India is one of the most drought prone countries in the world with elaborate institutional mechanisms to respond to droughts. However, drought relief has always been a public discourse due to various issues plaguing the system. This report evaluates the drought relief interventions in some of the most drought prone parts in India i.e. Rajasthan, Karnataka, Orissa using direct interviews with various stakeholders involved in drought relief.

1. Drought Relief for Tangible and
Intangible Benefits:
A Study of Government Drought
Relief Work in Some of the
Drought-Prone States of India
National Institute of Disaster Management
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
2005

2. Suggested citation: NIDM. 2005. Drought Relief for Tangible and Intangible
Benefits: A Study of Government Drought Relief Work in Some of the Drought-
Prone States of India. National Institute for Disaster Management, New Delhi,
India.

3. 3
Contents
Page No
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 4
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 7
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................... 8
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 10
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 12
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................. 16
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 43
ANNEXURE I .......................................................................................................................................... 50
ANNEXURE II ........................................................................................................................................ 83
ANNEXURE III ....................................................................................................................................... 82
ANNEXURE IV ....................................................................................................................................... 84
ANNEXURE V ....................................................................................................................................... 100
ANNEXURE VI ..................................................................................................................................... 106

4. List of Tables
Table 1. Drought frequency as identified by the non-beneficiary respondents (%
response). ................................................................................................... 18
Table 2. Indicators for identification of drought frequency (non-beneficiaries) ........ 19
Table 3. Source of information on drought relief works for beneficiaries in study
location of three states ................................................................................ 20
Table 4. Source of information on drought relief works for non-beneficiaries in the
study locations of three states ...................................................................... 21
Table 5. Drought relief vs mitigation (Beneficiaries) .............................................. 21
Table 6. Drought relief vs mitigation (Non-beneficiaries) ....................................... 21
Table 7. Perception about how drought risk mitigation differs from drought relief
(beneficiaries) ............................................................................................. 22
Table 8. Perception about how drought risk mitigation differs from drought relief
(non-beneficiaries) ...................................................................................... 22
Table 9. Declaration of drought as perceived by the beneficiaries of drought relief . 23
Table 10. Number of years participated in drought relief works ............................. 24
Table 11. Willingness to participate in government led drought relief programs ...... 24
Table 12. Options available with the communities in absence of drought relief works
(beneficiaries) ............................................................................................. 25
Table 13. Duration of drought relief works implemented as reported by the
beneficiaries ................................................................................................ 28
Table 14. Number of days for which the drought relief works were offered. ........... 28
Table 15. Wages received by the beneficiaries in different states during the recent
drought relief works of 2003-04.................................................................... 29
Table 16. Adequacy of drought relief as opined by the respondents (figures % of
responses). ................................................................................................. 29
Table 17. Additional benefits accrued through drought relief works........................ 31

5. 5
Table 18. Women participation in drought relief works as identified by the
beneficiaries................................................................................................ 31
Table 19. Ratings of women participation in drought relief works (least satisfactory to
most satisfactory) ........................................................................................ 32
Table 20. Should women be offered different kinds of works than men? ................ 32
Table 21. Food consumption during drought times (beneficiaries). ........................ 32
Table 22. Percent reduction in food consumption of high energy and high nutritional
items. ......................................................................................................... 33
Table 23. Functioning of PDS system during the drought time ............................... 34
Table 24. Role of ICDS system during the drought time ........................................ 34
Table 25. Time spent by communities in fetching water (min) ............................... 35
Table 26. Ratings for the quantity, quality and timeliness of water supply during
drought relief .............................................................................................. 35
Table 27. Access to water over the years due to drought relief works .................... 36
Table 28. Major source of fodder during drought as informed by the communities. . 37
Table 29. Source of fodder during normal times. .................................................. 37
Table 30. Distress sell and death of cattle during drought years. ........................... 38
Table 31. Regaining of sold out cattle by the communities. ................................... 38
Table 32. State wise cattle population in India with specific reference to the study
locations (figures in 000, for the year 2003-04, Source: Department of Animal
Husbandry, Government of India, http://dahd.nic.in). .................................... 38
Table 33. State wise milk production in India with specific reference to the study
locations (figures in 000, for the year 2003-04, Source: Department of Animal
Husbandry, Government of India, http://dahd.nic.in). .................................... 38
Table 34. Area under fodder and pastures in the study locations (figures in 000 ha,
for the year 1999-2000, Source: Department of Animal Husbandry, Government
of India, http://dahd.nic.in). ......................................................................... 39
Table 35. Health related problems during drought ................................................ 39
Table 36. Impact of drought relief works on children’s education ........................... 40

6. 6
Table 37. Trend in migration. ............................................................................... 40
Table 38. Where do you migrate? ........................................................................ 40
Table 39. Impact of drought relief works on migration. ......................................... 41

7. List of Figures
Figure 1. Participatory tools such as household surveys and group discussions using
priority ranking and SWOT analysis were used. ............................................. 14
Figure 2. District level consultation workshops were conducted in Rajasthan and
Karnataka. .................................................................................................. 15
Figure 3. Non-existent design and implementation: Poor designing and ineffective
implementation has led to debacle of marudi mahaband yojana of Orissa. ...... 26
Figure 4. Where is sustainability? Earthworks carried out during drought relief often
live short life and tend to get damaged soon. ................................................ 27
Figure 5. Quality conscious? Check dam constructed in 2004 started showing cracks,
reducing the water harvesting efficiency of the structure. .............................. 27
Figure 6. Needs resizing: ICDS does help the children and old-aged during normal
times, what about in drought times? ............................................................. 33
Figure 7. Misplaced priorities: The Self-Help Groups (SHGs) could prove a boon to
local level monitoring of drought relief works. ............................................... 41

8. Preface
India has an irrigated area of more than 45 million hectares contributed from both its
surface and subsurface water resources. Though this irrigated area has brought the
country’s food production to a surplus state, large tract of India’s land mass is still
rain fed and majority of it is drought prone due to the rainfall variability in temporal
and spatial scales. Recurring droughts in these areas have made them even more
vulnerable to future droughts resulting into an unending vicious circle.
The Government of India has put in place a wide range of measures to tackle
the perennial problem of drought. These measures include long term programs such
as the Drought Prone Area Program (DPAP) and Desert Development Program (DDP)
which are aimed at improving the natural resources of the affected areas such that
the drought related risks are mitigated. In addition to these programs, the
government has also designed drought relief programs which come into operation
upon declaration of the drought.
These drought relief programs are aimed at providing immediate relief to the
affected population while helping them improve their purchasing power and access
to basic needs such as food, water and fodder for cattle. With the recurring droughts
ravaging the nation year after year, there has been a large debate on the way the
drought relief measures have been administered and the impacts they are
generating. Since large amount of public money has been spent in these programs,
the Ministry of Agriculture has rightly felt to study the impact of present drought
relief interventions in the major drought prone states of the country.
This report brings out salient findings of a short study instituted by NIDM on the
tangible and intangible benefits of drought relief management. The study was
possible with a set of indicators identified, questionnaires finalized and field surveys
conducted with the help of local volunteers.
I acknowledge the contributions of Dr SVRK Prabhakar, Program Associate,
UNDP-GoI DRM Program and Dr Santosh Kumar, Professor, NIDM in carrying out this
study in association with the state and district level collaborators. I also acknowledge
the inputs obtained from Dr Cody L. Knutson, Water Resources Scientist, National

9. 9
Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), Nebraska, US; Dr Donald Wilhite, Director,
NDMC; Dr PK Joshi, South Asia Coordinator, IFPRI New Delhi; for technical guidance
in designing and implementing the study. No words would be sufficient to thank all
the state, district and village level functionaries who extended great support to the
study team by providing relevant information and coordinating the field visits. A list
of persons involved in this study has been provided in the Annexure I.
P.G. Dhar Chakrabarti
Executive Director, NIDM

10. Introduction
India has a diverse set of geo and physiographic conditions typifying its size. Its
diversity is also reflected through various kinds of disasters that the country is
vulnerable to. For instance, it has been identified that nearly 57% of the land mass is
prone to earthquakes, 12% prone to floods, 8% is vulnerable to tropical cyclones. All
these disasters are categorized as sudden onset disasters as they seldom give
sufficient time for the administration to react in advance such that the impacts could
be minimized. This very basic characteristic, apparently, seems to bring these
disasters to focus in media and elsewhere. However, slow onset disasters such as
drought, which is expected to occur in different phases spanning meteorological
drought to socio-economic drought, gives ample time for the administration to react
to this disaster. The same characteristic of this disaster makes the communities to
adapt to it over a period of time such that at a given point of time the communities
stop looking at it as a threat to their immediate and long-term prospects.
India has faced number of drought years, ever since the meteorological data is
available. Out of these years, few of them could be termed as severe to most severe
droughts. The all-India drought of 2002 caused an agricultural income loss of Rs
39000 crores to the country. Such losses, which prove costly to the nation’s economy,
can repeat in no time as it was observed in 2004. This tantamount to say that the
drought risk of the nation is ever increasing and hence deserves concerted actions
from all quarters of the society to thwart its negative impacts on the nation’s
development.
For example, the latest all India drought of 2002 saw the country spending Rs
2013 crores from the Calamity Relief Fund (CRF), Rs 2201 crores from the National
Calamity Contingency Fund (NCCF), and 87.36 MTs of foodgrains for relief
employment under special SGRY. The country also spent huge amount of resources

11. 11
for transporting water and fodder by rail up to 30th June 20031.
In addition, the country has been spending considerable amount of resources on
long-term drought risk mitigation programs through watershed development
programs. These watershed programs, either implemented by the government of
India through its Drought Prone Areas Program (DPAP) or by various non-
governmental organizations, either in isolation or in conjunction with the state and
below level governments, produced different results across the country, ranging from
absolute failure to superb success. However, the recurring droughts proved that the
drought proofing is far from reality and the country has a lot to achieve in this area.
Severe droughts have not spared even those areas covered under long-term drought
mitigation such as DPAP.
While drought relief aims at providing quick relief to the affected communities,
so that the life returns to normalcy, it has to be understood that often huge amount
of money has been spent in a very short span of time. The bone of contention is
whether all this expenditure has led to tangible and intangible benefits? It is
worthwhile to know the answer to this question.
The present study on drought relief for tangible and intangible benefits aims at
understanding what kind of benefits were accrued to the communities through
drought relief interventions such that a corrective course of action could be chalked
out. The study had a broad objective of understanding the elements affected by
drought, identifying the tangible and intangible benefits of drought relief and
studying the existing drought relief mechanism at few locations such that the
deficiencies are identified and rectified for a better drought relief management. For
more details on the concept of the study, please refer to Annexure II.
1
Drought 2002. A Report. 2004. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of
Agriculture.

12. Methodology
This section describes the methodology adopted in the present study on drought
relief for tangible and intangible benefits. The basic methodology of the study
comprised of conducting interviews with various stakeholders of drought relief
(communities, implementation machinery such as governments at different levels
and NGOs) with the help of structured, open-ended questionnaires developed
focusing on the identified indicators (Annexure III).
1. Identification of study locations
The study was carried out in three states of Rajasthan, Karnataka & Orissa, the
three most drought prone ones in India. Due to the budgetary and time constraints,
which were the prime factors limiting the scope of the study, it was decided to
randomly select one of the most drought prone districts in each state and conduct
the study in a single village in each district where the household surveys were to be
carried out. The household surveys were primarily conducted with the help of the
questionnaires, which are a mixture of quantitative and qualitative questions
(Annexure IV), by the qualified field data enumerators.
The study village was selected based on the following criteria:
 The village should have undergone drought in the past three years
 It should have been declared as drought affected
 Drought relief works were carried out in the village at least once in the past three
years.
This criterion is based on the reason that the survey heavily relies on the
memory of the respondents and it would have been difficult for the respondents to
recall events happened in the distant past. Brief background information has been
provided on the study locations in Annexure VI.

13. 13
2. Study Partners
The study partners were identified based on their experience in the respective
states and their expertise in carrying out such impact studies. For Rajasthan, the
Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Jaipur was chosen as nodal institute which
provided advice on identification of study location and coordinated the field visits of
the study team. The study was carried out independently in the states of Orissa and
Karnataka with the support of the state and district level administration and domain
experts available there (Annexure I).
3. Indicators
Identification of appropriate indicators for assessing the efficacy of drought relief
has been an important exercise before the questionnaires were prepared and surveys
were conducted. The following aspects formed the guide-rules for identification of
indicators:
 Broader objectives of drought relief interventions
 Boundaries of the study, which is mostly limited to the community level.
Indicators were identified based on the direct and indirect impacts that the
drought relief interventions could create. Direct impacts are resultant of the
perceivable changes brought out by the food, fodder and water supplies and
employment generation programs, which are part of the drought relief interventions.
Other impacts were identified which are basically the spill-over effects of drought
relief interventions and are resultants of interaction of social fabric and administrative
interventions. The spill-over interactions were broadly grouped into logical groups
which were well reflected in the questionnaires as well. Efforts were also made to
include issues related to gender etc.
Study on the administrative aspects of drought relief interventions could not
have been avoided for the reasons that the administrative bottlenecks could always
modify the probable impacts of the drought relief interventions. Hence, a partial
focus has also been made on how the drought relief works were carried out and how
the services were delivered to the affected communities.

14. 14
4. Survey Questionnaires
The questionnaires were designed based on the desk study and expert
consultation. The following experts were consulted for finalization of questionnaires:
1. Dr Cody L. Knutson, Water Resources Scientist, NDMC, Nebraska, Lincoln, US.
2. Dr PK Joshi, Regional Coordinator, IFPRI, New Delhi.
3. Dr Donald Wilhite, Director, National Drought Mitigation Center, Nebraska,
Lincoln, US.
Further, the indicators and questionnaires were also shared with the state level
collaborating partners for their comments before they were finalized in a meeting
with the JS (MoA) and Director (MoA) at the Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.
The structured questionnaires and the data collection formats were used for
obtaining the information from the drought relief beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, the
village level administration, the Panchayat Raj Institutions, Revenue Administration,
and community level institutions such as NGOs, SHGs etc. These questionnaires
included a mixture of qualitative and quantitative questions. Where ever possible, the
respondents were asked to rank their qualitative answers in the scale of 1 – 5.
5. Participatory Research Tools
Figure 1. Participatory tools such as household surveys and group
discussions using priority ranking and SWOT analysis were used.
During the field study, in addition to the questionnaires and data collection
formats, at least three kinds of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools were used to
understand the nature of relief interventions and the cause for the existing problems
if any. Most important ones are Focused Group Discussion (FGD), Problem Tree

15. 15
Analysis, and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis.
6. Consultation Workshops
Figure 2. District level consultation workshops were conducted in
Rajasthan and Karnataka.
Consultation workshops were conducted at Jaipur (Rajasthan) and Kolar
(Karnataka), with the district and below level administration to ascertain the issues in
drought relief management and to find possible solutions for the same, on 29-08-
2005 and 09-08-05 respectively. Another brainstorming workshop was conducted at
NIDM, New Delhi, where the state level functionaries such as Relief Commissioners,
representatives of district administration and Non-governmental Organizations
(NGOs) were introduced to the broad findings of the study to find possible solutions
to the issues raised.

16. Results
This section contains information about the salient findings of the study and a
discussion on them. The findings have been grouped in to the following heads.
1) Drought
1.1. Frequency and onset of drought
1.2. Awareness among communities
1.3. Drought relief vs drought risk mitigation
1.4. Declaration of drought
2) Drought Relief
2.1. Employment generation programs
2.2. Willingness to participate
2.3. Kind of drought relief works
2.4. Adequacy of drought relief
2.5. Benefits accrued through drought relief works
2.6. Women and drought relief works
2.7. Food & nutrition
2.8. Role of ICDS and PDS systems
3) Water
4) Fodder
5) Health
6) Education
7) Migration
8) NGOs, SHGs and drought relief

17. 17
1. Drought
Drought has different connotations for different sections of the society. It is
important to understand how every one perceive drought as happening such that a
‘user friendly’ intervention could be designed. The survey included a set of questions
on what communities perceive drought as and how do they recognize it as
happening. The results are discussed here.
1.1. Frequency and onset of drought
In general, the survey revealed a majority opinion of increasing frequency of
drought related events (Fig 1, Table 1) during recent past. On an average, 64% of
the respondents opined that the drought frequency has been increasing during
recent past (6-8 years) while the years before that were normal. The similar
response was also obtained from non-beneficiary members of the community where
76% of them said that the drought severity has been increasing while 11% of them
found it declining (Table 1).
Increasing Decreasing No change Cannot say
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Fig. 1. Drought frequency as observed by the respondents (mean values in
%).

18. 18
Table 1. Drought frequency as identified by the non-beneficiary
respondents (% response).
Rajasthan2 Karnataka Orissa Mean
Increasing 50 93 83 76
Decreasing 33 0 0 11
No change 17 7 17 13
Cannot say 0 0 0 0
Communities have
Box 1. Indicators for increasing drought a number of indicators
frequency
based on which they
 Declining rainfall identify the frequency
 Declining water tables
of occurrence of
 Reduction in crop production
 Reduction in household incomes drought. Two kinds of
 Increasing dry spells over the years indicators were
observed for identifying
the frequency of drought incidences (Box 1). While one set of them are directly
related to water (rainfall, levels of the ground water table etc), the other set of
indicators are entirely different from the first set.
1 Declining rainfall 2 Traditional indicators
3 Declining water tables 4 Reduction in production/income
5 Reduction in fodder 6 All the above
70
7 Cannot say 8 Increase in rainfall
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Fig. 2. Indicators useful for identification of drought frequency
(beneficiaries).
2
Though the state names have been mentioned here, they should be read with reference to
the study locations only and no effort has been made to generalize the findings. Please refer
to Annexure VI for details on the study locations.

19. 19
In addition, there is a wealth of traditional indicators available with the
communities, that the communities rely upon to identify if a particular year is going
to be drought year or not (Box 2). On an average, 53% of drought relief
beneficiaries said they rely on the water related indicators and only 4% believe on
the traditional indicators. This figure is 50% in case of non-beneficiaries. There was
Box 2. Traditional indicators for onset of drought and rainfall
 Flowering of bamboo
 Mid season dry spell
 Heavy dew in July-August
 Rainfalls if wind direction is in North to South
 Rainfalls if kumber fruit is eaten by parrot
 Non ripening of black berry fruit in June
 If the Janki tree don’t bear fruits
 Seed setting in kumb fruit
 Depending on the way the kumbh fruit is eaten by parrot
 Interrupted sound by rabbit leads to breaks in monsoon
 Seed setting at the lower side of the fruit leads to heavy rainfall in the later
part of the season
 Laying of eggs by bharatiya bird in swampy areas and there would not be
rain till the kitten emerge out of the eggs.
 High probability of deficit rainfall is strongly correlated with the delayed onset
of rainfall.
 Warm winter precedes a dry rainy season
more reliance on traditional indicators in Karnataka (11%) than in other states. It
appears that in Rajasthan the communities consider a combination of all these
indicators to see if the year is going to be a drought year or not.
Table 2. Indicators for identification of drought frequency (non-
beneficiaries)
Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Mean
1 Declining rainfall 33 33 83 50
2 Traditional indicators 0 0 0 0
3 Declining water tables 17 7 0 8
4 Reduction in production 0 0 0 0
5 Reduction in employment 0 33 0 11
6 Increasing production 33 0 0 11
7 Change in water quality 17 0 0 6
8 Shortage of fodder 0 7 0 2
9 Scarcity of food 0 20 0 7
10 Breaks/late rainfall 0 0 17 6
The survey revealed a relatively high reliance on these indicators by the

20. 20
communities. On an average, 64% of the beneficiary respondents felt that these
indicators are sufficient to decide the drought frequency and probability of an
impending drought and only 5% of the respondents declined them as insufficient.
The figure is high in Karnataka (78%) when compared to the other states, where as
the communities in Orissa are aware of more number of indicators.
It is also relevant to discuss these findings in relation to the impact of drought
on various livelihoods of the communities. It has been observed that the
communities, whose livelihoods are more linked to the availability of water, often
kept track of their incomes which fluctuate with the changing rainfall conditions over
the year. For instance, farmers identified increasing drought frequency by looking at
his farm income and so an artisan.
1.2. Awareness among communities
All the respondents were aware about the drought relief interventions in their
village, without any exception. However, there were differences in the source from
where they get the information about the drought relief. At all the locations, the
information about the imminent drought relief works reached the communities
through the local Gram Panchayat (Secretary, Surpanch or members), mass media,
neighbors, friends and contractors. Table 3 indicates that around 44% of the
beneficiaries obtained the information from the gram Panchayat, while 38% from
neighbors or friends followed by mass media (15%). However, it is interesting to
know that, in some cases (3%), the respondents obtained information from the
contractors who implement the drought relief works.
Table 3. Source of information on drought relief works for beneficiaries in
study location of three states
Source of information Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Mean
1 GP 61 10 60 44
2 Radio/newspaper 6 40 0 15
3 Neighbors/friends 33 40 40 38
4 Contractor 0 10 0 3
The picture is different in the case of non-beneficiaries. 67% of the non-
beneficiaries came to know about drought relief works from the neighbors and
friends followed by GP (17%) and mass media such as radio (12) and contractors
(5%). All responses where the information source was contractors were from
Karnataka, where, allegedly, the drought relief works are being carried through the

21. 21
mediators who are established contractors. In Orissa, friends and neighbors were
found to be the main source of information for the non-beneficiaries.
Table 4. Source of information on drought relief works for non-
beneficiaries in the study locations of three states
Source of information Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Mean
1 GP 50 0 0 17
2 Radio 0 36 0 12
3 Neighbors/friends 50 50 100 67
4 Contractors 0 14 0 5
1.3. Drought relief vs drought risk mitigation
Drought risk mitigation aims at reducing the impacts of low rainfall in the long
term though the help of various natural resource management practices. These
measures largely concentrate on rainwater conservation through a combination of
approaches, both in situe and ex situe such that the availability of water increases in
a given location.
Table 5. Drought relief vs mitigation (Beneficiaries)
Different or not Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Mean
Yes 7 60 36 34
No 67 40 64 57
Cannot say 27 0 0 9
The study revealed a considerable ignorance (57%) about the long term drought
risk management measures required to mitigate the ill impacts of the drought (Table
5). However, the awareness levels among the non-beneficiaries found to be much
higher than among the beneficiaries (Table 6). Awareness level in Orissa is much
lower than in any other study locations.
Table 6. Drought relief vs mitigation (Non-beneficiaries)
Relief vs Mitigation: Different or not Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Yes 50 80 0 43
No 50 20 100 57
Cannot say 0 0 0 0
Respondents differed in their perception of how the drought mitigation differs
from the drought relief (Table 7). It was observed that majority of them couldn’t

22. 22
differentiate between drought mitigation and relief (82%) while some of them (on an
average 4%) opined that these programs are conducted throughout the year (4%), it
results in permanent constructions (4%), and gives permanent solution to the water
related problems (4%). Only 3% of them recognized them as synonymous with the
watershed works while rest of them opined as no different. The Tables below
provides the inter-study location differences in the perceptions.
Table 7. Perception about how drought risk mitigation differs from
drought relief (beneficiaries)
How is it different? Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Conducted through out the year 0 11 0 4
2 Cannot say 100 67 80 82
3 Gives permanent solution 0 11 0 4
4 Permanent constructions 0 11 0 4
5 Watershed works 0 0 10 3
6 No difference 0 0 10 3
7 More structures and employment 0 0 0 0
Table 8. Perception about how drought risk mitigation differs from drought
relief (non-beneficiaries)
How is it different? Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Conducted through out the year 0 0 0 0
2 Cannot say 23 15 100 46
3 Permanent constructions 8 23 0 10
4 sufficient water 0 46 0 15
5 canals 0 15 0 5
1.4. Declaration of drought
Declaration of drought is an important aspect and has different kinds of
significances for different players involved in drought relief. A timely declaration of
drought could prove useful to the affected communities and a delay in declaration
could mean further deterioration in the socio-economic status of the affected ones.
Hence, looking at the importance of this aspect, efforts were made to find whether
the declaration of drought has been made timely or not.
The beneficiary respondents were able to give a broad indication about when
the drought is declared. The general response was that the drought is often declared

23. 23
late by about one month (18% respondents) to three months (28% respondents).
The delay appears to be more in Rajasthan and Orissa (after 3 months) than in
Karnataka (after one month) (Table 9). However, there seems to be more ignorance
about the declaration of drought in Karnataka as 22% of the respondents said they
didn’t know about any such declaration, when compared to the other study locations.
Table 9. Declaration of drought as perceived by the beneficiaries of
drought relief
When the drought is declared Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Immediately 0 0 0 0
2 1 After 1-4 weeks 22 11 8 14
3 After 1 month 6 22 25 18
4 After 2 months 6 11 21 13
5 After 3 months 50 0 33 28
6 After > 4 months 17 0 13 10
7 Not known 0 33 0 11
8 No one declares 0 22 0 7
The girdhavary system plays a vital role in declaration of drought. It was learnt
that the preparation of the girdhavari report often takes take time, exceeding a
fortnight, and hence the delay in declaration. This calls for even a better or at least
some kind of corroboratory evidence to check the accuracy of this system in
identifying the drought affected locations and beneficiaries such that an early
drought relief works could be initiated.
2. Drought Relief
Largely, drought relief has been administered in different ways that lead to a
reduction in the impact of drought on the communities. This study focused on three
aspects of it i.e. employment generation, supply of drinking water and fodder for
cattle. These interventions were studied in dimensions of adequacy, timeliness and
quality (quality of produce supplied in case of food, quality of works carried out in
case of assets generated etc). The study also tried to assess the quality of services
the government has provided as an overall indicator of effective drought relief
management.

24. 24
2.1. Employment generation programs
Employment generation programs are generally aimed at providing additional
avenues of income such that the purchasing power of the target population remains
satisfactory to lead life during the times of stress. This very basic definition makes us
understand that there are quantity and quality parameters assigned to it.
The Table 10 provides information on the number of years the respondents have
been participating in drought relief works. It is important for us to consider this
information to validate the findings of this study based on the number of years the
respondents have been involved in drought relief.
Table 10. Number of years participated in drought relief works
Years Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 22 70 18 37
2 11 20 9 13
3 11 10 50 24
4 22 0 5 9
5 17 0 14 10
6 6 0 5 3
7 0 0 0 0
8 & above 11 0 0 4
2.2. Willingness to participate
The willingness to participate can be considered as an indicator of the reliance
by the communities on the drought relief programs. Efforts were also made to assess
the secondary benefits accrued to the communities from the drought relief works,
those benefits other than the food and money called the wage.
It can be seen from Table 11 that the willingness to participate is much higher in
Orissa (92%) while it is least in Rajasthan (56%) followed by Karnataka.
Beneficiaries who don’t want to participate and look for entirely different kind of
Livelihood Avenues are also high at the study location of Rajasthan. The picture from
the non-beneficiaries
Table 11. Willingness to participate in government led drought relief
programs
Willing to participate? Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average

25. 25
Willing to participate? Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 (least willing) 13 0 0 4
2 6 0 0 2
3 0 0 4 1
4 25 22 4 17
5 (Most willing) 56 78 92 75
Note: 1 stands for not willing to participate and 5 stands for most willing to participate.
When the respondents were asked about what would they do if the government
withdraw the drought relief operations permanently, the most immediate response
was to resort to the either borrowing money (41%) or to migrate long distances
(18%) followed by working in nearby cities (Table 12). However, at places where
forest resources are available, the communities depend more on such resources by
fetching forest produce and sell them in nearby cities, as in the case of Orissa. The
tendency to borrow seems to be much higher in Karnataka (89%) than in other
states. However, people who opt for other kinds of local employment generation
activations were also higher in Karnataka. It shows that the communities are more
willing to stay in their respective villages (as indicated through the total responses of
alternative employment, borrowing money and working in nearby cities/villages
(58% excluding the ones who utilize forest produce and 75% including the ones who
want to depend on the forests for their livelihoods). This also shows the importance
of providing the local employment opportunities.
Table 12. Options available with the communities in absence of drought
relief works (beneficiaries)
What would you do? Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Alternative employment 6 11 8 8
2 Borrow money 24 89 12 41
3 Migrate 35 0 20 18
4 Work in nearby cities/villages 18 0 8 9
5 Cannot say 12 0 0 4
6 No problem 6 0 0 2
7 Forest produce 0 0 52 17

26. 26
2.3. Kind of drought relief works
Figure 3. Non-existent design and implementation: Poor designing and
ineffective implementation has led to debacle of marudi mahaband yojana
of Orissa.
It is important to know what kind of drought relief works have been carried out
at the study locations as it decides the sustainability of the drought relief
interventions. With little or no exception, at all the study locations, the drought relief
works included repairing of roads, digging of canals and tanks and construction of
check dams. The responses of respondents corroborated with that of the responses
from the government administration in this regard.

27. 27
Figure 4. Where is sustainability? Earthworks carried out during drought
relief often live short life and tend to get damaged soon.
Figure 5. Quality conscious? Check dam constructed in 2004 started
showing cracks, reducing the water harvesting efficiency of the structure.
2.4. Adequacy of drought relief
Different drought relief interventions have different indicators to assess their
adequacy. The adequacy of drought relief has two dimensions. One being the
amount of money that the beneficiaries got in terms of wage rate (Rs/day) and the
number of days they got to work in a drought year. The same holds good (amount
and duration of supply) for the drinking water and supply of fodder for cattle.

28. 28
Duration of drought relief works
Table 13. Duration of drought relief works implemented as reported by the
beneficiaries
Months Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 0 75 8 28
2 13 0 28 14
3 13 25 56 31
4 67 0 8 25
5 7 0 0 2
6 0 0 0 0
The Table 13 indicates that majority of the beneficiaries obtained the drought
relief ranging between 2 to 4 months. It is maximum in Rajasthan (4 months as
reported by 67% of the respondents) followed by Orissa (4 months as reported by
56% of the respondents). It was least in Karnataka, with majority of them (75%)
reporting it as one month. During these days, the beneficiaries could get 7-10 days
to work in Rajasthan, thirty days in Karnataka and 10-17 days in Orissa (Table 14). It
was learnt that in Karnataka the works are often completed in a month time (with a
variation of 20-25 days), where as the works in other states are spanned over two to
four months.
Table 14. Number of days for which the drought relief works were offered.
Duration (days) Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
7 6 0 0 2
8 71 0 0 24
9 6 0 0 2
10 18 0 8 9
11 0 0 17 6
12 0 0 8 3
13 0 0 17 6
14 0 0 42 14
17 0 0 8 3
30 0 100 0 33
Wages
Drought relief wage refers to the amount paid to the workers for taking part in
the drought relief works. Often, the wages are in two components, the cash and the
kind components. The recent drought relief norms stipulated for 75% kind and 25%
cash and each state has been advised to pay the workers as per the minimum wages
of the respective state. The kind component should be provided in terms of food
grains, usually in terms of local staple food (rice or wheat).

29. 29
It became difficult to ascertain the amount the beneficiaries received as a part
of the wage as the respondents were unable to recall the same during the interview
process. However, the respondents were sure that the answers do not vary much
from what they have received and there could be an error of 10 to 15%. It could be
seen that the amount received as a part of the cash wage ranged between Rs 111
per month in Rajasthan to Rs 369 per month in the state of Orissa (Table 15). The
kind wage ranged between Rs 600 in Karnataka to Rs 326 in the state of Rajasthan.
However, these values are subject to change owing to the problems related to the
memory. In addition, the wages were bound to change as per the work assessment
made by the local Junior Engineer who assesses the work done and pay according to
the norms laid down.
Table 15. Wages received by the beneficiaries in different states during the
recent drought relief works of 2003-04.
Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Cash 111 353 369 278
Kind 326 600 394 440
Adequacy
Majority of the respondents informed that the amount and duration of relief they
have received was not sufficient for them to tide over the difficult times. It was
observed that the fodder and water supplies never reached some of the beneficiaries
in the state of Orissa and the fodder in Rajathan. Overall, the respondents were
satisfied over the amount of money and water received as a part of relief in
Karnataka while the other respondents were not satisfied in all other study locations.
Table 16. Adequacy of drought relief as opined by the respondents (figures
% of responses).
Cash Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Yes 28 60 13 33
No 72 30 88 63
Not provided 0 10 0 3
Kind Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Yes 11 30 21 21
No 89 50 79 73
Not provided 0 20 0 7
Fodder Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Yes 0 0 0 0

30. 30
Cash Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
No 33 86 0 40
Not provided 67 14 100 60
Water Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Yes 6 67 0 24
No 89 33 0 41
Not provided 6 0 100 35
2.5. Benefits accrued through drought relief works
One of the important aspects of the study was to ascertain whether the drought
relief works have led to any kind of benefits to the communities apart from the
wages they received. The answer to this question was a mixed one. The common
assets that were developed at all the study locations were:
 Approach roads
 Canals
 Water tanks
 Check dams
While these are the tangible benefits that the communities obtained, the
measurement of intangible benefits was a difficult task as communities were to be
explained the nature of such benefits and how they could be identified. Initially,
majority of the respondents were unable to identify any kind of secondary benefit
through drought relief works (Table 17). However, the following secondary benefits
were identified by the communities as emanating out of drought relief works
 Meeting of community members during relief works which led to increased
knowledge among the communities (though the respondents were unable to
explain what kind of knowledge they gained).
 Some of the respondents identified development of skill through taking part in
earth works while some others declined to identify the same.
 However, at places where fish rearing has been taken up (Orissa), the
communities acknowledged the skill gains in fish rearing and maintenance of fish
ponds and found it as an alternative livelihood.
 Rise in water tables has been identified as an important advantage by the
communities.

31. 31
 The communities could utilize the water tanks for providing drinking water to
their cattle and for meeting their household requirements.
Table 17. Additional benefits accrued through drought relief works
Additional benefits Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Gain in skills 0 11 5 5
2 New livelihood avenues 6 0 14 7
3 Water in tanks for animals 6 0 10 5
4 Increase in water table 6 0 0 2
5 Meeting people 0 11 0 4
7 None 81 78 71 77
2.6. Women and drought relief works
Assessment of women participation in drought relief works was given importance
in the present study to assess if the women participation is satisfactory (in the views
of the respondents) or if they observe the higher participation of women in drought
relief works as a disadvantage.
It could be seen from Table 18 that the average women participation in drought
relief works ranged between 50-60%. The proportion was higher in Rajasthan (70-
80%) followed by Karnataka (60-70%) and Orissa (50-60%). No limitations were
identified by the communities that might hinder the participation of women except in
Orissa where social norms (Orissa) and fewer wages (Karnataka) were identified as
factors limiting the participation of women in drought relief works.
The respondents were unable to find any additional advantage of participation of
women in drought relief works, excepting getting additional income and food.
Instead, the respondents reported of more negative impacts such as inability to cope
with the house hold chores and taking care of children during the times of drought
relief works. Health related disorders such as body aches and sun strokes were also
reported by the respondents.
Table 18. Women participation in drought relief works as identified by the
beneficiaries.
Proportion of women in DRWs Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 <30 0 0 0 0
2 30-40 0 22 0 7
3 40-50 18 11 17 15
3 50-60 0 11 83 31
4 60-70 18 33 0 17

32. 32
Proportion of women in DRWs Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
5 70-80 59 0 0 20
6 80-90 6 22 0 9
7 >90 0 0 0 0
Table 19. Ratings of women participation in drought relief works (least
satisfactory to most satisfactory)
Rate the proportion Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 6 0 0 2
2 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 4 1
4 13 56 28 32
5 81 44 68 65
When asked about whether the women are offered different kinds of works than
that of men, the response was unanimously no. There was a clear ‘yes’ on whether
the women be offered different kind of works than men (Table 20). When asked
about the options, the women preferred to participate in light works and in those
works which would provide them the flexibility of working hours such as indoors
works, hand crafts etc.
Table 20. Should women be offered different kinds of works than men?
Should it be different? Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Yes 53 89 67 69
No 47 11 33 31
2.7. Food and nutrition
The study also focused on the food and nutritional aspects of the drought relief
beneficiaries. It was observed that there was a clear nutritional benefit through the
food component of the wage, even though it was available for few days in a month
and few months in a year. However, owing to inadequacies in food availability for an
extended period, reduction in food consumption seems to be a major adoption
among the communities prone to drought (97% of the respondents, Table 21).
Table 21. Food consumption during drought times (beneficiaries).
Food consumption Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Reduce 94 100 96 97
2 No change 6 0 4 3
3 Increase 0 0 0 0
High energy and nutritious food items such as milk, vegetables, ghee, oils and

33. 33
pulses were reportedly reduced by about 20-40%. The % reduction varied across the
study locations (Table 22).
Table 22. Percent reduction in food consumption of high energy and high
nutritional items.
Food consumption (%) Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
0 0 0 4 1
0-20 20 33 33 29
20-40 50 11 46 36
40-60 20 33 4 19
60-80 10 22 0 11
80-100 0 0 0 0
Cannot say 0 0 13 4
We also ascertained whether this reduction in consumption has something to do
with the food availability or not. It was found that the food items were abundantly
available at all the locations while the reduction in consumption was mostly due to
higher prices and inability to purchase them due to less income.
2.8. Role of ICDS and PDS systems
Figure 6. Needs resizing: ICDS does help the children and old-aged during
normal times, what about in drought times?
The Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) and Public Distribution
System (PDS) play an important role in maintaining the food and nutritional security

34. 34
of the villages in India. The study tried to find out the issues related to these
systems as well vis-à-vis drought relief management.
Overall, the respondents rated the PDS system as average to good in its
functionality during drought years. Similar rating was also given to the ICDS system.
Among the study locations, Rajasthan fared poor to fair rating for its PDS and ICDS
systems when compared to the other study locations.
Table 23. Functioning of PDS system during the drought time
PDS Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Poor 19 0 0 6
2 Fair 19 0 4 8
3 Average 38 22 9 23
4 Good 25 56 87 56
5 Excellent 0 22 0 7
Table 24. Role of ICDS system during the drought time
ICDS Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Poor 23 0 0 8
2 Fair 8 0 5 4
3 Average 31 50 5 29
4 Good 38 50 90 59
5 Excellent 0 0 0 0
The respondents opined that these support systems are less sensitive to the
changing needs during drought times and felt that they could have better worked by
providing more and diverse food supplies such as supply of edible oils and pulses
which is not happening at present.
3. Water
Water is elixir of life. It becomes more than elixir when it is scarce and during
drought when drinking water itself becomes a rear commodity. All the communities
obtained the drinking water from the hand pumps and non-drinking water from the
tanks dug or renovated during drought relief works. This is a clear indication of
benefits accrued to the communities from drought relief works.
Often, the women members of the household fetch the water. On an average,
the households spent 60 min for fetching drinking water and 94 min for fetching non-
drinking water. This time was more in the study location of Karnataka followed by in

35. 35
the study locations of Rajasthan and Orissa. There was clear increase in the time
spent from normal times to drought time by nearly double in case of drinking water.
Water supply by the local governments seems not influenced the time spent for
fetching the water.
Table 25. Time spent by communities in fetching water (min)
Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Normal times
Drinking 33 54 25 37
Non-Drinking 48 66 24 46
Drought times
Drinking 56 77 49 61
Non-Drinking 123 113 45 94
The water supplied to the communities was not sufficient in many cases (Table
26). In the study location of Rajasthan, there seems to me more than quantity
issues. Communities here are being supplied with the brackish waters uploaded in
the same village and supplied to the same communities by the contractors, as
alleged by the respondents. In addition, these communities informed of spending
more than Rs 700 per month for purchasing two tankers of drinking water. However,
these allegations were refuted by the local administration when asked about it.
The effectiveness of drinking water supply was also assessed in terms of
timeliness of supply. In general, the respondents informed it as poor except in
Karnataka where the communities saw the time of supply as fairly suitable to their
requirement.
Table 26. Ratings for the quantity, quality and timeliness of water supply
during drought relief
Rate the quantity Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Poor 80 11 100 64
2 Fair 7 0 0 2
3 Average 7 0 0 2
4 Good 7 33 0 13
5 Excellent 0 56 0 19
Rate the quality Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Poor 87 0 100 62
2 Fair 0 33 0 11
3 Average 0 33 0 11
4 Good 7 22 0 10
5 Excellent 7 11 0 6
Rate the timeliness of supply Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average

36. 36
Rate the quantity Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Poor 71 22 100 65
2 Fair 0 56 0 19
3 Average 0 11 0 4
4 Good 7 0 0 2
5 Excellent 21 11 0 11
Potable? Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Yes 0 100 71 57
No 93 0 29 41
Cannot say 7 0 0 2
The drinking water has been supplied twice in a day at all the study locations
with the help of water tankers, once in the morning and evening. Yet times, the
water was also supplied in the noon, depending on the needs of the communities.
The other indicator studied was improvement in the access to water over the
years due to drought relief works. The access to water was improved over the years
in the study locations of Karnataka and Orissa, mostly due to digging of water tanks.
However, in the study location of Rajasthan, the access to water didn’t change and
instead deteriorated over the years.
Table 27. Access to water over the years due to drought relief works
Access to drinking water Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Improved 0 56 67 41
2 Deteriorated 53 33 22 36
3 No change 47 11 11 23
When asked about how the access can be improved, majority of the respondents
felt that the permanent measures such as linking of the village to a nearby river
through canals would only solve their problems rather than through temporary
measures such as supply of water by tankers etc. They were of the opinion that the
current number of water harvesting structures has not been sufficient as they could
hardly hold water for 2-3 months after the cessation of rainfall.
4. Fodder
Fodder for cattle becomes scarce during the times of drought. Rajasthan has
one of the largest cattle populations in India and produce more milk than the states
of Karnataka and Orissa. The state also has largest areas under pastures and fodder

37. 37
crops (Table 28). About 2/3rd of the milk in India is produced by the states 2/3 milk
production by UP, Punjab, Rajasthan, MP, Maharashtra, Gujarat, AP and Haryana. The
study revealed that the communities never got the fodder as a part of the drought
relief interventions except for one year (during 2002-03) where fodder was supplied
to the farmers on subsidy by the local milk cooperative. Hence, the major source of
fodder during drought had been either purchasing in the local market or through
grazing in the common lands (Table 28).
Table 28. Major source of fodder during drought as informed by the
communities.
Major source of fodder (Drought times) Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Purchasing 92 100 0 64
2 Grazing 8 0 100 36
3 Cut & fed 0 0 0 0
4 Govt given fodder 0 0 0 0
It could be seen that the places where ever there are sufficient grazing lands
available, as in the case of Orissa, there communities relied on them for fodder and
the impact of drought was less there. However, at the study location of Karnataka
and Rajasthan, where there were poor development of grazing lands and no forests
available, the communities often resorted to purchasing of fodder.
However, communities could find sufficient places for cattle grazing during
normal times. The respondents were of the opinion that the government has least
impact in terms of supply of fodder during drought and they could not remember
about when the government has opened the fodder depots in the last five years,
though the local administration claimed to have opened the fodder depots every year
the drought had happened there.
Table 29. Source of fodder during normal times.
Major source of fodder (Normal time) Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Purchasing 0 0 0 0
2 Grazing 100 20 100 73
3 Cut & fed 0 80 0 27
It was observed that the communities resorted to distress selling of cattle during
drought years, as revealed by 57% of the respondents, with relatively more in
Karnataka followed by the study locations in Orissa and Rajasthan. The death of
cattle due to starvation was also reported in the study location of Rajasthan, though
the percent of respondents who informed of the starvation deaths were less than the

38. 38
distress selling. It reveals that the selling cattle have become an adoption mechanism
to ward off the negative impacts of drought on the household and help keep the
purchasing power.
Table 30. Distress sell and death of cattle during drought years.
Sold cattle Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Yes 42 80 50 57
No 58 20 50 43
Cattle died Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Yes 42 20 33 32
No 58 80 67 68
Table 31. Regaining of sold out cattle by the communities.
Could you regain the cattle? Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
Yes 0 75 25 33
No 100 25 75 67
About 67% of those households who sold out the cattle couldn’t regain them
during normal years as the drought impacts continued to influence their economic
status. This figure was higher in the study location of Rajasthan followed by Orissa
and Karnataka. The respondents observed that the government drought relief works
had least or no impact on their regaining of cattle or even to keep the cattle with
them during drought years.
Table 32. State wise cattle population in India with specific reference to
the study locations (figures in 000, for the year 2003-04, Source:
Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of India,
http://dahd.nic.in).
State Total cattle Total livestock* Total poultry
Rajasthan 10854 38284 6192
Karnataka 9539 16082 25593
Orissa 13903 9489 17611
* total of total cattle and other livestock such as Sheep, Goats, Pigs, Horses and Ponnies, Mules, Donkeys, Camel,
Yaks, and Mithun.
Table 33. State wise milk production in India with specific reference to the
study locations (figures in 000, for the year 2003-04, Source: Department
of Animal Husbandry, Government of India, http://dahd.nic.in).
State Milk production (000 tonnes)
Rajasthan 8054
Karnataka 1414
Orissa 997

39. 39
Table 34. Area under fodder and pastures in the study locations (figures in
000 ha, for the year 1999-2000, Source: Department of Animal Husbandry,
Government of India, http://dahd.nic.in).
Area under permanent
State Area under fodder crops
pastures and grazing land
Rajasthan 3491 1714
Karnataka 55 979
Orissa NA 534
5. Health
The current survey also assessed if drought relief interventions have led to any
kind of health impacts on the communities. During the survey, it was learnt that the
limited drought relief for a period of 2 – 3 months was not sufficient enough to lead
to a perceivable impact on the communities, as informed by the communities. The
communities were both unable to see any difference in terms of health problems
they face during normal times and drought times or reported of increased health
related problems. Communities were also of the opinion that intensive medical help
such as provision of medicines, rigorous visits by the health workers would help them
tide over the difficulties during the drought times.
Table 35. Health related problems during drought
Health problems during drought years Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Gone down 13 0 9 7
2 Increased 53 22 74 50
3 Stayed the same 33 78 17 43
6. Education
The survey didn’t reveal any perceivable impact of drought on education, from
the responses of the interviewees. However, interaction with the school teachers and
principals indicated a school drop-out rate of up to 20%. It was learnt that the drop-
out was higher in the classes of 6-10th and around 60% of the dropped out children
joined back the school during normal times.
Interviews with the individual beneficiaries indicated a majority opinion of either
no impact or fair impact on education. The respondents were of the opinion that the
additional income enabled them to maintain their purchasing power to certain extent.
However, they were of the opinion that the short duration drought relief works were

40. 40
unable to bring back the dropped out children back to the schools.
Table 36. Impact of drought relief works on children’s education
Impact on education Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 (No impact) 62 33 63 52
2 8 67 25 33
3 23 0 13 12
4 8 0 0 3
5 (most positive
0 0 0 0
impact)
7. Migration
In this study, migration has been differentiated into two different forms. An
effort was made to differentiate all those who leave the village for a relatively longer
distances and duration from those who go to a nearby city or village for works and
return on the same day.
The survey revealed an increasing trend of migration over the years and mostly
the male part of the household migrated. In few cases, the entire family migrated in
search of works and alternative livelihoods. There was no change in migration trend
in the study location of Karnataka while it increased in the study locations of
Rajasthan and Orissa (Table 37).
The major reason for migration had been absence of local employment options
during drought times. The decline in migration, at least during the drought relief
works, was evident in Rajasthan where drought relief works were carried out for
relatively longer duration than in other study locations (Table 13). Here, some of the
household members who migrated to cities have returned to the village to participate
in the drought relief works there.
Table 37. Trend in migration.
Trend in migration Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 Gone down 0 0 14 5
2 Increased 82 0 86 56
3 No change 18 100 0 39
Table 38. Where do you migrate?
Where do you migrate? Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average

41. 41
1 Nearby city 100 100 43 81
2 Nearby village 0 0 14 5
3 cities in another district 0 0 43 14
4 Village in another district 0 0 0 0
When asked about whether the government should facilitate their migration, the
communities were of the opinion that they prefer to work in the village itself rather
than working in other cities. The poor living conditions in the cities were major
deterrents to them. The respondents urged that the government should provide
more employment generation activities in the village itself such that the entire
household could stay together.
Table 39. Impact of drought relief works on migration.
Impact on migration Rajasthan Karnataka Orissa Average
1 (no impact) 40 100 0 47
2 10 0 14 8
3 0 0 71 24
4 40 0 0 13
5 (most impact) 10 0 14 8
7.1. NGOs, SHGs and drought relief
Figure 7. Misplaced priorities: The Self-Help Groups (SHGs) could prove a
boon to local level monitoring of drought relief works.
The study also focused on the existing linkages between government and non-

42. 42
government organizations in drought relief management. It was observed that
though there exist fairly a good mechanism of identification of local NGOs at the
district collectorate level, the involvement of these NGOs in actual drought relief
management had been negligible at all the study locations. The basic reason for this
appears to be lack of proper mechanism to monitor the organizations helping the
government in implementing drought relief works. This has led to working in isolation
by both the institutions. There was least or no activity of NGOs at the study
locations. Even at locations where they were present, NGOs, such as MYRADA, have
been working on the longer-term drought risk mitigation such as watershed
development programs etc. At some other locations, the communities expressed
least confidence in NGOs work.
The issues plaguing the success of NGOs seems to be their scale of operation
and the access they have to financial resources, as identified by the respondents in
the study locations.
The local self-help groups (SHGs), formed either by various government
schemes or the NGOs, seem to be not aligned with solving their major problem of
drought and water scarcity. All the SHGs in the study locations were involved in
generating small savings to meet their incidental expenditures and getting bank
loans to run their kerosene shops. The SHGs were taken by surprise when they were
asked about their involvement in drought relief, in terms of decision making or
increasing the awareness of communities about better management practices for
using limited water resources.

43. Recommendations
In the previous section, an effort was made to discuss the results of the present
study. This section enlists the possible solutions for improving the drought relief
management leading to sustainable and longer term impacts. These
recommendations are based on the study outputs discussed in the previous section
and the district level consultation meetings conducted with the government drought
relief management machinery to identify possible remedies for the issues plaguing
the drought relief management.
1. Declaration of Drought
 Girdhavari is a vital and age-old practice based on which the decisions such as
declaring drought are based. Though the local administration claimed to prepare
the girdhavari reports in a fortnight of such request is made to them by the
higher authorities, many times such reports have been prepared with little or no
field visits. To avoid such irregularities and for efficient decision making, a
suitable check / alternative would have to be found out. Remote sensing could be
one such check if not an alternative.
 Role of remote sensing in drought declaration: Drought could be meteorological,
hydrological and agricultural drought. Hence, it is important to decide on when to
declare the drought for an effective drought relief intervention. The role of
remote sensing could not be overlooked in this aspect. The short paper attached
at Annexure V explains the potential of remote sensing technologies in the area
of drought relief management.
 Phased declaration at the district and below levels: It is important to identify
areas falling under different kinds of droughts and decide when they could be
declared as drought affected. Such a phased declaration could save lot of
revenue as well. In Karnataka, rainfall data has been heavily used for such a
decision making.
 The current relief norms (NCCF & CRF) apply well for the first drought in a series
of drought years. However, as the drought prolongs for years, these norms tend
to get ineffective due to the compounding nature of the impacts.
2. Components of the Drought Relief
 CRF and NCCF & Drought relief works: There is no provision for the material
component in the CRF and NCCF guidelines leading to problems such as resorting
to earthen works etc. If these norms provides for material component, then there

44. 44
is a possibility for producing permanent assets that go long way in building the
rural India.
 Synchronization: Many times cash and food arrive at separate times. While the
cash is disbursed immediately, the communities wait for the food component to
arrive. Efforts have to be made to make sure that both the components arrive at
same time.
 Changing socio-economic conditions and drought relief: While the state’s
minimum wage act provides for Rs 62.50 (vary from state to state), many
labourers are unable to find it lucrative due to the reason that they find better
wage earning opportunities around. It is leading to lack of participation from the
communities itself. Efforts would have to be made to diversify the kinds of
drought relief works from mere construction activities to skill diversification
activities such that the communities find them useful in terms of livelihood
diversification for use during drought times.
 We also need to look into whether we should continue to give food component or
not and if so what should be the ideal proportion of it. States should have to be
given appropriate flexibility to decide on this front. While poor people see food
component as an important component of the wage, the relatively richer ones
may not accept the poor quality food grains often supplied in such works. It may
be better if the cash component is increased and food component is decreased.
 NCRF and CRF guidelines do not provide for transportation of food grains up to
the community level. It is important that such support is given so that the food
reaches the needy ones in time.
 Yellow cards provide rice at much cheaper rate (Rs 3.50) than the one supplied in
the works (Rs 6.25). This is leading to non-uptake of the rice supplied in the
drought relief works and many times the workers prefer to take cash rather than
the kind component.
 In many cases, rice supplied through the yellow cards is sufficient for the family.
The additional rice provided in the works is leading to the open market as these
families often sell that rice for earning extra income. Flexibility should be given to
the local level administration to decide whether a household should be provided
with the cash + kind, only cash or only kind. This would also save lot of valuable
resources.
 A grain bank maintained by the communities, through Gram Panchayat, would be
helpful. During the crisis situation, every household would be able to use it.
Already, lot of such systems have been worked out by the NGOs and a detailed
feasibility study of such systems can be envisaged and considered for broader
use across the width and breadth of the country.
3. Employment Generation Programs
 Local level drought relief funds & initiation of employment generation programs:
The onset of employment generation programs entirely depends on the external
financial support (state and above) and often the district level administration has
little resources to support such works, even after considering all other
developmental funds available at a given point of time. Hence, it is prudent that
the districts and states be provided with appropriate guidelines that enable them

45. 45
to maximize the available funds with them in the form of district and taluka level
drought relief funds. Such funds would not only enable the local administration
in initiating the drought relief employment generation works in advance, but
would also reduce the possible negative impacts of the impending drought.
 The drought relief beneficiaries should be paid based on the amount of work
done by the individuals. At present, these payments have been made on group
basis. Such a payment system has lead to a kind of lethargy on the part of
participating workers as the entire group would get the same wage irrespective
of the amount of work done by the individuals.
 Though it appears that the works are implemented by the district level
administration through Panchayat Raj department and other implementation
agencies, it was observed that these agencies often ‘outsource’ the works to
informal ‘contractors’ in states such as Karnataka. Though this could well have
lead to ample time for the implementing agencies to monitor the works, the
reality seems to be different. In cases where contractors were involved, there
was no or poor involvement of Gram Panchayats in identification of drought
relief beneficiaries and profit making has become a major priority for these
contractors. If such a system cannot be given away with, suitable guidelines
have to be released by the respective state governments to ensure the
participation of elected representatives at the village / Gram Pachnayat level
such that the kind of works to be carried out and where they have to be carried
out are decided by the communities and the elected representatives. This would
also improve the transparency in the entire process of drought relief
management.
 Household as a unit: In states where the household is considered as a unit,
giving work opportunity per each household seems to be illogical as joint
families are at loss. In such cases, the guidelines should state alternatives for
including more family members to take part in the drought relief works.
 A committee can be formed at the village / Gram Panchayat level and the
committee can monitor the drought relief works. Though such Village Works
Committees exist in many states, the role of these committees in assessing the
drought relief works is missing. Drought relief works should also be brought
under the purview of these committees.
4. Nature of Works
 Many times the works are identified at taskforce level (tehsil and district), in the
states such as Karnataka. It is important that the works are identified at the
village level and communicated to the taskforce meetings, as being done in the
case of Orissa. There is a need for an unified approach in all the states
replicating the success of involving the local communities in identification and
implementation of drought relief works.
 To give away with the earthen works, suitable guidelines should be made
available to the state and district level administration on how to dovetail various
developmental programs such that permanent works could be carried out.
 Maintenance of the assets generated in the drought relief works should be done
by the GP and Taluka with the available funds. However, it could be a good idea
that these outputs are handed over to the respective nodal agency for their
maintenance (e.g. works related to irrigation could be handed over to irrigation

46. 46
department, schools to education department etc)
 Indoor employment has to be enhanced for the vulnerable sessions. Labour
department can do this through summer training programs etc.
 The diversified drought relief works could also include plantation works,
encouraging handcrafts which could be marketed through self-help groups etc.
5. Water Supply
 Meeting the drinking water needs of the affected communities is an important
task of the local governments and NGOs. However, looking at the magnitude of
the requirement, no local government (taluka and district) would be able to
supply the required quantity of water through state-owned tankers. This leads to
outsourcing of this important service to contractors and hence the problems
related to the ones identified in this study. To alleviate these problems, suitable
monitoring mechanism should be evolved with the help of local elected leaders,
SHGs and NGOs. Once involved, these institutions could make sure that the
beneficiaries get the required quantity of water at the required time and quality.
 Water supply has to be checked both qualitatively & quantitatively by the state
public health & payments to the water suppliers have to be made based on the
report obtained.
 Every farmer can have his own farm pond and the harvested water can be used
for use during the drought times. Polythene sheets can be given to the farmers
through subsidy.
 Farmer groups can be formed and water can be harvested, field levelling can be
done by subsidy etc. These groups could promote the measures such as rooftop
rainwater harvesting etc. These groups should be trained on aspects such as
crop planning to maximize the water use during critical times.
 Drilling of bore wells have to be regulated. It should be based on the regulations
of the water board and based on the vulnerability.
6. Fodder Supply
 Community based fodder bank systems have to be encouraged. Though such
systems have been well experimented and implemented by NGOs, it is time to
bring them out from the experimental stage into the mainstream planning.
 Some times wheat straw was supplied as a part of drought relief in southern
states where as the local cattle is not acclimatized to such fodder. Proper
identification of fodder sources preferred by the local livestock should be
identified prior to drought season and quick transport of such fodder could be
arranged when needed.
 Efforts should be made to identify local pockets where fodder could be cultivated
and stored for use during drought periods. This would not only reduce the long-
distance transport of fodder, but would also avoid the pilferages.
 The existing village committee could establish and monitor the fodder and grain
banks to be used during drought period.
 One local level fund could be established through which fodder depot and water
supply can be done by communities and government together.