Uttarakhand Livelihood Improvement Project for the Himalayas … Data/Knowledge Managment/PCR... · 2014. 10. 28. · UttarakhandLivelihood Improvement Project for the Himalayas at

Document Date: [Publish Date] Project No. [Insert project number] Asia Pacific Division Programme Management Department

India

Uttarakhand Livelihood Improvement Project for the Himalayas

Project completion report

Main report and appendices

India Uttarakhand Livelihoods Improvement Project for the Himalayas Project Completion Report

i

Contents

Currency equivalents iii

Weights and measures iii

Abbreviations and acronyms iv

Map of the project area v

Project at a glance vi

Executive Summary vii

A. Introduction 1

B. Project description and implementation arrangements 1

C. Project strategy and approaches 3

D. Assessment of relevance 5

E. Project costs and financing 5

F. Assessment of efficiency 7

G. Review of project output 8

H. Assessment project effectiveness 10

I Assessment of impact 12

J. Assessment of sustainability 16

K. Innovation, Replication, up-scaling 17

L. Performance of partners 18

M. Lessons learned 19

Appendix 1 Logical framework 23

Appendix 2 Record of supervision and follow-up missions 35

Appendix 3 Summary of amendments to the loan agreement 37

Appendix 4 Actual project costs 39

Appendix 5 Actual physical progress of the project 43

Appendix 6 Financial and economic analysis 53

Appendix 7 Impact on the environment 69

Appendix 8 Stakeholder workshop findings 71

Appendix 9 Evidence of outcomes and impact 77

Appendix 10 Monitoring and knowledge management 101


ii


iii

Currency equivalents

Currency Unit = India Rupee (INR / Rs)

US$1.00 = INR 59.55 (at loan closing 30 June 2013)

INR 46.75 (at appraisal)

Weights and measures

1 kilogram = 1,000 g

1 quintal = 100 kg

1,000 kg = 2,204 lb

1 kilometre (km) = 0.62 mile

1 metre = 1.09 yards

1 square metre = 10.76 square feet

1 acre = 0.405 hectare

1 hectare = 2.47 acres

1 lakh = 100,000

1 crore = 10,000,000


iv

Abbreviations and acronyms

AOS Annual Outcome Survey ULDB Uttarakhand Livestock Development Board

AWPB Annual work plan and budget ULIPH Uttarakhand Livelihood Improvement Project for the

Himalayas BCR Benefit Cost Ratio

BDS Business Development Service UOCB Uttarakhand Organic Commodity Board

BPL Below Poverty Line UPASaC UttarakhandParvatiyaAajeevikaSanvardhan Company

CCL Cash Credit Limit

CBO Community Based Organisation VP Van Panchayat (community forest)

CRP Community Resource Person VLCC Village Level Coordination Committee

DMU District Management Unit WBR Well Being Ranking

EIRR

FFI

FNGO

GIZ

GoUK

GP

IFAD

IGA

ILDC

ILSP

INBAR

JRM

KCC

KM

M&E

MAP

MD

ME

MGNREGA

MIS

MLIPH

MoU

MTR

NABARD

NBC

NGO

NPV

NREGA

NRLM

OPG

PD

PRA

PMU

RBI

RED

RIMS

SDR

SC/ST

SHG

SGSY

SME

SRTT

SVCC

SVCF

UNOPS

UGVS

Economic Internal Rate of Return

Formal financial institution

Facilitating Non Government Organisation

German Technical Assistance

Government of Uttarakhand

Group Promoter

International Fund for Agricultural Development

Income generating activity

Integrated Livestock Development Centre

Integrated Livelihood Support Project

International Network for Bamboo and Rattan

Joint Review Mission

Kishan Credit Card

Knowledge Management

Monitoring and evaluation

Medicinal and Aromatic Plants

Managing Director

Micro enterprise

Mahatma Ghandi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

Management Information System

Meghalaya Livelihood Improvement Project for the Himalayas

Memorandum of Understanding

Mid-Term Review

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

Natural Breeding Centre

Non-Government Organisation

Net Present Value

National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

National Rural Livelihoods Mission

Organic Producer Group

Project Director

Participatory Rural Appraisal

Project Management Unit

Reserve Bank of India

Regional Economic Development

Results and Impact Management System

Special Drawing Rights

Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe

Self Help Group

Swarnjayanti Gram SwarojgarYojna

Small and Medium Enterprise

Sir Ratan Tata Trust

Social Venture Capital Company

Social Venture Capital Fund

United Nations Office of Project Services

UttarakhandGramyaVikasSamiti


v

Map of the project area


vi

UttarakhandLivelihood Improvement Project for the Himalayas at a glance

Country India

Project Name Uttarakhand Livelihood Improvement Project for the Himalayas

Key Dates

IFAD Approval Signing Effectiveness Mid-Term Review

Original Completion

Actual Completion

18 December 2003 20 February 2004

1 October 2004 October 2008 31 December 2012

31 December 2012

Interim Evaluation

Original Loan Closing

Actual Loan Closing

- 30 June 2013 30 June 2013

IFAD Financing

Loan SDR million 15.90 % disbursed 89%

Grant SDR million 0 % disbursed -

Actual Costs and Financing (USD ‘000)

Components IFAD GoUK FFI/Banks Beneficiaries Total

Pre Project Implementation 3 - - - 3

Empowerment & Capacity Building 4,945 404 - - 5,349

Livelihoods Enhancement and Development

5,951 1,456 - - 7,407

Livelihood Support System 5,047 2,049 7,062 3,904 18,061

Project Management 2,615 1,323 - - 3,937

Total Project Costs 18,561 5,232 7,062 3,904 34,759

Note: converted from INR at 2012 exchange rate of INR 55 = USD 1

Number of Beneficiary Households

Total Direct Indirect Women Participating households

(SHG/VP)

47,000 42,862 4,138 39,004 42,862

Project Objective

Goal: Sustainable improvement in the quality of lives and livelihoods of disadvantaged rural households in mountain areas of Uttarakhand by 2022 Project purpose: “Quality of lives and incomes of 42,690 target disadvantaged rural mountain households in 17 Blocks of 5 Districts sustainably improved through gender-sensitive, poverty-focused, collective self-help promotion systems and adoption of better livelihood opportunities, by EOP (2012)”.

Country Partners

Executing agency Uttarakhand Gramya Vikas Samiti (UGVS) a society within the Rural Development Department as the agency responsible for implementation alongside a Social Venture Capital Company (Uttarakhand Parvatiya Aajeevika Sanvardhan Company – UPASaC).

NGOs/civil society 29 facilitating NGOs


vii

Executive Summary

1. ULIPH was designed as part of a two-state programme, with projects using a common approach

for development of livelihoods in hill areas being implemented independently in Uttarakhand and

Meghalaya. The goal of the project was the “sustainable improvement in the quality of lives and

livelihoods of disadvantaged rural households in the mountain areas of Uttarakhand by 2022”. The

project aimed to reach 42,690 households in 17 blocks of five districts. The project became effective

on 1st October 2004 and was completed in just over 8 years on 31

st December 2012.

2. The project was implemented by two agencies of the Rural Development Department of the

State Government. The Uttarakhand Gramya Vikas Samiti (UGVS) was responsible for the

mobilisation and strengthening of Self-Help Groups for savings, credit and related activities, and a

social venture capital company (SVCC) - the Uttarakhand Parvatiya Aajeevika Sanvardhan Company

(UPASaC)- was responsible for livelihoods and enterprise development.

3. The strategy of the project, as set out in the appraisal report, was to provide opportunities to

create or enhance the livelihoods of poor households by utilising the SHG movement as a platform for

livelihood development. Although there was a clear logic to this strategy, implementation has

demonstrated the following shortcomings:

Demonstrations failed to mobilise investment and the number of replications only exceeded

the number of demonstrations for three drudgery reduction technologies.

Social venture capital support failed to provide finance for enterprise development, or to

provide business development, technical and marketing services.

The division of implementation responsibilities between UGVS and UPASaC was a major

shortcoming, and UPASaC failed to work as a financing agency.

4. At design the total cost was USD 47.9 million. Of this 47% was to be financed by an IFAD loan,

13% from the Government, 28% from banks, and 12% as the beneficiaries’ contribution. Actual

expenditure was INR 1,912 million, 80% of the envisaged project cost. Actual expenditure relative to

the original allocation was 91% for IFAD, 92% for GoUK, 57% for banks, and 76% for beneficiaries.

Initially the project made slow progress, with expenditure in the first four years being only 30% of

appraisal allocation for this period. In total, for the two states, IFAD disbursed 89% of the portion of

the loan allocated to Uttarakhand.

5. The time lapse between loan approval and loan effectiveness was 9.6 months. With a total cost

of INR 1,523 million (excluding bank loans), the cost per direct beneficiary was INR 35,533 per

household/ INR 7,106 per person. The base case EIRR is estimated at 18% over a twenty year

period with a BCR of 1.27 and NPV of INR 132.11 million discounted at 12% rate. The recalculated

EIRR is below the 27% forecast at appraisal, but still at an acceptable level, even during sensitivity

analysis.

6. The project met most of its main physical targets for project outputs. In terms of overall

outreach, the Appraisal Report expected that ULIPH would reach 42,700 households: members of

SHGs or community forestry groups. Actual total membership of these organisations was 42,862

households, but around an additional 4,000 households also benefited from project activities. The

project exceeded, by a considerable margin, targets for capacity building and extension activities.

However the target for the number of enterprises to be established was unrealistic, and were not

achieved. Rural finance did not reach its targets for the number of borrowers and volume of lending.

7. The project was effective in terms of achievement of its objectives of improving the quality of the

life and livelihoods of disadvantaged rural households. There is evidence of reduction in poverty, and

increased income, along with better quality of life. Although training and demonstrations do not seem

to have been particularly effective, they do seem to have reached most households. Targeting of the

poorer households was effective. Households have benefited from community resource persons and

services provided by federations, and from dissemination of knowledge via various media. As a result

new technologies have been adopted and sales of farm products have increased, leading to

increased income.


viii

8. Impacts were positive, with some improvement in physical assets (increased productivity of

land), improved food security, environmental resources (community forest replanting), human assets

(improved knowledge especially Community Resource Persons), social empowerment (of women at

both household and community levels), increased agricultural productivity, improved access to

services, increased financial assets, and greater access to markets.

9. Project interventions and impacts will be generally sustainable, and the project did a good job in

building the capacity of SHGs and Federations, although the latter still need some more support to be

provided by ILSP, the follow-up project. However there are doubts regarding poultry interventions

that rely on inputs from government sponsored hatcheries, and some planting materials could also be

difficult to obtain without project support. Collective enterprises have shown themselves to be less

sustainable than individually owned businesses, and the demand for certified organic produce may

not justify certification on the area of land now being converted to organic farming. The recent flood

disaster illustrates the vulnerability of communications with external markets, and wild animals are a

threat to a range of field crops.

10. Lessons learned include:

(a) It was a mistake to have two separate implementing institutions (UGVS and UPASaC)

delivering services to the same households.

(b) The project would have benefited from technical personnel to support farming technologies and

address issues regarding production constraints.

(c) The approach of using demonstrations as one of the principal tools for developing livelihoods

has been shown to have some significant drawbacks.

(d) Production of certified organic produce needs to be focused on market opportunities.

(e) It is difficult to get drudgery reduction initiatives to be adopted and scaled up thought market

mechanisms unless they are either zero cost or cost reducing – giving no value to the time that

women save.

(f) It is possible for Artificial Insemination centres to generate sufficient income to be sustainable

through the provision of other services alongside AI.

(g) Although some SHG Federations successfully provided backward and forward linkages, it

should not be expected that such linkages should always be provided by collective enterprises,

as experience shows that these are more likely to fail than those operated by individuals.

(h) It was a mistake to attempt to carry out such a large volume of training, and greater emphasis

should have been given to training quality and follow-up.

(i) Regarding monitoring and evaluation:

The information generated by RIMS anchor indicator surveys was of very limited value in

assessing project impact

Impact evaluation surveys need to collect data on logframe indicators, or at least use

indicators that measure progress towards the stated objectives of the project.

Annual outcome surveys generated some useful data, but could have been more focused

on specific project interventions.

Although the project gave more attention than most to M&E, there is still a need for more

capacity and resources for M&E to track outputs, measure outcomes and produce

convincing evidence of impact.

(j) Knowledge Management can be an effective way to disseminate information - but staff need

considerable training to operate a KM system, while KM competes for management resources

with other project activities.


1

A. Introduction

1. The Uttarakhand Livelihood Improvement Project for the Himalayas (ULIPH) was part of a two-

state programme, with two projects being implemented independently - one in the north-western

Indian state of Uttarakhand and the other in the north-eastern state of Meghalaya. The projects used

a common approach to development of livelihoods for rural people living in remote and less

developed hill areas.

B. Project Description and Implementation Arrangements

2. The goal of the project was the “sustainable improvement in the quality of lives and livelihoods of

disadvantaged rural households in the mountain areas of Uttarakhand by 2022”, which was to be

achieved via the development objective of the “quality of lives and incomes of 42,690 target

disadvantaged rural mountain households in 17 blocks of five districts sustainably improved through

gender sensitive, poverty focused collective self-help promotion systems and adoption of better

livelihood opportunities by EOP (2012)". The project became effective on 1st October 2004 and was

completed on 31st December 2012, with an implementation period of just over 8 years.

3. The four project components were: (i) empowerment and capacity building of community

organisation and their support organisation – involving the formation of 4,000 women’s self-help

groups (SHG) and their organisation into federations; (ii) livelihood enhancement and development –

involving the introduction of improved production technologies, soil, water and forest resource

development; (iii) livelihood support systems – involving the establishment of a social venture capital

company (SVCC) to provide support for enterprise development and micro-finance delivery through

SHG linkages with banks and the SVCC; and (iv) effective project management – involving the

establishment of the Uttarakhand Gramya Vikas Samiti (UGVS) a society within the Rural

Development Department as the agency responsible for implementation alongside the SVCC

(Uttarakhand Parvatiya Aajeevika Sanvardhan Company – UPASaC).

4. To implement the project, UGVS established a state level PMU along with offices in the five

project districts. To support the formation and strengthening of SHGs and other implementation

works (such as capacity building, formation and strengthening of federations etc.) 29 Facilitating

NGOs (FNGO) were hired by UGVS. In the last three years of the project FNGOs were withdrawn in

phases and 54 SHG federations were contracted as implementing agencies. UPASaC had

responsibility for enterprise development, and was to provide advice and technology demonstrations

through a sub-sector business development services approach. It also established offices in each

district. Other agencies (consulting companies and NGOs) were contracted for specific tasks – such

as surveys and training. UGVS also signed MoUs with a number of government agencies.

5. The project was guided by a Project Steering Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary, which

met twice a year to review progress, approve NGO selection, and approve the Annual Work Plan and

Budget (AWPB). There was also a Management Committee chaired by the Forest and Rural

Development Commissioner (FRDC), which also reviewed progress and AWPB, along with project

accounts. In total there were 25 Management Committee meetings over the eight year project period.

With two agencies (UGVS and UPASaC) responsible for implementation at the field level, the

Management Committee was the forum to coordinate this twin track approach until 2009 when a

unified command structure was set up.

6. In each district, a District Level Coordination and Monitoring Committee(DLCMC) was formed

and chaired by the Zila Panchayat Adhyaksh (elected head of the district council) with the CDO as

Secretary. At block level, a Block Level Coordination and Monitoring Committee(BLCMC) was formed

and chaired by the elected head of the Block Council with the BDO as secretary. At the village level,

there a Village Level Coordination Committee (VLCC) was formed and chaired by the Gram Pradhan

(elected head of the Gram Sabha – village council). The VLCC was to review progress, monitor

implementation and identify opportunities for convergence with other programmes. These three


2

levels of coordination committees were planned to meet quarterly, but in practice only two or three

meetings per year were possible.

7. For the initial year or so, the district and block committees were split into two – a coordination

committee under chairman of the elected representative and a monitoring committee chaired by the

admin head – the District Magistrate and Block Development Officer. Membership was much the

same – line agencies, banks, NGOs, and project staff.

8. Within its project area of 17 blocks in 5 districts, ULIPH worked in a total of 959 revenue villages

arranged in 53 clusters of around 18 villages each. These 959 villages were selected from the 2980

villages in the 17 blocks on the basis of inaccessibility and potential for livelihood development.

Within the selected villages, a participatory well-being ranking, based on a sustainable livelihoods

framework, was carried out. This categorised households in five well-being ranks. At the start of the

project there were 63,161 households in the selected villages, of which 51,952 were in ranks 1 to 4

and so defined as being within the project target group. A total of 42,690 households joined project

SHGs and CBOs, the remaining 9,262 households either belonged to existing SHGs not adopted by

ULIPH, lacked manpower for livelihood activities, lived too far from the village, or were otherwise

unwilling to participate.

9. The project aimed to improve the position of women. It was envisaged that the majority of SHG

members would be women. With SHGs being the platform for livelihood interventions, women would

be at the centre of livelihood improvement and enterprise development. Initiatives to reduce women’s

drudgery were also planned. At completion, around 95% of SHG members were women, as were

66% of people attending training, workshops and exposure visits, while 82% of demonstrations were

implemented by women.

10. Project design envisaged UPASaC having three main activities: (i) livelihood promotion through

training, demonstrations, and employment of grass-roots business promoters; (ii) identification of

investment opportunities and joint ventures (especially for enterprises that would provide back-ward

and forward linkages for farmers); and (iii) enterprise financing (through a Social Venture Capital Fund

to provide equity and near-equity finance for enterprises that will enable them to leverage loans from

banks) as well as assistance in obtaining bank loans.

11. UPASaC took a long time to become operational. It was not incorporated as a Section 25 (not-

for-profit company) until 29th March 2006, a CEO was not appointed and in post until July 2006 (but

continued to have other responsibilities), and operations only really started in February 2007. This

meant there was no support for livelihood development until the third year of implementation. Even

when UPASaC did get going, progress was initially hindered by the twin track approach working

alongside, but separately from, UGVS. Both agencies had their own district offices and staff, and

UPASaC seems to have been unsure if its role was as a livelihood extension agency or as a

commercially viable financing institution1. There was no business plan for UPASaC in the project

design document. Not until October 2008 was a business plan was drawn up by ASEED (an NGO

from Delhi), but this was just a series of plans for different enterprise clusters with profits calculated in

terms of returns to producers. There was no proposal on how UPASaC would generate income or

projection of its income and expenditure.

12. The UPASaC CEO left to take up another appointment in December 2008, and following

recommendations of the JRM in July-August 2009 that a Deputy Project Director/CEO be recruited for

UPASaC, reporting to the Project Director of UGVS, it was decided in October 2009 to effectively

merge the two organisations at the operational level.

13. Although this merger streamlined field activities, and dramatically increased the pace of

livelihood promotion activities (training, demonstrations etc.), the financing role of the SVCF did not

1The Appraisal Report (para 170) stated that “the clients selected for implementing demonstrations would be required to repay

20-30% of the cost of productive investments to the SVCC only after the demonstration has been proven successful and the client has started earning the required return required to cover both the opportunity of if the client and the investment made by the SVCC”. This statement cause a considerable amount of confusion, and SVCC seems to have thought this partial return of demonstration funds could be re-invested to generate income to cover its overhead costs and ensure its sustainability.


3

take off. The IFAD review mission in 2011 recommended that a financial specialist be hired to

manage UPASaC, or at least the SVCF - while still keeping it within the overall orbit of UGVS. Some

guidelines for the operation of the SVCF were drawn up by a consultant in August 2010, but without

designing the implementation process. In May 2011 Bharat Parekh was provided by INBAR to draw

up these operational guidelines and fill in missing bits, and these were approved by the PMC in

September 2011. These allow the SVCF to become a lender rather than a provider of equity finance

(which is difficult if enterprises are not registered companies and lack a shareholding structure).

14. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a series of regulations for the micro-finance sector in

2011. Some of these regulations could be read as preventing the SVCF from providing loans of the

size required for enterprise financing and envisaged in the new SVCF operational guidelines. The

project asked RBI to provide guidance on this, or provide the SVCF with an exemption, but was

unable to get written advice on this matter. It has therefore gone ahead with a more restricted client

group than that envisaged in the guidelines, providing loans only to ULIPH SHGs, Federations or

Cooperatives of SHG members2. The first loan was provided in October 2012, only three months

before the project completion date. A time line of SVCF progress is in Appendix 5 Table 9.

C. Project Strategy and Approaches

15. The strategy and approaches of ULIPH are rated as moderately unsatisfactory (rating = 3). The

strategy of the project, as set out in the appraisal report, was to provide opportunities to create or

enhance the livelihoods of poor households by utilising the SHG movement as the platform from

which project activities will be launched. The project would also provide a range of support services

and linkages. The project’s strategic focus thus would be to:

(i) enable the project participants to select the livelihood activities most suited to their resources,

skills, and interests by adopting a sub-sector approach;

(ii) emphasize the agency role of women from the very outset and follow a strategy that allows for

the expression of their perceived needs and priorities, addressing the same, and thereby

increase the effective participation of women in local institutions and decision-making processes

within the community;

(iii) make people more aware of the need to preserve and regenerate natural resources, particularly

water, forests and biodiversity;

(iv) establish effective and appropriate delivery systems for inputs and for the maintenance of assets

and resources, with emphasis on microfinance, savings and micro-insurance;

(v) mobilise and organise the target households into institutions at the grassroots level and invest

intensively in the capacity of these institutions;

(vi) promote a micro-enterprise based model of rural development by providing business support

services and linkages to create an enabling environment;

(vii) demonstrate through pilots and seed projects, various models of livelihood opportunities based

on local resources, markets and skills;

(viii) provide social venture capital support with a range of financial, business development, technical,

and marketing services;

(ix) implement the model in a highly participatory and democratic manner through the agency of

NGOs, public and cooperative institutions, community organisations, involving Government

departments and private sector organizations where possible; and

(x) establish an autonomous Rural Development Society to provide project management services

and develop a model for genuine participatory management as well as sustainability of the

impact beyond the project period.

16. Although there was a clear logic to this strategy, the approaches to project implementation have

demonstrated the following shortcomings in terms of the outcomes resulting from project outputs:

2 To administer the SVCF, UPASaC signed MoU with two banks of the state (Uttarakhand Gramin Bank and the District

Cooperative Bank).


4

Demonstrations did not result in enterprises developing as planned – this is mentioned in

most supervision reports. Demonstrations failed to mobilise investment and the number of

replications only exceeded the number of demonstrations for three drudgery reduction

technologies (see Appendix 5, Table 3).

Social venture capital support failed to provide finance for enterprise development, or to

provide business development, and technical and marketing services. The Project Design

Document did not set out a business plan for the SVCC showing how it was to become self-

financing – although this was clearly an objective of the SVCC management.

The division of implementation responsibilities between UGVS and UPASaC was a major

shortcoming. Local NGOs have useful experience in community mobilisation and livelihood

development, yet were only contracted by UGVS to form and support SHGs as livelihood

development was seen as the responsibility of UPASaC. These agencies were only formally

coordinated through the Project Management Committee – meeting around three times per

year. Supervision Reports repeatedly speak of the lack of coordination at the district level

between UGVS and UPASaC.

Despite efforts at project start-up to make UPASaC work effectively (a one day brainstorming

workshop was held chaired by the FRDC and attended by leading national experts on

livelihood financing as well as senior staff from state departments),UPASaC failed to work

(until the very end of the project period) as a financing agency (see above), while its efforts in

livelihood promotion do not seem to have had the desired outcome (see Review of Outputs

below).

17. Targeting strategy in the project document was to reach households below and just above the

poverty line. This was to be achieved by: (i) selection of the blocks and villages that have relatively

high incidence of poverty, and a higher ratio of the SC/ST population; (ii) integrated assistance in using

available natural resources more productively through appropriate small scale interventions in

agriculture, livestock, horticulture, and water resources with affordable technologies; and (iii) focussing

the demonstration only to the households below poverty line, thus creating a model that is suitable for

them and which would also mean differential levels of assistance between the relatively worse-off and

better-off. Tools such as PRA for poverty mapping, the identification of self-targeted activities, and

intensive sensitisation programmes would be used to achieve this goal.

18. This approach was partly effective. Village clusters were selected on the basis of inaccessibility

(which can be taken as a proxy for poverty) and potential for livelihood development. Within the

selected villages, a participatory well-being ranking, based on a sustainable livelihoods framework

was carried out. This shows that the poorest group were under-represented in project SHGs, which

including an equal proportion of members from the richest group. However project activities -

inclusion in safety nets, training and demonstrations redress the balance, with more of the poorest

households and fewer of the richest households participating (see Table 4 below)

19. Gender strategy and targeting The project design envisaged that, as most of the SHGs

members are likely to be women, and SHGs are the basic platform on which the project interventions

will take place, women would benefit significantly from the project. This was to be reinforced by

ensuring: (i) women are well represented in PMUs, NGOs, and grassroots institutions; (ii) training on

gender at various levels; (iii) building gender concerns into all capacity development aspects of the

project; (iv) introduction of technologies to reduce women’s drudgery; and (v) gender-orientated

monitoring and documentation of women’s stories and experiences. Given that rural women were

(and still are) significantly disadvantaged in the state (this is well described in the design report) this

strategy was appropriate and, by and large, has been implemented with some positive outcomes.

20. NGO strategy The strategy in the project design was for UGVS to recruit a number of local

NGOs as Facilitating NGOs (FNGO) only for social mobilisation. Because their capacity was thought

to be limited, a larger Resource NGO (RNGO) would be contracted to support them. Most of these

FNGO also had experience and expertise in livelihood development but, as this was the responsibility

of UPASaC, it was not part of their task for UGVS. This caused considerable frustration and, in

practice, many FNGOs did activities related to livelihoods very successfully (see Appendix 9, Case


5

Study 4). Although the process to engage State level RNGO was initiated, this could not be

completed because of lack of procurement approvals.

D. Assessment of Project Relevance

21. This is rated as satisfactory (=5). In terms with alignment with government policies for rural

development, the project was highly relevant. At the time of project design GoI was placing emphasis

on SHGs as a platform for poverty alleviation and livelihood development, and also envisaged a

greater role of local government. ULIPH was in line with the policy on using SHGs as a platform for

development – this was also the focus of IFAD’s COSOP at that time. The Government has

continued to focus on SHGs and these are at the core of the National Rural Livelihoods Mission.

22. The SVCC was an innovation, with a role that was not really envisaged in government policy at

the time – it could be said to be ahead of its time as some of its objectives in terms of promoting

enterprises for backward and forward linkages are now part of the Small Farmer Agribusiness

Consortium. The fact that it represented “out of the box” thinking, coupled with parallel

implementation at the grassroots level, could have contributed to the problems that it faced during

project implementation.

23. On the other hand, the project design, apart from a very limited amount of training, did not

propose any specific support for Federations – although it does mention FNGO offices being taken

over by Block Level Federations. In implementing the project UGVS has put a considerable effort and

resources into the formation and strengthening of Federations, with 72 being formed at the cluster

level to be in closer contact with SHGs than more remote block-level federations.

24. Feedback gathered from SHG and Federation members (see Appendix 8) shows that they would

have liked greater inclusion of men when it comes to business promotion. While from a gender

perspective, the high level of female participation in SHG and Federations is good, SHG members

and Federation leaders say this is now hampering the development of their businesses. The project

has responded to this by gradually widening membership of Federations. Initially, due to governance

issues, the project did not allow non-SHG members to join the federations but, as the project evolved,

membership for men, non-SHG households in project villages, and membership from non-project

villages have been included in the by-laws of cooperatives. However it is fair to say that currently

membership is still dominated by SHG members.

25. Another point made by SHG members is that the project did not support goat rearing, which they

feel would have been a useful enterprise. Project management were unwilling to include goats in the

menu of enterprises to be supported for fear of possible damage to forests. A further comment, from

both SHG members and local government representatives, was the lack of technical manpower,

especially in animal production, at the field level.

26. Feedback from NGOs is that the ULIPH design was very good and highly relevant to the needs

of poor people in rural Uttarakhand, but fell down in terms of implementation modalities and

management.

E. Project Costs and Financing

27. Financial management has been moderately satisfactory (=4). At design the total estimated

project cost was USD 47.93 million for Uttarakhand. Of this 46.8% was to be financed through an

IFAD loan, 13% from the Government of Uttarakhand, 28.4% from banks and financial institutions,

and 11.8% was the beneficiaries’ contribution. Actual expenditure was INR 1,912 million, 79.7% of

the originally envisaged overall project cost. The project costs by component and financier is given in

Table 1 of Appendix 4. Actual expenditure relative to the original allocation by financier was 91% for

IFAD, 92% for GoUK, 57% for banks and financial institutions, and 76% for beneficiaries.

Expenditure against appraisal targets is shown in Table 2(a) of Appendix 4. Table 2(b) depicts the

performance of financiers by year. The expenditure in each of the first four years was less than 10%

of total project expenditure and increased steadily thereafter.


6

28. Considering the initial slow progress of the project, with expenditure in the first four years being

only 30% of appraisal allocation for this period, the MTR revised the project cost by reducing the IFAD

loan by USD 5 million for Meghalaya and Uttarakhand, with the remaining balance spread over the

remaining project period, thereby increasing the yearly targets post MTR. The reduction of the loan

amount of USD 5 million was restored to the project in 2012-3. Since no activity was taken up under

the Category of Civil Works, the amount allocated for this was withdrawn.

29. In total, for the two states, IFAD disbursed 84% of the loan funds committed for the project. Of

the portion of the loan allocated to Uttarakhand, 89% was disbursed. Total loan allocation and

disbursement is depicted in Table 3 of Appendix 4. All withdrawal applications which had been

submitted have been cleared by IFAD, and there are no withdrawal applications pending for disbursal.

The release of GoUK’s share was in accordance with the project financing agreement.

30. The total for all AWPBs over the entire project period was INR 2,340 million against which INR

1,912 million (81.7%) was actually utilized. The AWPB was much higher than the programme cost

since activities that were achieved in one year were carried forward to a subsequent year. However

the achievement against AWPB for each year will give an indication of the efficiency in terms of

meeting the targets set. Table 4 of Appendix 4 displays the actual expenses against AWPB by year

over the entire programme period.

31. Out of the funds allocated for the various components, the project spent the entire allocation for

Project Management, 69.7% for Empowerment and Capacity Building, 57.9% for Livelihoods Support

System and 38.3% for Livelihoods Enhancement and Development. The expenditure incurred by

components and by year is shown in Table 5 of Appendix 4.

32. A sum of INR 48 million was disbursed to UPASaC in 2006 as a capital fund for rural finance to

be invested in the equity and quasi-equity of enterprises. However only INR 5.85 million was utilised

to fund 43 schemes, and that was only at the end of the project in 2012-13. This capital fund was

placed in bank fixed deposit accounts, and the interest earned on this corpus up to the end of June

2013 was INR 36.3 million. Thus UPASaC has effectively INR 78.46 million lying unutilised. Besides

this the beneficiary contribution/BDS charges towards the project of INR 41.9 million is also available

to UPASaC.

33. In accordance with the project design the beneficiaries were supposed to contribute towards the

project cost, especially through contributing a share of the cost of successful demonstrations. The

project did not have a proper system for collection of beneficiary contribution and lacked clarity as to

the amount to be collected, the procedure to be followed and utilisation of the funds. This led to

misunderstandings amongst the beneficiaries as well as the project staff. The total amount collected

of INR 41.9 million is has now been accounted for and has been transferred to UPASaC, so

increasing their cumulative corpus fund from INR 78.46 million to INR 120.36 million.

34. The project lacked adequate systems for the maintenance of uniform accounting records at the

district offices and the PMU, and lacked adequate internal control systems. The record of assets was

not properly maintained and in some cases did not show the details of the assets against the date of

purchase, cost etc and, in some cases, the location. Physical verification of the assets was not

regularly carried out and the assets, except vehicles, were not insured. Procurement also was an area

of concern, and most IFAD/UNOPS review missions commented on proper procurement systems not

being followed and inadequate documentation. These issues were also raised by the auditors,

besides the issue of not fully complying with the statutory obligations. Some of these issues were

addressed by conducting an internal audit during the latter part of project implementation.

35. The books of accounts of the NGOs in respect of the utilisation of project funds were audited by

the project auditors. The accounts of the SHGs were also audited by the auditors appointed and

financed by the project but their audit observations are not available. Such reports could have

provided feedback to the project to improve their record keeping and recovery of loans, and to

3GoI did not agree to a partial loan cancellation. The amount of the IFAD remaining undisbursed to the two states at the end of

the project period was approximately USD 6.5 million.


7

undertake further capacity building to rectify deficiencies, if any. Annual audits were conducted in a

timelyfashion by independent auditors and certified reports were submitted to IFAD in accordance

with the financing agreement. The auditors carried out a detailed audit and reported their

observations. An audit log has been maintained by the project.

36. The fund flow from the Government to the Project was generally delayed during the first quarter

of the fiscal year but the Project activities did not suffer as it had sufficient funds in the bank unspent

from earlier years.

37. UNOPS/ IFAD review missions did not include a Financial Management / Procurement Specialist

until post MTR. Thus the opportunity of raising and resolving financial management and procurement

issues earlier during the project implementation was lost.

F. Assessment of Project Efficiency

38. Efficiency is rated as satisfactory (=5). Time dimension: the time lapse between loan approval

and loan effectiveness was 9.6 months, less than the IFAD average of 12.3 months, but slightly above

the average for the Asia and Pacific Region (9.1 months). The pace of project implementation was

held back in the initial years, and hence expenditure of project funds lagged behind appraisal

forecasts (Figure 1). With a total cost of INR 1,523 million (excluding bank loans), the cost per

beneficiary, for the 42,862 directly benefiting members of project groups was INR 35,533 per

household. With about 5 persons per household, the cost per person was INR 7,106. This compares

with INR 8,025 per person for MLIPH If around 4,000 other benefiting households are included, the

cost per person falls to INR 6,481 (USD 118 at current exchange rates). This is significantly higher

than the average USD 33 per person for all IFAD projects approved in the last five years.

Figure 1: Cumulative total project expenditure

39. The Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) has been recalculated for 42,862 directly

benefitting households. Quantifiable benefits include: (i) crop and livestock production increases for

farmers, including replication of demonstrations as recorded by the project; (ii) additional income

generated by enterprises; and (iii) benefits from common activities. The project investment cost is the

total project expenditure at June 2013 prices less taxes. The costs included all investments for all

project components as well as replacements(if any), recurrent costs and also investments from

convergence.

40. With these assumptions, the base case EIRR is estimated at 18% over twenty year period with a

BCR of 1.27 and NPV of INR 132.11 million discounted at 12% rate. The EIRR declines to 14% if

there was no replication and to 14% if benefits delayed by two years. The recalculated EIRR is below

that forecast at appraisal, but still at an acceptable level, as it is above the discount rate, even during

sensitivity analysis (see Table 1).

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

Cu

mu

lati

ve e

xpe

nd

itu

re IN

R

mill

ion

Appraisal estimate


8

Table 1: Economic Internal Rate of Return

At Appraisal At PCR

Base case IRR 27% 18%

2 year lag in benefits, IRR 19% 14%

Costs increased by 10%, IRR 26% 15%

Benefits declined by 10%, IRR 26% 15%

No replication, IRR - 14%

41. Sensitivity analysis shows that this base rate is slightly more sensitive to benefits shortfalls

occurring after the end of the investment period, than to cost increases of the same magnitude

occurring over the same period. After the investment period, the costs increases would only concern

recurrent and replacement costs, hence the increase is unlikely to have an impact on the EIRR.

Details of EIRR calculations are in Appendix 6.

G. Review of Project Outputs

42. The project met most of its main physical targets for project outputs and is rated satisfactory

(=5).

43. Mobilisation of community organisations and total outreach The project met most if its main

physical targets for project outputs. In terms of overall outreach, the Appraisal Report expected that

ULIPH would reach 42,700 households, being members of SHGs or Van Panchayats (VP -

community forestry groups). Actual total membership of Community Based Organisations (SHGs and

VPs) at completion of the project was 42,862, but around an additional 4,000 households, who were

not members of these CBOs, may have benefited from: (i) replication of pilot and demonstration

activities by non-group members - this especially applies to Napier grass, water pitchers and, more

recently, solar lanterns; (ii) non-group members marketing their crops via ULIPH Federations - 249

non-group farmers in Uttarkashi have been selling peas in this way; and (iii) an estimated 2,570

households who were facilitated to get social welfare benefits, but did not join project groups. Adding

these addition benefited households gives a total outreach of around 47,000 households.

44. Capacity building and extension activities The project exceeded, by a considerable margin,

appraisal targets for capacity building and extension activities covering community mobilisation and

livelihoods. Excluding the staff of the project and partners these include:

Training: 135,207 persons trained compared to an appraisal target of 19,690

Visits and tours: 10,110 persons participated compared to an appraisal target of 2,260

Workshops: 23,372 persons participated (not possible to define an appraisal target in terms of

number of persons).

Demonstrations: 154,907 household level demonstrations compared to an appraisal target of

20,841.

45. Clearly, with an outreach of about 47,000 households, many individual households participated

in these events on more than one occasion. Further details are in Appendix 5 Table 1.Training and

demonstrations were not as effective as was hoped - see paragraphs 106 regarding training and 100

regarding demonstrations.

46. The project would have benefited from technical personnel to support farm technologies and to

address issues regarding production constraints. For example, there have been mixed reports of the

performance of Kuroilers, which might suggest that they did well in some places but not in others for

some technical or management reason. Many of the crops grown in polyhouses did not grow well –

the reasons for this were not understood and the project was not able to take any actions to correct

this problem.


9

47. Enterprise development The project planned to support the establishment of household level

micro-enterprises (ME), and larger small and medium enterprises (SME). The latter were planned to

make backward and forward linkages between producers and the market. The appraisal report targets

for the number of ME to be set up was 26,290 and for SME was 2,4484. Project data shows that

9,060 ME and 804 SME have emerged, although relatively few of the SME are forward and backward

linkage enterprises. The 2010 and 2011 Annual Outcome Surveys(AOS) found that 17.5% of project

households have non-farm enterprises, which would amount to a total of about 6,500 ME. All these

estimates are significantly lower than the appraisal targets. Even if livelihoods activities had got going

earlier, it is unlikely that appraisal targets would have been reached, and it can be considered that

these targets were unrealistic. Data on some of the enterprise sectors supported indicates better

results from dairy than poultry (see Appendix 9 sections D and E). Although large numbers of farmers

were involved in seed and organic crops, average sales per farmer were low (see Appendix 9 section

B).

48. Supporting services Project design envisaged that Community Resource Persons (CRP) would

deliver a range of services - bookkeeping for SHGs, animal health and artificial insemination (AI),

assisting with MAP, and facilitating bank linkages. This expectation has largely been met. A total of

over 300 CRPs (most women) have been selected and trained to provide a range of services,

including certification of organic produce, as well as the services just mentioned above. The impact

survey records that almost all households report having accessed CRPs for organic farming, and

almost two-thirds for the dairy sector and paravets (see Appendix 5 Table 4). To support the dairy

sector, ULIPH worked with the Uttarakhand Livestock Development Board to establish 22 Integrated

Livestock Development Centres staffed by CRPs trained as paravets to provide AI and other livestock

related services. By the end of the project these centres were inseminating over 500 cows and

buffaloes per month, and moving towards becoming sustainable from the income generated by the

services provided (see Appendix 9 section D).

49. Rural finance The project did not reach its targets for provision of rural financial services. It did

not reach the target of all 42,700 households involved in community savings and credit activities. The

project design envisaged that VP as well as SHG members would be involved, but in practice only

SHGs took up this activity (in India VPs are not normally savings and credit groups, and VP members

who want to do this join an SHG). ULIPH formed a total of 3,560 SHGs, more than the appraisal

target of 2,846, but they had fewer members, only 10.4 on average compared with the appraisal

assumption of 15. Although all 36,856 SHG members have been regularly saving, at project

completion only 14,554 were active borrowers, and only 2,175 of 3,560 SHGs are credit-linked to

banks, with cumulative bank loans amounting to INR 79.5 million (compared to a target of INR 300

million)5. Term loans totalled INR132.6 million, and group members had Kishan Credit Card limits of

INR 73.1 million (the target for these together was INR 310 million). See Appendix 5 Tables 4 to 8.

50. SHG loan recovery was not monitored – at least in the latter stages of the project after the FNGO

left. This is a critical indicator regarding the health and sustainability of SHGs, and it is of concern to

note that a number of supervision missions noted that loan recovery was not at the desired level.

51. To expand the outreach of banking services, the project attempted to promote the Business

Correspondent (BC) model of banking agents. An agreement with SBI (the largest bank in the state)

was signed in December 2011, with project field staff (Group Promoters and Business Promoters)

acting as BCs (these posts would later be absorbed into Federations). However the terms offered by

SBI was not as favourable as those offered by other banks and the agreement was terminated in July

2012. It may be difficult to make this model work in the hills, given the scattered population and low

demand for bank loans.

4 The appraisal report sets few numerical targets at output levels, and it is difficult to compare volumes for activities in project

cost tables with actual achievements as the units used other often not comparable (i.e. hectares and households), or units in cost tables are not specified. However the original logframe mentions 2,448 linkage enterprises while the revised logframe includes the target of 26,290 household level enterprises. 5It seems that fewer people than anticipated wanted to join ULIPH SHGs. In particular members of some existing SHGs did not

want to have them adopted by ULIPH, preferring to stick with their existing programmes.


10

52. The project design anticipated that the Social Venture Capital Fund (SVCF) would be used to

finance equity and quasi-equity investments in small-scale linkage enterprises. As already described,

UPASaC did not disburse any of the Social Venture Capital Fund (SVCF) until the last three months

of the project. In these final months, 43 loans were disbursed for enterprises being established by

Federations, SHGs and cooperatives. However only two of these could be described as linkage

enterprises (collective marketing and tejpatta (bay leaf) collection and trading) although two other

loans were partly used for input-output centres, with most investments being for weaving, livestock

production and non-farm sector trading. The equity and quasi-equity financing did not materialise - it

was unrealistic to assume that these small businesses would have formal share-holding structures.

The 43 SVCF loans amounted to INR 5.9 million, which was 33% of the total investment, with 36%

coming from bank loans, 20% from ULIPH grants via Federations and 11% owners' contribution. This

seems to show that SVCF loans have largely substituted for bank loans and added relatively little

value to the financing package.

H. Assessment of Project Effectiveness

53. The effectiveness of the project is rated as satisfactory (=5) and can be assessed in terms of the

degree to which it achieved its objectives as set out in the logframe. The revised logframe stated the

goal of the project to be:“Sustainable improvement in the quality of lives and livelihoods of

disadvantaged rural households in mountain areas of Uttarakhand by 2022”, and the project purpose

(development objective) to be: “Quality of lives and incomes of 42,690 target disadvantaged rural

mountain households in 17 Blocks of 5 Districts sustainably improved through gender-sensitive,

poverty-focused, collective self-help promotion systems and adoption of better livelihood

opportunities, by EOP (2012)”.

54. Evidence of reduction in poverty is provided by a follow-up well-being ranking survey carried out

in 2009 covering a sample of 30 villages where SHG were formed in 2005 and 2006. It was not

possible to make another assessment later in the project due to a change in WBR criteria. Results of

the survey in Table 2 show a significant upward movement, especially for the poorer households.

Survey respondents attributed this change to a range of factors, including project interventions.

Table 2: Change in Well Being Ranking

WBR rank (lowest = 1)

Percentage of households in each WBR rank

Move up Remain same Move down Net change

WBR 1 60% 40% n/a n/a

WBR 2 62% 28% 10% +52%

WBR 3 26% 57% 16% +10%

WBR 4 37% 42% 20% +17%

WBR 5 n/a 60% 40% n/a

Source: Well Being Ranking of Ajeevika Project, Pragmatix 2009.

55. Other evidence of improvement in living standards comes from changes in quality of housing,

sanitation and water supply, and from increased ownership of household assets. Both the RIMS and

impact surveys6 show an improvement in the materials used for house construction and better means

of sanitation (use of proper toilets) and domestic water supply (use of piped water). However

comparison with a control group in the impact study shows that these indicators also improved for

non-project households, and the difference in the improvement between the control and project

groups is smaller than for agricultural-related indicators. This suggests that non-project households

pursued a different livelihood strategy, which improved their living standards, although not to the

same extent as project households. See Appendix 9 Tables 21 to 26.

56. The impact study also collected data on changes in overall household income. However it is not

easy for rural households, with multiple sources of often seasonal income, to estimate their current

income, let alone to recall the value of income eight years ago. Nevertheless it appears that project

6 Both RIMS anchor indicator and socio-economic surveys were separately conducted at baseline, mid-term and completion.

The impact survey referred to in this report is the socio-economic study carried out at project completion.


11

households think their income has increased to a greater extent than non-project households. The

impact survey also collected data on changes to income from livestock and enterprises – again this

data may not be reliable, but the project group report larger increases than the control group. The

Annual Outcome Surveys (AOS) show more project than control group farmers report sales of farm

products. Of farmers reporting sales, more project farmers report growth in these sales than the

control group.

57. The project aimed that participating households would adopt better livelihood opportunities.

Large numbers of households have established or expanded various farm and non-farm enterprises,

generating increased income and thereby improving living standards. Examples are in Table 3.

Table 3: Adoption of Livelihood Opportunities

Enterprise households Total scale Enterprise households Total scale

Micro-dairy 661 1,116 cows Apiculture 1,111 1187 hives

Kuroiler mother units 164 123,000 birds sold Spices 1,149 73 ha

Organic farming 9,927 2,912 ha MAP 1,210 66 ha

Seed production 10,316 3,316 ha Non-farm 323 Rs21 m sales

Off-season vegetables 10,902 902 ha Eco-tourism 171 27 units

Note: the above enterprises were recorded as active at the end of the project. Other households will have participated in these enterprises at some time during the project period, or are not recorded in this data.

58. Alongside establishment of new enterprises was the dissemination and adoption of improved

production practices. Data from the impact survey shows increases in use of organic fertilisers and

pesticides, and adoption of new crop varieties and improved seeds was, for project farmers, about

double that of the control group (Appendix 9 Table 5). Bigger differences were observed for adoption

of a number of soil and water conservation technologies. Amongst project households, 77% report

composting and 70% vermi-composting compared with 22% and 5% for the control group (Appendix 7

Table 1). In the 2011 AOS, 72% of project group farmers reported adopting a new technology,

compared with only 6% of the control group.

“The literature shared by ULIPH made us aware about the techniques of organic farming and vegetable

cultivation and subsequently many people in our village benefitted from this knowledge,” (SHG members from

Uttarkahi district)

59. Most farm work is done by women and technologies were introduced to reduce the workload of

women – and so the drudgery of their lives along with risks to their health. These included Napier

grass (to reduce the need to find and cut fodder in the forest), lightweight water pitchers, smokeless

stoves, vermi-compost pits, cattle feeding troughs, power tillers, threshing machines, chaff cutters,

and small farm tools. Most of them had substantial impacts in reducing the workload of women and

even improving their health – but smokeless stoves have now been superseded by bottled gas and so

did not catch on, while sickles and chaff cutters were not really suitable for their tasks. However

only the Napier grass and the water pitchers have really caught on in terms of being replicated and

up-scaled without project support (plus, more recently, solar lanterns). The reason for this may be

that other technologies require some additional investment, and with few income earning

opportunities for women, the opportunity cost of their time is virtually zero. Further details are in

Appendix 9, Section A and Case Studies1 and 2.

60. Targeting performance: to ensure that the poor participated in the project, the poverty category

of SHG members and participants in other activities was monitored. Table 4 compares project

participation with the WBR (well-being category) of the total population of ULIPH villages. This shows

that, relative to the village population, SHGs had fewer members from WBR I (the poorest) and WBR

IV (the richest) categories. However if 2,750 welfare recipients whose benefit claims were facilitated

by the project are added, but who did not join SHGs (out of a total of 4,298 welfare recipients – the

others having joined SHGs), then the proportion of project beneficiaries in WBR I increases to 15%

and matches the proportion in the village population. The targeting of livelihood activities (training,


12

workshops, tours and demonstrations) was good with, compared with the village population, a higher

proportion of participants coming from WBR I and II, and relatively few from WBR IV.

Table 4: Targeting performance

WBR 1 WBR II WBR III WBR IV Total

Village population 14% 33% 25% 26% 100%

SHG members 9% 41% 32% 18% 100%

SHG+welfare recipients 15% 38% 30% 16% 100%

Livelihood activities. 23% 42% 28% 7% 100%

61. Conclusion: although key project activities of training and demonstrations do not seem to have

been particularly effective - being implemented more on the basis of quantity than quality, they do

seem to have reached most households. Although the project met its targets in terms of mobilisation

of households into CBOs and membership of savings and credit groups was 86% of that anticipated,

only 39% of these members were active borrowers at the end of the project. With only 61% of SHGs

being linked to banks for access to bank loans, the project was as not effective as desired in getting

households to take loans for investment purposes. However most households do seem to have

benefited from contact with community resource persons and other service providers (including

federations), and from dissemination of information via booklets and other media. As a result new

technologies have been adopted, sales of farm products have increased (see Table 9 below), and

income has risen. On this basis the project has been effective.

I. Assessment of Impacts

62. Physical assets: rated moderately satisfactory (=4).Annual Outcome Surveys show that almost

all households have access to land. The project has improved the productivity of land, in particular

with micro-irrigation systems: in the 2011 AOS 53% of farmers reported having irrigated land and, of

these farmers, 61% said they had increased their area of irrigation, two thirds attributing this change

to the project. Farmers also report that the productivity of land has been improved by the use of

vermicompost. Both the impact and RIMS surveys found that there was very little change in the

percentage of households that owned most types of livestock or poultry. There was also little

difference between project and control households in changes in the numbers of animals owned (see

Appendix 9 Tables 13 to 15). However it is likely that project farmers (who make more use of artificial

insemination) are gradually replacing non-descript local animals with improved crossbreds – but these

were not identified in the surveys.

63. Food security: rated as satisfactory (=5). There is now little evidence of food shortages. Both

the final RIMS survey and the 2011 AOS show only 1-2% of project and non-project households

reporting food shortages, compared to 18% in the mid-term RIMS survey. The 2011 AOS reported

that 24% of project participants say they have improved food security in the last year, compared with

only 7% of control group households. This suggests that the project may have helped households feel

more secure in their access to food and/or have improved the quality of food consumed – in particular

through its activities in dairy, poultry and vegetable production. Data in the final impact survey

showed (Appendix 9 Table 20) that food consumption has increased for about two-thirds of project

households compared with under half of the control group. This suggests that the project has

contributed to this improvement, but much of it is likely to have come from improvements to the PDS

system over the last eight years as well as underlying improvements in living standards.

64. Environment and common resource base: rated moderately satisfactory (=4).Natural

resource management in ULIPH focused on rainwater collection for micro-irrigation systems, and 410

ha of replanting of Van Panchayat (community) forests (out of the total area of the 62 ULIPH VPs of

2192 ha). Drudgery reduction activities also had positive, if limited, environmental impacts, although

the switch to gas for cooking is due to a government subsidy programme rather than any project

initiatives. The recent introduction of the solar lantern will reduce kerosene use, and production of

Napier grass has reduced pressure on forests.


13

65. The promotion of organic farming methods should also help maintain soil fertility, and a premium

for organic produce may provide an incentive to farmers to make and apply compost – avoiding the

problem of declining animal population producing less manure, which together with labour shortages

and wild animal damage, means land goes out of crop production.

66. Human assets: rated satisfactory (=5). RIMS surveys show there was a significant reduction in

child malnutrition (although the apparent slight increase in acute malnutrition is difficult to explain).

Without data for a control group (or for the state as a whole), these changes cannot be attributed to

the project, and could well be following a general pattern of improvement (see Appendix 10).

67. There has been a general improvement in literacy rates, especially for women, in project

households over the period, although this is likely to be part of a state-wide pattern. The impact

survey shows that more villages now have Anganwadi workers (women and child care), junior high

schools and primary health clinics, with the increase being a little more in ULIPH than control villages

(Appendix 9 Table 25). It is possible that some of this improvement could have partly come about

from lobbying by the more empowered women in the ULIPH villages. The impact study reports that

two-thirds of women have attended health awareness camps and, of these, 59% said they were

useful. More women in project villages report improvements in health facilities and practices, although

the difference is not large (Appendix 9, Table 26). The drudgery reduction efforts have, by reducing

women’s workload, improved their health – women report less muscle aches and joint pains. The

project also produced printed and videos on health issues which women reported to be effective.

“Waterborne diseases have been reduced by at least 20-30% ever since households have started boiling water” (Heera Singh Jadoda, CRP from Chamoli district)

68. The extensive training carried out by the project has built useful skills and knowledge. In

particular villagers are now able to provide a range of services for themselves (as CRPs and group

leaders), while others have the expertise to operate new types of enterprise or use new technologies.

However a study7 reported that, although 88% of respondents said that training had helped them

manage their enterprise better, only around half said it had enabled them to earn more, take up a new

enterprise, and have a better understanding of marketing, while only a quarter said they had learned

new techniques.

69. Social capital and empowerment: rated highly satisfactory (=6). Some of the most significant

impacts of ULIPH have been the increase in social capital and empowerment. The formation and

capacity building of women’s SHGs has enabled most women to take collective action on a number of

issues at the village level (Table 5). The impact study also provides good evidence of the impact of

empowerment of women at the household level, with a greatly increased role in household decisions

(the percentage of women saying that they are involved in household decisions increased from 17%

to 75%), financial empowerment, and taking up leadership positions in SHGs, Federations and

enterprises. Women have also been elected to village, regional and district councils, with 261 SHG

members being elected to these forums.

Table 5: Social action by SHGs reported by SHG members

Percent of households

Action against alcohol 45

Working towards women development 54

Working for education issues 54

Working for health issues 64

Contributing labour for village development 69

Working for sanitation issues 69

Source: impact survey

7 Socio-Economic Impact of Various Interventions on Ajeevika Households, AFC


14

Kausa Bhatt, Devrayag block, Tehri, chair of Chandrabadani Federation “.... and it is time for women to stop

hiding. Earlier women hardly came for village meetings but now that seems to have changed. But it is not

enough that they are physically present, they must participate, must make suggestions and give their opinions ...

because a women’s mind is different from her husband’s and she is much better at management”

70. Agricultural productivity: rated moderately satisfactory (=4).The improvements in farming

methods introduced by the project have increased crop yields. The AOS for 2011 shows 60% of

project group members reporting increased crop yields compared to only 25% for the control group

(Table 6). In addition, 57% of project group members reported an increase in crop area, compared

with only 17% of the control group. Data from 649 active micro-dairy units shows an average daily

milk yield per cow of 3.5 litres, much more than the 1 or 2 litres that are typical for local animals

(Appendix 9, Table 8).

Table 6: Increase in crop production

Indicators

Percentage of respondent households reporting

2011 AOS 2010 AOS

Project Control Project Control

Changes in last 12 months

Increase in crop yield 60 25 31 15

Increase due to project1

92 45

Increase in crop area 57 17 69 19

Increase due to project1 88 69

Notes: 1 – percentage of those who report an increase

71. Institutions and services: rated satisfactory (=5).The project has also had a significant impact

in terms of increasing the access of rural people to a range of services and institutions. Thanks to 33

paravets and 55 livestock CRPs, access to a range of animal health and production services has

greatly improved (more so than for non-project households), but some services, such as AI, are still to

reach a majority of households (Appendix 9 Table 10). Over 200 other CRPs also support a range of

other activities – such as organic farming, vegetable production, and SHG bookkeeping. SHGs

have established shops and input-output centres to provide members and other villages with a range

of essential commodities and farm inputs. Federations of SHG clusters are also providing services

for members. SHG members also have improved access to government agencies – and are much

more aware of the availability of a range of services and support than non-members (Table 7).

Table 7: Awareness regarding social security schemes

Percent of households

Project Non-project

Old age pension 93 31

Widow pension 93 31

Handicap pension 79 26

Unemployment allowance 27 9


72. Financial assets: rated satisfactory (=5).Members of SHGs have accumulated INR 90.3 million

in savings, an average of INR 2,450 per member, and 2,175 out of 3,560 SHGs are linked to banks to

access additional resources for lending to their members. Although most households (project and

non-project) now have bank accounts, only one third of non-project households make regular monthly

savings, and are less likely than project households to have a savings account at a bank, let alone

with an SHG. SHG members also report much better access to insurance and remittance services

than other households (Table 8).


15

Table 8: Access to financial services

Percentage of sample households

Project Non-project

Now Before Now Before

Have a bank account 99 30 84 28

Make monthly savings 95 15 33 13

Savings account in bank 41 13 29 13

Savings with Post Office 5 3 2 2

Savings with SHG 91 2 5 0

Access to insurance services 86 29

Access to remittance services 82 27


73. Markets: rated highly satisfactory (=6). ULIPH improved market access for producers, enabling

new products to be brought to market and, in some cases, significantly improving producer returns.

Collective marketing through Federations (and to some extent though SHG and producer

cooperatives), has enabled producers to aggregate their production, by-pass local traders, and sell

directly to wholesale markets both within and outside the state. For some products, such as MAP

and organic produce, contract marketing arrangements are providing producers with much better

prices (six times more than before for medicinal plants), but even simple aggregation and transport of

fresh peas to wholesale markets in the south of the state can double producer prices while generating

a useful income for the federation (see Case Study3 in Appendix 9). ULIPH federations in Uttarkashi

accounted for 28% of the peas being sold at the large wholesale market in Dehradun during April –

May 2013. Data in Table 4 from AOS show how project households are moving towards commercial

farming and are reporting much greater increases in sales than other farmers.

Table 9: Commercial farming and marketing

Indicators

Percentage of respondent households reporting

2011 AOS 2010 AOS

Project Control Project Control

Grow crops for Consumption only 40 65 74 82

Consumption and sale 58 31 22 17

Sale only 2 4 4 1

Grow high value crops 56 20 46

Have some income from sales of farm products 61 34 34 27

Changes in sales income in last year

Increase1

75 27 51 46

No change1

24 66 47 48

Decrease1

1 7 2 6

Improved physical access to markets 53 19 20 11

Sell farm produce on contract 58 11 22 29

Notes: 1 – percentage of those who report some income from sales

74. Milk is being marketed by 21 Federations who operate 36 collection centres with a total average

daily intake of 1,394 litres (Appendix 9 Table 11). These sell milk in local towns through shops and

other outlets, and may also carry out basic processing to make paneer and yoghurt. They provide a

more assured outlet for milk, provide inputs and other support and may result in an increase in

producer prices in the range of 50% to 100% (Appendix 9, Section D).

75. Weekend markets were established in six locations in Bageshwar district. These markets

allowed producers to sell a range of farm produce and handicrafts direct to consumers. This

improved returns to producers and stimulated consumption of fruit and vegetables in rural towns, so

further increasing demand for these products. It is reported that these markets enabled women

sellers to increase their income by up to INR 2,000 per month.


16

J. Assessment of Sustainability

76. Political sustainability is rated as satisfactory (=5). The project will complement the forthcoming

NRLM in the state, which may well also be implemented by UGVS, and the ULIPH SHGs and

federations should be able to dovetail with NRLM approaches. A new project, ILSP, will also enable

Federations to be supported, and there is considerable potential for convergence with other rural

development programmes.

77. Social sustainability is highly satisfactory (=6). It is clear that communities strongly support the

project and feel that the SHGs and federations are useful. With SHG members being elected to local

government bodies, the support of these institutions is also being enlisted.

78. Technical sustainability is rated as moderately unsatisfactory (=3) as it is somewhat uncertain for

some activities. The supply of inputs can be a problem, especially of Kuroiler chicks. At the start of

the project there was only a single hatchery producing these chicks, operated by Kegg Farms (the

originator of the Kuroiler) at Pantnagar in the south-eastern corner of the state. Chicks suffered and

died on the long journey to mother units in the hills, and the overall supply was inadequate. See

Appendix 9 Case Study 5.Since then around four other Kuroiler hatcheries have been established at

government farms, some with support from ULIPH. However supply of chicks is still a problem, and

these other hatcheries are often unable to provide a complete packages of chicks plus feed and

vaccine. Government farms are not run as businesses and need to give priority to government orders.

79. In other sectors there are also problems of input supply, especially regarding seed. Some

groups have been producing seed on behalf of the Terai Seed Development Corporation of the

government. All seed is sold back to TDC and then used in government schemes that provide

farmers with free seeds. It is not easy to see how seed production groups could sell seed to other

farmers – as these farmers can get seed for free from the government. The farm input supply system

is poorly developed, with most inputs being provided via government departments. Federations and

SHG Input-Output Centres are supplying some inputs, and helping to improve this situation, but they

need to be able to obtain their supplies from reliable sources.

80. Institutional sustainability is rated as moderately satisfactory (=4): although the project has made

considerable efforts to build the capacity of SHGs and Federations, some SHGs are still not fully self

reliant (in terms of record keeping and management processes), and Federations are still too new to

have firmly established good governance systems – such as a second generation of leaders.

Continued bank funding for SHGs and enterprises is by no means certain. Although the main banks

in the state are publically owned, and the political will is there, these banks are also under pressure to

act more commercially, which means pressure to close (or minimise their activities at) rural branches

that fail to cover their operating costs.

81. Economic and financial sustainability is rated as moderately satisfactory (=4): while most of the

enterprises established by the project appear to be profitable, and so should be sustained, a

significant proportion of collective enterprises (run by SHGs, Federation or cooperatives) are not, and

there is a consensus among project staff that individual enterprises do better. Records for 86

community enterprises operating in 2011-12 show that 13 (15%) of them had closed in 2012-13, and

another 22% had recorded a drop in sales compared to the previous year (Appendix 9 Table 18).

Although most Federations record making a profit, this is taking into account financial support from

ULIPH. If this support is removed (and assuming there is no reduction in Federation costs – such as

no longer employing staff paid for by ULIPH), then only three out of 69 would be making a profit.

82. Organic farming on the scale that the project was developing does not seem to be sustainable as

it is not economic for groups selling only a small amount of organic produce to pay for the cost of

certification. There seem to be better prospects for marketing naturally produced but uncertified

produce (see Appendix 9, section B). Seed production may also not be sustainable. Only 19% of

the 1,024 tons of seed produced in 2011-12 was actually sold (Appendix 9, Table 5) Going to the

trouble to grow seed, and then selling very little of the resulting crop, is not an economic proposition.

Similarly manufacture of sanitary pads is not financially viable (Appendix 9, Section F-c).


17

83. On a more positive note, most of the micro-dairy units seem sustainable. Records for 661 units

established over six years between 2007-08 and 2011-13, show 649 (98%) are currently operational

and cow numbers have increased – by 92% for 2007-08 units and 29% for 2008-09 units. The annual

value of milk sales is estimated to be 42% of the amount invested, which should give a good margin

to cover variable costs and to service loans (Appendix 9, Tables 8 and 9).

84. Environmental sustainability is rated as moderately satisfactory (=4). Although the recent

disaster has highlighted the risks of living in a mountain environment, most ULIPH villages did not

suffer directly (see box below), although they may have lost market access due to roads being cut.

However the damage will be repaired with assistance from the government and other donors, and

farmers will replant their lost crops. Lessons will have been learnt, both at policy, community and

individual household level, so that resilience will be increased (for example, ILSP will pay increased

attention to crops that do not need to be quickly transported to external markets). Another, possibly

more important, environmental issue is the increasing pressure from wild animal damage to crops.

This, together with increasing labour scarcity, is causing land to be abandoned. There is a need to

develop technical solutions such as repellent sprays and electric fences, as well as move towards

crops that animals do not eat (spices, nuts) and high value crops that can be grown in a small

protected area.

Impact of the Flood Disaster of 16 June 2013 in ULIPH villages

Chamoli – 18 villages were affected close to rivers (out of 151 villages in ULIPH), there was no loss of life, but over 100 animals were lost and 52 shops destroyed. It is reported that the government may pay INR150,000 per shop in compensation. Uttarkashi – 12 villages (out of 170) have been affected, with road communications cut, so food security has been reduced (as food supplies cannot get in). Farmers also cannot get fruit and vegetables out to market. A total of 14 enterprises financed by ULIPH have been washed away (shops, hotels). On 1 and 2 August, continuous rains damaged 10 villages and washed away the connecting road. Tehri - out of 227 ULIPH villages, 31 were affected, with loss of crops and livestock, and some houses, an IOC and a ULIPH dairy were damaged. Bageshwar - 9 villages out of 207 were affected, and 500 goats washed away (INR1.5 million in compensation from the government is requested and is under assessment). Three bridges connecting these 9 villages have been cut, effecting eco-tourism. Crops like wheat were damaged and some cows and buffalo were also lost Almora – there are 203 ULIPH villages, but there was not so much damage, but market access is affected, with the road to Haldwani cut, so fruits like apples cannot be sold.

K. Innovation, Replication and Up-Scaling

85. Innovation, Replication and Up-Scaling is rated as moderately satisfactory (=4). Innovations

include:

(a) Nettle fibre: along with GIZ and SRTT, UPLIH supported the programme of the Bamboo and

Fibre Development Board to develop nettle as a source of fibre for weaving and value

addition. ULIPH specifically supported development of a technology to extract fibre from

stems that would need less firewood, water and labour. This still needs further development.

ULIPH also supported the development of two centres for the production of nettle fabric by 79

weavers, and pilot has shown that it can be sold at prices similar to that of silk, which makes

production profitable and generate higher returns to weavers than from cotton or wool.

(b) Federations meeting the holistic needs of communities: one federation has established a

leaning centre established and run by the Federation as a business, linked to the Uttarakhand

Open University, 75 students, distance learning, can support 18 courses, BA, MA, includes a

diploma in disaster management and a diploma in tourism (seewww.uou.ac.in 17053 site

reference). Other Federations are providing a range of services, with one supplying

stationary to local schools.

(c) Mobile phone based information system: in 2010 UPLIH arranged for 81 SHG members to

use the system (Reuters Market Lite - RML), but the cost per user was high in the context of

less developed hill regions. ULIPH then got in touch with the Department of

Telecommunications who, under their Universal Service Obligation Fund (www.usof.gov.in),

supported 50 users in a phase 1, and then following and independent evaluation, this was

http://www.uou.ac.in/

http://www.usof.gov.in/


18

scaled up to 2200. This is one of seven access to information projects supported by the

USOF which were inaugurated by the President of India in Delhi. Themes are:(i) health

(women & child, first aid etc); (ii) education (child and adult); (iii) other government schemes;

(iv) information on markets, weather, SHG innovations; (v) entrepreneurship (IGA training);

(vi) value addition (agricultural and allied activities): (vii) marketing (storing and selling

produce); (viii) social (child marriage, legal rights); (ix) Government and NGO schemes; (x)

women (protection from domestic violence); (xi) right to food (PDS); (xii) right to employment;

and (xiii) registration of marriage, birth &death. RED of GIZ has also been supporting RML

in the state. This innovation, along with Federations as service providers, was accepted as

an IFAD Learning Pathway.

(d) An organic animal repellent developed by a private company has been tried by a Federation

as a method of reducing damage by crops. First reports say it is effective. This is now also

being tested by the Department of Forests and VPKAS, an agricultural research institute.

86. Replication–as already mentioned, replication of demonstrations has been less than expected.

With a few exceptions (Napier grass, water pitchers, and solar lanterns), the number of replications is

less than the number of demonstrations – usually less than half the number, with no replications at all

being recorded for 38 out of 123 different demonstration topics (see Appendix 5, Table 3).

87. Scaling up– a number of initiatives of ULIPH have been, or will be, scaled up. The SHG

programme is to be scaled up across the state under the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM).

The Mission headquarters in Delhi would like NRLM in the state to take lessons and expertise from

ULIPH, and for UGVS to act as the implementing agency. A new project, to be supported by IFAD,

the Integrated Livelihood Support Project, will scale up many of the specific livelihood sectors

supported by ULIPH, along with aggregation for marketing through producer groups. On a smaller

scale, one of the ULIPH FNGOs, Mount Valley Development Association in Tehri, is scaling up

support to the dairy sector with funds from Reliance.

L. Performance of the Partners

88. Cooperating Institution: rated as moderately satisfactory (=4). UNOPS was IFAD’s cooperating

institution as the start of the project and undertook the first three annual review missions. Both

UNOPS and IFAD were hampered by having to divide the supervision budget for the project between

two states to cover both ULIPH and MLIPH. This will have contributed to the lack of any

implementation support missions in the year after start-up, with the first review mission taking place in

November 2005, 13 months after the project started. Feedback from project staff shows that UNOPS

were supportive and flexible over issues such as NGO procurement. UNOPS missions seem to have

been a little longer than most subsequent IFAD missions and seem to have spent more time in the

field, focusing on field level processes. However, like IFAD, they tended to lack technical experts.

89. IFAD: rated as moderately satisfactory (=4).IFAD took over missions in the year prior to the

MTR. Project staff said that IFAD was generally supportive, took a practical approach, with

disbursements made in a timely manner. IFAD also gave useful support in development of value

chain approaches and in monitoring and evaluation. Project staff also report that IFAD also did not

interfere excessively in project management. However there were frequent changes to mission

personnel (the four review missions were led by three different people) leading to inconsistent

recommendations – and maybe too much focus on poverty targeting at the expense of enterprise

development.

90. Project Management Unit: rated as satisfactory (=5). The quality and motivation of staff was

above average for IFAD projects in India, but was hampered by high turnover of staff, with senior

management having to spend much of their time on recruitment. The high turnover stemmed from

competition from other programmes of government, donors and NGOs, which were able to offer

promotion and higher salaries. However there were only three Project Directors over almost nine

years from start-up to loan closing, again better than for most projects in India.


19

91. Borrower: rated as satisfactory (=5). GoI as the borrower facilitated flow of funds to the project

through the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA). DEA also effectively managed the interface

between the programme and they effectively managed the interface between the project and IFAD in

financial matters. The performance of the State Government was also satisfactory – they appointed

Project Directors and approved AWBPs and other project plans in a timely manner. However there

were some delays in release of funds for the first quarter of the financial year.

92. Service providers: rated as satisfactory (=5). A total of 29 NGOs were contracted to support

SHGs. They generally performed well, although some suffered from a high staff turnover due to low

remuneration. NGO staff had good mobilisation and participation skills, and knew the local

communities and languages. Some also had strong skills in livelihood development which the project

was not able to fully use (as their role was limited to the original UGVS mandate of social mobilisation

and micro-finance, with UPASaC being responsible for livelihoods). However it is apparent from

interviews in the field that in practice a number of NGOs did give useful support in livelihood

development. Project SHGs also befitted from convergence with NGO programmes, such as health,

drinking water, natural resource management, and women's empowerment and drudgery reduction.

A number of other NGOs and consulting agencies have carried out studies and provided training,

which were generally satisfactory.

93. Financial Institutions: rated as moderately satisfactory (=4). Banks provided loans for SHGs and

individual enterprises, which have been essential in developing enterprises. In particular bank loans

were effective (along with a subsidy from NABARD) in funding micro-dairy units in the later years of

the project, removing the need for ULIPH to directly support the purchase of cows. On the other

hand, only 61% of SHGs got access to banks and the quantum of bank lending was much lower than

was anticipated at appraisal. Access to banks remains a problem. Although bank branches have

spread well beyond block headquarters, many of these have very few staff, and banks have a huge

problem of staff turnover in their rural branches – it is reported that 80% of staff leave within one year

of joining.

94. Donor Partnerships: rated as highly satisfactory (=6). GIZ’s Regional Economic Development

(RED) project gave substantial assistance to the project. In particular RED supported value chain

development: providing a training course for PMU staff, and inviting the PD and MD of UPASAC to

attend various workshops and conferences. RED staff participated in two supervision missions, and

studies commissioned by RED in areas such as eco-tourism and off-season vegetable value chains

assisted ULIPH in implementing its activities in these areas. At the time of the PCR, a team from

Technoserve (a not-for-profit consulting agency) contracted by RED to support the new Business Cell

of UOCB, was helping a ULIPH federation with plans to produce biscuits made with finger millet and

sell these as organically certified. INBAR (an international agricultural research centre) provided very

useful assistance in getting UPASaC operational.

M. Lessons Learned

Project approach and design

95. It is a mistake to plan a project with two separate implementing institutions delivering services to

the same households. The approach of ULIPH, with UGVS delivering social mobilisation and micro-

finance via SHGs, and UPASAC delivering livelihood support and enterprise development was

fundamentally flawed. It resulted in duplication of efforts in the field, poor coordination (SHGs were

ready for livelihood development before UPASAC was able to provide this support), and inability to

contract local NGOs which had highly relevant community mobilisation and livelihood experience, to

deliver both of these services.

96. Where design flaws become apparent, action should be taken to correct these at the MTR. The

merger of UGVS and UPASAC did not take place until October 2009, over one year after the MTR in

August 2008.

97. Establishment of SHGs was an effective point of entry in terms of community mobilisation and

women’s empowerment. SHGs Federations are now supporting a range of livelihood activities,


20

including linkages with markets. However the development of enterprises (farm and non-farm) and

market linkages, may require more involvement of men, and this may be done more effectively if there

is a more systematic effort to include men from the start.

98. The project made efforts to include the poorest households, both in terms of SHG membership

and support via project services, while excluding better off households. However, while this approach

did ensure a poverty focus, it did not necessarily help in terms of adoption of new livelihood

opportunities and enterprise development, which is easier if better off households are encouraged to

take the lead – they have more resources and are better able to bear risks. In practice, ULIPH was

not so successful in reaching the poorest households, so tended to fall between the two stools of

having a poverty focus on one hand and supporting innovation and enterprise on the other.

99. The project would have benefited from having technical personnel to support technologies and to

address issues regarding production constraints. For example, there have been mixed reports of the

performance of Kuroilers, which might suggest that they did well in some places but not in others for

some technical or management reason. Many of the crops grown in polyhouses did not grow well –

the reasons for this were not understood and the project was not able to take any actions to correct

this problem.

Project activities

100. The approach of using demonstrations as one of the principal tools for developing livelihoods

has been shown to have some significant drawbacks, including:

(i) Given the subsidy-driven nature of agricultural development in India, demonstrations are seen

as another subsidy scheme and it may be unrealistic to expect farmers to replicate

demonstrations entirely from their own resources. Indeed the demonstration, by providing

free or partly free inputs is, in itself, demonstrating the availability of subsidies.

(ii) The adoption or replication of some demonstrations was limited as the economics of the

activity or enterprise was not sufficiently profitable to justify investment by the farmer in

equipment and inputs that were provided free (or partly free) under the project. An example of

this is the polyhouses. Although 243 of the 247 (93%) where records are available are in

active use, maybe only 45 (20%) are generating sufficient sales to be considered viable.

(iii) Another barrier to replication is the lack of backward and forward linkages. Too often

problems in the supply of inputs (such as seeds, day-old chicks, vaccines and feed), have

hindered the replication and sustainability of demonstrations and other livelihood and

enterprise activities.

101. Production of certified organic produce needs to be focused on market opportunities – the

project formed a large number of Organic Producer Groups (OPG), who are going through the three-

year process of becoming organically certified. With help from UOCB, a lower cost approach to

organic certification has been introduced, involving most work being done by CRPs attached to

Federations. However there are still costs involved, and if most of the crops are being consumed at

home, or sold in non-premium markets, there is no return for producers on this investment. UGVS is

now rationalising the numbers of OPG, and plans to only continue to support those which are

producing a sufficient volume of crops for sale to justify the cost of certification.

102. Cash contributions from farmers and entrepreneurs towards the cost of inputs provided as

demonstrations and other initiatives total about INR 42 million. Such contributions give people a

sense of ownership are aim to reduce their dependence on subsidies. However it is not easy to get

people to make these contributions, and persuading them undoubtedly slows the pace of project

implementation. It is also necessary to account for the money collected and utilise these funds in a

way that support project objectives.

103. It is difficult to get initiatives that reduce the drudgery of women to be adopted and scaled up

thought market mechanisms unless they are either zero cost or cost reducing – giving no value to the


21

time that women save. However if women have financially remunerative occupations, then this may

change as it there would be financial benefits from saving time on domestic and other chores.

104. It is possible for Artificial Insemination centres to generate sufficient income to be sustainable

through the provision of other services alongside AI. This supports the dairy sector in areas where

there is only a scattered population of dairy animals (or farmers wishing to cross-breed local cows).

AI services are more effective and sustainable than the distribution of improved bulls for natural

breeding.

105. Although a number of SHG Federations have successfully provided backward and forward

linkages, it should not be expected that, as a rule, such linkages should always be provided by

collective enterprises. The experience of the project is that collective enterprises are more likely to

fail than those operated by individuals. Projects should focus more on linking producers directly with

private sector agribusiness.

106. A review of training by the PMU produced the following lessons:

(i) The amount of training carried out was more than was needed and the emphasis was on

quantity instead of quality.

(ii) Due to this large volume, training records were not properly maintained, and tracking and

evaluation of the results of each training programme was not possible.

(iii) A large budget was allocated to training, so the focus was on spending these funds rather

than organising training that met specific needs.

(iv) Training was planned on a sector basis. It would be better to built it around the plans of

each federation or cluster of enterprises.

(v) Cluster based training could reduce cost.

(vi) Training of trainers (ToT) for community trainers would be cost effective

(vii) A proper tracking and surveillance system would include documentation such as

participants' registers, feedback and analysis registers, tracking registers, individual

training cards, and institutional training cards.

(viii) A training assessment system should be used to monitor and measure results from

individual training programmes.

(ix) For staff, a training needs analysis matrix should be prepared, showing present skill sets

and required skill sets for employees performing different jobs. On the basis of this matrix,

a training calendar should be prepared.

Monitoring and knowledge management

107. ULIPH has given greater attention and resources to monitoring and knowledge management

than other IFAD-supported projects in India. This has generated a number of very useful lessons

including:

(i) The information generated by RIMS anchor indicator surveys(following IFAD’s standard

methodology) was of very limited value in assessing project impact as: (i) without a control group

it is impossible to know what influence, if any, the project had on changes in indicators; (ii) some

of the indicators were not appropriate for the hills of Uttarakhand; (iii) the asset index was not

calculated; and (iv) the sample was a random selection of households in villages where the

project worked rather than project group members (who were only 58% of the village population).

(ii) Impact evaluation surveys need to collect data on logframe indicators, or at least use indicators

that measure progress towards the stated objectives of the project.

(iii) Annual outcome surveys generated some useful data, especially on growth of more commercial

and market-driven farming, but could have been more focused on specific project interventions.


22

(iv) Although the project gave more attention than most to M&E, there is still a need for more

capacity and resources for M&E to track outputs, measure outcomes and produce convincing

evidence of impact.

108. The project made significant efforts in Knowledge Management - both for internal learning and

knowledge sharing, and for external communications. Useful evaluations of KM were carried out,

which show that these effort had significant impacts in terms of effectively disseminating information

and knowledge leading to changes in practices. However KM was not always fully effective - in

particular staff need considerable training to operate a KM system (this was not helped by the

considerable turnover in staff), while KM competes for management attention with other project

activities.

Rating Summary

Criteria/indicators

Rating *

A. Project Strategy and Approaches 3

B. Assessment of Project Relevance 5

C. Project cost and financing

Fiduciary aspects 4

D. Assessment of Efficiency 5

E. Review of Project Outputs 5

F. Assessment of Project Effectiveness 5

G. Assessment of Impacts 5

Physical Assets 4

Food Security 5

Environment and Common Resource Base 5

Human Assets 5

Social Capital and Empowerment 6

Institutions and Services 5

Agricultural productivity 4

Financial Assets 5

Markets 6

H. Assessment of Sustainability 4

Political sustainability 5

Social sustainability (empowerment) 6

Technical sustainability 3

Institutional sustainability 4

Economic and financial sustainability 4

Environmental sustainability 4

I. Innovation, Replication and Up-scaling 4

J. Performance of Partners

UNOPS 4

IFAD 4

Project management unit 5

Borrower 5

Service providers 5

Finance institutions 4

Donor partnerships 6

K. Overall assessment (by Mission) 5

L. Rating of PCR Document (submitted by Project)

Scope

Quality

Lessons

Candour

Overall Rating of PCR Document

* Rating: 1: Highly unsatisfactory 2: Unsatisfactory 3: Moderately unsatisfactory 4: Moderately satisfactory 5: Satisfactory 6: Highly satisfactory


23

Annex 1: Project Logframe

Table 1: Comparison of original and revised logframes

Original logframe as per PAD Revised logframe 2008 (MTR)

Narrative Summary Key Performance Indicators Narrative Summary Key Performance Indicators

Objective Goal

Sustainable improvement in the livelihood opportunities of mountain people residing in Indian Himalayan states of Meghalaya and Uttaranchal.

Replication of similar intervention methodology - investment projects with focus on micro-enterprise development with backward and forward linkages.

Sustainable improvement in the quality of lives and livelihoods of disadvantaged rural households in mountain areas of Uttarakhand by 2022.

1. Households with improvement in households asset ownership index. (RIMS)

2. Percentage of child malnutrition (boys/girls); weight for age, height for age and weight for height. (RIMS)

3. 50% of target households raised above poverty line by EoP. 4. Dropout rate of girls decreased by at least 20% in secondary school and

high school by EoP 5. The approaches of project adopted/modified by new/ongoing projects of

the State in ___ cases by EoP.

Purpose Overall Purpose

Sustainable, equitable, and systematic approach to ensure improved livelihood opportunities of 29,300 poor households in Meghalaya and 42,700 poor households in Uttaranchal developed and implemented.

Improved Income levels of participating households. Improved Household food security of the participating households. Improved Nutritional status of children under five.

Quality of lives and incomes of 42,690 target disadvantaged rural mountain households in 17 Blocks of 5 Districts sustainably improved through gender-sensitive, poverty-focused, collective self-help promotion systems and adoption of better livelihood opportunities, by EOP (2012).

1. Over 50% of households report improved access to business development resources and services.

2. Xx % households engaged in enterprises three years after they received support

3. Persons receiving project services (direct, total project); total men, total women. (RIMS)

4. Households that have improved food security. (RIMS) 5. Over 50% of women report increased access to CPRs by EoP. 6. Over 50% of women report increased incomes by EoP. 7. Over 50% of women report enhanced decision making within family by

EoP. 8. Over 50% of women report enhanced decision making in federations,

panchayats and van-panchayats by EoP.

Outcomes Outcomes: Empowerment & Capacity-building Community Organisations & their Support Organisation

Appropriate community-based organisations of target households operating on an equitable and socially inclusive basis (especially of women) for collective actions and development of sustainable livelihoods, with reduced drudgery of women.

1.No. of HHs adopting drudgery reduction technologies (RIMS) 2. Xx% of SHGs report that their collective decision making on Natural Resource Management & Social Issues is accepted by community. 3. Xx% of women of project SHGs are representatives of PRIs. 4. Xx% of target HHs report reduction in women's drudgery by EoP. 5. Engagement with PRIs results in 50% of the village level coordination committee meetings (VLCC) and 75% of block level coordination committee (BLMC) meetings being held regularly as planned.


24



Outputs Outputs: Empowerment & Capacity-building Community Organisations & their Support Organisation

1. Participatory community institutions established, operational and meeting the needs of poor households

No. of SHGs/Van Panchayats established/strengthened by the project: 1,955 in Meghalaya and 2,846 in Uttaranchal. No. of groups that have started savings and credit operation. No. block offices that have become SHG federations.

- SHGs formed/strengthened in targeted villages - SHGs members trained in social mobilization, book keeping, mobilizing savings and provide credit. - Communities sensitized to ensure at least 70% representation of women in SHGs - Block level offices, initially established by F-NGos, transformed in Federations Offices of SHGs - Community resource persons selected through local CBOs - PRIs members sensitized on project objectives trained in institutional capacity building - Demonstrations/activities to reduce women drudgery identified and undertaken/implemented - Men sensitised on need for sharing household chores - Eligible SHGs members supported to receive social security benefits and to access life and healthinsurance schemes. - Convergence efforts for social welfare activities through line agencies and NGOs to continue.

1.1 4000 SHGs (----adopted and ---- new), covering approximately 42,690 households established. (RIMS) 1.2___% of SHG members trained by project on social mobilization, credit management and self monitoring. 1.3 More than 80% of SHGs formed by Project are exclusive woman SHGs. 1.4 At least 60% of SHGs linked with federations. 1.5 Xx Federation offices established. 1.6 Xx Community Resource Persons working in project. 1.7 ----males and ----females trained in workload reducing technologies. (RIMS) 1.8 Rsx,xxx contributed for purchase of drudgery reduction technologies, t3aken up by target households. 1.9 xx persons identified as eligible of which --%, receiving social security benefits(old age, widow and disability pension). 1.10 Rsxxxx mobilised annually through convergence for social sector (health, education, women's empowerment, nutrition etc.) activities from line departments and other agencies covering ____ HHs. 1.11 Rs Xxx mobilized from community through voluntary labour and cash contribution for community/social activities.

2. Empowerment and capacity building of target population, especially women and other marginal groups such as landless and unemployed youth enhancing their ability to plan and manage their own development effectively and sustainably.

No. of SHGs that have taken up social sector activities. Total amount mobilized by SHGs from other sources for social sector activities. No. of Van Panchayats that have formulated and implemented forest use plans. No. of technology demonstrations and their uptake to reduce drudgery of women.

3. Effective Savings and Credit Operation within SHGs and SHG-FFI/PAC Linkage Program established.

Improved net worth of SHGs. No. of SHGs that have received seed capital and the amount seed capital provided. No. of SHGs linked to Banks - No. of SHGs receiving one/two/three/four cycle loans. No. of SHGs that have taken over payment to Group Promoters. Reduction in the dependence of target group on informal lending sector.


25



Outcomes: Livelihoods Enhancement &development

Target households organised through SHGs and Activity Groups to operate sustainable microenterpises in an equitable, gender-sensitive and environment friendly manner.

1. No. of HHs that have adopted new technologies promoted by the project by category (RIMS). (Agriculture, Horticulture, Livestock, Forestry, Other opportunities) 2. No. of HHs that report production/yield increases by category (RIMS) (Agriculture, Horticulture, Livestock, Forestry, Other opportunities) 3. 26290 HH level enterprises established by category. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) 4. __ ha of land brought under crop consolidation for at least two cropping cycles. 5. No. of HHs provided with long-term income generating opportunity from Van Panchayats. (RIMS)

Outputs Outputs: Livelihoods Enhancement & development

Persons trained in livelihoods enhancement and development through organisation of demonstrations, training events, workshops and exposure visits. Agricultural development Farmers exposed to improved agricultural techniques, inputs and crops through training and demonstrations

Horticulture development Farmers exposed to improved horticultural techniques, inputs and crops through training and demonstrations Livestock development Farmers exposed to improved livestock management techniques and inputs through training and demonstrations Soil and Water resources Farmers exposed to improved soil and water management techniques through training and demonstrations

2.1 a) Agriculture- Organic farming i) xxxx demos organized on crop diversification and enhanced production ii) xxx capacity building programs organised iii) xxx IGAs organised iv) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) v) xxx SMEs established vi) xxx tons of products marketed 2.1 b) Horticulture – Off-season vegetables i) xxxx demos organized on crop diversification and enhanced production ii) xxx capacity building programs organised iii) xxx IGAs organised iv) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) v) xxx SMEs established vi) xxx tons of vegetables marketed c) Livestock – Kuroiler i) xxxx demos organized on enhanced production ii) xxx capacity building programs organised iii) xxx IGAs organised iv) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) v) xxx SMEs established vi) xxx tons of meat marketed d) Livestock – Dairy i) xxxx demos organized on enhanced production ii) xxx capacity building programs organised iii) xxx IGAs organised iv) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) v) xxx SMEs established vi) xxx tons of milk marketed e) Forestry -MAP i) xxxx demos organized on enhanced production


26



Forestry development Farmers exposed to improved agro-forestry, NTFP and MAP cultivation and management techniques through training and demonstrations Other opportunities Farmers exposed to ecotourism and other off-farm opportunities and techniques through training and demonstrations - Convergence efforts for demonstrations and business development in identified sectors from line departments and other agencies to continue.

ii) xxx capacity building programs organised iii) xxx IGAs organised iv) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) v) xxx SMEs established vi) xxx tons of products marketed vii) 750 ha of land brought under forest crops( bamboo, spices, fibre and medicinal plants). (RIMS) viii) No of Van Panchayats where boundary pillars made. ix) No of Van Panchayats where land records made. f) Other opportunities Tourism i) xxx capacity building programs organised ii) xxx IGAs organised iii) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) iv) xxx SMEs established g) Other opportunities CBRE i) xxx capacity building programs organised ii) xxx IGAs organised iii) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) iv) xxx SMEs established 2.2 No. of persons trained, by gender and well being ranking (RIMS). (Agriculture, Horticulture, Livestock, Forestry and Other opportunities identified) 2.3Rs…… mobilized through convergence for demonstrations and business development (agriculture, horticulture, livestock, forestry, other opportunities) activities from line departments and other agencies covering …. HHs

Outcome Outcomes: Livelihood Support systems

Outcome D.aBy end of the project, UPASaC established as a financially sustainable and permanent entity, offering a full range of business development and investment services for income-generating enterprises for target households & groups.

1. Enterprises operating after last three year.(RIMS) 2. Number of enterprises from which exit of equity investment has been made. 3. % of equity fund reinvested from the total equity fund exited. 4. Total Revenue Generated by UPASaC. 5. Portfolio at risk: outstanding balance of over due loans (RIMS). 6. Number of jobs and self employment opportunities generated for various categories (RIMS).

Outputs Outputs

4. Adoption of Sub-sector/Business Services Approach for identification and development of livelihoods as micro-enterprises. Business Plan Development by Activity Groups/Companies/MACs for micro-enterprise development.

No. of sub-sector identified for development. No. and type of demonstrations designed and implemented. No. and type of successful demonstrations and number of activity groups formed. No. of individuals/groups accessing and investment flows into micro-enterprise sector from FFIs/PACs. Disbursement and recovery performance of FFIs/PACs.

- UPASaC established and operating. - Small entrepreneurs trained in enterprise

management - Business promoters recruited and trained to

operate in targeted areas, by sub-sector (agriculture, horticulture...)

- BDS services provided to MSMEs (tech. upgradation, credit, policy support and marketing and management inputs)

3.1 Number of people trained by gender and sector in enterprise management (RIMS) 3.2 Number of enterprises established /strengthened of which --- owned by female. (RIMS) 3.3 ____% of equity fund invested in ______ no of SMEs. 3.4 ____Small and Medium Enterprises and _____ HH level enterprises receiving BDS services covering technology upgradation, credit, policy support and marketing and management inputs through project 3.5 No of BDS providers giving services by sub-sector. (Agriculture, Horticulture, Livestock, Forestry, Other opportunities) 3.6 Active Savers: Male/Female (RIMS)


27



- Small entrepreneurs supported with equity fund to invest in SMEs. - 2448 backward and forward enterprises established

3.7 Number of active borrowers: Male/Female (RIMS) 3.8 Value of savings mobilized Rs. (RIMS) 3.9 Frequency of interloaning.( Average amount of interloaning in the last six months among SHG members ) 3.10 Value of gross loan portfolio: loans outstanding –loan written off (RIMS). 3.11 Investment portfolio : % contribution of FFI % contribution by beneficiary. % contribution by UPASaC 3.11 BDS income earned Rs.xxxx

Outcomes: Livelihood Support systems

Outcome D. Micro-finance Delivery Mechanisms: SHGs in project villages enabled to actively engage in regular savings and inter-loaning, and to access micro-finance services and external funding through linkages with FFIs and through equity investments of UPASaC.

7. % recovery rate of loan from FFIs 8. % recovery rate of equity fund from UPASaC 9. Xx% of target group households that have reduced dependence on informal lending sector. 10. CCL sanction to SHG by bank within 30 days of submission of documents 11. Dropout rate of SHG members is less than national average

Outputs Outputs: Livelihood Support systems

5. Business Plan development for establishing enterprise required for providing backward and forward linkages to the micro-enterprise.

No. of companies/MACs/Individuals obtaining loan for establishing forward and backward linkages. Type of Activities for which loan has been obtained. No. of enterprise that have obtained equity/near equity funding. Producer price comparison between project and non-project areas.

SHGs trained in order to leverage access to loan funds. - SHG supported to provide financial services

to households for the establishment of micro-enterprises, and linked to formal banks/FFI

- Improved access of SHGs members to credit.

3.12 x% of SHGs received CCL 3.13 No of members of SHGs who have received term loan 3.14 Percentage of CCL used by SHG 3.15 Average percentage of SHG loan portfolio at risk (loans overdue by at least 90 days).(RIMS).

6. A Land Bank Pilot Initiative implemented in Meghalaya to assist the resource poor households to obtain long-term tenurial rights.

Not applicable for ULIPH Not applicable for ULIPH

7. Capacity building of project stakeholders for effective project implementation.

Government: Timely flow of funds and support for policy changes. NGOs: Implementation capacity to solicit active participation of the community in developmental efforts, resource mobilization for implementing other development activities and phased transfer of control including costs to the SHGs. FFIs/PACs: Adoption of SHG methodology as a tool to enhance size of the quality loan portfolio, Credit-deposit ratio and PAC profitability.

8. Social Venture Capital Company established and operating.

Movement towards self-financing of operating costs – profitability of SVCC. Demand for business development service offered by SVCC.

9. Policy issues that affect the livelihood systems identified, studied and result in policy

Land tenurial system in Meghalaya becomes farmer/tiller friendly.


28



modification. Emergence of land consolidation plans for production enhancement in Uttaranchal. Emergence of sustainable management and uses of forests and forest lands.

Outcomes; Project Management

Project Staff, implementing partners, and concerned institutions/service providers enabled to plan, implement, manage, coordinate, and monitor project interventions, to influence policy and decision making for livelihood enhancement, and to enable an effective and operational learning and knowledge sharing system.

1.1. __ No of international projects mobilised. 2.2. __ No of State and Central Government projects mobilised. 3.3. Learnings incorporated in project strategies and activities and meaningful

lessons learnt disseminated to stakeholders 4 4. xx policy changes incorporated by government by EoP 5.5. M&E plan implemented

Outputs Outputs: Project Management

10 Effective program management system established and operational

Management systems – administrative, financial and human resource policies prepared and implemented. Project implementation as per approved AWPB. Shift in operational modalities of RDS to that of a quasi-NGO with independent resource mobilization. Active community participation in the management of RDS. A system of periodic reviews and mid-course corrections established

- Uttaranchal GramyaVikasSamiti (UGVS) established and assigned overall responsibility for project implementation. - PMU and DMUs established and operational

4.1 PMU &UPASaC staffed, equipped and operational 4.2 Management systems- administrative, financial and human resource policies prepared and implemented. 4.3 Timely invoicing, receipt and flow of funds. 4.4 Annual Audit report sent to IFAD within 6 months of FY end and Audit recommendations complied with. 4.5 Project Progress reports submitted 6-monthly to IFAD & UGVS. ____% disbursement of IFAD loan (RIMS) 4.6 Project covenants adhered to regularly.

11. Program learning system developed and operational

M & E and learning systems documented and established. Meaningful lessons learnt disseminated to stakeholders. Learning incorporated in project strategies and activities

- Orientation, annual review workshops and stakeholder workshops held regularly. - Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system, including process documentation, established. - Project staff trained to implement field level activities.

4.7 Regular communication, interaction & coordination with all stakeholders, formal Quarterly Review Meetings. 4.8 A system of periodic reviews and mid-course corrections established. 4.9 Transfer of majority ownership of UGVS to community members by FY 10/11 and active community participation in the management of UGVS.

b. Policy Influence: Policy issues affecting livelihoods systems of target households identified and studied. Essential reforms incorporated by government for improved livelihood enhancement.Policy issues affecting livelihoods system of targeted households identified and studied to influence essential reforms

4.10 xx project policy studies by UPASaC& PMU by EoP. 4.11. xx policy workshops/meetings organised with State government.

c Learning & Knowledge Sharing Project learning systems and knowledge-sharing procedures effective. Appropriate communication methodologies for knowledge sharing developed.

4.12 Newsletters by each DMU (in Hindi) circulated bi-monthly.


29

Table 2: Logframe targets and achievements

Revised logframe 2008 (MTR) Actual Results

Narrative Summary Key Performance Indicators

Goal

Sustainable improvement in the quality of lives and livelihoods of disadvantaged rural households in mountain areas of Uttarakhand by 2022.

Households with improvement in households asset ownership index. (RIMS)

Percentage of child malnutrition (boys/girls); weight for age, height for age and weight for height. (RIMS)

50% of target households raised above poverty line by EoP.

Dropout rate of girls decreased by at least 20% in secondary school and high school by EoP

The approaches of project adopted/modified by new/ongoing projects of the State in ___ cases by EoP.

Increase in assets owned by project households relative to non-project households.

Weight for age from 13% boys, 8% girls to 16% both boys and girls. Height for age from 50%/44% to 15%/17%, weight for age from 49%/ 44% to 15%/18%.

Wellbeing ranking shows 60% of households in both two poorest categories moving up a wellbeing rank

ULIPH approaches adopted in new NRLM and ILSP

Overall Purpose

Quality of lives and incomes of 42,690 target disadvantaged rural mountain households in 17 Blocks of 5 Districts sustainably improved through gender-sensitive, poverty-focused, collective self-help promotion systems and adoption of better livelihood opportunities, by EOP (2012).

Over 50% of households report improved access to business development resources and services.

Xx % households engaged in enterprises three years after they received support

Persons receiving project services (direct, total project); total men, total women. (RIMS)

Households that have improved food security. (RIMS)

Over 50% of women report increased access to CPRs by EoP.

Over 50% of women report increased incomes by EoP.

Over 50% of women report enhanced decision making within family by EoP.

Over 50% of women report enhanced decision making in federations, panchayats and van-panchayats by EoP.

Over 90% of households report contacting community resource persons. 70% of SHG members linked to Federations providing support services.

47,000 households (235,000 persons) receive project services, of which 42,862 are members of project groups (91% women)

Households reporting food shortage: 18% at RIMS mid-term, 1% at completion

Women involved in household decisions increases from 15% to 67%

Women participating in Gram Sabah increase from 37% to 90%.

Outcomes: Empowerment & Capacity-building Community Organisations & their Support Organisation

Appropriate community-based organisations of target households operating on an equitable and socially inclusive basis (especially of women) for collective actions and development of sustainable livelihoods, with reduced drudgery of women.

No. of HHs adopting drudgery reduction technologies (RIMS)

Xx% of SHGs report that their collective decision making on Natural Resource Management & Social Issues is accepted by community.

Xx% of women of project SHGs are representatives of PRIs.

Xx% of target HHs report reduction in women's drudgery by EoP.

Engagement with PRIs results in 50% of the village level coordination committee meetings (VLCC) and 75% of block level coordination committee (BLMC) meetings being held regularly as planned.

Most households appear to have adopted drudgery reduction technologies

259 women SHG members elected to PRI (0.7% of SHG members)

68% of project hh report reduced time collecting water, compared with 14% of non projecthh.

Outputs: Empowerment & Capacity-building Community Organisations & their Support Organisation

- SHGs formed/strengthened in targeted villages - SHGs members trained in social mobilization, book keeping, mobilizing savings and provide credit. - Communities sensitized to ensure at least 70% representation of women in SHGs - Block level offices, initially established by F-NGos,

4000 SHGs (----adopted and ---- new), covering approximately 42,690 households established. (RIMS)

___% of SHG members trained by project on social mobilization, credit management and self monitoring.

More than 80% of SHGs formed by Project are exclusive woman SHGs.

At least 60% of SHGs linked with federations.

3560 SHGs (3166 new, 394 adopted) covering 36,856 households

71286 SHG members trained (some trained more than once)

90% of SHGs are all-women SHG

3201 SHG linked to Federations (90% of SHGs)


30



transformed in Federations Offices of SHGs - Community resource persons selected through local CBOs - PRIs members sensitized on project objectives trained in institutional capacity building - Demonstrations/activities to reduce women drudgery identified and undertaken/implemented - Men sensitised on need for sharing household chores - Eligible SHGs members supported to receive social security benefits and to access life and healthinsurance schemes. - Convergence efforts for social welfare activities through line agencies and NGOs to continue.

Xx Federation offices established.

Xx Community Resource Persons working in project.

----males and ----females trained in workload reducing technologies. (RIMS)

Rsx,xxx contributed for purchase of drudgery reduction technologies, taken up by target households.

xx persons identified as eligible of which --%, receiving social security benefits(old age, widow and disability pension).

Rsxxxx mobilised annually through convergence for social sector (health, education, women's empowerment, nutrition etc.) activities from line departments and other agencies covering ____ HHs.

Rs Xxx mobilized from community through voluntary labour and cash contribution for community/social activities.

62 Federation offices established

..... 259 women and .... male CRPs

About Rs5,000,000 contributed for purchase of drudgery reduction technologies subsidised by ULIPH. Larger amounts now being paid as technologies are being sold at full cost.

6536 persons identified, of which 4298 have revived social security benefits.

Approximately Rs20 million per year paid in social security benefits facilitated by ULIPH

Outcomes: Livelihoods Enhancement & development

Target households organised through SHGs and Activity Groups to operate sustainable microenterprises in an equitable, gender-sensitive and environment friendly manner.

No. of HHs that have adopted new technologies promoted by the project by category (RIMS)(Agriculture, Horticulture, Livestock, Forestry, Other opportunities)

No. of HHs that report production/yield increases by category (RIMS) (Agriculture, Horticulture, Livestock, Forestry, Other opportunities)

26290 HH level enterprises established by category. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS)

__ ha of land brought under crop consolidation for at least two cropping cycles.

No. of HHs provided with long-term income generating opportunity from Van Panchayats. (RIMS)

RIMS tables show between 475 and 20,122 farmers per year adopting new technologies. 72% of project households report adopting a new technology, compared to 6% for control group (2011 AOS).

60% of project households report crop yield increase, compared to 25% for control group (2011 AOS)

Outputs: Livelihoods Enhancement & development

Persons trained in livelihoods enhancement and development through organisation of demonstrations, training events, workshops and exposure visits. Agricultural development Farmers exposed to improved agricultural techniques, inputs and crops through training and demonstrations Horticulture development Farmers exposed to improved horticultural techniques, inputs and crops through training and demonstrations

a) Agriculture- Organic farming i) xxxx demos organized on crop diversification and enhanced production ii) xxx capacity building programs organised iii) xxx IGAs organised iv) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) v) xxx SMEs established vi) xxx tons of products marketed b) Horticulture – Off-season vegetables i) xxxx demos organized on crop diversification and enhanced production ii) xxx capacity building programs organised iii) xxx IGAs organised iv) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) v) xxx SMEs established, vi) xxx tons of vegetables marketed c) Livestock – Kuroiler i) xxxx demos organized on enhanced production ii) xxx capacity building programs organised iii) xxx IGAs organised

Demonstrations: 55930 households involved in 23 different types of demonstrations

Training: 665 batches for 25579 persons




31



Livestock development Farmers exposed to improved livestock management techniques and inputs through training and demonstrations Soil and Water resources Farmers exposed to improved soil and water management techniques through training and demonstrations Forestry development Farmers exposed to improved agro-forestry, NTFP and MAP cultivation and management techniques through training and demonstrations Other opportunities Farmers exposed to ecotourism and other off-farm opportunities and techniques through training and demonstrations - Convergence efforts for demonstrations and business development in identified sectors from line departments and other agencies to continue.

iv) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) v) xxx SMEs established vi) xxx tons of meat marketed d) Livestock – Dairy i) xxxx demos organized on enhanced production9 ii) xxx capacity building programs organised iii) xxx IGAs organised iv) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) v) xxx SMEs established, vi) xxx tons of milk marketed e) Forestry -MAP i) xxxx demos organized on enhanced production ii) xxx capacity building programs organised iii) xxx IGAs organised iv) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) v) xxx SMEs established vi) xxx tons of products marketed vii) 750 ha of land brought under forest crops( bamboo, spices, fibre and medicinal plants). (RIMS) viii) No of Van Panchayats where boundary pillars made. ix) No of Van Panchayats where land records made. f) Other opportunities Tourism i) xxx capacity building programs organised ii) xxx IGAs organised iii) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) iv) xxx SMEs established g) Other opportunities CBRE i) xxx capacity building programs organised ii) xxx IGAs organised iii) xxx HH enterprises established. More than ___% owned by female (RIMS) iv) xxx SMEs established No. of persons trained, by gender and well being ranking (RIMS). (Agriculture, Horticulture, Livestock, Forestry and Other opportunities identified) Rs…… mobilized through convergence for demonstrations and business development (agriculture, horticulture, livestock, forestry, other opportunities) activities from line departments and other agencies covering …. HHs

Livestock and poultry:


Training: 485 batches for 17283 persons 992 micro-dairy unit demonstrations Forestry


Training: 169 batches for 6236 persons Tourism:



WBR 1 WBR 2 WBR 3 WBR 4 total Women

Training 25% 42% 26% 7% 100% 67%

Exposure 20% 43% 30% 7% 100% 50%

Workshop 25% 40% 27% 8% 100% 71%

Demonstration 23% 42% 28% 7% 100% 82%

total 23% 42% 28% 7% 100% 76%


Outcome D.aBy end of the project, UPASaC established as a financially sustainable and permanent entity, offering a full range of business development and investment services for income-generating enterprises for target households & groups.

Enterprises operating after last three year.(RIMS)

No. of enterprises from which exit of equity investment has been made.

% of equity fund reinvested from the total equity fund exited.

Total Revenue Generated by UPASaC.

Portfolio at risk: outstanding balance of over due loans (RIMS).

Number of jobs and self employment opportunities generated for various categories (RIMS).

Outputs


32



- UPASaC established and operating. - Small entrepreneurs trained in enterprise

management - Business promoters recruited and trained to

operate in targeted areas, by sub-sector (agriculture, horticulture...)

- BDS services provided to MSMEs (tech. upgradation, credit, policy support and marketing and management inputs) - Small entrepreneurs supported with equity fund to invest in SMEs. - 2448 backward and forward enterprises established

Number of people trained by gender and sector in enterprise management (RIMS)

Number of enterprises established /strengthened of which --- owned by female. (RIMS)

____% of equity fund invested in ______ no of SMEs.

____Small and Medium Enterprises and _____ HH level enterprises receiving BDS services covering technology upgradation, credit, policy support and marketing and management inputs through project

No of BDS providers giving services by sub-sector. (Agriculture, Horticulture, Livestock, Forestry, Other opportunities)

Active Savers: Male/Female (RIMS)

Number of active borrowers: Male/Female (RIMS)

Value of savings mobilized Rs. (RIMS)

Frequency of interloaning.( Average amount of interloaning in the last six months among SHG members )

Value of gross loan portfolio: loans outstanding –loan written off (RIMS).

Investment portfolio : % contribution of FFI, % contribution by beneficiary. % contribution by UPASaC

BDS income earned Rs.xxxx

Rs5.9 million out of Rs48 m fund disbursed (12%) to 43 SME

Active savers: 36,856

Active borrowers: 14,554

Value of savings Rs86.7 million

36% from FFI, 33% from UPASaC, 20% from ULIPH/Federation, 11% from beneficiary


Outcome D.b. Micro-finance Delivery Mechanisms: SHGs in project villages enabled to actively engage in regular savings and inter-loaning, and to access micro-finance services and external funding through linkages with FFIs and through equity investments of UPASaC.

% recovery rate of loan from FFIs

% recovery rate of equity fund from UPASaC

Xx% of target group households that have reduced dependence on informal lending sector.

CCL sanction to SHG by bank within 30 days of submission of documents

Dropout rate of SHG members is less than national average

Project households using moneylenders decline from 39% to 23%, control households decline from 52% to 35%.

Outputs: Livelihood Support systems

SHGs trained in order to leverage access to loan funds. - SHG supported to provide financial services to

households for the establishment of micro-enterprises, and linked to formal banks/FFI

- Improved access of SHG members to credit.

x% of SHGs received CCL

No of members of SHGs who have received term loan

Percentage of CCL used by SHG

Average percentage of SHG loan portfolio at risk (loans overdue by at least 90 days).(RIMS).

2175 SHG have CCL (64% of total)

1445 enterprises funded by term loans

Outcomes; Project Management

Project Staff, implementing partners, and concerned institutions/service providers enabled to plan, implement, manage, coordinate, and monitor project interventions, to influence policy and decision making for livelihood enhancement, and to enable an effective and operational learning and knowledge sharing system.

1.1. __ No of international projects mobilised. 2.2. __ No of State and Central Government projects mobilised. 3.3. Learnings incorporated in project strategies and activities and meaningful lessons

learnt disseminated to stakeholders 4 4. xx policy changes incorporated by government by EoP 5.5. M&E plan implemented


33



Outputs: Project Management

- Uttaranchal GramyaVikasSamiti (UGVS) established and assigned overall responsibility for project implementation. - PMU and DMUs established and operational

PMU &UPASaC staffed, equipped and operational

Management systems- administrative, financial and human resource policies prepared and implemented.

Timely invoicing, receipt and flow of funds.

Annual Audit report sent to IFAD within 6 months of FY end and Audit recommendations complied with.

Project Progress reports submitted 6-monthly to IFAD & UGVS. ____% disbursement of IFAD loan (RIMS)

Project covenants adhered to regularly.

89% of IFAD loan disbursed

- Orientation, annual review workshops and stakeholder workshops held regularly. - Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system, including process documentation, established. - Project staff trained to implement field level activities.

Regular communication, interaction & coordination with all stakeholders, formal Quarterly Review Meetings.

A system of periodic reviews and mid-course corrections established.

Transfer of majority ownership of UGVS to community members by FY 10/11 and active community participation in the management of UGVS.

Regular monthly review meetings held

b. Policy Influence: Policy issues affecting livelihoods systems of target households identified and studied. Essential reforms incorporated by government for improved livelihood enhancement.Policy issues affecting livelihoods system of targeted households identified and studied to influence essential reforms

xx project policy studies by UPASaC& PMU by EoP.

xx policy workshops/meetings organised with State government.

c Learning & Knowledge Sharing Project learning systems and knowledge-sharing procedures effective. Appropriate communication methodologies for knowledge sharing developed.

Newsletters by each DMU (in Hindi) circulated bi-monthly.

Newsletters produced in two districts


34


35

Annex 2: Record of supervision and follow-up missions

Sl.

No.Mission Type Month/Year Name of the Mission Member Specializations

1. Mr. Kishan S Gill Senior Portfolio Manager and Mission Leader

2. Mr. Pravesh Sharma Senior Adviser and IFAD Coordinator, WFP, Delhi

3. Ms. Juthika Banerjee Gender and Rural Institution Specialist, (UNOPS Consultant).


2. Mr. A.M. Alam Rural Development and Institutional Specialist (UNOPS Consultant).

3. Dr. N. Lalitha Gender Specialist, (UNOPS Consultant).


2. Mr. Y.C Nanda Rural Finance and Development Specialist (UNOPS Consultant).

3. Mr. C.K. Ramachandran Rural Deverlopment and Institutional Specialist (UNOPS Consultant).

4. Mr. Anurag Agrawal Social Venture Capital Specialist, (UNOPS Consultant)

5. Mr. Ron Hartman Visiting IFAD Staff

6. Mr. Anirudh Tewari IFAD FPU, Delhi

4Implementation

support

29 July - 1

August 2008Mr Shaheel Rafiq IFAD Implementation Support Specialist, IFAD India Country Presence, New Delhi

1. Mr. Kishan S Gill Mission Leader (IFAD Consultant)

2. Mr. Harish Chatoni IFAD Consultant (Rural Finance Specialist)

3. Mr. William D'Souza IFAD Consultant (Rural Institutional Development Specialist)

4. Ms. Uma Swaminathan IFAD Consultant (Business Development Service and Market Linkage Specialist).

5. Mr. Shaheel Rafique IFAD Implementation Support Specialist, IFAD India Country Presence, New Delhi

1. Mr. Vijaya Kumar Rural Institutions and Community Development Specialist

2. Mr. Harish Chotani Rural Financial Services Specialist

3. Ms. Vanita Vishwanath Rural Livelihoods and Enterprise Development Specialist

4. Mr. Sudhir Muralidharan Financial & Procurement Specialist

5. Mr. Daniel J. Ingty Project Director, MLIPH

6. Mr. Vijay Rawat GTZ's RED Project

7. Mr. S.C. LakhchauraGeneral Manager Uttrakhand Microfinance and Livelihoods Promotional Cooperative

Institution, Dehradun

8. Mr. Shaheel Rafique Mission Leader & Implementation Support Specialist IFAD, India Country Office.

1. Mr. Deep C. Joshi Team Leader & Livelihoods Development Specialist

2. Mr. Harish Chotani Rural Financial Services Specialist

3. Mr. Sanjay Gupta Rural Enterprise & Marketing Specialist

4. Mr. Sudhir Muralidharan Financial Management & Procurement Specialist

5. Mr. Shaheel Rafique Implementation Support Specialist

6. Mr. Vijay Rawat GTZ

7. Dr. Indraneel Ghosh GTZ

8Implementation

support2010 1. Mr. Shaheel Rafique IFAD Implementation Support Specialist

9Implementation

support

13-15 January

2011Mr Sriram Subramanium IFAD Financial and Procurement Specialist, Financial Management Training

1. Mr. N. Srinivasan Mission Leader and Rural Finance Specialist

2. Mr. Ashok Khosla Agri-business and Venture Capital Specialist

3. Mr. Sanjay Gupta Marketing Specialist

4. Mr. Sudhir Muralidharan Financial and Procurement Specialist

5. Mr. Shaheel Rafique IFAD-ICO

1. Mr. N. Srinivasan Mission Leader and Rural Finance Specialist

2. Mr. Edward Mallorie Agribusiness, Social Venture Fund Specialist and M&E

3. Ms. Kajal Chakravarty Financial and Procurement Specialist

4. Ms. Meera Mishra Country Coordinator IFAD-ICO

1Supervision

Mission

16-22

November

2005

6Fifth Joint

Review Mission

29 July- 12

August 2009

2Supervision

Mission6-16 June 2006

3Supervision

Mission

25 April-7 May

2007

5Mid Term

Review Mission

27 September-

3 October

2008

7Sixth Joint

Review Mission

24 May-7 June

2010

11Supervision

Mission

04 -15 May

2012

10Supervision

Mission

17-29 June

2011


36


37

Annex 3: Summary of the amendments to the loan agreement

1) The Project Loan Agreement between the Government of India (Borrower) and IFAD and the

Project Agreement between the Government of Uttarakhand and IFAD were signed on 20th February,

2004. The project was declared effective on 1st October, 2004

2) The first amendment to the Project Loan Agreement was made on 23

rd September, 2008.

Government of India countersigned the amendment letter on 10th August, 2009. Subsequent to the

decision of IFAD Executive Board in its 93rd

Session, IFAD has assumed direct supervision

responsibilities of the project replacing the Co-operating Institution (UNOPS). Besides direct

supervision by IFAD, the amendment was carried out to include 18 month Procurement Plan and

replacement of Schedule 4 Procurement with the new Schedule listing out procurement related

issues.

3) Schedule 2 – Allocation of Loan Proceeds was amended by communication dated 26

th April,

2012 reallocating the funds in the Unallocated Category.


38


39

Annex IV: Actual Project Costs

Table 1: Actual project costs by component and financier

INR million

Components IFAD GoUK FFI/Banks Beneficiaries Total

Pre Project Implementation 0.17 - - - 0.17

Empowerment & Capacity Building 272.00 22.22 - - 294.22

Livelihoods Enhancement and

Development 327.32 80.09 - - 407.41

Livelihood Support System

277.56 112.70 388.40

214.70 993.36

Project Management 143.80 72.76 - - 216.56

Total Project Costs 1,020.85 287.77 388.40

214.70 1,911.72

Table 2a: Financial performance by financier INR million

Financier Approval Disbursement

%

disbursed

IFAD Loan

1,121.04

1,020.84 91.06%

Government

313.77

287.78 91.72%

Beneficiary Contribution

281.66

214.70 76.23%

Banks/ FFI's

681.12

388.40 57.02%

Total

2,397.60

1,911.72 79.73%

Table 2a: Financial performance by financier and by year INR million

Financier 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Total

IFAD

9.22

72.49

52.50

98.73

147.38

179.54

167.43

159.27

134.28

1,020.85

State Government

1.76

3.61

8.85

11.42

22.82

40.24

41.22

55.98

101.88

287.78

Banks/ FFIs - -

6.09

17.23

26.89

59.20

93.07

151.41

34.51

388.40

Beneficiaries - -

6.09

10.25

14.91

34.85

68.58

38.69

41.33

214.70

Total (PCR

mission)

10.98

76.10

73.53

137.63

212.00

313.83

370.30

405.35

312.00

1,911.72

% of total utilization

0.57

3.98

3.85

7.20

11.09

16.42

19.37

21.20

16.32 100.00

Revised total 10.98 76.10 73.89 137.63 211.04 313.83 309.31 405.35 373.58 1,911.71

Notes: The Govt contribution for the year 2012-13 includes expenditure for the period April-June 2013

The first total is as calculated by the IFAD PCR verification mission, the revised total is as calculated after the

mission by UGVS financial management staff.


40

Table 3: IFAD loan disbursement

SDR

Total Loan Uttarakhand

Categories Allocation Disbursement % disbursed Allocation Disbursement % disbursed

1 Civil Works 51,020 13,661 26.78 29,081 - -

Vehicles, Equipment & Materials

2A Vehicles 590,000 318,527 53.99 336,300 117,690 35.00

2B Equipment & Materials 547,797 553,009 100.95 312,244 285,369 91.39

3 Servcie Contracts & Training etc 6,177,437 8,971,559 145.23 3,521,139 6,154,227 174.78

4 Leverage Fund 2,080,000 1,277,936 61.44 1,185,600 840,907 70.93

5 Rural Finance Capacity Building 850,000 1,143,757 134.56 484,500 676,868 139.70

6 Dmonstrations 7,673,746 6,191,896 80.69 4,374,035 3,023,839 69.13

7 Studies 600,000 472,650 78.77 342,000 304,531 89.04

Incremental Operating Costs

-

8A Salaries & Allowances 5,800,000 3,189,856 55.00 3,306,000 2,014,099 60.92

8B Operation & Maintenance of Vehicles 1,460,000 319,995 21.92 832,200 138,808 16.68

8C Operation & Maintenance - Others 270,000 75,322 27.90 153,900 56,988 37.03

8D Operational Expenses 1,800,000 950,360 52.80 1,026,000 546,119 53.23

Total 27,900,000 23,478,529 84.15 15,903,000 14,159,443 89.04

Note: There was a single loan agreement for the States of Meghalaya &Uttarakhand. Allocation of Uttarakhand is taken at 57% as per the Appraisal /MTR Report

Table 4: Expenditure by year compared with AWPB INR million

Year AWPB Actuals % achieved

2004-05 13.09 10.98 83.88%

2005-06 82.33 76.10 92.43%

2006-07 98.54 73.89 74.98%

2007-08 138.39 137.63 99.45%

2008-09 221.38 211.04 95.33%

2009-10 328.50 313.83 95.53%

2010-11 436.60 309.31 70.85%

2011-12 571.62 405.35 70.91%

2012-13 450.05 373.58 83.01%

Total 2,340.50 1,911.71 81.68%


41

Table 5: Expenditure by year and by component INR million

Year Pre Project

Implementation

Empowerment

& Capacity

Building

Livelihoods

Enhancement

and

Development

Livelihood

Support

System

Project

Management

Total

Expenditure

Appraisal

estimates

MTR

estimates

%

achievement*

2004-05

0.17

0.29 - -

10.52

10.99

175.27

6.27

2005-06 -

8.81

0.59

48.59

18.11

76.10

235.99

32.25

2006-07 -

29.39

3.82

22.29

18.39

73.89

310.37

23.81

2007-08 -

44.15

17.11

55.65

20.73

137.64

461.38

29.83

2008-09 -

47.51

49.83

90.44

23.27

211.05

340.13

62.05

2009-10 -

60.46

92.16

141.07

20.14

313.83

293.97

521.98 60.12

2010-11 -

52.15

91.05

143.61

22.50

309.31

301.52

529.08 58.46

2011-12 -

45.55

103.52

231.94

24.34

405.35

278.96

442.55 91.59

2012-13 -

5.91

49.33

259.78

58.56

373.58 -

414.68 90.09

Total

0.17

294.22

407.41

993.36

216.56

1,911.73

2,397.60

1,908.29 79.73

Appraisal/

MTR

Estimates

6.08

421.81

1,064.54

1,714.20

207.82

% achieved

2.86

69.75

38.27

57.95

104.21

Notes: Achievements are based on appraisal estimates upto FY 2008-09 and on MTR estimates thereafter

Expenditure for FY 2012-13 includes expenditure upto June 2013


42

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2004-05 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13

Achivement by component by year (INR million)

Pre Project Implementation

Empowerment & Capacity Building

Livelihoods Enhancement and Development

Livelihood Support System

Project Management

Total Expenditure

Total Appraisal/ MTR estimates*


43

Annex 5: Actual Physical Progress

Table 1: Capacity building and demonstrations

Number of households Number of batches

Appraisal target Achieved AWPB Achieved

Component 2

Institution building Training 6,014 71,926

Tours 1,080

Component 3

Agriculture

Training 430 25,579 772 665

Exposure

2,229 117 97

Workshop

4,494 130 85

Demonstration 11,267 55,390 15,291 13,973

Horticulture

Training 430 8,297 346 298

Exposure 100 2,837 151 127

Workshop

6,394 251 148

Demonstration 4,183 44,694 7,629 6,291

Soil & Water Resources

Training 274 1,682 87 51

Exposure

224 21 9

Workshop

0 0 0

Demonstration 2,135 5,952 3,858 3,145

Livestock & Aquaculture

Training 10,826 17,283 554 485

Exposure 100 2,323 112 107

Workshop

8,811 231 129

Demonstration 1,362 27,372 38,395 23,650

Forestry

Training 1,716 6,236 224 169

Exposure 980 1,106 46 40

Workshop

1,428 58 31

Demonstration 1,874 10,640 1,610 1,122

Eco Tourism

Training

4,204 381 256

Exposure

1,391 129 68

Workshop

2,245 87 32

Demonstration 20 10,859 1,025 753

Total

Training 13,676 63,281 2,364 1,924

Exposure 1,180 10,110 576 448

Workshop

23,372 757 425

Demonstration 20,841 154,907 67,808 48,934

Grand total

Training 19,690 135,207

Exposure 2,260 10,110

Workshop

23,372

Demonstration 20,841 154,907

source: project data


44

Table 2: Activities for livelihood development

Sector Activity

Numbers of persons/households participating

2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 total

Agriculture

Training 797 1,704 9,979 3,953 6,960 2,186 25,579

Exposure 216 296 323 333 804 257 2,229

Workshop 211 94 3,061 230 887 11 4,494

Demonstration 475 3,466 20,122 8,474 12,466 10,387 55,390

Horticulture

Training 515 1,516 3,007 722 2,118 419 8,297

Exposure 29 51 207 197 1,841 512 2,837

Workshop 343 453 156 100 4,056 1,286 6,394

Demonstration 2,798 4,857 6,565 9,846 14,014 6,614 44,694

Soil & water

Training 50 821 529 164 118 0 1,682

Exposure 46 0 80 35 63 0 224

Workshop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Demonstration 201 505 2,941 940 851 514 5,952

Livestock and

fisheries

Training 559 1,790 6,087 1,184 4,620 3,043 17,283

Exposure 127 168 289 401 1,160 178 2,323

Workshop 326 543 1,275 204 5,655 808 8,811

Demonstration 384 4,755 6,910 5,197 8,317 1,809 27,372

Forestry

Training 380 149 3,657 1,063 750 237 6,236

Exposure 268 42 420 100 276 0 1,106

Workshop 180 157 963 81 47 0 1,428

Demonstration 129 2,255 3,796 2,781 1,669 10 10,640

Eco-tourism

Training 169 378 1,302 1,104 876 375 4,204

Exposure 60 92 662 175 273 129 1,391

Workshop 90 250 1,584 60 193 68 2,245

Demonstration 409 639 9,482 263 301 74 10,859

Total

Training 2,470 6,358 24,561 8,190 15,442 6,260 63,281

Exposure 746 649 1,981 1,241 4,417 1,076 10,110

Workshop 1,150 1,497 7,039 675 10,838 2,173 23,372

Demonstration 4,396 16,477 49,816 27,501 37,618 19,408 154,907



45

Replication of demonstrations

Although demonstrations were meant to result in large scale adoption of new enterprises by a large number of households, there was little replication. Weaknesses of this approach of using demonstrations as one of the principal tools for developing livelihoods include:

(i) Given the subsidy-driven nature of agricultural development in India, demonstrations are seen as another subsidy scheme and it may be unrealistic to expect farmers to replicate demonstrations entirely from their own resources. Indeed the demonstration, by providing free or partly free inputs is, in itself, demonstrating the availability of subsidies.

(ii) The adoption or replication of some demonstrations was limited as the economics of the activity or enterprise was not sufficiently profitable to justify investment by the farmer in equipment and inputs that were provided free (or partly free) under the project. An example of this is the polyhouses. Although 243 of the 247 (93%) where records are available are in active use, maybe only 45 (20%) are generating sufficient sales to be considered viable.

(iii) Another barrier to replication is the lack of backward and forward linkages. Too often problems in the supply of inputs (such as seeds, day-old chicks, vaccines and feed), have hindered the replication and sustainability of demonstrations and other livelihood and enterprise activities.

Project data on the replication of 122 different types of demonstration, shows that 38 of them (31%) were not replicated at all, and the highest rate of replication for all types of demonstration, other than drudgery reduction, was around 50% (i.e. for every 100 demonstrations, there were only 50 replications). Only for three drudgery reduction demonstrations (Napier grass, water pitchers and solar lanterns) did the number of replications exceed the number of demonstrations, the highest being a 303% replication rate for Napier grass.

Table 3: Replication of demonstrations

Sector Number of

demonstrations*

Number

with zero

replication

Maximum

percent

replication

Average

percent

replication

Drudgery reduction/equipment 18 3 303 43

Agriculture (crops) 23 7 50 10

Horticulture 24 5 50 15

Soil and water 14 7 46 11

Livestock 21 8 52 30

Forestry / NTFP / MAP 13 6 50 10

Eco-tourism 9 2 30 10

Total 122 38

* number of types of demonstration source: project data

Demonstrations were not problem based - the project lacked the resources, knowledge and expertise to diagnose farming constraints from an ecological/resource perspective. Demonstrations tended to focus on new technologies or enterprises, with little attention to improving the utilisation or management of natural resources. A number of IFAD review missions commented that demonstrations were not leading on to enterprise development/livelihood opportunities. demonstrations mostly involved the distribution of equipment or inputs rather than demonstrating viable enterprise or livelihood opportunities with business plans, market linkages and productivity assistance.


46

Table 4: Access to Community Resource persons

Sub-sector

Percentage of

households

accessing

Organic agriculture 94

Dairy & related value chain 65

Paravet 62

SHG bookkeeping 47

Poultry 37

Off season vegetables 34

Bee keeping 28

MAP 20

Eco-tourism 8

source: Impact Evaluation Study, InsPIRE, 2013

The project heavily relied on Business Promoters, junior level field staff, to develop enterprises out of

demonstrations. However they lacked the experience and education, and were not adequately

supported by more senior staff. Only a few business plans were drawn up (and the two plans

reviewed by the 2012 Supervision Mission were totally inadequate). In particular collective

enterprises seem to have lacked business plans and have suffered a relatively high failure rate.

However at the time of project completion the PMU was making concerted efforts to help Federations

draw up and implement business plans, and this process has continued into the start of ILSP.

Table 4: Progress of Financial Services

2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Total

SHG Number 262 1211 1486 492 94 13 1 1 3560

Members Number 2323 13825 13066 6595 787 156 104 - 36856

Active savers Number 2323 13825 13066 6595 900 118 29 - 36856

Value of savings Rs lakh 6 43 89 140 181 142 156 146 903

Active borrowers Number 461 564 5881 4627 783 1072 1057 99 14544

Value of inter-loaning Rslakh 4 14 146 305 452 586 360 87 1954

Size of interloaning funds Rs 868 2482 2483 6592 57727 54664 34059 87879

SHG linked to bank Number 0 0 0 1194 608 261 83 29 2175

Value of CCL Rs lakh 0.00 0.00 0.00 353.25 215.14 119.18 73.81 33.13 794.51

KCC Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 2731 66 2797

Value of KCC limit Rs lakh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 701.87 28.92 730.79

Term loans for ME Number 0 0 0 77 287 170 505 70 1109

Value of ME loans Rs lakh 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.66 105.81 99.81 317.96 53.40 642.64

Term loans for SME Number 0 0 0 0 49 114 163 10 336

Value of SME loans Rs lakh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 118.75 236.09 306.89 21.73 683.46

SVCF project funded Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 43

SCVF funds disbursed Rs lakh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.59 58.59

source: Project data


47

Table 4: Use of loans from SHGs

Percentage of survey households

All loans Production consumption

Livestock 42 42

Agricultural inputs 28 28

Health 21

21

Education 16

16

Investment in other occupation (shopetc) 11 11

Ceremonies and social occasions 10

10

Daily household needs 9

9

Home repair and construction 4

4

Land development 3 3

Productive asset 3 3

Non-productive asset 1

1

Vehicles 1

1

Electronic gadgets 1

1

Total percent* 150 87 63

Proportion of all responses 100% 58% 42%

'* multiple uses of loans may be reported so total exceeds 100%


Table 5: Progress of SHG linkage with banks

District Total number

of SHG

Eligible for

linkage

Proposal of sent to bank Linked to bank

Number SHG Rslk Number SHG Rslk

Almore 722 659 582 297.4 565 289.3

Bageshwar 627 570 386 117.4 338 126.0

Chamoli 767 751 426 90.5 426 97.6

Tehri 780 780 596 153.8 590 208.5

Uttarkashi 664 635 272 67.4 256 73.1

Total 3560 3395 2262 726.5 2175 794.5


Table 6: Bank linkage

Name of bank

Proposal of sent to bank Linked cumulative Number of

pending

SHG

Number of

SHG Rslk

Number of

SHG Rslk

SBI 709 264.1 683 283.7 26

UGB 858 274.0 834 310.4 24

DCB 255 64.9 246 85.8 9

Mini-bank/PAC 389 111.9 363 103.1 26

Other 51 11.6 49 11.5 2

Total 2262 726.5 2175 794.5 87



48

Table 7: Sources of loans

Source of loans

Percentage of households reporting taking loans from different sources

Project households Control households Change

Before now Before Now Project Control Difference

Local money lender 39 23 52 35 -16 -17 1

Other MFI 0 6 0 4 6 4 2

Coop Bank 1 6 2 4 5 2 3

Bank 15 41 18 46 26 28 -2

Relatives/neighbours 85 82 86 93 -3 7 -10

SHG 3 89 1 4 86 3 83

Total responses(n) 300 300 300 300


Table 8: Term lending for enterprises

Term loans

No. of

enterprises

Project cost Margin

money

SHG

finance

Bank loan UPASaC

loan

Rslk Rslk Rslk Rslk Rslk

A. Micro Enterprises

Dairy 650 530.40 83.16 1.78 445.22 0.24

Kuroiler 3 2.50 0.35

2.15

OSV 56 35.35 8.32

27.03

MAP 7 8.90 1.43

7.47

Off-farm 172 75.46 22.15 0.50 52.31 0.50

Other 221 121.51 13.05

108.46

sub-total 1109 774.12 128.46 2.28 642.64 0.74

B. SME

Dairy 118 191.26 33.12 1.54 156.00 0.60

Kuroiler 5 7.36 0.62 0.39 6.35

OSV 50 89.06 1.30

87.76

MAP 2 11.60 1.85

9.75

Off-farm 120 413.79 80.36 1.82 331.11 0.50

Tourism 9 38.41 5.70

32.71

Forestry 2 2.00 0.50

1.50

Other 30 70.28 12.00

58.28

sub-total 336 823.76 135.45 3.75 683.46 1.10

Total 1445 1597.88 263.91 6.03 1326.10 1.84



49

Table 9: Timeline for start up of Social Venture Capital Fund

SNo. Action Date Remarks

1 Preparation of SVCF Guidelines August 20, 2010

Sh. Ashok Khosla was engaged by the project for three days. Guidelines were prepared but implementation arrangements and process was missing.

2 Preliminary documentation required for implementation were prepared.

Nov 2010 Legal formalities and clearances required prior to implementation were not clear.

3 Legal opinion from CA and Advocate January 22, 2011

Complexity increased as UPASaC didn't had legal structure to give loan. Clarity on NBFC/ SEBI registration etc. could not be obtained.

Meeting with Harish Chotani and Ashok Khosla

Feb 2011

4 Study Mission by INBAR in ULIPH districts

Feb 2011 To understand the scope of collaboration

5 Application for money lender's licence March 30, 2011

6 Detailing of documentation process was done through Sh. Satish Lakchaura

Apr-11 Due to lack of legal/ statutory obligation clarity, could not be implemented

7 MOU with INBAR signed for refining the guidelines, defining the implementation process and technical handholding

Apr-11 It was suggested by the INBAR representative, that UPASaC would not need any legal approval from RBI or SEBI for implementing SVCF under ULIPH.

8 Field Drill to understand the needs and demands and develop Policy Document

May-11 To understand the need and pulse of community

9 JRM recommended referring SFAC Venture Capital Scheme for framing SVCF guidelines.

Jun-11 The scheme was referred and used as a base for framing SVCF guidelines.

10 JRM also recommended to appoint a venture capital fund manager to manage SVCF.

Jun-11

11 Revised guidelines were framed and got refined by a state committee chaired by Secretary RD.

September 06, 2011

12 First Pitching of SVCf proposals September 25-26, 2011

7 proposals were presented and evaluated by the committee.

13 Revised guidelines got approved by the BoD and AGM

September 30, 2011

14 Officially SVCF scheme was floated October 17, 2011

Guidelines with related documents, business plan template and due-diligence process was floated to all the DMUs for mobilising SVCF proposals.

15 Second Pitching of SVCF proposals November 28-29, 2011

8 proposals were presented and evaluated by the committee. The committee recommended certain improvements in the proposals and due-diligence prior to approving the recommended proposals.

16 Letter to RBI for clearance on NBFC January 02, 2012

Consultant Finance under ULIPH recommended to seek clearance from RBI before formal sanction of proposals. This was with reference to RBI's notification no. DNBS. 138/CGM(VSNM)-2000 dated January 13, 2000 according to which RBI has granted exemption from registration requirement for section 25 companies extending loans up to Rs. 50,000/- for business enterprises and up to Rs. 1,25,000/- for dwelling units. The financing requirements of enterprises from UPASaC was more than these permissible exemption limits of lending. No written clearance from RBI could be obtained.

17 MOU with UGB and DCB March 22, 2012 and August 08, 2012

To administer the SVCF at the field level - disburse loans and receive repayments.

18 SVCF scheme through above banks was floated

June 11, 2012

19 SVCF implemented and sanction initiated

October to December 14, 2012

43 proposals worth Rs. 1.8 Cr. were sanctioned. Sanctioned proposals mobilized Rs. 63.82 lakh of finance from banks, Rs. 58.58 lakh of amount from SVCF, Rs. 35.71 lakh from ULIPH and Rs. 19.95 lakh was the margin money from the community


50

Table 10: RIMS tables

Appraisal

target FY 05/6 FY 06/7 FY 07/8 FY 08/9 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY12/13 Cumulative

Persons receiving project services

total men & women 42690 7,486 14,542 29,331 35,926 43,130

43,130 42,979 41,690 42,690

(total - men) 1,767 1,286 1,456 1,515 3,735

3,735 3,868 2,383 2,383

(total- women) 5,719 13,256 27,875 34,411 39,395

39,395 39,111 34,473 34,473

Household that have improved food security

42,119 42,430 42,430

Interest groups formed

(self-help groups, existing and new ones formed)

262

1,473

2,959

3,451 3,545

3,558

3,559

3,560

3,560

People belonging to groups 4000 2,323 16,265 29,331 35,926 36,713 36,869 36,973 36,856 36,856

Groups operational/functional, by type

40000

262

1,473

2,959

3,451 3,545

3,558

3,559 3,560 3,560

Voluntary savers 4000 2,323 16,265 29,331 35,926 36,944 36,944 36,973 36,856 36,856

(incremental savers - men) 40000 201 454 1,456 1,515 1,629 1,742 1,757 2,383 2,383

(incremental savers - women) 2,122 15,811 27,875 34,411 35,495 35,202 35,216 34,473 34,473

Value of savings mobilized 800 lakh 6 lakh 49 lakh 138 lakh 278 lakh 459 lakh 601 lakh 757 lakh 868 lakh 868 lakh

Active borrowers 20000 461 1,025 8,506 13,733 15,016 18,064 14,455 14,554 85,814

(incremental borrowers - men) 74 43 928 1,510 1,502 1,626 723 728 7,134

(incremental borrowers - women)

387

982

7,578 12,223 13,514

16,438

13,732

13,826

78,680

Value of gross loan portfolio (loans outstanding) Rs 4 lakh 18 lakh 88 lakh 154 lakh 319 lakh 589 lakh 1932 lak 2034 lakh 2034 lakh

Persons trained, by gender and sector

Enterprise management -total men & women

473

8,503 33,581

10,106

25,169

9,633

87,465

(enterprise management - men

344

2,719 9,601

5,161

12,836

4,325

34,986

(enterprise management - women

129

5,784 23,980

4,945

12,332

5,309

52,479

Enterprise established/strengthened

IGA* - 9,614 27,304 26,714 30,094 45,615 132,702

ME* 780 2,566 4,220 1,109 1,209 2,729 11,353

SME* 179 142 108 196 183 50 799

enterprises operating after three years

1,771

1,771

Persons trained, by gender and sector

-

Total agriculture 1,122 1,862 1,224 2,094 9,979 4,516 8,927 2,440 32,164

(agriculture - men) 131 212 374 586 2,710 1,955 2,678 2,010 10,656

(agriculture -wo men) 991 1,650 850 1,508 7,269 2,561 6,248 560 21,637

Total horticulture 1,180 905 887 2,020 3,007 1,019 8,582 730 18,330

(horticulture - men) 176 345 310 766 1,156 586 4,634 405 8,378

(horticulture - women) 1,004 560 577 1,254 1,851 433 3,947 325 9,951

Total livestock production and aquaculture 1,031

1,994

1,012 2,401 6,087 1,789 11,799 2,156 28,269

(livestock production and aquaculture - men)

197

774

425

402 1,432 1,074 7,079 840

12,223

(livestock production and aquaculture - women)

834

1,220 587

1,999 4,655 715 4,719 1,316

16,045

Total forestry - 454 828 418 3,657 1,244 1,065 - 7,666

(foretry - men)

193 325 296 814 732 639 - 2,999

(forestry - women) - 261 503 122 2,843 512 426 - 4,667

Total soil and water management

-

-

96 821 529

199 177 -

1,822


51

Appraisal

target FY 05/6 FY 06/7 FY 07/8 FY 08/9 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY12/13 Cumulative

(soil and water management - men)

-

-

54 308 138

55 48 -

603

(soil and water management - women)

-

-

42

513 391

144

129 -

1,219

Total other enterprise opportunities, including ecotourism

-

476

319

720 1,302

1,339

1,364

580

6,100

(other enterprise opportunities, including ecotourism - men)

-

264

107

331 660

759

709

490

3,320

(other enterprise opportunities, including ecotourism - women)

-

212

212

389 642

580

654

90

2,779

Farmers adopting technology recommended by project

Total agriculture 530 5,205 475 3,049 20,122 8,474 9,237 11,084 58,176

(agriculture - men) 44 681 82 610 3,279 1,233 1,477 2,217 9,623

(agriculture -wo men) 486 4,524 393 2,439 16,843 7,241 7,943 8,867 48,733

Total horticulture 1,124 913 2,798 4,932 6,556 9,846 11,571 12,728 50,468

(horticulture - men) 143 80 467 986 789 1,248 1,619 2,546 7,878

(horticulture - women) 981 833 2,331 3,946 5,767 8,598 9,951 10,182 42,583

Total livestock 1,031 3,640 384 3,233 6,910 5,197 6,616 7,608 34,619

(livestock production and aquaculture - men)

197

1,147

42

647 1,209

867

1,058

1,522

6,686

(livestock production and aquaculture - women)

834

2,493

342

2,586 5,701

4,330

5,557

6,086

27,929

Total forestry

17 129 84 3,796 2,781 1,289 1,675 8,482

(foretry - men)

9 38 18 890 769 373 335 2,059

(forestry - women)

8 91 66 2,906 2,012 915 1,340 6,423

Total soil & water management

-

201

421 2,941 940

783

861 5,014

(soil and water management - men)

-

54

84 76

136

117

173

5,014

(soil and water management - women)

-

147

337 2,865

804

665

688

4,841

Toal other enterprise opportunities, including ecotourism

-

409

116 9,173

263

449

718

10,679

(other enterprise opportunities, including ecotourism - men)

-

54

23 1,992

95

170

144

2,308

(other enterprise opportunities, including ecotourism - women)

-

355

93 7,181

168

278

574

8,649

Resource management plans enacted

-

29

191 139

78 na -

437

Common property resources area under improved management practices)

-

5

233 507

229

147

30

1,151

lrrigation schemes rehabilitated/constructed

- -

- -

-

574

2,164

2,738



52


53

Appendix 6: Financial and Economic Analysis

A. Introduction This Appendix presents the financial and economic analysis of the Uttarakhand Livelihoods Improvement Project for Himalayas (ULIPH) at its completion stage. The financial analysis aims at demonstrating that income-generating activities on farm (related to the main agricultural commodities supported by the project) and off-farm interventions, as proposed by the project, have been profitable and therefore sustainable. On the other hand, the economic analysis aims at demonstrating that, from an economic perspective, the project as a whole is viable, taking into account, as much as possible, all quantifiable incremental benefits and incremental costs. B. Data sources and general assumptions The data used in this analysis have been collected from various sources; including a number of studies carried out by UGVS, the Impact Evaluation Study, data base for the PCR report and other documents. No field visits were undertaken as the project area remained inaccessible due to damages caused by recent floods. The analysis is therefore based on desk research and data provided by the Project. Key assumptions Overall assessment indicates a positive change in resource use/base and livelihoods scenario of the participating target groups. Though a range of activities and interventions that were promoted and facilitated under ULIPH, these were more or less similar to those of pre-project activities but there has been a range of innovations blended to these interventions. In general the project had been able to overcome the sluggish start by strategically deploying

resources to complete most of the activities during the last two years i.e. 2011-12 and 2012-13. By and large the diversity of farm produce has not changed, but the volume of marketable farm

produce under cereals and pulses, spices, vegetables, livestock, fruit crops, and forestry produce has increased

Among the activities, production enhancement, organic farming of cereals and pulses and spices,

apiculture, seed production and also vegetables were given priority under agriculture; irrigation pipes and rain water harvesting were the focus under soil and water conservation. Off-season vegetable production and use of poly-houses under horticulture; vet services, milk cattle, poultry under livestock; van Panchayats and medicinal and aromatic plants under forestry, eco-tourism and community and micro-enterprises under enterprises development were the priority areas in other interventions.

Given the fact that the physical coverage of the project interventions is related to dynamic

interaction between the service providers and the target groups, the wide coverage indicated their appropriateness, adoption preference and potential for up-scaling.

All interventions under the soil and water sub-component, although very limited, have positive

impact on rural households and its economy through enhanced crop productivity, reduced drudgery to women and overall food security to the participating households.

The concept of village forest (through Van Panchayat system of institution) and related

interventions in the forest fringe areas were found to reduce the man-animal conflicts and also improving the quality of local water bodies.

Under livestock the achievements are mixed with some of the interventions overarching their

targets while others could not be initiated. Achievement under poultry and milk cattle has been very encouraging but there is no significant growth in livestock population.


54

C. Financial and economic prices Financial prices for major agricultural products and agricultural inputs were adopted from the study reports and ILSP appraisal report. Cost of transport seemed to be affecting both input and output prices. Women are paid less than that of men. The wages paid to farm workers have been assumed to approximate their opportunity costs. D. Project beneficiaries and benefits The ULIPH was implemented in five districts of Uttarakhand: Almora, Bageshwar, Chamoli, Tehri- Garhwal and Uttarkhasi. The project comprised four main components mainly (i) empowerment and capacity building of communities and community-based organizations; (ii) livelihoods enhancement and development; (iii) livelihood support systems and (iv) project management. Beneficiaries: The main beneficiaries of the project are: (i) SHG members; (ii) members of agriculture, horticulture, forestry and livestock groups and soil and water conservation; (ii) members benefiting from enterprises development; (iv) communities benefited from community infrastructure interventions and related facilities etc. Benefits have been calculated on the basis of at least 42,690 people directly benefitting from the ULIPH. Indirect beneficiaries: The communities in the areas of influence of subprojects who did not receive the full technical packages from the project. However, they benefited from improved access to services and increased cash crop production using the opportunities created from the newly constructed facilities, paravet services, artificial and natural insemination services, milk collection centres and the federation marketing. Quantifiable benefits: Project (quantifiable) benefits are mainly: (i) agriculture and livestock production increases for the farmers receiving the full technical packages promoted by the Programme and (ii) additional income generated by the enterprises and (iii) benefits from infrastructure improvements. Economic and financial benefits have been calculated on the basis of quantified benefits for all households. Agriculture is the major source of livelihood and its enhancement through enterprises; livestock, wage employment etc are subsidiary to agriculture. Secondary sector activities have been increasing in the project area. Area under small-scale irrigation increased by 8% and adoption of high value crops has also increased, for example some 20% in vegetables, 10% in spices etc. About 83%of households adopt improved agricultural practices to enhance productivity and also reduce soil erosion. About 80% of households use composting including vermin-composting. Livestock management has considerably increased due to vaccination, vet services, availability animal feed and also due to training. Agricultural and horticultural related activities dominate IGA, followed by livestock. Households’ livestock assets increased from 1.5 cows per household to 1.7 at project completion. Micro-enterprises contribute to increased incomes of the households. Food security: Staple food for majority is rice, wheat and pulses. Nearly 87% of households reported that their consumption of vegetables increased and about 58% households reported increased consumption of fruits. There have been overall increases in the consumption of vegetables, fruits, pulses, cereals, milk, eggs etc. Enhanced food consumption and thereby increased nutrition has been due to better facilities for storage, increased opportunities for IGA, better access to market and overall increases in the household incomes. This has also reduced the rate of distress migration from 74% to 23% a significant achievement of the project. At the mid-term 18% households experienced one hungry season but at project completion only 1% of household faced this problem. Non-quantified benefits: In addition to the quantifiable benefits, the project interventions yielded some benefits related to the project activities that are difficult to quantify in monetary terms and, thus, they were not included in the economic analysis. However, they certainly amounted to substantial socio-economic values. Among the non-quantified benefits (i) improved communications, better access to a wide range of social services; (ii) capacity building of women, SHGs, village organizations and farmers and their better knowledge of agricultural practices and higher awareness about marketing potential of their agricultural produce; (iii) increased possibilities of income generation for


55

women and positive impact on women’s empowerment through agricultural enterprise promotion activities and reduction of women’s drudgery. E. Economic and Financial Analysis Methodology employed for the analysis: In all some 42,690 farmers or households participated and benefited from the programme interventions. These beneficiaries are grouped in to the following subproject models: (i) agriculture, (ii) horticulture, (iii) soil and water conservation, (iv) livestock, (v) forestry; (vi) eco-tourism and (vii) enterprises development. Number of beneficiaries by the type of intervention was obtained from the project database as of March 2013. Then financial net benefits by each type of intervention were assessed from various sources. Net incremental benefits were estimated for each group of intervention. The impact of replication of demonstrations was estimated and assessed using a study

8 carried out in May 2013 by the Project. Incremental benefits estimated

from 7 subprojects (as described below) formed the basis for estimating net incremental benefits of the project.

Agriculture subproject: In all 20,198 households participated in three key interventions such as apiculture, organic farming and seed production. With their replication rate the effective number of beneficiaries is 26,488 households. There have been marginal increases in cropping intensity and productivity increases. Household incomes increased by INR 3,500. Replication rate ranged from 12% apiculture, 23% seed production and 37% organic farming. These are detailed in Table -3, Annex-1.

Horticulture subproject: Only one activity has been considered: 256 polyhouses for vegetable production with its replication rate of 11%. Out of 274 units, 18 are reported non-functional. Annual turnover per unit is INR 9,339 and assuming a two-third of turnover as net margin, annual incremental benefit per unit is INR 6,160. A poly-house has been set up with a total investment of INR 40,982 and of which INR 8,988 has been contributed by the beneficiary. See Table-4, Annex-1 for details

Soil and water conservation subproject: In all 3,842 households participated in the programme. Household incomes increased by about INR 2,785. There are also area increases and productivity increases under irrigated agriculture. Core activities were micro-irrigation using irrigation pipes for water conveyance and construction of water harvesting structures. Traditional varieties of paddy and other winter season crops were cultivated using the created irrigation potential. In spite its high replication rate, (74% for irrigation pipes and 46% for rain-water harvesting structure) these interventions have not been expanded. See Table-5, Annex-1 for details.

Livestock subproject: Under this subproject, the services of paravets, facilities for inseminations through natural breeding centres (NBC), setting up of fodder banks selling animal feeds, kroiler units, micro-dairy units and milk-collection centres etc were the key interventions. The replication rates vary between 10% for fodder banks and natural breeding units, 16% for milk collection centre, 30% for kroilers and 44% for micro-dairy units. No replication in case of paravet units. The paravet units charged INR 108 per insemination and carried out 170 inseminations in a year. The NBC charged INR 67 per insemination and each unit carried out 2,490 services in a year. Each fodder bank earned an annual income of INR 20,130. Each kroiler unit reared 925 day-old chicks and sold 700 birds due to high mortality rate. Net margin per kroiler unit is INR 21,000. Each micro-dairy produced 1,160 litres of milk annually with a net margin of INR 10,200. Each milk collection centre collected 39 litres of milk per day and earned an operating profit of INR 14,625/unit/year. See Table-6, Annex-1.

Forestry subproject: There are two interventions under this subproject: MAP and van Panchayat but data are available only for medicinal and aromatic plants (MAP). The MAP was cultivated on a total of 65.5 ha by 1,210 households. Gross income per household was INR 3,768 with a net income of INR 2,490. Its replication rate was only 10%. In Van Panchayat

8“Efficiency of Demonstrations in ULIPH Project, Study conducted by the Project in May 2013.


56

about 5,012 households were involved covering an area of 2,192 ha. These are summarised in Table-7, Annex-1.

Enterprises subproject: This subproject model includes the following activities: 89 community enterprises, 323 micro-enterprises and 69 marketing activities of the federations. Their replication rates vary significantly: community enterprises have a 100% replication whereas micro-enterprises have only 38% and nil in the case of federation enterprises. Community enterprises have a 10% operating margin and micro-enterprises about 15%. On an average each federation generated a surplus of INR 62,960/year and this amounted to about 12% of its annual turnover. See Table-8, Annex-1.

Eco-tourism subproject: Incremental benefits for the eco-tourism intervention were computed assuming 20 tourists per year per unit with a net operating margin of INR 1,000 per tourist. In all 179 households are operating and average number of tourists per year is 3,636. See Table-9, Annex-1.

Replication rates: Replication rates vary between sectors. In the agriculture sector, organic farming has registered a maximum replication of 37%. In the horticulture, the poly-houses have registered only 11% whereas the replication rates were high in case of soil and water conservation. But not much work has been done. Under the livestock sector, micro-dairy registered the highest rate of 44% followed by the Kuroiler units (See Table 1 below). Given the fact that the project had facilitated a number of demonstrations during its life period, overall replication rate is far from satisfactory.

Table 1: Replication Effect

Sector % replication Major activity replicated Agriculture:

Apiculture 12% Honey production

Organic farming 37% Cereal & pulses, vegetables

Seed production 23% Cereal & pulses

Horticulture:

Poly-houses 11% Vegetable production

Enterprise development:

Community enterprises 100%

Micro-enterprises 38% Petty shops

Marketing Federations 0% Sale of agri commodities

Soil & water conservation: 74% Irrigation pipes, RWH structures

Livestock:

Paravet 0% Vet services

Natural Breeding centres 10% Livestock services

Fodder banks 11% Animal feed units

Kroiler units 30% Rearing of DOCs

Micro-dairy 44% Cattle dairy

Milk collection centres 16% Sale of milk

Forestry & MAP: 10% Cultivation & sale

Eco-tourism: 12% Stay homes

D. Financial analysis No crop or activity specific models were prepared as available data are not sufficient enough for developing such models. Therefore data available on incremental “net incomes” for major interventions were used for analysis. All input and output prices are farm gate prices and these represented by and large the economic prices. E. Economic analysis Benefit Streams: The analysis attempts to identify quantifiable benefits generated by the ULIPH's implementation. The incremental quantifiable benefit stream comprises the following elements: (i) crop, livestock production increases for the farmers received the full technical packages promoted by the Programme and (ii) additional income generated by enterprises and (iii) benefits from common activities.


57

Cost Streams: In order to estimate the project's economic viability, in terms of Internal Rate of Return (IRR), the cash flow calculated includes the project base costs with their physical contingencies but without taxes and price contingencies. The costs included all investments for all project components as well as their replacement if there were any, and recurrent costs and also the investments from convergence. Expenditures incurred by the project were adjusted to June 2013 prices. See Table-10, Annex-1 for details. Project Benefits and Sensitivity Analysis: The base case Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is estimated at 18% over twenty year period with a BCR of 1.27 and NPV of INR 132.11 million discounted at 12% rate. The IRR declines to 14% if there were no replication and to 14% if benefits delayed by two years. These indicators are compared with those estimated at Appraisal (see Table 2 below).

Table 2: Summary Data

Details At Appraisal At PCR Base case IRR 27% 18%

2 year lag in benefits, IRR 19% 14%

Costs increased by 10%, IRR 26% 15%

Benefits declined by 10%, IRR 26% 15%

No replication, IRR - 14%

Sensitivity analysis shows that this base rate is slightly more sensitive to benefits shortfalls occurring after the end of the investment period, than to cost increases of the same magnitude occurring over the same period. After the investment period, the costs increases would only concern recurrent and replacement costs, hence the increase is unlikely to have an impact on the IRR. The summary of the economic and sensitivity analysis is presented in Table 1 of the Annex-1. F. Risks Analysis Matrix linked with Sensitivity Analysis:

Table 3: Risks Analysis Matrix linked with Sensitivity Analysis

Risk description Probability of occurrence

Mitigation measure Proxy to be compared with SA results: (Refer Table 1, Annex-1)

Institutional risks:

Lack of quality inputs and poor access of quality inputs to farmers, Inadequate or poor extension support;

Medium Farmers provided seed production training; Master trainers capacitated to provide extension support services

Benefits down by 15% IRR = 14%; BCR = 1.08 NPV=37.72 million

Market risks:

Lack of access to markets; Poor market infrastructure and information;

Medium These issues addressed through various other measures and projects

Benefits down by 20% IRR = 12% BCR=1.01 NPV= 6.26 million

Policy risks:

Lack of policy measures to upscale successful demonstrations; Inadequate policy measures for stabilising prices; Inadequate or poor support for rural credit;

High Govt has plans to upscale these demos by involving the communities; Issues relating to rural credit are being addressed by government; at project level the village organisations and SHGs and their federations play their roles to some extent

Costs increase by 15% and benefits down by 15% IRR= 10% BCR= 0.94 NPV= (36.85) million

Other risks:

Lack of road network and transport facilities

Medium These issues receiving the attention of the govt and will be partly addressed by the next IFAD project for Uttarakhand, ie ILSP

Costs increase and benefits down by 10% IRR= 13% BCR= 1.04 NPV = 19.47million


58

Annex1, Table 1

MLIPH PCR

Table-1:Economic and Financial Analysis

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Date: August 2013

0.12 12%

(000 INR)

Details 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20

Benefits

Incremental benefits 1/ 0 0 0 24,003 48,477 70,499 95,329 141,044 167,104 181,646 181,828 182,034 182,271 182,541 182,849 182,849

Total benefits 0 0 0 24003 48477 70499 95329 141044 167104 181646 181828 182034 182271 182541 182849 182849

Costs

Investment costs 2/ 308 23821 49818 60674 79293 81663 253262 331119 191889

Operating cost of Federations 3/

Total costs 308 23821 49818 60674 79293 81663 253262 331119 191889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Net benefits -308 -23821 -49818 -36671 -30816 -11164 -157933 -190075 -24784 181646 181828 182034 182271 182541 182849 182849

1/ From Table 2 Summary of incremental benefits from agriculture, horticculture, livestock, forestry, eco-tourism etc

2/ From Table 9, Project investment cost by year

3/ Only net incremental net retturns for each submodel considered

Basecase results: Benefits lagged by 2 year

NPV of benefit streams discounted at 12% 629,255 NPV of benefit streams discounted at 12% 561,835

NPV of costs stream discounted at 12% 497,143 NPV of costs stream discounted at 12% 497,143

NPV of project discounted at 12% 132,112 NPV of project discounted at 12% 64,692

BCR- discounted benefits & costs at 12% 1.27 BCR- discounted benefits & costs at 12% 1.13

IRR IRR

Both cost increase & benefits down

Project Performance indicators 10% 15% 20% 25% 10% 15% 20% 25% 10% 15% 20% 25%

NPV of at discount rate of 12% 82,398 57,541 32,684 7,826 69,187 37,724 6,261 -25,202 19,472 -36,848 -93,167 -149,487

BCR at discount rate of 12% 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.01 1.14 1.08 1.01 0.95 1.04 0.94 0.84 0.76

IRR 15% 14% 13% 12% 15% 14% 12% 11% 13% 10% 8% 6%

Switching Value Analysis:

Switching Value: Appraisal

Total Benefits at 12% DR 629,255 497,143 -21

Total Costs at 12% DR 497,143 629,255 27

Country: India Discount rate:DR

Project: Uttarakhand Livelihoods Improvement Project for the Himalayas

Project Year

18% 14%

Results of Sensitivity Analysis:

Costs increased by Benefits down by

Switching value % change


59

Annex1, Table 2

ULIPH PCR

Table-2:Estimation of Project Benefits: Summary of Subproject models

Subproject model groups # of PY 1 PY 2 PY 3 PY 4 PY 5 PY 6 PY 7 PY 8 PY 9 PY 10 PY 11 PY 12 PY 13 PY 14 PY 15 PY 20

households

or units

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2023/24

Agriculture subproject 1/ 0 0 0 1,339 19,038 30,119 42,367 67,305 78,198 91,343 91,426 91,520 91,624 91,742 91,873 91,873

Horticculture subproject 2/ 0 0 0 425 998 1,084 1,577 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750

Soil &water conservation subproject 3/ 0 0 0 994 2,979 5,963 9,939 10,680 18,322 18,322 18,322 18,322 18,322 18,322 18,322 18,322

Livestock subproject 4/ 0 0 0 153 2,307 6,289 9,966 20,147 25,344 26,441 26,538 26,652 26,783 26,936 27,112 27,112

Forestry subproject 5/ 0 0 0 0 0 1,519 2,303 2,988 3,013 3,314 3,314 3,314 3,314 3,314 3,314 3,314

Enterprises subproject 6/ 0 0 0 693 2,355 4,325 6,578 8,606 10,909 10,909 10,909 10,909 10,909 10,909 10,909 10,909

Eco_tourism subproject 7/ 0 0 0 20,400 20,800 21,200 22,600 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568

Total 0 0 0 0 24,003 48,477 70,499 95,329 141,044 167,104 181,646 181,828 182,034 182,271 182,541 182,849 182,849

1/ Refer to Table 3 for details





6/ Refer Table 8 for deetails

7/ Refer Table 9 for details

Incremental incomes (000 INR)


60

Annex 1, Table 3

ULIPH PCR

Table-3: Estimation of Project Benefits: Agriculture Subproject model

Activity/Crop Number of PY 1 PY 2 PY 3 PY 4 PY 5 PY 6 PY 7 PY 8 PY 9 PY 10 PY 11 PY 12 PY 13 PY 14 PY 15 PY 20

households

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2023/24

Agriculture Subproject Model

Apiculture 1/ 1,110 0 0 0 0 60 346 406 555 622 696 780 873 978 1,095 1,227 2,162

Organic farming 2/ 8,775 0 0 0 97 97 9,660 21,614 32,397 35,323 48,393 48,393 48,393 48,393 48,393 48,393 48,393

Seed production 3/ 10,313 0 0 0 1,242 18,881 20,113 20,346 34,352 42,253 42,253 42,253 42,253 42,253 42,253 42,253 42,253

Total/Incremental 20,198 0 0 0 1,339 19,038 30,119 42,367 67,305 78,198 91,343 91,426 91,520 91,624 91,742 91,873 92,809

Apiculture, cumulative 1,110 0 0 0 0 120 692 812 1,110 1,243 1,392 1,559 1,747 1,956 2,191 2,454 4,325

Organic farming, cumulative 8,775 0 0 0 24 24 2,400 5,370 8,049 8,776 12,023 12,023 12,023 12,023 12,023 12,023 12,023

Seed production, cumulative 10,313 0 0 0 373 5,670 6,040 6,110 10,316 12,689 12,689 12,689 12,689 12,689 12,689 12,689 12,689

20,198 26,458

1/ Replication rate 12%

2/ Replication rate 37%

3/ Replication rate 23% 3.50778592

Benefit parameters: INR

Apiculture Production of 3.34 kg honey per household/year valued at INR 150/kg 500

Organic farming Production of 142 kg cereals, 93 kg pulses and 1 kg spices/household valued at 4025

Seed production Production of 38 kg of cereals, 50 kg pulses & 10 kg vegetable valued at 3330

Number of households covered including replication



61

Annex1, Table 4

ULIPH PCR

Table-4: Estimation of Project Benefits: Horticulture Subproject model


households

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2023/24

Horticulture Subproject Model

Poly houses 1/ 0 0 0 425 998 1,084 1,577 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750

Total/Incremental 0 0 0 0 425 998 1,084 1,577 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750

Poly houses Units 0 0 0 69 162 176 256 284 284 284 284 284 284 284 284 284

1/ replication rate is 27%

Benefit parameter: INR

Poly houses Annual turnover at INR 9339/unit and with a net margin of 6160

Number of units covered including replication



62

Annex1, Table 5

ULIPH PCR

Table-5: Estimation of Project Benefits: Soil & Water Conservation Subproject model


households

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2023/24

Soil & water conservation Subproject Model

Irrigation pipes 1/ 3,468 0 0 0 919 2,754 5,513 9,189 9,745 16,956 16,956 16,956 16,956 16,956 16,956 16,956 16,956

Rain water harvesting 2/ 374 0 0 0 75 225 450 750 935 1,365 1,365 1,365 1,365 1,365 1,365 1,365 1,365

Total/Incremental 3,842 0 0 0 994 2,979 5,963 9,939 10,680 18,322 18,322 18,322 18,322 18,322 18,322 18,322 18,322

Irrigation pipes 3468 0 0 0 327 980 1,962 3,270 3,468 6,034 6,034 6,034 6,034 6,034 6,034 6,034 6,034

Rain water harvesting 374 0 0 0 30 90 180 300 374 546 546 546 546 546 546 546 546

3842

6,580

1/ replication rate: 74%


Benefit parameter:

Incremental value of production Incremental value of production per household 2810

Rain water harvesting nominal benefit due to drudgery reduction 2500




63

Annex1, Table 6


Units

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2023/24

Livestock Subproject Model

Paravets 1/ 33 0 0 0 0 54 216 306 594 594 594 594 594 594 594 594 594

Naturally breeding centres 2/ 55 0 0 0 0 601 3,103 4,504 5,505 6,056 6,056 6,056 6,056 6,056 6,056 6,056 6,056

Fodder banks 3/ 40 0 0 0 20 60 242 322 805 886 886 886 886 886 886 886 886

Kroiler 4/ 84 0 0 0 0 630 1,197 1,953 3,297 5,061 6,073 6,073 6,073 6,073 6,073 6,073 6,073

Micro-dairy units 5/ 621 0 0 0 133 887 989 1,816 6,334 9,121 9,121 9,121 9,121 9,121 9,121 9,121 9,121

Value of new born cattle 124 0 0 0 0 75 425 875 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100

Milk collection centres 6/ 36 0 0 0 0 0 117 190 512 526 611 708 822 953 1,105 1,282 2,693

Total/Incremental 993 0 0 0 153 2,307 6,289 9,966 20,147 25,344 26,441 26,538 26,652 26,783 26,936 27,112 28,523

Paravets 33 0 0 0 0 3 12 17 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33

Natural breeding centres 55 0 0 0 0 6 31 45 55 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61

Fodder banks 40 0 0 0 1 3 12 16 40 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

Kroiler 84 0 0 0 0 30 57 93 157 241 289 289 289 289 289 289 289

Micro-dairy units 621 0 0 0 13 87 97 178 621 894 894 894 894 894 894 894 894

New born cattle 124 0 0 0 0 3 17 35 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124

Milk collection centres 36 0 0 0 0 0 8 13 35 36 42 48 56 65 76 88 184

1,501




4/ replication rate 30%

5/ replication rate 44%


Benefit parameter:

Income from insemination at INR 108/insemination, 17 cows per month or 170/year 18,000

Income from insemination at annual income of INR 166,830/centre/year, less 40% operating 100098

Fodder banks with an annual operating margin of 15% of INR 134,190 20,130

Kroilers annual sale of 700 birds, each at INR 100 & operating margin of INR 21,000 21,000

Micro-dairy units annual production of 1160 litres of milk valued at INR 22/lit with a margin of 40% 10,200 10200

Value of new born cattle valued at INR 25,000/cattle 25,000

Milk collection centre daily collection of 39 litre/centre with a INR 1.25/lit profit margin 14,620

Number of units including replication



64

Annex1, Table 7

ULIPH PCR

Table-7: Estimation of Project Benefits: Forestry Subproject model


households

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2023/24

Forestry Subproject Model

Medicinal plants, ha 1,210 0 0 0 0 0 1,519 2,303 2,988 3,013 3,314 3,314 3,314 3,314 3,314 3,314 3,314

Van Panchayats, ha 5,012

Total/Incremental 6,222 0 0 0 0 0 1,519 2,303 2,988 3,013 3,314 3,314 3,314 3,314 3,314 3,314 3,314

Medicinal plants, hh 1,210 610 925 1,200 1,210 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331

Van Panchayats, hh 5,012 4,316 4,558 5,012 5,012 6,516 6,516 6,516 6,516 6,516 6,516 6,516



Income parameter

Medicinal plants kg/hh production valued at INR 3768/hh with a net margin of INR 2490 2490

Kuth production/hh 2.89

Kutki production/hh 3.81

Rose mary production/hh 0.33

Aloe vera production/hh 7.02

Other MAPs production/hh 9.42




65

Annex1, Table 8

ULIPH PCR

Table-8: Estimation of Project Benefits: Horticulture Subproject model


Units

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2023/24

Enterrprises Subproject Model

Community enterprises 1/ 0 0 0 0 12 211 582 1,103 2,205 2,205 2,205 2,205 2,205 2,205 2,205 2,205

Micro-enterprises 2/ 0 0 0 0 391 1,281 1,966 3,159 4,359 4,359 4,359 4,359 4,359 4,359 4,359 4,359

Fedrations marketing 3/ 0 0 0 693 1,952 2,833 4,029 4,344 4,344 4,344 4,344 4,344 4,344 4,344 4,344 4,344

Total/Incremental 0 0 0 0 693 2,355 4,325 6,578 8,606 10,909 10,909 10,909 10,909 10,909 10,909 10,909 10,909

Poly houses Units 0 0 0 69 162 176 256 284 284 284 284 284 284 284 284 284

Community enterprises Units 0 0 0 0 1 17 47 89 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178

Micro-enterprises Units 0 0 0 0 40 131 201 323 446 446 446 446 446 446 446 446

Fedrations marketing Units 0 0 0 11 31 45 64 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69




Benefit parameter: INR

community enterprises Annual turnover at INR 123,904/unit with a 10% margin 12390

Micro-enterprises Annual turnover of INR 65190/unit with a profit margin of 15% 9780

Marketing by Federations Annual operating margin of 12% valued at INR 62,960 62,960

Number of units covered including replication



66

Annex1, Table 9

ULIPH PCR

Table-9: Estimation of Project Benefits: Eco-tourism Subproject model


households

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2023/24

Eco-tourism Subproject Model

Eco-tourism units 0 0 0 20,400 20,800 21,200 22,600 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568

Total/Incremental 0 0 0 0 20,400 20,800 21,200 22,600 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568 29,568

Eco-tourism units a/ 0 0 0 102 104 106 113 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148

a/ Replication rate 12%

Income parameter

# of tourists/year 3636

# tourist/unit 20

Net income/unit/year 200000 assumed at INR 1000/tourist 200000




67

Annex1, Table 10

Table 10: Estimation of Project Expenditure by componets and Year

Componets/ PY 1 PY 2 PY 3 PY 4 PY 5 PY 6 PY 7 PY 8 PY 9

Activities

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Pre-project implementation 174

1. Empowerment & Capacity building

1.1 Community Empowerment 162 4566 14498 22823 29769 36743 27889 17684 4420

1.2 Facilitation through NGO 129 3900 10530 14809 15555 17154 16901 15473 0

1.3 Interventions to reduce women drudgery 0 346 4360 6516 2183 6564 7361 12391 1492

sub-total componet 1 465 8812 29388 44148 47507 60461 52151 45548 5912

2. Livelihood enhancement & development

2.1 Agriculture 88 500 2495 8611 15218 12153 19042 11709

2.2 Horticulture 39 831 3726 9345 15700 20830 23681 12459

2.3 Soil & water conservation 0 0 611 3393 10527 15818 5406 2812

2.4 Livestock & aquaculture development 146 1897 5175 17229 21167 18169 34435 15505

2.5 Forestry development 252 554 1866 6838 15780 12481 8474 733

2.6 Eco-tourism 69 34 3233 4415 13769 11598 12479 6113

sub-total componet 2 0 594 3816 17106 49831 92161 91049 103517 49331

3. Livelihoods support system

3.1 Entreprenuership development 5697 9709 11610 10369 10305 10032

3.2 Rural Finance Services support 194 314 2291 5146 6668 2515 2219 70462

3.3 Social Venture Capital Company 152 8626 19124 28115 23895 24414 26194 27933

3.4 Policy studies & advocacy 240 802 1054 1629 4851 5651 3119 7795

3.5 Leverage Fund 48000

sub-total component 3 0 586 9742 28166 44599 47024 42949 41837 116222

4. Project Management 10518 18110 18393 20730 23270 20135 22500 24341 51059

5.Village Development Fund 0 0 0 0 0 95 8083 25754 9666

Total 10983 28102 61339 110150 165207 219876 216732 240997 232190

182 14705 24032 41248 56182 65331 219655 310327 191889

Add convergence a/ 8679 1004 3707

Net 182 14705 32711 42252 59889 65331 219655 310327 191889

April 2013 cost factor b/ 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0

Adjusted Investment costs used in Analysis 308 23,821 49,818 60,674 79,293 81,663 253,262 331,119 191,889

a/ IFAD grant, Rural Development Department and ICDS

b/ factor ratio between national GDP in current and constant prices from 2003/04 to 2012/13

Amount in (000 INR)


68


69

Appendix 7: Impact on the Environment

The project had a positive impact on the environment. Specific impacts include:

(a) The project made efforts to improve the availability of water for irrigation and domestic use, so mitigating the impacts of more erratic rainfall linked to climate change. Rainwater collection and storage systems included: LDPE tanks (1531 installed); irrigation tanks (35 installed); water lifting pumps (89); 20,000 litre ferro-cement tanks (19); 10,000 litre ferro-cement tanks (1232); 3,000 litre rooftop water harvesting tanks (413).

(b) Replanting of Van Panchayat (community) forests - 410 ha replanted out of the total forest area of the 62 ULIPH VPs of 2192 ha.

(c) Drudgery reduction activities also had positive, if limited, environmental impacts. In particular the widespread production of Napier grass has reduced pressure on forests. Smokeless stoves, being more efficient in fuel use, can also reduce pressure on forests as a source of fuelwood. However these stoves have not caught on, with women preferring to switch to gas for cooking due to a government subsidy programme. The recent introduction of the solar lantern will reduce kerosene use.

(d) The promotion of organic farming methods, involving almost 10,000 farmers, should also help maintain soil fertility. Evidence from participating farmers show yields increasing. A premium for organic produce may provide an incentive to farmers to make and apply compost – avoiding the problem of declining animal population producing less manure, which together with labour shortages and wild animal damage, means land goes out of crop production.

(e) Farmers have also adopted other soil and water conservation techniques which will have positive impacts in terms of reducing erosion and improving crop productivity. Details are in the table below, which shows that adoption of these techniques was significantly higher for project households than for the control group.

Table 1: Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Techniques

Project households (%) Control households (%) Change

Before Now Before Now Project Control Difference

Sloping land technique 36 57 25 41 21 16 5

Improved nursery 7 54 10 19 47 9 38

Soil moisture retention 4 28 3 6 24 3 21

Small area irrigation 13 29 5 9 16 4 12

Cropping techniques 9 51 4 17 42 13 29

Erosion control 59 82 38 54 23 16 7

Total responses (n) 289 293 255 259

source: Impact Study

(f) SHGs initiated village level environmental programmes - such as village cleanliness and total

sanitation campaigns, and the impounding of stray animals.


70


71

Appendix 8: Results of stakeholder workshops

Strengths and weaknesses of ULIPH as identified by different stakeholder groups at block and

district level project completion workshops

SHGs members

Strengths Weaknesses

Demonstrations as per place and environment

Successful demo of rural tourism

Coordination for social security schemes( old age, widow pension, physically and mentally handicapped pensions)

Fodder initiatives ( specially Napier)

Socially and economically strong Institutions

Availability of large quantity of local produce

Strong legal Cooperatives

Successful Women Drudgery initiatives and their replication

Experience of federations as implementation agencies

Decision making and leadership skills of SHGs and federation representatives

APL and BPL working together

Bank linkages, specially to SHGs

Some of the interventions i.e. Samridhi Ghara, Napier, Solar lantern etc. replicated into business mode

Registration for MAP activities

Training for educated unemployed youths of the villages

Placement of technical persons at district level

No full fledge team for marketing

Project did not had its own Animal Husbandry doctor and Engineer

No scope for infrastructure building (collection centre etc.)

No provision for goat and sheep rearing

Need to emphasise more on registration of enterprises

Financial management need to improve more

Business corpus less

2% of the project beneficiaries are men. For business purpose this percentage needs to be higher

Local government representatives


Federations as project implementation agencies

Social mobilization initiatives

Inclusion of PRIs in programmes at different levels

Inclusion of spices for demo which are not prone to forest animals

Adoption and strengthening of already existing SHGs

Skills of formation and strengthening of CBOs

Wellbeing ranking methodology for selection of poor

Implementation of project activities in remotest areas

APL and BPL working together

No provision for goat and sheep rearing

Federations as implementation agency for activities related to MGNREGA

No provision of soil testing centres

Value addition

All the villages of the block are not included in the project, which is not good for business of federations


72

Government line departmentstaff


Work on organic agriculture. All the beneficiaries need to be transferred to the concerned department

Competent staff from district to village

SHGs and Federations are providing useful platform

Use of collection centres of Rural Development Departments by SHGs/ federations for collective marketing and retail counters

Corpus of SHGs

Convergence with Animal Husbandry departments for Kuroiler hatchery

CRPs developed for different fields useful for sustainability and future capacity building

Weekly Haats

Review meeting at village, block, district and state meetings

No federations at district level

Fisheries value chain not included

Different rates of support for the same intervention

NGOstaff


Experienced workers

Local workers

Command on regional language

Experience of implementation of externally aided projects

Good coordination between Government and Non- Government organizations

Good participatory skills

Workers doing multiple works

Less honorarium given to workers in view cases

Monitoring and evaluation weak due to weak MIS

High turnover of staff

Role of NGO confined to only social activities

DMU/ PMU staff


Regular monitoring and implementation

Diversified specialized staff

Documentation

Uninterrupted fund flow

Cluster to DMU, DMU to PMU well established system of reporting, demand generation and sanction.

Value Chain approach

Unification of social and business cell.

Business orientation

Coordination and Convergence with line departments and different NGOs for different schemes

Financial and Administration Guidelines

Regular capacity building of staff as per need identification

Efficient and dedicated team leader

Collection of Beneficiary Contribution

Staff doing multiple works

Weak HR policy

MIS not proper

High turnover of staff

Lack of subject matter specialists

Vacant positions


73

Opinions of State and District PMU staff

SWOT analysis of project institutions: opinions of ULIPH HO Team

Institution Strengths Weakness Opportunity Threat

SHG

Regular meeting and regular saving, No conflict reported , Gradually getting into business activities , linked with federations

All are not linked with bank only 66 % linked to bank, The majority of members are women belonging to SC communities, so they lack entrepreneurship

Good amount as corpus with the SHGs , Ready platform to implement any project of line department at ground level . Programmes like NRLM and other livelihood improvement project are coming to Uttarakhand state

New projects or NGOs may lure them to start and they may lure some members which may result into disintegration of SHGs

Federation

Registered entities under SRC Act , Good demand of their services in the community , Their work getting recognised by District level Authorities and they are now been engaged in policy making decisions , surveys and other field level Jobs

98 % of the members are women they cannot spare full time for federation activities, Lack of infrastructure like office buildings , vehicles etc

Ready platform to implement any project at ground level , Many govt line department have lack of field staff but they want to implement the projects through NGOs now

Natural calamities occur in Uttarakhand regularly and since these federations are engaged in business activities they suffer financial loses. In case of some powerful and corrupt person getting elected as president then he may jeopardise the proper functioning

VP

Good organizational structure. Availability of natural resources. Good co-ordination with villagers and PRIs.

Lack of transparency in decisions. Benefit to dominant villagers.

Convergence. Availability of fodder for animals.

Flood, fire, landslide and natural disaster can harm the resources.

FNGO

Well experienced local staff. Knowledge of local language and familiar with local community. Good mobilisation and participatory skills.

Multitasking staff, less remuneration to staff leads to high employees turnover. Role of NGO mainly confined to social activities.

Penetration up to bottom level. Work as a bridge in between project and community.

FNGO can leave the project in between. Chances of presenting fake information if monitoring is not proper.

ULDB

Trained staff , good resources, wide area of operation

Poor monitoring , Monthly payments to Para vet not regular, Low salary to District Vet officers , lack of funds

Large number of project beneficiary keep livestock at farm

Migration rate is high in hills and decline in trends of farm based activities , young women are not interested in keeping the animals anymore

UOCB

Trained staff , good resources, wide area of operation

Working in isolation not converging with line departments at block or village level , lack of funds

Majority of farmers are doing farming without use of chemicals so scope for Organic

KVKs and Line departments promoting chemical farming and providing inputs at subsidised prices

Seed Corporation

Good name brand , Good quality seeds and technical inputs .

Lack of field staff , Head office far from Project area thus problem of getting seeds in time . They have other commitments ie supply of seeds to Govt departments and offices thus many time non availability of desired seeds during sowing season

Buyback arrangement , timely payment,

Pvt seed companies coming to states .In case of small volumes of seed production at field level problem of transport to TDC

Private companies

Professionalism in approach. Business inclination and approach, quality services. Market presence and linkages

Lack of experience of working in hills in most of the cases. Limitation of social inclination.

Willingness to tie-up with project and federations. Number of federations doing number of activities.

Natural calamities. Profit oriented.

Banks

Field presence. Trained staff. Similar objectives.

Long procedures. Lack of orientation towards rural context.

Large number of business activities supported by the project. Government schemes/ policies supporting bank linkages.

Business Orientation. High risk for banks as project beneficiaries are marginal and not into regular recognised businesses.

UGVS: state PMU

Trained staff, Young professionals from competitive open market. Experience of implementation and monitoring of livelihood projects of hills. Equipped with office equipments and modern gadgets. Uninterrupted fund flow. Linkages and coordination with line departments and NGOs. Regular capacity building of staff.

Large human resource turnover. Pressure of financial achievements. Large procedures in getting Government approvals. Poor career growth prospects. Multitasking dilutes the focus. Improper MIS. Weak HR policy. Lack of VC specialists

State NRLM. Learning could help in influencing the policies related to rural development.

Experienced human resource at times avails other opportunities and project suffers the gap. Political interference. Vacant positions.

UGVS: district PMU

Trained staff, Young professionals from competitive open market. Experience of field implementation of livelihood projects in hills. Equipped with office equipments and modern gadgets.

Large human resource turnover. Pressure of financial achievements at times compromises the quality. Poor career growth prospects.

State NRLM. Dovetailing with other projects and schemes.

Experienced human resource at times avails other opportunities and project suffers the gap. Political interference. Vacant positions.


74

Institution Strengths Weakness Opportunity Threat

UNOPS

Focus on participatory approach during mission visits. Extensive field visits meeting stakeholders at all levels. Technical support in procurement, M&E and project management

Technical experts especially in agri-horti sectors not always present as part of the mission. Facilitation of enterprise interventions by project

IFAD

Practical approach, liberty to work, regular support and proper monitoring.

Pro poor approach sometimes hinders enterprise development. Lack of well defined documents such as EOI, RFP,contract etc.

Space for change and innovations. Feedback and learning from other projects of IFAD. Team of veteran consultants .

Chances to impose their ideas which may not be practical according to area need.

GoUK

Developed policies of line departments to support . Clarity in mandate.

Inadequate manpower, lack of publicity. Top to bottom approach and rigid norms.

Plenty of funds, opportunities to converge with external aided project and reach in remote areas.

Changing priorities.

SWOT analysis of project institutions: opinions of ULIPH District Team

Institutions Strengths Weakness Opportunity Threat

SHG Homogenous,Good accounting, Good leadership, bank linkage

Need for handholding support, Lack of entrepreneurship

Positive mind set for the SHG formation

Hijack of SHGs by other projects, NGOs, Schemes, Natural disaster

Federation Community owned institution, Business oriented, active leadership

Need for handholding support, Lack of entrepreneurship,

Good Cooperation , Business centre point for community

Hijack by some influential leaders, Misuse of money

VP Availability of land, strong leadership in Kumaon region

Poor land record and micro plans , Poor participation of community.

Huge opportunity for Fodder development and NTFP

Rigid department Rules for sell the produce.

FNGO Local , Good presence in the area, strong social mobilisation

Weak HR policy, Lack of entrepreneurship, Lack of technical expertise

Availability of developmental project

Lack of resources, Non stability, Work specific funding

ULDB Technical competency, Strong Infrastructure,Good role model

Turnover of staff, lack of second line leadership

Huge scope in breeding, fodder development, embryo transfer technology.

Government interference

UOCB Govt supported lack of Competent and regular staff. Huge area of operation, covering the more area in less efforts

Dependency on Govt and other livelihood projects and agencies.

Seed Corporation

Availability of quality seeds, specific seed and timely supply of seed

Non availability of required quantity, Low level of by back arrangement, lack of competent staff

Can emerge big service provider of quality seeds.

Non availability of isolated land for the production of seed

Private companies

Packaging, branding and competitive strengths, and prompt services

Lack of commitments, hill specific staff and experience

Availability of clientele Cut thought competition,

Banks Good coverage in rural areas, Lack of staff in hilly areas, Poor net work

Big size of clientele Defaulters and write off policy of govt

UGVS: state PMU

Experienced and qualified staff, Lack of technical and marketing expert, Poor HR policy, low implementation support.

Dovetailing and implementation of departmental schemes and programmes

Dependency on IFAD

UGVS: district PMU

Devoted,qualified ,experienced staff, Good coordination skills,

Lack of conceptual clarity, Good knowledge and resources to implement the projects

No Job security

UNOPS Expert manpower, good knowledge sharing

Aged and non hill specific staff Availability of clientele Dependency on U.K Agencies.

IFAD Timely disbursement of loan, less interference in project, community friendly approach, innovative.

No regular staff Good opportunity to generate revenue against investment,

Govt policies and interference

GoUK Ample scope for development work

Non stable Govt Ample opportunity for obtaining fund from donors due newly established state

Lack of coordination.


75

Changes bought about in lives of SHG Members A. Opinions of ULIPH HO staff

Changes for SHG members

Size of change

Degree change due

to ULIPH

Degree change will

be sustained

Score 0 to 5 Score 0 to 5 Score 0 to 5

Food security 4 3 5

Income 5 4 4

Household assets 5 3 4

Productive assets 4 3 3

Financial assets 4 2 4

Knowledge / skills 4 3 5

Social empowerment 5 5 5

Links with the market 3 2 3

Links with government 4 3 4

Links with other service providers 3 2 3

B. Opinions of ULIPH district staff

Changes for SHG members

Size of change

Degree change due

to ULIPH

Degree change will be

sustained

Score 0 to 5 Score 0 to 5 Score 0 to 5

Food security 4 2 4

Income 3 1.5 2

Household assets 3 1 3

Productive assets 3 2 2

Financial assets 4 3 3

Knowledge / skills 3 2 3

Social empowerment 4 3 4

Links with the market 3 2 3

Links with government 3 1 2

Links with other service providers 3 2 3


76


77

Appendix 9: Evidence of outcomes and impact A. Drudgery reduction

The project has had some notable successes in the introduction of new tools and technologies aimed at reducing the drudgery of women. In particular two interventions (Napier grass and lightweight water pitchers) have been replicated on a large scale – with many more being purchased that were provided for free by the project. Other interventions were not so widely taken up (although some popular in some places) For example: smokeless stoves (bottled gas and, more recently, electricity have become popular for cooking), chaff cutters (human powered, an electric version would reduce the work required), cattle troughs (expensive, but popular in some places), and farm equipment such a threshers and ploughs – although sickles were said to be more popular.

Table 1: Drudgery reduction demonstrations

Number demonstrated

Number replicated

Percent replications

Livestock feeding Cattle trough 5,277 538 10

Chaff Cutter 270 44 16

Napier grass (number tufts) 772,460 2,338,754 303

Other fodder grass 5,900 345 6

Hand tools Sickle 17,706 7,146 40

Rake 4,986 710 14

Spade 4,291 608 14

Farm machinery Improved Plough 1,619 261 16

Power Tiller 67 5 7

Winnowing Fan 608 48 8

Paddy/Manduwa thresher 39 - -

Compost making Vermicompost pits 17,461 10,378 59

Other compost making 547 58 11

Domestic equipment Smokeless stove 95 20 21

Solar lanterns 995 1,332 134

Water pitcher 9,186 10,577 115

Source: project data

However a study of drudgery reduction9 found that replication (or lack of replication), may not equate

to drudgery reduction. This reached the following conclusions:

a) Napier grass had no impact on work-related health issues (aches and pains) for women, and women did not feel that it had saved time or reduced the shortage of fodder, although it did grow fast and needed little water. This was due its limited scale of cultivation in the villages covered by the study, and the study thought the Napier had great potential to reduce drudgery and increase milk production if grown on a large scale on wasteland.

b) Cattle troughs reduced the time spent feeding animals by one third, reduced fodder wastage, and was popular with women.

c) Chaff cutters reduced the time taken to cut 10kg of fodder from 2 hours to 20 minutes, reduced aches and pains, and saved time. However 20 out of 30 households were feeding animals without cutting fodder – but in the dry season cutting and mixing green and dry fodder can help make better use of limited feed resources.

d) Sickles: at the start of the ULIPH a large number of sickles were distributed and the project has assumed that they were popular. These sickles were lightweight, but not durable and did

9Impact analysis of women drudgery reduction activities on health, labour and time, Navneet Kumar Yadav (student at Delhi

University), July 2012.


78

not cut the branches of bushes easily, did not save time or labour, or improve the health of women. Although the new sickle is useful for cutting crops, it was not suitable as a tool for the daily collection of fodder by women.

e) Vermicompost has been promoted on the basis that it is a more concentrated soil improver than ordinary farmyard manure, so women need to carry less to the field, and it also does not harbour the white grubs which cause significant damage to crops. The survey found that people used one fifth the quantity of farm manure, and women partly agreed that it saved time and labour (it also takes some time to make), and also reduced aches and pains. Two-thirds of women felt there was some increase in crop production and reduction in pest attacks.

f) Power tillers were found to cut the time taken to cultivate land by 75%, and also saved on the need to keep draft animals. It reduced (but did not eliminate) aches and pains.

g) Threshing machines reduced the time needed to thresh a crop by a factor of 12, eliminated aches and pains, and maintained the quality of the product (the impact study mentions as time reduction factor of 6 for wheat and 8 for finger millet, with less dust and consequent respiratory problems).

h) Water pitcher: a pitcher made of food-grade plastic weighs only 1 kg instead of the traditional 5 kg bronze pitcher. Women may have to walk three times a day to a water source 2.5 km away – a total of 15 km per day taking almost 4 hours. In another village women were walking 40 km per day, this taking 10 hours of their time. All women agreed that the plastic pitcher (Ganga Gaagar) a major saver of time, and labour, had a positive impact on their health, contained more water (17 litres compared to 15 litres), and was comfortable to carry. The pitcher has become widely used in both project and non-project villages.

It is apparent, that despite positive feedback from his study, that some items have not caught on in terms of being replicated by households using their own resources. One reason is cost relative to the value placed on women’s time. Even if a considerable amount of time is saved, households place almost no value on women’s time and are so unwilling to invest in labour saving tools

10. The

replicated initiatives had little or no cost attached – Napier grass slips/tufts were generally given away for free by those households who had established Napier, while the plastic pitcher was a cost-saving replacement for a metal pitcher – costing around Rs200 compared with Rs1000 or more for a metal pitcher. Although cattle troughs reduce drudgery, they cost about Rs2500 each plus labour from community, so replication has some significant cost implications. Chaff cutters cost even more, between Rs3,500 and Rs6,000 depending on the make, and also seem to have problems in operation (heavy blades, difficult to maintain). Power tillers are even more expensive: Rs65,000 to Rs81,000 (this may be net of a government subsidy).

Table 2: Women reporting reduced time on farm and household work

Tasks % of women reporting reduced time

project control

Household chores 72 30

Fodder collection 72 16

Drinking water collection 68 14

Firewood collection 68 17

Agricultural activities 43 14

Livestock activities 41 9

Other livelihood activities 59 7


10

An example of this was given in Working Paper 1 of the ILSP Design Report, where the introduction for fuel-efficient stoves

in India and China in the 1980’s and 1990’s was described – with them being widely adopted in China despite being sold with no subsidies and not adopted in India despite subsidies. Adoption in China was encouraged by income earning opportunities for women placing a monetary value on time saved, while in India, with no such opportunities exist, and the opportunity cost of women’s time was almost zero.


79

Data in Table 2 shows that significantly most women from project households report spending less time on a range of household and farming tasks. This is a significantly greater proportion than for women from control group households.

Case study 1: Solar Lanterns

Uttarakhand has significant hydro-power resources and most villages now have electric power connections. However the lack of generating capacity and increasing demand at the national level means that power supplies are often intermittent. The major flood disaster in June 2013 made matters much worse, destroying power lines and cutting villages off from the power network. In these circumstances rural households still have to rely on candles and kerosene lamps to provide much of their lighting. Such lighting is both inadequate, in terms of providing enough light for domestic activities to continue into the evening, and is also expensive.

In these circumstances solar power can provide an alternative source that is both cheaper to operate and provides more light than candles or kerosene lamps. Solar home systems (with a solar panel on the roof, an automotive-type battery and a number of light fittings) are costly and only affordable for well-off households unless a government grant is available. In the last few years low-cost solar lanterns have been introduced, but these are still not widely available at the village level.

The Jhankarsaim Self-reliant Cooperative is a federation of SHGs set up in 2009. It works in Gurunabaj cluster of Dhaula Devi block in Almora district, with 600 shareholder members from 63 SHGs of 25 villages. The federation is supporting honey and seed production, eco–tourism and a solar lantern business. During its initial years the federation has faced many challenges, particularly in finding suitable and sustainable business activities to generate income for the federation and to provide benefits to its shareholders.

One of the problems faced by members of the federation is the erratic supply of electricity. This issue was discussed at SHG and federation meetings, and highlighted in district coordination meetings. In October 2012 the project organised a state-level workshop and fair, at which federations presented their produce to potential buyers and agencies interested in linking to federations displayed their products and services. At this event, the federation held discussions with Sunshine Solar Pvt Ltd, a supplier of solar lanterns, regarding the possible bulk purchase of lanterns for re-sale in its villages.

The federation then told villagers about these lanterns (which can also be charged from mains power supplies and are able to recharge the batteries of mobile phones), demonstrated the operation of the lantern, and made a list of households interested in buying these lanterns. Based on this list, the federation placed an order for 85 solar lanterns at a cost of Rs140,250. This amount was funded by the federation from its own resources and from an SHG as a short term loan.

Each lantern cost Rs1650 and was sold for Rs1800, making the federation a total profit of Rs12,750. People were happy to pay this amount as they were facing problems of electricity failure in the area. The lantern also saves them the cost of electricity and kerosene, and it soon became even more popular since it was environment friendly and provided good intensity light helpful in doing all types of work.

After seeing the performance of the lanterns and assessing market demand, the federation procured 292 more lanterns at a cost of Rs478,000. With help from Sunshine Solar, a local person has been trained to maintain the solar lanterns and provided with a stock of spare parts. The federation plans to increase its sales to 600 lanterns per year over the next three years, generating an annual profit of Rs50,000.

One of the users of solar lanterns is Mrs Pushpa Devi, an member SHG from Kaula village. Her family of four (husband, wife and two small children) rely on farming, with a monthly income of Rs1700-1800. The village is 12 kms from the road head and backward in terms of basic infrastructure including an erratic supply of electricity. Due to this, people use kerosene lamps and candles for lighting. The light from one kerosene lantern is enough for only one child to study, and the emission of smoke also caused the health problems. Most of the villagers have cell phone, but have to get them charged outside of the village.

Smt. Pushpa Devi has been regularly participating in meetings of the SHG and federation. One day she got the chance to see the solar lamp at a federation meeting. It looked to be useful and purchased a lamp from federation.

Not only does the lamp provide light in the house, but it has been used to help with other night-time tasks like cattle management, using the toilet, fetching drinking water and night protection from the wild animals. The children have now started studying at night and, from the savings made in purchase of kerosene, they have brought a mobile phone which is recharged using the lantern.


80

Table 3 shows that women from project households have, on average, saved about 5 hours per day from household chores. About half of this time saving is being used for income generating activities and half for social and relaxation purposes.

Table 3: Division of women's time

Average hours per day

Now before change

Household chores 7.5 12.8 -5.2

Income generating activities 5.6 3.1 2.6

Sleep 5.6 4.6 1.1

Social interaction 2.4 1.5 0.8

Entertainment 2.8 2.0 0.8

Total 24.0 24.0 0.0


Case study 2: Napier grass leads to dairy development

Just 18 households reside in Pachel, a poor village in Almora district. Most families rely on farming crops on 5 to 6 nali and keeping livestock. But with hilly topography and little irrigation, productivity is low. Farmers cannot produce enough food to feed their families round the year, and many migrate out to find work.

Almost all the villagers of Pachel had milk animals but they did not produce enough milk to sell. They also lacked the technical knowledge to start dairy enterprises. In particular they did not have enough green fodder to feed their cattle.

Pachel was one of the villages selected to be included in the IFAD-support Uttatakhand Livelihood Improvement Project in the Himalayas. At the start of the project, the District Management Unit in Almora focused on organizing women into small groups for self-employment. In Pachel, the HaruDevta SHG was formed in 2006 with women from 13 out of 18 families of the village. Initially each member saved Rs 20 per month in the SHG account, which has now increased to Rs 50 per month. Total savings of this group now amount to Rs 13,300. Another initiative from the project officials was to encourage members to grow Napier grass as a fodder for their cattle - and also to reduce the workload of women in having to go and collect grass from the forest. But initially villagers did not show interest as they considered local grasses best for their cattle, and believed that Napier would reduce milk yields. They also felt growing Napier would be quite a tedious job compared with cutting natural grasses, and though that it would take a long time to grow.

Project management facilitated a visit for SHG members to places where Napier was being grown successfully and told them of the benefits of Napier as fodder. After much persuading, a progressive young man, Deepak Chandra, took the initiative and found that it grew in abundance. Following in his footsteps, other villagers started growing Napier, and project officials started getting requests for tufts to plant more of this grass.

With an abundance of Napier grass and growing interest in dairy development, the project helped Aneeta Devi start as dairy enterprise. She grew Napier grass in her fields and fed it to her buffalo. She was surprised to see the quantity of milk that was produced and, after meeting her household needs, she was able to sell 3-4 litres milk per day. Encouraged by this income, she bought a second buffalo for Rs 25,000 by taking loan from the SHG toether with some savings that she had accumulated. She was now earning between Rs 2000 and Rs2500 per month from the enterprise.

Seeing the potential of dairy farming to generate income, Aneeta Devi applied for a loan of Rs 200,000 from the NABARD sponsored Dairy Enterprise Development Scheme. with this she purchased some good quality buffalo. At present, everyday she is selling 30 litres per day milk to Anchal, the state dairy cooperative. The income enables her to repay the loan and meet her household needs

At present Pachel is the leading village in area for milk production, with this small village contributing about 60-65 litres per day of milk to Anchal dairy. Encouraged by the example of Aneeta Devi, other women have taken loans to buy good quality buffaloes and cows.


81

Impressed by the progress in dairy development BAIF, a national NGO working with the government, came forward to help the village with artificial insemination services - which will further help improve the breed of animals in the village. The village SHG has also joined with SHGs from other villages and formed the Ekta Self-Reliant Cooperative Society. This cooperative purchased 10 tons of straw for Rs 85,725, and made it available to SHG members for feeding to their animals.

The people of Pachel have proved that working with together and using good techniques can result transform a village from not having enough milk for its own consumption to having a surplus for sale.

Source: ULIPH

B. Organic crops

ULIPH has been actively promoting organic farming as its main intervention in the crop sector.

A large number (almost 10,000) of farmers are now going through the certification process for 2,906 ha of land, but the specific market opportunities for premium certified organic produce do not require anything like this amount of land. Moreover most of the produce from this land is consumed by farmers (see Table 3) and not sold, so the additional cost of certification is of no benefit.

Table 3: Organic production and sales

Production Quintal

Sales quintal

percent sold

Cereals

12,509

3,019 24%

Pulses

8,128

1,595 20%

Spices

86

22 26%

Vegetables

11

5 45%

Total

20,734

4,641 22%


The project facilitated a number of sales of organic produce. Around 20 tons of amaranth was sold in 2011 via the Uttarakhand Organic Crops Board (UOCB). This was organically produced but not from certified land. Farmers in Chamoli district are selling organically produced medicinal plants to Organic India. These plants: kuth (saussoriacostus) and kutki (pycorhizacurcumin) have become very scarce in the wild (collection is no longer allowed under CITES regulations). Federations and project staff are very happy in working with Organic India, who they see as being very professional. Earlier attempts at linking producers of medicinal aromatic plants with buyers (such as Darbar India, a major player in the MAP sector) had not been successful, with prices not up to expectations. Over three years sales to Organic India amount to Rs3,600,000. A total of 767 households from 90 SHG have been supplying kuth and kutki, so average sales value per households has been Rs1,560 per year. Organic India have offered to pay at least 10% over the market price, but farmers say they now sell kutki for Rs800 to 1000 per kg compared with only Rs150/kg before.

Another buyer of organic produce is SOS Organics, a local company linked to Organic India. They buy turmeric, millet, nettle leaves, rosemary, lemon grass, oregano, thyme, rhododendron flowers (for tea), soap nut, and other products. Herbal Development and Research Institute at Chamoli, register growers and provide identity card to show that the product is cultivated and not collected from the wild.

None of these products are actually organically certified as land is in the final year of a three year conversion process before products can be officially certified by UOCB as being organically produced. Official organic certification will open up new markets. Satnam Overseas, a big exporter of organic basmati rice, has visited the project, and said that it will be interested in buying certified organic produce. It is offering the following prices: amaranth - Rs55/kg (market price is Rs40-42), turmeric Rs70/kg (Rs60 in market), ginger Rs130/kg (market Rs110), finger millet Rs18/kg (market Rs14). It will pay 50% in advance, 25% on delivery, and 25% on TC. However the volume it wants to buy is not that large: soybean 500 tons, coriander 30 tons, red chilli (dry) 100 tons, turmeric 25 tons, ginger 200 tons, wheat 100 tons, garlic 25 tons, bay leaf 5 tons, soap nut 10 tons, and walnut 5 tons.


82

Organic certification should be in response to market opportunities that require organically certified products and provide premium prices that more than cover the cost of certification plus any other additional costs that may be required for organic production.

The PMU has appreciated that the amount of land that is going through the organic certification process is far more than that required for meet market demand for certified organic produce. There are now 36 OPG and, as a first step support, this is being rationalised to the 27 OPG which have a good volume (over Rs500,000) of sales per year. The PMU, with support from UOCB, has also reduced the cost of certification process by the use of CRPs to maintain crop diaries (which record the cultivation practices and inputs used for each plot of land) and to carry out internal inspections on behalf of Federations. Even with the use of CRPs and rationalisation to 27 OPG, the value of sales is still too low to justify an average annual certification cost (using CRPs) of around Rs100,000 per OPG. However 82% of the value of saleable produce from the 36 OPG is produced by just seven OPG that each have annual sales of Rs 1.6 million or more (Table 4). With this level of production the cost of certification becomes much more affordable, being only 3.4% of the annual value of total crop sales.

Table 4: Viability of Organic Producer Groups

Total OPG Viable OPG % of total

Number of OPG 36 7 19%

Number of farmers 9,912 1,966 20%

Area under certification process (ha) 2,906 807 28%

Value of saleable crops Rs'000 29,040 23,835 82%

Value per farmer Rs'000 2.93 12.12

Annual certification cost Rs'000

815

cost per farmer Rs'000

0.41

as percent of saleable crops

3.4% Source: project data

Crops produced using basically organic methods on land that is not organically certified can still be sold for premium prices to markets that value the clean mountain image of Uttarakhand. ULIPH has developed the “Naturally Pehari” (mountain) brand for products such as finger millet, pulses and spices that are sold on small packet to consumers via SHG and Federation shops and at state level fairs and other events. Tourists visiting the state as well as local consumers are potential customers. There are also wholesale buyers who are prepared to pay premium prices for non-certified but naturally grown products – as evidenced by sales to Organic India and SOS Organic. This seems to be the way forward, and is the approach being adopted by ILSP.

The vast majority of farmers who have been going through the organic certification process were not using chemical inputs (pesticides and mineral fertilisers) prior to the start of the certification process. Adoption of improved methods for organic production, including soil and water conservation techniques and use of compost/vermicompost have increased yields, with some farmers reporting production of some crops doubling over two seasons - typically the yield increase is in the range of 30% to 50%. The minority of farmers who had been using chemical inputs saw yields fall in the first year of the conversion with some recovery in the second year. Organic production has not resulted in any increase in input costs, however a major issue will be labour requirements and availability of organic matter.

Value addition can help increase returns for organic producers. The PCR mission met a team from Technoserve, an American not-for-profit consulting agency, which is supporting the establishment of an organic business cell in UOCB (funded by GIZ). The team is working with a ULIPH federation Chamoli to draw up a business plan for a bakery to make cookies using madua (finger millet). There is a surplus of madua in in this area, with grain being sold for only Rs10-12/kg. The plan is to produce organically certified madua and for the bakery also to be certified. The idea is to sell to Yatratourists, but they have also looked at local markets in towns of the state. The planned investment is Rs600,000, of which Rs200,000 would come from the federation, and Rs400,000 from the SVCF, a bank loan and maybe a grant. Farmers will get Rs22-25/kg for madua used for cookies,


83

and the plant will use 2600 kg madua per year, 2600 kg butter, 2700 kg sugar, 650 kg flour, 21670 eggs (these all can be non-organic). The plant will have 7 to 8 workers.

Cookies would retail at Rs 360-400/kg retail (compared with non-organic Britannia madua cookies selling at Rs260-270/kg). The plant will need to pay Rs30,000 per year for organic certification of the bakery - which would amount to Rs3.75 per kg for production of 8000 kg of cookies, and should be easily absorbed by the premium for organic produce. However drawing up this plan, and providing the support needed to build and operate the plan requires a considerable effort and investment of technical assistance resources - which at the end of day will only provide a market for 2.6 tons of organic madua and jobs for 7 or 8 workers.

C. Seed production

A significant number of farmers (10,316 reported for 2012) have been growing seed for the Terai Seed Development Corporation (TDC), the government seed agency. TDC provides foundation seed and technical support. Seed produced is sold back to TDC and then used in government schemes that provide farmers with free seeds. Reports regarding the performance of TDC are mixed, with some saying they provide a good service, providing foundation seed on time, but others speak of problems with seed buy-back arrangements. It is not easy to see how seed production groups could sell seed to other farmers – as these farmers can get seed for free from the government. Farmers also report that the improved varieties that they are given to multiple yield significantly more than their normal crops, one group reporting up to 1.5 to 2 times more with the addition of some mineral fertiliser.

A major drawback is that most of the seed produced is not sold (Table 5 shows only 19% of production in 2012 was sold), but retained by farmers (some for planting next year but most as food). This is a waste of scarce foundation seed and of the resources of TDC and ULIPH that have gone into supporting the farmers. This is despite the fact that TDC is prepared to pay a considerable premium for seed - in 2011 it paid Rs12.90/kg for paddy seed, compared with its value of Rs7.50/kg for food, but people said they were reluctant to sell all their crop as they may not find food to buy later.

Table 5: Seed production 2012

Quintals (100 kg) Produced sold % sold

Cereals 3,950 499 13%

Pulses 5,154 1,037 20%

oilseeds 127 20 16%

vegetables 1,004 393 39%

Total 10,235 1,949 19%

per farmer 0.99 0.19 Source: project data

The IFAD-supported CAIM programme in Maharashtra has demonstrated a more commercial approach to seed production, with farmer-owned companies being established to produce and sell crop seeds, and farmers being contracted by private sector seed companies to produce onion and tomato seed.

D. Results of other agricultural interventions

Data on polyhouses in Table 6 shows that 247 were established, 93% of which are currently active. However a number of missions commented on the poor quality of crops grown in polyhouses (possibly due to soil health problems) and average sales are only Rs10,440 per year compared to an investment of Rs42,475. It can be assumed that input and labour to grow crops account for about half the value of sales which leaves an inadequate return on the investment. If the full cost of the investment is to be recovered over five years, then sales need to be at least 40% of the total investment (20% to cover production costs and 20% as a return on investment). Only 45 (20%) of the polyhouses reach this level of returns.


84

Table 6: Polyhouses

District Number of polyhouses Average investment Rs Average

sales Rs

Sales as percent of investment

Viable units

established active % active Project self total number percent

Almora 74 70 95% 27572 9527 37099 7157 19% 11 16%

Bageshwar 67 64 96% 35194 11803 46997 5703 12% 0 0%

Chamoli 19 19 100% 22021 9979 32000 20658 65% 19 100%

Tehri 73 70 96% 40460 7002 47462 14719 31% 12 17%

Uttarkashi 14 6 43% 30000 7464 37464 17000 45% 3 50%

Total 247 229 93% 33159 9316 42475 10440 25% 45 20%


Table 7: Other agricultural impacts



Inorganic fertilisers 6% 6% 4% 10% 0% 6% -5%

Organic pesticides 4% 18% 3% 8% 14% 6% 8%

Organic fertiliser 15% 28% 15% 19% 14% 4% 9%

Improved seeds 3% 29% 3% 17% 27% 14% 12%

Improved crop varieties 2% 28% 3% 14% 26% 11% 15%

Total responses (n) 289 293 255 259



85

Case study 3: Collective Marketing of Peas Farmers in Uttarakhand work in a difficult mountain environment. Land holdings are small and fragmented in tiny terraced plots on steep hillsides. Shallow and immature soils mean yields are low, and there is little use of modern crop varieties, mineral fertilisers, irrigation and other inputs. Agriculture is largely for subsistence, and people rely on non-farm earnings, especially migrating to jobs outside of the state. Lack of labour, low productivity and wild animal damage are all contributing to land being abandoned.

Despite the disadvantages that agriculture faces in the hill areas, Uttarakhand does have the advantage of cooler temperatures at higher altitudes, allowing production of out of season vegetables and temperate fruits. These can be sold at premium prices in the cities of northern India. But small farms and scattered production pockets located far from markets are barriers to adoption of these remunerative cash crops.

ULIPH has been helping farmers interested in vegetable production come together for collective marketing. In 2010-11 an SHG federation, Saptrishi Swayat Sahkarita, of Gangtari village in Uttarkashi district, started marketing peas from 110 producers from 10 project villages, along with peas from another 50 farmers in five non-federation villages.

SHG members harvesting peas

In 2011-12, two other federations started marketing peas and the number of producers increased to 527 in 21 federation villages plus 249 from eight other villages. Last year there was further growth, with the number of federations increasing to six, covering 33 project and 19 non-project villages, with a total of 852 farmers. The value of peas marketed has increased from Rs454,000 in 2010-11 to Rs1.56 million in 2011-12, and to Rs2.25 million in 2012-13. Sales last year should have been considerably more, but around one third of the crops was lost due to heavy rainfall.

Traditionally producers have sent bags of produce to the market without knowing the exact weight, and have to accept the weights as decided by the buyers. Weighing of produce in the village is of great benefit producers and federations. Producers have gained faith in their federations and are able to understand how much they are producing on different plots of land with varying texture of soil and quality of seed.

Day to day market price information has helped federations to control the flow of produce to the market. The Federation are able to contact a number of commission agents in the main wholesale markets, so cutting out local middlemen and aggregators, and making transport more economic. As volumes increase they are dealing with more wholesale agents, and competition between these agents is increasing the bargaining power of federations. At the main Dehradummandi (wholesale market), one of the two large markets in the state, ULIPH federations supplied 144 tons of peas in April and May 2013 - amounting to 28% of the total market throughput of

514 tons.

According to farmers, collective marketing of peas has doubled the average price they receive from Rs.8-10 per kg to Rs.16-21 per kg. Producers no longer need to go to markets to collect payments for vegetables that they sell, with all transactions now taking place through a local bank branch.

In future, the federations plan to expand into other off-season vegetable crops, such as French beans, tomatoes and potatoes. The federations also support production through supplying farmers with vegetable seeds along with packing materials. The federations have been charging a commission of Rs.0.50 per kg of pea sold, which generates an income to make the marketing activity sustainable after the project ends.

Sacks of peas being collected at Federation depot


86

D. Dairy enterprise development

Micro Dairy Units Data in Table 8 has been collected from 661 dairy units supported by ULIPH. These represent two-thirds of the 992 for which demonstrations were recorded. Information on the remaining 331 units is not available, but it is possible that: (i) these other demonstrations did not include support (from project or bank) for purchase of cattle, and so were not recorded as "unit establishment"; (ii) the units went out of production after a short period and the cows were sold - quite possibly the owners were more interested in getting the subsidies than in milk production; (iii) units recived more than one demonstration (possible getting cows in one demonstration and improved housing in another); and (iv) records on these units are not available at district offices and, with turnover in staff, contact has been lost.

In the initial stages of the project, support from ULIPH was in the form of a grant for part of the cost of the purchase of an improved (cross-bred) cow or good quality buffalo (although it seems mostly cows were purchased). Later bank loans were used to buy cattle, with back-ended subsidy of 25% from NABARD - this means that NABARD will repay the final 25% of the loan subject to satisfactory repayment of the first 75%. This meant farmers could acquire two animals, and project grants were used to improve cow sheds and provide some feed for an initial period. It also meant the proportion of total investment funded by the project fell from 63% in 2008-09 to 17% in 2012-13.

Table 8: Micro-dairy unit development by district

Almora Bageshwar Chamoli Tehri Uttarkashi Total

Number of units established

148 128 162 153 70 661

Number of cows financed 274 133 172 306 140 1,025

Total investment Rs

Project 3,286,000 3,340,000 3,610,500 - 1,051,914 11,288,414

Beneficiary 2,213,500 1,021,400 1,681,500 2,689,200 302,140 7,907,740

Bank 2,224,000 - 2,918,000 12,610,800 4,700,000 22,452,800

Total 7,723,500 4,361,400 8,210,000 15,300,000 6,054,054 41,648,954

Number of active units 136 128 162 153 70 649

Current number of cows 247 171 252 306 140 1,116

Milk litres per day

Produced 1,077 384 793 928 680 3,862

Sold 774 256 392 626 539 2,587

Units that use Napier grass 67 128 133 153 70 551

Percent units now active 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98%

Average number per unit

cows financed 1.85 1.04 1.06 2.00 2.00 1.55

Current cows 1.82 1.34 1.56 2.00 2.00 1.72

Current cows as % of financed 90% 129% 147% 100% 100% 109%

Total investment Average Rsper cow

Project 11,993 25,113 20,991 - 7,514 11,013

Beneficiary 8,078 7,680 9,776 8,788 2,158 7,715

Bank 8,117 - 16,965 41,212 33,571 21,905

Total 28,188 32,792 47,733 50,000 43,243 40,633

Average litres/day per cow

Produced 4.36 2.25 3.15 3.03 4.86 3.46

Sold 3.13 1.50 1.56 2.05 3.85 2.32

percent sold 72% 67% 49% 67% 79% 67%

Percentage using Napier 49% 100% 82% 100% 100% 85%


Average milk production of 3.36 litres per cow per day takes account of dry periods. If it is assumed the calving interval is 18 months (which may be a little optimistic), then average production per day of lactation would be about 5 litres - equating to 1,500 litres over a 300 day lactation - not bad, but a good cross-bred cow should be able to do double this amount. Although 85% of units are using Napier grass as feed and a number of Federations and SHG input-output centres are selling concentrate feeds (three federations have small mills and are making feed using a proportion of locally grown ingredients), it is likely that feed will still be a limiting factor for milk production.


87

However the lack of technical staff in the project meant that specific nutrition constraints were not addressed and an IFAD mission observed some animals in poor condition, with skin disease issues that farmers and project staff did not seem to know how to treat.

Analysis of this data in terms of the year of establishment in Table 9 shows that the older units are still performing well and increasing their number of cows. This is a positive indicator of sustainability. However the increase in cow numbers has been modest - almost doubling over a period of six years, suggesting this is coming from retention of calves rather than an additional investment from further loans.

Table 9: Micro-dairy unit development by year of establishment

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Total

Number units established

13 74 10 81 443 40 661

Number of cows financed 13 92 20 132 688 80 1025

Total investment Rs

Project 162,500 3,250,000 350,000 1,770,000 5,133,800 622,114 11,288,414

Beneficiary 97,500 1,081,500 150,000 1,674,000 4,724,000 180,740 7,907,740

Bank - 275,000 500,000 2,329,000 16,548,800 2,800,000 22,452,800

Total 260,000 4,606,500 1,000,000 5,773,000 26,406,600 3,602,854 41,648,954

Number of active units 13 66 10 79 441 40 649

Current number of cows 25 106 15 145 745 80 1116

Milk litres per day

Produced 93 331 43 459 2620 316 3862

Sold 43 200 16 308 1776 244 2587

Use Napier grass Number units 13 59 10 64 365 40 551

Percent units active 100% 89% 100% 98% 100% 100% 98%

Average number per unit

cows financed 1.00 1.24 2.00 1.63 1.55 2.00 1.55

current cows 1.92 1.61 1.50 1.84 1.69 2.00 1.72

Current number of cows as % cows financed 192% 115% 75% 110% 108% 100% 109%

Total investment Rs Average per cow

Project 12,500 35,326 17,500 13,409 7,462 7,776 11,013

Beneficiary 7,500 11,755 7,500 12,682 6,866 2,259 7,715

Bank - 2,989 25,000 17,644 24,053 35,000 21,905

Total 20,000 50,071 50,000 43,735 38,382 45,036 40,633

% from project 63% 71% 35% 31% 19% 17% 27%

Average litres/day per cow

Produced 3.72 3.12 2.87 3.17 3.52 3.95 3.46

Sold 1.72 1.89 1.07 2.12 2.38 3.05 2.32

percent sold 46% 60% 37% 67% 68% 77% 67%

Percentage using Napier 100% 89% 100% 81% 83% 100% 85%


Data in Table 10 shows that the project bought about significant improvements to services for livestock producers, with veterinary camps being organised in conjunction with the Animal Husbandry Department, and almost three-quarters of households reporting receiving training on livestock topics.


88

Table 10: Improved access to livestock services

Service

Project Non-project Change

Now Before Now Before Project Control Difference

Veterinary camp 51% 10% 21% 11% 41% 10% 31%

Fodder/seeds 21% 2% 13% 2% 19% 11% 8%

Livestock vaccination 29% 3% 10% 1% 26% 9% 17%

Artificial insemination 40% 2% 3% 1% 38% 2% 36%

Training 73% 14% 35% 11% 59% 24% 35%


Integrated Livestock Development Centres The scattered population in the hills make it more difficult to provide animal breeding services. ULIPH funded 55 Natural Breed Centres (NBC), where an improved breed of bull is available to service local cows, and 33 Integrated Livestock Development Centres (ILDC) which provide artificial insemination (AI) services. The strategy for both is to charge for services and generate income to sustain the service in the long term. Of the two approaches, the NBC seems the less successful, with 12 (22%) of the 55 centres being inactive. All 33 ILDCs are active, with a total of 534 inseminations being carried out each month (16.2 per centre) compared to 249 by the 43 NBCs (5.8 per centre).

The ILDCs and NBCs have been supported by the Uttarakhand Livestock Development Corporation (ULDC), the apex cattle breeding agency in the state. ULDC has a target of each ILDC generating an income of at least Rs4000 per month – at which level they should become financially sustainable. This has been difficult in the hills due to the scattered population of dairy animals, and the vast majority of private (i.e. operated by individual paravets rather than by employees of the Animal Husbandry Department or Dairy Cooperative) are in the plain areas of the state. ULIPH has encouraged its paravets to provide other services to generate additional income, and almost two-thirds (63%) of the income from the 33 ILDCs comes from services such as sales of feed and other inputs, or operation of milk collection centres. As a result, 20 of the 33 centres are earning at least Rs4000 per month (even though 16 were only established in 2011-12), and only one has an income of less than Rs3,000 per month.

Milk marketing A major intervention by the project has been the collection and marketing of milk by Federations. These sell milk in local markets and are able to offer producers better prices. A visit to one of these Federations in 2011 found that it had been possible to increase producer prices from Rs13 to Rs19 per litre. Data in Table 11 for 36 milk collection centres operated by 21 Federations shows that 781 producers are supplying these centres. However volumes of milk are still limited - two thirds of producers are supplying less than 2 litres of milk per day, and the daily average collection per centre is only 39 litres.

Not all these marketing initiatives have been successful. The 2012 supervision mission reported on a federation, Kyarigarh Surkhanda Suyata Sahkarita, that set up a system to collect milk from farmers for sale in Thatpur town. Although initially 60 litres were collected per day, the system was not sustained as farmers continued to dilute their milk with water and it became difficult to sell an increasing volume of production (with an increasing amount of added water). According to a consultant’s report

11 the venture was not properly planned or managed, with inadequate financial

controls. Milk collections fell to 20-30 litres per day and the Federation handed over the work to a private individual.

The Federation at Gopeshwar in Chamoli district was more successful. It set up a milk collection centre in 2012 was collecting (2012 lean season) 120 to 130 litres per day from 41 producers. Up to 240 to 250 litres is collected in the wet season. Cattle feed is also sold - around 15 to 20 quintal per month in this shop and overall the Federation sells 60 to 65 quintals per month. There is a switch from buffalo to cows which is increasing the demand for feed, and now about 75% of animals are cows. Cows produce twice as much milk as buffalo. The government dairy is also collecting in this village, but only 40 litre/day, while a private individual is collecting 25 litres. There is no difference in

11

Establishment of a Dairy and Cattle Feed Unit in Tehri district, Sanjay Tewari, Consultant Dairy Establishment


89

price or payment terms but people are attracted to the Federation by the supply of feed on credit against payment for milk

Table 11: Milk collection centres

Almora Bageshwar Chamoli Tehri Uttarkashi Total

Number of collection centres 3 13 16 2 2 36

Number of federation 3 6 9 1 2 21

Average daily collection - litres 72 16 48 58 40 39

Number of milk providers

<2 litre per day 55 237 219 17 22 550

2 – 5 litres per day 20 11 109 14 11 165

> 5 litres per day 12 3 46 2 3 66

Total number 87 251 374 33 36 781

Milk purchase price Rs/litre 20 26 20 20 20 22


This federation planned to establish a milk pasteurising, processing and packaging unit. ULIPH PMU staff drew up a business plan (BP) in 2012 proposing that initially the plant processes 900 litres per day, increasing to 2260 over 4 years. Products would be pasteurised milk in pouches, matha (buttermilk), curd (yoghurt) and butter and sold in Chamoli town. The BP has detailed financial projections but is rather thin regarding physical input and output flows, markets and raw milk supply. Although the BP assessed the total market for milk in Chamoli town to be 15,000 litres per day, was no information on unsatisfied demand, seasonal patterns of demand and demand growth. The BP also does not include data on: (i) the past and current milk marketing activities of the federation; (ii) details of the proposed processing plant and its operating costs and utilisation; (iii) raw milk purchase costs including transport, setting up and operating milk collection centres, areas of milk collection, and numbers of producers supplying the collection centres; and (iv) milk product marketing including the cost of operating retail sales centres and transport of milk products. However it is apparent that the federation, and its manager in particular, has thought through many of these issues and have answers that are not included in the business plan. This, and another BP for a Kuroiler unit, highlighted the limited capacity of the PMU in terms of enterprise planning - something that has recently been addressed via working with a team from Technoserve funded via the GIZ RED project.

Case study 4: Dairy Federation

Rauli Gwar is a small village with just 70 families, whose main livelihood crops and dairy. Surma Devi, widow of Jaikrit Singh Chaudhary, joined Jagriti SHG in 2007 and is also the Chairperson of Parvatiya Krishi Vipnan Swayatt Sahkarita - the federation that has made a noticeable impact in the lives of villagers since 2009.

Fifty-seven-year old Surma manages the day-to-day affairs of the diary federation that procures up to 500 litres of milk every day from the villagers. A lactometer is used to measure the lactose content in the milk; and this, together with the producer's name and quantity of milk is recorded at the collection centre. All this information is entered in the Federation register and producers are paid on the 8th of the next. month. In 2011 the federation

was buying milk at Rs 12 per litre and sells it at Rs 20 per litre (with more being earned if milk is made into butter and yoghurt).

"Villagers sell us their milk because it is very difficult for them to find a buyer every day in the open market;' Surma explains and adds, "We are more reliable and our rates are fixed even if there is a change in demand or supply." Earlier, before the Federation, the villagers had to sell the milk going house to house, but with most homes having cows it was difficult to make a sale. "So the villagers would consume the milk, but today, thanks to the Federation, they are able to make decent money," Surma adds, "and these extra earnings have bettered their lives."

Surma Devi at a milk sales point


90

The milk is sold to local people via federation distribution centres. There are also vans that cater to the nomadic tribes who migrate from the high jungles during summer: These are vehicles that are used as public transport from the village to the main market in Dasholi District. Milk containers are loaded at the back of the vehicle and milk is sold as designated junctions.

The federation is supported by FNGO, Jai Nanda Welfare Society. The eight SHGs in Rauli Guar each have one member on the board of Federation. There are four input-output centres, managed by the villagers. The FNGO initiated a Feed Bank for the villagers and provided basic training with the help of Uttarakhand Livestock Development Board (ULDB). The feed helps increase the fat content in milk, and the Bank makes a profit of Rs 10 per kilo sold. Of this, Rs 5 goes to the Federation and Rs 5 to the Manager. The Bank can stock up to 200 bags at a time and buying feed here saves the farmer time and money. An Artificial Insemination (AI) kit is also available with the Bank and the Manager is trained on this as well. The charge is Rs 50 per insemination and sometimes there is a demand for up to 20 in a breeding season.

"I've given all my time to develop the Federation and raise awareness among the villagers", smiles Surma, "... I am so happy to be able to make the lives of my fellow-women better." She continues by saying that she had also helped members of her SHG become aware of Napier grass (a fodder grass) and the benefits of vermi composting. "Women of Rauli Gaur were forced to go into the forest to collect grass for their cattle, but today, after we have introduced Napier grass to them, the women don't go at all" she declares and adds, "Every household in Rauli Gaur village grow their own Napier grass these days. Thanks to the FNGO who presented each of our SHG members with a tuft of Napier". The first harvest takes two months, but after that one can the grass every fifteen days. This is cheaper and more nutritious cattle feed compared to the grass they get from the forests. "These techniques helped reduce drudgery of our women and now we no longer waste time collecting dung or grass!" Surma beams.

Story and photos from SangeethaRajeesh. Published in “Trail Blazers: Lighting the Way Ahead – stories of women champions in IFAD projects", IFAD Delhi 2011

E. Poultry

The project focused on the promotion of Kuroilers - a dual purpose breed of chicken developed by a private sector poultry breeding business - Kegg Farms. Further information is available on the internet - such as at:http://sapplpp.org/informationhub/files/presentations/kegg-farms

District Project Management Teams say that Kuroilers are a good enterprise for the poorest households, as they do not require any land and produce income within a fairly short period. However reports on results are rather mixed. On one hand there are reports of households continuing kuroiler production without further project support, and other households taking it up. District teams estimate that around 10,000 (30%) of SHG members have been involved in kuroiler production at some stage of the project, with between 30% and 80% of these households rearing further batches without project support. On the other hand there are reports that, compared with local birds, the Kuroiler requires a lot of feed, and so is costly to rear, and so are not an attractive proposition unless inputs are available with a significant element of subsidy. Being a coloured a bird it can be sold at a premium over ordinary broilers, although in one village visited by the 2012 supervision mission such a premium was not being obtained.

Performance of mother units (which rear day-old chicks to three weeks of age) seems mixed, with many reporting high levels of mortality. At the start of the project there was only a single hatchery producing these chicks, operated by Kegg Farms (the originator of the Kuroiler) at Pantnagar in the south-eastern corner of the state. Chicks suffered and died on the long journey to mother units in the hills, and the overall supply of chicks was inadequate. Since then around four other Kuroiler hatcheries have been established at government farms, some with support from ULIPH. However supply of chicks is still a problem, and these other hatcheries are often unable to provide complete packages of chicks plus feed and vaccine. Government farms are not run as businesses and need to give priority to government orders.

The project supported, via its demonstration programme, a total of 304 mother units. Data in Table 12 on 242 mother units show that only 164 (68%) were active at the end of 2012. The throughput of these units is well below their capacity. Allowing for a 6½ week cycle (3 weeks rearing, 2 selling and 1½ cleaning/resting), it should be possible to rear 8 batched per year, but the average for the 164 active units is only 1.81, and those in Uttarkashi barely manage one batch per year. This could at least be partly due to problems in obtaining supplies of chicks and other inputs, and partly that it takes some time (up to 6 weeks) to sell reared birds, suggesting that demand is not that high. The limited number of batches reared per year means that operators of mother units do not earn the income that

http://sapplpp.org/informationhub/files/presentations/kegg-farms


91

was anticipated, discouraging them from continuing (and only 52 units are recorded as being established via replication without project support). Table 11 also shows that, on average a mother unit received 1,022 chicks per year, but only sold 751 birds, leaving 27% unsold - many of which will have died during the rearing period.

Table 12: Kuroiler mother units

Number of units

established

Capacity per batch

Number of units

active % active

Average batch per

year

Average number of chicks per

year

Average number sold per

year

% unsold

Almora 31 645 20 65% 2.75 2130 1525 28%

Bageshwar 87 575 63 72% 1.49 777 658 15%

Chamoli 63 786 27 43% 1.56 889 461 48%

Tehri 33 652 26 79% 2.92 1135 812 28%

Uttarkashi 28 750 28 100% 1.07 804 629 22%

Total 242 669 164 68% 1.81 1022 751 27%


A survey carried out for the project (Market Potential of Poultry in Uttarakhand, Access Development Services, 2010) found mother unit mortality rates to be in the range 1% to 60%, and two units visited by the 2012 IFAD supervision mission had mortality rates of 18% and 21% (see below). This is far in excess of the 5% mortality which is the most that should be expected in rearing day-old chicks. The Access study attributed this to the lack of technical staff in project offices, which meant there was no technical support or follow-up to training provided prior to the establishment of mother units.

Case study 5: Kuroiler mother units

Mr Ram Swaroop at Batkot, Tehri district Before starting the unit in 2008 was trained for 18 days by Kegg Farms at Pantnagar. He says mortality is between 6 and 10% - but his data (see below) shows an average of 18%. Sometimes the chicks are very weak to start with, having is been sent from Pantnagar which is between 12 and 15 hours by road (although day-old chicks should be OK for 24 hours after hatching). The chicks come with a package of feed for 21 days and 2 vaccinations. This costs Rs26-31,000 for 1000 birds. He has a number of batches accommodated in 3 or 4 buildings.

Results from each batch of Kuroilers

Year Purchase Mortality Sell Costs Income margin

No. of d.o.c. Rate No. birds Rs Rs Rs

2008 960 4.7% 915 18300 19398 1098

2009 600 14.2% 515 10300 14420 4120

2009 500 24.8% 376 7520 10528 3008

2010 1000 26.0% 740 14000 22880 8880

2010 500 38.4% 308 61601

9850 3690

2010 1000 52.0% 480 96001

15360 5760

2011 500 0.8% 496 9920 17360 7440

2011 2000 8.4% 1832 36640 64120 27480

2012 1500 14.0% 1290 25800 39350 13550

Total 8560 18.8% 6952

2012 800 just arrived

1 Costs seem very low and it is assumed that part of the cost of chicks was refunded

He starts to sell after rearing for 21 days, but it can take another 1 to 1½ months for all birds to be sold. For these older birds he puts the price up from Rs40-45 to Rs50 or Rs55. Typically he has to buy an extra 100 kilograms of feed for this overrun period (price Rs1600/50 kg delivered to road head). He keeps some birds to an older age. They reach 1.5 kg at 3 months of age, and start to lay at 5 months, and will lay 150 eggs over one year. Eggs sell for Rs5 to 7 (seasonal variation). Old hens then weigh 3 kg. Price for old hens and young birds is Rs130 per kg live (or Rs180/kg dressed). Cocks weigh 4 to 4.5 kg at 5 months old. Feed consumed during egg laying is either local maize or ready-made feed. One hen eats 2 kg per month.


92

Readymade feed is best in growing period. If you have 10 birds or less, they can be fed on scraps and by-products. Growing birds are rationed (3 feeds per day). Bhagwati Devi. Dobri cluster, Simswada village Started in November 2007. Has had 5 batches, total 4500 birds, 950 died (21%), sold 3550. Sell at 21 days, and all sold within a further 25 to 30 days. Buys another 50 kg of feed @ Rs22/kg for this over-run period. Sale price of birds at 21 days is Rs40, at 51 days is Rs80-100.

source: 2012 Supervision Mission

Part of the rationale behind the Kuroiler is that it is a bird for improved backyard production system. This would involve birds being free to roam for some of the day to scavenge feed from around the homestead. This reduces the requirement to provide feed that is either purchased or farm by-products (which may be limited in supply). However roaming birds are vulnerable to predators, especially when young, and many producers prefer a fully-housed rearing system. The project has subsidised 7931 cages for kuroiler rearing units, typically paying Rs500 of the total cost of a cage holding 40 birds and costing Rs3500. The 242 mother units in Table 12 supplied birds to 7541 rearers, but a rearing unit may have more than one cage by no means all kuroiler rearing is in cages - some birds are housed in sheds and others roam freely.

Birds tend to be reared for some months, and the need for considerable volumes of feed seems to discourage many households from continuing with rearing kuroilers - the Access study reported than very few reared more than a single batch. Better management would make rearing more economic. The feed intake of mature birds should be rationed, but many producers do not do this. There could be opportunities to reduce feed costs by producing feed locally using a proportion of local ingredients.

Cage for rearing 20 kuroilers

Ram Swaroop’s kuroilers


93

Mother units need to sell birds quickly after the 21 day rearing period. On some units 21 day old birds get starved when the initial feed supply runs out. People become reluctant to buy such birds. If space on the mother unit is limited, it also limits the number of batches that can be reared in one year. Most units only rear one or two batches per year. Federations and CRPs should help mother units take advance orders for 21 day birds so that these can be quickly delivered at the end of the initial rearing period. Overall ULIPH's kuroiler programme does not seem to have been very successful - there is no clear profitable and sustainable model and the continuation of kuroiler production in the state seems over-dependant on support from various government programmes. Further doubt has recently been cast over the programme by reports of a disease break-down in Kegg Farms foundation stock. F. Changes in total number of livestock Data in Table 13 from the impact survey shows that there was, in general, only a very small increase in the proportion of households owning livestock, but this small increase tended to be larger for control households than for project households. Data in Table 14 shows that, for those households that own animals, the average number owned per household has tended to fall. However the increase in the number of households that own non-milking cows and buffalo mean that there has been an increase in the total number of bovines of 23% for the project group and 25% for the control groups (Table 15).

Table 13: Proportion of households owning different types of livestock

Type of animal Project households Control households Change


Milking buffalo 46% 47% 35% 40% 1% 5% -4%

Milking cow 35% 41% 30% 33% 5% 3% 3%

Non-milking cow/buffalo 34% 58% 38% 65% 23% 27% -4%

Ox 65% 67% 55% 63% 2% 8% -6%

Male buffalo 1% 4% 2% 5% 3% 3% 0%

Goat 29% 33% 25% 37% 4% 11% -7%

Poultry 11% 8% 1% 3% -4% 2% -5%

Mule 2% 2% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0%



94

Table 14: Average number of animals per owning household



Milking buffalo 1.42 1.08 1.24 1.10 -0.34 -0.14 -0.20

Milking cow 1.31 1.08 1.49 1.19 -0.22 -0.30 0.08

Non-milking cow/buffalo 1.59 1.45 1.49 1.38 -0.14 -0.11 -0.03

Ox 1.77 1.79 1.92 1.80 0.02 -0.11 0.13

Male buffalo 4.00 1.18 2.50 1.36 -2.82 -1.14 -1.68

Goat 5.86 4.66 6.05 4.44 -1.21 -1.61 0.41

Poultry 9.25 5.05 12.00 4.83 -4.20 -7.17 2.96

Mule 4.50 1.86 1.50 1.17 -2.64 -0.33 -2.31


Table 15: Change in total number of animals*

Project control difference

Milking buffalo -11% 10% -21%

Milking cow 11% -5% 16%

Non-milking cow/buffalo 78% 73% 5%

Ox 20% 16% 4%

Male buffalo 8% 50% -42%

total bovines 23% 25% -2%

Goat 4% 15% -10%

Poultry -57% 21% -78%

Mule -52% -22% -30%

* takes account the proportion of households with animals and average number per household source: Impact Evaluation Study, InsPIRE, 2013

F. Forest and non-farm sectors (a) Non-wood forest products Nettle fibre: ULIPH provided Rs 3 million to the Bamboo and Fibre Board, which helped in reducing financial bottlenecks in its programme to develop nettle fibre as a source of employment for the rural poor. UIPH funds have been used to develop a process to extract fibre from stems that reduces the need for labour, wood and water. GIZ also helped with a technology expert. Steam has been tried with a degree of success, but the board is now proposing further research under ILSP to soften and de-gum stems. ULIPH also funded the training of 79 artisans (mainly exiting weavers) in the process from extraction of fibre up to weaving. At Mori in Uttarkashi and at Dewal in Chamoli two centres were built with ULIPH funds, and weavers were given tools. The weavers have sold Rs1 million worth cloth over 2 years. The price of Rs450-500 per metre (40” wide) compares with cotton at Rs150-200/metre, and silk in the same price range. Nettle fibre is usually mixed with 50% cotton, silk or wool – can also be used to tuft carpets. The boards has also sown nettles on 74 ha common land/VP in case people run out of wild nettle. There is interest in Germany in buying nettle fibre products and the boards wants to sell via the internet. Via another project, a marketing federation is being set up and registered.


95

Table 16: Medicinal and Aromatic Plants

District

Total area of MAP

hectares

Number of producers

Total production and sale volume (via collective marketing only) of MAP in last year

Kuth (Qtls) Kutki (Qtls) Rosemary (Qtls) Aloe Vera (Qtls) Other (Qtls)

Produce sell produce sell Produce sell produce sell produce sell

Almora 17.0 208 0 0 0 0 2 0 85 0 114 0

Bageshwar 13.0 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chamoli 26.5 662 35 35 46 23 2 2 0 0 0 0

Tehri

Uttarkashi 9.0 222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 65.5 1210 35 35 46 23 4 2 85 0 114 0 source: project data

(b) Eco-tourism

Case study 6: Eco-tourism High up in the middle Himalaya region is Saryu Valley, a five-hour drive from Bageshwar, are the last Indian villages before Tibet. The terrain comprises of deep river valleys, farmed mid-slopes and steep mountainous ridges. To the north of Pinder River lie the main snow-capped Himalayan peaks of Trisul, Nanda Devi, Panchachulli, and the Pindari glacier. Tucked away in this valley is Supi village. Houses in the village have accommodated joint families for generations. The community of Supi have provided one such traditional house, renovated it and made it a comfortable village guest-house. Members of the village formed the Gram Paryatan Samiti (GPS - village tourism committee) to run the guest-house and also organises guided tours.

This project is part of the process initiated by ULIPH to promote conservation and livelihoods through community-based responsible tourism, with support from Village Ways, a British social enterprise for community tourism (www.villageways.com). Renovation of the guest house was completed in 2008, and it now has five guest bedrooms complete with en-suite bathrooms and individual upstairs sitting rooms. Up to half a dozen cooks and housekeeping staff, thirteen tour guides and around five porters are involved - all of them residents from Supi village. Supi GPS is part of Saryu Valley Paryatan Swayat Sahkarita (SVPSS), a tourism cooperative. The communities participating in this venture have full ownership of the guest

houses. Training, provided by ULIPH, has enabled communities to take charge of guest house management, provide catering and to be guides. Village Ways has issued shares to be held in trust for the village partners in Supi, Jhuni and Jakuni Bugiyal, so that they become more closely involved in the initiative. Each village has formed a tourism committee. Tara Devi has been the President of Supi village GPS since 2008, and she is also one of the 11 members that form the Board of Directors of the SVPSS. This cooperative earned an income of Rs 475,000 between 2008 and 2010. Tara Devi Takuli is the person behind this success story. Tara helped identify people who would be interested in allowing their homes to be used as guest houses. "I went house to house in search of the perfect building," she say. Despite her age and domestic chores, Tara had attended every meeting organised by ULIPH. Finally, Tara discovered a house used for storing grain that had been locked up for many years. The house was under joint ownership and Tara Singh, one of the owners, was very sceptical at first but a meeting with ULIPH convinced him. "When Tara Devi explained that my house could be renovated to make it worthy of a guest house for tourists; I didn't trust the idea because we did not know the people, but later after many meetings and discussions, I saw that many villagers, including me, can make decent money from this idea".

Tara Devi and other people from Supi


96

Singh gave his consent and got the other owners (his brother and father) to sign a 30-year agreement whereby GPS renovated the house based on the design outline provided by the Co-operative. Of the total amount, 40% was funded by ULIPH as grant and 60% as an interest–free loan. "The best part was that no outside contractor was engaged for the construction work," said Tara Devi, "Local artisans from Supi did the work." The GPS maintains registers for everything: purchased groceries, fuel used, porters and guides, the tourists guests. Every single cash inflow and expense is recorded meticulously. Farmers are encouraged to supply vegetables and grain. By doing that, we are not just helping them sell their produce but also save them the expense of travelling downhill to the market. Tara Devi says "This is just the beginning...there are plenty of traditional houses in Supi and neighbouring villages. We will soon open more such guest-houses to visitors who would love to experience village life up in the Himalayas". Story and photos from SangeethaRajeesh. Published in “Trail Blazers: Lighting the Way Ahead – stories of women champions in IFAD projects", IFAD Delhi 2011


97

Table 17: Eco-Tourism


Eco-tourism

destinationVillage Name of Federation

Type of

accomodation

Year

established

No. of

units

Total no.

of beds

No. of HH

involved

Number of

tourists in

last year

Type of tourism

activities

Matkanya Matkanya Jhakar saim paryatan samiti Room, tent etc. 2010-11 1 6 16 12

Nature walk, visit to

jageshwar, village walk,

trekking, pony riding.

Loharkhet SupiSaryu Valley Paryatan

Samiti, Supi2008-09 2 10 40 96

Bird

watching,trekking,cultural

activity,scenery

Karmi KarmiMaa Bagwati Chilta Swayat

Sahakirta, Karmi2011-12 2 15 25 16

Bird


activity,scenery

Rhododendron Forest Ramni Rupkund Swayat Sahakirta Home stay/tent 2011-12 2 20 1 200

Bird


activity,scenery

Semi Kharak Ramni Rupkund Swayat Sahakirta Tent 2007-08 5 20 2 190

Bird


activity,scenery

Jhanjherni/Penarani Ramni Rupkund Swayat Sahakirta Tent 2007-08 5 20 2 200

Bird


activity,scenery

Senatoli Ramni Rupkund Swayat Sahakirta Tent 2007-08 5 20 3 150Trekking,bird

watching,scenery

Lohajung lohajung Homkund Swayat Sahakirta Tent 2007-08 5 20 3 160

Trekking,bird

watching,scenery, rural

festival

Didina Kuling Homkund Swayat Sahakirta Home stay/tent 2011-12 3 15 2 170Trekking,bird

watching,scenery

Vedni Kuling Homkund Swayat Sahakirta Tent 2007-08 5 15 3 170Trekking,bird

watching,scenery

Patarnachani Kuling Homkund Swayat Sahakirta Tent 2007-08 5 15 2 200 Trekking,bird ,historical

Bhagwabasa Kuling Homkund Swayat Sahakirta Tent 2007-08 5 15 2 200Trekking,bird

watching,scenery

Roopkund, KulingHomkund & Rupkund

Swayat SahakirtaTent 2007-08 8 24 5 200

Trekking,bird

watching,scenery

Jeonargali KulingHomkund & Rupkund


Trekking,bird

watching,scenery,historical

Silasamudra KulingHomkund & Rupkund


Trekking,bird

watching,scenery,historical

Chhota homekund KulingHomkund & Rupkund


Trekking,bird

watching,scenery

Homekund KulingHomkund & Rupkund


Trekking,bird

watching,scenery

Rontisaddle KulingHomkund & Rupkund


Trekking,bird

watching,scenery

Chandiyaghat KulingHomkund & Rupkund


Trekking,bird

watching,scenery

Latakopdi KulingHomkund & Rupkund


Trekking,bird

watching,scenery, historical

Sutol Bura Rupkund Swayat Sahakirta Home stay/tent 2011-12 2 15 1 180Trekking,bird

watching,scenery

Sitel Bura Rupkund Swayat Sahakirta Home stay/tent 2011-12 2 20 1 180Trekking,bird

watching,scenery

Home stay at Bhatoli Bhatoli Aglarh Ghati Swayat

Shakarita

Traditional

wooden houses

2011-125 10 5 10

Natural Site seeing, Kempty

fall,

Home stay at Bagi Bagi Sangam Swayat Shakarita Traditional mud

houses

2011-125 10 5 8

Natural Site seeing, River

view,

Base Camp Ghuttu Khatling Swayat Shakarita Bamboo Hut 2009-101 4 9 5

Natural Site Seeing, Khatling

Glacier view.

Gaul Gaul

Banal Patti Aajeevika

Swyat Sahkarita Home Stay 2011-12 1 6 7 Not Yet

Bird Watching, Camping

Trekking

Taluka Taluka

Harki doon Aajeevika

Swyat sahkarita Home Stay 2011-12 1 6 5 Not Yet Camping Trekking

UTTARKASHI

CHAMOLI

ALMORA

Home Stay

BAGESHWAR

TEHRI


98

(c) Other non-farm enterprises Sanitary napkins – a group enterprise in Devpryag were visited by the 2012 supervision mission. Only 12% of women in India use sanitary napkins. The objective of this project is to make napkins available to village women via SHGs (along with awareness raising). In one shift 4 or 5 women make 150 napkins. Raw materials cost Rs1.70 per napkin and they are sold to SHGs for Rs19.00 per packet of 8, and SHGs retail them at Rs20. The objective is to push the price down to Rs15-16 per packet. Commercially produced napkins sell for Rs22 to 24 per packet. However, at current levels of productivity, women (who are paid a share of the net margin) only earn Rs500-600 per month (only a fraction of the market wage rate) and it is difficult to find women to do this work. They hope a new hand operated press will make the work quicker and easier, but further mechanisation is not possible as electricity is only available for about 3 hours per day. Given that the objective is to make napkins available to rural women it would seem to be better to purchase them in bulk from a commercial provider and distribute them via SHGs – possibly at a subsidised price. This illustrates example where a group enterprise has been established with a social rather than income generating objective. It is relying on women giving their labour for very little remuneration, is not likely to be sustainable once their initial enthusiasm wears off. It is doubtful if such small-scale manufacturing could ever compete with the commercial sector, although an firm in Delhi, Aakar Innovations has recently launched a machine to make sanitary pads using agricultural by-products at a cost that is said to be 40% less than commercial products (www.aakarinnoivations.com).

Table 18: Community Enterprises*

District Number of operational enterprises Average annual sales per unit (Rs)

2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11

Almora 20 20 14

169,224

156,923

93,529

Bageshwar 7 17 17

60,057

534,083

220,588

Chamoli 22 22 0

170,962

106,818

Tehri 21 18 12

150,836

149,353

138,333

Uttarkashi 6 9 9

48,967

52,543

56,576

Total 76 86 52

145,098

206,152

139,011 * Enterprises owned by Federations. SHGs and Self-Reliant Cooperatives of SHG members Source: project data

Table 19: Non-farm micro-enterprises

District Number of active enterprises Sales turnover Rs.

Sales Increase* 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11

Almora

27

27 19 65.61 54.17

40.85

27

Bageshwar

45

45 - 10.89 5.53

42

Chamoli

124 117 - 88.76 112.17

71

Uttarkashi

127 127 109 61.32 57.86

64.73

101

Total

323 316 128 65.19 70.20

61.19

241 * Number of enterprises where sales increased from 2011-12 to 2012-13 Source: project data

(b) Data on project impacts


99

Table 20: Change in food consumption

Percent of project households Percent of control households Change

Increase Same Decrease Increase Same Decrease Project Control Difference

Vegetables 87 11 2 67 30 3 85 64 21

Fruits 59 37 4 43 51 6 55 37 18

Pulses 75 21 4 55 42 3 71 52 19

Cereals 83 15 2 71 28 1 81 70 11

Milk 69 27 4 51 46 3 65 48 17

Eggs 38 57 5 27 64 9 33 18 15

Total responses(n) 300 300


Table 21: Type of housing

Project (%) Non-project (%) Change

Now Before Now Before Project Control Difference

Pucca1

53 37 52 41 16 11 5

Semi-pucca1

27 33 23 27 -6 -4 -2

Kucha1

20 29 25 32 -9 -7 -2

Total 100 100 100 100

Cement floor2

43 18 25 25

1source: Impact Evaluation Study, InsPIRE, 2013

2 source: RIMS anchor indicator surveys

Table 22: Source of domestic water



Spring 34% 22% 36% 28% -12% -8% -5%

Stream 51% 35% 49% 38% -16% -11% -5%

Piped water 10% 26% 5% 17% 16% 12% 4%

Public tap 6% 31% 13% 30% 25% 17% 7%

Own hand pump 1% 3% 3% 4% 2% 1% 1%

Public hand pump 2% 6% 1% 1% 5% 0% 4%



Table 23: Sanitation arrangements



Open defecation 79% 40% 80% 60% -39% -20% -19%

Community toilet 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%

Shared toilet 2% 2% 1% 2% 0% 1% -1%

Own toilet 19% 58% 18% 38% 39% 19% 19%




100

Table 24: Ownership of household assets

Asset Project households Control households Change


Mobile phone 1% 88% 2% 80% 87% 78% 9%

Pressure cooker 38% 82% 34% 79% 44% 45% 0%

TV 5% 55% 5% 47% 50% 43% 7%

Coal/wood heater 57% 40% 59% 42% -17% -17% 0%

Furniture 16% 39% 9% 30% 22% 20% 2%

Cable/satellite dish 1% 34% 1% 25% 32% 24% 9%

Sewing machine 4% 16% 2% 11% 13% 10% 3%

Gas stove 2% 12% 1% 9% 10% 8% 2%

Fan 2% 10% 0% 11% 8% 11% -3%

Total responses 300 300 300 300


Table 25: Education and health facilities

Facilities in the village

Project non-project change

Now Before Now before project non-project difference

Junior high school 91 82 88 86 9 2 7

Primary health care 30 14 21 18 16 3 13

Anganwadi worker 92 54 95 62 38 33 5


Table 26: Improved health and hygiene

project non-project

Better health facilities for children % of households 96 79

Awareness of child immunisation % of households 96 81

Better health facilities for women % of households 89 74

Improved knowledge of health & hygiene practices % of households 85 72

Emergency health services (ambulance) % of households 56 45

Working days lost to illness average days/year 15 36



101

Annex 10: Monitoring and Knowledge Management

ULIPH has given greater attention and resources to monitoring, evaluation and knowledge management than other IFAD-supported projects in India.

Monitoring and evaluation activities have included:

RIMS anchor indicator surveys: the project carried out baseline, mid-term and completion impact surveys. At each of these three points, two surveys were carried out. One was a RIMS anchor indicator survey and one was a socio-economic study. The RIMS anchor indicator survey followed IFAD’s standard methodology. It generated information on assets, housing, fuel, water, sanitation, farm tools, livestock ownership, literacy and child malnutrition. Food security data is available from the RIMS mid-term and impact surveys. Although this information contributes to IFAD’s corporate database, it is of limited value in assessing the results and impact at the project level as: (i) without a 9control group it is impossible to know what influence, if any, the project had on changes in indicators; (ii) some of the indicators were not appropriate for the hills of Uttarakhand and a number registered zero in all three surveys; (iii) the asset index was not calculated; (iv) the sample was a random selection of households where the village worked rather than direct project group members. Project targets relate to project group members, not the population of project villages, and only 58% of the total village population were project group members. RIMS survey findings are summarised below in Table 1.

Socio-economic surveys have generated more useful information on project results and impact than the RIMS surveys. The baseline survey was carried out in 2007, and covered 2,222 households in 140 villages. The mid-term covered 1,350 households in 135 villages, and the completion survey covered 600 households in 60 villages. Although the baseline and mid-term surveys had much larger samples, these also covered general village population and the sample design does not generate estimates for the overall population, and so they are of less use in measuring project impact. The completion survey is more useful as it included a control group, and the project group appear to all be project SHG members. The completion survey also included indicators that relate more closely to project outcomes and objectives. The completion survey used a reconstructed baseline – asking respondents about the situation eight years ago. The report also used some of the original baseline numbers, although almost all of the indicators were different from baseline and midterm, making it difficult to directly compare data. These surveys only collected information on a few of the logframe indicators.

Annual outcome surveys. The project carried out three AOS, in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Each covered a sample of project and non-project households (but the control group in 2009 was only 20 – too small to be of use. Some useful data generated, especially on growth of more commercial and market-driven farming, but could have been more focused on specific project interventions. To do this thematic outcome studies could have been conducted into, say, dairy units or organic farming.

Ad hoc studies: a number of ad hoc studies were conducted, including: Food Security in Bageshwar and Chamoli, Market Potential of Poultry in Uttarakhand, Socio-Economic Impact of Various Interventions on Ajeevika Households, Sub-Sector Studies, and a Gender Assessment of ULIPH.

Case studies – a good number of case studies were generated – both as contributions to books and newsletters, and for two case study collections – Selected Case Studies (2007) and Voices from the Field (2009).

Management information system The project design proposed a web-based MIS to enable all stakeholders to track and monitor the performance of project implementation. At the start of the project systems were operational for project accounting (TALLY and CPMAS), while a system for SHG account management (SIMS) was developed in house and became operational in 2006. It was not until 2008 was an effort made to develop a more comprehensive MIS with a report commissioned from a software company. These plans were very comprehensive, encompassing SHGs, Federations, livelihoods, value chains, project management, communications and human resources.

At the time of the 2012 supervision mission four modules had been developed (SHG, demonstration/enterprise, AWPB and rural finance), with other modules being developed for federations, enterprises, production and marketing. The MIS web portal was partly operational.


102

Although data is recorded on individual households, the participation of each household in various activities is not generated by the system, so it was not possible to track the number and types of support received by each household.

As it was only becoming operational in the last couple of years of the project, the MIS was only able to make a limited contribution to project management and reporting. Lessons for future projects regarding MIS include:

An MIS system needs to be driven by demand for information not by the possible supply of data from project activities. The starting point is the reports needed to manage the project.

It is preferable to procure off-the-shelf software that has been proven to work rather than develop a new system from scratch. In particular software packages are available for financial management and for micro-finance records. These are designed to be adapted to suit the requirements of individual projects.

The first step in implementing an MIS should be a detailed systems analysis to identify exactly what information needs to be managed via the MIS. The requirement should be driven by the reports that project management wish to generate and not by the availability of data. In fact, much data can be kept in paper form at the local level and does not need to be entered into a computerised MIS. In particular recording data on all individual project households overloads the system with more information than can be usefully analysed.

Progress monitoring and reporting As part of routine monitoring the project generates a great deal of data and information on the activities and outputs, and also outcomes. However much useful information seems to remain in the MIS or in district level reports, and is not used in project progress reports. District teams collected data on outcomes (such milk production and sales) from a large number of households, but it has only been possible to analyse this information during preparation of this report. However there are real problems with data on some activities and outputs - such as training and demonstrations.

RIMS indicators: RIMS level 1 indicators were reported in annual tables, along with level 2 ratings for the effectiveness and sustainability of each component. Some of the level 1 indicators are of doubtful value due problems in recording field activities. Reservations about data on the numbers of people trained have already been mentioned. Some (but not all) RIMS tables also include numbers of farmers adopting improved technologies - with very high numbers of adopters being reported (a cumulative total of 167,438 across all sectors). It is not clear how this data was collected, and if an adopter of a particular technology is counted in more than one year. Similarly the basis for the very high numbers of enterprises established - 132,702 IGA, 11,353 ME, and 799 SMA - is not clear

12.

Level 2 ratings are not supported by specific indicators as evidence.

Knowledge management: ULIPH has generated a significant volume (well over 60 or 70) of documents (training manuals, booklets, reports, studies, newsletters, posters, games, calendars and diaries, along with about 30 videos as well as having an active website. Efforts were made from the start to develop systems for information sharing such as e-documents and internal meetings. In 2011 the project started holding Gyan Sabha, an interactive knowledge sharing event at village/cluster level, organised by the CRP or project field staff in successful demonstration fields of progressive farmers with the objective of sharing best practices, disseminating information, and facilitating replication. In 2011 210 Gyan Sabhas were organized covering 2808 participants.

However a formal KM strategy was not drawn up until 201113

(on the recommendation of the 2010 SM) and arrived too late to be acted upon – although it has useful ideas for ILSP. This KM strategy pointed out that staff would need considerable training to implement current KM activities, and staff capacity was constrained by the considerable turnover in staff, while KM competes for management attention with other activities.

An assessment of KM materials14

reported that community members and ULIPH field staff found that the knowledge sharing materials were of good quality, and had successfully supplemented the

12

IGA are defined as investment of under Rs30,000 with an income of under Rs5000, at SMA has an investment of over Rs50,000 and income of over Rs20,000, with ME being between IGA and SME. 13

A Strategy for Knowledge Systems of Value Chains, Mott MacDonald, 2011 14

Review of existing knowledge sharing materials, Anmol Jain, 2012


103

extension efforts of the project staff in promoting alternate livelihoods, reducing drudgery, and bringing about changes in practices at household and community levels. Findings of the study include:

(a) Respondents said that they been able to get much information related to cultivation techniques. Members from Uttarkahi district said: “The literature shared by ULIPH made us aware about the techniques of organic farming and vegetable cultivation and subsequently many people in our village benefitted from this knowledge,” “The booklets by Ajeevika greatly helped us to learn and adopt vermicomposting techniques,”.

(b) Gyan Sabhas have proved to be a highly successful knowledge sharing mechanism. According to Pradeep Yadav, “through the Gyan Sabhas the farmers are able to see for themselves the impacts of the various package of practices resulting in high adoption rates.”

(c) The success stories documented and circulated by ULIPH have motivated farmers, especially women, to take up improved livelihood practices. “By reading the success stories we felt motivated that if another woman can do it then why can’t we do it,”(Sanju Bora, an SHG member from Bageshwar district).

(d) Significant changes in the community attitudes and practices relating to personal hygiene and food habits have been observed which have helped in reducing the incidence of diseases among the households from project villages. According to Heera Singh Jadoda, CRP from Chamoli district “Waterborne diseases have been reduced by at least 20-30% ever since households have started boiling water,”

(e) Although the SHG and Federation members were primary target groups of the knowledge sharing materials, information has also trickled down to family members: “I am making vermicompost for the past several years based upon the knowledge I acquired from the books that ULIPH gave to my mother who is a SHG member,”(Pushkar Singh Dakuni from Bageshwar district).

Although good numbers of booklets and other materials have been printed, and some Federations maintain libraries of KM materials, the study found that there were problems in circulation and some people had not been able to see all key publications. Videos were well liked but had quite limited circulation, partly due to lack of video players and electric power cuts (although in one place they were reaching a larger audience via a local cable TV network). Some publications (such as the SHG interest rate calculator) were produced too late to be a much use, and more technical information would have been useful. But all in all, ULIPH should be commended for an excellent KM effort.


104

Table 1: RIMS Survey Data

Parameters Baseline Mid-term Completion

No of HH in sample 1020 990 900

households headed by women 14% 13% 12%

female household members can read 58% 70% 74%

male household members can read 73% 89% 90%

men between 15 and 24 years age can read

90% 99% 98%

women between 15 and 24 years age can read

78% 95% 95%

households have a safe source of water 64% 93% 96%

households have safe sanitation facilities 32% 38% 55%

households involved in cultivating farming land

94% 99%

Households experiencing hungry season(s)

First hungry season 18% 1%

Second hungry season 15% 0%

Tools used by households

Hand tool eg hoe-spade 1% 20% 12%

animal-drawn plow 96% 80% 87%

tractor-drawn plow, power tiller, survey farming tool

0% 0% 1%

Households owning assets by type

Electricity 69% 75% 91%

Radio 38% 20% 19%

Television 32% 36% 58%

Refrigerator 3% 4% 11%

Bicycle 0% 1% 1%

Motorcycle 1% 2% 4%

Vehicle 0% 2% 5%

Mobile/DTH/DVD NA 54% 95%

Type of animal owned by the households

Chicken 5%, Sheep 5%, Goat 21%, Cattle 87%, Other animals 4%,

Dog/Cat 6%

Chicken 7%, Sheep 2%, Goat 22%,

Cattle 82%, Other animals 4%, Dog/Cat 6%

Chicken 3%, Sheep 4%, Goat

29%, Cattle 89%, Other animals 6%, Dog/Cat 1%

Sanitation facilities

No Facility- Bush- Field 67% 60% 45%

Open Pit- Traditional pit latrine 0% 2% 0%

Improved pit latrine (VIP) 1% 1% 1%

Pour flush latrine 27% 36% 53%

Flush toilet 5% 0% 1%

Material of dwelling floor

Earth- Sand 37% 61% 33%

Dung 28% 1% 0%

Wood planks 17% 17% 18%

Palm- Bamboo 0% 0% 0%

Polished wood 0% 0% 0%

Vinyl or asphalt strips 0% 0% 0%


105

Parameters Baseline Mid-term Completion

Ceramics tiles 0% 0% 0%

Cement 18% 21% 43%

Carpets 0% 0% 0%

Type of fuel used for cooking

Electricity 0% 0% 0%

LPG- Natural gas 3% 4% 34%

Biogas 0% 0% 0%

Kerosene 0% 0% 0%

Coal-Lignite 0% 0% 0%

Charcoal 0% 0% 2%

Firewood- Straw 97% 96 63%

Dung 0% 0% 0%

Source of drinking water

Piped into house 5% 7% 15%

Piped into yard or plot 11% 9% 6%

Public tap 48% 50% 65%

Tubewell- Borehole with pump 1% 1% 2%

Protected dug well 0% 0% 0%

Protected spring 23% 26% 7%

Rainwater collection 0% 0% 0%

Bottled water 0% 0% 0%

Unprotected dug well 0% 0% 0%

Unprotected spring 9% 6% 1%

Pond, river or stream 3% 2% 3%

Tanker- Truck, vendor 0% 0% 0%

Child malnutrition

No of children surveyed A total of 529 children

(comprising of 54% boys and 46%

girls)

A total of 274 children

(comprising of 53% boys and 47% girls)

A total of 769 children

(comprising of 53% boys and

47% girls)

Acute malnutrition children (weight for height) wasting

Overall 10% of children (Boys

13% & girls 8%) below -2 Z score.

Overall 7% of children (Boys 3% & girls 12%) below

-2 Z score.


16% & girls 16%) below -2 Z

score.

Chronic malnutrition children (height for age) stunting




-2 Z score



score.

Underweight children(weight forage) Overall 43% of children (Boys



-2 Z score



score.


106

Documents

Uttarakhand Livelihood Improvement Project for the Himalayas … Data/Knowledge Managment/PCR... · 2014. 10. 28. · UttarakhandLivelihood Improvement Project for the Himalayas at