irrigation. The incremental income per farmer is about Rs.97,562/- during the year as against previous year. The most important aspect to be noted here is that the intervention has brought an additional wealth of Rs.26,34,180/- as against the net income that these set of farmers earned during last year. It would not have been possible without these 27 water harvesting structures with G2A (DF) support.

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

From the figure, it is clear that the total investment of Rs.26,85,780 has brought a net profit of Rs.41,45,460 (1.54 times) i.e. an average investment of Rs.99,473/- has helped to fetch a net profit of Rs.153,536/-.



15 | P a g e

Productivity and profitability analysis of 3rd set of farmers at the end of the current cropping season after harvesting the crops are furnished in the following table-

Sl. No.

Farmers Land holding (acre)

2012-13 2013-14 Cropped

area Expendi


Profit Cropped area

Expenditure


3rd batch Farmer 38 Srikant 28.31 12 36000 30000 -6000 8 127500 100 300000 172500 39 Laxmikant 5 5 15000 35000 20000 5 91100 50 150000 58900 40 Pravin Kuma 14 12 45000 55000 10000 14 233508 220 538000 304492 41 Shivappa 13.39 12 40000 25000 -15000 13 133224 90 333000 199776 42 Shiva Reddy 14.28 7 40000 25000 -15000 14 145660 100 370000 224340 43 Somappa N 4.00 4 12000 20000 8000 4 75600 45 135000 59400 44 Savitri S 4.5 4 10000 25000 15000 4 75350 43 129000 53650 45 Shankarapp 11 11 35000 35000 0 11 79850 20 100000 20150 Total 67 233000 250000 17000 73 961792 668 2055000 1093208 Percentage 71% 107% 7% 109% 214% 114%

It is clear from the table above that the net profit at the end of the year is 114% as against that of last year, which was only 7%. The profit accumulated at the end of the year by these 8 farmers are Rs.10,93,208/- which was only Rs.17,000 during last year. Even the land use intensity has increased to 109% which was only 71% during previous year.

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

Productivity and profitability analysis at the end of the cropping season after harvesting the crops are furnished in the following table- Sl. No. Farmers Land

holding (acre)

2012-13 2013-14 Cropped

area Expenditu

re Yield Return Net Profit Cropped

area Expenditu

re Yield Return Net Profit

4th batch Farmer 46 Girish Patil 2.25 2 25900 52000 26100 47 Sharana Herema 10.5 10 100000 200000 100000 48 Shivareddy 7 7 134000 315000 181000 49 Chandrashekar 4 4 43256 98800 55544 50 Mallappa 4.5 4 81400 180000 98600 51 Siddappa 2 2 150000 25500 -124500 52 Hirematha 19 18.5 149135 239700 90565 53 Manju M T Patil 4 3.5 40000 85000 45000 54 Basappa 4 4 79200 180000 100800 55 Eshappa 4 4 97200 200000 102800 56 Rachayya 5 5 68864 171600 102736 57 Dharmappa 3 3 15000 35000 20000 58 Veeranna 3 3 60000 120000 60000 59 Chandrashekara 2.5 2 16000 31000 15000 60 Rayappa 9 8.5 40000 80000 40000 61 Basawaraj Karda 6 5.5 90000 45000 -45000 62 Ramesh 12.5 12 70000 150000 80000 63 Gurusiddappa 11.5 11 110000 205000 95000 64 Basappa 8 8 80000 160000 80000 65 Siddappa 4.5 4 35000 80000 45000 66 Yallappa Barker 6.75 6 50000 120000 70000 67 Somappa sajjana 7.75 7 60000 120000 60000 68 Shankarappa bin 5.25 5 50000 100000 50000 69 Mahantesh chara 3.75 3.75 30000 70000 40000 70 Somappa binigi 7 7 60000 140000 80000 71 Basavan gouda 10 10 100000 250000 150000 72 Siddappa Badam 4 4 40000 85000 45000 73 Hanumantappa p 6.25 4.25 45000 95000 50000 74 Shanmukappa ku 8 8 90000 20000 -70000 75 Chandrashekhar 4 4 40000 90000 50000 76 Virupakshappa bi 8.5 2.5 85000 180000 95000 77 Gopal Reddy har 9 9 100000 300000 200000 78 Kalappa jiganuru 2 2 100000 250000 150000 79 Virappa Hadali 14.25 14 150000 325000 175000 80 Shankarappa Ha 8 8 80000 160000 80000 81 Mayappa bonnur 2.25 2 20000 40000 20000 82 Mallikarjun gouda 5 4.75 50000 150000 100000 83 Allah sahab nada 4.5 4 45000 95000 50000 84 Erappa pattansh 4 4 40000 80000 40000 85 Parappa kuri 3.25 3 30000 70000 40000 86 Basavaraj hannig 3.50 3.25 35000 72000 37000 87 Ismail sahab mull 4.25 4 40000 80000 40000 88 Basavaraj bhima 4.25 4 40000 90000 50000 89 Somalingappa ch 4.25 4 40000 90000 50000 90 Viranna 4 4 40000 90000 50000 Total 252.5 2944955 5815600 2870645 Percentage 94% 197% 97%



17 | P a g e

These 45 farmers have been selected during the current cropping year and thus don’t have the corresponding data for previous year; the data collected during the year would be used as baseline as the yield that they have received is without irrigation facility. The table depicts that the return is only 197% and the net profit is 97% without using the irrigation from the water harvesting structures.

Return with and without Water Harvesting Structures: Return and Net Profit against investment by farmers who are using irrigation water from water harvesting structures excavated by G2A (DF) funded interventions of Janakalyan are furnished in the table below for comparative analysis.

Farmers Selected during

Return on Investment

Net Profit on

Investment Remarks

2010-11 257% 157% Farmers have been using the water for 3 years 2011-12 254% 154% Farmers have been using the water for 2 years 2012-13 214% 114% Farmers have been using the water for 1 year 2013-14 197% 97% These farmers have NOT used water from tanks

It is clear from the table above and the chart below that, the Return on Investment as well as net profit is lowest (97%) in the case of the farmers those have NOT used the irrigation water

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

from the water harvesting structures while it is highest (157%) in the case of 1st set of farmers selected in the year 2010-11.

Does it mean that the return on investment is more as the farmers become experienced in managing irrigation water from the perennial sources like water harvesting structures with controlled utilization? The overall return on investment and net profit is 246% and 146% during the year for 45 farmers selected in past while that for the new set of 45 farmers is only 197% and 97%.

2. If the actual project activities differed from the activities described in the proposal, please explain why. The actual project activities have not differed from those described in the proposal except the fact that we have succeeded to complete 45 water harvesting structures against the target of 35 structures during the reporting period. It was based on the learning from the Deshpande Foundation direct intervention field in Navalagund and as per the approval of Deshpande Foundation that the size of the structures could be adjusted based on the need of the farmers.



19 | P a g e

B. Project Outcomes & Impact:

Major outcomes and impacts of the project interventions at the end of reporting period are narrated in the subsequent sections of the report.

1. Please describe your progress in achieving the purpose of the grant. What were the major achievements of this project? The purpose of the grant is to demonstrate a model which could resolve the irrigation needs of the tail end farmers. It is basically to address 2-extremeties of water availability that exists in all tail ends of any irrigation projects in India; the situation of farmers of Malaprabha tail end is no better than this. The intervention that Janakalyan has planned with the support of Give2Asia (Deshpande Foundation Fund) is to demonstrate the creating a water harvesting structure can resolve the irrigation needs of these farmers. The major achievements of the grant as on date could be summarized as in the table below - Sl.No. Commitment for 2013-14 Achievement during the reporting period

1 Excavation of 35 water harvesting structures in Malaprabha tail end

Excavated 45 water harvesting structures during the year against the target of 35.

2 About 20% increase in productivity over last year

The production from 305.25 acres of cropped area is 4037 quintal during the year i.e. the productivity is 13.23 quintal per acre. Unfortunately, we could not compare the productivity increment due to lack of corresponding figures of last crop year. About 13.23 quintal per acre of productivity is recorded during the year by the farmers who have created a water harvesting structure in last few years. However, the net profit on investment was only 29% during the last year while the same is 146% during the current year.

3 Generation of resources to sustain the interventions

Local resources are tapped in through farmers as they are the owners of the structures; if they share the cost, the ownership would increase and the intervention would sustain in long run. Proposals are also submitted and followed up with various agencies including Government.

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

2. Please compare your actual project achievements to the specific goal(s) and outcomes

described in your proposal. Please explain any differences or variance. The deliverables agreed for the project period are tabulated with the status on each of these deliverables against them (based on the indicators agreed in the grant agreement)- Sl. No. Deliverables / Outcomes Status at the end of the project period

1 Deliverable 1: Excavation of 35 irrigation tanks to harvest runoff and excess water from the irrigation canals for life saving irrigation to the standing crops.

Total 45 water harvesting structures have been excavated during the year against the target of 35; 45 tanks were excavated in previous years. Total structures completed till date is 90.

2 Deliverable 2: Increase in productivity by about 20% than that of current productivity through diversification of cropping pattern through this intervention with the participating farmers at the end of 5th year.

The net profit for the 1st set of farmers (who are using the tank for more than 3 years) has increased to 157% while that for the 2nd set of farmers (who have excavated the tank 2 years back) is 154% and that for 3rd set is 114% and 4th set is 97%. The overall increase in productivity is 146%.

3 Deliverable 3: Generating funds from other sources to sustain tank excavation program in the sandbox.

The cost of excavation of water harvesting structures has come down to 28% from 100% in the first year. Total funds generated so far from other sources are Rs.23,20,694 (72%).

In Addition….. 5 Participate in quarterly partners

meet and annual conference – Development Dialogue.

3 Quarterly Partners Meet was organized during the year and Janakalyan participated in all 3 event including 3 preparatory meeting of DD 2014 and Krishi Sinchana 2014.

6 Carry out timely and appropriate submission of quarterly reports to Deshpande Foundation in prescribed format

Quarterly Reports in excel sheet submitted before the due dates to DF – all 4 QPR

Other activities: Some of the additional activities undertaken during the project period by the execution team are listed below- • Reached out to more than 40 villages: The team could reach out to more than 40 villages

during the year having benefitting about 90 farmers. • 200 farmers reached: More than 200 interested and needy farmers reached out by the team

and oriented about the project concept.



21 | P a g e

• Partners meet: Participated in Partners Meet on 17th April 2013, 20th August 2013 and 4th

March 2014 at Dehspande Foundation to share and learn about activities of Sandbox. • Field Visit: DF team visited on 12th June and 12th August 2013 to our project areas to evaluate

the activities undertaken by Janakalyan team in its project area. • Learning Exposure to BCI Project of DF: Janakalyan team visited DF’s BCI project to learn from

their experiences.

The income expenditure statement of Hitachi for the year 2013-14 is furnished below to assess its feasibility in comparison with previous year data-

Expenditures 2012-13 2013-14 Income 2012-13 2013-14 Agricultural Engineer Travel

3,000 282 Opening Balance 21,068 40933

Diesel Expenses 269,896 304127 Bank Interest 4,079 327 Tractor, Driver Bhatta, Food and Other Expenditure

273,100 668074 Farmer share for water harvesting structures

273,100 615011

Grease Expenses 4,597 3187 Farmer share for diesel cost 150,500 195240 Honorarium 45,839 0 Revenue generation using

Hitachi 426,880 300578

Hitachi Service Charge

59,205 39827

Other Hitachi Related Expenses

48,247 47053

Rent Water and Electricity & office

21,500 1250

Salary of Hitachi Operator

103,610 56533

Salary of Hitachi Helper

5,200 8045

Telephone Internet and Cell phone

500 0

Unspent amount (to be recovered)

40,933 23711

Total 875,627 11,52,089 Total 875,627 11,52,089

It is clear from the table above that the revenue generated during the year while excavating 45 water harvesting structures as well as other works is about Rs.11,52,089 including the opening balance of Rs.40933. The cost centers are also furnished along with respective amount spent during the year. It is evident from the table that hardly the operator and helper salary could be maintained out of the revenue that is generated. Due to shortage of funds, we could not appoint a helper throughout the year. However, it is to be noted that about 45 new water harvesting structures have been excavated during the year at subsidized rates. If we calculate the amount that has gone to these 45 farmers as subsidy, it would be about Rs.265,226. It would have been a profitable venture had we not been given this subsidized rate to the farmers. This means, once we complete the target of 100

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

water harvesting structures, the machine would generate revenues to manage the program of its own if not surplus. The team is happy about the achievement at the end of the 3rd year of intervention but only issue is that the Hitachi use is not as efficient as it was planned; though, the machine could be used even with small-little rainfall but the farmers remain engaged in farm activities and also because of the standing crops in the land, they are reluctant to take up any works during this period. Even, the revenue generation activities could also not been able to take up due to same reason. However, the maintenance and operator cost is still incurred during this period. The indicator/deliverable analysis reveals that we have far ahead of what was planned for the year in terms of achieving the indicators/deliverables agreed upon.

3. Why was this project important? The tail end farmers, having no access to assured irrigation during the peak season, can never cultivate the land that they are having for their livelihoods. Neither, they have any alternative source of their livelihoods and thus facing extreme difficulties to survive in the age of price-hike. In addition to decrease in per capita land availability, the productivity of the land has also gone down as they cannot grow the crops to their fullest extent, which has direct impact on the socio-economic as well as educational status of the communities. This intervention was extremely important for the farmers of this region for various reasons as stated below- 1) The rainfall is erratic in the region and thus cannot be depended solely on it for cultivation 2) The irrigation sources available with the farmers are not ASSURED for the crop period 3) Farmers having lift irrigation from neighboring canals cannot lift the water as the electricity is

supplied in the night hours 4) Available water from the canal is NOT adequate for irrigating the total land holding 5) The runoff generated during rainy season is wasted as the farmer does not have storage

structure and later suffers for shortage of water for irrigation.

To address all these problems, Janakalyan innovated an intervention to excavate a water harvesting structure to harvest excess water during rainy season and use the same for life saving irrigation during peak season; the same structure could also be used to lift the water during night (whenever electricity is supplied) and irrigated during convenient time. The canal water whenever runs freely, could also be stored and used during peak season for irrigation. Thus, a single intervention could address the whole lot of irrigation related issues of the farmers of Malaprabha Tail end thereby ensuring yield and thus securing the livelihoods of farming communities. This also adds to the food security of the nation by bringing more land under irrigation and increasing the productivity of the land.



23 | P a g e

4. Please attach success stories, letters, or reports from beneficiaries, where

possible. Photos, DVDs, copies of news articles, and other materials are also welcomed.

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY



25 | P a g e

C. Lessons Learned

Institution like Janakalyan implements social development projects to learn from the process for wider benefits of the society at large. Major learning of this intervention during the reporting period are listed in the subsequent sections of the report. The learning process is described below for better understanding of the readers. Proposed plan for 2013-14: The plan of action for 2013-14, as per the approved proposal, was to- 1) Create 35 water harvesting structures of 40 & 60 Hitachi hours each in the farms of tail end

farmers. 2) Use own excavator for excavation of all these 35 structures. What Did Not Work: The project did not move as per the plan but had lot of issues which we learnt during the course of execution of the plan and changed the path based on the ground reality. Some of these issues which did not work are listed below- • Standard size of 40 Hitachi hours or 60 Hitachi hours which costs more than Rs.50,000/- to

75,000/- by the farmers did not work as small farmers find difficult to manage this huge contribution. Also, many small farmers do not require such big structure.

• We did not consider the needs of the farmers who wanted tanks to store lifted water above ground level so that they can irrigate later by gravity. The highest investment requirement would be Rs.10,000-15,000/- only, which any farmer can manage.

• We also did not encourage the farm ponds excavation but only big water harvesting structures.

Mid-course Corrections: With the permission of the Deshpande Foundation, some of the mid course corrections were taken up in order to achieve the target without hindering the objectives of the program; such corrections are listed below- • Assess the needs of farmers and go ahead with excavation of water harvesting structures

according to farmers’ requirements. • We must not impose any size onto the farmers. Such practice helps only the rich and big

farmers who can invest more than Rs.50,000/- but the needy small & marginal farmers are left out of the coverage of the project.

• Small Farm ponds excavation must also be encouraged as it would also serve drinking water needs of farmers and farm animals in addition to soil moisture increment.

• Do not depend on only the own Hitachi but engage some hired JCB and Hitachi to reach out to the far away farmers even if there is a single farmer in a village.

1. What have you learned through this project? There are many learning of this intervention and the important ones are listed below- • Farm based intervention needs to be flexible as per the need of individual farmer on case to

case basis and not a rigid package like 40 hours or 60 hours of excavator to excavate water harvesting structures.

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

• The existing farm ponds / small water harvesting structures of farmers need to be deepened/ widened to make use of land effectively.

• The incremental income from same piece of land has increased by 9 times as compared to previous year due to availability of water for critical irrigation.

• Revenue generation would not be possible during the project period as the excavator need to be engaged in excavation of the water harvesting structures throughout the year; because, the demand for excavation is during the summer months when we cannot shift the excavator from the farmers’ field.

• Farmers do not show interest during the cropping period to excavate the tank (due to their engagements in farm based activities so also investment issue)

• They do not want to lose the soil moisture once it rains (as they are not sure when the next rain would come) and therefore go for sowing than excavation.

• The farmers do not foresee any immediate return from the water harvesting structure v/s crops; thus prioritize the crops than tank once it starts raining

• One excavator can hardly excavate 25-30 water harvesting structures in a year considering all external factors.

• Cost of operation would still go down if we engage 2-3 excavators instead of 1 as the human resource and other incidental expenditures remains same either for 1 or 3 excavators.

• Hardly, cost of maintenance (greasing & regular service) could be generated from the revenue generation works. Salary of operator remains an issue if fully engaged in subsidized project work.

• It’s an investment heavy intervention; the farmers have no option to use the locally available excavators (on credit) as they are solely dependent on our excavator hence they need to mobilize more than 70% of the total cost of excavation

• The period of excavation is from January to June (6 months only); further, we can add hardly another 30 days out of these 6 months

• Though there are more interested farmers in a village but fail to mobilize funds at a time • We cannot use the excavator more than 8-10 hours a day (as engaged tractors work for 8

hours a day)

These are the most important learning from our interventions with the innovative idea of owning the excavator instead of hiring it for excavation of water harvesting structures. It could be summarized by saying that it is an entrepreneurial initiative keeping the sustainability of the organization in mind; however, at least 3 excavators are to be owned at a time to break even from 3rd year onward.

2. What improvements would you make in the future? Some of the improvements proposed for future interventions would be – a) Reaching out to far away villages where the irrigation water is inadequate using the hired

excavator, if need be. b) The sizes of the future water harvesting structure shall be flexible as per the requirement

of the farming communities. c) All excavated water harvesting structures would be captured with GPS enable camera for

online tracing.



27 | P a g e

D. Future Plans

Janakalyan has completed 4th year of intervention with the financial support of Give2Asia (Deshpande Foundation Fund) with a break for a year in 2012-13. The plan for next financial year is narrated in the subsequent section of the report.

1. What are your future plans for this project? Will the project continue after this Give2Asia grant? Future Plan: Janakalyan team has planned the following activities in the next year i.e. 2014-15 keeping all learning of all these years in mind. a) Target of completing about 50 water harvesting structures in 2014-15

• 35 small water harvesting structures (30x30x10ft) • 15 big water harvesting structures (40x40x10ft) • Though we have mentioned the sizes above, but based on the learning in past, we would

not commit the same mistake by restricting to it but would go according to the needs of the farmers.

b) About 5 acres of vegetable cultivation to make effective use of water harvested in old structures.

Sustainability: The intervention of Janakalyan with the support of Give2Asia (DF Fund) would become sustainable in the following manner even after withdrawal of Janakalyan and also the donors. Sustainability of the project means, continuation of the activities even after withdrawal of Janakalyan from the project area. In this case the sustainability can be ensured if we can ensure the following 2 options- 1) Use of the water harvesting structure created by the project even after the withdrawal of

Janakalyan 2) Excavation of such structures after 3-5 years without the project support In our experience, effective use of water harvesting structures would be ensured even after the withdrawal of Janakalyan due to the following factors- The water harvesting structures would be excavated in the land of farmers and thus it would

be his/her own assets; the farmers would try and get maximum output from this piece of land in terms of irrigation water, fish cultivation, fruit trees on the bunds of the water bank, etc.

The cost sharing (50:50) concept in built in the project towards excavation of the water harvesting structure would also ensure the ownership on the structure and thus its use in long run.

Similarly, the excavation of such Water Bank even after the withdrawal of Janakalyan can be ensured with the following mechanisms- Poor farmer: The project would try to leverage resources from NREGA rather make proper use

of the NREGA funds in excavating the Water Bank, especially in the land of SC/ST of tail end of Tungabhadra Project to increase productivity.

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

Middle-class farmer: The Formal Financial Institutions (Banks) would also be sensitized to finance Water Bank in the middle class farmers’ land, for whom NREGA funds are not available.

Rich farmer: Upon successful demonstration of the concept, the rich farmers would make their own investment to create such structures in their own farms.

KVK, UAS and line departments like Agriculture, Horticulture, Fisheries and Animal Husbandry would provide technical support to the farmers from time to time towards SRI/IIFS concept.

Thus all the farmers can get water harvesting structures created in their farms to harvest runoff during the rainy season and use the same for life-saving irrigation during peak season thereby increasing the productivity of lands and thus improving the livelihoods of the rural peasant communities with your kind support.



29 | P a g e

II. Final Financial Report Please complete the following table or attach a financial report listing and summarizing all grant expenses to date. If necessary, please refer to page 7 – 8 of Give2Asia’s Grantee Manual for sample financial reports. The manual can be downloaded from our website: http://www.give2asia.org/granteemanual

A. Include original budget submitted to Give2Asia for this project: The original budget submitted to Give2Asia through Deshpande Foundation is used for reporting for 2013-14.

B. Itemize expenditures made from grant funds, such as salaries, rent and electricity, travel, and supplies The fund received and expenditure incurred against various approved items are listed below for your kind consideration.

EXPENDITURES AS DESCRIBED IN YOUR PROPOSAL

BUDGET

ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL FUNDS EXPENDED

Apr-Mar 2014 FY 1 (INR) 2013-14

FY 2 (INR) 2014-15 TOTAL in INR Total in USD

Personnel 3,99,000 3,97,224 0 3,97,224 6,737.22 Program Costs 1,29,750 1,66,250 0 1,66,250 2,819.72

Equipment 8,500 10,200 0 10,200 173.00 Travel 60,000 89,657 0 89,657 1,520.65

Staff Training/ Capacity building 0 0 0 0 - Office/ administrative costs 1,09,500 1,12,637 0 1,12,637 1,910.41

Measurement & evaluation costs 0 0 0 0 - Stipends 0 0 0 0 -

Other Expenditures 0 0 0 0 - TOTAL 7,06,750 7,75,968 0 7,75,968 13,161

**The Fiscal Year (FY) is the same as the organization’s accounting year, and may be different from the grant period. Please add or delete FY columns as needed. Kindly note that the approved budget was $13,181 as per the agreement dated 04082013 while the fund disbursed to Janakalyan is $13,161 disbursed in 2 equal installments as under –

Date USD Amount Exchange Rate 22 April 2013 $6581 354,453 53.86

10 September 2013 $6580 421,515 65.06 Total $13,161 775,968 58.96

C. Grantee fiscal year end date:

March 31

D. Total grant funds spent by the end of grantee’s most recent fiscal year: Total amount spent as on 31.3.2014 is Rs.775,968 ($13,161)

[


JANAKALYAN SOCIETY

CERTIFICATION Project Title: Water Harvesting Livelihood Improvement 2013 Grant

Name of Grantee: Janakalyan Donor: Deshpande Foundation Fund Grant Amount: US$ 13,181.00 Grant Period: April 15, 2011 to March 31, 2014 Grantee Fiscal Year End: March 31

I certify that the grant funds described in this report have been received and expended as detailed above in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Grant Agreement. Please note that the approved grant was $13181 while we have actually received $13,161 in our FC account. These expenditures are substantiated by documentation in our files.

Name: PRASEN RAPTAN Title: Executive Director

Date: 04.14.2014 *this signed certification MUST be submitted with any report for Give2Asia.

Livelihood Improvement through Water Harvesting

Documents

Transcript of Livelihood Improvement through Water Harvesting