Livestock Services and the PoorA Global Initiative

Danish Agricultural Advisory CentreUdkaersvej 15, SkejbyDK-8200 Aarhus N, Denmark

Phone: (+45) 87 40 51 02 • Fax: (+45) 87 40 50 86E-Mail: sac@lr. dkHomepage: www.globallivestock.org

An Initiative by

Danida, IFAD and The World Bank

Livestock Services and the Poor in Orissa

A Case Study

March 2003

Pramodini PradhanVinod Ahuja

P. Venkatramaiah

Edited by Sanne Chipeta

2

List of contents List of contents.................................................................................................................... 2 The authors ....................................................................................................................... 3 List of Abbreviations........................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 Section 1 Poverty and Delivery of Livestock Services in the State of Orissa ........... 6

Poverty Incidence ........................................................................................... 6 Livestock Production System.......................................................................... 7 Gender roles in Livestock Production.............................................................. 8 The Policy Framework .................................................................................... 9 Delivery of Livestock Services .......................................................................12

Section 2 Poverty profile and livestock production systems in the Koraput district ..........................................................................................................18 Profile of the Poor ..........................................................................................18 Livestock Production Systems .......................................................................21 Gender Roles in Livestock Keeping ...............................................................22 Service Needs of the Poor .............................................................................23 Service delivery system .................................................................................24

Section 3 Experiences of Poverty focussed livestock services................................26 Objectives......................................................................................................26 Methodology ..................................................................................................26 The ILDP experience .....................................................................................27

The Community Link Workers...............................................................27 The Self Help Groups ...........................................................................28 Improvement of agricultural practices ...................................................28 Village Development Committee...........................................................28 The delivery of livestock services..........................................................28 Has the service delivery system contributed to poverty reduction? .......35

The experiences of Women Dairy Co-operatives ...........................................35 Section 4 Conclusions .................................................................................................39 References ......................................................................................................................41 Annex 1 Schedule of user charges for livestock health and breeding services in ..

Orissa ...........................................................................................................43 Annex 2 Budget Allocation for Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development in

Orissa ...........................................................................................................45 Annex 3 Determinants of livestock density ..............................................................46 Annex 4 District wise availability of veterinary infrastructure in the State ............47 Annex 5 List of villages visited..................................................................................48 Annex 6 Classification of Livestock Services ..........................................................49

3

The authors Pramodini Pradhan is a Subject Matter Specialist for Gender, Training and Extension at the Indo-Swiss Natural Resource Management Programme, Orissa. Vinod Ahuja is a faculty member at the Centre for Management in Agriculture, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA). He is currently with FAO as the Coordinator of South Asia Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative. P. Venkatramaiah is a Senior Veterinary surgeon with the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh.

4

List of Abbreviations AHD Animal Husbandry Department AI Artificial insemination BET Block Extension Team CDVO Chief District Veterinary Officer CLW Community Link Worker DAHVS Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services DANIDA Danish Agency for International Development DRDA District Rural Development Agency FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FARD Fisheries and Animal Resources Department FMD Foot and Mouth Disease FP Fowl Pox GGGMU Greater Ganjam and Gajapati Milk Union IFPRI Indian Food Policy Research Institute ILDP Integrated Livestock Development Project ILRI International Livestock Research Institute IS-NRMPO Indo Swiss Natural Resource Management Programme in Orissa ITDA Integrated Tribal Development Agency LAC Livestock Assistance Centres LI Livestock Inspector LSR Livestock Sector Review MPCS Milk Producers Co-operative Societies NDDB National Dairy Development Board NGO Non-Government Organisations NSDP Net State Domestic Product OF Operation Flood OMFED Orissa Milk Federation OWDP Orissa Women Dairy Project RD Ranikhet (Newcatle) Disease SC Schedule Caste SGSY Swarna Jayanty Sworojgar Yojana SHG Self Help Group ST Schedule Tribe UN United Nations VDC Village Development Committee

5

Introduction The role livestock plays in sustaining and enhancing poor people’s livelihoods is being increasingly recognised in development circles (de Haan et al, 2001). It has also been argued that livestock development can contribute significantly to poverty reduction given the national and international trends as regards the demand for livestock products as well as the distribution of livestock across farmer categories1. In India, the livestock sector supports the livelihood of over 200 million rural poor - a large majority of them are small and marginal farmers and landless households. Overall, the distribution of livestock is much more equitable than that of land, which leads to a more equitable distribution of the gains from livestock production. Livestock are also one of the most important productive assets in the rural areas and function an insurance mechanism to cope with household related crisis (Ahuja et al. 2000; World Bank, 1999; LID, 1999). Access to cost-effective quality livestock services will be one of the critical factors in translating the growing urban demand for livestock products into an opportunity for poor livestock keepers. In this context, this study assesses the livestock service scenario in Orissa with respect to its potential for poverty reduction. It furthermore examines specific experiences in connection with poverty-focussed delivery of livestock services. This is done through a field study of the programme of Integrated Livestock Development Programme (ILDP) in the Koraput district and Women Dairy Co-operatives in Ganjam District. ILDP - a livestock development project supported by Danish Agency for International Development (DANIDA) - has been operating in 100 villages located in 4 Blocks in the Koraput district of Orissa and covers 5000 tribal families. The project, which was initiated in 1993, has adopted an integrated approach to livestock development which focuses on poverty reduction. The Orissa Women Dairy Project (OWDP) is a centrally assisted project implemented by the Orissa Milk Federation (OMFED) through the Greater Ganjam and Gajapati Milk Union (GGGMU), a constituent member of the Federation, which operates in Ganjam and Gajapati districts. The OWDP aims at women development through women dairy co-operatives. The District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) supports the women dairy co-operatives under its anti-poverty schemes by recommending the society members to a nationalised bank with the purpose of supplying subsidised loans. This report has been arranged in the following manner: Section 1 gives an overview of the poverty profile and livestock delivery landscape in the State of Orissa. Section 2 presents the specific setting of the livelihood systems and livestock production systems in the Koraput District, where the ILDP has been operating. In section 3 the specific experiences of ILDP and the Women Dairy Co-operatives have been examined and the conclusions are presented in section 4.

1 A recent study by Indian Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRII), Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO) and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) examined the trends in livestock production and showed that, at global level, the consumption of livestock products is growing faster than the one of cereals. Milk consumption has grown by over 3 per cent per year since the early 1980s and is forecasted to grow even faster during 2020. Meat consumption has been growing about 5 per cent per year and is expected to grow a little less than 3 per cent per year during2020 (Delgado et al., 1999). Furthermore, due to faster population growth, increasing urbanisation, growing health concerns and overall rising incomes, the future growth in the demand for food of animal origin is primarily expected to come from the developing countries.

6

Section 1

Poverty and Delivery of Livestock Services in the State of Orissa The State of Orissa is situated on the east coast of India between 170.48'-220.34' North latitude and 810.24'-870.29' East longitude. It has a total geographical area of 155707 square kilometres. The state's population is 36.70 million. About 85 per cent of the population live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Agriculture is the mainstay of state's economy as it accounts for about 30 per cent to Net State Domestic Product (NSDP). About 65 per cent of the total workforce of the state is directly or indirectly employed in the agricultural sector. Next to the agricultural sector the livestock sector is a major source of supplementary income of rural households.

Poverty Incidence Orissa is India's poorest state. As can be seen from Table 1 the state has the highest incidence of poverty. Over 40 per cent of the rural population in Orissa are classified as living below the poverty line. The incidence of poverty was highest among all the major Indian states. Orissa has also experienced one of the slowest rates of poverty reduction over the last few decades. For example Tamil Nadu, which had a comparable poverty incidence in 1987-88, managed to reduce its poverty incidence by over 23 percentage points compared to Orissa’s less than 10 percentage points. Even Bihar, which had a significantly higher poverty incidence than Orissa in 1987-88, managed to reduce its poverty incidence below that of Orissa by 1999-2000.

Table 1 Per cent of population below the poverty line 1987-88 to 1999-2000

Rural Urban

1987-88 1993-94 1999-2000 1987-88 1993-94 1999-2000

Andhra Pradesh 35.0 29.2 27.9 23.4 17.8 11.3

Assam 36.1 35.4 35.7 13.6 13.0 12.1Bihar 54.6 48.6 39.3 38.1 26.7 23.5Gujarat 39.4 32.5 20.4 16.4 14.7 6.6Haryana 13.6 17.0 6.5 11.8 10.6 5.1Himachal Pradesh 13.3 17.1 12.5 1.7 3.6 1.7Karnataka 40.8 37.9 30.3 26.0 21.4 11.5Kerala 23.8 19.5 11.6 21.0 13.9 10.5Madhya Pradesh 43.7 36.7 31.2 20.7 18.5 14.1Maharashtra 44.3 42.9 30.8 21.2 18.2 13.0Orissa 50.4 43.5 41.3 20.8 15.2 15.6Punjab 6.6 6.2 2.8 6.6 7.8 4.0Rajasthan 35.3 23.0 16.2 19.8 18.3 10.6Tamil Nadu 49.0 38.5 25.6 26.2 20.9 11.1Uttar Pradesh 34.9 28.7 20.8 29.3 21.7 16.5West Bengal 36.3 25.1 22.7 22.3 15.5 11.4All India 39.0 32.9 25.3 22.8 18.1 12.5

Deaton (2001,b)

7

Similar conclusions emerge when we examine non-monetary welfare indicators (Table 2). Orissa has one of the lowest levels of literacy and highest infant mortality among all Indian states. Progress in these indicators has also been rather dismal vis-à-vis the rest of the country. Table 2: Social Indicators of selected large states of India

Literacy/a Infant Mortality/b

1981 1991 1997 1981 1991 1997

Maharashtra 53.5 64.9 74.0 79 59 47

Punjab 46.4 58.5 67.0 81 56 51 Haryana 41.7 55.9 65.0 101 75 68 Gujarat 49.9 61.3 68.0 116 67 62 Tamil Nadu 52.6 62.3 70.0 91 58 53 West Bengal 46.3 57.7 72.0 91 65 55 Karnataka 43.9 56.0 58.0 69 73 53 Kerala 78.9 89.8 93.0 37 17 12 Rajasthan 28.4 38.6 55.0 108 90 85 Andhra Pradesh 34.1 44.1 54.0 86 71 63 Madhya Pradesh 32.2 44.2 56.0 142 104 94 Uttar Pradesh 31.4 41.6 56.0 150 98 85 Orissa 38.8 49.1 51.0 135 115 96 Bihar 30.3 38.5 49.0 118 73 71 a/ per cent of population of seven years and older b/ per thousand live births Reproduced from World Bank 2000. Data on poverty incidences in different areas of Orissa was not available. However, based on other indicators of agricultural and infrastructure development, it can be said that the incidence of poverty, both in terms of prevalence and severity, is significantly higher in the southern and interior districts than in the coastal and northern districts.

Livestock Production System Livestock are an important source of livelihood for rural households in Orissa. The farming system in Orissa is predominantly characterised by a mixed crop-livestock system. The latter is the main source of draught power and manure, a means of supplementary income and an asset for food security. The state has a large livestock population. According to the latest livestock census the total livestock population of Orissa was over 23 million (Table 3). Cattle are the primary livestock assets, followed by goats, as they account for nearly 60 per cent of the total livestock population. The population density of livestock in Orissa is about the same as in the rest of the country although it varies significantly within the state. In particular, the population density of crossbred cattle is significantly higher in the northern coastal districts around the towns of Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, and Puri. These are also the districts/areas with relatively better access to markets. Overall, the population density of livestock declines as one moves towards the southern and interior districts with poor infrastructure and a large number of poverty incidences.

8

Table 3 Livestock Population of Orissa: 2001 Type Population Cattle 13.8 (59.1)* Buffalo 1.39 (6.0) Sheep 1.77 (7.6) Goat 5.77 (24.8) Pigs 0.60 (2.6) Total 23.31 (100)

* Figures in parentheses to total Orissa Livestock Census 2001 The milk productivity of animals is extremely low in Orissa although it has grown at about the same rate as the productivity of India as a whole. For instance the average milk productivity of milk animals, both indigenous and crossbred cows, was lower in Orissa than in the other major states of the country2 (Table 4). Even at this level of productivity, however, average annual incomes accruing to animal-owning households have been estimated as follows - milk Rs 2022, sheep and goat Rs1030, pig Rs 300 and meat and eggs from backyard poultry Rs 550 (LSR, 1999). Given the growing demand for livestock products in Orissa and other neighbouring states, the sector has enormous investment and development potential. Table 4 Average Milk Yield per Animal in Milk per Day in Selected States (1996-97)

Cows Buffaloes State Indigenous Crossbreds

Orissa 0.483 3.931 1.835 Meghalaya 0.720 8.740 1.700 Madhya Pradesh 1.180 5.560 2.983 Andhra Pradesh 1.339 5.073 2.889 Maharashtra 1.496 6.786 3.557 Bihar 1.627 4.813 3.503 Himachal Pradesh 1.690 3.316 3.017 Karnataka 1.818 5.569 2.400 Uttar Pradesh 2.041 5.795 3.743 West Bengal 2.153 7.816 6.256 Kerala 2.216 5.630 4.826 Tamil Nadu 2.393 5.551 3.583 Rajasthan 2.786 5.308 4.010 Punjab 2.884 8.363 5.616 Haryana 4.111 6.519 5.638 India 1.840 6.160 5.638

Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 4891 dated, 11.5.2000

Gender roles in Livestock Production The role of women in livestock production needs special mention here. That women play a crucial role in the livestock production system is clearly indicated in a study on gender issues

2 In this context it should be pointed out that the role of livestock in Indian economy goes far beyond milk production. Especially in e.g. Orissa with its low level of farm mechanisation draft power is an important when rearing livestock. Indeed, the share of males within large ruminant in Orissa is much higher than in the rest of the country. Moreover, the rate of decline in male-female ratio has been much slower than the average national ratio(Ahuja and Sen, 2002).

9

in the livestock sector of Orissa conducted by ISNRMPO and the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Orissa. According to this study, all the day-to-day routine activities related to tending, feeding, cleaning of shed, etc. are predominantly performed by women. It was found that such activities are performed exclusively by women in about 60% of the households , by men in 30% and men and women share the activities in the remaining 10 % of the households. Moreover, it was found that 60% of 18 important routine activities related to livestock health and production are predominately carried out by women, 17% by men and men and women share the remaining 23%. Activities performed by women are generally labour intensive, repetitive, time-consuming and mostly performed within the confine of the household and immediate surroundings. These gender roles are defined at a very young age for both boys and girls. While boys in poor families take the cattle/sheep/goat to the field for grazing, girls help to clean the shed, bring water, collect green fodder, etc. It is a common phenomenon, particularly in the tribal populated districts, that boys and girls take the livestock to the field for grazing and carry out other activities, which has implications for their school attendance. As in the case of land and other resources women do not have the ownership of livestock. Similarly, men play the major role in connection with almost all marketing activities except from marketing of milk, where men and women seem to play the same role. Men mostly handle transactions of credits. The problems faced by women in relation to livestock keeping vary according to their caste and class category. For women who belong to the marginal farmer and landless category scarcity of water, grazing land and green fodder is seen as of utmost concern. For women who belong to large land owning families non-viability of dairying and lack of access to credit are regarded as the most important problems. For all women irrespective of caste and class category the time-consuming animal husbandry work is seen as a problem.

The Policy Framework Animal Husbandry is a state subject in India although the central government also plays a role in framing and influencing sector policies and programs. The central government primarily works with the state governments in improving the supply of inputs and services and in building institutions. Public spending The state government is the primary source of public expenditure in this sector. The central government also contributes to the budget but its contribution is small. From 2001 to 2002 the budgetary contribution of the central government was less than 14 per cent. In addition to budgetary contributions the central government shares a part of the expenditure of the centrally sponsored schemes, but their share in the total budget is minuscule. The share of animal husbandry in the total state budget has been continuously declining for the last several years (Figure 1). The share declined from 1.3 per cent in 1995 to approximately 0.5 per cent in 2001-02. Indeed, during the last two years there was a decline in the total budget allocation even in nominal terms (Annex 2). Furthermore, over 95 per cent of the total budget allocated for animal husbandry and dairy development per cent was set apart for meeting the salary expenditure. The non-salary part was less than 5 per cent of which yet another part was also utilised for other overhead expenditures. That leaves very little funds for the development work in the sector.

10

Large ruminant bias Another feature of livestock development in Orissa, as in the rest of India, has been the policy focus on the development of bovines, which has almost excluded other species. The livelihood intensity and potential of the latter for the poor has never been considered. It is true that cattle are the most commonly kept species, but the remaining 35 per cent of the livestock population, which comprises sheep, goats and pigs are kept by a large number of smallholders from the bottom end of the poverty spectrum. For example a recent household survey in five districts of Orissa showed that not only the average number of livestock was larger among poor households, but more than half of the livestock kept consists of small ruminants, primarily goats (Figure 2). Furthermore, even within cattle development, the policy focus has been on AI and crossbreeding which tend to benefit relatively educated households with better endowments3.

3 In order to understand the determinants of adopting crossbreeding we examined the connection between population density of crossbred animals in a district and literacy rate, density of village roads, and irrigation infrastructure. It was quite obvious from this analysis that the population density of crossbred animals was significantly affected by these variables. This means that the density of crossbred animals is higher in districts with high literacy rates, better irrigation infrastructure and higher number of village roads (Annex 3). In case of other types of livestock, however, no such relationship could be established.

Figure 1: Share of Animal Husbandry and Dairying in Total State Budget for Orissa

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Year

Percent

11

Figure 2 Figure 3 Credit Another feature of the government policy has been to make credit available to households to purchase livestock. However, this has often been administered in a very top-down manner leaving the households little chance of choosing between different investment alternatives. This has in many cases led to further indebtedness of the poor households. As demonstrated by the case studies presented in the next chapter even the recent approach of extending credit through ‘Self Help Groups’, which were conceived to overcome the top-down approach of formal credit institutions, has suffered similar weaknesses. New Livestock Policy Realising the poverty alleviation potential of the livestock sector and the weaknesses of some of the policy measures in place, the Government of Orissa has recently approved a new livestock sector policy. The new policy explicitly states the following four goals: 1. Use the livestock sector as an engine for social and economic development of the rural

population which enables steady growth of the rural household income, increasing rural employment opportunities and improved quality of life irrespective of caste, class and gender

2. Enable the small producers to actively participate in the development process and equip them with information, skills and technologies to transform the growing challenges of the market place into comparative and competitive advantages through improved livestock quality and higher productivity

3. Ensure the ecological and environmental sustainability of the livestock sector growth and modernisation by constantly monitoring the environmental impact of the growth process and designing policies and programs to efficiently mitigate their adverse impact, and

4. Capacitate the marginalized sections, especially women, SCs and STs to supplementary inputs and services, so that they are able to have equal access to the opportunities offered under this new livestock development and management policy.

For the first time the proposed policy framework explicitly recognises the importance of small animals and backyard poultry as important means of poverty alleviation and recommends reallocation of state and central plan outlays in proportion of the livelihood implication of

Average size of land and livestock holding across wealth categories

Note: The above figures are derived from a sample survey of 200 households in five districts of Orissa. The averages are therefore not necessarily representative of Orissa as a whole.

Source: Ahuja and Sen, 2002.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Bottom 20% Middle 20% Top 20%

Size

of l

ives

tock

hol

ding

(num

ber)

Bullocks Desi cows Crossbred cows Buffaloes Small ruminants

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Bottom 20% Middle 20% Top 20%

Size

of l

and

hold

ing

(acr

es)

Irrigated Unirrigated

12

various livestock species and not in proportion of small animal's share of total livestock population. While this is a welcome feature of the new policy, it needs to be understood that the plan outlays are small - about 16 per cent of the total state and central outlays on animal husbandry and dairying - and declining. This may therefore have very limited effective impact on programmes and measures. Moreover, the policy document is relatively less clear with respect to specific policy measures pertaining to small ruminants and much more thinking would be required to make this shift in policy focus operational. However, as regards cattle and buffalo breeding the document is much more elaborate and explicit with respect to the action points and promotion measures. In view of these factors the danger exists that cattle and buffalo breeding may be overemphasised in the implementation of a new policy, thereby continuing the large ruminant bias. Another aspect of the livestock policy has been undue focus on productivity improvement by improving the genetic stock and provision of veterinary services. However, the policies concerning the facilitation of smallholders’ market access of have received much less attention. On the other hand, recent research has shown that the demand for quality inputs (such as genetic material, veterinary care, feed and fodder, etc.) is driven by steady access to output markets. For example Ahuja and Sen (2002) showed in their analysis of the determinants of the demand for veterinary services in Orissa that ‘market access’ was the most important variable in creating and sustaining the demand for these services. In the absence of easy access to markets, the productivity enhancing measures do not necessarily yield the desired results. Although the new livestock sector policy recognises this fact, it is necessary to focus on specific measures to facilitate market mechanisms. The policy document proposes (i) increase in the number of producer cooperatives besides strengthening the existing societies, (ii) renovation and expansion of processing and chilling capacities by expanding the existing major dairy processing plants at Bhubaneshwar and Rourkela and other smaller processing plants, (iii) construction of a new dairy plant at Cuttack, (iv) installation of bulk coolers covering 3 to 5 co-operative societies, (v) establishment of modern slaughter houses for beef animals in major cities of Orissa as a joint venture between government and private sector and (vi) creation of simple slaughter facilities in other district headquarters. However, the financing, ownership, and management aspects of this infrastructure are not clear. It seems that the policy proposal is to channel public resources into these facilities4 which seem to be based on the assumption that the private sector is not likely to find it profitable to invest in processing and marketing and the government must therefore use public resources for this purpose. But the basis of this assumption is not clear. Even if the assumption was valid, however, it could be a better alternative to providing specific incentives (such as tax breaks) to private entrepreneurs than channelling public resources into the processing infrastructure. The market access aspect of the new policy must therefore be elaborated further.

Delivery of Livestock Services Access to a whole range of good quality services is crucial to enhance the productivity of livestock and to enable the poor to benefit from the potential offered by this sector. The outputs include marketing services such as supply of cold chains and market information. The input services include livestock health and breeding services, feed and fodder supply, provision of credit, livestock extension, etc. (See Annex 6 for a classification of livestock services). As pointed out in the previous section, output services are weak in Orissa. The Orissa Milk Producers Federation (OMFED) carries out milk procurement services in the Operation Flood

4 Except in case of slaughterhouses, which are proposed as public-private joint ventures.

13

(OF) districts, but their scope is limited5. OMFED only procures about 15 -17 per cent of the total production in the 14 operation flood districts. In the remaining 17 districts limited milk collection services are made available by the Animal Resources Department. They collect less than 4 per cent of the total milk production in these districts. Overall, less than 10 per cent of the total milk produced in Orissa is marketed through the formal channels. A large proportion (approximately 40 per cent) flows through informal marketing channels such as middlemen and village halwais, is sold to other households within the village, etc. and about 50 per cent is consumed within the producing household. Therefore access to output market, especially in the interior non-OF districts, is extremely poor. For other livestock products such as meat and eggs no such services are available. The proposed changes in the new policy have already been discussed in the previous section. In connection with the input services the emphasis is put on delivery of curative veterinary and AI services and there is a bias towards attending large ruminants. Livestock Assistance Centres (LACs) and AI centres operated by the Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services (DAHVS) under the Fisheries and Animal Resources Department (FARD), Government of Orissa, are the primary source of these services in the state. In 1996 there were close to 3500 veterinary (about 550 veterinary hospitals and dispensaries and 3000 livestock aid centres) and 1750 AI centres in the state6. On average there was one veterinary centre per 45 square kilometres which attended to some 7500 animals and one AI centre per 90 square kilometres which attended to some 2500 breeding animals on average. The distribution of veterinary and AI centres within Orissa is, however, highly skewed. A large number of these centres are located in areas with a high livestock density population and relatively better access to urban markets. A recent review of the livestock sector in Orissa undertaken by the Fisheries and Animal Resources Department and Indo Swiss Natural Resource Management Programme in Orissa (ISNRMPO) classified the 30 districts of Orissa in three categories - A (High Potential), B (Average Potential), and C (Low Potential). This classification is shown in Annex 4. Table 5 presents some characteristics of these districts. As will appear from the table, the high potential districts have the highest density of veterinary and AI centres. The average area per veterinary centre of the ‘A’ category districts was about 25 square km compared to approximately 60 square km of the ‘B’ and ‘C’ category districts respectively. Indeed, about 45 per cent of veterinary and 60 per cent of AI centres are located in ‘A’ districts. We return to this point a little later7.

5 The coverage of OF and non OF districts is as follows: OF districts—Cuttack, Jajpur, Kendrapara, Jagatsinghpur, Puri, Khurda, Nayagarh, Dhenkanal, Angul, Keonjhar, Sambalpur, Bargarh, Jharsguda, and Deogarh. Non OF districts—Koraput, Rayagada, Malkangiri, Nawrangpur, Phulbani, Nuapada, Kalahandi, Boudh, Sonepur, Balasore, Bhadrak, Mayurbhanj, Phulbani, Sundergarh, Bolangir, Ganjam, and Gajapati. 6 Veterinary hospitals are the larger facilities with inpatient facilities, which are manned by two to three veterinary surgeons who is supported by some para-veterinary surgeon and other staff. These are usually located in district headquarters. Veterinary dispensaries are normally located in the Taluk/block headquarter and are manned by one veterinary surgeon who is supported by one para-veterinary surgeon and other staff. LACs are located at the Gram Panchayat level and are manned by the para-veterinary staff. In addition, the DAHVS also operates one Animal Disease Research Institute in Cuttack, two Biological Product Institutes, one Veterinary Officers’ Training Institute, three clinical investigation laboratories, one state veterinary laboratory, 24 Rinderpest check posts, and 178 Rinderpest centres (FARD, 1999). 7 While the government is the main provider of these services, several other models are being tested in specific locations. . . .. A synthesis of these experiences is likely to become available

14

Table 5: Some Characteristics of the Districts as Classified by Livestock Sector Review

District category A B C

Geographical area (km2) 39000.0 74000.0 43300.0 Net sown area (‘000 hectares) 2106.0 2659.0 1357.0 Irrigated area (‘000 hectares)

Gross Net

1196.2 829.4

687.1 470.0

439.9 299.3

Irrigated area as per cent of net sown area (%) 56.8 17.7 22.1 Fertiliser consumption (Kg/hectare) 47.0 29.0 20.0 Net sown area (ha) per tractor or power tiller 310.0 762.0 983.0 Crossbred bovines (as % of total bovines) 9.8 4.1 2.5 Density of large ruminants (number/km2) 150.0 82.0 76.0 Density of small ruminants (number/km2) 63.0 47.0 36.0 Average milk yield (kg/animal/day)

Indigenous cows Crossbred cows Buffaloes

0.6 4.0 2.2

0.4 2.3 1.5

0.3 1.5 1.1

Area per veterinary centre (km2) 25.9 58.0 62.4 Area per AI centre (km2) 43.3 127.6 160.0 AI performed (‘000) 420.0 158.0 44.0 Road network (Km per 100 Km2 of geographical area)

National and state highways District roads Village roads

5.0

10.5 28.2

3.1 5.1

15.4

3.5 3.1

15.7 The services are delivered to the livestock owners with heavy subsidies. Until recently the government did not charge for these services. However, The it has recently introduced some charges (Annex 1) but these are very nominal and not necessarily based on an assessment of the service delivery cost. The provision of subsidised services by the government is founded on the concern that a vast majority of livestock farmers are 'poor' and would hence be deprived of the services if fees were charged or costs recovered. A recent study by Ahuja and Sen (2002), however, showed that a significant amount of this subsidy does not necessarily reach the poor. The household survey carried out for the study showed that close to 60 per cent of the veterinary cases were attended to at home and the farmers incurred expenditures of Rs.100-200 per home visit. Nearly all these visits were undertaken by government veterinary surgeons and para-veterinary surgeons in private capacity. Generally those who received services at the centres did not pay for the services but a very small proportion of them received any medicine from the veterinary centres. The study also estimated the willingness to pay for curative veterinary services and found that although the willingness to pay varied according to income, even the poorest households were willing to pay for the curative services. Furthermore, the demand analysis confirmed that it is not the subsidised service delivery but access to output markets and the general awareness level that determined the demand for these services. Finally, the elasticity of the demand for these services with respect to the price of milk and educational status of the household was quite high. While the supposedly subsidised curative services are actually not free since the farmers pay privately to the veterinary surgeons and para-veterinary surgeons, the state has little resources left for the preventive services as it spends a chunk of its scarce resources on clinical health care. According to some estimates, the production losses due to animal epidemics and diseases amount to almost 15 per cent of the total annual output value of the state livestock

15

sector and it is the small and marginal farmers and poor household that bear the brunt of these losses.8 Likewise livestock extension services, which have been shown to have a significant positive impact on livestock productivity, still remain neglected. The preceding discussion underlines the need to re-examine the government’s current strategy in connection with the livestock service delivery and the overall development of this sector. In absence of easy access to markets the demand for livestock services is likely to remain low which necessitates government presence in connection with service deliveries in many areas. The effect of this is that the resources required for providing this sector with highly needed public goods and a market access infrastructure are locked. It is therefore necessary to examine input and output services of the livestock production simultaneously. It appears that coastal districts such as Balassore, Khurda, Puri, Jagatsinghpur, which have relatively good access to markets, can profitably support the private veterinary sector. However, what is needed is a level playing field for private practitioners. The service deliveries subsidised by the government provides the government veterinary surgeons with an unfair advantage, which drives away private entrepreneurs from the market. Thus the first step towards creating a conducive environment will be to institute measures such as full cost recovery, gradual withdrawal of government support from high potential areas and to establish a regulatory framework for private veterinary practice. In the interior districts the government should have a more direct role. Even in these areas, however, the government need not and should not be the only, nor even the dominant, player. It is desirable to work with non-government organisations and other stakeholders in making the poor communities aware of the importance of creating demands for these services, training community- based health workers for minor treatments, providing drugs and supplies for payment in areas where the private distribution network is weak, providing extension advice related to animal husbandry including feeding practices and shelter innovations, etc. Given the current concentration of government veterinary and AI centres in relatively well-to-do districts, significant resources can be released, which can be used for focusing on the interior districts, reducing government presence in connection with curative service deliveries in these districts. Below some measures are presented which can help the different districts enhance the efficiency and outreach of the services. High potential or ‘A’ category districts The large ruminant population density of these districts is high, they have a concentration of crossbred animals, relatively progressive agriculture, lower poverty incidences, a better general infrastructure and easier access to markets due to their proximity to the main urban centres. Given these characteristics, these districts can support private delivery of curative veterinary and AI services. The government should therefore: 1. Introduce full cost recovery in connection with all curative veterinary and AI services

delivered at the centre as well as at home 2. Allow veterinary centres operational and financial autonomy. This would mean that the

units would be allowed to retain the recovered costs to finance drugs and supply expenditures and improve the facilities at the centres. The overseeing of these funds should be done by a committee consisting of veterinary staff, representatives from the villages that are serviced by the centres, and the representatives of credible Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), which are operating in the area

8 M.P.G. Kurup and R.S. Murli in 'Report of a Study into the Implications of the Implementation of the Orissa State Livestock Sector Policy', 2001

16

3. Provide incentives to serve veterinary surgeons and para-veterinary surgeons to start their own private practice by offering voluntary retirement and start-up grants and loans. Those who choose this option should also be provided with positive discrimination by not establishing any new service delivery centres in their practice area and relocating existing centres in ‘C’ category districts. The government should not initiate new veterinary and AI centres nor recruit new veterinary surgeons for any of the districts

4. Create a level playing field by restraining the government veterinary surgeons, para-veterinary surgeons and inseminators from engaging in private practice

5. Foster commercial and effective AI service deliveries by ensuring genetic quality of semen and regular supply of liquid nitrogen

6. Establish and implement an effective regulatory framework to ensure service quality. This would require participation of governmental, professional veterinary bodies, non-government organisations, national level bodies such as National Dairy Development Board (NDDB), the Veterinary Council of India, etc.. The aim of the regulatory framework should be to protect the service users without imposing disproportionate costs on the service providers

Average potential or ‘B’ category districts In addition to creating a conducive environment to allow private livestock services to emergence, the government strategy in these districts must be to focus on strengthening and creating access to urban markets. More specifically, the government should: 1. Focus on strengthening and creating access to urban markets both within and outside

Orissa. This would require active participation from Orissa Milk Producers Federation (OMFED) and other milk unions in terms of professional management of cold supply chains, revitalisation of primary co-operative societies where they exist and establishment of these societies where they do not already exist. This will also include financial and operational autonomy and reduced government intervention as regards the running of these institutions

2. Strengthen livestock extension systems to create awareness of proper livestock health care and management, and to teach skills such as veterinary first aid, poultry vaccination, heat-detection and shelter innovations. Women and credible NGOs, which operate in the area, should be actively involved in implementing these initiatives

3. Introduce full cost recovery of curative veterinary and AI services and targeted subsidies if necessary

4. Allow veterinary centres operational and financial autonomy 5. Provide incentives to serve veterinary surgeons and para-veterinary surgeons to start their

own private practice by offering voluntary retirement, start-up grants and loans, and assuring that no governmental veterinary centres will be operated in their area of practice.

6. Create a level playing field by restraining the governmental veterinary surgeons, para-veterinary surgeons and inseminators from engaging in private practice while continuing to receive salaries and benefits as government employees

7. Subcontract a part of the government jobs such as animal disease reporting, surveillance, education and training, and preventive vaccinations to private veterinary surgeons and para-veterinary surgeons

Low potential or ‘C’ category districts These districts have a high number of poverty incidences, a low educational status, lack of access to markets, backward agriculture, and a low livestock population density. Full cost recovery and private delivery of veterinary and AI services may therefore not be feasible options. The government strategy must therefore be to combine awareness creation, improve market access, and gradually commercialise service delivery. Some specific recommendations

17

are listed below: 1. Strengthen the livestock extension system to create awareness of proper livestock health

care and management. Women and local NGOs should participate actively in doing this 2. With the help of credible local NGOs, train community health workers who, besides

providing veterinary first aid and minor treatments, will also serve as the link between the government and poor communities. The state level agencies working in the area can also provide significant support in this respect by acting as facilitators and the link between state government, local NGOs, and other national and international organisations

3. Relocate some veterinary and AI professionals from ‘A’ category districts to these districts, continue with subsidised livestock service delivery services as a temporary measure, and gradually withdraw the subsidy as the system becomes more commercialised

4. Subcontract public good tasks and preventive vaccination jobs to relocated veterinary surgeons and para-veterinary surgeons

5. Provide drugs and supplies for payment in areas where private distribution network is weak The measures suggested in the new livestock policy of Orissa appear to respond to some of the concerns and recommendations presented above. But a successful implementation of these policy measures would require a continuous learning process on the background of successful and failed experiences within and outside Orissa. In the light of this the next chapter examines the experiences from two cases of livestock service delivery in poor areas of Orissa.

18

Section 2

Poverty profile and livestock production systems in the Koraput district

Profile of the Poor Koraput is one of the least developed districts of the state. The district population consists of 50.67 per cent tribal people belonging to a number of tribes. The poverty level among the tribal population is very high9. Reports of deaths due to starvation appear in the media from time to time. In the following section a picture of the general conditions of the poor and their livelihood systems is presented. Who are the poorest in the village? To identify the poorest people of the village we asked the villagers who they regard as the poorest and why. The villagers identified the very old people, who have nobody to look after them, and single women, who have no assets but must take care of their children, as the poorest people of their community (Box 1). Moreover, they pointed out families who have been displaced from other areas and have settled down in this village. These people do not even possess the homestead land legally. Box 1 The poorest villagers ''Those who have nobody'' and ‘‘those who have nothing'' were the responses of the women and men when they were asked who they regard as poorest in their village. An old man and his old sister, who live together in Sankaudi village, have nobody to look after them. They live on old age pension, of Rs 200/- ($ 4) (Rs 100 each) but depend on the support and help which are provided by their community. They were regarded as the poorest in this village. Seela Kamar, an old widow of about sixty years, who have a daughter, who is also a widow and mentally unstable, depends on her own labour and a pension of Rs 100/- per month for her own survival as well as for her daughter's. She has no land, no livestock, and no other asset whatsoever. This family was regarded as the poorest in Dharnahandi by the women of the village. We came across at least five/six families of this category in every village. Literacy The literacy level of the Koraput district is 24.64 per cent and among the tribal population it is 8.34 per cent. In connection with the literacy level there are also gender and location disparities. In the four Blocks where ILDP is operating the level of literacy is appallingly low, particularly among women, as will appear from table 6. Access to Land Which resources/assets do people value the most? The answer to this question is invariably land. People who do not possess any land of their own and depend completely on wage-earning employment are considered poor in the village. In total 38 per cent of the farmers own

9 We do not have concrete data on the severity and incidences of the poverty in Koraput. According to Brunse, the 2001 poverty headcount ratio in Koraput amounted to 85 per cent.

Table 6: Literacy rates among the tribal population in the four Blocks of the ILDP Project Blocks Female Male Total Jeypore 2.36 18.16 10.28 Koraput 1.83 14.77 8.09 Laxmipur 1.13 10.80 5.89 Kundra 1.08 10.70 5.86 Source: Census Report 2001, Government of India

19

72 per cent of all land10 and about 30 per cent people are landless.11 However, the land ownership pattern varies from village to village. One extreme situation is the case of Palliguda (located about three Km from Jeypore) where the entire land is owned by one extended family which consists of five non-tribal households. The remaining 35 families are landless. In contrast to the extreme situation of Pallinguda, only five families are landless in Dharnahandi. Another 4 families have about 0.5 acres of land each and all the remaining families (total amount of families in the village is 78) possess land ranging from 2 acres to 7/8 acres. Another example is Ranjitguda in the Laxmipur Block where 50 acres of land (out of a total of about 200 acres of cultivable land) are possessed by one businessman from Laxmipur town. He leases out this land to the villagers of a nearby village (Tikiri), which use the land for sharecropping. In fact, these sharecroppers live on the land, which belongs to the businessman. Livelihood systems People depend on a range of resources and activities for their livelihood. Moreover, the livelihood systems vary from village to village depending on the resource bases. Even in one single village one comes across a whole range of different activities (often interrelated) ranging from total dependence on wage-earning employment to a complex system in which agriculture and livestock are the main sources of livelihood. By and large, agriculture, directly as indirectly, is the major source of livelihood for the majority of people. Both settled agriculture and slash and burn cultivation in the hills are practised. In the plains a variety of crops are grown: Paddy in the lowland, and finger millets, black grams, pigeon peas, maize are grown in the upland. Vegetables like pumpkin, tomato, brinjals, bhindis, beans, etc. are also grown. Agricultural work in the plains is mainly carried out by means of animal draught power. The crop yield is very low and the non-irrigated areas are completely dependent on rainfall. The use of chemical fertilisers is low although it is growing rapidly. Dangar (slash and burn) cultivation is a predominant feature of the farming system in this area. Ragi (finger millets), which is the staple food of the tribal people, is grown in the hills and up land. A variety of pulses and grams are also grown in the dangar land and inter-cropping is often practised. Alsi (Niger) an oil seed is grown extensively in the upland. Generally, people do not possess a 'patta' (Record of Right) over the dangar land. Traditionally, the land used to be under the control and management of the community. Under this system every household would get a patch for cultivation. This is not the case any more. Now the dangar land has come under individual control and the ownership is more or less permanent. In some villages many people do not have access to this land. In the past people used to clear the dangar land once every three/four years. Now it has been reduced to every alternate year. Food Security For those who depend solely on dangar cultivation, the produce from it lasts for about three months. With the exception of Sankaudi and to some extent Dharnahandi, nearly all households of the village supplement the dangar produce with products from the market to meet the annual food requirement. Their own production usually suffices for about 3 months for those who depends on dangar cultivation only, 5 to 6 months for those who have 2/3 acres of land, and 8 to 9 months for those who have 4/5 acres of land. Accordingly, besides land people depend upon a variety of activities for their livelihood. These activities are listed below:

10 ILDP 'Plan of Operation' Document, 1992 11 Koraput District Profile

20

• Agricultural wage-earning employment (both within and outside the village) • Casual non-farm labour (brick making, road repairing, construction work, transportation of

raw materials, stone crushing, etc.) • Firewood/charcoal/bamboo selling • Fishing (only in one village - Ranjitguda) • Kendu leave plucking (only in one village - Sargiguda) • Liquor brewing In Doliamba village the men who primarily depend on wage-earning employment and firewood selling showed their shoulders and told us ''our shoulders have become rough like those of the bullocks, so you can imagine what a hard life we live''. In the irrigated village of Sankaudi people spend a substantial part of their income on buying firewood whereas people of the non-irrigated villages sell firewood to make a living. The wage rate of agricultural and casual work is extremely low at Rs 20 to 25 per day. Only governmental work actually pays the minimum wage, which is fixed by the government itself. It was reported that men earn approximately Rs 30 and women Rs 20 by selling wood and they spend roughly two days of labour on this - one day for collection the wood from the forest and one day for carrying it to the market place and selling it. The role of livestock in people’s livelihood systems is a complex one. It varies from being the main source of energy for draught purposes in an agriculture-based livelihood system to being a means of meeting social obligations e.g. when relatives come on a visit and one needs to cook a chicken. It could also mean to be able to sacrifice a buck/ram during festivals or when somebody falls ill. We shall return to this point later. Credit scenario For people who live in food insecurity, borrowing money is an obvious way of meeting any crisis. People borrow money from the moneylenders as an 'advance' of the crop harvest yield, which is then used to repay the loan “in kind”. In Palliguda (a non-ILDP village) where people have no land at all the money borrowed is repaid in kind by working in the lender's field. Particularly landless people, who cannot borrow in 'advance', have no other option than being in bondage to the moneylender. One such example is the Ranjitguda case (Box 2). Box 2 Example of exploitation of the poor In Ranjitguda the whole village had promised to work for one moneylender for three years. The work included all agricultural operations i.e. ploughing, sowing, transplantation, weeding, and harvesting. The amount of money borrowed was Rs12000/- and the purpose was to purchase things for the village Dramatic group. In this area the prevailing interest rate charged by the moneylender amounts to 60% per year. The government has developed a programme to make credit available to the poor through the nationalised banks and special development agencies, e.g. Integrated Tribal Development Agencies (ITDA). However, the access to of these formal credit institutions is restricted to productive purposes of the schemes designed by the policy makers. People do not even have the possibility of choosing between the schemes. They are normally imposed on people. Moreover, most of the poor people, particularly women, do not have access to the formal credit institutions as they fail to provide security for the credit. Many people are also stamped as 'defaulter'. These are people who have failed to repay loans in the past. A 'defaulter' is not eligible for further loans until they have repaid their loans.

21

Livestock Production Systems The livestock production systems of the area are equally diverse and complex. They range from households which keep one/two hens only to households which have one pair or two pairs of bullocks/cows, one or two buffaloes, a few goats/sheep, a few pigs, etc. The most common species kept is poultry. The size of a backyard poultry unit varies from a minimum of one hen to 4/5 hens with the mode being around 2/3 adult birds. The size of the units varies according to the family’s need for cash or food and according to diseases. Thus if one family has one unit of two birds today it may loose the entire unit by tomorrow if the birds are infected with a disease. Similarly, the sheep/goat unit varies from one/two goats to 4/5 per household. The land-owning families are generally the ones who keep cattle. But it is not uncommon for landless families to keep cattle as well. The primary purpose of keeping cattle is to use them for draught purposes. Land-owning households use cattle to plough their own land, whereas landless households use them to earn wage by ploughing other people's land during the cultivation season. As will appear from table 7, the composition of the livestock population in the Koraput district is not different from the composition at state level. About 3.86 per cent of Orissa’s poultry population belong to the Koraput district.

Keeping livestock involves different implications and serves different purposes for different groups of people. Apart from earning an income from sale, sheep/goats/pigs/poultry are also used in connection with religious rituals and social celebrations. For instance pig sacrifice is a must during the 'jhankar puja' in the Laxmipur Block. In terms of eating habits, tribal people are traditionally non-vegetarians and hence most of them eat beef. Traditionally, tribal people do not regard milk as an important product, neither as regards consumption nor sale. However, people sell milk in some cases - particularly the ones who have raised loans in order to buy Jersey cows or

buffaloes. Unlike the practice in coastal Orissa, the tribal people use both cows and female buffaloes for ploughing. There are, however, different practices among different tribes. For instance the Bodo Paraja tribe does not eat beef, whereas Sano Paraja and Gadabas12 do. Some of the Bado Paraja people eat buffalo meat but not cow meat. Two types of tribes live in village Sankaudi - the Gadabas and the Halva. Halva's are of the opinion that the Gadabas are placed lower than them in social hierarchical system, because they believe that their forefathers used to eat beef at one time. However, the Gadabas do not eat beef any more but the hierarchy is still maintained although the two tribes in the same village. The Halvas would not eat food in a Gadaba house. In some areas the scheduled caste people eat beef. We noticed that changes in the beef eating habit takes place across all tribes. A trend of 'beef eating is bad' and 'civilised people do not eat beef' is slowly gaining ground among the younger generations. Particularly, when the youngsters go to boarding schools and live with non-beefeaters, the latter look down on the former and consider them as 'low-ranking people’. However, the habit of eating beef is still strong, particularly during social and religious festivals,

12 Bodo Paraja, Sano Paraja, Gadaba and Halwa are names of different tribes inhabiting in the project area.

Table 7: Livestock Population of Koraput District: 2001

Species Population Bovine 603362 (65.86)* Sheep 125154 (13.66) Goat 182521 (19.92) Pigs 5035 (0.55) Rabbit 107 (0.01) Total 916179 Poultry 677221 * Figures in parentheses are percentages of total Source: Orissa Livestock Census, 2001.

22

among the adults of those tribes where beef eating is not a taboo. All communities generally eat goat and sheep meat. However, we came across examples of vegetarianism in Sanakaudi village where 9 families would neither keep nor eat poultry because some elderly members of these families have accepted the 'Alekh Dharma', which preaches vegetarianism. Five of these families would only eat fish. People regard sheep and goats as a source of livelihood and a security in case of emergency. The practice of sacrificing a goat or sheep during certain festivals and in case of a health problem in the family is common. If somebody falls ill in the family, people generally go to the 'Disari' or 'Gurumai for a cure. The Disari does not give medicine but performs a ritual to cure the patient. Moreover, the Disari may advise to sacrifice a hen, goat or sheep to please their God. Poultry I most commonly used for eat purposes when relatives or friends visit the family. This is a must for most of the families across all tribes. If they do not have one bird in the house, they will buy one. Feeding Practice The general practice of feeding varies from village to village depending on resource availability as well as cropping pattern and intensity. The villages in the Jeypore Block, which were selected for this study, had sufficient irrigation throughout the year. In both of these villages grazing was the predominant feeding practice. However, in Ranjitguda village of the Laxmipur Block, which is closer to forest cattle, sheep and goats were taken for grazing only for five months. During the remaining period, they were set free in the forest. While the sheep, goats and cows are normally taken back to the village in the evening, the buffalos stay in the forest. The owners attend to their animals once in a week or ten days to see if they are okay. People believe that the buffaloes are better fed and kept clean in the forest due to the availability of sufficient water. The buffalos stay in water for many hours at a time and the fishes and snails keep the buffaloes clean by eating away the lice/insects. To ensure the return of the mothers in the evening, the calves of milking buffaloes are not sent to the forest. In the three villages of the Koraput Block (2ILDP+1Non-ILDP) the herdsmen take cattle, sheep and goat for grazing for about nine months. During the summer months the animals are set free. In almost all the villages the herdsmen are generally paid in the form of food (either cooked or uncooked) twice a day. In addition, they are paid some paddy or ragi at the time of the harvest and clothes at the time of major festivals. The farmers themselves do also take the cattle for grazing on a rotational basis, if regular herdsmen are not available in the village. Among the crop residues paddy straw is the most commonly used feed for cattle. Besides paddy cattle and pigs are also fed husk and kitchen waste. Other crop residues, which are used for feeding the animals, are black grams, pigeon peas, etc13. Ragi straw is generally not collected from the field but is left there for open grazing. Chicken are fed broken rice but not on a regular basis. Feeding of concentrates is seen only in case of crossbred cows. The feed is supplemented by green grass depending on the availability. Despite several trials and attempts by ILDP, the growing of fodder crops is not yet common.

Gender Roles in Livestock Keeping Both the tribal women who live in the area where ILDP operates and the scheduled caste women in the Ganjam district participate actively in the productive life of the household. Women participate in all livelihood-related activities except from ploughing of land, which is exclusively done by men. Like in other parts of India the women of the study area neither have

13 The use of these residues is limited to cattle.

23

ownership of property nor control over income. Women predominantly carry out activities like animal tending, feeding and cleaning. Both men and women, and in certain cases children, take animals for grazing. According to the study on Gender issues in Livestock Sector conducted by ISNRMPO and the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Orissa, , women typically carry out all the work which relates to livestock management, which are primarily within the confine of the 'home'- the private domain. Men typically carry out the work 'outside home'- within the public domain. A similar gender division also appears among children - the boys and girls. According to the study, which was referred to above, the needs and priorities of women vary according to the socio-economic groups they belong to and the natural and material resource bases they have access to, although women more or less share the same responsibilities in livestock-keeping households throughout the State. Generally, both men and women make decisions jointly in the family as regards the purchase and sale of animals. Women sometimes have independent decision-making power as regards the purchase and sale of poultry birds and eggs. Among the tribal groups women have access to the weekly market place where they purchase and sell their produce. As mentioned earlier, women's access to formal credit institutions is restricted because they do not own property/land. Even in connection with the informal channels women have limited access to credit since their participation in the public domain is restricted.

Service Needs of the Poor There is no institutional mechanism through which people can express their needs and their demands for services. The Government AHD has always defined the services in a top-down approach. Veterinary surgeons generally regard a poor animal health as the main constraint on livestock development. Likewise, people always tend to regard limited credit and market access as main constraints on the dairy cow development as a means of poverty reduction. In reality, however, people need a range of services ranging from health care, preventive health (FMD and HSBQ for cattle, apthyma and PPR for goats and sheep, RD and FP for poultry, which people call morudi (implying that a mass mortality is the effect), swine fever for pigs) and breeding services, to provision of feed and fodder, information on management and feeding practices, credit, marketing, etc. People have a strong faith in the power of the traditional priests, the Disaris. In cases of FMD people generally go to the Disari and follow his instructions. Besides worshipping God, the common treatment involves mud treatment where the animal stands on mud, which is mixed with some herbs. Likewise, in cases of contagious apthyma of goats, nothing is done except from worship and animal sacrifice. ‘Those animals destined to die will die and those destined to survive will survive’ - this was the response of most of the respondents in every village. Water shortage in summer is regarded as a major constraint in many villages. This view is expressed particularly by women. Moreover, acute feed and fodder shortage both during the summer and rainy seasons when the rain continues for days is also perceived as a constraint. Thus shelter is another livestock need. As indicated earlier, people keep their small stock and poultry in the same dwellings as they live in. However, the shelter possibilities of cattle are so weak that they are wet during in the whole rainy season. People do not see the marketing situation of poultry and small stock as a problem, although there are no organised markets for these animals. Both purchase and sale of poultry take place at the local weekly market place. Those who have crossbred animals and sell milk to the co-operative societies feel that the

24

price, which is offered by the society is uneconomical and that the concentrate feed cost is too high. It is interesting to observe that though people regard credit as an important need, it is not considered a constraint on the livestock development. The need for credit is seen in the larger context of agriculture as well as other livelihood requirements, apart from emergencies like illness. People rarely invest in crossbred cows to obtain a direct income, except in the case of loans raised by the government. This observation confirms the findings a previous study done. In the study on gender issues in livestock development covering four districts of Orissa, which was carried out by DAH & VS and ISNRMPO, it was found that credit ranked number 3rd in the prioritisation of needs in the Koraput district.14 Some cases exist in which people have utilised loans from the SHGs for purchasing small ruminants, but there are no cases of loans which have be raised to purchase a crossbred cow . On the other hand, there are several cases of people, who have raised government loans to purchase crossbred cows. It certainly seems to be a supply-driven phenomenon although there are many other aspects to it. For example the higher risk involved with larger investments, absence of any insurance mechanisms, inaccessibility to health care services, declining rates of return, etc. seem to be important factors in determining whether to invest in large or small ruminants. We will return to this point in another section. There is also no demand of credit for poultry and hence the amount of capital required for such an investment is much less compared to the requirements of other species. However, it seems that people do not want to increase their poultry flock size. In all villages they say that if they increase the flock size, there will be more occurrences of diseases, which results in more mortality. This indicates that vaccination services do not fully demonstrate that mortality of birds can be arrested.

Service delivery system As mentioned earlier, the service needs of poor livestock farmers are defined in a top-down approach by the policy makers. However, the government machinery is not equipped to address these needs adequately. In the Koraput district the average geographical area, which is covered by a veterinary centre is 65.69 km (Annex 4). The average distance to the LAC from a village is about 8 to 10 km. Many of the government centres are not adequately manned. For instance at the time of our visit to Kundra Block, four out of five LACs had no Livestock Inspectors. In the total district 44 out of 140 LI posts (located at Gram Panchayat level) were vacant (CDVO Koraput's report). Under such set up it is practically not convenient for the farmers to take the animals to the centre. If the service provider comes to the village people will have to pay money. Given the poor paying capacity of the poor, they only receive a visit from the LI in cases of emergency. In none of the studies village vaccination against FMD or HS has been reported since the last one and a half year ago. Poultry vaccinations are hardly carried out by the AHD. Given the set up of the AHD, it is not possible to go to the villages and vaccinate the birds or for the people to bring the birds to the centre. As regards output services, the AHD procures milk from the farmers in a limited area. Except for the services, which ILDP provide in its operational villages, no other service providing agencies operate in the area other than the government. The private sector’s

14 ‘An analytical study of gender issues in the livestock sector, Orissa’, by the Animal Husbandry Department of Orissa, 1999

25

presence is confined to supply of inputs like concentrate feed and certain medicines. Besides, it is confined to the urban centres only.

26

Section 3

Experiences of Poverty focussed livestock services As noted before, one of the objectives of this paper is to examine specific experiences of poverty-focussed livestock service delivery. This was done through a field study of Integrated Livestock Development Project (ILDP) in the Koraput District and Women Dairy Co-operatives in the Ganjam District. This section presents the objectives, methodology and results of the field studies.

Objectives The specific objectives of the case studies were: 1. To examine the Koraput ILDP programme to find out:

a) How the services and village institutions respond to the need of the poor livestock keepers, and

b) Which impact the services and institutions have had on the production and livelihood of the poor livestock keepers

2. To make a brief study of the women dairy societies in the Ganjam District to examine the

experiences concerning market and credit access of the poor through co-operative organisation, and the efficiency of the programme in terms of poverty reduction

Methodology For first objective a total of 8 villages were selected in the Koraput district (five within the project area and three outside as control). The Five project villages consist of two villages from the Jeypore Block, two from the Koraput Block and one in the Laxmipur Block. The ILDP villages in Jeypore and Koraput represent plain and hilly areas respectively, whereas the village in Laxmipur is hilly with forest area. The three non-ILDP villages are from the Jeypore, Koraput and Kundra Block. For the second objective only two villages were studied under the Women Dairy Project and therefore generalised statements about the entire project should not be made on the basis of the findings of this study. A list of the study villages from both projects is available in Annex 5. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with livestock keepers, Community Link Workers (CLWs), village committee members and SHG members at community level. Village meetings and focus group discussions were conducted on different aspects of the study. Debates were also held with the Block Extension Teams and the government veterinary personnel at district level. In Ganjam the co-operative society members - farmers who have raised loans for dairy - and officials of the Milk Union, were interviewed. Besides these, the study has benefited from many other studies conducted earlier on various aspects of livestock service deliveries in relation to ILDP as well as independent of it. (Annex 5)

27

The ILDP experience The ILDP has been operating in 100 villages, which are located in 4 Blocks of the Koraput district of Orissa, since 1993, and it includes 5000 tribal families. The Project has adopted an integrated approach to livestock development with the purpose of reducing poverty. As such the project has the following major objectives: • To set up a livestock service delivery system through a system of CLWs who should be

able to provide doorstep services to farmers • To make credit available and accessible in the village through the formation of female

SHGs • To work on improving agricultural cropping practices to increase productivity (thereby to

impact an increase in food availability) • To promote Village Development Committees, which can address the developmental

issues of the village

The Community Link Workers The Community Link Workers (CLWs) are the core of ILDP's approach to livestock service delivery. It was established in response to the government’s failure in reaching out to the poor farmers. The approach is to train a member of the community who then delivers the services on the farmers’ doorsteps . From each village one man and one woman were chosen by the community/village. It was considered essential to train at least one CLW woman in each village, so that the female livestock farmers would participate fully in the programme. The training comprised simple first aid, poultry vaccination, de-worming of sheep and goats as well as castration of bucks and rams. The CLW were provided with the essential equipments such as cold chain, medicine kit, etc. Moreover, some of the women CLWs have been provided with bicycles to enhance their mobility. Their task was to vaccinate the poultry birds, castrate rams and bucks, treat simple diseases and provide support to the breeding programme. The CLWs worked under direct supervision of a veterinary surgeon and a para-veterinary surgeon (LI) who were part of a multidisciplinary team called the Block Extension Team (BET). The BET operated at Block level. Vaccines and medicines were supplied by the BET. The CLWs were paid a monthly stipend of Rs200 each and the services provided to the farmers were free. Vaccines and medicines were supplied by the Project. Since December 2001 the stipend and vaccine supply has been stopped and service charges have been introduced. Until 2000 the CLWs were only providing services in their own village, but subsequently their area of operation was expanded to the neighbouring villages. Lately, ILDP has initiated the formation of SHGs of CLWs at a cluster level, which consists 10-12 CLWs each. The main areas of ILDP’s service delivery intervention have been: vaccination of poultry against RD and FP; deworming of sheep and goats; and upgrading of breeds of goats and sheep. The latter involved an introduction of new breeds as well as castration of local bucks and rams. Vaccination against PPR is also carried out in a research project, where the drugs are being tested. This vaccination is not carried out the AHD in the country, since the vaccine is not available. The reason for selecting these intervention areas is very clear. In most of the households of the project area, and for that matter in the entire tribal area of Koraput, backyard poultry are commonly kept at very low investment cost. By arresting the mortality of poultry through vaccination, the families can save a substantial amount of money and women have an

28

equal/greater control of the income from poultry. Besides poultry, a sizeable number of people keep goats, sheep and pigs as a supplementary means of livelihood.

The Self Help Groups Considering the critical role of credit in the poor people’s livelihood system within the project area, a key area of intervention has been the formation of female Self Help Groups (SHGs) and a few male groups. In each village 2 to 3 SHGs have been formed with 15 to 20 members in each group. The SHGs make credit available in the village. In the beginning, the members start by depositing a small weekly amount on their group account and then ILDP gives a grant to the group. From this total amount of money, group members can obtain loans with a 24 per cent interest rate per year. The loans can be obtained for any purposes of which the group approves. In addition to the SHGs, which are formed by the ILDP, SHGs are formed by the government agencies in the same villages but they are operating under different principles. A co-ordination mechanism between the ILDP SHGs and government formed SHGs has been established at cluster level through a system, which is called apex-body where representatives of the individual SHGs meet. The centre of this meeting rotates among the constituent villages. The CDVO or its representative and a member of the BET attend this meeting. Earlier, BET members were supervising the accounts of each SHG at village level but this function was subsequently transferred to the apex body. The apex body also debates the participation of SHG members at the Panchayat meeting or any other problem faced by member SHG.

Improvement of agricultural practices Within this area, several measures have been carried out to improve the productivity of various crops. One such measure is the introduction of high-yielding and tall finger millet varieties, which provide a higher yield of crop residues for fodder purposes. This has been well accepted by the farmers. Likewise, a number of practices like mixed cropping of millet, maize, sorghum and pigeon peas, etc. have been introduced, which have resulted in better yields with no extra cost.

Village Development Committee In addition to the SHGs, Village Development Committees (VDCs) are formed at village level. Every household of the village is a member of these committees and a twenty member executive committee has the overall management responsibility. The main purpose of the VDC is to identify the developmental problems of the village and look for solutions to these problems. The committees have been provided with Rs 20000 by the project as a grant. The eligibility for getting this grant is to save an amount of Rs 10000 from the community's own contribution. Having given a brief account of the main components of the ILDP, we now turn to analyse the system.

The delivery of livestock services The CLW delivery system has implemented the important change that all people of the villages now have access to livestock services. The CLWs have managed to reach farmers, who would have remained outside the reach of the AHD. In particular, the access of the farmers, to whom the survival of a hen can improve his/her livelihood, to services is an important contribution.

29

However, in the changed scenario of ILDP, which stopped the stipends, it is not clear whether the system can sustain itself. The CLWs find it difficult to charge farmers for their services and for even the cost of vaccines. Particularly in their own village and in connection with poultry vaccination, people seem to be reluctant to pay, even though the service charge is very low. In the neighbouring villages the demand for vaccination of poultry is rare. Some of the CLWs earn about Rs 50-120 per month in other villages, but mostly by castrating bucks and rams. Most of the female CLWs have stopped working except from one in Sankaudi. We have observed that after the introduction of fees, poultry vaccinations have not been carried out on a regular basis and not with a full coverage in any village. One important feature of this delivery system has been to reach out to women by means of the SHGs on one hand and by focussing on poultry on the other. As stated earlier, the tribal women have a greater control over the income derived from poultry than over any other income of the household. The training of female CLWs was intended to facilitate the female farmer service delivery female farmer further. Through the formation of SHG the women are able to access credit. This has enabled many women to invest in livestock. While the SHG concept has been instrumental in reaching out to the female farmers, the concept of woman CLWs does not seem to have added much value to the service delivery system. Firstly, most of the women CLWs, with a few exceptions, have an extremely low educational level. Secondly, the role of a CLW is very untraditional for women and therefore it has been challenge for them to take up this CLW system. For the CLWs to function efficiently they must be trained additionally and they must be provided with confidence-building measures, which the project failed to address. Besides this there are a range of other services, which are required by farmers but which the CLW system has failed to address. The services which focus on animal health and services, such as training in feeding and management practices, fodder production, etc. are not addressed by the CLWs. Moreover, the large animals remain outside the scope of this service delivery system. This service delivery system does not have a strong institutional character at village level. Till now it has been the CLW’s responsibility to report to the BET if any livestock related problem occurs. This role of CLW seems to be that of weaning, since the allowance from the project has stopped and the village committees do not seem to have much interest in keeping the CLW system working (see Box 3). These committees seem to be more into managing funds than livestock related problems. For instance during the time of our field visit poultry were dying in some villages and the CLWs had failed to vaccinate the birds but the villagers did not seem to be doing anything about it. Considering the fatalistic attitude, which is quite strong among the tribal people, it seems that the awareness creation component of the programme has been rather weak. Perhaps this explains why people are reluctant to pay for poultry vaccination, and the apathy of the village committees to intervene. It is a fact that both the male and female CLWs were from the village and by the village community. The villagers have thus participated in livestock development activities initiated by the CLWs, but in terms of sharing the responsibility, the role of the village as a community seems to end. Box 3 The Village Committee of Dharnahandi A traditional village institution is responsible for taking decisions on matters such as disputes between families, festival celebrations, etc. It is through this institution that the villagers protect a forest patch for their own use. They have appointed two old men from the village to guard the forest. The villagers collect money from all the families to pay the guards.

30

In contrast the village committee formed in the same village with the support of ILDP has a different function. The committee has been provided with an amount of Rs20000, which it must spend on developing the village. Now two people – one of them the CLW and the other Mr Viswanath Padhi (a non-tribal and the most articulate man in the village) have invested the money to buy seeds and fertilisers from Jeypore and sell it to the villagers. The rate, which the farmers are charged, was a little lower than what they would normally have paid in the market. They had an understanding with the villagers that whatever profit they would make, fifty per cent of it would go to the village committee and the other fifty per cent would be shared between the two bodies. What happens if they incur loss? We were told that the loss would be borne by the whole village. This village committee had no other plan for the development of the village. Once the project is withdrawn we are brought back to the issue of the sustainability of CLW. The withdrawal of the project means that the CLWs will not have the support that they have so far received now from the BET. In this system the institutional linkage with the AHD is weak. There are instances of good co-operation between the AHD functionary (LI) and the CLW, but it is mostly based on personal relationship rather than institutional. Considering the low educational level of the CLWs, it is clear that they would require a support system to carry on the work they are doing now. The ILDP's intervention in the livestock development has been an integrated approach, which has three interrelated components: Livestock service delivery through CLWs, provision of credit through Self Help Groups and Improvements in agricultural practices. There is a general feeling that poultry vaccination has reduced the mortality rate. Vaccination of goats and sheep against PPR and deworming has reduced the mortality rate of sheep and goats. The breeding intervention has resulted in better stock, which fetches better prices. There is an increase in the stock of poultry and small animals, which appears to be due to a reduction in the mortality of these species. Moreover, there has been an increase in the cattle stock population over the last few years, as shown by the village profile data. It is however, difficult to attribute this increase to the effect of services provided by the CLW/ILDP. As noted earlier, the livelihood system of the people is complex and varies from village to village and from household to household. For instance, among the project villages that we investigated, in one village Ranjitguda, which is one of the resource poor villages in terms of land, there is no substantial increase in cattle population. However, in terms of forest, this village is a resource rich one, and not surprisingly, a significant increase has been experienced in the goat population of this village (highest among the five ILDP villages). Another example is the village Khariguda, which is also a resource-poor village in terms of irrigation. However, this village had experienced a significant increase in the bullock population over the last seven years. When we enquired into this phenomenon, it was revealed that this village has been the recipient of maximum a number of loans from the government - and a number of loans were granted to purchase bullocks and cows (Box 4). People in other villages have also received loans, but not to this extent. Therefore, the increase in cattle population simply cannot be said to be an indication of an improvement in the livelihood of people or of the service delivery system. Box 4 A list of government loans given in Khariguda • About 40 families had got bullocks loan from ITDA about 10 years ago • 11 families had got cow/buffalo loans 7 years ago • 3 families had got loans for brick Klin five years back (Rs12000/- each) • 4 families had got loans for starting shops 2 years back (Rs8000/- each)

31

• 6 families have got loans for ginger cultivation last year (Rs21000/- each) • 4 families have got bullock loans two months ago The resource base available has a strong influence on the village in determining people's choice to prefer small or large ruminants. The choice to keep large ruminants is positively influenced by factors such as: • Availability of irrigation for intensive agriculture; • Access to land for cultivation, and • Availability of fodder and crop residues As can be seen from table 8, the irrigated villages have a relatively smaller proportion of people who keep small ruminants. On the other hand, the rain-fed villages have a higher proportion of farmers who keep small ruminants. In Palliguda, where people have no resources whatsoever and depend completely on the daily wage for their survival, fewer people keep small ruminants. Table 8 Village profiles Village Resource base Total no of

Households in the village

No of HH having small livestock*

% of small livestock keeping families to

total HH in the village Sankaudi Irrigated land 177 35 20%

Dharnahandi Irrigated land 77 38 49%

Khariguda Rainfed

93 93

100%

Doliamba Rainfed

91 56 61%

Ranjitguda Rainfed/ Access to land restricted/ Forest available for grazing

50 40 80%

Paliguda Complete land alienation

40 7/8 families 20%

Village profiles provided by ILDP and our own data in Palliguda * The figures under this heading could be confusing. There is an overlapping of numbers in the sense that the families have both sheep and goats and even pigs. This means the same families are counted twice. Therefore, these findings should be treated as indicative of the dynamics in livestock keeping. People, particularly women, consider access to credit as the most important benefit from the programme. The SHG has two aspects - the credit aspect and the 'empowerment' aspect. People, who used to borrow money at very exploitative rates, find that after the SHGs are formed they do not have to go to the moneylenders any more. With the formation of SHGs, people have easy access to credit at fair rates. Moreover, they feel it as their own mini-bank and women feel proud by the fact that they have been able to save some money. Women particularly feel that apart from access to credit, being member of the SHG have made them less fearful and able to talk to people whom they do not know, especially with the government officials. The women value these changes. Also the fact that they do not have to go to the moneylenders is a matter of dignity to them.

32

As regards the credit utilisation pattern, again there is a difference between the villages on the basis of their resource bases. The resource-rich villages have utilised maximum credit for agricultural activities, whereas the resource-poor villages have used their credit for a wide range of activities. To what extent they have used the credit facilities for livestock development must to be seen in the overall livelihood framework of the poor. How has the credit system benefited the poor livestock farmers? In a complex system of livelihood and livestock farming, the importance of credit cannot be seen in isolation from the whole system. For instance the availability or unavailability of a small loans for health related expenditures could have significant impact on the livelihood of a poor family. Unavailability of a loan for health expenditures could also mean selling of an animal or a few poultry birds. Likewise, a loan, which is obtained for agricultural activities, could also mean that in the absence of the availability of this loan the family might have had to sell some animals. The loan utilisation pattern of the SHGs shows a range of activities for which loans have been obtained. There is also a clear distinction in the loan utilisation pattern of irrigated villages and resource-poor villages both in terms of the volume of the loans and the activities for which loans have been utilised. Figure 4

Loan utilisation by SHG members of MTSSS, Sanakuadi

AG55%

HE20%

OT13%

ED2%

AH3%

BU

7%

AG=AgricultureBU=BusinessHE=HealthOT=OthersED=EducationAH=Animal Husbandry

33

Figure 5 Figure 6 In the irrigated villages a major share of the credit is invested in agriculture. In the two SHGs of the Sankaudi village 55% and 77% of the credit amount has been utilised for agriculture purposes (see Figures 1 and 2).In Ranjitguda, which is rain-fed but which still has some forest resources, the major share of credit utilisation invested in livestock. Moreover, the volume of investment is much higher in the irrigated villages. For instance the total volume of money transacted in one of the SHGs in Sankaudi amounted to Rs. 270100 compared to Rs 31780 in one the SHGs in Ranjitguda. This clearly shows that: • The higher one is above the threshold of poverty, the better are the chances for further

investment and • The preferred areas of investment are determined by the level of income of farmers

and their resource base Who has access to credit? There is no doubt that the members of the SHGs are poor people. However, the poorest among these poor have remained excluded from the system. There is unevenness in the

Loan utilisation by SHG members of MTSSS, Sanakaudi (Male Group)

AG77%

BU3%

HE1%

OT14%

ED0%

AH5% AG=Agriculture

BU=BusinessHE=HealthOT=OthersED=EducationAH=Animal Husbandry

Loan transaction of the 5th MMSS, Ranjitguda

HE22%

OT19%

ED3%

AH45%

AG

8%B

U3%

AG=AgricultureBU=BusinessHE=HealthOT=OthersED=EducationAH=Animal Husbandry

34

utilisation pattern of the loans from the group funds, both in terms of frequency of loans taken by individual members and the amount of loans taken. The frequency of obtaining loans varies from one to four. The distribution of the credit amount is also highly uneven. Few members have raised a substantially high amount compared to others. It was observed in several groups that the CLW or some large landholders have obtained the highest amount of money. An example is Manasi Mallik of Doliamba, who is the daughter of a teacher and whose family is the largest landholder in this village. She is the one who borrows the largest amount from the SHG she belongs to. In the same village Bhagabati Hanjaria, the woman CLW has obtained the highest amount of Rs7000/- from the other SHG in the village. Her husband is also the CLW in the village and both husband and wife are members of the same SHG. Similarly, Laxmi Poojari, the woman CLW of Sankaudi, has obtained the largest loan, which amounts to Rs20000/- from her group. Her father is the largest landholder in the village. Laxmi is married but she lives with her father’s family. Another example is that of Madhab Nayak of Khariguda who has raised a loan for the second time. His 1st loan amounted to Rs400. The second loan amount rose to Rs10, 000. His saving amount in the group account might be between Rs1000 and Rs1500. Except for social trust, which definitely is the most important collateral, there is no mechanism in place to ensure his repayment. This also raises the question if a few people monopolise the loan amount purely on the basis of their repayment capacity. If this is the case, would the poorest people then always be guaranteed a reserve? It has been noted earlier that the loan utilisation pattern of the studied villages indicates that the higher one is above the threshold of poverty, the better are the chances that further investment can improve the livelihood. Therefore, although it seems that the better off have benefited most from the available capital, it is difficult to say that they have done it at the expense of the poorest ones. Other issues regarding the sustainability of SHGs in its role as a village level financial institution are: The formation of SHGs in a village by several agencies Both the Government and other development agencies project SHG as the panace for poverty reduction. As a result SHGs are formed overnight to fulfil a target without due consideration to the long process, which is required to form a well-functioning group. The government and other agencies are forming groups in villages where some groups with certain principles already function. When grants are given to some groups without regard to these norms, it is likely to affect the functioning of the original groups. The apex body of SHGs The practice is that the ILDP groups and government formed groups meet once in a month and the ILDP staffs verify their books of accounts. Once the project is withdrawn, it is not sure whether the groups will get the same support from the government staff and with that much sincerity. The literacy level of the women is appallingly low. Most of the women are not aware, how much individual and group savings they have on the account. Although the bookkeepers are not handling cash, it seems highly risky when the close supervision of ILDP staff stops. The absence of a collateral system It has been found that the influential members are the biggest beneficiaries of the loan, which is available in the group fund. While one can say that this is how the money is being circulated and even the group members feel that in any case the group is benefiting in terms of interest earned, the question remains as to how long this will continue in the absence of an external supervising body. There is no condition attached to the amount of loan one is eligible to obtain

35

and the amount saved in the group fund. The system appears to be working because grants from ILDP function as a big incentive for repayment. Conclusively, it can be said that the system is not yet tested to withstand default of repayment.

Has the service delivery system contributed to poverty reduction? The services provided through the CLWs have been instrumental in reducing the mortality rates of poultry and sheep and goats. Moreover, many people have made use of the credit, which was available in the village and have invested in productive purposes instead of using it to meet emergency needs. Furthermore, there is an increase in the food productivity, which is a result of the introduction of high-yielding seeds. However, to what extent all this has had an impact on the poverty level is difficult to answer. The improved service delivery system has benefited different categories of people at different degrees. At one level one can say that every hen saved means a lot to a poor woman, or if somebody in crisis borrows Rs100 from the SHG this is a big support. At another level it is clear that those at a higher level of resource base, income, exposure and education are the ones who have successfully made use of the services available, particularly of the credit facility. According to a report by Brunse (2001), 64% of the people in the ILDP-project villages are still living below the poverty line, while 85% of the people are below the poverty line in the non-ILDP villages. Our observation of both the ILDP and non-ILDP villages supports this, but low poverty levels in the ILDP villages cannot be attributed to the provision of improved service delivery alone, since all the three non-ILDP villages we visited are extremely resource-poor compared to the ILDP villages. On the other hand, at a non-material level of change, one notices a marked difference between the ILDP and non-ILDP villages in terms of women's level of self-confidence and their independence from their moneylenders. The question is whether the present system of service delivery can reduce the poverty of the remaining 64% people substantially. The answer seems to be no, unless: • The service delivery system is geared to address the whole range of services that

farmers need and • The wider aspects of poverty are being addressed As mentioned earlier, the livelihood system of the poor is so vulnerable and the poverty level is so high in this area that any service delivery system has to adopt a holistic approach to livestock development in order to make a significant dent on poverty.

The experiences of Women Dairy Co-operatives This section describes the experiences of Women Dairy Cooperatives and examines how provisions of credit and market access have addressed the issue of poverty. Dairy production is considered by the policy makers in India as a potential 'scheme' for poverty alleviation in rural area. As a result, credit provision for dairy is a promoted and accepted policy of the government. Firstly, the focus of women dairy projects is women development. However, this project also has a stated poverty focus in the sense that the poor rural women are the 'beneficiaries' of this project. Secondly, the DRDA, which is the main development agency of the government at district level, regards the women dairy co-operative societies as a

36

driving force behind poverty alleviation by giving its members subsidised loans for dairy development. The project is being implemented in the Operation Flood area because the presence of the Milk Union would provide a regular market for milk besides providing other support services required. In fact, the project is being implemented by the Milk Union on behalf of the OMFED. The two Women Milk Producers Co-operative Societies (MPCS), which were selected for this study, are formed by the Greater Ganjam and Gajapati Milk Union (GGGMU) as part of the Orissa Women Dairy Project. One is situated in village Dengapadar in the Hinjilikatu Block and the other one in village Dhobapalli in the Aska Block. The membership of the society is not restricted to any particular socio-economic group. Anybody who has a cow/buffalo and would like to sell milk to the society can be a member. However, all the members, who have obtained loans for dairy, belong to the Scheduled Caste and most of them are landless wage earners. A few of the loaners have some land. Some landless families keep bullocks to earn income from ploughing during the monsoon season. In both the societies, loans have been granted to the members for keeping dairy under the SGSY15, an employment generation and poverty reduction programme of the DRDA. To most of the people here dairy is not a new activity. Keeping one or two desi cows is a common practice. Giving a heifer to the daughter at the time of marriage is a traditional practice, which is still prevalent in this area. All the women, we spoke to, had each brought one heifer to their marriage and some of them still have the progenies of it. All of them have given one heifer to their married daughters, too. Box 5 presents a detailed picture of one co-operative society, which raises several questions regarding the effectiveness of the approach to poverty reduction. Box 5 Dhobapalli MPCS and Dairy Development and Poverty reduction scheme

Located about 5 KM from Aska (Block Headquarter) this village has a women dairy co-operative society, which was formed in January 2001. The society is not yet registered, because it has not yet produced 80-90 litres of milk per day, which is the required norm to register a society. 13 families have been assisted under SGSY, of which 11 families were assisted in the first phase (Jan 2001) under a group dairy scheme. Two families received the assistance in 2002 under a individual dairy scheme. The beneficiaries are mostly Scheduled Caste. All these families are landless. The loans are granted in the name of the male members of the households. Only in those families where there are no male members, the widows obtain the loans. The MPCS has been formed in the names of the wives of these male beneficiaries. A committee of men including one non-beneficiary is practising the actual management. The non-beneficiary is the husband of the secretary of the MPCS. The women have absolutely no knowledge of the business transactions of the dairy unit, which is managed collectively by the male committee. The only thing they know is that the group management is incurring losses. For about ten months the entire profit from selling milk was spent on the maintenance of animals and on repaying of loans. There is no money going to the individuals. A few families have taken some amount as advances, which is not transparent. The buffaloes were purchased collectively for the entire group. 22 buffaloes were purchased on the basis of two heads per one beneficiary. There was no individual ownership of the animals. When the group was dismantled (around October 2001), they divided all the buffaloes and calves in 11 units and distributed them among the 11 members on a lottery draw basis. The second lot of loans – purchase of two more buffaloes - was given to all these families. Now the families are seriously considering selling one buffalo out of the four to repay the loan, since they

15 Swarna Jayanty Swo Rozgar Yojana, a scheme of the government to help creation of self- employment and poverty reduction in rural areas.

37

are not able to repay it from the sale of milk. What do they see as their main problem in connection with dairy as a means of livelihood? The answer was clear - the system of group management! Now that the group management system is not there, they consider high cost of feed and lack of green fodder as the main problems. There is also a plan for fodder development by the DRDA for this group. A landowner has entered into agreement with the CDVO to lease out his 1.5 acres of land for five years to the society for fodder development. The terms and conditions of this agreement are not known to all the members. So one hears different stories. The common one is that the government will support a deep borewell in this plot, a pump set and fencing of the whole area. And after the lease period is over the owner will get all these assets. Some others say that the society will have to pay an amount of Rs 3400 every year as rent for the leased land. Whatever the agreement is, it is not transparent. The women have heard about it from their husbands/sons/other men. As a case of poverty-focused livestock project, the case of Dhobapalli as well as Dengapadar reveals the following critical aspects of the dairy development: • Little choice was offered to people - the choice was between crossbred cows or buffaloes

and people chose buffaloes since they felt that it would be difficult on their part to maintain crossbred cows

• The idea of group management was imposed on the people by the officials in the case of Dhobapalli - in Dengapadar loans were given individually and management was also performed individually

• The formation of the women dairy co-operative society in Dhobapalli was just for the sake of the name. The women had no say in connection with the management of the dairy unit. In Dengapadar loans were granted in the name of women and here they seemed to have a greater say in the management of the society

• The advisory services required for the feeding were almost absent. The fact that nine out of eighteen calves, born from the first lot of buffaloes in Dhobapalli, died speaks of the poor health care services from the AHD. The AI centre in Dengapadar has been closed down since 1999 and the villagers take their buffaloes to the nearby village where they payRs100 per service

• For many landless families, the feeding and grazing of the animals is a real problem. In some cases children have dropped out of school to be able to take the buffaloes grazing during the day

• In Dengapadar the two members, who have repaid the maximum amount of loan, have an additional source of income in the form of remittances they get from their family members, which work in Surat as migrant labourers. Others have on average repaid about Rs1000/- to Rs1500/-

• In Dengapadar none of the farmers feed concentrate to their animals, except from one member whose father is a teacher. The costs of feeding concentrate is too high for dairying to be profitable

Considering at all the above-mentioned aspects, it can be concluded that the provision of credit, which was made available to the poor landless women, has failed to make an impact in terms of poverty reduction. On the contrary, all evidence indicates that it has left the households indebted. It is interesting to note that, as in the Sankaudi village in the ILDP area, the women in Dengapadar demand more loans, so that they can have a second buffalo. In their opinion this would make their unit economically viable. Moreover, the members of the society, who have not received any loan, would like to obtain it despite the fact that they know very well that

38

others have not been able to repay the loan. This phenomenon seems to be due to the incentive of subsidy as well as a feeling that one need not even repay the remaining amount. The loan might even be waved away by the government at some stage. The understanding that the existence of an organised market, offered by the Milk Union, is an ideal condition for dairy development, and if a credit provision is made available for the poor people they would benefit from it are very narrow views of the service needs of the poor. As noted earlier, the productivity of dairy animals in Orissa is the lowest in the country. While granting loans to the poor for dairy animals with the assurance of a regular market for milk, no step is taken to ensure that the farmers have the necessary know-how and means to maintain a reasonable productivity level. Not surprisingly people want to keep more cows/buffaloes to get more milk, incurring more and more expenditure, because they do not know how to increase the productivity. Having examining both the experiences of ILDP and Women Co-operatives in the broader setting of the poverty situation in the state and of the prevailing policy environment, we turn to the final section, in which the conclusions drawn from these cases will be presented.

39

Section 4 Conclusions Poor farmers depend upon diverse and complex livelihood systems of which agriculture and livestock keeping are only sub-systems. The role of these sub-systems varies from family to family and cannot be generalised. In fact, in every village there are several types of livelihood systems, which to a large extent represent the diversity of the livelihood systems of the area. Furthermore, the livelihood systems of the poor are marked by extreme uncertainties and vulnerability. Poor livestock farmers have a range of service needs. Each of the needs is crucial, and if it is not addressed, it will have consequences for the whole livestock production system. Moreover, the services required farmers and thei preferences for livestock vary from farmer to farmer and are dependent on a number of factors such as available resource bases (land, water, forest etc.), labour power within the household, access to credit and output market, and above all, the poverty level of the household. These factors determine the composition of livestock and service needs. Therefore, any service delivery system must correspond to the multiplicity of needs. A single focus approach to service delivery for one particular species means that the other service needs of the farmer remain un-addressed. The approach of the service delivery system of the government is clinic centred and focuses on curative services rather than prevention. However, if the farmers are to be reached, certain services must be delivered at the doorstep. The present establishment of the service delivery mechanism of the Government is not geared to address this issue, especially not in the hilly tribal areas where the presence of government functionaries is inadequate and the human settlements are geographically scattered. An alternative mechanism could be to make the services available within the community, as has been tried out in the ILDP through the CLW system. The idea is to train somebody from the community itself who would be in a position to provide services to the farmers at his/her doorstep. However, the CLW concept has raised a number of issues, which need to be addressed if the system is to work efficiently. • The educational level of the CLW. It has been clearly established that those, who were

better educated, have been the most effective. Simply going by the criteria of 'selected by the community’ does not meet the requirements of a service provider. On the other hand, there is also some evidence that the most qualified do not stick to the job. Therefore, the question is to ensure a minimum educational level for the CLW to be effective

• The CLWS need a support system to carry out their work efficiently and who and how of this has to be worked out

• In addition to technical/professional training, female CLWs need special training to prepare themselves for their new roles, which challenges the traditional roles. This is required for raising their own confidence as well as the farmers’/community’s confidence in the CLWs

• Whatever be the reason, as things stand now, the CLWs are, by and large, not in a position to deliver services on payment basis (cost recovery and service charge), except for castration of small stock. There is a crucial need for more attention to the sustainability of the CLW system

40

The poor and landless farmers predominantly keep poultry and small stock. Any service deliveries focussing on these species would have a definite poverty focus. However, at its prevalent scale of production, its potential for poverty reduction would remain low. To make a significant dent on poverty level, it would require a substantial scaling up which again would mean responding to a wider range of farmer's needs. Access to credit is important for the poor and the concept of SHGs is certainly an alternative to overcome the shortcomings of both the formal and informal credit channels. In this system people have a choice as to where they would like to invest their money. However, as seen in the ILDP's case, the poorest of the poor also remain excluded in this system and the influential and better off farmers can have greater access than the others. Even a socio-culturally homogenous community, as in a tribal village of Koraput, can be highly inequitable economically. Therefore, in the SHG system, inclusion of the poorest and equity issues will remain important aspects, which need to be addressed. Women can be visibly included in the development process through SHGs. In the example of the ILDP, women do not only have access to credit, but they have also gained confidence. However, the sustainability of the ILDP-formed SHGs after the project's withdrawal is uncertain. Moreover, the current rush for formation of new ones by various agencies, without consideration for the process involved, poses other threats. If the need for women’s empowerment at all levels of the decision making process is not realised, the women may be involved without real impact, as has been the case in the dairy cooperatives. While intervention through the dairy co-operatives offer the opportunity of addressing gender issues alongside poverty reduction, it also has the potential of being entirely co-opted by the men and the influential people of the community. The poorer the farmers are, the lower is their capacity for taking risks. Any externally induced risk is likely to burden the poor further, as has been noticed in the case of many dairy schemes. There is no doubt that the poor need to invest to enhance the productivity of their livestock, which will enable them to make more money. However, the prevalent approach has been to give loans to people in order for them to purchase more animals, particularly crossbred cows or buffaloes. Hardly any effort aims at increasing the productivity of the existing stock. This is an area, which must be developed further. Moreover, providing regular milk markets by means o the Milk Union might be a necessary condition for dairy development but certainly many other issues need to be addressed. There is a need for strong extension services as regards feed and fodder, health care, animal nutrition, etc. Promoting village committees or organisations could be yet another superficial body unless it is based on a collectively identified common interest. Farmers' organisations truly organised along the common needs and interests of the farmers could probably play a role in making the service delivery system work in the long run. Particularly, programmes on sheep and goat breeding or grazing land management, etc. require both individual as well as collective efforts of the community to make them successful and sustainable. Finally, participatory approaches to service delivery remains the overarching principle for the sustainability of the system, apart from being need-based and demand-driven. As seen in the ILDP case, even if services are available within the community, the farmers may not use them unless the right awareness is created and they feel the need for the services.

41

References Ahuja, Vinod and Elizabeth Redmond. Forthcoming. “Economic and Policy Issues in Delivery of Livestock Services to the Poor”, Tropical Animal Production and Health Ahuja, Vinod and Arindam Sen. 2002. Livestock Service Delivery and the Poor: Case of Rural Orissa”, Centre for Management in Agriculture, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Brunse, H. 2001. 'Poverty reduction by providing support to the livestock and agricultural sectors', Paper presented at Danida Advisor's Seminar, Puri, India. DANIDA document, 1992. 'Plan of Operation for Integrated Livestock Development Project in the Koraput district Orissa'. DARUDEC. 2001. ‘Review Report - Integrated Livestock Development Project (ILDP) Koraput District, Orissa, India. de Haan, Cornelis; Schillhorn van Veen, Tjaart; Brandenburg, Brian; Gauthier, Jérôme; le Gall, François; Mearns, Robin, and Siméon, Michel. 2001. Livestock Development: Implications for Rural Poverty, the Environment, and Global Food Security, The World Bank, Washington DC. Deaton, Angus. 2001a. 'Adjusted Indian Poverty Estimates for 1999-2000'', Princeton NJ Research Program in Development Studies, November 19 (as quoted in Ahuja, 2002)’. Deaton, Angus. 2001b. ''Computing Prices and Poverty Rates in India, 1999-2000'', Princeton NJ Research Program in Development Studies, December 26 (as quoted in Ahuja, 2002) Department Animal Husbandry Government of Orissa & Indo-Swiss Natural Management Programme Orissa, 1999. ‘An Analytical Study of Gender Issues in the Livestock Sector, Orissa’ Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services Orissa , 'Status of Livestock Develoment in the State of Orissa'. Directorate of Economic and Statistics. Orissa, Bhubaneswar.1995. District Statistical Handbook, Koraput. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Orissa , Bhubaneswar 'Orissa Budget in brief, 2001-2002'. Dolberg, Frands. 1995. ‘Feed Resources for Landless and Small Farmers in Asia: Research Requirements’ .Staff Working Paper 19 Government of Orissa- Economic Survey-2001-2002. ISNRMPO, 2001. 'Process documentation and impact study of rearing small ruminants in Ganjam and Gajapati districts of Orissa'- Technical Report no. 29. ISNRMPO. ‘Concept Paper on Livestock Service Delivery’.

42

ISNRMPO. 1999. Orissa Livestock Sector Review. Kurup, M.P.G. and R.S.Murli, 2001. 'Report of a Study into the implications of the Implementation of the Orissa State Livestock Sector Policy'. Management Services Group. 1999. ‘Draft Report on Study of Link Workers - ILDP, Orissa’. Mearns, Robin and Saurabh Sinha. 1998 ‘Social Exclusion and Land Administration in Orissa, India’ Nayak, Trilochan. 2001. ‘Danida Supported Comprehensive Watershed Development Project, Koraput and Malkangiri Districts, Orissa: A Methodology to Reach Project Benefits to the Poorest Households’. Nirmala,K.Annie. 2001. ‘Evaluation of Integrated Livestock Development Project (ILDP) in the Koraput district of Orissa’. Nirmala,K.Annie. 2001. ‘Evaluation of Self Help Groups of Integrated Livestock Development Project (ILDP) in Koraput District, Orissa’. Schmeidt, Peter and Tripati Mishra.1993 'Many cows but not much mlk: Livestock keeping in Ganjam and Gajapati Districts of Orissa'- A synthesis of the stock taking exercises and observations of ISPO

43

Annex 1

Schedule of user charges for livestock health and breeding services in Orissa Name of services User charge (Rs.) 1. Treatment of large animal at Veterinary Hospital at District and Sub-

Divisional Head quarters 2. Treatment of large animals including castration in other Veterinary

Dispensaries & LACS.

3.00

2.00

3. Treatment of small animals in Veterinary Hospitals/Dispensaries/LACs. 4. Treatment of birds

1.00 Free

5. Examination for Pathology samples 5.00 6. Fees for bacterial culture 50.00 7. Treatment of dogs at District Head Quarters & Sub-Divisional Head

Quarters 10.00

8. Artificial Insemination a) At the centre (in Municipal/NAC areas) b) Door step service

i. In Rural areas 1. First service 2. Repetition

ii. In Municipal/NAC areas 1. First service 2. Repetition

10.00

5.00 3.00

15.00 10.00

9. Vaccination (for each dose of vaccine. O.E.P.I. Product) H.S.V.(A) H.S.V.(O) B.O.V./E.M.T.V/A.S.V.

Poultry Vaccine F.D.T.C.(F)/F.D.R.C.V (RB)/F.D.F.P.V F.D.A.R.V.

1.00 2.00 1.00

0.15

15.00 10. Ordinary surgical operation 11. Critical surgical operation

10.00 100.00

12. Castration of bull & buffalo calves by burdizoo castrator 13. Castration of kid & lambs by burdizoo castrator 14. Surgical castration of bull calves and buffalo bull calves 15. Surgical castration of kid and lambs

5.00 2.00

10.00 2.00

16. X-ray, Elisha testing 50.00 17. Fees for examination of Feed sample

a) Moisture b) Crude fat c) Crude febrc d) Crude protine (as per 1st. method) e) Total Ash (as per O.A.C. method) f) Acid Insol Ash g) Calcium/Total phosphate h) Available phosphate i) Salt

20.00 150.00 160.00 50.00 80.00 50.00 70.00 80.00 150.00

44

18. Poultry Feed (as per 1st method) 19. Cattle Feed

450.00 300.00

Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Government of Orissa

45

Annex 2

Budget Allocation for Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development in Orissa

(Rupees million) 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 Salary Non-salary Salary Non-salary Salary Non-salaryPlan Animal Husbandry State 22.82 17.64 24.26 5.29 8.47 5.02 Centre 2.21 2.90 1.97 81.96 2.03 92.73 Centrally Sponsored 1.53 0.08 2.23 1.10 1.04 0.68 Total 26.55 20.61 28.46 88.35 11.53 98.4 Dairy Development State 1.64 3.04 9.93 5.68 8.03 4.39 Centre - 0.25 - 18.86 - 26.00 Total 1.64 3.29 9.93 24.54 8.03 30.39 Total Plan 28.19 23.90 38.39 112.88 19.56 128.81 Non-Plan Animal Husbandry 761.02 34.36 722.03 32.30 709.4 27.11 Dairy Development 1.72 0.06 1.45 0.03 1.43 0.02 Total Non-Plan 762.74 34.42 723.48 32.33 710.8 27.13 Grand Total 790.94 58.32 761.87 145.22 730.4 155.9

Review of Physical and Financial Achievement of different schemes of Animal Resources Development Department Orissa for the Year 2000-2001 and 2001-02, Internal document of the department.

46

Annex 3 Determinants of livestock density

Dependent variable Explanatory variables

Total livestock density

Density of crossbred

bovine

Density of indigenous bovine

Density of small

ruminants Intercept 5.32 (6.5) -3.90 (-1.5) 4.64 (4.9) 4.33 (3.9) Literacy rate (per cent) 0.20 (1.2) 1.81 (3.4)* 0.22 (1.1) 0.14 (0.6) Irrigated area as per cent of net sown area

0.005 (0.7) 0.64 (2.8)* 0.001 (0.1) 0.008 (0.8)

Density of village roads 0.64 (5.3)* 0.96 (2.5)** 0.60 (4.3)* 0.60 (3.5) Adjusted R2 0.64 0.68 0.53 0.48 No of observations 30 30 30 30

Note: Both dependent and independent variables were converted into natural logs before running the regression. Figures in parentheses are t values. * Significant at 1 per cent level, ** significant at 5 per cent level, *** significant at 10 per cent level.

47

Annex 4

District wise availability of veterinary infrastructure in the State

Geographical Area (km2)

No. of Animals per Veterinary Centre

District No. of Veterinary Hospitals

and Dispensaries

No. of Livestock

Aid Centres

Total Veterinary

Centres

No. of AI

Centres

No. of AI per Centre Per

Vet. Centre

Per AI Centre

Large Ruminants

Small Ruminants

No. of Breeding Animals Per AI Centre

Balassore 21 114 135 80 342 29.63 50 7065.19 2804.44 3168 Bhadrak 13 99 112 55 299 26.79 54.55 5110.71 1649.11 2967 Bolangir 21 114 135 67 250 51.85 104.48 4506.67 2870.37 2925 Subarnapur 10 37 47 34 454 42.55 58.82 5748.94 2753.19 2011 Cuttack 25 151 176 146 619 22.73 27.4 3752.27 2063.07 1646 Jajpur 19 119 138 48 281 21.74 62.5 4672.46 2257.97 4439 Jagatsinghpur 13 109 122 116 815 16.39 17.24 2465.57 1211.48 1235 Kendrapada 14 47 61 73 422 49.18 41.1 4180.33 2424.59 1967 Dhenkanal 18 86 104 47 407 48.08 106.38 5379.81 1368.27 3972 Angul 16 78 94 52 301 63.83 115.38 6464.89 3142.55 3563 Ganjam 37 236 273 97 157 29.3 82.47 3563.74 1334.43 4026 Gajapati 11 49 60 30 162 50 100 4413.33 2215 2466 Kalahandi 21 122 143 50 192 55.94 160 4032.17 2256.64 3460 Nawapara 8 62 70 19 127 47.14 173.68 3442.86 1674.29 3460 Keonjhar 22 118 140 64 315 57.14 125 5355.71 3909.29 3170 Koraput 25 112 137 53 103 65.69 169.81 4369.34 2245.99 305 Malkangiri 13 51 64 10 125 93.75 600 6856.25 3015.63 1170 Nawarangapur 17 66 83 40 66 60.24 125 5571.08 2181.93 2973 Rayagada 16 85 101 26 112 79.21 307.69 4693.07 2042.57 5903 Mayurbhanj 42 161 203 90 280 54.19 122.22 4456.16 3769.46 2366 Phulbani 20 112 132 32 91 45.45 187.5 2783.33 1507.58 3275 Boudh 7 25 32 22 177 125 181.82 8625 5484.38 3486 Puri 15 145 160 114 651 18.75 26.32 2991.88 1219.38 1500 Khurda 20 166 186 77 166 16.13 38.96 2290.86 773.12 3140 Nayagarh 16 68 84 46 299 47.62 86.96 4425 1501.19 3017 Sambalpur 18 107 125 63 387 56 111.11 3472 1546.4 2090 Bargarh 19 126 145 94 476 41.38 63.83 3757.93 1620.69 1482 Deogarh 4 20 24 13 138 125 230.77 7995.83 3466.67 4761 Jharsuguda 9 36 45 19 178 44.44 105.26 4106.67 1200 2926 Sundergarh 30 116 146 75 144 68.49 133.33 5311.64 3468.49 2516 Total 540 2937 3477 1752 355 44.95 89.21 4362.24 2167.79 2581

48

Annex 5: List of villages visited District Block Village Project relation Agricultural production system Koraput Koraput Khariguda ILDP rainfed Doliamaba ILDP rainfed Bariguda Non-ILDP rainfed Jeypore Sanakaudi ILDP irrigated Dharnahand

i ILDP irrigated

Palliguda Non-ILDP irrigated but the poor have absolutely no land

Kundra Sargiguda Non-ILDP rainfed Laxmipur Ranjitguda ILDP rainfed/close to forest/limited

ownership over land Ganjam Aska Dhobapalli WDP Hinjilikatu Dengapadar WDP

49

Ann

ex 6

C

lass

ifica

tion

of L

ives

tock

Ser

vice

s

Ahuj

a an

d R

edm

ond.

For

thco

min

g .

Li

vest

ock

Serv

ices

Hea

lth S

ervi

ces

Prod

uctio

n Se

rvic

es

Live

stoc

k R

esea

rch

Live

stoc

k ex

tens

ion

Cur

ativ

e Pr

even

tive

Prov

isio

n of

ve

terin

ary

supp

lies

Vete

rinar

y ca

re to

sic

k an

imal

s

Vacc

inat

ion

Vect

or c

ontro

l D

isea

se s

urve

illanc

e D

iagn

osis

sup

port

Erad

icat

ion

Mov

emen

t res

trict

ions

Q

uara

ntin

e D

rug

qual

ity c

ontro

l Fo

od h

ygie

ne/in

spec

tion

Mar

ket s

ervi

ces

Inpu

t su

pplie

sM

arke

t in

form

atio

nO

utpu

t m

arke

ting

Feed

& fo

dder

su

pply

Ar

tific

ial

inse

min

atio

nN

atur

al

bree

ding