Economic Valuation of Reducing POLICY Land Degradation through Watershed Development in East BRIEF under Risks of Climate Extremes April 2020

Introduction:

In , land under degradation and desertification This study seeks to assess the economic and increased from 81.48 million hectares (mha) in years environmental benefits of reducing land degradation 2003-05 to 82.64 mha in 2011-13 (SAC 2016). Water through sustainable land management practices and wind induced soil erosion, and degradation of the such as watershed development in eastern Madhya vegetative cover are major contributing processes. Pradesh and in the context of climate change. Driven by anthropogenic causes, particularly unsustainable land management practices, land degradation is aggravated by the adverse impacts of Key Findings: climate change. Land degradation affects different • Project villages experience significantly lower sectors - agriculture, forestry, water resources - which soil erosion, higher soil carbon accumulation, hamper livelihoods and threaten the sustainability of greater land and crop productivity, higher biodiversity and ecosystem services. According to an cropping intensity, more available household estimate for the year 2014-15, desertification, land water and reduced migration as local degradation and drought (DLDD) cost India 2.54% employment opportunities increased. of its Gross Domestic Product (TERI in 2016). Hence, timely investment in land restoration is essential; • The NPV of benefits received per household of 3 of the 4 project villages is higher than in the in fact, the investment will be far less than the respective control villages. One control village amount of damage that can happen if we invest in benefitted more from its locational advantage its restoration (IPBES, 2018). As a signatory of the of being a market place and linkages with UNCCD’s Land Degradation Neutrality aim, India government departments. has set an ambitious target of restoring 26 mha of degraded land by 2030 (UNCCD 2019). • Villages which had active community engagement and governance institutions benefitted more than others as they were Madhya Pradesh is one of the hot-spots of land able to enlist cooperation as well as secure degradation that is driven by vegetation degradation additional resources. and water erosion (Le et al., 2014). It is one of the most backward states in terms of human • Maintenance and proper management of development (UNDP 2011). Land productivity is very common assets is often neglected post project low and distress migration is a common problem which results in reduction of environmental and economic benefits. encountered here. Objectives of the Study: i. To assess the land degradation status in some watershed project villages and control villages (without project interventions) based on Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) indicators and to identify the drivers of land degradation. ii. To undertake economic valuation including cost-benefit analysis of the agricultural ecosystem services and Sustainable Land Management (SLM) interventions in project villages iii. To assess the preparedness of study villages to address climate change risks in the selected agro- ecological zones in the light of projected climate changes.

1. The Study area The Plateau and Satpura hills are a wheat- are: in district (1) Dungariya and Kui-Ryt; (2) rice zone where the annual rainfall ranges from 1000 Partala and Amdara; (3) and Paundi-Mal; and mm to 1400 mm; the major soil types are mixed red (4) Kareli and in district. and black soils (medium). This region faces severe RS-GIS methodology: Continuous seasonal satellite land degradation due loss of vegetation and water imagery related to the years 2008 – 2018 is used to induced erosion. Water scarcity is acute during summer. While agriculture is the main occupation of the inhabitants, a large section of villagers migrate in search of wage work. Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR) has implemented watershed development (WSD) projects in these districts since over a decade. From the many villages where WSD was implemented, four were selected for this study. These are Dungariya, Partala, Katangi in , and Kareli in Jabalpur district. The villages implemented WSD from 2008-09 to 2010-11 and in Kareli up to 2011-12. In Dungariya and Partala additionally, the Integrated Watershed Figure 1. Location map of the selected study villages Management Programme (IWMP) was implemented 1 through WOTR and PRADAN respectively from 2014 prepare the land use/ land cover information for the to 2018-19. project and control villages. WSD includes the following SLM interventions: area Pre and post-watershed intervention effects on soil treatment, afforestation including on forest lands and erosion are assessed using the Unit Stream Power- on private lands, drainage line treatment, capacity based Erosion and Deposition (USPED) model for enhancement, institutional building, and promotion modelling soil erosion and deposition in the village. of agriculture and livelihoods. LULC change detection results of 2008 to 2018 are used to identify the potential trend (positive change, 2. Methodology negative change, and no change). Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) of the year 2018 A study was conducted between June 2019 and March combined with LULC change detection is used to 2020. The baseline (pre-project implementation) assess land productivity dynamics (LPD). year was 2008-09 and the year for impact assessment was 2018-2019. The tools of GIS & Remote Sensing, Economic Analysis Methodology: Economic valuation grassroot level stakeholder consultations such as Key of the ecosystem services for three main ecosystem Informant, Household Interviews and Focus Group goods/services i.e. crop, fodder, and water for Discussions were used to assess the impact of SLM household use was done using the TEV framework practices. (ELD, 2015). For crop and fodder, the “market price method” and for household water, “cost avoided For each project village, a control village was selected method” was used. The economic valuation of within the same geographical area having similar reduction in migration was calculated by assessing the features. The 4 sets of project and control villages intrinsic value of work available at the home location using a combination of “market price method” and 2 the “willingness to accept” method 1NGO:Professional Assistance For Development Action (PRADAN) 3. Research Results

The impacts of Sustainable Land Management practices implemented in the project villages were assessed using a mix of LDN and economic indicators: land use/ land cover (LULC) data and cropping intensity; land productivity dynamics; soil erosion and soil organic carbon (SOC); crop productivity, household water availability and impact on migration

A. Changes in the land use and land cover and cropping intensity

Figure 2. LULC change between 2008 and 2018 in project and control villages

Land use change from uncultivable land (open scrub crop area has increased by nearly 10 ha (74%); while and barren) to cultivable land (crop and fallows) shows in Amdara (control), a 11% increase is seen in the approximately 50% decrease in both the project and double crop area with reduction in triple crop area control villages of Partala / Amdara; Dungariya / Kui- (-56%). In Paundi Mal, a control village with good Ryt; Katangi / Paundi Mal and in Kareli, indicating an connectivity and having better access to government expansion of areas under agriculture due to growing schemes, the cropping intensity has decreased as dependence of households on agriculture as a means compared to Katangi, its treated village. In Kareli of livelihood. In Sihora the control village of Kareli, (treated) and Sihora (control) villages, only rainfed uncultivable land shows a marked increased (Fig. 2) agriculture is practised; the area under cultivation is indicating a decline in area under cultivation. significantly higher in the project village as compared to its control. In both villages, double and triple However, changes in the multi-seasonal cropping cropping which was minimum earlier, has further (kharif, rabi, and summer) pattern are observed, as reduced. While fallows have increased in Dungariya, also in cropping intensity. In treated villages Partala area brought under agriculture is higher in Kui Ryt and Katangi, this is comparatively higher than their (control) with a marginal increase in double crop area respective control villages of Amdara and Paundi (2.5 ha) and single crop rabi (2.3 ha). Mal. In Partala, the single crop (rabi) area has shifted to double crop area by 22.2 ha (46%), and the triple

3 B. Changes in Soil Erosion and Soil Organic Carbon (SOC)

The first set of comparison villages- Dungariya and Kui-Ryt - are in the upper catchment while the second set - Partala and Amdara - are in the lower catchment area of the respective watersheds. Katangi and Paundi Mal are positioned in the middle catchment, while Kareli and Sihora are upper catchment villages. As a natural phenomenon, soil erosion is always higher in the upper catchment area which gets deposited in the lower catchment area. However, with project interventions, soil erosion and thereby loss of soil organic carbon has reduced by 64% in the Dungariya (treated village) as compared with the 23% in control village, Kui Figure 3. Percentage change in Soil Organic Carbon Ryt (Fig. 3). While in Partala which is in the lower between 2008 and 2018 catchment of the treated village (Dungariya), erosion in this control village. reduced accumulation of soil organic carbon was observed as lesser soil gets eroded from the upper Based on soil erosion and deposition, the soil organic catchment. Although Amdara receives a great carbon (SOC) detachment and accumulation is calcu- amount of soil detached from Kui-Ryt, it retains lated. The average SOC detachment and accumulation only 50% as accumulation, which indicates high in project and control villages is shown in (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Average change in soil organic carbon during 2008-2018 in project and control villages The third set of upper catchment treated (Katangi), carbon detachment in Kareli is reduced by 32%; while and control (Paundi Mal) villages shows that in Sihora (control), there is a 500% increase in SOC accumulation in Katangi is reduced by 50%; whereas detachment since the year 2008-09 (Fig 3). there is an 82% increase in soil carbon detachment in Paundi Mal. If Paundi Mal implements WSD, Both Kareli (treated) and Sihora (control) have medium this can be greatly reduced. The 4th set of treated to deep clayey black soil which is generally less prone (Kareli) and control (Sihora) villages is located in to erosion as clay particles are resistant to detachment. the upper catchment of respective watersheds. Soil The increase in detachment of soil organic carbon

4 in Sihora is about 5 to 6 times higher than in 2008- stabilization of bunds and afforestation. 09, while in Kareli detachment has reduced by 32%. Kareli would benefit from further reduction of SOC, The villages in the Mandla district (in which 6 of the as well as increase its agriculture productivity (Fig 2) studied villages fall) have soils that are deep loamy if the WSD structures implemented earlier (2012) are to clayey, mixed red soils which are prone to soil repaired and maintained by re-digging of trenches, erosion. Erosion and SOC loss can be controlled with various area treatments and SLM practices.

A key informant of Kareli said, “These types of interventions have really helped our farmlands. Earlier, most of the soil from the uplands would erode; now we have these structures to stop this erosion.” Another informant added, “No doubt, we got benefits during that time. But most of the trenches are now filled with soil.”

C. Land Productivity Dynamics (LPD)

In LULC changes, Normalized Difference Vegetation Land Productivity Dynamics (LPD) is presented as Index (NDVI) is used for the years 2008 to 2018 to declining productivity, early signs of decline, stable identify the trend (positive change, negative change, but stressed, stable not stressed, and increasing and no change) of change. productivity (Fig. 5 & Fig. 6) Figure 5. Land productivity dynamics in project dynamics in project 5. Land productivity Figure (B) and their (A) and Dungariya Partala villages (A1) and Amdara villages control respective (B1) Kui-Ryt C1) Paundi-Mal and D1) Sihora lages Katangi C) and Kareli D) and in control villages Figure 6. Land Productivity Dynamics in project vil

C) C1)

D) D1) -

5 Figure 7. Percentage area of the land productivity dynamics in project and control villages

In both project and control villages the categories Land productivity dynamics (early decline, declining stable but stressed and early signs of decline occupy productivity and stable but stressed) indicate that a greater percentage of the total geographic area in both treated and control villages, the croplands (TGA), with the former being more in Kareli and and natural vegetation (scrub) are under stress, Sihora. In treated villages (Partala and Dungariya) more so in the control villages. This is probably due where additional WSD works were completed in to the agriculture practices followed and also due to 2019, the area under stable but stressed and stable climate change i.e longer summers and higher annual is higher as compared to their control villages, which temperatures, with decreasing rainfall and at times indicates the immediate benefits of SLM. Area under floods, all of which impact vegetation and erosion. Improvement and stable categories is relatively less, In treated villages, forest area shows improvement except in Dungariya and Kui Ryt) which is mainly the indicating the influence of afforestation activity forest lands. implemented. In order to sustain the economic benefits of SLM, inputs on adaptation to climate change and good agriculture practices are required.

Rakesh2, a farmer from Kui-Ryt one of the control villages said, when asked about the condition of soil erosion, “You can see the condition. A huge area of farmland has been eroded. This (erosion) is not at all helpful for the fertility of the soil.” When asked if there was any action for soil improvement, he replied, “Yes. There were some of the initiatives from the government through farm bunds and some individual initiatives.” Respondents of the project villages emphasised the decrease in soil erosion and land improvement through SLM practices. A key informant of Kareli said, “These types of interventions have really helped our farmlands. Earlier, most of the soil from the uplands would erode, but now we have these structures to stop this erosion.”

2The actual names of all the respondents have been changed as per the request of the villagers

6 D. Changes in Crop Productivity

Figure 8. Percentage change in the crop productivity in 2018-19 (in comparison to the baseline value – 2008-2009)

The main crops grown in the study villages are paddy, schemes, NGOs provided guidance in project villages. wheat, kodo-millet, kutki-millet, green-pea, gram and Overall crop productivity is higher in in all the project black gram. The productivity of most of the crops villages as compared to control villages, except in has a marked increased during this period (2008- the case of Dungariya and its control village of Kui 18) in both project and control villages. During the Ryt, where the results are mixed with no significant intervening years, the agriculture department has difference between them (Fig. 8). reached out to all villages with various government

Villagers find farming remunerative in the treated and have started cultivation on lands otherwise left fallow. Mohan of Kareli said,“Production has increased a lot which has made us more interested in farming. Earlier, there was no water except the rainfall. ” Ramkumar of Katangi stated, “Before the intervention, production was very low. It only increased due to the efforts made by your organisation.” Dipak, a villager from of Kui-Ryt (control village for Dungariya) said, “In Dungariya, the improvement is much higher than that of our village which is due to activities on soil and water. However, we have also made some improvement mostly individual efforts and with some support by the government.”

7 E. Sensitivity to climatic shocks

Project Village Control Village

Figure 9. Percentage change in the crop productivity during the drought of 2012-13 (in comparison to the baseline value)

During this study period of 2008 to 2018, there was villages decreased, crop productivity in the project one major drought in 2012-13 that affected all the villages was higher than in the respective control villages. Overall, crops were badly affected. However, villages and the decline in productivity of some crops as is observed in Fig 9, while the productivity of less so. almost all the major crops in the project and control

Project Village Control Village

Figure 10. Percentage change in the crop productivity during extended dry spell followed by a flood in 2017-18 (in comparison to the baseline value) in Partala & Amdara and for Dungariya & Kui Ryt

The other climate extreme event happened only followed by a flood. In this situation, overall the crop in the area around Partala and Dungariya and its loss was greater in the control villages as compared respective control villages in 2017-18. It was an to the treated villages of Partala and Dungariya. extended dry spell during the monsoon season,

8 F. Household Water Availability G. Impact on Migration

Figure 11. Average reduction of time (per trip) for fetch- Figure 12. Average reduction in migration days per ing water per household household per annum

The time required for household water collection In all the eight villages, seasonal migration has has reduced for all villages since implementation of declined (Fig 12) as area under agriculture expanded government schemes during the intervening years. as well as the outreach of government schemes. The treated villages (Kareli and Dungariya) show Access to schemes is greater in some villages eg greater time reduction than their control villages; Paundi Mal, while it is far less in remote villages. In while in Paundi-Mal, the decline is more because of treated villages, the increase in area under double successful convergence of different government and and triple cropping provides work opportunities NGO projects that focused on improving household for a longer period within the village. Except for water security (Fig. 11). Partala, the other three treated villages show greater reduction in migration as compared to the control Time taken for water collection increased during the villages, including Paundi Mal (Fig. 10). However, on years of drought, as people had to fetch water from average, households in Partala migrated only for 22 distant sources. However, the average additional days in 2018 whereas in Amdara (control), it was 47 time required by people in project villages was less as days (114 % more days). compared to the corresponding control villages.

Respondents of Dungariya said, “Palayan (migration) has greatly reduced and is really good for the village. Earlier, very few households stayed in the village. Now, a lot of improvement is seen in education of the children, their health and that of family members.” One of the respondents of Katangi said, “See, now I can stay with my family. There is a lot of activity in the family where I can contribute, which is not possible when I stay outside. These are very important for the well-being of my family.” A women respondent of Dungairya said, “The Palayan (migration) is not good. There is a lot of other expenditure for staying outside the house, while the benefit is not that great”.

9 H. Cost-Benefit Analysis

The findings are as follows: • In all the eight villages, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is above 1 implying that the benefits have exceeded the costs. • Since, the BCR for all the 8 villages is higher than 1, it was assessed whether the NPV per household of project villages is higher than in the respective control villages and whether the SLM activities in Figure 13. Pair-wise Comparison of NPV (in INR) per these villages are economically more viable than household in the project and control villages that in the control villages. On this basis it was calculated at 8% discount rate found that Dungariya, Partala and Kareli have The cost-benefit analysis for the period from 2008-09 performed better than the respective control to 2018-19 was done for all the eight villages (Fig 13). villages at 8 percent discount rate. On the cost side, the cost of cultivation and of project • The NPV per household for Katangi is less than its implementation (apportioned for the mentioned control village i.e. Paundi-Mal. While Katangi has time period) is considered for project villages; while greater benefits from agriculture and reduction for control villages, only the cost of cultivation was of migration as compared to Paundi-Mal, the 3 considered . latter gains from greater access to water due The benefits accruing from agriculture (crop and to higher water-related public investments and fodder), reduction in migration and time saved for market linkages (Fig. 11). collection of water have been considered. A cost • Cost-benefit analysis with discount rates of5 benefit analysis with 8% discount rate, 5% and 3% percent and 3 percent show similar results for discount rate, respectively was performed. each of the project-control village comparisons. I. Climate Analysis Villages Climate Katangi Dungariya and Partala Kareli variables Annual rainfall 13.71.05 mm 1275.73 mm 1236.05 mm Rainfall trend (annual) Decreasing trend (1989-18) No trend (1989-18) Rainy years More years of deficit rainfall Trend in rainfall Decreasing trend: kharif and rabi Season Trend in temperature Increasing trend: annual, seasonal, steep slope in rabi season Annual temperature 32.16°C, 18.83°C 32.16°C, 18.83°C 31.88°C, 18.70°C (max. and min.) Temperature trend Increasing trend (annual, April, May and June, kharif and rabi seasons) Future rainfall Increase in annual rainfall; increasing trend of rainfall in July and decrease of rainfall in (2015-2040) trend September months; rabi-decreasing, kharif-increasing trend. Rainfall extremes (2015- Increasing trend in consecutive dry days and high intensity rainfall days 2040) Figure 14. Climate analysis of the study area Climate analysis of the study area shows that during the The impacts of unseasonal climate events (Figs.9 & 10) last 30 years, rainfall has been decreasing particularly indicate the necessity of building resilience of the farm- during the kharif and rabi seasons while overall the ing community to future climate risks by promoting ‘Cli- temperature is on the rise (Fig. 14). The temperature mate Resilient Agriculture’. Besides this, SLM structures projected for the near future (2015-2040) shows a and measures to increase biomass content so as to con- marked rise in the months of January to March as also a serve water, retain soil moisture, to address droughts as change in the rainfall pattern which is projected to have well as floods need to be adopted as climate adaptive an increase in number of dry days and days of intense measures. rainfall.

3 Inquiries revealed that soil conservation and water related investments by government have been broadly equally undertaken in all the 8 villages except in the case of Paundi Mal (control village) where more has been invested given its connectivity and proximity to a large market centre and 10 government offices 4. Findings and Discussion

Land degradation is an on-going process which However, guidance to farmers with emphasis significantly influences food, water, energy and on “sustainable adaptive / climate resilient livelihood security and other ecosystem services on agriculture” is essential. In this respect too, which we humans depend. Some key observations promotion of local agro-biodiversity may also from this study are as follows: be beneficial.

• While all of the 8 villages had received some • While the impacts observed in the study external soil conservation and water-related villages, even after 9 years since project investments from public funding (MGNREGS), closure, are encouraging, the findings highlight in 4 of these were villages (project villages), the importance of regular monitoring and WOTR worked intensely with the local repairs of the structures constructed5. This is communities, mobilising and organising them of particular importance in regions where soil is to implement in an integrated manner (from loose i.e. erosion prone, as in the study location. ridge-to-valley) watershed development4 . Moreover, in order to sustain the benefits of SLM practices and watershed development, • Overall, across most indicators, the project communities must have active local bodies and villages have performed much better than effective governance institutions, adequate control villages in respect to soil erosion knowledge of maintenance of structures as control, soil carbon detachment/accumulation, well as timely access to financial resources eg. land productivity, crop productivity, cropping MGNREGS6. intensity, household water availability and migration. • This community-led, holistic approach to regenerating landscapes along watershed lines • The NPV of benefits received per household has been the key differentiator of the changes in 3 of the 4 project villages is higher than and benefits experienced between the project in the respective control villages. Katangi and control villages. where NPV/ household is less than in the control village, Paundi Mal, records greater • Effective local institutional arrangements and benefits from agriculture and reduction in relationship building hold the key to attracting migration as compared to the latter, which has funds and resources as well as enhancing access to more water due to relatively higher sustainability of created assets. Vibrant local investments in this regard. institutions result in benefits accruing to the community over a longer period of time and • Economic valuation of only 3 selected ecosystem contribute significantly to reduced migration. services – crops, fodder and water - has been Paundi-Mal (control) is another example where conducted in this study. A comprehensive active and informed local bodies were able to economic valuation of all ecosystem services leverage their relationships and proximity to - carbon sequestration, grasses and forage, the market and government agencies to secure fishing, non-forest timber produce, etc. may resources into farm and water infrastructure reveal other benefits accruing from integrated which has benefited the community. watershed development and rehabilitating landscapes. • Some key elements that contributed to the success of watershed management in the • Weather-related hazards like drought and project villages are: participatory planning flood show lesser adverse impact on project along hydrological principles (ridge-to-valley), villages as compared to control villages. This development of inclusive and accountable outcome assumes significance given that local bodies and governance institutions, climate change projections indicate increasing community engagement and strengthening drought as well as intense rainfall events in bonds of solidarity, maintaining relationships the study area in the period 2015-40. This with resource providers and enablers scenario underscores the importance of timely (government, donors and NGOs), to avail of modifications of structures to cope with flood. benefits and entitlements, technically sound

4Interventions included soil and water conservation works, water harvesting structures, afforestation and sustainable and climate resilient agricultural practices. 5Such as CCTs, WATs, farm bunds, gabions, check-dams, forests, grasslands and woodlots, etc. 11 6Other sources being community contributions, grants or a mix of soft loans-cum-grant. implementation of appropriate soil and water • Give agency to and empower local communities conservation measures and SLM practices, so that they “own” the project. They must promotion of local agro-biodiversity, adoption lead the effort; external agencies serve as of improved agricultural practices and practice- facilitators and enablers. Build their capacities oriented capacity building. and skills, especially of the youth, so that they can implement and manage the project and • Going forward, however, given climate change, create for themselves livelihoods and income greater market penetration, rising aspirations, opportunities. the need to maintain ecosystem health and build resilience to climate and market • Make repairs and maintenance of created induced shocks, there is need to promote assets a priority. Put in place a system to ensure local biodiversity, climate resilient sustainable that this is on the work agenda of PRIs/ related agricultural practices7, Water Stewardship departments/ agencies and regularly monitor and Water Budgeting Practices8 , Food and progress in this regard for at least 15-20 years Nutrition Security9 , Health, Sanitation and after project completion. Hygiene10 and greater market integration with development of local value chains that return greater value to farmers and producers so that 6. Conclusion farm and related incomes are substantially raised. These aspects must be included in There is need to rapidly upscale and implement watershed management and SLM projects so community-led, integrated and holistic watershed that sustainability is enhanced and significant management programs across the vast expanses of benefits over the long term accrue to families India where land degradation is a growing problem. and communities. Such an approach will help restore land resources and ecosystems and improve the quality of life of their inhabitants, both human and biotic, as demonstrated 5. Recommendations above. When the ecosystem provides services that meet the basic needs of local inhabitants such as • Increase public investments in regenerating, livelihoods (agriculture in this case), food and water, developing and managing watersheds in an their stress is reduced and people prefer to work integrated and holistic manner following nearer home rather than migrate under conditions of hydrological principles (from ridge-to-valley) distress in search of sustenance.

• Include components that enhance local India, like most of the countries of the world is biodiversity, create viable livelihoods and presently in crisis lockdown due to the COVID-19 promote better market access and local value pandemic. This has had a serious impact on livelihood, chains to raise farm incomes. employment, income and well-being of millions of rural poor and economic migrants who have returned • Focus on resource use and demand-side to their villages. Undertaking holistic and integrated management so that equitable access and watershed development that also addresses sustainability of resources is ensured - put in environmental, income and well-being needs, can place systems to increase the productivity help rehabilitate the millions of jobless rural poor of water and ensure that demand does by providing immediate gainful employment in the not exceed replenishable stocks; promote short-term through wage labour and in the longer agricultural practices that enhance soil health term, through increased environmental, agricultural and are nature-neutral. and allied productivity gains and monetary returns.

The residents in the project villages overall were pleased with the SLM interventions implemented. Motilal a gram panchayat member said, “These types of works helped to reduce poverty to a great extent. However, we need your organisation to continue to work in our village again so that we villagers can further improve.”

7Also known as ‘adaptive sustainable agriculture’, it includes nature-friendly practices such as low/ no tillage, cover crops, diversified cropping pattern, crop rotation, use of good quality indigenous seeds as well as biological, botanical and organic fertilisers and plant protection measures, factoring weather forecasts in farm decisions, etc. 8These refer to initiatives and methods developed, adapted and used by WOTR whereby communities are trained to calculate the amount of net water available to them (surface and groundwater) given forecast or actual rain received, local conditions and water requirements/ demand (domestic, agricultural, ecological and livelihoods).On this basis they determine the cropping pattern to be adopted, water use/ allocation, access and governance rules as well as measures to be undertaken to augment water supply, bridge the deficit, if any, and enhance water use productivity. 9This is necessary because once agricultural productivity increases usually due to increased water and soil moisture availability, farmers convert to non-food cash crops and mono-crops which often adversely affects household food and nutrition security. Hence particular attention needs to be paid 12 so that nutrition doesn’t become a casualty of agricultural productivity gains. 10This is especially needed nowadays to reduce the growing risks of epidemics, pandemics, individual and public health emergencies. References

IPBES, 2008. The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration. Montanarella, L., Scholes, R., and Brainich, A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. https://www.ipbes.net/assessment-reports/ ldr#spm (accessed 25 June 2019). Le Q.B., Nkonya, E., Mirzabaev, A., 2014. Biomass productivity-based mapping of global land degradation hotspots, ZEF Discussion Paper on Development Policy No. 193, Centre for Development Research, University of Bonn. SAC (Space Application Centre), 2016. Desertification and land degradation Atlas of India (based on IRS AWiFS data of 2011–13 and 2003–05). ISRO, Ahmedabad, India, Ahmedabad. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), 2016. Vol I: Macroeconomic assessment of the costs of land degradation in India. Economics of desertification, land degradation and drought in India. Prepared for Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change New Delhi. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), 2019. World leaders call for global action to restore degraded land. https://www.unccd.int/news-events/world-leaders-call-global- action-restore-degraded-land (Accessed on 15 November 2019). United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2011. Madhya Pradesh Economic and Human Development Indicators. https://www.undp.org/content/dam/india/docs/madhyapradesh_ factsheet.pdf (Accessed on 15 November 2019).

13 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

We are very grateful for the financial and organizational support of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and the German Government. We also would like to thank: • Mark Schauer, Secretariat Coordinator, ELD Secretariat and his colleagues, and Richard Thomas of ICARDA • The people of Dungariya, Partala, Katangi, Kareli, Kui-Ryt, Amdara, Paundi Mal and Sihora villages and their Gram Panchayats for their wholehearted cooperation • The field enumerators of this study • WOTR colleagues - Crispino Lobo (Managing Trustee), Prakash Keskar (Executive Director), Sandip Jadhav, Harish Daware, Late Priyank Joshi, Ajay Shelke, Vandana Salvi, Nitin Kumbhar, Ujjval Pamnani, Prithviraj Gaikwad, Yogesh Shinde, Dipak Zade, Arpan Golechha, Upasana Koli, Nikhil Nikam, Sandeep Sonawane, Romit Banerjee, Lalit kumar Nirmalkar, Mithilesh Padwar, Mithailal Singrore, Shubham Patwa, Devendra Vishwakarma, Sahdev Rajput. • Mr. Rajendra Swami and Mr. Subidh Verma (PRADAN) for the data on Partala village • Revenue and Land Reforms Department of Madhya Pradesh

About WOTR The Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR) is a not-for-profit NGO, founded in 1993, operating currently in eight Indian states – , Telengana, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Orissa, and Bihar. WOTR is recognized widely as a premier institution in the field of participatory Watershed Development and Climate Change Adaptation. Its unique strength lies in its ‘on-field’ experience and in a systemic, participatory approach. The WOTR Centre for Resilience Studies (W-CreS) aims to provide evidence based responses to mitigate the impacts of climate change on ecosystems, water resources, agriculture, food and nutrition, health, livelihoods, gender, governance and local institutions. The Centre conducts inter and trans-disciplinary research to contribute grounded insights and learnings towards policy formulation, programme design and implementation, capacity building as well as behavioural change processes.

About ELD The Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Initiative works at the science-policy interface, bringing a large global network of scientists, academics, business leaders, politicians, decision- makers and other relevant stakeholders together to identify solutions for land management. It mobilises different kinds of expertise ranging from ecosystem services to economics, stakeholder participation, communications and other topics related to land management and policy. The Initiative provides economic information on the benefits of sustainable land management to interested parties, capitalising on intellectual capital to promote better land management. Authors: Sourya Das*1, Vijayasekaran Duraisamy*1, Aradhana Yaduvanshi*1, Aditya Shinde*1, Ankita Yadav*1, Marcella D’Souza*1, Vijay Solanky*1, Yogendra Jatav*1, Rishu Garg*1, *1 WOTR Centre for resilience Studies (W-CReS) of Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR)

Consultant Purnamita Dasgupta*2 *2 Institute of Economic Growth (IEG), University of Delhi

Layout and Design: Vandana Salvi, WOTR

Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR) 2nd Floor, ‘The Forum’, Padmavati Corner, Pune Satara Road, Pune - 411009 Ph.: +91 20 24226211; Fax: +91 20 24213530; Email: [email protected]; Web: www.wotr.org