1. Project report on Social participation in Participatory Ground water
Management.
Submitted by Subba Rao puvvada
Project Objectives:
Our objective is try to analyze & synthesize the impact of Bore pooling & Participatory
Groundwater Management processes in five different villages in Anantapuram and Kadiri
region. This study was rolled out in different phases. The following items are our core
objectives.
1) We were also looked into the economic benefits and livelihood security.
2) Elucidating the better social regulatory mechanism on using common water resources &
recommend to government and implementing agencies
3) Would participatory ground water management/ Bore-pooling reduced water scarcity?
4) The extent of arable land share increase or not, efficient way of using water resources?
5) What are the external factors influencing to make what does it works / what doesn’t work?
How Department of Agriculture is funding to the farmers, basically looked into the farmer’s
contribution, what kind of processes in placed in institutional structure?
Broadly our project tried to address following questions:
1. Why people are coming together? 2) What brought people coming together? 3) Who
are the beneficiaries? 4) What are the compromises to stop digging bore wells? 5) What
kind of social dynamics helps us to coming together? 6) What difference it would make
it on quality of life w.r.t women & children? What government schemes leveraged to
help farmers? What are the economic benefits, livelihood security in this PGWM group?
What are the unintended consequence of Government Schemes that effect farmers?
What is the nature of land ownership among the community?
Role of PRI:
In two of the villages, the members are formed as a Watershed management committee, in
another three villages no watershed committee was not available, so a group of bore-well
owners & non-bore-well owners coming together formed a group. In both the cases
Institutional actors such as Mandal Revenue Officer/ Agriculture officer, playing a vital role in
preparing memorandum of understanding among the group members.
Project Design:

2. We have chosen mixed method evaluation approach which had involved rapid appraisal
techniques such as survey, focus group interviews, transact walks
The project was designed a set of survey questionnaire and focus group interviews and
individual interview, semi-structured,
The project approach is a mixed method evaluation approach to design our project
We have chosen this design because in this mixed method evaluation, there is a huge scope for
synthesizing the data to use both the quantitative and qualitative data. Our questionnaire
design is based formal standardized, which is to text and quantify hypothesis and the data is
analyzed statistically. It consists of household of socio and economic background of the
respondents. It also involve Rapid Appraisal Techniques such as surveys, focus group interviews
and transect walks. The data collected through the surveys shall be analyzed using quantitative
methods. The analyzed data shall be supported by the information gathered from focus- group
interviews and transect walks. Types of respondents: Since, we don’t have the information of
the nature of households in the selected five villages; hence, we shall be taking the non-
random representative sample for conducting our field visit. We shall be using convenience
sampling to create our sample. The disadvantages of choosing the convenience sample are as:
The villages may be having many households and there are possibilities of much difference in
their ideas related to the ground water sharing. Hence, our sample can lead to under-
representation or, over- representation of a particular village.
There can be the possibility of inherent bias as this sample is unlikely to be the representative
of the population which we are studying as the sample has not been chosen randomly.
The sample size shall contain 50 to 60 households from each selected village for conducting the
survey. Our conduction of focus group interviews in each village shall consists of 10 to 20
people who are participating in the Participatory Ground Water Sharing and the interviews shall
involve the members of the interning group acting as a moderator and recording person. For
transect walks, we shall be taking 2 to 3 respondents accompanied by any two our interning
group- members. The age group of the chosen respondents will be in between 18 to 65 year.
We look into the Detailed Project Reports to avoid caste, gender and perhaps age group to
avoid selection bias in the sample of choosing respondents. In fact we have interviewed non-
participatory ground water management committee to observe the difference in their socio-
economic patterns. For example in education, buying consumer durables, access to hospitals
without resistance. We also looked into the police records to find out any kind conflicts focus
on water related violence in the respective villages. We are approached educated youth to
know about the social, political and economic dynamics of the family patterns in the villages.
The livelihood pattern, seasonal migration has been taken into account of the respondents. The
external linkages to accessing the finances. Land locked geographical location the villages is also
could have observable impacts on their market linkages.

3. DATA ANALYSIS OF COLLECTED SURVEYS OF FARMERS
1.1 CATEGORY WISE RESPONDENTS
Tabular presentation of different categories who are participated in this scheme
CATEGORY NO OF RESPONDENTS
ONWARDING CASTE 22
OTHER BACKWARD CASTES 29
SCHEDULED CASTES/TRIBES 13
TOTAL 64
GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF THE DIFFERENT CASTES
Out of the 64 respondents, majority participants are from forwarding caste and other backward
caste people. The participation of the scheduled castes and tribes are less than other major
castes. There are several reasons like land ownerships, domination of higher castes and other
factors influenced the less representation of the scheduled castes and tribes in this particular
ground water management scheme.
22
29
13
64
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
ONWARDING CASTE OTHER BACKWARD
CASTES
SCHEDULED
CASTES/TRIBES
TOTAL
NO OF RESPONDENTS

4. 1.2 Number of bore well and non-bore well farmers category wise
Category bore well Non bore well
Onward caste 17 5
Other backward castes 20 9
SC/STs 10 3
Total 47 17
Graphical presentation above table
1.3 Social trust and relations among each categories of the villages
Category Level of social trust
Strongly agree Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Onward caste Other backward
castes
SC/STs Total
Chart Title
bore well Non bore well

5. OC 9 12 1 0
OBC 13 17 0 0
SC/ST 5 5 2 1
TOTAL 27 33 2 2
MOSAIC PLOT OF ABOVE TABLE
Explanation of the mosaic plot
In the above plot we can say that forwarding categories and other backward castes are having
social trust among themselves and with neighborhood people. In total 64 respondents, 60
respondents were saying that they have trust on neighborhood people and other villagers.
Among all other backward castes are having greater trust compared to scheduled castes and
tribes. There are many reasons that SC and ST people are having somewhat social backwardness
and low engagement with other villagers.
1.4 Trust level on local Gram Panchayat among various categories
OC OBC SC/ST
STRONGLY AGREE
SOMEWHAT AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
SOCIALTRUST
CATEGORY

6. Tabular presentation of trust level of different categories on Gram Panchayat
category High trust on
gram Panchayat
Somewhat trust
on Panchayat
Low trust on
Panchayat
No trust on
gram Panchayat
OC/general 5 12 3 2
OBC 10 12 7 0
SC/ST 2 6 4 1
17 30 14 3
Mosaic plot presentation of above table

7. Explanation of above mosaic plot
By above table and mosaic plot, we can say that people are having trust on local gramPanchayat.
The satisfactionlevelofrespondents are comparatively better in terms of trust on particular gram
Panchayat or other local institutions. If we come into exact details we can infer that out of 64
respondents 47 people are showing either high trust or somewhat trust on local gram Panchayat
institutions. The concept of trust does not differentiate much among different categories. These
level of trust will enhance the good relationships among the community and village. This is
showing that there has been greater chance of social capital existence in particular beneficiary
villages.
1.5 Satisfaction level about scheme at various categories
Tabular representation
OC OBC SC/ST
high trust
somewhat trust
low trust
no trust
trustongrampanchayat category

8. category Level of satisfaction about the scheme
Highly satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Highly
dissatisfied
OC 13 8 1 0
OBC 19 8 2 0
SC/ST 6 7 0 0
TOTAL 36 25 3 0
Mosaic plot of the above table
Explanation of above mosaic plot
By the above table we cansaythat most of the respondents are satisfiedwith the particular group
or scheme. Most of the forwarded caste people have higher level satisfaction compared to
OC OBC SC/ST
highly satisfied
satisfied
dissatisfied
highly dissatisfied
satisfactionlevel
category

9. scheduled tribes and castes. The satisfaction level among different categories were different due
to the dominant role of the certain castes on other castes. It may lead to the decreasing in the
rate of satisfaction. Forwarded caste people and other backward caste people were highly
satisfied, in other side scheduled castes and tribes are partially satisfied with particular scheme.
But interestingly nobody in the SC/ST community are not dissatisfied with the particular scheme.
1.6 Level of economic empowerment of the respondents
Tabular representation of the economic empowerment
Income level Level of economic empowerment
Well improved Improved Remain
constant
Weakened
Very low 23 12 7 0
low 7 6 1 0
Moderate income 1 2 0 0
Higher income 3 2 1 0
total 34 22 8 0
Mosaic plot of above table

10. Explanation of mosaic plot
In all respondents, majority respondents are from lower income or very lower income families.
Around 60 respondents are from lower and very lower income families. But after the joining the
scheme, people get well off by using the particular scheme for water into their field. Almost 91%
of the total respondents are welloff by the particular scheme that was running in certain villages.
They all are economically improved by this ground water management scheme. Around 9 %
people are remained same as their economic level due to so many internal and external factors.
The better coordination between bore well farmer and non-bore well farmers are led to the
economically constant of certain farmers. By overall the particular scheme was working very well
in order to improve their economic performance.
very low low moderate incomehigh income
well improved
improved
remain same
weakened
economicempowerment income level

11. 1.7 Motivationof therespondentstocome togetherandjoinin theground water
management scheme
Tabular presentation of the motivation of the respondents
Motivation/interest Forwarded caste Other backward
castes
SC/ST Total
Neighbor motivation 2 1 1 4
scarcity of water 2 5 2 9
consensus among the family 1 0 0 1
Social/community interest in
your village
7 9 3 19
motivation by local social
institutions
9 12 7 28
fear of drought 0 1 0 1
past experience of drought 1 1 0 2
Total 22 29 13 64
Graphical presentation above table
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Forwarded caste Other backward castes SC/ST
motivation/interestto join the group
Neighbor motivation scarcity of water
consensus among the family Social/community interest in your village
motivation by local social institutions fear of drought
past experience of drought

12. Explanation of the above graph
As per given data, we can say that the motivation/ interest make them to join in particular water
sharing scheme is mainly because the influence of local group of social institutions and social
and community interest in particular village. Out of 64 respondents 47 respondents are joined
because of the above two reasons. Here we can conclude that excising of good relations among
the villagers and influence of non-profit organization made them to join the group. There are
other reasons which might led them to join in the scheme of water sharing like scarcity of water
lacking,fear of draught and neighbor motivation etc. but these are not much effective than those
above two reasons.
1.8 Expectations among the respondents by joining the group
Farmers have certain expectations for joining the particular scheme or group. There are different
expectations among different respondents for joining of particular water scheme. The tabular
representation of expectations of various respondents are given below
Expectations No of respondents
Helping other farmers 20
Avoids competitive drilling 15
Subsidized pipelines 26
Other reasons 3
Pie chart representation

13. Explanation of above table and pie chart
By above table and pie chart, we can say that people who are participated in particular scheme
having expectations like to avoid competitive drilling, getting subsidized pipelines and other
subsidies from respective NGO and government organizations. Some say that to help the other
neighbor farmers is also one of the major expectation. Out of 64 respondents, 26 farmers tells
that their main expectations is to get subsidized pipelines and seeds for their fields for effective
and low cost cultivation. Here local non-governmental organizational influenced that if they join
in the scheme, they will provide seeds, agricultural equipment’s, pipelines and fertilizers at
subsidized price level. Some says that to avoid competitive drilling to reduce pressure on ground
water. This is also major cause of water calamity in particular villages. If people drill more bore
wells, then there is a chance of reduction and disappear of ground water in some years. That’s
why more farmers are willing to share their water to the non-bore well farmers. Some other
farmers are joined the group to help their neighbor farmers to avoid drought conditions in their
areas.
1.9 Difficulties andchallenges facedby the respondents by joining the particular
ground water management scheme.
20
15
26
3
No of respondents
Helping other farmers Avoids competitive drilling
Subsidized pipelines Other reasons

14. Pie chart explanation
By above chart, we can conclude that people who are in the group didn’t face much challenges
or difficulties by being in the group. Out of 64 respondents, 56 respondents didn’t confront any
challenges by joining or after joining the scheme. But still 8 persons expressed their concern
about difficulties in the group. 5 respondents says that denial of water to their field is the main
difficulty by joining the group. These 5 respondents are not getting enough water for their long
time cultivation .in our personal interviews they expressed that people who are having the bore
well are giving water not sufficiently due to the bad relations and internal conflicts among them.
There are other minor difficulties like political influence and rivalry expressed by the few
respondents.
1.10 Benefits by joining the ground water scheme
Tabular representation of the benefits by joining the particular scheme
Benefits by joining the group No of respondents
Conditional cash benefits 2
More water to household activities 1
More water to agriculture fields 42
More yielding by different crop patterns 3
Subsidized pipelines, seeds, fertilizers 12
1 5
2
56
no of respondents
rivarly
denied to get expected share
of water
influence of political leadrers
no difficulties

15. Other benefits(unrevealed ) 4
Pie chart presentation of given data
Explanation of above table and pie chart
By above table and pie chart, we can say that out of 64 respondents, 42 are getting more water
to their agriculture field as a benefit of the scheme. Around 12 respondents are getting benefits
such as subsidies on pipelines, seeds and other type of subsidies from government and other
local non-governmental organizations. There are other benefits like conditional cash benefits,
water to their houses etc. but these are very less compare with first two benefits(more water to
their field and ,subsidies on seeds, Pipelines and other equipment).
1.11 Impact on migration after the implementation of the scheme
2, 3%1, 1%
42, 66%
3, 5%
12, 19%
4, 6%
Benefits by join the group
Conditional cash benefits
More water to household
activities
More water to agriculture
fields
More yielding by different
crop patterns
Subsidized pipelines, seeds,
fertilizers
Other benefits(unrevealed )

16. Explanation of above graph
By above graph, we can infer that most of the respondents felt that particular scheme does not
impact much on migration to the other towns. Out of 64 respondents 48 respondents felt that
migration didn’t stop in spite of the scheme. Only 13 respondents say that it does have some
impact on people coming back to their villages. The reasons for people didn’t come back are like
not much awareness about the scheme and it does not have wider spread in the village or
community.
Field Experience:
Our internship starts from the Day 1 we have reached in Anantapur. Early morning we have
checked in WASSAN’s Anantapur Office. Later only we came to know that the office belongs to
APPS and WASSAN combined. WASSAN is the association of NGO’s which is having 22 NGO’s
working across various sectors.
Yerraguntla (first week)
First village we started our internship in Yerraguntala village which is in Garladine Mandal of
Anantapur. In this village the facilitating ngo for implementing the RRA project is RIDS and
WASSAN is giving technical support to it. We had a formal meet with the RIDS local in charge
13
48
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
yes no no respose
No of respondents
no of respondents

17. person Mr. Ramudu and get to know the dynamics and preview of the village and basic idea of
RRA program.
We reached Yerraguntala in the evening. The social setup of the village is OC Reddy community
in majority; SC’s and Muslims live in a minority. We met Mr. Basha, who is one of the influential
person of the village who is also the president of one of the RRA group. When we enquired
about the previous years of irrigation and what method they used, elderly people of that village
said, before 40 years people did farming through the sources of rain water, and they are self-
sufficient with the canal and tank water. From the last decade the whole village was totally
drought hit and people were looking for the options to recover from the drought. For the other
two days we didn’t able to meet any farmer since they have involved in farm works and bore
well repairs and renovations.
We met Mr Kishtappa is the Director of the RIDS. As an experienced person in the field of
NGO’s, Kishtappa explained and motivated us on the project and gave many details directly
linked with the Social capital such as acceptance of leadership by people, influential groups and
tending behavior of social group mobilization.
The next day we met Sarpanch of Yerraguntla village we got some socio cultural aspects like
common festivals, gatherings and community meetings and he offered us Tea and spoke about
socio-political context of that village and problems and issues related to it. From his point of
view women have a say about 70% in the family decision making process.
In the field we Prashanth, Subba Rao and Raja Reddy executed survey questionnaire, Yakulan
and Mayank was guiding and observing the context of the project from nuance sources within
the interaction. Along with survey we conducted individual and focused group interviews. This
procedure followed in all the villages we went.
T.Kothapalli (2nd week)
Kothapalli is in Gooty Mandal of Anantapur district. We met Ms Thulasi who is program
coordinator for the HANDS NGO which is the facilitating NGO for RRA programme. Next day,
with the help of Mr. Ashok, the field person of HANDS NGO we went T.Kothapalli village and
met farmers. We met the president of the village. T.Kothapalli village is not connected with
road facility and there share auto rickshaw’s are the main mode of transport. In this village
farmers are much interested in subsidies and some rivalry was visibly seen among themselves
but still they are managed into a group to get the benefits of subsidies. A day later we
conducted focused group interview with the farmers who are in the groups. In this village
though the SC farmers having the allotted lands from the government, none of them are in the
groups. Since the village is totally dominated by a single class community. Village is having poor
sanitation and low literacy level.
Sanapa (3rd Week)
Now we came back to Anantapur, to start our next field visit to the village Sanapa. Village was
dominant by BC community. RDT is the NGO facilitate the RRA scheme. We met Mr. Babu, the

18. president of the group and also visited the field where the RRA is implemented. We conducted
individual interview with few farmers. Next day we have conducted the focused group
interview. Mr Krishnaiah the RDT person accompanied us.
Pallevanapalli: (4th week)
End of the week we came to Kadiri Mandal, and stayed in WASSAN office. Uthappa, the field
Coordinator introduced Mr. Dharma, the field person of WASSAN in the Pallevanapalli village.
We stayed there in that village. No sanitation facility was available in this village. The next day
we conducted individual interviews and surveys with farmers. The next day Mr Uthappa came
and helped to group the farmers so as to conduct the focus group interview. This village was
totally dominant by Reddy community and all of the group members are from the same
community.
Donikotta: (4th and 5th week)
Our first person we met for this village is field person of REDS NGO which is the facilitating the
RRA. Raj and Subba rao stayed in that village itself that night. Two groups in this village and the
rivalry between these groups also have seen. The next two days we have conducted the surveys
and individual interviews. The final day we have conducted the focus group interview.
Every day after conducting the surveys, the details are updated in excel sheet by Mayank.
Subba rao and Yakulan assisted him. In focus group interviews, the questions are asked to
farmers by Prashanth and Raja Reddy, assisted by Yakulan, Mayank and Subba rao. Surveys are
done by Raja Reddy, Prashanth and Subba Rao.
Project Findings:
Qualitative analysis:
The social capital or the chain of networking systemthat have been in these villages were
similar to their geographical settings. The question of how they have come forward to take part
in the participatory ground water management program are to be dealt with matter of concern
from where it has been arising.
The overall field experience that we have gained through internship program tells us that the
relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, enabling that society to
function effectively. Was based on many other factors such that Economic means to it and
other influential parties to it.
The social networks are working in the loop of cultural and economic subjugation by subtle
difference of the term. The network of relationships among people who had come to join the
program by nature of subtlety has been driven by economic benefits, cultural benefits mostly.
Such that the transactions have reciprocity, trust and beliefs to the extent. The other external
agents like local facilitating organizations have put on drastic effort in bringing them.

19. Role of external agents (organizers, local facilitating organization and agriculture department)
The program has been started to eradicate the drought by and removing arid conditions by
cumulating the bore well farmers with non- bore well farmers to bring the habit of sharing the
common resources by pooling the water to fields of non-bore well farmers and bore well
farmers, this program is named as revitalizing rain fed agriculture (RRA) this is the program for
small scale farmers who holding below 10 acres of land. Where bore well farmers were
supplied with pipe connections and other equipment with the technical support from WASSAN
to tap their land which is rain fed. With due importance in sharing the water with other non-
bore well farmers based on the agreement made with mutual consent in the Tehsildars office.
Key findings:
 As we dig deeper in to the aspect of social capital present in these villages were found
that due to economic and other entailment they came together. The trust factor here is
built up by few players who are mostly influential person’s motivated and invested time
and money to get the scheme done. In the first village Yerraguntla when we
encountered people and their culture we got sense of trust factor prevailed over there.
Two key players Basha and Ravindra in the village along with the help of RIDS
organization succeeded in bringing the people to participate in the RRA program.
 The local organization built the trust by making the mutual agreement of forming the
group with Tehsildar.
 Most of the people who joined the hands of RRA in the Yerraguntla village are through
the high trust factors such that one group Maboo Subhani Ummadi Neeti Yajamanyam
has comprised of the people from same community most of them were Muslims. And
they said that mutual help and aid are common among their community in times of
need. They told that they will celebrate festivals, care and share among them very
enthusiastically. This mainly motivated them to join the group early.
 In the second village T. Kothapalli though there might be some trust is present the
villagers are conventionally backward in terms of their access to public good. And are
rigid to their conventionality. As this can be evident from the Sarpanch views and we
later came to know that his daughter-in-law is the Sarpanch and he is acting on behalf of
her.
 Another instance that the SC’s are not allowed in to the Temple where we conducted
our survey. There are two RRA groups in the village one is occupied by whole OBC
community and other with few ST,s and SC’s rest will be Upper caste.
 As per the conversation with HANDS local facilitating organization they tried hard for at
least 5 months to gather, mobilize and to form the groups.
 These groups have included the SC’s those who are nearer to their farms only a few.
 As per the conversation with Rangappa a local village member who is a bore well farmer
said that joining the group may not help him that extent as he has to share the bore
water with others and he recognized the fact that he also entailed to get all the benefits
that are coming under RRA scheme without joining it.
 These groups are particularly we can say purely driven by economic motivates as they
will get all other allied benefits with subsidy.

20.  In the fourth village that is Pallevandla pally the key mobilizing factor is different here
from other villages that they themselves turnout easily for the program.
 It also possess one key motivator for being implementation of this program who is
Dharmateja Reddy and his Family. Who have been in to this actively and gathering
community was possible as we evidence this from their effort and conveying capacity
get the participants for Focused group interview.
 In this village the social capital structure has built over the motivation force derived in
them to see new possibilities of change for their overall development as the village was
in accessible frommany amenities and less populous.
 In focused group discussion they said this program has been initiated among the existing
social structure of the village where mutual benefits of joining were came to evidence
from the visits to other villages by the help of local facilitating organization or person.
 In the Last village Donnikota, the motivation behind participating is around the trust
that is based on influential group of few who are embodiment of the driving force that is
laid out for implementing the scheme.
 There is also internal biases for the repairs and maintenance of the logistics such as bore
wells, drips and pipes.
 The question of who is liable and responsible for holding it.
 The bore wells as key tool for the entire program has got no attention when it got dried
up or repair and maintenance. There is no clear distinction of liability between the
members of non-bore well and bore well farmers.
 One of the key finding in all the villages that we found is the participation is in due to
their interest which are subject to caste and class and their feeling of belongingness.
Key Takeaways
In the due process Lead technical agency, Programme facilitation agency and community based
organization have to be on the same page. The communication has to be very clear in terms the
roles of the organizations and the responsibility for the ground work such as procuring pipes
etc. The organization needs to address the unfinished projects / quality of work. In early stage
of a programme agencies were promoted crop water budgeting. Currently crop water
budgeting has been undermined by both the actors. However the onus is completely on
Nitiyajamanya sangham. In 2 villages they are even sharing farm land to cultivate, to focus on
productivity.
Economic Impact:
Impact on land use pattern:
The Participatory Ground Water management committees have a considerable impact on
usage of a land in the area project has been rolled out. Before the implementation of a project,
all the farmers was rely on rains. Currently at least non-bore well owners are receiving a water
twice in a critical situation to secure rain-fed agricultural crops. The land utilization could leads
to good crop yield.

21. Change in Crop pattern:
The crop pattern is basically decided by a village community, basically to avoid water shortage.
So they avoid water intensive crops such as paddy, even though if we farmers want to produce,
they use a Sri Paddy type to decrease water usage. Currently they are producing groundnut,
maize, chickpea, and fruit varieties.
Convergence In projects such as APMIP (Andhra Pradesh micro irrigation project) is a welcome
to step to improving the productivity, time, and human resources.
Challenges of the Project:
According to our opinion, we didn’t have a problem with accessing detailed project reports of
the Participated Ground Water Management committee group list, so we have a local NGOs
partner was looking at all DPRs. Only problem with accessing the officials those who were part
of signing of the memorandum of understanding. A major challenge for us to find a farmers
those who are part of the committee. Unfortunately some of the farmers does not have access
to benefits that comes under the project. Basically it is dealing with multiple stakeholders, in
one village the work has not been completed due to no crystal clarity on roles of the
Nitiyajamanya sangham. A couple of farmers severely affected by the incomplete work such as,
pipe line not digged properly, pipe line equipment quality, joints pipes etc. Farmers are told us
about glitches in the way pipeline has been designed. In other village more groups interested to
join in this participated ground water management. Due to an administrative & priority of the
key stakeholders it is not has been taken up into consideration. The design of the questioner
has a limited role arrive at a conclusion, so basically we preferred to more focus on qualitative
analysis, we conducted a group interviews with all key stakeholders including group presidents
and implementing agencies. So far this project is not paying much attention to local sarpanches
for better implementation of this project objectives. The bigger question is water availability in
bore-wells is major setback to farmers despite of having pipeline connection. Utilization of
money in their joint accounts is not been used for a long time despite have a situation which
should be used it for common goals of the project. It has been much appreciated if they dug
farm ponds. There has to be a co-ordination between MGNREGA works with this project. A
large amount of unutilized land for farming, because of no water security for them to get a
ground water to use for the farming. Bore recharging technique not fruitful in one village. In a
couple instances conversation with farmers, check dams are more useful than this temporary
set up of pipelines. In socio-economics lens, if they are taking loan from both SHGs loan taken
by women, crop loan is taken by men, and still taking money from the money-lenders. A
meagre improvement in livelihood patterns. This project is one of the intervention helping the
farmers for better opportunities for livelihood. Work as a daily labor currently, despite having
5acres of land, unable to cultivate his land.
Next Steps:
In order to be able to better address the objectives, the roles of the Lead Technical Agency
(LTA), Programme Facilitating Agency (PFO) and Community Based Organization should have a

22. clear guidelines to execute. Need to frame clear guidelines for utilization of funds from joint
account. The completed projects should have a follow ups to address the concerns of the Niti
sangham. In due process the Niti yajamanya sanghamare eligible to receive agricultural
machineries such as drips and sprinklers. Make sure that each committee member should have
their own drips and sprinklers systems for the better utilization water resources and decrease
the bore well pumping hours. The unintended consequence of MGNREGA works should be
addressed. The implementing actors should be transparent in procuring pipes and maintain
quality. Flexible to access to Joint account money of committees, still implementing agencies
are undermining farmers positions on using money. A large piles of amount has to be used for
income generation, or providing short-term loans for among the committee members. Need to
paying attention geographical structures such as whether it is near to forest etc. Rain-
harvesting needs to be established for better utilization of water resources. Plantation and
horticulture facilities has to be improved. The existing bore wells needs to be registered under
AP WALTA Act, then we avoid conflicts among farmers. Create an accountability mechanism
among implementing and lead technical agencies involved. Report to the government
functionaries on their plan of action & submitting financial statements to the funding agencies,
and acknowledge funding agency contribution and create awareness among the beneficiaries.
Basically there is a distress in government functionaries, not been acknowledged by their
contribution for the welfare of farmers. The programmatic goals and approaches to
participatory ground water management criteria should aligned to managerial goals and
approaches. The benchmarking criteria of the performances at least should be 2 years to
compare the impacts of the farmers. The implementing agencies focus on under what
conditions this project has been rolled out, to what extent the programme is addressing the
needs of the farmers. Unfortunately the selection criteria was not clear enough to identify the
beneficiaries. In upcoming project the unit of analysis has to be village instead of a block level.
Conclusion:
We have been hearing about policy, programme, and scheme (interchangeably) is good by
design but it is problem with implementing. If I would say so framing a policy does include all
components such as design and implementation, so if we want to say policy is good, we need to
have yardsticks to come about effective policy.
This project was supported by the Department of Agriculture, A.P, but implemented by
different implementing agencies, we had a mixed experience on programme delivery, as we
observed on key performance indicators such as ownership, participation, and technical and
sectorial knowledge and co-ordination among all key stakeholders has had a major difference in
terms of effective programme delivery. In terms of policy design is concerned, it is pouring a
huge amount of money on projects, our project is tripartite (government functionary, NGOs
and participatory groups) agreement, so there is no clear legal and accountability framework on
roles who are delivering services. By design no clarity of finance disbursement, who will held
accountable for money embezzlement, here procurement of equipment is a biggest challenge.

23. It does not mention about mandates of the individual stakeholders. So the design has broad
frameworks on administration, financial, checks and balance mechanisms. We have seen a stark
difference between disbursing financial resources verses accountability and transparency.
In terms of implementation, we observed difference in magnitude and degree of
implementation levels. The major importance is “context specificity”. So gaps in within the
stakeholders such as lack of clear communication, goals, programme mandates, was hampering
implementation. Age old issues such as effective and time-bound service delivery still a matter
of concern. Most of the Monitoring and Evaluation units are dormant within departments.
There is no outside agencies evaluating their performances, no frequency cycles in terms of
evaluating. No clear scientific tools developed to evaluate on programme performance.
Through public policy lens, basically an act has been not implemented properly, it leads to over
exploitation of water resources. Andhra Pradesh Water, land and trees Act (2002), is a fail to
implement by departments. Due to a multi layers of complexity, in the legislation it’s not been
clear about roles of the actors, due to a political pressures, lack of institutional autonomy,
judiciary overreach etc. in governance lens, Panchayaths are autonomous taking decisions to
pass a resolution, we had experienced in a hamlets near to Ananatpur and Kadiri area, a
majority of Panchayaths passed a resolution collectively ban digging new bore wells, through
collectivization it has been works well a major number of Panchayaths.
What we felt basically, Reformers are not paid attention to cumulative policy failures. For an
example take a case of The Second Administrative Reforms Commission was constituted in
2005, The ARC has presented 15 report to Government of India, the decision is taken on 13
reports, and this 13 reports consists of 1251 recommendation, 1005 recommendation accepted
by Government of India. Action has been taken on 430 recommendations, 575 are under
implementation [Source – Strategy plan of DARPG]. This is echoing the fact of how complex is
to manage our administration to deliver services to the citizens.
In terms of Governance, so called 3rd tier- governments, constituted in 73rd and 74th
amendments lacks autonomy to deliver services. Under-power and over structured
Governments not been effective in delivering
Division of powers and responsibilities in Union and State governments and “Principles of
Subsidiarity” are important to maintain healthy relationship among three levels of
governments. Subject for PRIs (11th schedule of the constitution) it has 29 functions to deliver.
Our project is a participatory approach is within the ambit of PRIs. But no financial autonomy
given to Panchayaths. There is a shortage of local government role in service delivery.