Listening Before Acting Is Key To Sustainable Development: Ambuja Foundation’s Chandrakant Kumbhani

Ambuja Foundation has been working in rural India since long before sustainability became a corporate buzzword. In an interview with ResponsibleUs, Chandrakant Kumbhani, COO of Ambuja Foundation, reflects on the thinking that led to the Foundation’s early work in the 1990s, how rural challenges have shifted over three decades, and why listening to communities remains central to everything the organisation does. From long-term water security efforts to changing livelihood patterns and gaps in policy implementation, Kumbhani speaks candidly about what has worked on the ground and what still needs fixing.

Ambuja Foundation has completed more than three decades. What led to its formation?
As you rightly said, thinking about something like this in 1993 required a lot of courage. Very few corporations were doing this kind of work at that time.

When Narottamji started Ambuja Cement, his philosophy was very simple. He said, “I am going to operate in rural areas where communities have lived for generations. My work should not negatively impact them. And in whatever capacity possible, I should contribute to developing those communities.”

With that philosophy, the idea of Ambuja Foundation was born. The Foundation was formally registered in 1993, but the work had already started earlier as a rural development department within the company. There were a few people working on community engagement even before formal registration. The idea was never about maintaining harmony with communities for business reasons. It was about contributing to inclusive development around the company’s operations. That philosophy continues to guide us.

The Foundation began by working around cement plants. How did that shape the way programmes are designed today?
One of the most important early decisions was to bring in people who understood development and community engagement. The work was never designed purely from a corporate perspective.

When we started around the first plant in coastal Gujarat in the early 1990s, the challenges were very clear. The area faced frequent droughts, low rainfall, dependence on groundwater, and increasing salinity. Livelihoods were mainly agriculture-based. That is when we truly understood the importance of water for communities, and the water programme began. Alongside that, we also started some basic curative health services.

As we scaled, we realised that as an organisation, we are small compared to the size of the problem. That is when partnerships became essential with governments, other NGOs, and institutions. This philosophy of collaboration remains central even today.

Every geography presents a different reality. In Gujarat, water was the pressing issue. In Maharashtra, health indicators were the biggest concern, so we started with community health there and later replicated that model in other states.

Do communities respond differently across states and regions?
The response is different everywhere. Not just from state to state, but even within districts, the challenges change. For example, in tribal areas of Chhattisgarh, natural resources were available, but the communities do not always have the capacity or the resources to use those natural resources properly. So, our focus there was on building irrigation systems and enabling agricultural livelihoods.

In West Bengal’s Murshidabad district, around the Farakka block, the situation was different. Water was available everywhere; rivers and small channels were there, but access to irrigation infrastructure was missing. Farmers could not afford pumps or systems to bring water to their fields. So, we designed group-based irrigation schemes, and today thousands of farmers are benefiting from these systems, allowing them to take second and third crops. Wherever we go, the first thing we do is sit with communities, listen to them, and understand the reality. Sometimes we also take community members to other areas where similar projects have been implemented. Seeing successful examples builds confidence.

How has Ambuja Foundation’s role changed as rural challenges have evolved?
Our programmes have continuously evolved. In our journey as a community health intervention, we have focused on maternal and child health. However, with time, it has been realised that non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and hypertension have become major challenges. Currently, cancers and mental health have also become areas of focus.

Similarly, our livelihood work evolved from water and agriculture to skill development. Youth aspirations changed, landholdings became smaller, and agriculture alone was no longer sufficient. We started vocational training as early as 2005–06, much before it became mainstream. What began with one or two centres has grown into 51 institutes across India, training around 20–25,000 youth every year. Courses are designed based on local industry demand, not randomly. Livelihood is not a single activity. It includes agriculture, animal husbandry, poultry, fisheries, micro-enterprises, and skill-based employment. Multiple income sources provide resilience at the household level.

Can you share a detailed case study on water security and long-term impact?
From the case study standpoint, one example is our program area in Gujarat’s Gir Somnath district, earlier part of Junagadh district, located near the Somnath temple and Gir forest. When we started way back in 1993, the area was experiencing recurrent low rainfall and drought, and the entire area was dependent on the groundwater for irrigation and for crop production. And in coastal areas, if you pump excessively, salinity starts seeping into the groundwater, which leads to salinity seeping inland, degrading soil and reducing crop yields.

We began with small water interventions in 5–10 villages, focusing on reviving and building water-harvesting structures. Over time, we realised salinity was a regional issue. So, we realised that we need to invest more in this area, whatever resources are available from the company in a few villages, but then we realised that there is a huge opportunity to build a network, partner with the government, with other agencies, who have a similar objective or goal to work in the community. And we forged a partnership with the Government of Gujarat, an agency like Tata Trusts, bring more resources across 60–100 villages covering three small river basins flowing from the Gir forest to the Arabian Sea.

Over 10–15 years, we implemented integrated water resource management interventions, including water harvesting, groundwater recharge, drinking water access, irrigation efficiency, and farmer education. These efforts gradually pushed salinity back and improved groundwater quality. Some innovative solutions like recharging and protecting shallow aquifers in coastal villages for tapping it drinking water or promoting roof rainwater harvesting structures at the individual household level, with storage capacities of 10,000–20,000 litres. This significantly improved drinking water access and reduced the burden on women, who earlier spent hours fetching water. The intervention freed time for education and livelihoods and reduced drudgery.

We didn’t just focus on building structures, but also focused on water use. Ultimately, about 90% of water is used for agricultural production. If you can educate farmers and motivate them to use practices which reduce water use, that will help to balance water availability. Now, in those areas, micro-irrigation in Gujarat alone. On average, if a farmer uses drip irrigation, they will save 30–50% water compared to conventional. And research also shows a yield improvement of 10–30%.

Farmers now report that even low rainfall years do not severely affect water availability. Long-term investment and an integrated approach have improved water literacy and ensured sustainable water security in the Kodinar region.

How do you ensure communities stay involved after project funding ends?
We start with understanding the community and the ground situation. When you understand things from their lens, that becomes the starting point for sustaining interest even after project funding ends.

As a development organisation, it is our responsibility to remain engaged throughout the process so that the community owns the project. A project may be funded by a corporate and implemented by Ambuja Foundation, but it is ultimately for the community.

An important learning over time has been the role of community collectives and institutions in project design. For agriculture, we form farmer groups. For women’s livelihoods, self-help groups. At the village level, village development committees. For watershed programmes, watershed committees, and for water interventions like check dams, water user groups.

Though often informal, these institutions are powerful. They bring collective wisdom and help communities take responsibility for maintaining assets. This approach has helped sustain many projects. In Kodinar, for instance, structures built years ago are still functioning, with farmers managing repairs and maintenance themselves.

For major maintenance, they approach us for guidance, but most interventions are owned, managed, and operated by the community. This works for structures like check dams. In the case of lift irrigation or group irrigation schemes, which require annual operation, user groups are trained for two to four years. They are trained to manage systems, build trust, and ensure transparency. Even small transactions are discussed in meetings so that accountability is maintained. This is critical for long-term sustainability.

In Maharashtra, we mobilised communities and helped them visualise how they wanted their villages to be. These villages became model villages in their areas. Over time, they became examples for others. Surrounding villages started saying they also wanted to become like them. That is how learning spreads.

What policy gaps make grassroots development harder today?
Policy landscapes in countries are evolving quite rapidly. I would say India has strong policies, but many times we realise that there are still gaps because the community is unable to access what needs to be focused. Similarly, government works at scale, and there are always issues of efficiency. It takes time to bridge such gaps. From a policy point of view, especially from the rural and agricultural standpoint, if we really want to impact at scale, even simple areas like water show that while there are many efforts, gaps remain.

Similarly, many policies come with recommendations for multiple interventions, but they require significant resources. For example, micro-irrigation requires a huge investment per hectare. Many state governments are subsidising it, but the targets remain small.

So, if we want a large section of the community to adopt micro-irrigation systems, it requires major investment. All of this relates to policy design, implementation gaps, and resource allocation, which need much more effort to achieve saturation. That is what will create impact at scale at the country level.

Often, there is also a need to educate communities on how to utilise the existing facilities. There are many social security schemes, and while many people are accessing them, gaps still exist. This is where the role of civil society becomes important.

What is the most important lesson from Ambuja Foundation’s journey?
We start with understanding them. And when I say understanding them, it’s not only the community, but the ground situation. When you truly understand their perspective, that is the starting point to continue their interest after the project funding is over.

As a development organisation, it’s our responsibility to continue engagement throughout the process, whether it is planning, design, implementation, or conflict resolution. Whenever there is any situation, we need to involve them and engage them constantly so that they own the project. So, let’s say a project is funded by X corporation and implemented by Ambuja Foundation, but it is for the community.

The second important aspect, which we have learned over a period, is that it is very important to have different community collectives or community institutions as part of the design. If we are working in agriculture, we must have farmer groups. If we are working with women's livelihood, we can have self-help groups. At the village level, we can have village development committees. If it is a watershed programme, it is a watershed development committee or watershed association. If we are working on water programmes or interventions like check dams, we have water user groups. These are powerful institutions, though most of them are informal. They help bring collective wisdom and create the understanding that this asset or intervention is built for us, and it is in our interest to continuously look after it.

That has really helped us sustain many projects.