(PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

- :31
-
n tepshetndency had been. ,targe t the bIenef its under.:
the FFW Program 6o individual s for the ,creatinof.-specifd c,! asse tsG,
.THi s-.was,' ap due o the" fact . that it was e'a s-y, to'.:ien fy
indivd\a1 rficYe s and .. t was ,'eaier to managesc rgas
Mror idvidual projects: involve less ef fort in pplann ng and
moitoringplrogram ipeena n
4. Beneficiaries:Belong to the Poores Scionso oit
SDuring ,the visits mnade by the, evaluation' team, to the sites. of- the
sample cosgie/rjc holders, it~was observed t hat, by and large,
~the benef4~ Icaidsc e~ e totepoet sections of, society.
SIn thecase of villages which had heterogeneous caste Systems,.
the benef iciaries~ were, Tby and large, found to belong toQ the weaker
(nd~the poorer) gouips.< )Inthe case of homogeneous lvillag'es, whichr
ffwere invariably found tbe tiba l, itwould seem that theweake and
porrscin fsceywr ~al1so ,reachied. In these cases, :again,
thboe Iaresfore argemajority -of those dliving in those
Sareas.
S The teamsa seeral projet ofconstruction of roads, wheire
enievlagso at of villag~es benefitted~. -Other example~s were:
construction of nullahs;. de'iltinig and bundiiig of' irrigation -tanks;,
const~ruction o~f check-dams, construction' of percolation ponds;
construction of~community,' centers;~ digging of ponds'L for.pisciculture/
salt production; and construction of "sanitation' facilitie's-. In al11
these cases, the benef iciaries formed~a large ajryofteppl
living in that area who derived benefits either ihn the fjorm of a
upblic co'nvenience or inxthe ,form of an upgrada't'o fpiaeast
whichs
whchthey heldo
d z i
ntefr
hefr of av~ilability of, emp'loyment, for the
lanles orlonger -periods, thrb introducing an element of
stabil~ity in th iv~es-'of these people, -,ho'otherwise .might havle',ad
&miiad sach an ofepoyment oppor un ities, Ih Marh19
Smay Report '(Johni Chudy~) sjippo r7ts thi s abse,'vation:.
x~ ~ -
~Recipien prpportyfidig cit show that the program is
'providing emp16yment~ npor ities to'the r' n dy of
rua Inia soit. rd dl, the studies sho'w t h'at, FW
isprviding about7 da cfemployment per, recipient per
yeaor: abou.t 21~ percent' of a household s'annual
employmenit' FN sas rviig a7 eretices
in ueholdl Income. Ne,'erthele'sa the averag .recipient
hoshl is.st-ill below~ the' offic 1 GOI poverty line of
Rs6pe r-capit pe r, on'thAn' ru ra areas wth the
average recipient household; per ,apt a'income bengabt
Rs 465 per mont'h. Most rec pientC'
_.adleas -ag~fitutur 4al: and non-ag
wee~ be
ciituralaors a out
(6 --pret -28 .pe tent iwer al aT nd margl nali farmers',
ad percent we amailJtirader nora rv ice rkers.. I
Stionit th, employm nt and' ncome- n icaors h'e
~A
3