Poultry Rearing as an Income-generating Activity in Kesla

NewsReach November-Decmber 2010

1

Poultry Rearing as an Income-generating Activityin Kesla: An Impact Assessment Study

An excerpt from an in-depth study of the success, the limitations and thechallenges of KPS, an organization that promotes poultry rearing as analternative livelihood, for the poorest of the poor, who have so far beenmigrating and working as labour for survival

HARSHVARDHAN

Kesla, one of the poorest blocks in Madhya Pradesh, has been one of the earliestintervention areas of PRADAN. Rain-fed agriculture and a limited assets base ofthe tribal population have made the area an endemic food-insecure zone. Limitedopportunities for livelihoods generation and income generation have mademigration the main income generating activity. PRADAN made interventions withvarious livelihood themes, to promote food security and the well-being of poorcommunities living in and around Kesla. Among all these initiatives, poultry rearinghas emerged as the single most important activity in this area; this is now beingmanaged independently by Kesla Poultry Samiti (KPS).

KPS has emerged as a model of a people-owned and people-centric organization,the likes of which civil society organizations in the country have continuously triedto promote and establish. At present, KPS has more than 600 owner producers,who have an assured source of stable income. This stable income has led to manypositive changes in the life of the poor tribal women in these villages. Althoughmany of these gains are in their early stages of consolidation, the changes in thehitherto-deprived households due to poultry are very visible.

This study primarily aims at neviewing the impact of poultry rearing as an incomegenerating source on the lives of the members of KPS and tries to capture thechanges in various areas of their life. Of 250 households, a sample of 30households that are engaged in poultry rearing for last five years, were selectedfor the purpose of this study. This study also analyzes the present poultry outlookin the country, the organizational structure of KPS, the opportunities for andhandicaps of the poor, to participate and reap gains from poultry.

Lead: Poultry Rearing as an Income-generating Activity in Kesla: An Impact Assessment Study

2

METHODOLOGY Key Features of the ImpactAssessment StudyThe guiding principles forinformation collection,assessment and analysis forthis study were based uponcertain premises detailedbelow. These principles had amajor impact on the natureand quality of findingsexplained later in the study.1. The evaluation design was participatory

in nature and was based on thefeedback received by the evaluator onhis field visits. The methodology andsampling were determined afterdiscussions with National ResourceCentre for Rural Livelihoods and seniorPRADAN functionaries.

2. Both quantitative and qualitativemeasures were used to capture theimpact. It was thought that quantitativemethods alone cannot capture therichness of information and may resultin the omission of many subtle andimportant changes. It was also thoughtthat, at the same time, the study musthave a quantitative information baseand data set to supplement the findingsgenerated through qualitativemeasures.

3. The study also actively involved theassessment of information at the pointof its generation. This ensured that thelearning from the participants is sharedwith them and the inclusion of theircritical inputs is made possible, to makethe findings more refined.

4. The livelihood systems of the poor aredependent upon a large number ofvariables. The traditional risk-hedgingmechanisms orient poor to diversifytheir livelihood base. The study tried to

analyze the change in livingstandards of the poor byexamining poultry relatedinitiatives and the changes inthe outside environment.The situation becomes evenmore challenging becausethe external environment has undergone majorchanges in recent years dueto many pro-poor policy

initiatives by the government such as NREGS, National Rural HealthMission, Total Sanitation Campaign, and the Annapoorna. Antodaya AnnaYojana (AAY).

5. Many qualitative aspects werediscussed at various levels. Apart fromthe household survey, forums such asfocused group discussions (FGDs) andin-depth discussions with variousbeneficiaries were carried out torevalidate the findings.

6. The perceptions of various externalstakeholders were incorporated toprovide additional information andvalidate the findings in the study.

POULTRY REARING IN KESLAPoultry rearing as an income generatingactivity was introduced in Kesla by PRADANin the late 1980s. The familiarity of the tribalswith traditional bird rearing practices was oneof the contributing reasons. Moreover, thevillagers were in transition from forest-basedlivelihood systems to farm-based livelihoodsystems.

Interventions in dairy and other agri-basedactivities had not been very successful in thearea due to lack of backward and forwardlinkages. Limited water availability in theregion was also a hindrance in rearing largeanimals. Poultry, on the other hand, was part

This study primarily aimsat reviewing the impactof poultry rearing as an

income generatingsource on the lives of the

members of KPS andtries to capture the

changes in the variousareas of their life.


3

PhaseFirst Phase: 1988–1992

Experimentation

Introduction of improvedbreeds in backyard poultrysetting; interventions in themarket for better price real-ization; and communitymobilization

Second phase: 1992–1997

Pilot testing and demonstration of broilerfarming

Third Phase: 1997–2002

Scaling up: Expansion, sys-tems settings, institutional-izing producers’cooperatives

Fourth Phase: 2002 onwards

Prototype development,documentation, developingsystems for large-scale mar-keting, lobbying, setting upprojects in new locations

Salient Features1. Marketing

2. Cage rearing of cockerels

3. Brooding and rearing done separately

1. Broiler rearing on deep litter initiated

2. Brooding and rearing done by the same family

3. Rigorous training4. Standardization of

production prototype

1. Rapid expansion

2. Producers organized as cooperatives

3. Interventions in other components of the value chain—marketing, establishment of warehouse cum wholesaling, etc

1. Modern retail outlet

2. Feed production3. Replication by other NGOs,

governments and by PRADAN

Learning• Little industry interaction;

experimentation on one’s own• High return on investment but

low absolute income fails to excite and bring intensity to the activity

• 25–30 birds cage rearing failed miserably

• Adequate financing: Units were underfinanced and required external support to facilitate linkages

• Criticality of unit size: Lower unit size did not adequately provide for debt servicing

• Absence of factoring financial implications of market volatility and lack of risk mitigation system made the intervention fragile

• System to address market volatility key to success—de-linking of production and enterprise risks

• Creating ownership of the enterprise

• Creating margins to take care of establishment costs

• Creating a good governance structure, which is able to exercise ownership and control on the operating structure managed by professionals, is a big challenge and takes years to establish

• Integration of all the cooperatives through a producer company dedicated to the growth of small-holder poultry farmers helps in building specialized services, enhances autonomy and ownership

Salient Features and Learning from Each Phase


4

of the local livelihood systems,and interventions in this sub-sector were designed tooptimize the available skill set.However, it has been a longjourney, full of learning, inreaching the present sophisti-cation in operations, structuresand processes.

The intervention initially aimedat upgrading backyard poultryto modern poultry. Newtechnologies such as cage-rearing practices, includingbrooding and balanced feed,were introduced. Theseactivities were new for tribal villagers;therefore, a separate set of villagers weretrained to brood the chicks and, thereafter,the brooded chicks were given to the farmersfor fixed rearing charges. However, thereturns from the farming and subsequentfailure to engage with the market did affectthe sustainability of the operations.

In 1990–91, a shift was made to cockerelrearing in pucca production sheds. Some ofthe sets were financed by the IntegratedRural Development Programme, IRDP,whereas some were financed by otherdonors. PRADAN also made a shift to broilerfarming in the first half of the nineties. KPS was registered in 1997 and all businessoperations were formally separated fromPRADAN.

The learning from the project over time andthe steadfast commitment to poultry as anincome generation option led to increasingsophistication in operations; at present, 580producers are members of KPS, which hasachieved an impressive turnover of nearly

Rs 10 crores this financialyear and has also been ableto distribute surpluspayment to farmers since2008.

Poultry as an income-generation activity has beenfairly successful in securinglivelihoods for many of poorfamilies in Kesla. However, itis also necessary to have anoverview of the poultryindustry in the country, andthe opportunities for andthreats to small producers.It is pertinent to examine the

sustainability, achievements and impendingchallenges of poultry rearing.

KPS: PROCESSES AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSKPS was registered under the Societies Act1860, to promote poultry and other incomegenerating activities in Hoshangabad andBetul districts of Madhya Pradesh. At present,KPS is working in 21 villages in and aroundKesla, in Hoshangabad and Betul districts.Poultry was introduced as an incomegenerating activity by PRADAN in the mid-eighties. PRADAN professionals started andstrengthened the initial poultry activities.

At present, KPS is an independent legal entity.It is not dependent on PRADAN in theory. Ithas its own CEO and other support staff andruns its business independently. However,there is a strong informal linkage betweenPRADAN and KPS even today. This is visiblein the membership and the support structuresof KPS. The membership, organizationalstructure and the operational procedures ofKPS are detailed below.

Poultry rearing as anincome generating

activity was introduced inKesla by PRADAN in the

late 1980s. Thefamiliarity of the tribals

with traditional birdrearing practices was one

of the contributingreasons. Moreover, the

villagers were intransition from forest-

based livelihood systemsto farm-based livelihood

systems.


5

MEMBERSHIP

KPS is more or less a closed cooperativesociety. The society has also decided that the membership of the cooperative willremain confined to Schedule Caste (SC) andSchedule Tribe (ST) families, to safeguard itscharacter as well as safeguard it from thepotential threat of the local elite taking it over.

The households and SHGs that wish to takeup poultry have to first make an applicationto Narmada Mahila Sangh, which is afederation of SHGs in the Kesla block. Thiscommunity structure is also promoted andfacilitated by PRADAN. The Sangh checkswhether the village is connected with all-weather roads, and whether the applicant isless than 45 and has been disciplined inher/his transactions in the SHGs. When theSangh is convinced about the willingness andcapability of applicant to carry out poultryrearing, it arranges funds from donoragencies or government departments forshed construction, training and securitydeposits. The federation then forwards theapplication to KPS for consideration.

On receipt of the application, KPS carries outits own investigation before granting

membership. Once selected by KPS, the newmember has to undergo a 45-day residentialtraining programme on poultry rearing. Thetraining covers aspects such as chickmanagement, measuring feed and medicine,prevention of disease and record-keeping.

PRODUCTION SYSTEM1. Production is completely taken care of

by the individual producers.2. Individual producers are provided day-

old chicks (DOC), the feed andmedicine (on a need basis) at theirdoorsteps, for brooding according tothe production plan.

3. Producers are also provided sawdustand material for whitewash for pre-rearing management.

4. When the chickens reach a marketableage and size (approximately 35 to 40days), these are collected by the traderfrom the producer’s doorstep.

5. Monitoring of production is done by ateam of supervisors (typically selectedfrom among the villagers).

6. KPS has a CEO, who is the mostimportant functionary and acts as alynch pin for the various activities of thecooperative. He is assisted by a centralsupervisor, who monitors the work ofother supervisors.

7. Each producer’s performance is meas-ured on an efficiency index. The efficiencyindex is a function of mortality, feedconsumed and weight gain of the chick.The supervisor’s payment is directlylinked to the efficiency of his assignedproducers, which, on an average, isaround 50 paise per live bird sold. Theincentive of the supervisor is alsovariable and there is a sharp decline inthe incentive if the producer fails toachieve a satisfactory score on theefficiency index.

Source: KPS database


6

8. The co-operative endeavours to protectthe farmer from any external businessshock. As a result, the producer isreposed with production responsibilitysolely, and is assured a fixed minimumreturn per kilogram of broiler (plusadditional payment linked to productionefficiency).

9. The cooperative usually pays the surplusit accumulates at the end of the financialyear as deferred wage payment. Thisamount is generally referred to as bonusby the producer members. In this study,therefore, wherever the word ‘bonus’ ismentioned, it refers to the deferredwage payment to the producer at theend of the year.

The co-operative takes care of procurementand marketing functions, and a team of fieldsupervisors act as a medium for inputdistribution and collation during delivery tothe market.

FINANCIAL SYSTEM1. The cooperative has an elaborate MIS

system that helps it keep track of alltransactions and ensures accuracy andtransparency in all dealings.

2. All transactions with members arerecorded in the system, and anelaborate system of challans andcounterfoils is used to ensuretransparency between the membersand the cooperative.

3. The cooperative uses the MIS software,‘Udyog Munshi’, which is customdesigned to suit the accounting andstock-taking requirements of KPS.

4. KPS has accounts with the State Bank ofIndia (SBI) in Kesla and the Axis Bank inItarsi. SBI provides a cash credit of Rs 25lakhs to KPS. Both SBI and Axis Bankregard KPS as a valued customer. The

representatives of both these banksregularly visit KPS.

MARKETING SYSTEM1. KPS has two dedicated customers—

Sahid and Kallu. Whereas Sahid is asupplier in and around Itarsi, Kallumainly serves the Vidisha market. Sahidis the main customer of KPS andmarkets roughly 50 per cent of the KPSproduction.

2. There are many other suppliers, whopurchase from KPS as per their needsand supply the Bhopal, Narsinghpurand other markets in the state.

3. All the sales are on cash basis, in whichdedicated customers get three days ofcredit. However, dedicated suppliers also have to settle their accounts at theend of the financial year.

4. The boom in demand for poultry in rural areas has served KPS well. Most ofthe production is supplied to the nearby rural markets. KPS and the dedicatedsupplier believe that the rural markethas got better potential; even whenthere are outbreaks of avian flu indifferent parts of the country, the localrural market is only marginally affected.

HUMAN RESOURCESA trained and committed human resources(HR) department is necessary for institutionalstability and sustainability. KPS has created acadre of village-based supervisors. Inaddition, all the support staff of KPS havebeen locally recruited. At present, KPS has 10staff on its payroll, and 27 supervisors andother staff, who are paid incentives on theproduction efficiency achieved by members.The CEO is a veterinary doctor, who is theonly non-permanent resident of the area. TheCEO now delegates many of his responsi-bilities and empowers his subordinates; thus,


7

even during a prolongedabsence, the business of KPSruns as usual.

GOVERNANCE SYSTEMThe Board of Governorscomprises producer membersand two experts. Everyvillage of producersnominates one member tothe Board, which is thesupreme decision-makingbody of the KPS. A Boardmeeting is held on the 10thof every month. The chairperson of the Boardusually visits the KPS office once every weekand is apprised of the weekly activities by theCEO. The CEO is also responsible to theBoard and presents a monthly report to theBoard. It may surprise many that SC/STwomen are responsible for running a multi-crore business entity. However, women haveproved that they can take important decisionseasily, once the options and the possibleoutcomes of decisions are clear to them.

The Board has taken many decisions todiscipline erring members, supervisors andother staff. The Board members engagethemselves increasingly in the day-to-dayfunctioning of KPS. Recognizing the need forsanitation to check the outbreak of diseasesand the subsequent weight loss to the birds, the Board members now form teamsand visit every village. The Board memberscheck the sanitation level, educate theproducers about its importance and even take action against erring members. However,the capacity building efforts and theleadership training of the Board needs to be stepped up because it will meet morechallenging and complex situations in thefuture as the business of the cooperativecontinues to grow.

STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIPSKPS and other womenpoultry cooperatives of MPhave come together to formMadhya Pradesh WomenPoultry Cooperative Limited(MPWPCL), an apexorganization of all the poultrycooperatives in the state,which undertakes advocacyworks. It also does centralizedpurchase for medicines andprepares the medical mix tobe used in feeds. All themanagerial appointments in

the cooperatives are made by the MPWPCL,which also provides strategic leadership andguidance to its constituent cooperatives.

FINANCIAL VIABILITYKPS has emerged as a strong viable businessmodel. One of the most important featuresof KPS is hedging the tribal livelihoods againstany down risk and uncertainties in the market.Key inputs, veterinary support and marketlinkages are facilitated by KPS. Farmers havethe mandate to rear chicks effectively.Depending upon the efficiency with whichthe farmer carries out the operation, she ispaid. At the end of the financial year, theproducer is also paid a share in the surplus ofthe KPS, as deferred payment.

At first glance, it may seem that KPS hasassumed a significant risk, to protect thefarmers. However, this model is beingadopted by most of the integrators in thecountry. The benefit of the system is that thefarmer is concerned only with productionactivities and is not encumbered with otherdetails. KPS acts as strong service deliveryplatform. This is more imperative because theindividual costs of accessing the gamut ofservices will make the enterprise unviable.

It may be surprising foroutsiders to even

conceive that SC/STwomen are responsible

for running a multi-crorebusiness entity. However,

it was very clear thatwomen can take

important decisionseasily, once the options

and the possibleoutcomes of decisions

are clear to them.


8

Moreover, the collectivization of risks reducesindividual risks considerably. This model ismost fitted for an enterprise that is rockedfrom time to time by bird flu outbreak risks.

KPS has been making consistent profit since2008. The producers have received deferredpayment at the end of the year as surplusbonus. KPS has also been strengthening itsequity base by seeking contributions from itsmembers. From 2008 onwards, its equitycapital has grown to more than Rs 1 crore.Similarly, a bird flu fund, with a deposit of Rs 16.46, lakhs has been created, to meet anycontingency arising out of the outbreak. Thefinancial strength of KPS, therefore, is gettingmore robust every year.

Most of the vendors of KPS are satisfied withthe prompt payment from the organizationand would like to continue with the services.SBI and Axis Bank also express theirsatisfaction with the financial health of KPS.The audited estimates of 2008–09 show that

the total payment to farmers has grown to Rs 1.86 crores. This translates to more thanRs 30,000 per annum income per household.The income from poultry alone can lift mostof the KPS members out of the officialpoverty line now. However, the cash surplusin these three years has been used mainly forinstitutional strengthening. KPS itself is in theprocess of consolidation; therefore, suchactions are necessary to ensure long-termsustainability of the institution. Hence, the net transfers to the households have beenmuch lower.

A philanthropic organization, DewanFoundation, gave financial assistance of Rs 10lakhs to KPS; this is used for additionalcapacity creation by the members. As of now,more than 125 KPS members have taken theloan money to expand their productioncapacity. The loan repayment rate is 100 percent, and many members have already repaidtheir loans in two years. Productive assets thatare being created at the household level will

No. Financial Indicators 2006–7 2007–8 2008–91 Total wage payment 40,49,514 67,22,129 1,86,50,673

to producers, includingbonus

2 Total share capital 2,38,100 4,97,000 1,049,8003 Bird flu contingency fund 5,98,310 1,179,560 1,646,5604 Net payment to producers 31,16,204 56,75,969 79,09,6735 Total sales 3,64,38,701.00 5,36,02,814 9,89,93,6286 Membership fees 9,400 11,475 12,5757 Total number of producers 362 453 6118 Average production per 1,00,659.39 1,18,328.50 1,62,019.03

member/annum 9 Average gross payment 11,186.50 14,893.13 30,524.83

per producer/annum10 Average net payment per 8,608.29 12,529.73 12,945.45

producer11 Grower’s deposit 18,26,693 19,52,418 14,737,36212 Capital reserve 28,90,355 2,890,355 2,890,355

Table 1: Financial Indicators of KPS (2006–7 to 2008–9)


9

lead to increased cash flow. Atpresent, productive assets arebeing strengthened both atthe collective and thehousehold levels, which willyield higher benefits to both,in the coming years.

Poultry rearing has emergedas a viable source of livelihoodin Kesla and nearby blocks. This model hasbeen scaled up by PRADAN in other parts ofMadhya Pradesh and Jharkhand. It has apositive impact on the lives of its producermembers. In this section of the study, thesubstantiality and the viability of theenterprise will be examined by using the 7-SMckinsey framework.

ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS OF KPS WITH THE 7-S MODELThe 7-S Mckinsey model is a holistic tool tomeasure organizational effectiveness. Thistool primarily helps in analyzing how theorganization is positioned, to achieve itsintended objectives. It also helps tounderstand how future changes might affectthe organization and, hence, how toimplement a proposed strategy. Anunderstanding of the organization thusreached can be useful for refinement ofprocesses and systems, leading to theimproved performance of the organization.

SHARED VALUESFor KPS, the shared value system is fairlydeveloped and owned, both by thefunctionaries and the producer owners. It iswell established that KPS exists for thewelfare of its producer members and its mainconcern is maximizing their monetary andnon-monetary benefits.

KPS itself is established onthe humanitarian concerns ofcaring for needy fellowbeings, and theorganizational culture isoriented to maximizing theincome of the producermembers. Transparency in itsfinancial and operationaltransactions has heavily con-

tributed to the building of trust and faith inthe organization. The strong commitment ofKPS and PRADAN to the poor isacknowledged by the members. Theinnovative use of IT, to facilitate transparency,is commendable.

STRATEGYThe strategy of KPS is well in congruencewith its shared values. Since 2009 membershave contributed Rs 8.12 lakhs from theirdeferred payments to build an equity base ofRs 10.50 lakhs and a bird flu fund Rs 16.57lakhs, to meet any contingency. Membershave been able to identify that the financialstability of the organization is crucial, in orderto protect the interests of members.

The benefit of the systemis that the farmer isconcerned only with

production activities andis not encumbered withother details. KPS acts asstrong service delivery

platform.

THE 7-S MCKINSEY MODEL


10

By design, KPS can never be acash surplus organizationbecause most of the operatingsurplus is distributed amongthe producer members as theirdeferred wage payment. Theendemic poverty in the areaalso makes it very difficult tohold back payments from thepoor producers. However,even in the face of suchhardships, the women haverecognized the long-terminterests of the organization,and this is reflected in theirstrategic choices.

STRUCTUREKPS is a very small organization and thestructure is still evolving. Initially, the CEO ofthe organization was the central authority,who made all the decisions and who wasresponsible for the day-to-day functioning.However, in recent years, greaterdecentralization of authority is taking place.The members are now encouraged to overseethe functioning of the field supervisors andthere is greater role clarity among theemployees. However, this transition of rolesamong the members may take some moretime to be firmly established. Many leaders ofKPS are very clear about their role as owners;however, the same cannot be said of all the producer members.

SYSTEMKPS functions in a mode of trusteeship and,hence, tries to keep maximum transparencyin its operations. As the payment to theproducers is made on the basis of theirefficiency in rearing and most of the financialrisk and working capital is borne by KPS, it isimperative that a detailed transparent systemis put in place. All the input transactions with

the producers aremaintained by the fieldsupervisors and the detailsare recorded in thecomputerized MIS system.

KPS makes direct paymentto its producers and does nothand over wages anddeferred payment to thehusbands of the members.Hence, members can decidehow to utilize the money,without interference from the male members of theirfamily. These systems areproducer- and human-centric, and supplement the

shared goals of the organization.

STAFFMost of the staff of the KPS belongs to thesame village and socio-economic profile asthe members. Hence, the staff can directlyconnect with the producer and her problems.Most of the supervisors are village-based andare not highly educated. Similarly, the fieldsupervisor and the support staff have limitededucation. However, most of them are awareof their job responsibilities and are committedto the work. In some cases, unfortunately, thehigher income flow to these supervisors hasalso led to higher liquor consumption bythem. This is an aspect in which KPS needs totrain and sensitize its field work force.

STYLEAs a human-centric organization, the CEOexhibits supportive leadership traits. There areclear performance indicators of leadership,and payment to the supervisors is made onthis basis. Similarly, the CEO takes a lot ofeffort to educate the member producersabout KPS being an institution owned by

KPS itself is established onthe humanitarian

concerns of caring forneedy fellow beings, andthe organizational cultureis oriented to maximizing

the income of theproducer members. Even

vendors such as Sahidbelieve that their work ispart of a greater whole;

he proudly claims that hehas never worked for anyother poultry producer or

group, and will neverwork for them in the

future.


11

SWOT ANALYSIS OF KPS

Strengths

w Well-developed and localized production support system

w Benefit of scalew Even distribution of risk among

producersw Trained human resourcesw Horizontal and vertical linkages with other

cooperativesw Community ownershipw Modern MIS Systemw Location advantages to the growing rural

marketw Excellent credibility with key stakeholdersw Proven success in different states

Opportunities

w Fast growing market for poultry productsw Growing awareness among government

and other donors of poverty concentrationamong SC/ST and other excluded social groups

w Possibility of diversification of production base

w Manure treatment as an additional incomesource

w Reducing competition from peri-urban producers

w Scope for vertical and horizontal growthw Possibilities of exportsw Limited capacity creation by existing big

farmers

Weaknesses

w Dependence for DOCs and other key inputs on external suppliers

w Dependence on a small number of distributors

w Limited governance ability among member owners

w Limited penetration in urban marketsw High exposure of business risk to KPSw Limited reach among poorest villagesw Donor dependency for initial capacity

building, working capital and infrastructure creation

w Illiteracy and fragile assets base of the producers

w Unfavourable response of financial institutions to organizations owned by the poor

w Emerging ecological challenges due to declining fuel and water availability

Threats

w Possibility of frequent bird flu H1N1 outbreak

w Growing competition from for-profit private sector integrators

w Increase in price of key inputsw Small producers interest adversely

affected by strong industrial poultry lobby

w Resistance by PETA and other animal rights activists

w Consumption shift toward vegetarianismw Increased threat from importsw Government regulations especially

related to wet poultry market


12

them. The CEO also assiststhe board members inmaking decisions byexplaining about variousoptions; in recent times,board members haveencouraged members to takedecisions on vital issuesconcerning the governanceof the organization. Additionally, womenleaders have great faith in the CEO andrespect his advice and suggestions.

SKILLKPS has evolved into a unique people’sorganization. Because it was one of the firstsuch people’s initiatives in the poultry sector,the learning from it has led to furtherrefinement and adoption of this model inother parts of Madhya Pradesh and country.The processes, systems and managementhave evolved as per need and, many a time,as per design. The unique working model,which combines the efficiencies of a bigintegrator and at the same time ensurespeople’s ownership has been fairly successfulin assuring an alternative source of livelihood to the poor in and around Kesla block.

One of the main reasons for such a strongvalue orientation can be attributed to therelatively small size of the organization.Moreover, most of the members of KPS belong to the same socio-economicstrata. A predominant majority of them are already involved with the SHG move-ment and are familiar with PRADAN’s ways of functioning. The strong informalrelationship between PRADAN and KPS reinforces the value system with which both PRADAN and KPS wereestablished.

CENTRALITIES OF KPSMember centrality refers tothe importance of thecooperative in the economicactivities of its members. Ifthe members of cooperativesare generating economicactivities worth Rs 1,000 andthe share of cooperative in

this value creation is only Rs 100 it denotes alow member centrality. Centralities—member,patronage and domain—are, thus, a majorfactor in judging the relevance, utility andprospects of a cooperative or any producer-owned organization for its members.

KPS has high member centrality. Most of themembers of KPS reported that the earningsfrom poultry rearing constitute up to half thehousehold income. High member centralityalso means that members of KPS will remainactively involved in the affairs of KPS becauseit continues to be their most important sourceof livelihood.

Patronage centrality on other hand refers tothe direct benefits and the activities that arefor the benefit of members. For example, ifcooperatives create economic surplus worthRs 1,000 and members receive surplus worthRs 800, it denotes a high patronage centralityand, thus, the active interest of theorganization in the well-being of its members.

Domain centrality refers to the degree ofinvolvement of the cooperative in economicactivities, both actual and potential, takingplace in the domain of the cooperative.

KPS has high member centrality. It also hasthe potential for high patronage centrality.However, for many years, because theproducers have been contributing a part of

KPS has high membercentrality. Most of the

members of KPS reportedthat the earnings from

poultry rearing constituteup to half the household

income.


13

their deferred earnings to strengthen theequity and bird flu fund, the actual paymentto the producer is less.

KPS also has the potential for high domaincentrality. Maize is the major crop in andaround Kesla and also the principalconstituent of the poultry feed. The farmers of the area, therefore, can get aready market for their produce. Similarly,soybean is an important input grown locally. KPS can help in the generation ofadditional income by assisting in theproduction of these key inputs. It may also support additional income generation for its members by marketing manure (frombird waste) and diversification in othersources of animal protein.

IMPACT ON THE LIVES OF MEMBERSKPS was established with the mandate ofstrengthening the fragile assets-base of thepoor, to create additional sources of income.However, over the years, it has had asignificant impact on the lives of its producermembers. The impact of an additional sourceof income on poor tribal households and, inparticular, female producer members will nowbe examined in detail.

Thirty households that have been membersof KPS for last five years were identified as the treatment group. Similarly, 30households that, till the time of the study,were not associated with PRADAN-promotedSHGs or KPS were selected as the control

group. The control group households were selected from a village where nosignificant economic activity had been initiatedby PRADAN or KPS.

ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT OF KPS MEMBERSKesla is one of the poorest blocks of thecountry. The limited resource endowmentand limited options for livelihoods compoundthe problem. At best, a majority of the

No. Share of Poultry Level1 Between 50 and 75% 12 Between 40 and 50% 213 Between 30 and 40% 64 Between 20 and 30% 2

Table 2: Share of Poultry in Household Expenditure

WHY HAVE THE RURAL POOR STAYED AWAY

The tremendous success of poultry develop-ment has bypassed the rural poor for thefollowing reasons.

w High entry barriers: Poultry industry ishighly organized, complex, competitiveand intensely market-oriented. The poorwith their socio-economic disadvantagesand low skill base cannot enter the sectorwithout outside support or intervention.

w Input supply, extension and marketing:In contrast to the existing situation inwhich multiple agencies provide servicesinput supply, extension and marketing,poor producers require all these servicesunder one roof.

w Access to technology: Sophisticatedtechnology, when not scaled down, willremain with the more well-to-do farmers.Appropriate technology, which is scalable,improves access in favour of the poor.

14

villagers have food security fora mere six months. And if therains fail, the villagers do nothave food security for morethan three months. Thevillagers have been dependenton migration and sand fillingfor their survival. Thesetraditional coping mechanismstoo are now under threat dueto increasing mechanization.

Discussions with the villagersrevealed that survival wasdifficult for the poor. Locally available coarsegrain was the main cereal and dalia (a coarsecereal boiled in water) were the main fooditems. Vegetables were a rarity and,sometimes, villagers had to go to bed onempty stomachs. This situation has improvedsignificantly in the last decade thanks togovernment food distribution programmes aswell as improved job opportunities.

However, the establishment of KPS has beenone of the most significant institutionaleconomic activities of this economicallyunderdeveloped region in the last decade.

Poultry has now become the mainstay of thehousehold economy for KPS members. Morethan 75 per cent of the treatment grouprespondents covered under the studyreported that nearly half their monthlyexpenditure was directly met by poultryearnings. For a batch size of 300, therespondents reported that an income of Rs10,000 to 15,000 was earned per annum.This income increased pro rata, with anincrease in batch size.

The income from poultry is evenly distributedthroughout the year. This distribution made iteasier for producers to plan the household

economy and made themeven more credit-worthy.The women said that theycould now borrow moneyfrom the SHG when in needand repay it.

Similarly, borrowing fromthe ration shop has alsobecome easier for KPSmembers because theshopkeepers give them easycredit for their regularconsumption needs. FGDs

revealed that whereas many KPS membersdid not have to pay any interest on credit forthe purchase of household rations to theshopkeeper, many of the control groupmembers reported paying interest for this tothe shopkeeper.

The table on the next page shows that thenet income per household has increased fromRs 9,435 to Rs 15,070 in 2008–9. The actualincome per household has more than Rs 35,000 in 2008–9. At present, KPS and itsmembers are generating internal resourcesfor vertical expansion (setting up a satellitehatchery) and a buffer for bird flu losses;hence, the net payment to the households is lower.

The members realize the benefits of poultryrearing. It gives them a chance to generateincome by using their slack labour. They arealso saved from drudgeries of manual labourand the problems associated with migration.

The data reveal that the producers haverealized the usefulness of poultry to theirhouseholds. In 2006 and 2007, there were198 producers rearing a batch size of 300.However, most of them have now upgradedtheir shed capacity and there are only 76


Poultry has now becomethe mainstay of the

household economy forKPS members. More than

75 per cent of thetreatment group

respondents coveredunder the study reported

that nearly half theirmonthly expenditure was

directly met by poultryearnings.


15

producers now, who have a shed capacity of300. Similarly, there were only five producersin 2006 and 2007, who reared 500 chicks ormore. This number has now gone up to 153. What is more remarkable is that most of the shed construction has been carried outwith a loan from KPS. Members have supple-mented the costs of shed construction withtheir labour, use of local resources and anysavings they had. This demonstrates the faiththe households have in the dependability andviability of the enterprise.

One of the main benefits of the poultryintervention has also been the stabilizing ofthe household economy. A direct impact hasbeen the visible improvement in the qualityof food and nutrition levels for the household.Many households have moved away fromusing cereals to wheat and rice. The AAY hasalso significantly increased the availability offood to the villagers.

Families report that vegetables, which were a rarity, have now become a regular featureof meals. Many households claim that theyare now in a position to purchase tomatoesat Rs 40 per kg. A few households admittedthat, at times, when vegetables are verycostly, they are dropped from the regularmenu.

The income from poultry has stabilized thehousehold economy. There is great possibilityof taking this forward. At present, householdswith 300 chicks need one more stable sourceof livelihood to live comfortably. Families thathave no loan obligation may be considered tobe above the official poverty line.Unfortunately, the rising inflation in the lasttwo years in commodity prices has undonesome of the good achievements of KPS.

The size of a family has a strong impact onthe economy of a household. Families with

No. Financial Indicators 2006–7 2007–8 2008–91 Number of active producers 250 250 2492 Total wage payment 25,98,830 39,90,012 8,944,538

including bonus3 Total bonus payment 8,18,698 13,80,835 63,54,1644 Deferred payment 2,40,000 2,49,000 51,92,000

taken back5 Net payment to 23,58,830 37,41,012 37,52,538

the producers6 Gross income per 10,395.32 15,960.04 35,921.83

producer/annum7 Net payment to 9435.32 14,964.04 15,070.43

producer/annum8 Producers with a 198 198 76

batch size of 3009 Producers with a 44 44 18

batch size of 40010 Producers with a 3 3 2

batch size of 50011 Producers with a batch 5 5 153

size of more than 500

Table 3: Financial Indicators for Producers Rearing Birds for More than Five Years

16

two children, which areprimarily dependent onpoultry, reported that theycould meet their basic foodand nutrition needscomfortably. However,families with more than sixmembers needed anadditional source of incomeother than poultry, to meettheir household needs.

Clearly, if a family had anassured source of income other than poultry,whether a regular daily wage job or irrigatedland, the household reported purchase ofsome durable assets in the last few years.However, if a household was dependent onlyon poultry and had an irregular source ofwage labour, assets creation at the householdlevel was not evident.

This is quite natural because most of theincome was used for meeting householdexpenditure. The above table shows that thequantum of deferred payments, also referredto as bonus by the producers, has not beenvery significant. The highest average deferredpayment to members, which was paid in2008–9, was Rs 4,667.32.

Many members now have added additionalshed capacity and have paid back most of theloan amount. Hence, although assets creationis not evident at the consumption level, it is

significant at the level ofcreation of productive assets.These productive assets areexpected to yield better cashflow in the coming years.

The amount of savings wasthe main difference betweenthe control and treatmentgroups. Whereas controlgroup members hardly hadany savings, (the highestsavings reported was Rs

3,000), the women in treatment group hadsavings of Rs 3,000 to Rs 7,000 perhousehold. In many cases, these savings were deposited with KPS as workingcapital deposit.

The Narmada Mahila Sangh executives saidthat they realized that the SHGs in whichpoultry producers were members were morevibrant than other SHGs. A regular source ofmoney made transactions in SHG morefrequent and disciplined.

MIGRATIONOne of the most important outcomes ofhaving a regular source of income is theimpact on migration. Only one of more thanhundred poultry producers interviewedadmitted to migrating for agriculture-relatedwork outside their village. Most of the womenadmitted that poultry as an alternative source of income has permitted them to focus

No. Migration for Work KPS Members Othersby Women in a Year

1 60 days to 80 days 0 02 40 days to 60 days 0 163 20 days to 40 days 1 144 Never 29 0

Table 4: Migration by Women

One of the mostimportant outcomes of

having a regular source ofincome is the impact onmigration. Only one of

more than hundredpoultry producers

interviewed admitted tomigrating for agriculture-related work outside their

village.



17

more on their children and their well-being. In many cases, the male members of the family still migrate to augment thehousehold income.

However, both women and the men agreedthat such opportunities for work areincreasingly declining. One KPS memberadmitted to migrating for work during therabi season. Many men still continue toaugment the household income although the number of days they migrate for isdeclining. Whereas the field supervisors of the KPS believed that this was becausemale members were averse to working, manyof the KPS members said it was due todeclining opportunities.

On the other hand, all the women in thecontrol group still have to migrate toaugment the household income. The womenand their families form groups and migrate toother parts of the district and to nearbydistricts. One of the major achievements ofKPS has been in reducing migration; this hasa positive effect on the well-being of childrenand also saves the women from the hardshipsassociated with migration.

EDUCATIONOne of the most pleasant outcomes of thestudy is capturing the growing awareness

about the importance of education in ruralcommunities. In many villages, women arenot only encouraging children to completeschool but also encouraging them to studyfurther. Many households, both from thetreatment and control groups, have evenbeen sending their wards to hostels in districtheadquarters and supporting their education.Women in both groups said that they believeeducation to be very important for the betterfuture of their children. More than 90 percent of the children in both the groups arecompleting their primary education.However, the importance of having a regularsource of income was evident to themembers in the treatment group.

The children of KPS members have anaverage schooling of more than eight years.In the control group, on an average, theperiod for schooling was five years. Manywomen in the control group reported that the unavailability of schools in the village and the distance of 3–5 km for the next levelof schooling were the main reasons forchildren dropping out of school. Children ofmany KPS producers, on the other hand, who have been facing similar situations have continued their schooling. The dropoutrate of the children of non-members was higher than the children of members ofthe treatment group, who asserted that they

Table 5: Deferred Payment Bonus to the 250 Old Producers (2006–7 to 2008–9)

No. Bonus indicators 2006–7 2007–8 2008–91 Number of active producers 250 250 2492 Total bonus payment 8,18,698 13,80,835 63,54,1643 Deferred payment 2,40,000 2,49,000 51,92,000

taken back4 Net bonus payment 5,78,698 11,31,835 11,62,164

to the producers5 Gross bonus payment 3,274.92 5,523.34 35,921.836 Net bonus payment 2,314.79 4527.34 4,667.32

18

would support the educationof their children as long asthey showed interest inpursuing their studies.

In fact, economic hardshipwas not a handicap for thechildren of KPS producers.Most of the women who hadchildren in the age group of 5to 18 were quite aware of theimportance of education. Themajor reason for dropouts inthese cases was failure in theexamination, particularly inthe matriculation boardexaminations. There was nosignificant difference in theeducational achievement of boys and girls;they attend school without any form ofdiscrimination.

One of the major reasons for dropouts in thecase of the control group is also economic. Inspite of a free education system, women saidthat nearly Rs 1,000 to 1,500 per annum isspent on each child for stationery andexamination fees to the school. The quality ofeducation is an important issue that forceschildren to drop out of the education system.Children are usually promoted on the basis ofinternal assessment. However, it also resultsin a large number of failures in the externalBoard examinations, which are perceived tobe stricter and devoid of unfair means.

Even among the KPS members whosechildren have crossed the school-going agebefore 2003, widespread illiteracy wasobserved, with the average schooling yearsbeing hardly more than five years. Hence, thisemphasis on education has been a newphenomenon in this region and the growingawareness about the importance of education

may have contributed to thistrend. Equally significant isthe fact that KPS earningshave made it possible forwomen to keep their wardsin school longer.

CONCLUSIONS AND THE WAY AHEADKPS has emerged as asustainable model forlivelihood generation forpoor people in the tribalareas of Madhya Pradesh.Since 2008, the model hasbeen replicated at five otherdeprived areas of MadhyaPradesh, and in Jharkhand,

where 11 cooperatives have been set up. Theoperations in Jharkhand have also emergedas the largest commercial poultry rearingoperations in eastern India. At present, thesecooperatives have a total membership of5,200. The total turnover of thesecooperatives in 2008–9 was Rs 62 crores.

Models like KPS are highly relevant for thepoor. Most of the poor in India, andparticularly the SCs and STs, have negligibleownership of land. Similarly, most of the tribalhouseholds own rain-fed land, which getsincreasingly degenerated. A small poultryfarm hardly requires an area of 400 to 500 sqft and, hence, may support livelihoods.Hence, unlike other agriculture-basedlivelihood initiatives, it does not requiresignificant land assets-base and can be agood source of livelihood for excludedcommunities. The KPS model is highlyrelevant for the BIMARU states, where alarge number of SCs and STs is concentrated.The proper implementation of pro-poorschemes such as NREGA will encouragepoultry as a viable livelihood.


In many villages, womenare not only encouraging

children to completeschool but also

encouraging them tostudy further. Thedropout rate of the

children of non-memberswas higher than the

children of members ofthe treatment group, whoasserted that they wouldsupport the education oftheir children as long asthey showed interest inpursuing their studies.


19

Limited urbanization in thesestates is also a blessing indisguise for the smallproducers. As urbanizationincreases, these states will bethe major consumptioncentres in the country. Asmore and more cities geturbanized, the land value inthe peri-urban areas ofbigger cities will also increaseand the economic viability oftraditional farms near bigcities will decline. Further,increasing urbanization willalso spur the domesticdemand for poultry.

The success of KPS as amodel is also due to the pioneering workdone by PRADAN in Kesla. Although KPS isan independent organization, strong linkagesstill exist among PRADAN, Narmada MahilaSangh and KPS. The value-basedorganizational structure and culture can belargely attributed to the presence ofPRADAN-promoted SHGs.

The above data clearly show the benefits thata cooperative like KPS adds to thecommunity. The integrators pay a wage tothe producers, who rear chicks for them. Therate varies from region to region. In thesouthern states, the producers earn up to Rs 1.7 per kg as rearing charges. In certainwestern and eastern parts of the country,integrators pay up to Rs 3 per kg as therearing charges.

KPS has consistently paid its producers morethan the rates paid by the integrators. For2008–9, the rate differential is Rs 6.95 per kgbetween that offered by KPS and theintegrators. Even if a higher wage charge of

Rs 3 per kg paid by theintegrators is taken intoaccount, there is significantgap of Rs 5.65 per kg. With21 lakh kg production, thisdifferential adds up to morethan Rs 1.20 crores. This isalso the net value addition,which KPS brings to thecommunity by its existence.The per producer net valueaddition is also approximately Rs 20,000. This is thepremium of ownership.

A very interesting fact isrevealed on analysis. Theaverage gross income perhousehold has been

Rs 35,921 as mentioned in the Table 5.However, on an average, every producer hasreared approximately 3,500 kg of live birds in2008–9. At a wage rate of Rs 3 per kg, theymight have earned Rs 10,500 had they beenassociated with an integrator. This amount isnearly one-third of what they have earnednow through KPS. This additional valuecreation is generated by facilitating therearing and marketing of birds. As KPS movesup the value chain, this value creation willimprove significantly.

Once the entry barriers are removed and thesmall producer is part of a larger collective,his income potential increases many folds.The KPS model will be highly relevant for thepoor households, where every additionalrupee is important.

KPS has been able to achieve the samebenefits of scale as an integrator. However,the integrators have not been able tooutsource and decentralize bird rearing inMadhya Pradesh. KPS has been able to do so

Models like KPS are highlyrelevant for the poor. Most

of the poor in India, andparticularly the SCs and

STs, have negligibleownership of land. A small

poultry farm hardlyrequires an area of 400 to500 sq ft and, hence, may

support livelihoods.Hence, unlike otheragriculture-based

livelihood initiatives, itdoes not require

significant land assets-baseand can be a good source

of livelihood for theexcluded communities.

20

by virtue of its strong social mobilization anda sense of ownership among producermembers.

The important lesson from KPS is that, bydesign, it assumes significant business riskupon itself as producers mainly concentrateon production, and all arrangements forrearing, DOCs, feed and veterinary care aremanaged by the collective. In any case ofleakage or lack of commitment of anyproducer, the collective suffers as a whole.

For example, feed is supplied by KPS; anyleakage by the producer selling in the marketwill benefit the producer but will be a loss tothe collective. Hence, any scale up would bepreferable in areas where strong socialmobilization is already in place and potentialmembers are strongly oriented to the valuesof collective.

The increasing food inflation in recent yearshas wiped out many benefits that KPS hadassured to its members. However, memberswith a batch size of 300 and an alternativesource of income are comfortably placed. Theanalysis also shows that a batch size of 300,an annual income of Rs 15,000 may beassured to the producers.

Now that KPS has attained sufficient maturityin its operations, new members should beinducted with a shed capacity of 500. Atpresent estimates, this will ensure a monthlyincome of Rs 3,000 per month, which will besufficient to meet their basic needs. However,selection of a member should be donekeeping in mind her familiarity with PRADAN,the SHG norms and a commitment andorientation to the values of collective.

The most important reason for the success ofKPS has been a strong and dynamic

leadership, especially in last few years. Thesuccess of KPS demonstrates the change thata qualified and committed leadership canbring to the lives of the poor. This will be achallenge that other organizations wishing toreplicate the model will have to meet.

KPS will need to grow both horizontally andvertically. Aggressive efforts need to be madeto generate resources for more sheds at theproducer level, satellite hatcheries, and parentand grandparent farms. There is a limitedscope for improving efficiency at theproducers end. More benefits will occur toproducers if KPS can attain the advantages ofscale and increase its own control on thevalue chain. Moving up the value chain toown a hatchery, and parent and grandparentfarm has the potential to double the incomeof the individual producer with the samebatch size.

The model is getting replicated in other statesand areas, and a national-level body may beset up, which undertakes advocacy andknowledge dissemination. Similarly,expansion of the model needs to be done by keeping the core value system intact.Strong social mobilization must precede thescaling up. At the same time, a newleadership may also be developed to take thisinitiative forward. Attracting and retainingqualified and committed manpower will be the biggest challenge that KPS will face in the near future.

CASE STUDY: MANDIPURAMandipura is a small tribal village, situated ata distance of 2 km from the Hosanagabad–Nagpur national highway. The village isconnected by an all-weather road. All the 33families in the village belong to STs. Thisvillage came into being in 1986–87 after thegovern-ment decided to build new houses for


STs on a vacant plot of land,under the Indira Awas Yojna(IAY). The residents ofMandipura moved in fromadjoining villages when theywere sanctioned their land bythe government.

Belabai and her family usedto live in the nearby Chowkipura village. Herfamily moved to Mandipura in 1986. Belabairemembers the old days and recounts thedifficulties they faced. Her family had 2 acresof land, which hardly provided them any foodsecurity. The family’s primary means ofincome was sand filling in the nearby river.Her husband Balchand and she used to go tothe river early in the morning. Many men and women from nearby areas also congregatedthere because sand filling was their mainsource of livelihood. Belabai recounted thatthey used to earn Rs 5 per truck if they were lucky. In periods of limited demand forsand, many a time their earnings dropped toRs 2 or 3 per truck. After a day of hard work, between husband and wife they hardly earned Rs 30–40 on a good day. Most of this money was spent on dailyrations. Every evening, provisions werebought for the night and the next morning.Often, the family had to go to bed on anempty stomach.

Migration was other source of income. Thewhole family would migrate to Hoshangabadand other nearby places for employment. The family migrated during the harvest of rabiwheat and soybean, and were dependent on labour contractors for work. There werelimited opportunities for wage employmentin the area and survival itself was a challenge.Belabai vividly remembers when Ms MadhuKhetan, an executive from PRADAN, met hermore than ten years ago and persuaded her

to form an SHG. Belabai saidshe was very reluctant andapprehensive. In the past,many NGOs had come andfled with their hard-earnedmoney. However, after muchpersuasion, she and ten otherwomen of the village formedan SHG and started saving Rs

10 per month. Their association withPRADAN, and later with the Narmada MahilaSangh, continues to this day.

Belabai has a large family. She and Balchandhave six children—four girls and two boys.Belabai explored different sources of incometo meet the household expenditure and tookup poultry on the suggestion of PRADANexecutives. A shed for 300 day-old chicks(DOC) was built, with the support ofgovernment schemes, and since then Belabaihas been regularly rearing chicks in herbackyard. Balchand started working as a fieldsupervisor with the Kesla Poultry Samiti (KPS)a few years later and his income supplementsthe household income.

Balchand bought a motorcycle last year, witha loan from the SHG members. Belabai isencouraging her children to study. Her eldestdaughter completed her schooling from areputed Navodaya Vidyalaya. She lives in ahostel in Hoshangabad and is a regularstudent in the local degree college. Belabai’sother children are in school, with theyoungest child in Class III.

Belabai also served on the governing boardof KPS for five years. She believes that KPSand poultry rearing have brought about a seachange in the life of her family members.Caring for her children left her with little time;increasing her shed capacity, therefore, was amajor challenge. However, she is determined


21

Belabai recounted thatthey used to earn Rs 5 pertruck if they were lucky. Inperiods of limited demand

for sand, many a timetheir earnings dropped to

Rs 2 or 3 per truck.

to do so this year. She will be adding anadditional capacity of 400 birds and manymore dreams to her household this year.

WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENTOne of the most important outcomes of thepoultry intervention has been the growingawareness and the ability of women to makeinformed decisions on the issues concerningtheir lives. Most of the women said that theirincome has helped them to have a greater sayin household affairs and decisions. This doesnot mean that disputes do not arise amongmembers of a household.

The women opined that most marriedcouples in the world have differences overone issue or other. But more importantly,income distribution within KPS is a woman’sdecision. Many women also said that the menof the family considered this to be theirindependent income and did not interfere in

their decisions on how to utilize it. In KPS, itis mandatory that payments to members aremade directly to them and not to the malemembers of their families.

On the issue of social awareness, members ofKPS have their own views and express themfreely. Members of KPS are also members ofPRADAN-promoted SHGs. Therefore, thisempowerment may also be attributed to thegood work done by PRADAN professionals inthese villages over last two decades. Thegrowing awareness among the KPS membershas also led to some interesting outcomes.

One of the most important outcomes of theintervention has been the capacity of womento assume greater responsibility in planningand strengthening their family assets base.This has happened because women feel moreconfident about taking greater risks. Morethan 90 per cent of the members want to


22

Year Batch Size Total Wage Deferred Payment Net Payment Average Payment Taken Back to Belabai Monthly

Including Bonus Income(in Rs) (in Rs) (in Rs) (in Rs)

2006–7 300 12,785 1,000 11,785 982.082007–8 300 19,121 1,000 18,121 1510.082008–9 300 39,478 22,000 17,478 1456.50

Table 6: Gross and Net Payment to Belabai

Year Net Payment Net Production Total Family Average Monthlyto Belabai Incentive Earned Income Income

by Balchand(in Rs) (in Rs) (in Rs) (in Rs)

2006–7 300 12,785 1,000 11,7852007–8 300 19,121 1,000 18,1212008–9 300 39,478 22,000 17,478

Table 7: Net Family Income of Belabai

expand their shed capacityand increase productionoutput. The only reason forthe reported non expansionwas the increased householdresponsibilities because ofthe presence of smallchildren or the lack of ahelping hand. Over 125women have taken a loan of more than Rs 10lakhs from KPS and are repaying it regularly.

In contrast, most of the women outside ofKPS were apprehensive of taking loans. Theaverage loan size was Rs 1,000 only. Themain reason was the fear that they would beunable to repay the loan, leading them into adebt trap. One major impact of KPS has beenthat in the treatment group the women havethe confidence to take major risks and havethe capacity to manage credit.

CASE STUDY: BURRABurra is a small village situated at a distanceof nearly 8 km from Sukhtawa inHoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh. The villagehas poor connectivity and a kuccha roadconnects the village to the outside world. Thesigns of impoverishment are visible all aroundthe village. There are nearly 30 households inthe village. The village is divided into twohamlets. Most of the houses are kuchha andthe living conditions are abysmal.The village has been formed because thevillagers were displaced by the creation of afiring range nearby. In the absence of any

legal documents, villagersclaimed that they had receivedno land compensation evenmany years after theirdisplacement. Most of thefamilies depend primarilyupon migration and livestockrearing for survival. Migrationwith the entire family is the

norm and most of the families hardly havefood security of more than three months.However, villagers reported that they receivesubsidized ration regularly under theAntodaya scheme, which is a great relief for them.

The quality of life indicators are belowsatisfaction. At first glance, it is clear that thevillagers do not have enough clothing orsanitation facilities. Most of the children haddropped out of school and were engaged inincome generating activities.

Burra is a challenging village for PRADANprofessionals in the Kesla team. Their effortsto form SHGs had failed twice in Burra.PRADAN executives attributed it to the verylow income base of the poor and frequentmigration by households.

A very distressing case was reported duringthe study. One of the respondents said thatshe had been married recently but had hardlybeen able to spend any time with herhusband. On probing, it was learnt that herhusband had borrowed Rs 10,000 for his


23

One of the mostimportant outcomes of

the intervention has beenthe capacity of women to

assume greaterresponsibility in planningand strengthening their

family assets base.

No. Work Availed of in NREGS KPS Members Others1 Between 70 to 100 days 0 02 Between 40 to 70 days 0 03 Between 20 to 40 days 0 04 Between 0 to 20 days 16 20

Table 8: Work Availability in NREGA

marriage and had beenworking since then with abusinessman in Itarsi, in lieuof repayment of his debt. Itwas more or less a case ofbonded labour and she hadmet her husband on rareoccasions over the previoussix months. This casehighlights the acute problemin the area. PRADAN and KPS executives areworking to meet the challenge to improve theliving conditions in this village.

ENTITLEMENT TO GOVERNMENT SCHEMES Most of the community members in thetreatment and the control groups were awareof the major flagship government pro-grammes. Both the control and the treatmentgroups expressed satisfaction with theentitlements under the government schemesand made use of them. Some doubts wereraised about the quality of services offered.

ENTITLEMENT TO NREGS Access to NREGS remains one of thechallenges in these villages. Most of therespondents in both the control and thetreatment groups were registered under thescheme and had job cards. There was also ademand from households for NREGS work.But very few respondents reported havingworked under the scheme for more than 10days. Not a single household worked morethan 20 days in 2009 under NREGS.

Most of women respondents in both thegroups expressed the view that if they get work up to 100 days as guaranteed in the Act, they can meet their household needs without many problems. Most of them

had applied for and receivedjob cards. However, threeladies in the treatment group, who had additionalsources of income, had not applied for job cards. The arrest of a panchayathead in Kesla in a case of embezzlement in NREGShas, however, certainly

affected progress in the scheme.

HEALTHKPS members were aware of the health issuesthat households faced. In general, people aredependent on government hospitals formedical aid. ICDS centres and anganwadisevikas are the first point of contact. Peoplewere also aware about the role of Ashaworkers. Members in the treatment and thecontrol groups were aware about the benefitsof institutional delivery and facilitatinggovernment initiatives.

CHALLENGES IN SCALING UPThe increasing unavailability of fuel wood and water were identified as two mostimportant challenges by KPS members. Theproducers were worried about the rapidlydecreasing forest cover and the subsequentincreasing cost of the fuel wood. Similarly,access to water was identified as a majorchallenge in managing production andexpansion of sheds. The major source of water in these villages is hand pumps.Once the chicks grow, the increasing need to supply water and the limited hand pumps take up substantial time of women. In summer, the problem is more acute. These two constraints are the biggestchallenges that KPS needs to address in the near future.


24

Most of the womenrespondents in both the

groups expressed the viewthat if they get work up to100 days as guaranteed in

the Act, they can meettheir household needs

without many problems.

Poultry Rearing as an Income-generating Activity in Kesla

Documents

Transcript of Poultry Rearing as an Income-generating Activity in Kesla