document of the world bank...gp gram panchayath r&r resettlement and rehabilitation gpsc gram...

Document of The World Bank

Report No: ICR00002226

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IBRD-48720 IDA-36350 IDA-36351)

ON A

CREDIT/LOAN

IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 101 MILLION AND US$32 MILLION (US$162.90 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF INDIA

FOR THE

INDIA: KARNATAKA COMMUNITY BASED TANK MANAGEMENT PROJECT

January 25, 2012

Rural Development Sector India Department South Asia Region

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

2

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective 00000000)

Currency Unit = Indian Rupee At Appraisal Rs. 1 = US$0.02, US$1 = Rs.48.25

At Completion Rs.1 = US$0.02, US$1 = Rs 49.45

FISCAL YEAR

April 1 – March 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACD Agriculture Crop Demonstration MID Minor Irrigation Department ACZ Agro Climatic Zone MIS Management Information System AF Additional Financing MNREGA Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment ATMA Agriculture Technology Management Guarantee Scheme Agency MOM Management, Operation & Maintenance CFT Cluster Facilitation Team MS Moderately Satisfactory CMSR Center for Management and Social NABARD National Bank for Agricultural and Rural CUM Cubic Meter Development DFT District Facilitation Team NGO Non Governmental Organization DPU District Project Unit NPV Net Present Value EC Executive Committee O&M Operation & Maintenance

ED Executive Director PAD Project Appraisal Document EMP Environment Management Plan PCR Project Completion Report ERR Economic Rate of Return PDO Project Development Objective FLP Functional Literacy Program PSB Phosphate solubilizing Bacteria FFS Farmer Field School PRA Public Rural Appraisal GoK Government Of Karnataka PRI Panchayath Raj Institution GoI Government of India QAG Quality Assurance Group GP Gram Panchayath R&R Resettlement and rehabilitation GPSC Gram Panchayath Sub Committee RAP Resettlement Action Plan HCD Horticulture Crop Demonstration RRR Repair, Renovation and Restoration HRD Human Resources Development (National rehabilitation program) ICB International Competitive Bidding SC Scheduled Caste IGA Income Generation Activities ST Scheduled Tribe IFSD Integrated Farming System SEA Social and Environment Assessment Demonstration SHG Self Help Groups IIMS Integrated Information Management SPU State Project Unit System TFS Tank Foreshore INM Integrated Nutrient Management TMI Tank Management Institution INR Indian Rupees TMP Tank Management Plan IPM Integrated Pest Management TUG Tank User Group ISR Implementation Status and Result TTL Task Team Leader Report TUC Tank User Committee ITDP Integrated Tank Development Plan UAS University of Agriculture Science JSYS Jala Samvardhane Yojana Sangha UASB University of Agriculture Science Bangalore KCBTMP Karnataka Community Based Tank UASD University of Agriculture Science Dharwad M&E Monitoring, and Evaluation WSA Water Surface Area M&L Monitoring and Learning WUE Water Use Efficiency

3

Vice President: Isabel Guerrero Country Director: N. Roberto Zagha

Sector Director: John Henry Stein Sector Manager: Simeon K. Ehui

Task Team Leader: Anju Gaur

4

INDIA: KARNATAKA COMMUNITY BASED TANK MANAGEMENT PROJECT CONTENTS

Page

DATA SHEET ............................................................................................................................................. 5

A. Basic Information ................................................................................................................... 5

B. Key Dates ................................................................................................................................. 5

C. Rating Summary ..................................................................................................................... 5

D. Sector and Theme Codes ........................................................................................................ 6

E. Bank Staff ................................................................................................................................ 6

F. Result Framework Analysis ................................................................................................... 7

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs ............................................................................. 12

H. Restructuring (If Any) .......................................................................................................... 12

I. Disbursement Profile ............................................................................................................ 13

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ........................................................... 14

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes ........................................................... 18

3. Assessment of Outcomes ........................................................................................................ 28

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ....................................................................... 34

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ................................................................... 35

6. Lessons Learned ..................................................................................................................... 39

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower, Implementing Agencies and Partners ................. 41

Annex 1 Project Costs and Financing .................................................................................................... 43

Annex 2a Component Outputs ................................................................................................................ 44

Annex 2b Detailed Description of Achievement of PDO ....................................................................... 69

Annex 3 Economic and Financial Analysis ........................................................................................... 77

Annex 4 Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ...................................... 85

Annex 5 Beneficiary Survey Results ..................................................................................................... 87

Annex 6 Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ............................................................................ 97

Annex 7 Summary of the Borrower’s Completion Report and Comments on the Draft ICR ............... 98

Annex 8 Comments of Co-financers and Other partners/Stakeholders ............................................... 107

Annex 9 List of Supporting Documents .............................................................................................. 108

MAP IBRD No. 39475 .............................................................................................................................. 109

5

DATA SHEET

A. BASIC INFORMATION

Country: India Project Name: Karnataka Community-Based Tank Management Project

Project ID: P071033 L/C/TF Number(s): IBRD-48720,IDA-36350, IDA-36351

ICR Date: 07/19/2012 ICR Type: Core ICR

Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Original Total Commitment: USD 98.90 M Disbursed Amount: USD 114.17M

Revised Amount: USD 114.19 M

Environmental Category: B

Implementing Agencies:

Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:

B. KEY DATES Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual Date(s)

Concept Review: 06/20/2001 Effectiveness: 07/08/2002 07/08/2002

Appraisal: 01/07/2002 Restructuring(s): 04/29/2005 03/25/2010

Approval: 04/25/2002 Mid-term Review: 2004 07/05/2004, 06/22/2006

Closing: 01/31/2009 01/31/2012

C. RATING SUMMARY

C.1 Performance Rating by ICR

Outcomes: Satisfactory

Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate

Bank Performance: Satisfactory

Borrower Performance: Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings

Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies: Satisfactory Overall Bank Performance: Satisfactory Overall Borrower Performance: Satisfactory

6

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance IndicatorsImplementation Performance Indicators QAG Assessments (if any) Rating

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

No Quality at Entry (QEA): Moderately Unsatisfactory

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No): Yes Quality of Supervision (QSA): Moderately Satisfactory

DO rating before Closing/Inactive status: Satisfactory

D. SECTOR AND THEME CODES Original Actual

Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)

General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector 10 15

Irrigation and drainage 60 55

Law and justice 5 5

Other social services 10 10

Sub-national government administration 15 15

Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Decentralization 13 13

Improving labor markets 24 24

Participation and civic engagement 13 13

Rural services and infrastructure 25 25

Water resource management 25 25

E. BANK STAFF Positions At ICR At Approval

Vice President: Isabel M. Guerrero Mieko Nishimizu

Country Director: N. Roberto Zagha Edwin R. Lim

Sector Manager: Simeon Kacou Ehui Gajanand Pathmanathan

Project Team Leader: Anju Gaur E. V. Jagannathan/Manish Bapna

ICR Team Leader: Jim Hancock

ICR Primary Author: Jim Hancock

7

F. RESULT FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) To improve rural livelihoods and reduce poverty by developing and strengthening community-based approaches to improving and managing selected tank systems. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) N/A (a) PDO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Self managed and sustainable Tank User Groups* (TUGs) established.

Value quantitative or Qualitative)

Very few tanks rehabilitated or managed by informal community groups

TUGs covering 2,000 tanks

TUGs covering 3,925 tanks (number of TUGs not specified). Target of 700 tanks was added very late (2010) in the project

3,126 TUGs covering 3,710 tanks - Some TUGs cover more than one small tank

Date achieved 07/08/2002 01/31/2007 01/31/2012 01/31/2012

Comments (incl. % achievement)

Target achieved. Most TUGs have performed satisfactorily. TUG have further federated at district and state levels. JSYS is working with the TUGs and federations to generate funding for O&M of tanks.

Indicator 2 : Tank User Groups established, covering at least 85% of the traditionally marginalized tank users organized under the Tank Management Institutes.


Limited participation by marginal farmers, women and landless

Not specified

85% (not clearly defined how should be assessed)

Not precisely recorded, but tailenders, landless, women, livestock users and catchment farmers are part of TUG and benefiting.

Date achieved 07/08/2002 01/31/2007 01/31/2012 01/31/2012


Target achieved. Out of 1.16 million TUG members, almost half of the members are women, and 30% are Scheduled Caste or Tribe (SC/ST), a majority of members are marginal and 15% landless.

8

Indicator 3 : At least 50% of farmers in the upgraded Tank Command area increased production of major crops by 35% …


0 Not specified in indicators

50% of farmers, 35% increase

Total Production has increased by 47% compared to controls 12%(35% difference)

Date achieved 07/08/2002 01/31/2007 01/31/2012 01/31/2012


Target achieved considerably. The results represent total command area of 200 tanks studied in Impact assessment study 2012 of first phase, over five year period (2005/06-2010/11): As target of 35% refers to only lower half of the command area of tanks.

Indicator 4 : At least 50% of farmers in the upgraded Tank Command Area increased ...(incremental) income by at least 25% of the baseline



50% of farmers, increase 25% over baseline

Net income increased by 76%, compared to 42% for control farmers: project increment is 33%

Date achieved 07/08/2002 01/31/2007 01/31/2012 01/31/2012


Target achieved considerably. The results represent total command area of 200 tanks studied in Impact assessment report 2012 of first phase during 2005/06-2010/11. The impact refers to all the farmers in command against the target of 50% farmers.

Indicator 5 : At least 75% of landless tank users increased their income by 50% of the baseline value via the Income Generation Activities (IGAs)



75% of landless users increase income 50%

IGA beneficiaries increased income by 56% and non-beneficiaries by 41%. Incremental increase 15%.

Date achieved 07/08/2002 01/31/2007 01/31/2012 01/31/2012 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Partially achieved. Impact assessment study 2012 for sample first round beneficiaries in 200 villages. Very high proportion of beneficiaries were women and lower caste or tribal, and landless.

9

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised

Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at Completion or Target

Years

Indicator 1 : Legal and institutional framework for community based tank management across the state established.

Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

Unclear legal situation for TUG involvement

Deepen reforms, especially in the form of an appropriate Act

Rules formally adopted by the State

Amendment to Irrigation Act and Government orders have been found adequate to empower TUGs.


Largely achieved. The major legal reforms and rules required for TUG involvement were introduced in the beginning of project. TUG have been able to function smoothly without any issue.

Indicator 2 : Number or percentage of TMIs with PRI approved action plans for tank rehabilitation and development.


0 2,000

Action plans covering 3,925 Tanks (target of 700 tanks was added very late (2010) in the project)

3,747 Integrated Tank Development Plans (ITDPs) appraised


95% achievement – with additional tanks added with saved funds. The ITDPs have been approved through the Village wide Gram Sabha meetings which engage the Gram Panchayat.

Indicator 3 : At least 75% of the TUGs have implementation strategy approved by the TMI, which includes water use and cropping plans, fee collection plans for O&M, and [foreshore] maintenance schedules.


None PAD indicator only for O&M funds

75% of 3,925 would have O&M strategy and plan

Although only 42% of 3,710 tanks have been formally handed over, the O&M plans have been explained to majority of the TUGs.

Date achieved 07/08/2002 01/31/2007 01/31/2012 01/31/2012


Target considerably achieved. First phase tanks have been handed over formally to the TUGs with O&M plans. The process of O&M has also been explained to the TUGs where work is in progress.

Indicator 4 : Project Monitoring and Learning System established, including IIMS, learning and experience sharing forums at different levels of project management.

Value (quantitative

None None specified M&L system established

M&L system operating, with some delays on full

10

or Qualitative) operation, e.g. of MIS Date achieved 07/08/2002 01/31/2007 01/31/2012 01/31/2012 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Mostly achieved. IIMS (an MIS) only partially in place.

Indicator 5 : Project implementation procedures and fiduciary aspects are effectively facilitated in at least 85% tank systems.


0 n/a 3,336 (85% of 3,925 tanks)

At end of project, the implementation procedures are facilitated in 3,503 (89%) tanks.


Target achieved. 207 tanks were dropped, out of the 3,710 or so where work started satisfactorily, according to project standards and accountability mechanisms.

Indicator 6 : Number of TMIs and TUGs established voluntarily after the PRA and PLA activities facilitated by the CFTs


None n/a

Assumed that TUGs/TMIs would cover 3,925 target tanks

3,126 TUGs, established after Gram Sabhas covering 3,710 tanks


95% achievement. The process of establishment was done in considerably participatory way by NGOs.

Indicator 7 : Number or percentage of landless tank users (disaggregated by caste, tribe, gender) organized in SHGs and benefiting from IGAs


0 n/a No target set 99,453 beneficiaries covering all 3,710 active tanks


Target achieved. Overall data from draft PCR. Impact assessment study 2012 indicates beneficiaries were 47% SC/ST, and 21% OBC, where on average SC/ST are between 15-30% and 21% agriculture labor.

Indicator 8 : Number or percentage of poor women in management position both in TMI s and TUGs


None Not specified No Target set

41% of Tank User Committee were women, 7% of secretary or president, 86% of treasurers were women

Date achieved Comments (incl. % achievement)

Target achieved. Impact assessment study 2012 of 200 tanks. There were also tanks which were fully managed by women.

Indicator 9 : Number or percentage of tanks rehabilitated as per the technical and engineering specifications.

Value 0 2,000 No target set, Out of 3,710 tanks under

11

(quantitative or Qualitative)

though 3,925 is number of tanks to be covered as per formal documents. 3,747 tanks' plans appraised.

rehabilitation, full works completion has been done in 2,729 tanks, out of which 1,620 have been handed over.


Target nearly achieved: Generally good technical work covering most of tanks appraised, although some of this is ongoing at end of project. In majority of the tanks where work is in progress, critical works were prioritized to ensure maximum benefit.

Indicator 10 : Irrigated area increased by at least 25% after rehabilitation Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

- Not specified 25% increase 20% increase


Partially achieved. Based on internal hydrological impact assessment study of handed over tanks. Impact assessment study 2012, showed 21% increase in total cropped command area with 6% increase for controls hence a net 15% increase, in phase 1 tanks.

Indicator 11 : At least 60% of farmers practiced double cropping and improved farming practices


1.06 acres average cropped area, out of 1.4 acres mean command area – 76%

Not specified Change not specified…

1.52 acres cropped area, 109% of original command area


Target achieved. Increase in cropped area by 33%. Indicator may be unrealistic.

Indicator 12 : At least 60% the tanks are used for fishery activities and on an average a minimum of Rs 40,000 generated annually [60% of target was for original project, 30% for overall project]


Some tanks used for fisheries, but not under control of TUG

Not specified

Operational target used was 1,180 (30% of all)

TUG managed fisheries, in 1,403 tanks (120% of target tanks)


Target is considerably achieved. A total revenue of Rs. 40.4 M has been collected with Rs. 32,819 per tank which is less than expected annually. An incremental return of Rs 16,590/ha was achieved against the target of Rs. 6370/ha in PAD.

Indicator 13 : Due to the recharging effect of the tanks, water levels of the surrounding wells increased at least by 1.5 m

Value 1.5 m increase Based on reports by

12

(quantitative or Qualitative)

in water level farmers, in comparable years, water levels have increased 1.5 m in open wells, and 10 m in borewells

Date achieved 07/08/2002 01/31/2007 01/31/2012 01/31/2012


Target achieved. Impact assessment study 2012 covering all seasons. Number of hours pumping has also been increased in project areas compared to controls. Similar results from internal studies.

G. RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRS

No. Date ISR Archived

DO IP Actual

Disbursements (USD millions)

1 05/30/2002 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 11/07/2002 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.00 3 03/13/2003 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.24 4 06/20/2003 Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.02 5 12/05/2003 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.49 6 05/21/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 5.18 7 10/13/2004 Satisfactory Satisfactory 7.27 8 05/23/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 19.09 9 11/02/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 20.91

10 05/25/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 31.66 11 08/07/2006 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 32.93 12 03/22/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 38.93 13 12/27/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 42.84

14 06/22/2008 Moderately SatisfactoryModerately

Unsatisfactory 43.56





17 06/25/2009 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 47.71 18 11/29/2009 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 49.17 19 05/14/2010 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 51.89 20 06/29/2010 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 52.08 21 12/08/2010 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 59.11 22 06/06/2011 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 65.94 23 12/10/2011 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 80.69 24 02/11/2012 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 88.21

H. RESTRUCTURING (IF ANY)

13

Restructuring Date(s)

Board Approved

PDO Change

ISR Ratings at Restructuring

Amount Disbursed at

Restructuring in USD millions

Reason for Restructuring & Key Changes Made

DO IP

04/29/2005 N S S 15.09 Reallocation of IDA funds to Tsunami project

03/25/2010 N MS MS 50.82 Revision of number of tanks in original project and disbursement percentage

I. DISBURSEMENT PROFILE

14

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design

1.1 Context at Appraisal

The project was designed strongly in line with the World Bank’s poverty reduction strategies at the time of appraisal, as outlined in the Country Strategy, and for India in the Ninth Five Year Plan, for sustainable growth and specific support to the poor and disadvantaged. At the time of design the Government of Karnataka (GoK) was also an important partner for the Bank in terms of fiscal and state level institutional reforms.

The State of Karnataka had a 37% poverty rate before the project started, most heavily concentrated in rural areas, and where 70% of the State’s population was dependent on agriculture. Karnataka has the second largest arid zone in India after Rajasthan, and relatively small proportion of irrigated areas compared to other Indian States (26% of gross cropped area). Thus a large proportion of the population is dependent on highly variable rainfalls and arid zone water harvesting systems. At the time of design the GoK thus made specific requests for support to rural development, linked to improved water management and supply. The Karnataka Community Based Tank Management Project (KCBTMP) was thus established in parallel with the Karnataka Watershed Development Project (Credit 3528-IN, 2001) and Second Karnataka Rural Water Supply project (Credit 3590-IN, 2001).

There are over 20,000 small tanks1 with areas between a few to several hundred hectares,

mainly established over the last couple of centuries, with a history of traditional management. These are small reservoirs mainly to provide irrigation to command areas, but also multiple uses for livestock, water recharge, for livestock and household uses. Historically such rain water harvesting structures were constructed, operated and maintained by villagers using local skills and craftsman and also managed with the help of traditional water managers (Neeruganthi). After independence, the management of these tanks was formally taken over by the State. While Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs, local governments) had been allocated responsibility of tanks below 40 ha, those above 40 ha remained with the Minor Irrigation Department (MID). None of the institutions had sufficient resources and systems to support tank rehabilitation, operation and maintenance. Thus they have suffered from sporadic civil works activities and little maintenance, aside from whatever ad-hoc efforts the farmers could do with the traditional (but largely disempowered) water managers.

The project was thus conceived, and approved in 2002, to build on policy changes

formulated by the State around 2000, such as recognition of water user groups, including multi-stakeholder tank user groups (TUGs), and greater decentralization of resource management. The State also established in 2000 a flexible and semi-autonomous support institution, the Jala Samvardhana Yojana Sangha (JSYS, literal translation ‘water management improvements society’), and also moved toward the gradual devolution of rights of user groups to collect water charges for maintenance. 1.2 Original PDOs and Key Indicators

The original PDO was to improve the rural livelihoods and reduce poverty through community based approaches for improving and managing selected tank systems, with an end of project date of January 2009. It had the following indicators:

1 In the PAD a figure of 37,000 tanks is used. The figure of over 20,000 refers to findings from a more

recent, yet unpublished survey.

15

community-based, self-supporting, and sustainable tank development institutions in place

and functioning meaningful participation of traditionally marginalized tank users agriculture production (productivity and area) covered by the tank system increased household incomes of direct stakeholders increased amount of funds generated and retained by user groups/local governments for operations

and maintenance percent of local governments (i.e. PRI) involved in planning and coordinating technical

support for improving tank systems. 1.3 Revised PDO and Key Indicators

The PDO was not changed during the project. However there was a refinement of the indicators for the PDO and intermediate outcome of the project during the Additional Financing (AF Project Paper 2007, Annex 3), with an end of project date extension to January 2012. These were to make targets more precise and consolidate a large number of additional indicators in the original logframe. The main new PDO indicators2 were as follows:

Self-managed and sustainable TUGs established, …[TUGs] covering at least 85% of the traditionally marginalized tank users

organized under the Tank Management Institutes (TMI); At least 50% of farmers in the upgraded Tank Command Area increased

(incremental) production of major crops by 35% …. and income by at least 25% of the baseline;

At least 75% of landless tank users increased their income by 50% of the baseline value via the Income Generation Activities

The AF also laid out Intermediate outcome indicators in the framework:

Supportive legal and institutional framework established Formalized Integrated Tank Development Plans and O&M strategies in place JSYS Project management functioning effectively TUG establishment with poor women in management position Inclusion of landless users in Self Help Groups (SHGs) and benefiting, Completion of good quality civil works and improved water delivery Irrigated area increased Farmers practicing double cropping and improved farming practices, and tanks are

used for fishery activities 1.4 Main Beneficiaries (original and revised)

The PAD estimated the number of command area farmers (in 2,000 tank systems) to be around 266,000 households, in nine dry area Districts and the estimated number of households served by the project tank systems was 1.5 million households. The project was focused on improving tank systems to help increase water storage, water use efficiency, and agricultural 2 These have been analyzed in Table F and elsewhere, in a slightly disaggregated manner as in a few cases

they consist of two separate measures.

16

productivity in areas where there is a large percentage of rural poverty in the state. The major economic benefits of the project expected were in improved agriculture and horticulture production, with respective net income increases, fisheries, forestry, time savings in fetching water, and livestock. Employment opportunities, especially for marginal farmers and landless, were expected to be significant, both in terms of labor for civil works, and from agriculture labor requirements to deal with increased productivity. In addition to these 'economic' benefits, there could be important (less quantifiable) benefits including increased social capital and empowerment through the formation and strengthening of village-level institutions, more equitable share of benefits by providing vulnerable groups, and broad capacity building for user groups, PRIs, and state officials.

With the additional financing, the nature of the beneficiary groups remained the same, although the expanded target of beneficiaries would be those served by about 3,925 tanks (see below 1.7), including the new talukas (sub-districts) of the Phase I ‘ongoing’ districts, and 8 new Districts under the Additional Financing. The full target population was not specified in formal documents. 1.5 Original Components 1.5.1 The project adopted a programmatic approach to integrated community-based tank management, to be implemented under the supervision of JSYS. The project results were to be achieved through the following three components: Component 1: Establishing Enabling Environment for Tank System Development. (USD 14.22 million). This would (i) help establishing a conducive environment and institutional basis for community-based tank management; and (ii) develop a decision support system for planning, operation & management; and strengthen project coordination and management at all levels.

Component 2: Strengthening Community Development. (USD 19.56 million) This included (i) human and institutional resource development and strengthening of local institutions; (ii) preparation and implementation of safeguard action plans and gender action plans; (iii) assistance for each tank system developed under the project; and (iv) communications. Essentially, the project cycle at tank level was for around 4 years, with 1.5 years for establishing implementation support and 2.5 years for community mobilization, training, and implementation of civil works. Communities (TUG) were to participate in preparation of ITDPs through Public Rural Appraisals (PRAs), with planning and implementation guided by local Non Government Organizations (NGOs). Component 3: Undertaking Tank System Improvements. (USD 82.15 million) This would provide for (i) the improvement of the physical and operational performance through civil works of about 2,000 tank systems within the project area; providing the TUGs with appropriate administrative and management support for implementing and managing the subprojects; (ii) supporting on-farm demonstration and training with regards to agriculture and horticulture by the Karnataka State Universities for Agricultural Sciences (UAS); (iii) promoting other income generation activities for members of local tank user communities who have little or no access to land resources, and (iv) developing appropriate technologies especially for reducing water use, suitable to the general conditions found in tank systems. 1.6 Revised Components

There were no major changes to components through the project period.

17

1.7 Other Significant Changes

After the Indian Ocean tsunami, project funds of SDR 16.58 million (USD 25 million, about 21% of Bank contribution) were transferred to the post-tsunami rehabilitation in April 2005, but without a change in scale or targets. There were already signs then that unit costs were lower than in design and could thus allow for this, and disbursement was relatively slow till then.

In addition to the original project targeted 2,000 tanks, a further 1,225 were added under the additional financing (AF USD 64 million IBRD and IDA, project P102328) in 2007, at the request of GoK, as the project implementation was accelerating, and initial results were encouraging. The project was given an additional financing as this was considered a simpler option than developing a new phase project, while still allowing for a 4 year implementation period. At the time of AF approval, the original closing date was extended by three years to January 31, 2012.

Further, in 2010, the original project was restructured to include 700 more tanks that were possible to include from savings that came from implementing the low-cost, community based approach and improved rate of INR to dollar/SDR exchange. Also, the original project considered very high contingency in the range of 28% of total cost of the project. This meant that the final target for the project became more ambitious with 3,925 tanks. During the preparation of AF, the exchange rate of SDR/dollar to INR was 25% less than during 2011-12 when the majority of implementation took place. It means the unit cost estimates during AF also resulted in significant savings.

The World Bank contribution to the project finished as planned in January 2012, although there were some remaining works to be done in about 1,761 tanks. An extension that was requested by the government was not granted, and 25 million SDR of IDA credit (USD 35 million) was cancelled prior to closure of project, and returned to the India portfolio. A total of US$9.71 million of IBRD has been left undisbursed. A large portion of the cancelled and undisbursed amount can be attributed to high contingency, exchange rate, and incomplete civil works that are now being funded by GoK. Original and Revised Project Costs (US$ million)

S. No. Component/Sub-component PAD Budget

Revised Budget for original and AF (2007, after tsunami cancellation)

Revised Budget

(final 2012)1 Establishing Enabling Environment

for Tank System Development 11.87 18.04 25.31

2 Strengthening Community Development

16.25 32.97 13.41

3 Undertaking Tank System Improvements

69.40 111.76 101.32

4 Physical Contingency 6.18 6.92 0.00 5 Price Contingency 21.33 23.54 0.00

Total 125.03 193.24 140.04 Bank contribution 98.90 160.00 114.17 IBRD 32.00 22.29 IDA 98.90 128.00 91.87

18

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 2.1.1 Comprehensive and pioneering design. This was the first project in the country to take up tank rehabilitation on a large scale and to test the devolution of powers to TUGs, with full user participation during project preparation and implementation and during the operational phase of a tank for irrigation. This was appropriate in relation to the prevailing resource management and policies, and with regards to Bank involvement in the State, and interests in participatory natural resources management at the time. GoI and GoK were committed to decentralization and participation of water users in management, operation and maintenance (MOM) as per the National Water Policy of 2002. It also built on an increasing number of Bank community-driven development experiences in India and elsewhere.

The project was designed with a vision for sustainable O&M of tanks through the active participation of users during the planning stage, empowerment during the implementation stage and thereafter handing the tanks over to the TUGs to own and carry out O &M. Since the tanks serve multiple users, the design was comprehensive instead of focusing on only specific aspects, such as large scale desiltation. The integrated approach could place greater emphasis on managing both water supply and multiple uses of water demands (on farm water use and agricultural management), and their importance in arid areas and for marginal groups. This emphasis on an integrated and more inclusive approach provided a greater opportunity for more sustainable development. The project was designed to address important areas of concern in the use of water, especially sustainability in management, which requires community involvement. Past irrigation projects had suffered with lack of participation, and often resulting in skewed benefits to better off farmers, or lack of progress.

2.1.2 High commitment for preparation. The borrower provided high commitment at the start of project, spearheading the design and development of the project, and providing a vision for the mainstreaming of the approach more widely. This was done with considerable dialogue with experienced NGOs. The GoK set up a special society (JSYS) to implement the project, supported by a highly visionary management team. JSYS was also to serve as an institutional model for scaling-up. During the preparation stage, the state introduced reforms in the Irrigation Act and operation and maintenance policy in order to empower communities and ensure their participation in operation and maintenance. Initially, the project commenced with a very small number of tanks (30) that were used to develop detailed guidelines and procedures for scaling up the community based approach. Since not many NGOs were experienced in this particular task, three highly experienced Anchor NGOs (ANGOs) were engaged to prepare the guidelines and train other NGOs. Similarly the technical manuals for design and quality control were prepared for tank improvement related civil works. The training material for induction of new staff/NGOs, execution of works and quality assurance was prepared in a professional manner which is now being utilized as a guideline by other projects. Although preparation took considerable time, it ensured strengthening the capability of the implementation team including NGOs and engineering team. The project preparation was done in such a way that documented procedures and guidelines that the JSYS team was able to maintain continuity in during implementation despite a large turnover of staff and NGOs. The project design and documents now serve as examples for other tanks projects in the state and central schemes.

19

2.1.3 Risks well considered, although increased with complexity. The risks identified in design on the whole were well considered and the mitigation measures were largely sound and integrated into the basic model. The substantial risks were: the exclusion of less powerful stakeholders, lack of sustained commitment to JSYS, pressures to implement rapidly and focus on works, and weak accountability in the use of funds at community level. There was also considered to be a risk of weak post-project sustainability of benefits, but this was to be addressed through strong capitalization of TUG funds, to support O&M and village development activities. In addition, the project design mitigated for this by allocating a four-month period of training of TUGs for supporting O&M activities at community level.

Although, the project ensured to mitigate the risk of exclusion of less powerful stakeholders through its design and selection criteria, it made the project design more complex and challenging to implement from hydrological and socio-economic point of view. Particularly in the original project, talukas were selected with low rainfall, high percentage of marginal and small farmers, poor education and health indicators, to address the Bank and Government’s objectives of helping the poorest of the poor. At the same time the project was setting out to test difficult and complex concepts - participatory methods and self-sustaining institutions - on a considerable scale, in areas where the risk of failure was potentially quite high, which would pose challenges in getting early successes. All of this, combined with limited implementation capacity led the newly created JSYS to focus on capacity building of implementation team, including NGOs and engineers in a robust and regular manner. 2.2 Implementation 2.2.1 Summary of results. Despite the complex design of project and ten years taken to complete the project, the project had satisfactory achievements in terms of outputs (Annex 2a) and outcomes (Annex 2b), albeit with some areas of moderate achievement. The project has successfully demonstrated the community based approach for improving and managing selected tanks and has improved the rural livelihoods and income of rural communities. Central sponsored schemes and several state projects have adopted a similar approach and to date this is the only project which empowered the communities to implement, operate and maintain the tanks where civil works were executed only after the formation of the community organizations.

In terms of tank improvement works, the project was implemented in two phases, almost like implementing two independent projects in two different sets of districts. Out of 3,925 tanks considered, 3,710 tanks have been taken up for implementation, which account for 17% of the tanks in the State. In order to rehabilitate, modernize and manage these 3,710 tanks, the project formed 3,126 TUGs. Through NGO mobilization, inclusive Tank User Committees (TUC) and Gram Panchayath Sub-Committees (GPSC) were established, with members covering the multiple uses of tanks. The JSYS and TUGs oversaw the preparation of ITDP and the implementation of the physical works; trained TUC members and ordinary members; established TUG processes and procedures and generated community contributions. Since the project put more emphasis on preparation, it resulted in slower implementation during start up years (with a time lag of about 2 years) which also affected the additional financing phase. At the end of the project, out of 3,710 tanks selected for implementation, 1,7423 had been or were about to be completed with handing over to TUGs. The remaining 1,761 tanks were under implementation with overall progress of around 50% (ranging from 10-90%) to be completed through GoK funds by early 2013. In 207 tanks, there were some TUG activities, but civil works progress was

3 1,640 formally handed over by January 2012.

20

negligible, they therefore were to be dropped, although the non-civil works such as agricultural practices, fisheries, income generation activities, and training for operation and maintenance were completed. The civil works and agriculture technology extension were generally of good quality, with good support from JSYS and UAS.

The resulting outcomes were generally good (discussed in more detail in section 3.2 and Annex 2b): in terms of TUG inclusion and functioning, implementation of works, agriculture support activities, and the resulting water capture and agriculture production benefits. The agricultural support activities were designed in such a way that almost all the farmers belonging to the tank system were served, which is unusual practice in irrigation projects. The project also achieved benefits in terms of fisheries and IGAs. At project closure, there were some concerns on sustainability, although developments in the period after closure of Bank financing indicated nevertheless a strengthened impetus for support to TUGs and sustainability. The factors contributing to these results are outlined below. 2.2.2. Mostly considerable institutional commitment and adaptation. Commitment and leadership played a considerable part in the project’s successes. The project started off with considerably high profile support and enthusiasm and continued under excellent leadership for most of the time. Initially this was achieved with the support of local experienced ANGOs who were mainly used for capacity building purposes4. The project developed excellent guidelines and manuals for both physical activities as well as community mobilization. Throughout the project phases there has been considerable evidence of strong commitment by some key JSYS Executive Directors and staff to the process. The project had some disturbance during the transition period of the AF. After some start up issues during AF phase, with Government and Bank efforts to maintain continuity in project leadership, again there was stability and considerable commitment to complete the project to a high quality. The Government has also ensured strong JSYS leadership after the closure of Bank funding. Despite high staff turnover (more below) the basic tank rehabilitation process has continued – rather robustly over the project years. Thirteen training modules have been developed for community mobilization, which are used at various stages starting from PRA to post implementation phase. The project team has also designed various training programs to induct new implementation teams.

The Project team at various times responded to issues and adapted processes, with use of

various studies. This showed a considerable commitment to learning processes, as are further noted in section 2.3 on Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). For example quality of works was a concern in the first part of the project, where Cluster Facilitation Team (CFT) NGOs were responsible for engineering. This resulted in considerable delays to fix the issues, and to some extent disappointment by communities. Nevertheless, this was addressed in the second part of the project, where JSYS responded by bringing engineering support and supervision more in-house, leaving NGOs to focus on social mobilization. 2.2.3 Insufficient human resources, especially at critical times of original project. A concern affecting project progress was the high turnover of staffing at times at the different levels including JSYS, District Project Unit (DPU) and NGO levels. Key technical positions which through large parts of the project were poorly staffed included: (i) engineers working for the NGOs; (ii) engineers in the JSYS; (iii) monitoring and learning specialists; and (iv) training and

4 After about 2004 the four ANGOs were not involved as core capacity building functions and training

modules had been transferred to the project staff. Also several of the mobilizing NGOs had considerable training capacities.

21

social specialists. The shortage of engineers was partly due to boom in infrastructure development around the same time and the low salary structure of JSYS. Later in the project, it was corrected by raising salaries and also by hiring retired and young engineers who were strengthened through training. Since these were small works, the fresh graduates with adequate training were able to do the quality control and supervision. At the state level, a lack of key staff for longer periods contributed to a fragmented management information system (MIS, more below) and impaired training program. The lack of a State Project Unit (SPU) Training Specialist meant the full in-depth training needs and programs could not be looked at further.

Some of these issues of turnover and lack of supervision staff particularly affected the critical transition period between the original project and the additional financing. During this period the project experienced many changes in leadership in JSYS and lack of supervision at DPU. In the critical period of 2007-08, there were a total of seven executive directors and the project was understaffed for district project coordinators, M&E and training positions. Due to lack of supervision, the quality of works, services of NGOs and involvement of TUGs lagged at this time. In order to fix these irregularities, NGOs were replaced with district facilitation teams (DFT) for original project tanks and several revisions were introduced in design and procurement procedures during the implementation of new tanks.

In assessment of supervision of the project, Quality Assurance Group (QAG) expressed concerns with regards to approving the additional financing despite the lack of completion and sufficient confidence in outcomes of the first phase of the project in the period 2006-2007. Soon after approval of the AF, the project experienced a turnover of Bank team leaders as well. The new team leaders on both project and Bank side, had a considerable task to catch up with physical implementation targets and ensure a good quality process. Perhaps due to this, during this period and from that time onwards there seemed to be a few activities by the GoK to look at institutional and O&M issues in detail, which are important for consolidating long-term sustainability. Although the Bank team reminded the senior management team to look at institutional and O&M issues during each mission, it was only prior to the closure of the project that GoK initiated the discussion on mainstreaming and the role of JSYS for implementation of other tanks in the state. 2.2.4. Challenges to Start up and scale up of implementation. The challenges to starting up both in the first phase and in the second phase seemed to have been considerably underestimated. However, these challenges were overcome by stable and dynamic leaders. The challenges became further worse when the project was scaling up and turnover in leadership increased. The inadequate staffing, especially of engineers, as discussed above, was a major bottleneck in the project performance and the single most important factor for slow implementation of key project activities particularly during 2006-08 when the original project implementation was scaling up with more than 1,000 tanks. Due to unstable leadership and shortage of supervision team, the implementation was affected adversely and was of poor quality. The tanks were handed over prematurely in order to show the progress for AF. After AF in 2008, the project was left with very ambitious targets to implement, with almost 1,800 new tanks in 8 original project districts and 8 new districts, and complete 1,000 ongoing tanks under the original credit in the next 3.5 years. The project had to also set up new DPU’s in 8 new districts and also conduct technical, social and financial audits for the ongoing tanks that were handed over prematurely. Starting August 2008, the project had a stable leadership as it started up the second phase of the project, but with some of the same start-up challenges that came with delivering in the first phase. Although the project team started working effectively, it was very time consuming job in the absence of an organized information system, with the time required to complete the work that were abandoned in the middle, and with limited staff who were already overloaded with the ambitious target for implementation. The project was expecting to have two working seasons for civil works, but

22

preparation took longer than expected. Major delays were experienced with the procurement of the supporting key consultancies, including almost 60 NGOs and topographical survey consultancies. Scaling-up faced challenges, including when the targets increased by the 700 additional tanks in 2010. Due to time taken in preparation for implementation and procurement of contracts, the project was left with one working season during 2011 only, for most tanks. 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Design, Implementation and Utilization 2.3.1 M&E design: As with other World Bank projects established at this time, the KCBTMP was designed to have a strong monitoring and learning (M&L) element. The M&L system was intended to have four components: (i) performance tracking – to measure inputs, outputs and outcomes; (ii) institutional tracking – for organizational learning and performance enhancement (for JSYS units and TUGs); (iii) Internal learning – developing project processes; and (iv) evaluation – to evaluate project impacts and outcomes. 2.3.2 M&E implementation: Initially an external organization was engaged to support the JSYS with the development of the M&L system. Nevertheless World Bank missions in May/June 2007 and May 2008 still found significant problems with the M&L program. These included: (i) poor and disorganized collection, processing and reporting of project data; (ii) lack of procedures for monitoring the performance of CFTs; (iii) failure to report and present data in a format useful for JSYS management and staff; (iv) lack of understanding in the JSYS M&L Unit of World Bank requirements and procedures for results monitoring.

Though M&E and MIS have been attempted under the project, it could have been done more efficiently if the large amount of data and information gathered was systematically managed and used in an integrated manner. Only recently have there been efforts to integrate the data silos within JSYS. A central difficulty with the M&L implementation has been the inability of JSYS to appoint and retain a sufficiently experienced M&L Specialist. This has meant that suitable systems have not been established at the outset in JSYS for data collection, processing and consistent annual or quarterly reporting. Nevertheless the project did prepare quite detailed Status reports for Bank missions as well as detailed agenda notes for Executive Committee (EC) meetings, which to some degree filled the gap. 2.3.3 M&E utilization: There was a tendency to collect data on everything, rather than focusing on the key data and the purpose of the data. JSYS developed and collected a wealth of information including topo-surveys, revenue maps, tank information, and socio-economic information and agricultural data for the tanks. The JSYS MIS systems for the ongoing project and the tanks taken up under additional financing, were set up with two different work streams making the compilation and utilization of this data challenging, especially in terms of evaluating the project in its entirety. An online MIS was developed for the procurement and civil works of the second phase of the project but the challenge remained to get the DPUs to utilize the system and create uniformity in their data entry. Such an online MIS, if fully utilizable by the DPUs, would facilitate the TUG handover process and manage the mainstreaming of the project systems and management.

Nevertheless the project did show utilization of M&E information to adapt processes. Independent M&E studies have been conducted in 2006-07 and another in 2011 to understand the impact of tanks implemented under original credit and management of JSYS. With these and based on ongoing M&E, particularly during the second phase of implementation, the following major changes were introduced in the project:

23

1. In the first phase, the tanks sizes were initially quite small. It meant high amount of efforts per unit of agricultural area supported, and less chances of benefitting irrigated area because such tanks were primarily for non-irrigation uses. During Phase II tanks above 20 ha were selected.

2. The changes in NGO team structures and their outcome indicators were introduced. The engineering team was shifted from NGO to DPUs. The engineering supervision was strengthened with more accountable engineers.

3. The role of third party QA/QC consultancy was revised to cover more tanks on random basis and soil and material testing facilities were explored through local institutes instead of mobile labs.

4. All TUGs are expected to contribute 6 percent of the ITDP cost estimate in cash. This condition was relaxed to 3% to commence the implementation.

5. Several changes were introduced in the specifications of civil construction works. 6. During phase 1, the TUGs were allowed to implement the works directly, while during

phase 2, the major works were implemented through contractors. 7. In order to encourage more contractors, the procurement was facilitated through DPUs

and the bidding process was simplified by allowing the quotations in percentages. 2.3.4 Methodological “soundness”, data quality, and M&E sustainability: As noted above, the MIS was maintained by individual unit and in some cases web-based applications were utilized. Despite a good collection of information, MIS systems were generally not well integrated, resulting in some inconsistencies noted in Implementation Completion Result Report (ICRR) process. Similarly there had been a number of studies, including those of the agricultural universities, some of relatively good quality, however there was relatively little integration and overall quality control and information management, perhaps due to the gaps in staffing. While the earlier impact assessments had difficulties in comparisons with control years, due to differences in rainfall variability, the impact assessment study of 2012 corrected for some of this, and generally presented relatively robust and comprehensive results and analysis (see executive summary in Annex). The analysis followed where possible the results framework indicators (although as is mostly the case that no significance tests were done), as well as more qualitative analysis of intervention processes, which provide an important basis for the reporting in the ICRR. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 2.4.1 Environmental Safeguards. From Bank supervision documents, it is clear that environmental safeguards and management aspects were significantly mainstreamed from tank identification, preparation and until implementation stage in the project. In the extended project, environmental management measures as envisaged in the Social and Environment Assessment (SEA) were being planned and implemented effectively in the field. The environmental management aspects included foreshore plantation, appropriative tank silt removal and utilization, and introduction of Integrated pest management (IPM) and Integrated nutrient Management INM (discussed further in Annex 2b), and were largely successful. To further strengthen these elements post-project, adequate funding/budget for plantation and related works, awareness and monitoring are required. Such efforts would be useful to increase the sustainability of the project but would also add value in creating environmental awareness within the community. 2.4.2 Social Safeguards. The final evaluation of the social aspects of the project found that the participatory process has worked well from the planning to the implementation stage. The participatory approach helped considerably to navigate the politically delicate situation of encroachers in tank bed areas, and resulted in the voluntary relocation of 7,803 encroachers.

24

Economic rehabilitation for all vulnerable encroachers included a productive asset grant, additional ration and food supply, and institutional credit for crop production and allied activities in many cases. The participatory process also empowered and motivated the society as a whole and women in particular, and ensured inclusion of lower castes and scheduled tribes. Linking IGA to tank rehabilitation helped to involve marginal farmers and the landless in the entire process. The gender strategy worked very well resulting in high representation of women not only in TUG but also in TUC and other sub committees. The hired safeguard professionals from the market facilitated the smooth implementation through building capacity within the JSYS and in the community. The social safeguards are discussed further in Annex 2b. 2.4.3. Financial management (FM). The performance of JSYS in terms of financial management was mixed over the years. GOK provided the required budget on time every year and there was no shortage of budget in any financial year. In the first few years till 2007, the rating was moderately satisfactory (MS), while in the year 2008 and 2009 the rating moved to moderately unsatisfactory and finally unsatisfactory due to non appointment of internal auditors and delay in implementation of Tally accounting and reconciliation of accounts. From 2010, the performance improved and the rating improved to MS. In 2011 the performance further improved and the FM rating was considered satisfactory, as reconciliation was carried out by the project. In the last 18 months, the project worked well in the FM area and consistently achieved the agreed actions. In view of the large numbers of advances and the number of entities involved in this operation, the FM risk was maintained as 'Substantial' throughout the project life, despite all mitigating measures put in place. 2.4.4. Procurement. Overall procurement under the project was generally satisfactory. A key feature of procurement under the project was that most of it was carried out at the community level. The project started off with a well-established design and concept including the most important aspect of procurement that is the procurement through communities. Procurement capacity building, improving accountability and governance at community level has always been a challenge, and also in this project it was time consuming and required sustained efforts by JSYS. The procurement performance was moderately satisfactory until 2007 and it turned moderately unsatisfactory during the transition of phase 1 and phase 2 when the project as a whole was affected due to turnover in leadership and supervision staff. The situation improved in the last few years of the project.

The key procurements under the project included hiring of NGOs, survey and topography consultancies and hiring of civil works contractors (more than 3000 shopping and 14 National competitive bidding) for tank rehabilitation works. The civil works contractors were hired by communities, which was a major challenge and evolved during the project phases.

Some challenges experienced during phase 1 were addressed during the phase 1 itself while some major revisions were introduced during phase II. For instance, the contract for desilting was changed from hourly basis to output basis. The selection of well performing NGOs was essential to the success of project who were required to mobilize the communities (TUGs) and guide them during the implementation and also train them for operation and maintenance of tanks. During phase 1, the NGOs were engaged based on time basis. Although overall the phase 1 implementation was quite successful and effective, the performance of NGOs was mixed. Their performance was adversely affected particularly during transition of project from phase 1 to phase II when the supervision mechanism at JSYS was not adequate. The major issues were lack of social accountability mechanism at community level and taking advantage of illiteracy in some communities. Based on the lessons learnt, the contract of NGOs was changed from time based to output based. Because the physical progress of tanks can be affected some unforeseen factors

25

such as poor performance of contractor or climate which are beyond the control of NGOs, future revisions on deliverables could also take into consideration individual TUGs capacities not only tank physical progress.

For the procurement of contractors through communities (TUGs), the majority of

procurements were shopping. During Phase 1, the communities were allowed to divide the works and hire small contractors or implement them on their own. In the absence of proper monitoring and execution, it was found difficult to measure the progress of actual works. In order to implement civil works in a more organized and professional manner, it was agreed to implement using certified contractors. Since the communities were not experienced in processing procurement documents, and works were small, scattered and seasonal specific with very small window for execution of works, challenges were overcome with changes introduced during phase II. These were essentially about setting up contracts in manageable packets with adequate project supervision (see Box 1 below). This strategy contributed to build a model where at the end of the project the capacity at the community level was built up and social accountability and governance was strengthened.

Box 1. Procurement methods supporting smaller contracts

The letter of invitation was simplified in local language which required contractors to

quote in percentage above/below estimated cost of the bid. The DPU Engineer was made responsible to conduct training at the community level and

ensure the procurement process was followed. This strategy was improved by advertizing and opening the bids in the DPU office. In case of large works (from community point of view around $150,000), slice and

packaging was followed. This procedure included dividing large works into several packages of small works which facilitated small contractors to participate and hence increased the competition while at the same time attracted large contractors. Desilting, bund strengthening and farm canals were thus packaged separately.

2.5 Post-completion Operation and Next Phase 2.5.1. Continuing support and expansion of the community tank management model: The World Bank closed its support to the project on the 31st of January 2012, as planned in the Additional Financing, covering also its support to the original project tanks. The ongoing project has disbursement of 100% of the first project. In the additional financing, the disbursement was 81%, and SDR 23.34 million (USD 36.11 million) of World Bank funds was cancelled just before the closure of project and USD 10.15 million was undisbursed at the time. The GoK, nevertheless was committed with own resources to completing and handing over the civil works during the dry season in the first half of 2012, through the implementation and guidance of the JSYS through 2012.

The overall quality of implementation by JSYS and TUGs suggest that the process is a good model with its low cost, community-based approach and with better potential for sustainable maintenance of tanks. After start up, similar projects were set up in Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Tamil Nadu and elements were also taken up under the National Project for Repair, Renovation & Restoration (RRR5) of Water Bodies, which has been implemented nationwide. The RRR

5 http://www.wrmin.nic.in/index3.asp?subsublinkid=809&langid=1&sslid=839

26

program was to mainstream this community based approach all over India, and KCBTMP served as model to prepare the program. The project team guided the central and state teams and they followed the KCBTMP community mobilization model, except that the RRR schemes kept the implementation of civil works with the department while in KCBTMP, the communities were empowered to implement them. Given that JSYS has appropriately trained staff, and a project design that ensures empowerment of communities, the ownership has been noted to be more effective under KCBTMP than the RRR schemes. The communities themselves acknowledged the difference between the two programs, with JSYS emerging in many ways as a strong institution to continue to develop and support TUG formation and tank rehabilitation.

While JSYS has been instrumental in the achievements of the project, in terms of undertaking a comprehensive and holistic tank rehabilitation program, its long term position as a support institution is only slowly developing. Commitments were made by the GoK during the ICRR mission maintaining the role of JSYS to complete the works of the present project, with government support of Rs. 1200 million (about USD 20 million). After the closure of the Bank support and supervision, JSYS was able to continue with no major disruption. Now JSYS has prepared a proposal to continue support to existing TUGs for the consideration by the Executive Committee, including proposals to strengthen policy through an amendment or addition of rules to the Panchayath Raj Act instead of issuing new tank irrigation act. While a formal program for continued support from JSYS to existing TUGs is still under consideration, the development since the closure of bank support seem quite promising. Further, post-project JSYS was approached by Rural Development Department to rehabilitate new tanks with the project approach, and other external agencies have shown willingness to support the funding.

Post-project JSYS continued to support the TUG and Federations in developing the

linkages with several line agencies. In some cases NGOs have generated funds from other sources to provide support to TUG and federations. More importantly, it has been noted that the District local government officers are prioritizing TUGs during the introduction of various rural development schemes. As there is no shortage of schemes with further planning and coordination, it is expected that this will considerably help TUGs in sustaining the tank system and also in generating resources for maintenance of the tanks.

2.5.2 Institutionalization: Based on various studies conducted by the project, a report on Institutional Reforms for Mainstreaming Community Based Tank Management was prepared in 2005 and was discussed during 2006 (See Annex 2).Based on the findings of the impact assessment studies, it was clear that the TMIs need hand holding support for a minimum period of 2 years, to ensure the core long term tank management functions are embedded (see section 4 on sustainability and risks to outcomes). This is to ensure (a) O&M activities are carried out by TMIs in an organized way, (b) TUCs and its sub-committees continue to function efficiently even in dry years, (c) developing organic linkages with federations, and (d) establishing active linkages between TMIs and other line departments (agriculture, forestry, fisheries etc.). Post-project some of these actions were being taken up (see above), but at the time of the ICRR, the exact mechanisms for this had not been spelled out. TUG federations have spontaneously formed, and show great initiative and potential to support TUGs in the long term, but are only in their initial stages of development. A number of more detailed policy and operational issues with regards to tank management by communities should also be addressed, especially with regards to water charges and coordination – which would help the sustainability of O&M. These are listed in the Box 2 below. 2.5.4. Future Supervision and Evaluation: At the time of the ICRR officials in the State government requested some further supervision support from the World Bank to provide some

27

oversight and continuity into the final stages of the project completion in 2012. It was suggested that this could be done through the ongoing supervision missions in the State for the Hydrology II project (ongoing), and the proposed Karnataka Watershed Development II project. This would be a valuable opportunity also for convergence on the wider water and catchment aspects in the project areas and could help with follow-up aspects of M&E. This would be particularly helpful with regards to monitoring impacts of tank rehabilitation and management on water availability, distribution, groundwater and usage. A case in point for the Bank to follow up on is the the project’s hydrology study expected in the end of 2012. There could also useful follow-up analysis on the sustainability of community tank management capacity, and measuring environmental management features. In particular, an analysis could take place of the entire tank project cycle to determine what steps are essential and should be incorporated in future rehabilitation of tanks. As it may be challenging for the MID to take up a 3-4 year cycle, but as a minimum there should be some focus on TUG/TUC development and their participation in determining the tank needs. An evaluation of the impacts of the implementation of tanks activities under AF due to end in 2012 would also be informative for future mainstreaming of tank activities.

Box 2. Some policy and operational issues regarding ongoing tank management

Developing O&M institutional systems:

Handholding is required for 2-3 years after TUG formation and completion of the rehab works if the TUG is to be sustainable. There is a need to create a unit in JSYS to deal with all matters of tank management, operation and maintenance (MOM) – setting service fees, carrying out maintenance, preparation of MOM manuals, fee recovery, keeping meetings, etc. JSYS also needs to provide more support to getting Federations set up to provide additional support and guidance to TUGs.

Having meaningful activities to perform are the lifeblood of any organization. The TUGs have been successful in tank rehabilitation but now there is a hiatus as the TUGs have to redefine their activities and structure (no need for Sub-Committees as constituted for the ITDP). When there is water in the tank, there are activities for TUGs but when there is no water, the TUGs lose purpose to organize. Many Sub-Committees were useful and needed for the rehab works, but they need to be restructured for post-handover and in the end may need only a Finance SC, O&M SC and possibly also Conflict Resolution SC.

Water charges:

At present water charges are fixed by the State, although TMIs can peg it higher than the minimum rate. This is good and bad, good in that there is a figure, bad in that it is not related to the needs of each individual tank. There is a need somehow to combine the two, and do community wide agreements on reasonable but effective rates.

Operation phase – there is a question regarding what to do about borehole users who benefit from recharge by the tank. They should pay, and are the ones most able to pay. How to organize them as they are not traditional part of the command area (although some are)?

Water charge recovery for villagers is difficult; they are not accustomed to collecting money from one another, especially for a tax. The tax should be renamed as a service fee and develop procedures to enable the TUC to establish what the fee should be for each tank and then propose this to the General Body. Problems also arise from governments pouring money into village communities through various initiatives (RRR, MNREGA) which undermines the self-sustainability concept and practice.

Other institutional options:

Develop linkages with the watershed projects to coordinate the water resources management within catchments; otherwise there is considerable risk that upstream watershed users will increase their extracts and decrease water availability for downstream communities. This is a major issue which needs to be addressed by the GoK (and elsewhere in India).

28

Explore the possibility of JSYS taking up the RRR work on behalf of GoK at the local level and all RRR work goes through JSYS.

Facilitate cross learning across tanks projects in other states taking up formal programs. For instance in Andhra Pradesh, the tank water management has been integrated with community based groundwater management..

3. Assessment of Outcomes

3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation

The project in broad terms still remains highly relevant in terms of its objectives and design in the context of the Bank and Government of India policies and strategies at the end of project (ICRR). The India 12th Five Year Plan still has objectives of inclusive growth through increasing agricultural production and food security, where for rainfed agriculture convergence is stressed between livelihoods, availability and access to food, ecosystem and human health, and where water management plays a key role. The integrated tank management approach, and the way it has been implemented under KCBTMP, still exemplifies this strategy. Similarly, the design addresses the core pillars of the World Bank Country Assistance Strategy, of rapid inclusive growth in poor rural rainfed areas, sustained natural resources management, especially relating to water, and increasing the effectiveness of watershed management related services.

In terms of national and state level strategies, implementation placed strong emphasis on convergence between communities and PRIs, as difficult as this may be in practice. The challenge in bringing together the PRIs, which have broad administrative boundaries, and the TUGs, which have a narrow focus around tanks, was the lack of political interest from local governments in small scale projects with the poor. Implementation may have seen more progress if greater effort was placed on management of this convergence, rather than implementing works. There have been recent discussions on integrating tank O&M works with funds from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme (MNREGA) but this has yet to materialize. At the time of design the project was to examine further institutional options and develop JSYS as a long-term support institution. In implementation however there was less emphasis on examining the higher institutional aspects and maintaining a dialogue on them – for example with regards to the relationship between JSYS and the Ministry of Minor Irrigation. The project would have also benefitted from a greater emphasis on the long-term O&M of tanks after the project close. The O&M mechanisms, and TMI, local and State institutional support will be critical in addressing some of the deeper causes of tank degradation historically, as well as in sustaining benefits. 3.2 Achievement of PDO

The project objectives and indicators emphasized community involvement in both implementation and management of tanks. These would result in improved rural livelihoods and thus poverty reduction of an inclusive group of tanks users, mainly from increased agricultural production and income generating activities. The achievement of project development objective and its associated indicators, and also supporting intermediate outcome indicators from AF are treated in Table F and examined in more detail in supplementary Annex 2b. Below follows a summary of PDO indicators, largely based on the Impact Assessment Study 2012 (IAS 2012) and project information, and UAS studies.

29

1) Self managed and sustainable tank users groups (TUGs) established. By 2012, the project helped establish 3,126 TUGs covering 3,710 tanks (out of formal target of 3,925 tanks, a target set with expected savings at a later stage of the project). Out of 3,710 tanks, only 207 tanks have been dropped from direct project support, which had partial activities done by TUGs. Most TUGs have managed funds, satisfactorily implemented tank rehabilitation and other activities – and most importantly were responsive to their members. The TUGs have gone some way in generating their own resources and with operation and maintenance activities by the TUGs just starting up, there are encouraging signs of follow-up activities by federations and support from other schemes. Several policies and legal measures were put in place to support the system, and JSYS is continuing support activities, as are TUG federations. The PDO indicator 1 is achieved to a large extent. 2) Inclusion of marginalized groups. The first PDO indicator included a separate element of inclusion: ‘…Tank User Groups established… covering at least 85% of the traditionally marginalized tank users organized under the Tank Management Institutes’. While difficult to qualify, the project MIS showed 1.16 million TUG members (on average around 300 per tank) covering a wide range of farmers and other users, such as livestock keepers, often traditionally marginalized who were part of the project, confirmed by mission observations. This inclusion can be considered a major achievement of the project and the second part of PDO Indicator 1 is considered achieved. Almost half of the members are women, 30% are from Scheduled Caste or Tribe, which is generally greater than in population. In addition a majority of members are marginal and small farmers, and around 15% are landless, reflected in TUG management ratios. Communities also picked the most marginalized to benefit from IGAs, fisheries and resettlement support. 3) Tank Rehabilitation and resulting agricultural Improvement. Tank rehabilitation led to improved water capture and use, achieved through the implementation of physical works that were identified with community participation. Together with exposure to improved water management and agricultural practices, this provided a range of agricultural benefits, leading to improved livelihoods in a command area under the 3,710 project tanks for over 150,000 ha. A detailed project study showed 20% increased irrigated area, 44% increased water volume, raised groundwater levels, 42% increased groundwater extraction, and 23% improved water use efficiency. Farmers clearly benefited from the tank rehabilitation works, with total production increased by 47% on average compared to controls, which had increased to 12% (a 35% incremental difference). As target 35% is for only lower half of the command area, the PDO indicator target has been achieved considerably. This was also distributed well in that there was 20% incremental cropped area for tail end farmers, who usually are the last to benefit. Not only this but in project tank command areas net income for farmers increased by 76%, compared to a 42% for non-project tank farmers (IAS 2012). Nevertheless the incremental 33% on average is considerably better than for the target 25% for half of the farmers, thus this PDO indicator has been exceeded. In addition, a number of improved agricultural practices were demonstrated by the regional Universities of Agriculture Sciences (UAS), such as for improved seeds and water management methods. This resulted in widespread adoption of basic agriculture techniques appropriate to tank farmers for water scarce situations and for lower inputs of costly chemical fertilizers and pesticides, directly covering 26,767 beneficiaries, with further exposure for over 200,000 farmers. 4) Income increases from fisheries and other income generating activities. The project directly supported income generating activities, particularly for the landless and agriculture laborers. A large proportion of the allocated IGA support funds were channeled through women’s self-help groups, and a large portion who were lower caste or tribal, with 99,453 beneficiaries.

30

The IAS 2012 indicated that incomes of members have improved by 56% comparing them to non-beneficiaries (41%), with an incremental increase of 15%. Formally this achievement, although considerable, is less than the target PDO indicator. This in part attributable to the small loans available. In addition, TUGs supported resettlement of 7,803 poor encroachers from farming tank bed areas and helped them in new livelihoods, often doubling their incomes (not seen under other government programmes). In 1,403 tanks about 7,800 landless (75%) and marginal farmers (25%) were provided incremental income opportunities from the fisheries activities generating additional income averaging Rs. 5,179 per fisher household. 3.3 Efficiency

The overall economic rate of return (ERR) is estimated to be 17%, lower than the combined (PAD and AF) estimate of 19%. The estimated net present value (NPV) is Rs. 1.1 billion (USD 23 M) at a discount rate of 12% (the same rate as in PAD/AF), which is about 3/4th less than the PAD/AF estimate of Rs. 4.6 billion (adjusted to 2012 constant prices using Indian Consumer Price Index).

The project has over achieved the targets in terms of (i) more area irrigated by the tanks by 6%, and (ii) higher crop yields by 14 to 62% in non-paddy cereal crops, pulses and horticulture crops. At the same time, the project has also under achieved the targets in terms of (i) lower crop yields in paddy by 49% and oilseeds by 11%, (ii) reduced Water Surface Area (WSA) covered under fisheries by 81%, (iii) reduced sustainability of demonstrated fisheries management practices by 39%, and (iv) lower fish yield by 21%.

The impact of over and under achievements of the targets were assessed. A net incremental income impact is marginally higher by 2% at farm level for agriculture but lower by 22% for fisheries. However, agriculture accounted for 70% of the incremental annual economic benefits at full project development as against only 13% for fisheries as projected in the PAD/AF combined estimate. But this has not helped in achieving the targeted ERR mainly due to cost and time over runs in the implementation project activities. In a 25-year project life, implementation itself prolonged for 11 years, in which, only 46% of the project costs were thinly spread during the first nine years and the remaining 54% are spent in the last two years, consequently delaying the start of project benefits by four years and pushing the realization of phased project benefits by five years. This has substantially reduced the size of NPV by 76% while pulling down the realized ERR to 17%, despite reasonable performance in rehabilitating the number tanks as targeted (94%) and better achievement in realizing irrigated area, more than planned by 6%. 3.4 Justification of the Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory 3.4.1 The project development objective has been achieved satisfactorily by demonstrating the viability of a community-based approach to tank improvement and management by returning the main responsibility of tank rehabilitation and modernization and the subsequent operation and maintenance (O&M) to village-level tank user groups (TUG). This approach has contributed to improving the rural livelihoods and income of rural communities. The associated indicators, and also supporting intermediate outcome indicators from AF are measured in Table F and Annex 2b. The project met several of its important targets. There were generally minor shortcomings in the project achievement of project objectives, relevance and efficiency. The following justifies the rating:

31

TUGs managed the tank rehabilitation process in an inclusive manner, involving a large portion of traditionally disadvantaged users, including women, lower castes and the landless.

The project performed well in terms of productivity based on incomes arising from the agricultural outcomes, in turn as a result of good rehabilitation of a considerable number of tanks and the resulting increases in water availability and distribution. More importantly the project was able to cover the majority of stakeholders in demonstrating agricultural practices which is not very common in irrigation projects

Efficiency is reasonable, partly due to the lower than planned unit costs and complex nature of the project, that were offset due to lengthy implementation period.

Ensuring sustainability of TUGs is a challenging process that requires ongoing support for some years after handover to TUGs to manage the O&M of tanks. This as a major challenge and the project after Bank closure has stepped up efforts to strengthen this aspect. The detailed design and mechanisms for tank management and scaling up of the project model could have been articulated further, leaving this aspect slightly below expectations.

3.5 Over-arching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects and Social Development 3.5.1 Poverty impacts. The project was generally well targeted and inclusive, as noted in the analysis of the PDO. It also had considerable benefits to a large number of small and marginal farmers and landless. The IAS 2012 analysis (section 3.19) notes a doubling of average mean net income per farmer from Rs. 7,547 from cropping in Kharif season to Rs. 15,573 compared to only 50% increase for control farmers (from Rs. 8,779 to 13,432 per season). The project benefited 213,900 tank command area farmers, 10% more than the target. 90% of them are small and marginal farmers. Average farm financial income, at constant 2012 prices, increased by Rs. 8,015 per year for an average holding size of 0.75 ha, which is sufficient to lift at least one member of the farm household above the poverty line based on the Indian Planning Commission estimates for rural Karnataka for 2004/05, updated for constant 2012 prices using inflation index. About 70% of the project beneficiary farmers are resource poor marginal farm holders. In terms of directly benefited population in the project farm families, about 14% of them, namely 149,730 rural poor are potentially benefited by the poverty alleviation impact due to increased farm income.

Increased and improved irrigation coverage in the rehabilitated tanks, resulted in intensified and diversified irrigated agriculture, generating additional farm employment for 8,050 persons per year. This will help the landless and resource poor households by providing jobs for about 270 days in a year. This has the potential of alleviating poverty additionally for about 40,250 rural poor in the project area.

Farm based income and employment generation activities generated by the project through improved agriculture in the 3,710 rehabilitated tanks will have sustained poverty alleviation impacts for about 190,000 rural poor in the project villages. This accounts for 17% of the population in the project villages.

The project has further generated employment and income through rehabilitation investments in 3,710 project tanks during the project implementation period as follows: (i) wage employment, estimated as 3.2 million person days, equivalent to 11,830 person-years in total and

32

(ii) wage income of Rs. 16,200 per year per job. About 62% of the beneficiaries under this category belong to socially disadvantaged SC and ST groups.

The project has also helped 51,715 resource poor families in setting up and sustaining livestock dominated income generating activities which has the potential of generating average annual income of Rs. 3,900 per beneficiary. About 48% of these beneficiaries are from SC and ST groups and 21% of the beneficiaries are landless labor households. 3.5.2. Gender benefits. As noted in achievement of the PDO section, women formed a significant part of the TUG membership and management. They were often given the responsibility as TUG treasurers, recognized for their thoroughness and accountability. An important strategy was the close relationship between the TUG and SHGs in the village, importantly for the management and ensuring benefits of the IGA support to vulnerable groups (often widows or women headed households). SHGs also mobilized diverse groups in the community towards the tank related activities, and in a number of cases took the lead in tank rehabilitation and significantly, sustained O&M. The comprehensive and participatory approach to tank planning and rehabilitation was also important in identifying and implementing appropriate structures, such as steps on the bund for access to clothes washing areas mostly used by women, and highlighting drinking water needs (which form a considerable daily burden in terms of carrying water by women). No detailed analysis was done of the timesaving aspects of the project. 3.5.3. Distribution of benefits. Comprehensive analysis was not available as to the finer details of distribution of benefits from increased water availability, although the majority of beneficiaries were clearly the command area farmers – mainly marginal and small farmers. It is not clear how larger farmers with groundwater irrigation outside the command areas may have benefited from increases in groundwater levels as they would have larger areas of land for production (often farmers had land in command areas and outside as well). The potential negative effects of the increased number of borewells on groundwater availability as a response to increased recharge was not assessed, although ICRR mission discussions noted that increases in borewells was also heavily driven by market forces and subsidized electricity. A positive benefit not thoroughly quantified, but of potential significance to livestock keepers, many of whom are poor and often marginalized tank users, was the increased availability of water in the dry season for animals for 2-3 months, reducing traveling time, and improving animal health. (b) Institutional Change and Strengthening

The project has had a marked impact on the manner in which tanks are managed, at least rehabilitated, and the level of engagement by the local communities. A sense of ownership has been created and local leaders have emerged from the village communities. TUGs have become established as the management entity for the tank, and have been found by the impact assessment and the ICRR team field visits to be functioning entities (TUC members are knowledgeable about their role and functions, meetings are held, members attend, accounts are kept, water allocation plans are made, water management staff employed, charges are made and recorded, etc.). The processes followed by the project, the preparation of the ITDP, the transfer of funds to the TUG to carry out the physical works and other activities and the capacity building of the tank users and TUC members have enabled and supported this change.

A key indicator of this new found local capability is the “organic” growth of TUG Federations: typically once user groups have formed and are functioning effectively they tend to start looking outwards. Since 2005, this process has been happening in Karnataka with the

33

formation of TUG Federations which have been formed by TUGs grouping and working together. The Federations were established for the purposes of providing assistance and guidance to individual TUGs, protecting tanks from encroachment, mobilizing resources for tank development, representing TUGs to block and district administrations, assisting in times of flood or drought and, in some cases, organizing provision of crop inputs and marketing of outputs. The project has assisted the process by organizing workshops, initially in November 2009 for some 500 participants including TUG representatives and JSYS DPU staff from 18 Districts, and later in individual Districts where TUGs expressed an interest in the process. An important feature of these workshops and the subsequent support given by JSYS to forming and supporting these Federations has been the realization that Federations represent an important mechanism for supporting and sustaining TUGs in the future. To date, some 18 District Federations and 14 Taluka level Federations have been established in all project Districts and very recently these groups have led to formation of State Federation.

A Taluka Committee of Taluka level government agencies has been fostered in several areas, with a view to supporting federations and TUGs to identify other sources of support. Given the time required to develop and operate a Taluka Committee, this is clearly an important initiative. However, the continued operation of this mechanism has not yet been formalized.

As an institution, JSYS developed valuable expertise in the formation and support of community-based, self-supporting and empowered tank user groups. This experience was particularly consolidated during the last four years. In contrast to the changes that have taken place in the approach to tank development and management adopted by JSYS, the approach adopted by the State MID does not appear to have changed significantly over the project period. From reports from TUGs of work carried out by the MID on tanks under the GoI funded RRR program, tank rehabilitation and repair lessons from the JSYS approach have not been adopted, with the MID focusing on physical works only, with little, if any engagement with TUGs or tanks users. In MID’s defense, they are not staffed properly and are without resources to be able to do more than focus on construction. This points to deeper institutional issues with regards to irrigation and tank management.

This was among the first major projects dealing with the water bodies through communities. Prior to this project, NGOs did not have capacity to work on such water management issues. The project provided a good platform for NGOs to build their capacity in restoring water bodies and the water management particularly in agriculture. Based on the success of this project, some well performing NGOs have been able to generate funding from other sources and are helping the communities/federations to further strengthen. (c) Unintended Outcomes and Impacts 3.5.3 A number of unplanned outcomes happened during the project period, largely mentioned in previous sections: TUG federations emerged, and other projects and programs have adopted the basic community tank management model. It was noted in some Districts that the District Collector had requested the TUGs to handle other rural development schemes or RRR program, a highly significant institutional achievement if replicated. Moreover the linkages with other ongoing schemes will further strengthen the changes of their sustainability and provide funds for O&M. ICRR field visits heard that the TUG capacity to write formal documents, management of records and prepare and advocate resolutions helped in wider community activities. In addition, the project also undertook specific rehabilitation works which took into account restoration of ancient historical or religious related tank structures, and also repaired bunds in such a way as to

34

provide road access for otherwise isolated communities (sometimes reducing traveling by over half a day). 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 3.6.1 Important findings from the Impact Assessment Study 2012 which surveyed 13,000 farmers and IGA beneficiaries in 200 tanks, has been dealt with extensively in Section 3.2 on analysis of PDO – and summary of the IAS is in Annex 5.

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome

4.1.1. Overall rating. At the time of the ICR many of the risks to development outcomes were moderate, as much had been achieved in terms of generating returns at the community level, and TUGs had been actively supporting the users in generating those benefits. In the long run, the risks to maintaining the outcomes is considered Moderate, especially if strong post-project measures are taken to further develop the sustainability of MOM functions of the project tanks. Further it will be important that the State confirms the concomitant institutional support (from JSYS and/or MID) to monitoring and further handholding the communities, so that there is not a recurrence of costly rehabilitation works. 4.1.2 Agriculture and water management outcomes: The project has features that will contribute to sustainability of the outcomes, but there are also some concerns about the continuity of support and the availability of material that was introduced by the universities. Clearly with the direct agriculture benefits, backed up by farmers’ views, the expanded and new individual farm activities are likely to be sustained, which will be reinforced with better rains (in dry areas) with likely further adoption of more successful technologies. 4.1.3. Continuing functions of TUGs: The ICRR mission met several TUGs from the early phase which were sustaining activities in support of their members. At the support level, an unexpected positive outcome of the project, largely driven by the TUGs themselves, has been the emergence of TUG federations, who have helped member farmers in terms of marketing, addressing internal TUG disputes, and also taking the cause of their groups to higher level politicians.

The continuation of the TUGs and their ability to sustain the tank system will depend on a number of issues. Key amongst these are considered to be the frequency with which the tank fills, the value/benefit of the tank to the users, the quality of local leadership and the awareness of the work required and costs to manage, operate and maintain the system. Strong leadership is perhaps the central factor. The project has built considerable capacity in this regard. These elements of TUG functioning: to raise funds and resources (both internally and externally from MNREGA for example) help ensure that essential maintenance works are carried out such that the benefits of the tank system are sustained.

In case of the sustainability of the O&M of tanks structures, awareness is considerable and all communities have developed some mechanisms to generate resources, for what they strongly consider their own tank systems. The amount of funds generated and retained by user groups for operations and maintenance is around Rs. 530 million for all phases of the project.

However, though the TUGs have been formed and the tank systems rehabilitated there remain some questions over the sustainability of the TUGs and their ability to sustain the tank systems over time. Following the handing over of the tanks, the impact study shows that the number of meetings of the General Body has declined (only a minor percentage TUGs reported

35

holding these meetings post-handover) and many of the Sub-Committees are not active6. In addition, the payment of the annual membership fee has declined, with only 23 percent of TUG members having paid the fee since handover. The decline in the number of General Body meetings and Sub-Committee meetings, however, is a perfectly logical consequence of the reduced activity following completion of the physical works and is perhaps a reflection of changes in the nature of core functions of TUGs as they mature (noted in section 2.5). While JSYS has appointed social specialist at district level to support TUGs to ensure regular meetings, guide O&M and comply with statutory requirements, this was done at a relatively late stage of the project, but may pick up with increasing efforts by JSYS post-project.

The ICRR team noted that actual application of O&M activities were especially mixed in drier regions and the degree to which plans match available resources for O&M was not clear. Income to the TUG was limited, with the main source of finances being the initial cash contribution and income from fisheries. There is little income from collection of the water charges, with the TUC finding it difficult to make this charge. This is notoriously difficult in the India context where charges are seen historically as revenue taxes. Collecting charges becomes especially difficult in the case for tanks in the more arid zones where there has not been water in the tank for 2-3 years. Clearly, mechanisms for O&M in dry years needs further support, both in terms of funding and technical support. This suggests that after the four months of O&M training, a mechanism is needed for further ‘handholding’ of the TUGs. Much of the resources required for this can be generated through labor arrangements, either voluntary or through schemes such as MNREGA. 4.1.4. Risk to longer term institutional support and mainstreaming: The difficulty is that a handholding phase moves from the realm of a time-bounded project into the realm of regular extension and support, which by design should have been managed by JSYS in the longer term. There is currently no other government agency qualified to take on this support role. If JSYS is seen only as a project implementation organization then its role ends with the completion of its post-implementation activities. However, if JSYS is seen as a line agency organization, such as the MID, then it could take on the role of providing longer term support to TUGs following handover (at present confined to 2012 support to project completion).

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance

5.1 Bank (a) Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Satisfactory: 5.1.1 Generally, the project was considered to have a comprehensive design, be technically sound, and based on an innovative approach. The design covered important policy and participation issues, targeted the traditionally marginalized populations and was backed up by a range of studies to be responsive and address key issues in the State.

The project design adopted an innovative approach to address some of the key water sector issues in Karnataka particularly building local level ownership and responsibility for the development and management of tank systems. The project design accordingly factored an

6 CMSR Impact Assessment Study 2012, Section 4.10

36

integrated approach to tank management through community based approaches suggesting various models planned to be piloted for community management of tanks. The project commenced with the implementing agency (JSYS) and dedicated team in place, and required legal reforms to ensure proper implementation of project. The commitment exhibited by the GoK and JSYS leadership through the efforts made by the Bank clearly indicates the excellent preparation done by the Bank team in designing such a complex project which has since become a model for other states of India to emulate. Clearly the Bank needs to be congratulated on this design. However, the QALP-27 in 2010 rated the quality of design as Moderately Unsatisfactory. The reasoning for this rating included (i) optimistic in requirements for start up and targets, for such a new type of project; (ii) the capacity requirements for implementation in terms of available expertise (such as field engineers), was underestimated, and policy and institutional change issues (for example in the MID) were not fully examined or appreciated. The QAG considered the project was not ready for implementation following credit effectiveness, however, the assessment was conducted when the project was recovering from its challenging transition and had an ambitious number of tanks to implement. The ICR mission is of the opinion that the QAG views did not factor the following:

(i) The project readiness analysis clearly indicated that the project had a robust start with the introduction of important policies on O&M, amendment to irrigation act and design guidelines and manuals for streamlining the new approach prepared with the help of highly experienced ANGOs; (ii) The capacity requirements were not underestimated given that the civil works were small and fresh engineers equipped with training could have easily fulfilled the staff requirement to a large extent. This was made possible during second phase of project through revision in salaries and allowing fresh engineers under the guidance of senior/retired engineers; (iii) Initially, the project target was for merely 9% of total tanks (22,000 tanks) spread over seven different agro-climatic zones in the state. There was a balance to be struck in deciding the target number of tanks given that if a small number of tanks, say 500, were taken up under the project, the project would have not been able to demonstrate the feasibility of approach for various zones and institutional setup in the state in economical manner. Hence there was a need to critically balance the numbers to ensure relevance of the project as more than simply a pilot. The project had phased approach by investing relatively more time in testing the approach in first 30 tanks.

Despite the preparation time invested at start that were brought on by piloting new

approaches, setting up new systems, and gradually learning how to scale up the approach to the large number of tanks under the project, the project was able to deliver positive outcomes. In light of overall outcome of the project, the ICRR considers that the design as conceptualized was largely sound. (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory 5.1.2 Supervision was generally supportive to project team decisions and providing timely technical advice, for example on improving community based procurement, civil works

7 World Bank internal INDIA: KARNATAKA Tank Management (P071033) Quality Assessment of

Lending Portfolio (QALP-2) 2010.

37

construction quality, and NGO team design. The multi-disciplinary bank team ensured that appropriate guidance was provided to the borrower and its implementing agencies in all the dimensions of the project. It is because of Bank’s efforts that the quality of civil works have largely been found to be sound. The institutional support enabled piloting a number of community engagement models from which two models appears to have been largely successful. The monitoring of environmental and social framework implementation coupled with inclusiveness of marginalized groups enabled a holistic development. Bank’s contribution was appreciated by the client so much so that a request was made to ICR team to continue Bank’s support in the post project period- a rarity in the projects in India’s Bank financed water portfolio.

Although, the QAG notes that supervision was at time a concern prior to 2008, overall the support especially in the first and last third of the project, was satisfactory, with stable supervision team. Although some rehabilitation works are remaining in several tanks, the supervision team provided support to the JSYS to remain focused to the fundamental concept of the project that is mobilizing the communities to own the system. With this approach, the team ensured the tank rehabilitation, to generally satisfactory quality and fiduciary and safeguard standards during the entire project duration (except in 2007 when there was turnover in the Task Team Leaders, TTLs and in JSYS leadership). The core elements of community participation and inclusion of the marginalized users was consistently examined. Concerns arose during implementation related to the complex requirements for procurement with the local NGOs. The third party quality control engineers were brought on board to improve the quality of supervision over the many tanks located in disparate and difficult to reach areas. This third party consultant was necessary for successful implementation but contributed to slowing down that start-up of the additional financing. As noted above the project had several Task Team Leaders through the project period, though for relatively long periods, with the exception of right after the AF launch. The new team leaders on both the project and Bank sides after AF, had a considerable task to catch up with physical implementation targets and ensure a good quality process.

On regular basis, the task team pursued with GoK the mainstreaming of this approach to

define the role of JSYS in longer term. In addition, more could have been done to identify opportunities to link with the Watershed Development Project, which had joint TTLs in the beginning of the two projects. Later in the project, this became more of a challenge as different ministries were involved and were difficult to coordinate. However, given the complexity of the design and the challenges in scaling up, the project was still able to adapt to changes and implement the project with satisfactory outcomes. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory. 5.1.3 Given the analysis above the overall Bank performance is rated as satisfactory. While the timing of additional financing could have been better assessed, and follow through on sustainability aspects, the supervision team, by the end of the project, put in considerable efforts to largely complete a challenging and innovative project with integrated and participatory tank rehabilitation process. 5.2 Borrower (a) Government Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

38

5.2.1 The borrower (GoK) provided high commitment at the start of project, spearheading the design and development of the project, and providing a vision for the mainstreaming of the approach more widely. The State has also provided funding support to the project implementation throughout, as well as commitment (RS. 1200 million) to finish off works in 2012, after closure of Bank project. During the preparation of project, the government demonstrated its commitment by providing a working platform with the approval of operation and maintenance policies and also orders to facilitate the financial sustainability of TUGs. The society with multi-disciplinary unit was setup which had highly trained professional to implement this innovative approach.

The project has served as guideline for national program RRR and other state project. While the concept has been welcomed even at national level, GOK position on the institutionalization and scaling-up of the community based tank management model, and of JSYS and its respective roles with MID, have been left hanging for large part of the project, from 2006 up to early 2012.

Although the government orders facilitated the functioning of TUG during the project, the Tank irrigation act which has been drafted is yet to be approved which will broadly address rights of TUGs, as well as on water charges. There were also some missed opportunities in terms of systematic convergences with line departments and PRIs, and their related programs, such as RRR. It must be recognized however, such convergence are challenging and not just in Karnataka.

During first four and last four years of the project, there was stability in the executive directors. The JSYS team was highly committed to first prepare it well and scale up the approach on larger scale. The project performance was seriously and adversely affected during 2006-08 when there was a very high turnover of project executive directors for the critical middle period of the project. The continual changes (7 new Executive Directors between 8th May 2006 and 20th August 2008, 11 Executive Directors overall during the 10 years of the project) meant a loss of focus and continuity on key activities, as well as being disruptive for project staff and real progress was only made when the current ED was appointed in August 2008 and remained in post till mid of May 2012. This continuity in leadership was important to implement the AF phase of the project. The Government has taken due diligence to provide competent executive director as his replacement during the project close. (b) Implementing Agency (or Agencies) Performance Rating: Satisfactory 5.2.2 The JSYS has overseen the implementation of a complex and largely groundbreaking process, and taken it to significant scale. The project implementing agency (JSYS) has had a number of highly dedicated staff and executive directors, particularly in the beginning and in the last few years. The project had prepared excellent guidelines, manual and had setup induction trainings with the help of leading ANGOs and other agencies (as also briefed in Section 5.1). The turnover in engineers and other support staff was overcome through induction and on the job trainings. Despite the changes in leadership, some key staff at SPU were able to maintain the standard procedures and ensure smooth implementation.

Nevertheless, the several project systems due to their complexity and challenging areas took a very long period to set up. There was high turnover in the M&E specialist and training specialist at SPU and in the district level supervision staff particularly district coordinators and

39

engineers. which meant critical strategies and systems were not tackled comprehensively or with continuity. The project was able to collect a wealth of data through their M&L consultancy and while this data was not managed in an integrated way, it allowed for the number of studies and quantitative analyses to be carried out under the project. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory. 5.2.3 The Borrower has shown a generally good commitment to the basic implementation of the project and JSYS, with several committed staff overseeing important stages of the project, and playing a key role in its considerable achievements. Post project, there have been some positive development towards the sustainability in TUGs and also mainstreaming the approach in Zila Panchayath tanks.

6. Lessons Learned

6.1.1 The mission has identified an initial set of lessons learned which may have wider applicability for scaling-up and adaptation:

Community based tank engagement in rehabilitation and management can work. JSYS has developed well-documented and robust processes and procedures for the TUG formation and tank rehabilitation phases. The participatory process (with TUG ownership and stability) works very well and delivers results on the ground – and fosters further innovation. The project demonstrated the simplified procurement process through communities for civil works that may be useful in other tanks and other programs. The training material for TUG mobilization is quite robust and is already being utilized by other projects.

Leadership is required at all levels and produces dividends when in place. It is evident that there was strong leadership and commitment to the community-based development philosophy and approach at the start and end of the project. In addition there were some committed professionals within JSYS who maintained the approach throughout the project. This was particularly important during the middle period when there were many changes at the ED level.

Well performing NGOs are the key to success of the approach. The NGOs play a key role in success of community based approach. The selection criteria should set smart indicators to evaluate their performance. The NGO’s with demonstrated performance in the area may be prioritized so that it ensures that they can sustain it beyond the project. For instance, some well performing NGO’s have managed to continue even after the project due to their commitment and long term presence in the area.

New models and institutional mechanisms need considerable attention to start up and

scaling up issues and related capacity development – with commitment to a longer development process, and not rapid scaling up. It requires greater realism and analysis of institutional issues and the gradual build up of capacities based on experience. Legal and institutional transformations need concerted assistance on change management, which is too seldom given sufficient support or time. Significant institutional change including of departments and federation type structures (not just a community level) often requires timescales of 8-10 years.

40

A commitment to a longer process should also limit the pressures for scaling-up too rapidly until models are well tested. Additional financing should perhaps be triggered after key sustainability outcomes in existing project areas have been achieved. Further expansion into new Districts with required new management units, done only after readiness measures have been assessed.

Managing common property resources is highly challenging. In order to manage a group, first start with relatively homogeneous and small groups and identify reasons/benefits for them to be together. Nevertheless the well managed development of a multi-sector user group, with strong links to (but not control by) local government is critical to solving conflicts and addressing multiple needs.

Also with climatic variability affecting such common resources such as water it is important to allow for the project to cover several seasons to allow for the occurrence of dry periods in order to understand how management can cover multi-year variability.

Start simple and with tanks systems which are likely to be successful. The project had two underlying aims, to test a new approach to tank development and to provide support to disadvantaged areas, or communities. It may have been better to focus on developing and testing the community-based approaches in locations where the environment (climate, local leadership, local commitment) was likely to lead to more successful outcomes. Having developed and tested the model, it could then have been expanded to more challenging localities and communities.

There needs to be an institutional support system to continue testing and refinements in the model. While the process is well tested and refined, there is some room for delegating further flexibility and fostering further innovation within the approach, for example for managing contract rates, member contributions, water charges, allocating of funds to different works, federation development, etc. These elements are ideally done by a flexible institution like JSYS, working closely with main line departments.

Monitoring, learning and evaluation systems need to be integrated and evolve in a concerted manner. MIS systems need to modular by component needs, but develop under a common framework. Further any information systems should be strictly functional to stakeholder needs, from communities to managers. This in turn requires strong management to develop this as the project grows so as not to result in fragmented and duplicated work.

Management, operation and maintenance – the managing of the tanks - needs to take a much more central stage, with more thought out systems, detailed planning, capacity building and basic institutional support, and policy such as for water charges, and associated resource mobilization – from a much earlier stage in the process.

Agriculture extension needs farmer to farmer interactions. Farmers’ field schools have been shown to be an important complementary mechanisms to impact large numbers of farmers, where farmers are empowered to learn from each other and access resources – helping to strengthen sustainability post project.

Integrating tank management with agriculture is critical. This requires practical and sustained linking and coordination mechanisms between TUG farmers, participatory farmer groups, with support agencies, be they State departments, universities or other agencies. Commitment of staff that are managing such linking and coordination must be complemented by stability in their positions. Further the roles and convergence activities with Department of Agriculture need to be developed and formalized.

Greater focus on water management. Though the project was essentially about the management and use of water there were no water management specialists on the project, at any level. Water management at the tank level is relatively poorly understood, and little practical guidance was given to TUG management and water users on alternative

41

approaches to water management. Good water management – linked to crop planning - is central to service delivery and thus in turn to fee collection. If the TUG is not providing a decent level of (water management) service it is unlikely that water users will contribute to the costs of maintaining the service.

6.1.2 With increasing pressures for water and the changing nature of the rural economy, it will be important to provide conceptual and institutional support to:

Foster further convergence between water management and agriculture extension systems. The project demonstrated the benefits from grassroots involvement in water management on agriculture, and demonstration effects in related new technologies. Further strengthen the linkages between agriculture interventions with water management, especially to optimize the use and sharing of saved water (e.g. SRI).

Further develop planning and management and measurement systems which incorporate the tank in the wider hydrological perspective, and user demands on it - encompassing groundwater and watershed dynamics and monitoring, combined with addressing changing agricultural trends and demands as whole. Box 3 below provides some detailed examples of improving the management and measurement aspects. Associated newer technology such as CAD and hydraulic simulation models can be also incorporated in to tank rehabilitation planning.

Box 3. Specific lessons learned from the tank civil works improvement subcomponent include the following:

Since majority of tanks do not fill up, it may be worthwhile to redesign the tank spread area with an aim to reduce evaporation. Accordingly, the tank operation policy for using it as groundwater recharge or source of surface irrigation needs to be supported by appropriate studies.

For the future tank rehabilitation works, more attention should be given to command areas from the water management improvement point of view, rather than massive lining of existing command area canal network. It is advisable to pay more attention to requirements of regulatory structures such as intakes, division boxes, culverts, outlets, cross regulators, energy dissipaters, flow meters etc. which will allow TUGs to distribute water among member farmers in more reliable and timely manner. Command area canal lining should be used only for limited sections of the system which are technically required to reduce enormous seepage losses.

A more comprehensive indicator needed to measure a reduction in the quantity of water abstracted given the improvements in distribution efficiency, scheduling, level of control over water, on-farm application, and water management. In water scarce environments, this is an important factor when more water is made available by head end water users to users in the tail end. Further work is required to measure water abstraction against water demand based on crop type, area and irrigation requirements. For the flow measurement structures, it is advisable to select one or two varieties of structures (simple and the most acceptable for farmers) and include them as standard structures in the designs and provide the required training for their operation.

TUGs' O&M plans need to be developed in sufficient details including TUGs O&M expense estimation and full required costs for the systems’ adequate maintenance, irrigation scheduling and related subjects. Continuous monitoring and technical assistance in TUGs operations is essential for at least two irrigation seasons after the handing over of the systems.

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower, Implementing Agencies and Partners

(a) Borrower/Implementing Agencies

42

7.1.1 At the outset we thank you for sharing the draft ICRR at various stages for feedback from JSYS and having incorporated the suggestions made by us. Now we have gone through final version of ICRR sent by you, which is well drafted and quite succinct about the project processes and outputs. However, we have feedback regarding the project ratings for your consideration. Regarding 5.2 Borrower (a) Government Performance Rating: moderately satisfactory Feedback: The borrower, GoK has accorded all the necessary policy support and commitment to the project. The separate tank act which was envisaged in the beginning of the project was felt at later stages as not expedient since appropriate amendments existing Irrigation Act and Rules, Panchayat Raj Act and Rules and necessary Government Orders are adequate to empower the TUGs and support the process of community based tank management in the State. Though the project World Bank funding came to an end on 31st January 2012, the GoK has provided Rs.120 Crore to complete the KCBTMP in all aspects in the same project mode and spirit. In this background, we are of the opinion that the rating of the Government performance needs to be revised to “Satisfactory” from the proposed “Moderately Satisfactory”. (b) Co-financiers 7.1.2 (c) Other Partners and Stakeholders 7.1.3

43

Annex 1 Project Costs and Financing

(a) Project Cost by Component (in US$ million equivalent)

Components Appraisal Estimate

(US$ million) Actual /Latest Estimate

(US$ million) Percentage of

Appraisal

1. Establishing Enabling Environment for Tank System Development

18.04 25.31 140.32

2. Strengthening Community Development

32.97 13.41 40.66

3. Undertaking Tank System Improvements

111.76 101.32 90.66

Total Baseline Cost 162.77 140.04 86.04

Physical Contingencies 6.92 0.00

Price Contingencies 23.54 0.00

Total Project Costs 193.24 140.04 72.47

Project Preparation Facility (PPF)

Front-end fee (IBRD only) 0.08

Total Financing Required 162.90 114.17 70.08

(b) Financing

Source of Funds Type of Financing Appraisal Estimate

(US$ million)

Actual/Latest Estimate

(US$ million)

Percentage of Appraisal

[Government] 30.34 25.88 85.29 [IBRD/IDA or GEF] 162.90 114.17 70.08 [Donor A] [WB-administered TF] [Donor B] [Parallel financing]

44

Annex 2a Component Outputs

COMPONENT 1. Establishing an Enabling Environment for Tank System Development

The intention of the KCBTMP was to demonstrate the viability of a community-based approach to tank improvement and management by returning the main responsibility of tank development to village-level user groups, and provide a model for wider application. Subcomponent 1.1. Policy, Planning and Legal Environment a) Establishment of Jala Samvardhane Yojana Sangha ( JSYS)

To address the limitations with the public sector agencies the GoK established the Jala

Samvardhane Yojana Sangha (JSYS, Water Management and Improvement Society) as an autonomous and independent society as the implementing (‘nodal’) agency for the KCBTMP. The JSYS was registered on 23rd October 2000 under the Societies Act 1960. The JSYS has a Governing Council chaired by the Chief Minister with an Executive Committee. The JSYS has the State Project Unit, (SPU) and District Project Units (DPUs) with multi-disciplinary teams drawn from both the public and the private sector in both the SPU and DPUs. A State Vision Statement provided authority to JSYS over tanks in the project area. b) Preparation of proposed legislation (i.e. Community-Based Integrated Tank Management

Act). To provide a legal basis for the formation and registration of Tank User Groups (TUGs)

the Government of Karnataka (GoK) issued the Karnataka Irrigation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Ordinance (2002) allowing formation and registration of TUGs under the Societies Act (1860). A proposed Community-Based Integrated Tank Management Act was to build on the above ordinance to build community-level ownership of tank development across the state. While not pursued, a Tank Maintenance Policy (TMP) was instituted in 2002 to define the rights and responsibilities for the maintenance of tanks systems. The Policy established the right of the TUG to collect water charges, to determine how water charges would be allocated, and to have responsibility for tank system maintenance. Amendments were made in 2002 to the Karnataka Irrigation Act (1956) and the Karnataka Irrigation (Levy of betterment contribution and water rates) Act (1957) to include the expression “Tank User Association” in addition to the existing expression of “Water User Association”. Two separate Government Orders (one for Minor Irrigation tanks in 2006 and one for Zilla Panchayat tanks in 2010) were passed in order to confer fishing rights on TUGS. c) Preparation of a long-term institutional strategy and development plan for the

implementation of community-based and demand-driven tank management.

In 2006 the project prepared a report on “Institutional Reforms for Mainstreaming Community-Based Tank Management Approaches: Long-term Institutional Strategy and Development Plan” (JSYS, 2006). This report was prepared by an 11-person Inter-Departmental Study Committee convened by JSYS consisting of members from the MID, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Panchayat Raj institutions, JSYS and two experts. The Committee carried out field studies, in-depth analysis of policies, organizational structures and legislation. The Committee’s report (JSYS, 2006) covers the background and issues to development of tanks in the state. The Report made a number of recommendations. However, despite analysis of successful experience from the project and by JSYS, it recommended a new unit within MID and the GPSC model of tank management institutions over TUGs, even though

45

the communities largely favored the TUG model. The report was submitted to the government and discussed on 3rd April 2006. However a Cabinet note detailing the actual requirements in respect of the MID and PR Department to be placed before Cabinet was not acted on. d) Development of a decision support system for planning, operation and management of water

resources on a sub basin/watershed basis that can be applied in the context of tanks.

Various information systems were put in place, as well as more recently GIS system. However these were never integrated in a manner as to provide watershed/catchment based planning. e) Preparation of a possible follow-on project.

The focus of this was in the preparation of the Additional Finance part of the project. Subcomponent 1.2. Project Management:

This was to strengthen project coordination and management through provision of technical assistance including studies, workshops and training. Activities include: Develop a GIS-based information system for the project and the state. A web-accessible GIS system was established for the project. However, per the understanding of the ICRR team, this was only operational in the later stages of the project. Develop a monitoring and learning system.

As with other World Bank projects established at this time the KCBTMP was designed to have a strong monitoring and learning (M&L) element. The M&L system was intended to have four components: (i) performance tracking – to measure inputs, outputs and outcomes; (ii) institutional tracking – for organizational learning and performance enhancement (for JYSYS units and TUGs); (iii) Internal learning – developing project processes; and (iv) evaluation – to measure project impacts and outcomes.

In the initial stages of the project an external organization was engaged to support the JSYS with the development of the M&L system. World Bank missions in May/June 2007 and May 2008 found significant problems with the M&L program. These included: (i) poor and disorganized collection, processing and reporting of project data; (ii) lack of procedures for monitoring the performance of CFTs; (iii) failure to report and present data in a format useful for JSYS management and staff; and (iv) lack of understanding in the JSYS M&L Unit of World Bank requirements and procedures for results monitoring.

A central problem with the M&L program has been the inability of JSYS to appoint and retain a sufficiently experienced M&L Specialist. This has meant that suitable systems have not been established in JSYS for data collection, processing and reporting. A particular feature of this has been the failure to produce quarterly and annual reports which report on progress of each of the project components. Carry out two mid-term reviews (MTRs) in PY02 and PY04

46

A first Mid Term Review was conducted in 2004 and a second MTR in 2006. The first MTR took place when there was still relatively little progress (99 tanks covered), and with relatively little information coming out of the M&L system.

Carry out technical support services and studies.

The project carried out a range of studies, for example in support of legal changes, and agriculture but most of these were undertaken in the context of other specific components (institutional, under UAS, etc.)

Establish fully functional state and district offices, and establish incremental staff at the state

and district levels. Finding and keeping staff was a major problem experienced for the duration of the

project, though the situation was more stable once a long-term Executive Director was appointed in August 2008. The staffing problem is exemplified by the position of the Executive Director (ED) - during the 12 years since JSYS was formed in 2000 there have been 11 Executive Directors, with three EDs being in post for less than 3 months. The project experienced serious difficulties in retaining an ED between May 2006 and August 2008, with different management approaches and uncertain direction.

JSYS established nine DPUs in the original project Districts and nine in the AF project (one in each District and one additional DPU in Shimoga District). The DPUs had multidisciplinary teams to support and monitor project implementation, with different levels of staffing depending on the number of tanks and CFTs that they were working with. Turnover of staff was an issue and some of the staff employed were relatively inexperienced and under qualified. This problem was particularly applicable to the NGOs/CFTs but also applied to DPUs specialist posts such as fisheries, agriculture, water resources, social and M&L specialist. Problems experienced as a consequence of the frequent turnover of staff and empty posts included a heavier workload on the in-place staff, inexperienced staff, work not carried out on time (or not at all), and the continual need to train up new staff. In addition some of the contracted staff found it difficult to get assistance from line agencies, as they were not considered as government staff. COMPONENT 2. Strengthening Community Development Subcomponent 2.1. Human and institutional resource development. (a) Provision of support services by Anchor NGOs and CFTs

The institutional arrangements for the project endeavored to take into account the dynamic nature of the village environment and institutional structures and the constraints evident in earlier public sector interventions in tank system development and management. The key elements of the proposed approach comprised of: (i) giving full responsibility for tank development and management to village-based communities; (ii) engaging NGOs experienced in building capacity of rural communities; (iii) providing oversight and support to these NGOs through Anchor NGOs (ANGOs); and (iv) providing guidance, support and project management through JSYS at the state and district level.

Anchor NGOs (ANGOs) were engaged by the project to assist JSYS in the initial stages with the formulation and implementation of the project, to help build common vision among

47

stakeholders, designing and conducting training programs and supporting implementation of field NGOs.

CFTs with local NGOs were anticipated to total some 55 in number, to be contracted by JSYS for a period of 4-5 years to form and build the capacity of TUGs. In addition they were to work with the TUGs on the supervision and quality control of the physical works. Each CFT was to consist of five/six staff: (i) a social scientist; (ii) an engineer; (iii) an agricultural/watershed specialist; (iv) a gender and HRD specialist; and (v) an R&R/tribal development specialist. In addition, one of the above team members or an additional member would be engaged in financial management and capacity building of the TUGs. The initial program for each tank was 20 months. This was later increased to 30 months as it was found that additional time was required for the implementation phase to cover more than one season. JSYS contracted 57 CFTs in two phases: (i) 25 CFTs in 2002 with each CFT eventually covering some 40 tanks and (ii) 32 CFTs in 2004 eventually covering some 30 tanks, about 15 of which were terminated due to poor performance. An assessment of the first batch of CFTs found that whilst the community mobilization was generally adequate, the construction of the physical works was inadequate as they had little experience in monitoring engineers. To resolve this issue the CFT model was changed in Phase II such that the CFT was composed of a mix of DPU and NGO personnel to form District Facilitation Teams (DFTs), including engineers under the responsibility of the DPU, which the project was able to adequately manage the engineering aspects.

A further issue which occurred in the middle phase of the project (2006-8) was that any money remaining in the TUG account for implementation of the physical works was reclaimed by the SPU at the end of the 6 month implementation stage, irrespective of whether the works had been completed or not. This left the TUGs in a very difficult position, with claims for payment outstanding against them and no money to pay them. The matter was resolved, but only after some time and considerable disruption to these TUGs. All these factors contributed to an implementation lag of about two years (see Figure 1 below). Figure 1: Project progress for the original tanks

Source: Data taken from World Bank Aide Memoires, August 2002 - January 2012 (b) Capacity building program for operational and technical skills of TUCs and TUGs, CFTs, ANGOs, and JSYS staff, PRI and Line Department officials.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

01‐Aug‐02

01‐Nov‐02

01‐Feb‐03

01‐M

ay‐03

01‐Aug‐03

01‐Nov‐03

01‐Feb‐04

01‐M

ay‐04

01‐Aug‐04

01‐Nov‐04

01‐Feb‐05

01‐M

ay‐05

01‐Aug‐05

01‐Nov‐05

01‐Feb‐06

01‐M

ay‐06

01‐Aug‐06

01‐Nov‐06

01‐Feb‐07

01‐M

ay‐07

01‐Aug‐07

01‐Nov‐07

01‐Feb‐08

01‐M

ay‐08

01‐Aug‐08

01‐Nov‐08

01‐Feb‐09

01‐M

ay‐09

01‐Aug‐09

01‐Nov‐09

01‐Feb‐10

01‐M

ay‐10

01‐Aug‐10

01‐Nov‐10

01‐Feb‐11

01‐M

ay‐11

Number of tanks

Date of Review Mission

TUG formation and tank rehabilitation progress ‐ Group 1 (Original tanks)August 2002 to July 2011

TUGs tacken up Theoretical handing over (30 months cycle)

Pre‐planning Planning

Implementation Post Implementation

Handed over Financial closure

30‐month cycle from take‐up

Delay (from planned)

48

In keeping with the multi-disciplinary nature of the project, training and capacity building

was carried out across a range of disciplines, including institutional development, financial management, agriculture, horticulture, livestock, fisheries, etc. The training and capacity building in the agriculture and horticultural sectors was carried out by the Universities of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore and Dharwad. Training and capacity building related to formation and management of the TUG was carried out by the CFTs and DPU personnel. For this purpose 14 modules (list below) were prepared and training given to TUG members as they passed through into each development phase. The trainings were provided consistently, with over 100 participants per tank on average, for core training courses according to the impact assessment. A large number of TUG members thus gained exposure to the whole set of modules. Further analysis of the data of those trained show that for all 9 Districts the average percentage of women in the training groups is 42 percent. The core training modules were:

1. Introduction to the project 2. Formation of TUG or TMI 3. Institutional models 4. Resettlement and rehabilitation policy 5. Gender Action Plan systems and implementation 6. Planning Civil Works 7. Participatory rural appraisal 8. Procurement (civil works and technical aspects) 9. Accounts and book keeping 10. TUG management (internal) 11. Post implementation (Operation and maintenance)

As well as the institutional capacity building a parallel training program was organized

by the Universities of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore and Dharwad. This training was divided into three parts: (i) Farmer Field Schools; (ii) On-Farm Demonstrations; and (iii) workshops, study tours and exposure visits. The JSYS has produced some 51 training manuals on facilitation and technical aspects during the course of the project. While there was a relatively high turnover of staff within the project nevertheless the comprehensive documentation of the JSYS processes and procedures and the associated training carried out for new staff has been a major contributory factor to the continued successful implementation of the project. In addition to training manuals a significant amount of communication material was produced to reach a broad range of stakeholders, including tank users, local government officials, government officials and politicians. This information has been communicated by radio and television programs, leaflets and brochures, video documentaries and wall paintings.

Although the training program was complex and the presence of a Training Specialist was lacking at the SPU level for much of the project, the impact assessment study found that the capacity building program had generated a wide awareness of the project and its activities. This was especially the case among TUG members, as confirmed by the impact assessment survey, where a large majority was aware of the project purpose and the TUG constitution and byelaws and functions. This was also reflected in performance of the TUG functions where the majority of Committee members are appointed by consensus and high attendance at the General Body meetings, there is reasonable management of records, and a large percent were involved in the ITP preparation. The majority (73 percent) felt that 75 percent of the ITDP targets had been met. Most respondents expressed satisfaction with the functioning of the TUG. A majority felt the TUG had sufficient powers over the tank for decision making. When asked if the TUG should work more closely with the Panchayati Raj Institutions at village, taluk and district level, almost

49

two-thirds responded negatively, suggesting that the majority of members prefer to remain independent from the Panchayats. Results for Component 2: TUG performance, Sustainability and O&M

Formation of tank user groups. The TUG is the general body of the tank users which is represented by the Tank User Committee (TUC). In the PAD four options were outlined for the how the TUG/TUC might be formed, either: (i) as an independent village association registered under the Societies Act; (ii) as a sub-committee of the Grama Panchayat (GPSC); (iii) through the Grama Sabha; and (iv) through the Gram Panchayat. Of these four options the Grama Sabha and Grama Panchayat were discontinued during the project due to lack of any uptake by the tank users. Of the remaining two options the majority of tanks preferred the independent village association option. For a total of 3,710 tanks, there are 3007 TUGs registered as societies and 119 registered as sub-committees of the Grama Panchayat (GPSC). In total the TUGs have a membership of over 1,162,000 members, of whom 49% are women8. The process appears to have engaged effectively with SC, ST, women and landless people, with the involvement of these sections of society encouraged and monitored throughout the process. This inclusiveness has been secured through the TUG bye-laws and guidelines issued by the project. According to the impact study SCs and STs together constitute about 39 percent of TUG membership, and 34 percent of TUCs. Around 34 percent of TUG Presidents and 40 percent are from the SC/ST group. For Treasurers the proportion is higher, at 49 percent. In some cases there are all-women TUCs.

Sustainability Operation and maintenance. The issue of whether self-supporting and sustainable tank development and management institutions have been established is less clear cut. Due to the delay in the completion of the physical works and the handing over of the tanks the post-implementation period under the project has been limited. A significant concern is that the income to the TUGs is, on average, very poor and not sufficient to cover the cost of regular maintenance and repair to the tank system. It is apparent that further support is required for TUGs if income generation is to be enhanced and the necessary maintenance work carried out.

Data on average income per TUG from different sources following handover was not complete. Apart from fisheries income there is not much other income to the TUG each year. The cost of maintenance for the tanks is difficult to estimate due to the number of variables involved (catchment area, tank embankment dimensions, size of command area, etc.), with considerable variation across districts. In general there seemed that balancing needs and required resources for O&M had only been done quickly with little long term agreements by TUG members whether in labor or cash. Nevertheless TUGs showed also considerable innovation as to generating resources in some specific cases (see box below). This demonstrated the potential of the TUGs as self-sustaining institutions, especially when supported by federations, and where there was capacity building of TUGs in different approaches to resource mobilization. In all cases an O&M plan had been prepared as part of the ITDP, but this broadly identified the maintenance needs and costs rather than the actual needs (as the ITDP is prepared before the physical works commence). Also included in the ITDP was a budget (income and expenditure) and a Tank System O&M Policy and Norms Statement listing the main areas of O&M required in the catchment, tank, and command area (including boreholes). As observed, the Completion Reports mostly detailed the progress with the work carried out during the implementation phase.

8 Under the TUG constitution there are two members per household, one male and one female.

50

Examples of resource mobilization activities by TUGs: 12 TUGs of Bijapur have availed Rs. 10,000/- from NABARD towards administrative expenditure. This would be

given to the TUGs continuously for three years. This would help the TUGs for continuing the TUG activities during the initial years.

NABARD has also extended this facility to three Federations of TUGs in Dharwad. Bharat Petroleum Corporation has extended financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 2, 57,583/- for sinking farm

pond, desiltation in tank bed, etc. to seven TUGs in Pavagada taluk of Tumkur district. One of the TUG in Uttara Kannada district has approached the Agriculture Department and the TUG is promised

with a bio-fuel extraction machines etc. Karnataka State Bio Fuel Development Board (KSBFDB) has established an office in Tumkur district to collect

bio-fuel seeds through TUG. The Bio Fuel Company has also distributed sapling to around 30 TUGs. This will ensure continued support to the TUGs by bio-fuel.

The agriculture department is in the process of sanctioning a flour mill to Gopalanahalli TUG in Tumkur district which would help the TUG in earning regular income.

The TUG in Bevinahalli has constructed a permanent building for the TUG office utilizing a part of income from fisheries.

The TUG in Hassan district has liked with ATMA project for agriculture intervention. The chitradurga federation has initiated Rashtriya Mahila Kosh activities and done a turnover of Ten lakhs and

earned a profit of Rs.25000/- Chintamani federation has taken initiative and requested deputy commissioner to conduct a meeting with line

departments and JSYS staff. a proceeding was drawn by deputy commissioner to take linkages with line department

Source: JSYS, June 2012

Ratings of TUGs. The project did assess the performance of each TUG during the

preparation of the Completion Report, using a rating system. The assessment rating is comprehensive and suited to the assessment required at the handover stage for inclusion in the Completion Report. The data were not analyzed extensively as they were only measured at late stage of the project.

Tank Federations. An unexpected result of the project was the emergence of TUG federations. The biggest challenge that project face today is sustainability of the tanks rehabilitated more so because of erratic rainfall. In order to sustain the TUGs, the project has facilitated the formation of 14 taluka level and 17 district level federations (except for Kolar). The federations run by the community will assist the TUGs in income generation activities and marketing their produce. One federation, with the help of a NGO (Dhan Foundation), has roped in private sector to help market their produce. The company will buy the produce at a pre fixed rate. The taluka level federations have been formed in five districts namely Kolar, Shikaripura and Tumkur (3 each); Chintamani (4); Haveri (1). The district level federations have been formed in Hassan; Chikkamagalur; Dharwad; Belgaum; Bijapur; Davangere; Chitradurga; Shimoga; Shikaripura; Uttar Kannada; Raichur; Kolar; Chickbalapur; Tumkur; Haveri; Dharwad; Bagalkot and Bidar. All 17 district federations have received Rs. 50,000 from State Project Unit as administrative cost. The project also conducted interactive workshop for TMI members towards formation of federations which was attended by 4619 TUG members from 18 DPUs. JSYS also arranged for an exposure visit to Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Kerala for over 280 farmers. JSYS also hosted 14 District Project Coordinators and 11 SPU members from Orissa apart from a team of 160 farmers (in four batches) from Orissa Tanks project. The Orissa team visited tanks in 4 districts namely Kolar, Hasan, Hospet and Chitradurga and also visited KRES in Mysore.

51

Subcomponent 2.2. Safeguard and Gender Action Plans

Preparation and implementation of Safeguard and Gender Action Plans (including tribal development plans, resettlement action plans, environmental management plans which include tank safety plans and cultural property action plans, pest management plans, all as necessary) and Gender Action Plans by TUGs was done thoroughly with the assistance of CFTs and JSYS, for each Tank System developed under the Project.

Typically, tank rehabilitation works does not entail acquisition of private land, except reclaiming some parcels of land either in tank bed, foreshore or catchment area which might have been encroached for agricultural purposes and in the process may impact some people adversely by way of losing productive assets and livelihood. To mitigate such impacts, an R&R policy was developed and appropriate Resettlement Action Plans were prepared as part of ITDPs. Out of 3710 tanks taken up under the project, revenue survey has been completed for 3551 tanks and encroachment was found in 1414 tanks. A total of 2288.77 ha of tank area was found to be encroached by 7803 households. The project relocated 500 families (1073 projected affected persons) across 143 tanks and over 2038.01 ha of encroached land is now free of all encroachment and other encumbrances. JSYS has disbursed about Rs. 26.80 million towards R&R assistance through 500 Resettlement Action Plan instrument.

The objective of Gender Action Plan (GAP) was to ensure that women are adequately represented in all committees for their effective participation. The mission was pleased to note substantial increase in number of women participants in the project. The JSYS revised the Gender Strategy and Guidelines for preparation and implementation of GAP in 2009 and circulated to all the DPUs, CFTs, TMIs and State Level Advisory Committee. As per the guideline, gender concern has been mainstreamed in every aspect of the project. The discussions with SHG/TUG members during the field visits revealed that the project has helped in empowering women members and making them equal partners in both the community and household levels in the decision making processes. The Functional Literacy Program (FLP) started in the preplanning phase for the sixth batch tanks, to help women members participate in planning activities, but for the third and fifth batches FLP was implemented in the implementation phase. FLP was not implemented in the second batch, as only 2927 became literate after 10,000 were trained in 2004. Subcomponent 2.3. Planning and Management Support to TUGs.

This subcomponent included financing of activities carried out by tank users as part of their social and environmental management plans, such as workshops training, study tours and exposure visits. Subcomponent 2.4. Communication

These activities were in support to the Strategic Communications Strategy comprising (i) communications and information infrastructure, (ii) capacity building and training and (iii) strategy development and implementation.

52

COMPONENT 3 Undertaking Tank System Improvements Subcomponent 3.1 Tank Civil Works Improvement Design. The Tank Civil Works Improvement Sub-Component has the main objectives to stop the rapid deterioration of existing physical structures and infrastructure, to improve tank storage capacity, to reduce siltation by stabilizing drainage lines to the tanks, and to improve water distribution and irrigation systems in the tank command areas. To ensure sufficient commitment and ownership of farmers/TUGs they were expected to be responsible for contribution of 12% of the investment costs, including 6% in cash and 6% in kind. The design and approach appeared to adequately address the following needs: (i) motivate farmers in developing and strengthening of operational effectiveness of TUGs; (ii) repair the most critical parts of tank infrastructure to improve storage capacity and water management efficiency, and (iii) take into account lack of tank/TUG level project implementation experience. It was intended that design (ITDPs) and supervision would be carried out by DPU and CFT in close cooperation with TUGs. In view of geographic breadth of the works, to further enhance the quality management system, a third-party quality monitoring/inspection of works was suggested that was utilized in the second phase of the project activities. Implementation of civil works under the original credit was intended to be carried out by TUGs (for desilting and bunds repair works contracted to the Empaneled Agencies identified by the JSYS), while under the additional credit civil works implementation was intended to be contracted to private contractors through the community based bidding procedure managed by the TUGs. The activities also included training TUGs in for long-term financial stability, with contributions from water users to eventually match the sustainable management, operation and maintenance costs. The selection process required also feasibility and environmental impact assessments. No risk related to system rehabilitation was identified in the PAD. The actual implementation however, revealed a number of risks related to lack of experience of TUGs in works implementation and TUGs and DPU/CFT in works contract management, inadequate quality of engineering estimates of quantities in the ITDPs at the initial stage of the project implementation, lack of capacities of local contractors and their unwillingness to work after unit rates increased, as well as lack of experience of TUGs/DPU/CFT in works supervision. These resulted in significant delay in overall works implementation and a large number of uncompleted (still on-going) works contracts by the project completion date. General Implementation

The basic concept of the project was to rehabilitate tank infrastructure for only those TUGs which would have met a set of predefined selection criteria, including sufficient frequency of surplus water years, and community commitment. In general the construction works were undertaken under difficult conditions because of the obligation to ensure continuous water supply during the irrigation season, which left only a short period available for construction. Besides this, most of the TUGs/DPUs/CFTs and contractors lacked experience with work planning and implementation of this type of extensive rehabilitation. Nevertheless considerable efforts have been made by both JSYS and World Bank supervision teams during project implementation to ensure acceptable quality of both design and civil works. Particularly, a comprehensive Technical Manual (including standard drawings for different facilities) and acceptable works supervision procedures were developed and applied in the course of project implementation. Training on technical aspects for relevant staff from DPU and CFT, as well as for benefitting TUGs has been conducted. Furthermore, detailed topographic survey for tanks to accurately estimate the quantities of desiltation and earth works has been undertaken. A random review of the sub-

53

projects’ files in TUGs visited including original technical documents and estimations, ‘OK cards’, measurement books of DPU engineers/supervisors, bills of completed quantities, certificates of used soil quality, certificates of soil compaction works, and hand over certificates showed that the overall supervision procedures had been organized and carried out in an acceptable manner.

Assessment of Performance and Results

The works under the original credit were executed by TUGs (for desilting and bunds repair works contracted to the Empaneled Agencies identified by the JSYS). The works under the additional credit were contracted to private contractors through one single civil works contract for each TUG. Local Shopping (excluding 14 contracts procured under the NCB procedure as required by the project procurement threshold) through community based procurement procedure has also been applied. The table below provides information on the status of contracts at a DPU level as of 31 January 2012.

Physical Progress

DPU

Plan Actual Handed Over

Tanks (Nos.)

Command Area (Ha)

Tanks (Nos.)

Command Area (Ha)

Tanks (Nos.)

Command Area (Ha)

Original Credit

Bagalkote 36 5,200 34 4,722 27 3,751Bidar 36 4,174 29 5,267 17 1,971Chintamani 457 10,202 430 9,580 413 9,140

Chitradurga 72 5,096 58 3,245 51 2,853Haveri 213 7,656 192 7,433 181 6,506

Hospet 94 8,570 85 6,191 75 5,345

Kolar 572 12,197 521 9,780 402 7,546

Raichur 128 3,209 123 2,875 118 2,758

Tumakur 397 16,456 357 13,989 336 13,166Sub-Total Original Credit 2,005 72,760 1,829 63,085 1,620 53,542

Original Credit (savings)

Bagalkote 0 0 17 2,510 0 0

Bidar 24 1,259 36 6,878 0 0

Chintamani 110 3,677 137 7,665 0 0

Chitradurga 80 2,431 96 5,496 0 0

Haveri 200 8,406 200 9,668 0 0

Hospet 20 990 33 2,449 0 0

Kolar 170 1,698 177 5,938 0 0

Raichur 20 779 19 2,516 0 0

Tumakur 70 1,688 119 4,893 0 0

Sub-Total Savings 694 20,928 834 48,015 0 0

TOTAL ORIGINAL CREDIT 2,699 93,688 2,663 111,100 1,620 53,542

Additional Credit

Belgaum 165 8,405 134 8,376 0 0

Bijapur 37 2,313 48 7,238 0 0

54

Chikkamagalur 130 5,745 111 3,626 0 0

Davanagere 90 3,866 86 4,113 0 0

Dharawat 123 5,296 103 5,577 0 0

Hassan 67 3,012 51 2,273 0 0

Shimoga 207 7,369 164 5,498 0 0

Shikaripura 298 13,111 260 9,054 0 0

Sirsi 107 3,842 90 3,567 0 0

Sub-Total Additional Credit 1,224 52,959 1,047 49,323 0 0

TOTAL PROJECT 3,923 146,647 3,710 160,423 1,620 53,542

Source: JSYS database Out of total selected 3,923 tanks with total command area of about 146,647 ha, 3,710 with command area of about 160,423 ha have passed the implementation stage. Works under 1,829 contracts funded by the original credit have been mostly completed but only works under 1,620 contracts with the total command area of about 53,542 ha have been handed over to TUGs at close of Bank project. The rest are being completed with government budget. In 207 tanks however, the progress has been very limited or nil. It was reported that 87 tanks have already been dropped because of low or no interest of farmers to continue, while attempts are still on-going to complete the works under the remaining contracts. Estimated time required for final completion and hand over was about 6 months. Average per hectare investment cost is 34,530 Rs/ha (approximate to about USD 690 per ha9), varying from the lowest 26,790 Rs/ha under the original credit to 41,100 Rs/ha under the additional funding. Average per tank investment cost is about Rs 1.49 million (approximate to about USD 30,000). Performance of contractors evaluated by TUGs visited and DPU Engineers varying from Moderately Satisfactory to Highly Satisfactory.

Tank rehabilitation and improvement is the biggest component under the project and aims to achieve more efficient tank storage capacity for the benefit of a range of users, as well as improved water distribution in irrigation systems with tanks as water sources. This has been achieved through the implementation of physical works that are identified with the participation of the benefiting communities and that are described in ITDPs, as well as through training and support of the tank communities. Typical physical works include strengthening of tank bunds, outlet sluices, and waste weirs (spillways), limited de-silting of reservoir areas, cleaning of feeder channels, construction of erosion-control structures in streams, and tree planting in tank foreshore areas. The clearance of feeder channel, bund strengthening and repair of damaged weirs may be categorized into critical works that will ensure the water storage capacity of the tanks while other structures would attribute to improved water use efficiency.

The detailed assessment of impact of works and their effectiveness in improving water

availability and efficiency and other related benefits is examined further below. Noteworthy physical achievements are:

a) About 58 million cum of silt has been removed. The silt served dual role by retaining the storage capacity of tank and also as source of fertile soil for farms. Majority of silt has been placed on farm lands that resulted in crop yield increase by about 18% while saving the input cost for fertilizers and reducing soil salinity.

9 Exchange rate of USD 1.0=Rs 50.0 is applied.

55

b) Over 7.5 million cum of bund strengthening has been done and several sluices have been fixed which were the major cause of water loss. Further the field channels have been cleared which ensured the water supply into the tanks. These structures were not attended to for many years which resulted in waterlogging and salinity around the tanks. The improved water storage capacity of tanks ensured the water availability for a longer duration (more than 1-2 months) that was useful not only for irrigation but also for recharging groundwater levels and drinking water for humans and livestock. The impact study reported an increase in cropping intensity by 14% more than control tanks and 37% increase over base year in Kharif season. The water levels increased in surrounding wells by 5-6 feet despite the fact there was increase of 2 hours of pumping per day during Kharif season when compared with base year.

c) Over 2000 km kilometer of lining of channel was done which ensured the more water availability to tail enders. A further 2,000 km was cleaned and reshaped. The impact study reported an increase in tail end cropping intensity by 10% when compared with control tanks.

d) There have also been unexpected benefits where bund repair and crossways over feeder canals have considerably improved local access for remote hamlets, and repair of sluices and steps have restored important local heritage and cultural features.

Additionally there has been about 0.6 mln. cum of cut off trench; repair or rehabilitation

of over 3,500 sluice and gate structures; repair of some 3,100 spillway structures; cleaning and reshaping of over 750 km of spillway channels; and rehabilitation of over 5,300 cross drainage structures such as check dams, culverts, aqueducts, outlets and bridges (source JSYS database). Engineering design. Despite the rehabilitative and relatively simple nature of the works, desk review of some of the ITDPs from the initial stage of project implementation revealed an overall lack of accuracy and quality with respect to the engineering aspects. World Bank supervision reports indicated that JSYS faced serious difficulties in finding suitable engineers at field level in the beginning of works. With the technical assistance provided by the International Engineers regularly involved in World Bank supervision missions, an obvious positive improvement has been achieved, as the latest engineering documents cover more detailed information and are presented with improved quality of drawings, surveys, calculations, table of quantities and technical specifications. Review of engineering sections of the latest ITDPs has shown that they are adequate for the type of works under consideration. However, there has been no utilization of engineering software like CAD or hydraulic simulation tools.

Only the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure in command area has been considered, instead of review and improvement of existing water management practices. A large amount of lining of existing on-farm canal network in all the TUGs has been completed. As the field observation and discussions held with farmers show, more attention need to be paid in the future to the requirements of regulatory structures such as intakes, division boxes, culverts, outlets, cross regulators, energy dissipaters, flow meters etc. which will allow TUGs to distribute water among member farmers in more reliable and timely manner. On-farm canal lining should be used only for limited sections of the system which are technically required to reduce or combat enormous seepage losses.

Quality of works implemented. In general the construction works were undertaken

under difficult conditions because of the obligation to ensure continuous water supply during the irrigation season, which left only a short period available for construction. Besides this, most of the TUGs/DPUs/CFTs and contractors lacked of experience with work planning and implementation of this type of extensive rehabilitation. Considerable efforts have been made by

56

both JSYS and World Bank supervision teams during project implementation to ensure acceptable quality of civil works. The overall quality of works in the sites visited is satisfactory. No major defects are apparent in the works completed. Reasonable quality of repairs and strengthening to tank bunds, feeder channel improvement, spillway repair, command area canal lining, construction of division boxes, repair of sluices/gates, construction and repair of culverts and aqueducts, and tank bed desiltation was observed by the mission. Overall acceptable construction practices and reasonable standards of rehabilitation have been used (with some minor exceptions in few cases, mainly related to the access to sluices). All the required tests such as mechanical characteristics of soil and compaction quality have been undertaken regularly and relevant certificates are available in the contract files and measurement books. However, there have been significant delays in majority of construction works that required terms extensions for contracts, which have not been duly documented. No detailed schedule for works implementation has been included in the contract documents that would allow the TUGs for adequate contract management. No negative environmental impact from the project activities has been reported or observed by the mission.

Supervision of Works. Daily supervision of civil works has been carried out by a DPU

field engineer in collaboration with the CFT and TUG under the overall guidance from the JSYS (State Project Unit). The responsibility of DPU field engineer included registration of quantities of works implemented in the measurement book, ensuring the quality of works and in cooperation with the CFT engineer to obtain soil quality test from the licenced laboratories (nearby Engineering Collages) and carry out required testing of compaction works for each layer (with the kits provided by the JSYS) and registration of tests data. The measurement data in the book have been signed by the DPU and CFT engineers, TUG and the contractor. Payment certificates with relevant supporting documents have been issued by the DPU engineer based on the approved quantities of works in the measurement book. After the approval of payment certificates by relevant institutions as per the legislation of India, the TUG has been instructed to pay the contractor. In addition to this ‘OK cards’ have been introduced by the recommendation of the World Bank mission to certify the completion of individual items from the bill of quantities. When adequately maintained, they seem to add value to other formal paperwork.

To ensure further improvement in quality of works the so called ‘third party supervision’

(‘Egis’ India Consulting Engineers Private Ltd.) was contracted by JSYS for inspection of contracts implemented under the additional funding and savings from the original credit, starting from March 2009. According to the contract conditions the ‘third party supervision’ had to conduct full inspection of works undertaken under 500 contracts identified by JSYS and 10% of works under the remaining contracts. The main responsibility of the ‘third party supervision’ has been to inspect the quality of works implemented, to review and verify the correctness of the calculations in the measurement books, without any responsibility to certify measurement books or payment certificates; and to report to JSYS for identified discrepancies. Given the quality of works observed by the mission in the site visited, the supervision system appeared to be adequate. However, it is the opinion of the mission that introduction of ‘OK cards’ (as they are now, just to verify the completion of items of works) proved to have no influence on overall improvement of supervision process. Sub-component 3.2 Agriculture and Horticulture Development

The original project was designed based on the decline in productivity, a shift in cropping pattern, and a decrease in value of production in the tank-based agricultural system in Karnataka. At design the main reasons for these changes were siltation and reduction of tank storage capacity, weakening and deterioration of tank bunds, outlets and waterways, encroachment of

57

impounding areas, improper management of the catchment area, lack of knowledge of communities of more suitable cropping patterns and crop technologies, and weaknesses in extension systems. Over the project period the majority of these limitations did not change significantly, however significant external factors occurred in the latter part of the project, notably large increases in investments in rural areas from the public sector and increases in food prices and the minimum price support10 for various crops. The project took the approach of increasing agriculture productivity by “(i) increasing farmer knowledge, based on location-specific, on-farm demonstrations of improved on-farm water management practices and improved cropping systems and crop practices and (ii) a range of technical training for farmers and tank water users”11. The agriculture activities attempted to cover all tanks with either a demonstration or a farmer field school.

Approach. The approach adopted was typical of the current generation of irrigation projects, where a multidisciplinary team is complimented by a range of extension activities. The extension activities included a mix of the main extension tools commonly used in India, namely demonstrations, field days, exposure visits, and trainings. Farmer Field Schools were also included in the original design for farm level trainings, this ended up being the major activity under component 2.2. A large focus was placed on soil testing, and the project adopted the use of mobile soil testing facilities. Marketing was also included in the Additional Finance extension. Research was deliberately not included as a main component, however a small number of pilot studies were conducted.

Results framework. The anticipated results of this component would contribute to the PDO through improvements in agriculture production, linked to increased productivity and area (PAD) and double cropping and adoption of improved farming practices (Additional Financing). The design of the results framework in the PAD in relation to this component are vague, and without a baseline nor concrete targets the output indicators are somewhat ambiguous. The refinement of the indicators at the time of Additional Financing certainly was an improvement, however the results indicator appears to have been ambitious, particularly given the relatively dry nature of the state, for example in 2009/09 the ratio of net irrigated area to cross irrigated area in Karnataka was approximately 1:1.2212, this would indicate that approximately 22% of farmers are able to double crop, and the rationale behind the selection of this target is not spelled out in the Additional Financing document.

Implementation agencies. The project engaged the services of the University of Agriculture Science Bangalore and the University of Agriculture Science Dharwad on a turnkey basis through a sole source selection procedure13. New contracts were issued for the Additional Finance (included additional tanks added using project savings). There was some delay in awarding these contracts (signed 2009) that affected the continuity and limited the time available for implementation, and perhaps to some degree the synchronization of investments in the irrigation systems. The universities established project management and coordination units at their headquarters and in each of the districts. These were manned by both university staff and consultants. Field technicians and field assistants were employed at the cluster level for day to day implementation of the project activities.

10 www.indiastat.com Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution 11 PAD 12 Report on Area production Productivity and Prices of Agriculture Crops in Karnataka 2008-09,

Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Bangalore 13 PAD page 80

58

Line Agencies such as Horticulture and Agriculture were not involved for the direct

implementation of this component, however linkages were designed through existing institutional arrangements, i.e. Zilla Parishad Joint Committee and Taluka Production Committee. The PAD also envisaged that the Line Departments would provide resource persons to deliver trainings and, along with the SAUs, would collectively decide on the appropriate demonstrations and related technical training to be conducted at each cluster of tanks. Specifically the PAD mentioned “The design and implementation of the demonstrations will be the responsibility of the universities and Krishi Vigyan Kendras (Agricultural Science Center) in collaboration with the line agencies at the taluk level and the TUGs”. Regardless discussion with farmers and TUGs during ICR revealed that there is little or no connection remaining with the line agencies. Implementation

The interventions, field days and exposure visits were designed to maximize exposure to demonstrations, trainings and the farmer field schools were all interlinked to leverage the impacts of each. A large number of farmers were reached by these interventions and considerable attention was given to determining the spread effect, i.e. the adoption of technologies within a command area.

The key elements of the demonstrated technologies were use of improved seeds of high yielding varieties/hybrids of field and vegetable crops, line sowing (to ensure proper plant population and mechanical weed control), transplanting of younger seedlings (of rice and Ragi) and soil test based application of fertilizers and micronutrients (zinc). The efficient water management practices demonstrated bed and furrow planting, alternate furrow irrigation, drip and sprinkler irrigation in high value crops, and SRI method of rice cultivation. The project has also promoted the use of vermi-compost, bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides for increasing crop productivity and promoting ecologically sustainable agricultural practices in the command area of the tanks.

On Farm Demonstrations. On farm demonstrations covered a range of topics outlined in Error! Reference source not found.. The ratios between the number of demonstrations and the area covered varied depending on the perception of a viable size required for both adoption by the demonstrating farmers and spread effect. For example water management demonstration were conducted on a 20 ha plot, while arable crop demonstrations were on a 10 ha plot. Interestingly the reports on yields from demonstrations were exclusively higher than that of the check plots. Ordinarily it might be expected that a small number of demonstrations may fail: one conclusion is that the demonstrated technologies may be very robust, however this reported success should be cross referenced against adoption rates, before being used for scaling up or expansion of the program.

59

Table 1. Breakdown of various demonstrations by area and number of beneficiaries.

Type of Activity Planned Completed Beneficiaries (No) No. Area(Ha) No. Area(Ha)

Water Management 434 8680 434 5202.45 15709

Arable Crop 442 4420 439 3459.5 17085

Horticultural Crop 276 1104 276 1040 2154

Integrated Farming Systems 17 170 17 11 11

Fodder Development 87 87 87 85 190

Integrated Pest Management 87 84 84 84 84

Sub Total 1343 14545 1337 9881.95 35233

Water Management Demonstrations were conducted on over 30 different crops, for

about half of these14, measurements were collected to determine the amount of water delivered to the field and yields were also recorded and water use efficiencies were calculated. The range of interventions and some average water use efficiency (WUE) figures are outlined in Error! Reference source not found.. Given the large number of water related demonstrations conducted some further analysis could have been (and still could be done) to look more closely at the relationships between water productivity and management and distribution of benefits. The water management demonstrations conducted by UAS Dharwad on paddy (where measurements were taken) show that between districts (and probably within districts) there is a large variation between the water use between the control and the demonstrations. Given that water management is a core function of the TUG, the promotion of these technologies could have been better integrated into crop planning water budgeting exercises to leverage any improvements in water productivity. Table 2. Summary of the major Water Management Demonstrations15.

Crop Technology Crop Water Use (m3/ha)

Water use Efficiency kg/ha.cm16

Demonstration Check Demonstration Check Black gram 375 336 89.8 74.8 Chilli 9510 11633 94.3 66.0 Cotton 5557 5713 46.4 40.1 Maize Ridge and furrow 5160 5987 111.2 81.2 Paddy Alternative wetting and drying 9422 10375 59.4 45.0 Soybean Raised beds, improved drainage 4434 4434 58.6 45.2 Sugarcane Paired row planting, alternate furrow irrigation 15389 18650 611.7 425.5

Arable Crop Demonstrations (ACD) covered approximately 15 field crops and

concentrated on the promotion of integrated crop management. Primarily this consisted of improving crop nutrition (i.e. soil tests) and pest management but also included best practices regarding crop spacing, planting techniques and irrigation management. A summary of the main ACDs is given below in Error! Reference source not found..

14 UAS Bangalore reported also on Water Management Demonstration, however water usage was assumed

rather than measured. 15 Source: UAS Dharwad Status Report, Dec 2011,. 16 Ha.cm refers to 10 mm water on one hectare, equivalent to 100 m3 water

60

Table 3. Summary of Main Arable Crop Demonstrations17.

Crop Number of beneficiaries

Average Demonstration Yields (q/ha)

Average Check yields (q/ha)

Average of % Increase

Bengal gram 30 13.4 10.8 24.0 Cowpea 81 12.1 9.4 28.7 Green gram 148 7.6 6.2 23.3 Groundnut 32 18.4 14.2 29.2 Maize 698 59.1 49.8 18.7 Paddy 2430 59.0 48.7 21.1 Ragi 289 46.5 36.2 28.3 Wheat 38 18.8 14.9 27.0 Total/Average 3746 39.8 32.7 23.0

Similarly the Horticulture Crop Demonstrations covered a large range of fruits and

vegetables appropriate for the agriculture zones, and concentrated on promotion of best practices. Yields were around 20% more in demonstrations than check areas. The promotion of horticulture is usually associated with targets relating to diversification into high value crops, which was not included in the Results Framework of this project. While horticulture interventions tend to target farmers with better capacity and who are less adverse to risk, in the project the beneficiary profile for the horticulture demonstrations is similar to other ‘demonstrations’ with inclusion rates of scheduled class (11%) and scheduled tribes (7%) classes and women (10%).

The Integrated Farming Systems Demonstrations (IFSD) were designed to provide full support to the whole range of activities that farmers would undertake, and maximize the productivity of each component. These were only done on a very limited scale (see below under livestock).

Farmers Field Schools. The Farmers Field Schools covered by far the largest number of project farmers, close to 88,000, and appears to be a more cost effective extension tool than the on-farm demonstrations (the per beneficiary costs for the Farmers’ field school (FFS) were approximately 50%, 30% and 6% of ACD, AWM and HCD interventions respectively). Participants for the Farmers Field Schools were selected by the village Panchyats/gram sabah. An analysis of the 8570 participants in the FFS conducted by UASD from the project start up to 2009 showed that the about 30% were female, 30% were from the scheduled and tribal classes and 70% were small and marginal farmers. In terms of the inclusion of the scheduled tribes, the PAD found that up to 14% of the population of certain districts were Scheduled Tribes, the sample above reports inclusion of 15% of tribal, indicating that social inclusion was satisfactory.

The FFS covered over 20 crops, including but not limited to, cereals (jawar [sorghum], maize, paddy, ragi [finger millet] and wheat), pulses (bengal gram [chickpea] and tur [pigeon pea]), oilseeds (groundnut and sunflower), cash crops (cotton, soybean and sugarcane) and horticulture (bhendi [okra], bittergourd, cauliflower, cucumber, onion, pachouli, and tomato). A summary of the main FFS conducted under the project is presented in Error! Reference source not found.. It must be noted that the yields presented in Error! Reference source not found. are only for the demonstration, and would not necessarily reflect the performance of all members of the FFS.

17 Source: Status reports from UAS DHARWAD and UAS Bangalore, January 2012

61

Table 4. Summary of Demonstrations conducted in the Farmer Field Schools18.

Crop Number

FFS Average of demonstration

yields (Qtl/ha) Average check Yield

(Qtl/ha) Average percentage

Increase (%) Brinjal 19 396.1 323.5 22 Cabbage 29 538.3 452.0 19 Chilli 36 315.6 245.6 29 Chilli (green) 16 112.1 86.2 30 Cowpea 14 18.1 15.5 17 Finger Millet 60 40.2 29.9 34 Groundnut 56 23.9 19.9 20 Maize 295 63.2 51.4 23 Paddy 590 70.3 56.2 25 Potato 16 230.6 174.3 32 Soybean 32 21.8 18.7 16 Sunflower 35 18.4 15.0 22 Tomato 145 453.0 385.0 18 Wheat 11 25.0 21.0 19

A number of research assistants and field technicians were engaged to implement the

FFS, the process was started with training for these staff followed by preparation sessions where needs were assessed and participants were identified. It is reported that weekly meetings were held over a period of 10 to 16 weeks depending on the crop. While FFS were clearly successful and appreciated by farmers, the FFS probably covered too many crops, could have had more experienced and better trained facilitators. In regards to the sustainability, other FFS platforms seek to provide a longer term linkage to the extension service providers either through training of lead farmers or specialists, or look toward the evolution of the group into commodity or producers groups. There doesn’t appear to have been any formal attempt in this project to look at the longer term extensions needs of the project farmers, nor linkages with federations.

Soil Testing. Indian farmers application of fertilizer tends to be unbalanced, (due to many reasons) which generally have led to application of a single nutrient, primarily nitrogen. As soils have become depleted in other nutrients, farmers have tended to compensate by over application of nitrogen. One solution is to promote the use of soil test based nutrient application, in the PAD soil testing was identified under the Tribal Development Plan as an action to increase returns from agriculture. Approximately 147,000 soil samples were collected and analyzed under the project. About 30 soil samples were collected from different farmers in each tank command and were mostly tested in mobile laboratories for organic carbon content, pH, electrical conductivity (an indicator of soil salinity levels), available phosphorus and available potash. Interestingly no measure was made of soil nitrogen levels, due to the more complex requirements for testing. A selection of samples (approximately 5 per tank) were also tested for Iron, Zinc, Copper and Boron. Some water samples and soil samples for engineering properties were also tested. Test results were translated into quality and fertility classifications and presented to farmers with recommendations regarding amelioration and nutrient requirements in the form of a soil health card. Organic carbon levels were used as a proxy for soil nitrogen. It was reported that many farmers changed their nutritional management as a direct result. Soil fertility maps were also produced and reportedly disseminated to the Tank User Groups. However there was not much evidence to ICRR that the farmers took up soil testing on ongoing basis.

18 Source: Status reports from UAS DHARWAD and UAS Bangalore, January 2012

62

Trainings. Typically the Universities undertook a large program of training and capacity building of line department staff, their own staff and farmers. Interestingly a specific training was developed for the Neerguntis (the person in charge of the day to day water delivery with the TUGs). Over 20,000 people were trained; to improve their technical capacity, as trainers of trainers, in farm level training, in environmental issues, and as neergantis. 30% of trainees were women, and most were marginla farmers, followed by small farmers. Over 45% were SC/ST.

Workshops: UASB claims to have included 15749 people in workshops, of which 14% were female. The workshops of one day duration were generally cluster level interactive sessions while District level and Joint level workshops were organized for TMI members. Annual Workshops for two days duration at state level were also organized involving TMI Members, Staff of the project , line departments and the Scientists of Universities and used as a mechanism for exchange of ideas and shaping the projects future.

Study tours: UASB19 conducted 194 study tours with approximately 9700 participants (21% female) who were taken on 2 or 3 day trips to agricultural research stations, progressive farmers’ fields, UAS Krishi melas at Bangalore to expose farmers to the latest agricultural technologies and to share experiences with their peers. Similarly UAS Dharwad conducted 19 study tours with 950 farmers 20. The outcomes and impacts of these must be taken into account when considering the overall adoption of new technologies.

Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

The extended project environmental management measures as envisaged in the Social and Environment Assessment (SEA) of the project were planned and implemented effectively in the field. As envisaged in the project and implemented at field level, the ITDP is based on a four-day Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) program. Approximately 75 % of the village population participates in this program. In this exercise community is introduced to concept of foreshore plantation, silt removal and its reutilization and reduction in use of chemical pesticides through awareness on Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Through the PRA exercise the community not only identifies the need for these activities but also plans various related activities during the course of construction and for tank sustainability. Thus, it is clear that environmental safeguards and management aspects have been mainstreamed from tank identification, preparation and until implementation stage in the project.

Plantation Activities and Status in First Phase: This activity is planned and implemented in three broader sections of the tank i.e. (i) catchment/ Tank foreshore (TFS), (ii) tank bed and bund, and (iii) command area. In the first phase of the project plantation development was implemented in tank foreshores only. It supported around 2.5 ha covering around 1000 plants in category A tanks (tanks having command area 20-40 ha) , and for an area 5.0 ha covering 2000 plants in category B tanks ( tanks with command area of 40-100 ha.). Project provided support of Rs.30.0/plant which included cost of plant, raising and maintenance. The achievement in first phase is about 3500 ha with a total plantation of 14.0 lakh in 1214 tank foreshores. The average survival percentage observed by project is 22.16% as per the 2009 statistics. The reasons for low survival rate of plants was attributed to several factors: (i) NGOs were used for implementation of this activity with no staff / experience in forestry activities: (ii) non availability of plant seedlings on time; (iii) drought in the state continuously for 3 years

19 Social inclusion report UAS Bangalore pg 5 20 Status report UAS Dharwad 26

63

during implementation of 1st phase project i.e. 2006 to 2009 in the project districts; (iv) non availability of environment./ forestry specialists in project; and (v) inadequate awareness to community on adoption of plantation and its financial benefits.

Plantation Activities in Second Phase and Additional Financing Stage: However, in the second phase the project made effective changes to work on this activity. This activity (both for original ongoing extended project and additional financing project) was changed to three components; (a) tank foreshore (TFS) plantation, (b) distribution of seedling to TUG farmers to encourage agro forestry and (c) awareness to community on value and financial benefits of plantation. Because of distribution of seedling to TUG area farmers, the community got encouraged to plant trees and get benefits. TUGs showed keen interest and became actively involved in implementing this activity in various tanks. Thus, the target was re -worked to develop TFS in 1476 tanks over 3690 ha area with 14.76 lakhs plants. And to supply 19.18 lakhs seedlings free of cost to TUG farmers to encourage Agro Forestry in their farm land. This improvement in activity planning resulted in to achievement of about 15.89 lakh plants are planted in TFS covering 3950 ha area. For agro forestry 26.13 lakh seedlings are supplied to TUG farmers, covering 1789 tanks, about 10437.0 ha area. In addition 4500 kgs seeds are sown on 681 tanks boundary trench mound. In-spite of unexpected heavy rains in 2010 in the districts of Shimoga, Shikaripura, Dharwad, Sirsi, Davanagere and Belagaum which in turn damaged the plantation, the average survival percentage of plants in second phase is around 60%. The total expenditure incurred on this activity in second phase up to Jan 13, 2012 is Rs. 533.80 lakhs.

The reasons for high survival percentage are (i) the choice of species for TFS, (ii) main thrust given to Pongamia species, which is widely accepted by the community. This species of plant is Bio-fuel species, economically viable, not browsed by livestock and eco-friendly. In the sense, the leaves used as green manure, oil is used as Bio-pesticide, and cake is used as organic manure which enriches soil and increase soil productivity.

Estimated Financial benefits from Plantation: Project has estimated projections for major species of plants distributed to farmers for creating awareness, these include; Pongamia, teak , silver oak and grafted mango. However, it is important to add here that these are estimated projections and success depends more on the adoption and maintenance of plants by community as gestation period of plants is long. Provided, the TUGs maintain these plantations with sustained interest, after 7 to 8 years time, these plantations would definitely yield substantial income to TUGs and TUG farmers. This would be a major source of income for their future sustenance. This requires adequate focus on awareness and training of TUGs on plantation and its maintenance during operation and maintenance period of tank. Estimated income from above mentioned species are yearly on average 2000 Rs, and one-off Rs 50,700 at maturity.

Silt application and benefits – see below under agriculture results.

IPM and INM practices and Community Benefits and adoption in Project: IPM and INM practices envisaged under EMP activities of the project got mainstreamed through, (a) environmental awareness programs to JSYS staff and TUG members, (b) exposure visits and study tours of farmers, (c) on farm demonstrations on IPM, (d) education campaign for use of environment friendly fertilizers and pesticides. like: 1) vermi-compost 2) Rhizobium 3) Azatobactor 4) Azo-spirillum 5) Vam 6) Trichoderma 7) Pseudomonas 8) PSB etc. The two Agricultural Universities of the state; namely UAS-Bangalore and UAS- Dharwad worked on these and related environmental management activities. These activities are substantiating the environmental management measures that the project have envisaged. The

64

activities like IPM demonstration, training and other capacity building are being undertaken by the Universities.

The adoption of environmental friendly techniques due to IPM/INM practices are:

a) Vermicomposting: Vermicomposting is being implemented to promote production of organic manure and support vulnerable families to generate additional income. About 1631 beneficiaries have been covered through promotion of 1385 units in 195 tanks since inception of the project till date. The linkage with progressive farmers has been established for purchase of vermicompost through which the use of chemical fertilizers is reduced.

b) Water Management and Conservation: weed management in Jalasri method of paddy cultivation is pursued through non-chemical measures such as stale seed bed technique, mechanical method and by growing smothering crops like coriander and palak etc were introduced.

c) Reduction in chemical pesticides and use of Bio –fertilizer: To reduce dependency on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, various eco - friendly agriculture input production has been demonstrated through conducting on farm demonstration at tank level. Interaction with farmers indicate that use of pesticides have reduced.

d) Field visit interaction with farmers indicates; (a) there is encouragement in community to use organic manure, (ii) Chemical fertilizer use has decreased , (iii) there is increase in yield but all factors attributed to this is not clear, (iv) farmers have greater awareness on appropriate use of water for irrigation and its conservation.

Agriculture marketing

Agriculture marketing was included as an activity and activities such as training on

marketing aspects, training on certification of organic products, preparation of marketing directories, organizing buyers and sellers meets, development of exhibition kiosks, setting up exhibitions and conducting Agro climatic zone-wise market research on crops. While the universities claim to have implemented most of the trainings, targets for buyer seller meetings were not met, and only about half of the market research studies were completed (at the time of writing, UASB Status report, Jan 12). No results were presented in terms of outcomes for these activities. While this was only treated as a relatively minor activity, the impact of which may have been much greater if these activities were farmed out to the private sector, particularly for buyer seller meets, and creating the associated improvements to the marketing chain.

Livestock

Promotion of livestock related activities were not directly included in the project, with the

exception of fodder production and inclusion in a small number of integrated farming systems demonstrations. The IFSD consisted of crop and livestock activities, i.e. in Maraluru village (Chintamani DPU) crop production was supported for three seasons along with maintenance of a dairy unit (one crossbred cow), sheep unit (5 female + 1 male) and poultry unit (20 birds). Reports from this farmer indicate that income was significantly increased, however the report lacks a thorough analysis into the economics of the projects investments against the farmers returns which would be necessary to support wider scaling up.

65

Special studies

Three pilot studies were conducted by each of the UASs. These were as follows: On-Demand Water Delivery Technology and Efficient Irrigation Methods Effect of Tank Rehabilitation on Ground Water Recharge and Conjunctive use of Water Reservoir Siltation and Desiltation Techniques

Outcomes on agriculture

Subcomponent. 3.2 was originally to be assessed based on the increase in productivity and production of both agriculture and horticulture in and near the tank command areas (PAD). During the refinancing these indicators were superseded by only one direct indicator ‘at least 60% of farmers practiced double cropping and improved farming practices’. Unfortunately, even with the benefit of five years of project implementation, no baseline was given. The PAD text of economic analysis did not include mention of diversification nor intensification, usually two key drivers for the analysis, however increases in irrigation intensity are mentioned in the results framework.

Productivity: Productivity levels are reported to have improved as a result of the project interventions, and the gains over the project period appear to be reasonable (Table 9). However the lack of a consistent baseline and counterfactuals make it difficult to get a view of the bigger picture impact of the project, and increases would therefore only reflect modest annual productivity gains. For example the yield increase in Paddy of 18.5 percent represents an annual increase of about 3.7 percent, below the GOI target of 4% in the Eleventh Five Year Plan. According to the Impact Assessment productivity levels of other commodities was much less, however the PCR for JSYS was far more optimistic reporting increases in paddy production of 18-47%. Table 5. Selected results

Results Impact Assessment Study Double cropping Baseline: 1.06 acres per farmer cropped area (76%)21

Impact year: 1.52 acres per farmer cropped area (109%) Improved farming practices

About 50% of farmers have made use of various training programs conducted on agriculture and irrigation22.

Improved productivity

Productivity increases impact assessment23 : paddy 18.5%, Oilseeds 11.0%, Pulses 9.2%. Productivity increases project PCR 18-47%24

Intensification. The level of cropping intensity increased by about 33% as a result of the

project interventions (this is discussed in more detail in the system rehabilitation section).

Diversification. The impact assessment report (2012) surveyed farmers to look at the degree of change in cropping patterns over the project period, focusing on 10 crops, and including

21 CMSR pg 14 – mean command area per farmer (1.4 acres) didn’t vary significantly between the baseline

and impact years 22 CMSR pg 68 23 CMSR pg 41 24 Project Completion Report JSYS, 2012.

66

control tanks. While the area total area planted to these crops increased more in the project tanks (21%) than control tanks (8%) the general mix of crops while variable on a commodity basis didn’t follow a trend toward diversification. While there were modest decreases in the overall area planted to the major cereals, there was no difference between the project and control tanks, and it would appear that in general with the extra water availability, farmers just planted more area of the crops they were familiar with growing.

Spread effects. This was particularly good for water management technologies, and those of high impact and low cost. See Annex 2b.

Results of studies on Silt benefits. With the removal of silt being one of the most common interventions for increasing tank water volume, as well as percolation, but also popular among for the possibility of silt application on farms as fertilizer, is worth examining the latter benefits. An estimated 17.6 million cubic meters of silt was excavated from tank beds over the project period (up to Dec 2011), of which approximately 80% has been spread by farmers on their fields. Field trials and anecdotal evidence suggests that there has been significant yield benefits, largely attributed the impact of the silt on the soil structure (i.e. reduction in soil capping25) and to its nutritional value. A study conducted by UASD26 found that farmers were applying an average of 147 tonnes/ha and that the percentage increase in yields (over seven crops) was in range of 20 to 45% (over check yields). The Impact Assessment report found that farmers were applying an average of 63 tractor loads on an average area of 1.6 ha and reported increases in yields of between 5 and 27% in the first year after application, and similar results in the second year. This was assessed to be largely due improved physical properties of soil rather than major increase in nutrients. Component 3.3. Fisheries and IGAs 3.3.a. Tank Fisheries Development

From the total project physical target of 1180 tanks envisaged (600 tanks original credit project, 210 extended taluks, 370 additional financing), 1403 tanks were achieved. The project provided training on improved fish farming to TUGs beneficiaries besides supporting advanced/stunted fish fingerlings, lime, feed, and lease money for first year and fishing equipment such as fishing nets, coracle (type of boat) in bigger tanks which resulted in enhancing average fish productivity from 160 kg per hectare before intervention of project to 535 after interventions. The project adopted two fish farming models - aquaculture with stunted growth fingerlings and the other with advanced growth fingerlings. The productivity of stunted growth observed about 1200 kg per hectare. In order to enhance culture period of seasonal tanks dead storage was increased by desilting 1-1.25 meter depth trench below silt level with surface area of 0.5-1 hectare for tanks below 40 hectare command area and 1-2 hectare for tanks above 40 hectare commend area.

Fish Seed Procurement and Supply. The project procured about 228.86 lakh fingerlings in the form of advanced and stunted growth with 2-3 inches size. The fish farmers were stocking fry (small size fish seed) before project interventions; therefore project introduced stocking of bigger fish seed, a major input of the project. This enhanced survival resulted into improvement

25 Soil capping, also called soil crusting, is a natural or induced phenomena where under certain conditions (such as

cultivation followed by irrigation) the soil surface seals and infiltration of water/air becomes greatly reduced. 26 USAD Status Report Dec 2011

67

in productivity. In order to ensure supply of fish seed project supported renovation of two fish rearing hatcheries of Fisheries Department i.e. one in Shimoga (1.14 hectare) and other in Kolar district (0.56hectare).The effort also made to encourage TUGs to rear fish seed which had encouraging response in Raichur district .

Training for TUG Members. About 7400 members identified under project was imparted training in improved fish farming since they lack skill of fish farming. The good numbers of beneficiaries were introduced to fish farming activity first time. About 2200 women also trained for fish farming .The training was conducted by Fish Farmers Development Agencies in Fisheries Department Karnataka.

Pilot Project on Fresh Water Prawn Farming: In order to assess feasibility for fresh water prawn farming and to recommend best practice for culture, the study was conducted by Karnataka University for Animal Sciences and Fisheries, Bidar. The study concluded that prawn farming is feasible in seasonal tanks with appropriate tank management and market linkages. The study has provided information of best technological package and recommended suitable districts for undertaking prawn farming.

Fish Marketing Linkages. The fish harvested by TUGs marketed in village and surplus is either auctioned to fish traders or supplied to members for selling at other places. However, the project made efforts to provide market linkages through women SHGs and selling through Karnataka State Fishermen Cooperative Federation. Extension Support:

Participation in Mathsaya Mela (Fish Festival). Project participated in Mathsaya Mela at Bangalore by setting JSYS Stall for disseminating information of project for benefit of others. About 100,000 people visited JSYS stall. Project also organized exposure visits of TUGs to best managed tanks to learn best practices of fish farming.

Extension Effort of Fisheries Coordinator: The Fisheries Specialist at SPU prepared comprehensive extension material in local language, such as, interactive CD on fish farming practices, three fisheries development program for E-TV, introduction of cost effective indigenous trap fishing method for harvesting fish, and disseminating monthly information.

Results of fisheries activities. These are discussed further in Annex 2b. In summary

following outcomes were achieved in tanks with fishery activities: increased fish productivity, livelihoods for 7400 mainly poor tank users and fishers, fish for food, household incomes from sales of fish and a major contribution to the O&M funds of TUGs. 3.3.b. Income generating Activities (IGAs)

Social activities included in the ITDP were IGA and kitchen gardens. Villagers in the tank areas were encouraged to start other income-generating activities. The income generation activities aimed to assist poor, disadvantaged and vulnerable groups who are not likely to benefit from the tank restoration activities. In the first and second batch tanks, the project had two components namely (i) Tribal Development Plan; and (ii) Gender Action Plan. From the third batch onward both the components were integrated into the Income Generation Activity. The objective of incorporating IGA component is to rope in landless and weaker section of the project village into tank management.

68

In each tank beneficiaries are selected during the PRA Grama Sabha. For tanks with less than 40 ha of command area, 30 to 50 beneficiaries were selected and for tanks of more than 40 ha of command area, 60 to 100 beneficiaries were selected. Preference was given to families living below poverty line, landless people, female landowners, and widowed or divorced people. All beneficiaries received a loan of Rs. 2,000 from JSYS to start IGA and this loan has to be repaid (with no interest) to the TMIs within a year. The SHGs are responsible for the repayment of the loans of their members. When the loans are repaid the TMIs select new beneficiaries who can start IGA. Most beneficiaries start tank-related activities, like livestock rearing, growing vegetables or flower marketing. When beneficiaries do not have the skills to develop tank-related activities, they can get involved in other activities like tailoring. The IGA are designed around skill enhancement trainings and provision of revolving funds and many of these activities are focused towards women members of these communities. The IGA undertaken in 18 Districts are based on agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, artisan and allied activities.

For the implementation of IGA, it was agreed that (i) If more than one village comes under TMI, main village will be considered for implementation of the program; (ii) primary data through wealth ranking should be collected for the selection of beneficiaries; (iii) maximum beneficiaries should not exceed 20 for ZP tanks and 30 for MI tanks; (iv) if landless people in the village are less than 20 in case of GP Tank, then poor and small farmers can be selected; (v) if landless people in the village are less than 30 in case of MI Tank, till 30 poor small farmers may be considered; (vi) Rs 2,000 was fixed per beneficiary as matching grant or seed money; (vii) the Matching Grant or Seed Money was to be linked with Bank/Co-operative Bank, the SHG should avail this and run a viable activity; (viii) in absence of existing SHG, the amount should be released to start an IGA and SHG should be developed and if Group formation is not possible, individual activity can be considered; and (ix) the list of beneficiaries selected in PRA should be approved by Gram Sabha and incorporated in ITDP. The amount was increased to Rs. 100,000 for ZP tanks for Rs. 200,000 for MI tanks. In phase II, the amount for ZP was further increased to Rs. 50,000. In order to assist beneficiaries, JSYS has developed and distributed district wise handbook for IG schemes to all TUGs. The handbook is written in Kannada.

Progress: The IGAs have been implemented in 3,710 tanks (3059 TMIs) covering 99,453 beneficiaries. A total of Rs. 608 million has been disbursed for IGA under original credit of which Rs. 333.46 million has been disbursed by JSYS; Rs. 148.03 million has been supplemented by commercial banks under bank linkages and Rs. 102. 75 million has been invested by SHG members as their contribution. Less than 2% of the total amount received by beneficiaries comes from various line departments. To sustain the IGA, it is important for the project to focus on skill development of the beneficiaries. Since majority of the beneficiaries opted for sheep/goat rearing and dairy, project should bear the cost of insurance of animals at least for the first round.

Kitchen Gardens: In each tank an amount of Rs. 2,000 was planned for kitchen gardens. Poor families with some land next to their houses had started kitchen garden to supplement their daily needs. Ten families are selected in each tank through the Gram Sabha and for each family an amount of Rs. 200 is made available. The selected families were distributed with vegetable seeds (8 species), coconut saplings or lemon saplings. So far project has disbursed Rs. 6.47 million to 34840 beneficiaries across 3484 tanks.

Annex 2b Detailed Description of Achievement of PDO

The achievement of project development objective and its associated indicators, and also supporting intermediate outcome indicators from AF are treated in Table F and summarized in section 3.2. The objectives and indicators are clear in the expectations of community involvement in both implementation and management of tanks. These should result in improved rural livelihoods and thus poverty reduction of an inclusive group of tanks users, mainly from increased agricultural production and income generating activities, as measurable indicators.

As clearly stated in the PAD, the benefits will derive from improved water storage and distribution capacity of the tanks. There were weaknesses in the AF indicator targets which did not fully articulate the total tanks, beneficiaries and extent of command areas. Where possible, the analysis thus draws on evidence which compares similar users in similar tanks with and without the project – to account for changes taking place in the rural areas and agriculture in the State over the project period. The independent Impact Assessment Study 2012 (IAS 2012, executive summary in Annex 5) limited to Phase I areas, provides reasonable comparison between such groups, and also between comparable rainfall years (Baseline Years 2005/6, impact years 2010/11), as rainfall variability could otherwise make before and after comparisons very difficult. This analysis is complemented by data from the various project MIS systems and studies on the agricultural technology results done by the UAS themselves, including some forward looking but relatively unstructured analysis by the project, for example on hydrological aspects. 1) Self managed and sustainable tank users groups (TUGs) established The first indicator for the project is a complex one, covering a wide range of areas. These include: i) number of TUGs and the number of tanks; ii) the coverage of membership and especially marginalized tanks users (for clarity presented as a separate indicator in table F and below); iii) the implied effectiveness of the functioning of the groups and how self-sustaining they are; and iv) their implied continuing operation (their tank management function). By 2012, the project helped establish 3,126 TUGs covering 3,710 tanks (out of formal target of 3,925 tanks, where some TUGs cover more than one small tank), covering over 1.1 million members users. As a number of the tanks (700) were added to the formal targets towards the very end of the project, due to savings, these can be to some degree be considered an added benefit. Given that the final target for the project became more ambitious due to these additional 700 tanks from savings, the achievement of the development objectives should be seen in light of this challenge. Out of 3710 tanks, 207 tanks have been dropped from direct project support, but have had partial activities done by TUGs. To date full handover has been done on about half of tanks, with the rest expected to be handed over in 2012. Most TUGs have managed funds, satisfactorily implemented tank rehabilitation and other activities – and most importantly were responsive to their members. The TUGs have gone some way in generating their own resources, however operation and maintenance activities by the TUGs are mixed and although there are encouraging signs of follow-up activities by federations and support from other schemes (see intermediate indicators Table F(b), and below). With such a complex PDO indicator 1 it is estimated to have been achieved to a large extent with a few shortcomings on sustainability. A more detailed discussion follows. The project had two models for community-based tank management, namely (1) association of tank users as an independent society (TUG) and (2) subcommittee of Gram Panchayat (GPSC) under the Panchayati Raj Act. Under the project, the village communities and

70

tank users were given a choice for the institutional option most suitable for their tank. Out of 3,126 TUGs, 3,007 TUGs chose to register as societies and 119 as GPSCs27. The options for the Grama Sabha and Grama Panchayat were discontinued during the project due to a lack of any uptake by the tank users. The reasons given by members (IAS 2012) for this preference were that the TUG format was more open and accountable and there was less political interference and a greater sense of ownership. In several cases, it was noted that TUG leaders had to confront powerful interests to stop illegal tank related activities (such as sand extraction). TUGs appear to have been well formed with the committee members knowledgeable about their roles. TUGs that were in implementation stage were maintaining records and holding meetings (including several Gram Sabhas) for major decisions. According to the IAS 2012, 86 percent of members reported that they felt that the ITDP reflected the needs of the tank and the local community. The majority (73 percent) felt that 75 percent of the ITDP targets had been met, 15 percent felt 50 percent of the ITDP targets had been met. Most respondents (representing a large cross section of users –see next indicator) expressed satisfaction with the functioning of the TUG – 23 percent to a great extent, 67 percent to some extent. This is very notable achievement compared to the minimal engagement prior to the project. The TUGs have been considerably involved in the identification of tank issues, planning, contracting, implementation and labor, supervision and quality control, and planning of the future of their tanks. Above all, the IAS 2012 impact assessment study and ICRR team field visits consistently showed the tank users valued the community based approach to tank management and have a sense of ownership over the tank system. The tank improvement activities were identified, implemented and supervised by the TUGs and resulted in outcomes that were consistently recognized by the communities as important to their needs. During the ICRR mission and from case studies, there were several examples of strong leadership noted (often by women), greater unity in the community, and local innovations. 2) Inclusion of marginalized groups

The first PDO indicator also included a separate element of inclusion: ‘…Tank User Groups established… covering at least 85% of the traditionally marginalized tank users organized under the Tank Management Institutes’ (PAD has separate indicator: Meaningful participation of traditionally marginalized tank users). It is somewhat difficult to qualify exactly what ‘85% of the traditionally marginalized tank users’ would be, and the project did not attempt to quantify what the total potential user group might be, although there were village PRAs and identification of users from multiple use perspectives in forming TUG membership. There was also considerable work done in each tank to include marginal users, such as farmers in the tail end of command areas, the landless, women (often depending on water for clothes washing and other household uses), livestock users and farmers in tank catchment areas.

While the benefits section of the PAD indicates 2 million users for 2,000 tanks, an increased number would be expected with the 700 tanks added on from the savings accrued. A precise target was never set, nor assumptions clarified for a clear number of beneficiaries. There is also a question of sensitivity to the size of tanks selected, which was not tracked closely during implementation and would most likely increase the number of users given the increase in tank size selected during implementation.

27 The total number of TUGs is less than that of the tanks as some TUGs manage more than one tank.

71

The project MIS identified 1.16 million TUG members (on average around 300 per tank) covering a wide range of farmers and other users, often traditionally marginalized. From ICRR mission field discussions and individual village records provided, the TUGs covered a large majority of direct users. The economic and financial analysis notes close to 200,000 of direct beneficiaries are command area farmers, thus almost a million additional TUG members participated in the implementation and decision making process. This inclusion can be considered a major achievement of the project and the second part of PDO Indicator 1 is considered achieved. The inclusion was manifested in that almost half of the members are women (as generally one man and one woman from each household were represented in the TUG28), 30% are from Scheduled Caste or Tribe (SC/ST, also reflected in impact assessments study) which is generally greater than in population. In addition a majority of members are marginal and small farmers, and around 15% are landless. The marginal users were also part of TUG management: SC/ST members were 34%, and female members also represented 40% in tank committees with 80% of treasurers were women, though a lower percent of women were presidents or secretaries (see intermediate outcomes).

In addition to the more direct beneficiaries, discussions during the ICR mission indicated that other villagers and even nearby villages benefited from improved tank conditions, especially where livestock could get water in the dry season, or groundwater levels increased for borewell users in nearby communities. With an average of five household members, and additional indirect users from surrounding communities the project, a likely number of users can conservatively be estimated up to 3 million people.

For the income generation activities, communities identified the poorest of the poor in a participatory manner, and cumulatively SHGs provided small loans to around 100,000 beneficiaries. Further, under the fisheries component, the Fisheries Department trained 7,800 landless people in about 1,403 tanks. The project also had several benefits such as the increased employment that resulted from both additional agriculture activities created by improved water availability and from the implementation of civil works under the project. These types of activities often assist the poorer landless laborers in the community. 3a) Tank Rehabilitation and resulting agricultural Improvement

Tank rehabilitation and improvement was the biggest component under the project and aimed at improving water use efficiency through strengthened water storage capacity of tanks, management of agricultural water demand, as well as improved water distribution in irrigation systems from tanks. This was achieved through the implementation of physical works that were identified with community participation. Together with exposure to improved water management and agricultural practices, this provided a range of agricultural benefits, leading to improved livelihoods.

Typical physical rehabilitation works included strengthening of tank bunds, outlet sluices, and waste weirs (spillways), limited de-silting of reservoir areas, cleaning of feeder channels, construction of erosion-control structures in streams, and tree planting in tank foreshore areas. The clearance of feeder channel, bund strengthening and repair of damaged weirs ensured the water storage capacity of the tanks while other structures helped to improved water use efficiency. The detailed outputs achieved for these were extensive, generally of good quality and detailed in Annex 2. Although a core premise for tank rehabilitation, there were no specific PDO

28 This would imply that household coverage of the project is conservatively around 500,000.

72

or intermediate indicators on change in water availability, or use efficiency (although indirectly measured in terms of IO for expanded cropped area). Nevertheless, to understand the impacts an overview is provided below for these water related outcomes, based on available information.

Most of the benefits were measured in relation to command areas, although other areas would benefit to some degree (catchment, groundwater irrigated areas and drinking water source to other villages etc). The command area under the 3,710 project tanks was around 160,000 ha (closer to 150,000 if dropped tanks are excluded, see Annex 2a for tables).

Detailed analysis of Water related outcomes. A comprehensive study29 of completed and handed over 115 tanks (covering different agro-climatic zones under the original credit funding) has been conducted by JSYS to assess the impact of tank improvement. The study period for the field survey has been selected based on the implementation completion dates and rainfall pattern. The Rabi (October-February) cropping season for 2010-2011 was fixed for post-project/impact period. Taking into account the comparability of rainfall pattern, the Rabi cropping season 2005-2006 was selected and analyzed as a pre-project/base period. Besides the water used from the tank, groundwater used for irrigation in the command area was also taken into account. Given the methodology and technique applied for the study and data collection it could be stated that the accuracy of the estimations and conclusions is highly reliable. The main conclusions from the study were:

An overall increase of 19.79% with regard to actually irrigated area. GPS tracking has been

used for measuring the post-rehabilitation irrigated area; and LISS IV satellite images (April 2006) and Focus-group discussion with the command area farmers have been used to estimate the pre-rehabilitation irrigated area. This was also largely confirmed by IAS 2012, which showed that this was 15% more than controls (intermediate outcome indicator almost achieved).

Some 44.83% increase in available water volume. Estimation is made based on comparison of volume of water stored after the rehabilitation with the volume of water stored for the same period in 2005. Post-rehabilitation volume of water has been estimated as a difference from “area-volume” relations obtained from the topographic survey data for the end of 2010 monsoon season and empty tanks at the end of cropping season. Volume of available water in 2005 has been estimated through the focus group survey of farmers and estimated height of water in tanks.

About 20.88% increase in per hectare water availability. Estimated based on the available water and actually irrigated area for pre- and post-project periods.

Estimated 41.22% increase in ground water extraction. A detailed inventory of the irrigation open/bore wells in the tank command area was carried out during June 2010. Total number of wells in use during pre- and post-project periods was recorded. Groundwater extraction in the command area was worked out considering the average yield of groundwater extracted during the crop season.

An average increase of 23.01% in the Water Use Efficiency defined as the value realized on the produce grown in the command area in Indian Rupees per cubic meter of water.

The benefits achieved are reinforced by the better than expected and positive farm returns

in several crops noted in the economic and financial analysis (Section 3.3. and Annex 3).

29 ‘Impact Assessment of Rejuvenated Tanks – Water Use Efficiency’, JSYS, November 2011

73

Another hydrological study30 by JSYS is currently on-going to assess the Groundwater recharge in the vicinity of project tanks. 175 tanks have been selected out of all the tanks which are under implementation during Phase II from which in 134 desiltation has been completed. Three to five bore wells/open wells are identified in each tank command/catchment area for monitoring groundwater level to assess recharge/discharge. Groundwater level is recorded on a monthly basis using digital water level indicators. Unfortunately, the pace of study is very much depends on the completion of civil works and availability of water in the tanks. However, based on the preliminary analysis of 35 tanks with water available revealed an average raise of groundwater level of about 0.29 m31. Analysis of hydrographs of 2010 and 2011 from several tanks has shown that even with the much lesser rainfall the groundwater level is remarkably higher after the desiltation. It is anticipated that the study with recommendations on groundwater exploitation would be completed by the end of 2012. The IAS 2012 looked at farmers’ perceptions in the open well and borehole levels who considered water levels had increased 1.5 meters in open wells and 10 m in borewells, compared to controls (achieving intermediate indicator target). However, given that the project closing date is mid-2012, it is essential for the World Bank and the Government of Karnataka to make provisions for this important study to be finalized as indicated.

As evidenced by the farmers and TUGs leadership from the tanks visited, the reliability

and timeliness of water delivery has greatly improved, leading to more efficient water use by crops and eventually yield increases, though these are not yet measurable at project completion. This has also led to a better organization in water distribution. 3b) Agriculture production changes

The project intervention ensured good integration of water and agriculture activities and covered the tank users in all the project tanks. Farmers clearly benefited from the tank rehabilitation works, with improved water availability and distribution. Based on the IAS 2012 for a large sample of command area in 200 tanks, total production has increased by 47% on average compared to controls which had increased to 12% (a 35% incremental difference – which was not specified). As target 35% is for only lower half of the command area, the PDO indicator target has been achieved considerably – even taking into account that the final number of tanks have not been covered. This was also distributed well in that there was 20% incremental cropped area for tail end farmers, who often are the last to benefit.

The AF PDO indicator also includes another dimension: on income benefits generated - here treated separately for clarity: that ‘at least 50% of farmers in the upgraded Tank Command Area [would have] increased… income by at least 25% of the baseline’. As there are considerable changes taking place in the agriculture context in Karnataka (changing consumptions patterns, private sector market diversification and upgrading of infrastructure) it is important to look at the changes in project tank compared to controls. Thus in project tank command areas net income for farmers increased by 76%, compared to a considerable 42% for non-project tank farmers (IAS 2012). Nevertheless the incremental 33% on average is considerably better than for the target 25% for half of the farmers, thus this PDO indicator has been exceeded. Such benefit would

30 Impact Assessment Study for Groundwater Recharge, presentation to the WB ICR Mission, January 2011. 31 The mechanics of this may be interesting to look at. It is well-known that canals in alluvial soils tend to seal over

time, as the natural soil pores are closed by fine silt and sediment. The same could have happened in the tanks. If farmers wanted to increase infiltration they could probably do it by running a ripper over the bed of the tank each year, to break up the deposited material.

74

probably then make up for any slightly lower benefit that might arise from a reduced number of tanks covered under the project, compared to the overall target.

In addition, even though the civil works are in progress in several tanks, a number of improved agricultural practices have also been demonstrated to the users. This would also contribute to the benefits in terms of production and incomes noted above. The technology dissemination in agriculture was achieved through the regional Universities of Agriculture Sciences (UAS) in Bangalore and Dharwad. The key elements of the demonstrated technologies were (for more details see Annex 2) the use of improved seeds, line sowing, transplanting of younger seedlings (of rice and Ragi) and soil test based application of fertilizers and micronutrients (zinc). More efficient water management practices were demonstrated such as bed and furrow planting, drip and sprinkler irrigation in high value crops, and SRI method of rice cultivation. The project has also promoted the use of ecologically sustainable agricultural practices in the command area of the tanks.

The technology support from universities has resulted in widespread adoption of basic agriculture techniques appropriate to tank farmers for water scarce situations and for lower inputs of costly chemical fertilizers and pesticides. This happened through 1,237 on-farm demonstrations in 12,494 ha covering 26,767 beneficiaries, and exposure trainings for approximately 200,431 farmers - including 3,187 farmers’ field schools with 86,973 beneficiaries, and soils samples analyses for 139,539 farmers.

The UAS impact studies showed that the productivity increased by 56% over the base year and 35% over the control in tank commands in Kharif and by almost 69% in horticulture in and near tanks command. Initial examination of the draft impact assessment report, which compares similar before and after water years and comparisons to controls, seems to show considerable agriculture productivity and livelihoods benefits between 20-40% incremental increases Kharif (monsoon season) surface irrigated area, groundwater irrigated area, productivity and large increases in net incomes. Cropping intensity and diversification have increased as well as improvements in water use efficiency.

The 2012 Impact Assessment study reported on adoption of various technologies, both

for the base and impact years and against control tanks. This is a particularly difficult output to measure, as there are many external influences, particularly in India, where there are now numerous government subsidy schemes promoting similar technologies. The results show that while some technologies were well received by the project (i.e. seed treatment), others were already widespread (i.e. farm yard manure) and a lack of a suitable indicator specifically for chemical fertilizers shows no impact of the project. Overall the adoption rates nevertheless are very positive, particularly those related to water management, where at least 37% of farmers had adopted improved water saving techniques (alternate furrow, border check, broad beds and alternative wetting and drying) all of which provide significant water productivity increases over the traditional field to field irrigation. 4) Income increases Fisheries and other income generating activities

Marginal users also benefitted from the improved water storage, such as landless families in the community, including farm laborers, and those who own livestock or use tanks for washing, or drinking water through nearby wells. They were also benefited from IGAs.

The project directly supported income generating activities, particularly for the landless and agriculture laborers. A large proportion of the allocated IGA support funds were channeled

75

through women’s self-help groups, and a large portion of lower caste or tribal. Field visits confirmed that communities identified the poorest of the poor in a participatory manner, and that cumulatively the SHGs had provided small loans to around 99,453 beneficiaries. Though this was not defined precisely in proportion to all ‘landless tank users’ in relation to the overall number beneficiaries (over 1 million, see above), it appears quite comprehensive. Due to the small size of these loans, most were used for purchasing sheep, and a considerable portion of the loans have been repaid, and recycled to other members. Many SHGs have paid some interest back to the TUG. The IAS 2012, which surveyed all IGA beneficiaries in sample tanks, indicated that incomes of members have improved by 56% comparing them to non-beneficiaries32 (41%), with an incremental increase of 15%. Formally this achievement, although considerable, is less than the target PDO indicator. This in part attributable to the small loans available, which are also small compared to the increasing possibilities of larger loans through SHGs which are now taking place through external bank linkages.

Under the Resettlement strategy, TUGs had been active in the sensitive task of getting over 7,803 encroachers – all below the poverty line - removed from farming tank bed areas (2,288 ha), but also assisted them in setting up new livelihoods. The IAS 2012 noted that the incomes for the resettled had largely doubled as a result of the change in occupations and an increase in assets.

As discussed in section 3.5a there was also a considerable amount of employment generated from civil works activities as well as from additional agricultural activities, largely benefiting agriculture laborers who are often poor and landless.

In addition, though not in the direct form of IGA support, there were increased fisheries opportunities and income impacts arising from the project’s efforts to increase suitable water bodies from desilting and tank water availability, and technology support in the form of training and equipment. Also important was the project support to the adjustment of policy so that TUGs could allocate priority fishing to local tank users who have little or no access to land in tank command areas (as opposed to the traditional rather un-transparent fish lease auctioning system – see Annex 2, Component 3.3).

Fisheries. The cumulative progress was fisheries development in 1,403 tanks against the total project target of 1,180 tanks33. The Impact Assessment of Ongoing Project (Phase-I) for KCBTMP was conducted by Centre for Management and Social Research (CMSR). The WB supervision and project team observed that study had some limitations: The sample size was very small, tanks sampled which were not selected for fisheries activities, production aspect not studied, and O&M and sustainability contributions of fisheries not considered. In view of above shortcoming in study conducted by CMSR, the impact data is taken from studies conducted by the project which covers information of all 1400 tanks developed for fisheries, was used by the project team to summarize findings. The fisheries development had significant impact as follows:

Played a strategic role in providing additional livelihood to 7400 rural folk, about 75% landless and 25% marginal farmers

32 Non-beneficiary control may not be fully comparable as they were poorer, even than the relatively poor

beneficiaries. But the general trend of the results should hold. 33 While the formal target was 60% of tanks, the project used the original 30% target (PAD p42) which is

more realistic considering the number of suitable tanks.

76

Produced protein rich food about 1092 tons , contributing to reduce malnutrition by providing fish in less than market price to village populations sometimes free etc. This has improved food security of village community.

Enhanced productivity of tanks from 160 kg/ha /annum of pre-project to average fish production level of 535 kg during project intervention. Few tanks stocked with stunted growth fish seed achieved fish production to a level of 1200 kg/ha/annum.

Contributed in reducing poverty of 7400 TUG members by enhancing their income around Rs.4500 per beneficiary/annum.

The fisheries component has significant contribution for providing O and M funds to TUGs around Rs.139 lakh from project tanks, which is around 30 % income received from sale of fish, whereas TUGs are struggling to collect irrigation charges from the farmers. Fisheries are major contributor for O and M to TUGs34.

Gender participation was lacking in fisheries sector in pre-project scenario for undertaking production activity which has been enhanced significantly through social mobilization and capacity building for about 2200 women. Women SHGs involved in fish marketing produced by TUGs.

Project policy initiatives provided access to community by granting lease of tank for fisheries activity to TUGs on priority basis for five years by changing Fisheries Department policy of tender –cum -auction which was restricting access of community. Lease period also extended to five years from one year by project initiatives.

The feasibility study conducted for Fresh Water Prawn farming by Karnataka Animal Sciences and Fisheries University, Bidar provided best technological practice for undertaking prawn farming in Karnataka State. This will also enhance income of TUGs.

Sustainability. The project study on sustainably conducted for 500 tanks of phase –I

revealed that fisheries activity was continued for subsequent years in around 52% tanks (260 tanks) subject to availability of water. This means that adoption of technology was around 52%. About 43% tanks did not continue fisheries activity due to lack of sufficient water required for fish farming, social conflicts between agriculture and fisheries activities, problem of renewal of fishing lease in time and lack of interest of TUGs due to poaching from community of villages.

34 The Economic and Financial Analysis (Annex 3) notes however that overall achievements were slightly

less than expected as the water surface area covered was small than foreseen, likely due to smaller than projected tanks were favoured for fisheries interventions. Large tanks have strongly contested auctions.

77

Annex 3 Economic and Financial Analysis

A. Project Benefits and Expected Returns in the PAD and AF The PAD/Additional Financing (AF) economic and financial analysis (EFA) quantified benefits from different project activities included in the treatment of irrigation tanks and then aggregated different streams of benefits and costs to estimate an overall ERR for the project. Major sources of project benefits for EFA are; agriculture, horticulture, fisheries, livestock, forestry, time savings in access to domestic water, silt removed from the tank bed and income generating activities. For economic analysis, parity prices were calculated based on World Bank forecasts for the main traded commodities and non-tradables were adjusted by a standard conversion factor (SCF) of 0.9. Farm labor was valued at market wage rate and adjusted by SCF to obtain the economic wage rate. Financial project costs are adjusted to economic project costs by netting out taxes/duties and price contingencies (local and foreign inflation plus devaluation), which accounted for 15% and 17% of total financial costs respectively for PAD and AF analyses. For PAD EFA, main economic benefits from the project were expected from agriculture (63%), followed by fisheries (18%), forestry (11%), time savings in fetching domestic water (6%), livestock and forage (1%) and nutrient value of silt (<1%). In agriculture, six agro-climatic zones (ACZ) were considered with two tank models for medium and large tanks for each ACZ. For AF EFA, main economic benefits were expected from agriculture (78%), income generating (IGA) activities (11%), fisheries (7%), livestock (3%), and nutrient value of silt (1%). In agriculture, five ACZs were merged into two categories as follows: (i) dry and northern transition zones and (ii) hilly and southern transition zones. Two command area categories for Zila Panchayath (ZP) and MID tanks for each zone were considered. Crop models were formulated by season and zone. Agriculture and horticulture benefits were expected from the command area treated by the project, projected at 72,649 ha covering 2000 tanks for PAD EFA and 52,420 ha covering 1225 tanks for AF EFA. In PAD EFA, it was also projected that improved ground water recharge in the project tanks’ command area will additionally irrigate 2916 ha in the peripheral area surrounding tanks outside the command area. The expected benefits in the EFA of PAD and AF would result from two main assumptions: (i) 11% to 45% increase in paddy yield, 9% to 35% increase in the yield of other cereal/pulse/oilseed crops, and 22% increase in the yield of horticulture crops and (ii) 11% to 43% increase in area under irrigation in the project areas. (see T-1 for the summary of assumptions in the PAD and AF). The EFA also incorporated benefits from livestock, in about 10% of the project tanks, based on the assumption that the net income from 5 and 10 cross-bred cows in medium and large tanks respectively will improve by 25% due to improved feeding management demonstrated through the project. It is assumed that 0.5 ha and 1.0 ha of irrigated paddy lands will be substituted with forage crops in the command areas of the selected medium and large tanks respectively. The net benefit of forage cropping is also captured in the EFA.

78

Both PAD and AF together projected to cover around 1500 tanks under fisheries development with improved stocking and feed management demonstrations, backed with training and extension support activities. Current fish productivity in these tanks is either low (PAD) or negligible (AF) due to poor management practices. In total, about 12,000 ha of water surface area (WSA) are to be covered under this intervention. The expected benefits from fisheries interventions would result from two main assumptions: (i) average fish productivity in the project tanks will vary from 600 kg (PAD) to 725 kg (AF) per ha of WSA, and (ii) improved fish management practices will be sustained in 80% (AF) to 100% (PAD) of the tanks demonstrated through the project (see T-2 for the summary of assumptions in the PAD and AF).

T-1 Summary PAD and AF key assumptions for agriculture and horticulture benefits

Item Unit PAD AF PAD and AF Combined1/

WOP WP Change WOP WP Change WOP WP Change

Command area 2/ Ha 72649 72649 0% 52420 52420 0% 145997 145997 0%

Irrigated area 3/ Ha 72649 80411 11% 36618 52418 43% 109267 132829 22%

Beneficiary farmers 4/ No. 96865 96865 0% 69893 69893 0% 194811 194811 0%

Crop yield #

Paddy t/ha 3.6 5.3 45% 4.8 5.4 11% 4.1 5.3 28%

Other cereals 5/ t/ha 2.3 2.6 15% 4.4 4.8 9% 3.2 3.5 12%

Pulses 6/ t/ha 0.7 0.9 35% 0.3 0.4 33% 0.5 0.7 34%

Oilseeds 7/ t/ha 1.3 1.7 25% 1.8 2.1 15% 1.5 1.8 20%

Horticulture crops 8/ t/ha 18.0 22.0 22% 25.0 18.0 23.3 29%

Source: Karnataka community based tank management project: PAD and AF project paper; EFA work sheets; Annex.2 of ICRR and Project completion report, JSYS

# PAD also considered increased crop yields in the catchment area by 3%

1/PAD and AF crop yield and farm income data are combined using the respective command area as weights

2/Combined command area for PAD and AF include 20928 ha of command area planned under 694 tanks with original credit savings as reported in Project completion report, JSYS.

3/PAD WP irrigated area includes 2916 ha of peripheral area, surrounding the project tanks outside the command area, projected to be benefited by improved GW recharge in the tank command

4/Project tank specific data on farm holding size wise distribution is not available. PAD projected on an average 130 farmers per tank with an average command area of 36 ha, which is not supported by the project data and the secondary data, hence ignored. Average farm holding size is 0.75 ha in the project districts, as reported in the AF project paper, which is adopted in this analysis.

5/Include ragi and jowar for PAD; and maize, jowar and ragi for AF; 6/Include redgram and greengram for PAD; and greengram and cowpea for AF; 7/Include groundnut for PAD; and groundnut and sunflower for AF; 8/Include mulberry, potato and tomato for PAD; and tomato and onion for AF

T-2 Summary PAD & AF assumptions for fisheries benefits

Fisheries Unit PAD WP

AF WP

PAD/AF 1/ Combined

Tanks targeted 2/ No. 600 900 1500

WSA targeted Ha 3000 9000 12000

Average WSA per tank Ha 5 10 8

Sustainability % 100 80 85

Fish productivity t/ha 0.600 0.725 0.694

Source: Karnataka community based tank management project: PAD and AF project paper; EFA work sheets; and Project completion report, JSYS 1/PAD/AF fish productivity data are combined using WSA as weights

2/Combined data on targeted tanks as per PAD and AF do not match with the data reported in PCR, JSYS.

79

PAD projected forestry activities by planting 2.5 ha in the medium-sized tanks and 5 ha in the large tanks on tank foreshore areas and/or other common and private lands, which are to be demonstrated in about 20% of the project tanks. EFA quantified forestry benefits based on the net benefit streams for a representative mixed forest foreshore model.

PAD EFA assumed that half of the families in the communities associated with the project tanks would spend 2 person-hours per day for 60 days in a year when the tanks go dry for fetching the water for domestic use. TUG led management of project tank systems would help in sustaining the tank water due to which about 120 person-hours will be saved per family in the project area. Value of time savings is quantified using the wage rate and included in the project benefits.

PAD estimated removal of silt from the project tanks is 37 million M3. The nutritive value of the silt is valued based on UASB study35 and added to the project benefits. It is also assumed that (i) the additional water available after tank improvements will be 1.5 times the quantity of silt assumed to be removed and (ii) on an average, estimated quantity of additional water will be available in at least 80% of years.

Benefits: Incremental financial farm income at constant 2012 prices for the project beneficiaries is projected to vary from USD 222 (PAD) to USD 231 (AF). This represents 73 to 76% increase over WOP situation. Incremental net benefits from fisheries development is estimated in the range of $ 222 (PAD) to $ 231 (AF) per ha of WSA covered under the project. Crop production will increase by 258,190 t per year at full development. Fish production will increase by 7,020 t per year at full development. Annual employment is projected to increase by 7840 person years at full development which will be available every year due to improved agriculture (crops, fisheries and livestock) management in the rehabilitated tank command areas (see T-3 for the summary of incremental project impacts in PAD and AF).

35 Impact and Economic of Tank Desiltation in Southern Districts. University of Agricultural Sciences.

Bangalore.

Incremental Benefits Unit PAD WP AF WP

PAD/AF Combined

Crop production 1/

Paddy t/yr 18000 70510 88510

Other crops t/yr 95850 73830 169680

All crops t/yr 113850 144340 258190

Fish production 1/ 2/ t/yr 1800 5220 7020

Net financial benefits

Crops (constant 2012 prices)

Rs/farm 6235 10070 7840

USD/farm 131 212 165

Fisheries (constant 2012 prices) 3/

Rs/ha 10550 11000 10890

USD/ha 222 231 229

Annual employment Person-yr 4519 3320 7840

T-3 Summary PAD and AF Incremental Impacts

Source: Same as above for T-2

1/ Production is for the command area of 72649 ha (PAD) and 52425 ha (AF).

2/PAD WP fish production data is reported as 7200 t/yr at full development, which is inconsistent with targeted productivity and WSA. Hence, PAD WP production data is corrected based on projected productivity and WSA data.

3/Average incremental net financial benefits per ha of WSA.

80

B. ICRR Estimation Methodology PAD/AF methodology was applied to the extent feasible in order to estimate the project costs and returns. The analysis was done at 2012 prices. Weaknesses and gaps in systematic collection of outcome/impact and output data, as part of project M&E, hindered somewhat the estimation of project benefits. Major constraints encountered at ICRR estimation are; (i) non-availability of complete set of EFA files and raw data used for deriving the results presented in PAD, (ii) non-availability of tank specific irrigated agriculture data, and (iii) lack of disaggregated agriculture data from project M&E and Impact Assessment (IA) study differentiated between seasons and rainfed/irrigated cropping. The ICRR estimates relied to a great extent on updating the ex-ante analysis carried out during PAD and AF. To overcome the M&E and IA data limitations, information derived from other sources such as published statistics and triangulation from discussions with project stakeholders and field visits during the ICR mission were used while re-estimating the returns to project investments for the ICR EFA. Project Costs: Total actual project cost is Rs 6907 M as against PAD/AF projected cost of Rs 8156 M at current prices. All costs are adjusted to 2012 constant prices using the Indian annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) to inflate historical prices. Total actual project cost is estimated at Rs 8275 M at constant prices. Project economic costs at ICRR have used a SCF of 0.9 and parity prices for relevant tradable goods. Historical and future economic prices (based on Bank commodity price projections) for the main commodities and inputs were derived from international prices and analysis was conducted in constant 2009 prices using the Manufacturing Unit Value (MUV) index as deflator for future prices. For comparability, cost and benefit flows have been calculated with 12% opportunity cost of capital over a period of 25 years. The ICRR estimates include IGA costs and benefits, which are not included in PAD analysis but considered in AF EFA. Finally, ICRR project recurrent costs are estimated as 3% of investment costs. Agriculture: Crop budgets for major crops (paddy, maize, ragi, red gram, bengal gram, groundnut, sunflower, tomato and onion) differentiated by seasons and ACZs are formulated based on the data available from multiple sources like IA study, JSYS database, UAS project documents, supplemented with region wise cost of cultivation of crop reports for various years (2005 to 2010) covering a sample of 2000 farmers every year drawn from five farm holding sizes representing all ACZs under the project. For agriculture benefit quantification, project ACZs are broadly grouped into two major zones namely; (i) central, north and north east dry zones (non-paddy cereals dominated agriculture) (ii) hill, north and north east transition and south east dry zones (paddy dominated agriculture). Dry zone agriculture in the tank command is dominated by non-paddy cereals. Transition zone agriculture in the tank command is dominated by paddy cultivation. Irrigated area, cropping pattern and crop productivity impacts are quantified separately for dry and transition ACZ groups and aggregated for overall project area.

81

Agriculture benefits are quantified based on a total area 141,312 ha which are better serviced by the rehabilitated tanks at full development. This is about 6% more than the targeted area. This is mainly due to the command area covered by the project is 10% more than the targeted command area despite covering 9% less in terms of number of tanks rehabilitated under the project. Realized paddy productivity is only 51% of the target. Paddy is the major crop occupying 47% of the crop area in the project command. Other cereals and pulses registered 53 to 62% increase in productivity over the targeted yield levels. This is mainly due to more area allocation under maize, red gram and bengal gram by the project farmers. Other cereals and pulses together occupied 39% of the crop area in the project command. Oilseed crops, occupying 3% of the crop area, recorded less yield 11% as compared to the targeted yield. Horticulture crops, occupying 10% of the crop area, registered 14% more productivity than the target. Incremental crop production is 7% higher than the target, contributed by higher production of paddy (11%) and other crops (4%). See T-4 for summary of project targets and realized values in agriculture.

Fisheries: The project demonstrated improved fish production management in 1403 tanks, which is 94% of the targeted tanks. Totally, about 7800 poor families are benefited by the fisheries interventions. Two fish production models namely; stunted and advanced fingerling models are formulated using the database compiled by the project. Stunted fingerling model was demonstrated in 12% of the total WSA and the rest 88% was covered under advanced fingerling models. Benefits from fisheries are quantified from only 2243 ha of WSA covered by the 1403 project tanks. WSA coverage is substantially lower than the target-only 19% of the

T-4 Realized Values and PAD/AF Targets for overall project- agriculture

Agriculture impacts Unit Target 1/ Realized 2/ Ratio 3/

Command area treated Ha 145997 160425 1.10

Command area irrigated Ha 132829 141312 1.06

Incremental crop yield

Paddy t/ha 1.17 0.60 0.51

Other cereals t/ha 0.37 0.60 1.62

Pulses t/ha 0.18 0.28 1.53

Oilseeds t/ha 0.31 0.28 0.89

Horticulture crops t/ha 5.26 6.00 1.14

Incremental production

Paddy t/year 103320 115100 1.11

Other crops t/year 198070 205940 1.04

All crops t/year 301395 321045 1.07

Incremental income 4/ Rs/farm 7840 8015 1.02

Beneficiary Farmers Number 194810 213900 1.10

Incremental employment Person yr 7840 8050 1.03

Source: 1/ Same as above for other tables; 2/ Impact Assessment/JSYS database and ICR mission field visits and discussions

3/ Ratio of realized value to the targeted value. 4/ Financial income at constant 2012 prices. 5/ Incremental employment is annual.

T-5 Realized Values and PAD/AF Targets for Project- fisheries

Fisheries impacts Unit Target 1/ Realized 2/ Ratio 3/

Tanks for fisheries No. 1500 1403 0.94

WSA covered Ha 12000 2243 0.19

Sustainability % 85% 52% 0.61

Fish yield per ha t/ha 0.694 0.550 0.79

Fish production t/yr 7020 641 0.09

Incremental income 4/ Rs/ha 10890 8530 0.78

Source: 1/ and 2/ Same as above for T-4

3/Ratio of realized to targeted value 4/Financial income, constant 2012 price.

82

targeted WSA. Available WSA per tank (1.6 ha) demonstrated for fisheries is much lower than what was projected in both PAD (5 ha) and AF (10 ha). See T-5 for summary of project targets and realized values in fisheries.

On sustainability also, JSYS database recorded that only 52% of the demonstrated tanks

are continuing the improved fish production management as against 85% projected by PAD/AF. Finally, realized fish productivity is only 79% of the targeted yield levels. Consequently, realized fish production with the project that will be sustained is only 9% of the targeted production. Incremental income from fish tanks is estimated at Rs 8530 per ha of WSA, which is 22% less than the targeted income levels. Incremental income from fisheries is sufficient to lift at least one member of the benefited families above poverty line based on the poverty line cut-off income levels at constant 2012 prices. In terms of the directly benefited population by the fisheries development, about 10% of them, namely 4060 rural poor are potentially benefited by the poverty alleviation impact.

IGA Benefits: Income generation activities were introduced in the project to improve

livelihood prospects of landless and resource poor households. The project facilitated setting up of income generating activities for 99,453 families. At current prices, about Rs 609 M has been used to support these IGA activities, supported by project funds (55%), bank linkages (24%), SHGs (17%) and department (4%). Livestock based activities (sheep, cow and goat) were opted by 93% of the beneficiaries. Based on the JSYS database, annual financial net benefits ranged from Rs 2200 to 10,100 per beneficiary. Weighted average net benefits across major IGA activities, accounting for 93% of the beneficiaries is Rs 3900 per year. Following fisheries experience, 52% sustainability is assumed for the continuation of IGA activities by the beneficiaries for quantifying the benefits. C. Economic Returns

PAD and AF estimated project economic rate of return (ERR), respectively are 18% and 22% (T-6). When both PAD and AF are combined in the analysis, ERR came to 19% for the project. The overall ERR on the base case assumption is estimated at 17%, lower than PAD and AF estimates. In calculating the project’s ERR, all project costs were included, and set against the incremental benefits arising from agriculture (crops and horticulture), IGA (sheep, goat and cow) and fisheries. The ICRR estimates translate into an NPV of Rs 1.1 billion (USD 23 M) with a discount rate of 12% as used in the PAD/AF EFA. This is 76% less than the PAD estimate of Rs. 4.6 billion (adjusted to 2012 constant prices using Indian CPI). Delayed implementation of the project activities resulted in the reduction of both PV of both costs and benefits. But benefits are impacted more than the costs, resulting in lower ERR. Annual incremental economic benefits at full development is estimated at Rs 1.7 billion (USD 36 M), contributed by agriculture (89%), IGA (10%) and fisheries (1%). While silt benefits are accounted through improved crop yields within the command area, benefits from livestock and forestry are ignored for want of data (forestry) and lack of activities (livestock).

T-6 PAD/AF/ICR Estimates of Project Benefits, Costs & Returns (2012 Prices, Rs Billion)

Economic Analysis

PV Costs

PV Benefits

NPV ERR (%)

PAD 5.8 8.8 3.0 18

AF 3.2 5.5 2.4 22

PAD/AF Combined

7.2 11.8 4.6 19

ICR 4.0 5.1 1.1 17

PV-Present value; NPV-Net present value

83

D. Main Reasons for lower Economic Returns The divergence between ICR and PAD/AF estimates can be traced mainly to differences between assumed and realized values of production benefits from agriculture and fisheries. Tables T-4, T-5 and T-7 shows over- and under-achievement with respect to PAD/AF targets in specific areas contributing to the divergence in ERR.

First the positive impacts in case of production benefits following the implementation of the project (T-4); (i) area irrigated area by the tanks is 141312 ha, 6% more than the targeted area, (ii) ICR estimated crop yields are 14% to 62% higher in case of non-paddy cereal crops, pulses and horticulture crops than the PAD/AF projected yield levels, (iii) production of all crops at full development is 7% more than the targeted levels. Despite all these positive impacts, the gains are almost nullified by; (i) lower crop yields by 49% and 11% respectively for paddy and oilseeds as compared to the projected yield levels. Paddy is the dominating crop in the tank command areas, occupying 47% of the crop area. Consequently, ICR estimated incremental farm income at Rs 8050 per year is only marginally better than the PAD/AF projected income levels by about 2%. In case of fisheries, the project substantially under achieved with respect to the targets as follows (T-5). (i) WSA covered is less by 81% as compared to the combined target of PAD and AF. This mainly due to- 6% less coverage in terms of tanks demonstrated for fisheries and significantly low WSA per tank by about 80% in case of tanks used covered under demonstration, (ii) Only 52% of the tanks could sustain the improved fish production activities demonstrated by the project as against 85% projected by PAD and AF, (iii) Only 79% of the targeted fish yield levels is realized at full development. Consequently, incremental net income per ha of WSA from fisheries is less by 22% and incremental annual fish production achieved by the project at full development is only 9% of the targeted fish production levels. Hence, contribution of fisheries in the annual incremental economic benefits at full development came down to just 1% as against the projected share of 18% and 7% respectively in PAD and AF. Finally, prolonged implementation of project activities delayed the realization of benefits by several years (T-7). In a 25-year project life, implementation itself accounted for 11 years; 46% of the project costs spent during the first nine years and the remaining 54% spent during the last two years; consequently delaying the start of project benefits as well as the realization of full project benefits as follows: While PAD and AF projected that benefit stream will start from first and second year after the start of implementation, ICR estimated that actual benefits started to flow only from fifth year due to the delayed start of the project activities. PAD and AF projected that 50% of the full potential benefits will be realized in year-3 and year-6 respectively. But actually, 50% of the full benefits is estimated to be realized only in year-11. PAD and AF estimated that 100% realization of full project benefits will happen by year- 11 and 10 respectively, ICR projected that full project benefits will be realized only in year-15. The cumulative impact of (i) over and under achievements in terms of agriculture and fisheries production benefits and (ii) delayed start and realization of full project benefits due to delayed implementation of project activities as compared to what is planned in PAD and AF, is

T-7 Implementation delays: PAD/AF/ICR compared

Realization of full potential Benefits

Unit PAD AF ICR

Starting period year 1 2 5 Realization of 50% benefits year 3 6 11 Realization of 100% benefits year 11 10 15

84

reflected in the lower ERR for the project investments. Time and cost over runs pulled down the rate of return. Both in PAD and AF EFA, Project's ERR is shown to be sensitive to delayed implementation- Base ERR came down by 3 to 4 %.

E. Financial Returns PAD did not estimate the financial rate of return (FRR) for the project as a whole, but mentioned that FRR is generally less by 4% as compared to ERR for different ACZs. Based on this, PAD estimated FRR is likely to be around 14% as against AF estimated FRR of 20%, with a NPV of Rs 2.2 billion (USD 47 M). FRR for the combined investments (PAD and AF) is likely to be around 17%. In the absence of detailed data used for PAD EFA estimation, actual FRR could not be estimated. ICR estimated FRR is 15.6%, with a NPV of Rs 0.8 billion (USD 17 M). ICR estimated that annual net farm financial income increased by Rs 8015 per year for an average holding size of 0.75 ha. F. Poverty alleviation and farm employment impacts The project benefited 213,900 tank command area farmers, 10% more than the target. 90% of them are small and marginal farmers. Average farm financial income, at constant 2012 prices, increased by Rs 8015 per year for an average holding size of 0.75 ha, which is sufficient to lift at least one member of the farm household above poverty line based on the Indian Planning Commission estimates for rural Karnataka for 2004/05, updated for constant 2012 prices using inflation index. About 70% of the project beneficiary farmers are resource poor marginal farm holders. In terms of directly benefited population in the project farm families, about 14% of them, namely 149,730 rural poor are potentially benefited by the poverty alleviation impact due to increased farm income. Increased and improved irrigation coverage in the rehabilitated tanks, resulted in intensified and diversified irrigated agriculture, generating additional farm employment for 8050 persons per year. This will help the landless and resource poor households by providing jobs for about 270 days in a year. This has the potential of alleviating poverty additionally for about 40250 rural poor in the project area.

Farm based income and employment generation activities generated by the project through improved agriculture in the 3710 rehabilitated tanks will have sustained poverty alleviation impacts for about 190,000 rural poor in the project villages. This accounts for 17% of the population in the project villages.

The project has further generated employment and income through rehabilitation investments in 3710 project tanks during the project implementation period as follows: (i) wage employment, estimated as 3.2 million person days, equivalent to 11830 person-years in total and (ii) wage income of Rs 16200 per year per job. About 62% of the beneficiaries under this category belong to socially disadvantaged SC and ST groups. The project has also helped 51,715 resource poor families in setting up and sustaining livestock dominated income generating activities which has the potential of generating average annual income of Rs 3900 per beneficiary. About 48% of these beneficiaries are from SC and ST groups and 21% of the beneficiaries are landless labor households.

85

Annex 4 Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes Staffing (with position during the project involvement)

Adolfo Brizzi Sector Manager

Anil Borwanker Construction Quality Specialist

Anju Gaur Water Resources Spec.

Ashish Bhateja Senior Procurement Specialist

Assaye Legesse Senior Agriculture Economist

Deborah Ricks Program Assistant

Deepak Ahluwalia Senior Economist

Dhimant J. Baxi Senior Procurement Specialist

E.V. Jagannathan Senior Water Resources Engineer

Gajanand Pathmanathan Sector Manager

Grace Domingo Team Assistant

Harshadeep Nagaraja-Rao Water Resources and Environmental Specialist

Jacqueline Julian Operations Analyst

Joop Stoutjesdijk Lead Irrigation Engineer

Keith Oblitas Lead Operations Officer

Krishnamurthy Sankaranarayanan Financial Management Specialist

Luis Constantino Lead Operations Officer

Manish Bapna Economist

Manvinder Mamak Financial Management Specialist

Maroti Upare Fisheries Specialist

Mohammed Hasan Senior Social Development Specialist

Mohammed Hasan Consultant

Mona Sur Senior Agriculture Economist

Nagaraju Duthaluri Lead Procurement Specialist

Parthapriya Ghosh Social Development Specialist

Paul Singh Sidhu Sr. Agricultural Spec.

Prabir Joardar Consultant

Reena Gupta Natural Resources Mgmt. Spec.

Robert Epworth Senior Agricultural Specialist

Ruth Alsop Senior Social Scientist

Santhanam Krishnan Consultant

Sara Gonzalez-Flavell Senior Counsel

Seenithamby Manoharan Senior Rural Development Specialist

Shankar Narayanan Social Development Specialist

Simeon Ehui Sector Manager

Srinivasan R. Rajagopal Senior Water Resources Specialist

T.K. Balakrishnan Senior Financial Analyst Tanuj Mathur Senior Financial Management Specialist Walter Garvey Lead Water Resources Specialist

86

Supervision costs Funding Source

Current FY Plan (USD)

Current FY Expenses (USD)

Prior FY Expenses (USD)

Cumulative Expenses (USD)

BB 185,400.00 161,142.22 1,696,483.79 1,857,626.01

TF 0.00 0.00 237,703.55 237,703.55

Total 185,400.00 161,142.22 1,934,187.34 2,095,329.56

87

Annex 5 Beneficiary Survey Results

IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY OF ONGOING PROJECT – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Phase I Project) of Karnataka Community-Based Tank Management Project Revised Draft Report (January, 2012) Centre for Management and Social Research, Hyderabad I. INTRODUCTION

Cognizant of the complex set of factors contributing to the degradation of tank systems in the State, the GoK has initiated a range of measures, to enhance the access, of farmers and other users, to tank systems, that includes promoting community based tank management through project Karnataka Community Based Tank Management Project (JSYS). The KCBTMP with the support from the World Bank aimed to improve rural livelihoods and reduce poverty by developing and strengthening community-based approaches to improving and managing selected tank systems in the State. The tank rehabilitation and improvement component is the major activity under the project through the implementation of physical works that are identified with the participation of the beneficiary communities. In addition, the project also supports a range of livelihood interventions in agriculture and other sectors such as fisheries and other income generating activities. The project has two phases. Phase-I works of KCBTMP is at an advanced stage for completion and has made reasonable impact on tank rehabilitation and their management. In Phase 1, the project has taken up works in 1829 tanks. Until September 2011, a total of 1583 tanks (86.5%) have been handed over to the Tank User Groups for operation and maintenance. The works for remaining tanks are at different stages of completion. For assessing the various impacts relating to Phase-I tanks of the Project, JSYS has commissioned a study by studying sample of 200 tanks and 30 control tanks. This study looked at pre-project and post-project situations and (ii) with-project and without-project situations. II. PROFILE OF SAMPLE TANKS

This assessment contextualized its findings through a prolife of the sample tanks. The sample tanks fall under seven ACZs). Based on the designed command area the sample tanks have been classified into two groups. ZP tanks (40 hectares and below) make up 79% of the sample tanks the remaining (21%) are MI tanks (41 hectares and above). The South- Eastern Dry Zone (SEDZ) – combination of Southern Dry Zone and Eastern Dry Zone – accounts for 46% of the sample tanks comprising the present districts of Chikkaballapur, Kolar and part of Tumkur. The Central Dry Zone is represented by 53 sample tanks making up slightly more than a fourth of the sample tanks. The distribution of the command area farmers across the ACZs also varies broadly in proportion to the sample tanks’ distribution. The sample ACZs are as follows:

1. North-Eastern Transition Zone (NETZ: Bidar) 2. North-Eastern Dry Zone (NEDZ: Raichur) 3. Northern Dry Zone (NDZ: Bagalkote, Bellary, Koppal, Raichur) 4. Northern Transition Zone (NTZ: Haveri) 5. South-Eastern Dry Zone (SEDZ: : Kolar, Chintamani, Tumkur) 6. Central Dry Zone (CDZ: Bellary, Chitradurga, and Tumkur) 7. Hilly Zone (HZ: Haveri)

88

The average landholding of farmers in the tank command varies from a minimum of 1 acre in the SEDZ to a maximum of 3.17 acres in the NETZ, the overall mean being 1.4 acres. SEDZ and the CDZ account for almost three-fourths of the sample tanks. These two zones represent a large number of typical tanks and on the basis of rainfall and water availability as well these two zones broadly occupy the intermediate position.

Rainfall data show that in terms of the mean rainfall in the base year it ranges from 550 mm in NEDZ to 984 in HZ; and the corresponding figures for the impact year are 692 mm in NEDZ and 1102 mm in NETZ. The mean precipitation across the zones in the base year and in the impact assessment year are 819 mm and 892 mm respectively. Distribution of rainfall among ACZs in the base year and impact assessment year shows a broadly consistent pattern.

A ranking of ACZs on the basis of rainfall in both base year and impact assessment year broadly indicates that HZ and NETZ receive highest rainfall, followed by NTZ and SEDZ. CDZ, NDZ and NEDZ occupy bottom three places in that order with NEDZ receiving the lowest precipitation in base year as well as in impact assessment year. The mean rainfall levels in the impact year are marginally higher across the zones. Information on the approximate water levels and rainfall levels in the sample tanks was also collected. There are minor variations in the tank filling status between the base year and impact assessment year. But the variation between the ACZs is in general consistent with the rainfall distribution. But across the ACZs there is a marginal improvement in the water levels of sample tanks in the impact year.

The total command area reported by farmers of 200 sample tanks is 9,149 acres; it ranges from 185 acres in NETZ to 2,844 acres in SEDZ. The cultivated area is lower than the total own land across the ACZs indicating that some farmers in all zones had left a part or whole of their land fallow. The cropped area covered by this assessment ranges from 150 acres to 2299 acres. Overall this assessment covered 80% of the command area reported by famers of the sample 200 tanks. III. IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE

This impact assessment covered 6,479 command area famers spread across the 200 project sample tanks; and 576 command area famers representing 30 sample control tanks. Close to 70% of the command area farmers also own land in the non-command. Command area farmers derive almost two-thirds of their income from cropping. Dairying is the second most important activity in the agriculture sector, which contributes a tenth to the household incomes. Almost 11% of the command area farmers’ income comes from wage labour (farm and non-farm).

Participation of farmers and performance of tank system: Perceptions of command area farmers on the quality of civil works were elicited. The vast majority of farmers are happy with the quality of works as only a small section of them – ranging from 5% to 15% across the civil works – find the quality poor. Almost a tenth of the respondent farmers reported that the quality of rehabilitation works was “very good”; around a quarter of them rated the quality as “good”; and the quality of works was viewed “average” by around a half of the farmers.

Participation of farmers in tank restoration activities was also high. Their participation covered broad categories of: (1) Coordinated or supervised civil works (2) Worked as wage laborer (3) Contributed free labor (shramdan) (4) Did not participate in any capacity.

89

The findings with regard to the impacts of civil works demonstrate that command area farmers vouch for the positive impacts resulting from the project interventions. They find visible improvements in terms of reduced siltation and soil erosion, better inflows into the tank, increased water level in nearby bore wells and open wells, increased availability of water in the tank and tank water reaching a higher number of tail-end farmers. Application of silt had positive impacts in terms of increased output and savings on input costs.

Impacts on production, productivity and incomes: Comparisons between base year and impact assessment year show that the project interventions have had a positive impact on the cultivated area, production and productivity levels – translating into increased incomes to farmers. The positive impacts were found in both kharif and rabi/summer seasons.

Impact in kharif: Results for kharif show that across the sample tanks, the total cropped area under the tank commands has increased from 6,064 acres to 7,326 acres from the base year representing an increase of 20%. Results regarding crop-wise production levels show that output levels of all crops have increased in all zones on account of improvements in cropped area as well as in productivity levels. Production of paddy – most widespread crop in the sample tanks - has shown an upward trend across the ACZs with the crop registering an overall increase of 44% in output over the base year.

In the project tanks the total crop output in kharif rose to 1,26,926 quintals in the impact assessment year from 86,453 quintals in the base year representing an increase of 46%. In terms of productivity, the overall productivity of crops has increased by 21% since the base year across the zones. Compared with the base year incomes from cultivation, the current income levels are much higher for all crops in all zones. Across the zones, income from paddy - most widespread crop in the project tank commands - has doubled since the base year.

Similarly overall (across the zones) net incomes from other crops have also risen since the base year by following percentages: other cereals and millets (29%); pulses (158%); commercial crops (262%); oil seeds (56%); and horticultural crops (20%). With regard to net income from all crops put together, it has increased from Rs 42722314 in the base year to Rs 75000423 in the assessment year, which amounts to an increase of 75% over the base.

Findings for Rabi and Summer: Findings in this respect reflect the project impact in rabi and summer seasons with respect to the indicators of cultivated area, output and productivity levels in project tanks and control tanks. Rabi season in project tanks witnessed improvements along all three variables since the base year with cultivated acreage, output and productivity rising by 5.41%, 12.77% and 6.98% respectively. Summer also saw comparable increases in the project tanks with regard to the above stated indicators but the levels of improvements are lower than those of control tanks. The levels of improvements accruing from the project with respect to the area, production and productivity are 3.44%, 7.34% and 3.42% respectively.

Comparison with control tanks: The total cropped area in the project tanks increased by almost 21% while that of the control tanks rose 6% from the base year. This shows that the increase in the area cultivated in the commands of project tanks was 14% higher. As for the total output from the tank commands, it rose by 46% in the project tanks since the base whereas it rose by 12% in the control tanks, thus the higher level of increase of 34% can be attributed to the project interventions.

With regard to productivity, in control tanks it has increased by 1.06 quintals whereas in the project tanks it has risen by 3.07 quintals – representing percentage increases of 7.24% and

90

21.52% respectively. In terms of productivity growth, this represents a net project impact of 14%. In the impact assessment year the total net income from cropping has increased by Rs 32278109 and Rs 1697479 in the project tanks and in the control tanks respectively. In terms of growth rates the figures show increments of 75.55% and 42.34% respectively over the base. The net project impact therefore is 33%.

Net returns from cropping: per acre, per tank and per farmer: Per acre net incomes in kharif have increased in all the zones since the base year. The overall increment of 45% across the zones reflects the levels of increases among zones. Across the zones the per acre net income in the project tanks has increased from Rs 7,046 in the base year to Rs 10,238 in the impact assessment year – indicating an increase of Rs 3,192. The per acre incomes have also gone up in the control tanks. But the level of increase in the control tanks is lower, as a result the differential of 11.22% indicates project impact.

Results for zone-wise per tank mean net incomes from cropping in kharif show that across the zones it has risen from Rs 2,13,612 to Rs 3,75,002 from the base year in the project tanks. By contrast the growth rate of average incomes in the control tanks is lower than that of the project tanks. In terms of growth rates, per tank net income from cropping in kharif has grown at 75% in the project tanks while the growth rate in the control tanks was 42%. The differential is attributable to the project interventions.

This assessment also computed per command area farmer net income from cultivation. In the project tanks the net income has doubled - from Rs 7,547 in the base year to Rs 15,573 in the impact year. The farmer level net income has also increased in the control tanks; but at 53% the level of improvement is much lower than that reported in the project tanks. The net percentage increase of 53% can be attributed to the project impact. IV. INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The overall institutional design was aimed to empower the communities to own and maintain the tanks under the overall facilitation of the Government. Tank User Groups, Tank User Committees, Panchayaths, NGOs/CFTs, SPU and DPUs are the key actors in the institutional structure. Legal and Institutional basis for Community-based Tank Management

The following measures completed to create an enabling legal and institutional environment: (a) Formulation policy of Tank Maintenance Policy, 2002; (b) Amendments to Karnataka Irrigation Act, 1965 and Karnataka Irrigation (levy of betterment contribution & water rates) Act 1957 (amended in 2002) for insertion of expression ‘Tank User Association’ in addition to the already existing definition “Water User Association.”; (c) Issuance of several GOs (GO NoMID/29/JSY/2002 to empower Tank Management Institutions for Operation and Maintenance of Tank systems; GO to empower the TUGs to collect water tax; promulgation of GOs to confer fishing rights on TUGs); (c) Creation of JSYS as Nodal Agency to provide technical support to the PRIs and communities on Tank System Management.

Legal Reform Measures at different Stages and awaiting Government Approval: (a) Panchayath Raj (Tank Management) Rules for Tank User’s involvement in tanks managed by GP Sub Committee (GPSC); (b) Amendment to Irrigation Act for empowerment of TUGs and GPSC to manage tanks; (c) Cabinet approval on draft note to enable the

91

TUGs collection of water charges from tank command area farmers; (d) promulgation of umbrella Tank Management Act.

Critical Observations and Areas for Improvement: Several of these initiatives though have created overall positive atmosphere for legal and institutional promotion, the promulgation of the proposed umbrella legislation- Tank Management Act - and other measures which have been pending for quite some time would provide the necessary legal anchoring and would go a long way in achieving the sustainability for the community based tank management. Convergence between Tank and Watershed Development Projects

Though JSYS proposed for institutionalizing convergence between watershed and tank development projects, it has not been grounded. Suggestions elicited during the FGDs include: (a) need for better convergence and for a common institutional structure for managing tanks and watersheds including MNREGA (b) develop Sub-basin Master Plans and all related departments such as MI, Watershed, Fishery, etc should develop their plans, programs and activities in consistence with the Sub Basin Master Plans. Multidisciplinary Expertise in Tank Management at State and District levels

During Phase I, the DPUs have faced huge difficulties in the availability of adequate staff those were experienced and qualified. Continuous turnover in the staff availability was another problem. In Phase II, this problem was addressed to certain extent. The overall shortage in recent past at SPU is 29% (Aug 2011) and 22% at DPUs (Aug 2011). Shortage in specialists availability is 19% across all DPUs.

Critical Observations and Areas to Improve: (a) Some DPCs felt that they found it difficult to implement the programme with temporary inexperienced staff; (b) the contractual staff often find it difficult to get the works done relating to other departments as they are temporary in nature; (c) need for continuation of Social Specialists services for all the handed over tanks for guidance and monitoring for at least two years after the tank handover; (c) periodic assessment of human resources. M&L System in Place and Functional

JSYS created an M&L organization consisting: (a) the Research, Monitoring and Evaluation cell at the SPU, (b) and similar Monitoring cells at each of the DPUs. In addition to the project units, the JSYS appointed an M&L facilitation agency to assist the project in discharging M&L objectives. M&L produced monthly, quarterly and annual reports besides undertaking process documentation research, special studies, impact evaluation, exchange visits, etc. The M&L system found to be vibrant and active all through the Project period.

Critical observations and areas to improve: (a) M&L output however was constrained because of staff issues. Most of the DPUs have only one person at the M&L Cell on an average to cover 300-400 tanks. (b) Most of the TUGs and the CFTs lack capacities to collect, maintain and furnish data. (c) Frequent changes in formats (d) Most of the M&L specialists at DPUs lack relevant qualifications, expertise and experience.

92

CFTs/NGOs Functioning

In Phase I, the CFTs were entirely used to be staffed by NGOs and all most all the activities and facilitation to TMIs were carried out by NGOs. It was largely opined there was good success in community mobilization and participation in Phase I largely due to NGOs and on flip side there were huge delays in completing civil works due to staff turnover and capacity problems of NGOs.

Because of these reasons, 15 NGOs were terminated out of 57 NGOs during Phase I. This

issue was addressed to certain extent in Phase II when the CFT model was changed from out and out NGO model to mix of DPU and NGO staff. In the present model there is flexibility in the following aspects while finalizing the CFT contract (a) CFT physical target; (b) CFT staff deployment; (c) Scope for establishing sub offices.

Critical Observations and Areas for Improvement: (a) In all the staff FGDs, all most all opined the present model CFT is better than the Phase I model. There is substantial improvement in work completion compared to Phase I largely due to change in CFT model; (b) local NGOs should be given preference as they better aware of local issues, conditions; (c) low salaries and irregular payments is the one of the main problem with present NGOs; (d) NGOs are bidding at uncompetitive prices suggesting for lump-sum costing to avoid unhealthy competition. Different models for community based tank management developed by TUGs and PRIs Of the two options (TUG and GPSC), 95% opted for TUG model over GPSC model. The dominant perception that the study recorded during all FGDs was, TUG is better option over the model GPSC. The following are the reasons: (a) GPSC is generally beset with intensive electoral politics; (f) general community ownership, accountability and openness levels are high with TUGs due to less politics (b) audit of GP accounts is very irregular; (c) corruption issues are relative higher in GPs. However, the TUGs are relatively very young institutions and needs to be supported for some more time. They are not in position to work on their own without support from JSYS due to resource and capacity shortages. Capacity Building

JSYS developed 14 modules on various themes to build capacities across various stakeholders through SPU, DPU, CFT and Resource Groups and Agricultural Universities. The capacity building on the whole has generated lots of awareness on the program and provided knowledge. Average number of participants per module in surveyed TMIs is 7469 and per district it is 5502. Female trained is little less than the men trained, it is 42%. Survey reveals that about 50% of the respondents have made use of the various training program conducted on agriculture and irrigation. Adoption of alternate cropping system is 87%, short duration varieties is 91%, where as adoption of SRI is little above 40%.

Critical Observations and areas to improve: (a) Multiple activities and targets often limited the staff to conduct program systematically according to the guidelines; (b) The community also is not able to distinguish clearly the training modules conducted at different time periods and places; (c) for overseeing this important component, the project should have had Training Specialist. Institutional Functioning: Perceptions

93

Most TUG members expressed their satisfaction with the general performance of the institution – to some extent (67%) and to a great extent (23%). An overwhelming 72% of them reported financial constraints; 53% reported deficiencies in capacities and technical knowledge constraints; and 42% reported lack of willingness of members to make financial contributions and paying water charges. Post-Handover Management and the Question of Sustainability

Post handover institutional performance of the TUG indicates in general a downward trend. The absence of common activities during the post-project period was pointed out by many TUG members. The committees were not active since there were no activities under their respective domains. None of the sample tanks has reconstituted its TUCs (Tank User Committee). With respect to the conduct of the General Body meetings post-handover, only 5% reported for holding such meetings.

77% of the respondents stated that the current level of TUG income was insufficient to manage the tank and related activities. There are no regular schedules for holding meetings and they will be held only when some activity start taking up. 85% of respondents feel that the TUGs would not be in a position to raise adequate resources on its own sufficient to the needs of the works. Suggestions for promoting Sustainability: (a) TUGs just started gaining control and they need technical and financial support for some more time to firm it up. All the efforts and institutions would go waste if the current support, may be in different form, is not extended; (b) TUG needs annual funding to carry out tank management and related activities; (c) collect fees from borewell farmers for operation and maintenance funds; (d) If additional funds are provided, the TUG can purchase farm machinery and hire them out to local farmers at reasonable rates to achieve some degree of financial sustainability; (e) Best practices or success stories of federations which are in the process of formation need to be studied in-depth to learn lessons and scale up the interventions; (f) Awareness needs to be built or improved among TUGs regarding the functions and powers that have been devolved to them, such as fishing rights and collection of water tax; (g) convergence with watershed activities is urgently needed to minimize the adverse impacts on tank improvements caused by cross purposes of two program; (h) regular monitoring of handed-over tanks, at least on a sample basis. V. INCOME GENERATION ACTIVITY (IGA)

Income-generating activity (IGA) component is another complementary intervention to benefit the poor, disadvantaged and vulnerable social groups. Largest category of beneficiaries belong to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (47.38%), followed by Other Backward Communities (31.5%). Little less than half, 45% are literates and cultivation (72%) is the most important source of livelihood followed by labor (21%).

Coverage under IGA component: 98% of the beneficiaries received only one round of assistance as it was the practiced norm for the first phase beneficiaries. Majority (81%) received assistance through SHGs. Most beneficiaries (90%) were not able to get a bank loan as a matching assistance to the JSYS assistance.

Selected Income Generation Activity: 90% have chosen ‘Livestock’ based IG activity, only 10% opted ‘non livestock’ based IG activity. 77% of the beneficiaries have selected sheep and goat rearing followed by dairying 22%. 91% said they have not insured the livestock largely due to lack of information and awareness (89%).

94

Disbursement process: One third of respondents interviewed reported constrains in receiving the IGA assistance such as lack of information about IGA provisions; delays in the disbursement of IGA assistance.

Demand for produce and services and sustainability of the activity: Most of the beneficiaries (94%) have been able to sell their product or service easily. The results with respect the sustainability also indicate a similar trend with most of them reporting that their activity can be sustained.

Repayment pattern: About 51% of the beneficiaries have paid the financial assistance either partially (11%) or fully (40%). One interesting finding for the reasons for nonpayment is majority (63%) of non payers thought that the assistance is ‘free money’.

Returns from IGA activities: Between base and impact years the increase in average income among beneficiaries is 56% and the same in case of non beneficiaries is 41%. When analyzed average annual income specific from IG activities, it was largely Rs 5000 for majority of the beneficiaries.

Changes in Quality of Life: There is an overall improvement in the quality of life compared to the base year when analyzed for critical variables such as household incomes and asset ownership. Though no improvement in permanent assets such as owning houses, etc, other assets have shown an increase in quantity from base year: pucca/semi pucca house to 89% from 79%; electricity connections to 95% from 87%; cooking gas to 5% from 1%; TV sets to 53% from 21%; mobile phones to 56% from 13%; motor cycle to 14% from 6%.

Perceptions on the Overall Impact and Delivery of the IG Program and suggested Changes: The overall perception of the project found to be positive and good. Interestingly, majority of the beneficiaries stated that their overall economic and social status has improved. About 74% reported economic improvements and 75% reported social improvements on account of IG program. Similarly when asked on usefulness, 90.5% opined the project is useful; 75% opined implementation is good; the services of CFTs are stated to be good by 93%. About 81% suggested for increase in assistance amount.

Critical Observations and Areas for Improvement: The IG program during phase I was evolving and indeed underwent lot of changes during the study period. There were guidance issues to TUGs until 2005 that this money to be recycled and therefore the money largely not recovered and recycled. This also contributed for low recovery. Given the intensive local political dynamics, the TUC members did not enforce strict recovery measures and mostly they were indifferent. Majority conceiving the assistance as a grant has also affected the recovery. As animal husbandry is the most preferred IGA, there is a need for motivating the beneficiaries for livestock insurance. Involvement of SHGs may yield better results in this regard. There is also need to diversify the IG activities based on the information and expertise available with local banks, financial institutions and line departments such as rural development department. VI. FISHERIES INTERVENTIONS

Tank fishery development plays a strategic role in providing employment to the rural folk, providing livelihoods or additional income. Fisheries intervention was introduced in only 36 tanks (18%) in the sample tanks in different years based on possible sustainability. Under the project a five year fisheries development program was undertaken providing technical training in

95

fish breeding, harvesting and marketing, inputs supply for production like fingerlings, lease rents and equipments.

Critical legal reform relating to leasing rights was also undertaken to promote tank fishing. In order to strengthen JSYS and to provide them assured income from fisheries activities, an amendment was brought through a GO No. pasumve/167/MEE/2005 dated 28-01-2006 that placed the JSYS TUC first in the order of priority when it comes to leasing out of tanks for fisheries activities.

Results of Fishery Intervention: Analysis of income from sample tanks with fishery intervention brings out the following: (a) In about 64% of the tanks (out of 36) fishery activities were carried out only for one year; (b) and in 14% of the tanks it was carried out for 4 years. (c) In only one tank the activity was carried out continuously for six years. (d) Since the intervention was introduced at different periods, the activities were started in different years. So, the number of tanks receiving the income also varied according to the year of fishery intervention. The average income for 36 tanks for the study period is Rs 34928. (e) When analyzed for discontinuity, about 25% of total tanks have discontinued for last one year followed by 19% tanks for four years, 17% tanks for five years and another 17% for two years.

Critical Observations and Areas for Improvement: Although fisheries intervention was done after in-depth study on the availability of water in the tank, due to various reasons, the fishing component has given mixed results. It has to be noted that the most important factor necessary for carrying out fishing activities is the availability of water in the tank, which in turn depends on the rains in the region. Second important factor is the interest of the TUC in taking up fishing activities. Thirdly it is the leadership of the TUC which can positively or negatively impact fishing intervention. The study has come across cases where TUC sub let the lease rights to the traders. Although such practices are not permitted as per JSYS guidelines, the TUCs continue this practice for multiple reasons, ranging from lack of sources for investment to lack of interest among the TUG members and factors of poaching. VII. INCLUSIVENESS AND EMPOWERMENT

JSYS has provided for bringing all the community members in the village, irrespective of caste, religion and land ownership, into the tank management group. All are given equal opportunities to become members and participate. Inclusiveness ensured through bye laws and guidelines to the gender and social groups (SCs, STs, and women) by enrolling them as members in TUG and other management committees and partners in tank management. SCs and STs together constitute about 39% in Tank Groups and it is 34% in Tank Committees. On empowerment, about 34% of TUC Presidents belong to SCs and STs followed by 40% of Secretaries belonging to these Groups. The representation is much higher when verified for the position of Treasurer, it is about 49%. The most significant learning is that the community in general has accepted/recognized such vulnerable sections as stakeholders in the tank system. Gender representation is also encouraging. Female members constitute little above 40% in institutions TUGs and TUCs. There are some instances where the community has opted for all women management committees. VIII. SOCIAL SAFEGUARD PLANS TO ADDRESS ADVERSE PROJECT IMPACTS

Typically, tank rehabilitation works does not entail acquisition of private land, except reclaiming some parcels of land either in tank bed, in the process may impact some people

96

adversely by way of losing productive assets and livelihood. To mitigate such impacts, an R&R policy was developed and appropriate Resettlement Action Plans were prepared as part of ITDPs. Organization has specialists (Social Safeguard Specialist, Social Specialists) at all levels – SPU, DPU, CFT - to oversee and implement the social safeguard policies and systems.

Implementation of Resettlement Action Plans: Out of 200 sample tanks, the encroachment problems have been reported only in 30 tanks (15% of sample tanks) located in 6 DPUs. A total of 135 families were affected and all were entitled for R&R assistance. All the affected families were given Productive Asset Grant besides providing skill development training. In all Rs 33,58,000 was disbursed averaging to Rs 25,022 for each affected family. Most of them invested in income generating assets like milch animals, sheep rearing, agriculture land, business. The RAPs were implemented in all the sample tank villages.

Post Resettlement Status: During the pre project period, primary occupational source for majority of the affected used to be agricultural labor. Majority moved from a labor vocation to self employed vocation after RAP implementation. The average family income was doubled during the post resettlement from about Rs 6855 to an amount of Rs 13670. This is obvious with changes in occupational pursuits. Since considerable number of affected families has opted for purchase of the cows, buffaloes, sheep, goats with the grant amount, the percentage owned these assets has increased almost by 60% during post resettlement period.

97

Annex 6 Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results

Not applicable.

98

Annex 7 Summary of the Borrower’s Completion Report and Comments on the Draft ICR

KCBTMP – Project Completion Report, Prepared by JSYS, July 20, 2012 INTRODUCTION

Karnataka is one of the South Indian States, covering an area of 191,769 sq km. The irrigation tanks (earthen bounded reservoirs constructed across slopes by taking advantage of local depressions and mounds) of South India are symbols of an ancient and rich tradition of harnessing rainwater. These water bodies are life support system to the communities as they provide water for agriculture, recharging ground water, which in turn sustain irrigation wells.

Karnataka has around 36,000 irrigation tanks having command area of about 6,84,500

Ha. However, due siltation, poor maintenance, changes in land use and land cover in the catchment, reduction in inflow of water, lack of participation by the community and gradual erosion of traditional community institutions the tanks are degraded and the actual irrigated area got reduced to about 2,40,000 Ha - less than 35% of designed command.

As an evolving strategy of initiating a process of reforms in the tank management,

Government of Karnataka has taken a policy decision to transfer management of all tanks to communities in a phased manner. To facilitate this process GoK created Jala Samvardhane Yojana Sangha (JSYS) as an autonomous and independent society. Project Rationale

The State has the lowest proportion of irrigated agriculture area at 26% compared to the national average of 39%. The efforts of the State to promote sustainable management of natural resources, more importantly, the scarce water resources through participatory irrigation management have led to the launch of KCBTMP, which envisaged gradual transfer of Operation and Management of the tanks to the community for sustainable management of tanks. Project Objective

The objective of Karnataka Community Based Tank Management Project is to improve the rural livelihoods and reduce poverty by developing and strengthening community based approaches for managing selected tank systems. Project Design

The aim of the project was to demonstrate viability of community based tank management approaches, first of its kind in the country. The project was designed to ensure participation of all stakeholders of the tank system, from preparation of design, implementation, and Operation & Maintenance (O&M) and to ensure sustainability of the tanks. The project approach was not only to rejuvenate the tank structure but also to enhance agriculture productivity, additional income generation, improved livestock, forestry, environment etc.

99

Project Strategy

The strategy adopted by the project to implement Community Based Tank Management Project is to mobilize the community to formulate sustainable Tank Management Institutions (TMI), train and empower the community to plan and implement tank development plans, build capacity to maintain and operate the tank system. Project Expectations Community based, self supporting and sustainable tank development institutions in place

and functioning. Meaningful participation of traditionally marginalized tank users. Increase in agriculture production (productivity and area). Household income of direct stakeholders increased. Amount of fund generated and retained by user groups/ local governments for operations

and maintenance. To ensure involvement of local governments (i.e. Panchayat Raj Institutions) in planning

and coordinating technical support for improving tank systems. Project Cycle

The project cycle for each tank was 20 months during Phase I which was later enhanced

to 30 months based on the experience of Phase I.

Project Funding:

The ongoing project’s final outlay was Rs.508.63 crores (104.33 m USD) - Rs.401.82 crores (IDA), Rs.86.47 crores (GoK), Rs.20.34 crores (Community). Additional financing Project was approved by the World Bank based on the encouraging results / lessons learnt during Phase I. The outlay for the project was Rs. 306.98 Crores (73.10 m USD) - Rs.138.14 Crores (IDA), Rs. 138.14 Crores (IBRD), Rs. 23.20 Crore (GoK), Rs.7.50 Crore (Community).

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE & MECHANISM Jala Samvardhane Yojana Sangha

Jala Samvardhane Yojana Sangha (JSYS) was registered on 23.10.2000 under Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960 as an autonomous and independent society, a special purpose vehicle with the mandate of conceptualising; preparing and implementing community based participatory tank management projects for the efficient integrated management of tanks with enhanced returns to all stake holders. Tank Management Institutions (TMIs) Tank Users Groups are institutions at tank level. Two members from each household, one male and one female would join as members in the TUG. In the project 3126 TMIs were constituted covering 3710 tanks in 18 districts comprising 3007 TUGs registered as societies and 119 as GPSCs.

100

NGO Teams at Clusters level The entire project is implemented through the community; NGOs were engaged for the entire project period to train, guide, and facilitate the community to establish a sustainable TMI for implementation of the project. The project had established 57 CFTs for Phase-I and 84 CFTs for Phase-II.

District Project Units (DPU)

DPUs are established to oversee implementation of project in around 200-300 tanks and

were coordinating with other line departments so as to converge various schemes implemented by different departments. The project had established 18 DPUs, 9 during Phase-I and 9 during Phase-II. Integrated Tank Development Plan (ITDP):

ITDP were prepared by the community through a participatory process for all the tanks,

covering various aspects such as Tank system improvement and Management, Agriculture and Tank based income generation, Environment Management, Resettlement Action plan, Tribal / Vulnerable Groups Development plan, Gender Action plan, and TMI – Organization and sustainability.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The funds required for the implementation was made available initially by the State Government which was reimbursed by the World Bank. JSYS released funds to the TUGs in four installments. 12% of the ITDP civil works cost is met by community, 6% in cash and 6% by way of Shramdhan.

The expenditures / accounts were audited at three stages viz JSYS Audit staff, Internal

Auditors and Statutory Auditors. About 90% of the funds spent for the project are reimbursed by the World Bank. The total expenditure incurred was Rs.690crores (84.69%) as against a target of Rs 815.61Crors.

Procurement

Bulk of the procurement under the project was with respect to civil works, NGOs and

survey works. The civil works procurements were carried out at the community level. The contracts were finalized and awarded following shopping and National Competitive Bidding procedures.

PROJECT COMPONENTS AND PERFORMANCE Component A: Establishing enabling environment: Sub Component A1- Policy, Planning & Legal Environment

The overall objective of the Component is to establish a conducive environment in which

the project objective can be fulfilled. The National Water Policy of 1987, Guidelines by Ministry of Water Resources (GoI), Karnataka Vision Statement 2001, State Water Policy during 2002,

101

Tank Maintenance Policy in 2001-02 have provided an environment for popularization of Participatory Irrigation Management in the State and empower the Tank User Groups (TUGs)

During the project period, GoK has effected improvements in the existing legal frame

work by brining necessary amendments to the Karnataka Irrigation Act and issuance of GO giving first priority to TUGs for fishing rights. This has enabled adequate empowerment of TUGs to collect water charges and exercise control on day to day operations and management. Sub Component A2: Project Management

Initially in the Phase I, the project was anchored by NGOs at CFT level for facilitating

community mobilization and implementation of civil works, whereas during Phase II the NGO role was limited to community mobilization only. In view of this shift in policy more engineering staff were inducted in to JSYS during the Phase II, through deputation from Government and direct contracting.

Management Information System (MIS):

The required MIS was developed in house and used for monitoring online procurement and web based progress of civil works.

Geographical Information System (GIS):

GIS was well developed and used by the project quite effectively. Hydrological studies,

rainfall data, land use details and Tank features were used by the DPUs for preparation of ITDPs.

Component B: Strengthening Community Development Sub Component B1: Human & Institutional Resource Development:

NGOs were entrusted with the responsibility of awareness creation, capacity building of community and facilitating the TUGs in the implementation of the project and to sustain O&M of tanks successfully.

Under the project, 136 Cluster Facilitation Teams (CFTs) and 5 District Facilitation Team (DFT- directly managed by JSYS) were engaged.

Initially an anchor NGO concept was tried in the project with assignment of training the project staff (DPU and NGOs) and Tank Users Groups. Based on this initial experience the task was taken over by JSYS and the training activities were carried out with the help of cluster NGOs.

Training Module:

During Phase I, trainings were imparted to the community/TUGs as per the twenty training modules prepared by JSYS. Subsequently these training modules were refined and restructured to 14 modules.

In addition to the trainings based on 14 modules, various other trainings such as Orientation workshop for Agriculture and Horticulture; GIS training; Entrepreneurship development training for SHG members; staff trainings related to Accounts and Procurement;

102

Regional workshop on social component and quality control; Vision building workshop to facilitate formation of TUG federation etc.

Sub component B2: Gender action plans and Safeguard measures:

The project has mainstreamed gender concern in all the activities and at all levels of

institutional structure to ensure equitable benefit sharing among women and men. Opportunities were provided to women for enhancement of skills, knowledge and abilities. Women, SC/ST and other vulnerable groups have large representation in TUGs. The participation of women in the project is 48.68% (general body), and 40.74% (EC of TUGs), 12.86% (presidents), 21.9% (secretaries) and 69.90% (treasurers). Representation of SC and ST communities in TUG membership is 18.28% and 11.50% respectively.

Resettlement Action Plan:

The project envisaged eviction of tank land encroachments and restoration to the community by way of voluntary vacating of such occupied land by the encroachers through persuasion and collective decision of the community. To mitigate adverse effects on the displaced poorer sections, the project provided under Resettlement and Rehabilitation.

Encroachments in 1324 tanks with an area of 2038 ha were cleared. This task was

accomplished through a consultative approach on a voluntary basis of the community. 495 eligible project affected families were provided relief amounting to rs.195.75 lakh under rehabilitation and resettlement.

Impact Study by CMSR (2008) on Rehabilitation and Resettlement has indicated that the

income levels of these families have increased in the post resettlement period from Rs.6855 to Rs. 13670, increased social status of the affected families and their asset ownership pattern has also improved.

Income Generation Activities (IGA):

To ensure social inclusiveness and equitable distribution to all vulnerable groups, Income Generation Activities (IGA) was taken up under the project.

Activities taken up are rearing of milch cattle, sheep, rabbit / poultry under GAP and

Basket weaving / sheep rearing / poultry / petty shop / brick making etc. at a cost of Rs.60.86 Crore with 33.26 Crore under the project the rest being funded through banks, SHGs and line department linkages.

In all 99,453 beneficiaries were benefited during the first rotation with an average income

of Rs.13,540 per beneficiary per annum across the activities implemented under IGA. Every year the amount is rotated to similar number of beneficiaries.

Sub Component B3: Management Support to TUGs:

TUGs (3126) were provided administrative support amounting to Rs.6.84 crore. Capacity enhancement trainings and exposure trips were organised inside and outside Karnataka for TUG members. Sub-component B-4: Environment Management Plan (EMP)

103

The Tank system development involves a number of associated activities and program

aimed at improvement in the ecology and environment. The aspects addressed under this component are Integrated Pest Management (IPM), Integrated Nutrient Management (INM), use of bio-fertilizers/pesticides, tree planting, imparting training to staff and TUG farmers in EMP, Neeraganti training, promotion of vermi-composting, use of plant based pesticides and undertaking special studies on usage of tank silt in farming, etc. Environment Management Committees were constituted and environmental management plans were prepared for all the Tanks.

Importance was also given to promote farming by using eco-friendly inputs like bio-

cultures (for manurial purposes), tank silt, vermi-compost, use of plant based pesticides, eco-friendly IPM measures like barrier crops, trap crops, light traps and bio-cultures etc.

Plantation Development:

In Phase-I, plantation development in tank foreshore was taken up in 2.5 to 5 hectares with around 1000-2000 plants per tank based on the area available for planting. Plant seedlings like Pongamia pinnata, Acacia auriculiformes, Eugenia jambolana, Terminalia arjuna, Acacia nilotica, Silver Oak, Bamboo were planted.

In Phase-II 15.77 lakhs seedlings were planted in the foreshore area of 1057 tanks and

26.36 lakhs seedlings were supplied to the farmers free of cost in 1789 tanks.

Sub Component B5: Communication:

To bring in the required behavioural changes in the communities/the project staff and to provide information on the project; communication and information dissemination materials were developed, that included slides/power point presentations in Kannada & English on themes of the Project; documentaries on themes of JSYS, audio songs on water and tanks; publications such as news letter, books and booklets, pamphlets, broachers, news paper articles on success stories; technical manuals, training manuals, information on line department programmes, etc. Slides, Documentary films on DVDs, Audio cassettes were also brought out and issued to the TUGs.

Component C: Tank System Improvement Sub Component C1: Tank Civil works Improvements:

The scope of work for tank improvement and the supporting activities to improve agricultural and other income generating activities associated with each tank was determined on the basis of detailed Integrated Tank Development Plans (ITDP) prepared based on topographic survey of tanks and through a participatory consultation process (PRA). The activities selected for inclusion in an individual ITDP was chosen amongst from a menu of possible candidate physical works and specific supporting activities for improving agricultural production and incomes from various other income generating activities for each tank. As part of project implementation, irrigation tanks were rejuvenated by the community, covering catchment, tank bed, tank bund, irrigation channels, waste weir, sluice etc. Part of the silt was also removed and tank capacity restored, to conserve more water and help increased agriculture production. Additional water also helped in availability of water for extended period for cattle, fisheries and other domestic purposes.

104

In addition to internal quality control through DPU and SPU engineers, independent third party consultants were engaged which has ensured the quality of the civil works.

3710 tanks, with 160425 Ha of command area were taken up under the project. Rs.360.96

Crores was spent on rehabilitation and rejuvenation of these tanks (Works were completed in 2800 tanks), of which 1640 tanks were handed over to the TUGs for Operation and Maintenance. Sub Component C2: Agriculture and Horticulture Development: The project demonstrated the improved agricultural technologies, with special thrust on higher water use efficiency, improved cropping pattern by way of increasing cropping intensity, ultimately aiming at increasing the net income & empowerment of tank beneficiaries and safeguarding natural resources. The services of Agriculture Universities in the State were engaged for conducting On-Farm Water Management, Arable and Horticulture crop demonstrations, Fodder development demonstrations.

To enhance the capacities of the communities a variety of training program like Farmers

Field School, JSYS Staff technical training, trainers training, farmers & farm women training, Cluster level workshops, cluster level inter-command inter active sessions, study tours, annual workshops and joint workshops were organized. Integrated nutrient management and integrated pest management, vermi composting techniques, use of plant based pesticides, and use of bio-cultures were demonstrated. As result of Agriculture and Horticulture interventions, CMSR 2012 study covering the impact of Agriculture and Horticulture intervention of 200 sample tanks indicated an increase of 20% cropped area and 21% agriculture productivity. Per capita income has also gone up 33.21%. Net income per acre from agriculture has doubled.

In agriculture, new crops of higher value required for agro-processing were explored.

Low pressure pipe irrigation systems including drip irrigation for paddy was introduced in Pitchaguntlahalli in Kolar district.

Fisheries

Fisheries developments were taken up to augment the resources of the vulnerable communities and to provide stream of revenue to the TUGs for taking up O&M activities.

The pisciculture is taken up in 1403 feasible tanks at a cost of 114 lakhs covering 7800 beneficiaries. Income per beneficiary from fisheries varied from Rs.3818 to 11000. Income per TUG varied from Rs.14213 to 38032. Fish production increased three fold due to project intervention over the pre-project situation.

PERFORMANCE OF PROJECT AGENCIES: JSYS: Success achieved despite the challenges:

Notwithstanding several challenges faced, JSYS could successfully complete implementation in 1829 tanks at a lower cost than planned and handed over 1640 tanks to the communities for further operation and maintenance. Further, in Phase II, given the short period of less than 30 months for project implementation cycle, works were completed in all respects in 900 tanks out of 1881 target tanks, which is appreciable given the constraints.

105

The Department of Economic Affairs (GoI) and Comptroller of Aid Accounts and Audit (CAAA) have extended full cooperation and timely clearances and approvals to the project.

The GoK has extended utmost cooperation and guided the project throughout and has committed to fund the unfinished works under the project. Mainstreaming the concept of community based tank management in the State is under the consideration of GoK.

The World Bank support to the project is encouraging. The Bank has regularly offered critical suggestions for improving project implementation. Mission field visits and aide memoirs greatly helped in guiding implementing agencies for realizing project outputs.

The tank Communities, the Panchayath Raj Institutions (Gram Panchayath) and the line departments are responsive to the project concept and its implementation. LESSONS LEARNT

Project demonstrated the viability of community based approaches to tank rehabilitation

and management to a large extent. Most significant learning experience is that the community in general has accepted

vulnerable sections of the society as stakeholders in the tank system. It is found that the integrated approach involving not only the tank rehabilitation but also

the catchment and command area treatment gives better results. Integration of on-farm agricultural demonstrations with water management techniques

has improved the economic returns to the community. Introducing income generation activities along with other interventions ensured

participation of all stakeholders in the project. SUSTAINABILITY

The project objective of KCBTMP is “to demonstrate the viability of community based approaches to tank management” and to reduce poverty by improving the tank system in an integrated manner and thereby improve productivity in agriculture and other tank based activities.

Tank Users Groups(TUGs) were established and trained adequately to manage the tanks

efficiently such as management of catchment area, control of encroachments, maintenance of tank canal system, water management and O&M of the tank post project.

The TUGs were also trained in activities related to resource mobilization and would

continue to explore other avenues to augment the existing revenue sources like water charges, income from fisheries, sale of silt, income from IGA revolving fund etc.

The Government has constituted a Taluk Level Committee comprising line department

officers as members and the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath as Chairman to help the TUGs to avail Government schemes and grants.

WAY FORWARD

The World Bank funding to KCBTMP ended on 31st January 2012. The State Government is fully committed to completion of project with current scope and implementation arrangements beyond January 2012 and made necessary budgetary provision of Rs.120 crores for the project in the current financial year (2012-13).

106

It is the policy at the National and State level that the management of water resources shall be through adoption of participatory approaches by transferring operation, maintenance, management and collection of water charges to user groups. JSYS was established during 2000 as a special purpose vehicle to spearhead the implementation of community based tank management in the State. This was taken up in project mode (Karnataka Community Based Tank Management Project) with financial assistance from the World Bank. During the project period 2002-2012, community based participatory management was taken up in 3710 tanks. In the process JSYS gained considerable experience and expertise in mobilizing the communities towards participatory management of tanks. The mainstreaming of community based tank management is under the consideration of the GoK. In pursuance of this, during March, 2012, Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department (GoK) has accorded in principle concurrence to JSYS for taking up of rehabilitation of about 3900 tanks under Zilla Panchayaths in the State through community based participatory tank management.

PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND RESULTS

Indicator Result 1 Self managed and

sustainable Tank User Groups (TUGs) established

3126 TMIs (3007 TUGs & 119 GPSCs) were formed covering 3710 tanks. One TUG covered more than one tank in some cases. Target achieved: 94.5% of 3925 tanks were covered.

2 Tank User Groups established, covering at least 85% of the traditionally marginalized tank users organized under the Tank Management Institutes

The total project tank users including traditionally marginalized are 1.56 million of which 1.16 million (74.35%) are enrolled of which women constitute 0.56 million (48.68%). 3126 TUGs were formed covering most of the SC, ST, Women, Landless farmers, catchment area farmers, tail end farmers. Target achieved.

3 At least 50% of farmers in the upgraded Tank Command Area increased production of major crops by 35% …

Total output in the tank commands increased by 46% in the project tanks over the base year, whereas it increased by 12% in the control tanks, thus the net increase of 34% is attributed to the project interventions. Target achieved.

4 At least 50% of farmers in the upgraded Tank Command Area increased (incremental) income by at least 25% of the baseline

In terms of the growth rates, net income from cropping during Kharif has grown at 75% in the project tanks while it was 42% in the control tanks. The differential growth rate of 33% is attributable to the project interventions. Target achieved.

5 At least 75% of landless tank users increased their income by 50% of the baseline value via the Income Generation Activities (IGAs)

The income of the beneficiaries covered under IGA has increased about 56% compared to the 41% by the non beneficiaries. Thus there was an increase in the income by 15%. Partially achieved. The quantum of support thorough IGA is inadequate in terms of covering all the eligible people and also scale of finance available under various components.

* * * *

107

Annex 8 Comments of Co-financers and Other partners/Stakeholders

Not applicable

108

Annex 9 List of Supporting Documents

World Bank. 2002. Project Appraisal Document, Karnataka Community-Based Tank Management Project, World Bank, Washington D.C., March. India - Karnataka Community-Based Tank Management Additional Financing Project Paper, 2007. World Bank Restructuring Paper on a Proposed Project restructuring of Karnataka Community-Based Tank Management Project, March 9, 2010 World Bank Project Aide Memoires and ISRs: June 2002 to January 2012 CMSR. 2012. Impact assessment study of ongoing project: Phase I Project of the Karnataka Community-Based Tank Management Project, Revised Draft Report, Centre for Management and Social Research, Hyderabad, January. JSYS. 2006. Institutional reforms for mainstreaming community-based tank management approaches: Long-term institutional strategy and development plan. Report prepared by the Inter-Departmental Study Committee, Jala Samvardhane Yojana Sangha, Department of Water Resources (Minor Irrigation), Bangalore, April. JSYS – KCBTMP – End of Project Impact Study (Revised: May 2009) – Final Report - Consulting Engineering Services (INDIA) JSYS. 2012. Status report for the World Bank Review Mission, January 2012. Jala Samvardhane Yojana Sangha, Bangalore, January. JSYS, July 2012, KCBTMP – Project Completion Report. JSYS, 2011. Impact Assessment of Rejuvenated Tanks ‘Water Use Efficiency’ Jala Samvardhane Yojana Sangha (JSYS) website: http://www.jsysindia.org/

BANGALURUBANGALURU

ChamarajanagarChamarajanagar

MysoreMysoreKodaguKodagu

DakshinaDakshinaKannadaKannada

UdupiUdupi

HassanHassan

MandyaMandya

BangaloreBangalore Rural Rural

BangaloreBangalore Urban Urban

ChikmagalurChikmagalur

ShimogaShimoga

UttaraUttaraKannadaKannada HaveriHaveri

DavanagereDavanagere

ChitradurgaChitradurga

KolarKolar

BellaryBellaryGadagGadag

DharwadDharwad

BelgaumBelgaumBagalkotBagalkot

BijapurBijapur

RaichurRaichur

KoppalKoppal

BidarBidar

GulbargaGulbarga

YadgirYadgir

RamanagaraRamanagara

ChikkaballapuraChikkaballapuraTumkurTumkur

KolarKolar165165

HosdurgaHosdurga1414

KushtagiKushtagi6

ChikodiChikodi1313

PavagadaPavagada116116

HaliyalHaliyal5858

HiriyurHiriyur3333

LingsugurLingsugur1414

HarpanahalliHarpanahalli3636

BasavakalyanBasavakalyan1414

Bail HongalBail Hongal4848

SorabSorab219219 ChitradurgaChitradurga

2727

KoppalKoppal5

MudholMudhol2

MuddebihalMuddebihal1212

ManviManvi6

SindhnurSindhnur2

NarasimharajapuraNarasimharajapura1616

SavanurSavanur4

ShiggaonShiggaon6666

GauribidanurGauribidanur9090

ByadgiByadgi1010

KadurKadur4141

BilgiBilgi2

HuvvinahadagalliHuvvinahadagalli3

ShimogaShimoga155155

DavangereDavangere1515

MolakalmuruMolakalmuru1212

MundgodMundgod6161

ChiknayakanhalliChiknayakanhalli4444

BelgaumBelgaum2424

HaveriHaveri6

ChannagiriChannagiri2626

SirsiSirsi4141

ChallakereChallakere4040

SandurSandur1313

BellaryBellary2

TarikereTarikere4646

YelbargaYelbarga4

BagalkotBagalkot3

HomnabadHomnabad9

KoppaKoppa1111

Sidlag-Sidlag-hattahatta

6060

GangawatiGangawati6

AthniAthni3333

SrinivaspurSrinivaspur7373

MudigereMudigere1616

HospetHospet7

HukeriHukeri1818

BelurBelur4848

JagalurJagalur2727

ChintamaniChintamani203203

GudibandaGudibanda3535

BagepalliBagepalli159159

DharwadDharwad5050

HagaribommanahalliHagaribommanahalli1212

HonnaliHonnali1010

ShikarpurShikarpur104104

GubbiGubbi6

AuradAurad6

MalurMalur132132

ChikChikBallapurBallapur

2020

MadhugiriMadhugiri110110

KhanapurKhanapur8181

HirekerurHirekerur8080

TirthalliTirthalli1010

TumkurTumkur3

DeodrugDeodrug3333

BadamiBadami8

HolalkereHolalkere2626

HubliHubli1010

HungundHungund6

ArsikereArsikere1919

KalghatgiKalghatgi9393

BhalkiBhalki4

TipturTiptur1717

RaichurRaichur123123

Basavana BagevadiBasavana Bagevadi1616

BijapurBijapur2121

JamkhandiJamkhandi5

SagarSagar103103

KoratagereKoratagere7373

ChikmagalurChikmagalur1919

BidarBidar1717

HosanagaraHosanagara4242

RamdurgRamdurg1010

RanibennurRanibennur5

SiraSira9898

SupaSupa1616

KudligiKudligi3030HangalHangal

228228

MulbagalMulbagal270270

BangarapetBangarapet9797

IndiIndi1010

BANGALURU

Kolar165

Hosdurga14

Kushtagi6

Chikodi13

Pavagada116

Haliyal58

Hiriyur33

Lingsugur14

Harpanahalli36

Basavakalyan14

Bail Hongal48

Sorab219 Chitradurga

27

Koppal5

Mudhol2

Muddebihal12

Manvi6

Sindhnur2

Narasimharajapura16

Savanur4

Shiggaon66

Gauribidanur90

Byadgi10

Kadur41

Bilgi2

Huvvinahadagalli3

Shimoga155

Davangere15

Molakalmuru12

Mundgod61

Chiknayakanhalli44

Belgaum24

Haveri6

Channagiri26

Sirsi41

Challakere40

Sandur13

Bellary2

Tarikere46

Yelbarga4

Bagalkot3

Homnabad9

Koppa11

Sidlag-hatta

60

Gangawati6

Athni33

Srinivaspur73

Mudigere16

Hospet7

Hukeri18

Belur48

Jagalur27

Chintamani203

Gudibanda35

Bagepalli159

Dharwad50

Hagaribommanahalli12

Honnali10

Shikarpur104

Gubbi6

Aurad6

Malur132

ChikBallapur

20

Madhugiri110

Khanapur81

Hirekerur80

Tirthalli10

Tumkur3

Deodrug33

Badami8

Holalkere26

Hubli10

Hungund6

Arsikere19

Kalghatgi93

Bhalki4

Tiptur17

Raichur123

Basavana Bagevadi16

Bijapur21

Jamkhandi5

Sagar103

Koratagere73

Chikmagalur19

Bidar17

Hosanagara42

Ramdurg10

Ranibennur5

Sira98

Supa16

Kudligi30Hangal

228

Mulbagal270

Bangarapet97

Indi10

Chamarajanagar

MysoreKodagu

DakshinaKannada

Udupi

Hassan

Mandya

Bangalore Rural

Bangalore Urban

Chikmagalur

Shimoga

UttaraKannada Haveri

Davanagere

Chitradurga

Kolar

BellaryGadag

Dharwad

BelgaumBagalkot

Bijapur

Raichur

Koppal

Bidar

Gulbarga

Yadgir

Ramanagara

ChikkaballapuraTumkur

Ar

ab

ia

n

Se

aThis map was produced by the

Map Design Unit of The World

Bank. The boundaries, colors,

denominations and any other

information shown on this map

do not imply, on the part of The

W o r l d B a n k G r o u p , a n y

judgment on the legal status of

a n y t e r r i t o r y , o r a n y

endorsement or acceptance of

such boundaries.

JULY 2012

IBRD 39475

INDIASTATE OF KARNATAKA

K ARNATAK A COMMUNIT Y BASEDTANK MANAGEMENT PROJECT

PHASE I – 1829 TANKS

PHASE II – 834 TANKS

ADDITIONAL FINANCING –1048 TANKS

STATE CAPITAL

STATE BOUNDARIES

DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

TALUK BOUNDARIES

KILOMETERS

0 20 40 60 80 100

37

34

24