KFW Soil Guidelines

Operational Guidelines – KfW Soil
Projects (Integration of Watershed

Development for Rehabilitation of
Degraded Soils and Climate Change
Adaptation)
Guidelines for Preparation of Detailed Project Reports by Project Facilitating

Agencies for Climate Proofing of Watersheds under SEWOH III
NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND

RURAL DEVELOPMENT
0|Page
Tables of Contents
Background .................................................................................................................... 1
1. Programme Goal ...................................................................................................... 2
2. Outcome................................................................................................................... 2
3. Project Interventions under the Programme .......................................................... 2
4. Application of guidelines and project period .......................................................... 3
5. Programme Areas / States....................................................................................... 3
6. Selection of watershed within selected districts for CCA ....................................... 4
6.1 Pre-selection / desk review ................................................................................... 4
6.2 Preliminary PRA ................................................................................................... 5
7. Selection of PFA ....................................................................................................... 5
8. Task of various Stakeholders at Watershed level ................................................... 5
9. Team for vulnerability assessment and preparation of DPR .................................. 7
10. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment .......................................................... 7
11. Selection of Investments/Activities ..................................................................... 8
11.1 Soil and water conservation (Output 1): .............................................................. 8
11.2 Soil health improvement and productivity enhancement measures (Output 2)9
11.3 Promotion of Sustainable NRM, CCA farming practices and food security
(Output 3) ................................................................................................................... 9
11.4 Measures to mitigate CC Risk (Output 4) ......................................................... 10
11.5 Capacity Building, institutional building and knowledge management (Output
5) ........................................................................................................................... 10
12. Preparation of DPR ............................................................................................. 11
12.1 Process and timelines for preparation and sanction of DPR ............................. 11
12.2 Format for DPR ................................................................................................. 12
12.3 Technical and Financial Norms ........................................................................ 13
13. Review and approval of DPR for financing ....................................................... 16
14. State Project Sanctioning and Steering Committee: ......................................... 16
15. Release of funds ................................................................................................. 16
16. Maintenance of separate account by PFA .......................................................... 17
17. Monitoring of Progress ...................................................................................... 17
i|Page
18. Model costing (grant excluding people’s contribution) for CCA measures in one
watershed ..................................................................................................................... 18
19. Activity Flow chart for sanction and implementation of the projects ..............20
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................... 21
Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment .................................................................. 21
2. Steps involved in Assessment of vulnerability to climate change: ...................... 21
3. PART I: Bottom-Up Approach ............................................................................. 23
4. PART II: Top-down Approach - Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability by
Climate Change Expert ............................................................................................. 35
4.1 Pro-forma for assessment of impact of climate change by the experts ...................... 35
5. Integrated Adaptation Strategies identified based on analysis of Stakeholders
Feedback and Vulnerability assessment by Climate Change Experts ..................... 39
Annex 1 – Time-Schedule for the Project ...................................................................... 1
Annex 2 - Pre-Selection Desk Review ............................................................................ 1
Annex 3 - Preliminary PRA ............................................................................................ 3
Annex 4 - Format for Detailed Project Report .............................................................. 5
A4.1 Summary of Proposed Investment: CCA measures ........................................... 5
A4.2 Assessment of Vulnerability to Climate Change and Investment Options: ...... 6
A4.3 Baseline and Projected targets with CCA measures .......................................... 7
A4.4 Soil and Water Conservation Measures............................................................. 8
A4.4.1. Cost of S&WC Measures .........................................................................................8
A4.4.2 Details of Engineering Structures ........................................................................... 9
A4.4.3 Baseline and Summary of S&WC Measures Investment Plan .............................. 10
A4.4.4 Source of finance for S&WC ................................................................................... 11
A4.4.5 Activity wise technical and cost norms for S&WC and justification thereof ......... 11
A4.5 Soil Improvement and productivity enhancement measures ......................... 12
A4.5.1 Soil baseline and targets of soil status ................................................................... 12
A4.5.2 Agriculture land use – baseline and targets.......................................................... 13
A4.5.3 Soil improvement and productivity enhancement plan (activities) ..................... 14
A4.5.4. Source of finance for soil improvement ............................................................... 14
A4.5.5 Activity wise technical norms for soil improvement and justification thereof ..... 15
A4.6 Promotion of sustainable NRM, CCA farming, livelihood and food security . 15
A4.6.1 NRM and CCA farming practices: Plan of investment .......................................... 15
A4.6.2 Source of finance for sustainable NRM and CCA farming ................................... 16
ii | P a g e
A4.6.3 Activity wise technical norms for sustainable NRM and CCA farming justification
thereof............................................................................................................................... 16
A4.7 Income generation and livelihood promotion ................................................. 16
A4.7.1 Income by house holds .......................................................................................... 16
A4.7.2 Livelihood and IGA promotion investment plan (non-traditional activities) ...... 17
A4.7.3 Livelihood and IGA activities - Source of finance ................................................. 17
A4.7.4 Livelihood and IGA activities - Activity wise technical norms ............................. 17
A4.8 Food and nutritional security .......................................................................... 18
A4.8.1 Baseline and targets .............................................................................................. 18
A4.8.2 Food and Nutritional Security - Pre CCA – Watershed (current level) ................ 18
A4.8.3 Target for Food and Nutritional Security Post CCA – Watershed........................ 19
A4.9 Mitigation of CCA Risk: Physical and financial details of measure ................ 19
A4.10 Accompanying measures: capacity building, Institutional strengthening and
knowledge management ........................................................................................... 19
A4.10.1 Plan for investment / activities for accompanying measures ............................. 19
A4.10.2 Source of finance for accompanying measures ...................................................20
A4.10.3 Justification and norms for institutional development ......................................20
ANNEX 5 - Result Framework ..................................................................................... 21
ANNEX 6 - Progress Report and Fund Utilisation Report.......................................... 26
iii | P a g e
Abbreviations and acronyms
AF Agro-Forestry
0C Degree Centigrade
CBO Community Based Organisation
CC Climate Change/ Crop Cultivation
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CCT Continuous Contour Trench
CIG Common Interest Group
DH Dryland Horticulture
DL Drainage Line
DLT Drainage Line Treatment
DPR Detailed Project Report
EGB Earthen Gully Plug
FB Field Bund
FNS Food and Nutritional Security
GIS Geographical Information System
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
GP Gully Plug
Ha. Hectare
HH House Hold
IGA Income Generating Activity
IGWDP Indo German Watershed Development Programme
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel in Climate Change
IMD Indian Meteorological Department
IWMP Integrated Watershed Management Programme
KFW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
KG Kilogram
MF Maintenance Fund
MGNREGS Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
MIS Management Information System
NB Nala Bund
NGO Non- Government Organisation
NRM Natural Resource Management
PFA Project Facilitating Agency
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
PRI Panchayat Raj Institutions
PRIP Participatory Rural Investment Planning
RKVY Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana
RSVY Rashtriya Sinchai Vikas Yojna
RF Revolving Fund
SB Soil Bund
iv | P a g e
SHG Self Help Group
SO Stone Outlet
SP Silvi-pasture
SRI System of Rice Intensification
S&WC Soil and Water Conservation
UPNRM Umbrella Programme for Natural Resource Management
VB Vegetative Bund
VWC Village Watershed Committee
WAT Water Absorption Trench
WDF Watershed Development Fund – NABARD
WMO World Meteorological Organisation
WS Watershed
WS-CCA Watershed Development with Climate Change Adaptation Measures
v|Page
Background
The pace of Climate Change is already causing distress around the world. The 2 nd
National Communication of India to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change recognises that majority of the rural population in India is vulnerable
to climate change as they depend on natural resources such as agriculture, forestry,
fisheries, water, bio-diversity etc. for their livelihood. In India, rainfed agriculture
covers 57 % of the cultivated area and contributes to 44 % of agriculture production.
Rainfed areas are continuously subjected to land degradation due to decline of soil
fertility, development of acidity, salinization, alkalization, deterioration of soil
structure, accelerated wind and water erosion, loss of organic matter and biodiversity
etc. While participatory water development approaches have been successful in most
watershed programmes in rainfed areas, soils in these areas remain neglected and
mismanaged both as private property and as common property resource. NABARD is
implementing various watershed development programmes, through its Watershed
Development Fund (WDF) and Indo-German Watershed Development Programme
(IGWDP) to protect rainfed regions from further degradation and to improve natural
resource based livelihood within watersheds. However, impending threat due to
climate change can possibly undo the efforts made under watershed development
programmes. Therefore, is has become imperative to assess impacts of and
vulnerability to climate change in watersheds especially on soil health and
productivity.
In light of above discussion, NABARD in collaboration with KfW developed a

programme - KfW Soil Project - for Integration of Watershed Development strategies
with Climate Change Adaptation for Rehabilitation of Degraded Soils. The initiative
proposed was for co-financing of the WDF initiatives, based on customized policies
and guidelines with an explicit focus on protection against land degradation, erosion
control and conservation of biodiversity with the ultimate objective of enhancing
environmental and social resilience to adapt to the changing climate. The project was
approved for support from the German Government (BMZ) under its initiative “One
World No Hunger” (SEWOH) for controlling soil erosion and rehabilitation of
degraded soils especially in areas with communities who are significantly vulnerable
to negative impacts of climate changes. The programme (SEWOH I & II) is currently
under implementation in 7 states viz. Andhra Pradesh (38), Chhattisgarh (17),
Karnataka (30), Odisha (18), Telangana (20), Jharkhand (12) and Kerala (42).
Based on the experience of programme under Phase I and II, it has been decided to
implement Phase III of the programme in states of Bihar, Maharashtra, and Tamil
Nadu. Therefore, these guidelines have been prepared to address issues of soil and
water conservation, land reclamation, improving soil productivity and health,
enhancing crop resilience to climate change, enhancing opportunities for livelihood
1|Page
and income generation for communities vulnerable to climate change in treated
watershed thereby ensuring their food and nutritional security.
1. Programme Goal
Investments in improvement, stabilisation, and conservation of natural resources
mainly soils is made to minimise the risk of climate change and to increase the
productivity and income of communities living in watersheds. The purpose of the
projects under the programme is to reduce vulnerability to climate change of small
farmers in selected watersheds through stabilization, enhancement and sustainable
use of soil and water resources.
2. Outcome
Adaptive capacity of the communities in watersheds is strengthened and their
vulnerability to climate change is reduced.
3. Project Interventions under the Programme
Following major project interventions are proposed to be financed under the

programme:
a. Adaptation of existing and implementation of required additional physical soil and

water conservation, erosion and degradation control, land reclamation and land
improvement measures on common and private land;
b. Promotion of measures to improve soil quality and soil health, e.g. integrated
nutrient management using organic fertilizers, tank silt application, mulching,
green leaf application, vermicomposting, promotion of agro-forestry and related
soil protection measures;
c. Promotion of sustainable farming, productivity enhancement and natural resource
management practices and climate change adaptation measures, e.g. crop
diversification, crop intensification, crop water budgeting, micro-drip-irrigation,
nutrient enrichment, organic fertilizers and integrated pest management;
d. Implementation of Water Budgeting activities such as hydrological and
groundwater monitoring, formation of sub committees to undertake and monitor
water budgeting, promotion of water efficient water use techniques in watershed
area and capacity building of communities regarding conservation, efficient water
use and ground water monitoring;
e. Implementation of measures to improve nutritional security, like kitchen gardens,
backyard poultries or group fisheries, especially in tribal areas;
f. Promotion of livelihood options (on-farm/off-farm), using existing village-level
revolving funds, partly topped-up through project funds on a grant basis;
2|Page
g. On-going capacity building and institution building for above mentioned activities
and especially climate change risk, adaptation and mitigation measures through
Project Facilitating Agencies;
h. Implementation of a GIS based programme management information system;
i. Systematization and documentation of local experiences and best practices,
publications, trainings, policy dissemination as well as workshops, exposure visits,
events for knowledge exchange.
4. Application of guidelines and project period

The programme is proposed to be implemented in the watersheds, which are already
completed or at an advanced stage of implementation in pre-selected states. The new
WDF guidelines for cost norms, community contribution and other parameters will be
applicable. Modification of cost and technical norms are permissible provided
sufficient justification for deviation from WDF guidelines in light of Climate Change is
given. The project will be implemented over a period of four years from
calendar year 2020 until December 2024.
A detailed time-schedule of the project, as indicated in the signed agreement is

furnished in Annex 1.
5. Programme Areas / States

The following states have been selected for project implementation under SEWOH
Phase III:
 Bihar
 Maharashtra
 Tamil Nadu
Further, selection of districts (based on RO’s suggestion) has been done based on the
following criteria:
i. Vulnerability of districts based on “Rainfed Areas Prioritization Index (RAPI)”;
ii. High preference given to districts with very high climate risk (as per Risk and
Vulnerability Assessment Report 2019 of CRIDA);
iii. Availability of projects and stage of development in selected districts.
A total of 48 watersheds from the above three states will be covered under the
programme. The list of prioritised districts and number of projects is given below:
Sl No Name of State Name of District No of Watershed Projects
1 Aurangabad 2
Bihar
2 Banka 2
3|Page
3 Gaya 1
4 Jamui 3
5 Munger 2
Total 10
6 Beed 2
7 Nanded 2
8 Nandurbar 5
9 Maharashtra Nashik 1
10 Pune 2
11 Yavatmal 1
Total 13
12 Ariyalur 2
13 Dharmapuri 2
14 Dindigul 1
15 Madurai 2
16 Pudukottai 2
17 Perambalur 1
18 Ramanathapuram 2
19 Tamil Nadu Salem 1
20 Theni 3
21 Thiruvallur 3
22 Thiruvannamalai 2
23 Tiruchirapalli 1
24 Tirunelveli 1
25 Tuticorin 2
Total 25
Grand Total 48
6. Selection of watershed within selected districts for CCA

For selection of watershed within preselected districts the following two step
methodology is proposed to be adopted:
1. Pre-selection based on desk analysis
2. Selection based on short preliminary participatory rural appraisal
6.1 Pre-selection / desk review

Pre-selection of watershed for assistance for CCA interventions shall be carried out
through self-review of performance of the Project Facilitating Agency (PFA) and the
community in implementing watershed development project and preliminary
assessment of vulnerability.
Desk review by NABARD RO will also be conducted based on information provided in

the project completion report and field studies conducted for the project. Major
differences, if any, between the review conducted by PFA/Community and NABARD
will be settled through consultation and verification. Any watershed that secures above
4|Page
60 % marks in the evaluation can be taken up for financing under CCA assistance. The
format for pre-selection/desk review is given in Annex 2.
6.2 Preliminary PRA

PFA will send its field verification report conducted through a quick Participatory
Rural Appraisal (PRA). This PRA will be undertaken by the PFA at its own cost. Points
to be covered in the preliminary PRA reports are given in Annex 3.
PFA will submit its report to Regional Office (RO) of NABARD substantiating its
performance from analysis of its previous progress reports on project implementation.
RO will take a final view on the selection of watershed and its future course of action
for detailed assessment of climate change vulnerability assessment and preparation of
a Detailed Project Report (DPR).
In addition to vulnerability related priority, emphasis shall be given on communities’

willingness to participate and watersheds with potential for additional and/or
complementary soil and water conservation measures. During selection, cluster of
nearby watersheds shall be identified, wherever possible, to reduce transaction costs
for implementation.
7. Selection of PFA
The PFA should generally be the same NGO that facilitated WDF/IWDP watersheds.
It would ideally have a Project Manager (part time), an agronomist, a social mobiliser
and a soil and water conservation expert. A new Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) would be entered between NABARD RO and PFA, detailing the project and
roles and responsibilities of PFA.
Calculation of management Cost: If watersheds identified are in cluster of 2 or

more projects implemented by the same PFA, calculation of management cost will be
as under:
Number of Watersheds per PFA % of management cost to total

project measures
1 Watershed 24
2 Watershed 23
3 Watershed 22
4 Watershed 21
5 or more 20
8. Task of various Stakeholders at Watershed level

8.1 Gram Sabha (GS)
 GS would be the responsible institution for ensuring the implementation of the

project
5|Page
 GS would pass resolution in favour of implementation of the project and also
adhering to various project rules/regulations
 GS would entrust the VWC for the project management and monitor the work
regularly
 GS would ensure the collaboration and participation of PRI in project
management
8.2 Village Watershed Committee (VWC):
 VWCs may be developed to function as “Village Climate Risk Management

Committees (VCRMC)” and act as knowledge centers on climate change and
climate proofing interventions. The committee will act as a resource center to
disseminate the useful information among the farmers and also get feedback to
improve upon.
 VWC would be re-organized if necessary, based on inducting new members in
place of non-active members based on the previous functions
 VWC should have members of various hamlets, SHG and CIG representatives,
landless and other social groups
 VWC would be responsible for project finance along with PFA and would be
accountable to NABARD and GS
 It would mobilize villagers for various measures as planned by the project and
resolve conflicts if any
 VWC would work in close collaboration with PFA and Community in planning,
implementation, monitoring and reporting
 VWC shall ensure equity and negotiate with community for equitable and
sustainable use of project benefits
 It would operationalize the maintenance fund and regularly contribute to the
same from farmers
 VWC shall mobilize farmers for the repair and maintenance of various
measures already implemented
 It shall report to GS on a regular basis on various measures and investments
 It would ensure transparency and social accountability in financial transactions
8.3 Self Help Groups (SHG)
 Existing SHGs would be revived and new SHGs would be formed in the
watershed
 SHGs would consist of 10-15 members and of both men and women groups
 Members from landless and poorest of poor families would be organized into
SHGs on a priority
 SHG shall undertake savings and lending on regular basis
 It would be actively involved in planning and implementation of various project
measures
6|Page
 SHGs would be involved in various income generation activities including land
and NRM-based activities
 It would be responsible for revolving fund (RF) guided and supported by VWC
and PFA
8.4 Common Interest Group (CIG) / Common Livelihood Group (CLG)
 It would be smaller groups of individuals based on a common interest such as

organic farmers, bio fertilizer/pesticide producers etc.
 They shall be formed in the initial stages and be involved in the planning and
implementation strategy
 They shall access credit from RF
 CLG could be in the long term become input supplier/ producer agency
9. Team for vulnerability assessment and preparation of DPR

The primary responsibility of vulnerability assessment and preparation of DPR is that
of the PFA. The team of experts include:
 Team Leader - Climate Change and NRM expert

 Agriculture engineer
 Soil and water conservation expert
 Representatives of Village Watershed Committees
 Progressive farmer(s)
 Representative of Department of Agriculture/ Soil and Water Conservation/
Rural DRDA of the State Government for providing information on
convergence
10. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment

Vulnerability assessment1 is an integrated estimation of degree to which target
population is susceptible to and unable to cope with adverse effects of
climate change including climate variability and extreme events. It includes
assessment of character, magnitude and rate of climate change and variation to which
any eco-system is exposed; the sensitivity (direct and indirect impact); and adaptive
capacity of the constituents of that eco- system.
PFA shall use bottom-up approach to conduct analysis of people (social groups)
affected by climate change at household, community and village levels. The
assessment would typically start with identification of current and future vulnerable
hot-spots based on scenario analysis conducted by researchers and specialised
agencies through top-down approach for defined set of future climatic and non-
climatic variables. PFA will apply bottom-up approach in these vulnerable hot spots
1
Framework for Climate Change Adaptation - GIZ
7|Page
to validate results and devise specific adaptation measures. While top-down
approach gives current and future vulnerability of different sectors of any region, the
bottom-up approach provides information on current vulnerability of different
sections of the society within a locality (watershed). These two approaches can be
integrated by downscaling or upscaling in consultation with stakeholders. This
integration of approaches allows for local assessment to give a comprehensive basis
for adaptation. The objective of integration is to assess threshold of climate change
vulnerability and devise specific local climate change adaptation measures.
Under this approach the PFA may follow the following steps:
i. If required, identify the suitable technical institutions / agency / expert
to provide analysis of climate change vulnerability at the project level and suggest
adaptive measures. The same can be done based on the existing data on
meteorological parameters and other exposure parameters available at the local
level. The information on the socio-economic parameters (sensitivity) to be
collected from secondary data as well based on the primary data with the help of
PFAs.
ii. The exposure and sensitivity parameter may further be validated with the
watershed community through various field level interactions through timeline
analysis, asset actor mapping, hazard and risk mapping through involvement of
community.
Illustrative method of Vulnerability Assessment is given in the Appendix.
11. Selection of Investments/Activities

Impact of climate change can manifest itself in many ways. Based on the detailed
analysis as given in the Appendix, as mentioned above, and based on its own analysis
of the situation to estimate impact of climate change PFA may arrive at investment
measures for CCA.
Depending on analysis of vulnerability to climate change the PFA may choose one or
more of the following components for investment for climate proofing of watersheds.
A combination of activities may also be selected to meet overall goal of CCA.
11.1 Soil and water conservation (Output 1):

Existing watersheds can be rehabilitated and stabilised though additional, need
based, redesigned CC resilient measure for soil and water conservation
 Redesigning of existing SWC measures such as Continuous Contour Trenches,
Stone Bunds, Water Absorption Trenches, Gully Plugs, Farm Bunds, Earthen
Gully Plugs, Stone outlets, percolation pits/ tanks, well recharge pits, sunken
ponds, other water storage structures, drainage line treatment such as Loose
Boulder Structures, Nala Bunds, Gabion, check weir and check dams etc.
 Construction of additional measures listed above, if required
 Vegetation cover enhancement on existing treated and reclaimed land such as
grasses and trees on S&WC measures, development of pastures, adoption of
8|Page
silvi-pasture models, afforestation, development of fuel wood and energy
plantations, shelter belts and wind breaks etc.
 Need-based maintenance and repair of structures (aimed at checking soil
erosion, soil health rejuvenation, etc.) may-be taken up
 Irrigation management: participatory water budgeting and introduction of
group irrigation systems with common facilities and equipment (drip, pumps,
water pipes etc.)
 Land reclamation measures such as land levelling, field contour terracing, de-
siltation of village ponds, bunding etc.
11.2 Soil health improvement and productivity enhancement

measures (Output 2)
 Soil testing and introduction of soil health cards
 Deep ploughing, summer ploughing and mulching
 Application of organic/natural fertilizers, farm yard manure, green leaf, tank
silt, vermi-compost
 Replacement of chemical fertilizers and introduction of integrated nutrient
management systems
 Green-manuring, promoting legume-grass associated cropping and bio-
diversity management
 Treatment of alkali soils, soil amelioration and reclamation
 De-acidification
 Decontamination and detoxification – use of organic pesticides
11.3 Promotion of Sustainable NRM, CCA farming practices and food

security (Output 3)
 Increasing production and productivity by encouraging farmers to follow
practices based on Land Capability Classification
 Integrated farming methods including integrated nutrient management, site-
specific nutrient management, conservation technology, use of bio-
fertilizers, crop rotation, zero tillage, and the use of farm management systems
 Piloting location specific climate resilient agriculture models (seed, crop
geometry, land configuration (land levelling, laser levelling), INM, IPM etc.);
introduction of new climate resilient crops
 Integrating and operationalizing Crop Contingency Planning by means of crop
specific adaptive crop management practices under different weather
scenarios
 Crop diversification including plantation and horticulture crops, crop rotation
 Inter cropping, Multiple cropping (horizontal/ vertical) with agro-
biodiversity, crop rotation
 Upscaling climate resilient NICRA models
 Agroforestry
 Crop intensification e.g. SRI
9|Page
 Seed replacement
 Livelihood and income generation activities (women and landless
development) financed through banks and convergence with State and Central
Sponsored Schemes
 Introduction of diversified sources of food such as kitchen gardens with back
yard poultry and fish farms as integrated farming systems (Animal
Husbandry, fisheries, vegetable etc.)
 Preparation of household food and nutritional budgets
 Introduction of health cards for nutritional related ailments
 Promotion of business enterprises like fodder banks, seed banks, etc.
 Creation of post-harvest storage facilities to reduce wastages and add value
 Convergence with other central and state sponsored programmes and
institutions
11.4 Measures to mitigate CC Risk (Output 4)

 Introduction of resource centres/ agri-clinics, seed farms, common equipment
and agro-input centres, village knowledge centres, fodder banks
 Improved connectivity with farmer call centres
 Linkages with IMD weather stations and advisory services
 Credit planning through activity specific banking plans including agri and
allied activities, micro enterprises, service sector units, etc.
 Market information collection and dissemination
 Value chain development
 Weather-based crop-insurance
 Crop Insurance (regular)
 Model demo on natural farming system
 Federating / upscaling the groups into FPOs (in convergence with FPO
promotional Programme)
 Community centric infrastructure (processing, grading & packing facilities,
marketing platforms, etc.) and promotion of mini value chain development
 Social interventions (sanitation, drinking water, health) with CSR
convergence where scope exists
 Integrating innovation through traditional Knowledge management systems
11.5 Capacity Building, institutional building and knowledge

management (Output 5)
 Training and capacity building of watershed families on climate change
adaptation measures, risk mitigation measures, Integrated farming systems,
etc., sustainable farming practices including organic farming, soil health
management, water budgeting and management
 Knowledge dissemination through publication material, exposure visits,
workshops for knowledge sharing, documentation of best practices/ success
stories
10 | P a g e
 Augmentation of maintenance fund and its effective utilization as per the
guidelines
 Operationalizing processes
12. Preparation of DPR

After conducting vulnerability analysis and identifying investment options the PFA
shall prepare a Detailed Project Report (DPR). The DPR will supplement the
Feasibility Study Report (FSR) in integrating treatment of watersheds with CCA
perspective. The DPR shall:
 Act as plan for implementation with financial and physical measure

 Define responsibilities of implementing agencies
 Create baseline for CC relevance and impact assessment
 Act as reference document for monitoring and evaluation
12.1 Process and timelines for preparation and sanction of DPR

 Information on macro-level climate variability and vulnerability (top-down
vulnerability assessment) will be collected from documents such as State Action
Plan for Climate Change, state specific reports prepared by research
institutions, government departments etc.
 PFA will submit its pre-selection / desk review report (Annex 2) along with
preliminary PRA report (Annex 3) along with the request for selection of
watershed for assistance under CCA.
 If RO decides to give its approval for preparation of DPR it will convey its
sanction for assistance for DPR preparation.
 The Feasibility Study Report and Final Completion Report of “Business as
Usual” Watershed Development will serve as baseline.
 On receipt for assistance for preparation of DPR the PFA will conduct detailed
bottom-up vulnerability assessment using PRA tools.
 Top-down and bottom-up vulnerability analysis will be integrated to decide
priorities for CCA investment, in consultation with stakeholders.
 Technical parameter for project investments, designs and cost norms for WDF
will be adopted for physical investments, any deviations from the norms will be
justified through its relevance to CC variability or occurrence of extreme events.
 PFA will submit its draft report of DPR along with FSR and Project Completion
Report within two months of the release of cost of funds for DPR
preparation.
 RO will give its comments within 15 days of the receipt of the draft report.
 PFA will submit its two copies of its final DPR within one month of receipt
of comments from NABARD Regional Office on the draft report.
11 | P a g e
12.2 Format for DPR
The formats (sections) for preparation of DPR are given in Annex 4. If data is already
available in Feasibility Study Report (FSR) and /or Project Completion Report (PCR)
of the Watershed, it will not be necessary to repeat the information. A mere link to
such source of data will be sufficient. Following aspects /sections will be covered in the
DPR.
1. Brief on Project Facilitating Agency and watershed for CCA measures
Use Annex 4 for following points no. 2 to 6:
2. Summary of proposed investments

3. Summary of assessment of vulnerability of CC and investment options
4. Physical and financial details of Soil and Water Conservation measures, soil
health improvement and productivity enhancement measures, measures on
promotion of sustainable NRM, CCA farming, livelihood promotion and food
and nutritional security
5. Physical and financial details of measure to mitigate CCA risks
6. Physical and financial details of accompanying measures such as capacity
building, institutional development and knowledge management.
7. Result framework:
The purpose of the Project is to reduce vulnerability to climate change of small
scale farmers in selected watersheds through the stabilization, enhancement
and sustainable use of soil and water resources. The criteria for reaching these
objectives, the Project results and the required Project activities as well as the
assumptions underlying the Project purpose and the Project results as given in
the signed agreement require that following minimum outcome indicators
are to be achieved in every individual watershed:
 Average increase in participating farmers’ income of approx. 25%
from the base value as indicated in DPR.
 Additional SWC measures - 200-300 Ha per watershed
 Area treated with targeted measures for soil quality improvement –
100-150 ha per watershed.
 Training and educating farmers on climate change and climate adapted
agriculture – 250-300 farmers per watershed (use Annex 5).
8. Technical Report on vulnerability analysis (to be prepared by expert engaged
by PFA)
 Write-up on status of implementation of watershed projects. (Name of
watershed, location details, implementation agency details, physical and
financial progress, etc., brief impact of watershed)
 Summary of vulnerability analysis based on stakeholder engagement. A
separate stakeholder consultation report may be attached (Appendix –
Part I)
 Component and sub-component wise brief details and justifications
including additionally over business as usual activities
12 | P a g e
Discussion on risk would cover: operational risk, social and institutional
risk, environmental risk, economic risk etc. with regard to proposed
interventions
 Monitoring framework proposed
 Proposed convergence
9. Copies of FSR and Project Completion Report of the Watershed under
consideration
10. Progress Report of on-going project – physical and financial (use Annex 6)
11. Schedule of different plantations costs if different from FSR
12. Sketch and design of details of proposed area treatment measures and drainage
line treatment under CCA if different from FSR
13. Copy of VWC and Gram Sabha resolution
12.3 Technical and Financial Norms

As far as possible, technical and financial norms of WDF will be followed for proposed
area treatment and drainage line treatment (DLT) measures under CCA assistance,
where additional (but similar) measures are proposed. Modification of existing
structures, if proposed, should be justified through explanation of variability of
climatic elements or occurrence of extreme events due to climate change.
Following technical and financial norms need to be adopted by the ROs in execution
of the projects:
 Community contribution for work on community land shall be at least 16

% of labour cost.
 Profitable measures (e.g. Micro-irrigation, INM, IPM measures, summer / deep
ploughing, Income generating activities etc.) which would directly benefit the
individual farmer, the beneficiary farmer contribution should not be less
than 25 %.
 All beneficiaries’ contribution shall either be in cash and unpaid labour.
 Efforts to be made to get upfront cash contributions for the profitable measures,
If the families are unable to do it, their contributions can be arranged as a loan
from other resources – may be through maintenance fund (MF) or, revolving
fund etc. VWC will have the responsibility to recover the loan given out of MF /
revolving fund.
 Convergence of Govt. schemes in the project areas is very much appreciable.
However, RO shall ensure that wherever, convergence with Government
sponsored schemes is envisioned, if required, the contribution of margin
amount can be provided from the project fund (if provision has been made in
DPR), provided minimum 16 % beneficiary contribution is ensured.
 Repair of field bunds and other simple structures on private farm land will
not be an eligible intervention under the project. However, repairs of
major infrastructure such as masonry check dam etc., which have become
defunct due to natural calamities may be considered. RO may accordingly make
13 | P a g e
necessary changes in DPR if required. Further, RO may ensure that a proper
justification is provided in DPR for selection SWC structures, its necessity and
non-coverage in the earlier watershed intervention.
 No financing of irrigation development, building, roads, purchase of
machinery or agriculture equipment.
 No compensation for land or right of way.
 Priority to area treatment measures over Drainage Line Treatments.
 Pure ground water recharge structures (masonry weirs and dams) shall only be
considered if run-off reduction and ground water availability subsequent to
planned treatment of upper catchment would appear not to be adequate.
 Since the emphasis of the programme is soil rehabilitation and sustainable
farming development for climate change adaptation the emphasis need to be on
area treatment approaches. In view of the same, total cost of DLT,
normally, should not be more than 25 % of the total treatment cost.
 Earthwork to be done manually as far as possible with provision of shramdan
duly accounted for.
 Sheep/Goats destroy the vegetation due to their free grazing habit. The PFAs
should obtain a written commitment from the targeted beneficiaries to observe
sustainable grazing practices. The focus should be to curb the practice of free
roaming of livestock which in turn, will help conservation and management of
common grazing lands.
 The project has a provision for crop insurance component under ‘Risk
Mitigation Measures’. The facility may be made available for initial one year
to those beneficiaries who confirm in writing that they will continue to pay the
premium from their own resources in the subsequent years.
 ROs should encourage all PFAs to apply the existing Maintenance Fund
guidelines in all project areas in order to inculcate the habit of continued
contributions as well as utilizing the MF not only during the project period but,
beyond the lifetime of the project. PFAs may ensure that the collection of
maintenance fund is regular in the watersheds.
 If agro-advisory services are proposed to be made available through a
service provider to the individual beneficiaries for a longer period, the support
to beneficiaries out of projects fund can be made available for initial period (one
or two years) only. The support shall be gradually reduced in order to increase
the adoption rate among the beneficiaries.
 In order to accommodate landless household under project benefits, it is
requested to extend benefits in the form of income generation, drudgery
reduction activities to landless household in watersheds. The support may be
in the form of training/capacity building and grant assistance to start-up some
income generation activities
 Considering the importance of training in shaping the rural minds towards
project objectives, ROs are advised to undertake the training of PFAs.
14 | P a g e
 Further, taking into account the importance of water-budgeting in watersheds,
RO may encourage PFAs to take up water-budgeting exercise in the all the
project areas.
 Indicative unit cost for various activities under Soil & Water
Conservation category along with extent of beneficiaries’ contribution is as
under:
Labor/material Proposed cross

Type of activity Unit cost
ratio section
0.50-0.70cu.mtrs for field
Field bund, farm bunds, contour bunds
pond, percolation (depending on location);
pit and other 100% (16 % local 25m*20m*2m
₹27-30/cum
excavation work on contribution) dimensions (1000 cubic
cultivated and meter storage capacity);
uncultivated lands percolation pit
10m*5m*2m etc.
In case of paddy
100% (16 % local
bunds (repair of ₹27-30/cum 0.30-0.40 cum mtrs
contribution)
paddy bunds)
0.60*0.30/0.50 stone
bund; 1mtr*0.70*0.30
Stone bund/ gully ₹20/running 100% (16 % local
and length of 3-4 mtrs for
plugs meter contribution)
gully plugs appr.Rs.700-
1000)
7m length, maximum
height of 1m, upstream
70 % & 30 % labour
Loose boulder ₹20/running and
material ratio (16 %
checks meter downstream slopes 1:1
of cost on labour)
and 3:1 and top width of
0.5m(approx.Rs.2000)
Grass seed Rs.125/Kg - 1-2 kg on bunds
Plant seeding on Pit size depending on
Rs.500/ha
bunds plant and local condition
Rs.40- Labour/manure cost
Agro Horticulture
50/sapling to be Shramdan
Farm bund outlets Rs.500/unit - Maximum of 3/ holding
Deep tillage Rs.3000/ha - -
The NADEP
25 % labour & 75 % pit is usually constructed
Compost/NADEP Rs.5000-
material(labour cost with a dimension of
pit 6000/unit
to be shramdan) 3.6m X 1.5m X 0.9m
(length x width x height)
Usually, a twin pit model
Rs.7000/unit
is used to prepare the
(if single pit it 25% labour & 75 %
Vermi-compost pit, each
Vermicompost would be material(labour cost
pit having dimensions of
around to be shramdan)
3.6m X 1.5m X 0.76m
Rs.3000
(length x width x depth).
Note: These are only indicative rates and existing unit cost prevalent in the
states may be adopted.
15 | P a g e
13. Review and approval of DPR for financing
NABARD Regional Office will review the DPR based on the desk and field appraisal
for any gaps. Once the DPR is complete in all respects it will be put up with
memorandum of sanction (MoS) to the State Project Sanctioning and Steering
Committee (SPSSC) for approval and sanction of the project.
14. State Project Sanctioning and Steering Committee:

The committee would be in line with existing Project Sanctioning Committee of WDF
under the Chairmanship of CGM NABARD RO. NGOs or its representatives are
not members of the PSC constituted by NABARD.
14.1 Members:
i. CGM, RO /OIC– Chairman

ii. GM/DGM/AGM - Member
iii. State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA) implementing Watershed programme -
Member
iv. Representative of Agriculture Department, State Govt – Special invitee
v. Representative of Rural Development Department, State Govt – Special
invitee
vi. CGM, FSDD, HO Mumbai or his representative - Special invitee
vii. DGM of concerned department – Member secretary
The invitation to the members for PSC meeting would be sent 15 days prior to the date
of meeting.
14.2 Tasks
• Final Decision on selection of watersheds

• Sanctioning of projects
• Guidance on implementation
• Review of implementation
15. Release of funds

 NABARD RO will convey sanction and recommendation of Steering Committee
to PFA within a week of the sanction by the State Project Sanctioning and
Steering Committee. The sanction letter format would be same as that of
WDF.
 The release procedure would follow the WDF guidelines i.e. first
instalment based on the acceptance of terms and condition of project sanction
16 | P a g e
and six monthly action plan submitted by PFAs to NABARD. The subsequent
instalment would be based on the satisfactory progress of implementation
verified through field monitoring. The subsequent instalment claims can be
submitted if 60 % of last instalment and 100 % of previous instalments
have been utilized.
 On completion of project activities PFA will submit its Final Fund
Utilization Report (FFUR) in the form of Physical and Financial Progress
Report to NABARD within a month after due date of completion of the
project as per the sanction letter.
 With respect to DPR, on receipt of acceptance of the Terms and Conditions by
PFA 80 % of the cost of project DPR as advance will be released to PFA
by the RO. The balance 20 % would be released after sanction of the project,
receipt of fund utilization details and final copies (3) of the DPR by the RO.
16. Maintenance of separate account by PFA
PFA will maintain a separate account for receipt and use of funds for DPR preparation
and implementation of CCA component (joint account with VWC) of watershed
development. All documentary evidence by way of bills, receipts and vouchers will be
maintained by PFA. The account would be audited on annual basis.
17. Monitoring of Progress
The project’s offsite monitoring would be done based on the quarterly progress
report (QPR). Format given in Annex 6 can be utilized for desk monitoring of the
progress of the project based on the QPR submitted by the PFA. Field monitoring will
be undertaken by NABARD from time to time and invariably before release of funds
in instalment. RO may draw a plan for the monitoring visits for the year, which would
include visits by consultants/DDMs/RO officials. RO will have to ensure that the
monitoring is being done as per the schedule.
The projects are also proposed to be monitored through web-based online

monitoring system. PFA would facilitate the process of digitized data collection and
uploading of the same on the online platform. The assets created during the
implementation the projects would also be mapped through the online monitoring
system and use of geo-tagged photographs/geo-referencing of structures.
Further, the progress of outcome indicators using result framework (Annex 5)

table needs to be submitted by the PFA on half yearly basis.
17 | P a g e
18. Model costing (grant excluding people’s contribution) for
CCA measures in one watershed
Amount
Outputs and activities % (in ₹ Remarks
Lakh)
Cost covers WS level activity like
CC vulnerability and impact
2.5 1.48 PRA, hazard analysis, data
analysis, preparation of
collection and analysis, report
DPR
preparation etc.
Additional / modified SWC
Cost as per NABARD norms as per
measures for erosion and
8.89 existing watershed development
degradation control 15
programmes sanctioned in the
measures and land
region
reclamation
Cost as per NABARD norms as per

Soil improvement and
14.81 existing watershed development
productivity enhancement 25
programmes sanctioned in the
measures
region
The measures would improve

Promotion of sustainable resilience of farming systems to
NRM, CCA farming climate change, ensure
12.44
practices for enhancement 21 sustainability of livelihoods,
of crop resilience, livelihood support alternative livelihoods as
and food security measures a resilience measures to climate
change
Measures would include weather
Measures to mitigate based advisory services (hydro-
5 2.96
Climate Change risks meteorological instrumentation),
risk transfer through insurance
sensitization of the vulnerable
community to climate change,
Additional cost of capacity
capacity building in proofing tools
building and institutional 5 2.96
and alternate livelihoods, risk
strengthening measures
mitigation measures, community
building, etc.,
Knowledge dissemination through

publication material, exposure
Watershed level knowledge
2.5 1.48 visits, workshops for knowledge
Management
sharing, documentation of best
practices/ success stories
18 | P a g e
Watershed level project
management and 24 14.22 Overall 24 % of the project cost
supervision
Total 100 59.24
Important note:
1. The model budget of ₹ 59.24 lakh per project is only indicative. PFAs have flexibility
in arriving at the final budget depending upon the size of the watershed, local need,
geographical condition, no of vulnerable households, etc. and the budget does not
necessarily have to be a uniform amount per watershed. However, RO has to ensure
that overall budget should not exceed the total budget sanctioned for the state. ROs
may ensure that the budgets sanctioned for the projects shall be utilized properly and
the benefits of project interventions are extended to most vulnerable sections of the
community viz. landless, small and marginal households, SC/ST households etc.
2. This budget does not include the contribution by target groups (beneficiaries);
which will be approx. ₹ 7 lakh/project.
19 | P a g e
19. Activity Flow chart for sanction and implementation of the
projects
Identification of projects in implementing States and Districts by HO
Pre-selection/desk review by the RO
Identification of watersheds and PFAs as per the criteria (submission of preliminary PRA report by
PFA)
Final decision on Selection of watershed and PFAs by State Project Sanctioning & Steering
Commitee
In-principal approval for preparation of DPR by PFAs
Climate change vulnerability assessment by expert and PRA for climate change adaptation
measures by PFA
Submission of Draft DPRs by PFAs to ROs
Desk scrutiny of DPRs by ROs
Field appraisal of the DPRs by ROs
Preparation of MoS by ROs
Approval & Sanction of project by the State Project Sanctioning & Steering Committee
Issue of sanction letters by ROs
Acceptance of terms and conditions of sanction of project by PFAs
Release of funds by ROs
Monitoring of projects by ROs
Submission of Project Completion Reports (PCRs)
Documentation & Evaluation
20 | P a g e
APPENDIX
Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
Vulnerability assessment is an integrated estimation of degree to which target

population is susceptible to and unable to cope with adverse effects of climate change
including climate variability and extreme events. It includes assessment of character,
magnitude and rate of climate change and variation to which any eco-system is
exposed; the sensitivity (direct and indirect impact); and adaptive capacity of the
constituents of that eco- system.
1.1 Some of the climate change effects on watershed (SENSITIVITY)
include:
 Fall in water table, drying of springs, rivers and other water bodies
 Excessive Soil erosion
 Overall soil health (carbon content, availability of macro and micro nutrients,
structure etc.) is reduced
 Yield per ha. is reduced under expected climate variability and increase in
frequency of extreme climate events
 Resilience of crops to climate change is impacted with loss of bio-diversity
 Productivity and production of animal husbandry, main occupation in rain-fed
areas, is reduced with decrease in availability of fodder and other resources
 Livelihood and Income Generating Activities are reduced or threatened
 Food and nutritional security of vulnerable communities in WS is impacted.
Communities in WS may become dependent on limited sources for food and
nutritional security.
1.2 The climate change impact assessment is done for the following:
 Requirement of SWC measures based on audit of physical structures and their
capacity to deal with climate events
 Requirement for soil health productivity enhancement measures
 Need for sustainable NRM and climate resilient farming practices
 Suggestion of CC risk mitigation measures
 Need for capacity building and institutional development etc.
2. Steps involved in Assessment of vulnerability to climate change:

2.1 Assess profile of the watershed
21 | P a g e
a) State of natural resources
b) Socio-economic dynamics
c) Environmental issues
d) Developmental issues
2.2 Assess the observed climate (EXPOSURE)
(1) Significant trend of minimum, maximum and average monthly
temperature
(2) Significant trend of minimum, maximum and average monthly
precipitation
(3) Standard deviation of average summer monsoon precipitation - degree of
inter-annual variability of climate variable
(4) Frequency, intensity, timing and duration of extreme events
(5) Observed key climatic hazards in the area
(6) Identification of hotspots i.e. where largest changes have occurred in
climate variables from past and present conditions
(7) Evaluate trust worthiness of the data / observation / responses
2.3 Assess the effects of climate change on watershed (SENSITIVITY)

1. Impact of climatic variability and extreme events on watershed
2. Impact of climate variables on non-climate stresses
2.4 Assess ADAPTATION to climate change
1. Social adaptation though formation of social networks
2. Human adaptation through development of skills, education
3. Institutional adaptation through provision of infrastructure (electricity,
connectivity, water) institutional building and services related to health,
social support and communication
4. Natural adaptation thorough endowment of bio-physical resources such
as forest, soil, air, water, genetic resources, environmental services etc.
5. Economic adaptation through availability of financial resources,
livelihood and employment opportunities
2.5 Assess overall current VULNERABILITY
1. Impact of climate variability and hazards on key environmental, natural
resources and developmental issues
22 | P a g e
2. Identification of most vulnerable sections of the community, groups,
regions
3. Identification of non-climatic factors that determine the severity of
climatic impacts
4. Identification of resources that have resulted in successful adaptation to
climate variability and extreme events
5. Identification of level of existing adaptation capacity
6. Distribution of adaptive capacity across community classes (ethnicity,
gender, cast, marginalized and poor population etc.)
2.6 The assessment would typically start with identification of current and
future vulnerable hot-spots based on scenario analysis conducted by researchers and
specialized agencies through top-down approach for defined set of future climatic
and non-climatic variables. While top-down approach gives current and future
vulnerability of different sectors of any region, the bottom-up approach provides
information on current vulnerability of different sections of the society with in a
locality (watershed). These two approaches can be integrated by downscaling or
up scaling in consultation with stakeholders. This integration of approaches allows for
local assessment to give a comprehensive basis for adaptation. The objective of
integration is to assess threshold of climate change vulnerability and devise specific
local climate change adaptation measures.
3. PART I: Bottom-Up Approach

3.1 Stakeholder Consultation
The purpose of stakeholder consultation is to enlist community’s concerns of
uncertainty due to climate change and understanding their priorities of investments
for dealing with related vulnerability. Various PRA tools that can be used for seeking
participation of the community in selection of investments for CC adaptation.
The exposure and sensitivity parameter may further be validated with the watershed
community through various field level interactions through timeline analysis, asset
actor mapping, hazard and risk mapping through involvement of community.
3.2 Steps involved:

1) Introducing the concept of climate change to the community
23 | P a g e
2) Identification of key livelihood of the people and critical resources on which these
livelihoods depend. Critical resources may include natural capital, physical capital,
financial capital, human capital and social capital.
3) Identification of hazards and risk of them happening again, hazard calendar for
most frequent hazards can be prepared along with priority ranking of hazards from
livelihood perspective of the community in general and disadvantages sections of
the society in particular.
4) Assessment of impacts of hazards on resources
5) Vulnerability assessment of critical sectors (livelihoods)
6) Vulnerability assessment of social groups
7) Assessment of resilience of critical sectors and social groups and vulnerability hot-
spots
8) Assessment of coping and adaptation strategies and implementation mechanism
9) Identification of partnership for CC adaptation
10) Development of adaptation plan and identification of investments for CC
adaptation
3.3 Stakeholder Consultation Report Formats
3.3.1 Introduction to climate change concept
Please explain how the concept of CC was introduced to the community in the WS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
3.3.2 Livelihood Mapping
Key livelihoods of people and identification of critical resources/ capital
Livelihood Mapping
Number of
Sr. Type of Families Resources/ Capital Availability on
No. Livelihood dependent on which peoples depend
livelihood
1
24 | P a g e
2
3.3.3 Map natural and physical features / capital in the watersheds:
Insert map
3.3.4 Seasonal Livelihood Calendar:
Agriculture Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Tomato
Groundnut
Brinjal
Cotton
Bengal Gram
Fruits
Milk prod.
Meat
Millets
P- Planting, W - Weeding, H- Harvesting, S – Sale
25 | P a g e
3.3.5 Priority ranking of sectors (in next 5-10 years):
For Priority ranking of sectors, we can just find out which sector is to be prioritized
based on the discussion held with stakeholders.
3.4 Identification of hazards
3.4.1 Hazard trend analysis
For Hazard Trend Analysis, we can just find out which hazard is more common and
have major impact on community based on the discussion held with stakeholders.
But for actual rating of hazard and for policy making it is good to be conduct Hazard
trend analysis.
3.4.2 Seasonal hazard calendar
Hazards Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
High rainfall
Frost
Drought
Diseases of
domestic
animals
Fodder scarcity
for domestic
animals
Water scarcity
Human
ailments
Temperature
Note: Show the hazard severity in star (*); number of stars will depict severity of
the hazard
3.4.3 Priority ranking of climate hazards (in next 5-10 years)
We can just find out which hazard is to be considered for prioritization for
project interventions based on the needs of community by using discussion held with
stakeholders.
26 | P a g e
3.4.4 Mapping of hazard
Map area prone natural and physical features of the watershed such as landslide prone
zone, flood zone, zone exposed to high speed winds, diseases, pest attack etc.,
 Zones that have faced hazards in the past
 Zones that are likely to face hazards in future due to extreme climate events
 Hazard free zones
3.4.5 Map hazards in the Watersheds
Insert Map
3.4.6 Assessment of impact of hazard on resources
Future Hazard Impact on Natural Impact on Physical

expected rating from capital capital
hazard type 3a Nature Chance of Nature of Chance of
of impact impact impact
impact (H, M, L) (H, M, L)
27 | P a g e
3.5 Vulnerability assessment of social groups:
Climate Hazards (Select most critical climate hazards – refer 3.4.3)

Social Total
Drought Flood Temperature
Groups VS
F N M VS F N M VS F N M VS
Total Vulnerability
Score
F- Frequency = Rating 0-4 (0 -no occurrence, 1 – low occurrence, 2 – medium
occurrence, 3 - high occurrence, 4 – Very frequent occurrence)
N – Number of people impacted = Rating 0-4 (0- no one impacted, 1- few, 2 – medium,
3- large, 4 – every one)
M- Magnitude of impact/ damage = Rating 0-4 (0-no impact, 1- less impact, 2 –
medium impact, 3- major impact, 4- large impact)
VS- Vulnerability Score = F*N*M
3.5.1 Observations:
a. Why some social groups are more vulnerable to any particular climate hazards?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
b. What impact are specific to most vulnerable group?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
c. Are there any difference in the livelihood resource available to vulnerable groups?
28 | P a g e
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
d. Are there intergroup dependence that determine vulnerability of specific

vulnerable group?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
3.6 Vulnerability assessment of critical sectors:
(Refer Para 3.3.5 for selection of critical sectors)

Climate Hazards (Select most critical climate hazards – refer 3.4.3)
Total
Sectors Drought Flood Temperature
VS
F N M VS F N M VS F N M VS
Total Vulnerability Score

F- Frequency = Rating 0-4 (0 -no occurrence, 1 – low occurrence, 2 – medium
occurrence, 3 high occurrence, 4 – Very frequent occurrence)
A - Area impacted = Rating 0-4 (0- no one impacted, 1- few, 2 – medium, 3- large, 4 –
every one)
M- Magnitude of impact/ damage = Rating 0-4 (0-no impact, 1- less impact, 2 –
medium impact, 3- major impact, 4- large impact)
VS- Vulnerability Score = F*A*M
29 | P a g e
3.6.1 Observation
a. Why some sectors are more vulnerable to any particular climate hazard?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
b. What impact are specific to most vulnerable sectors?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
c. Are there any difference in the resources (natural capital, available to
vulnerable sectors?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
d. Are there inter-sector dependence that determine vulnerability of specific
vulnerable sector?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
30 | P a g e
3.7 Assessment of resilience capacity of vulnerable social group/
community
(Refer para 3.5 for identification of vulnerable social groups)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Climate Socio- Frequen Total
Hazard economi cy of resilience
Vulner
type c impact hazard capacity
able Total
(critical severity events Types of livelihood resources (Average of
Social Risk
hazards (Rating (Rating available to cope with impacts column 7,
Group (2x3)
from of of 8 and 9)
para severity frequen
3.4.3) 1-4) cy 1-4)
Availab
ility of
Availabilit
econo Availabil
y of social
mic ity of
and
resour human
institution
ces capital
al capital
(Rating
1-4)
Note: Rating Methods
Column 2 1-low effect, 2- moderate effect, 3 – severe effect, 4- very severe effect
Column 5 1- low frequency, 2 – moderate frequency, 3- High frequency
Column 5, 6, 7 1- No availability, 2, medium availability, 3 – availability, 4 – Very high
availability
3.7.1 Observations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31 | P a g e
3.8 Assessment of resilience capacity of vulnerable critical sectors
(Refer Para 3.6 and 3.3.5 for identification of vulnerable critical sectors)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Climate Socio- Freque Total
Hazard econom ncy of resilience
type ic hazard capacity
Vulnerabl
(critical impact events Total (Average
e Critical Types of livelihood resources
hazards severity (Rating Risk of column
Sector available to cope with impacts
from (Rating of (2x3) 5, 6 and 7)
para of frequen
3.4.3) severity cy 1-4)
1-4)
Availabil
Availabil
ity of
ity of
economi Availabil
social
c ity of
and
resource human
institutio
s capital
nal
(Rating
capital
1-4)
Note: Rating methods
Column 2 1-low effect, 2- moderate effect, 3 – severe effect, 4- very severe effect
Column 3 1- low frequency, 2 – moderate frequency, 3- High frequency
Column 5, 6, 7 1- No availability, 2, medium availability, 3 – availability, 4 – Very high
availability
3.8.1 Observations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
32 | P a g e
3.9 Assessment of coping and adaptation strategies
 Adaptation strategies may include building capability in terms of physical,

economic, social and human assets
 Coping strategies may also include temporary moving to safer locations,
storage and saving of critical items for bad times, diversification of livelihood,
cropping systems and resilient crops, communal asset sharing, ensuring
access to markets, bio-diversity conservation etc.
 Evaluate effectiveness of current coping mechanism (refer para 3c) and also
look for alternative strategies that are more resilient, sustainable and effective.
 Marginalized and vulnerable communities to be the focus of coping and
adaptation strategies.
 Following table may be used for each critical sector (Agriculture, AH, forestry,
etc.)
 Effectiveness of the coping strategy can be less than or equal to the severity of
the impact on rating scale (1-5)
3.9.1 The following pro-forma may be used to identify adaptation

strategies
Critical Impacts Severity Suggested Duration Resource Adoption Sustainability

Hazards of Coping of requirement by sections and
impact and strategy (Natural, of effectiveness
(rating Adaptatio (short, Physical, communit of coping and
1-5 n medium human, y (few, adaptation
Strategies or long economic/fin medium, Rating (1-low
(CAS) term) ancial, large) to 5- very high)
institutional)
3.9.2 Adaptation partnership (Filled for example)
Institution Role of Potential Nature of Action by the

institution adaptation partnership community to
support and seek support
33 | P a g e
and its sector of (partnership
effectiveness support prerequisites)
Name Work type Activity Physical/Financial, Want of community

etc. for partnership (L, M,
H)
3.10 Selection of activities / investments for CC adaptation
Adaptatio Location Help Responsi Prioritisation criteria used by the

n of from bility community (Ranking (1-5)
priorities investmen (Helpin (Any CBO Cost Feasibi Impact Av.
ts g actively effective lity handling rating
(Individua organiz working) ness (Useful capacity
l/Group) ation) ness)
Short Term
Adaptation
Priorities
1
2
3
Medium
Term
Adaptation
Priorities
1
2
3
34 | P a g e
Long Term
Adaptation
Priorities
1
2
3
4. PART II: Top-down Approach - Assessment of Climate Change

Vulnerability by Climate Change Expert
The CC study parameters may include significant changes in the temperature and
precipitation (spatial and temporal spread, variation in minimum, maximum and
average temperature, frequency, intensity, timing and duration of extreme events such
as droughts, floods, and hail storms, etc.)
Identify the suitable technical institution/agency/expert to provide analysis of climate

change vulnerability at the project level and suggest adaptive measures. The same can
be done based on the existing data on meteorological parameters and other exposure
parameters available at the local level. The information on the socio-economic
parameters (sensitivity) to be collected from secondary data as well based on the
primary data with the help of PFAs.
4.1 Pro-forma for assessment of impact of climate change by the experts
4.1.1 Climatic Risk Mapping Tables:

Identified Climatic Risks in Watershed – Agriculture
Risk Event Consequences Likelihood Risk Rank
according to Climate probability
Change expert
Identified Climatic Risks in Watershed –Water

Change expert
35 | P a g e
Identified Climatic Risks in Watershed – Soil
Change expert
Identified Climatic Risks in Watershed – Animal Husbandry

Change expert
Identified Climatic Risks in Watershed – Livelihood & Food Security

Change expert
Rating Method:
Likelihood Probability Risk Rank
Never Very low 1
Occasional Low 2
Frequent Medium 3
Most frequent High 4
Very High 5
36 | P a g e
4.1.2 Climate Proofing Tables:
Climate Proofing Table - Agriculture

Climate Direct Indirect Non- Sensitivities Adoptive Maladaptation Activities/
variability Impacts Impacts climatic to Climatic Capacities Adaptation
Stresses Stresses to deal Strategies
with
Climatic
Stresses
Climate Proofing Table - Water

with
Climatic
Stresses
Climate Proofing Table - Soil

with
Climatic
Stresses
Climate Proofing Table – Animal Husbandry

with
Climatic
Stresses
37 | P a g e
Climate Proofing Table – Livelihood and Food Security
with
Climatic
Stresses
4.1.3 Format of list of interventions to be implemented:

List of interventions, their benefits and technical specifications
Intervention Beneficial Impact Technical Specification
4.1.4 Analysis of Climate risks and Adaptation Strategies in Watershed
Identified Climatic Risks Adaptation Strategies in Watershed - Agriculture
Impact according Adaptation Adaptation

Impact according
Risk to Climate Change Strategies by Strategies by Climate
to Stakeholders
Expert Stakeholders Change Expert
Identified Climatic Risks Adaptation Strategies in Watershed - Water

Impact according
to Stakeholders
38 | P a g e
Identified Climatic Risks Adaptation Strategies in Watershed - Soil

Impact according
to Stakeholders
Identified Climatic Risks Adaptation Strategies in Watershed – Animal Husbandry

Impact according
to Stakeholders
Identified Climatic Risks Adaptation Strategies in Watershed – Livelihood & Food Security

Impact according
to Stakeholders
5. Integrated Adaptation Strategies identified based on analysis of

Stakeholders Feedback and Vulnerability assessment by Climate Change
Experts
Selection of activities would be done based on the outcome of the Stakeholder Analysis
report and Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment by Expert Agencies. Depending on
analysis of vulnerability to climate change based on top-down and bottom up approach,
the PFAs may choose one or more of the 5 components, as detailed in section 11 of the
guidelines, for investment for climate proofing of watersheds. A combination of activities
may also be selected to meet overall goal of CCA.
39 | P a g e
ANNEXURES
Annex 1 – Time-Schedule for the Project
PROJECT YEAR PY 1 PY 2 PY 3 PY 4
Project Phases Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Project Preparation and Management
Updation of existing SEWOH guidelines suitable to
Bihar, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu states
Establishment of PCC & RO-level management
Selection of Watersheds and PFAs
DPR Preparation and Sanctioning
Set up of PMRC
Project Activities
Adaptation of exisiting and addition of new physical
soil and water conservation measures
Promotion of soil quality improvement measures
Promotion of sustainable farming practices
Implementation of food security improvement
measures
Ongoing training for project related activities
Implementation of GIS based information
management system
Systemization and documentation of experiences,
publications, workshops and where appropriated
accompanying measures
1|Page
Annex 2 - Pre-Selection Desk Review
(Minimum marks required 60 out of 100)
NABARD will use its field verification / monitoring reports and Final Completion
Report to assess performance of PFA and Community
Particulars Total Marks: Marks –
Marks self- assessment
assessment by
by PFA NABARD
PFA Performance and Quality of 15

Management
Quality of social mobilisation 5
Participation in Shramdaan > 70% of
households :2 Points
Timely contribution of voluntary labour: 2
points
Monetary contribution as per the progress
report: 1 Point
Reporting (timely and good quality); 3
records and maintenance
Books are up to date and complete – 2
points Necessary records are still
maintained after completion of the
project: 1 point
Staff quality and availability 3
Continuity of staff, turn over: 2 points
Qualification and experience of the staff: 1
point
Transparency in work implementation 2
and funds management – 2 points
Gender and equity issues are factored in 2
project implementation – 2 points
Performance of Community - 20
Quality of Institutions
VWC is functional and meets regularly 5
even after project completion (in
completed projects); VWC is active in
project management (in on-going
projects)
Leadership development is visible 5
VWC is active in maintenance of 5

structures, management of maintenance
fund; active links to Government
schemes, banks, NREGS, etc. exist
Women from poor households are formed 2
in to SHGs
SHGs are active (at least 80% of what is 3
formed)
1|Page
Joint Performance of PFA and Community
Timely completion of CBP and FIP 10
Before schedule (fast completion) (10 10

points); Timely (8); late by an year (3) and
over (0)
Quality of Work 25
Work implemented as per plan and design 10
Quality of physical work implementation 5

(site selection, design applicability for
location, current status)
Survival of plants (forestry and 5
horticulture) is above 50%
Livelihood activities are functional 5
Sustainability issues 10
Production enhancement is applied - crop 2

diversification is undertaken and is
currently practised by many famers
Livelihood diversification undertaken as 2
part of project is continuing
Revolving Fund is efficiently managed 2
Maintenance of damaged structures is 2

undertaken
Water management is being applied 2
(especially in drought and low rainfall
regions)
Vulnerability - Social and 10
economical
% of households below poverty line (BPL 4
HH) above district average
SC/ST (scheduled caste / scheduled tribe) 3
population above district average
Families still migrate for labour (seasonal 3
distress migration)
Vulnerability - Climate Change 10
Vulnerability
Rainfall below state average 3
Area under irrigation less than state 3

average
Incidents of drought in past 20 year above 4
state average
Total 100
2|Page
Annex 3 - Preliminary PRA
A). Self-selection criteria / willingness of the PFA and the community to
undertake CCA project
This section will provide a detailed description of the justification for marks claimed
in Annex 2 for performance of PFA and the community captured through joint
consultation between PFA and the community and also covers areas not covered under
Annex 2 where both will give a subjective evaluation of each other and suggest areas
of improvement vis-à-vis project targets and future need for collaboration with CCA
perspective. More specifically it will include:
Institutional Audit:
a. Ability of the PFA to mobilise community through a participatory process

b. Sensitivity of the PFA to needs of the vulnerable section of the society living in the
watersheds
c. Transparency of operations and easy access of the community to the records
d. Acceptability of the PFA staff and presence of any conflict of interest in project
implementation.
e. Involvement of VWC and CBOs in project implementation
f. Action taken on the observations made by the community in periodic review
meeting etc.
g. Willingness of the community and PFA to undertake CCA measures and make
required community contribution.
Asset Audit:
a. Status of physical structures

b. Involvement of CBOs/ community in management and maintenance of physical
assets created
c. Presence and implementation of plan for necessary repair of the structures
d. Presence and implementation of plan for institutional strengthening
e. Time bound plan (prepared, if any) for completion of repairs of the structures
using maintenance fund
f. Regular meeting are conducted and activities of the PFA is reviewed
B). Potential for reaching Programme Goals (Preliminary assessment of

climate change vulnerability)
1. PFA and watershed community may make a quick recollection and recording of
climate change parameters (exposure) and observed impact thereof. The CC
parameters may include:
 Significant changes in the temperature and precipitation (spatial and
temporal spread, variation in minimum, maximum and average temperature.
3|Page
 Frequency, intensity, timing and duration of extreme events such as droughts,
floods, and hail storms, etc.
2. Assess the effects of climate change on watershed in terms of climate
change hotspots i.e. areas within the watershed which are most impacted due to
CC events; fall in water table, drying of springs, rivers and other water bodies; soil
erosion, reduction in overall soil health (carbon content, availability of macro and
micro nutrients, structure etc.); loss of bio-diversity; reduced productivity and
production; decrease in livelihood and income generating activities; food and
nutritional security of vulnerable communities, etc.
3. Quick assessment of requirement of additional SWC measures based on audit
of existing physical structures and their capacity to deal with climate events, soil
health productivity enhancement measures, sustainable NRM and climate resilient
farming practices, CC risk mitigation measures, capacity building and institutional
development, etc. may also be made.
4|Page
Annex 4 - Format for Detailed Project Report
A4.1 Summary of Proposed Investment: CCA measures
Name and address of the watershed:
Area proposed to be treated with CCA measures (ha.):
Name of Project Facilitating Agency:
Date of submission of Project Completion Report with technical and social audit to NABARD (please attach a copy):
Date of submission of compliance of observation made by NABARD on Project Completion Report:
No. of Re- Average cost Source of Funds (₹ lakh)
No. of Average Total
designed of NABARD Community* Other Total
Ref. Particulars New cost of cost (₹
existing redesigned (minimum 16% sources
Units new unit lakh)
units units unskilled labour)
1 CCA Analysis and Planning
– Preparation of DPR
2 Additional Soil and Water
Conservation Measures
(ha.)
3 Soil improvement and
productivity enhancement
measures (ha.)
4 Sustainable NRM and CCA
farming practices (ha.)
including livelihood and
food security activities.
5 Measures to mitigate CC
risks
6 Capacity building and
institutional strengthening
7 WS level knowledge mgt.
8 Management cost
Gross Total
5|Page
A4.2 Assessment of Vulnerability to Climate Change and Investment Options:
Sector-wise Vulnerability Analysis and selection of investments (refer Appendix – Climate Change Vulnerability
Assessment)
Current and future impact Current

Critical (Sensitivity) on the vulnerable response Suggested Investment
climate community climate response to options in
Sector
hazards Direct Impact Indirect Non- hazards critical climate order of
(Exposure)* Impact climatic (adaptive hazards priority**
stress capacity)
Agriculture a.
b.
c.
Water
Forests
Soil
Animal
Husbandry
Livelihood/
poverty/ food
security
*Climate events may include drought, intermittent dry spells, excessive rainfall, high wind speed, temperature extremes, late or early
onset of monsoons etc. If more than one climate events are relevant to any sector additional rows may be added
**The selection of investments will be made based on PRA and community consultative process as well as based on the analysis done
in consultation with local scientific institutions /agency/ experts. Indicative list of investments is given in Section 11 of guidelines.
6|Page
A4.3 Baseline and Projected targets with CCA measures
Land use pattern
Particulars Unit Pre-WS Post WS (Business as Projection

Usual) as per Project under CCA
Completion report scenario
Total geographical area Ha
Waterlogged area Ha
Land under misc. tree crops and grooves Ha
Culturable wastelands Ha
Fallow land other than current fallows Ha
Current fallows Ha
Net sown areas Ha
Gross irrigated area Ha
Net irrigated area Ha
Area under horticulture crops (trees) – Ha
dry land horticulture
Area under irrigated horticulture Ha
7|Page
A4.4 Soil and Water Conservation Measures
A4.4.1. Cost of S&WC Measures

GAT NO. WISE NET PLANNING (SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION MEASURES)*
Sl. Villag Gat Are Slop Dep Textu Erodibil Clas Prese Pro Existing treatment Proposed treatment Additio Co Cost of No. Total Total Unit Remar
N e no. a e th of re ity s nt p- nal st earthw of cost treat cost ks
o (ha soil land ose Earthw per ork (₹) Plan of ment (Rs/
) (cm) use d ork Un ts planta cost ha)
lan it tion (Rs)
d Ty Len Secti Volu Ty Leng Secti Volu
use pe gth on me pe th/ on me
(m) (sq. (cum units (sq. (cum
m) ) (m/ m) )
No.)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11 (12) (13) (14) (15 (16) (17) (18) (19) (20 (21)= (22) (23) (24) = (25) (26)
) ) ) (19x20) (21+2 =
3) (24/
3)
Total # # # # # # #
# Total of these columns should be mentioned
* Gully plugs, earthen plugs and outlets also to be included in this proforma.
Note: The consent of the farmers as done in case of WDF projects need to be obtained.
8|Page
A4.4.2 Details of Engineering Structures
DETAILS OF EXISTING ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Sl. Structure Nearest Year of Dimensions Remarks Nature of Total cost of repairs if any *2 Community Total
No. type and Locatio constructio about its repair with contributio grant
identification n Gat n Lengt Top Botto Heigh effectivenes specificatio Skilled Unskille Materia Total n
no. h widt m t s/status n *1 labour d labour l cost cost
h width cost cost
# Please collect
the information from the villagers/local office of the Agency that constructed the structure
## Additional information to be provided wherever necessary
DETAILS OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES
Sl Structure Locatio Catchment area in ha Length of Elevation Time of Rainfall Peak Design Storag Total cost Communit Gran Remark
N type and n to Gat catchmen Differenc concentratio intensity runof dimensio e y t s
o identificatio no. 1 2 3 4 Tota t e n (mm/ho f rate ns of capacit Skilled Unskille Materia Tota contributio
n l ur) (cum structure y labour d labour l cost l n
/ sec) *1 cost cost cost
*1 Mention here specifics of length, width (of base and crest), bed elevation, Crest elevation, height of structure, side slopes etc.
*2 The details of design and costing should be annexed separately.
9|Page
A4.4.3 Baseline and Summary of S&WC Measures Investment Plan
(Use only relevant measures as CCA measure: refer Section 11 on indicative investment options)
S.N. AREA Unit Units (Nos.) Average Cost (₹ lakh) Remarks
TREATMENT
Pre- Post WS WS – CCA Total WS-CCA Cost proposed under CCA
WS (Business Proposal units Average cost per
as usual) Post unit
Redesign New WS- Redesign New Redesign New Total
of units CCA of units of Units
existing existing existing
units Units Units
A B C D E F G=D+F H I J=E*G K=F*I L=J+K
A Soil Erosion and Degradation Control Measures
1 Physical Measures
a) CCT
b)
c)
… Others
Total of 1
2 Vegetation cover on existing treated and reclaimed land
a) Grass on S&WC Kg.
measures
….
…..
Total of 2
B Land Reclamation Measures
a) Land levelling Ha.
…
10 | P a g e
Total of B
C Irrigation Management Measures
a)
--
-
Total of C
Grand Total
A4.4.4 Source of finance for S&WC

(Please indicate possible convergence proposed with the existing programmes in the table below apart from the interventions
proposed under the project)
S.No. Activity Name NABARD (₹ Lakh) Community Other source - (₹ lakh) Total
contribution
₹ Lakh)
1 a) Name of source Amount
b)
c)
A4.4.5 Activity wise technical and cost norms for S&WC and justification thereof
S.No. Activity Name Technical Norms and Cost Norms Justification for the activity
11 | P a g e
A4.5 Soil Improvement and productivity enhancement measures
A4.5.1 Soil baseline and targets of soil status
Particulars Pre-water-shed Post WS- Business as Post WS-CCA (plan) – (ha.)

(ha.) Usual (ha.)
1 Drainage
Good
Moderate
Poor
2 Use of unsustainable chemicals
Use of Chemical fertilizers
Use of chemical pesticides
3 Soil nutrient status
a NPK and micro nutrient
deficiency (based on the soil test
analysis)
4 Problematic soils (if the same is

present in the watershed area)
Soil acidity critical area
Source of acidity
Soil alkalinity critical area
Source of alkalinity
Soil alkalinity critical area
Source of alkalinity
12 | P a g e
A4.5.2 Agriculture land use – baseline and targets
S.N Pre WS Project Post WS Project Projected CCA Scenario

Yiel
Yield/ Total Produ Total Total
Type Product Yield/h Product d/ha
Ha. ha yield Ha. ct yield Ha. yield
Name a(Kg.) Name .
(Kg.) (Kg) Name (Kg) (Kg)
(Kg.)
Kharif
1 Cereals i) i) i)
ii) ii) ii)
2 Pulses i) i) i)
ii) ii) ii)
3 …. i) i) i)
ii) ii) ii)
Rabi
1 Cereals i) i) i)
ii) ii) ii)
2 Oilseeds i) i) i)
ii) ii) ii)
3 --- i) i) i)
ii) ii) ii)
13 | P a g e
A4.5.3 Soil improvement and productivity enhancement plan (activities)
S.N Particulars Unit Units Cost (₹ lakh) Remark

. s
Pre Post WS – CCA Proposal Total WS-CCA Cost proposed under CCA
- WS units Cost per unit
WS (Busi Additiona New Post Addition New Addition New Total
ness l input in Areas WS- al input Areas al input Areas
as existing covere CCA in covere in covere
usual) areas d existing d existing d
areas areas
A B C D E F G=D H I J=E*G K=F*I L=J+K
+F
1 Soil improvement and productivity enhancement
a) Soil testing and No.
introduction of
soil health cards
b) One time Deep Ha.
ploughing
Total
A4.5.4. Source of finance for soil improvement
(Please indicate possible convergence proposed with the existing programmes in the table below apart from the interventions
contribution Name of source Amount
₹ Lakh)
1 a)……..
b)……….
c)
14 | P a g e
A4.5.5 Activity wise technical norms for soil improvement and justification thereof
A4.6 Promotion of sustainable NRM, CCA farming, livelihood and food security
A4.6.1 NRM and CCA farming practices: Plan of investment
Units Cost (₹ lakh)

WS – CCA WS-CCA Cost proposed under
Post
Proposal Tota Cost per unit CCA Remar
WS
S. Pr l Additio Additio ks
Particulars Unit (Busi Additio
N. e- New units nal New nal New
ness nal
W Areas Post input Areas input Areas
as input in Total
S cover WS- in cover in cover
usual existing
ed CCA existin ed existin ed
) areas
g areas g areas
A B C D E F G=D H I J=E*G K=F*I L=J+K
+F
a) Crop Ha.
diversification
b) Crop Ha.
intensification
a) Agro-forestry Ha.
b) Introduction of Ha.
CC resilient crops
c) Other – specify Ha.
Total
15 | P a g e
A4.6.2 Source of finance for sustainable NRM and CCA farming
(Please indicate possible converge proposed with the existing programmes in the table below apart from the interventions
₹ Lakh)
1 a)……..
b)……….
c)
A4.6.3 Activity wise technical norms for sustainable NRM and CCA farming justification thereof
A4.7 Income generation and livelihood promotion

A4.7.1 Income by house holds
Reference Year: ______________________________________
Household Number Average income from different sources

Total Average
category in sample (Rs)
Non- Agricultur
Agri. Other
agri e
labour sources
Workers
Landless
0 -1 ha
1-2 ha
2-4 ha
4-10 ha
> 10 ha
16 | P a g e
other
categories
Total
Representation to all strata / groups of people in the area may be given in the sample.
Data source____________ Reference year _________________
A4.7.2 Livelihood and IGA promotion investment plan (non-traditional activities)

S.N Activity name Unit Pre-WS Post –WS (Business as Usual) Post WS - CCA
No of units People No of units People No of People
employed employed units employed
Enterprise level activity*
1
Diversified HH level activity
1 Bio-gas units
2 Vermi-
composting
4
*Select activities directly dependent or related to soil improvement and impact thereof
A4.7.3 Livelihood and IGA activities - Source of finance

S.N Activity name Source 1 (Name) Source 2 (Name) Source 3 (Name) Total
A4.7.4 Livelihood and IGA activities - Activity wise technical norms

S.No. Activity Name Technical Norms and Cost Norms Justification vis-à-vis climate change
17 | P a g e
A4.8 Food and nutritional security
A4.8.1 Baseline and targets
S. No Particular Pre WS Post WS (BUS) Post WS - CCA
1 Below Poverty Level families
(No.)
2 Families getting regular supply
from PDS (Nos.)
3 Families Not getting two meals a
day
4 Health cards issued
5 HH with backyard dairy/ poultry/
fisheries/ kitchen garden
6 HH with at least one person with
nutrient deficiency due to non-
availability of food or capacity to
pay
A4.8.2 Food and Nutritional Security - Pre CCA – Watershed (current level)
Commodity Annual Total Current Producti Distribute Shortfall in Short fall in
for food and Per Capita requirement Producti on d through production consumptio
nutritional Requiremen for food on in retained PDS n
security t sufficiency WS for self-
(population consum
X per capita ption
requirement
)
A B C D E=B-A F =A-C-D
Unit Qty Unit Qty Qty Qty Qty Qty Qty
18 | P a g e
A4.8.3 Target for Food and Nutritional Security Post CCA – Watershed
Commodity Annual Total Productio Shortfall in Import in WS Net
for food and Annual Per requirement for n in WS production with
nutritional Capita food sufficiency increased
security Requirement income
Unit Qty Unit A B C=B-A D E=C-D
Qty Qty Qty Qty Qty
Account for population growth during project period
A4.9 Mitigation of CCA Risk: Physical and financial details of measure

CCA Risk Risk mitigation activity No of units Cost per unit Total cost
A4.10 Accompanying measures: capacity building, Institutional strengthening and knowledge

management
A4.10.1 Plan for investment / activities for accompanying measures

S.N Activity WS (Business as CCA Scenario Total
Usual Scenario))
Nature of No. Cost Total No. units Cost per Total cost New Unit Total No. Cost
Capacity / cost requiring unit of of Activity cost of cost of
building, unit Additional additional additional (No.) New new
institutional input on activity activity Activity activity
strengthening/ current
Knowledge activity
Management
19 | P a g e
1 A B C D E F G H I J K=B+I L=D+G+J
2
A4.10.2 Source of finance for accompanying measures

(Please indicate possible converge proposed with the existing programmes in the table below apart from the interventions
₹ Lakh)
1 a)……..
b)……….
c)
A4.10.3 Justification and norms for institutional development

S.N Activity Justification Recommended Activity norm and Cost norms
resource Institution
20 | P a g e
ANNEX 5 - Result Framework
Note:
1. Please retain only relevant project output components
2. The risk analysis may include social, environmental, economic, financial, technical, etc. aspects that may be encountered by
the PFA during implementation; and the measures to mitigate these risks.
3. Information need to be submitted on half yearly basis.
Goal: Investments in improvement, stabilisation, and conservation of natural resources is made to minimise the risk of climate change and to
increase the productivity and income of communities living in watersheds.
Outcome: To strengthen the adaptive capacity of the communities in watersheds and reduce their vulnerability to climate change
Output 1: Soil and water conservation: Existing watersheds are rehabilitated and stabilised though redesigned and additional climate resilient
soil and water conservation measures
Risk mitigation
Source of
Component Indicator Baseline Target Assumptions Anticipated Risk measures
verification
proposed
1. Redesigning of
S&WC, construction
of additional
structures
2. Vegetation cover
enhancement
3. Irrigation
management
4. Land reclamation
5.
6.
Output 2: Soil health improvement and Productivity enhancement: Soil health is improved and productivity is enhanced, which leads to
secured and increased potential for production and productivity of animal husbandry and agriculture
21 | P a g e
Risk mitigation
Source of
verification
proposed
1. Soil testing and
introduction of soil
health cards
2. Management of soil
structure: Deep
ploughing and
summer ploughing
3. Nutrient
management:
Overall soil health
(carbon content,
availability of micro-
and macro-nutrients)
is improved by
application of
organic fertilizers,
farm yard manure,
green leaf, tank silt,
vermin compost
4. Desalination and de-
acidification
5. Decontamination
and detoxification
6. Yield per ha. is
increased under
expected climate
variability and yield
22 | P a g e
per ha. is stabilised
amidst increase in
frequency of
extreme climate
events
Output 3: Sustainable NRM livelihood practices and CC resilient cropping systems are adopted
Component Indicator Baseline Target Source of Assumptions Anticipated Risk Risk mitigation
verification measures
proposed
1. Crop diversification
2. Inter cropping and
crop rotation
3. Introduction of new
CC resilient varieties
4. Sustainable NRM
practices such as
agro-forestry is
adopted
5. Introduction of
diversified livelihood
options
6. Introduction of
diversified sources of
food- kitchen
garden, backyard
poultry etc.
7. Establishment of
fodder banks
23 | P a g e
8. Creation of post-
harvest storage
facilities etc.
9.
10.
Output 4: CC Risk management practices are introduced
Risk mitigation
Source of
verification
proposed
1. Introduction of
resource centres/
agri-clinics, seed
farms, common
equipment and agri-
input centres, village
knowledge centres,
fodder banks
2. Improved
connectivity with
farmer call centres,
3. Market information
collection and
dissemination
4. Formation of POs
5. Linkages with IMD
weather stations and
advisory services
6. Crop Insurance
7.
24 | P a g e
Output 5: Accompanying Measures: Best practices of watershed level institutional strengthening, , capacity building, knowledge management,
are developed integrated into participatory watershed development approaches for soil management as CCA tool.
Risk mitigation
Source of
verification
proposed
1. Suitable institutional
structure for
participatory
management of WS
are developed
2. Capacity of
stakeholders to
sustainably manage
resources under CC
are developed
3. Knowledge
management tools
are developed and
implemented
25 | P a g e
ANNEX 6 - Progress Report and Fund Utilisation Report
Sanctioned Amount received
Source of Funds New Modified

S
Avg. cost Amt Units Units
No Particulars Avg. cost No. of Re- Commu-
New of Total utilised comple complet
. of new designed nity* Other
Units redesigned cost NABARD ted ed
unit units (min 16% source Total
units assistance
unskilled s
labour)
1 Preparation of
DPR
2 Soil and water
conservation
(ha.)
3 Soil health
improvement
and productivity
enhancement
(ha.)
4 Sustainable
NRM and
climate resilient
farming,
livelihood and
food security
5 Mitigation of CC
risk (no.)
6 Capacity
building,
Institutional
development
and knowledge
management
9 Management
and supervision
cost
TOTAL
26 | P a g e
27 | P a g e

KFW Soil Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KFW Soil Guidelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KFW Soil Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Operational Guidelines – KfW Soil

Projects (Integration of Watershed

Guidelines for Preparation of Detailed Project Reports by Project Facilitating

NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND

In light of above discussion, NABARD in collaboration with KfW developed a

3. Project Interventions under the Programme

Following major project interventions are proposed to be financed under the

a. Adaptation of existing and implementation of required additional physical soil and

4. Application of guidelines and project period

A detailed time-schedule of the project, as indicated in the signed agreement is

5. Programme Areas / States

i. Vulnerability of districts based on “Rainfed Areas Prioritization Index (RAPI)”;

iii. Availability of projects and stage of development in selected districts.

Sl No Name of State Name of District No of Watershed Projects

6. Selection of watershed within selected districts for CCA

6.1 Pre-selection / desk review

Desk review by NABARD RO will also be conducted based on information provided in

6.2 Preliminary PRA

In addition to vulnerability related priority, emphasis shall be given on communities’

Calculation of management Cost: If watersheds identified are in cluster of 2 or

Number of Watersheds per PFA % of management cost to total

8. Task of various Stakeholders at Watershed level

 GS would be the responsible institution for ensuring the implementation of the

8.2 Village Watershed Committee (VWC):

 VWCs may be developed to function as “Village Climate Risk Management

8.3 Self Help Groups (SHG)

8.4 Common Interest Group (CIG) / Common Livelihood Group (CLG)

 It would be smaller groups of individuals based on a common interest such as

9. Team for vulnerability assessment and preparation of DPR

 Team Leader - Climate Change and NRM expert

10. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment

11. Selection of Investments/Activities

11.1 Soil and water conservation (Output 1):

11.2 Soil health improvement and productivity enhancement

11.3 Promotion of Sustainable NRM, CCA farming practices and food

11.4 Measures to mitigate CC Risk (Output 4)

11.5 Capacity Building, institutional building and knowledge

12. Preparation of DPR

 Act as plan for implementation with financial and physical measure

12.1 Process and timelines for preparation and sanction of DPR

1. Brief on Project Facilitating Agency and watershed for CCA measures

Use Annex 4 for following points no. 2 to 6:

2. Summary of proposed investments

12.3 Technical and Financial Norms

 Community contribution for work on community land shall be at least 16

Labor/material Proposed cross

14. State Project Sanctioning and Steering Committee:

i. CGM, RO /OIC– Chairman

• Final Decision on selection of watersheds

15. Release of funds

16. Maintenance of separate account by PFA

17. Monitoring of Progress

The projects are also proposed to be monitored through web-based online

Further, the progress of outcome indicators using result framework (Annex 5)

Cost as per NABARD norms as per

The measures would improve

Knowledge dissemination through

Total 100 59.24