Food Security Atlas Of RURAL MAHARASHTRA - WFP Remote ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is another important indicator of the health status of apopulation. Studies have shown that water and sanitation account for a substantial portion of thedifference in infant and child mortality rates experienced by the rich and the poor (Leipziger et al2003). Safe drinking water plays a key role in the body’s use of consumed food. Though India hastaken huge strides in terms of provision of safe drinking water since independence, the fact remainsthat more people in India lack this basic minimum necessity now than 50 years ago. Besides, morepeople are vulnerable to water-borne diseases (Gujja & Shaik, 2005). Empirical studies have shownthat water quality is a big problem in rural areas (Krishnan et al, 2003).The availability and quality ofpotable water is a big factor that affects food insecurity. Almost two million children die each yearbecause of lack of clean water and sanitation (UNICEF, 2007c). As there is no direct method ofcalculation of access to safe drinking water, we have taken access to tubewell, tap and handpumpas safe sources of drinking water. In Maharashtra, 79.8 per cent of the households are having accessto safe drinking water. It ranks tenth among the 17 major states of India on this count and is twopercentage points above than the national average.6.1 Primary Health CentresIn Maharashtra, only one district namely Gondiya has PHCs in more than half of its villages. At theother end, in as many as nine districts namely Satara, Solapur, Aurangabad, Jalna, Parbhani, Hingoli,Yavatmal, Chandrapur and Akola, less than a quarter of the villages have access to a primary healthfacility (Table 6.2 and Map 6.1). Even relatively developed districts, such as Satara, Solapur andAurangabad, fall in the lowest category of PHC access.6.2 Safe Drinking WaterTable 6.2: Access to PHCs in Maharashtra, 2001District Value Rank District Value Rank District Value RankAhmadnagar 31.22 17 Hingoli 16.89 33 Pune 32.86 14Akola 19.04 32 Jalgaon 33.94 12 Raigarh 35.25 11Amravati 25.21 24 Jalna 23.75 25 Ratnagiri 29.78 18Aurangabad 22.51 30 Kolhapur 39.88 6 Sangli 37.31 7Bhandara 49.67 2 Latur 35.40 10 Satara 22.77 28Bid 26.85 21 Nagpur 36.93 8 Sindhudurg 39.89 5Buldana 31.99 16 Nanded 36.63 9 Solapur 22.67 29Chandrapur 23.49 26 Nandurbar 47.63 3 Thane 45.24 4Dhule 33.78 13 Nashik 29.00 19 Wardha 27.41 20Gadchiroli 26.69 22 Osmanabad 32.24 15 Washim 26.49 23Gondiya 56.07 1 Parbhani 21.31 31 Yavatmal 23.37 27Source: Calculated from Census, 2001.64 FOOD SECURITY ATLAS OF <strong>RURAL</strong> <strong>MAHARASHTRA</strong>
Map 6.1: Access to Health Services in Rural MaharashtraProportion of Villages havingPHC within the Village or5km from the village (%)48.23 - 56.0740.40 - 48.2332.56 - 40.4024.73 - 32.5616.89 - 24.73In Maharashtra, the coastal district of Sindhudurg ranks lowest in access to safe drinking water; itis the only one in the extremely low category. Other districts with very low to low access to safedrinking water are distributed across Vidarbha and Western Maharashtra, a rather surprising factin the case of the latter given the generally high level of rural development in those areas (TableTable 6.3: Access to Safe Drinking Water (in per cent of households) in Maharashtra, 2001District Value Rank District Value Rank District Value Rank(%) (%) (%)Ahmadnagar 53.47 28 Hingoli 71.43 15 Pune 64.41 20Akola 75.99 12 Jalgaon 91.97 1 Raigarh 60.29 23Amravati 83.40 6 Jalna 70.81 17 Ratnagiri 42.55 32Aurangabad 70.90 16 Kolhapur 84.35 5 Sangli 76.41 11Bhandara 62.19 22 Latur 84.58 4 Satara 81.47 8Bid 77.22 10 Nagpur 74.27 13 Sindhudurg 24.99 33Buldana 66.00 19 Nanded 72.45 14 Solapur 69.15 18Chandrapur 57.89 24 Nandurbar 81.71 7 Thane 52.41 30Dhule 87.17 3 Nashik 53.97 27 Wardha 64.18 21Gadchiroli 56.77 26 Osmanabad 87.31 2 Washim 52.93 29Gondiya 49.34 31 Parbhani 79.97 9 Yavatmal 57.43 25Source: As stated in Table 3.4, Variable c1.FOOD ABSORPTION65
Page 1 and 2:
Food Security AtlasOfRURAL MAHARASH
Page 3 and 4:
Copyright © 2010The UN World Food
Page 5 and 6:
TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPChairperson
Page 8:
PrefaceIndia is home to more than a
Page 12 and 13:
ContentsForewardPrefaceAcknowledgem
Page 14 and 15:
List of Tables, Figures, Maps and B
Page 16 and 17:
List of AbbreviationsADAPTAIDISAPLA
Page 19 and 20:
Executive SummaryExecutive SummaryF
Page 21 and 22:
capacities and knowledge.Measures t
Page 24 and 25:
1. Introduction1. IntroductionIndia
Page 26 and 27:
production. This portion of the con
Page 28:
other states in the country. In lin
Page 31 and 32:
Map 2.1: Maharashtra: Administrativ
Page 33 and 34:
Table 2.2: Percentage Poverty Rates
Page 35 and 36:
Table 2.6: Sectoral Composition of
Page 37 and 38: Table 2.8: Mortality and Nutritiona
Page 39: Table 2.11: Status of ConsumptionPe
Page 42 and 43: Children who are more than two stan
Page 44 and 45: Map 3.1: Food Security Outcome Map
Page 46 and 47: Table 3.3: Indicators used to Compu
Page 48 and 49: the ‘normal’ entitlements to fo
Page 50 and 51: to the dependent population 1 . Thi
Page 52: Table 3.4: Indicators Used to Analy
Page 55 and 56: 4.2. ProductionTable 4.1: Growth of
Page 57 and 58: Box 4.1: Agricultural Production an
Page 59 and 60: Table 4.4: Extent of Irrigation in
Page 61 and 62: The state has a modest coverage (15
Page 63 and 64: Map 4.4: Status of Rural Connectivi
Page 65 and 66: Table 4.8: Indicators Used in Const
Page 68 and 69: 5. Access to Food5. Access to FoodT
Page 70 and 71: Table 5.2: Rural Casual Wage Rate b
Page 72 and 73: 5.3. Agricultural LabourersMaharash
Page 74 and 75: Table 5.7: Proportion of Scheduled
Page 76 and 77: Table 5.9: Ratio of Working Age Pop
Page 78 and 79: Table 5.11: Rural Female Literacy b
Page 80 and 81: poor food security situation. In Ma
Page 82 and 83: Table 5.14: Urbanization in Maharas
Page 84 and 85: This re gional patter n of migratio
Page 87: 6. Food Absorption6. Food Absorptio
Page 92: Map 6.3: Food Absorption Map of Rur
Page 95 and 96: Table 7.1: Ranks of Districts on Co
Page 97 and 98: Map 7.2: Maharashtra: Priority Dist
Page 99 and 100: e improved through better rural con
Page 101 and 102: Box 7.1: National Policy for Farmer
Page 103 and 104: A part of the wastelands has also b
Page 105 and 106: development policy for forest-dwell
Page 107 and 108: Table 7.6: Index of Public Interven
Page 109 and 110: Table 7.7: MGNREGS Performance, All
Page 111 and 112: Another policy implication from the
Page 113 and 114: The list of activities taken up und
Page 115 and 116: Box 7.5: The Forest Rights ActThe S
Page 117 and 118: women’s land rights also increase
Page 119 and 120: Box 7.6: Ralegan Siddhi: A Village
Page 121 and 122: may not be a corresponding improvem
Page 123: Infants and Young ChildrenBox 7.8:
Page 126 and 127: frequent disruption in the supply o
Page 128 and 129: panchayats, the panchayats perform
Page 130: Table 8.1: Key Interventions in Pri
Page 133 and 134: Government of India (2007a), The Sc
Page 135: Srivastava, Ravi, 1997, “Rural La
Page 138 and 139:
Thus, rights require state action w
Page 140:
obligation of the state to provide
Page 143 and 144:
Name of Variable and Description So
Page 145 and 146:
The basic objective of using PCA is
Page 147 and 148:
Appendix III: Index Value, Normativ
Page 149 and 150:
Table A3.3:Index Values and Normati
Page 151:
The Food Security Atlas of Rural Ma
show all

Food Security Atlas Of RURAL MAHARASHTRA - WFP Remote ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?