HINDUSTAN UNILEVER FOUNDATION PROGRESS REPORT –2014

Water forPublic GoodBroadening Collaborations

ABOUT THE REPORT..................................................................................................................... 1

ABOUT HINDUSTAN UNILEVER FOUNDATION ................................................................. 2

HIGHLIGHTS .................................................................................................................................... 3

MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR ............................................................................................. 4

CEO’s MESSAGE ............................................................................................................................. 5

OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK AT HUF ................................................................................... 6

PRINCIPLES AND KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ..................................................... 8

PROJECT SUMMARY OVERVIEW ........................................................................................... 10

VIEWS OF NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ................................................................42

INDEPENDENT ASSURANCE DATA ....................................................................................... 54

Contents

About the

This report provides an overview of the water conservation projects that we have currently undertaken in partnership with several Project Implementing Agencies (PIAs) across India under the ‘Water For Public Good’ programme. We have made good progress under each of the projects but we know that more needs to be done to meet our ambitious target of achieving water potential of 500 billion liters by 2020 on a cumulative1 and collective2 basis.

Through this report we acknowledge the significant contribution of our partners to the success of our programme that has led to immense value creation for our stakeholders. This report also highlights the concepts, strategies and key achievements of our journey so far. It also showcases our independently assured results and views of our National Advisory Committee.

Report

1. Cumulative water conservation is the sum of quantity of water conserved over multiple years.

2. Collective water conservation means water conserved as a result of collective action.

About Hindustan Unilever FoundationFuture demand for water resources will increase significantly as populations, rate of economic development and consumption rates grow. Estimates tell us that by 2030, the supply of water in India will be half of its demand3. The adverse impact of climate change on agriculture will further compound problems arising due to linkages between food, energy and livelihoods in the country. To understand and partake in meeting this challenge, Hindustan Unilever Foundation (HUF) was formed in 2010.

HUF is a subsidiary of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) -- India’s largest Fast Moving Consumer Goods Company. HUF is a not-for-profit company that anchors various community development initiatives of Hindustan Unilever Limited. HUF supports national priorities for socio-economic development through its ‘Water For Public Good’ programme. Each of our projects also complies with the requirements of the Companies Bill 2013.

By 2020, the impacts of our collective actions are expected to generate:

l Water conservation potential of 500 billion litres in a cumulative and collective way.

l Employment of more than one million person-days.

l Annual additional agricultural production of 0.1 million tones on a cumulative basis.

Read more about the Company here -- http://www.hul.co.in/sustainable-living-2014/huf/

3. Charting Our Water Future, 2030 Water Resources Group

Highlightsl We have initiated 15 projects in more than 700 villages across 13 river basins in 13 states in India since

inception.

l Our water conservation programme undertaken through collective action and in partnership with several NGOs, communities, other co-funders and partners across India has achieved the following by May 2014:

n Water conservation potential of nearly 100 billion liters has been created in our project areas on a cumulative and collective basis.

n More than 0.7 million person days of employment has been generated across several villages in India on a cumulative basis.

n Over 30,000 people have been trained on various aspects of water management like building water conservation structure, institution building for governing water use, water budgeting, better agricultural practices and other environment related issues.

All our projects have been audited by Grant Thornton LLP who has provided an independent third party assurance report based on ISAE 1000 and AA 1000 standards.

5

DirectorMessage from the

Dear Reader,

I am delighted to present to you the 2013-2014 Report on Broadening Collaborations by Hindustan Unilever Foundation. It is indeed a privilege to be writing the foreword to a report on social investments made by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL).

As you may be aware, on 20th December 2010, the United Nations General Assembly had declared 2013 as the ‘International Year of Water Cooperation’. At its wake, this year, the UN Water set out a dedicated goal of ‘Securing Sustainable Water for all’ and detailed the following targets:

1. Achieve universal access to safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene

2. Improve by (x%) the sustainable use and development of water resources in all countries

3. All countries strengthen equitable, participatory and accountable water governance

We realised this need for water conservation and set up the Hindustan Unilever Foundation, a wholly owned subsidiary of HUL in 2010. The Foundation focused on developing livelihoods by initiating and setting up partnerships that drive water conservation projects for public good.

Last year, the Foundation reported its initial results and I am happy to note that its various water conservation initiatives continue to make steady progress and make meaningful difference to a large number of people.

The number and scale of the projects have increased manifold. In fact, this year, the Foundation has taken up water conservation projects around four key HUL manufacturing units. Along with the local manufacturing sites and the Supply Chain leadership, the Foundation developed partnerships to promote the water agenda in these areas.

We are privileged to have three eminent personalities who have rich experience in the field of water for public good – Mr. Ramaswamy R Iyer, former Secretary Water Resources in the Government of India; Dr.Mihir Shah , a renowned economist, social worker and former Planning Commission member and Ms. Ireena Vittal, former partner with McKinsey, on the National Advisory Committee for HUF. I am confident that under their guidance, the Foundation will gain further momentum.

I would request readers to share their feedback to HindustanUnilever.Foundation@unilever.com . I am sure that Ravi Puranik, CEO HUF will be happy to engage with you.

Warm Regards

Sanjiv MehtaCEO and Managing Director, Hindustan Unilever LimitedDirector, Hindustan Unilever Foundation

MessageCEO’s

Executing Collective Action

“63 year old Radhakrishnan, a member of the Poovarasan Kootam Vayalagam (Tank Association) had seen the soil in the tank bed after nearly 30 years (it was occupied by Ipomoea weed). After a long time he was able to cultivate paddy to its fullest potential on his entire land of 2.5 acres and further cultivate a second crop of chillies”.

He practiced the inputs provided by DHAN to the residents of Rajakkal Kudiiruppu village in the Arimandapam Cascade in Girudhumal sub basin. He is one of the more than 30000 persons trained under various projects under the “Water for Public Good” – a collaborative venture of Hindustan Unilever Foundation, with fourteen partners across nearly 70 districts of India.

During the year, the Foundation, explored various issues and deployed collaborative strategies to find appropriate solutions.

These collaborations have multiple co-funders, complex working relationships and diverse ways to secure community participation. With a view to know the community perceptions regarding the various projects as also understand the Social Return on Investment to communities, our Project Implementing Agencies have initiated exercises in selected communities.

Further, with a view to enhance the process and outcome rigor, the Foundation and its partners went in for upgraded Assurance on some of the performance indicators. In order to facilitate collective action processes and dialogues, the Foundation participated in a study undertaken by Council on Energy, Environment and Water for the 2030 Water Resources Group The changing legislative landscape on CSR Rules provided the Foundation an opportunity to get an independent view on alignment of its activities with the rules.

All in all, it was a year of intense action that explored a diverse collaborative approach to the various water issues.

I would be happy to receive feedback that would contribute further to our collaborative learning and action.

Ravi PuranikChief Executive Officer, Hindustan Unilever Foundation

Issue Anchor Project Implementing Agency

Commons – A crucial part of the hydrological equation Foundation for Ecological Security

Use of MGNREGS for natural resource management Multiple partners

Tapping the supply chains of companies and others involved in sugar, soya bean and cotton

Solidaridad Regional Expertise Center and International Finance Corporation

Natural Resources in Tribal areas Aga Khan Rural Support Program (India)

Water for community livelihoods around manufacturing sites BAIF Development Research Foundation – Associate organisations, Parmarth Samaj Sevi Sansthan

(PIAs) such as Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and International Financial Institutions have proven to be excellent doers for many of our projects.

l An opportunity space: Collective action requires an opportunity space to execute initiatives. It can be Government schemes, business linked corporate investments like supply chains, programmes run by corporate foundations, etc.

l A crucible for action: Solving complex issues like water management in difficult topographies with diverse demography and dearth of resources is a challenge for various stakeholders, including the resident communities. The focused area where community readiness triggers the collective effort provides a crucible for action.

The beauty of our operational framework lies in the flexibility of the model which allows any entity to take up multiple roles. It encourages both informal and formal result oriented working arrangements. There are many knowledge intensive systems that have been initiated as a byproduct of this framework. Some of them include weather advisory systems for farmers, crop water foot printing, etc.

Independent third party assurance providers are also part of our operational framework.

The collective action architecture that has emerged from the operational framework is given below. We believe that this architecture will further evolve as we gather more experience.

HUF’s Board comprises of Mr. Sanjiv Mehta, Director-HUF and CEO & Managing Director – HUL, Mr. P. B. Balaji, Director -- HUF and Chief Finance Officer -- HUL and Mr. Dev Bajpai, Director -- HUF and Executive Director, Legal – HUL.

We have also constituted a National Advisory Committee comprising of Mr. Ramaswamy R. Iyer – a former Secretary Water Resources, Government of India; Dr. Mihir Shah – a renowned economist, social worker and former Planning Commission member and Ms. Ireena Vittal – a former partner with McKinsey & Company. This committee advises HUF on important matters related to water conservation projects, selection of partners and other related activities.

Mr. Ravi Puranik serves as the CEO of the Foundation.

Our operational framework has the following actors:

l A motivator : Who intends to make a significant contribution to the water agenda and has an ability to foster complex relationships between various role players. Many a times HUF plays this role by creating synergies between different parties involved in a project and presenting them with a thought leadership driven model of action that reaps productive results.

l A doer: Who can ride on the motivations and can forge connections by tapping into opportunity space applicable to a crucible of action. It may be an investment advisor or a player with a penchant for action. For eg. our Project Implementing Agencies

framework at HUF

Operational

Unique attributes

Constituent Elements

Illustrations Examples in HUF partnered projects

Co-created thought

Perspectives Area, Interventions, Scale, Grassroots/Policy

Scale

A few thousand hectares –MITTRA

More than five lakh hectares –SREC

Standards/

Guidelines

Group action, Commodity, Assurance

Group Action

Eleanor Ostrom’s eight design principles for collective action – FES—Standards Bonsucro - IFC

Assurance

ISAE3000, AA1000 – All projects

Systems Multi partite/Bi partite, Welfare/market based

Welfare – DHAN and such other partners

Market – SREC and such other partners

Co-created input/strategy

Transactional efficiency

Build on existing networks and arrangements

Networks

Commodity Supply chains of companies – SREC, IFC

Shared Risk Funds, Human Resources, Knowledge, assets

All projects

Mainstream Perspectives

Engage with various schemes and programs

MGNREGS – FES, IWMP-SPESD

Feedback/

Assessments

Credibility Knowledge products

Assurance statement

Unique products of each project

Thought based action

Independent Third Party Assurance

Learning Process Disclosures Project Reports authored by Implementing partners

Community Perception Index

Deepen Public Good

Outcome and Impact disclosures

Independently assured data, KOF feedback

Social Return on Investment

9

This will evolve as we gather more experience

principles and key performanceIndicators

Our ‘Water for Public Good’ programme is based on three principles: i) quantity of water ii) governance for water and iii) benefits to community.

Quantity of water: More that 70% of water used in India is for agricultural processes. Hence, the prime focus of all our projects is to contribute to the quantity of water used in agricultural processes both at a demand and supply level. The demand of water is dependent on the amount of water used by communities for agriculture and other uses. Supply of water depends on rain water that is harvested and saved. The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) associated with this principle are provided in Annexure 3 of the Assurance Statement.

A summary of the KPIs is given below:

Governance for water: Governance of water is essential to managing the quantity of water. For instance, if a check dam is not de-silted regularly then eventually the volume of rain water that it can hold will go down. Not just that, it is important to involve different sections of local communities in the process of water governance to make it sustainable. Knowledge systems and social equity are therefore important KPIs that ensure water is properly governed. Details about the KPIs associated with these aspects are provided vide Annexure 3 of the Assurance Statement. A summary of results is given below:

Governance Cumulative and collective as of March 2014

Number of community institutions involved ( formed and existing, village and supra village)

1,469

Number of persons who have undergone training/exposure pertaining to water and/or agriculture

35,118

Number of women and SC/ST members part of community institutions

1515

Number of persons influencing equitable water distribution

102

Benefits to communities: Benefits to the communities residing in our project areas is central to all our interventions. We conduct additional activities besides our water conservation initiatives for the benefit of the communities. These interventions help in motivating the people and encouraging them to actively participate in managing water resources. These interventions include system of rice intensification, irrigated germ-plasm, sprinkler and drip irrigation, agricultural rain water harvesting with fertigation, small scale irrigation infrastructure pre-harvest treatment etc.

The KPIs associated with this principle are provided vide Annexure 3 of the Assurance Statement

For detailed view please follow the link http://www.hul.co.in/Images/HUF-Assurance-Statement-FY%2013-14_tcm114-378034.pdf

Quantity of water Cumulative and collective potential as of March 2014 ( Billion liters)

Supply side 61.15

Demand side 38.34

Benefits to Communities Cumulative and collective as of March 2014

Labor days ( direct and indirect) 74,4457

Additional Agricultural Production in tons 22,696.63

Number of women/landless/SC/ST/farmers benefitted due to project work

2,055

A summary of results is given below:

11

PROJECT MONITORING:

We measure our impact of collective actions through a triple bottom line score card which records the qualitative and quantitative dimensions of our interventions.

We use Social Return On Investment (SROI )4

parameter to measure and record the intangible returns to the community. In addition to this, we hold discussions with the community and capture the changes in Community Perception Index (CPI).

Community Perception Index and Social Return on Investment

The observations from SROI and CPI help us to collect valuable feedback on our projects which we again feed in to our planning cycle so that we can serve our communities in a better way.

While the Community Perception Index primarily contributes to the learning element of our collective action framework, our intent to deepen public good is demonstrated through the Social Return to the communities.

However, there are limitations to the Community Perception Index. It was observed by our NAC members -- Dr. Mihir Shah and Ms. Ireena Vittal during their field visit to one of our project implemented by MYRADA that the way questions and answers are framed during the interaction with the communities plays an important role in developing the perception index. The questions should be asked in the right way by the implementing agencies and they should ensure that it is understood in its right spirit and not misconstrued by the villagers to reduce the margin of error in calculating CPI an SROI.

4. Methodology after the SROI network guide – Please refer http://www.hul.co.in/Images/Hindustan-Unilever-Foundation-Collaborations-for-a-shared-future_tcm114-378037.pdf

Dr. Mihir Shah and Ms. Ireena Vittal discussing with farmers during their field visit to Myrada Project

OverviewProject Summary

Our ‘Water for Public Good’ programme focuses on agriculture and allied livelihoods activities across river basins in India.

Community based groups:

We believe that the issue of water conservation is complex due to its co-relation with social, economic, religious and cultural dimensions of our existence. Hence a ‘Collective Action’ approach is required to deal with it at micro as well as macro level. For example, in many of our projects we ensure that farmers, women and landless laborers are mobilized to form community based groups to promote efficient use of water. These groups are in the form of village watershed committees, gram vikas mandals, ‘pani panchayats’, common interest groups, tank associations, ‘mahila samitee’ etc. We have kept a sharp focus on formation of women self help groups in most of our projects.

These groups or rural collectives as we call them are trained to undertake activities related to water management and conservation, income generation, efficient agriculture practices etc. Activities such as awareness camps, exposure visits, class room trainings and interface with technical experts are organised to build and develop the group’s capabilities. Our implementing partners also train MGNREGS (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme) mates and officials of Panchayats besides members of rural collectives. We also facilitate active participation of villagers in the whole project cycle involving them in planning, execution, monitoring, review and overseeing project implementation and construction works. All these efforts have helped in boosting the self confidence of villagers motivating them to come forward and voice their views on project related issues. In many

instances, village people have been appointed as office-bearers which enhances their self respect and adds to their social status.

Water conservation structures:

Water conservation interventions in project villages focus on augmenting supply of water, managing its demand and increasing its duration of availability through construction and management of structures known as ‘water commons’. These structures include check dams, stop dams, ponds, ring bunds, field bunds, continuous and staggered contour trenches etc. In addition to this, activities such as de-siltation, cleaning of weeds, construction and renovation of spillways, spring management are also undertaken. These help in harvesting and storing water for agriculture and other purposes. Communities are encouraged to oversee, contribute in cash and kind, monitor and provide all necessary support required for sustainability to these interventions. This in turn leads to generation of employment of local people and contributes to increasing their family income.

Improved agricultural practices:

It is important to manage the demand of water or consumption of water in agricultural processes throughout our project cycle. We train farmers in better agricultural practices such as trash mulching, organic manure application, furrow irrigation, drip irrigation etc. These not just lead to efficient usage of water but also increase their crop production. Other initiatives like forming compost pits, integrated pest management, providing better variety of seed etc lead to better crop production. Besides these, the farmers are also trained in specialized processes like crop intensification practices in paddy. In many cases less fertile land are brought under vegetative

cover and horticulture activities are also undertaken in some project villages. In areas where agriculture is not possible, initiatives like developing kitchen gardens and ‘bori bagichaas’ (garden in a sack) are implemented. This has arrested land degradation up to a great extent and has immensely strengthened the livelihood portfolio of villages in the project areas.

Woman empowerment and livelihoods:

One of the important focus areas of our project activities is empowerment of women. We do this primarily by engaging them in income generation activities. Self Help Groups of women are formed for this purpose. Women members of these SHGs are trained on income generation activities such as vegetable cultivation, goat rearing etc. In one such initiative the entrepreneurial group members in Madhya Pradesh took up vegetable cultivation and sold the produce in local market to earn good monetary rewards. In many cases women members of SHGs also take up loan from other women in the group for various purposes and are able to avoid paying interest to financial institutions.

The various project activities listed about have both tangible and intangible results. Improved and increased availability of water ,demand management of water by farmers , soil and moisture conservation, generation of employment, increase in agriculture production, more area being brought under irrigation, increase in water level in wells etc are some of the tangible results. Whereas building self confidence, enhancement of agricultural knowledge, greater bonding among villagers, reduction in the rate of migration etc are some of the intangible benefits of our project interventions. We have captured the key results for the period of April 2013 to March 2014 (in some cases May 2014) in the project summaries below. Besides the key results, there are several achievements associated with each of our projects.

You can write to us at HindustanUnilever.foundation@unilever.com to read in detail about these specific project achievements.

13

For detailed unassured Annual Reports provided by Program Implementing Agencies, please visit us: www.huf.net

Water for Public Good Influencing Practice

and PolicyAga Khan Rural Support

Programme (India)

Region : Dang District, Gujarat

Project period : November 2013 to September 2018

Key partners : Aga Khan Rural Support Programme, Axis Bank Foundation and Government of Gujarat

Coverage : 65 villages in two blocks of Dangs district in Gujarat

Key resultsl An estimated water harvesting potential of 0.56 billion litres has been created till May 2014.

l Approximately 32,845 person days has been generated through project activities.

l Over 556 hectares of soil and water conservation has been completed.

l The project was assessed for SROI achievements.

Views of our partner:

The programme aims to build the water harvesting potential of 15.61 billion litres in its five years duration in 65 villages of Dang district. Till May 2014, gram vikas mandals were formed in 20 villages. Soil water conservation and water resources development activities were initiated in eight villages. Community contribution in kind and cash was ensured for each activity to increase the ownership of the project at local level. Many meetings, trainings and exposures were conducted to motivate the community to take part in project activities. Structures like ‘boribandhs’( check dams created with the help of sacks), check wall, farm pond, check dams etc were built and rehabilitated to harvest the runoff water.

Mr. Apoorva Oza, Chief Executive, Aga Khan Rural Support Program (India)

Amsarpada Check Dam

15

Jal –Samrudhi: Securing Livelihoods

through community led agriculture management

in Kansganj district of Uttar Pradesh

BAIF Institute for Rural Development (BIRD)

Region : Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh

Project period : March 2014 to June 2017

Key partners : BAIF Institute of Rural Management- Uttar Pradesh (BIRD-UP)

Coverage : Around 26 villages in Kasganj and Soro block of Kasganj district in Uttar Pradesh.

Key resultsl Potential to save 10.63 billion liters of water has been created by using improved agricultural practices.

l Around five farmer’s clubs have been formed and 40 farmers have been trained in System of Rice Intensification’ (SRI) techniques.

l Around 13 farmers have used maize marker (instrument to sow maize seeds in a systematic way) for sowing on more than four hectares of land.

l Around 22 livestock rearing farmers have been trained for cattle management and fodder production.

Views of our partner:

BAIF Development Research Foundation and Hindustan Unilever Foundation have been working on the Jal Samriddhi project in Kasganj district with a focused approach. BIRD-UP, an associate organization of BAIF in Uttar Pradesh is implementing this project. Kasganj has ample water supply but productivity is low as people there follow unscientific traditional agricultural practices. This project aims to promote judicial use of water by following better animal husbandry and agronomic practices like use of SRI, line sowing, use of bio-pesticides etc. Farmers are introduced to modern and efficient agricultural practices that result in increase in productivity of the region. We have had a very nice experience working with HUF and we would like to take this relationship further by replicating this project in different parts of the country.

Mr. Ramesh Rawal, Executive Vice President, BAIF Development Research Foundation

17

Demonstration of Maize marker

Integrated Water Conservation Project

Dharampur Utthan Vahini (DHRUVA)

Region : West flowing river from Tapi to Tadri main river basin, Dadra and Nagar Haveli

Project period : November 2013 to October 2017

Key partners : DHRUVA and project community members

Coverage : Four villages in Dadra Nagar Haveli (Union Territory)

Key resultsl The project has benefitted 15 households and has generated 866 mandays of employment.

l Over 130 participants have been trained on water conservation and agriculture practices.

l Around eight water user groups have been created and 97 tribals belonging to this group have been associated with Vasundhara dairy for accessing livestock credits. Animal husbandry has become feasible due to enhanced availability of water.

l A couple of SHGs have also been formed for development of women of the village.

l The project was assessed for SROI achievements.

Views of our partner:

Dharampur Utthan Vahini (DHRUVA), an associate organization of BAIF Development Research Foundation in Gujarat, is implementing this project in Dadra and Nagar Haveli. This region receives very heavy rainfall of more than 200 centimeters during monsoon season but still faces a drought like situation in summers. The project aims to improve the governance of land and water resources by enhancing soil moisture through ‘ridge to valley’ approach and improve the availability & quality of water through creation of water harvesting structures. Community institutions play a crucial role in design and implementation of various interventions. The project will ensure availability of water throughout the year in this region and enhance the production and productivity of crops. We have had a very nice experience working with HUF and we would like to take this relationship further by replicating this project in different parts of the country.

Ramesh Rawal, Executive Vice President, BAIF Development Research Foundation

Check dam overflowing-Vansda Village Silvassa

19

Barsingave Integrated Watershed

Development Programme

Maharashtra Institute of Technology Transfer for

Rural Area’s (MITTRA)

Views of our partner:

The Barsingve watershed project entered into Public Private Partnership mode with the support of NABARD to further the soil conservation and water resources development process initiated by HUF with MITTRA in Igatpuri Taluka of Nasik district. It has created a positive impact in the lives of tribal families in the region. More than 100 tribal families have adopted four step cultivation method that provide d more crop production per drop of utilized water. Various activities of the project like developing natural springs and other water conservation interventions have enabled the tribal families to progress and have created a role model for other villages to follow.

Shri V.B. Dyasa, Chief Programme Coordinator, MITTRA, Nasik

Region : Igatpuri block, Nashik district in Maharashtra

Project period : June 2010 to September 2016

Key partners : Maharashtra Institute of Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (MITTRA), and NABARD (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development )

Coverage : Three micro watersheds – Barsingve, Sonushi and Mydara-Dhanoshi in Nasik, Maharashtra

Key resultsl Water harvesting potential of 2.1 billion litres has been created on a cumulative and collective basis.

l Approximately 450 hectares of agriculture land has been treated and nine water harvesting structures like check dams have been developed which help to stabilize 542 hectares with improved availability of water. This has resulted in increase of agricultural production by over 800 tonnes.

l Employment opportunities equivalent to over 17,006 person days have been generated.

l Over 500 farmers and women have been trained through capacity building programmes to promote better agricultural practices.

l The project was assessed for SROI achievements.

Community story

Less cost, more yield

Khandu Sitaram Bambale is a paddy grower in Nashik. He used to grow paddy using traditional cultivation practices. This required intense labour and high use of fertilizer.

Khandu was trained in better agricultural practices as part of HUF project to help him increase yield per acre and reduce cost of cultivation. Due to the project interventions, Khandu is able to procure better quality seeds and fertilizers. He has also been given technical guidance from Agri Scientists from organisations like Zonal Agriculture Research Station.

As a result, Khandu’s grain yield has increased by 50% and fodder yield by 7%. His cost of production has also decreased to a great extent.

21

Water conservation for community

development around HUL, Khamgaon Unit

Maharashtra Institute of Technology Transfer for

Rural Area’s (MITTRA)

Views of our partner:

MITTRA and HUF are working together in Khamgaon taluka of Buldana district on a water conservation and capacity building project. The project aims at improving water availability through water harvesting measures. The project also focuses on checking soil erosion through soil and moisture conservation measures, improving agriculture production and most importantly developing awareness about importance of water and soil conservation and landscape management for sustainable livelihood through community participation. Our relationship with HUF has been very rewarding and we would like to replicate the project in other parts of the country.

Ramesh Rawal, Executive Vice President, For BAIF Development Research Foundation

Region : Godavari , Tal - Khamgaon, district - Buldhana

Project period : September 2013 to September 2017

Key partners : HUF, Mumbai, MITTRA, Nasik and community members

Coverage : Six villages in Khamgaon in Maharashtra

Key resultsl Water harvesting potential of 0.064 billion litres has been created benefitting around 290 people in three

villages.

l The project has covered over 600 medium, small and marginal farm families during the project implementation period.

l The project was assessed for SROI achievements.

Pier Luigi Sigismondi, Chief Supply Chain Officer, Unilever visiting Khamgaon water initiative

23

24

Integrated Watershed

Management Programme

in IWMP Watersheds

Society for Promotion of Eco-Friendly Sustainable

Development (SPESD)

Region : Budelkhand region in Madhya Pradesh

Project period : January 2012 to March 2016

Key partners : Society for Promotion of Eco-friendly Sustainable Development (SPESD), Rajiv Gandhi Mission for Watershed Management, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Government of Madhya Pradesh

Coverage : 24 villages of Baldeogarh block of Tikamgarh district in Madhya Pradesh covering an area of more than 10,000 hectares.

Key resultsl Water harvesting potential of 5.33 billion litres has been created on a cumulative and collective basis.

l The project has generated more than 29,000 person days of employment.

l Over 1,000 ha of area has been treated with soil and moisture conservation measures and stabilized due to improved availability of water and 113 acres of fallow land has been brought under agriculture.

l Over 1,300 villagers have undergone different types of training on agriculture, judicious water use, improved agriculture practices and water management.

Community story

Better Practices, more benefitsMr. Kanshiram Raikwar of Chakramadhosingh village has a joint family of 16 members. They are completely dependent on their 20 acre land which they use for farming. This huge land used to meet its water requirement from the open well owned by the Raikwar family. However the well could only irrigate 2-5 acres of the land. Due to this, the family could not grow enough food on this land. Hence some family members had to migrate to other states in search of alternate work.

With the help of our project interventions Kanshiram and many other farmers have formed a group and are trained on improved agricultural practices. With the help of this training, they have constructed an earthen dam or ‘nallah’ that supplies water to their lands. Due to the construction of this dam, Kanshiram is able to irrigate additional 10 acre of his land. He has started wheat cultivation in addition to mustard and gram. Kanshiram also plans to grow a third crop and is hopeful that his family members will stay together once again.

Views of our partner:

HUF is making good effort for betterment of community especially for rural poor. Its work is not only limited to CSR but efforts are made with real problem solving attitude. It’s regular monitoring and critical evaluation of activities is helpful in increasing the efficiency of project and making positive impact. As SPESD, an associate organization of BAIF is always committed towards sustainable rural development through natural resource management with participatory approach, for which HUF is also making positive effort. Regular close monitoring at ground level by HUF is helping our staff to strengthen their capacity and improve their skill sets and the problems are being solved with team spirit. The documentation of programme activities is very analytical and it’s getting very useful for SPESD as well as for all stakeholders. All these factors help in motivating our team and we hope these sincere efforts by HUF will contribute significantly for achieving vision 2020.

S.K. Pandey, Chief Programme Co-ordinator, Society for Promotion of Eco-friendly Sustainable Development, Bhopal (M.P.)

25

Tank Cascade Development For

Development of Livelihood Security-

The Revival of Traditional Tank

Systems in Gundar Basin, South IndiaDevelopment of Humane

Action (DHAN) Foundation

Region : Gundar basin, Tamil Nadu

Project period : July 2010 to March 2014

Key partners : DHAN Foundation and NABARD

Coverage : 250 irrigation tanks in four districts of South Tamil Nadu (Madurai, Virudhunagar. Sivagangai, Ramanathapuram)

Key resultsl Over 20,000 small and marginal farm families have benefited from the interventions of this project.

l Potential to harvest and store 42.42 million cubic metres of surface fresh water resources has been created.

l Additional agricutural production of 14,150 tones boosted the income levels of farmers.

l Farmers have cultivated second crop despite of monsoon failure.

Community story

B.Radhakrishnan is a farmer in Sivagangai district. He is a member of Poovarsankootam tank association. He owns 2.5 acres of wetland in the command area of this tank.

Poovarasankootam tank is spread across 35 acres but till some time back the tank was infested with weed. Weed infestation had drastically reduced the storage capacity of the tank.

Due to insufficient water in the tank, Radhakrishnan could not cultivate different crops and was only growing paddy for last 10 years. The paddy crop production was also uncertain and there were frequent crop failures due to irregular monsoon and scarcity of water in the Poovarsankootam tank.

Our project helped in reviving this tank. As part of the project intervention, the farmers formed a tank association. The members of this association were trained and taught tank management work. Once the training was completed and funds were mobilized, the association began the work of weed removal. Many farmers like Radhakrishnan have benefited from this work. They can now avail water even during summer season. There is also enough water for domestic use and cattle drinking in the village. Radhakrishnan now not just cultivates paddy but also grows chillies as the second crop.

Views of our partner:

United Nations declared “2013 an Year of International Water Cooperation” and observing “2014 as an International year of Family Farming”. We, at DHAN Foundation have the view that the partnership with Hindustan Unilever Foundation, since 2010 till the end of Financial year 2014 could be the perfect match to commemorate the UN declarations.

Tanks, in our experience, are excellent structures with high efficiency in terms of water demand management and are viewed as exemplary agricultural, social, technical economical, ecological and environmental systems. Being present in over 2000 numbers in one of the highly climate vulnerable and drought prone Gundar basin, the systematic process oriented rehabilitation of tanks in cascade on a scale is seen as a model by itself, since no one has ever attempted with purely community owned development processes.

Mr. Vasi Malai, Executive Director, DHAN Foundation.

27

Integrated Water Resource Management and Conjunctive Use of Water in the Command

Area of Water Scarce Irrigation Systems of

North Gujarat

Development Support Centre (DSC)

Views of our partner:

The Hindustan Unilever Foundation supported project will help to demonstrate the need for promoting integrated water resource management in water scarce irrigation systems of North Gujarat through physical interventions, convergence and facilitation of ‘sujal samitees’. This will enable DSC to pilot sustainable water management.

Sachin Oza, Executive Director, Development Support Centre, Ahmedabad

Region : North Gujarat

Project period : October 2012 to September 2017

Key partners : Development Support Centre, NABARD, Gujarat Land Development Corporation, MGNREGS, Royal Bank of Scotland Foundation

Coverage : Command area of three irrigation tanks in three districts of North Gujarat (Mehsana, Sabarkantha & Aravali districts)

Key resultsl Over 350 small and marginal farm families have benefited from the interventions of this project.

l Added 0.58 billion litres of cumulative and collective water potential and saving through supply and demand side interventions.

l More than 1600 Ha area has been covered under good agricultural practices and soil conservation initiatives.

l Crop production has increased by 800 tonnes over baseline of year 2012 through adoption of improved agriculture practices by farmers.

29

Additional area brought under cultivation due to land levelling activity in Vakhatpura

Water Commons-Influencing Practice

and Policy

Foundation for Ecological Security (FES)

Region : Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra

Project period : 1st April 2013-31st March 2018

Key partners : Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS)

Coverage : Impacted 750 habitations ( two to three hamlets form one village, here one hamlet is equivalent to one village ) in eight districts across Rajasthan, MP, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and AP.

Key resultsl Over 10,000 families have benefited through the interventions in MGNREGS, leveraging about Rs.2.43 crores

and creating 213,034 wage days. The water resources created during the year are expected to improve agriculture through improved soil-moisture regimes, improved water availability through assured irrigation and thereby improved productivity. Farmers would be able to cultivate second crop in the command areas where structures have been renovated.

l 2671 ha of common lands has been protected in 199 habitations. 89 water bodies have been brought under community governance. FES is assisting community institutions in evolving byelaws for the functioning of the institution and governance of the common land and water resources.

l Planning for shelf of activities/net planning has been undertaken across 111 habitations for restoration of agricultural lands, common land and water bodies under MGNREGS. This plan has been submitted to the panchayats & panchayat samities for approvals and implementation.

l 422 ‘Prakriti Karyashalas’ (workshops that train on using natural resources) have been conducted covering over 9520 trainees and reaching out to 3300 habitations. These trainings were delivered in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Rajasthan which included aspects of technical skills of mates and paraworkers on improving MGNREGS, claiming and restoration of common lands and water resources, low-intensive agriculture, etc.

l Tools such as experimental games are used for improving the governance of common pool water resources, to help understand the behavioral and institutional foundations of why people engage in cooperative behavior and refrain from over-exploiting a common-pool resource.

l An integrated online portal is being developed to help democratize planning process through improving access to information and impact programmes aimed at poverty alleviation decentralized governance and management of forests, land and water resources.

Views of our partner:

A high order challenge in the management and governance of natural resources has been the dominant mindset that - local people cannot manage their own resources and that large governments are therefore needed to manage resources for local people. In the years to come, we shall strive to work in building strong evidence (together with partners) on effective management of water resources by local communities and community institutions and the legitimacy of community tenure as another viable option.

Jagdeesh Rao, Executive Director , FES

31

Water Sustainability

for the Indian Sugar

Industry

International Finance Corporation (IFC)

Views of our partner:

Hindustan Unilever Foundation is a strategic partner for IFC for water sustainability programmes. The noteworthy part of our partnership is the programmatic interventions in Water Use Efficiency which are fundamentally transforming the outlook of the sugar companies regarding water as a critical input and risk to their business and at the same time acknowledge the potential social impact it can create among the local farming community.

Mr. Bastiaan Mohrmann, Head Water, IFC South Asia

Region : Uttar Pradesh (UP) -- Lakhimpuri Kheri and Hardoi districts Madhya Pradesh(MP) -- Barwani district Maharashtra – Kolhapur district

Project period : June 2013 to June 2017

Key partners : International Finance Corporation (IFC), Solidaridad Network Asia Limited, DSCL Sugar and Olam Agro India Limited

Coverage : Over 1,200 villages of UP, MP and Maharashtra.

Key resultsl The project has been able to establish business producer engagement mechanism in six locations.

l 27 billion litres of water has been saved due to adoption of various interventions like trash mulching, furrow irrigation, drip organic manure land leveling and other good agricultural practices.

l More than 26,000 hectares has been has been stabilized (treated to reduce the demand of water)

33

Drip Irrigation after cane plantation Olam –Hemarus, Maharashtra

Community-Led sustainable

management of water resources for

promotion of livelihoods and

secured natural resources base

Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency

(MYRADA)

Views of our partner:

The three components of this program include designing and erecting suitable watershed structures to increase water availability and promote soil retention; identify appropriate livelihood options for the landless families in the working area, and to set up community level institutions that would implement and monitor the activities in a participatory and transparent manner.

MYRADA has learnt a lot in this process. The monitoring and documentation system introduced by HUF (Dashboard indicators and Score card as examples) has been received positively and will be applied to other projects that MYRADA will take in future. For the first time in the history of MYRADA, SAG women were given the task of monitoring the watershed activities and they have established that they can manage it efficiently and effectively.

Mr. Arvind Risbud, Executive Director, MYRADA

Region : Karnataka

Project period : 2011 March to 2015 March

Key partners : Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency (MYRADA) and NABARD

Coverage : Five districts in Karnataka -- Bidar, Bellary, Chitradurga, Gulbarga and Kolar, 23 villages

Key resultsl Water retention capacity of water structures in the project area has increased by more than 11 billion litres.

Structures with capacity of more than 800 tcm have been developed in order to conserve soil and water.

l 3064 families have benefited from various interventions. Over 800 families out of these belong to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes and 1200 families have benefited from bank linkage and livelihoods programs.

l Around 35,000 kgs of seeds have been distributed to the farmers for fodder development. 245 kitchen gardens have been promoted in order to address the nutritionals supplements of the community.

l Over 200 Self Affinity Group (SAGs) and 17 federations have been formed and their members have been trained to build their capacity in various project activities.

Community story

Livelihoods to entrepreneurship

Govindachari is 42 years old and lives in Malakanahalli, Malur Taluk , Kolar District. He does not own land in the village and was selling plastic items such as mugs, buckets etc. in the village. As he was able to only eke out living of this, he had migrated to Bangalore looking for employment opportunity. He had found himself a job as a construction labourer and was earning a meagre income of Rs.300 per day.

His wife Ratnamma is a member of SAG promoted by Myrada. When she found out that the project was giving training for the landless and the marginal farmers under livelihood development, she requested her husband to undergo the training. As his family was earlier involved in carpentry, he opted to undergo a training in carpentry. After undergoing the training he has now set up an unit with the grant given by the project a sum of Rs.10,000/- to purchase materials for carpentry work along with a credit of Rs.15,000/- from SHG through his wife. He is now earning an income of Rs. 25,000/- per month and has also employed 3 people.

35

Jal –Samraddhi: Reducing Vulnerability

of the community by Securing water

management through community

participation

Parmarth Samaj Sevi Sansthan (PSSS)

Region : Bundelkhand Region,Uttar Pradesh

Project Period : February 2014 to December 2017

Key Partners : Parmarth Samaj Sevi Sansthan and Gram Panchayat & DRDA, Jalaun

Coverage : Five villages of Dakor block of district Jalaun, U.P

Key results

The main results achieved in this period from Feb to May 2014 are as follows:

l Through wall paintings & regular meetings, community members have been made aware & sensitized towards water conservation.

l Around 20 people have been trained in better agricultural practices and water management skills.

l Community members have been organized and five ‘Pani Panchyats’ have been formed.

l Self Help Groups have been formed in the Rageda & Rewa blocks?, with around 15 women in each of the SHG.

37

Views of our partner:

Parmarth Samaj Sevi Sansthan has been implementing Jal Samradhhi project with the support of HUF in 5 villages of district Jalaun of Bundelkhand region since Feb 2014. This is the first Annual report of the project reflecting the project achievement & progress till March 2014. In this duration, the major attention is focused on community rapport-building and sensitizing them towards project goal, objectives & strategies. The community has been mobilized for collectivization process and their involvement into the project. To strengthen the community collective power, the project has formed Community Institutions i.e. Pani Panchayat in each 5 villages of the project area through which 78 community members have been associated. The main objective of Pani panchayat is promoting community participation in project planning, implementation & monitoring and ensuring community roles & responsibility in achieving the project goal & objectives.

In all the four gram panchayats of the project area, regular interaction has been made with village Pradhan & other panchayat officials, which help to get proactive participation of and guidance to the project. Seeing the involvement & participation of community and other stakeholders in the project, Parmarth team is assure towards the successful implementation of the project in line to achieve its set goal & objectives in favor of poor & marginalized community.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Secretary, PARMARTH

Regeneration of the Natural

Resource base through Participatory

Watershed Development

Sanjeevani Institute for Empowerment and

Development (SIED)

Region : North Maharashtra Khandesh Region

Project period : February 2014 to January 2018

Key partners : KKS (a German funding agency), NABARD & Government of India and Government of Maharashtra

Coverage : 13 villages in Sakri block of Dhule and 13 villages in Navapur block of Nandurbar district.

Key results

35,000 person days of employment has been generated through soil and moisture conservation activities carried out in 675 Ha of area.

Views of our partner:

SIED believes that access to water is critical for rural India, for domestic needs and livelihoods. Watershed management and water resource development for irrigation are the key thematic area of SIED. For us HUF is a strategic partner. HUF funding is sufficiently flexible and is very much helpful for mobilizing /leveraging the funds from other developmental agencies. Besides funding HUF works as knowledge partner, helps in capacity building of us as well as community. HUF assisted capacity building of our organization in different sector’s like technical support, documentation support and reporting.

Since the project is in initial stage, unable to comment on outcomes and achievements of the project. However successfully began the project activities in the selected area. Community participation is encouraging and we are receiving support from Government very positively. We are sure that project will deliver its objectives as planned.

J R Pawar, Executive Director, SIED

39

Village Exposure and Training for better Governance

Water Efficiency and sustainability in agriculture

Supply-Chains

Solidaridad Regional Expertise Centre (SREC)

Views of our partner:

It has been six months of HUF and Solidaridad partnership on programme “Water efficiency and Sustainability in Supply Chain”. This was a beginning of one of the largest demand side water conservation programme in the world both in terms of its extent and coverage. The project is part of four agri supply chains and spread across 38 districts in 10 states of India. The area interspersed in various agro climatic zones across four commodities viz. Sugarcane, Soy, Cotton and Tea. The major river basins covered under this project are Narmada, Godavari, Kaveri, Mahanadi, Tungabhadra, Krishna, Chambal, Tawa, Brahmaputra, Amravati and Vaigai.

During its first six months, the project made good beginning in terms of setting up systems on ground, developing partnerships with companies and NGOs and initiation of training on demand side water management activities. The work has been initiated on three supply chains viz. Cotton, Sugarcane and Soybean. Through various trainings water saving component were mainstreamed. This has led to a significant achievement in some of key KPIs of water, number of farmers trained and number of groups formed.

Climate change, water supply limits, and continued population growth have intensified the search for measures to conserve water in irrigated agriculture. The current project aims to create large-scale water saving mechanisms and promote sustainable agricultural practices that would benefit thousands of farmers and workers of four agri-supply chains i.e. sugarcane, cotton, soy and tea.

Dr. Shatadru Chattopadhyay, Managing Trustee, SREC

Region : 38 districts of 10 State in India: Andhra Pradesh (Mahbubnagar), Assam (Dibrugarh, Sivsagar), Gujarat (Kutch, Surendranagar, Vadodra), Karnataka (Dharwad, Gadag, Haveri, Mysore), Madhya Pradesh (Barwani, Dewas, Dhar, Jhabua, Khandwa, Khargone, Rajgad, Ratlam, Sehore, Shajapur, Ujjain), Maharashtra (Akola, Nagpur), Odisha (Bolangir, Rayagada), Rajasthan (Pratapgad), Tamil Nadu (Cuddalore, Dharmapuri, Erode, Karur, Nilgris, Pondicherrry, Pudukotai, Salem, Theni, Tiruchirapalli, Villuparam), West Bengal (Jalpaiguri).

Project period : January 2014 to December 2016 (3 years)

Key partners : Solidaridad Regional Expertise Centre (SREC)

Coverage : 3,000 villages covering over two lakh households

Key resultsl 67 Water allied and livelihood oriented institutions have been formed.

l 5563 people have been trained in improved agricultural practices and water management skills.

l 13,000 hectares has been -treated using various good agricultural practices and soil conservation measures to reduce the demand for water.

l 11.34 to 13.75 billion litres of water has been saved due to various interventions of this project.

41

Securing Water and Livelihoods through

Community-Led Watershed Development

in Semi-And, Drought Prone-Region of

Maharashtra

Watershed Organization Trust

Views of our partner:

This is an interesting project as it seeks to operationalise a public-private - civil - partnership (PPCP) to leverage complementary strengths of these key sectors - investment funds from the government; operational funds and technical support from the private sector; mobilizational, technological and networking skills of NGOs; and ownership, implementation and governance resources of the local communities (the NGOs and local communities together constitute the civil sector).

With the recently announced budget strongly underlying the need for such partnerships to drive India’s growth, this collaboration between the Govt. of Maharashtra, HUF WOTR, the local administration and local communities is timely indeed and will help develop and validate a model and pedagogy that can facilitate up-scaling and out-scaling of such synergistic developmental collaborations in the country.

Crispino Lobo, Managing Trustee, Watershed Organization Trust

Region : Jalna district, Maharashtra

Project period : Jan 2014 to Dec 2019

Key partners : Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR), Government of Maharashtra, Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst e. V. (EED Germany)

Coverage : 75 villages in three blocks (Bhokardan, Jafrabad and Ambad of Jalna district in Maharashtra.

Key resultsl 9852 Person days generated through 341 Ha of Area treatment activities

l 12 Agromet stations have installed in project area for weather based advisory to farmers.

43

The Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) collect data of the local weather conditions. Information in terms of weather forecast, crop treatments, nutrition and health is disseminated via charts and SMSs. These weather based advisories are specific to the crop and farm conditions. The information package includes practices and measures to facilitate in-crease in productivity and cost reduction in farm management

National Advisory Committee

Views of

After Independence, India’s main thrust in the water sector was on building large dams across our many rivers. Following the 1970s, the focus has shifted to drilling of groundwater through tubewells, which was the bedrock of India’s Green Revolution.

Over the years, evidence accumulated from the grave problems of these approaches. Big dams

caused displacement of millions of people, whose resettlement and rehabilitation was not satisfactorily done. The dams also caused enormous ecological damage. As for tubewells, they were soon caught in a vicious infinite regress, wherein the solution to a problem began to aggravate the problem itself. Water tables began to fall and serious water quality issues such as uranium, arsenic and fluoride in our drinking water started to appear. This happened, especially because 70% of India’s land mass is underlain by hard rocks, which have a very low rate of natural recharge.

The nation took stock of these problems and initiated a major change in strategy focused more on decentralized solutions such as watershed development and participatory irrigation management. The challenge now is to ensure even this strategy does not fall into fresh errors of its own. This requires that we truly learn from the mistakes of the past and make the real paradigm shift that the 12th Five Year Plan has enunciated.

The single most important lesson we need to imbibe is a shift from an exclusive focus on the supply side to a more holistic demand management approach. We must recognise that however much water we may harvest, whether through big dams or smaller

watershed structures, it will be of little use till we learn to manage the demand-side. What all does this entail? And how do we take this change to scale? I believe these are the questions that must engage the work of the Hindustan Unilever Foundation (HUF).

One, we need to adopt a more multi-disciplinary approach to water. Water is not about engineering and construction alone. It is not merely about building dams and ponds or digging wells and drilling tubewells. We need a greater focus on the management of water, wherein we value every drop that we have. Agronomists, hydro-geologists and social mobilisers all have a key role to play. Only with their inputs can we ensure that the water we harvest is put to sustainable and efficient use. Crop water budgeting, improved agrarian practices and an understanding of aquifers, as also the way people’s institutions can be built, are all key elements of good management of water.

Two, management of water requires a participatory approach, where all stakeholders come together to understand and manage the common pool character of water. Many of our problems have arisen because the extraction and use of water, whether in our irrigation commands or groundwater, is done by individuals not recognizing that what they are using is a resource that belongs to many. The water in an aquifer can be drawn by many farmers and the extraction done by each one of them could adversely impact others using the same aquifer. This is what has happened in many parts of India where water tables and quality have fallen precipitously. Similarly, in irrigation commands, water has tended to be cornered by farmers in the upper reaches depriving tail-enders almost any access. New strategies are required, that have also been demonstrated successfully in some parts of India, which build on the common pool character of water and ensure sustainability

Addressing the Water Spectrum at Scale

45

Dr. Mihir ShahEconomist and Former Member,

Planning Commission , India

and equity in use of water. Thus, collective groundwater management, which has been converted into a massive national programme under the 12th Plan and irrigation management transfer of irrigation commands must be part of the work HUF supports. Once farmers understand the nature of the aquifer from which they are extracting water, they realise that they need to be judicious in its use and work out sustainable and equitable management regimes for the same. Similarly, when farmers are given charge of their part of the command, they agree to pay a price for the irrigation service, which is now better assured and use the fees they collect to maintain and manage their part of the command.

These strategies try to optimize the match between cropping patterns and ecological conditions. The difficulty is that farmers also need to be assured a good price for what they sell. A lot of this depends on macro-economic policies on pricing and procurement, where an urgent shift is required towards less water-intensive crops. But large groups of farmers coming together can also try to solve this problem by collective marketing of their produce. This requires powerful institutions of small and marginal farmers that can enable them to secure a good price in the market. This is the third change required.

These farmers would also benefit through value-addition before sale. Thus, local agro-processing before sale could be a fourth element, incentivizing movement towards less water-intensive crops, assuring a remunerative price for what is sold, even in the absence of government support. This means that social entrepreneurship is also a key element of sound water management.

Water saving also requires a shift in technologies of agriculture. Drip and sprinkler irrigation is a fifth element of the change we need. Farmers must move away from flood irrigation towards these economical technologies of water application.

The sixth element of the innovative water spectrum would be a move towards agricultural practices such as a System of Crop Intensification, which can make significant savings of water.

Seven, a shift towards non-chemical agriculture, especially non-pesticide managed agriculture, could help save huge amounts of water, apart from being much more cost-effective and resilient to ecological shocks.

My hope would be that all HUF supported projects would contain as many of these seven elements as possible, all of which should be based on a watershed approach to and understanding of water. HUF should act as a knowledge hub making best practices in each part of the water spectrum available to all its partners through the live demonstrations its projects will become. This knowledge would also be available to all other stakeholders, including governments and PRIs.

This is where we need to address the question of scale. How do we convert the small work we support into something that can be replicated at scale without loss of quality?

I propose two key elements of the scaling of impact strategy. One, partnership with government. Each project supported by HUF should include an element of leverage. Today, the government spends over Rs. 200,000 crore every year on its flagship programmes of social inclusion. Sadly, the utilisation of this money leaves a lot to be desired. One way of improving the quality of this massive spending by government is for civil society organisations to partner government in improving implementation, especially by working as support organisations to Gram Panchayats (GPs), who are the main implementing agency in many of these programmes. This would also help strengthen GPs, thereby strengthening grass-roots democracy in India.

The other key element of the upscaling strategy is of capacity building that requires support to be provided to those institutions, which have the requisite capability and experience of doing capacity building at scale. Such organisations should become

46

HUF partners. Each of them needs to be not only trainers but implementers first so that what they teach can be demonstrated in “living laboratories of learning” they have helped develop over the years, where both their successes and their failures can become schools of learning for others. These partners may have experience in all of the innovative elements listed above or only some of them. HUF could think of devising a multi-location, multi-partner training module for water implementers across the country, where different modules are taught by different capacity building partners, across locations. We could think of a system of certification of such courses.

Thus, HUF would support projects that not only harvest water, increasing its availability to farmers but also projects that help save water through new practices, technologies and institutions, as also an architecture of partnerships with GPs and government. HUF should also support partners who can build capacities of stakeholders in the water sector so that the small work done by HUF partners could make a massive impact at scale both through wider implementation as also the impact of this work on programmes and policies of the government, which could greatly benefit from this proof-of-concept that gains critical mass over time.

47

Water For Life, Livelihoods, Agriculture: Private Sector Participation

Before we get into the subject, a few introductory remarks about water may be in order. Water is many things in one: a basic life-need and right; an amenity; a cleaning agent; a social good (e.g., for firefighting, hospital use, use in schools and public institutions, etc); a requirement for economic activity (agriculture, industry, commerce); a means of transportation;

a part of our social, political and cultural life; and a sacred substance. It is also a part of the ecological system, sustaining and being sustained by it; and it plays a vital role on Planet earth. Even if we are concerned with only one aspect of water in a given context, it is necessary to keep in mind the larger and more complex whole of which it is a part.

Secondly, the complexity and multi-dimensionality of water leads to multiple perspectives on water, which need not be gone into here, except to note that different perspectives could be valid for different purposes without necessarily contradicting one another. For instance, water as a basic life-support need is a fundamental right under Indian law and a human right in the UN system, and from this perspective, water is not a commodity subject to market forces. At the same time, water as an input into economic or commercial activity is indeed an economic good, i.e., a commodity. All that one can say is that water as life-need i.e., a fundamental right, takes priority over economic and commercial uses/rights. There is also the engineering perspective of control and manipulation of nature, which has increasingly come under question. There is further an important question whether water is private property or state property or a common pool resource

held in public trust by the state for the community. The last view has been stated by the Supreme Court in some cases but it is not clear whether the matter stands conclusively settled. We have to wait for a crucial landmark judgment. There are also ecological, equity and social justice perspectives, and very clearly, there is a women’s perspective of growing importance.

Thirdly, it is now common ground internationally that the world faces an imminent water crisis; many think that the crisis is already upon us; and it is also common ground that the crisis is going to be complicated and exacerbated by the phenomenon of climate change. Without questioning these propositions, one might ask: what is the nature of this crisis? Broadly speaking, there are two answers to that question. The Establishment or mainstream view is that the growth of population, the pace of urbanisation, the processes of economic growth, and higher standards of living, combine to generate an increasing demand for water which brings the finite availability of water under mounting pressure. The other view, held by many thinkers and commentators outside the government (including myself), and also by some in government, is that while there is indeed pressure on a finite resource by growing demand, the crisis is to a considerable extent the result of gross mismanagement and wasteful use of water in all uses, and a pattern of development that inexorably creates a competitive, unsustainable demand for water; in other words, the crisis is largely one of our own creation. The two diagnoses will lead to two different responses: (i) augmenting the supply of water to meet the projected demand, which has been the implicit policy for a century and a half, and (ii) restraining the runaway growth of demand and managing the requirements within the finite availability, which implies a reversal of that implicit policy. The latter response represents my own position.

Private corporate sector participation needs to be considered against that broad background. Two kinds

48

Mr. Ramaswamy R. IyerFormer Secretary, Water

Resources, Government of India

of participation immediately come to mind, namely, the privatisation of water supply (or ‘water services’), and private corporate entities undertaking investment in and execution of ‘major water resource projects’. These are strongly advocated by many thinkers and institutions, but considered unacceptable by many others including this writer.

In the case of privately owned projects, the ground for the objection is that the transfer of control over natural resources from the state and the community to private hands seems wholly undesirable. There are indeed cases of the kind in other countries, and there is the Maheshwar Project in this country, but the objection stated above remains. This will not be discussed further here.

The privatisation of water supply is slowly and unobtrusively making headway in several States in the country. That seems an unfortunate development for several reasons. First, under the 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution and the related schedules 11 and 12, local water management is a subject to be devolved to panchayati raj institutions or PRIs. Against that constitutionally mandated democratic decentralization, the entrustment of the water supply function to a private entity or even a public sector corporate body or parastatal seems quite wrong. Secondly, as a fundamental right, the citizen is entitled to ask for the provision or assurance of water from his/her elected representatives. If it is privatised, this fundamental right becomes a contractual right to be received on payment to the supplier. Thirdly, it is difficult to privatise the supply without some degree of transfer of control over a water source to private hands. Fourthly, in so far as water for life is a fundamental right, the state has a responsibility that cannot be shed. If the private supplier fails, the responsibility will shift back to the state.

There are several instances in which private corporate entities, pursuing their own objective of profit, have depleted and/or irreparably damaged water for agriculture, drinking water, and water for modest livelihoods in the surrounding area. These are cases of a wholly negative relationship between industry and agriculture and rural livelihoods.

We have so far been considering cases of negative relationship between industry and agriculture. There are of course cases of positive relationship. Apart from purchases of agricultural produce by industry, agriculture, particularly large-scale agriculture, gets a wide range of inputs needed for production from industry sources: chemical fertilisers and pesticides, fodder for livestock, agricultural implements, equipment such as threshers, tractors, harvesters, etc, tube-well and bore-well motors and pumps, and so on. Alas, even seeds may have to come from industry, as under the prevailing legal dispensation our farmers are losing control over their own seeds and have often to pay fees or royalties to foreign companies. The Green Revolution, with its heavy stress on high-yielding varieties of seeds, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, has not only brought about a vulnerable dependence of farmers on industry, but has focused on a few HYV seeds to the detriment of large local, indigenous varieties, and has led to a loss of bio-diversity. Now, desperate efforts are being made by some individuals and NGOs to find as many of the lost seed varieties as possible and save them. Thus, what at first sight looked like a healthy relationship between agriculture and industry turns out on closer examination to be very different. The kind of agriculture-industry relationship that Green Revolution brought about was a pathological one.

In any case, the Green Revolution, which brought about a dramatic surge in production in the short run but has also generated a whole range of long-term problems, has more or less run its course. It is often said that we need a second Green Revolution. If so, it will have to be a very different kind of GR; and here is where the scope lies for a new, positive, healthy relationship between the private sector industry and agriculture. The 1970s GR brought about a high-capital, water-demanding, high-energy, centralised, chemicals-intensive, soil-health-endangering, biodiversity-reducing, inequitable, conflict-creating, unsustainable agriculture. If we need a new GR, it must be the opposite of the old GR in every respect. What we need is a low-capital, low-tech, decentralised, sustainable agriculture. The movement initially known as LISA and later simply as Sustainable Agriculture or Alternative

49

agriculture started in the USA and spread further, and is particularly relevant for ‘developing’ countries. A similar movement known as LEISA (Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture) was of Dutch origin and has some following in India. It is not necessarily the same thing as Organic Agriculture but the two could come together. Kudumbam, Tiruchirappalli (Trichy) runs a magazine on LEISA. The late K. R. Datye had been urging a transformation from centralised fossil-fuel-based energy-intensive ‘development’ (which is unsustainable) to a decentralised, biomass-based livelihoods approach to development. He advocated a low external input, sustainable regenerative agriculture. LISA or LEISA or regenerative agriculture or organic agriculture: these are overlapping ideas that have many elements in common. If there is to be a new GR, it will probably be on these lines.

However, this is not really a ‘private-sector participation’ question. Pesticides, whether produced by a public sector company or a private sector company, will have the same effects on soil, produce and agricultural discharge. Similarly, dying units and hide-processing units will be equally polluting, whether publicly or privately owned. The question here is one of a relationship between agriculture and industry, particularly in the context of the Green Revolution; and this in turn is part of the larger issue of the kind of ‘development’ that we have chosen. If we need a new kind of GR, we also need a new kind of industrial development – benign, non-polluting, non-toxic. It is only under those conditions that we can conceive of a healthy relationship between industry and agriculture.

Let me return from that larger question to the more specific one of what HUF and HUL can do in relation to water and agriculture. This is a positive story indeed. HUF is already doing so much under its ‘Water for Public Good’ project that it is very difficult to offer any new ideas for their consideration. However, with some hesitation I am putting forward a few points that occurred to me as I reflected on what HUL as a leading corporate entity and part of a global organization can do in relation to water, a vital substance that is under growing pressure because of unsustainable demand, wasteful use and heavy pollution.

What can HUL do in relation to water? This falls under three heads: (a) reduction of water-use and of the generation/disposal of polluting effluents in the production process; (b) reduction in the demand for water related to the consumers’ use of its products, and in the pollution potential of that use; and (c) going beyond its production and marketing, engaging with civil society and NGOs in widespread local initiatives in augmenting the water available for use without adverse impacts, conserving the water so garnered, and using it economically to the best advantage in a sustainable and harmonious manner.

In so far as the production process is concerned, HUL is already trying to reduce the water requirement and minimise the generation of effluents (and also trying to obtain its requirements from sustainable sources). However, as long-term goals, HUL could consider adopting ‘zero effluent’ and ‘zero net water budget’. Zero effluent is already the corporate goal of many of HUL’s constituent units, but it could be universalised. As for water requirements for production, the efforts to bring these down probably do include multiple use of the same water, but I am suggesting that these be pushed further to the point that water once supplied and used is repeatedly treated and re-used so that there is virtually no need to ask for a further supply. This is what I mean by ‘net zero water budget’. Undoubtedly this will be a very difficult aim to achieve, but I suggest its adoption as a long-term goal. Apart from reducing HUL’s draft on the water resources of the country and minimising if not eliminating the pollution of those resources, these two goals will also make excellent economic sense from the point of view of profitability.

As for the water requirements relating to the use of HUL’s products by the purchasers, and the pollution that such use contributes, HUL is no doubt already trying to reduce/minimise these, but I suggest that going beyond efficiency, innovation is called for. The objectives of (i) making the products less water-demanding in use, and (ii) eliminating or at least minimising the pollution arising from that use, call for R&D. Perhaps HUL is already pursuing R&D in these matters, but an increase in and intensification

50

of R&D would be both highly desirable and eminently worthwhile.

Turning to HUF’s very commendable activities at the local level in collaboration with several NGOs, there are many further valuable contributions that HUF can make. First, local initiatives in rainwater-harvesting and other forms of augmentation of available water for local use need to be governed by some minimal knowledge of hydrology and possible impacts on downstream areas. Both the choice of the right locations for water-harvesting structures, and the extent of harvesting that can be done without undue interference with the hydrological cycle and without harm to downstream areas, are decisions that must be informed by knowledge. HUF could strengthen the knowledge base on which such initiatives are undertaken. Local initiatives are very necessary, but must be in harmony with the overall hydrology of the watershed/basin.

Secondly, the water so augmented needs to be conserved and economically used to the best advantage. Here again some contribution not only from traditional knowledge but also from modern science might be useful. In the past, S&T was called upon to find ways of making more water available. In future, S&T may have to play a different role, namely, to get the most out of available water - to make a little water go a long way. HUF can not only strengthen the knowledge base here, but also perhaps look for innovative ways of getting more out of less, including funding research in this direction. I am not making definite suggestions in this regard, but merely indicating a possible line of action.

Guidance may also be needed to ensure the avoidance of water-intensive cropping patterns. Further, conflicts between upstream and downstream users in a watershed need to be obviated. Rules governing water-use have to be devised and voluntarily adopted by the farmers. Here, Rajendra Singh’s idea of a water parliament on the Arvari stream in Rajasthan (Arvari Sansad) might be a useful example.

Local initiatives run the risk that the water so added to the aquifer might be captured by someone else, say, a rich farmer, through tube-wells or bore-wells. I don’t know whether HUF has actually come across any such case, but this is a danger to be guarded against.

HUF could undertake, wherever possible, a promotion of SRI (System of Rice Intensification) which is said both to save water and to increase yield. This is already making some headway, but it would be a good idea for HUF to promote it.

Going a bit beyond this, HUF could explore the possibility of promoting Low Input Sustainable Agriculture and organic farming which would eliminate the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides and the attendant pollution of soil and water sources, and of course the crops themselves.

Where the local initiative is based on groundwater, some idea of the aquifer would be useful. Mapping aquifers is a governmental activity, but HUF could do some local delineation in collaboration with government agencies.

Similarly, in urban areas, HUF could collaborate with government agencies in trying to revive defunct urban water bodies, reduce distribution losses, design and implement better water supply solutions for slum areas, etc. (Arghyam’s work on Mulbagal in Karnataka is an example of a sustained initiative).

I hope HUF will find these suggestions relevant and useful and consistent with what they are already doing. Through partnerships with various NGOs, HUF is supporting local initiatives in water-harvesting and conservation, the economical use of water, better agricultural practices, and the generation or enhancement of livelihoods. In these initiatives, it will be a good idea to explore possibilities of promoting the emergence of a new, alternative, sustainable agriculture. HUF could thus align itself with an emerging transformation.

51

Ensuring impact from social investments

The recent CSR clause in Indias’ new Company Act has triggered a quiet debate on how companies should think about social investments. This note shares emerging lessons on what it takes to ensure such efforts lead to sustainable impact.

Why invest in the community?The new CSR clause invites corporates to invest in society.

However, giving is not new to India. Indeed, India has a rich history of philanthropists, often businessmen, investing in communities around them. Multiple Tata Trusts (the first of which was set up in 1919, almost a hundred years back) have quietly offered scholarships to poor students, supported rural livelihood initiatives and communities and offered grants for research into preventive health etc. In addition, they have a rich legacy of institution building for India including TISS, TIFR, IISC, NCPA and the Tata Memorial Cancer Hospitals.

But it is not just the modest Tatas. Other business families such as Birla & Godrej, Mahindra & Bajaj, have supported temples and schools, the girl child and women, culture & classical music. And it is wonderful to see the next generation of business leaders stepping in now. Businessmen who have created wealth from new areas such as Private Equity and IT are now supporting areas as varied as governance, liberal education and water.

Why do these business leaders invest in society? Values is often a reason. Jamshetji Tata said, “In a free enterprise, the community is not just another stakeholder in business, but is in fact the very purpose of its existence”. Legacy is another: John Harvard is still remembered, even if his first name is

rarely recalled. As is the urge to give back to a society that enabled their individual success. Often these successful entrepreneurs see themselves as great problem solvers who now take responsibility to solve big issues in their societies. Whatever the reason, most philanthropists chose a cause and focus on it. Sometime this is linked to their business but often not. There is little link between the work of the Gates foundation and the business of Microsoft. Or the passion for education at the Wipro Foundation and the IT company. Or even the various causes of Tata Trusts and the Tata group companies.

However individual philanthropy is very different from corporate CSR. Companies support communities too. And the primary reason for this is often enlightened self-interest. In the past, this investment took many forms. Textile mills in Bombay in the early part of the last century built affordable housing for their labor, the famous chawls that still dot the Parel area in the city. Mining and steel companies run townships in Rourkela and Jamshedpur to attract and retain talent far away from large towns. And dairy players, in Punjab and Gujarat, invest in animal (& human) hygiene and skills, to improve animal productivity and reduce sourcing risk.

But is this just a legacy of the past? To the contrary. Going forward, companies are only going to increase their investment in society. Indeed, as awareness about sustainability increases and the implicit trust between citizens and business reduces, the social license of business has come under threat. As a result, CSR efforts of companies will move from a ‘nice to do’ to perhaps a ‘must do’. While a certain share of the CSR fund will still be kept aside for areas of passion/interest (of the CEO and his wife!) to enable them to participate in events in the local community & influencers, an increasingly large share of the funds is likely to focus on areas of ‘strategic’ relevance to the company. This could be “place based’ i.e. investing in the society/ geography around their factory or in their core market. It could be along the value chain

52

Ireena VittalFormer partner with McKinsey

they play in i.e. to replenish inputs they use in large quantities such as water or energy or air. Or to create enablers: talent and skills, demand drivers and consumption rituals.

Clearly investing in communities is good for business. The critical issue, unlike philanthropy, is to ensure a business rationale/link between CSR efforts and self-interest of the company. This gets more critical as the shelf life of CEOs reduces and only a sharp strategic link between the CSR effort and the business ensures these investments survive a change of guard at the CEO level.

Making it work

Starting a CSR effort is easy. Making it work requires careful thought. Successful efforts have three common characteristics.

1. Be thematic: Most societal issues are complex. If they were easy to fix, the government or the society would have done so already. Take the example of creating livelihood in an area. Issues that a company will need to address will include the obvious ones: igniting aspirations in the local community, building skills & capabilities (including soft skills), creating linkages with job opportunities, ensuring successful on-boarding etc. But at scale, it is also likely to include issues such as creating new organization forms that create local jobs, de-risking investors, creating new forms of risk-financing to kick-start new organisations and managing the political context of the change. Few business companies understand these realities. And often, the best of NGO partners they work with focus on specific issues and rarely look at the whole system. It is therefore essential for a company to think through the system solution required to address the issue they have chosen to focus on. In the case of Hindustan Unilever Foundation, for example, a focus on water will include saving billions of litres of water in the short term. But overtime, this is likely to also include at-least four other themes: improving and renewing the water table in their geography of focus, modifying water usage & consumption norms in these villages

(including crops grown and usage or not of bore wells); pricing water appropriately (by and for the local villages) and investing in right societal organization forms & technologies to measure & reward right behaviors.

The implication of this thematic focus is on focus and time commitment needed upfront from the best minds in the company. From day one, it is critical that companies diagnose the right solution space and commit to addressing all the themes. As a result, they soon realize that their CSR effort is best targeted at 1-2 areas rather than supporting 50-60 small grants. This focused effort then requires a different approach: tap (external domain) expertise, bring the same rigor as they would to entering a new market/investing in a new factory and ensure that the best minds in the top team commit some time to this upfront, rather than relegating it to the PR/CSR team of a few good men.

2. Commit for long: Linked to this mindset is recognizing that efforts of this kind take years to fix. Sometime decades. Even if the company choses to execute through external partners (whether arms of the government or NGOs), their investment commitment to these partners should be in sync with the time it takes to solve the issue and not the annual accounting cycles of the company. By the way, this does not mean giving the delivery partners money upfront. But it does mean having a clear set of mutually agreed milestones (both input and output), measuring them every year and then releasing the next tranche of investment once these milestones have been met. In the absence of this ‘matching of investment horizons”, too many NGOs spend a disproportionate amount of effort and time on raising funds, rather than on driving impact on the field.

3. The implication of this is that companies need to set expectations for patience, have clear milestones and create a mechanism to measure achievements. The bar on impact is obviously higher when the focus of the CSR effort is the same

53

area, year on year. Often working back from what the 2 page report on CSR in the annual report is a great forcing device for companies to demand higher impact from their delivery partners!

4. Invest money plus: Finally, impact often requires more than money. NGO partners need capacity to help them scale up: IT systems, governance processes, project execution skills, specialist HR skills. Government partners need rigor to help trigger and sustain change: right processes to procure, alignment of multiple stakeholders, project management systems. Indeed, especially in India, often the biggest gap is not of funds but of skills. And companies naturally have these skills. In a great win-win, some of the CSR efforts could also be a great talent retention/training opportunity where a certain number of high performing managers rotate into these efforts for 1-2 years, transfer skills and then go back to their regular jobs.

5. So it might be helpful for companies to not relegate CSR efforts to just the CSR team but treat it as a growth opportunity for their talent. In the process, their delivery partners will build more solid organisations, the company will increase the probability of impact and their talent will appreciate working for an organization with a bigger purpose.

Making a start

Most companies in India are perhaps thinking of how to craft a winning CSR strategy. Five things might help them: one, commit to something core i.e. chose an area of focus that is connected to their business to funnel 80% of their CSR commitment; two, design the solution space upfront i.e. diagnose what will drive impact carefully looking at the system root-cause of these complex issues and not just the surface symptoms; three, commit to a long journey i.e. multiple years and four, bring capacity & innovation to the table, in addition to just money. Finally, given impact needs a marathon and not a sprint, baseline the start, identify milestones along the journey and have a transparent measurement & assurance system to reward, celebrate and recognize success. We look

forward to HUF & its water efforts setting standards for such a tough but rewarding journey.

Secondly, the water so augmented needs to be conserved and economically used to the best advantage. Here again some contribution not only from traditional knowledge but also from modern science might be useful. In the past, S&T was called upon to find ways of making more water available. In future, S&T may have to play a different role, namely, to get the most out of available water - to make a little water go a long way. HUF can not only strengthen the knowledge base here, but also perhaps look for innovative ways of getting more out of less, including funding research in this direction. I am not making definite suggestions in this regard, but merely indicating a possible line of action.

Guidance may also be needed to ensure the avoidance of water-intensive cropping patterns. Further, conflicts between upstream and downstream users in a watershed need to be obviated. Rules governing water-use have to be devised and voluntarily adopted by the farmers. Here, Rajendra Singh’s idea of a water parliament on the Arvari stream in Rajasthan (Arvari Sansad) might be a useful example.

Local initiatives run the risk that the water so added to the aquifer might be captured by someone else, say, a rich farmer, through tube-wells or bore-wells. I don’t know whether HUF has actually come across any such case, but this is a danger to be guarded against.

HUF could undertake, wherever possible, a promotion of SRI (System of Rice Intensification) which is said both to save water and to increase yield. This is already making some headway, but it would be a good idea for HUF to promote it.

Going a bit beyond this, HUF could explore the possibility of promoting Low Input Sustainable Agriculture and organic farming which would eliminate the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides and the attendant pollution of soil and water sources, and of course the crops themselves.

Where the local initiative is based on groundwater, some idea of the aquifer would be useful. Mapping aquifers is a governmental activity, but HUF could

54

55

do some local delineation in collaboration with government agencies.

Similarly, in urban areas, HUF could collaborate with government agencies in trying to revive defunct urban water bodies, reduce distribution losses, design and implement better water supply solutions for slum areas, etc. (Arghyam’s work on Mulbagal in Karnataka is an example of a sustained initiative).

I hope HUF will find these suggestions relevant and useful and consistent with what they are already

doing. Through partnerships with various NGOs, HUF is supporting local initiatives in water-harvesting and conservation, the economical use of water, better agricultural practices, and the generation or enhancement of livelihoods. In these initiatives, it will be a good idea to explore possibilities of promoting the emergence of a new, alternative, sustainable agriculture. HUF could thus align itself with an emerging transformation.

56

IndependentAssuranceData3

Annexure # 3 – Performance against the Key Collective Non-Financial based Triple Bottom Line Performance Indicators

Sl. #Key Non-Financial based Triple Bottom Line Performance Indicators

UnitCumulative inclusive of the cur-rent assessment period as defined in the Scope of Work *

1 Governance for Water

1.1 Institutions Set Up

(A) Village Level

1.1.1Number of Village Institutions formed/in existence - Water institutions5

Number 294

1.1.2Number of Village Institutions formed/existing - Water allied and livelihood oriented institutions1

Number 833

(B) Supra-Village Level

1.1.3No. of Cluster/Block and District level Community institutions formed9

Number 328

1.1.4 Business producer engagement mechanism Number 14

1.2 Knowledge Systems

1.2.1Number of persons who have undergone exposure/ training pertaining to - Improving agricultural practices and/or Water management skills

Number 35118

1.2.2 Number of experience sharing newsletters documented Number 14

1.2.3 No. of articles published in state/national forums Number 6

1.2.4Number of persons engaged in water related issues with state government or participated in state forums

Number 500

1.3 Social Equity

1.3.1Number of persons having an influence for equitable distribu-tion of water

Number 102

1.3.2 Number of Women members benefitted Number 44

1.3.3 Number of SC/ST members/families benefitted Number 1471

57

2 Quantity of Water4

2.1 Water Availability (cumulative and collective contribution )

2.1.1 Supply Side

2.1.1.1

Additional Water potential through the Project(s)2 - Due to rejuvenation of water bodies and/or Due to new water har-vesting and/or Due to soil and water conservation measures8 (which has been subjected to rainfall)

Billion Litres

59.85

2.1.1.2

Additional Water potential through the Project(s)2 - Due to rejuvenation of water bodies and/or Due to new water har-vesting and/or Due to soil and water conservation measures (which are yet to be subjected to rainfall)

Billion Litres

1.3

2.1.2 Demand Side

2.1.2.1 Water saved due to various interventions adopted6Billion Litres

38.34 to 40.75

3 Benefits to the Community4

3.1 Labour days Generated

3.1.1 Labour days generated due to the project works Number 496540

3.1.2Labour days generated due to downstream livelihood and other incidental activities

Number 247917

3.2 Additional Agriculture Production (annual)

3.2.1Production achieved due to improved availability of water and/or improved agricultural practices over the baseline of the start of the project

Tons 22696.63

3.3 Area stabilized

3.3.1Area treated and stabilized due to improved availability of water3

Thousand Hectares

16.46

3.3.2 Area stabilised (treated to reduce the demand for water)10Thousand Hectares

39.5

3.4 Number of beneficiaries

3.4.1Number of farmers who have adopted better agricultural techniques11

Number 303

3.4.2Number of women/landless/SC/ST/farmers benefitted due to project work

Number 2055

3.5 Social Returns on Investment & Perception Index

3.5.1 Number of projects which have been subjected to “Social Returns on Investment” assessment

Number 11

3.5.2Number of projects which have been subjected to “Community Perception” assessment

Numbers 13

* This figure represents the sum of the all values that have been assured for the respective KPIs, against ISAE 3000 (Reasonable) & AA1000AS (Type 2, High)

or ISAE 3000 (Limited) & AA1000AS (Type 1, Moderate)

NB:

1. Comprising Community Managed Resource Centers, Executive Committees, Agricultural Committees, Micro Finance Groups, Federations, Self Help Groups or Self Help Affinity Groups

2. Estimated on the basis of number of fillings and from rainfall data, wherever applicable

3. Comprising activities related to soil and water conservation work, land leveling and includes treatment of waste / fallow lands, inclusive of existing cultivable land covered through irrigation and or Areas benefited by cultivation post treatment

4. The Foundation and its Implementing Partners are in the process of improving the framework to reduce the gap between the reported and assured data

5. Comprising Pani Panchayats, habitation level institutions

6. The data does not account for any water-savings due to any pre-treatment work (Trash-Mulching, Trash Shredding or Composting) done on the area under Drip & Furrow for Solidaridad Sugarcane Programme; the water-saving calculations are based on theoretical studies extracted from articles/research papers submitted wrt. use of drip and furrow irrigation and not on the basis of any test, research or experimental plots; .

7. As obtained from the Assurance Statement of the previous period furnished by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Private Limited, dated 16th September 2013

8. Data incorporates in it, siltation at the rate of 50% for last 2 years for the area treated for MITTRA Nashik

9. Referred to as Executive Committee and Community Managed Resource Centre in project implemented by MYRADA and referred to as Sub basin Federations, Tank Cascade association, Watershed development associations and Vayalagams (Tank Associations ) in project implemented by DHAN

10. Area covered under sugarcane cultivation

11. This figure represents the number of farmers showcasing behavioral changes, due to better agricultural practices, as a result of the training and awareness building programmes.

Unilever House

B D Sawant Marg

Chakala, Andheri (E)

Mumbai-400 099. India

www.huf.net

About Hindustan Unilever Foundation

Future demand for water resources will increase significantly as populations, economies and consumption rates grow. Estimates tell us that by 2030, the supply of water in India will be half its demand. The impact of climate change on agriculture would further compound the linkages between food, energy and livelihoods in the country. To understand and partake in meeting this challenge, we have set up the Hindustan Unilever Foundation (HUF) in 2010.

It is a not-for-profit company that anchors various community development initiatives of Hindustan Unilever Limited. HUF supports national priorities for socio-economic development, through its Water for Public Good programme. Each of our projects also complies with the requirements of the Companies Bill 2013.