Watershed Development Programmes in : Present Scenario and Issues for Convergence

Sucharita Sen1 , Amita Shah2 and Animesh Kumar3

Gujarat Institute of Development Research Forum for Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue

1 Associate Professor, Center for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 2 Professor, Institute of Development Research, Ahmedabad 3 Research Fellow, Center for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables

List of Figures

Executive Summary

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Context 1.2 Departure from Sectoral Approach 1.3 Stock Taking: Imperatives for a Conceptual framework I. 4 Emerging Issues and Normative Framework 1.5 Methodology and Approach

Chapter 2: Locating Madhya Pradesh: Scope and Challenges for WDPs 2. 1 Resource Base 2.2 Regional Variations 2.3 Utilisation of Resource Base and Agricultural Performance 2.4 Some Aspects of Rural Livelihood 2.5 Natural Resource Degradation: 2.6 Augmentation and Supply of Drinking Water 2.7 Contextualising Watershed Development in MP: Scope and Challenges

Chapter 3: Coverage and Spatial Distribution 3.1 WDPs in M.P.: A Synoptic View 3.2 Spatial Distribution of WDPs 3.3 Complementarity and Prioritisation

Chapter 4: Performance of Watershed Programmes 4.1 Adaptation of Watershed Programmes in Madhya Pradesh a) Rajiv Gandhi Mission Watershed for Watershed Development b)Pani Roko Abhiyan 4.2 Aspects of Implementation of Watershed Projects in Madhya Pradesh 2 a) Limitations of Review of Assessment Studies b) Administration and Funding c) Environmental Sustainability d) Livelihood Enhancement: e) Equity f) Participation 4.4 Summing Up

Chapter 5: Watershed Programmes in District—A Sub-Regional Analysis 5.1 : A Profile 5.2 Spatial Spread of WDPs in Jhabua 5.3 Comparison of RGMWM and NWDPRA Projects 5.4 NGO Participation in Watershed Programmes 5.5 Alternative Models a) DANIDA NWDPRA Project (partnership between block agricultural office and Sampark b) Approach adopted by ASA, c) Case of Gramin Vikas Trust, Jhabua 5.6 Overall Impact: What do Secondary Data Tell? 5.7 Summing Up

Chapter 6: Summary and Major Findings 6.1 The Context 6.2 Scope and Coverage of WDPs in M. P. 6.3 Jhabua District: A Disaggregated Analysis 6.4 Implementation and Achievements 6.5 Emerging Issues and Future Directions:

List of Abbreviations

References

Appendices: Appendix 1 A note on Methodology of Prioritisation of Watershed Activities in Block Level used for Jhabua District

Appendix Tables

3 LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Land-Use Pattern: M. P. and (2002-03)

2.2: Agro-Climatic Regions

2.3: Forest Area in M.P. Districts

2.4: Number of Districts Affected by Drought

2.5: Some Key Indicators for Access to Land

2.6: Distribution of Persons below Poverty Line among Social Groups in Rural areas: M.P. and India

2.7: Indicators of Land Degradation (Per cent)

2.8 Share of Area under Districts covered by DPAP and IWDP (2001)

3.1: Area Treated under Different Watershed Programmes

3.2: Area Treated under RGMWM and NWDPRA across Districts

3.3: Districts with Higher Concentration of WDPs

3.4: Top and Bottom Ten Districts in terms of Area Coverage under NWDPRA and RGWM

3.5: Prioritisation of WDP coverage by RGMWM and NWDPRA

4.1: Comparison of Objectives of WDPs Undertaken by the MoRD and MoA

4.2: Evolution of Objectives of RGMWM

4.3: Institutional Structure Adopted for Rajiv Gandhi Mission for Watershed

Management

4.4: Phases of Financial Disbursement to PIA and Village Watershed Committee (VWC) from RGMWM State Office

4.5: Heads of Activities and Variability in Expenditures

4.6: Percentage of Sample Villages Reporting Dry Ground Water Sources in Pre- and Post-Watershed Periods

4.7: Changes in Extent and Intensity of Agricultural Land-use in Sample Watersheds in DPAP

4.8: Yield per Hectare of Major crops of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in Chanderi Nala, Khargaon district, 1998

4.9 : Disparity Ratios in Female Employment with Respect to Female Population

4.10: Comparative Representations of Social Groups in Village Watershed Committees vis-à-vis Their Shares in Population at the District Level

5.1: Comparison of M.P. and Jhabua: Some Indicators 4 5.2: Geographical Area) of WDPs under Department of Rural Development and Agriculture Taken up after 1995-96

5.3: Relative Importance of NWDPRA and RGMWM Projects across Blocks in Jhabua

5.4 Area taken up under WDP under RGMWM at Different Stages (1995-95 onwards)

5.5: Area taken up under WDPs at Different Stages under NWDPRA

5.6: Deviations of Rank between Deprivation Indices and Concentration of Watershed Work

5.7: Projects administered by RGMWM and Dept. of Agriculture— A Comparison

5.8: Comparison between RGMWM and NWDPRA— Some Aspects of Efficiency

5.9 Relative Importance of NGOs in DPAP (II/5-8) Watershed Work in Jhabua District

5.10: Relative Importance of GOs and NGOs in the Evolution of DPAP Project in Jhabua

5.11: Comparison of GOs and NGOs with respect to Financial and Physical Progress of DPAP 5 and DPAP 7 in Jhabua District (as on October, 2005)

5.12: ASA’a Multi-Faceted Activities in Jhabua

5.13: Land-use Pattern in Jhabua and Plains

5.14: Yield Levels in Jhabua and Nimar Plains

5.15: Cropping Pattern in the Jhabua and Nimar Plains (in decreasing importance of crops)

5 LIST OF FIGURES

2.1: Agro-Climatic Regions in MP

2.2: Indices of Food Grain Production

2.3: Water Level Fluctuation Map

3.1: Share of Watershed Area under Treatment by 10th Plan

3.2: Watershed Coverage in MP: Relative share of NWDPRA and RGMWM

4.1: Supporting Institutional Structures at the Micro-Watershed Level

4.2: Change in percentage of area under plough to total cultivable land in DPAP sample watersheds

4.3: Change in cropping intensity in DPAP sample watersheds

4.4: Relationship of changes in agricultural area extension and land use intensity

5.1: Percent deviation from normal rainfall: Jhabua 1991 – 2003

5.2: ASA’s Strategy

5.3: Spatial Concentration of Watershed Programmes in Jhabua

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It may be noted at the outset that the present review of watershed programmers in Madhya Pradesh is not an attempt to evaluate nor assess the impact of the large number of watershed projects that have been implemented in the state. Rather, this is more or less an exercise in stock taking and learning from the past. The idea is to look at the present status of watershed development in the state so as to be able move towards a vision of better convergence across developmental objectives (including equity), synergy between natural resource regeneration, administrative co- ordination, institutional coherence, and resource mobilization. It is in this larger context, the review focuses is on (a) spatial spread, prioritization, and complementarity across projects; (b) comparison across modes/ approaches and cross learning; and, (c) issues for future policies.

Importantly, the stock taking exercise has been carried out with a difference where the status of watershed development is being examined through the lenses of a normative framework that lays special emphasis on productivity, equity, sustainability, and democratic decentralization.

The review is based mainly on the existing studies, which in fact, are quite scanty. There is also a serious problem of availability of such studies as well as other information in the public domain. Nevertheless, we have tried to overcome these constraints, at least partly, by holding detailed discussions with a large number of key informants and also by visiting a few sites of selected watershed projects. The strength of the analysis therefore, lies more in terms of evolving a larger picture of watershed projects in the state, rather than in terms of presenting precise estimates or evidence, which is difficult given the paucity and asymmetric (in terms of coverage of WDPs across projects and regions) analyses as well as data-base in the public domain. In this context, the review may be considered as an important landmark for understanding watershed development in Madhya Pradesh.

2. Watershed Projects in Madhya Pradesh: Scope and Coverage

Madhya Pradesh, one of the constituents of the oft talked about Bimaru states has a number of characteristics that render it such a dubious distinction. Largely due to a low productivity in agriculture along with larger area under forest (almost 30 per cent) offering limited entitlements to the forest dwellers, the state had 37.2 per cent of its rural population living in poverty as against 26.1 percent at all-India level by the end of the 1990s.

In terms of agricultural development, to a large extent, a low vertical spread of irrigation is responsible for low cropping intensity, which is merely 103 per cent compared to 137 per cent for the country as a whole. Even the horizontal coverage (gross area irrigated to gross cropped area) of irrigation is extremely poor compared to the country as a whole (27 vis-à-vis 41 per cent). Consequently, 89 per cent of the districts in M.P. covering around 81 per cent of its area are dry lands. These districts make up 23 per cent of India’s 177 dry land districts and occupy 19 per cent of India’s dry area. Even if the irrigation potential from surface and groundwater sources were fully realised, over 55 per cent of the net sown area in the state would still remain dependent on uncertain rainfall. Thus development of dry land farming techniques is of utmost importance in the state.

Since the eastern districts have more forest land and greater water resources, and at the same time limited cultivable land, the region needs to be developed keeping in view of its core agro-ecological character, which is mainly based on plantations, 7 pastures, and forest conservation. On the other hand, the western districts with their main focus on crop cultivation have already exploited significant amount of groundwater.

However, the state can, in no uncertain terms, be considered a resource poor one. M.P. represents one of the states having rich and diverse agro-climatic conditions with rainfall decreasing from east to west, having a range of almost 1000mm. With large proportion of the region receiving medium to high rainfall and the land mass characterised by undulating topography, soil-water conservation under watershed projects may bring greater benefits as compared to situations with very low rainfall and plain topography. With one-third of its area covered by forests, much of which having suffered severe degradation, watershed development may assume a central place in management of forest resources in the state. A substantial proportion of cultivated land having been converted from erstwhile forest area, the natural productivity is fairly good in most parts of the region where poor, especially tribal communities, are located.

Further, a substantial part of the area constitutes upper catchments where checking soil-water erosion is important for sustaining and improving productivity of the soil.

Besides these, there are two other factors that may help watershed development in the state.

(i) Relatively low level of commercialisation of agriculture, especially with respect to use of chemical inputs. This may make it easy to promote sustainable farm practices through watershed programmes.

(ii) Noteworthy achievements in strengthening decentralised governance through reforms in the panchayati raj system.

It may, thus, be inferred that the problem in the state is not of resource availability per se, but that of management of the same. Recognising the potential the state of Madhya Pradesh has undertaken a major initiative by setting Rajiv Gnadhi Mission for Watershed Management (RGMWM), which has emerged as a single entity implementing the largest number of micro watershed projectsin the entire country. As per the Guidelines prepared by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) during 1994-95, 29 out of the 45 districts in the state were eligible for being covered under different projects viz; EAS, IWDP, and DPAP. Besides this, other major watershed projects being implemented in the state include National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Area (NWDPRA), River Valley Projects, and other donor agency supported schemes.

Apart from watershed projects, the state has already made a major headway through Jal-Aabhishek Abhiyan. The link between WDPs and Jal-Aabhishek Abhiyan needs to be strengthened. M.P. is also one of the high priority states for a number of centrally sponsored schemes that focus on enhancing agricultural productivity and reducing resource degradation. This opens up a huge opportunity for convergence not only across different watershed projects, but other initiatives in the field of natural resource development and livelihood enhancement at state, district and sub-district levels.

By now about five million hectares of land have been covered under the three major projects viz; RGMWM, NWDPRA, and RVP. Though, there is no systematic data base for coverage of different WDPs in the state, the available information indicates that RGMWM is the single largest contributor accounting for nearly 66 per cent of the area covered by the three projects. This is followed by NWDPRA (20 per cent) and then by RVP (14 per cent).

8 3. Spatial Distribution: Complementarity and Prioritisation

The three projects viz. RGMWM, NWDPRA, and RVP have been, by and large, implemented in a manner that avoids duplication of efforts, each one of them catering to specific areas on priority basis. However, it is likely that there is not much of synergy between various programmes because first, the projects are being planned within the context of departmental priorities; and secondly, the unit for planning is generally milli and/or micro watershed rather than a stream or river basin. In absence of synergy, the actual achievements of the programmes may have remained sub-optimal, notwithstanding the effective implementation of the micro/milli-watershed projects.

WDPs under RGMWM have been concentrated mainly in twelve districts — Bhind, Chhindwara, , Jhabua, Khargaon, , Raysen, Satna, Shahdol, Sheoni, Shivapuri and Sidhi. NWDPRA, on the other hand, is concentrated in eleven districts — Betul, Chhindwara, Guna, , , Jhabua, Khargaon, , Mandasaur, Satna, and Shajapu. This suggests complementarity between the two major programmes for which areas have been broadly demarcated.

The two projects together cover 19 out of the 26 districts identified as those ‘deserving’ priority when viewed in terms of bio-physical as well as socio- economic criteria (including irrigation). This suggests that the prioritization (laid down in the guidelines, explicitly or implicitly) has been by and large adhered to at least at the level of districts. A more disaggregated analysis of blocks within Jhabua district also by and large confirms the pattern. It is however, imperative to examine the reasons for the neglect of seven districts so as to be able to make necessary corrections at the stage of planning as well as implementation. The seven districts are: Betul, Shajapur, Guna, Vidisha, Chhatarpur, Damoh, Khandawa, and Shajapur.

Overall, therefore, the spatial distribution of WDPs under RGMWM and NWDPRA suggests that (a) there is complementarity in coverage of districts between the two major projects; and (b) there is a fair amount of correspondence between economic deprivation and concentration of watershed treatment.

To make the various watershed projects work in consonance with each other and at the same time contribute to the norms of prioritization as well as sequencing, based on multiple-criteria, it is essential that information below district level be made available in the public domain.

4. Approaches and Achievements: Comparison of RGMWM and NWDPRA Approaches: A cursory review of the Tenth Plan and its constituent annual plans of the state reveals that the watershed programme figures much more prominently in the plans of the Department of Rural Development under the RGMWM than in the plans of the Department of Agriculture. An attempt is made to look at the nature of evolution of the programmes run under the MoRD from 1995 by comparing the stated objectives as provided in the different guidelines and try to contextualise this vis-à-vis the NWDPRA guidelines of 2000.

Though in spirit the watershed programmes undertaken by different ministries have sustaining livelihoods of the poor as an objective, from the 2001 guidelines, equitable distribution of benefits from land and water management activities do not appear as explicitly stated core objective. 9 The objectives of RGMWM are in conformity with the central government guidelines for both the Ninth and the Tenth Plans. The Mission’s articulation of the need to maximise people’s participation stems from the explicit purpose of making the scheme more effective and transparent. The key difference in the evolution of the central government and the Mission’s thrusts is that while the former dilutes the equity principles in some sense over time, the Mission strengthens the same.

The Mission suggests demarcation of three zones within each milli-watershed: the recharge zone, the transition zone, and the discharge zone. The first zone with high gradients and greater susceptibility to soil has been identified as the zone requiring the most intensive treatment. There is thus an inbuilt principle of prioritisation within the milli-watershed in the Mission document of 1995, at least with respect to the intensity of work to be done.

Some of the more recent changes (post-2002) undertaken either directly or indirectly under the institutional structure of RGMWM have attempted to incorporate new aspects that minimise weaknesses and make missing elements good. An element of convergence has been brought about by bringing 18 districts — the districts that have received funds earmarked for the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) — of the state into the fold of the watershed programme. Although major differences have come to the fore as a result of the convergence of funds, it has enabled the state government to sidestep the Hariyali Guidelines. The MP government has appointed NGOs as PIAs and allocated Rs.8000/- per hectare for the programme as against Rs. 6500/- allowed under the provisions of the Hariyali guidelines.

Pani Roko Abhiyan is a water-conservation and harvesting movement that was initiated after the widespread kharif drought in 2001. This movement was undertaken by the RGMWM in all non-watershed villages so as to reduce the gap between immediate needs and the pace at which watershed projects can reach out all the areas even within the priority districts/blocks. This is important from the view of convergence provided, there is a perspective planning and continuity between Pani Roko Abhiyan and WDPs.

Achievements:

The major benefits (as reflected through various evaluation studies conducted externally as well as in-house) of the implementation of watershed programmes in the state can be summarised in terms of: Increased availability of water through water harvesting structures and enhanced crop survival during mild drought. Significant awareness for harvesting and conserving water, inducing private initiatives. Positive demonstration effect of the relatively more successful and sustaining WDPs. Given the hilly and undulating terrain, the watershed structures have by and large yielded substantial benefits to about 8-10 farmers per structure. The benefits have resulted in increase in number of waterings, increased cropping intensity, and change in cropping pattern in favour of more water intensive crops.

Limited Impact:

Participation of the local community in the watershed projects in the state is generally weak and has undermined the objective of equitable distribution of 10 benefits of the project. Like other states, there are some success stories, but these efforts have not been scaled-up adequately

Broadly speaking, the findings are in conformity with the general perception that while the GOs have done better in terms of watershed works, the NGOs have been more successful in terms of community organisation. This provides a scope to look into GO-NGO partnerships in future, both within and outside the Hariyali framework, since each has its own area of core competence and the two are to a large extent complementary.

Another important gap is the lack of co-ordination between the forest and the revenue department on the issue of treating the forest area within the watershed. This hampers the efficacy of watershed projects especially if the upper catchments remain untreated or degraded.

The rich and diverse experience from various watershed projects in Jhabua leads one to expect certain tangible impact at district level. We have tried to ascertain this in the light of the changes that have taken place in the indicators like area under crops, yield, and cropping pattern. Based on the secondary data, the analysis tries to examine the changes in a comparative framework where the scenario in Jhabua is compared with two other districts viz; and Khargaon belonging to the same Agro-Ecological Region, i.e., Nimar Plains. However, while Jhabua has a WDP coverage of almost 40 per cent, the Nimar Plains have about 10 per cent coverage, making them a suitable case for comparison across space and time. It is observed that from 1994-6 to 2000-1, the proportion of net sown to geographical area had declined marginally in all three districts. Similarly, cropping intensity had undergone a decline in all three districts. What is however, noteworthy is that the decline in cropping intensity was steepest, with the lowest level in Jhabua. With respect to crop yield, the picture is somewhat similar

What is however, interesting is the change in cropping-pattern. It is observed that whereas Khargaon has registered an increase in the area under crops like cotton, oilseeds, and soyabeans, the crops that have gained in terms of area in Jhabua are subsistence crops.

5. Emerging Issues and Future Directions:

The experiences suggest that whereas there is increasing awareness and interest among peoples in WDPs, the project by and large suffers from clear result orientation. At this juncture when the Rural Employment Guarantee Act is already in place, and WDPs is one of the most important thrust areas for the activities to be planned under the employment programme, it is essential that the lessons learnt from the past experience be incorporated in future planning. Following issues need special attention in this context: Adopting a holistic approach by coordinating various watershed programmes taking a larger watershed unit, and multi-layer units within that for evolving a perspective planning. Putting information about treated and planned micro watersheds in public domain so as to help enhancing transparency in planning and implementation. Link with RVP and Forest watersheds should be established keeping the upstream-down stream perspective in place. Setting up priority of treating CPLRs including the degraded forestland within a micro watershed as an important pre-condition for undertaking the WDP- implementation. 11 PIAs may not immediately withdraw after completion of the project. There is a need to dovetail other programmes where the NGOs/PIAs could continue their interaction with the village communities, especially in order to hand hold the community based organisations created under the project. The scope for creating larger water harvesting structures or regenerating degraded forest/other land could be linked with minor irrigation and forest department respectively; same may apply for schemes for providing drinking water in the WDP villages.

A multi-stakeholder platform may help identifying and addressing conceptual as well as practical issues such as these. While there a couple of networks of WDP- parishioners, these networks need to be strengthened and represented in the state level coordinating committee as part of the process of broadening its base.

12 Chapter 1 Over the past one-and-a-half decade, the programme has moved very rapidly in terms of conceptual refinement and scope and achieved a number of multiple and fairly complex objectives. A large volume of practical experiences in implementing WDPs is already available (Shiferaw and Ade, 2003). From the margins of rural development practice and a limited focus on soil and water conservation, the concept of Introduction integrated watershed development and management has emerged today as the cornerstone of rural development in the dry and semi-arid 1.1 Context regions of India. What began as a set of diverse and isolated experiments in The disparity in agriculture that existed Sukhomajri, Ralegaon Siddhi and the between predominantly irrigated areas Operations Research Project of the and rainfed/ dry land areas, especially Indian Council for Agricultural in the post-Green Revolution era, Research (ICAR), was stemmed from the fact that the latter institutionalised initially in the form of have been neglected both in terms of the National Watershed Development policy interventions and allocation of Programme for Rainfed Areas funds, notwithstanding the repeated (NWDPRA) in 1990. Following the pleas for attaining greater regional Hanumantha Rao Committee’s review balance thorough planned economic in 1994 and the formulation of development. Common Guidelines, the period 1995- 2001 saw the implementation of the A major policy response to address the first generation projects under these issues of rain-fed/dry land agriculture, guidelines on a very wide scale. More which covers nearly two-thirds of importantly, it is now acknowledged cultivated land in the country, came in that integrated watershed the early nineties in the form of development must be the core Watershed Development Programmes strategy for stabilising rural livelihoods (WDPs). Besides cropland, pastures in dry and semi-arid regions. and forests are important constituents of various agro-ecological systems in the country. They play a critical role in supporting livelihoods of rural 1.2 Departure from Sectoral communities, particularly in rain-fed Approach and dry land regions. WDPs essentially seek to integrate these Rural development programmes in basic activities within a farming India had adopted the sectoral system by reviving and strengthening approach until the advent of the the symbiotic relationship between watershed approach. Under the land, water, and vegetation. sectoral approach, plans and policies Integration thus becomes a core are separately formulated for each concept, which distinguishes WDPs target area. Sector-based from several other natural resource- programmes have, for example, soil based development programmes and moisture conservation (Shah, 1998b). Another special feature programmes for environment; of the programme is that it is multi- intensive area development functional and its important outcomes programmes for agriculture, and viz., productivity, sustainability, and employment guarantee schemes for equity, are interconnected. livelihood sustenance. The watershed approach marks a major departure from such an approach in that it draws 13 its strength from the assumption that achieved under the watershed there is a systemic relationship approach. between environment, production and livelihood sustenance. The two differ in By 2005, major watershed three major aspects. First, since the programmes under the Ministry of possible linkages between the three Agriculture and the Ministry of Rural issues are neither explicitly nor Development, Government of India implicitly considered in the sectoral had invested approximately Rs. 180 approach, the programmes based on it billion and covered nearly 45 million are characterised by duplication of hectares of land in different parts of efforts and lack of coordination. The the country characterised by deserts second difference emanates from the and drought-prone areas, first; while the watershed approach predominance of wastelands and a low takes the geo-hydrological unit of a potential for rain-fed agriculture. watershed as the functional unit, the second takes administrative Implementation of numerous WDPs boundaries (often blocks or districts) has left a rich experience in its wake. as the unit of operation. A third There has been a variety of learnings difference, i.e., the difference in their from its mixed bag of successes and spatial focus manifests itself in the failures. A number of studies have mode of implementation of these two tried to summarise and synthesise approaches. Most of the public funding experiences and outcomes of was channelised to the irrigated areas watershed programmes from different 1 While the in the second phase (sectoral parts of the country (Kerr, 2002; Joy Ministry of approach) due to the emphasis on and Paranjape, 2004; Shah, 1998a; Agriculture production enhancement in these Deshpande and Narayanmoorty, focuses primarily on cultivated and areas. The semi-arid rainfed regions 1999). The recent report of the thus owned land received comparatively much less Parthasarathy Committee, ‘From in their public funding through sporadic Hariyali to Neeranchal’ (GoI, 2006) is watershed implementation of employment built on this vast and varied experience projects, the Ministry of Rural guarantee schemes and soil and and sets the stage for the next phase Development moisture conservation schemes. With of watershed development in India. gives importance the watershed approach, the The first phase saw the beginning of to wasteland and imbalance of public spending was new conceptualisation, setting up of common land. The Ministry of somewhat corrected as the funding for implementing mechanisms, and Environment and environmental activities, production resolving teething troubles. The Forests primarily increase and livelihood sustenance second phase was the time for treats the area was pooled and systematised under consolidation of experiences and coming under the jurisdiction of the one head of watershed programmes. smoothening of the path ahead. The Forest These programmes are currently third and the present phase marks a Department. concentrated in the rainfed areas, in beginning of the realisation for principle the same approach could convergence of objectives and focal 2The size of a micro-watershed probably equally be applicable in areas; programmes; and organisations ranges between irrigated areas. and agencies involved at different 500 to 1000 stages of watershed development. hectares. Though theoretically the watershed Experience shows that in approach appears to be a sound The process of convergence requires many cases, for option, there are operational creating a larger picture so that the the sake of difficulties; it is still implemented by nature, magnitude, and administrative three different ministries in the interconnectedness of the issues and simplicity, this is taken to be Government of India, i.e., the Ministry solutions — many of them may go 2 coterminous with of Agriculture, the Ministry of Rural beyond the scope of micro- or mili- the village Development and the Ministry of watershed 3 projects — may be gauged. boundaries. Environment and Forests, which retain Some of the important concerns in this 3The size of a their respective sectoral domains in context are: terms of the focus of their operation 1 . mili-watershed Prioritisation within the broadly ranges from Multiple departmental handling of earmarked areas for each 5,000 to 10,000 watershed projects is a hindrance to hectares. programme integration that is meant to be 14 Upstream-downstream dynamics 1.3 Stock Taking: Imperatives for a Conceptual Framework Impact on water balance and ground water profile Over the past decade a number of Promotion of sustainable farming studies have been conducted which practices have examined the impact of various watershed projects in the country. Equitable sharing of benefits, Most of these studies have been cross-subsidisation, and cost- undertaken as a part of the sharing or future investments monitoring/evaluation exercises, Sustainability of watershed mainly at the instance of funding treatments and institutions agencies, both governmental as well as non-governmental. There are also Upward linkages with markets on a number of independent studies of better terms watershed projects funded by different agencies that attempt to capture their Creating a larger picture of watershed impact and link up with the larger development involves a number of issues of productivity and livelihood, activities: preparing a data-base, equity, decentralisation, and resource reviewing various experiences, as well as institutional sustainability understanding administrative (Shah, 1998a; Kerr, Pangare, and problems, exploring alternative Pangare, 2002; Joy and Paranjape, institutional mechanisms, and creating 2004). The independent studies, multi-stakeholder platforms for despite being rich in content and exchange of information, experiences, analytical in approach, do not help and policy feedback. It is towards this create a larger picture of what has larger goal, that the Forum for been actually achieved by numerous Watershed Research and Policy watershed projects in different parts of Dialogue (ForWaRD4 ) has undertaken the country. A mosaic fails to emerge initiatives in , Madhya from these studies because first, there Pradesh, and Karnataka. The present are a number of methodological paper is a part of the larger set of difficulties in gauging the actual studies undertaken by ForWaRD. impact of WDPs (Dar, 2003); and secondly, proper base-line data — The present study aims at preparing essential for a fairly robust, if not an overview of the various watershed scientifically most accurate, programmes in Madhya Pradesh. It assessment of the outcomes — are not will have a comprehensive analysis available. There is, of course, an covering different typologies of additional difficulty arising from the watershed projects which may help fact that watershed development is a bridging critical gaps in developing a continuous process, rather than a holistic understanding of watershed time-bound project with a well-defined development in the state (Shah, 2005). set of activities and clearly earmarked 4 ForWaRD is a Besides collating major findings from funds. consortium of the already existing literature covering three specific projects in different areas of Notwithstanding these limitations, the organisations — Society for the state, the study seeks to address studies suggest that: (a) a large Promoting the concerns about convergence as number of water harvesting structures Participative noted above. The idea is to go beyond have been created which have Eco-system stocktaking and highlight some of the enhanced irrigated area and, at times, Management (SOPPECOM), new challenges that are likely to helped in crop survival during Gujarat Institute assume critical importance while extended dry spells; and (b) the of Development scaling up. The aim is also enhance project has provided an impetus for Research effectiveness of the programmes by setting up local institutions as a result (GIDR), and Centre for attaining better convergence. of participatory processes built into Interdisciplinary the programme though, its impact on Studies in maintenance of structures and Environment and benefit-sharing is yet to be realised. Development (CISED). 15 The studies also highlight the fact that assess the impact of participatory apart from irrigation-induced approaches. A recent study of project improvement in productivity and net implementation under MoRD returns, there is a limited impact on suggested that a lack of sustainable livelihoods among the poor implementation capacity was the and on environmental regeneration. As major reason for poor performance of a result, watershed projects already the project. However, training alone implemented or in the process of might not be adequate to overcome implementation, are characterised by the insufficiency as the incentives to certain critical missing links, for participate in training may be weak instance, regeneration of CPRs and (Farrington, Turton, and James, degraded forest in a large number of 1999). What causes concern is that watershed projects (Shah, 1998b). such limitations arise even in the What is a matter of greater concern is cases where the project that in most cases the environmental implementation has been fairly impact is captured only through participatory. The need therefore is to indirect measures (Chopra, 1999). understand the dynamics of three Even if environmental regeneration inter-related aspects as has been takes place, the requisite mechanism attempted more recently by Reddy for ensuring that the additional and Soussan (2003) and Shah (2004). resource, e.g., water for irrigation is distributed evenly and used efficiently, is seldom present. Since the conventional impact assessment 1. 4 Emerging Issues and focuses mainly on benefit-cost ratio at Normative Framework a village or micro-watershed level, it does not capture these issues despite The existing literature raises certain the fact that the Ministry of Rural important issues that need careful Development (MoRD) as well as the probing. First, the composition of Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), having watershed treatments, covering both recently adopted the participatory public as well as private land, needs a approach for watershed development, closer look before the economic as consider efficiency in use and equity in well as environmental impact of the distribution particularly relevant for projects are assessed. To the extent impact assessment. that the choice of treatments is governed by the structure of Overall, it appears that though the economic incentives, a large part of existing studies do bring out some the common property resources positive effects of various watershed (CPRs) is likely to receive a lower projects, the findings are not priority. First, ensuring better conclusive. Based on a brief review of coverage of treatments like pasture evidence from the first batch of development, plantation on degraded watershed projects under the MoRD, lands, drainage line treatment, Rao (2000) noted that “from all these renovation of village tanks, and evaluations, one does not get a direct community based drinking water indication of soil conserved through facilities may need a carefully worked watershed development — and that it out incentive structure. In addition, would be useful to develop indicators administrative difficulties will have to and methodologies to capture be addressed to improve effective separately the improvement in soil access to the CPRs. status” (p. 3945). Similar observations could also be made about the impact The second aspect relates to sharing in terms of sustainability of (a) of benefits not only across villages productivity gains and their distribution and communities but also among across regions and households; and landed households within a micro- (b) participatory institutions to address watershed. It is quite likely that in the the missing links. successful projects with an overall favourable benefit-cost ratio Attempts have also been made to significant economic returns accrue 16 only to a handful of landed households performing projects. Partly the within the watershed community. This problem arises because the operation aspect needs probing; so does the is in the project mode, and partly impact in terms of reduced uncertainty because in the given time-frame for of yield in a large number of implementation and evaluation, not unirrigated farms. much has been learnt about the mechanism that can work beyond the Thirdly, benefit-sharing, especially in project mode in terms of funding, terms of irrigation water, is closely organisational support and monitoring. related to the technology of water conservation as well as its utilisation. The present review examines the While harvesting rainwater is experiences of the various watershed essential, to meet both economic and programmes in Madhya Pradesh and environmental objectives, the water brings to light the issues noted above harvesting structures have to be through the lens of a normative planned in the light of the geo- framework adopting three important hydrological factors that operate at the interconnected themes of level of river or sub-river basin. At sustainability, livelihoods, and equity present, some of these vital watershed through participatory principles. An treatments are planned and executed elaboration of the four issues of mainly at the micro-watershed level livelihoods, sustainability, equity and without taking into consideration their participation, as we understand them, being an integral part of the larger is given below (adopted from Joy and systems. If carried out in a haphazard Paranjape, 2004). manner, check dams and other treatments on the drainage line might The understanding of sustainability, in create distortions in the geo- our view, is limited to ‘environmental hydrological systems downstream. sustainability as mediated by human These issues are often overlooked in intervention’, and this is consistent the planned implementation as well as with our assumption about the monitoring of the watershed projects. primacy of the role of natural capital in supporting livelihoods. Thus, from this Further, apart from water and perspective, watershed development irrigation, some of the agronomic should focus on ‘conserving natural practices like mulching, inter-cropping, capital independent of all other forms trenching, adding manure and other of capital’. This would include vegetative measures need to be interventions that ensure sustenance emphasised in watershed projects of increased levels of productivity on since these practices in combination the basis of a well-maintained with efficient use of water can lead to a resource base. A possible conflict new farming system which could be may arise between the aims to economically as well as increase productivity by increasing environmentally sustainable and physical or financial capitals on one socially equitable. The need is to look hand and conserving the natural at the technological potential and the capital on the other. If it does, it will commensurate incentive structures for have to be resolved by the institutional these measures to promote structure adopted within the simultaneous adoption. This may framework of WDPs. The primacy warrant fresh thinking in terms of accorded to the natural capital would cross-subsidisation across both require that the productive planning of watershed treatments and households. the watershed be ‘done within the annual renewability limits’. In ‘bad This leads to the final issue of initiating years’ some transfers from the stock a process of negotiation within and of resources may be permitted to across micro watersheds. At present sustain livelihoods, with the the issues of effective participation, understanding that the stock would be sharing of costs and future replenished in the ‘good years’. management continue to remain elusive even in some of the better 17 Livelihood encompasses building It has been recognised that water is capabilities and assets to generate both a local and non-local resource activities to support a basis for living. (Joy and Paranjape, 2004). Modifying Some distinction has been made water regimes in any watershed between basic needs and livelihood irrespective of its size has basin-wide needs on the basis of whether they are implications. Since the current policies unmediated or imposed with relation to of watershed development production. In the normative concentrates on micro-watersheds, framework, natural capital is accorded their downstream impact appears as primacy over social, physical, human an externality which should be and financial capital in supporting considered as a systemic effect. From livelihood needs. The relationship this perspective, it is desirable that between natural capital and livelihood milli-watersheds be taken up for is not predictable — a decrease in the watershed development from the base of natural capital may not always highest lying upland to lowland, lead to an adverse livelihood status. conforming to the ridge to valley For example, a reduced natural principle (Joy et al, 2006). The resource base may induce a farmer to decision regarding the scale of adopt better cultivation management operations is extremely difficult to practices (Chadha, Sen, and Sharma, make since trade-offs are involved in 2004). Or, as is generally expected, a going from micro to meso and macro greater amount of production forced (micro-watershed to basin) between from smaller portion of land may lead managerial problems and capturing to ‘soil-mining’. off-site externalities.

Equity issues are intrinsically linked In our review, we see participation as with nature of participatory institutions a means to enable the local built within watershed interventions. community to make informed choices The principle of equity applies to wide and ensuring more equitable, ranging issues relating to access to sustainable and efficient outcomes. natural resources and sharing of gains, However, it is important to view and it requires one to take cognizance critically the constituents of local of the disabilities created by class, community that are engaged in the gender, caste, and ethnicity. Natural decision making process. Our resources that are not privately owned expectations are that homogenous have the potential to play a key role in societies would respond very reducing disparities across households differently to opportunities of within a watershed. While it is participation available within the desirable that the entire stock of framework of watershed programmes natural resources is shared equitably, as compared to heterogeneous the least that the participatory societies. Since, in their current form, institutions ought to ensure is that the the WDPs necessarily require incremental resources generated partnership in some form with outside through the interventions are shared agencies (governmental and non- fairly. While a democratically governmental organisations, constituted watershed institution international donors, etc.), the nature should be in a position to intervene in of this collaboration is bound to affect the issues regarding encroachment of the efficiency of the participatory CPRs for cultivation, or sharing of communities within the watersheds. In forest products, it may be difficult to do this context, the increased importance so in heterogonous societies ridden of the institutions of local self with class and/or caste conflicts. In government — panchayats— as brought relatively homogenous societies, like about by the Hariyali Guidelines in many tribal communities in Madhya 2003 is expected to change somewhat Pradesh, the participatory institutions the participatory dynamics. would have far greater potential to apply the principle of equity in many of the above-mentioned settings. 18 1.5 Methodology and Approach a case study of Jhabua district to our review to fill in some of the gaps. The main purpose of this study is to Jhabua was selected for the case review the experiences from various study for two reasons. First, the watershed programmes implemented watershed work in Jhabua district has during the past one-and-a-half decade been most extensive, the coverage in Madhya Pradesh with a specific being nearly 38 per cent of the total focus on convergence that cuts across geographical area of the district (as activities within a watershed project, against 12 per cent in the state as a various watershed programmes, and whole). This implies that the other developmental programmes investment in the district under the related to natural resource-based head of land development livelihood enhancement. The review programmes have been the highest emphasises three aspects viz., the per unit area. Secondly, probably due approach, the implementation to the above reason and also due to mechanisms and processes, and the the fact that the district has the outcomes 5 . It may be noted once highest concentration of tribal again, that the aim is not to evaluate population (as high as 86 per cent as the performance; rather the idea is to against 20 per cent in the state), much learn from the experiences and move more reference material is available towards convergence at various levels. on the district than what is available for rest of the state. While drawing The analysis is based on data conclusions for the state as a whole gathered mainly from existing on the basis of data available on literature (published as well as Jhabua is not warranted, we felt that 5 Since WDPs unpublished), discussions with key the availability of more material and are being implemented by informants (policy makers, the assessment based on it could numerous implementers, and other experts), and have implications and lessons for agencies, each a few field visits. Given the limitations other parts of the state. having its own of information and other material in the individual model to follow, they public domain, the review does not The database of this report has been are seen as just make any categorical statements (a) the collection of state-related and one more rural about the actual outcomes or impact of Jhabua-related documented material development different watershed programmes in the (reviews undertaken by Taru Leading programme implemented by state. Many of the observations and Edge and Centre for Advanced the same conclusions are indicative; they need Research and Development (CARD) departments/ to be discussed further in various fora. for the RGMWM, (b) interviews with agencies. As a Moreover, the review suffers from key persons which include officials in result, the importance of certain data gaps pertaining to the the Central Government (the Planning watershed coverage as well as other details on Commission, the Ministry of Rural approach as watershed programmes (e.g., no Development, and the Ministry of distinguished CAPART-supported projects have Agriculture), the State Government from the sectoral been studied). Since there was hardly (Departments of Panchayat and Rural approach is any information/material available Development, and Agriculture), undermined, (with reasonable amount of efforts), officials in different project partly or the review is somewhat tilted towards implementing agencies (covering a completely. This actually makes the watershed projects implemented cross-section of models), staff of non- a good case for by Rajiv Gandhi Mission for governmental organisations like using the Watershed Management (RGMWM), National Centre for Human guidelines of our which is the largest watershed Settlements and Environment normative approach to programme not only in the state, but (NCHSE), Action for Social review and also in the country. Advancement (ASA), Sampark, etc., validate the selected members of watershed rationale for The analysis in the report is development committees and convergence of these undertaken at two levels. First, we beneficiaries (again ensuring programmes in attempt to review the WDPs for the coverage of programmes by different comparing the state as a whole. Since the available agencies), and (c) preliminary field different models material is inadequate to develop a visits in Raisen, Sehore and Jhabua being followed in the state comprehensive review, we have added for a qualitative assessment of the 19 nature of implementation of the different agro-climatic situations in the projects. It may be noted here that state. Chapter 3 presents a bird’s eye- carrying out a systematic survey was view of various watershed not within the scope of our review. The programmes in the state, and review, as may be understood from the discusses the geographical spread in underlying approach, is expected to be the context of spatial prioritisation. broadly qualitative, and probably The next chapter presents the status would have no conclusive findings. of watershed projects in the state Nevertheless, since published material focusing on the three broad aspects available is extremely scant, even a viz.; policy approaches; processes/ skeletal status report would prepare a mechanisms for project base for a policy dialogue between implementation; and experiences from practitioners and policy makers. the point of view of productivity/ Finally, it is hoped that it would provide livelihood, sustainability, equity and some directions for future research in participation. Chapter 5 presents the this field. experience of Jhabua district as a case study and Chapter 6 summarises The analysis is divided into six the findings which could provide chapters including the introductory inputs in the policy formulation, one. This is followed by a brief project planning and monitoring description of the natural resource processes, and setting up of a new set endowment and livelihood scenarios in of institutional mechanisms for Madhya Pradesh so as to highlight the implementing and sustaining scope for watershed development in watershed based development as an evolving phenomenon.

20 Chapter 2 2. 1 Resource Base M.P. represents one of the natural resource-rich states in the country. Of the 14 major Indian river systems, M.P. encompasses the upper catchments of seven and the state is the source of all major river systems of . The proportion of area under plough (47.7 per cent of the geographical area) is almost the same as that of all-India average Locating Madhya Pradesh: Scope (46.0 per cent) while the proportion and Challenges for Watershed of culturable waste and long term Development Programmes fallow land in the state (5.8 per cent) is marginally lower than that of the country as a whole (7.8 per cent). Almost two-thirds of India’s cultivated Remarkably, forests constitute a land is farmed as dry-land. These fairly large proportion (28.1 per cent) areas suffer from low productivity, of the total reported area as their natural resources are subject to compared to 22.4 per cent at the all degradation, and their agriculture is India level (See Table 2.1, next vulnerable to risk and uncertainty page). (Joshi, et al., 2004). Madhya M.P., with its vast geographical area Pradesh constitutes a significant part has a highly diverse natural resource of the vast tracts of dry-lands. The base. The state receives an average topography and other agro-climatic annual rainfall of 1150 mm. Since it conditions in the state, however, offer is concentrated in the brief monsoon a fair opportunity for watershed season, most watercourses remain development. Setting up of the Rajiv dry from January to June. As a Gandhi Mission for Watershed result, water availability depends Management (RGMWM) as a special critically on the extent of water organisational arrangement is a storage from surface water capture pointer to the official recognition of or groundwater. the need as well as scope for watershed development in the state which otherwise has remained fairly subdued in terms its agricultural 2.2 Regional Variations growth and the associated poverty There are widespread regional reduction (Shah and Sah, 2004). variations within the state. The The section contextualises the state average rainfall decreases from east of M.P. with respect to the status of to west. The normal annual rainfall its natural resource base and the ranges from 1570 mm in Mandla of need as well as scope for policy the Chhattisgarh region in the east to interventions, especially within the 668 mm in Datia in the west-central framework of WDPs. Important grid. However, there are variations features of the state’s natural within the pattern. For instance, the resources – the endowment, their rainfall is highest in the westernmost status, the pattern of resource-use, district of Jhabua and lowest in the and its interface with rural livelihoods Bundalkhand region and Keymore — are examined which leads to the plateau. Table 2.2 and Figure 2.1 identification of some of the major provide the agro-climatic issues in watershed development in characteristics of the state in detail. the specific context of M.P.

21 Figures in ‘000 ha except in the M.P. India rows titled 8655 69407 “average land Forests holding” and (28.14) (22.66) “Concentration ratio” 3237 42828 Not available for cultivation (10.53) (13.98) Figures in parentheses 1585 10897 indicate the Permanent pastures and respective other grazing lands (5.15) (3.56) percentage of total reporting Land under miscellaneous. 20 3366 area tree groves (not included in NSA) (0.07) (1.10) Source: Directorate of 1201 13660 Culturable wasteland Economics and (3.91) (4.46) Statistics, Ministry of 575 10191 Agriculture Fallow land other than (2004) and current fallows (1.87) (3.33) Centre for 818 14799 Monitoring Indian Current fallows Economy (2005) (2.66) (4.83)

14664 141101 Net area sown (47.68) (46.07)

17870 187009 Gross area sown (58.10) (61.06)

Table 2.1: 30755 306249 Land-Use Total Reporting Area Pattern (100) (100) M. P. and Average land holding 2.6 1.4 India (2002-03) Concentration ratio 0.65 0.71

Region 1 Region 7 Region 2 Region 8 Region 3 Region 9 Region 4 Region 10 Region 5 Region 11 Region 6

Source:Madhya Pradesh, Department of Agriculture 22 Rainfall Normal Variability Rainfall (area Sl.. Agro-climatic Districts (area weighted) Climate Soils No. Region weighted) (Coefficient (in mm) of variation: in per cent) Medium 1 Jhabua Hills Jhabua 828 41.6 Semi-arid to deep black Indore, Dhar, Badwani, , Medium Ratlam, Dewas, 2 Plateau 916 28.2 Semi-arid to deep Mandsaur, black Neemach, Shajapur

Khargone, Medium 3 Nimar Plains 820 30.3 Semi-arid to deep Khandwa black Rajgarh, Shallow , Sehore, Dry, sub- to 4 Vindhya Plateau Vidisha, Guna, 1175 24.7 Humid Medium Raisen, Sagar, Black Damoh Harda, Central Narmada Hoshangabad, Dry, sub- Deep 5 1288 27.7 Valley Narsimhapur, Humid black Jabalpur Shallow Betul, Dry, sub- to 6 Satpura Plateau 1214 26.4 Chindwara Humid Medium Black , Bhind, Medium Morena 749 7 Grid Region 22.1 Semi-Arid Black Sheopur, Alluvial Shivpuri Panna, Satna, Sub- Medium 8 Keymore Plateau Seoni Umaria, 1306 20.7 Humid Black Katni, Chattarpur, Mixed Bundelkhand Dry, sub- 9 Datia, 978 21.7 red and Region humid Tikamgarh black Mandla, Northern Region of Sub- Red & 10 Dindori, 1306 23.1 Chhattisgarh humid yellow Shahdol, Sidhi Medium Moist, to deep 11 Chhattisgarh Plain Balaghat 1623 28.3 Sub- black humid and yellow

Table 2.2: Agro-Climatic Regions in M.P. Sources: 1. Department of Agriculture, Govt of Madhya Pradesh 2. Indian Meteorological Department

23 % Area under Agro-climatic Region Districts Forest Area Forest

Jhabua Hills Jhabua 130.4 19.3 Indore 52.2 13.6 Dhar 119.7 14.6 Ujjain 3.2 0.5 Malwa Plateau Ratlam 34.5 7.1 Dewas 205.7 29.4 Mandsaur 104.9 11.1 Shajapur 6.8 1.1 429.3 31.8 Nimar Plains Khandwa 511.6 45.7 Rajgarh 18.9 3.1 Bhopal 44.1 15.9 Sehore 172.8 26.3 Vidisha 105.7 14.5 Guna 152.0 13.8 Vindhya Plateau Raisen 333.4 39.3 Sagar 288.7 28.2 Damoh 267.0 36.6 Hoshangabad 357.2 35.7 Narsimhapur 136.3 26.5 Jabalpur 173.8 17.2 Betul 395.8 39.3 Satpura Plateau Chindwara 479.0 40.4 Gwalior 109.5 21.0 Bhind 8.9 2.0 Grid Region Morena 333.5 28.5 Shivpuri 330.5 32.5 Panna 299.4 42.6 Keymore Plateau Satna 203.5 27.4 Seoni 327.5 37.4 Rewa 67.0 10.7 Bundelkhand Region Chattarpur 214.3 24.8 Datia 20.9 10.5 Tikamgarh 66.7 13.2 Northern Region of Chhattisgarh Mandla 617.9 46.7 Shahdol 541.6 39.1 Sidhi 440.1 42.3 Chhattisgarh Plain Balaghat 505.6 54.7 Madhya Pradesh 8609.9 28.0 Table 2.3: Forest Area in M.P. Districts, 1997-98

Note: Refer to undivided districts in the state. Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt of MP 24 The relatively better rainfall profile government or to the rural poor. (compared to several other arid and However, even today, the farmers semi-arid regions in the country) who were given these tracts of land along with large forest areas and are prohibited from changing its undulating topography in large parts mode of land-use, and this norm acts of the state, prima facie, creates a as a dampener to taking up private favourable environment for forestry (GoMP, 1998). watershed development. As per the The National Forest Policy (1952) classification developed by Fan and reflected appreciation of the multiple Hazell (2000), three out of eleven benefits of forests. However, agro-climatic zones in M.P. belong to utilisation of forests for optimising high potential rain-fed region (which revenue continued to remain the corresponds to the Agro-climatic dominating aim for managing Zone No. 10 as classified by the country’s forests while ‘conservation’ ICAR while the remaining zones of forests was a relatively minor part belong to low potential rain-fed of forest development plan. This bias regions. is visible in the manner in which forest resources are classified by the state till date. Only 5.4 per cent of The state has a rich forest cover of the forest is presently classified as 8.6 million hectares (mha). The ‘protection forests’ for soil and water given geographical distribution of conservation work. more than 84 per the forest resources enhances the cent of the forest resources were regional diversity of the state ‘production forests’, further divided further. The eastern and south- into major and minor forests eastern districts of Balaghat and (GoM.P., 1998) 6 . Mandla have relatively extensive forest areas, while the districts in the western and northern regions 2.3 Utilisation of Resource Base are poor in forest cover (Table and Agricultural Performance 2.3). The distribution of forest resource in the state has a Though the state of M.P. enjoys a correspondence with availability of fairly rich natural resource base, it moisture from natural sources. has faired poorly in its utilisation. The During the late nineteenth century, cropping intensity of the state is only large-scale forest surveys were 122 per cent as compared to the all- undertaken to demarcate reserve India average of 133 per cent. To a forest areas. The first such large extent, a low vertical spread of demarcation in the country was irrigation is responsible for low made in the Central Provinces (M.P. cropping intensity, which is merely was formed by integrating Central 103 per cent compared to 137 per Provinces and the princely states of cent for the country as a whole. Even the region after independence) in the horizontal coverage (gross area 1865. These forests were irrigated to gross cropped area) of irrigation is extremely poor demarcated in remote areas to 6 Tree forests minimise disturbances to the local compared to the country as a whole are meant for population. In recognition of local (27 vis-à-vis 41 per cent). industrial and commercial rights, affected villages were settled Consequently, 89 per cent of the districts in M.P. covering around 81 wood, whereas outside the reserve forest areas. small timber and Negotiations were held with per cent of its area are dry lands as fuel wood is landlords for a majority of per the methodology used by Shah, allowed from et al; (1998). These districts make up minor forests. uncultivated tracts of land and they (The forest were recorded as dhar (forest) in the 23 per cent of India’s 177 dry land community is revenue records. These lands were districts and occupy 19 per cent of allowed to use India’s dry area. timber and fuel later either transferred to the state wood? 25 Due to the poor irrigation coverage the state remain dismal (Shankar, and lack of adequate development in 2005). Under the circumstances, dry dry land farming techniques, large crops with fairly low level of parts of the state are affected by productivity assume the centre droughts almost every year. Over the stage in agricultural production, and last sixteen years, the state has thereby in the income of a large remained unaffected by drought in proportion of rural communities. For only three years (Table 2.4). It may example, M.P. is the single largest be further noted that during the last contributor of soybean, gram, three decades in the districts of linseed, and maize to the country’s eastern M.P., the average rainfall pool. Whereas a number of states, was 10% lower than the average particularly those within the Indo- rainfall recorded prior to 1970 Gangetic plains have been moving (GoM.P., 2000). towards specialisation in water intensive crops like wheat and paddy, M.P. has remained much Looking at the two indicators viz. more diversified in terms of its average rainfall (which is medium to cropping pattern. Oilseeds and high in most parts of the state), and pulses figure prominently among the the variability over time and space state’s crops, whereas rice (a highly together, it becomes clear that the water demanding crop), which is the main issue is not so much adequacy most important crop at all-India of rainfall per se. Rather the issue is level, is only the fourth most more as of effective conservation important crop in the state. and utilisation of water, especially to take care of uncertainty about rainfall. Watershed programmes The poor irrigation facility has led to have a significant role to play in this much lower yield levels in M.P. context. compared to rest of the country. For instance, in food grains as a whole, M.P. is a poor performer (1114 kg/ In absence of interventions such as hectare compared with 1667 kg/ WDPs, the agricultural prospects in hectare for all-India for 2001-03 Table 2.4: Number of Year No. of Districts Affected Per cent of Districts Affected Districts Affected by 1991-92 23 47.9 Drought in 1992-93 4 8.3 M.P. 1994-95 4 8.3 1995-96 8 16.7 1996-97 5 10.4 35 1997-98 72.9 (affected by heavy rains) 1998-99 23 47.9 1999-00 10 20.8 2000-01 32 66.7 2001-02 06 12.5

Source: 2002-03 33 68.8 Department of Agriculture, 2004-05 20 41.7 Government of M.P. 2005-06 17 35.4 26 Figure 2.2: Indices of Foodgrain Production Indices of Foodgrain 130 Production 125 120 y = 7.3855Ln(x) + 95.295 2 115 R = 0.4666 110 s

r y = 8.3032Ln(x) + 89.625 a 105 2 e R = 0.3836 y 100 95 90 85 80 1990- 1991- 1992- 1993- 1994- 1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02* 03 04 Source: index Directorate of Economics and India MP Log. (MP) Log. (India) Statistics, Govt. of India triennium) and ranks fourth lowest increase in irrigated area after the among states. In dry crops, however, mid-eighties. In particular, there has the state performs far better. The not been much expansion of irrigated yield of coarse cereals for the state — area in the tribal districts of the 1257 kg/hectare for 2001-03 eastern region (GoM.P, 2000). triennium — is higher than all-India Whereas the expansion of irrigation average of 1180 kg/hectare for the facilities has aided areal expansion same period. of wheat, mustard and gram in the state, there has been a substantial reduction in area growing coarse The trend of food grain production in cereals. There has been one the state is characterised by higher exception, though, the area for instability, though it otherwise follows soyabean, a dry crop, which was the all-India trend closely (Figure introduced in the state in early 2.2). The production in rain-fed 1980s, has expanded rapidly and it agriculture is expected to follow the has become the most important crop rainfall fluctuations and M.P. is no in the state. exception in this regard. The productivity of irrigated crops The poor spread of irrigation in the has either declined or stagnated. state notwithstanding, the area under Productivity of rice has been irrigation has increased by more than declining in one of the major rice six times over the last five decades. producing districts of Balaghat while Most of this expansion has come that of wheat has generally after mid-eighties, unlike in the states stagnated during the nineties and with successful record of the green has even declined in some districts. revolution where it took place in the Gram is the only exception among sixties and seventies. While increase the irrigated crops whose in the irrigated area from canal water productivity has risen. (GoM.P., has only been moderate during this 2000). period, the rapid spread of irrigation after mid-eighties has been Notwithstanding the growing contributed primarily by minor importance of some of the irrigated irrigation sources, namely crops in the state, according to the groundwater and lift irrigation M.P. Human Development Report, schemes. This trend however, is 1998, even if the irrigation potential more prominent in the western parts from surface and groundwater of the state. The eastern districts sources was fully realised, over 55 per cent of the net sown area in the have witnessed only a modest 27 7 Usually land- state would still remain dependent the state, compared with 3 and 8 per ownership in rain-fed regions on uncertain rainfall. Thus cent of the country averages (Table is more equitable development of dryland farming 2.5). This pattern however reveals than in irrigated techniques is of utmost importance only partially the dynamics of ones. in the state. access to land in the state. M.P. is the only state where the percentage of area irrigated increases with the 2.4 Some Aspects of Rural farm-size (Chadha, Sen, and Livelihood Sharma, 2004). Thus, while in general, the degree of Access to land has a crucial bearing underutilisation of land tends to rise on rural livelihoods. One key feature with the increase in the farm-size, in of the rural poverty to emerge M.P., this relationship is reversed. consistently from household consumer expenditure surveys in the In M.P., opportunities of livelihood country is that the landless have the are subject to great regional highest incidence of poverty. Though variations, which cut across spatial the percentage of landless trends of distribution of natural households in M.P. was comparable resources. To a large extent, to the all-India average in 1971-72 poverty in M.P. follows the pattern of (around 9.5 per cent) it increased distribution of scheduled tribes. The much faster in the subsequent two southern belt of M.P., that include decades compared to the country as dry, hard-rock regions of Jhabua, a whole (Table 2.5). However, in the , and Dhar on one hand and category of households having the relatively wet forested areas of access to land, the distribution of Dindori, Mandla, and Shahdol on the land appears to be more equitable in other, are characterised by both high the state compared to the country as proportion of tribal population and a whole 7 . For example, the share of high incidence of poverty (FAO, area owned and operated by the 1998). This is due to the fact that bottom 50 per cent of the households scheduled tribe populations in India is 6 and 13 per cent respectively in suffer from various forms of human

Table 2.5: Indicators / Years M.P. India Some Key Indicators of Per cent of Landless Households Access to 1971-72 9.58 9.64 Land 1991-92 15.19 11.24 Share of Area Owned by the Bottom 50% Households 1971-72 7.98 3.86 1991-92 6.37 3.33 Share of Area Operated by the Bottom 50% Households 1971-72 14.57 11.74 1991-92 13.15 8.26

Share of ST in: 28.85 10.01 Rural Population (1991) 23.78 11.72 Land (1992)

Source: Adopted Share if Non SC/ST in from Chadha, Rural Population (1991) 56.28 72.08 Sen, and Sharma (2004) Land (1992) 63.28 77.94 28 deprivation other than the lack of material well being (see Table 2.6). While the tribal population accounts for only about 8 per cent of the total population, it constitutes 40 per cent Source: Radhakrishna and Ray, 2005, Table 3.4, of the displaced population (FAO, 8 Table 2.6: Distribution of Persons below 1998) . Poverty Line among Social Groups in Rural areas— M.P. and India

State / Year Social Groups (%) India ST SC Other All Madhya 1993-94 41.4 19.5 39.2 100.0 Pradesh 1999-2000 42.9 16.0 41.0 100.0 India 1993-94 14.8 27.6 57.6 100.0 1999-2000 17.5 27.3 55.2 100.0

By the end of the 1990s, the state 29 per cent respectively). This had 37.2 per cent of its rural indicates that probably both in terms population living in poverty. The of average size of land owned and poverty ratio however, had declined incidence of landlessness, ST marginally from 40.7 per cent during groups are more disadvantaged than 1993-94 (Radhakrishna and Ray, the general population of the state on 2005). During this period the relative the one hand and their counterparts rank of the state had improved vis-à- in the other states of India, on the vis other major states in the country other. (Dreze and Deaton, 2002). What is more important to note is the inter- Many districts characterised by a region disparity within the state. The high incidence of poverty witness estimates for poverty among the seasonal migration to other districts NSSO regions suggest that the and to neighbouring states. M.P. incidence of rural poverty (during Government reports suggest that 1993-94) ranged from 15 per cent in poverty has worsened in the regions Northern Region to 44.5 per cent in where natural resource degradation Central M.P. and 64.6 per cent in is high (GoM.P. 1998; 2000). The South Western region (Shah, 2005, broad issues regarding natural Table 3). To a large extent, these resource degradation need to be intra-state variations in rural poverty contextualised in the light of the could be attributed to the endowment interface between natural resource as well as use of natural resources in endowment as well as use and state. poverty scenarios across districts/ regions in the state (Shah, 2005, Both caste and ethnicity determine p.25). ownership of land and thus economic status. M.P. has a very high concentration of scheduled tribe 2.5 Natural Resource Degradation 8 M.P. has a population compared to other large large number of people, states of India. While the share of Rural livelihoods are crucially especially tribal land owned by the STs in India is interlinked with natural resources, population, who marginally higher than their share in and this relationship is probably have been more deep-rooted for the state of ousted from total population (12 and 9 per cent their homes and respectively), the proportion of land M.P. The dependence on technology villages owned by the same group is in the state is appreciably less as because land is evident from lower coverage of required for a substantially lower than their share in development total population in the state (24 and irrigation and chemical fertiliser use, project. 29 9 The Himalayan for instance. Thus, the deterioration infested with gullies and ravines — states like Uttaranchal and of quality and status of natural one-third of them classified as deep. Himachal resources arguably affect the welfare Large areas of degraded land in the Pradesh and all of rural population more acutely than catchment areas cause substantial northeastern in most other states. Also, the siltation of reservoirs, watercourses, states, are exposed to high linkages between the three natural and irrigation canals. incidence of resources of land, water and forest Rain-fed conditions and associated degradation due are more explicitly visible in the to high slopes, low productivity place unnecessary state. snow cover, and pressure on land. In the state, the rocky outcrops. The share of wasteland in the total net area sown has increased by geographical area in the state is only more than 25 per cent since the marginally higher than the all-India mid-fifties. This has come at the average (Table 2.7). However, other cost of encroachment on common states that have a higher share of property resources (CPRs). The wasteland compared to the country area under CPRs has come down average are located either in the by 40 per cent adversely affecting Himalayan Region9 or in the Thar the rural poor and increasing desert, and are exposed to severer pressure on forests (GoMP., 2000). natural processes of degradation. In According to the NRSA estimates in M.P., man-made degradation is 2005, more than 7 per cent of area much higher compared to the under agriculture is on notified forest country as a whole. For example, the area. Further, they also estimate single major component of that the rest of the forested area in wasteland in the state is uncultivated the state is dominated by scrubs. wasteland with scrub (47 per cent of Though the data generated by the total wasteland as opposed to 27 per NRSA and those by the Ministry of cent in the country) and this category Agriculture (MoA) are strictly not of wasteland usually expands as a comparable, the degraded forest result of lack of proper land area as reported by the former management measures in source is actually marginally larger agriculture and allied sectors. A than the total forest area in the state more positive way of looking at this shown in the MoA land-use problem is that with well-directed statistics. natural resource management, this Using the Guidelines for Watershed extensive wasteland could offer Development prepared by livelihood opportunities to the large Hanumantha Rao committee, M.P. number of landless and land-poor has six districts under Drought households in the state (with the Prone Areas Programme (DPAP) revival of state-institutions within the and 16 districts under Integrated framework of land reform measures). Wastelands Development Further, more than 9 per cent of the Programme (IWDP) . The areas total geographical area of the state is covered in these districts constitute Table 2.7: Indicators of Land Degradation (Per cent)

Indicators M.P. India Composition of Wasteland by Processes Natural Processes 1.5 27.54 Source: Computed from Natural and Man-made Processes 60.17 41.92 National Remote Sensing Agency Man-made Processes 38.32 30.54 (NRSA), 2005 as per methodology Total 100 100 used in Chadha, Per cent of Wasteland to Geographical Sen, and Sharma, 2004. Area 18.53 17.45 30 about 20 and 34 per cent of the total last two decades 10. The share of 10 The irrigated area in M.P. has reported area in the state (Table 2.8). groundwater sources in the total increased more This of course, is an overestimation irrigated area in 2000-01 in the state than three-fold as the area identified for the two was more than 65 per cent. since 1986 projects cover only a part of the total Groundwater exploitation for reaching 5.4 million ha. in area in the district. irrigation has caused widespread 2000. decline in the groundwater table and The area under degraded forests 11The depletion has led to severe conflicts between constitutes 29.32 per cent of the total has taken place claims for domestic water supply on wasteland in the state. Conceding in Bhind, one hand, which draws heavily on Morena, Gwalior that of the total wasteland in the groundwater (GoM.P., 1995a), and from this region state, degraded forest is the third and also in the irrigation on the other. As per the largest category (next only to land adjoining Datia Central Ground Water Board district from the with/without scrub and barren rocky (CGWB), over a decade (between Bundelkhand area), this may have special region. 1995 and 2005), high groundwater significance vis-à-vis other two depletion (over 4 meters decline) is 12Ujjain, Indore, categories of wasteland noted above. concentrated in the three major agro- Dewas, Rajgarh,, and Competition for water resources climatic regions: the Grid Region in Shajapur 11 within the agricultural sector has the North , Malwa Plateau in the districts are become severe over time as a result West (along with western parts of the severely Vindhya Plateau) 12, and the West affected in this of the rapid increase in the use of region. groundwater for irrigation over the Nimar Plains, to some extent (Figure 2.3). Table 2.8: DPAP Share of District Area* District Area Area under Districts Betul 1004.3 Khargaon 1345.2 covered by Dhar 815.3 Shahdol 1402.8 DPAP and IWDP in M.P. Jhabua 677.8 Sidhi 1052.6 (2001) Total Area 6298

IWDP District Area District Area Bhind 445.9 Ratlam 486.1 Raisen 846.6 Guna 1106.4 Narasingpur 513.3 Datia 269.1 Indore 389.8 Vidisha 737.1 Shajapur 619.5 Dewas 702 Ujjain 609.1 Rewa 631.4 Mandsaur 979.1 Tikamgarh 504.8 Rajgarh 615.3 Chhindwara 1181.5 Total Area 10637

*Figures in ‘000 Total Area of M.P. 30824.5 ha Source: Area under DPAP-districts as % Total Area 20.43 % Complied from various district Area under IWDP-districts as % of Total offices of Area 34.51 % RGMWM 31

Figure 2.3 Source: CGWB, North Central Region, Bhopal (http://cgwbmp.nic.in/maps/GWmonitoring)

Most of the affected areas in the Grid districts — Harda, Hoshangabad, and region are characterised by a Seoni — where conjunctive practices relatively large irrigation extent have developed. depending heavily on groundwater. The area of surface water bodies is Though the affected districts in the about 4 lakh hectares, out of which Malwa Plains do not have a very almost one-third is made up by high coverage of irrigation facilities, village ponds, located mainly in the growth of groundwater irrigation eastern parts of the state. Large has been extremely rapid in this irrigation bodies are located in a few area. While the CGWB data indicate districts. The development of water- that the groundwater potential is bodies and minor irrigation (surface) much higher in eastern parts of the has slowed down during the last state, the major development of decade (GoMP, 2000) . groundwater irrigation has taken place in western parts in the last two Ideally, this backdrop should help decades. designing and implementing watershed development At the same time, the performance of programmes in M.P.. In what surface water irrigation schemes has follows, we identify scope as well as been poor, with only about half of the challenges in the specific context of created irrigation potential utilised, the state. due largely to insufficient operation and maintenance (O&M). Most of the development of surface water irrigation in the form of canal 2.6 Augmentation and Supply of irrigation has taken place in the Drinking Water eastern districts of Balaghat, Harda, Scarcity of drinking water has Hoshangabad, and Seoni. Since become an ever-increasing problem canal irrigation is concentrated in in urban as well as rural areas certain areas, there are only three 32 (Khanna and Khanna, 2006). Many irrigation facilities, along with high of the traditional water sources have incidence of out-migration, may lead become seasonal. Although, 60 per to a situation of reverse tenancy and/ cent of the villages in the state are or neglect (if not abandonment) of rated as ‘Fully Covered’ by source of crop land. This, in turn may lead to drinking water, they are not so in further degradation. reality (Das, 2006). At the same time, 3. Given that a large proportion of communities are not able to cope wasteland in the state is constituted with the situation despite large-scale by degraded forests, and there is an efforts made by the State increasing competition between Government under massive agricultural lands on the one hand programmes such as Pani Roko and pastures and forests on the Abhiyan and more recently, Jal- other, development of CPLRs Abhishek Abhiyan. These including forests, deserves special programmes, by and large, are attention. The diversion of forests as complementary to watershed well as community pastures towards projects; they are expected to cover cropland is likely to be aggravated in areas which are not priority areas of the wake of a relatively faster rate of watershed projects undertaken by population growth (particularly in RGMWM. While this is a useful rural areas) in the state, as strategy in the initial phase, what is compared to all-India figures. essential is to integrate the two sets of interventions. This would call for 4. There is a correspondence augmentation and supply of drinking between the concentration of tribal water as an essential precondition for population and incidence of poverty. implementing WDPs—something that Also, the spatial convergence a number of agencies, and even the between distribution of tribal Partasarathy committee, have been population and forest resources, as repeatedly pleading for. expected, is high in the state. It is thus imperative that benefits from watershed development is tilted in 2.7 Contextualising Watershed favour of the districts having high Development in M.P.: Scope and concentration of tribal population Challenges provided forest resources are brought within the fold of NRM conservation efforts. 1. Given that average land holding 5. Given the more or less size is relatively large in M.P., and subsistence nature of agriculture in that rainfall profile is better than that large parts of the state, promoting of several arid and semi-arid regions sustainable farming practices is in the country, watershed more feasible than in the areas development may bring relatively where agriculture has already larger benefits in terms of reached higher level of productivity-enhancement per chemicalisationand household. With a relatively low commercialisation. concentration ratio of land the benefits may also be distributed 6. Though irrigation is expanding more equitably. But this needs to be rapidly, given its limited irrigation ensured while designing the potential in the state, the prominence watershed intervention and also the of rain-fed farming is going to remain mechanism for sharing of benefits important even in future. In this households. regard, it is encouraging to note that the dry crops, for example coarse cereals and oilseeds, are performing 2. The non-viability of the small and better in terms of relative productivity marginal farms due to lack of levels in the state. 33 7. Since the eastern districts have augmenting and supplying water for more forest land and greater water drinking and domestic use. The resources, and at the same time state has already made a major limited cultivable land, the region headway through Jal-Abhishek needs to be developed keeping in Abhiyan. The link between WDPs view its core agro-ecological and Jal-Abhishek Abhiyan needs to character, which is mainly based on be strengthened. plantations, pastures, and forest 9. M.P. is one of the high priority conservation. On the other hand, the states for a number of centrally western districts with their main sponsored schemes that focus on focus on crop cultivation have enhancing agricultural productivity already exploited significant amount and reducing rural poverty. These of groundwater. Watershed schemes (including watershed development should help in shifting development) need to be planned, irrigation-intensive agriculture to a designed, and implemented in co- more diversified dryland farming ordination with each other. system, with special role for the livestock component. These are some of the special features that need to be considered 8. Given the reasonably more while embarking upon the next stage favourable rainfall as well as of watershed development in the topography, rainwater harvesting state. may play important role in

34 Chapter 3 conditions with average annual rainfall exceeding 1000 mm. A substantial part of the area constitutes upper catchments where checking soil-water erosion is important for sustaining and improving productivity of soil. With forests covering nearly 30 per cent of the land area, and a Coverage and Spatial Distribution substantial proportion of of Watershed Programmes cultivated land having been converted from erstwhile forest area, the natural productivity is fairly good in most parts of the This chapter presents a snapshot of region where poor, especially various watershed programmes that tribal communities, are located. have been implemented across Madhya Pradesh. The main idea is to Besides these, there are two other identify pockets of concentration as factors that may help watershed well as important gaps in development in the state. implementation in the context of agro-ecological and socio-economic (i) Relatively low level of characteristics of districts and commercialisation of agriculture, regions in the state. The focus is especially with respect to use of mainly on two major programmes chemical inputs. This may make it viz. RGMWM and NWDPRA (no easy to promote sustainable farm ongoing watershed projects are practices through watershed included). In that sense the data- programmes. base is somewhat incomplete. (ii) Noteworthy achievements in Nevertheless, insofar as the analysis strengthening decentralised would help evolving a larger picture governance through reforms in the of watershed programmes, it would panchayati raj system. provide an indication of how far the spatial distribution of the Given the scope, the Government of programmes has been in M.P. recognised the need to harness consonance with some of the its natural resources for achieving important characteristics noted the dual goals of environmental previously. regeneration and poverty reduction. M.P. is perhaps the only state in the country to have set up a special 3.1 WDPs in Madhya Pradesh: A mission (RGMWM) for implementing Synoptic View watershed development projects (funded through the MoRD). As noted in Chapter 1, M.P. is better endowed with natural resources Besides RGMWM, which has the compared to other predominantly distinction of implementing the dry-land states, viz. , largest number of watershed projects Gujarat, and Maharashtra located in in the state, there are other agencies western India. A summary of M.P.’s and programmes that have made a natural resources follows: significant contribution towards watershed development. The other Three out of 11 regions major programme is NWDPRA, (consisting of 12 entire districts which till recently, had covered less and parts of other four) are than one third of the area covered by characterised by sub-humid RGMWM. The relatively higher 35 coverage of WDPs by RGMWM in India Soil and Land Use Survey the state is due to the fact that as (AISLUS). many as 25 districts have been The other programmes for which we identified for programmes like DPAP do not have information are Council and IWDP while Employment for Advancement of People’s Action Assurance Scheme (EAS) was also & Rural Technology (CAPART) implemented in 19 districts. Most of supported projects (in 11 districts), them covered relatively backward and projects funded by donor districts in the state. According to agencies such as Department for available data, EAS had a fairly large International Development (DFID), share in the total area covered by European Commission (EC), and RGMWM, wherein the area covered India-Canada Environment Facility under EAS accounted for 48 per cent (ICEF). Lastly, the Forest of the total treated area by RGMWM; Department undertakes soil water followed by DPAP (37 per cent) and conservation treatment on degraded then IWDP (15 per cent). forest area that constitutes major While consolidated information of the part of the upper catchments of various watershed projects in M.P. is watersheds located in the state. not readily available, data presented The three projects viz. RGMWM, in Table 3.1 may give a broad picture NWDPRA, and RVP have been, by of the achievements under the major and large, implemented in a manner watershed programmes being that avoids duplication of efforts, implemented in the state. each one of them catering to specific Table 3.1: WDP Area areas on priority basis. However, it Area Treated Covered (in is likely that there is not much of Under 000’s ha.) Different synergy between various Watershed 1 RGMWM 3309.30* programmes because first, the Programmes NWDPRA (up to 988.77 projects are being planned within the 2 th 10 Plan) context of departmental priorities; 4298.07 Sub Total and secondly, the unit for planning is (13.9%) generally milli and/or micro * Note: The 3 watershed rather than a stream or estimates include River Valley 710.60 Projects river basin. area under micro (2.3%) watersheds Saturated taken up till 2005 In absence of synergy, the actual (Hariyali-II). achievements of the programmes Source: Total 5008.67 Compiled from 4 may have remained sub-optimal, various official (16.25%) notwithstanding the effective sources As presented in Table 3.1, more than implementation of the micro/milli- 5 million hectares of land, accounting watershed projects. It is therefore for more than 16 per cent of the total likely that the impact of the various area of the state, was covered under programmes may have remained RGMWM and NWDPRA (This localised; and learning from one however does not incorporate another may have remained limited. information of three districts under A more holistic picture therefore is RGMWM, viz. Dindori, Sheopur, and needed to address the above Tikamgadh). This is not a mean limitations. achievement considering that the major impetus for WDPs has come only after 1995. 3.2 Spatial Distribution of WDPs Besides this, a large area (0.71 Watershed programmes are million ha.) has been covered under concentrated more in the western River Valley Projects (RVPs) in five and eastern districts than in the catchments in the state. The priority north-central districts. About 40 per is being accorded on the basis of All cent of Jhabua district is covered by 36 watershed programme, while several Note: NA-Information not available for the newly other districts have less than 5 per demarcated districts. cent of their geographical area Source: Compiled from various official sources covered (Table 3.2). Table 3.2: Area Treated under RGMWM and NWDPRA (NWDPRA 8th, RGMWM & Name of the th RGMWM (All NWDPRA % RGMWM % 9 , 10th Plan) NWDPRA Area Districts Schemes) Area to Geo. Area to Geo. Area Area % to Geo. Jabalpur 38195 68458 7.33 13.14 20.47 Katni 12431 91990 2.51 18.58 21.10 Balaghat 22976 45321 2.49 4.91 7.40 Chhindwara 38792 206605 3.28 17.49 20.77 Seoni 26991 191122 3.08 21.82 24.90 Dindori 13764 NA 1.84 NA 1.84 Narshinhpur 25995 33417 5.06 6.51 11.57 Damoh 20873 43937 2.86 6.01 8.87 Panna 17080 51000 2.39 7.15 9.54 Tikamgarh 6984 NA 1.38 NA 1.38 Chhatarpur 25284 71140 2.91 8.19 11.10 Rewa 24360 62951 3.86 9.97 13.83 Sidhi 17817 170445 1.69 16.19 17.89 Satana 41983 105953 5.60 14.12 19.72 Umariya 8169 52147 2.00 12.79 14.80 Jhabua 30028 238694 4.43 35.22 39.65 Badwani 7208 95560 1.33 17.62 18.95 Mandsaur 37562 31186 6.79 5.63 12.42 Neemuch 13647 36740 3.21 8.63 11.84 Ratlam 26979 122216 5.55 25.14 30.69 Dewas 22943 72281 3.27 10.30 13.56 Seopur 3317 NA 0.50 NA 0.50 Gwalior 9332 27248 2.05 5.98 8.02 Shivpuri 16767 128938 1.63 12.55 14.18 Guna 34371 65113 3.11 5.89 8.99 Datia 4571 5000 1.70 1.86 3.56 Sagar 31674 47733 3.09 4.66 7.75 Raisen 29756 124239 3.51 14.68 18.19 Betul 34060 93761 3.39 9.34 12.73 Mandla 34412 70103 5.93 12.09 18.02 Shahdol + 29555 142509 Anuppur 2.97 14.32 17.29 Indore 32428 24344 8.11 6.09 14.20 Dhar 19847 186323 2.43 22.85 25.29 Khargone 30557 131720 3.78 16.30 20.08 37 Table 3.2 th (NWDPRA 8 , RGMWM & Name of the th RGMWM (All NWDPRA % RGMWM % contd... 9 , 10th Plan) NWDPRA Area Districts Schemes) Area to Geo. Area to Geo. Area Area % to Geo. Khargone 30557 131720 3.78 16.30 20.08 Khandwa + 18798 42249 1.74 3.92 5.67 Ujjain 26952 40388 4.42 6.63 11.06 Shahjapur 38047 25010 6.14 4.04 10.18 Bhind 13546 114115 3.04 25.59 28.63 Bhopal 3143 11945 1.13 4.31 5.44 Sehore 22773 45091 3.46 6.85 10.32 Vidisha 29790 39149 4.04 5.31 9.35 Rajgarh 29885 63617 4.86 10.34 15.20 Harda 1869 19724 0.56 5.92 6.48 Morena 9842 43888 1.97 8.80 10.77 Hosangabad 3421 25935 0.51 3.87 4.38 M. P. State 988774 3309305 3.21 10.74 13.94

Fig 3.1

WDPs under RGMWM have been cent of the total area covered under concentrated mainly in twelve the programme (Figure 3.2). These districts — Bhind, Chhindwara, Dhar, districts have more than one lakh Jhabua, Khargaon, Ratlam, Raisen, hectare of treated land under the Satna, Shahdol, Sheoni, Shivapuri programme. NWDPRA, on the other and Sidhi, constituting about 56 per hand, has a higher concentration 38 concentrated in eleven districts — them, especially at district level. Betul, Chhindwara, Guna, Indore, Therefore the issue of prioritisation Jabalpur, Jhabua, Khargaon, followed within the areas earmarked Mandla, Mandasaur, Satna, and for each of these programmes Shajapur — accounting for 39 per becomes relevant. cent of the total treated area under Ideally one should map spatial the programme (Figure 3.2). Each of concentration of WDPs at taluka/ these districts has more than 30,000

WATERSHED COVERAGE IN MADHYA PRADESH Fig 3.2 RELATIVE SHARE OF NWDPRA & RGMWM

More na Bhind N Gwalior Datia W E Sheopur S Shivpuri

Tikamgarh Neemuch Chhatarp ur Guna Rewa Satna Panna Mandsaur Sidhi Vidisha Rajgarh Damoh Sagar Katni Shajapur Umaria Ratlam Bhopal Ujjain Jabalpur Raisen Sehore Shahdol Narsimhapur Dindori Jhabua Indore Dhar Dewas Hoshangabad Mandla Harda Seoni Chhind wara Barwani West Nimar East Nimar Betul Balaghat

RGMWM

50 0 50 100 Kilometers NWD PRA

ha. of treated area under NWDPRA. block level since, under RGMWM, Together there are 19 districts having areas for EAS and DPAP are large areas under the two major identified at taluka level. Similarly, watershed programmes with four areas earmarked for RVP and Forest districts appearing in both the lists, Department are also more clearly viz. Chhindwara, Jhabua, Khargaon, defined at taluka level than at district and Satana. level. Nevertheless, in the absence of more disaggregated data, we have tried to gauge the extent of 3.3 Complementarity and concentration and its interface with Prioritisation various categories of priority areas at district level. The three major watershed programmes viz., RGMWM, NWDPRA, and RVP and the ones Spatial Concentration of WDPs implemented by the Forest Department have more or less As far as concentration in terms of clearly demarcated areas of proportion of geographical area operation. There is, of course, some covered is concerned, 10 out of the element of overlap in areas among 45 districts have more than 15 per 39 cent of the total area treated under Strangely, Satna is not covered the two major watershed under any of the four categories of programmes; other districts have 10- prioritisation. In fact, only three Table 3.3 15 per cent of area treated (Table districts, viz. Jhabua, Dhar and Source: Same as Table 3.2 3.3). Raisen, are included in the list of 14 Title of the Programme Districts (by Share of Area Most Backward Districts Watershed under WDP to EAS DPAP IWDP identified for implementation of Coverage) total Geo. Area National Food for Work

Above 15 % (in %)

1 Jhabua 39.77 P P P

2 Ratlam 30.67 P P P 3 Bhind 28.67

4 Dhar 25.16 P P P

5 Seoni 24.92 P

6 Chhindwara 20.71 P P

7 Satna 19.93

8 Raisen 18.14 P

9 Sidhi 18.12 P P P

10 Rajgarh 15.17 P

10 – 15 %

1 Indore 14.82 P

2 Shivpuri 14.32 P

3 Rewa 13.89 P

4 Dewas 13.59 P P

5 Betul 12.68 P P P

6 Shahdol 12.2 P P P

7 Khargone 12.03 P P P

8 Narsimhapur 11.57 P

9 Chhatarpur 11.17 P P 10 Ujjain 11.04

11 Jabalpur 10.53 P

12 Sehore 10.34

13 Shajapur 10.21 P

Out of 10 districts with higher degree districts from the state, forming a of concentration (above 15 per cent), part of the 150 most backward six are covered by the EAS, and five districts in the country. If we under IWDP. (There is an overlap in consider the next degree of the case of Ratlam and Chhindwara.) concentration, we find that 11 out of 40 23 districts are covered in each of Prioritisation: the two categories viz. EAS and The issue of prioritisation has IWDP. Of the remaining 12 districts, attracted special attention especially, 10 are covered by at least one of the in the case of watershed projects four categories of prioritisation. This supported by the MoRD. The leaves Chhatarpur and Sehore, Guidelines prepared in 1994-95, as which are not covered in any of the noted earlier, had identified districts/ four categories, like Satna. talukas to be covered under each of the four major schemes viz; EAS, DPAP, IWDP, and DDP. For Complementarity between NWDPRA the major criterion is RGMWM and NWDPRA extent of irrigation with a cut-off of 30 To understand whether the two major per cent or less. Given the fact that projects have worked in WDP is a multi-functional complementary or overlapping programme with multiple objectives, manner, the top and bottom ten the criteria used for identifying the districts of the state are listed in priority areas consist of both Table 3.4 (WDPs, which were biophysical as well as socio- included in the Tenth Plan, are not economic indicators. For instance, taken into account due to whereas the criteria used for DPAP, unavailability of data). The proportion IWDP, and DDP are mainly bio- of treated area in the total physical in nature, that for EAS and geographical area of the district has to an extent for NWDPRA are based been taken as the criterion for putting on socio-economic deprivation or districts in the top or bottom tens. backwardness. Balancing these two Three districts (Mandsaur, Sidhi and sets of concerns however, would Shivpuri) figure in the top ten of one necessitate that the flow of funds programme and bottom ten of the under the two sets of schemes (i.e. other programme, implying that the DPAP and IWDP on one hand and two programmes complement each EAS and NWDPRA on the other) are other. In all there are 33 (instead of in proportion of the area covered by 40) districts in the four categories bio-physical and socio-economic presented in Table 3.4. Only seven deprivation. It is difficult to gauge the districts are found to be the same relative magnitude of the total funds (three in the top list and four in the allocated to these two sets of bottom list) across the two schemes; also, the EAS has now programmes. been discontinued and/or replaced by some other schemes having more

Table 3.4: Top and Bottom Ten Districts according to Area Coverage under NWDPRA and RGMWM Top Ten districts Bottom Ten Districts NWDPRA RGMWM NWDPRA RGMWM Mandsaur Jhabua Morena Tikamgarh Vidisha Bhind Bhopal Datia Note: Area Ujjain Ratlam Tikamgarh Mandsaur coverage is determined in Jhabua Dhar Shivpuri Morena terms of Khandwa + proportion of Rajgarh Seoni Burhanpur Khandwa + Burhanpur watershed area Narshinhpur Chhindwara Sidhi Shajapur to geographical area in the Ratlam Sidhi Gwalior Bhopal respective Satna Raisen Shahdol . Source: Shahjapur Satna Khargone Balaghat Calculated from Indore Shivpuri Datia Gwalior Table 3.2 41 specific agenda for employment/ livelihood support in the deprived/ backward districts. Nevertheless it may still be useful to map out the spread of WDPs across Source: Various project documents, Department the two sets of indicators used for of Agriculture and M.P. Human Development Report prioritisation. On a socio-economic # Figures in parentheses in IWDP column show side, we have used economic the percentage of wastelands in the district deprivation as yet another indicator @ Districts having higher proportion of irrigated area and not in the list of 15 most deprived in addition to EAS and extent of districts have not been numbered. irrigation [Table 3.5]. Table 3.5 Prioritisation of WDP coverage by RGMWM and NWDPRA S. Least Index of Treated Combined DPAP IWDP No. EAS (17) Irrigated Deprivation by (RGMWM+ (6) # (16) @ (<15 %) (Bottom 16) RGMWM NWDPRA) EAS Districts 1 Jhabua * 13.2 * 35.22 39.65 2 Dhar * 17.4 22.85 25.29 3 Mandla 3.9 * 12.09 18.02 4 Sidhi * 9.0 16.19 17.89 5 Shahdol * 5.6 * 14.32 17.29 * 6 Rajgarh 17.3 * 10.43 15.20 (43.6) 7 Balaghat 37.6 4.91 7.40 8 Seoni 13.7 21.82 24.90 Chhindawad 9 * 13.5 17.49 20.77 a Jabalpur- 25.0 13.14 20.47 10 Katani 12.0 18.58 21.10 * 11 Ratlam 17.5 25.14 30.69 (22.0) 12 Morena 53.0 8.80 10.77 13 Khandawa 17.0 * 3.92 5.67 14 Dewas * 15.6 10.30 13.56 15 Betul * 14.9 * 9.34 12.73 Hoshangaba 16 42.9 3.87 4.38 d 17 Khargon * 17.6 * 16.30 20.08 Non-EAS Districts Bhind * 33.5 25.59 28.63 Raisen * 20.8 14.69 18.19 Narasinghpur * 28.3 6.51 11.57 Indore * 21.1 6.09 14.20 * 18 Shajapur 19.0 4.04 10.18 (64.2) Ujjain * 19.8 6.63 11.06 Madanasaur * 24.5 5.63 12.42 19 Guna * 13.8 * 5.89 8.99 Datia * 38.0 1.86 3.56 20 Vidisha * 14.9 * 5.31 9.35 21 Rewa * 14.5 * 9.97 13.83 Tikamgadh * 45.2 * NA NA Districts not covered under EAS, DPAP and IWDP 22 Panna 12.2 * 7.15 9.54 23 Chhtarpur 29.4 * 8.19 11.10 24 Stana 16.1 * 14.12 19.72 25 Shivpuri 28. * 12.55 14.18 26 Damoh 15.9 * 6.01 8.87 42 The table presents list of districts (12.7 %), Shajapur (10.2 %), Guna covered under the three major (8.9 %), Vidisha (9.3 %), Panna (9.5 projects viz; EAS, DPAP, and IWDP %), Damoh (8.8 %) and Khandwa in M.P. It also lists the bottom 15 (5.7 %). In fact the information for districts in terms of proportion of Khandwa is somewhat hazy, as the irrigated area, and also the 15 most district is carved out from East deprived districts in the state (based Nimar, which was identified under on index of deprivation - one of the EAS. In fact Shajapur emerges as indices used for computing human the most noticeable outlier, where development index). Whereas the 17 treated area is only about 10 per districts under EAS cover all the six cent despite having nearly 64 districts under DPAP and also seven percent of the area as wasteland. out of the 15 most deprived districts, On the other hand, Bhind (28.6%) the overlap between EAS and IWDP and Raisen (18.2%) districts have is limited. Only 12 out of 16 IWDP- relatively larger coverage of treated districts are also covered under EAS. area. While both these are IWDP- In all there were 34 out of 45 districts districts, we have not considered covered under the various categories them for the analysis since both the listed in Table 3.5. districts are not covered under the With a view of getting a more most deprived districts. Incidentally, focused understanding on the issue Bhind has 33 per cent of irrigated of prioritisation, we have dropped area whereas Raisen has 21 per WDP-districts that had relatively cent area under irrigation. higher proportion of irrigated areas It is thus, important to examine the as compared to the state average. reasons for the apparent neglect of Also these districts did not constitute the seven districts listed above. An the 15 most deprived districts. In the obvious implication is that the next process nine districts were dropped, round of selection may focus on the leaving 26 districts for the analysis. remaining districts i.e., those with We tried to examine whether the 26 less than 10 % of its area treated) districts that ‘deserve’ special within the four categories. The attention owing to one or more of the overall findings from the analyses several criteria, have received bring out two important findings: priority as reflected in terms of First, there is a fair amount of proportion of treated area or not. complementarity in coverage of Viewing from this angle, it is districts between the two major observed that 11 out of 26 districts projects. And second, there is a fairly had less than 14 per cent of land good correspondence between covered under WDP-treatment taking economic deprivation and the two projects together (data isn’t concentration of watershed available for Tikamgarh). The cut-off treatment. The findings are further of 14 percent refers to the proportion substantiated through a more at the state level. However, at a disaggregated analysis among at closer look, one finds that four of blocks within Jhabua district in these 11 districts have significantly Chpater V. higher proportion of irrigated area. Thus the analyses suggest that This may be the reason for low whereas the initial selection of the coverage of watershed treatments in districts does correspond with the these districts. four indicators of prioritisation at This leaves seven out the 26 districts district level, the ground realities are that have received low attention form difficult to gauge in the absence of WDPs despite being in the list of taluka/block level data. It is thus ‘deserving’ districts in term of imperative that such information be multiple criteria used for identifying made available in the public domain priorities. These districts are: Betul with a view to having a better 43 assessment of prioritisation followed integrated approach for natural in selection of WDPs. resource development and livelihood enhancement within a Conceding that WDPs have already larger area. As noted in Chapter 1, covered fairly substantial area in this may open up a larger number of certain districts (e.g., Jhabua with options for resource management, about 40% coverage), efforts may resource transfer, market linkages, have to be consolidated to seek population movements, and convergence across various interface between surface and watersheds and also across other ground water regimes. These issues natural resource development have been highlighted in the report programmes being implemented in on ‘From Hariyali to Neeranchal’ of the district. This may indicate the the Parthasarathy committee. It is in need for going beyond the micro- or this context that the issues of milli-watersheds as a unit of planning prioritisation and convergence and various interventions aimed at become integrated.

44 Chapter 4 conforming to the ‘sectoral approach’. For example, it aims to reduce poverty through income and employment generation schemes, and these objective figures prominently as the function of the Department of Rural Development. Similarly, it endeavours to increase the agricultural production through both extensive and intensive cultivation practices. One of the important ways in which the Performance of Watershed department of agriculture seeks to Programmesin Madhya Pradesh extend area under agriculture is by reclamation of wasteland. The conservation of water resources The Tenth Plan Approach Paper of figures prominently in the function of Government of Madhya Pradesh the Department of Irrigation along identifies ‘recognition of agency of with its main objective of expanding people as central to development’ as irrigation facilities. The Department the single most significant departure of Forest undertakes a large number in the state’s vision of development of activities consistent with that of compared to that of the country as a the objectives of watershed whole. It perceives the relationship programmes, but these are between the state government and essentially restricted to the notified the people as one of a partnership forest areas13 . based on sharing of rights and responsibilities. Thus It cannot be argued that the above decentralisation has been seen as compartmentalisation of functions is the ‘premise for development in the only a feature of the Government of state’, and particularly as a process Madhya Pradesh since it has its that aids the creation of a partnership roots in the formulation of the plans between people and government. of the Central Government and is The ‘changed’ vision of governance similar to those in most other states. explicitly promises a greater The strong emphasis on turning accountability on the part of the activities into a participatory mode, 13 The activities however, is a feature that sets apart include rural fuel government and increasing space for wood plantation, community action. The paper further the M.P. State Plan from many area oriented notes that ‘development is others. It could be used as a base to fuel and fodder measurable not just through creation bring about a more integrated project, rehabilitation of of assets and resources, but through approach in the development plans degraded the effectiveness of the process of which is more consistent with the forests, soil and empowering communities to make watershed approach. water conservation, choices and participate in creating Watershed Development compensatory those assets and resources’. afforestation Programmes in M.P. are carried out and high-tech Even as the broad directions by a number of agencies, as they are afforestation. provided in the Tenth Plan Approach in other states. The two primary 14 As per the Paper are conducive to effective departments that carry out guidelines of implementation of the second watershed programmes in the state Ministry of Rural generation watershed development are the Department of Rural Development, Development and the Department of Government of programmes, particularly in terms of India, 50 per the participatory principles adopted in Agriculture. The former undertakes cent of the the new guidelines of 2001 and watershed programmes under DPAP funds under this subsequently in the Hariyali and IWDP. Until the Ninth Plan, it scheme were to 14 be utilised for Guidelines in 2003, the broad took them up under the EAS . The watershed objectives of the Plan appear to be Department of Agriculture, as in programmes. 45 other states, carries out NWDPRA. A of watershed programmes has been cursory review of the Tenth Plan and provided. The two ministries its constituent annual plans of the continue to harbour their biases state reveals that the watershed which are manifested even more programme figures much more clearly in the state level. Here we prominently in the plans of the attempt to look at the nature of the Department of Rural Development evolution of the programmes run under the RGMWM than in the plans under the MoRD from 1995 by of the Department of Agriculture. comparing the stated objectives as provided in the different guidelines Note: * with and try to contextualise this vis-à-vis respect to both 4.1 Adaptation of Watershed the NWDPRA guidelines of 2000. human and livestock Programmes in Madhya Pradesh The purpose of this exercise is to population create a basis for looking at the # special focus Though the stated objectives of any provisions made in the RGMWM in on increasing programme cannot be used as a the context of Madhya Pradesh agricultural yardstick for assessing the policy on productivity under the Department of Panchayat @ the Common which it is based, it does provide and Rural Development. It needs to Guidelines, 2000, some indication of its thrust areas. be mentioned here that the makes Under the Common Guidelines for provisions for Department of Agriculture in the equitable sharing NWDPRA and other watershed state for the purposes of of resources with programmes undertaken by the implementing NWDPRA follows the preferential MoRD, some path for convergence treatment to the guidelines provided at the Central poor. level. Source: GoI, 1995; 2000; Table 4.1: Comparison of Objectives of Watershed Programmes Undertaken by the 2001; and 2003. Ministries of Rural Development and Agriculture Department of Land Resource, MoRD 2001 NWDPRA, Stated Objectives 1995 2003 (Hariyali (Revised MoA, 2000 guidelines Guidelines) guidelines) Restoration of ecological P P P P balance

Conservation, development # P P P P and use of natural resources Drought mitigation P P * P Employment generation and P P P P poverty alleviation Community action to maintain P P P assets Simple, easy and affordable technological solutions using P P P local knowledge Attention to resource poor P P P Equitable distribution of the P @ @ benefits of land and water Site specific development P Stress on drinking water P Generating resources for P panchayats through NRM Reduction of disparity between P irrigated and rain-fed areas 46 It may be noted that the programmes time. Such resources can be can be more convergent or divergent generated either from additionally in their spirit than their stated augmented water and/or from objectives convey. This exercise, Common Property Land Resources nevertheless gives us a feel of the (CPLRs). The latter seems to be a differences in thrusts over time and doubtful proposition on two counts. across programmes. Though by and First, the evidence from WDP impact large the MoRD has been consistent assessment by and large indicates in terms of the objectives of the that rejuvenation of common programmes run under its aegis a property resources has drawn a few changes have occurred over blank in most cases. Second, given time (Table 4.1). It is easy to the importance of village pastures appreciate the rationale of common and forests for the livelihood of the guidelines brought out by the landless, additional competition for Government of India from even a benefits generated from these cursory look at Table 4.1. Though in resources could further weaken the spirit the watershed programmes possibility of the landless deriving undertaken by different ministries gains from these programmes. have sustaining livelihoods of the A comparison of the objectives given poor as an objective equitable in the guidelines of the two ministries distribution of benefits from land and in 2000-2001 reveals that there water management activities is no exists a lot of commonality in the longer an objective as per the 2001 basic objectives of the two guidelines. This does not necessarily programmes. Restoration of mean that at the state level it ecological balance by strengthening becomes irrelevant as an objective the linkages between land, water, since the 2001 guidelines makes and vegetation is a common thrust. allowance for the state government Similarly, conservation, development to implement the programmes as and sustainable use of natural ‘may be found suitable for local resources are common goals. In this environment’. But given the fact that regard, the MoA primarily focuses on equity aspects, particularly with benefits from the crops and respect to access to incremental consequently aims to reduce natural resources, have been one of disparities between the irrigated and the areas of failure in many rain-fed regions through improved watershed programmes, what the performances in agriculture. The Central Government keeps in focus MoRD has probably a more broad- is of crucial importance. based focus. Beginning with the formulation of the a) Rajiv Gandhi Mission for Hariyali guidelines, no separate Watershed Management mention is made of the landless or the resource-poor, though the By creating a new institution of the general objective of employment Mission in the mid-nineties, the generation and poverty alleviation is Government of M.P. sought to retained. In these guidelines, there is ‘impart a sense of urgency to some a greater stress on improving the of the unfinished tasks’, particularly drinking water situation — a welcome which have crucial bearing on the addition to the list of objectives, given lives of the common man (GoMP, the severe competition for water for 2003). WDPs form one of the five different purposes. Generating tasks carried out by the RGMWM; financial resources for the panchayati however the degree of importance raj institutions through development accorded to the watershed and management of natural programmes in the state is probably resources has become one of the unparalleled among the states of explicitly stated objectives for WDPs India. The rationale for this emanates in the Hariyali guidelines for the first 47 15 The area of a from the understanding that rain-fed the programme, but also is watershed would depend, among farming is crucially important for committed to bringing about a more other things, on livelihood of the rural people. The equitable distribution of the the state government recognises the resources. It is not clear whether the characteristics of potential of raising the living equity principle is applicable to the the slope of an area. standards in rainfed farming areas stock or to the increment of by ‘conserving the soil and water resources. The mission documents resources and optimising their use are also somewhat unclear about with a view to generating natural the mechanisms to achieve resource and increase agricultural equitable distribution of resources. productivity.’ Given the poor The issue of scale of operation of employment prospects in the state, watersheds has been of concern to managing natural resources with a the researchers in the field. It is labour intensive strategy was argued that first, a micro-watershed considered a key objective. The may be too small as a planning unit watershed mission was an effort to to efficiently capture the externality ‘unlock the physical (natural) and the impacts (Joy and Paranjape, 2004). human potential’ of the state through Secondly, given the vast variations ‘people-centred activities’, thus in the topography in the country in recognising the interconnectedness general and in the state in particular, of the ‘bio-physical and the social’ uniformly prescribing an average through participation of the local area of a watershed is probably not community. desirable15; it may induce the local The objectives of RGMWM were in implementers to deviate from the conformity with the central ‘ridge to valley’ principle. government guidelines for both the Ninth and the Tenth Plans. The Thus it needs to be noted that the Mission’s articulation of the need to centre and the state conceptualise maximise people’s participation the planning unit, i.e., the watershed stems from the vital purpose of area, in distinctly different ways. The making the scheme more effective 1995 MoRD guidelines, based on and transparent. The key difference the Hanumantha Rao Committee in the evolution of the central recommendations, stated that government and the Mission’s ‘Watershed Development thrusts is that while the former Programme in Drought Prone/ Table 4.2: dilutes the equity principles in some Desert/Non-forest wasteland areas Evolution of sense over time, the Mission will be implemented by taking up the Objectives strengthens the same. The latter not projects for development of of RGMWM only aims at sharing the benefits of watersheds of 500 hectares each Source: GoMP (1995b) Objectives 1995 2002

Augmentation, conservation and utilisation of soil and P P water Drought mitigation P P Develop repository of scientific and technological P P inputs for area specific planning To restore ecological balance P P To maximise peoples’ participation in planning, implementation, and maintenance to make scheme P P more effective and transparent To bring about equal distribution of resources and sharing of benefits to improve the disadvantaged P communities 48 (approximately) in every village in a soil has been identified as the zone 16 The recharge zone phased manner.’ The 2001 requiring the most intensive is an upstream 16 guidelines by the same ministry, treatment (GoMP, 1995, p.9) . region while not relaxing the actual norms, There is thus an inbuilt principle of comprising allowed for greater conceptual prioritisation within the milli- lands with high gradients, the flexibility. To quote the 2001 watershed in the Mission document transition zone guidelines, of 1995, at least with respect to the has gentler intensity of work to be done. To gradients, and “ the watershed approach is a the discharge some extent, this is consistent with project based, ridge to valley zone has flat the fund-allocation format of the lands. The approach for in situ soil and water central government, which allows for RGMWM conservation, afforestation etc. Unit recommends greater expenditure for an area with of development will be a watershed different kinds of higher slopes. There is however, no activities for the area of about 500 ha. each in mention about prior sequencing of three zones. watershed development projects. micro watersheds located in the Effective soil However, the actual area of a project and water recharge zones, though this would may vary keeping in view the impeding have been a logical follow-up of structures and geographical location, the size of demarcation of the three zones. intensive village etc.” catchment The Mission recognised that the treatment is The RGMWM, in 1995, was cautious suggested for organisational multiplicity working for in accepting the 500 hectare norm of the first zone, watershed development is a hurdle in-situ moisture a micro-watershed verbatim. The in achieving an integrated approach. conservation is Mission preferred to arrive at an specified for the This is due to two reasons. First, the optimal size for a planning unit even second zone, structure of the various departments and efficient as it cautioned that the area of any legitimises their focusing on one or water-spreading watershed depends on many techniques for the other natural resource 17. interrelated factors. It affirmed that the third zone. Secondly, each agency works on a ‘planning unit too small leads to structure which is best suited to the 17 ‘Typically all problems in downward integration of ‘availability of resources and existing schemes as the watershed cascades watershed plans expertise’, which precludes the into the next unit, while a planning with the possibility of optimising the selection agriculture unit too large would tend to make the of structures keeping in view both the department ground level plan too sketchy in its blank out all the location and nature of the structure. details’ (GoMP, 1995, p. 8). The forest land from their maps as Mission therefore suggested a The Mission, at its very inception, untouchable planning unit of milli-watershed of pointed out the futility of ‘prescriptive’ areas even with 5,000 to 10,000 hectares as a base formats handed down from the the knowledge that these areas unit, which is then integrated Centre given the importance of need critical downstream into the next plan unit of carrying out work to suit the treatment. The the sub-watershed of approximately topographic features of each forest watershed plans 50,000 to 100,000 hectares. For watershed. It clearly recognises that are equally execution of works, the Mission the broad plans for the western hard intractable with however tends to agree with the GoI rock, semi-arid regions have to be respect to the guidelines and settles for units of 500 quite different from those in the non-forest areas, no matter ha. each simply because it is only at relatively humid region dominated by what the this micro-scale that sufficient care limestone. The Mission points out topographic can be given to the execution of the that the groundwater conditions are realities may be. Similarly the kind of works that are required in the extremely heterogeneous: whereas geo- farmers’ fields. there is a high potential for trapping hydrologists groundwater through artificial have little The Mission suggests demarcation contribution to recharge structures in the Western of three zones within each milli- make to the region characterised by desaturated watershed: the recharge zone, the terrestrial phreatic aquifers, the eastern region realities (GoMP, transition zone, and the discharge which on an average receives 140 1995b, p. 6). zone. The first zone with high cm. of rainfall, have more scope for gradients and greater susceptibility to 49 18 Exploratory surface water storage 18. provisions of the Hariyali guidelines. drills in Vindhya Also, the allocation under the region suggest The limitation of data available for administrative head has been raised that there is scientific watershed planning has scope for storing to 20 per cent to strengthen the been noted from the start and has groundwater in training and community organisation some of the led to an addition in the objectives of component. eastern districts the mission, viz. to create a scientific which has the 19 limestone in the database . The mission thus has Kapil Dhara is a recent initiative that Chhattisgarh made provisions for preparing provides ‘functional irrigation source plateau using manual and digital watershed maps to proactive backward farmers with water-spreading technology and for all implementing agencies and substantial operational rainfed injection wells. line departments. The importance of landholdings in all NREGS district’. generating thematic maps for the If the farmer belongs to a marginal 19 Though the Hanumantha watershed pertaining to its geology, social group, practices rain-fed Rao Committee hydrology, land-use, topography, etc. agriculture, and has no source of Report has been recognised by the Mission irrigation, he is deemed “backward”. expresses concern about at its very inception. The use of This scheme, however, is not the lack of aerial photographs and satellite available to small and marginal scientific data- imageries has been suggested for farmers as it is meant for farmers base for updating the status of these maps. who have operational holding above watershed 2 ha. Thus, while the principle of planning, the The lack of expertise, training, and central equity is applied to socially motivation is considered one of the government, in disadvantageous groups, it fails to its subsequent weaker links in operationalising make an impact on the economically guidelines has watershed projects in the state. The not made disadvantageous groups. provisions for Mission has the provision for inviting building one. The consultants from NGOs and A more recent drive towards RGMWM agricultural universities, and other promoting jetropa plantation may Documents of 1995 and 2002, experts for building better planning take care of the issue of treating remarkably, strategies; it has allocated 1 per cent CPLRs to some extent. This continue to give of the total project cost for the initiative proposes to treat not only importance to building a purpose. 20 per cent of the wasteland in the state but also generate livelihood repository of Some of the more recent changes (digital and support at a later stage for the user (post-2002) undertaken either manual) groups of the plantation. It is not database for directly or indirectly under the clear, however, whether the watershed institutional structure of RGMWM planning. proposed plantation will be raised on have attempted to incorporate new private or common property aspects that minimise weaknesses wasteland. and make missing elements good. An element of convergence has The organisational structure of the been brought about by bringing 18 Mission is in conformity with the districts — the districts that have MoRD as well as the Common received funds earmarked for the Guidelines (Table 4.3). National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) — of the state into the fold of the watershed programme. Major differences have come to the fore as a result of the convergence of funds; the convergence has enabled the state government to sidestep the Hariyali Guidelines. The MP government has appointed NGOs as PIAs and allocated Rs.8000/- per hectare for the programme as against Rs. 6500/- allowed under the 50 Table 4.3: Leading Agency Supporting Level Functions Official Responsible Institutions Institutional Structure 1.Information Adopted for node RGMWM Secretary, Department of 2.Facilitator for * Usually one RGMWM Panchayat and long term milli watershed State (Mission Rural capacity is selected for Director) Development building every block in one plan period. 3.Monitoring However, due to implementation incomplete work in many of these 1. Dist. watersheds, Watershed many Ninth Plan Management milli-watersheds Advisory were taken up Collector 1. Implementing Comm. again in the District (Mission Zila Panchayat Tenth Plan. (Selection of Leader) 2. Monitoring # Post Hariyali watersheds) Guidelines 2. Technical Source: Advisory Adopted from Committee GoMP, 2003. 1.Overseeing Action Plan 2. Action Project Research Implementing 3. Capacity Project Project Agency (PIA) Coordinator Block * Building Officer and Watershed 4. Aiding in (one for every 1500 ha.) Development execution of Team plan, record (activity and finance) maintenance Community 1.Execution of Based Action Plan Chairperson, Village Organisations 2.Maintenance Micro- Village Watershed (CBOs) of Records watershed/ Watershed Committee and (UGs, SHGs, village Committee / 3.Disbursement Women’s Panch. GP of Fund for Groups) developmental Gram Work Vistarit Pani Panchayat # Roko Samiti # 20 This team is composed of persons with The concern for inadequate technical Committee, viz. selecting background in support since its inception gets watersheds, sanctioning watershed Public Health Engineering, mention in the Mission documents action plans, and monitoring Forest, and has been attempted to be implementation have been entrusted Agriculture, addressed by the provision of to the Zilla Parishad. At the block Horticulture, Sericulture, support to the Zilla (District) Parishad level, the PIA is assisted by a Animal by the District Watershed multidisciplinary Watershed Husbandry, etc. Management Advisory Committee Development Team, which is The and the Technical Advisory representative appointed for the purpose of the from the forest Committee. This however, has watershed work. This consists of department is become somewhat diluted under the specialists from different line mandatory if the Hariyali guidelines, where 20 selected departments . watershed has responsibilities of the District area under Watershed Management Advisory There has been a general forest land. 51 21 The Pani apprehension that the increased involved in the off-farm work like Roko Abhiyan (2001) (see the importance of panchayats given in raising poultry, dairy industry, and next section) and the Hariyali guidelines may do away managing fisheries and even non- in the non- with the Village Watershed farm traditional handicrafts watershed Committees and bypass the interests (particularly in the tribal pockets) like villages Pani Roko Samiti are of groups that are not powerful or working with terracotta or bell metal, now expanded vocal. The RGMWM has worked out and chanderi and kosa weaving. and renamed as some balance in the institutional The off-farm work is further the Vistarit Pani Roko Samiti. The structure, whereby an independent strengthened by parallel schemes latter has institution — Vistarit Pani Roko like Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar representation Samiti21— will advise and guide the Yojana (SGSY), District Poverty from all User Groups, Self Gram Panchayat about the Initiatives Program (DPIP) and Help Groups and watershed work. Madhya Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Women’s Thrift and Credit Societies. Figure 4.1: Supporting Institutional Structures at the Micro-Watershed Level

Federation at milli-watershed Accessing funds from other organisations Insurance schemes Village Watershed User Groups Marketing products (farm and Committees/ Vistarit Self Help Groups non-farm) Pani Roko Samiti Women’s Groups

NABARD Rashtriya Mahila Kosh

Community SGSY Credit DPIP Marketing MPRLP for off-farm work

Swarn Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana Grain Bank for non-farm work (Food Security)

The Community Based Project (MPRLP), while the Organisations (CBOs) are set up to marketing links for the non-farm strengthen the linkages between category of work are facilitated by natural resource management and Haat Bazar or SGSY. Federations at livelihood. The user groups are the the milli-watershed levels aid the landowners who enjoy direct benefits SHGs to have greater access to of NRM activities. Other that soil and credit for irrigation pumps, livestock, water conservation activities, such and equipment for non-farm groups, which also include groups of activities. The federation also small and marginal farmers, have initiates insurance schemes to cover also been linked with land-based crop, assets, livestock, health, activities like nursery development, maternity, old age security horticulture, plantation, and measures, etc. Grain bank is floriculture. Self Help Groups (SHGs) another institution that aims to of the land-poor classes have been provide food security during lean 52 season to scheduled castes and stakeholders in the project, 22 The panch tatwa includes schedules tribes and other needy transparency, and scope for further kulaharbandi families on loan basis. corrections even outside the (ban on felling parameters of the project. trees), Thus it can be seen that the charaibandi supporting institutional structure b) Pani Roko Abhiyan (ban on open sanctioned by the provisions of the grazing), Pani Roko Abhiyan is a water- angutha bandi Mission has substantial scope to conservation and harvesting (complete strengthen linkages between NRM literacy), movement that was initiated after the and livelihood on the one hand and nashabandi widespread kharif drought in 2001. (ban on liquor) helping the landless who may not This movement was undertaken by and nas bandi directly benefit from the NRM (adoption of the RGMWM in all non-watershed activities. The mission has also family planning villages. These drought proofing measures). attempted to use the institutions efforts use simple, low-cost water created under watershed harvesting methods and are programmes to enhance the social undertaken by the community with its quality of life in the rural areas, own resources with the aim of in-situ following the watershed plus water conservation. Under the Pani approach of integrated development. Roko Abhiyan, old tanks and water Specifically, as per the mission harvesting structures have been document (GoMP 2003b), promotion renovated to make the efforts cost- of awareness about both natural and effective. The following sources social environment through panch funded the water conservation tatwa22 has been used as a criterion movement: for selection of the watershed village within a milli-watershed. 1. Rural development programmes like EAS, SGRY, Tribal Development There is also a provision for an Fund, etc. external agency monitoring the Mission that uses yardsticks such as 2. State and central finance equitable sharing of resources, commissions. participation in planning and implementation, restoration of 3. DFID funding routed through ecological benefits and socio- UNICEF economic conditions of the village, The two major initiatives that optimisation of resource utilisation, supported the action plans were etc. Evaluations are carried out once water budgeting, i.e., assessment of 45 per cent of the fund has been the difference between water utilised to allow for mid-term requirement and water availability, corrections and the same is repeated based on which the villagers made at the end of the project. The the plans. The water resource guidelines for evaluation have been register, which is maintained by the provided by the central government. villagers, contains relevant details What is innovative in the Mission’s about all surface and ground water evaluation process is a system of sources in the village. Since the Pani social audit or nirakh parikh which is Roko Abhiyan followed a disaster concurrent rapid participatory whose effects were etched in the evaluation by beneficiaries. The minds of the people, this media- multidimensional evaluation supported movement was said to be 23 The Panch technique maps all the inputs and the extremely successful. The Abhiyan Ja Abhiyan aim outputs in a khasra (cadastral) map, for water harvesting has now merged at sustainable validates the watershed committee’s development with the Panch Ja Abhiyan (Jal, Jan, encompassing claims, and identifies the members Jangal, Jamin, and Janwar )23 Jal (water), Jan and areas in the watershed that have incorporating other aspects of rural (Community), been bypassed by the programme. Jangal (forest), development. Though the watershed Jamin (land), This process of social auditing allows programmes run by the Panchayat and Janwar increased ownership of the and the Rural Development (livestock). 53 An Alternative Model

Lupin foundation, which is a voluntary organisation founded by a pharmaceutical firm started work in Madhya Pradesh () in 1988 along with Rajasthan, Maharashtra, and Uttanchal. It has adopted a total of 1600 villages in India and 60 in Madhya Pradesh. The foundation started work under the RGMWM framework, but withdrew later since it wanted to follow a different model. There were conflicts with the forest department and the Foundation was not allowed to work in the forest area while working with RGMWM funds. The organisation now independently undertakes natural resource management activities with its own fund and support from external (international) sources, which the organisation argues, gives them greater freedom.

The Lupin model is different from RGMWM framework in two major ways:

1. The foundation has not compromised with the ridge to valley approach and initially treated ridgelines in the milli-watershed (Varna, Raisen district), irrespective of micro-watershed boundaries.

2. The Foundation believes that intervention lasting 5 years is not sufficient to make a long term impact and therefore it does not withdraw at the end of 5 years. Though the watershed programmes undertaken by it continues to operate for 7 years, the Foundation stays at least for 20 years in the village for the other programmes, which it feels generate multiplier effects in strengthening participatory institutional structures at the village level. Further, the foundation undertakes other human development programmes in the same villages along with the watershed programme (health, education, veterinary programmes, agricultural extension etc.). The complementarities in the different projects aid in making significant dent in rural livelihoods. The foundation acts only as a facilitator, while villagers take decisions in the village level committee and the various user groups. The foundation intervenes only when approached by the village committee for conflict resolution.

department and the Pani Roko CAPART-Supported Projects Abhiyan are, strictly speaking, not Madhya Pradesh is one of the comparable, the latter appear more important recipients of CAPART- significant in terms of the funds for implementing Watershed expenditure in only the last two years Conservation and Development (2001-2003), compared to total Projects. The approach adopted by expenditures on the watershed CAPART is substantially different projects undertaken under EAS, from the two discussed above. DPAP, and IWDP put together since CAPART assistance is divided into 1995 (up to 2003) (Rs. 1458 crore four components: 75 per cent for against Rs.1052 crore). In all watershed treatment/development probability this is due to the higher work, 5 per cent each for community coverage of the Pani Roko Abhiyan organisation and training and 15 per which is operative in all non- cent for meeting administrative watershed villages of the state. The overheads. peoples’ share in the expenditure in the Pani Roko Abhiyan amounts to As per the guidelines, new voluntary 17.6 per cent, which is higher than organisations (VOs) are first put in ‘B’ the general cost sharing norms track and only after they have effective in the watershed successfully completed their training programmes. The most significant under one of the Support Voluntary contribution of the Pani Roko Organisations (SVOs) is the approval Abhiyan, however, is in terms of for preparation of Action plan under creating community-based track ‘A’ given. The emphasis is on institutions in almost every village in the capacity building and involvement Madhya Pradesh that are resource- of people at every stage, right from literate and in tune with the concept planning and implementation to of livelihood support through natural sharing of usufruct and maintenance resource enhancement. of the watershed. 54 Besides watershed projects, projects in MP, both have looked at 24 A total of 58 project villages CAPART has also funded 11 projects the performance of RGMWM spread over 30 for drought proofing in the state. projects. One has been carried out milli-watersheds Experiences from these projects may by TARU Leading Edge (2001) — two in each have significant bearing on the (Delhi/Hyderabad) in association study district, with the approach for watershed development with Sanket and has been submitted exception of in drought prone areas in the state to UNICEF24. The other has been Jabalpur, (http://capart.nic.in/ undertaken by the Centre for Jhabua, and Sarguja where function.htm#WATERSHED). Advanced Research and three milli- Development (CARD), Bhopal, for watersheds Samaj Pragati Sahyog (SPS), the Government of India, Ministry of have been located in Bagli in , has studied — Rural Development, Monitoring covering a total been functioning as an SVO in 25 Division (2002). In this section, we of 13 districts Madhya Pradesh. The role of the have depended a great deal on these spread across SVO is to reach out to a large two studies, primarily because of the 12 major agro- number of sincere groups in civil ecological extent of their spatial coverage and a society who are scattered and zones of M.P. large number of samples. In addition, Preference was provide them support right from the a large number of other studies that given to milli- stage of resource mobilisation to watersheds refer to separate single micro- project implementation. An SVO where watersheds/ milli-watershed, have interventions would support 200 partners over a 26 also been used . These also include were initiated in period of 20 years; each partner or before 1996- a large number of mid-term could implement 10 watersheds of 97; there were evaluation reports of various projects 25 such cases 2,500 ha each. SPS, has made a submitted to the Panchayat and milli- significant contribution in this watersheds. In Rural Development Department of direction though, we do not have addition to the the Government of Madhya Pradesh. further details on their outreach as project areas, To the extent possible, we have tried 13 control well as activities for including it in the to include a variety of reports that villages spread review. The report by the over 7 agro- cover not only projects from different Parthasarthy Committee has strongly ecological parts of Madhya Pradesh, but also zones/ districts endorsed the approach of SVOs projects implemented by different were also taken especially, for up-scaling into agencies. However, scant material is participatory watershed consideration. available on NWDPRA projects, and development, based on the CAPART this is one of the limitations of our guidelines (See, ‘From Hariyali to review at this stage. We have, Neeranchal’, GoI, 2006). however, tried to supplement the Apart from functioning as an SVO to review with some field visits primarily about 23 partners in 11 districts in to comment upon some of the the state, SPS has implemented process variables, though these are drought proofing project covering by no means representative of the 6000 ha. in 20 villages in Dewas state. district of M.P. The project, over the past 10 years, has made a significant impact: there has been almost three- fold increase in the irrigated area whereas out migration from the 25 The CARD study had representatives of both the DPAP and the project villages and their peripheries IWDP programmes. It was undertaken in 29 districts of MP covering a total of 121 blocks, 372 micro-watersheds and 383 villages. Under have come down. DPAP, 105 blocks of 21 districts were covered and under IWDP, 16 blocks from 12 districts were covered. A total of 2926 beneficiaries and 718 non-beneficiaries were covered under DPAP, whereas under IWDP, 274 beneficiaries and 89 non-beneficiaries were covered. Both 4.2 Aspects of Implementation of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were from the same villages. Watershed Projects in Madhya According to the report, most of the non-beneficiaries were below the Pradesh poverty line. There have been two broad based 26 Two of these include studies of NWDPRA and Rural Development projects compiled by The Energy Research Institute (TERI) for a large evaluation studies of watershed number of states in India. 55 27 TARU (2001) a) Limitations of Review of sample is required not only from a study takes control samples Assessment Studies non-watershed area, but preferably from a location which does not enjoy from villages An assessment of the first outside the milli- positive externality impact from the generation watershed programmes watersheds watershed work undertaken in the covering 7 agro- on the basis of published and 27 broader catchment . At the same climatic zones unpublished documents can provide and to that extent time, the general socio-economic useful insights into some of the takes care of this characteristics in the pre-project methodological elements of our normative period of the watershed and control limitation. framework. However, two issues are sample have to be comparable. In important in this context. First, the most of the project evaluations, the quality of such an exercise would analyses have depended on recall depend upon the nature of surveys, and some mention this as a documentation, its methodological limitation of their analysis. As strengths and coverage, both in previously explained, regional terms of spatial and of issues dealt issues in the state with regard to with. Secondly, the degree of watershed development are achievement is expected to vary different; a comparison of different from project to project depending on regions will not be possible from the the location, institutional framework, available information. the prevailing class and caste structure in each project area, and b) Administration and Funding: the time-caveat in which the impact Most of the studies agree that analysis was done. There are some delays in release of funds reduce inherent limitations in drawing efficacy of the project. (TARU systematic conclusions from studies Leading Edge, 2001; CARD, 2002d). that adopt different methodologies or Since the funds from the state are frameworks of analysis. In many not released before mid-term cases, there is a problem of sifting reviews which take place after the out the impact of watershed second year, analysis of expenditure programme. To isolate the impact of patterns show that only about three- watershed programme, a control

Table 4.4: Period Types of Work Share of Total Fund (%) Phases of Financial Release to PIA Disbursement Year 1 Administration, Community 15 to PIA and Organisation, Village Level VWC from Training, Entry Point Activity RGMWM State Office Year 2 Administration, Community 5 Organisation, Village Level Training Year 3 Administration, Village Level 5 Training Release to VWC Year 1 10 Year 2 Instalment 1 15 Instalment 2 20 Watershed Works Year 3 Instalment 1 10 Source: Taru Instalment 2 10 Leading Edge, 2001 Year 4 10 56 fourth of the sanctioned funds are Table 4.5: Heads of Activities and spent by the end of the fifth year. Variability in Expenditures Also, a large part of the fund is spent towards the end of the project, thus Average Average Standard CV Activity share of share of Deviation presumably compromising on nature sanction expenditure of activities undertaken towards the end of the projects. The pattern of Soil Conservation 30 33 16 48 release of funds is given in Table 4.4. It can be seen that at least 30 per Water cent of the fund to be released to the Conservation 40 46 9 20 VWC for the developmental activities Afforestation 10 11 6 55 are likely to be delayed if the mid- Fodder term review is delayed. Development 10 3 3 100 The actual expenditures is not very Others 10 6 7 117 different from the share of the Source: Computed from Taru Leading Edge, 2001 sanctioned funds except the fodder development and ‘other’ activities, which primarily include financial c) Environmental Sustainability support to the CBOs, spend The systemic linkages between the substantially less than their average three important natural resources of share of the sanction (Table 4.5). land, water, and vegetation within the Also, the variations in expenditure 28 These key watershed offers the potential to under these heads in different micro- informants were enhance all three resources, from the state watersheds are far greater than the provided that the soil and water government and deviations under other heads. While from the Indian conservation technique adopted the fodder development possibilities Institute of within the programme is sound and Forest could vary substantially across suited to the local conditions. This Management, locations, given the factors like Bhopal. potential, according to the availability of common pastureland, discussions held with key 29 Work is the need for strengthening CBOs is informants 28, is not fully actualised in carried out as expected to have a more similar per working Madhya Pradesh. In most cases the demand pattern. It has been circles forest areas within the watershed observed by different studies, demarcated by cannot be treated as they come the forest consequently, that these are two under the forest-working plan 29. departments. areas that the projects have often Forest circles Though soil and moisture failed to address. are divided into conservation treatment is one of the divisions, which It needs to be re-emphasised at this components of forest conservation are separated into sub- stage that this review is not meant to under the forest-working plan, this divisions, further be an assessment of the watershed treatment does not follow the ridge to into forest projects in the state. Given our valley approach. It emerges from the ranges and finally into normative framework, we would discussions with our key informants compartments. restrict our review to the three that the benefits of work done in one The two kinds of aspects of sustainability, livelihood, forest range or compartment could forest circles that are and equity and finally deal with the accrue to another range or demarcated are process indicators of institutions and compartment as the ranges cut production participation that would not only across watershed boundaries. Since circles for the the forest cover is so extensive in the dense forests ensure success in terms of the above and criteria, but also are crucial for state, maintaining association conservation sustenance of the project after the between land and water with this circles for the formal withdrawal of the project resource is particularly important. degraded forests. Only 5.4 funding. In a majority of currently documented per cent forest area is cases of watershed programmes in demarcated as M. P., the benefits of soil and water conservation conservation works are clearly circles (GoMP, 1998). 57 30 CARD visible, particularly in terms of former and 23 per cent in the latter (2002) reports that there has positive land-use changes due to (Deshpande and Narayanmoorthy, been an increase improved water availability. 1999). The availability of of about 24 ha. in According to Taru Leading Edge groundwater in wells and from hand- the area under (2001), while 80 per cent of the pumps shows a distinct plough per micro- watershed under watershed villages have reported improvement in the watershed DPAP projects increase over the project period, only villages when compared with the (assuming the 60 per cent of the control villages control villages (Table 4.6). Although area of a micro- watershed to be have done the same. It has been all the water problems in the roughly 500 reported that the increase in the area watershed villages have not been hectare, this has been fed not only from the taken care of, definite improvements works out to be nearly 5 per cultivable land (i.e. fallows and in the dry months of March and April cent) , of which cultivable wasteland), but also from have been noted. There is only about a third is the land that was previously marginal increase in the availability reportedly classified as barren and unculturable of water in May and June. In some contributed by 30 barren and wasteland (CARD 2002d) . western parts of the state, water wasteland. Similarly, non-crop biomass increase markets have emerged with the has been reported in 14 per cent of increase in water availability, as 31 I n such cases, small the watershed villages. In noted from DANIDA experiences. farmers who do comparison, none of the control (Cohesion 2005) 31. not have the villages showed such improvements. capital to access The CARD study, which conducted ground water The water availability, particularly a survey in 2001, the year of have started buying water from drinking and irrigation has extensive kharif drought, is less from large experienced both a horizontal optimistic about the general farmers. increase, i.e., in numbers and increases in the water table. The catchments of water sources, as well survey showed a decline in the as vertical increase i.e., the rise of sown area in parts of the Jhabua the water table in existing ground Hills and Malwa Plateau, and water sources (CARD, 2002d; attributed it to both drought and low TARU, 2001; CSWCRTI, 2004). efficiency of watershed projects. Existing literature indicates that, at This probably indicates that the times, a comparison of beneficiaries objective of drought proofing has not and non-beneficiaries in terms of been addressed adequately in the agricultural parameters resembles state. the comparison between irrigated The general increase in both the and unirrigated agriculture. The extent and intensity of agricultural multi-state review of NWDPRA finds land-use as a result of better water that in M. P. (Chanderi Nala, availability has been reported from Khargaon District) the difference in extensive surveys, both through the extent of irrigation between primary surveys and satellite watershed and control households imageries (CARD 2002d; TERI was very large: 75 per cent in the

Table 4.6: Percentage of Sample Villages Reporting Dry Ground Water Sources in Pre- and Post-Watershed Periods Months Per cent of Sample Watershed Per cent of Sample Control Villages Villages 1995 2000 Difference 1995 2000 Difference in per cent in per cent March 37.9 24.1 -13.8 38.5 38.5 0 April 63.8 53.4 -10.3 53.8 53.8 0

Source: May 89.7 87.9 -1.7 92.3 92.3 0 Calculated from Taru, 2001 June 81.0 81.0 0.0 92.3 92.3 0 58 2001). Table 2.6 presents the results pressure of population over time. of one of the surveys of DPAP We attempt to analyse this point districts in the state. However, there further using the existing data from are some doubts about attributing the CARD survey. First, as far as these changes completely to both horizontal and vertical watershed work since the gap increases in land-use are concerned, between watershed and control we expect the watershed villages to villages is not substantially high. As behave as a group since they are all per the study, 60 per cent of the non- RGMWM projects and have the watershed villages have had same programme (DPAP). expansion of net area sown without Secondly, since the two changes watershed interventions, as against mentioned above are both a result of 80 per cent in the watershed villages. enhancement in water resources, we There could be a number of reasons expect to observe some degree of for the expansion of irrigation in the correspondence between the two non-watershed areas such as variables, provided that positive investment form other funds, private changes in both variables have efforts of moisture conservation, and occurred due to the same water and demand related factors like high soil conservation efforts.

Table 2.6: Changes in Extent and Intensity of Agricultural Land-use in Sample Watersheds in DPAP Districts

Districts CI1 CI2 Change NAS1 NAS2 Change Betul 126.2 130.3 4.0 96.1 92.6 -3.5 Dhar 126.0 128.9 3.0 90.5 89.5 -1.0 Seoni 107.6 107.0 -0.6 97.0 96.9 0.0 Bhind 102.4 103.0 0.5 100.0 100.0 0.0 Ratlam 141.1 164.6 23.6 87.4 87.8 0.4 Jabalpur 111.7 111.8 0.0 94.5 94.9 0.4 East Nimar 116.1 123.9 7.7 95.2 95.8 0.6 Damoh 100.0 100.6 0.6 87.0 87.9 1.0 Rewa 105.8 112.1 6.3 92.8 93.9 1.1 Shivpuri 104.1 107.9 3.8 91.9 93.4 1.4 West Nimar 117.9 120.8 2.9 96.9 98.7 1.8 Notes: CI1 and CI2 indicate Guna 104.2 106.6 2.4 89.7 91.6 1.9 cropping intensity in the Panna 105.2 114.6 9.5 86.3 88.2 1.9 pre- and post- project periods Shahdol 102.7 104.9 2.2 83.7 86.4 2.7 respectively. NAS1 and NAS Raisen 113.2 114.9 1.7 88.2 91.0 2.7 2 indicate percentage Sidhi 111.7 111.8 0.0 83.1 85.9 2.8 under net sown Shajapur 108.0 111.8 3.8 95.8 98.7 2.9 area to total cultivable land Dewas 148.6 163.2 14.6 87.9 91.2 3.4 in the pre- and post- project Jhabua 116.7 114.9 -1.8 85.5 90.7 5.2 periods respectively. Chhindwara 122.3 114.6 -7.7 87.2 93.2 6.1 Source: Computed from Rajgarh 100.0 100.0 0.0 78.8 85.9 7.1 CARD (2002d). 59 Figure 4.2 Change in Percentage of Area under Plough to Total Cultivable Land in DPAP Sample Watersheds in Madhya Pradesh

100 R2 = 0.8283

95 t c e j 90 o r p t

s 85 o p 80

75 75 80 85 90 95 100 pre-project

Figure 4.3 Change in Cropping Intensity Change in DPAP Sample Watersheds in Madhya Pradesh

170

R2 = 0.9081 160

150 t c e j

o 140 r p - t

s 130 o p 120

110

100 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 pre-project

Figure 4.4 Relationship of Changes in Agricultural Area Extension and Land-use Intensity

8.0

6.0 e g n

a 4.0 h c

S 2.0 NA e

g 0.0 a t -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 n

e -2.0 c r e

p -4.0

-6.0 percentage CI change

60 Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show that in catchment usually have access to 32 The experience in terms of the increases in both less land and it is of a poorer quality Betul of DPAP expansion of net sown area and (Hooja and Puskar, 2005). They projects show cropping intensity, the selected depend primarily on livestock and that there has micro-watersheds in the 21 DPAP hence their fodder requirement is been a preference for districts follow a consistent pattern. intrinsically linked to their livelihoods. constructing However, there is no association bigger Some of the weaknesses that have between the changes in the two structures when been identified by the existing smaller variables, indicating that some of documentation that lead to reduced structures can these changes may have occurred serve the efficacy in terms of environmental due to processes other than purpose. Also, sustainability are: similar watershed management efforts structures had (Figure 4.4). This raises the question Delays in release of fund (CARD varying costs. of attribution in a study, which seeks 2002d) to compare pre-post situations where several interventions are taking place Inadequacy of allocated funds simultaneously. under certain heads and the scale of operations One of the missing links in the efforts at environmental sustainability is the Priorities and attitude of the failure to address the CPLR community not in tune with the degradation. Inadequacy of fund action plans spent under this head and its Problems of planning and technical variability across villages has been weaknesses in watershed works identified as one of the reasons for (ANARDe Foundation 2005b, neglecting CPLRs.. The other CARD 2002a32). problem is that CPLRs have been encroached upon by the powerful Social conflicts over sites of water members of the village community. It harvesting structures (CARD is not easy to handle the issue within 2002c). the framework of the VWCs as they have no regulatory powers. It is to be hoped that such problems would be d) Livelihood Enhancement dealt with better through the panchayats under the Hariyali The benefits of watershed projects, guidelines. Some instances of especially supporting and enhancing success have been observed in this livelihoods, need to be related regard in homogenous tribal closely to the activities undertaken communities, for example, in within the watershed. Much of the DANIDA project in Jhabua. livelihood benefits are supposed to originate from the natural resource The need for intervention in common management, for example, the land is probably greater in upstream increase in agricultural production areas than in downstream, on and greater availability of fodder and account of both natural and social fuel from afforestation, plantation and reasons. The degraded forest area in pastures. Some of the livelihood the upper catchments, particularly in changes can occur through the the tribal dominated regions is institutions created in the course of extensive due to deforestation. Since watershed work like SHGs and the slopes are greater, the need for Women’s Thrift and Credit Societies. afforestation and pasture While strengthening the former development in these areas is more source of livelihood would primarily urgent. Also, such soil and moisture benefit the landed class (other than conservation work would have the income coming from the CPRs), positive externalities in the micro- enhancement from the latter is watersheds located downstream. usually geared towards the land-poor Moreover, the people in the upper and the landless. Both sources are 61 33 The expected to bring about moderate to Verma, 1997; Deshpande and watershed guidelines long-term changes. Other than these Narayanmoorthy, 1999). self-employment opportunities, specify that Crop diversification is reported to be these structures watershed activities generate wage far higher in the rabi than in kharif should be employment also, both directly and constructed season (Cohesion, 2005; indirectly. The direct employment using local labour CSWCRTI, 2004). While the shifts as far as effect comes from demand for work have taken place towards primarily possible. In created by the watershed activities of Madhya wheat and gram, the major crops Pradesh, given construction of water harvesting and 33 that farmers have preferred in the its high rates of soil conservation structures . The kharif season are cotton and poverty and indirect employment effect is linked unemployment, soyabean over coarse cereals like with increased agricultural most of the direct jowar. The only coarse cereal whose benefits are production — primarily from the production has gone up in the expected to increase in cropping intensity – which watershed catchments is maize. accrue to the creates additional demand for local population. Though in most cases, the success agricultural labour. While the direct of horticultural crops was reported to employment would last at best till the be meagre, there were some end of the project and marginally success stories. For example in after the project period for repair and Bajni Watershed, in Datia under an maintenance work, the indirect IWDP project, the survival rate of employment may last, under normal horticultural crops varies between circumstances, for a longer duration, 66 to 100 per cent (CSWCRTI, provided that the natural resources 2004). are maintained and developed even after the completion of the project. The cost of cultivation appears to have increased due to the changes Benefits from agricultural area in the cropping pattern but net expansion are fairly clear and have returns are nevertheless significantly been reported from the majority of higher for watershed beneficiaries watershed villages (CARD, 2002d). (Deshpande and Narayanmoorthy, The expansion of Kharif and Rabi 1999). It appears that yield crops as well as a more increases have come primarily from remunerative crop-mix, both in shifts towards high yielding crops comparison to pre-project period and due to availability of irrigation. In the control villages enable us to say fact, in some cases there is an with some degree of confidence that observed decline in the yield of dry there has been an increase in the crops (Table 4.7). The positive effect agricultural income within the project of cropping pattern and productivity villages and has accrued to all appear to vary, however, across categories of farm size. In some regions and projects; DPAP, for cases, high value crop diversification example, appears to have been was found to be the major more successful compared to IWDP component of an increased on this count (TERI, 2004). agricultural income (Rajput and

Table 4.7: Crops Beneficiaries Non-Beneficiaries Yield (per Ha.) of Major Jowar Local 1414 864 Crops of HYV 751 845 Beneficiaries and Non- Groundnut Local 622 661 beneficiaries in Chanderi HYV 560 605 Nala, 1998 Maize 1000 - Source: Wheat 1624 1227 Deshpande and Narayanmoorthy, Cotton 1261 920 1999 62 Given the methodologies adopted in and Rajasthan (Kota, in particular) many of the studies, the problem continue in spite of increases in again is whether the positive productivity and employment. The changes in farm livelihoods can be elderly and the children stay back, justifiably attributed to watershed soil the former looking after the fields and and conservation work. It may be the latter to attend schools. The noted that most of the changes in DANIDA-funded projects under cropping pattern observed in primary NWDPRA programme, report a surveys are similar to the changes at significant reduction in migration the state level. The increase of area both in the number of family under wheat and soyabean is clearly members migrating and the duration a state level phenomenon. Studies of migration as a result of an with more cautious approaches, in increase in employment fact, are doubtful as to whether opportunities spread over a greater increases in yield, land values, and period of the year. the number of livestock have resulted The objective of drought mitigation, from the watershed activities since according to the CARD study, has similar increases have been been more or less fulfilled in some observed in areas outside the districts. Examples of districts where watershed. DPAP has alleviated the effect of The direct wage employment from drought are Guna, Khargaon, the project has been significant and Shajapur, and Shivpuri (CARD the landless in most cases have got 2002d). However, in spite of high substantial relief from the additional intensity of watershed work in low income. There is also some evidence rainfall and high variability areas like that the rate of migration has Jhabua, Dhar and Ratlam, the temporarily gone down in many of programme has failed to offer relief the villages. Also, the wages paid during drought in three successive from the watershed projects have years from 1999 to 2001. The failure been reported to be higher than the to address drought in these cases existing wage rates. About a third of may be on the one hand related to the sample household from the the nature of work done as a part of DANIDA funded projects in the the project but on the other, may also western districts of the state have be due to the severity and frequency reported 50 per cent rise in of drought in these districts. The employment. The long-term indirect DANIDA experience from the same employment effect from increased districts, interestingly, does not show agricultural production is less clear. significant reduction in income during There is no major difference between the same period (Cohesion, 2005). the watershed and control villages in Thus, changing the model of this respect, except in isolated operation somewhat may provide cases. encouraging results. An assessment of impact on Though a lot of livelihood-enhancing migration is complex as migration variables have undergone positive occurs due to both, push and pull changes at the village level, one of factors. The push factors may have the issues of concern is that weakened, without resulting in any interventions have bypassed a large significant change in out-migration. number of village community Some districts have experienced a members. The study carried out by reduction in seasonal out-migration, CARD (2002d), which uses non- but the overall impact on this aspect beneficiaries from the watershed is mixed. Our field visits in Jhabua villages as control samples, states (for both NWDPRA and RGMWM that most of them are from BPL projects) reveal that migration of families. This, in itself, raises a young couples to states like Gujarat question about equitability in the 63 distribution of benefits from the capital. Secondly, most of the land in project. the villages is privately owned; only a small proportion is under The missing links of forest treatment, community ownership. Finally, afforestation in the revenue land, and efforts at resource enhancement are lack of investment and work in much more successful on privately pastures indicate that livelihood owned lands. As a result, the issues have only been partially landless and the land-poor tend to addressed. be almost left out; the benefits of watershed programmes do not reach them. The direct ways of e) Equity benefiting the poor are through Equity issues are particularly increased employment and through important within the current focusing on rejuvenation and framework of watershed maintenance of CPRs — both programmes. The programme has a pastures and forests. spatial focus on rainfed semi-arid Due to a high incidence of poverty areas where incidence of poverty is and high rates of unemployment in high. These programmes thus are the rural areas, demand of wage expected to have a crucial impact on labour is extremely high in the state. poverty through the process of In free labour markets, this sustainable natural resource depresses wages, particularly when management. However, the associated with low labour expectation is unjustifiable given the productivity. The watershed projects following realities: First, access to have successfully created a dual land in rural India is a primary market for labour with their determining factor of the level of significantly higher wage rates, Source: economic welfare and access to which may induce some buoyancy Calculated from CARD survey Table 4.8: data, 2001, and Census 2001. Disparity Ratios in Female Employment with Respect to Female Population Per cent of % of female female Per cent Per cent Disparity employment Disparity employment of female of female DPAP ratio IWDP to total ratio districts to total population districts population (1/2) workdays (1/2) workdays (2) (2) (1) (1) Jhabua 62.0 49.8 1.2 Jhabua 63.5 49.8 1.3 West Nimar 40.0 48.8 0.8 Mandsaur 60.0 49.0 1.2 Ratlam 53.9 49.1 1.1 Ujjain 33.3 48.6 0.7 Rajgarh 35.3 48.3 0.7 Tikamgarh 39.8 46.9 0.8 Betul 41.6 49.4 0.8 Datia 73.5 46.1 1.6 Bhind 3.1 45.2 0.1 Guna 36.3 46.9 0.8 Shivpuri 38.5 46.1 0.8 Narsinpur 53.3 47.6 1.1 Guna 81.1 46.9 1.7 Bhopal 30.0 47.0 0.6 Damoh 32.1 47.4 0.7 Raisen 36.1 46.9 0.8 Rewa 40.0 48.8 0.8 Jabalpur 5.3 48.1 0.1 Panna 42.0 47.5 0.9 64 to the general wage rates. This IWDP and DPAP) of the villages aspect needs to be looked at in have a disparity ratio above unity greater detail in future field-based (Table 4.8). Out of these only Jhabua research. and Ratlam have tribal concentration higher than that of the state as a Some elements of gender equity are whole. Another 40 per cent of the visible in the watershed areas both in districts exhibit ratios close to unity direct and indirect forms. While there (between 1 and 0.8). This indicates is a significant difference in the male- that watershed programmes have female rural wage rates in the state, succeeded in bringing about gender women get equal wage rates in all equity to some extent. the project areas. Also, documentation of watershed projects The phenomenon, however, in the state notes a change in the confirms the general trend of attitude of government officials relatively higher participation by towards women due to the female workers in employment importance accorded to them within generation programmes as has been the framework of the project. Some amply evidenced in the case of of the indirect benefits have affected Employment Guarantee Scheme in women positively because they are Maharashtra. In this context, the the members of beneficiary move by the state government to link households or on account of the up watershed programmes with the gender division of labour. For recently enacted National Rural example, both the existing literature Employment Guarantee Act and our field visits confirm that (NREGA) has special significance improved natural resource situation from the viewpoint of women’s work have led to reduced drudgery of participation. fetching water, fodder and fuel in a As mentioned earlier, in its present number of project villages. format, the watershed programmes A quantitative analysis of the women in MP — or for that matter in any work-participation ratio of the other state — is heavily biased watershed area with respect to the towards the landed class. It can be district as a whole would have given argued that a more equitable us some idea about the effect of distribution of land would lay a strong watershed projects on gender equity. foundation for an equitable Since the requisite information is not distribution of watershed benefits. available, we have attempted to Land reforms, though not successful analyse the share of female in most parts of the country in their workdays with respect to the share of previous form, would be female population in the area. This complementary to the long-term ratio, it may be noted, is not the ideal objectives of watershed projects. way of looking at gender dimensions The earlier experiences of land of work. Due to patriarchal reforms have demonstrated the hierarchies that are embedded in difficulties in improving the skewed most of rural India, the women are distribution of land ownership disproportionately engaged in through either redistribution of land household activities and are less or imposition of ceilings. Given this available to take up work situation, it is necessary to review opportunities available around them. the possibilities of liberalising land- Since watershed projects are located lease markets, which have the within such social realities, to start potential to reduce inequities in with, we do not expect ratios of unity distribution of operational land. on an average. In tribal societies, Our field visits reinforce what is such hierarchies are known to be found in literature: in scheduled tribe less pronounced about 33 per cent (6 dominated areas, both broad-based districts with Jhabua figuring for both 65 participation and equitable contribution to the development fund distribution of benefits has been of the watershed. The fund is meant achieved (CSWCRTI, 2004; Gate to be used for the repair and 2001). In mixed communities, maintenance of watershed particularly where there is a structures. It is a common practice dominant land-owning class or caste to retain part of the wages as and where the section of land-poor contribution for the watershed fund, and landless depends primarily on even from landless labourers who agricultural wages, the in-built social have no stake in the watershed hierarchy prevents effective structures aimed at benefiting participation from some quarters. In private land. The practice tends to many cases, such hierarchies are undermine equity in watershed expressed in terms of spatial projects. segmentation within the village; the landless live in the fringes of the village settlement, and hence they f) Participation feel only weakly connected to any activity that takes place in the central The importance of the watershed part of the village. programmes in the state can be gauged by the fact that by virtue of The current documentation of the watershed projects in general, and assessment of watershed projects in RGMWM in particular, the village M.P. is in agreement with the community, particularly those who findings of the evaluation of have been associated with the watershed programmes in other Village Watershed Committees states about tackling equity issues. (VWCs), have become more Economic inequalities are only resource-aware. Water has been marginally tackled at best, through brought in the mainstream these projects (CARD 2002c; Datar discourse, albeit with the support and Prakash, 2001), though there is from the media. Through the VWCs, some evidence that agricultural a pool of community leadership has income has risen, in the absolute emerged that has the potential to sense, even for the small farmers complement democratisation of (Rajput and Verma, 1997). However, PRIs and challenge the existing in relative terms, there are adequate power structure of the villages (see indications that larger farmers have Box 4.1). Through the Pani Roko benefited more from the soil-water Samities, there has been a scaling conservation works. One of the up of similar institutional structures reasons is that most such work is in terms of spatial coverage. carried out on private land, whereas common lands, with which the The reach and influence of village- livelihood of the land-poor is level watershed institutions, intrinsically linked, are in most cases however, has been limited in many addressed in a half-hearted manner. cases. There is also some evidence In fact, there are studies that indicate of watershed institutions becoming that WDPs, while leading to an extension and expression of the increased crop production and existing social hierarchy in the productivity, appear to have community. There often has been accentuated inter-household limited appreciation and conviction inequities by ignoring, or sometimes of NRM principles in the village adversely affecting, the interests of communities, with the exception of the landless and livestock (Puskar, homogenous tribal societies. Bouma, and Scott, 2004). A feature of the RGMWM framework One of the inherent flaws in the in the state encouraging current form of watershed models in participation is Nirakh Parikh, i.e., the state is the modality of social audit, of the programme by 66 Box 4.1 Watershed Institutions Strengthen Panchayati Raj Institutions in Jhilela

Jhilela micro-watershed in Dudhi-nadi milli-watershed in is an example of a robust participatory process establishing strong linkages between watershed work and enhancement of agricultural livelihood. The village has used leadership approach of institution building rather than building block approach. A previous gram panchayat member was nominated as the chairman of the VWC by the gram sabha. Decisions appear to have been taken in relatively broad based manner and consultative meetings between PIA and VWC, and between the VWC and gram sabha have been fairly regular. Cost-sharing principles were followed rigorously and by prioritising irrigation availability through construction of 14 tanks and one stop dam (tanks in private land and stop dam in common land with a number of beneficiaries). This resulted in single maize cropping pattern transforming into double-cropped area (maize-wheat) for almost the entire village. The VWC chairman Phul Singh has been elected as the president of the gram panchayat and the villagers hope that he would carry on the good work in the years to come.

the community (GoMP, 2003b). This responsibilities (Cohesion 2005; is undoubtedly a positive step CSWCRTI, 2004; CARD 2002c; towards enhancing the sense of Rajput and Verma, 1997). ownership and hence participation in the projects. There is not too much Another lacuna in the institutional documentation available that would mechanism that has developed in enable us to comment on the most projects is that a top-down effectiveness of such evaluation at approach has been taken at the length. From the limited evidence village-level. The PIA consults the available, it appears that data VWCs first and then the CBOs. This, collection and holding of monthly to a large extent, reduces the meetings have been done regularly effectiveness of the participative (EDSS, 2005 a and b; CARD, process as the action plans and the 2005b). changes therein primarily represent the viewpoint of the articulate Some elements of administrative members. After allocating functioning crucially affect expenditure and time on the lines of participation at the grass-root level. a building-block approach for Training and capacity-building participation, the advantages of such components in watershed an approach are nullified by the programmes, for example, are meant ‘VWC-first’ approach. to initiate participation and make the watershed institutions more effective, One of the elements of a building particularly at the village level. It block approach is a fair emerges from broad-based as well representation of each community as micro level surveys that these group in the decision-making components have been limited to process. This is more crucial in specifying procedures and areas characterised by high levels of administrative requirements of the social heterogeneity where groups projects (WALMI, 2003; Jaiswal, diverge with respect to their 1999). Less attention seems to have livelihoods and their position in the been paid to elements of society. For this reason, it is participation which take long time to particularly important that the more develop and whose effects also last deprived groups are represented in long such as building consensus village level institutions. This may, in around the programme approach, some cases, give rise to social analysing links between resources conflicts (CSWCRTI, 2004), but it and social realities, visualising has the potential to form a basis for a community and market interface, and more meaningful process of preparation of CBOs for future democratisation. We have attempted 67 to analyse the representation of representation on VWCs is between disadvantaged social groups such as 15 to 25 per cent in most districts, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, whereas their share in the and women in the village level population is almost 48 per cent (at institutions, for example in VWCs, in the state level). In Panna, the sole relation to their proportion in the exception, the share of women population of the district. representation is nearly 80 per cent. Thus, gender equity issues do arise Data given in Table 4.9 reveal that under watershed approach. Thus the social category of women is the observation that ‘watershed extremely under-represented in the programmes have failed to address village level institutions in the concerns of the women as they have selected RGMWM districts under not been allowed to access the DPAP and IWDP. Women’s resource or make decisions about Source: Calculated from CARD survey Table 4.9: data, 2001, and Comparative Representations of Social Groups in Village Watershed Committees Census 2001. vis-à-vis Their Shares in Population at the District Level Deviation of share in VDC Per cent share Population membership from population share of SC and ST in Sl Selected share of SC of VWC as No. Districts and ST in district Wome Presi Secret SC ST SC+ST (rural) n dents aries 1 West Nimar 52.1 -10.3 25.0 14.7 -21.2 67 39 2 East Nimar 50.5 2.0 -6.3 -4.3 -30.4 17 17 3 Dhar 68.0 -0.2 17.9 17.7 -33.5 89 78 4 Shajapur 27.4 -8.3 -0.4 -8.7 -24.4 100 100 5 Rajgarh 22.3 -0.5 23.8 23.3 -20.7 50 50 6 Tikamgarh 29.8 -21.8 8.6 -13.2 -26.9 0 0 7 Bhind 22.4 -13.9 -0.2 -14.1 -24.3 0 0 8 Shivpuri 32.3 2.7 4.0 6.6 -29.2 NA NA 9 Guna 33.0 10.3 10.9 21.2 -21.5 68 9 10 Narsimhapur 31.2 -16.0 13.9 -2.2 -33.4 0 0 11 Bhopal 25.1 -18.2 22.7 4.5 -19.7 0 0 12 Damoh 34.5 -3.4 1.8 -1.6 -24.2 6 18 13 Raisen 35.5 -5.8 11.5 5.7 -17.9 20 15 14 Dewas 39.9 -2.8 -6.3 -9.2 -24.1 25 17 15 Rewa 30.5 -3.0 -12.9 -15.8 -26.0 20 0 16 Jabalpur 40.4 7.7 1.0 8.7 -27.6 100 100 17 Panna 37.5 -11.7 -17.0 -28.7 32.5 33 22 18 Shahdol 61.3 12.5 -20.7 -8.2 -23.1 45 50 Per cent of districts having positive 28 61 44 6 deviation Per cent of districts having negative 72 39 56 94 deviation 68 improving their livelihood’ seem to be indicates that success in micro-credit substantiated to a large extent (Datar work requires professional and Prakash, 2001: p-223). involvement in the complex issues of repayment and profit sharing The scheduled tribe population has principles. These institutions have to been represented favourably (more be enabled to serve as catalysts of than their share in the population) in watershed work for effective 61 per cent of the villages. However, livelihood linkages. Such treatment since the scheduled tribe population needs to be scaled-up to the general has high concentration even at the watershed programmes carried out micro-level, it is likely that the solely by government institutions. In selected watershed villages have spite of the relatively successful higher concentration of the tribal efforts of community organisation in population than that in the districts. DANIDA projects, sustaining micro- However, it is clear that in majority of credit groups has been recognised cases, except for three districts out as one of the gaps in the CWPD of eighteen, the under-representation (Cohesion, 2005). Lack of repayment of scheduled tribe is not of a has been one of the major reasons significant nature. for the failure of the micro-credit The under-representation of institutions (the success rate in scheduled castes, though not as DANIDA projects has been significant as that of women, is estimated to be only 25 per cent). substantial (72 per cent districts It has been pointed out that the showing negative deviation). participatory planning process, on Literature indicates that the the whole, has failed to address convergence between schedule three important aspects: caste population and the landless and land-poor is considerable 1. Scale and protection (Chadha et al., 2004). Thus under- arrangements of forest and fodder representation of scheduled caste development and thus long-term population indirectly has livelihood enhancement needs of unfavourable implications with the landless and land-poor. respect to equitable distribution of 2. Technical aspects of water benefits in watershed programmes. harvesting structures as choice of It has been observed from a large location, capacity and maintenance number of studies that though SHGs of water harvesting structures. have been formed in most cases, 3. The frameworks of action plans they have not been functional in are stereo-typed and not in majority of the villages. Women’s accordance with the baseline Thrift and Credit Societies have surveys and PRAs conducted at functioned somewhat better, but the inception of the projects. even in these cases (Gate, 2001), there has only been a marginal impact on the livelihoods. Some failures of these institutions have 4.3 Summing Up been attributed to the insufficiency of Natural resource management under funds and their delayed release and the watershed approach is expected inadequate capacity building. As a to have a long term positive impact result, the programmes have failed to on rural livelihoods which should generate a sense of ownership ideally be sustained long after the among the poor and the vulnerable. project is completed. This is The DANIDA experience in the expected to be achieved through Comprehensive Watershed access to improved quality and Development Programme (CWDP) enlarged natural resources base. (under the umbrella of NWDPRA) The benefits from the enhancement 69 of privately owned natural resources livelihoods of the growing population like the cultivated land would accrue of the landless. One of the important to those who have access to land. gaps in watershed programmes in Successful treatment of CPRs can India is the total lack of co-ordination correct the imbalance to some extent between the forest and the revenue by creating benefits for those who department on the issue of treating have no land. the forest area within the watershed. This lack of harmony hampers the MP, like other states, has two major efficacy of watershed projects in the departments, Panchayat and Rural state more than in any other part of Development, and Agriculture the country. The resultant large handling the watershed projects. areas of degraded forests without a While the latter follows by and large doubt diminish the efficacy of the guidelines of the Ministry of environmental rejuvenation efforts, Agriculture at the Centre, the former given the extensive forest cover in has a clear framework of its own at the state. the state level, which is consistent with the focus of the Tenth Plan— Participation of the local community empowerment and strengthening of in the watershed projects in the state local level democratic institutions. is weak and has, in turn, The RGMWM under the Department undermined the objective of of Panchayat and Rural equitable distribution of the benefits Development appears to be more of the project. Like other states, progressive in its conceptualisation there are some success stories, but of the watershed programme, for these efforts have not been scaled- instance, its conceptualisation of up adequately. From the existing scale of a watershed project. documentation, it appears that However, in some ways the Mission feeble interaction between the PIAs has been constrained by the central and the local community as well as level guidelines and funding patterns. inadequate training and entry point activities have affected participation Madhya Pradesh has a more potential adversely. However, one of equitable land distribution compared the strengths of the state is creation to most other states, and hence of village level institutions in the accrual of incremental benefits from form of Pani Roko Samitis in a large agricultural income may not be as number of villages through the skewed as it is in other parts of the RGMWM. These institutions, even country. In spite of some problems, under the Hariyali guidelines are environmental benefits and the rise being used as supporting agencies in agricultural incomes, both to the gram panchayats, thus resulting from increased availability retaining the essence of broad - of water, have been fairly based participation. An increased widespread in the state. The land representation of women, scheduled distribution scenario, however, is caste and the landless in the worsening rapidly, with the increase decision-making process in the in the number of landless in the rural watershed programmes of the state areas over the last two decades can be tied up systematically with being much larger than the increase development of common property in the country as a whole. It is hoped resources, both forests and that the watershed programmes pastures, on the one hand, and would be in a position to diminish improved livelihood conditions for non-viability of small farms to some the marginalised population, on the extent and halt displacement of small other. farmers due to economic reasons in turn. Treatment of forests and pastures, nevertheless, is of crucial importance for sustaining the 70 Chapter 5 concentration of tribal population, and this has given the district most of its characteristic features. The district has a high share of area under barren and unculturable wasteland; on the other hand, urbanisation and literacy rates are much lower. Due to high pressure on agricultural land, the forest resources of the district have been rapidly declining. Though 87 per cent of the workers are engaged in the Watershed Programmes in Jhabua agricultural sector, neither the District natural resource base nor the A Sub-Regional Analysis existing infrastructure is conducive to generating high incomes from the sector. The district is prone to frequent consecutive droughts. (The variability of rainfall is 42 per cent 5.1 Jhabua District: A Profile compared to 26 per cent in the state Jhabua district, located in the as shown in Table 5.1.) Thus the westernmost semi-arid agro-climatic average annual rainfall, which is zone is one of the five most about 750 mm, is extremely erratic backward districts of the country. (Figure 5.1). Farmers report a crop Jhabua’s relative position in the state failure in 3-4 years out of ten, and is somewhat like Madhya Pradesh’s serious shortfall occurs in 4 to 5 relative position in the country. years out of ten (ASA, 2005). The yield levels are much lower than that Information given in Table 5.1 helps of the state, which, in turn, are much in positioning the district with respect lower than the country average. to the state. Jhabua has a very high These very features are also the

Table 5.1: Indicators Madhya Pradesh Jhabua Comparison Population Density 196 205 of Madhya Pradesh and 0-6 Sex Ratio 932 974 Jhabua: Share of ST population 20.3 87 Some Indicators Total Literacy Rate 52.4 28.4 Female Literacy Rate 41.2 19.9 Level of Urbanisation (%) 26 9 Marginal to Total Worker (%) 25.9 33.4 Non Worker to Population (%) 57.3 47.5 Agricultural Workers to Total Workers (%) 71 87 Barren and Uncultivable Wasteland (5) 4 12 Average Rainfall (mm) 977 868 Rainfall variability (%) 26 42 Irrigated Area (%) 11 27 Source: Yield of Kharif Food-grain (kg/ha) 901 688 Census, 2001 and District Yield of Wheat (kg/ha) 1392 1092 Statistical Profile, Jhabua, Cropping Intensity (%) 128 112 1997-98 71 can be further subdivided into three Percent Deviation from Normal Rainfall: Jhabua 1991- 2003 sub-regions. Towards the north, the sub-region including 80 Petlawad, , Megnagar and 60 40 parts of Jhabua block comes under

t 20 Malwa region and is characterised n e

c 0 r by relatively higher rainfall, deeper e p -20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 soils and a large number of rivers. -40 -60 Jhabua region with parts of Jhabua -80 Rama, , Bhabra, Udaigarh years and most of Jobat block constitutes the second subdivision with Figure 5.1 reasons for a clear connection moderate rainfall and soils of Source: Indian between the livelihoods of the people moderate depth. The third sub- Meteorological region consisting of Department and natural resource management and conservation activities in the subdivision is the most deprived in district. terms of resource base. It has low and erratic rainfall, and is almost The entire district has witnessed entirely hilly and intersected by deterioration in natural environment narrow valleys and low Vindhya which has resulted in the decline in ranges covered with degraded forest farm yields. As a result, the ability of areas. Though notified forest area is the average households in the area large in the third subdivision, the to maintain a stable access to area is devoid of vegetation cover resources to fulfil basic human except in Katthiwada block and a needs has gone down (ASA, op cit). few other patches and is full of hilly Once forested extensively, the areas; the area suffers from skeletal degradation of the environment has soils with shallow to very shallow been caused by a combination of depth. factors. The denudation of forest cover has led to extensive soil According to ASA (2005), two erosion in the generally undulating distinct agro-climatic conditions of topography of the area and reduced the area are favourable for the livelihood base of many tribals 34. strategising comprehensive land According to existing literature, and water resources development. declining farm productivity in the First, the geological formation of the district has added to the pressure on area consists of compact basalt rock natural resources and further which favours discharge of water in accelerated degradation by the form of base flow as a result of inappropriate agriculture practices. various mechanical measures of soil The contribution of livestock to the and water conservations in the livelihood is significant which can be ridges of the watersheds. Due to further enlarged if forests and increased sub-surface recharge, pastures become the focus of natural there is a potential for substantial resource management activities. rise in the availability of water in streams and valleys. Secondly, the The terrain of the district is hilly and area has innumerable small streams 34 Tribals commonly undulating and is typically known as draining into rivulets flowing through supplemented ‘Jhabua hills topography’. In this the area. These streams and small their income from topography, the difference between rivers are seasonal in nature and agriculture with the highest and the lowest points minor forest are alive only during the monsoons. produce such as varies between 20 to 50 meters The network of these streams and honey, gum, and (jhabua.nic.in). The variation in relief rivers are part of the basins and sub– medicinal plants rises as one moves towards the while also using basins of the bigger rivers of the the forest areas south of Jhabua — towards Alirajpur region. This condition creates for pasture and Subdivision. Jhabua Hills agro- capacity to store water during the firewood. climatic zone (Refer to Chapter 1) monsoon which can support 72 livelihood base in the dry months. the rural poor (for instance, Food for The above two conditions holds Work Programmes) can be carried 35 A lot of the enormous potential if a mechanism out using approaches similar to that information 37 presented at the of ridge to valley treatment is of watershed projects . Lastly, some block level in adopted for the development of NRM based models are presented the district is the natural resources. as practised by independent aggregation of organisations (including NGOs within micro- The purpose of this chapter, as watershed level the RGMWM framework) and public- information. mentioned in our framework of private partnerships from Jhabua. This exercise analysis, is to focus on a region, has enabled us to make certain where first, concentration of As in other districts of the state, the corrections that watershed work has been very high, RGMWM and the state DoA are the were not and secondly, which has been widely two major agencies carrying out possible when one dealt with recognised as a success story (GoI, watershed projects. The Mission the chapters on 1995; Tiwari and Amezaga 2005). takes up three kinds of projects in state 38 Therefore, information available on the district, DPAP, IWDP, and EAS 36 A similar this district is more extensive than under the broad guidelines and exercise has information on other districts. funding from the MoRD, Government already been attempted at the Further, some information available of India. The state DoA takes up district level, but to us was at the micro-level and NWDPRA using the funds available it is expected could have been meaningfully in the MoA, Government of India. that the basis of 35 prioritisation is analysed only at the district level . The latter has two types of projects likely to be Thus, analysis enables us to in the state; some are funded entirely different at the district and comment on aspects that we have by the MoA, and others funded partly block levels, as not dealt with at the state level. by DANIDA39 and implemented on a they involve partnership basis with an NGO different agencies. Also, called Sampark. There are other Jhabua being a 5.2 Spatial Spread of WDPs in sporadic efforts at natural resource success case may throw up Jhabua management funded from non- lessons for the governmental sources, such as the rest of the state. This section deals with the spatial Ratan Tata Trust, Christian spread of both RGMWM and 37 Some of our Children’s Fund, and Church’s field visits in NWDPRA projects in the district and Auxiliary for Social Action. They are Jhabua showed comments on prioritisation of that this indeed implemented by NGOs like the was the case; a watershed activities at the block level NCHSE and they are not expected to number of 36 for the district . In the third section, be significant in terms of the area NGOs are a comparison of the NWDPRA and replicating covered. watershed RGWM projects primarily in terms of models under administrative functioning has been At the outset, it needs to be other mentioned that information available government attempted using data available from programmes. the DRDA and agricultural office in at the district level for RGMWM and the district, interviews with key NWDPRA projects is not comparable 38 As per the central persons and field visits. The purpose for a variety of reasons. While the government of this exercise is to bring out the former allocates funds as per the directive, 50 per positive elements from both type of geographical area of the watershed, cent funds available under projects, and comment upon the the latter does it on the basis of EAS could be issue of convergence of watershed treated area, which excludes area used for projects. Next, the nature of under water bodies, protected watershed work. involvement of NGOs in RGMWM forests, area under non-agricultural 39 The MoA projects is analysed for the pre- uses, etc. Consequently, data provides 40 per cent of Hariyali RGMWM projects. Though provided by one agency relates to administrative in the post-Hariyali set up, the scope the geographical area under expenses and watershed and that supplied by the DANIDA, 60 per for NGO involvement is limited they cent. The entire can still be involved at the training second concerns treated area under expenditure for and capacity building stage. Also, the watershed. Correction of the watershed activities government projects addressing RGMWM project data as per (works) is borne livelihood and safety-net issues for treatable area would have been ideal by DANIDA. 73 40 Since this and more scientific. However, since demarcated for DPAP. All the 12 exercise is these estimates are not available, we blocks in Jhabua are demarcated as extremely time consuming, it have corrected the NWDPRA data DPAP blocks. While this explains could not be as per its geographical area by the reason for Jhabua having attempted at the considering the geographical area minimum coverage by NWDPRA state level for each district. under each watershed under each among all districts in Madhya Thus in Chapter block40. The uncorrected data thus Pradesh, it appears odd that 3, we have underestimates the relative spatial NWDPRA continues to operate presented the uncorrected coverage under the NWDPRA under the Tenth Plan in all the figures. programme substantially. For blocks. Discussions with state level example, in Jhabua, the coverage of officials in the DoA reveal that the total watershed work by incomplete work in the original milli- NWDPRA is 6 per cent according to watersheds demarcated during the uncorrected data and 13 per cent as Eighth Plan for watershed work per corrected data. continued in the area through the Ninth and the Tenth Plans. This As per the guidelines brought out in appears to be logical, given the the Common Approach for ridge to valley approach, as partially Watershed Development in 2001, it treated watersheds may not has been specified that NWDPRA generate the expected impact on the will not operate in the blocks 41 Location livelihoods of people. Quotient (LQ) shows concentration of Table 5.2: watershed area. 1 LQ=(watershed Spatial Extent of Watershed Projects Taken up by the DoRD and DoA after 1995-96 area in block/ 1 Excludes the Eighth Plan projects as they were not taken up after 1995-96. geographical 2 Includes all the projects taken up between 1995-96 and 2004-05. area in the 3 WP: watershed project block)/ 4TGA: total geographical area. (watershed area 5 LQ- Location Quotient (index of relative concentration) 41 . in district / Source: Calculated from data collected from the DRDA and the District Agriculture Office, Jhabua. geographical area in the district). (Figures in hectares, unless otherwise mentioned) RGMWM2 Per Geographic cent 5 NWDP al area LQ Geog. 2 Blocks RA Area (GA) for (ratio Area EAS IWDP DPAP taken up treatme ) under WP3 nt to 4 TGA Petlawad 95700 525 19671.09 6344 26540.09 27.7 0.68 Thandla 54500 6727.08 17757.79 2635 27119.87 49.8 1.22 50000 11917 2051.34 13637 2251 29856.34 59.7 1.47 Jhabua 43700 8197.13 4478.36 8572.51 2849 24097 55.1 1.36 Ranapur 40000 3380.82 13918.51 2573 19872.33 49.7 1.22 Rama 59800 10950.29 12302.69 2210 25462.98 42.6 1.05 Udaigarh 36800 8900 13837.16 2643 25380.16 69.0 1.70 Jobat 39100 3626 11591.23 2683 17900.23 45.8 1.13 Bhabhra 33800 16225.45 6864.45 4776 27865.9 82.4 2.03 Katthiwara 72000 7361.36 7493 3617 18471.36 25.7 0.63 Alirajpur 61600 4334.93 7981.35 1780 14096.28 22.9 0.56 Sondwa 90000 8091.57 8302.95 1987 18381.52 20.4 0.50 Total 677000 90236.63 6529.7 141929.7 36348 275044.1 40.6 1.00 74 Spatial coverage in the different and covers 49 villages out of the 70 blocks of the district is given in Table villages in the Lakdinadi watershed. 5.2 and Figure 5.2. Due to the lack of Spatial spread of RGMWM project information and comparability across across time is given in Table 5.4 and projects before the 1994 guidelines, Table A-I. The coverage has reduced the information regarding the projects over comparable time periods, from taken up after 1995-96 have been 1995 to 2001 under common compared. For RGMWM projects, guidelines, and post-2001 to 2006 they include projects taken up including projects under 2001 and between 1995-96 and 2004-05; and 2003 guidelines. Interestingly, the for NWDPRA, the projects taken up relative importance given to the under the Ninth Plan and the Tenth otherwise neglected blocks of Plan. The Malwa and Jhabua sub- Katthiwara and Alirajpur has regions (refer to Chapter 4.1), increased compared to the average barring Petlawad block, have a high district coverage. However, this does concentration while the fragile not have much to do with planned ecological zone of Alirajpur sub- allocation of area. There has been a region including the blocks of tendency to allocate over a period of Alirajpur, Sondwa, and Katthiwara time equal area in absolute terms have extremely low concentration irrespective of the size of the block index (between 0.6 to 0.5). To an without reference to any criterion extent, this is due to a higher (Table A-1). While some effort was proportion of forest area in these made under DPAP1 to allocate more blocks. The relative importance of area in some of the bigger blocks, watershed treatment carried out by under the Hariyali guidelines, 1500 RGMWM and NWDPRA is shown in hectares have been taken up every Table 5.3. Except for Petlawad and year almost in all the blocks. Other Jobat, NWDPRA covers less than 15 than the issue of spatial per cent of the WDP coverage under concentration and prioritisation, this all blocks. In Petlawad, it is the raises another serious concern: DANIDA project which is extensive

Table 5.3: Relative Importance of NWDPRA and RGMWM Projects across Blocks in Jhabua Total Total Total Area % % Block NWDPRA RGMWM under both NWDPRA RGMWM Area Area Programmes Petlawad 6344 20196 26540 23.9 76.1 Thandla 2635 24485 27120 9.7 90.3 Meghnagar 2251 27605 29856 7.5 92.5 Jhabua 2849 21248 24097 11.8 88.2 Ranapur 2573 17299 19872 12.9 87.1 Rama 2210 23253 25463 8.7 91.3 Udaigarh 2643 22737 25380 10.4 89.6 (Figures in hectares, unless Jobat 2683 15217 17900 15.0 85.0 otherwise mentioned) Bhabhra 4776 23090 27866 17.1 82.9 Source: Katthiwara 3617 14854 18471 19.6 80.4 Calculated from data collected Alirajpur 1780 12316 14096 12.6 87.4 from DRDA and District Sondwa 1987 16395 18382 10.8 89.2 Agriculture Office, Jhabua. Total 36348 238696 275044 13.2 86.8 75 uniform allocation goes against the Thus there have been no systematic principles pertaining to watershed efforts to prioritise watershed boundaries and the very spirit of activities at the block level, although ridge-to-valley approach. It appears natural resource bases in the blocks that the principle of watershed or agro-climatic regions vary. approach is being sacrificed to Evidences from the RGMWM simplify administrative procedures; projects show that there is little effort even different combinations of micro- to follow norms based on either watershed sizes have been allowed. requirements or geographical area. At the milli-watershed level, there is Though the geographical area prioritisation based on socio- covered by NWDPRA has gone up economic deprivation. DANIDA, for marginally in the Tenth Plan example, has used indicators like compared to the Ninth Plan, the percentage of scheduled tribe treatable area has gone down in the population and local knowledge district, from 1,877 hectares to 892 about incidence on poverty in the hectares. This is to be expected as selection of villages for treatment. NWDPRA is being phased out from the district (all 12 blocks are DPAP Due to limited funds prioritisation is blocks). In terms of relative vital not only at district level, but also importance, on aggregate, NWDPRA at block and watershed levels. Also, follows the same pattern as selecting watersheds on the basis of RGMWM project, except that its objective criteria would make the focus is on Petlawad. However, administrative operation of except for a few blocks, the project watershed activities more has shifted spatial focus over a transparent. Our discussions with period of time. the officials at various levels Source: Calculated from data collected Table: 5.4 from the DRDA Area taken up under RGMWM Watershed Projects Different Stages (1995-96 Office, Jhabua. onwards) Under 2001 Under 1995 Common Under Haryali (2003) Total Revised Guidelines Guidelines Guidelines Area Blocks Allotted Share Area Share in Area Area Share in under in total (ha.) total GA (hac.) (hac) total GA RGMWM GA Petlawad 12771 13.3 4625 4.8 2800 2.9 20196 Thandla 18835 34.6 2475 4.5 3175 5.8 24485 Meghnagar 22355 44.7 2150 4.3 3100 6.2 27605 Jhabua 14183 32.5 4015 9.2 3050 7.0 21248 Ranapur 12379 30.9 2195 5.5 2725 6.8 17299 Rama 18038 30.2 2115 3.5 3100 5.2 23253 Udaigarh 15712 42.7 4225 11.5 2800 7.6 22737 Jobat 9817 25.1 2275 5.8 3125 8.0 15217 Bhabhra 18265 54.0 2250 6.7 2575 7.6 23090 Katthiwara 9229 12.8 2475 3.4 3150 4.4 14854 Alirajpur 6466 10.5 2450 4.0 3400 5.5 12316 Sondwa 11145 12.4 2250 2.5 3000 3.3 16395 Total 169196 25.0 33500 4.9 36000 5.3 238696 76 Ninth Plan*1 Tenth Plan Table 5.5: GA covered Area Taken GA Share to GA Share to In Ninth and up under Blocks covered total GA covered total GA Tenth Plans NWDPRA Watershed Petlawad 2661 2.8 3683 3.8 6344 Projects at Thandla 1502 2.8 1133 2.1 2635 Different Stages Meghnagar 1400 2.8 851 1.7 2251 1 Excludes the unfinished area Jhabua 1443 3.3 1406 3.2 2849 from old watersheds Ranapur 1014 2.5 1559 3.9 2573 again taken up for Tenth Plan Rama 874 1.5 1336 2.2 2210 to avoid double Udaigarh 1273 3.5 1370 3.7 2643 counting. Source: District Jobat 1007 2.6 1676 4.3 2683 Agricultural Office, Jhabua Bhabhra 1844 5.5 2932 8.7 4776 Katthiwara 2857 4.0 760 1.1 3617 Alirajpur 428 0.7 1352 2.2 1780 Sondwa 983 1.1 1004 1.1 1987 Total 17286 2.6 19062 2.8 36348 revealed that no systematic database Using the indices of deprivation, we on technical variables such as have attempted to identify the blocks sediment-yield index is available, that have been neglected in relative which many feel should be the terms. The derived indices of primary basis for prioritisation. The deprivation have been ranked and RGMWM office is presently engaged subtracted from the rank as per the in creating a geo-spatial database for watershed work (the most deprived the state of Madhya Pradesh, which district has a rank of 1). A positive could be utilised as a basis for deviation of rank means that a block is prioritisation. better placed in terms of its relative need, whereas a negative deviation In the absence of database on some indicates that the block has been of the more relevant variables, we neglected. have used the available information to work out a scheme of prioritisation The variability of resource variables is for Jhabua. Given the integrated the maximum, followed by that of thrust of watershed projects, we have land-access. It is noted, however, that derived an overall index of while resource and socio-economic prioritisation based on a simple variables are highly correlated, spatial methodology using criteria of land- distribution of land access has a weak access, resource-base and socio- relationship with resource and socio- economic indicators. (A note on the economic variables (Table A.2). methodology of prioritisation used for According to our index of overall as 41 Sondwa has the highest Jhabua district is given in Appendix well as resource and socio-economic possible I). Since the index is positively deprivation, Sondwa and Katthiwara negative related to the degree of deprivation, are the two most deprived districts deviation, as it is the most ideally, the coverage of watershed (Table 5.6 and Figure 5.3). They have deprived block activity should also be positively also received the least attention; they according to the related to the index (in terms of area have been bypassed largely and their deprivation 42 index. It has under watershed activity as a share needs are not met . On the other also got the of geographical area of the individual hand Udaigarh and Bhabhra have got least attention in blocks). The indices at the block more attention compared to their need terms of level are provided in Table A II. (positive deviation of 8 and 7 watershed activities. respectively). 77 Table 5.6: Deviations of Rank between Deprivation Indices and Concentration of Watershed Work

Blocks Waters Natural Socio- Overall Land Access hed Resource economic Deprivation Deprivation Work Deprivation Deprivation a B b-a c c-a d d-a e e-a Bhabhra 1 8 7 4 3 10 9 10 9 Udaigarh 2 10 8 11 9 7 5 8 6 Meghnagar 3 3 0 1 -2 3 0 9 6 Jhabua 4 4 0 3 -1 5 1 4 0 Thandla 5 5 0 2 -3 4 -1 6 1 Ranapur 6 7 1 7 1 6 0 11 5 Jobat 7 11 4 10 3 11 4 7 0 Rama 8 6 -2 6 -2 8 0 5 -3 Petlawad 9 12 3 9 0 12 3 12 3 Katthiwara 10 2 -8 5 -5 2 -8 2 -8 Alirajpur 11 9 -2 12 1 9 -2 3 -8 Sondwa 12 1 -11 8 -4 1 -11 1 -11

Figure 5.3 Spatial Concentration of Watershed Programmes JHABUA

n w e Th a n d a l a s Pe t l a va d Me g h n a g a r

Jh a bu a Ra ma

Ra n a pu r

Bh a ba r a Ud a ig a r h

Jo ba t Ka t t h iw a r a l oc a ti o n qu o ti e n t Al ir a j pu r Figure 5.3 0 . 5 - 1 Source: 1 - 1 . 5 Calculated from data collected in So n d w a DRDA and 1 . 5 - 2 District Agriculture 2 - 2 . 5 Office, Jhabua. 78 5.3 Comparison of RGMWM and inputs if the future policy is to move NWDPRA Projects towards convergence of all watershed projects. This analysis A comparison of projects by the two would primarily be restricted to major agencies in the state as well administrative functioning of the as the district is undertaken with the projects, and therefore some of the limited purpose of learning lessons. elements discussed here would be These lessons will be crucial as relevant for the state as well. Table 5.7: Projects Administered by RGMWM and DoA—A Comparisons

Features RGMWM projects NWDPRA General DANIDA Funding Mechanism By geographical area By treatable area under micro-watershed under micro-watershed Funding criteria Flat Slope criteria- higher for steeper slopes Funding amount Rs. 6000/- per hectare Rs. 4500 to 6000/- per hectare (current) Implementing NGO and GO, now GO GO-NGO Agency under Hariyali partnership guidelines, NGOs’ role limited Technical Capability Project officer not Mandatory that Project Officer is trained in in PIA necessarily (often not) soil moisture conservation techniques trained in SMC techniques Participation Very important -- regular Important, but technical Extremely meetings of VWCs and details of soil-moisture important- does PIA conservation first. not undertake Meetings of VWCs and work in the first PIA less regular. two years before confidence building. Cost limits for water Preferably should not go Rs. 35000/- per Rs. 25000/- per harvesting structures up beyond minor structure structure (current) irrigation structures – flexible Thrust /primary Livelihood enhancement Increase in agricultural Livelihood objective income enhancement and control of social expenditure Operation of VWC By president and By one VWC By two members Account secretary of VWC representative and of VWC block level agricultural development officer Financial Monitoring Social Audit Accountant general, Social audit and NWDPRA accountant general, NWDPRA

79 Interviews with the key officials as allocated fund per unit of well as the existing documentation geographical area of watershed is enable us to build a comparative worked out, NWDPRA has much picture of the frameworks adopted by lower allocation per hectare of area the two agencies. Since some (Table A.III). aspects of the comparison, In addition, while the cost limits for presented in Table 5.7, are of a watershed structures may seem to qualitative nature and based on be somewhat rigid in these projects, limited interactions, there may not be this could ensure a better complete agreement on the features distribution of resources among presented here. In general, it may be beneficiaries and probably serve the observed that while RGMWM equity purpose better. Finally, projects are stronger in terms of their according to the officials at the state thrust on participation; NWDPRA level office, block level monitoring of projects put technical details first. accounts prevents financial Thus though the latter has a malpractices to a large extent. somewhat top-down approach, the quality of the NRM work done tends We have compared the physical and to be better. Usually there is a trade- financial performance of completed off between technical details and projects carried out under RGMWM participation. Unless the training and and NWDPRA. The projects capacity building components are implemented by the two agencies extremely strong, allowing people to are compared using the criterion of select activities, sequence them, and physical efficiency and two criteria choose sites without guidance from for financial efficiency (Table 5.8). technical personnel may fail to generate expected benefits and in Though projects are not strictly turn may affect participation in the speaking comparable across long run. On the other hand, a top- watersheds some general trends down non-participatory approach can be discerned from Table 5.8. In may show results, but due to the lack terms of completion of the allotted of sense of ownership, all work, RGMWM has performed far arrangements tend to collapse after better than NWDPRA projects. This the project is over. The DANIDA could be due to the lack of funds and model, in some ways seems to have insistence on the rigour in work struck a balance between the two. done in NWDPRA projects. There appears to be some elements From Eighth Plan onwards, of rigidity in the NWDPRA projects. It NWDPRA has been taking up may be argued, however, that this unfinished work within watersheds very rigidity that makes as part of subsequent plans. In administrative processes rigorous is terms of money actually spent per probably due to the adoption of more unit of area treated, NWDPRA has scientific methods in prioritisation spent much less. This may not be a and fund allocation. For example, fair comparison, as the fund since the fund allocation for these allocated under this programme is 43 During our projects is worked out by slopes also lower. However, even in terms field visit to of the ratio of fund spent to fund Ampliphalia characterising treatable areas, soil watershed in moisture conservation plans are allocated per unit of area, NWDPRA Jhabua block worked out differently for more has been relatively inexpensive. In implemented 43 all the blocks, it has actually spent under NWDPRA adverse parts . The fund allocation project, we found for NWDPRA is according to the less than its allocation norm, that differential topography of the place, while whereas RGMWM has spent more NRM measures that its fund norms. The ratio of fund for different RGMWM allocates funds at a flat slopes are rate (See Table A.III). Also, if fund spent to the fund allocated does not carried out with allocation criterion is made indicate efficiency of expenditure in rigour. comparable for both projects, i.e., any case; the ratio has to be seen 80 Table5.8: Comparison between RGMWM and NWDPRA: Some Aspects of Efficiency Source: Compiled from various offices in Jhabua Ratio of Average fund Average fund spent spent per spent per Project Share of fund per hectare of hectare of Implementing Districts treated area to hectare completed work completed Agencies allotted area to (by GA work (by allocation covered) treated area) norm DPAP 5 (1999-00 to 2004-05) NGO Petlawad 4874 1.22 BAIF 80.14 Thandla 4469 1.12 Sadguru 88.45 Ranapur 3211 0.80 ASA 79.10 - Ranapur 4121 1.03 GVT 91.68 Udaigarh 6568 1.64 ASA 30.06 Jobat 4055 1.01 ASA 53.24 ALL NGOs 78.21 4231 1.06 GO, Petlawad Thandla 85.41 3480 0.87 GO, Thandla Thandla 72.24 5281 1.32 GO, Meshnagar 77.43 5194 1.30 Petlawad ALL GOs 76.97 4881 1.22 NWDPRA, Ninth Plan Petlawad 36.70 557 2116 0.63 Thandla 48.91 1365 2186 0.65 Meghnagar 49.12 1430 2659 0.79 Jhabua 47.28 1225 1867 0.55 Ranapur 54.12 1587 2073 0.61 GO, Rama 41.26 1636 2634 0.78 Agriculture Udaigarh 35.01 957 2064 0.61 Jobat 47.96 1528 2097 0.62 Bhabhra 32.15 422 2061 0.61 Katthiwara 34.14 363 1887 0.56 Alirajpur 31.66 2474 2474 0.73 Sondwa 14.77 396 2005 0.59 vis-à-vis benefits. Also, it is possible potential for local participation within that the projects under NWDPRA the framework of these projects. could have performed better with However, the earlier analyses in fuller utilisation of funds available to Chapter 2 points towards them. weaknesses in the training and capacity building activities in all In sum, RGMWM projects appear to watershed projects, except in a few be more flexible. This has its cases. The rigour of NRM practices advantages, particularly in terms of appears to be somewhat diluted adjusting to location-specific within the RGMWM framework, circumstances. The PIAs’ which is the strength of NWDPRA interactions with VWCs are vibrant, projects. Thus, combining elements and there appears to be greater from both projects may result in 81 greater efficacy in watershed Petlawad block of Jhabua is a case projects. in point. Jhabua has been one of the districts where NGOs’ participation has been 5.4 NGO Participation in extensive with active support from Watershed Programmes district administration. A detailed list NGOs have been widely accepted to of NGOs with sanctioned area and be equipped with skills of social amount working in Jhabua has been mobilisation, which is an important provided in Table A.IV. In some component of watershed cases the NGOs accounted for programmes. Specifically, literature almost 30 per cent of both allocated is abundant with examples of NGOs’ fund and area for the district as a successes in training and capacity whole (Table 5.8). Further, they building, which is one of the areas accounted for a larger share of the where the state of Madhya Pradesh number of micro-watersheds — has been found to be weak. After nearly 40 per cent. This means that 2003 with the Hariyali guidelines in in general, the NGOs have handled operation, the role of NGOs’ has smaller watersheds than the GOs. become extremely limited. However, This, in some sense disadvantages they can still be involved in training the NGOs as the time and money and capacity building, towards which spent in community mobilisation 10 per cent of the project cost is efforts are very weakly related to the allocated. While NGOs do not feel size of the watersheds. There is also that such limited fund is adequate to a clear spatial clustering in terms of support their staff working with the NGO activities (Table 5.9). Our community, Hariyali projects does fieldwork and interactions with provide some opportunity for several NGOs in Jhabua support Government-NGO partnership, the this observation. Usually the better DANIDA model adopted in the known NGOs prefer to work in the

Table:5.9 Relative Total NGOs’ Share in NGOs’ Share NGOs’ Importance of Number of Numbers of of Share of Blocks NGOs in Micro Micro Sanctioned Sanctioned DPAP (II/5-8) Watersheds Watersheds Amount Area Watershed Work in Jhabua Petlawad 16 68.8 78.0 71.3 District Thandla 23 26.1 37.9 39.7 Meghnagar 13 15.4 18.6 24.9 Jhabua 9 11.1 6.8 10.6 Rama 15 80.0 77.3 78.8 Ranapur 24 79.2 80.6 80.2 Udaigarh 16 43.8 39.3 43.7 Jobat 10 20.0 15.7 16.6 Sondwa 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bhabhra 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source: Document Alirajpur 8 12.5 7.7 11.5 submitted for district level PIA Katthiwara 8 12.5 25.9 29.2 meeting held on October 17, 2005 Total 158 39.2 30.1 30.3 82 same area for a long period; this However, their share recorded a enables them to build upon the sudden jump just the year before the confidence gained from the local Hariyali guidelines were announced. community. From the field experience it was found that some difficult projects – Even in pre-Hariyali period, from involving communities with high DPAP-II 5 to 7, the share of micro- levels of social conflicts and crime watersheds being handled by the rates — handled by the GOs were NGOs went down steadily (Table passed on to NGOs in 2002-03. 5.10). This trend may be indicative of Many of these NGOs were increasing general disillusionment reportedly newly set up. with NGOs in M.P. (Taru, 2001).

Table 5.10: Relative Importance of GOs and NGOs in Phases of DPAP Project in Jhabua

1 MWS2 with MWS with % of MWS - First batch Stages of under Hariyali Inception NGOs as GOs as Total with NGOs DPAP Guidelines PIAs PIAs as PIAs 2 MWS: Micro 1999- watershed DPAP 5 2000 37 18 55 67.3 Source: 2000- Document DPAP6 2001 3 4 7 42.9 submitted for district level PIA 2001- meeting held on DPAP 7 2002 6 19 25 24.0 October 17, 2005 2002- DPAP 8 2003 18 18 36 50.0 2003- DPAP 9 1 2004 0 36 36 0.0

Table 5.11: Comparison of GOs and NGOs with respect to Financial and Physical Progress of DPAP 5 and DPAP 7 in Jhabua District (as on October, 2005) % of Sanctioned % of No. Fund Spent Allotted Prog- PIA of Blocks Area ramme MWS PIA VWC Total Treate d

NGOs: Petlawad , Jobat, BAIF, 37 Thandla, 97.0 92.6 93.4 78.2 DPAP 5 Sadguru, Ranapur, ASA, GVT (starting Udaigarh 1999- GO: 2000) Thandla CEO,Jan 18 Meghnag 89.8 94.3 93.5 77.0 Panchayats ar

NGO: Petlawad BAIF, 6 Meghnag 86.3 80.1 81.4 45.4 NCHSE ar DPAP 7 GO: (starting Thandla, 2001- CEO, Jan Jhabua, Source: District 2002) Panchayats, 34 Jobat, 71.6 92.8 88.9 60.6 Agriculture level PIA Sondwa, meeting held on Department, Alirajpur October 17, BDO 2005 83 It is quite evident that delayed 5.5 Alternative Models release of funds from the state Till now our discussion has centred government has hampered the on the broad-based programmes efficacy of watershed projects to a which are fully or partially funded large extent. The delay leads to a and implemented by the government large share of funds being spent in agencies. It is equally important to the last two years. This adversely review some of the existing models affects – for both GOs and NGOs – in the district. The mode of selection of activities, sites for functioning of these models reveals activities, and quality of work done. interesting differences in a number Watershed projects undertaken of ways when compared with the under DPAP 5 which are nearing government funded models, most of completion, and the ones under which operate under a set of given DPAP 7, which were due to be guidelines. Some case studies and completed during 2005-06 (data alternative models are presented in pertain to October 2005) have been this section based on our field visits. compared in Table 5.11. While there is no significant difference in terms of a) DANIDA - NWDPRA Project any of the indicators for GOs and (collaboration of block agricultural NGOs with respect to DPAP 5 office and Sampark (NGO) , projects, the NGO implemented Petlawad) projects in DPAP 7 appear to be significantly worse off. By the end of The framework of DANIDA model third year, or the first half of the has been briefly presented in Table fourth year, the NGOs had spent 80 5.7. As mentioned earlier, this per cent of the total fund for represents a case of successful watershed work from the VWC Government-NGO partnership. It is account, but had covered only about important for future policy directions, 45 per cent of the area (the given the evolution pattern of the respective figures for GOs were 92 second generation watershed per cent and 60 per cent). In terms of projects. At DANIDA’s insistence the spending on entry point activities Sampark was involved in the and community mobilisation, project. There were initial however, the NGOs were better off disagreements about the mode of than the GOs (as reflected by the functioning of the project which was percentage of PIA expenditure spent, later resolved by demarcation of Table 5.11). This analysis lends areas of work to be taken up by the support to the general observation two agencies. Sampark has taken that while GOs are better in terms of up community mobilisation and has work implementation, NGOs are allowed watershed activities only more skilled in the field of social after the participatory institutions are mobilisation. Though more in place and the community is systematic fieldwork is required to considerably motivated. One VWC substantiate this point for Jhabua, was made for each hamlet, rather our finding points towards than a village, thus achieving broad- possibilities of collaborative efforts of based participation. Information GO and NGOs. Such observations about the government activities such also appear in existing reviews of the as technical support, agricultural state, where it has been suggested extension services as well as that NGOs can effectively fill up the distribution of better variety seeds gap existing in line departments in for vegetables, initiation of crop the field of community mobilisation diversification, and selection of non- undertaken with the help of women water-intensive crops has been professionals. communicated successfully through the NGO to the local community. The vibrant micro-credit institutions 84 created have offered freedom of choice to the farmers, who were Box 5.1 earlier exploited through input-credit linkages by traders. For cereals and cotton, the SHG loans have enabled The Bhils in Petlawad block (Sat Rundi hamlet the farmers to choose traders who of Karravat village) of Jhabua district through would offer seeds and fertiliser at fair their own efforts revitalised large parts of CPRs. price. Sampark norms for repayment Each household planted and maintained one are quite rigid, and a defaulter does tree on the village commons. They also planted not have access to loan a second time. The contribution norms for fodder grass on the pastureland and adopted watershed works are lower than social fencing of these lands for at least two many other cases, given the poor years. Even after that, they say, there would be economic status of the local no open grazing on these lands and would adopt community (10 and 5 per cent for stall-feeding. They are confident that the work done in the private and common land respectively). The pasture they have developed would sustain their community mobilisation depends cattle in future. upon the motivation of the local population (See Box 5.1). An interesting aspect of this experience is that The initial disagreement Sampark before the community embarked on the process had with the government officials of management of the pasture, there was was about the scope of social encroachment on this land by a villager from an mobilisation. The NGO strongly adjoining village. The villagers from Karravat believes, based on the work it had done for the local population earlier, called the tehsildar to ascertain the rights on the that income generation activities common land. The ensuing conflict was tackled have to be supplemented by by the villagers by offering to make the en- mobilisation to control social croacher a member of their user group and expenditure so that the expected share in the benefits. increase in incomes can be achieved. With development, the tribals are rapidly adopting non-tribal Dhar, Jhabua, Khargone, and customs like incurring large Vidisha. It worked for RGMWM till expenditures on the occasion of a the initiation of Hariyali Guidelnes. It marriage and death and during now continues with similar work but religious festivals. Sampark has obtains funds from other funding initiated revival of a custom called agencies. The organisation believes Arji-Parji or labour-sharing in fields that the two reasons why general which had died down with time. watershed project benefits are not According to both GO and NGO sustained are the sudden withdrawal workers, two factors other than the of the implementing agency and the functioning of the programme adoption of a non-integrated contributed to its success. First, approach that fails to tie up natural communities in these villages are resource management works with homogenous and therefore there are socio-economic aspects like hardly any clash of interests. livelihoods, health, and education. Secondly, the level of landlessness is Like the Lupin Foundation, this extremely low, thus the resource organisation builds on the confidence enhancement has benefited most of of local community it enjoys. It works the community. in the same village on different b) Approach adopted by ASA, Jobat- aspects, which enables it to stay on The organisation was initiated in in the village for a longer time (Table 1996 and works in the districts of 5.11 and 5.12). 85 Table 5.12: Thematic area Geographic location ASA’a Multi- Faceted Community Based Natural Working since 1996 in 4 small river basins Activities in Resources Management comprising 42 villages across 4 blocks. Jhabua (Watershed)

Since 1996 for 110 villages (some Micro-Finance (MF) watershed villages . overlapping)

PRI Capacity Building on Since 2003 for 23 villages in 1 block livelihood issues Since 1996 for more than 60 villages. Participatory Selection of (overlapping watershed & MF villages.) Crop Varieties & Providing technical support and inputs to Promotion MP-DPIP to implement in 7 districts for Source: ASA, 2005. 320 villages since 2003.

Regarding the watershed work, it wise or area-wise) varies between believes in putting first those works groups. A diagrammatic that have an important income representation of ASA’s strategy is component. It emphasises given in Figure 5.2. The developing small irrigation works, development of water resources is which increases the area under complemented by creation of micro- irrigation and generates income. credit institutions for providing credit Like Sampark, it ensures that at for agricultural inputs. It also aids in least one member is included in the capacity building needed for VWC from each hamlet. The user adopting new technologies and groups for the irrigation work levy provides hybrid seeds from the user charg on all beneficiaries project funds. though the mode of payment (crop-

Figure 5.2 ASA’s Strategy

Watershed (Emphasis WRD)

CBOs CBOs People

CBOs

Micro finance for Agricultural credit Intensification & Diversification of Agriculture

86 c) Case of Gramin Vikas Trust, larger scale by the different Jhabua government departments. First, the community mobilisation aspect gets Though it has undertaken some work much greater emphasis in the under the auspices of the RGMWM, alternative models compared to the it works primarily with funds from standard ones both in terms of DFID for Western India Rain-fed methods of initiating participation and Farming Project. Its focus is to norms of completing community disseminate knowledge about mobilisation before starting appropriate technology suitable for watershed works. Secondly, the the area the Trust is working in. withdrawal norms adopted are much Some volunteers in the village are more gradual in the former set of trained by the Trust in natural projects. Thirdly, most of the resource management techniques alternative models are more holistic and they represent the link between in the sense that they tend to tie up the village and the Trust. Major natural resource management activities are undertaken only after programmes with activities in health, confidence building in the local education, animal husbandry, etc. community is completed. Community The efforts put in community is organised in homogenous groups mobilisation generate much greater of people with similar interests and results in these models. The norms usually work is carried out to benefit for user charges are stricter in the each group separately on the basis alternative models. of their priority. Among the activities, making drinking water available is There are a number of ways in which always the first priority, followed by the alternative models differ in their the repair of existing wells and tube forms and functioning. One aspect is wells. However, after facilitating the mode of sequencing watershed participatory institution building and works. While some models, for carrying out the watershed work, the example, ASA, believe in carrying trust offers limited support. In other out the income-generating activities words, the Trust withdraws, unlike first, others like GVT focus on work ASA and Lupin, at the completion of requiring lower levels of investment the project. Though the shramdan (like repair works of existing principle for soil-moisture structures) first. The nature of conservation work is comparatively capacity building varies among high (25 per cent for common land different models. GVT, for example, and 50 per cent for private land), the from the beginning, trains a core Trust provides 100 per cent funding group in the village in NRM and for capital expenditures of water related repair works. harvesting structures. The user group, however, is expected to raise fund for operation and maintenance. 5.6 Overall Impact: What do Water Users Associations (WUAs) Secondary Data Tell? usually gain from the water harvesting structure. The trust has The rich and diverse experience not found it difficult to generate from various watershed projects in initiatives for maintenance. The Jhabua depicted above leads one to training provided to the user groups expect certain tangible impact at is technical in nature and usually district level. We have tried to they can undertake the repair work ascertain this in the light of the themselves. changes that have taken place in the indicators like area under crops, Several useful insights emerge while yield, and cropping pattern. Based on comparing the current models and the secondary data, the analysis tries the alternative models with the to examine the changes in a standard ones implemented at a comparative framework where the 87 scenario in Jhabua is compared with implementation of watershed two other districts viz; Khandwa and projects especially, in Jhabua. In Khargaon which belong to the same order to ascertain this, we tried to Agro-Ecological Region, i.e., Nimar examine some of the important Plains. However, while Jhabua has a indicators of agricultural growth WDP coverage of almost 40 per across three districts in Nimar cent, the Nimar Plains have about 10 region. The results of the exercise per cent coverage, making them a are presented in Tables 5.13 suitable case for comparison across through 5.15, (secondary data are space and time. used). It is observed that from 1994- 6 to 2000-1, the proportion of net The recent study by Shankar (2006) sown to geographical area had highlighted two special features of declined marginally in all three agricultural growth in Nimar region. districts. Similarly, cropping intensity First, the size of gross cropped area had undergone a decline in all three per capita is relatively smaller in the districts. What is however, region (0.34 as compared to 0.41 ha. noteworthy is that the decline in at the state level). Cropping intensity cropping intensity was steepest, with is also lower (111 as against 126 for the lowest level, i.e., 105.4 in the state), which is next only to Jhabua. (See Table 5.13). Chhattisgarh Hills. Moreover, with six per cent share in the gross With respect to crop yield, the cropped area, it accounts for only picture is somewhat similar: not only five per cent share in the gross Jhabua had a relatively lower yield irrigated area in the state. While this in most of the crops when compared is not a highly asymmetric scenario, to the yield in the other two districts the region represents a situation of in the region, in several cases there very high proportion (76 % as has been a decline in the yield in compared to 50 % for the state) of Jhabua. whereas the yield has ground water as source of irrigation. remained stagnant or increased in The second important feature is that the other two districts (Table 5.14). notwithstanding the lower extent of For instance, in terms of total irrigation and cropping intensity, the cereals (rabi), while yield levels in region has performed relatively well Khargaon has increased, that in in terms of productivity per hectare. Jhabua has declined sharply, and The estimates suggest that the land the decline in Khandwa has been productivity increased from Rs. 2583 marginal. The decline in wheat in 1983 to Rs. 4702 in 2002 (at yields has been steeper in Jhabua constant prices of triennium ending as compared to other two districts. 1993). This is an important One remarkable feature of yield achievement, which improved the levels in the region has been that rank of the region from ninth (the while the yield of water intensive lowest) to fifth. crops has declined, that of dry It is plausible that a part of the crops, particularly maize and jowar, improvement in land productivity has risen. The analysis of yield (vis-à-vis some other regions in the levels adjunct to our earlier analysis state) is contributed by large-scale of cropping intensity shows an

Table 5.13: NSA as share of Total Cropping Intensity Land-use Area Pattern in Jhabua and TE 1991 1996 2002 1991 1996 2002 Nimar Plains Jhabua 52.8 53.3 53.1 112.7 128.0 105.4 Source: Department of Khargone 47.0 47.9 47.5 111.2 113.6 109.9 Agriculture, Govt. of MP Khandwa 40.0 39.0 38.8 111.2 119.0 114.5 88 increasing trend in the second period 44 None of these three districts figures in the notifications of the Revenue Department of the and then decline in the third period. state government that notified the drought One plausible explanation for such a affected tahsils in various districts. (Ref. Nos. F trend could have been the 6-35/2002/Vll/S-3, F 6-2/2003/Vll/S-3, F 6-2/2003/ widespread drought in the state in Vll/S-3, F 6-2/2003/Vll/S-3 and F 6-2/2003/Vll/S- 3?) 2002, however the 2002 drought in the state did not affect these three districts44.

Table 5.14: Yield Levels in Jhabua and Nimar Plains

Jhabua Khargaon Khandwa TE 1991 1996 2002 1991 1996 2002 1991 1996 2002 Total Cereals 824.3 744.0 1076.3 941.7 968.7 1051.2 798.3 678.3 1060.3 (Kharif) Total Cereals 1865.3 1958.0 1095.0 1989.3 2847.0 3237.7 1696.7 1815.7 1519.7 (Rabi) Total 551.7 605.0 522.0 639.7 698.3 556.0 532.3 599.0 431.3 Oilseeds Total Pulses 284.7 337.0 292.0 306.7 364.3 314.3 357.3 603.0 560.0 (Kharif) Paddy 489.3 482.0 274.7 642.3 579.0 418.7 866.7 845.7 745.3 Wheat 2012.3 2065.7 1450.3 2134.0 2874.7 2415.0 1781.7 1909.7 1665.0 Jowar 523.7 471.3 527.7 923.0 925.7 873.8 833.0 613.0 1105.7 Soyabean 699.3 660.3 457.0 647.0 728.0 496.2 560.0 561.7 419.7 Maize 1181.0 929.7 1503.3 1475.0 1230.3 1797.8 1306.0 1416.7 2224.0

Source: Department of Agriculture, Govt. of MP

Lastly we tried to look at the change impact on agriculture till now. To an in cropping pattern. It is observed extent the observation confirms the that whereas Khargaon has findings from data based on remote registered an increase in the area sensing methods, which indicated under crops like cotton, oilseeds, and absence of any perceptible soyabeans, the crops that have improvement in vegetation in the gained in terms of area in Jhabua are district. Together the evidence, subsistence crops like Maize and though tentative, calls for further Pulses [Table 5.14]. This, once investigation so as to get a more again, suggests relatively low level of realistic picture of the likely impact of dynamism in agricultural scenario in watershed projects on a larger scale. the period when watershed development had taken place on a large scale in Jhabua. It is likely that 5.7 Summing Up the other two districts may have gained from certain initial advantages To sum up, Jhabua as a spatial in terms of socio-economic entity represents a fascinating case parameters including irrigation. study in itself for watershed projects for a number of reasons. The In absence of other evidence, the undulating topography creates a above analysis may suggest that at number of small ‘ideal’ micro- best, watershed projects in Jhabua, watersheds which are relatively less have exerted selective and/or limited 89 Table 5.15: TE 1991 TE 1996 TE 2002 Cropping Pattern in the Kharif Pulses, Maize, Kharif Jhabua and Kharif Pulses, Maize Maize, Rabi Pulses, Tot. Nimar Pulses Oilseeds 45 Plains (in Jhabua Tot. Oilseeds, Tot. Oilseeds, Jowar, decreasing Wheat, Paddy, Soyabean, Cotton, Paddy, Rabi Pulses, importance of Soyabean, Jowar, Paddy Cotton, Wheat crops) Cotton Cotton, Tot. 45 Weaver’s Oilseeds, Method has Cotton, Jowar, Kharif Oilseeds, Jowar, Soyabean, Cotton, been followed to Pulses Soya beans, Wheat* calculate the Khandwa Wheat cropping pattern. Tot. Oilseeds, Wheat, Kharif Pulses -- Paddy Cotton, Jowar, Cotton, Jowar, Tot. Cotton, Jowar, Kharif Kharif Pulses, Oilseeds, Pulses Khargaon Tot. Oilseeds Soyabeans, Kharif Pulses, Tot. Oilseeds, Wheat Wheat, Maize Maize

linked with functionalities of the all, Jhabua has a group of highly larger watersheds. A large motivated government officials who percentage of population lives just have been involved in watershed above or below the poverty line and work for many years. There are also there is a high incidence of some very efficient NGOs which unemployment or underemployment have been able to pursue their own and thus has the characteristics models in many cases despite the common to a seasonally migrant fact that their method of work is population (to adjoining states of different from the governmental Gujarat and Rajasthan). Thus even method,. the temporary employment opportunities created by watershed The following issues emerge from projects at substantially higher the case study of Jhabua wages have the potential to attract specifically, from which lessons can the attention of the population be drawn for the rest of the states. towards the watershed projects. A 1. There appears to be no relatively small incremental income systematic way of prioritising can generate interest and motives resources at the sub-district level. for participation in the long run. Our Our analysis reveals that a norm field surveys confirm that the nature of a flat area allocation under of seasonal migration has changed a RGMWM projects has been great deal in project areas. The followed from the post-Haryali elders who are left behind are more projects. In this context developing productively engaged in raising a watershed level information base second crop from the field, while a that can at least be used at the lot of children who are also left sub-district level is important. behind regularly attend school. The young couples migrate, but for a 2. The importance of NGOs had shorter time, even after the project is been declining even before the over as there is more work in the Haryali guidelines began to be fields. The joint decisions about the used in the district. However, the watershed structures of SHGs are NGOs have accepted the more taken more easily compared to other difficult watershed works in which parts of the state due to the the GOs have not achieved homogenous tribal population. Above results. It needs to be examined whether in these cases the NGO 90 results are significantly different Some thought needs to be given to after the completion of these the possibility of incorporating a few projects. features of the existing models in the states within a broader institutional 3. In general, our findings are in framework. For example, whether a conformity with the general longer and a more gradual perception that while the GOs have withdrawal strategy should be done better in terms of watershed adopted by the implementing works, the NGOs have been more agencies needs to be considered successful in terms of community particularly as the added cost of the organisation. This provides a change seems justified vis-à-vis the scope to look into GO-NGO results achieved. Also, there could partnerships in future, both within be a scope for tying up with some of and outside the Haryali framework, the complementary programmes since each has its own area of core already running in the states which competence and the two are to a can benefit from the community large extent complementary. mobilisation incorporated within the framework of watershed projects.

91 Chapter 6 The process of convergence essentially requires creating a larger picture so as to be able to gauge the nature, magnitude, and the interconnectedness of the issues and solutions- many of them may go beyond the scope of micro/milli watershed projects. In this context, issues like prioritisation within earmarked areas for each programme, upstream-downstream dynamics, impact on water balance Summary and Major Findings and ground water profile, promotion of sustainable farming practices, equitable benefit-sharing, cross- 6.1 The Context subsidisation, and cost-sharing, sustainability of watershed Watershed Development treatments and institutions and Programmes (WDPSs) have upward linkages with markets are traversed through fairly rich relevant. experiences culminating into variety of learning experiences and a mix A first step towards creating such a bag of successes and failures. A larger picture on watershed number of studies have tried to development involves a number of summarise and synthesise activities in terms of preparing a experiences and outcomes from broad data-base; reviewing various different watershed programmes experiences, understanding the across different parts of the country. administrative problems, exploring The recent report ‘From Hariyali to alternative institutional mechanisms, Neeranchal’ prepared by the and creating multi-stakeholder Parthasarathy Committee is build on platforms for exchange of this vast and varied set of information, experiences, and policy experiences and outcomes and feedback. thereby sets a stage for the next (say, the third) phase of watershed It is towards this larger goal, that development in India. Whereas the Forum for Watershed Research and first phase of watershed Policy Dialogue (ForWaRD) – a development in the mid-nineties had consortium of three organizations focused mainly on conceptualisation, viz. Society for Promoting the second phase seems to have Participative Eco-system consolidated the experiences with Management (SOPPECOM), respect to processes and Gujarat Institute of Development mechanisms of project Research (GIDR), and Centre for implementation. The next phase Interdisciplinary Studies in therefore, is to find synergies and Environment and Development achieve convergence across (CISED) – has undertaken some resources, projects, and other initiatives in Maharashtra, Madhya developmental initiatives. It is Pradesh, and Karnataka. The against this backdrop that the study present paper is a part of the larger has reviewed the experiences of set of studies being undertaken by various watershed programmes in ForWaRD. The paper, besides Madhya Pradesh. Rather than being collating the finding from already evaluative, the analysis has tried to existing literature covering specific look at the various projects in the project in specific areas of the state, light of the specific concerns seeks to focus on the issues raised pertaining to convergence. above. The idea is to go beyond the stock taking and at least highlight 92 some of the new challenges that are as may be understood from the likely to assume critical importance underlying approach, is expected to while scaling up and at the same be broadly qualitative, and probably time, enhancing effectiveness of the will not enable us to say anything in programmes in the times to come. a conclusive manner. Nevertheless, since published material available is Methodology and Approach extremely scant, even a skeleton The purpose of this study was to status report would lay a base for a carry out a broad review of status of policy dialogue between practitioners watershed programmes in Madhya and policy makers. Also, it is hoped Pradesh. The fact that WDPs are that it would provide some directions being carried out by numerous for future research in this field. agencies, each having their own individual model and way of functioning, probably points to the 6.2 Scope and Coverage of WDPs notion that these are seen as just in M. P. one of the numerous rural Madhya Pradesh constitutes a development programmes also significant part of the vast tracts of carried out by the same departments/ dry-land farming land in India, which agencies. In other words, the in turn, consists of almost two-thirds importance of watershed ‘approach’ of India’s cultivated land; such areas as it deviated from the ‘sectoral’ remain vulnerable to risk and approach, is in some way uncertainty, degradation of natural undermined, if not negated. This resources and problems of low however, makes a case for productivity. The topography and comparing the different models being other agro-climatic conditions in the practised in the state using the state however, offer a fairly guidelines of our normative approach promising opportunity for watershed – to review and validate the rationale development, as compared to the of convergence of these predominantly dry land states e.g. programmes. Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra The report has been dealt with at two located on the western part of the levels. Initially, an attempt to review state. For instance, a fair part of M.P. the WDPs for the state as a whole enjoys sub-humid conditions with has been made. Since the available average annual rainfall exceeding material is inadequate to develop a 1000 mm, a substantial part of the comprehensive review, a case study region constitutes upper catchments of Jhabua district has been added to where checking soil erosion may fill in some of the gaps, primarily assume significant importance for because of high (almost 38 per cent) sustaining and improving soil coverage of watershed projects in productivity. Further, with almost the district as well as typology of one-third of land as forest area, and projects. fairly substantial proportion of cultivated land having been The database of this report has been converted from erstwhile forest area, a) collection of documented material the natural productivity is likely to be with respect to the state as well as fairly good in most parts of the area the district of Jhabua, b) Interview where poor, especially tribal with key persons, and c) preliminary communities are located. field visits in Raisen, Sehore and Jhabua for arriving at a qualitative Besides these, factors like relatively assessment of the nature of low level of commercialisation of implementations of the projects. It agriculture, especially with respect to may be noted here that carrying out use of chemical inputs and a systematic survey was not within substantial achievements in terms of the scope of our review. The review, strengthening decentralized 93 governance through reforms in wherein the former has the Panchayati Raj system has information of the total area covered significant bearing for watershed the latter gives the figure of only the development in the state. actual treated area). Given the scope, the Government of It is observed that the WDPs under MP recognized the need to harness RGMWM have concentrated mainly the potential of its relatively rich in twelve districts, constituting about natural resources for simultaneously 56 per cent of the total area covered achieving the dual goals of under the programme. These are: environmental regeneration and Jhabua, Dhar, Chhindawada, poverty reduction in the state. The Khargaon, Ratlam, Sidhi, Shahdol, state is perhaps the pioneer in the Satna, Sheoni, Shivapuri, Raysen, country in terms of setting up a Bhind. All these districts have more special Mission (i.e. RGMWM) for than one lakh ha. of treated land implementing watershed under the programme. Similarly, development projects (funded NWDPRA has higher concentration through the MoRD). Implementation in eleven districts, accounting for 39 of WDP in a mission mode is percent of the total treated area perhaps a pointer to official under the programme. These are: recognition of the need as well as Jhabua, Jabalpur, Chhindwada, scope for watershed development in Satna, Mandasaur, Guna, Betul, the state, which otherwise has Mandla, Indore, Khargaon, remained fairly dormant in terms its Shajapur. Each of these districts has agricultural growth and the more than 30,000 ha. of treated area associated poverty reduction. under NWDPRA. Together these are 17 districts having larger area Besides RGMWM, which has a under the two major watershed distinction of implementing the programmes with four appearing in largest number of watershed projects both the lists, viz. Jhabua, in the state, there are other agencies Chhindwada, Satna and Khargaon. / programmes that have made significant contribution towards The three programmes have been, watershed development. The other by and large, implemented in a major programme is National manner that avoids duplication of Watershed Programme for Rainfed efforts; each one of them caters to Agriculture (NWDPRA), which till specific areas on priority basis. recently, had covered less than one However, it is likely that there is not third of the area covered by much of synergy between the RGMWM. To a large extent, various programmes because first, relatively higher coverage of WDPs the projects are being planned within by RGMWM is due to the fact that a the context of departmental good number of districts in the state priorities; and secondly, the unit for have been identified under various planning is generally milli and/or area specific programmes under micro watershed rather than a MoRD like EAS, DPAP and IWDP stream or river basin. The Forest out of which EAS has a substantial Department also undertakes soil coverage. water conservation treatment on degraded forest area, constituting RGMWM and NWDPRA together major part of the upper catchments with RVP account for more than five of watersheds. However, in general million hectares of area covered they don’t implement the covering more than 15 per cent of conservation measures on a the total area in the state (the figure watershed basis and we don’t have might not be accurate due to much information about that, except inconsistencies in information for a few cases where they act as a between RGMWM and NWDPRA PIA for RGMWM. 94 WDPs implemented by agencies like involved in watershed work for many CAPART and Donor Agencies as years. There are also some DFID, EU, ICEF etc. also couldn’t be extremely efficient NGOs which taken into consideration due to lack despite having different ways of of information regarding them in the working compared to the public domain. government’s way of functioning have been able to pursue their own Although most of the WDPs have models in many cases. In that sense, been implemented by the it provides a platform for examining government agencies there are a the central issues of the study at a number of NGOs (numbering about more disaggregated level. 100) who have been involved as PIA under RGMWM and CAPART. The NGOs vary widely in terms of the Following issues emerge from the past experience, capabilities, and case study of Jhabua: presence in the area before and after completion of the WDPs. However, There appears to be no systematic only half of the NGOs seem to have way of prioritising resources at the a fairly good understanding as well sub-district level. Our analysis as capability in terms of reveals that a norm of a flat area implementing WDPs. A large allocation under RGMWM projects proportion of these NGOs have has been followed from the post- experience in implementation of Haryali projects. In this context Government as well as externally developing watershed level funded projects. information base that can at least be used at the sub-district level is In absence of synergy across the important. programmes the actual achievements may have remained The importance of NGOs has been sub-optimal, notwithstanding the declining even before the Haryali effective implementation of the Guideline in the district. However, micro/milli watershed projects. It is the NGOs have accepted the more therefore likely that: (a) the impact of difficult watershed works where the the various programmes may have GOs have not achieved results. It remained localized; and (b) cross needs to be examined whether in learning may have remained limited. these cases the NGO results are Hence, a more holistic picture significantly different after the therefore is needed to address the completion of these projects. above limitations. In general, our findings are in conformity with the general perception that while the GOs have 6.3 Jhabua District: A done better in terms of watershed Disaggregated Analysis works, the NGOs have been more Jhabua district is located in the successful in terms of community westernmost semi-arid agro-climatic organisation. This provides a zone and is in fact one of the five scope to look into GO-NGO most backward districts of the partnerships in future, both within country. Jhabua’s relative position in and outside the Haryali framework, the state is somewhat like Madhya as clearly, their areas of core Pradesh’s relative position in the competence is different and to a country. The district has been a main large extent complementary. focus of attention from various Some thought needs to be given to agencies implementing watershed the possibility of incorporating a projects in the state. The district also few features of the existing has a group of extremely motivated alternative models in the states government officials, who have been within a broader institutional 95 framework. For example, a longer Given the hilly and undulating and a more gradual withdrawal terrain, the watershed structures strategy of the implementing have by and large yielded agencies needs to be given some substantial benefits to about 8-10 consideration particularly as the farmers per structure. The benefits added cost of this seem to be have resulted in increase in justified vis-à-vis the results number of waterings, increased achieved. Also, there could be a cropping intensity, and change in scope for tying up with some of the cropping pattern in favour of more complementary programmes water intensive crops. already running in the states which The following observations can be can benefit from the community made about the mode of project mobilisation incorporated within implementation in the state by the framework of watershed various agencies: projects. Given the earmarked area, selection of milli and micro 6.4 Implementation and watersheds generally appears to Achievements be based on socio-political considerations, rather than taking There is vast set of grey literature connectivity and continuity in a that has gone into examining the geo-hydrological sense. implementation process and the achievements or impact of the ‘Pani Roko Abhiyan’ being a pre- various watershed projects in the cursor, watershed approach in the state. While most of these studies/ state also got to be seen more reports are project specific, one within a micro context, without could identify common features looking into the issues of cutting across the major upstream-down stream within a programmes especially, RGMWM larger watershed or river basin. and NWDPRA. In what follows we Although most of the programmes have tried to summarise some of the function with objectives that are important features pertaining to fairly common (especially among project implementation and RGMWM, NWDPRA, CAPART, achievements. These are of course, Donor Funded), there are fairly generalist in nature, substantial differences in the nevertheless recapitulating them manner in which these may help raising relevant issues and programmes are being visualized drawing lessons thereof. and thus in turn, implemented. The major benefits of the Whereas institutional development implementation of watershed assumes a more important place in programmes in the state can be the WDPs implemented by summarised in terms of: RGMWM, agronomic practices Increased availability of water and crop management remain through water harvesting central to NWDPRA. structures and enhanced crop The treatment in the forest areas survival during mild drought. are focused more on vegetative Significant awareness for measures and regeneration as well harvesting and conserving water, as conservation of forest. In that inducing private initiatives. sense the intervention does not directly link watershed treatment or Positive demonstration effect of the soil water conservation to the relatively more successful and people who live inside or in the sustaining WDPs. periphery of the forest.

96 There is little clarity about the Although the water harvesting micro watershed projects to be structures have been made fairly taken up within the area already well and most of them have treated under RVPs. survived at least till 3-4 years after completion of the project the future The problem of delay in management however is a big disbursement of fund is common to question. most of the programmes. This obviously has a significant bearing Drinking water continues to remain on the manner in which project is a missing link in large number of implemented especially in terms of WDPs. Hand pumps/ stand posts mobilizing people’s participation. and water tanks including tankers supplied by other schemes for The ridge to valley approach is provisioning of drinking water difficult to follow especially, within remains the major source. the time frame of the project. The Adopting integrated approach to obvious preference for water augmentation and allocation of harvesting structures plays a water across different uses and critical role in getting people users is an unresolved aspect in involved in the project. Negotiating most of the WDPs, including some this against other treatments of those implemented by NGOs. therefore requires substantial skills in the form of social engineering. Forest and pastures within micro Most of the Govt. agencies may watersheds are rarely treated and not get into this difficult process, protected. Managing a fodder given the other responsibilities on supply system during the initial hand. At the same time, NGOs phase when the pastures are being may lack the requisite skills to protected, and regulating the use steer the process. As a result the subsequently, is often found programme remains centred round unaddressed. Unless this aspect is water harvesting structures. brought to the forefront right from the beginning of participatory WDCs and SHGs are formed in the processes of planning and case of most of the WDPs. These implementation, management of institutions however often do not CPLRs remains the most difficult last beyond the project. In case of challenge. WDCs, utilization of funds after completion of the project is difficult Little attention is being paid especially in the light of the fact towards agricultural extension that the recent regulation under except for distribution of seeds and RGMWM that the committee can other inputs. Water use efficiency use only the interest of the is yet to be taken up on board as development fund vested with that. an important issue for negotiation. In the case of SHGs, most of them Availability of wages during the cease to function after the PIA project period is an important withdraws or many a time even benefit reaching to landless. Using before that. The individual savings the fund generated out of the wage are also withdrawn. income could potentially be utilised The size of the water harvesting by forming SHGs. Such groups structures seems to be a seldom sustain as noted earlier. contentious issue. The areas with high slope as well as erosion may require substantially larger 6.5 Emerging Issues and Future structure that may not be feasible Directions: without compromising the equity issue, given the financial allocation. The experience, till now suggest that whereas there is increasing 97 awareness and interest among keeping the upstream-down peoples in WDPs, the project by and stream perspective in place. large suffers from clear result Setting up priority of treating orientation. The very reason, which CPLRs including the degraded prompted adoption of multifunctional forestland within a micro and participatory approach instead of watershed as an important pre- merely activity specific intervention condition for undertaking the in the earlier schemes implemented WDP-implementation. This would by the line department, seems to be require sorting out the legal blocking the way towards a result (if hitches. not target) oriented mechanism for project implementation. It seems that Introducing administrative and the projects attempt to address, in financial flexibility on a result tits and bits, most of the aspects oriented basis. envisaged by the project - productivity enhancement, PIAs may not immediately employment generation (if not withdraw after completion of the equity), environmental sustainability, project. There is a need to dovetail democratic decentralization, and other programmes where the setting up of backward-forward NGOs/PIAs could continue their linkages (Watershed-plus). And yet, interaction with the village the actual achievements especially communities, especially in order to in terms of sustenance of benefits hand hold the community based appear to be limited. organisations created under the project. The PIAs should be At this juncture when the Rural around at least till the first three Employment Guarantee Act is rounds of repair/maintenance or already in place, and WDPs is one of regulating the use of pastures are the most important thrust areas for completed. the activities to be planned under the employment programme, it is The scope for creating larger essential that the lessons learnt from water harvesting structures or the past experience be incorporated regenerating degraded forest/other in future planning. Following issues land could be linked with minor need special attention in this context: irrigation and forest department respectively; same may apply for schemes for providing drinking water in the WDP villages. Adopting a holistic approach by coordinating various watershed A multi-stakeholder platform may programmes taking a larger help identifying and addressing watershed unit for perspective conceptual as well as practical planning. The present state level issues such as these. While there a coordination committee should be couple of networks of WDP- made more broad-based. parishioners, these networks need Coordinated efforts are should be to be strengthened and represented made to create a public database in the state level coordinating on the various important aspects committee as part of the process of for watershed development. broadening its base. Putting information about treated and planned micro watersheds in public domain so as to help enhancing transparency in planning and implementation. Link with RVP and Forest watersheds should be established 98 List of Abbreviations

ASA: Action for Social Advancement

ANARDe Foundation: ACIL-Navasarjan Rural Development Foundation

ADB: Asian Development Bank

BAIF: Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation

CAPART: Council for Advancement of People’s Action & Rural Technology

CARD: Centre for Advanced Research and Development

CBO: Community Based Organisations

CGWB: Central Ground Water Board

CISED: Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development

CPLR: Common Property Land Resource

CSWCRTI: Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute

CWDP: Comprehensive Watershed Development Programme

DANIDA: Danish International Development Assistance

DFID: Department for International Development

DPAP: Drought Prone Areas Programme

DPIP: District Poverty Initiatives Program

DRDA: District Rural Development Agency

EAS: Employment Assurance Scheme

EDSS: Eco Development Solution Society

FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation

ForWaRD: Forum for Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue

GIDR: Gujarat Institute of Development Research

GVT: Gramin Vikas Trust

ICAR: Indian Council for Agricultural Research

ICEF: India-Canada Environment Facility 99 ICRISAT: Indian Centre for Research in Semi-arid Tropics

IIFM: Indian Institute of Forest Management

IWDP: Integrated Wastelands Development Programme

MoA: Ministry of Agriculture

MoRD: Ministry of Rural Development

MPRLP: Madhya Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project

NCHSE: National Centre for Human Settlements and Environment

NREGA: National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

NRSA: National Remote Sensing Agency

NWDPRA: National Watershed Development Programme for Rainfed Areas

PIA: Programme Implementation Agency

PRA: Participatory Rural Appraisal

PRI: Panchayati Raj Institutions

RGMWM: Rajiv Gandhi Mission for Watershed Management

RVP: River Valley Programme

SGRY: Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojna

SGSY: Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana

SHG: Self Help Group

SPS: Samaj Pragati Sahyog

UNICEF: United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund

VDC: Village Development Committee

VWC: Village Watershed Committee

WALMI: Water and Land Management Institute

WDP: Watershed Development Programme

WUA: Water Users Association

100 References

ADB (2001), ‘Madhya Pradesh Integrated Water Management Strategy’, Asian Development Bank, September.

ANARDe Foundation (2005a), ‘Evaluation Study of Watershed Development in District Ujjain’. ANARDe Foundation (2005b), ‘Evaluation Study of Watershed Development in District Ratlam’.

CARD (2002a), ‘Evaluation of DPAP in (6thBatch) of Madhya Pradesh’, submitted to RGMWM.

CARD (2002b), ‘Evaluation of DPAP in (6th Batch) of Madhya Pradesh’, submitted to RGMWM. CARD (2002c), ‘Evaluation of DPAP in (6th Batch) of Madhya Pradesh’, submitted to RGMWM.

CARD (2002d), ‘Impact Assessment Study of Watershed Programmes in Madhya Pradesh’, Sponsored by Monitoring Department, Ministry of Rural Development, Monitoring Division.

CARD (2005a), ‘Mid Term Evaluation of Drought Prone Area Programme (9th Batch) in Jhabua district of Madhya Pradesh’.

CARD (2005b), ‘Mid Term Evaluation of Drought Prone Area Programme (9th Batch) in of Madhya Pradesh’.

CARD (2005c), ‘Mid Term Evaluation of Drought Prone Area Programme (9th Batch) in of Madhya Pradesh’.

Chadha, G. K., Sucharita Sen, and H. R. Sharma (2004), ‘Land Resources’,nd 2 Volume ‘State of the Indian Farmer: A Millennium Study’, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of India and Academic Foundation, New Delhi.

Chopra, Kanchan (1999), ‘Evaluation of Watershed Programmes in India: A Review’ in Farrington, J; Cathryn, T., and James, A.J. (eds.),Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty First Century, Oxford University Press, New Delhi

Cohesion (2005), Draft Report on ‘Study on Impact of Project Intervention on the Socio- Economic Condition of Poor Beneficiaries of the Project’, Comprehensive Watershed Development Project Madhya Pradesh, submitter to DANIDA advisor.

CSWCRTI (2004), ‘Participatory Watershed Management for Sustainable Development in Bajni Watershed, Datia, Madhya Pradesh, under IWDP’, Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute.

Dar, William (2003), ‘Maximising Impacts for Natural Resource Management Research: Overcoming Methodological Changes’ in Bekele Shiferaw and Ade Freeman (eds), Methods for Assessing the Impacts of Natural Management Research, ICRISAT, Hyderabad

Das, Keshab (2006) ‘Drinking Water and Sanitation in Rural Madhya Pradesh: A Review of Policy Initiatives’, Draft Report, September, Gujarat Institute of Development Research, Ahmedabad

101 Datar, C., and A. Prakash (2001), ‘Engendering Community Rights: A Case for Women’s Access to Water and Wasteland’,Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 8(2), 223-246.

Deaton, 2003 Deaton, A and J. Dreze, (2002), Poverty and Inequality in India: A Re- examination’ , Working Paper No. 107, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics, New Delhi.

Deaton, A. (2003), ‘Regional Poverty Estimates for India, 1999-2000’ Research Program in Development Studies, Princeton University, August 22, 2003.

Deshpande, R.S. and A. Narayanmoorthy (1999), ‘An Appraisal of Watershed Projects Across Regions’,Artha Vijnana, 41(4), pp. 315-415.

Deshpande, R.S. and G. Thimmaiah (1999), ‘Watershed Development Approach and Experience of National Watershed Development Programme in the Country’,Journal of Rural Development, 18(3), pp. 453-469.

EDSS, (2005), ‘Mid-term Evaluation Report, 9th Batch Hariyali D.P.A.P. Shajapur; Bhopal, M.P’.

EDSS, (2005), ‘Mid-term Evaluation Report, 9th Batch Hariyali D.P.A.P. Shivpuri, Bhopal, M.P’. Fan, Shenggen, and Peter Hazell (2000), ‘Should Developing Countries Invest More in Less-Favoured Areas? An Empirical Analysis of Rural India’,Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35 (, No. 17). , April 22, pp. 1455 - 1464

Farrington, J.C., Turton, and A.J James (eds) (1999),Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty–First Century, New Delhi, Oxford University Press. FAO (1998), ‘Bihar Madhya Pradesh Tribal Development Programme’, Socio-economic and Production Systems Study, Food and Agricultural Organisation

Gate, S. (2001), ‘Empowerment of Women in Watershed Management: Guraiya Panchayat, Madhya Pradesh’,Indian Journal of Gender Studies,8(2), pp. 247-256.

GoI (2000), Warasa-Jan-Sahbhagita Guidelines for National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA), Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.

GoI (2006), ‘From Hariyali to Neeranchal: Report of the Technical Committee on Watershed Programmes in India’, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development

GoI, (1995), ‘Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Programmes’, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi GoI, (2001), ‘Guidelines for Watershed Development (Revised)’, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi.

GoI, (2003), Guidelines for Hariyali, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi.

GoMP (1995a), ‘Madhya Pradesh Human Development Report’, Bhopal.

GoMP (1995b) ‘Mission Document, Rajiv Gandhi Mission for Watershed Management’, Panchayat and Rural Development Department.

GoMP (1998), ‘Madhya Pradesh Human Development Report’, Bhopal.

GoMP (2003a), ‘Pani Roko Abhiyan’, Rajiv Gandhi Mission for Watershed Management, Panchayat and Rural Development Department.

GoMP (2003b), ‘Status Paper, Rajiv Gandhi Mission for Watershed Management’, Panchayat and Rural Development Department. GoMP, (2000), ‘Madhya Pradesh Environmental Status Report’, Bhopal.

Hooja, R., and R. Puskar, (2005), ‘Policy Interventions and Administrative Instruments for Sustainable Livestock Development in Watersheds: Some Suggestions Based on the Lead Study of Five Watersheds’,Indian Journal of Public Administration,51(1), pp.70-93. 102 Jaiswal, A.K. (1999), ‘Capacity Building in Watershed Development Programme: An Anatomy’, Journal of Rural Development, 18(4), pp. 597-611

Joshi, P. K., V. Pangrave, B. Shiferaw, S. P. Wani, Jetske Bouma, and Christopher Scott (2004), ‘Watershed Development in India : Synthesis of Past Experiences and Needs for Future Research’,Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(3), pp. : 303-320.

Joy, K. J., A. Shah, S. Paranjape, S. Badiger and S. Lele (2005):, ‘Reorienting the Watershed Development Programme in India’, Presentation before the Technical Committee on Watershed Programmes inIndia (Parthasarathy Committee) by K. J. Joy, July 25, PuneForum for Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue Occasional Paper, February Forum for Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue, Pune Joy, K.J. and Suhas Paranjape (2004), ‘Watershed Development Review: Issues and Prospects’, Technical Report, Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore

Kerr, J, Pangare, V.L., and Pangare, G. (2002), ’Watershed Development Projects in India’, an Evaluation. Research Report 127, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., Kerr, J. (2002), ‘Watershed Development, Environmental Services and Poverty Alleviation in India’, World Development, 30 (8), pp. :1387-140

Khanna, A. and C. Khanna (2006), ‘Water and Sanitation Programmes in Rural Areas of Madhya Pradesh’, WaterAid India, New Delhi

Puskar, R., J. Bouma, and C. Scott (2004), ‘Sustainable Livestock Production in Semi-Arid Watersheds’, Economic and Political Weekly, 39 (31), July 31, pp. 3477-3483. Radhakrishna, R and S. Ray, (2005), ‘Handbook of : Perspectives, Policies and Programmes’, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Rajput, A.M., and A.R. Verma (1997), ‘Impact of Integrated Watershed Development Programme in of Madhya Pradesh’,Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52(3), pp. 537-539.

Rao, C.H.H. (2000), ‘`Watershed Development in India: Recent Experience and Emerging Issues’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vvol. 35 (45), No. 32, pp. 3943 - 47.

Ravindra, A (2004), ‘Compilation and Assessment of Impact Monitoring Indicators and Systems of Comprehensive Watershed Development Project, Madhya Pradesh, Final Report’, Submitted to RGMWM, Bhopal.

Reddy, V. Ratna, and John Soussan (2003), ‘Assessing the Impact of Participatory Watershed Development: A Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach’, in B. Shiferaw and H. A. Freeman (eds),Methods for Assessing the Impacts of Natural Resource Management Research, Summary of the Proceedings of the ICRISAT-NCAP/ICAR International Workshop, ICRISAT, Patancheru

Shah, Amita (1998a), ‘`Watershed Development Programmes in India: Emerging Issues for Environment Development Perspective’,Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 32, No. ( 26), pp. A66-80. Shah, Amita (1998b), ‘Impact of Watershed Programmes in Dryland Regions: Evidences and Policy Imperatives’, paper presented at the National Workshop on Watershed Approaches for Wasteland Development: Challenges for 21st Century, Ministry of Rural Areas and Employment, New Delhi, April 28-30.

Shah, Amita (2004), ‘Rapporteur’s Report on Watershed Development’,Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(3), pp. 664-670 Shah, Amita (2005), ‘Poverty and Natural Resources: Understanding the Dynamics in Context of Dry Land Regions in Western India’, Working Paper No. 25, Chronic Poverty Research Centre and Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi

Shah, Amita and D. C. Sah (2004), ‘Chronic Poverty in a Remote Rural District in South West Madhya Pradesh: A Multidimensional Analysis of its Extent and Causes’, Working Paper No. 5, Chronic Poverty Research Centre and Indianand Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi 103 Shah, Mihir, D. Banerji, P.S. Vijayshankar and P. Ambastaet al; (1998), Ch2, p8 ‘iIndia’s dDrylands: Tribal Societies and Development through Environmental Regeneration’, Oxford University Press, New Delhi

Shankar, P. S. Vijay (2005), ‘Four Decades of Agricultural Development in MP: An Agro- Ecological Sub-Region Approach’ Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 48, Nov. 26, pp. 5014-5024

Shiferaw, Bekele, and Freeman Ade (2003), ‘Methods for Assessing the Impacts of Natural Management Research’, ICRISAT, Hyderabad.

Taru Leading Edge (2001), ‘Executive Summary of Evaluation of RGMWM Watersheds in Madhya Pradesh, Final Report’, prepared for the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), in association with SANKET, Bhopal.

TERI (2001), ‘Compendium of Impact Evaluation Studies of the National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas’, The Energy and Research Institute, Submitted to Rainfed Farming System Division, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.

TERI (2004), ‘Impact Assessment Study of Watershed Development Programme, A Compendium’, Submitted to Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

Tiwari, S and J. Amegaza, (2005), Watershed Management in Madhya Pradesh: Examining Research-Policy Interactions, DFID.

WALMI (2003), ‘Mid Term Evaluation of Milli Watershed Project Area Programme (6th Batch), , Madhya Pradesh’, submitted to RGMWM.

104 Appendix 1

A note on Methodology of Prioritisation of Watershed Activities in Block Level used for Jhabua District

Using available information from the Census and District Statistical Handbook, Jhabua, we have derived three broad criteria, i.e. deprivations in terms of land-access, resource base and socio-economic development. The following variables have been used for obtaining the above criteria. A. Land-access deprivation: a. Ratio of rural population to agricultural land b. Percentage of small and marginal farmers to total farmers B. Resource Deprivation: a. Reciprocal of average annual rainfall b. Reciprocal of percentage of net area irrigated c. Percentage of underutilised agricultural land (culturable waste and fallows as a percentage to total cultivable land). C. Socio-economic Deprivation a. Reciprocal of female literacy rate b. Reciprocal of cropping intensity c. Percentage of non-workers to total population. (We have not used the criteria of percentage of tribal population used commonly in Jhabua as there is very little variation at the block level of this indicator). First we have aggregated the respective variables to arrive at the three above-mentioned criteria and further aggregated these three indicators to arrive at the overall index of deprivation. A simple methodology has been used for aggregation due to the small numbers of observations. To make the indicators scale-free, ratio of the individual variables with respect to the district average has been worked out. To combine, we have simply averaged these ratios in the manner specified above. The index derived is directly related to deprivation, i.e., higher the index, the higher should be the watershed coverage (i.e. share of watershed area in proportion to the geographical area).

105 Appendix Tables

A.1 Area Sanctioned under RGWM Projects over Time across Blocks (area in hectare) EAS DPAP1 (95- IWDP Hariyali Hariyali (95- 96/96- ((95- DPAP5 DPAP6 DPAP7 DPAP8 1 2 96/96- 97/97- 96/96- (1999- (2000- (2001- (2002- (2003- (2004- Blocks 97/97-98) 98) 97) 00) 01) 02) 03) 04) 05) Petlawad 9471 525 0 2775 1600 1325 1700 1300 1500 Thandla 4522 6727 0 7586 850 1625 1675 1500 Meghnagar 5937 11917 2051 2450 950 1200 1600 1500 Jhabua 1508 8197 4478 0 1315 2700 1550 1500 Ranapur 1068 3381 0 7930 1020 1175 1225 1500 Rama 3238 10950 0 3850 965 1150 1600 1500 Udaigarh 5149 8900 0 1663 1900 850 1475 1300 1500 Jobat 5446 3626 0 746 825 1450 1475 1650 Bhabhra 2039 16225 0 0 825 1425 1575 1000 Kaththivada 1868 7361 0 0 1125 1350 1300 1850 Alirajpur 2131 4335 0 0 1000 1450 1900 1500 Sondwa 3053 8092 0 0 950 1300 1500 1500 Total 45429 90236 6530 27000 3500 12000 18000 18000 18000 Average per block 3786 7520 544 2250 292 1000 1500 1500 1500 C.V. 64 57 252 128 235 17 28 13 13

Table A.II: Indices of Deprivations across Blocks in Jhabua

Districts Overall Districts Land Districts Re- Districts Socio- Depriva- Access source economic tion deprivation depriv- deprivation ation Sondwa 1.22 Meghnagar 1.30 Sondwa 1.53 Sondwa 1.15 Katthiwara 1.15 Thandla 1.10 Kathhiwara 1.31 Kathhiwara 1.14 Meghnagar 1.12 Jhabua 1.04 Meghnagar 1.11 Alirajpur 1.13 Jhabua 1.08 1.03 Thandla 1.10 Jhabua 1.09 Thandla 1.07 Kathhiwara 1.01 Jhabua 1.10 Rama 1.08 Rama 1.03 Rama 0.98 Ranapur 1.08 Thandla 1.01 Ranapur 0.99 Ranapur 0.98 Udaigarh 1.03 Jobat 0.98 Bhavra 0.96 Sondwa 0.97 Rama 1.02 Udaigarh 0.97 Alirajpur 0.96 Petlawad 0.93 Alirajpur 0.99 Meghnagar 0.95 Udaigarh 0.94 Jobat 0.85 Bhavra 0.96 Bhavra 0.90 Jobat 0.91 Udaigarh 0.82 Jobat 0.91 Ranapur 0.90 Petlawad 0.87 Alirajpur 0.75 Petlawad 0.80 Petlawad 0.87 106

-

s

o /

t 2 . e r li r

c ne ll 6 r a a li

pe t cks y ha c r o 6000 pe n a n s l de . / i a i a b s PAP he H R D gu und f

-

s

/

ed 5 e r t r

ne ll a r a li

t pe c cks c o o

3600 pe n a n s l de . ) i PAP ll i a b s a he D ( ea R gu r A on

l i - s

/ a

e r ss c r i i

ne P ll r a li

t pe M cks D c o 3600 pe n a n s l de aph . i W i r I a b s he hed R gu s r eog e G t

a W i EAS 3600 3630 3632 3906 4000 3600 3600 3600 3600 3600 3600 1932 3525

andh - s

/

e G 1 r r

ne ll r v a li

t pe cks ji c o a 3600 pe n a n s l de PAP . i i a R b s D he R gu

c

ha

/ an A l P G

und 1811 2006 1729 3142 1895 2176 2991 2140 1225 3741 1410 3414 2307 h t F . A 10 ,

A c R

P ha /

D A W T und 4648 4515 4501 4498 4504 4505 4500 4498 4499 4500 6262 4495 4499 N F . A

c

ha

/ A an l G P und 1784 3175 2388 3335 3041 3159 3145 3198 1391 1246 3404 3280 2712

h F t . 9 A , A

c R P

ha /

D A W T und N 3499 3393 3506 3335 3308 3159 3476 3500 3500 2802 3500 3500 3373 F .

A Note: A. fund-allocated fund; TA- treatable area; GA- geographical area Source: DRDA and District Agriculture office, Jhabua. Table: A-III Comparison of Allocated Fund per Hectare Treatable Area/Geographical Area 107 Table A-IV: Government and Non Government Organisations Participating in DPAP (II/5-9) in Jhabua District

Number of Sl Sanctioned Block Project Implementing Agencies Micro Sanc. Amount No area Watershed (Rs. Lakh) (hectare) 1 Petlawad NGO (BAIF, Petlawad) 10 203.5 5700 NGO (Vasudha Vikas Samiti, Petlawad Bamania) 1 10.2 500.00 Petlwad GO, (Petlawad) 5 60.17 2500 2 Thandla NGO(Sadguru WS D, Dahod) 3 102.92 2650.00 Thandla NGO (CARD, Bhopal) 3 34.43 1625.00 Thandla GO (Petlawad and Thandla) 17 225.35 6492.02 3 Meghnagar NGO (Sahara) 1 11.32 600.00 Meghnagar NGO(NCHSE) 1 34.91 950.00 Meghnagar GO(Petlawad and Meghnagar) 11 202.37 4678.70 4 Jhabua NGO(HSRDI, Jhabua) 1 13.96 588.00 Jhabua GO (3 in Jhabua) 8 192.01 4977.00 5 Rama NGO (NCHSE, Jhabua) 12 228.06 5965.00 GO ( Rama) 3 66.80 1600.00 6 Ranapur NGO (ASA, Jobat) 6 96.32 3230.22 Ranapur NGO (GVT, Jhabua) 10 179.81 4700.00 Ranapur NGO (Prayas, Bhabhra) 3 34.57 1175.00 Ranapur GO (Jhabua and Ranapur) 5 74.63 2245.00 7 Udaigarh NGO (ASA, Jobat) 4 49.90 1663.32 Udaigarh NGO(HSRDI, Jhabua) 3 34.39 1475.00 Udaigarh GO (Jobat, Udaigarh, Bhabhra) 9 130.44 4050.00 8 Jobat NGO (ASA, Jobat) 2 22.35 745.68 Jobat GO (Jobat) 8 120.41 3750.00 9 Sondwa GO (Sondwa) 8 112.65 3750.00 10 Bhabhra GO (Bhabhra) 8 759.15 23554.00 NGO (Gramin Vikas Shodh 11 Alirajpur Sansthan, Indore) 1 10.67 500.00 Alirajpur GO (2-Alirajpur) 1 128.70 3850.00 NGO (Kalyani Samudayik 12 Katthiwara Sansthan, Indore) 1 12.02 525.00 GO (Udaigarh and Kaththiwara) 7 34.37 1270.68

Source: District level PIA meeting held on October 17, 2005

108 109