Watershed Development in Maharashtra: Present Scenario and Issues for Restructuring the Programme
Abraham Samuel, K. J. Joy, Suhas Paranjape, Sowjanya Peddi, Raju Adagale, Prafull Deshpande and Seema Kulkarni
Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM), Pune Forum for Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. The Context
1.2 The Review State
1.3 Methodology
1.4 Normative Framework of Review
1.4.1 Livelihoods
1.4.2 Sustainability and Equitable Access
1.4.3 Participation and Democratic Governance
1.5 Comparison of Different Guidelines
1.6 Structure of the Report
Chapter 2: Watershed Development in Maharashtra: Macro Scenario
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Maharashtra: Agro-climatic Profile
2.2.1 Region-specific Problems
2.2.2 Land Utilization in Maharashtra
2.2.3 Irrigation and Drought
2.2.4 Water Resources
2.3 Agricultural Productivity
2.4 Watersheds in Maharashtra
2.5 History and Evolution of Watershed Programmes in Maharashtra
2.6. Brief Description of the Important Programmes
2.6.1 Centrally-assisted Schemes
2.6.2 State-supported Schemes
2.7. Maharashtra: The Overall Scenario
Chapter 3: Impacts of Watershed Development on Ecosystems and Livelihoods
3.1 Context
3.2 Impacts on the Ecosystem
3.2.1 Improvement in soil quality
3.2.2 Change in soil erosion/runoff
3.2.3 Change in Life of Wells and Streams; Rise in Water-level and Number of Wells 2 3.2.4 Change in Green Cover, Biomass, Fodder and Fuel Availability
3.3 Intermediary impacts
3.3.1 Increase in drinking water
3.3.2 Changes in livestock numbers and composition
3.4 Impact on Agriculture
3.4.1 Change in land-use pattern
3.4.2 Increase in Yield
3.4.4 Change in cropping pattern
3.5. Increase in irrigated area
3.6 Methods of production
3.7 Socio-economic Indicators
3.7.1 Increase in income
3.7.2 Changes in employment and migration
3.8 Other social changes
3.9 Viability of the Projects
3.10 Watershed Development and Livelihoods
Chapter 4: Watershed Development and Sustainability
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Sustainability of Assets Created under Watershed Development
4.3 Sustainability of Watershed Impacts
4.3.1 Land-use Change and Sustainability
4.3.2 Increase in Irrigation and its Impacts
4.3.3 Sustaining Agricultural Productivity
4.4 Sustainability of Institutions and Social Processes
4.5 Conclusion
Chapter 5: Watershed Development: Equity and Gender
5.1 Context
5.2 Watershed Development: Existing Inequities
5.3 Addressing the Issue of Equity
5.3.1 Operationalizing Equity through Design/Strategy and Implementation
5.4 Gender issues in Watershed Development
5.4.1. Operationalizing gender in watershed policy and practice
5.4.2. Division of work and responsibility
5.4.3 Property rights
5.4.4 Institutions
5.4.5 Ecology
5.5. Conclusion 3 Chapter 6: Watershed Development: Processes and Participation
6.1 Context
6. 2. Participation in Watershed Guidelines
6.3 Implementing Participation: Watershed Processes and Practice
6.3.1 Watershed selection and initial mobilization
6.3.2 Village-level institutions/community based organizations
6.3.3 Other organizations
6.3.4 Participation in Planning, Design and Technology Choice
6.3.5 Process of Implementation, Local contribution/Cost sharing and Participation
6.3.6 Capacity building for Participation
6.3.7 Participation in Monitoring and Evaluation.
6.3.8 Financial Transaction, Issues of Transparency and Participation
6.4. Watershed Development and Panchayat Raj Institutions
6.5. Observations
Chapter 7 : Issues, Concerns and Research Needs
7.1 Change in Approach and Strategy
7.1.1 Project Planning
7.1.2 Watershed Development Unit
7.1.3 Project Implementation and Community Participation
7.1.4 Conservation and Production Technology
7.1.5 Common Property Land Resources
7.1.6 Equity
7.1.7 Operation and Management of Assets
7.1.8 Management of Groundwater
7.1.9 Project Management
7.1.10 Baseline/ Benchmarking
7.2 Some Strategies for Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Watershed Development
7.3 Research Needs
7.4 Reorienting the Watershed Programme
List of Abbreviations
List of Tables
List of Figures
4 Executive Summary
The concept of integrated and participatory watershed development and management has emerged as the cornerstone of rural development in the dry and semi-arid regions of India. Over the years the country has been making increasing investments in this area with the objective of enhancing the production potential of rainfed agriculture. Even more ambitious plans have been made for the futurethe government has set a target of Rs.76,000 crores for the next 25 years.
In all likelihood the dry lands of India, hitherto neglected from the mainstream development process, would receive added attention in the years to come if we have to go by the recent pronouncements by the central government. The National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government states that, the UPA government will introduce a special programme for dryland farming in the arid and the semi-arid regions of the country. Watershed and wasteland development programmes will be taken up on a massive scale . . . all existing schemes for drought-prone area development will be reviewed and a single major national programme will be launched. The Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh has announced the governments intention of setting up a Rainfed Areas Authority. Thus we can say that a new generation of watershed based development projects are going to be launched in the country.
At the same time there are mixed feelings about watershed development programmes and what they have achieved. While many now consider them to be the linchpin of rural development in dryland areas one that integrates sectors and provides the foundation for subsequent development there are growing murmurs about the effectiveness of watershed development and a feeling that they are falling far short of their promise. In fact the Hariyali guidelines, came into effect in 2003, are already under review by the Technical Committee on Watershed Programmes in India (Parthasarathy Committee) appointed by the Ministry of Rural Development and a new set of guidelines for watershed development projects is expected to come into existence.
As we enter this new generation of watershed-based development programmes with such heightened targets and expectations, it is important to ensure that the experiences from the first generation of widely implemented watershed development are fully understood and internalised. It is important that the practitioners, researchers, policy makers, implementers and funders come together and initiate a discussion on how best watershed development can achieve its potential and become an important instrument of bringing about a sustainable and equitable process of participative development in the rural areas.
The present review of watershed projects in Maharashtra, undertaken by Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM), on behalf of the Forum for Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue (ForWaRD), hopes to contribute to this process. It may be noted at the outset that the present review of watershed programmers in Maharashtra 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. Even though the review makes an attempt to provide a birds eye view of achievements of watershed projects in the state, the focus is on situating the programme in the context of the larger developmental objective of sustainable and equitable livelihoods in rainfed areas. In this larger context, the stock taking exercise has been carried out with a difference where the status of watershed development is being examined through the lens of a normative framework that lays special emphasis on productivity and livelihoods, equity, sustainability, and participation/democratic decentralization.
The present review of watershed development programmes in Maharashtra is also an effort to build on the earlier effort by Joy et al in 2003-04 (Watershed review: Issues and prospects brought out by CISED as Technical Review in 2004) which reviewed the watershed programmes in the dry land regions with a focus on Karnataka and Maharashtra. The review is based mainly on the existing sources of information (studies, reviews, reports, data available with different state departments etc.), which in fact, are quite scanty. There is also a serious problem of availability of such information in the public domain, besides inconsistency in information/data on issues related to the spread/coverage and physical and financial progress of projects. Nevertheless, we have tried to overcome the constraints in qualitative information, at least partly, by holding detailed discussions with a large number of key informants and also by visiting a few sites of selected 5 watershed projects.
1.1. Watershed Development in Maharashtra Watershed development has a long history in Maharashtra. In Bhandara age old tanks, some around 500 years old, exist and are managed today which support a much superior cropping pattern there than in the rest of the state. Traditional water harvesting and diversion structures for purposes of artificial irrigation have been excavated in Central Maharashtra (Ahmednagar, Dhule and Pune) estimated to date around 1500- 1200 B.C. Social reformers and public intellectuals of the state have exhorted the importance water conservation since centuries. With the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act (APRA) enacted in 1950, rights over tanks was transferred from themalguzars and local village communities to the irrigation department and the zilla parishads which were not equipped to address the maintenance and repair problems of these tanks adequately. Subsequently, during the British and postindependence period, major emphasis was on construction of large reservoirs and dams.
Maharashtra has a large drought prone area (52%) and has faced recurrent droughts and famines (1907, 1911, 1918, 1920,1972 etc.), which generated attention on the improvement of agriculture in non-irrigated areas. The Bombay Land Improvement Schemes Act (1942) became the precursor for the Government of Indias Model Bill on Soil Conservation for enactment by all states in the post-independence period. Following the 1972 drought, the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) was initiated in the state and subsequently Comprehensive Watershed Development Programme (COWDEP), in 1982, which saw the first steps in the direction of a systematic watershed development approach within government programmes. Ralegan Siddhi and Adgaon in Maharashtra were the initial NGO successes that popularised these model- villages with watershed development as the central theme and they shot to fame even internationally. Today there are a large number of programmes being implemented in the state through central financial assistance such as Drought Prone Areas Programme (DPAP), National Watershed Programme for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA), River Valley Projects (RVP), Integrated Wasteland Development Programme (IWDP), Western Ghat Development Programme (WGDP), state supported programmes such as Integrated Watershed Development Projects (IWDP) Adarsh Gaon Yojana (AGY) and bilateral programmes such as Indo-German Watershed Development Progrmamme (IGWDP) besides a number of projects being implemented by Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) with financial support from local and foreign sources. Almost all these programmes have institutionalised the watershed approach to treating lands and water harvesting in association with peoples participation to enhance the production potential of rainfed farming. With Maharashtras estimated potential of surface irrigation not expected to cross 30% of the cropped area (in conventional sense), the importance of watershed development as a bulwark for rainfed agriculture is obvious in these large tracts of drought prone lands.
There are in all around 44,185 micro watersheds in Maharashtra. According to estimates around 67% of the geographical area requires watershed treatments. Around 26,713 micro watershed programmes have been started in the state since 1992 out of which 8,322 have been completed. Regionally, 23% of the programmes are in Vidharbha region, 8% in Konkan and 69% are in the drought prone regions of Maharashtra. Eighty three per cent of the projects are under the IWDP (State) having 22,302 micro watershed development programmes followed by DPAP (909), NWDPRA (917), EAS (1549) and AGY (645). About 522 NGOs are involved in implementing the DPAP programmes, 766 NGOs in the implementation of EAS programmes whereas all projects under AGY, IGWDP, CAPART etc are implemented through the NGOs. However we should state that there are some discrepancies and inconsistency in the data available on status, progress and coverage of watersheds.
For the state as a whole, of the total land available for watershed development, 29.50 per cent had been treated by 2002 while above 70% of lands remain to be treated. In Konkan 30% land available for watershed has been treated, in the Vidharbha region 21% of the land has been treated and in the rest of Maharasthra, 33% of the land available for watershed has been treated. State programmes accounted for 64% of the total expenditure. The expenditure figures from 1992 shows that the distribution in different regions has fairly corresponded with the size of area to be treated in these regions. About 10% of the total expenditure has been in Konkan region, 69% has been in the drought prone region and 21% has been in Vidharba region. Out of the 16,678 incomplete programmes, 1,344 are in the dark and grey areas, 3,060 are in the drought areas, and 7,681 are in the tribal areas. These incomplete watersheds are prioritised by the state for additional investments and completion.
An analysis of the expenditure pattern for different treatments shows that construction of nala bunds and masonry dams has been one of the important treatments. For example, in many government supported projects, around 60% of the expenditure has been on nala bunds both earthen and masonry structures ignoring soil conservation and moisture improvement. There are also some projects like Indo-German Watershed Programme (IGWDP) where there is a ceiling on expenditure on water harvesting structures Of course this is not to deny the fact that some of the measures (like gully plugging, continuous contour trenches etc) do not check soil erosion andin situ conservation. Plantation has received very little 6 importance overall and where there has been expenditure on plantation, the survival rate has been very low. Data from the evaluation of watershed programmes in the Vidharbha region by Dharamitra also shows that among PIAs there has been an excessive emphasis or focus on creating multiple water harvesting structures at the cost of undertaking effective land treatment andin situ conservation and amelioration. When the emphasis is on water harvesting structures, what is generally reported as area covered also becomes a problematic issue.
1.2 Impact of Watershed Development programme
1.2.1 Impact on ecosystem and livelihood Impacts on many aspects have been documented and they range from bio-physical impacts such as a rise in water table to wide ranging changes in the economy and even social changes in certain places. Data have been reported on various parameters: increase in crop area, cropping intensity, increase in crop yields, change in cropping pattern, increase in irrigated area, increase in the productivity of common/waste lands due to increase in green cover and therefore increase in fodder and fuel from them, change in fodder/fuel consumption (both in terms of quantity and pattern) due to change in the land use or change in cropping pattern, change in livestock composition due to the above, change in water levels leading to changes in withdrawal rate, increase in number of wells, improvement in water quality, improvement in soil quality and reduction in soil erosion, improvement in environment, improvement in employment opportunities, changes in labour requirements, changes in income levels and livelihoods and finally changes in socio-economic structure of the community.
Most of the available literature document many or some of these impacts in a somewhatad hoc manner. The data are often impressionistic and lack rigour. Very few studies have based themselves on rigorous benchmarks established beforehand and compared them with values obtained later. Most have relied on recall and perception of respondents of the change or impact. Even fewer have tried to explore the links between the initial soil and water conservation conditions, treatments and the later processes that lead to final impacts. The chapter on impacts shows that watershed programmes, if implemented scientifically, certainly assure positive changes in a few physical parameters such as an increase in water table, availability of biomass, increased duration in stream flow and a decrease in soil erosion/run-off. It is also observed that soil erosion in non-arable lands reduced when investments were higher in such lands. The review also shows that watersheds where proper area treatments were undertaken could tolerate longer drier spells. In most of the watersheds for which information is available, water level and duration of water available in the wells have increased. However, we should note that most of the projects for which information available are the promising ones. The review finds that watershed development has improved livelihood opportunities for watershed communities though the degree of improvement varies from the spectacular to the now not very good. The review finds that agricultural production has improved in most of the watersheds, but the aggregate information fail to reflect the impact on different class of land and for different socio economic categories. One cannot also attribute the improvement in production as an outcome of watershed measures alone. The distribution of benefits has not always been even, and there are also reversals though in all cases some livelihood improvement has carried over. On the whole, watershed development shows significant impact in better years, but has not mostly been able to insure against bad years. In certain cases conflict between drinking water and irrigation needs has been accentuated by watershed development. In many watersheds the problem of drinking water could not be addressed effectively and going back to tanker days is observed. Though watershed development has brought down migration in the initial phases, the post-project phase does not show a uniform trend and in some instances availability of work has been reduced. One of the most neglected area, observed in the review, is the development of common property land resources (CPLRs) and the potential of creating biomass based livelihoods and wherever biomass development has been undertaken it could not produce the desired results due to low survival rate, inappropriate technology and lack of institutional and administrative mechanism of management and usufructs. Lack of coordination and support from forest department is also one of the major reasons for non-development of CPLRs.
1.2.2 Impact on sustainability The review shows that there has been a beneficial impact of watershed development on watershed ecosystems: soil erosion has been checked, land cover has improved, and groundwater recharge has increased. Together with this, the number of wells, especially bore wells also have increased considerably and there is no corresponding social regulation of water use. There are a couple of instances where cultivation of water intensive crops is not encouraged and digging of bore wells is banned. The available evidences show that resource exploitation (especially of ground water) and nature of agriculture production in a specific watershed is closely related to the mode of agriculture production prevailing in that area. Ground water exploitation and high external input agriculture is widely prevalent in watersheds in the scarcity zones
7 where agriculture is greatly in a capitalist mode of production as compared to watersheds in the tribal areas. The culture of the community also has an impact on these issues related to resource use.
In many watersheds, non-cropped area is brought under cultivation, and there is a shift away from food crops without an accompanying shift to sustainable crop practices. Watershed activity is possibly showing up in decreased flows into downstream tanks and reservoirs. Drinking water is increasingly being met from deeper aquifers. However, many of these phenomena have not been adequately studied; neither have there been many water balance studies.
While the provision of the Watershed Development Fund (WDF) is a step forward in providing financial backing for the institutionalisation of repair and maintenance of the structures created in the watershed programs, the challenge of operationalising the fund lies largely unexplored as of now. Presently, many projects have significant amounts lying in their WDF accounts the balances in the fund vary widely from as low as Rs. 5000 to lakhs for certain watersheds. However, presently there is lack of any guidelines and an ambiguity regarding the right to use the money and the purposes to which it can be used. It is generally noticed that very little of it is being utilised even when structures need repair. Delineating the procedures, rights and purposes clearly is an immediate requirement to ensure against misappropriation as well to enable its proper utilization for maintenance of the structures. In almost all instances the local organisations and institutional arrangements promoted as part of watershed development is also not sustained beyond the project period.
Sustainability is an issue least articulated and operationalized as the review suggest. Most often the indicators that are used to judge the success of watershed itself is at loggerheads with issues of sustainability. It is necessary to operationalize a set of criteria related to sustainable impacts including issues related to 1) sustainable productivity enhancement measures, 2) regulation of biomass extraction rate, 3) planning watersheds on the basis of ridge to valley without taking a dogmatic position about it, 4) being aware of the balance while planning run-off suppression measures, 5) studying and monitoring unintended hydrological effects, 6) regulation of ground water extraction, 7) undertaking integrated planning, prioritisation and social regulation of water use, 8) make applied water part of project design and above all 9) designing and facilitating appropriate institutional and organisational mechanisms to facilitate sustainable use of resources and impacts.
1.2.3 Impact on equity In respect of equity, the review finds that by itself, watershed development accentuates inequity: favours the landed and the lower reaches; as well as those who have the wherewithal to invest in wells and pumps. In some cases, measures like bans on grazing and cutting trees, closing of commons, and a ban on keeping goats, which are imposed from above, have hit the rural poor, especially the Dalits and landless, very hard. However, it also finds now a greater awareness of equity issues related to the landless, the women, the Dalits, and the marginal farmers. However, it often sees the solution as non-land based income generation activity (watershed plus), unrelated to watershed development. There is a need for the resource poor to be ensured a share of the increased resources that watershed generates.
Employment during the project period remains the only important benefit to the landless with no clear and general evidence of sustained increase in work availability once the programme related work has been completed. As agriculture develops it is also noticed that mechanisation is taking the roots slowly. At most places, migration for employment completely halted at least during the project period. While the condition of the small landholders might improve as their lands become more productive and are cultivated across the year, the situation of the landless can improve only with further determined interventions. Only at a few places the landless have bought land in the watershed. At places such as Ralegaon Sidhi labour was employed from nearby villages (or permanently immigrated) due to the sustained increase in agriculture production either because of bringing in additional lands under crops (through irrigation) or due to an increase in the cropping intensity. However in Ralegaon Sidhi, external water from the canal is also used for irrigation. The projects also differed in their approach to granting land rights to the landless. While some NGOs see the provision of land to the landless as a way to resolve the inequitable resource access in the watershed, others believe in lifting encroachment by the landless to free CPLRs for regeneration. Development of CPLRs and issues related to user rights are one of the most neglected areas in the watershed development.
Increased awareness of gender has led to establishment of self help groups (SHGs) that have helped women save, obtain credit, and become more active and visible. But this activity has not become an integral part of the watershed development and has had little impact on traditional gender roles. Women SHGs role in watershed development is not very clear, and nor there are efforts to integrate this institution in the planning and implementation process of watersheds. In some projects women are nominated in the watershed committees, but hardly they have any space in the decision-making. Considering women as homogenous entity also has its problem in addressing issues related equity. 8 1.2.4 Watershed development and participation Similarly, the review finds an increased awareness of the need for participation. However, it is mostly viewed as a means to obtain co-operation, raise efficiency, and gain legitimacy rather than an empowering objective in itself. Participation is operationalized in an instrumental way, which creates problem for real empowerment and democratisation. Much of the decision making still remains in the hands of the development agencies and Community Based Organisation (CBOs) function mostly as implementers of decisions taken by the Project Implementing Agencies (PIAs) and Watershed Development Teams (WDTs). It is also observed that the culture and philosophy of the PIAs greatly influence and determine the way participation is facilitated. In the comparatively newer projects, there is greater emphasis on providing representation to all social groups and hamlets on multiple user committees for sectoral interest groups. However, participation of the local communities in crucial decisions has been pretty dismal along with control over fund allocation and expenditure. Major decisions are taken (beforehand) by PIAs and consultation with local people is often synonymous with consultation with the powerful.
Participation needs to be more clearly defined so that the responsibility of the PIA can be pinned down accurately in terms of the specific tasks and activities that need to be undertaken for effective community organization and participation in the programme. More than 50% of the NGOs seem to have failed to effectively mobilize community participation in the programmes. The Agriculture Department also was poor at community organization and often villages were rejected on the criteria that they were not co-operative, whereas the villagers were not even aware of the purpose and content of the programmes. The ones which are successful in the beginning to kindle interest and encourage participation often get sandwiched at a later stage between the communitys expectations from the programme and the DRDAs procrastination.
Treating cost sharing as an indicator of participation is also problematic. Though the core idea of cost sharing ensuring peoples commitment may be acceptable, the issue of the quantum is not. Resource poor sections may be priced out of the programme because they cannot afford the contributions. Sometimes contributions come from withheld wages or from reduction in wages. Effectively this means that the poor, pay on behalf of the landed. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is being increasingly used as a tool for data collection, to enlist local participation and to capture local development priorities. Even when not reduced to a bureaucratic procedure it is problematic because often it may represent only the opinion of a few, especially the dominant sections in the village. It is necessary to contextualise PRA and demarcate what it can do and what it cannot. PRA techniques can be an effective tool for a qualitative and rapid understanding of the situation. However, as it does not provide reliable quantitative data regarding quantities like resource status or land use patterns, and may leave no space for interactive learning between local knowledge systems and external, modern systems of knowledge. There is also a lack of adequate space for and articulation of watershed development organisations with the Panchayati Raj institutions. Greater attention is needed to address 1) participatory monitoring and evaluation, 2) the role of local communities as regulatory layers, 3) lack of nested institutions, and 4) the conditions for effective participation and moving on from participation to democratic governance.
1.3. Capacity Building and Training Given this background, it is important to strengthen the human intervention aspect, access to information and capacity enhancement, which is found as the weakest link in the overall programme. As it is, allocations on training and community organization are only 5% of the entire programme provision. Even this expenditure is sometimes treated casually: typically it may involve one or two exposure visits to successful watersheds such as Ralegan Siddhi, a few stage/road shows in the beginning and a few days training that is usually limited to the chairperson and secretary of the village watershed committee. It is not uncommon to find that the expectation of policy makers that people themselves acquire the aptitude to understand the complex biophysical and socio-economic linkages that will evolve and take shape over the next few years through watershed interventions rests in practice on the training received by one or two people for 4-5 days! The fact that changes brought in by watershed development impinge on all actors and sections at the village level landed, landless, herders, women, children and their conscious involvement is crucial from the beginning only makes the challenge of providing adequate training more formidable. There are some projects, especially those facilitated by the NGOs (not as PIAs of government supported projects) where capacity building is taken seriously and integrated with the projects management cycle.
The performance of the PIAs range widely from those who have been accused of misappropriation of funds with little attention paid even in the construction of basic structures, to those that undertake technical aspects of the watershed well only to fail with imitating effective community organization, to those that initiate long term changes in the economy and the watershed community and look at the effective implementation of watershed programs as just the entry point into bringing in socio-economic change in society.
The Haryali guidelines make ambitious demands on the grassroots level organizations and institutions 9 such as the gram panchayats to undertake decisions, and are called on to understand and decide on many complex matters. This is balanced by the fact that each community living in the environs of its own watershed is itself the best planning and monitoring agency in respect of watershed development and its impact. However, the communitys lack of adequate understanding of the environmental externalities and a traditionally discriminatory and exploitative social structure could lead to a skewed distribution of benefits and selective environmental degradation.
1.4. Constraints: Perceptions of NGO Practitioners The failure of the DRDA to make timely release of funds to the PIAs seems to be the one major problem that not only affects the performance of the programme but also the motivation of both the NGOs and the VWCs. The planning and the momentum of the work gets affected especially given that the schedule of the watershed work has to be synchronized with the cycle of annual agricultural operations. Labour and even the private lands, where treatments need to be undertaken, are free only after the first crop (or the second crop if it is taken in the village) has been harvested. This means that most of the physical works has to be undertaken between the months of November to May (before the start of the rainy season). Unless funds for that particular year are released before this critical period, the delay of a few months in release of funds can mean postponement of the work by an entire year. Many PIAs felt that the government officials involved with the fund release need to be adequately sensitised to this issue. A performance oriented fund release system is required.
Secondly, not only the fund release is irregular but most often it is incomplete right through the programme. Either the entire funds allocated to community organization are not disbursed, or the NGOs remuneration (as PIA) is not covered and even the funds allocated for the treatments are not sometimes released. Many of the PIAs, which have completed some DPAP programmes, complained that at least 15-20% of the funds allotted is never released and this percentage can be much more in certain cases.
Finally, the DRDA seems to follow a dual policy when implementing norms regarding technical and organizational performance of the NGO vis-à-vis other government departments when they acted as the PIA. The NGOs were often bogged down with superfluous demands made on them to produce additional documentation, surprise checks or evaluations. There is also no statutory provision for the NGOs where they can have their grievances redressed and they also found it difficult to form united forums to collectively raise their voice.
There were mixed feelings about the new Haryali guidelines. While some NGO and GO personnel felt that it was an attempt to marginalize the NGOs role in watershed projects which would only impact the programmes adversely, others felt that it was the right move in the direction of enabling the Panchayati Raj Institutions and village level institutions to take the responsibility of their development in their own hands. While the guidelines prevent the hegemony of the NGOs over the programme funds, it assumes that the gram panchayat is a democratic body and takes the risk of placing the responsibility in the environ of local power struggles which often bifurcate the community into at least two or more political fragments. Beyond the for and against arguments what remains clear is that in the absence of the NGO as the principal implementing agency, there would be much more need for training and awareness on the part of the PRIs and local institutions on technical, financial and organizational fronts to ensure effective implementation of the programme. The responsibility of better community organization through greater training falls on the Panchayat Samiti or a PIA appointed by the DRDA/ PRIs as part of the Hariyali Guidelines.
1.5 Need to re-orient the approach and policy The review also highlights an immediate need to re-orient the present approach to watershed development and put an enabling policy framework in place to ensure that watershed development programmes adequately meet the requirements of the four central concerns, namely, sustainability, livelihoods, equity, and participation/self-governance. It calls first of all for a reorientation of approach to watershed development based on the following: a sustainable productivity enhancement orientation; pro-active measures to deal with sustainability and equity issues; preceding resource generation with institutional arrangements to handle those resources; making adequate technology choices; and taking dependability into account in watershed planning.
There is also an urgent need for an enabling legislation for collective regulation of ground water use and eventually moving towards IWRM from below. Many policies, which may not be directly related to watershed development programmesper se, also impinge on the outcomes, including electricity tariffs, irrigation policy, agriculture research and extension policy, fertiliser and agricultural produce pricing, and forest policy. There is also a need to restructure the watershed development programme by increasing the watershed development allocation and period, and conduct it in phases. The suggested first phase consists mainly of upper reach programmes, plantation activity, capability building, and institution building; it does not include constructing any major water harvesting structures. The second phase deals mainly with full drainage line treatment and the third phase with what is now being called watershed plus targeted mainly at the resource 10 poor. Each phase should be conditional on fulfilling the conditions for the earlier phase. Such a restructuring and phasing will provide an enabling environment for groups and organisations that want to fully address the foundational objectives of watershed-based development, namely, sustainability, livelihoods, equity and participation/self-governance.
1. 6 Research needs The review also identifies the following research needs: a) Development of easy, practical and robust models for water balance studies that can give good, workable, first approximations with sufficient scope for improvement and adaptation as precise data become available; b) Study of the serious hydrological changes being brought about by watershed development at the micro-watershed as well as at sub-basin and basin levels; c) Long term, co-ordinated, multi-locational studies through collaborative research network to capture impacts of watershed interventions, especially the ecological impacts, which take a longer period to work themselves out; d) Inter-disciplinary studies to understand the interventions, processes, and outcomes in a more holistic and integrated manner and capture the multi-dimensionality of the problem in an integrated manner.
The review also makes specific suggestions for research in different areas as listed below:
Hydrological: a) cross-scale and inter-scale hydrological effects (upper to valley portions, intra- and inter- watershed relations up to basin-scale); b) surface water-ground water interactions; c) aquifer behaviour, in particular balance between shallow and deep aquifers, their sizes, recharge rates, locations, and so on; d) net effect of different soil and water conservation measures as well as afforestation and agricultural practices on quantities like infiltration and erosion under different geo-physical conditions.
Land-Vegetation-Water interactions: a) agro-ecological relationships and impact on one another as an ecosystem; b) grazing and forest management, in particular productivity, sustainability, and offsite effects.
Socio-Economic and Institutional aspects: a) compare asset-based approaches with income-based approaches, in terms of benefits, their distribution and sustainability; b) scope for biomass-based value addition biomass, labour, energy, capital and financial requirements, and identification of possible bottlenecks; c) scope of watershed and NRM-based development in different regions, limits, and implications, especially in resource poor areas; d) indigenous knowledge, its scope, and issues in its interface with modern knowledge; e) role of CBOs and SHGs in improving participation and sustaining benefits beyond project period; f) ways of better addressing the problem of local heterogeneity by equitable and sustainable reconciliation of interests and conflict resolution; g) social and institutional mechanisms and capability building for incorporating rigorous participatory grassroots benchmarking, monitoring, and assessment in watershed based development programmes.
11 Chapter 1 (NWDPRA). Simultaneously, conservation work was undertaken through the Drought-prone Areas Programme (DPAP) initiated by MoRD in 1972-73 and the Desert Development Programme (DDP) initiated in 1977-78. Today the major programmes also include the Integrated Wasteland Development Programme or IWDP, River Valley Projects or RVP, and Watershed Development Projects in Shifting Cultivation Areas or WDPSCA, Introduction among others. In 1994, important on-course correction 1.1.The Context was provided by an impact-assessment and review committee set up under the Integrated and participatory watershed chairmanship of Prof. C.H. Hanumantha development and management has Rao, which revealed a very dismal emerged as the cornerstone of rural picture in terms of outcomes and development in the dry and semi-arid impact. It called for a total revamp in regions of India. The programme, terms of implementation and initially launched to arrest soil erosion in management, drawing upon success catchments of large and medium stories initiated by individuals, reservoirs,1 has since grown in scope. communities and those NGOs that had The current generation of projects independently done notable work during represent an attempt to address the this period. The Committee also issue of sustainable livelihood- formulated comprehensive guidelines generation in resource-poor areas. for MoRD-implemented watershed Watershed development today is one of projects. These MoRD guidelines were the largest interventions in the country in further revised in 2001 and again in terms of scale, resource allocation and April 2003 as Guidelines for Hariyali. agencies involved. Other than the The MoA formulated guidelines ministries of Rural Development (MoRD, National Watershed Development for specifically, the Department of Land Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA)-WARASA, Resources), and Agriculture (MoA), the revising them in 2000 as the WARASA- Ministry of Environment and Forests Jan Sahabhagita Guidelines. Key (MoEF) is also involved in watershed features introduced in the course of the and eco-development programmes. evolution of watershed development included community participation, participatory planning and Milestones implementation, NGO-participation as project facilitating agencies, capacity The decade of the 1980s saw efforts to building, social capital formation and mainstream successful experiments issues related to livelihoods, gender, like Sukhomajri and Ralegaon Sidhi. equity and sustainability. Following the While some Community organisations/ XIth Schedule of the 73rd Amendment to NGOs had already begun doing notable the Constitution in 1993, the Gram work in this area, the government in Panchayats were made responsible for 1982-83, started a programme in 19 watershed development. The latest locations under the MoA to propagate Hariyali guidelines aim at cementing 1 To stabilize water harvesting/conservation in rainfed peoples participation through the catchments of areas. In 1984, the MoRD also initiated mandatory participation of Panchayati reservoirs and to conservation strategies in 22 other Raj Institutions as the PIA for control siltation, a centrally locations with research and technology watershed development programmes. assisted scheme inputs from the Indian Council of The two important Government of India of Soil Agricultural Research (ICAR) to develop programmes NWDPRA (under MoA) Conservation 41 model watersheds. In 1990, and projects following the Common Work in the integrated watershed development was Guidelines (now Hariyali, under the Catchments of River Valley launched with the introduction of MoRD) together account for about 70 Projects was National Watershed Development per cent of the funds and area under the initiated in 1962- Programme for Rainfed Areas watershed programme in the country. 12 63. A Few Fiscal Markers research and studies, those that have been undertaken show that many Three ministries at centre are involved projects have created positive impacts in watershed and eco-development in terms of increased water availability, programmes namely, MoRDs (Dept. of agricultural production and rural Land Resources), MoA(Department of employment. Agriculture and Coperation)and Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF). 1.2 The Review State Besides planned allocation of resources The state of Maharashtra is a pioneer in these ministries also implement watershed development. Examples such externally aided projects. As of March as Ralegaon Siddhi, Adgaon and 2005, MoA had treated an area of 17.24 Pimpalgaon Wagha among others are mha at a cost of Rs 9368.03 crores part of watershed discourses as (more than half the expenditure under successful examples of drought 2 MoA is through external aid and MoRD mitigation and rural development had treated 27.52 mha at an outlay of Rs through the watershed approach. More 6855.66 crores.Some of the major than half the states geographical area is programmes of MoRD are Drought drought-prone and also characterized by Prone Areas Programme (DPAP), recurrent droughts, famines, monsoon Desert Development Programme (DDP), failure and livelihood distress of the poor Integrated Wasteland Development and marginal. Hence it is no surprise Programme (IWDP) and that of MoA is that the cause of water conservation has National Watershed Development been espoused historically by Programme for Rainfed Areas Maharashtrian reformers and (NWDPRA), River Valley Projects visionaries. Successive governments, (RVP), and Watershed Development NGOs and community leaders have also Projects in Shifting Cultivation Areas continued the tradition, taking it up as a (WDPSCA) etc. National Bank for major rural developmental strategy and Agriculture and Rural Development approach. Thus, the Bombay Land (NABARD) and the Department of Improvement Schemes Act (1942) Agriculture and Cooperation (MoA) became the precursor for the established the National Watershed Government of Indias Model Bill on Soil Development Fund with an initial corpus Conservation for enactment by all states of Rs 200 crores. There are also a in the post-independence period. 2 number of state-sponsored, bilateral and Following the severe drought in 1972, From Hariyali privately funded projects implemented the first steps in the direction of a to Neeranchal: Report of the by a large number of agencies and systematic watershed development NGOs. Watershed development has Technical approach within government Committee on today virtually become the flagship programmes were the introduction of the Watershed programme of rural development in Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) Development in India, with an estimated annual and subsequently Comprehensive Indiapp. 42. expenditure of Rs 2300 crores during Watershed Development Programme 3 the Tenth Plan (Report of the Technical Indeed, the (COWDEP) in 1982. As mentioned same approach Committee, 2006 p.42) and a target of earlier, Ralegaon, Adgaon etc. have is being adopted treating 63 million ha over the next 20-25 become models replicated throughout even in moister years with an estimated total outlay of the country. Today DPAP, NWDPRA, and forested regions like the Rs 76,000 crores {GOI, 2000: p. 388}. It RVP, IWDP, IWDP (state) Adarsh Gaon is no longer seen as an experiment, but Western Ghats Yojana (AGY), Indo-German Watershed and the accepted by governments, donors and Development Programme (IGWDP) etc., Himalayas, NGOs alike, as a core strategy that are programmes that have whether under subsumes all other activities, such as institutionalized the watershed approach the Planning afforestation or common land of treating land and water harvesting in Commissions Western Ghats regeneration and stabilizes rural association with peoples participation to livelihoods through its multi-sectoral Development create sustainable livelihoods. With Programme or approach, especially in the dry, rain-fed Maharashtras estimated potential of the Hill Area 3 regions of India. surface irrigation not expected to cross Development 30 per cent of the cropped area, the Programme, or Such large investment in watershed as part of the development is justifiable if it enhances importance of watershed development World Bank productivity of rainfed areas. Even as a bulwark for rainfed agriculture is supported though there is a paucity of reliable, obvious in these large drought-prone watershed tracts of land. programme in scientific and methodologically rigorous Karnataka. 13 4 Soil and Water There are around 44,185 micro interesting information and highlight the Conservation watersheds in Maharashtra. Around complex and varied nature of Programme, 26,713 micro watershed programmes watershed projects and their impacts, Annual Report 2003-04, have been started in the state since they do not always provide an Government of 1992. As on March 2004, 8188 integrated picture of the outcomes in Maharashtra, watershed projects have been the wider context of sustainable Department of completed, covering an area of 41.63 development goals. Many use Agriculture, lakh ha incurring an expenditure of Rs indicators related to resource pp.17. This is 4 exclusively for 3288.40 crores . About 522 NGOs are regeneration such as increase in the Government- involved with the implementation of water table, biomass, agricultural supported DPAP programmes, 766 NGOs with the production etc., without looking into the programmes. implementation of EGS programmes, issues of ecosystem sustainability or There are and all programmes under AGY, aspects of distribution of benefits. Most numerous other projects IGWDP, Council for Advancement of of the time this is due to the implemented by Peoples Action and Rural Technology overemphasis placed on watershed NGOs through (CAPART) supported watersheds etc development as a strategy to enhance other funding are implemented through the NGOs. dry land farming productivity. sources. There Sustainability of these biophysical are certain It is now more than a decade since impacts and their relationship to discrepancies in watershed development as an approach sustainable livelihoods does not seem the information and strategy for rural development was on the progress to have received much attention. This is and status of institutionalized. All projects based on very important since some of the watersheds. the earlier guidelines have been successful watersheds have become completed and new watersheds based the story of the tragedy of commons in on the Hariyali guidelines are underway. the post-implementation phase due to Implementation strategies, processes increased competition for enhanced and institutional mechanisms also have ecosystem products and services. undergone modifications during the Those studies that do focus on these decade. From mere soil and water aspects are not well grounded in the conservation measures, the objectives social issues and therefore fail to link of watershed development have moved biophysical parameters with livelihood towards sustainable development of and equity concerns. First-generation rainfed areas for production and projects and their practitioners may not livelihoods. This shift in objective and have been very familiar with these approach has been facilitated through a concerns because the issues of large number of innovations, interaction sustainability, participation, equity, among the community of practitioners livelihoods etc. emerged in the and studies and evaluations of existing watershed discourse and lexicon later. approaches, strategies and impacts of However, an analysis of outcomes of development. Through the efforts of a watershed development from this multiplicity of practitioners and projects perspective can help in understanding a wide range of experiences and all the ramifications, besides providing lessons have emerged in the state. The inputs for better administration/ time is ripe for an appraisal and implementation of a multi-sectoral subsequent consolidation of these intervention such as watershed learnings, for wider dissemination. development. There are a number of reviews, studies, 1.3 Methodology evaluations and research reports on various aspects of watershed With this background, an attempt is development. These cover the impacts, made to analyse the performance of process, technology, institutional issues/ watershed development projects in arrangements, gender, and participation, Maharashtra covering inter sectoral among others. The perspective, ecosystem issues from an objective, methodology and unit of interdisciplinary perspective. We analysis is also as varied as the studies. attempt a comprehensive overview of While some studies have been available literature and data to gain an conducted by external evaluators/ insight into the dominant patterns and agencies there are a number of them perceptions on the various issues of being generated by the implementing watershed development. This review, agencies themselves. Though most of therefore, draws upon many studies, these studies have generated a lot of reports and documents along with insights from discussions with key 14 actors: personnel from governmental Studies which review watershed and non-governmental organisations, literature: reviews, evaluations, and watershed committees, people from research notes, articles and the communities etc. and finally from the methodologies, etc. personal experience and visits of the researchers to a few watershed Data from evaluations done by development projects. Dharamitra, Amravati of about 115 projects implemented by various The review is neither meant to be a NGOs in the Vidharbha region. hypothesis-driven study, based on primary data collection, nor an Focused workshops with different evaluation study, but rather an overview framework actors in Vidharbha region of important aspects related to and in Pune. watershed development and an Evaluations of watershed experiences assessment of the performance of and case studies. Maharashtra state in light of these various dimensions. Information is Our own historically evolved and analysed within a broad normative accumulated experience and framework, which tries to capture some observations supplemented by field key issues related to watershed visits that were undertaken as part of development goals and objectives. the present review. The review draws on the following types The sites for field visits were not of material: selected on the basis of strict sampling. The primary aim was to cover different Literature related to watershed types of programmes that would provide concepts and strategies: policy and a cross-section of the range of guideline documents, literature dealing experience in the state. We primarily with broader concepts like livelihood, concentrated on agro-climatic zones sustainability, equity, participation, and with (average) rainfall ranging from institutions; normative and prescriptive about 450 to about 1000 mm/year and documents which guide action. followed it up with a workshop and a few Data from the soil conservation field visits to the Vidharbha region. The department on different watershed list of villages/watersheds that were programmes in Maharashtra since visited is given in Table 1.1 (next page). 1992.
Figure 1: Sites visited in Maharashtra 15 5 Though we Besides these watershed development canal water and farming the private have not gone efforts, we also looked at relevant wasteland on a produce-sharing basis. into the details experiences that are not typical A day-long workshop was arranged at of each of these programmes or watershed interventions. Some such Amravati on 6 January 2006 with those their examples are the Pani Panchayat (Pune NGOs/government agencies that had distinguishing district), known for its strong been working as implementing features, four commitment to equity; the Ozar Water agencies. types of funding Users Associations (Nashik district) sources are known for their integration of canal The sites of the field visits are shown in identified, based Figure 1.1 (previous page). on differences in water and local water harvesting; Bali implementing Raja Dam (Sangli district), a small dam A strict classification of projects in policies, namely built by the people themselves and terms of their mode of implementation the Government again recognized for equitable water was not attempted. We have tried to of India, distribution; and Khudwadi (Usmanabad multilateral capture the broad trends by including sources, district), which is known for the both completed and ongoing projects bilateral donors, resourcefulness exhibited by a poor across various zones and under and others. GOI womens group in getting a share of the different programmes5 . sources are MoA and MoRD, Table 1.1: Multilateral List of villages/watersheds visited in Maharashtra sources basically boil Programme Organization Village/Watershed District down to the World Bank. Government Department Marathwada Sheti (Soil Conservation) Bilateral Sahayak Mandal, Adgaon Aurangabad sources include Aurangabad DANIDA, SDC, Government Department Local organization led ICEF, SIDA, (Soil Conservation, by Anna Hazare Ralegaon Siddhi Ahmednagar GTZ, KFW etc. Social Forestry, etc.) Others include various national Adarsh Gaon Yojana Yashwant Agriculture, and international Village and Watershed Hivre Bazar Ahmednagar non-profit Development organizations Organization that support Indo-German Watershed WOTR projects Vaiju Babhulgaon Ahmednagar implemented by Programme NGOs (Kolavalli Indo-German Watershed SEVA and Kerr, 2002 Ambewadi Beed Programme ,155; Kerret al., 2000, 39) in NGO Manavlok Bhavthan Beed their study classifies NGO AFARM Dornali Nanded projects in DPAP Common Gomukh Trust terms of (i) Chale Pune projects under Guidelines Ministry of NWDPRA (ongoing) Prabhodini Kaute Malkapur Agriculture (like Ahmednagar NWDPRA, Sangamner ICAR projects); NWDPRA (completed) Agriculture Department Bairewadi Ahmednagar (ii) engineering oriented DPAP (completed) Sarvodaya welfare Vatpur Nandgaon Amravati projects (Soil Khandeshwar Conservation, DPAP (ongoing) Chandrapuri Maharaj DPAP, etc.); (iii) Pimpalgaon Shikshan Prasarak Amravati NGO projects; Bahinai and (iv) Samstha collaborative Aga Khan Foundation Dilasa projects Yevat Yavatmal (completed) between government and DPAP (completed) Prabhodankar Thakare Pulsa watershed, NGOs (Indo- Dharani Amravati German Chikaldhara Watershed DPAP (ongoing) Mahila Utkashta Hirangi Development Washim Programmes, Samstha Manglurpir Adarsh Gaon DPAP (ongoing) Sriram Shukshanik Yojana, etc.). Sanglud Akola Sanskruti Samstha 16 1.4 Normative Framework of Review Moreover, historical processes and factors also interact with the biophysical Understanding watershed development and social interventions. requires a normative framework embracing the notions of watershed 1.4.1 Livelihoods and watershed development, and how they are translated into practice. Such Earlier discussions of needs centred on translation may also be based upon the fulfilment of basic or subsistence additional assumptions about what is needs. Since the early 1990s, however, possible and desirable, and how to bring the concept of livelihoods and more these changes about. One may call this specifically sustainable livelihoods a set of goals, specific objectives, and (SL) has entered the rural development assumptions the normative framework discourse prominently. A definition of analyses. these terms is offered by the British Governments Department of Catchments protection programmes International Development (DFID): looked upon the watershed as a unit but focused mainly on reducing reservoir A livelihood comprises the capabilities, sediment load. Soil and water assets and activities required for a conservation are still central to means of living. A livelihood is watershed development, but sustainable when it can cope with and afforestation, common lands recover from stresses and shocks and regeneration, agronomic changes, and maintain or enhance its capabilities and so on, are also linked to this central assets both now and in the future, while theme and watershed development is not undermining the natural resource now being seen a core strategy for base. stabilizing rural livelihoods in the dry, Livelihood is conceptualized in this rainfed regions of India. Further, review in a similar manner. However, participation, gender, equity, livelihood needs, in the sense the term is sustainability, and livelihoods are now used in the study, include not only the much more prominent concerns in the basic needs of food, shelter, and watershed development literature and clothing, but also needs that are are increasingly reflected in the official imposed due to the nature of the watershed development guidelines. The livelihood activity. They also include emergence of these concerns may be certain surpluses over and above through exogenous factors directly satisfied consumption needs (developmental interactions) or due to that can be exchanged with the larger internal dynamics (access and system. Finally, livelihood needs place a exclusion) in the developmental space higher premium on natural as compared or may be because of reflections/ to other forms of assets, thus for learnings. Whatever the reason, these example, in watershed development, issues bring into focus the poverty they emphasize the need to create reduction objective of watershed to the equal access. However, most watershed front. programmes view the issue of livelihood In a country like India where the vast from the watershed plus angle, mostly majority has been dependent on natural as income-generation activities, ignoring resources for their livelihoods, rights and access to regenerated and development will have to be based augmented resources. primarily on long-term sustainable An important question is how many of productivity enhancement and, in the these needs should be fulfilled locally drought-prone regions, on increasing the and to what degree in kind? As a norm, dependability of production and, we should consider basic food, fuel, consequently, the security of livelihoods. fodder, and domestic water needs The interconnectedness of the separately, and treat self-reliance (not biophysical and the social is intrinsic to necessarily self-sufficiency) in these watershed development and draws needs as one of the objectives to be strength from this interconnectedness. achieved at the watershed level. In most Biophysical and social interventions are conditions self-sufficiency in these is not two separate processes, but aspects possible and desirable at the watershed of a single unified process and level. Even in exceptional situations ecosystem processes and resources are where this may not be possible, it should basic economic resources as well. be possible and desirable for a 17 substantial component of these map on to the historical inequities of requirements to be produced locally, access to productive resources and and the rest to be met from exchange how watershed development interacts on equal terms with the larger system. with them. The general experience is The fulfilment of needs must also be that the asymmetries map on to the considered at the level of the watershed inequities in a way that more likely ecosystem as well as at the household accentuates rather than attenuates the level. Elsewhere, we have used biomass inequities within the local community as the measure to quantify these needs unlike environmental sustainability, on the basis of a minimum upper bound which watershed development is likely approach to show that a farming family to enhance per se. The implication is of five generally needs a productive that if there is no proactive element of potential of about 15 to 18 T (dry weight) equity built into the programme it only annual biomass increment to meet all accentuates inequity. the above mentioned livelihood needs, including estimated minimum cash The normative framework treats water requirements. as a common property resource to be managed and regulated collectively in order to ensure equitable and regenerative use. This implies 1.4.2 Sustainability and Equitable prioritizing water use in the following Access order: drinking water; water for In the review we use the term domestic use and for cattle; water sustainability in the specific sense of required for ecosystem regeneration; environmental sustainability and water required for livelihood activity; consider maintaining and enhancing the and surplus/extra water that can be productive and assimilative potential of used for cash or commercial crops. The the ecosystem as the sustainability goal normative framework also aims at a whilst deriving a few operational norms fairer distribution of increased that logically follow from this approach resources with privileged access to the in the context of watershed resource poor. development. Since watershed is a It is important to recognize that water is socio-environmental intervention, the both a local and non-local resource and issue of sustainability of local institutions that the interdependence effects of (responsible not only for project scales appear as externalities and implementation but for future care also) unlike slogans like gaonka pani is an important one. Livelihood needs gaonme (the rain that falls in a village is depend crucially on who has access to for that village) that may help conserve how much and what kind of productive water in the short run, we need resources, that is, equity. In the collective regulation and control of normative framework the first dimension water resources at increasing scales is the distribution of human wellbeing ensuring inter-watershed or basin-level across typical barriers of class, caste, equity as well. Hence, the normative ethnicity, and gender, with the position limits the right of every implication that one needs to community of assured access to water disaggregate the local community and from local as well as non-local sources, consider the differential impacts of together necessary for assured watershed development. livelihood. Accordingly, water is first The second dimension emanates from treated as a common pool resource to spatial or locational inequalities and this be managed and regulated collectively is primarily because of the biophysical in order to ensure equitable and characteristics of the watershed itself. regenerative use for livelihood Given that the relationship is often assurance and to ensure equitable fundamentally asymmetric (for example, sharing of shortages and surpluses. activities upstream can affect those Only the residual resource is treated as downstream, but not vice-versa), the a resource to be regulated by the issue needs to be carefully addressed at market. all levels or scales: within the micro- The enhancement of ecosystem watershed, across watersheds, and resources and productive potential with across the entire basin. It becomes public funds and collective, community important to see how those asymmetries effort has the potential for ensuring 18 equitable access to the additional respective ministries and agencies. resource created, even as prior right to These guidelines are meant for projects previously existing resources are financed by the state as part of planned recognized and left largely undisturbed, investments for developing dry land thus making equity a positive sum game. areas. As mentioned above, the major ministries involved in watershed development are MoRD, MoA and MoEF 1.4.3 Participation and Democratic and respective states are expected to Governance adopt the main tenets outlined in the guidelines and formulate strategies and Participation has gained increased processes including those related to unit currency in developmental practice and cost and Standard Schedule of Rates in related research and literature and (SSR) rate for different conservation this increased awareness is drawn from measures and items. There are other various sources and standpoints. programmes being implemented outside Participation is often seen as a means to the purview of these guidelines such as achieve other goals, or as a value or a bilateral and multilateral projects, goal in itself. The framework sees it as a NABARD-supported watershed projects goal as well as a means of ensuring and other NGO initiated projects. The more equitable, sustainable, and main objective of watershed efficient outcomes. development, as outlined in the guidelines, is to improve the production However, in highly differentiated potential of dry land areas, through communities, the simple transfer of conservation, mobilization and decision-making power to the sustainable use of natural resources community may turn out to be handing such as water, soil and biomass. decision-making over to the dominant Watershed is also visualized as a sections within the community. It is strategy to bring development into the necessary to recognize the hitherto underdeveloped and backward heterogeneity and ensure that proactive areas like drought prone areas, desert space is created within the local areas and hilly regions of the country. community institutions for all sections, There are many attempts to include and especially the lower, marginalized strata. incorporate emerging concerns in the This calls for disaggregated possibility of guidelines through periodic review and participation for all sections in the entire changes. The latest exercise in this project process. direction is the technical committee The framework also recognizes the appointed by the Ministry of Rural importance of outside intervention and Development. It aims, under the believes that participation, livelihood chairmanship of Shri. S. Parthasarathy, assurance, regenerative use, and to study and suggest strategies and equitable access should be the explicit mechanisms to improve the delivery foundational objectives of the system and effectiveness of watershed collaboration between the community development. One outcome of such and outside agencies. The key role of periodic reviews are changes in the outside agencies is that of capability guidelines, and the introduction of issues building, by providing information and and concepts such as participation, offering a forum for discussion aimed at community organization, capacity resolving issues related to the objectives building, sustainability, transparency through discussion and debate. It is also into the watershed lexicon. important to recognize that there is a A comparison of the different guidelines need for greater accountability and is tabulated on the following pages. transparency on the part of the outside agency to the local communities.
1.5 Comparison of Different Guidelines Guidelines are a set of proposed strategies and methods for implementing watersheds in different contexts and by 19 Table 1.2: Comparison of Different Guidelines
Contents MoRD 2001 Hariyali WARASA, CAPART MoA
Overall To create Conservation, To promote Objectives economic sustainable development sustainable development. sources of and sustained economic income for the management development Socio village of NR of the economic community as community development well as for Restoration of of resource drinking water ecological Sustainable poor supplies. balance utilization of through green the Restoring watersheds Ensuring cover. ecological natural balance by overall Enhancement resources like conserving, land, water, development of agri- harnessing production. grass, forests, and developing of rural areas etc NR through the GP Reduction of disparity Improve the Conserving and income for between economic and and developing GP rainfed and social NR irrigated areas. conditions of the resource
Sustained Sustainable poor Employment community employment generation, action. opportunity for poverty Sustained rural poor. community Promoting use alleviation, community action for the of simple, operation and easy, and empowerment maintenance affordable of assets Unit of t500echno hal ogical R e s t o r i ng500 ha 500 ha 500 development solutions and ecological ha ins titutional balance by arrangements harnessing, conserving and Cost norms Rs 6000/ha Rs Rs Rs 6000- developing NR 6000/ha 6000/ha 7500ha.
Responsible Department of Department of Department of CAPART institution at Land Land Agriculture and (MoST) national level Resources Resources Cooperation ( (MoRD) (MoRD) MoA)
Coordinating Zilla Zilla District Nodal CAPART Agency Parishad/ Parishad/ Agency supported by DRDA DRDA (Agri.Dept., DRDA/SVOs ATMA, etc.)
Implementing Govt. Depts. PRI Agri. Dept, NGOs/VOs agency (PIA) NGOs,KVKs Institutions/ NGOs, KVKs etc. Govt. etc. Agencies
Village Watershed Gram Sabha, Watershed Watershed institutions association. Gram association, association, Watershed Panchayat, Watershed Watershed. Com. SHGs, UGs, SHGs Com., SHGs, UGs. UGs UGs,SHGs 20 Budget allocation Rs 30 lakh Rs 30 lakh Rs 30 lakh Rs 30 to 37.5 lakhs
Community 5% (inc. EPA) 2.5% 7.5% (3%EPA) 5% organization
Training 5% 2.5% 5% 5%
Administration 10% 10% 10% 15%
Watershed work 80% 85% 50% 75%
Production _ _ 20% _ systems
Livelihoods --- _ RF to SHGS 7.5% _ RF to SHG
Selection criteria Watersheds where Watersheds where Severity of land Villages from peoples peoples degradation where peoples participation is participation is Preponderance of participation is assured assured resource poor and assured SC/ST contributions made Preponderance of Areas facing acute Significant are genuine and common and drinking water proportion of not arising out of wastelands. shortage. arable land under savings from private cultivation estimate cost Concentration of Preponderance of Location in upper Villages having SC/ST common lands, reaches drinking water waste lands Peoples problems, food Acute shortage of participation deficiency and drinking water. Contiguous to No previous migration. another watershed investments in A plan for grazing Contiguous to watersheds. and for sharing and treated watershed Where actual utilization of fuel wages are wood, fodder and Actual wage is less significantly lower other usufructs to than minimum than the minimum be adopted. wage. wages Preponderance of . wastelands and highly degraded land. Large population of SC/ST
21
Watershed 4 Members for Same as in 4 members for Four for a Development around 10 MoRD, 2001. PIA/10 PIA and area Team watersheds/On watersheds. At of 3500ha e PIA with least one preferably specialization in women from the forestry/plant member and disciplines of science, animal with a plant sciences, sociologist, sciences, civil/agricultural animal agronomy, engineering and science, civil agro-forestry, social sciences. engineer, animal agriculture/ husbandry, forestry. civil/ agricultural engineering and social sciences
Project period 5 years of 5 years. No 5 years, one 5 years of and phasing. which one year specific year as which one year is probation phasing, capacity is pre action period. organizing building phase. plan stage. Community community, Training of During the organisation, PRA and relevant phase include formation of action plan in stakeholders, capacity CBOs and the initial formation of building, PRA/ action period. CBOs, PRA, baseline plan in action plan in survey, action probation. CB phase. plan formulation and the execution of a mini NRM/Drought Proofing project.
Planning tool PRA/ PRA, bench PRA (transect, PRA discussion with mark survey resource map, farmers and ranking, WA timeline etc) secondary sources
Conservati Land Development Simple and Low-cost, on development of small water indigenous simple and Measures including insitu harvesting technologies, easy to conservation, structures such diversion drain, operate and afforestation, as low-cost contour bunds, maintain shelter belt, farm ponds waste weir, check works and small water nalla bunds, dams, drop activities Land harvesting checkdams, structures, shelter leveling (50% structures, percolation belts, terraces in share) pasture tanks and hilly region etc. vegetative development, other ground Production measures and development of water recharge technologies engineering CPR, crop measures, using ITK and structures. demonstration afforestaion, sustainable Block etc. block production using plantations, plantation, IPM, INM, LEISA shelter belts development of combined with CPR, in-situ modern land production development. systems/methods . 22 Monitoring Quarterly reports to Quarterly progress Progress reports on Progress reports And ZP/DRDA, report to quarterly basis, on each of the Evaluation independent ZP/DRDA, concurrent evaluation watershed evaluations, monitoring by by internal/external conservation monitoring and independent agencies. projects once in observation through agencies/peoplest every six months external agencies. ate department, Review and to NSC and state level monitoring by NWC, DRDA;evaluation DWDC and SWDC to vigilance SWC and DWC; process review and monitor committee documentation Review and by other Review and evaluation based on a agencies evaluation based on set of success criteria appointed by a set of success related to quality of NSC criteria related to implementation, social project mobilization and Review and implementation, community evaluation based social mobilization organisation, on success and community sustainability issues criteria organisations. etc.
Strategies for Action plan with Action plan with Wall posters on Transparency SHGs, UGs, WC SHGs, UGs, WC project SSR rate etc. Approval of action Approval of action plan in WA plan in WA Many meetings with community Display of action Display of action plan plan Application system for Review of progress Review of progress receiving proposal by WA by WA for treatments
Payment through Payment through Payment through cheques/in open cheques/in open cheques/in open area area area
Social auditing and review by WA
Exit strategy Formation of Formation of Formation of Formation of And WDF through WDF through WDF through Watershed Maintenance Local Local Local contribution Conservation Fund contribution contribution Common assets 50% of the funds will Preparation of GP responsible through WDF by be set aside for the exit protocol for maintenance WA/WC operation and regarding maintenance of community assets maintenance, Preparation of created as part of the user charges exit protocol with watershed and equity in details on conservation access to mechanisms for
resources maintenance, collection of user charge, equity in access to resources.
23 1.6 Structure of the Report examining this area. They attempt, therefore, to understand the issue from Following an introductory chapter, and a (i) proxy variables (e.g. increase in discussion on the macro scenario in the number of wells), (ii) from their own state, the review is divided into five experience and observations, and (iii) sections. The first is an overview of the interaction with practitioners. The fourth states agro-climatic situation, and section discusses issues related to appraises the volume, scale and equity and access, as well as issues of resources involved in Maharashtras gender and other forms discrimination watershed programmes with an analysis involved in accessing benefits from of regional variations. This is the investments and created resources. background on which the other sections The last and fifth section is on the are formulated. The second section processes of participation and examines the impacts generated by governance in the context of watershed development on ecosystems development intervention. This section and livelihoods. Here sustainable covers participation issues in the entire livelihoods are treated as an outcome or process of watershed rehabilitation from an end objective, resulting from planning, implementation, institution- augmentation of ecosystem products and capacity building, monitoring etc., and services. Different variables and onward. The last chapter concludes by indicators are analysed from available summarizing the review and sources to understand the impacts of highlighting/ flagging issues with certain ecosystem regeneration on livelihoods recommendations for improving the and production. The third section administration of the projects. This focuses on sustainability of resources / section also looks into the need for products and the related problems/ generating knowledge and information issues thereon. Paucity of hard-core on certain critical areas related to scientific information is a drawback that watershed development through was faced by the researchers while research and studies.
24 Chapter 2 Attempts made by the state and other agencies to reverse this situation and to stabilize dry land farming through watershed development over the past two-anda-half decades has led to enormous resources being poured into this area. Many watershed programmes funded by the national and state government, multilateral and bilateral agencies, and by a large number of NGOs have been implemented. This chapter analyses issues related to the agro-climatic situation, water resources, Watershed Development in land utilization pattern, agriculture Maharashtra: Macro Scenario productivity, and the volume, extent and outreach of watershed projects being implemented in the state. 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Agro-climatic Situation Maharashtra is Indias third largest state with a geographical area of 3,07,58300 Maharashtra is usually divided into ha. Though agriculture and related nine agro-climatic zones (Table 2.1). activities are the major source of The average rainfall in these zones livelihood for more than two-thirds of its ranges from 450 mm (in the Scarcity population, agriculture is characterized Zone) to 3,750 mm (in the Southern by low productivity except for Konkan Coastal Zone). A narrow sugarcane, the productivity/ha of all coastal plain (the Konkan region) which other major crops such as food grains, has very high rainfall separates the cereals, oilseeds, cotton etc., are below Arabian Sea from the Western Ghats. the national average. The causes lie in To the east of the Ghats lies the large the low irrigation coverage (15.36 per Deccan Plateau which spans the cent), high extent of light soil (39 per majority of the state. Its western side cent), general degradation (42.50 per receives very low rainfall since it lies in cent), poor drainage, and salinity (4 lakh the rain shadow of the Ghats. Eastern ha and proneness to drought (52 per Maharashtra sees much higher rainfall cent). Besides this, 38 per cent of the making conditions for rainfed land is affected by different categories of agriculture favourable. Conditions for soil erosion, badly affecting the soils rainfed agriculture in the driest zones micronutrient status and hence are difficult, and this is where productivity. The problem is aggravated watershed projects are most by monsoon failure, untimely rain, lack concentrated. of institutional credit facilities and indebtedness driving marginal farmers and the poor to extreme steps such as suicide. Table 2.1: Maharashtra Agro-climatic Sr. Zone Average Rainfall (mm) Zones and No. Rainfall:
1. S outhern Konkan Coastal Zone 3,750 Maharashtra 2. N orthern Konkan Coastal Zone 3,281 3. W estern Ghat Zone 2,684 4. W estern Ghat Zone 2,137 5. W estern Maharashtra Plain Zone 791 6. S carcity Zone 450 7. C entral Maharashtra Plateau Zone 983 Source: GoM, 8. C entral Vidarbha Zone 883 2003,Agro- 9. E astern Vidarbha Zone 1,462 climatic Zones of Maharashtra 25
Figure 2.1: Rainfall in Maharashtra
Maharashtra is divided into eight Maharashtra (Pune), Khandesh administrative divisions: Konkan, (Nashik), Marathwada (Aurangabad and Nashik, Pune, Kolhapur, Aurangabad, Latur) and Vidharbha (Amravati and Latur, Amravati and Nagpur. The state is Nagpur). For the purpose of this report also generally divided into the following we adopt the classification as made in regions with respective administrative Table 2.2 below, as it allows us to centres Konkan (Thane), South examine region-specific problems that Maharashtra (Kolhapur), Western watershed development needs to address.
2.2.1: Region Specific Problems
Region1 Characteristics/ Specific Problem
East Predominantly rainfed. Irrigation in Bhandara district higher than Maharashtra state average. (Vidarbha) Low percentage area under cultivation. Rainfall between 700 to 1500 mm. Moderate to high soil erosion even though good forest cover. Very high intensity of rainfall throughout the rains. 6 Khandesh (part of Nashik, Long dry spell between two wet spells. Dhule, High possibility of fire hazard in forest area, threat to natural Nandurbar and regeneration. Jalagaon) has more or less the Low level of ground water development (15%). same problems Siltation of reservoirs and tanks. as Marathwada and western Problem of salinity in Amravati, Akola and Buldhana districts across Maharashtra. 4.69 lakh ha. However it is predominantly Traditional agriculture with cotton and pulses as major crops. tribal and land Regional underdevelopment. alienation of tribals and lack Well-developed horticulture in some areas. of livelihood is a Predominantly tribal population. major concern. 26 Central Medium rainfall ranging between 700 to 1000mm. Maharashtra Irrigation less than the state average (Latur division 10%). (Marathwada) High percentage of drought-prone area. Recurring drought.
Two-thirds area under cultivation. Very little forest cover (4%), overgrazing and deforestation. Variation and late rainfall. Uneven spread of rainy days. Water shortage especially in bad rain years. Black light soil with slight erosion hazard. Ground water development average (27%). Mix of traditional and modern agriculture. Strong caste-based society with feudal remnants. Central Medium rainfall ranging between 700 to 1000mm. Maharashtra Irrigation less than the state average (Latur division 10%). (Marathwada) High percentage of drought-prone area. Recurring drought. Two-thirds area under cultivation. Very little forest cover (4%), overgrazing and deforestation. Variation and late rainfall. Uneven spread of rainy days. Water shortage especially in bad rain years. Black light soil with slight erosion hazard. Ground water development average (27%). Mix of traditional and modern agriculture. Strong caste-based society with feudal remnants. Regional underdevelopment.
Western Very low to medium rainfall (except in some parts of Satara and Maharashtra Kolhapur). Medium to severe erosion. Uneven spread of rain in time and space. Some major irrigation projects. Irrigation is above state average at around 23%. Recurrent droughts; large drought-prone area, except for Kolhapur. Undulating land. Poor forest cover. Around 60% area under cultivation. Light soil. Ground water development high (42%). High input and water intensive cultivation. Well developed region of the state. Heterogeneous society with history of collective action.
Konkan High rainfall above 3000 mm. High intensity rainfall. Severe soil erosion along Western Ghats and coast. Very low irrigation. Forest area above state average. High percentage of barren, uncultivable waste land. Less than 30% of land under cultivation. Ground water development very poor (7.6%). Coastal salinity. Flooding of cultivated lands. Predominance of paddy and perennial horticulture. High incidence of migration, average development.
27 Figure 2.2: 2.2.2 Land Utilization in Maharashtra Division-wise Land Utilization in Maharashtra
are a lot of discussions around this Net sown area in the state is 57.57 per theme in watershed development. cent, whereas the area sown more than once is about 15.52 per cent (see Table A 2.1). Konkan, Nashik and Nagpur 2.2.3 Irrigation and Drought divisions have the highest percentage of forest area. Konkan and Nagpur also Maharashtra has very low irrigation have the lowest net area sown, as well coverage. Only around 15 per cent of as the area sown more than once. Latur the area under cultivation is irrigated as (101.57per cent) and Aurangabad compared to the national average of (95.11per cent) has the highest gross more than 35 per cent. The state has a cropped area with around 15 per cent of rugged and uneven terrain, and many the reported area under pasture and rivers originate here, resulting in a large fallows. Cultivable waste and fallow number of comparatively small irrigation lands are highest in Konkan, which also projects. However, the total number of has the highest percentage of what is dams above 15 meters high is around generally known in environmental 900 as compared to 2900 for the entire discussion as sacred grooves. Nagpur country. Most of these dams are has the largest forest cover (39 per cent) concentrated in western and central followed by Nashik (24 per cent) and Maharashtra. In irrigated agriculture Konkan (20 per cent). The ground water plays a dominant role predominance of forests, waste and through 1.51 million wells. fallows in these regions makes less land available for cultivation (hence the high Table A 2.2 gives a district-wise and incidence of landlessness and division-wise picture of the area under encroachments) whereas Marathwada cultivation, under irrigation and of areas and Western Maharashtra have very that are drought-prone. Drought prone little area under forest cover. The non- areas are affected by low and availability of forest and pasture land in inadequate rainfall, long inter-spell these regions also has implications for breaks and an erratic distribution of rain issues related to the livelihood of the through peaks and troughs. A very poor and marginal. It is interesting to limited part of this area gets the benefit note that there is no category or of the major irrigation projects even nomenclature called common property though a very high percentage of resources in any official documents of drought prone area has been brought land classification, even though there under cultivation. Amravati, which has a 28 large area classified as drought prone, 2.2.4 Water Resources suffers considerably less in terms of intensity of drought. Table 2.3 gives some important indicators related to water resources in Fifty-two per cent of the total area in the the state and country. At present, the state is prone to drought. Of this, more net irrigated area as a percentage of net than 60 per cent lies in the Nashik, sown area is just 16.61 as against the Pune, Aurangabad and Amravati national average of 40.01. The surface divisions and 40 per cent in the Kolhapur vis-à-vis groundwater potential is in the and Latur divisions. The present study ratio of 60:40, while the national ratio is lays stress on these drought prone 55:45. The area under irrigation is regions, where watershed development limited and it is said that even with full programmes are widely seen as a utilization of its irrigation potential, the drought-proofing strategy. total area under irrigation (in the conventional sense) would not cross 30 Only a little over 15 per cent of the per cent. Maharashtra is estimated to states cropped area is irrigated. Pune, have been exploited: According to a Kolhapur, Aurangabad and Nagpur (by survey by Ground Water Survey and virtue of high irrigation coverage in Development Agency (GSDA), ground Bhandara) divisions have above 20 per water development is maximum in ten cent irrigation, followed by Nashik (15 districts of Western Maharashtra (42 per per cent) and Latur (10 per cent). One cent) followed by eight districts of could observe a trend of low irrigation in Marathwada (27 per cent) and eleven Amravati (five per cent) and Konkan (six districts of Vidarbha (15 per cent). per cent) divisions. Bhandara district has Ground water development in the four the highest irrigation (46 per cent) districts of Konkan is the least (7.6 per followed by Gadchiroli (24 per cent). cent). In 76 areas in the state This is partly an outcome of the comprising about five per cent of the traditional tank systems still functioning. total state area, ground water is over- The high incidence of drought with large exploited causing concern about Figure 2.3: tracts of drought-prone land in the resource sustainability. The over- Map of Deccan plateau, and low irrigation exploitation is manifested by progressive Drought- potential becomes the backdrop for decline of water table at the rate of 0.3m prone Areas large-scale watershed development in per year. the state. in Maharashtra
29 Table 2.3: All-India and Maharashtra Water
Resource
s - e e - r
Situation 34 e c ha 145 u r c 3 t 3 r
n M r u 7 e f ou a . 66 t t l Y e . s ound r / a e s r 1 e o 22 u m f r w ba N g
r
7 Y ) ft / 3 404 a 0 r m 98 . - 5 88 d . . 4 t . 0 ha e 1 13 N M n
r o Y s / 43 a 173 a t d on 2 ) ( m 9 a e - s r ss i 2 s ft s . 26 s o . e a o ha r r r c 1 ba 19 r G ( d ba p M
ou e r l s s b Y e e 33 - / 345 a c on 2 R i r
3 s m t r r - 6 u 29 . e ou e . t t ga t i s ound r ha 2 a e a r 32 e o rr f i M r w g N
W
r s e Y e l - / 04 c on 938 i r 7 m t 5 r ab - ound il 2 e r ou 54 . t t ga a . i s ound r ha G a e r v 2 e o rr 36 f i M r w g a N
l c i a i o t i 73 55 r s t s 9 6
i r - e s r r s v m o Y e 23 12 o he f ha / . . r t s ndu 1 7 P n do M m , i and o u
r a h Y e w / s 77 c i 593 r 6 m 8 l - en 3 a l ou e . 78 t l . s ound r ha o r 3 ep e e 43 T r ab t r g M
o
t f 61 01 . . o
A I SA d 16 40 % N N
n
)
a . a i e
d a r rr ) i e 0 h t A A t I 0 ea 2946 e n r 57055 ga N i a N ( w rr o
n 10
I 8 S t I ( 9 e
ea r ) N a n t w SA 17732 e 1425 o N N ( s
3 9
l a 8952 t on i 1398
o t : l a T a
g i i
t
rr n l r I e a r t t no
o o 4852 ) 81428 no P T m i a
M
d on 0 h i
t r 0 e and t ga oun i 3652 r a r 64050 r m n 10 w G I I u ( i
e
t d e
a e
c , Ministry of Water r r a 4 October, 2003) m M . e f i t r t , no l 1200 i r a u 17378 o U
j w
M S a
m M r u i o j a ed 4100 58465 M and m
a
r t
y / r h t e s t Annual Report, 2002-03 a a r t
oun S a i C aha nd M I Mha-m: Million Hectare-metres Source: Resources, Government of India (excerpted from Economic and Political Weekly 30 2.3 Agricultural Productivity Government of Maharashtras 7Human Maharashtra Human Development Development Data on area under important crops and Report also highlights the concern over Report 2002, their productivity since the 1960s is Government of the declining importance of agriculture in Maharashtra presented in the table 2.4 below. the GDP of the state. The share of Cereals occupied about 44 per cent of agriculture declined from 42.14 per cent the gross cropped area (GCA) in 2000- in 1960-61, to 27.69 per cent in 1980-81, 01, but now reveal a declining trend. The further falling drastically to 17.44 per proportion of area under pulses and cent in 1999-20007 . This is generally oilseeds shows an increase. There has due to the declining productivity of been an increase in productivity for irrigated agriculture, stagnation in almost all crops except for a few like rice rainfed agriculture, low investments, and tur (pigeon pea). The area occupied fragmentation of holdings, skewed by sugarcane has been steadily preference for certain crops like increasing, which, being a very water- sugarcane etc. This trend calls for long- intensive crop, consumes the bulk of the term planning with an emphasis on irrigation water. improving rainfed-farming systems.
Table 2.4: Area and Productivity of Major Crops in Maharashtra (Area in 000 hectares, Yield in kg/ha) 1960-61 1980-81 2000-2001 Crops\Year Area % Yield Area % Yield Area % Yield
Rice 1,300 -- 1,054 1,459 7.43 1,587 1,512 6.82 1,277 3,638 -- 810 3,999 20.36 822 2,977 13.44 1,039 Sorghum Wheat 907 -- 442 1,063 5.41 834 754 3.40 1,256 Millet 1,473 -- 306 1,350 6.87 451 1,639 7.40 590 Total cereals 10,604 -- 637 10,976 55.88 788 9,824 44.35 865 Gram 402 -- 334 410 2.08 335 676 3.05 519 Pigeon pea. 530 -- 884 644 3.28 495 1,096 4.95 602 Soyabean ------0 -- 1,142 5.15 1,117 Total pulses 2,351 -- 421 2,685 13.67 307 3,557 16.06 460 Groundnut 1,083 -- 739 674 3.43 621 433 1.96 904 Total Oilseeds -- -- 1,708 8.69 426 2,559 11.55 820 Sugarcane 155 10,404 319 23,706* 664 45,140* * GCA -- -- 1,964 100 2,215 100
* Production in thousand tonnes Source: Government of Maharashtra, 2003.Agro- climatic Zones
Productivity of major crop categories for 2.4 Watersheds in Maharashtra the state is below the national average. Table A 2 .3 gives a district wise list of For example, food grain productivity per major, sub, mini and micro watersheds hectare at the national level is 1614 kg/ as classified by GSDA. About 26,695 ha but stands at 1058/ha in watersheds fall in the drought-prone Maharashtra. A similar situation prevails regions of Western Maharashtra and with regard to oilseeds, pulses, cotton Marathwada etc. The only crop that stands above the national average is sugarcane, which is fully irrigated in the state. The 31
Figure 2.4: Drought is an age-old phenomenon in Major and 2.5 History and Evolution of Maharashtra. Sant Dnyaneshwar, seven Micro Watershed Programmes in centuries ago, advised, While Watersheds in Maharashtra constructing townships, you must Maharashtra develop reservoirs, plant huge forests of The history of watershed development in different species of plants as he had Maharashtra is said to date back to the 8 At Inamgaon realized the significance of afforestation period known as the Dark Ages, that is, there are and water conservation (excerpted from the period at the end of the Indus valley physical a speech given by Anna Hazare). The evidences of a civilization and at the dawn of the sixth earliest evidence of the awareness of channel and a century AD Archaeologists excavated need for soil and water conservation as stone wall with over 200 Chalcolithic settlements in its embankments a means for increasing productivity and Central Maharashtra which revealed the that are known contributing to the welfare of the practice of subsistence agriculture. as guide bunds. farming community may be seen in the Important among these were the sites at 9 writings of Mahatma Jotiba Phule. More The Newasa and Daimabad (Ahmadnagar), than hundred years ago, he wrote: stonecutting Prakasha (Dhule) and Inamgaon8 Vadar community in (Pune). Through artificial irrigation in the And so, in order that the vital element Maharashtra was Early Jorwe culture (1500 to 1200 BC) from the rotting of meat and bones, expert in winter crops like wheat, barley, jowar, dead insects and animals, leaves and constructing rice, horse gram, hyacinth bean, peas flowers shed by trees, grasses growing dams by piling and several other crops were grown. in the hills and mountains shall not be loose boulders The earliest evidence of an artificial dam and filling mortar washed off by the early rains and or soil between in western India that survives today is carried away by the floods to be wasted the gaps; these located at the Kanheri Caves in Mumbai in the streams, the industrious age-old which date back to the Satvahana government should get all these structures, some period. In the midst of the cave system superfluous men from amongst the even 500 years there still exists a system of water old, still exist in black and white soldiery and Dhule, Bhandara harvesting, known as the cascade constabulary to judiciously build dams and many other system, prevalent in those times in Tamil and obstructions in one and many regions. Due to Nadu and Sri Lanka. Thus, watershed places in such a manner that the rain these tanks, development was known and practiced shall first wet and enter the fields fully Bhandara has a systematically in Maharashtra from very before it flows into the streams . crop pattern far 9 superior to that of early periods . Around 1514 the British Similarly our kind government should the rest of the built a dam at Karle on river Bhokar that build as many as possible tanks and State and has can be considered the earliest modern ponds in all our hills and mountains, our the lowest dam in Maharashtra. Later, in 1860, the valleys and gorges. Thereby, because proportion of Vihar Lake at Powai was constructed all the streams and nallahs downstream barren and and in 1870, a dam was constructed uncultivable of them will have water throughout the areas and fallow east of the Kanheri Caves. Research summer, they can be dammed and will lands today, with attention was focused in the post- serve all the wells with ample water and the proportion of independence period on soil will green all the fields benefiting the irrigated area conservation measures mainly to farmers along with the government. higher than state stabilize the catchment areas of large averages in all (Source: Shetkaryancha Asud The talukas and medium dams and to prevent (Paranjapeet.al , siltation of reservoirs. In 1943, Bombay Whip of the Peasant (1883), cited in 1998). state introduced contour bunding. Paranjape et al, 1998 , 90) 32 The recurrent droughts and famines One of the first experiments of people- 10 For a (1907, 1911, 1918, and 1920) had made centred watershed development in chronology of it apparent that desperate measures Maharashtra took place at Naigaon, soil and water conservation were needed to improve agriculture in initiated by Shri Vilasrao Salunke in works and non-irrigated areas, but it was only in the 1974. Popularly referred to as the Pani watershed 1930s that scientific inputs were (water) Panchayat, this initiative aimed development institutionalized through research at organizing people around existing programmes in stations at Solapur, Bijapur, Hagari village water resources, which were to India see Shah (1998: p. 158). (Karnataka), Raichur (Hyderabad) and be shared equitably. In the early 1980s, Rohtak (Punjab). The Bombay Land two villages in Maharashtra too became 11 In Western Improvement Schemes Act (1942) well known for their watershed Maharashtra, implementation provided the most enduring legacy of the development programmes: Ralegaon of the NWDPRA 12 period, and also became the precursor Siddhi (refer to next page) was strongly for the Government of Indias Model Bill (Ahmadnagar) and Adgaon influenced by on Soil Conservation for enactment by (Aurangabad). This marked one of the the fact that the all states in the post-independence first instances of genuine peoples project was 10 implemented by period . participation in watershed development the same (Pangare and Gondhalekar 1998; Gadgil Following the severe drought of 1972 agency that and Guha 1995), the legacy of which is plans and the Employment Guarantee Scheme evident in many subsequent government implements the (EGS) was launched in Maharashtra and schemes. Similarly, many farmers took engineering- drought proofing the land was among up soil and water conservation based approaches of the important activities undertaken by measures in the Gunjawani and the programme. Construction of water the COWDEP, Shivganga valleys of the Haveli and Jal Sandharan harvesting structures (nala bunds) and Bhor talukas of Pune district, under the and DPAP. contour bunding was also undertaken on guidance of Shri Appasaheb Bhagwat, a Therefore, the a large scale under it. 1n 1982, the social worker associated with Jnana primary focus remained on Comprehensive Watershed Development Prabodhini. Today, the state has many Programme (COWDEP) was initiated in treating pioneering NGOs that work in the drainage lines an attempt to combine the budgetary watershed development programmes. and catchment resources of the EGS and the technical Social Centre, Ahmadnagar was one of areas to provisions of the 1942 Bombay Land the first NGOs to adopt the watershed promote Improvement Schemes Act for large-scale infiltration of approach and it played a key role in water, the watershed development effort. The launching and designing a state-wide Drought Prone Areas programme (DPAP) difference being Indo-German Watershed Development that they were was a central scheme under the Ministry Programme. Today many other NGOs much cheaper of Rural Development (MoRD) started in prominently WOTR, BAIF, AFARM, and probably 1973-74 in 14 districts: 74 projects were ASSIFA, Manavlok, Dharamitra, less effective. funded by the centre and 13 were funded Gomukh, Vanrai etc are dominant by the state. By the 1980s it became an names in watershed development. exclusively watershed development programme. In the mid-1980s ICAR The next development has been the launched model research watersheds at launching of collaborative programmes 47 locations of which atleast one was in between government and non-government eastern Maharashtra (Kerr et al., 2000). agencies. The two main examples are the The World Bank pilot project was initiated Adarsh Gaon Yojana (AGY), started in in 1984 on lines similar to the ICARs 1992, and the Indo-German Watershed model watersheds. The National Development Programme or IGWDP). The Watershed Development Projects for AGY started in 1992 is a major initiative that Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA) initiated in seeks to replicate the Ralegaon Siddhi 1990, is the Ministry of Agricultures model in 300 villages by combining the (MoAs) counterpart to the World Bank- technical staff of the Jal Sandharan funded Pilot Project and Integrated programme with the social orientation of Wasteland development Programme NGOs. The IGWDP is another example of (IWDP) where again the emphasis was collaboration between a public institution on low-cost vegetative bunding and (NABARD) and NGOs that seeks to scale contour-based cultivation.11 In 1992, the up the success of small NGO programmes. launch of the Jal Sandharan Programme It started in 1992 and as of March 2003 had attempted a more comprehensive developed 158 projects covering about approach where four different 162,000 ha, with the involvement of 76 programmes were brought under a single NGOs (WOTR, Annual Report, 2003) department. 33 12 Ralegon Siddhi Thus, watershed development of Rs 30 lakhs per project. Since then was a poorly increasingly came to be seen as the 1,009 projects are implemented through developed village lynchpin of rural development in dry land 103 PIAs. The new guidelines almost devoid of trees and grass areas one that integrates and anchors introduced a capacity-building phase, a and plagued by rural development efforts. Notable probation period for PIA, an institutional problems of examples of watershed development mechanism for maintenance after inadequate food appear to offer a way out of stagnation project completion, and planning for five production and and degradation for all those areas that years of watershed development and rampant alcoholism development had seemingly bypassed. peoples participation. With effect from before Anna Watershed development appears to 1 April 1999, the allocation is shared on Hazare have had a positive impact on the dry a 75:25 basis between the centre and intervened. lands, wastelands, degraded commons state governments with respect to new Realizing that and semi-arid and arid regions projects sanctioned during 1999-2000. insufficient retention of perpetually under the shadow of The old funding pattern continues for 13 rainwater was drought. ongoing projects sanctioned prior to the major cause April 1999. About ten per cent of the for low programmes national allocation (Rs productivity, he 2.6. Brief Description of the Important 1,136.23 crore) has been released to organized the Maharashtra (Rs 113.67 crores) during villagers to build Programmes a series of 1995-96 to 2002-03. The highest storage ponds expenditure under DPAP was made in and Amravati division followed by Pune and 2.6.1 Centrally-assisted Schemes embankments Nashik divisions. The number of alongside the watersheds undertaken under DPAP is surrounding low Drought Prone Area Programme hills. The results (DPAP) highest in Vidharba (281) followed by were immediate Western Maharashtra (245) and and impressive A centrally-funded programme Marathwada (171). If one considers with rise in implemented in Maharashtra since drought proneness as the criteria for groundwater and 1974-75, DPAP covered 87 talukas of selection of watersheds under DPAP, recharge of 14 districts covering 87 centers (of this is quite justifiable because 75 per aquifers. which 74 centres were funded by the Villagers were cent and 86 per cent of the also mobilized to centre and 13 by the state) by 1994-95. geographical area of Amravati and plant over In 1995, with the emergence of a new Pune divisions respectively are 400,000 saplings set of guidelines based on the considered to be drought prone. The and soon the recommendations of the C.H. total expenditure under DPAP in village emerged Hanumantha Rao Committee, the as a model eco- Maharashtra from 1995-96 up to June development programme revised its approach and 2003 is Rs 12884.94 lakhs. Tables A village. strategies (including the unit of 2.4 and 2.5 give details of the intervention) and new DPAP Blocks watershed programmes sanctioned 13 For a detailed were identified using scientific criteria under DPAP and Hariyali and the treatment of the based on the moisture index, rainfall theme progress of DPAP from 1995-96 up to watershed and evapotranspiration. The District June 2003. development and Rural Development Agency (DRDA) drylands see was designated the responsible From April 2003, watersheds under Shahet al., 1998. organization. From 1 April 1995, 22 DPAP have been implemented under districts (25 districts at present) and 148 the new set of Hariyali Guidelines talukas were brought under the where PRIs supported by NGOs or programme and 856 micro watersheds Government Departments function as were targeted with a total sanction of Rs PIAs. The concept of mother NGOs 15,944.89 lakh. Fifty-three government also is being introduced to support and agencies implemented 334 watersheds guide the PIAs and Watershed and around 100 NGOs implemented 522 Communities. According to the Annual watersheds as the PIA. The central and Report of 2004, (Department of Soil state contributions were equal in this Conservation and Watershed phase of the programme. The New Development, Commissionerate of DPAP programme, implemented from Agriculture, Government of 1999 onwards, has as its target 1403 Maharashtra, Pune, 2004) under DPAP new watersheds at a total cost of Rs. projects, which also include 50 per cent 39,690 lakhs. From September 2001 EAS projects, the expenditure incurred new guidelines were issued and the under the programme from its inception project cost norm increased from 4,000 to end-March, 2004 is Rs 134.7 crores to 6,000 per ha with a total project cost and the number of watersheds 34 completed is around 1087. Since the implementation of 266 watersheds. An emergence of the new guidelines of area of 853,099.6 ha was treated at a 2001, a total of 1103 projects have been total cost of Rs 165.95 crores by the end sanctioned. of the Eighth Plan. A chief executive officer is placed as in charge of the Tables A 2.4 and 2.5 give a picture of district watershed committee and a the watershed programmes sanctioned district superintending agriculture officer in Maharashtra under DPAP and is the designated chief of the district Hariyali. We should note that there are coordination machinery/agency. By the certain discrepancies in the information end of the Ninth Plan 917 watersheds available and this may be due to were selected, of which 646 were problems related to computation and completed and 271 were incomplete. cut-off dates for calculating progress. The incomplete watersheds in the Ninth Quite a few projects from earlier phases Plan were recast as part of the new are always carried forward and recast guidelines under the Tenth Plan. Under according to the new guidelines with these guidelines, this programme is increased cost, which also impacts the expected to cover 33 districts, 440 micro calculation of progress. Besides watersheds (each around 500 ha) information in relation to progress is not spanning 2.04 lakh ha. Rs 15.37 crores available easily on the public domain of worth of work has already been and accessing information is also found accomplished by March 2004 and the to be difficult. total budget outlay for the period is Rs 116 crores
National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA) Integrated Wasteland Development This centrally funded programme Programme (IWDP) (sponsored by the MoA) was launched The IWDP a centrally supported project in Maharashtra at the end of the Seventh was started in 1988-89 by the Ministry of Plan period. Its major emphasis was Environment and Forests (MoEF) and stabilization of rainfed agriculture and later transferred to the Department of improvement in production of food, fuel Wastelands Development which is now and fodder so as to improve the lives of known as the Department of Land farmers and landless agriculture labour. Resources (DLR) under MoRD. 1995- One objective was also to optimize onward, projects worth Rs 24,38 lakh production in rainfed areas so as to were sanctioned with an additional Rs reduce the inequality of irrigated and 330,90 lakh sanctioned from 1999-2000 rainfed agricultural production. This was for 1,103 micro watershed projects for to be achieved through low-cost Maharashtra. The IWDP started with 18 biophysical measures of conservation talukas and 20 watershed development and through better agricultural practices projects in Nagpur, Amravati, such as contour cultivation etc. Aurangabad, Beed, Latur, Hingoli, NWDPRA was launched in Maharashtra Parbhani, Thane, Raigad, Sindhudurg, during the Eighth Five Year Plan with the Ratnagiri, Satara, Sangli, Kolhapur,
Period District Watersheds Area Expenditure Table 2.5: (lakh ha) (crores) Coverage and Seventh Plan 19 380 2.94 24.83 Expenditure (1987-92) under Eighth Plan NWDPRA (1992-97) 29 266 9.28 165.18 during 1990 to March Ninth Plan 2004 (1997-02) 33 271 9.12 89.40 Source:Dept. of Tenth Plan (04 Soil and Water March) 33 440 2.04 15.37 Conservation: Annual Report 2003-04, Commissionerate Total 33 1347 23.28 214.78 of Agriculture, GoM, Pune 35 Yavatmal, Wardha, Pune and Jalagaon. Employment Assurance Scheme By the end of financial year (FY) 2002 (EAS) the total area proposed had stretched to include 213143.25 ha and the total Commencing as the Employment planned budget was 10755.99 lakhs. Of Guarantee Scheme (EGS) was later this, only Rs 2444.81 lakh (27.73 of the amalgamated with the Jawahar Rojgar total amount proposed under the plan) Yojana and renamed the Employment was released which works out to be only Assurance Scheme (Sampurna around 22.73 per cent. This reflects the Grameen Rogjar Yojana) in September slow progress of the work under IWDP, 2001, with the objective of ensuring which may be due to different reasons social security through creating such as issue of title/ownership of employment and offering the basic wastelands, encroachments, faulty wage in rural areas. It also aimed at planning regarding the extent of creating community assets such as soil wastelands and possibility of treatments, and water conservation structures, selection of beneficiaries etc. From connecting roads etc. This programme March 2000 onwards per ha cost was is now being replicated at the national raised from 4000/ha to 6000/ha with the level with the objective of creating rural state governments share put at Rs 500/ employment for poverty alleviation and ha. For 2002-03, Buldhana, is known as the National Rural Ahmadnagar, Nandurbar, Ratnagiri, Employment Guarantee Scheme with Amravati and Jalna were to be included. an annual financial outlay of around Rs That the Konkan region has the highest 14,000 crores. The responsibility for number of projects under this scheme projects rests with the District Collector may be because of the greater number is the responsible authority for the of waste and fallow lands as reported project. Under EAS in 1995, 149 here (see Table A 2.6) drought-prone regions were selected for developing 1582 watershed projects
Table 2.6: Activities Unit Progress Progress Progress Total Status of 1974-1983 1983-1992 1992-2004 Activities and Terracing Ha. 13,777 29,074 12,114 54,966 Expenditure under WGDP Contour bunding Ha. 273 3,267 0 3,440 1974 to March 2004 Nala bunding No. 139 1,767 1,370 3,286
Nala No 0 117 0 117 straightening Mango plantation Ha. 3,226 8,274 0 11,502
Cashew Ha. 737 4,277 0 4,924 plantation Land leveling Ha. 0 1,177 0 1,177
Cement No. 0 0 432 432 structures Loose boulders No. 0 0 58,770 58,770
Diversion dams No. 0 0 223 223
CCT Ha. 0 0 6,636 6,636
Farm ponds No. 0 0 107 107 Source:Annual Report 2003-04, Earthen No. 0 0 1,496 1,496 Commissionerate structures of Agriculture GoM, Pune, Expenditure (in 6.63 39.02 88.82 134.46 August, 2004 Crores) 36 with a financial outlay of Rs 30,848.90 1983 the project had an area lakhs. Under this scheme 55 development approach, when it shifted government organizations (816 to a watershed development approach. watersheds) and 136 NGOs (766 Of the 120 watershed projects underway watersheds) were selected for since then 53 have been completed. implementation. The funding ratio The total expenditure from 1973-74 up between the centre and state is 75:25. to 2003-04 stands at Rs 134.46 crores. Most of the projects are in the completion stage today. As in DPAP, the maximum projects are in Amravati River Valley Projects (RVP) (369) followed by the Pune region (358). Konkan is not in the EAS programme This centrally sponsored project is one (see Table A 2.7). of the oldest projects in the country and is being implemented in the catchments of Damangaon (Thane, Nashik), Western Ghats Development Pochampada (Nanded, Nashik, Programme (WGDP) Aurangabad), Ukkai (Dhule, Jalgaon, Nandurbar), Nagarjunsagar (Solapur, This fully centrally-assisted programme Usmanabad, Pune, Sangli, Satara) and is being implemented in the state since Narmadsagar (Dhule, Nandurbar) in the 1974-75 in the hilly regions of 12 state. The major objectives were control districts consisting of 62 talukas. These of dam siltation, land-use based on land districts are Thane, Ratnagiri, capability, and increasing the moisture Sindhudurg, Nasik, Dhule, Nadurbar, content of land in the catchments. One Satara, Sangili, Kholapur, Pune and of the interesting aspects of this project Ahmadnagar. The objective is to was the silt monitoring stations. Under improve the lives of the communities this programme, as on March 2004, 1.92 living around the Western Ghats through lakh ha was treated at a cost of Rs the sustainable and environmentally 92.30 crores. The project is now balanced development of the region. Till considered as completed.
Table 2.7: Status of Activities and Expenditure under RVP 1993 to March 2004
Items Unit Coverage/expenditure (1993 - March 2004)
Area treatment Ha. 192,446
Drainage structures No. 114,047
Expenditure on work Rs (crores) 69.46
Salary and allowances -- 18.44
Contingency fund -- 1.95
Silt monitoring center -- 0.89
Storage and construction -- 0.40
Training -- 0.29 Source: Annual Report,2003- Corpus fund -- 0.87 04,Commissionerate of Agriculture,GoM, Total expenditure (in crores) -- 92.30 Pune, August,2004 37 2.6.2 State-supported Schemes state, central and district authorities (Annual Report: pp. 41-48). The Integrated Watershed Development cumulative figure above for the IWDP, Project (IWDP) we may assume, includes all IWDP is a state sponsored project to be programmes implemented in the state. implemented in villages having a severe problem of drinking water as well as watersheds declared as overexploited Adarsh Gaon Yojana (AGY) (dark) according to the GSDA analysis. The major source for funds under this Initiated in 1992, the programme is the programme is the District Planning and states attempt at a wider scale Development Corporation (DPDC), replication of success stories such as Tribal Sub Plan (TSP), funds with the that of Ralegaon Siddhi, based on the Water Conservation Board, the state- principle of village development through level Plan fund etc. This is one of the peoples participation. The villages largest programmes being implemented selected would follow the five tenets in the state. Besides taking up new prescribed by Anna Hazare: a ban on watersheds IWDP funds are also used grazing, tree felling, alcohol, for completing incomplete watersheds contribution of voluntary labour and started in other programmes. However, following family planning. The major the information available for IWDP is not objective is not only the integrated very consistent and different sources development of the village but to show different picture. Most sources introduce social discipline and make the show it not as IWDP, but as part of the village self-reliant. The programme is to work undertaken under TSP, DPDC, be implemented through a village-level OTSP etc, from which the funds are NGO registered under the availed for the work. According to the Commissionaire of Charitable Trusts. Annual Report 2003-04 cited above, For selected villages other schemes of based on the Government Order of 30 rural development would also be January 1996, 15,707 villages were implemented on priority. Around 59 selected under IWDP and 32,139 programmes of 12 different watersheds delineated. The total area of departments form part of this scheme. the proposed watersheds is 1, The programme is divided into core 17,66,955 ha. The actual work started in (watershed areas) and non-core areas. 11,386 villages and 24,111 watersheds There is a state level committee for and in an area of 90, 74,856 ha. Of implementation and monitoring which these, 8188 watersheds were completed makes decisions regarding choice of covering an area of 41.63 lakh ha and villages, choice of PIAs, project the expenditure incurred was Rs sanctioning, budgeted sanction, grant 3288.40 crores (Annual Report: pp.16- release, removal of inefficient villages, 17). The report notes that in the year change of PIA etc. District, taluka and 2003-04 Rs 688.09 crores were spent. village level committees have also been However a closer look at the formed. At least one village has been expenditure for 2003-04 shows that it chosen in each taluka and the objective includes all programmes funded by the is to make at least one village in each taluka a success under this scheme.
Table 2.8: Status of Adarsh Gaon Yojana Districts included in AGY 33 Total talukas selected in AGY 321 Included talukas in AGY 156 221 Total selected villages Tribal villages included 15 Total PIA 184 Villages which have submitted proposals 201 Total amount for the received proposals (Rs. crore) 66.66 38 Table 2.9: Adarsh Gaon Yojna Expenditure Details1992-2004 Total Expenditure Year Core Area Non-core Area (in lakh Rs.) 1994-5 39.05 226.86 265.91 1995-6 147.56 702.78 850.34 1996-7 199.02 1,535.9 1,734.92 1997-8 270 1,574.85 1,844.85 1998-9 524.4 692.47 1,216.87 1999-0 483.4 806.4 1,289.8 2000-1 246.8 575.8 822.6 2001-2 271.42 180.69 452.11 2002-3 118.61 178.61 297.22 2003-4 24.66 40.59 65.25 Total 2,324.92 6,514.95 8,839.87
Activities Unit Achievements Table 2.10: Activities 1992-2003 under AGY CCT/ afforestation Ha. 5,742 1992-2003
Plantation Ha. 3,082 Source: (Table, Vegetative bunding/live check dam No. 5,560 2.8,2.9&2.10): Commissionerate Brush wood dam/loose boulder No. 2,634 of Agriculture Earthen nala bund No. 594 and Annual Report 2003- Cement nala bund No. 490 04,GoM,Pune,2004
Underground/diversion dams No. 132
Farm pond/dug ponds No. 298
Terracing Ha. 1,079
Other works No. 204
2.7. Maharashtra: The Overall the expenditure incurred under different Scenario programmes was Rs 68,809.90 lakhs. Watershed development is one of the Table A 2.8 gives programme coverage major public programmes in terms of details under different schemes for a expenditure. A rough estimate shows period of 10 years (1992-2002). The that Rs 4,500 crores has been spent IWDP (State) followed by EAS, over the last two decades under different NWDPRA, DPAP and AGY constitute programmes through central and state the bulk of programmes being assistance. Besides, there are a number implemented. Of the 44,185 micro of programmes implemented by NGOs watersheds in Maharashtra, around and some public institutions like 26,707 micro watersheds are being NABARD. This much expenditure, covered under various watershed ideally speaking should have treated programmes since 1992 out of which around nine million hectares of area 8258 have been completed. Twenty- factoring Rs 5000/ha. During 2003- 04 three per cent of the programmes 39 started are in the Vidharbha region, 8 area reportedly covered. This will be per cent in Konkan and 69 per cent are dealt later in this review. in the drought-prone regions of Maharashtra. During 2004 6.54 per cent According to the sources provided by investment was in Konkan, the Nashik the Commissionerate of Agriculture region accounted for 7.05 per cent, 83% of all projects started are under the Pune division for 32.50 per cent, state Integrated Watershed Kholapur division for 11.98 per cent, Development Program having 22302 Aurangabad division for 8.63 per cent, programs followed by DPAP (909), Latur division for 19.51 per cent, NWDPRA (917), EAS (1549) and AGY Amravati for 7.27 per cent and Nagpur (645). About 522 NGOs are involved for 5.64 per cent. Here too, a large with implementing DPAP programs, 766 share went to the Pune region, NGOs in the implementation of EGS consisting of only three districts with programs whereas all programs under Solapur and Ahmadnagar accounting AGY, IGWDP, CAPART etc are for the highest investments in the state implemented through the NGOs. (Annual Report 2003-04). Another major issue is related to data Eighty-three per cent of all projects management and availability of (22,302 programmes) fall under IWDP information. One could observe some (state) followed by DPAP (909), discrepancies in the available data, as NWDPRA (917), EAS (1549) and AGY mentioned earlier. This is true for both (645). About 522 NGOs are involved the physical and financial details of the with implementing DPAP programmes, work. 766 NGOs in the implementation of Data available in different sources vary EGS programmes. All programmes and this is also reflected in certain under AGY, IGWDP, CAPART etc., are instances in this review. To implemented through NGOs. substantiate, expenditure as reported in A cursory glance at investments on the Swaminathan Committee Report for different components of soil and water all projects for 1992-2002 is Rs 2,252 conservation shows a preponderance of crores as compared to the reported drainage and engineering structures. amount of Rs 3,288 crores for IWDP in This aspect needs further analysis, the Annual Report 2004 of the which also has a bearing on the total Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Development,
Table 2.11: Details of Schemes No. of Watersheds No. of Watersheds No. of Watersheds Watersheds Started Completed Incomplete under Different IWDP 22,302 7,048 15,254 Programmes 1992-2002 NWDPRA 917 646 271
WGDP 97 43 54
RBP 114 59 55
DPAP 856 132 724
Adarsh Gaon 645 100 545 Source: Report (2003) of the high EAS 50% 1,582 189 1,393 level committee on the Action CAPART 78 0 78 Plan for Agriculture for 25 years, under the IGWDP 116 41 75 chairmanship of (In progress) Dr. M.S. Swaminathan. Total 26,707 8,258 18,449 Chapter 3. 40 Commissionerate of Agriculture. It is spending under EGS is a major necessary that a proper data/information component. Among the central management system be put in place schemes, NWDPRA, EAS, JRY and which is a combination of both GIS and DPAP are major sources. The total MIS. This should also be made available spending comes to more than Rs to the public domain. This is very 22,5768.85 lakhs since 1992. If we look important from the perspective at the expenditure as given in Table 2.13 programme management and planning. maximum expenditure is in the drought prone areas of Pune (21 per cent), Latur The table below shows that state (19.17 per cent) and Aurangabad (nine schemes account for about 64 per cent per cent) divisions. Vidharbha accounts of the total spending, out of which for around 21.47 per cent.
Table 2.12: Budgeted Spending (Maharashtra) on Watershed Development, 1992 to 2002
Budget Head Total Exp. [in Percentage to lakhs] total EGS 72,829.71 32 100-days Programme 1,511.21 1 District Planning and Development Council 14,819.48 7 BACKLOG 15,133.68 7 Constitutional Dev. Board 868.89 0 Tribal Sub-plan 11,201.5 5 Other than Tribal Sub-plan 487.55 0 Jalsandharan 17,258.42 8 World Bank Project 333.99 0 Other 9,555.79 4 Total State Schemes 14,4000.22 64 JRY 15,115.89 7 EAS 16,202.66 7 NWDPRA 24,747.67 11 Western Ghats 6,877.37 3 RVP 6,703.28 3 DPAP 12,121.76 5 Source: Commissionerate Total Central Schemes 81,768.63 36 of Agriculture, GOM, Pune Total State and Central Schemes 22,5768.85 100 41 Table 2.13: An Overview of Watershed Development in Maharashtra
Area Total Treated Balance Available for Area (including Area for Expenditur Geographical Watershed Completed incomplete Watershed e Incurred District Area [in Ha] Watershed watersheds) Dvlpmnt. (in lakhs) Gtr. Mumbai 38,000 7,900 0 0 7,900 [0]
Thane 933,700 372,870 134 158,956 213,914 10,185
Raigad 686,900 454,380 201 178,745 275,635 4,993
Ratnagiri 816,400 789,470 58 177,860 611,610 3,893
Sindhudurg 504,000 445,120 13 102,545 342,575 2,283
Kokan Diviso n 2,979,000 2,069,740 406 618,106 1,451,634 21,354
Nasik 1,563,400 1,052,160 994 331,513 720,647 14,323
Dhule 1,438,000 760,430 260 186,759 573,671 6,667
Jalgaon 1,163,900 821,900 340 214,592 607,308 5,860
Nashik Division 4,165,300 2,634,490 1,594 732,864 1,901,626 26,850
Ahmadnagar 1,702,000 1,265,650 206 420,137 845,513 14,271
Pune 1,562,000 1,005,800 243 322,067 683,733 13,221
Solapur 1,487,800 1,144,160 240 544,813 599,347 19,774
Pune Division 4,751,800 3,415,610 689 1,287,017 2,128,593 47,266
Satara 1,058,200 704,740 162 227,119 477,621 8,091
Sangli 861,000 601,720 116 207,906 393,814 5,133
Kolhapur 776,300 420,900 199 144,574 276,326 4,711
Kolhapur Division 2,695,500 1,727,360 477 579,599 1,147,761 1,7935
Aurangabad 1,007,700 811,610 61 121,758 689,852 5,957
Jalna 772,600 678,750 312 208,784 469,966 9,282
Beed 1,068,600 867,410 785 256,930 610,480 5,032
Aurangabad Division 2,848,900 2,357,770 1,158 587,472 1,770,298 20,271
Latur 715,700 606,240 655 272,431 333,809 7,433
Osmanabad 748,500 659,030 1,143 553,938 105,092 14,819
Nanded 1,033,100 752,190 90 152,618 599,572 12,005
Parbhani 1,097,200 829,030 33 113,688 715,342 8,888
Latur 3,594,500 2,846,490 1,921 1,092,675 1,753,815 4,3145
42 Latur Division 3,594,500 2,846,490 1,921 1,092,675 1,753,815 4,3145
Buldhana 967,100 745,780 190 138,998 606,782 4,342
Akola 1,056,000 869,970 251 129,109 740,861 5,546
Amravati 1,221,700 806,210 369 165,694 640,516 5,470
Yavatmal 1,351,900 940,890 420 202,398 738,492 5,775
Amravati Divison 4,596,700 3,362,850 1,230 636,199 2,726,651 21,133
Wardha 628,900 461,430 108 85,164 376,266 2,613
Nagpur 986,400 590,870 94 140,003 450,867 6,393
Bhandara 927,900 412,760 175 171,232 241,528 6,194
Chandrapur 1,091,800 556,940 202 105,943 450,997 6,640
Gadchiroli 1,491,600 301,310 73 79,102 222,208 5,382
Nagpur Division 5,126,600 2,323,310 652 581,444 1,741,866 27,222
Maharashtra 30,758,300 20,737,620 8,127 6,115,376 14,622,244 225,176
Source: Commissionerate of Agriculture, GOM, Pune; 2002
Figure 2.5: Percentage of Area Treated under Watershed Programmes in Maharashtra
43 Figure 2.6: District-wise Expenditure under Watershed Programmes in Maharashtra
Table 2.14: District-wise, Priority-wise, Category-wise Information of Incomplete Watersheds Source: Commissionerate of Agriculture, GOM, Pune; 2002 Total No. of Dark and Gray DPAP Tribal Area Other Area Divisions Watersheds Watersheds Watersheds Watersheds Watersheds
%area %area %area remain %area %area remaini remaini ing to remaini remaini Incompl ng to be Incomple ng to be Incompl be Incomple ng to be Incomple ng to be ete Ws treated te Ws treated ete Ws treated te Ws treated te Ws treated Konkan Division 1,567 47 0 340 45 0 1,227 47
Nashik Division 1,913 44 277 34 909 51 640 39 87 48
Pune Division 5,292 48 672 43 320 63 3,383 48 917 48
Kolhapur Division 1,357 51 120 46 0 579 52 658 52
Aurangab a-d Division 1,335 45 8 25 0 977 48 350 38
Latur Division 1,340 42 81 32 56 59 723 42 480 44
Amravati Division 2,247 45 107 48 591 45 1,314 46 235 41
Nagpur Division 1,627 39 79 35 844 38 65 58 639 39
Maharasht -ra 16,678 46 1,344 39 3,060 48 7,681 46 4,593 45
44 The above table gives a priority-wise estimation, Rs 480 crore is required to listing of watersheds. Of the 16,678 treat 4.69 lakh ha of saline-affected incomplete programmes 1,344 are in the areas in the East Maharahstra districts dark and grey areas, 3,060 in drought of Amaravati, Buldhana and Akola. The areas, 7,681 in tribal areas. Of the remaining 96.01 lakh ha should be the 146.22 lakh ha available for watershed next priority for undertaking soil and treatment, 50.21 lakh ha, which is water conservation activities. Again incomplete, should be the first priority. within the same, dark and gray Dark and gray, DPAP and tribal area watersheds, DPAP and tribal area watersheds should receive the highest watersheds should receive first priority. priority. According to the data available At Rs 6000 per hectare, the total cost to with the Commissionerate of Agriculture, treat this area would work out to Rs Rs 2,511 crores is required to complete 5,760 crores (High Level Committee soil and water conservation work in this headed by Shri M.S. Swaminathan). If area. If we take Rs 6,000 as the per one goes by the recommendations of hectare cost as per the present the Parthasarathy Committee, which guidelines, it works out to Rs 3,012 recommends Rs 12000/ha, the required crores. Besides this, as per government budget would be almost double.
45 Chapter 3 the changes that could be expected to emerge from watershed programmes. All these indices/indicators of impact have a direct relation to the livelihood issues of the community inhabiting the specific ecospace/watershed. Augmented natural resources from watershed development are expected to contribute towards improved livelihood opportunities for all strata and stakeholders. Studies document many or some of Impacts of Watershed Development these impacts in a somewhat ad hoc on Ecosystems and Livelihoods manner. The data are often impressionistic and lack rigour. Very few studies are based on rigorous 3.1 Context benchmarks established beforehand and rely on recall and perception of Watershed development is a series of respondents of change or impact. Also, biophysical and social interventions the multiplicity of studies looking at the aimed at restoring a degraded short-term impacts is not matched by ecosystem to ensure livelihoods for the studies looking at the long-term impacts community depending upon it. However, of watershed programmes whether the issue of impacts on livelihood biophysical or socio-economic. Even entered watershed discourse and certain short-term changes, especially practice very recently earlier this in socio-economic indicators, are often aspect was considered either a side assumed to emerge from the sum of effect or serendipitous. Bringing the watershed activity and the physiology livelihood issue into focus can, to a of each process leading to a particular large extent, ensure the streamlining of outcome is often not made explicit or the poverty reduction objectives of looked into. There is a tendency to watershed development and render ascribe all changes happening in the productive and sustainable ecosystem watershed context as an outcome of resources a precondition for creating the effects of watershed development. livelihoods in rural rainfed areas. Many Attributing impacts/outcomes to specific impact assessments of watershed watershed interventions also may be programmes have been undertaken problematic because these impacts covering both biophysical and socio- may be visible even outside the economic programme aspects. Increase watershed context, and in the absence in crop area, cropping intensity, increase of comparison with a controlled in crop yields, changes in the cropping universe it may not stand scientific pattern, increase in irrigated area, scrutiny. In certain indices such as increase in the productivity of common/ environmental impacts, the long waste lands due to increase in green gestation required to register impacts cover and therefore increase in fodder also throws up challenges. Moreover, and fuel from them, change in fodder/ studies do not deal with crucial fuel consumption quantity and pattern questions such as the ability of due to change in the land use or change watershed programmes to deal with in cropping pattern, change in livestock drought, or the need to integrate composition due to the above, change exogenous water with what is locally in water levels leading to changes in available to create the critical quantum withdrawal rate, increase in number of of the resource required in the wells, improvement in water quality, watershed. Barring certain exceptions improvement in soil quality and like Ralegaon Siddhi, and some of the reduction in soil erosion, improvement in Indo-German Watershed Programme environment, improvement in (IGWDP) projects, feedback from the employment opportunities, changes in field indicates that by and large labour requirements, changes in income watershed programmes seem to be levels and livelihoods and finally successful under normal rainfall changes in the socio-economic conditions of a particular area. This structure of the community are some of question of whether watershed 46 development programmes can really to be strategized on the basis these 14 There is a offset the impact of reduction in rainfall, enhanced resources, i.e. through related lacuna in watershed and if yes, to what degree, needs to be access to water, fodder, fuel etc. planning: lack of further researched. The popular consideration of perception is that watershed The next few sections give an idea the issue of development helps people in good regarding the range of quantitative dependability. values and the specific indicators Very often, years, but fails them in bad years, when watershed they need the help the most14. reported for capturing each impact. This planning is done is followed by a discussion at the end of on the basis of Literature on impacts is substantial and the chapter, which tries to place the average or growing. Many impact assessment results in a more normative perspective. mean rainfall figures, which is studies have been conducted by very close to 50 professional organizations or NGOs per cent themselves or by individual researchers. 3.2 Impacts on the Ecosystem dependability. Certain impact indicators are measured This means that watershed concurrently by the implementation 3.2.1 Improvement in soil quality planning would organizations as part of regular reporting work for 50 per Soil quality has not been studied and feedback systems and sometimes cent of the time intensively in many watershed impact as post-project evaluations. Apart from or half the assessments, but is generally reported number of this, results of various independent to have improved due to better in situ years. In other studies have been compiled. Impacts on words, planning moisture retention. Due to reduced soil many aspects have been documented would fail once loss and improved farming approaches, every two and they range from physical impacts the organic carbon content and years. Since such as a rise in the water table to wide- availability of nitrogen, phosphorus and peoples ranging changes in the economy and livelihood is tied potash (or NPK) has been seen to even social changes in certain places. to the increase in the soils on farms of programme, it is We have grouped the impact variables beneficiary households located in the imperative that it be planned at a into: impact on the ecosystem (soil, National Watershed Development much higher water, vegetation/biomass etc), Programme for rainfed Areas dependability- intermediary impacts, impacts on (NWDPRA) watersheds (AFC, 1999, level, say 80 per see Table A 3.2 for details of cent or more agricultural production and socio- when the economic aspects. These are not watersheds under study). Analyses of quantum of independent categories but impinge on soil samples in the Khed watershed rainfall would be each other, however they loosely also showed that fertility improved to a very smaller than at limited extent but the availability of major 50 per cent capture the sequence of impacts in rainfall. But at watershed programmes. All these impact nutrients such as NPK and 80 per cent variables have a direct relation to micronutrients went up appreciably rainfall livelihood resources available for (TERI, 2001). dependability i.e., four out of watershed dwellers, but to gauge Lack of information on this important five years, one whether the benefit from augmented is sure to get component which has direct bearing on resources has impacted the livelihood that much rain. productivity, goes against one of the opportunities of all sections in the This adds major objectives of watershed stability to the watershed requires disaggregated development: sustainable productivity programme information along different socio- which can thus enhancement of rainfed areas. There economic categories. Earlier, soil and achieve planned may be a multiplicity of reasons for this, water conservation activities were not targets four out such as time required to register soil of every five visualized or directly aimed at creating quality improvement; approach and years. If there is an impact on livelihoods. However, this one bad year in methods, whether interventions are aspect is now increasingly being brought five, it is easier merely conservation based or adopt the for people to into focus and quite few watershed farming system approach; availability of build up based development interventions are baseline information15(refer to next surpluses called Rural Livelihoods Projects. Often during the four page); failure to systematically analyse in such cases, the strategy earmarks a good years (of post-implementation changes wherever which one or certain budget for livelihood creation for improvements are reported, whether as two will be quite resource-poor families. However, our good) to tide an outcome of high external fertilizer position is that watershed development over the single input in better land class etc. (being an environmental regeneration bad year. Refer to Joy and programme aimed at augmenting the Paranjape, 2004 resource base and involving public 3.2.2 Change in soil erosion/runoff for a more expenditure) the creation/generation of detailed The general review of Kerr et al. (2000) livelihoods for the resource-poor needs exposition. throws up some very interesting findings 47 about the erosion of crop and non-crop amounted to 0.66:1, which indicated 66 15 In some projects such as land. It suggests that irrigated plots are per cent cost recovery only through silt IGWDP soil generally well maintained and show the load reduction. The rainfall runoff testing is done least erosion. Dry croplands on the analysis for the Pochampad catchment for a set of soil other hand, are prone to erosion indicated that runoff was as low as 7.1 samples in each because they are generally not as well per cent after treatment (AFC, 1999). watershed during maintained as irrigated lands. The study the planning The review also shows that treated stage also indicates that in this respect, control villages perform only marginally watersheds could tolerate longer dry 16 For every worse than villages where the watershed spells compared to untreated rupee spent by approach has been implemented. watersheds. This is mainly because the AGY or IGWDP, soil moisture status and water holding the drainage line However, for uncultivated land they find somewhat against expectations that capacity of the soil improved with score rises by treatment. This is reflected in people 0.27 on a scale many watershed development areas of 1 to 3. For perform marginally worse than the saying that the productivity of the plots NGOs this is control villages. (This may be because has improved after watershed 0.17 and for govt. these control villages were perhaps treatment. projects less than 0.10. located in the lower reaches of a larger Like the issue of soil fertility, measuring drainage, and hence were less sloppy reduction in soil loss /reduced runoff is 17 Many villages and erosion prone as compared to also a complex issue and most often where NGO watersheds in the upper areas of the community ingenuity and understanding projects operate drainage). Their study shows that all there are less (like clean water in streams, sediments common lands. projects improve the drainage line; AGY/ deposited in gully plugs, vegetative IGWDP villages have the best average structures) is the source of information 18 RVP projects score and non-project villages the in many projects. It is observed that 16 supported by worst. Erosion in non-arable lands has tools and technologies used are not GTZ and reduced especially when investment is facilitated by very user-friendly at the community RODECO had higher and for NGO and AGY/IGWDP level, besides the cost, requirement of 17 established a Silt projects (Kerr et al., 2000). It is time series data etc. Monitoring generally observed that farmers invest Station to more in protection of irrigated lands 3.2.3 Change in Life of Wells and measure (they do not want the water and fertilizer Streams; Rise in Water-level and sediment to flow into farms other than their own), deposits. Number of Wells and most often irrigated lands have a less than three per cent slope which The water level has increased as a considerably reduces the possibility of result of treatments in most projects. In erosion. Investment increases in non- Pimpalgaon Wagha (a project arable, pasture, fallow and common implemented by the social centre with lands because of high degradation and government support) the life of wells multiplicity of measures required to increased with water becoming protect, such as gully control measures, available for 11 to 12 months in the trenching, plantation, fodder year, which helped irrigation and development etc., which in turn may increase in agricultural productivity by benefit the poor and marginal if benefit- nearly 50 per cent. Before watershed sharing mechanisms are in place. development was introduced in Pimpalgaon Wagha, only 40 of the 75 In the case of Vaiju Babhulgaon wells had water and that too for just (IGWDP), peoples perception is that the eight months. There was an silt load has reduced by about 60 per improvement in the green cover on cent, which is a significant improvement. once rocky hillsides, and streams which In Bugewadi watershed, bunding activity would flow only up to November, now has helped moisture conservation in soil flow up to January even in a dry year. and reduced soil loss. Besides, the vegetative key lines have provided On an average, the water table in the beneficiaries with fertile soil and better wells increased by 1.5 m in the Khed groundwater availability (AERC study watershed and the number of wells reported in TERI, 2001). The RPV18 went up from 310 to 405 (TERI, 2001). projects (see Table A 3.1) helped in The RVP projects saw a staggering reduction in silt production rates ranging percentage increase in the number of from 1 ha-m per 100 sq km to 6 ha-m irrigation wells in the four watersheds per 100 sq. km. The cost benefit studied between 24 to 237 per cent. analysis for just this one benefit The increase in the water table was 48 between 0.90 to 2.28 per cent, and the defunct wells came down from 59 to area under irrigation went up between seven (WOTR, 2002). eight per cent to 216 per cent. The number of wells dug wells shot up to by In the NWDPRA study, where nine 65 in South Solapur watershed in watersheds were studied, the total Nagarjunasagar catchment. In other number of wells in the watershed watersheds this number increased by increased by a minimum of seven, eight to ten. Seasonal wells turned into including borewells (30.4 per cent) in perennial wells. The perennial wells Khandas watershed to a maximum by increased in the range of 43 to 174 in all 277 numbers (181%) in Kanhur-mesai nine watersheds. The seasonal life of watershed (see Table A 2.3) and in 80 ephemeral streams of micro catchments per cent of the older wells the water increased by a month or two as they level increased (Gomukh, 2001). continued to flow even after the rainy Streams in both watersheds flowed for season due to seepage from uplands about three months longer than they did (AFC, 1998-99). before. In the IGWDP-supported Shedashi- The review shows that there has been Wavoshi watershed in Raigad District (a an increase (of between two to three high rainfall area) water table in the months) in the duration of flow of existing wells persistently increased in streams after watershed development all the season. For example, in the programmes were implemented. In upper region, the water table increased Dornali village (AFARM, 1999), where by 0.40 meters as of March 1998. the stream was reported flowing up to Similarly it increased by 0.60 meters and November prior to the watershed 1.20 meters in the middle and lower programme, now reports water in the regions respectively (see Table A 3.9). stream till the month of March or later, This is substantial given that the actual even under normal rainfall conditions. rainfall and the number of rainy days The situation is similar at villages like during 1997-98 were less than the Bhavthan (in Manavlok) where stream- normal rainfall in the region. The flow has increased by a couple of streams, which dried in the middle of months. In Adgaon, where water used to December, continued till the end of run off by the month of August, i.e., February in the post-project phase. immediately after the rains, it now stays Tanker trips have been minimized on for another two months. (NABARD, 1999). In the Rajani Hence, it is hardly surprising that watershed (IGWDP) in Yavatmal district, reduction of runoff is one of the most the water level persistently increased in commonly reported results of watershed all seasons from 1993-98 by about two development. Wherever intensive works meters in spite of the rainfall being less have been done on the upper reaches of than normal (see Table A 3.13). Streams the watershed, a decrease in runoff continued to flow up to the end of velocity has been observed along with a February instead of mid-December. corresponding increase in time of Floods reduced and water was cleaner concentration and greater subsurface in nalas (NABARD, 1999). In Mendawan infiltration, resulting in increased levels watershed (IGWDP) in Ahmadnagar and durations of base flow. An increase district, the number of wells in the in the number of wells may also be a watershed has gone up from 41 to 64. reflection of increased groundwater As against 54 per cent of the wells, availability, as farmers tend to invest in which remained dry in the summer well-digging when they are sure of before the intervention (1993), only 14 getting water. A note of caution must be per cent were dry in the summer of sounded here however, while attributing 1998. The average water level of the the increased number of wells to wells from the ground level in the increased groundwater, because most summer months increased from 4.2 feet often this information does not show the to 8.8 feet in some wells under depth of the wells and comparative observation (NABARD, 1999). In changes. Also, most of this reporting is Sherikoldara watershed (IGWDP) the by way of visual observation and local number of wells increased from 122 to perception rather than systematic, 143 during 1994-2000 (the project scientific observation. However, many period) while the number of perennial projects have seriously undertaken well increased from eight to 32 and monitoring of water level changes in wells. 49 3.2.4 Change in Green Cover, watersheds located in Kokan and the Biomass, Fodder and Fuel Availability Western Ghat zones (mainly in the Ratnagiri, Kolhapur, Raigarh and Satara With regard to pastures, forests and districts). Silvi-pasture cultivation was commons, the main change is that in practiced only in watersheds located in most projects, they have been brought the Konkan, Western Maharashtra under some degree of plantation and Plateau and Vidarbha zones. This may fodder development. However, the be due to better rainfall and soil depth in general experience is that the survival the area. Forage areas for the first time rate of such plantation is quite low (less increased by 0.01 to 0.08 ha in the than even 50 per cent) and that they are watersheds in other zones after project unable to achieve significant growth implementation (AFC, 1998-99). (In rates. Plantation methods/technology, scarcity and drought-prone zones soil moisture, rainfall pattern, land generally, species planted by forest and capability, availability and provision for watershed developments are of hardy protective irrigation, regulation on and long gestation). grazing etc. have an impact on the survival and growth of plantation. Shedashi-Wavoshi watershed: The However it is generally observed that, if crown cover of the forest increased some care is taken, fodder is one of the here. The Forest Department allotted immediate impacts arising out of a land to the landless in encroached watershed project. areas to the extent of 50 ha, who planted horticultural plants. More than Canopy coverage has been reported as 12 lakh saplings have been planted poor in comparison with the cover under the aegis of this project, covering expected by the extent and density of both forest and private lands (see Table planting, even though it may be better 3.10) and the reported survival rate is than what it was earlier. Hence, one of 61 per cent. It is also reported that due the major purposes for planting trees in to grazing restrictions fodder availability the commons namely, to arrest soil has increased substantially, even degradation and improve the water though the quality of fodder has not regime by providing some canopy cover improved (NABARD, 1999). over the exposed landscape has been only partially fulfilled. In most Rajani watershed: the community took plantations, the reported canopy cover responsibility of protecting the forest was less than 50 per cent by the end of and stopped illegal felling. Protective the project. grazing helped improve fodder availability in qualitative and quantitative The study of Kerr et al. (2000) assesses terms. Improved leguminous grasses the average performance of watershed like Stylo Hemata were planted on projects in terms of availability of fodder, improved bunds and mounds of Water especially from common lands. Though Absorption Trenches (WATs) and the results are quite varied across the Continuous Contour Trenches (CCTs). different types of projects studied, Six hectares of woodlot were developed projects generally show decreased on common lands and plantation was availability of fodder and fuel due to done on private lands, but the reported restrictions on access to common lands. survival rate was only 10 per cent This is seen more in AGY/IGWDP (NABARD, 1999). projects, which have strict restrictions on access, as compared to DPAP and In Sherikoldara also the fodder NWDPRA projects (Kerr et al., 2000). production has increased considerably However, restrictions may lead to both in forest and private waste lands. increased production and maturing of In RVP projects too, the biomass grass and shrubs. production from trees has increased, hence large quantities of fuel wood and In the NWDPRA watersheds the rise in fodder were produced. In Adgaon, forage crop yield was a minimum of 1.6 nutritious green fodder availability quintals/ha in Phuldhaba and maximum increased tremendously. Gross- of 3.8 quintals/ha in the Nune-gavadi cropped Area under green fodder which watersheds, with an average rise of was nil, increased to more than 175 ha about 2.3 quintal/ha. There was an including 125 ha in kharif and 50 ha in average 21.4 per cent rise. The forage- rabi and a few ha in summer in the year cultivated area was higher in 1991-92 (Vaswani, 1995). 50 The present review shows that the share The exception is villages like Chale of fodder from commons has increased (Kolwan Valley Project) where, even in all villages. Earlier, the contribution of after the watershed programme that common property land resources commenced in 2001, people still have to (CPLRs) to fodder consumption was buy fodder from places as far as 10 km zero. Now, it has increased to between away. There are also isolated cases like three and twelve per cent for beneficiary that of Khudawadi village in Osmanabad households. Poor households are the district where women took private main beneficiaries of the CPLR wasteland for development on a long- resources as their dependence on term lease and, with collective effort, CPLRs is greater. The overall carried out soil and water conservation assessment implies that though the works, re-vegetation and protection. impact of watershed development on the Within a year of such measures, there availability of fodder is positive, the was a significant increase in fodder results are not very emphatic. This leads output. This emboldened them to go for to the conclusion that the trends shown a group IRDP scheme for goat rearing. in this study may not be representative of an average case, as the researchers Trends in fuel availability follow fodder have chosen better-managed trends very closely. The review indicates watersheds primarily to demonstrate the that the availability of fuel in most well- potential and not the average managed cases has increased, although performance. In an assessment of 114 the average performance seems to be watersheds (DPAP and IWDP-state) in poor. In some villages like Ralegaon Vidarbha by Dharamitra, some kind of Siddhi traditional fuel is also being plantation activity was undertaken only supplemented by the introduction of in 60 watersheds. Among these, biogas. Ralegaon Siddhi has a plantation was done only on private community biogas plant for the landless lands in 40 watersheds. In 12 and dalits in the village and even in new watersheds plantation was done both on projects there are places where old private and common lands. In many biogas plants are being renewed or new instances CPLRs are not brought under ones started. conservation measures. In the Development Resource It is important to note that fodder needs Organisation through Planning (DROP) have changed along with the increase/ study (2003), most villages noted an decrease in herd size and herd increase in green cover and fodder composition. In our field visits, we found availability, however dairy activity went that fodder availability generally up only in Hivre Bazar and another improved after watershed development village, Murkute. Free grazing of animals programmes. In some cases, the remained a common practice, only in duration of its availability has increased, the two villages above was there stall- as observed in Dornali village (AFARM, feeding. The villagers in these two 1999). In this case, prior to the villages also ban tree felling. More than watershed development programme, 50 per cent of the sample households in fodder was available only till December- Hivre Bazar have LPG cylinders, while January. After the watershed about 58 per cent of the households development programme, fodder is sampled in Murkute have installed gobar reported as being available throughout gas plants. Mendha also shows an the year. Prior to the project, the increase in the use of gobar gas plants. villagers had, at times, to depend on In many IGWDP watersheds in western fodder from outside the village area. Maharashtra and Marathwada womens Now, this situation has changed with self-help groups (SHGs) purchased LPG measures such as tree planting, cooking systems through loans from protection of common lands and ban on their savings. Womens SHGs from two open grazing. As a result, the time and IGWDP villages have started small-scale labour involved in collecting fodder has LPG agencies. However, there are also reduced. Similar changes were reported reports that the burden (in terms of time in other villages like Bhavthan spent) of collecting fuel-wood has (Manavlok), Adgaon, etc. In Ambewadi increased, especially during the village (IGWDP), fodder availability implementation phase of the project. increased twofold as a result of the This seems to be mainly because of the watershed development programme. blanket ban on tree felling that some 51 19 In their study, projects impose to protect the re- might not be able to provide protection Reddy et al. vegetation of common lands.19 In our against paucity of drinking water. (2001) have field visits, we found that the re- Finally, in villages falling in the saline shown that the time spent on vegetation programme (on bunds, non- tract, the regular activities undertaken fetching fuel- crop lands and commons) along with by watershed programmes might not wood has some social regulations like a ban on help in alleviating drinking water increased in cutting trees (allowing people to collect problems. three out of four only the fallen/dry branches), has helped villages studied. improve fuel-wood availability. Villages The indicators also do not always This seems to document whether the village had indicate that the like Dornali (AFARM), Bhavthan advent of (Manavlok), Adgaon, Vaiju Babhulgaon sufficient drinking water in the summer watershed (IGWDP), Hivre Bazar, Ralegaon Siddhi, periods and in drought years. The study development has and others report increases in of NWDPRA projects noted an increase not improved availability of fuel-wood. in the number of open dug wells for access to fuel- drinking and domestic purposes, and wood in these Since the canopy cover on most non- assured availability of drinking water villages. This is also reflected in crop land, whether private or public, due to seasonal wells turning perennial the shares of continues to remain poor even after the except in Kundawale and Khandas different sources watershed development programme, watersheds, both falling in the Konkan in fuel-wood this amounts to a shrinking of perennial Zone, where, though the volumetric consumption. cover. Since effective perennial cover in water availability has increased for CPLRs play an important role in the country has decreased to as low as longer periods, water scarcity is still felt meeting fuel- 15 per cent, an effort to increase in late summer season (AFC, 1999). In wood needs perennial cover, without necessarily Pimpalgaon Wagha there was an (followed by sacrificing production possibilities and improvement in availability of drinking purchase from incomes, is urgently needed. Besides water even in a dry year, but the the market) and their share varies change in land use, as increased area situation has changed of late with from 34--72 per (which earlier used to be under shrubs increased extraction for agriculture and cent in the four and small trees), is brought under repeated droughts. In the Shedashi- villages under cultivation this leads to shrinking Wavoshi watershed too the number of study. The availability of fuel and fodder and green trips from tankers fell to a minimum dependence on manure. after the watershed programmes. In the CPLRs is greater in the case of RVP watersheds too drinking water small and problems were solved due to project marginal farmers 3.3 Intermediary impacts interventions. In watersheds like in most situations Sherikoldara and Darevadi (IGWDP), (Reddy et al. 3.3.1 Increase in drinking water potable drinking water schemes lifting 2001). One of the main objectives of watershed water from the local source started after development programmes, especially in the watershed programmes. It is also drought-prone regions, is to mitigate the reported that during the year 2002-03, distress with regard to water for drinking WOTR promoted 41 potable drinking and domestic purposes (including water water projects in different watershed for cattle). Almost all watershed projects through other sources of funds. development guidelines factor in the In quite a few cases the drinking water extent of drinking water shortage as a provision also included local Zilla criterion for selection for watershed Parishad schools (WOTR, 2001, 2002 development. In fact, an assured source & 2003) of potable water should be the minimum For many programmes such as the Jal benchmark to judge the success of a Sandharan, DPAP and various NGO- watershed programme. However, implemented projects, overall water ground realities are not as encouraging scarcity or drinking water problems as they should have been. The increase would form a criterion for the selection in groundwater recharge would give a of certain villages under the watershed longer life to the water in wells and even development programme. All the the spring flow period would be projects except NWDPRA that extended. However, if the water promoted water harvesting through withdrawal is unduly high for the rabi small tanks and dams directly or crop then it is possible that the overdraft indirectly try to increase the level of leaves no reserves left to last through water in wells for drinking water (Kerr et summer, even for drinking, and al., 2000). Excluding villages with hardships might increase. Similarly, in a additional drinking water schemes, the drought year watershed programmes 52 AGY/IGWDP projects had the largest Babhulgav villages (under IGWDP), increase in the percentage of villages Dornali (under AFARM), Bhavthan with adequate drinking water. Control (under Manavlok) and other villages, villages had higher improvements than which reported drinking water scarcity. either NGO or Jal Sandharan villages. In Adgaon, the situation is even worse Drinking water supply (35 per cent), though they also get exogenous water. along with improved medical facilities It was reported that during the summer and roads, were among the three most of 1995-96, drinking water had to be commonly listed priorities in provided to this village by tankers, a infrastructure development in situation similar to the one that existed Maharasthra (Kerr et al., 2000). before the programme. All the watershed projects implemented Ensuring availability of drinking water by Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation was one of the main objectives in many (BAIF) prioritized the drinking water villages considered for the DROP study. problem. Even though some Interventions in two villages, Washi and programmes had no funding for Nagunichi Wadi, were focussed entirely providing drinking water, BAIF organized on drinking water availability while funds from other sources to ensure others took an integrated approach to adequate water supply to watershed water management so as to ensure populations. This leads to the important year-round availability of water. As all observation that some watershed the villages had an assured supply and programmes provide support only for were tanker-free after the project it was soil and water conservation leaving the widely accepted that the ridge to valley drinking-water issue untouched. Such approach could solve drinking water 20 The mindless watershed projects can only augment problem. In many villages it was extraction of existing sources but cannot solve the revealed that there was also a shift in groundwater has ruined 54 drinking water problem completely. In source from open well to hand pumps or watersheds. fact, this has become an issue in several tap water. An index was developed The drinking water and sanitation schemes, where tap water was denoted as the groundwater where drinking water schemes are not safest source and the river or nala as level has gone integrated with the watershed the unsafe source. In most villages there down by two meters in the development programmes. For instance, was an improvement in the index to past five years. in Chale village (Kolwan Valley Project safer sources. The improvement in Areas of basalt under DPAP), the drinking water issue is index however was not reflected in the rock decelerate completely de-linked from watershed lower occurrence of water-borne the process of development efforts as the village is diseases. This could be due to water supplied with water by the Mulshi unhygienic water use and storage percolation, creating smaller Pradeshik Water Supply Scheme. On practices. and fewer the other hand, in the BAIF projects underground recharge through the programmes was The review shows clearly that watershed pools. Even in supplemented by water supply schemes development has led to a significant areas of to help solve drinking water problem increase in the use of water for abundant groundwater, it even in a water-scarcity situation. The agricultural purposes. Unfortunately, in many places, this has been at the is inadvisable study noted that in every project at least for agricultural one downstream village benefited due to expense of drinking water. The review bore wells to go improved groundwater (Kakadeet al., shows that many of the watersheds deeper than 125 2001). experience drinking water shortage feet, while during the summer months most drinking water The present review shows a mixed trend villages experience a dire need for water wells can go in terms of the impact on drinking water. tankers in the summer months to fulfil down to 200 feet. As these Most of the case studies indicate that their domestic water needs, especially rudimentary watershed development has made a during years when the rainfall is less instructions difference in mitigating distress, though than normal. have been the degrees may vary. However, the ignored, it is review also indicates that this holds true Of late, there have been conflicts over common for bores to reach only during normal rainfall years. If the the prioritization of water use drinking water versus irrigation water.20 For down to 400 feet rainfall is below average for that area, (Lyla Bavadam then most of these villages have to example, one village covered during our [2001], Of depend on external sources such as field visits in Maharashtra, Livelihoods and water tankers. This was corroborated by acknowledged improvement in the Entitlements, Frontline, May our field visits to Ambewadi and Vaiju drinking water situation after watershed development, but followed it with a rider: 10-25). 53 21 This is This year, because of drought, we had In years of drought, groundwater used corroborated by to get water tankers in the months of to act as a buffer to meet drinking water Kakadeet al (2001) who April and May. This turned out to be a and other essential needs. Now, there studied seven typical response from most watersheds are predictions that meteorological BIRD-K that we visited in Maharashtra. However, drought would be accompanied by watershed interventions, in striking contrast, we also could see a groundwater drought. In Maharashtra, covering about standing sugarcane crop in the same as in other states, drinking water 7,000 ha and watersheds. Thus, a situation emerges schemes are separate from watershed about 2,500 where drinking water shortage runs development efforts. Our review shows households, to understand their parallel with sugarcane cultivation in the that in many places, there are either impact on watersheds during drier years. This existing tanks that have been silted up drinking water. once again illustrates that most and are not being used, or tanks that According to the watershed development programmes are functioning, but are not integrated in study, the problem is have overlooked prioritization of water watershed planning. Integration can complicated use and access,21 especially during probably overcome some of the because in many drought years when there is overall problems related to upstream versus places, people shortage of water in the watershed. downstream, as well as groundwater draw water for both drinking and versus surface water conflicts and also, agriculture from Another issue is that even if the main to some extent, take care of the the same aquifer. village is provided with potable drinking limitations of both if they function as Since the water is water, different hamlets/settlements in used for the first exclusive systems (Datye et al the village often fail to get this benefit. 22 two crops (kharif Undated; Paranjape and Joy 1995). and rabi), This also leads to problems while (refer to next page)Ralegaon Siddhi is generally there is planning a drinking water scheme in the an example of such integration. no water left in village meeting the demand of different the summer hamlets. In fact, NGOs often abandon months for the drinking water schemes because of 3.3.2 Changes in livestock numbers drinking or and composition domestic their inability to meet the requirements purposes. of all settlements/hamlets due to a lack Most watershed programmes tend to According to this of funds. study, in villages regard grazing as a harmful practice like Rajkot, which According to Sharma (2002), who takes and restrictions and bans are imposed experienced two on free grazing, when watershed years of a macro picture of the situation, the continuous continuing drinking water problem in interventions are underway. Social drought, the many states indicates that the existing fencing and restrictions on access bring drinking water watershed development interventions about a forced migration or reduction of problem livestock, particularly the small continues even have not succeeded in drought proofing. after watershed There are several examples and ruminants. One noticeable trend, project situations where projects have not made especially in villages where the ban on implementation. even a minimum provision for drinking grazing has been enforced strictly (in Two of the Adgaon, for example), is that the important water (Sharma 2002). An article by recommendations Sunita Narain on the World Environment number of smaller ruminants like goats of the study are: Day (2003) noted: Despite efforts by and sheep is decreasing. Dairying (i) water supply, seems to have picked up in many sanitation and the government, the number of problem watershed villages a euphemism used to describe watersheds. This also shows that there development villages with drinking water shortages is a shift towards bigger milch animals, should be linked does not seem to be reducing. Quoting the numbers of which seem to be rising, together to solve especially crossbred cows. Similar the problems of official figures, she went on to say: In drinking water our mathematics, 2,00,000 problem trends have been reported from supply, sanitation villages minus 2,00,000 problem villages irrigated areas. In some watersheds, and irrigation; and is still 2,00,000 problem villages grazing restrictions have led to a change in (ii) controlled herd composition and a shift from open utilization of water (Narain, 2003). for irrigation grazing to stall-feeding. For example, in needs to be There are also some indications that Sukhomajri, there has been a shift from incorporated in water quality has been deteriorating, goats to stall-fed buffaloes and an improved projects to avoid especially in drought-prone regions. The breed of cows (Kerr 2002). potential conflicts between drinking increasing incidence of fluorosis is only water needs and part of the problem. Watershed Increased mechanization also has an irrigation needs development, in the absence of any impact on draft animals, especially (Kakade et al bullocks and male buffalos. It is noticed 2001). control on groundwater extraction, does not seem to have helped in decreasing that in many successful watersheds the the intensity of this problem. number of tractors as well as the use of tractors has increased. 54 Generally, in most watersheds reviewed and community cattle shed have also 22 It illustrates there was an increase in milch animals been established (Vaswani, 1995). how local water as compared to the smaller ruminants can be integrated In Adgaon, the income in the village with exogenous and there was an increase in the water in the proportion of cross breed cows. The from dairy farming increased from Rs. context of the NWDPRA study, found the presence of 81,000/- in 1983-84 to Rs. 15,84,000 in Sardar Sarovar animals of improved breeds in larger 1990-91. The local variety of cows was Project (SSP). completely wiped out, and the number of Narmada water numbers, in the developed watersheds (through SSP) is of Kanhur-mesai, Phuldhaba and crossbred cows went up from zero to used as Khandwa. The highest numbers of such 335. The number of dairy farmers shot supplementary water to improved breeds were found in Kanhur- up from 40 to- 126, and the average daily milk collection in litres went up strengthen and mesai watershed and the lowest in stabilize the local Tambulwadi watershed. The total milk from 100 to 864, while the selling price water systems. production of the beneficiaries was more of milk doubled (Vaswani, 1995). than that of non-beneficiary farmers, it However the impact of many watershed was the lowest in Kudawale watershed developments on small ruminants in (349 and 272 litres per annum terms of the reduced numbers of the respectively), and the highest in latter cannot be ignored because these Phuldhaba (1,212 and 190 litres per are generally a livelihood support for the annum per animal respectively). The poor and marginal groups. It is also average increase in milk production per important to note that most often the cow, buffalo, and goat was 17.1, 18.1 increase in improved stall-fed cattle is in and 16.1 respectively. The percentage favour of the better-off farmers who have increase in milk production per cow and greater access to water and fodder. goat was the highest in Khandas Besides, livestock also contributes to watershed and the lowest in Phuldhaba ecological services such as manuring watershed. However, in the case of and fertilizing land. Hence it is important buffaloes, percentage increase in milk that livestock issues, especially of small production per animal was the highest in ruminants/nondescript verities, get Phuldhaba watershed and the lowest in specific attention in the planning and Tambulwadi watershed (AFC, 1998-99). implementation of watershed projects. It A dairy co-operative was started is also observed in many studies that the Pimpalgaon Wagha which continues to cut and feed system increases the run successfully and milk production has workload of women, who spend more also gone up to 1,200 litres per day. In time collecting, cutting and carrying Sherikoldara (IGWDP) the number of fodder. crossbred cows has increased from 16 to 174, and milk production from 100 to 1,350 litres, between 1994 and 2000. 3.4 Impact on Agriculture In Mendawan, dairy activity has picked One of the major objectives of up, adding considerably to incomes. The watershed development programmes is net income from dairy activity was to create conditions for improvement of reported to have gone up from Rs. 538 agricultural production in rainfed areas. to Rs. 3,935 per household per annum Some projects have a specific budget in the post-implementation period. Stall- component also for production fed activity gained momentum from free enhancement. However, in most cases it grazing. The quality of cattle improved. is assumed that a better soil moisture Veterinary services, however, seemed to regime resulting from in situ lack behind the improvement in livestock conservation enhances production and (NABARD, 1999). this is corroborated by evidence from In Ralegaon the total number of milch the fields and by available information. animals increased from 225 in 1981 to An increase in the value of agriculture 574 in 1987 with 40 dairy cows, production and the volume of production including 25 crossbred ones, and 25 was noted due to an increase in irrigated dairy buffaloes due to which milk yield lands, bringing non-crop land under increased from one to two litres to seven production, increasing cropping to eight litres per day. A milk collection intensity, changing the cropping pattern centre has been set up and a co- and adopting better farming practices. operative society of milk producers formed in village. A veterinary aid center 55 3.4.1 Change in land-use pattern on wastelands and private wastelands, and around 33 ha were converted to A review of most of the evaluation cultivatable use. Eleven ha was brought studies showed a significant increase in under dryland horticulture, while the the cropped area after watershed remaining 22 ha went under irrigated interventions. As discussed earlier, the horticulture like mango, chickoo, increase has been mainly at the orange and tamarind. In the expense of privately owned non-crop Mendhawan watershed, area under- area. Such new cropland, is mostly cultivation increased on an average by earmarked for seasonal crops, while the 23 per cent per family due to reduction rest of the land is used almost entirely in wastelands in the post- for dry land horticulture. implementation period. In Sherikoldara, There was an increase in the total sown the area under kharif had increased by area in the RVP watersheds, varying 65 ha and rabi by 73 ha by the time the from lowest at 6.6 per cent in Mokhada project came to an end: 65 ha was watershed in Damanganga catchment to brought under summer cultivation and a maximum of 62 per cent in South 14 ha converted into an agro- Solapur in the Nagrjunasagar horticulture land use catchment. The AERC study too noted a A satellite-based study by the Indian pre to post-project change in the land- Space Research Organization (ISRO) use pattern, revealing that while some in six selected watersheds in non-arable land and wastelands have Maharashtra showed that agricultural been brought under the arable category, cropland increased from between two more arable land was being irrigated to five per cent in most of them, fallow due to watershed activities (TERI, 2001). land varied between (+1.0 to -5.0 per The Shedashi-Wavoshi (IGWDP) cent) wasteland (-0.40 to -7.57 per cent) watershed brought 24 ha of wasteland forest vegetation increased (+0.06 to under cultivation, improved land +2.28 per cent), plantation increased productivity, increased groundwater (+0.15 to +0.18 per cent), and water recharge and conservation of soil and bodies also increased (+0.05 to +0.54 moisture, as well as helping to form two per cent). Over the years, there has joint forest management committees been a considerable decrease in the (JFMCs) to look after the agro-forestry area under wastelands in the plots where 12 lakh saplings were watersheds of Karanjgavan and planted on nearly 1000 ha, covering Sawargaon, which have been both private and forest lands. Agro- converted into croplands and horticulture was thus given importance plantations (ISROTERI, 2001). The in this watershed and during the project Karanjgavan watershed shows a seven period, above 4,8000 saplings of per cent increase in cropland followed mango, cashew and jackfruit were also by Sawarde (6.0 per cent), Pipari (5.0 planted. The reported survival rate was per cent), Sawargaon (4.0 per cent) and around 71 per cent. The farmers Warshi (3.0 per cent) in the post- (predominantly Adivasis) have stopped treatment period (1999), whereas shifting cultivation and marginal lands Nagazari watershed shows only a two are being used for cultivation of finger per cent increase in cropland (ISRO - millets and for mixed forestry, besides TERI, 2001). The farmers in general, mango plantation, as mentioned above. raised social forestry and horticultural The farmers (predominantly Adivasis) plantations along the field bunds and as have stopped shifting cultivation and a result there has been an increase in marginal lands are being used for horticultural plantations by one per cent cultivation of finger millets and for mixed in the Warshi and Karanjgavan forestry, besides mango plantation, as watersheds, but less than one per cent mentioned above (NABARD, 1999). in the remaining watersheds (ISRO Study, TERI, 2001, see Table A 3.7 The cropped area in the Khed &3.8) watershed also went up by 236 ha in kharif and, by 145 ha in the rabi season. In Ralegaon, cultivable land increased Watershed activities brought in 53.90 ha from 67 to 72 per cent between 1975-76 of wasteland under cultivation in Rajani to 1985-86. Wasteland (128 ha), watershed. In Pimpalgaon Wagha, community pastureland (50 ha) and horticulture was introduced in the village government reserve forests (136 ha) 56 were converted into social forestry plots. under watershed development projects About 50 ha of wasteland was converted and ensuring usufructs can ensure into cultivable land. The Department of some livelihood opportunities for the Social Forestry planted about 30,0000 poor. But this is an area where very little trees in the village and orchards of attempt is being made or where lemon, orange, papaya became sufficient information is not available. common. In Adgaon, the availability of Most often forest departments do not cultivable area increased from 790 ha in cooperate nor do they ensure that 1983-84 to 1005 ha in 1990-91. Rainfed benefits are given to those who require it area came down from 67 to 48 per cent dearly. In case of other CPLRs, such as of the total area. Wasteland was totally revenue land and commons, a reclaimed for crop production and multiplicity of issues emerges such as cultivable wasteland went down from 25 identifying the current users and their to 4.0 per cent. This enabled rainfed status vis-à-vis the land in question, crop cultivators of this village to bring building consensus and resolving their land under various cash crops and conflicts at the community level, under horticultural plantation (Vaswani, resolving administrative and legal 1995). formalities for development and user rights, ensuring sharing mechanisms of However, it is also true that from the products and working out institutional point of view of livelihoods it is important structures for management and to ensure certain quantities of different development of the resource in question types of biomass (food, fodder, fuel, etc. Due to these difficulties it is timber) and also income. So the issue is observed that facilitating agencies whether we can ensure these livelihood generally leave this issue to its own fate requirements without radically altering or, in many instances, do not make the land-use pattern through extensive sufficient effort to work out strategies levelling, or bringing sloping land under (institutional and management seasonal crops and tilling. The question structures) for sharing of benefits. is: what are the other options available for this? One option is to adopt methods popularized by Dabholkars Parayog 3.4.2 Increase in Yield Parivar network like creating nursery soil The improved productivity of crops, conditions near the root zone of the especially rain-fed crops, and its plants which does not call for disturbing contribution to the livelihoods of the the soil extensively (Dabholkar, 1997). A people is taken as an important second option is to bring such lands operational indicator of the performance under perennial biomass cover (grass, of watershed development projects. It is shrubs, trees) with different uses and also an important indirect indicator of economic values, along with appropriate the contribution of watershed projects to institutional and financial back-up. The the enhancement of ecosystem argument against such an approach is potential. However, it is very important that it takes longer for people to get any to note that most often the increase in tangible benefits. Here, the issue of production is achieved through species selection becomes important. A unsustainable practices such as judicious mix of short and long duration overuse of fertilizers etc. The review plants can take care of this problem. shows that there is a definite increase in Also, because of biotechnology and crop productivity and total production of other technological advancement in agricultural crops. As discussed earlier, nursery raising, the time taken for soil and water conservation treatments, maturing has been greatly reduced. coupled with specific productivity Tamarind is a good example of this. enhancement measures, have definitely Increased fodder availability because of increased productivity or at least helped protection can also strengthen the to stabilize the kharif crop (and, in some pastoral and livestock component of the places, allowed a rabi crop), especially livelihood basket. under normal rainfall conditions. Another issue is the development of At places such as the Ranjani common property land resources watershed, there was not much change (CPLRs) such as community pastures, in the methods of production or in revenue lands and forestlands. cropping pattern/intensity (except where Converting them for productive use wheat and soyabean were introduced in 57 small patches) gains were in terms of rabi increase in yield ranged from two- improvement in productivity. The yield times for pulses and 5.62-times wheat. rate of jowar increased cent per cent, Total increase in yield for the year paddy by 71 per cent, cotton 66 per cent across all crops was 4.40-times. and tur by 42 per cent (IGWDP). Though cotton was grown without fertilizers or Among the field sites we visited, Hivre pesticides, production went up from 4.50 Bazar (AGY), Ralegaon Siddhi, Dornali q/ha to 7.50 q/ha. Net value of (AFARM), Bhavthan (Manavlok), Vaiju agricultural production went up from Rs. Babulgaon (IGWDP) etc. all reported an 20.97 lakh to 49.63 lakh. The total increase in food production. In some production of cotton increased by 1146 cases, the villages are now able to fully quintals and that of foodgrain by 1157 meet their food requirements. In certain quintals (NABARD, 1999)). Through just cases like Vaiju Babulgaon, they have a little increase in the use of fertilizers (a been able to meet a substantial portion 50 kg bag of urea per acre) coupled with of their requirements (70 to 80 per cent) inter-culture operations and through locally. There are two caveats to these adequate protection from animals and findings: one, these do not represent rodents yields of paddy increased from the average cases as they are the more 17 to 25 quintals/ha, finger millets from 5 promising ones; and, two, the increase to 7.5 quintals and minor millet from is mostly during good or normal rainfall three to five quintals/ha in Shedashi- years (and not drought years). Wavoshi watershed. An increase cereal However, larger studies such as those and oilseed yield was noted in the by Kerr et al. (2000) indicate that there project area in the RVP watersheds. is great variation in productivity and the Yields in the Khed watershed have risen trend is not as uniform as it would seem by 15 per cent for local cotton and up to from the case studies of the more 60 per cent for wheat and cotton (see promising ones. The aggregate Table A 3.4) compared to the pre- information also may not reflect the project period. In the Naigaon project regional/plot variations existing with in a foodgrain yield rose from 1.5 to 2 watershed due to various reason such quintals/ha to 10-12.5 quintals/ha due to as capability of land, inputs such as protective irrigation and availability of water, fertilizers etc. In a dryland fodder, manure and other bio mass also situation the variation in production, or increased (Vaswani, 1995). Crop for that matter the failure of crops, productivity during kharif increased by depends heavily on availability of some an average 10 per cent, in rabi by 20 per water for protective irrigation in critical cent and in summer by 25 per cent in and stress periods. Another important the NWDPRA watersheds because issue is whether increase in agricultural irrigation yields more benefits in the dry production ensures livelihoods and food seasons. The yield rate in Mendawan security for all, especially the marginal watershed for almost all the crops has sections. gone up by 20 to 40 per cent. Among the farmers selected for the sample, the 3.4.3 Increase in cropping intensity gross value of produce per hectare of cultivated area in the pre-implementation Cropping intensity generally increased period was Rs. 2,673 which increased to in the watershed with the rabi and Rs. 5,743 in the post-implementation summer crop being undertaken in period indicating an increase of more watersheds due to an improvement in than 100 per cent in the gross value of irrigation or moisture levels. Deshpande produce (NABARD, 1999). Productivity (1997) noted an increase in cropping increases ranged from 63 per cent for intensity between 111-113 per cent in jowar and up to 367 per cent for wheat the scarcity zone and 126-130 per cent in the Bugewadi watershed (TERI, in the transition zone. In the Khed 2001). watershed the cropping intensity went up from 106.4 per cent to 117.3 per The ISRO study also noted a cent. In the Shedashi-Wavoshi considerable improvement in yields and watershed farmers started growing agricultural production in all watersheds vegetables on small patches of land in (ISRO-TERI 2001, see Table A 3.6). In the rabi season, with water fetched from Ralegaon, kharif yields increased, wells or nalas. In the NWDPRA ranging from the lowest for HYV jowar at watersheds, cropping intensity during 1.25 times to bajra at 3.50 times. The 58 rabi and summer seasons in the case of vegetable crops in both scarcity and beneficiary farms increased by a assured rainfall areas. In Dornali village minimum of four per cent in Tambulwadi (AFARM), there is a tendency to go for to a maximum of 20 per cent in the water-intensive crops like sugarcane Phuldhaba watershed the variation and more than 10 ha is already under depending on rainfall, geological sugarcane. In Bhavthan village, conditions and groundwater potential (Manavlok), watershed treatments have (AFC, 1998-99). In the Mendhawan made it possible to grow rabi crops like watershed cropping intensity increased cotton and wheat. In addition, some from 114 to 133 per cent. farmers have started planting sugarcane as the availability of water has increased In the Shastabad-Chincholi watershed, since watershed development. the total area under two crops before the programme was 986 ha while the area In the Khed watershed soybean, black under double cropping after the project gram, hybrid cotton, wheat and gram increased to 1482 ha, an increase in gained in area and due to water cropping intensity from 99 to 149per availability orchards of oranges and cent. Area under improved seed variety lemons came up. In the Shastabad- increased from 230 ha to 400 ha. The Chincholi watershed, prior to the project, total consumption of chemical fertilizers 80 ha were under cash crops increasing increased from 22 tonnes to 65 tonnes to 155 ha after project. The area under per annum. In the Kanhur Mesai perishable vegetables prior to the watershed cropping intensity went up project was 15 ha which has now from 99 per cent to 138 per cent, and 38 increased to 45 ha. Area under fruits per cent of the arable area shifted from and orchards has gone up from 4 to 17 one crop to double crop. Area under ha. In Kanhur Mesai, the area under improved seed varieties increased from cash crops has increased from 102 ha 389 ha to 732 ha. to 213 ha. The area under perishable vegetables prior to the project was 25 ha 3.4.4 Change in cropping pattern which increased to 46 ha, while the area under fruits and orchards increased from Most of the watersheds showed a six to 25 ha (Gomukh, 2001). change in cropping pattern towards growing cash crops such as sugarcane, In the NWDPRA watersheds, the kharif vegetables, etc. Overall, there seems to area under cereals reduced and that have been a slight shift towards growing under pulses (Khandwa 89 more ha horticultural crops and plantations. was brought under pulses) and oilseeds Foodgrain, pulses and certain other (Phuldhaba from 25 to 347 ha, Kanhur- traditional crops appear to have lost out, mesai watershed 287 ha to 701 ha) in spite of an increase in overall area increased. In both Phuldhaba and under cultivation. This is more so in Khandwa, hybrid cotton increased. The those watersheds where the area cultivated under vegetables interventions have made a visible doubled and quadrupled in Nune-gavadi difference in water availability. However, and Khandwa respectively due to there is no uniform pattern to this shift. improved ground/surface water Different types of crops have been availability and assured supplemental chosen at different places, depending on irrigation (AFC, 1998-99). In rabi there local conditions and the market. In was a reduction in area of cereals and Maharashtra, the trend is mostly to increase in pulses, oilseeds (five times choose sugarcane, since it fetches an in Nune-gavadi) and vegetables. assured price. The area under tomato Irrigated wheat increased from 20 to 160 and onion has also increased in many ha in Wadivarhe. The percentage rise in watersheds, especially in areas of low area under pulses and oilseeds was soil depth, but with irrigation possibilities. greater in rabi than in kharif. Vegetable Introduction of irrigated grass and cultivation was started during rabi in sugarcane as fodder is also observable Khandas, Wadivarhe and Khandwa in many watersheds in the scarcity zone watersheds (AFC, 1998-99). Vegetable of western Maharashtra. Increased area cultivation increased from 10 to25 ha in under soyabean is observed in Kanhur-mesai watershed. Vegetables watersheds in the Vidarbha region. Of and groundnut cultivation were taken up late, there has also been an increase in as a new activity in Khandwa and the area under horticulture and Wadivarhe watersheds. Sugarcane 59 increased by more than 50 ha each in wiped off and new crops such as Tambulwadi, Nune-gavadi and groundnut, sunflower, vegetables and Phuldhaba watersheds. Horticulture green fodder were cultivated crop area increased in Kudawale (by additionally. In the rabi season jowar, 354 ha) and Khandas (by 122 ha). kardi, harbara, wheat, sunflower, vegetable, green fodder and mosambi The cropping pattern in Mendawan were cultivated. Kharif area increased watershed shifted in a limited pattern from 920 to 2,135 ha and rabi area towards cultivation of wheat and increased to 1,375 (Anonymous, sugarcane with a decline in coarse undated). Similarly, in Vaiju Babhulgaon cereals and mixed cropping. Number of village too, horticulture crops like crops cultivated in the watershed went pomegranate, oranges, sweet lime, up from seven to 18 because of the chiku, and amla, were planted for the introduction of a few commercial crops first time on 60 ha. Cultivation of onion and dryland horticultural crops and vegetables was also started after (NABARD, 1999). The ISRO study the project. noted a change in the cropping pattern with the introduction of cash crops such In the DROP study there was an as sugarcane and soybean (ISRO-TERI, increase in land cultivated during rabi, 2001). leading to a rise in incomes of the farmers and increase in rabi crop in all In the Sedashi-Wavoshi watershed the villages in the study (see Table A paddy occupied almost 100 per cent of 3.17). the area in kharif, but after the interventions the paddy area increased The increased area under cash and from 385 to 407 ha in kharif season but water-intensive crops needs to be in rabi vegetables, pulses and wheat analysed in the context of its impact on started being cultivated (see Table A livelihoods, food security and 3.11). Agro-horticulture was also given sustainability. Most often, the market top priority here including alphonso fluctuation in cash/market crops such mango, cashew, jackfruit etc., some of as onion and tomato etc. creates which were not grown here earlier. innumerable hardships and farmers are Nearly 50,000 horticultural plants were unable to meet even the cost of planted, of which 71 cent survived. The production. agro-horticulture plants were provided protective irrigation (through manual lifting) and farmyard manure. 3.5. Increase in irrigated area The BAIF-supported projects also noted It is generally observed in many studies a general increase in horticulture and that watershed activities increase the tree-based farming (Kakade et al., irrigation potential in a given watershed 2002). In Ralegaon, the percentage (and even in the downstream areas) change in net cropped area in kharif thorough increased availability of changed with bajra decreasing by 14 ground and surface water. However, the per cent, HYV jowar fell by 28 per cent, correlation between the extent of pulses by 1.40 per cent, oilseeds by .85 increase in groundwater and the area per cent and vegetables and horticulture brought under irrigation through the grew by 16.81. Rabi cultivation increased resource is something, which increased from 426 to 491 ha with a requires further analysis. This is decrease in HYV jowar (15.62 per cent), important because the increased pulses (2.75), oilseeds (1.38) and an irrigation is most often through an increase in wheat (three per cent), increased number of borewells and in vegetables and horticulture (16.62 per certain cases through increasing the cent). The total gross cropped area depth of existing dug wells. It is also across both seasons increased from important to look at the recuperation 782 to 836 per cent (Vaswani, 1995). rate of wells and bore wells (before/ In Adgaon, the following changes in after, normal rainfall/drought) to cropping pattern occurred the area understand the issue of groundwater under bajra increased from (500 to 800 recharge. ha) in the kharif season, tur (150-300 The Kerr study found a general ha), cotton (60-100) and hulga and increase in irrigation across all villages. matki (200-300), whereas mung got 60 The NWDPRA villages had a higher to the pre-implementation period percentage of irrigated area to begin indicating that the additional infiltration with, but the percentage increase was of rainwater due to activities like CCTs the greatest between 1987-97 for a and WATs had helped increase number of project villages (104 per groundwater in watershed. Twenty-two cent). The next increase was of AGY/ per cent of the farmers constructed new IGWDP villages at 54 per cent and NGO wells (NABARD, 1999). The land under villages at 47 per cent and Jal protective irrigation increased in many Sandharan at 37 per cent (the project villages that adopted the watershed portfolio concentrates on water increase approach as evident in the DROP study. but the actual performance has been low The differences in land use are given in probably because it works in a water- Table A 3.16. After watershed scarce areas) and NWDPRA 22 per cent intervention, in three villages out of (NWDPRA also does not have large eight, more than 50 per cent of land WHS in its project portfolio). The mean received protective irrigation. increase in irrigation intensity was 0.35 for all projects. The AGY/IGWDP had Amongst various factors like soil and the highest irrigation increase (.44) but water conservation treatments, specific the difference was not statistically productivity enhancement measures, significant (Kerr et.al, 2000). In the bringing new area under crop NWDPRA study, most watersheds saw production, and so on, applied water an increase in the number of wells, seems to be making the greatest which led to an increase in total irrigated difference in productivity enhancement. area and irrigated area per well Various studies bring out very clearly beneficiary farms. The area irrigated on that productivity gains are much more beneficiary farms by other means, i.e. substantial in irrigated holdings and from developed water resources as wherever there has been a substantial check dams and flowing streams, increase in irrigation as a result of increased by more than 100 per cent in watershed development, the productivity all watersheds, and to a maximum by of increase has been more stable (Shah, 458 per cent in Nune-gavadi watershed 1998). In the case of rain-fed farming, (AFC, 1998-99). In the Khed watershed however, the increases have only been area irrigation went up from 285 ha to marginal. Farmers invariably say that in 502 ha. The ISRO study also noted an good years, everything works out well, increase in irrigation potential in the but productivity increases are not watersheds and a substantial increase in sustained during bad years. Such the yield of all crops, which can be examples illustrate the rainfall threshold attributed to in situ moisture for the efficacy of measures taken under conservation, control of erosion, and watershed programmes. better agricultural management Almost all the evaluation studies within practices within the watershed. The the frame of this review show that irrigation potential increased watersheds have witnessed an increase substantially, which is reflected in an in the irrigated area, though there is a increase in number of water bodies great variation in the extent of increase. (ISRO-TERI, 2001, see Table A 3.8). In Mostly, this has been made possible Naigaon, irrigated land rose from 60 ha due to the increased number of wells in the 1970s to 400 ha by the mid-1980s and borewells that came up in the wake and in Ralegaon, irrigated land of the watershed projects. In such increased from 26 to 340 ha in 1985-86. areas, increase in cropping intensities In Adgaon, area under irrigation could be another indicator of increased from 83 ha in 1984 to 500 ha improvement where water availability (eight to 48 per cent of the total area) extends beyond the kharif season including about 140 ha of land under (usually the only season where farmers perennial irrigation in 1990-91 (Vaswani, are able to harvest an irrigated crop), 1995). In the Khed watershed, area allowing more than one crop in a year. under irrigation rose by 162 per cent. In Continued availability of water for the BAIF watersheds too there was an supplementary irrigation indicates the increase in area under irrigation and effectiveness of watershed interventions double cropping due to which crop during the dry season and the systems production doubled. In Mendhawan increased drought-proofing capability. watershed the net irrigated area However, this needs to be seen in the increased by 29 per cent, as compared 61 23 Most studies context of the overall water balance of watershed development efforts. also indicate that, the area. The review also shows that Examples like Ralegaon Siddhi and for the most part, very often, the increase in irrigated area Adgaon fall under this. In the case of crop technology and cultivation is quite disproportionate to the potential Adgaon, water is brought from the practices follow annual flows. This means that the water Sukna dam, which is about 10 km the mainstream, has been drawn mainly from the stock away, through pipelines and is used to high-input based (deep aquifer) and raises issues of primarily irrigate the orange/sweet lime agriculture sustainability (Paranjape et al., 1998; gardens. Similarly, in Ralegaon Siddhi, framework. Moreover, most Batchelor et al., 2000). water is lifted from the Kukadi canal evaluation (Kukadi is a major irrigation project) and studies also Applied water, as a rule, increases the flows down the side of Ralegaon Siddhi share such a productive potential of an ecosystem. village. This water is used to irrigate framework Provision for a longer period of moisture about 200 to 300 ha in the village. (Erappa 1998; holding and evapo-transpiration Karanth and Abbi increases biomass production. 2001; Shah However, it also usually corresponds to 1998). higher rates of extraction of biomass. It 3.6 Methods of production is quite possible that most of the An important indicator of the impact of biomass increase goes out of the the increased productivity of crops on system and the amount of biomass that the ecosystem is the nature of crop is recycled within the ecosystem falls practices that have led to this rise in rather than rises. If that is indeed the productivity. Productivity-associated case, then the higher ecosystem crop practices, including those actively productivity depends crucially on applied propagated and supported by water supplements. If such supplements watershed development programmes, were to be removed, ecosystem are something of a mixed bag, with little productivity would fall to values that are consistency. Usually it is an eclectic lower than the initial values without the mixture of productivity concerns and supplement. This is already evident in practices that are part of the dominant, some places where reversals have mainstream paradigm of high-input taken place in the post-watershed agriculture23 , along with a sprinkling of period. some environment- friendly practices in The point, however, is that applied terms of agronomic practices and water, as a means of protective irrigation inputs . For example, activities like to stabilize even one crop, is not made vermi-composting and use of INM and part of the project design. Alternatively, IPM are being encouraged as part of applied water is equated with irrigation some watershed programmes, along and seen as falling outside the purview with conventional chemical fertilizer of watershed development. There have use. been cases where watershed project In Mendhawan watershed, the use of proposals have been rejected because new varieties of seeds became they contained a component of common and the use of chemical equitable water distribution system cost fertilizers increased. There was an as part of the watershed project. expansion in HYV bajra in the dryland. Still, there have been isolated cases The technological change in cultivation where the implementing agencies have practices was also reflected in the taken certain measures or at least increased cost of production due to use shown some sensitivity to this issue. of improved inputs and machine power The three areas where such initiatives like electric motors, tractors etc. Area exist are: a) water sources mostly in under improved seed varieties terms of certain surface storages or increased from 389 ha to 732 ha encouraging the community to invest in (NABARD, 1999). In Kanhur-mesai total collective wells; b) water-efficient consumption of chemical fertilizers has technologies like drip (including certain increased from 31 to 86 tonnes per low-cost drips); and c) promotion of less annum (Gomukh, 2001). water-intensive crops. There are other Though there has been an increasing examples where water has been awareness about and sensitivity brought from outside the watershed (and towards eco-friendly nutrient and pest from major and medium irrigation management practices, many projects) to supplement water evaluation studies and our own field requirements over and above the 62 interactions show that use of chemical Jersey cows in a big way. As part of the fertilizers and pesticides have been on programme, the farmers were taken for the increase in areas where watershed an exposure visit. Immediately after the development programmes have been visit, a group of 10 farmers spent Rs. taken up, especially where irrigation 5,000 each to purchase 10 cows. This water is available. event triggered a chain reaction in the village with the number of Jersey cows AFARMs own evaluation of its increasing to 100 in a brief time span. watershed development projects states The village now has two milk that the most serious negative impact of cooperatives with a total of 156 the watershed intervention, particularly members, including nine women, and in the sphere of agriculture, is the collects about 2,000 litres of milk per increased use of chemical inputs like day. The average annual income of the fertilizers and pesticides and also the village from milk rose to an estimated use of hybrid seeds (AFARM, 1998). Rs. 43 lakhs (Anonymous Undated). In This is an indication that the agricultural many watersheds in the scarcity zone of component of the watershed Western Maharashtra one can observe programme, by and large, still operates this phenomena unfolding after the within the mainstream, high-input based initiation of the watershed programme. agricultural paradigm. However, the income through the milk route (diary) may not be a solution in many places and for a certain section of 3.7 Socio-economic Indicators stakeholders, if livestock-based livelihoods are to be emerged. 3.7.1 Increase in income Increase in incomes was noted due to Assessments of economic returns from the multiple changes occurring in agriculture also often follow the agricultural production. Deshpande, economic-centred and high-input (1997) reported an increase in income/ production paradigm. They fail to factor ha in the scarcity zone up to 45 per cent in the issues of inputs, market and in the transition zone up to 30 per structures, sustainability of production cent. and other harm that may be felt by the ecosystem in the long run. In most Total production/yields in Shastabad- evaluation studies, increase in income Chincholi watershed was 2668.745 (read cash income) is taken as a tonnes, including production in all three success indicator. The review shows seasons, which amounted to an that by and large, there has been an incremental income of Rs. 45.1793 increase in the income levels of people lakhs. In the Kahnur-mesai watershed through various means and options like total production was up to 1324.4 increased productivity, shift towards tonnes and the incremental income more economically profitable crops, amounted to Rs 55.839 lakhs per increased availability of employment, annum. The increase in production development of allied sectors like dairy levels ranged from 27.2 per cent to 83.9 and non land-based activities. Many per cent, in all watersheds except villages like Adgaon, Hivre Bazar, and Mukhed watershed because of the low Ralegaon Siddhi produce marketable level of agriculture activities there. The surplus (especially fruits, vegetables and higher increase in production in other food and non-food crops). In most comparison to increase in cropping villages, a spin-off effect of watershed areas indicates that soil fertility levels of development has been the growth of farming areas have considerably dairy activity as a supplementary source increased (AFC, 1998-99). of income. A good example of this is Adgaon, where the dairy economy is The incremental annual farming income flourishing. This was partially made per farmer has increased (the maximum possible by an abundant and free supply being Rs 36,700 per farmer family and of fodder. Earlier, with a livestock the minimum Rs 4,700 per farmer family) dominated by goats (which did not yield in the RVP watersheds, which works out enough milk for mass marketing), only to an average increase of Rs 12,590 per about 100 litres of milk per day was farmer family. In Nagarjunasagar and available in the entire village. The Pochampad catchments income levels programme promoted high-yielding have increased exceptionally because of cultivation of commercial cash crops 63 such as sugarcane, cotton and Income of beneficiary farmers was groundnut increased employment during higher than the income of non- the project years and increased beneficiary farmers with the minimum of employment after project completion. Rs 605 (eight per cent) in Kundawale Farmer income is higher in Solapur and watershed and maximum by Rs 5086 Nanded due to commercial agriculture, (19.2 per cent) in Khandas watershed. and lower in Nashik and Thane being The main source of income in all Adivasi undeveloped regions (AFC, watersheds was from crop production. It 1998-99). A comparative analysis of accounts for more than 50 per cent of studies shows that the income increase the total income. Whereas, income from from agriculture and related activities is agricultural labour, work and livestock, higher in case of caste-based the second and third major activities, agricultural communities as compared accounts for about 20 and 10 per cent to tribal communities. The reasons may of the total income respectively. The be attributed to socio-cultural issues (for highest increase in income on e.g., selling of milk), farming practices, percentage basis was observed for reliance on subsistence farming, less livestock and poultry activities. This exploitation of groundwater, upper indicates the overall success of the location of the watersheds etc. watershed programme in increasing green fodder production and increasing The total annual income of sample assured drinking water availability for beneficiary households in Khed animals. The Households Production watershed was Rs 45,900, as against System did not become the source of Rs 30,200 for non-beneficiary income as the beneficiary households households. The incremental income of consumed whatever little production Rs 15,700 accruing to the beneficiary there was, at home (AFC, 1998-99). households or Rs 3,264 per capita is largely due to sample households In Mendawan watershed the net income growing cotton and horticulture crops. generated from per hectare of gross There was also an all-round economic cropped area of the sample improvement with a rise in the number of beneficiaries was Rs 2,089 in the pre- tractors, their repairing centers, cotton- implementation period which has gone plugging machines, drip and sprinkler up to Rs 4,739 in the post- irrigation systems etc. implementation period (NABARD, 1999). In the Sedashi-Wavoshi watershed, income from crop husbandry rose from In Adgaon, income from cultivation Rs 17 lakhs to around Rs 40 lakhs (see grew twenty times, subsidiary incomes Table A 3.12). Forest income would increased nine times and service labour work out to Rs 2.96 lakh per year of increased 1.64 times. The sector-wise which one-fourth would be retained by contribution to income changed Forest Department. The total income drastically: cultivation grew from 22 to from horticulture after 10 years of 65 per cent; subsidiary occupation from stabilisation would work out to Rs 89.99 14 to 19 per cent, while labour fell from lakh. The total income would be Rs 63 to 15 per cent. The average annual 122.53 lakh at the stabilization stage income per household increased more that is at the fifteenth year (NABARD, than six times from Rs 4,838 to Rs 1999). In Rajani watershed too the net 32,500. Service sector income grew income has almost doubled during the eight times, from Rs 64,500 to 55,7000. watershed implementation (see Table A The social infrastructure in the village 3.14). In the Shastabad and Kanhur improved greatly (Vaswani, 1995). watersheds the per capita income rose from Rs 2362 to Rs 5879, and there was In terms of expenditure, people tend to an increase in two-wheelers, TVs, spend more on irrigation-related biogas plants and latrines. activities like borewells, pump-motors or on other items like tractors, ploughing In the NWDPRA watersheds, the annual implements, livestock (especially milch income of beneficiary and non- animals), all of which have a beneficiary household farmers was the productivity-enhancing function. For lowest in Khandas watershed at Rs example, in Sherikoldara watershed the 21572 and Rs 19682 respectively, and it number of threshing machines, and was highest in Nune-gavadi watershed sprayers has increased considerably as at Rs 41362 and Rs 37013 respectively. have electric pumps (26 to 114), 64 tractors (one to six) etc (WOTR, 2003). However, in the post-project phase, 24 Many studies Increase in the number of consumer one does not find a uniform trend. In have tried to durables such as TV, radio, two- fact, there are some instances where estimate net returns and also wheelers, cycles etc. are also reported availability of work, especially seasonal the internal rate from many watershed villages. Another agricultural work, has been reduced of returns from impact is that the value of land seems to because of watershed watershed have gone up after the watershed development25 .(refer to next page) investments. development programmes, although this Reddy et al. (2001) studied cannot be attributed to intervention The study by Kerr et al. (2000) shows that with the exception of AGY and four watersheds effects alone. in Andhra IGWDP villages, seasonal migration Pradesh, but However, increase in yield does not rose in every project category. The AGY found that only mean an increase in real terms or in net and IGWDP villages had a net reduction three reported income. Many studies have shown that in overall migration and the possible incremental net the increase in productivity has been reasons for this may be improvements in returns in the achieved with higher costs. It is also infrastructure and access to services. case of paddy and only two in reported that as a result of watershed However, the average figures mask the the case of development, the composition of inputs fact that more AGY and IGWDP villages groundnut. The changes, and there is more dependence experienced net out-migration than net incremental net on modern inputs like improved/hybrid in-migration. The study also noted that returns varied seeds, chemical fertilizers and employment opportunities were reported from Rs 534/acre to Rs 1105/acre pesticides, etc. (To an extent, this to have risen in AGY/IGWDP and NGO Chopra (1999) aspect explains the relatively less project villages, whereas in the used a increase of income from agriculture in NWDPRA, DPAP, Jal Sandharan and multivariate Adivasi-inhabited watersheds). This has non-project villages more people analysis over a resulted in higher cost of cultivation in indicated that employment had declined. large sample size of 13 watershed projects as compared to non- projects cutting watershed areas (Erappa, 1998). Hence, The review shows that crop intensity per se does not increase wage labour across different net returns would be a better indicator to states and agro- assess whether the incomes have opportunities; instead, it depends on the climatic zones to increased or not.10 Besides, increased types of cropping changes that take do an economic income may not always reflect the place as a result of watershed valuation of the watershed impact on livelihoods, because this development. Labour intensive crops like onion, tomato etc have the potential projects. The increase is often seen among farmers study showed a with better land in the valley areas, and of creating more labour as compared to wide range of with a subsequently better access to water-intensive cash crops like cost-benefit water resources sugarcane, banana etc. Labour ratios, ranging replacing technologies such as an from 1.25 to 3.8, increased number of tractors, threshing and the internal rate of return 3.7.2 Changes in employment and machines in the post-watershed phase migration varied from 12.33 are also playing a role in the reduced to 41 per cent. Some issues related to migration and labour opportunities Another fact that There is also labour availability in the context of emerges out of the study is that villages quite a bit of literature on the watershed development are discussed in with higher water availability (either because of the water locally generated methodologies to the chapter on equity, since they are be used for both crucial to the pattern of income- or because of the water brought from economic and generation among regions and sections. outside, as in the case of Adgaon and non-economic Generally, it is assumed that watershed Ralegaon Siddhi) combined with certain valuation of watershed development helps to decrease the basic access to all (as in the case of Pani Panchayat in Pune district) have a development extent of migration. Changes in the benefits like pattern of migration are generally taken greater potential to offer full employment Chopra (1999); as indicators of changes in employment to the people. Also, there is evidence Kerr (2001); opportunities, agricultural productivity that employment opportunities have Landell-Mills and overall quality of life within the increased during the rabi and summer (1999); Shah et season because of availability of water al. (1998) have watershed village (Kerr et al., 2000). The taken the review of available literature and our and people are shifting more towards position that own field visits and interactions show horticulture and vegetable cultivation. valuation has to be done in the that watershed development does have Before the project ten per cent of the the potential to bring down distressed overall villagers in Adgaon had deserted it and framework of migration temporarily, especially in the gone to live in other villages, 70 per cent ecological initial phase of the programme when the had to work under EGS or as economics . For emphasis is on physical works. agricultural labourers in other villages, details of the 65 24 contd... 20 per cent were fully employed on and other discriminations.27 Hence, principles and their own farms. Now 20 families have using decrease in migration as an methodology see returned to this village and outside indicator of the success of watershed the chapter Towards a New labour is being called to work on the development needs to be judiciously Theoretical farms. Daily wage rates have tripled. contextualised. Migration has stopped Synthesis: The People are no longer seeking completely in many of the study Interface of employment under EGS. About 100 villages and good employment Ecology and outside labourers have migrated to this potential was created even after the Economics in Shah (1998). village, as local labour cannot meet the project withdrawal in villages such as NABARDs requirements because of intensification Ralegaon and Adgaon, where outside analysis of the of agriculture. In the Adgaon project labour was needed to carry out Rajani watershed annual employment has risen from 75 agricultural operations in the later shows a days to 200 days and labourer incomes years and it was noted that some Financial Rate of Return (FRR) of have risen above those of small farmers families immigrated into the village. (Anonymous, undated). 69.17 per cent Ralegaon had seen massive and an Economic Rate of Return The Social Center found that after four unemployment with people migrating to (ERR) to the years in watershed management Pune and Mumbai. After the project, tune of 89.11 per labourers in Mendhwan village could marginal and small farmers could till cent. For find eight months of employment as their land throughout the year. Labour Sedashi- opposed to three months earlier. In was imported by medium and large Wavoshi it is 30.88 per cent Sherikoldara, landowners began to farmers from nearby villages for their and 41 per cent lease land to labourers rather than pay own farm work. Earlier 45 per cent of respectively. the high wage costs (discussion with the population lived under the poverty
25 staff). In Shastabad and Kanhur line, which almost became nil. There are also watersheds there was an increase in Agriculture income rose from Rs other cases where migration employment on their own farms and in 3,45,910 to Rs 31,72,687, income from has increased dairy activities and workers were bought other occupations rose from Rs 12,000 after watershed in from outside. to Rs 36,000 and labour income rose development, from Rs. 48,000 to Rs. 1,08,0000. Per which is seen as However, further analysis is needed to capita income rose from Rs 271 to Rs an externality understand the issue of outside labour 2257 per annum. The sectoral share of (Reddy et al. participation. Is it due to the low wages 2001). This may labour income rose from a mere 12 per be due to the fact for which they are willing to work, as cent of the total village income to 25 per that during the compared to the local labour who may cent of it. Social infrastructure implementation be bargaining for a higher wage increased renovated temple, school, of watershed following their experience of receiving development housing, hostel, gymnasium, gobar gas higher wages in watershed work. Lack plant etc. (Vaswani, 1995). projects, labour of employment or work is not the only participation would have reason for which people migrate. People Watershed development creates increased also migrate for other reasons such as increased availability of wage labour consequent to better wages (as compared to the during implementation and generates the demand for wages they can get in the villages), for increased income from watershed watershed works the opportunity of getting a lump sum for labour as compared to the agricultural within the villages and a specific period of work, and for more wage system. For example in the 26 drawn people assured labour opportunities and, Shedashi-Wavoshi the project has away from the last but not the least, to escape caste generated 2.88 lakhs person days of larger labour market, then re- 26 Often, the emphasis is also on completely stopping migration, and success is measured in terms of released to the the degree to which migration has been stopped. However, there is a need to understand the nature of market after migration itself. In other words, one needs to see whether the migration is out of compulsion (to meet completion of the livelihood needs) or out of (family) labour surplus or as an opportunity to increase ones assets, works opportunities and horizons. What is important is to see whether the nature of migration has changed (Deshpande and due to watershed development programmes. Unfortunately, this has not been explored properly. In a Reddy, 1991). study of natural regeneration programmes in Udaipur region, it was found that irrespective of the fact that there was substantial improvement in the resource base, the extent of migration did not show any significant decrease. While probing more on this, the people responded saying that Earlier, we used to migrate out of compulsion; now, there is no compulsion to migrate to meet basic needs; people migrate out of choice to improve upon the gains of the NRM programme (Paranajpe et al. 1997). This indicates that though the figures may be the same, the nature of migration and the reasons for migration have changed significantly.
27 Dr. Ambedkar had given a call to the dalits to leave the villages and move and concentrate in the cities, as they would never be able to fight oppression and discrimination in the villages where they were scattered. 66 labour during four years of specific components and overall good implementation, and a small project results of the technology. It was noted like Rajani (the cost of which is Rs 28 that employment generated in each of lakhs) generated above 61,000 labour the watersheds ranged between two and days in four years. Better wages based 30,000 person days depending on the on output of labour also influenced the agro-climatic zone along with changes traditional wage rate, as is observed in in crop pattern, crop intensity, proportion many IGWDP watersheds. It was of wasteland and yield per hectare and estimated that recurring employment of an increase in moisture availability in the 15,000 man days every year would be watershed regions. generated which would mean employment of 67 persons through out The NWDPRA projects saw a rise in the year. One landless labourer was employment of male beneficiary farmers able to purchase land from the income over the non-beneficiary farmers at a he earned from the wages in the minimum of 15.9 man days (8.5 per cent) implementation period. In the Sedashi- in Chatgaon watershed to maximum of Wavoshi watershed too, employment 53.9 man-days (22.2 per cent) in Nune- during project period checked migration gavadi watershed. The rise in and daily commuting of the people to the employment for women was by a Thane-Mumbai Industrial Belt prior to the minimum of 14.0 man-days (7.5 per cent) project, leaving their crops at the mercy in Tambulwadi watershed to a maximum of stray animals. In this project it was of 65.6 man-days (26.9 per cent) in estimated that 3.10 lakh man days would Phuldhaba watershed. The number of be created by the end of the project with days of annual employment for male and the generation of recurring employment female members of beneficiary families up to 14500 man days per year, i.e., was the highest in Kanhur-mesai at 300.9 nearly 65 persons working for 225 days and 318.8 man-days respectively and the a year (NABARD, 1999). In Pimpalgaon lowest in Kudawale at 174.7 and 204.3 Wagha, some families who had earlier respectively. In watersheds having higher left the village returned due to better work availability before project employment opportunities. In Mendawan commencement, the rise in employment the migration of the landless reduced in summer and rabi seasons was greater and a few of them received a piece of than the rise in the kharif season. In other land from Village Watershed Committee watersheds, the increase in employment (VWC). Fishing rights were granted was the highest in the rabi season, preferentially to them. Among the medium during the kharif season, and low sample population of 60 households 44 in the summer. It was further noted that were below the poverty line before the female members of both beneficiary watershed development. Of these, 22 and non-beneficiary families worked for a families crossed the poverty line income greater number of days as compared to of Rs 17,500 per family due to their male counterparts. Female members augmentation either from the farm or of both the farmer and labourer non-farm business. New sources of categories were engaged for more farm income such as dairy and the retail trade work on an average by about 20 working gained importance while income from days (AFC, 1998-99). wages and sheep grazing declined. The incremental labour days available per ha 3.8 Other social changes of GCA was 18 man-days per annum. Income from service activities rose from Among the important changes that were 8.78 to 10.5 per cent and income from brought about in the watershed were a business activities, which was absent reduction in alcoholism, an increase in earlier, rose to 10.91 per cent literacy levels, an increase in nutrition (NABARD, 1999). levels of the families, an increase in capacities and relations with outside In an analysis of the state-level world. Many watersheds have also seen Comprehensive Watershed an improvement in the quality of life and Development Programme (COWDEP) of basic infrastructure. In the Sedashi- Maharashtra (Deshpande and Reddy, Wavoshi watershed, the women banned 1991), significant changes in the production of alcohol. In Adgaon, earlier household economy were noted. The more than 80 per cent of the population study covered 30 blocks in the state and was affected by alcoholism which has indicated concentration of certain now been abolished. 67 At Pimpalgaon Wagha, the backward (out of the 129 projects under communities were previously isolated implementation in IGWDP). It was found from the village. The watershed that an increase in crop production and development brought about a change in income is not automatically reflected in this attitude of the people of Pimpalgaon the improved nutrition of children. The Wagha. Social taboos have been lifted study notes that there is an increase in and these people are now allowed freely grasses and fodder as barren degraded in the village. The backward lands become more productive which communities have a fair representation allows more households to own on the VWC and participate actively in crossbred cows. Thus, as watershed the decision-making process. Once their development advances, there is an financial condition improved, the people increase in the ownership of crossbred from these communities also began to cows. There is a decrease in other get respect from the other villagers. livestock, especially indigenous cows. Injustice by landlords and moneylenders In Survey 2000, only 10.7 per cent of also greatly reduced. The income households in Group I (where earned from the work on watershed watershed work has just begun) own sites helped them pay off their loans. As crossbred cows, while this number is 50 more children could go to school, per cent among Group IV households literacy in the village improved and (where watershed work has been today the literacy rate is about 80 per underway for many years). However, in cent. Biogas plants were set up in some spite of this there is no direct increase households in the village and their fuel in the number of children drinking cows wood consumption declined. As drinking milk across project duration. From water became available within the information obtained from these village, the women stopped going far to villages, one notes that as the project fetch water and so could contribute advances, the number of crossbred more positively to the development of cows have increased with an increase the village. They set up a revolving credit in milk production. In the rain-shadow and made loans available to the needy belt of Ahmednagar district, milk at the low interest rate of two per cent a production shot up by the fourth and month (Lobo and Kochenderfor-Lucius, fifth year in the project period, to over 1995.) 400 liters per day, and by the sixth and seventh year to over 900 litres per day In Mendawan there were also other per village on an average. A dairy positive impacts on social aspects such cooperative was soon established and as education, housing, health care etc. more households sold milk. The results Pucca houses went up from just one to of this study also show that the 34 out of 60 sample households after enhanced land productivity translated implementation. into only a small improvement of the In the Shastabad-Chincholi watershed, nutritional status of children. As five biogas plants came up after the watershed development advances, an project apart from an increase in increase in the number of households pesticide spraying machines and that have breakfast has been noted and threshers. Villagers were also dispersed in households where this happens, from gaothan (village settlement) areas there is a positive impact on the and they built good new houses in their nutritional status of children in some fields to ensure day round care. The groups. Data show that households income received from agriculture was regularly consume sorghum and wheat invested in digging more wells, buying products with vegetables. Pulses are high yielding seeds and construction of the only mentioned source of proteins permanent houses of (Gomukh, 2001). consumed regularly by less than 40 per cent of households and only once a day DSouza (2001) tried to examine the (DSouza, 2001). impact of watershed development programmes on the nutritional status of Large-scale use of bio fertilizer and children the linkage between increased vermi-compost increased in Khed production and improved nutrition. The watershed. The participation of women sample for the study consisted of 1,532 both in design and implementation of children in the 0-5 age group from 27 the project in this watershed was villages where watershed projects were exemplary. On average, the literacy in different stages of implementation levels of males and females in 68 beneficiary families were higher by 4.4 3.9 Viability of the Projects and 5.5 per cent over non-beneficiary families in NWDPRA. Literacy increase In this section we look at the economic was greater in economically better and and financial analyses available for a well-developed watersheds of few projects in Maharashtra. A word of Wadhivarhe, Nune-gavadi, Khanur- caution would be in place here, given mesai and Phuldhaba (AFC, 1999). In the growing tendency to quantify Sedashi-Wavoshi, housing improved everything in economic terms (and (earlier 90 families were homeless, now putting numbers to everything) and this number has fallen to 58), education, evaluate a project in income terms. assets etc. have increased. One tractor Often, there is a tendency to equate has been added to the community. The increase in income with cash income, or 15 self-help groups (SHGs) which began to use it as a proxy for increased welfare with provision of consumption loans or a better livelihood scenario. have already taken up some income- Livelihood includes income, but also generating activities like the much more. Women, for example, have development of a forest nursery, a great deal to contribute to livelihood, transport activities, preparation of though they may contribute little to greeting cards and cardboard boxes. income, especially cash income, within Among social aspects, empowerment of the established meaning of the term. women, development of self-confidence There are also situations in which the and improvement in communication income may show a rise without skills has given them a feeling of self necessarily increasing fulfilment of worth. More children were sent to school livelihood needs. Dairy farming, in the Rajani watershed (NABARD, vegetable and fruit cultivation are a few 1999). examples where the income from the milk, vegetable or fruit so produced may The DROP (2003) study noted that there even mean a corresponding fall in their was an increase in the workload of availability to the local community. The women than earlier. Earlier many situation gets all the more accentuated farmers used to cultivate only single because men, in a patriarchal society, crops and women had to do double duty have full access and control over cash only for one season. After the cultivation income, which is generated through of two or three crops, their work market-oriented production. increased considerably. Also, many cash crops, especially vegetables, need Another example discussed earlier is the intensive supervision. tendency towards increased use of improved or hybrid varieties of seeds as Across most projects however, the a means of productivity improvement. participation of women was found to be This can lead to farmers losing self- of a token nature or marginal. In most reliance, becoming dependent on both projects, women are organized into national and transnational seed savings and credit groups. Similarly, companies. special factors such as efforts taken by an individual or the intense involvement A useful compilation of studies is found of an NGO, are factors that improve the in the 1991 issue of the Indian Journal of chances of success and sustainability of Agriculture Economics (IJAE). The watershed programmes. The impact of general results of these studies are the withdrawal of such an agency and given by Kerr (1996) who finds that whether the community and institutions estimated returns to investment are created under the project are self reliant, generally high with BC ratios ranging are worthy of examination. Though from one to greater than two. While they studies have indicated that institutional leave out crucial off-site and non- arrangements are crucial for sustaining marketed impacts which would be likely watershed interventions, not many have to raise the projects net benefits, the elaborated upon the nature of these IJAE studies fail to consider two institutional arrangements. These issues important problems first they have a will be dealt in detail in the forthcoming tendency to attribute causation of chapters. improved crop and livestock productivity to Soil and Water Conservation Measures (SWC) measures even though improvements may have been caused by factors like good weather. 69 Second, they measure improvements marketed and off-site impacts. Also achieved while government support most studies are not comparable as continues, or just after support ended they use different techniques and and assume sustainability of gains. assumptions, discount rates and time horizons and also types of impacts In 1997, ICRISAT published a summary included for study. Despite of economic evaluations undertaken by measurement difficulty, the general research institutes, state departments impression is that watersheds and other central and state programmes yield high returns and organizations (Babu et al., 1997). Of the these would be higher if off-site and 29 projects listed all have ratios greater non-marketed effects were added. But than 1.07 and one (Sutle in the western growing evidence of project failure after Himalayas) has a ratio as high as 7.06. PIA withdraws shows that Cost Benefit For those cases where an Internal Rate Analysis (CBA) needs to be revised or of Return (IRR) was calculated results an alternative technique is needed. varied between 17 and 67 per cent suggesting higher returns than those of The financial rate of return (FRR) in the the IJAE studies but leaving out the non- IGWDP watersheds is very high at 31
Source: Impact of NWDPRA in Maharashtra Deshpande and Reddy, (1991). The study by Deshpande and Reddy (1991) has tried to capture the impact of NWDPRA in three different zones or regions, namely, the scarcity zone, the moderate rainfall region, and assured rainfall zone. In the scarcity region watershed technology has led to intensification of agriculture, higher diversification, risk spreading and increased stability in yield levels. The study notes, "watershed treatment led to higher diversification and risk spreading. The only point of concern was the presence of sugarcane in the water scarce economy. The yield levels do not show any persistent increment across crops and size classes of operational holdings but there is enough evidence to indicate an increased stability in yield levels. It was quite clear from the analysis that the scarcity zone would need a longer gestation period as compared to the other regions -- mainly due to the level of degradation." It was noted that small and marginal farmers of the project area gained on income fronts compared to their peers from non-project areas. The moderate rainfall zone also showed similar results, the study indicates that "the proportion of fallows and uncultivated lands and the cropping intensity were higher in the watershed region, indicating thereby higher resources intensity. The cropping pattern in the project region is well diversified as compared to non-project area, indicating risk spread.... Except in the case of jowar and paddy, the watershed area has a distinct edge over the control region even though the latter had slightly higher irrigated area. This region has a good promise for watershed technology and it is essential to arrest the speed of degradation in this area." The beneficiary group also showed higher net incomes. However, the level of income inequality was higher in the programme area while the reverse is true in the case of a scarcity zone. The assured rainfall zone also showed lower inequalities in the watershed region. The study notes that the initial work of the watershed goes in recouping the damage caused earlier because of the higher level of degradation of the ecosystem. The cropping pattern in the project area is more commercialized, though diversified. Resources are not only concentrated on better quality of lands by releasing marginal lands out of cultivation but also on highly remunerative crops like sugarcane, wheat and cotton to the detriment of others. The watershed region here also has better cost efficiency, ensuring that the net income per hectare in this area is higher than that in the control region. The most interesting aspect of income generation is the inverse size-productivity relationship in the project region as against a direct relationship in the control area. The assured rainfall zone watersheds are likely to yield better results in the short run compared to those from the scarcity zone. Farmer response in this region indicated increased yield rates with greater stabilization, increased income, higher wages and employment.
70 per cent in Sedashi-Wavoshi and the strategies of different stakeholders are economic rate of return (ERR) is 41 per not analysed nor their relation and cent using the World Banks conversion dependency on ecosystem products factors. In the Rajani watershed FRR and services as part of watershed woks out at 69.17 per cent and ERR planning. Thus, one sees often works to 89.11 per cent. In the examples such as development of Mendhwan watershed, FRR works out to CPRs (through biophysical measures be 31.5 per cent without managerial cost and by excluding current users through and without family labour cost and the social fencing) without ensuring user ERR under the same assumptions and management rights to those who works out to be 35 per cent (NABARD, depend on it the most. It does not mean 1999). The cost-benefit analysis looking that a watershed of a few hundred at the impact of a water reservoir in the hectares can meet all the resources western plateau and hills puts the BC at required for ensuring the basic 1.28 and the IRR at 12.33 (Saksena et livelihoods of all watershed dwellers. al., 1989). The cost-benefit ratio of the Kamini sub-watershed works out to be The overall picture that emerges from 1.3 without including secondary benefits the review is that generally, watershed like security and dependability of development has resulted in some drinking water supply, increase in improvement in livelihood opportunities availability and use of firewood and for watershed communities. The degree fodder, increase in employment etc of improvement varies from the (Gomukh). Walker et al. (1990) reviewed spectacular (as in Ralegaon Siddhi and the overall impact of the application of Adgaon), to the once good but now not watershed-based technologies at very good. The internal distribution of different locations in Maharashtra, benefits has not always been even, with Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. Their the better-off farmers in the downstream results indicated incremental net income benefiting the most and the landless and ranging between 49 and 203 per cent of farmers in the upper reaches benefiting the base level. The BC ratio worked out the least. But in all cases, some in the range of 1.08 to 3.81 across the livelihood improvements are carried over locations. into the post-project phase. But are there sufficient resilient institutional mechanisms, moral and cultural capital including a sensitive leadership within 3.10. Watershed Development and the community, to ensure livelihood Livelihoods benefits from renewed ecosystem Watershed activities are expected to resources to the disadvantaged and have a wide range of impacts on the marginals in the post project/NGO watershed ecosystems and the withdrawn stage? With such a livelihood opportunities mainly depend perspective, which implicitly looks at on such ecosystems. Earlier, soil and watershed development programmes as water conservation activity did not providing some degree of livelihood directly aim at creating an impact on support for watershed communities, the livelihoods; any such impact was, so to overall performance of the programme speak, a side effect. The emerging would rank as below average. But there consensus on watershed development, would be a great number of cases in however, no longer accepts such a which the overall performance has been viewpoint. Most programmes look at more than satisfactory. effective watershed development as an In this respect, the remark that entry point activity to stabilize and build watershed development measures sustainable livelihoods. However, the worked well in good years; in good strategy in the area of livelihood creation years, they did succeed in fulfilling their most often visualized is watershed plus livelihood needs is illuminating. But along with earmarking a certain whenever there was a bad year, percentage of the budget for livelihood whenever the rainfall was below average activities. Planning and implementation or the rainfall pattern was not suitable, generally follow the conservation and they faced acute shortage. This is also farmer-centric approach and borne out by our experience in other consideration of livelihoods follow after semi-arid zones in Karnataka, Andhra the creation of assets. The livelihood Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan. 71 28 For details It is interesting to compare in this role of supporting and supplementing on the Ozar context, Ralegaon Siddhi and Adgaon, smaller systems based on micro experience and two projects that have generally formed watersheds and clusters of micro the issues related to co- a contrast. Here, we shall look at some watersheds. The three Ozar Water management of of the similarities, which exist between Users Associations (WUAs) in Nashik local and them, despite their apparent divergence district of Maharashtra, to some extent, exogenous in many respects. In both places, and illustrate the potential of such water and also this is significant, water from a major integration. Unlike in the conventional surface and groundwater, source has been brought to the village practice of command management, the see the study by from the Kukdi canal in Ralegaon and three WUAs built check dams on the Paranjape et al, from the Sukna project in Adgaon. nalas crossing the command area of 2003. Norms evolved for the watershed area in the WUAs and used these structures to Ralegaon (the ban on sugarcane for harvest local rainwater and also to store example) do not apply in the Kukdi part of the water that they received from canal area in the village. If we do not the dam. This recharged the wells in the consider, for the time being, the drinking command area and also added stability water problem in Adgaon, we have near to the water regime. As a result, the full employment in both villages, though people have much more control over Ralegaon Siddhi has a much more water delivery and now are in a position equitable distribution of benefits. It may to farm diverse crops. The area under be said that in both villages, watershed irrigation has increased tremendously, development supplemented by as has productivity. One interesting exogenous water has led to livelihood institutional innovation is that the wells assurance (to those who have the basic have been brought under the purview of means of production (land). However, the WUAs and farmers are charged for this has been achieved in a more using well water.28 harmonious and equitable manner in Ralegaon, and in a trickle-down manner If we do require livelihood assurance for in Adgaon; in a socially regulated and all, then we also need to define what environmentally regenerative manner in place watershed development occupies Ralegaon, but in an unregulated and in the process of achieving that environmentally unsound manner in objective. From the review, it is clear Adgaon. that at least in places where watershed development has made a difference, a We would not advocate the absence of process of development of water norms for Kukdi water in Ralegaon, nor resources and productivity is sugarcane the only route to stability, enhancement has gone hand-in-hand but the role that exogenous water has and continued beyond the project played in both situations needs to be period. Many other elements have also recognized. One of the conclusions of a contributed to the phenomenon and more in-depth study of a sub-basin in have their own importance for specific Udaipur region in Rajasthan shows that aspects. But this, we feel, is the critical even under conservative assumptions, element in all those places where for three out of the 12 years, it would be watershed development has led to difficult to ensure even domestic water livelihood assurance for a substantial requirements; for another three out of section of the watershed community. the 12 years, it would be possible to This points to the need to treat ensure domestic water requirements, watershed development as a first step but livelihood requirements would not be in the process of providing livelihood met; and only in six out of 12 years assurance for all. would livelihood requirements be met. In other words, if we have to ensure This evaluation is good so far as it livelihoods for this rural population at a applies to evaluating watershed higher degree of dependability, a small development as an essentially soil and but significant supplement of exogenous water conservation activity, treating water is certainly required. improvement in livelihood opportunities and fulfilment of livelihood needs as an A critical analysis of canal irrigation associated effect. However, watershed would also argue for a restructuring of development programmes today are the water sector so as to modify the role expected to do much more than this. of large systems from being They are seen as being at the core of independent, autonomous entities to a the process of rural development and 72 are often supposed to be the lynchpin around which all government-run developmental activity should converge. It is increasingly being claimed that watershed development will ensure fulfilment of livelihood needs, obviating the need for dams and canal irrigation. However, there are issues of sustaining production and livelihoods in the long run and the current trend of impacts, especially those related to water-use, agricultural production, technology adoption management and use of common resources etc., needs to be looked at from a wider perspective of sustainable and equity-oriented rural development.
73 successful watersheds, problems Chapter 4 encountered in mainstream green revolution agriculture, and through debates, encounters and interactions regarding sustainability of natural systems/resources at the national and international level. Thus one could observe the sustainability issue emerging in the policy statements and to some extent in the operational and implementation strategies. Now most watershed development guidelines, even though in an eclectic way, raise Watershed Development and the issue of sustainability of Sustainability ecosystems and methods of production while pronouncing the objectives and strategies of intervention. Thus one 4.1 Introduction could see statements such as 'sustainable economic development The objective of watershed development through sustainable utilization of natural in rainfed areas from its early days resources; sustainable community included economic development of the action; rational long term utilization; village community through the optimum sustainable management of natural use of land, water and vegetation. The resources and their use; sustainable success/performance criteria included a production methods and technologies; set of quantifiable benefits such as integrated and allied land-use systems increase in ground water and recharging for sustainable production; social of wells, prevention of soil run-off, regulation on groundwater use; improvement in soil quality and moisture sustainability strategies as part of exit content, improvement in agriculture policy of PIAs etc. in all guidelines production and production of usufructs whether of the MoA, MoRD, CAPART, like fodder, fuel, minor timber etc. This is bilateral, multilateral or NGOs. reflected in all the guidelines and all impact assessment and performance Assuming that all the measures in a evaluation used these indicators most watershed have been taken often to assess the success of a scientifically it would emanate into a watershed, as is evident from the first round of effects, which let us say reviews/studies analysed in the previous are mostly environmental and probably chapter. Most indicators are those mostly positive. Soil quality is expected generally used to understand agriculture to improve, soil erosion is expected to development projects, except the later reduce, water recharge should improve, introduction of social and institutional there would be a general increase in the indicators for performance assessment green cover and the carrying capacity because of the perception and practice of the environment would improve. of community participation as a These impacts are reflected in our dominant and determining condition for review also. To a lesser degree of the success of a project. This is certainty it could be said that water understandable because the objective, quality is expected to improve and policy pronunciations and practices surface water storage might improve were premised on development of (through holding of water in tanks, nalas resources for improved productivity and and streams flowing longer. However, growth in rural rainfed areas. Hence, the the amount of water reaching the developed ecosystem resources and the reservoirs might decrease. resultant productivity and livelihood became the basis on which project It is important to note here that the performance and impacts are generally above effects are just about all that can assessed. be said to be emerging with any certainty from scientifically implemented By the late 1990s the issue of soil and water conservation activity. sustainability emerged as a major However, these by themselves are short concern in watershed development term in nature. Beyond this the further projects following reversals in some round of effects are inextricably linked 74 to human choices and sensitivity to the without compromising the ecological environment. The second important level balance or reversing to the previous of effects would be increase in irrigation, situation of degraded ecology and rate of withdrawal of groundwater, endangered livelihoods. Sustainability is expansion of croplands, cropping impacted by human actions and 'rational intensity, change in cropping pattern and choices' the watershed dwellers make change in agricultural practices. Each of vis-à-vis their environment and how far these second level effects is "choices" these actions can be 'moulded' when and not "happenings" emerging the incentives are for growth (even at "naturally" from watershed development the cost of endangering the resource projects. These will cause a further base) both at micro and macro level. round of effects impinging on socio- What are the implications of neo-liberal economic and environmental variables. economic policies on sustainability of The time dimension in the third round natural resources, when an increasing might however be much longer before number of wastelands and commons the nature [includes dimension, as are being earmarked for Special defined above] of the impact can be Economic Zones and corporate determined. It is these intermediate farming? The issue is whether human choices, which mostly become watershed development can work in the dynamic links in a whole range of isolation without being touched by the further effects, which most of the larger economic and social processes evaluation studies concern themselves unfolding in the march towards 'growth with. So when we look at only fodder, and development' and what are the fuel, livestock, etc., they are projected to strategies and incentives available for be natural consequences of watershed the historically deprived rainfed development programmes. However, communities to preserve and sustain the only a careful delineation of the above ecological balance and at the same time links can determine whether the earn a better livelihood. changes happening in the various bio- physical and socio-economic indicators Attempts have been made to address are going to bring in long term the issues of sustainability in relation to sustainability of incomes and watershed development and the environment, health and well being, resultant productive potential. They biodiversity, food security etc., which are revolve around core issues such as the at the core of 'green' development repair and maintenance of assets, programmes. continuity of social and institutional processes put in place during the Operationlizing the concept, implementation, sustaining the results sustainability is found to be a weak area and impacts and sustaining the growth and there is very little information processes. All these issues are not available from our context. It is often independent and they impinge on each equated with maintenance and repair of other. In the following sections of the assets, which in itself is a major aspect chapter we will try to look into the status of sustainability strategy. However, it is of issues and look for strategies and also brought to the fore that growth methods adopted from available sources processes and production strategies are and evidence. However, this is an issue at loggerheads/ conflict with on which very little information is sustainability to an extent. The very available, that which is available is most concept of sustainability assumes a often very sketchy and opinionated and continuity, a time frame and is this time what can be considered as 'best frame means 'staying for ever' or should practices' are very limited to certain we consider sustainability within the examples here and there. But one context of the dynamic nature of society, should acknowledge that sustainability modes of production and social is increasingly gaining an important processes. Another important aspect is place in watershed discourse and that after achieving a particular stage in practice, and sustainable production and the growth process (visible impacts in sustainable livelihoods are considered the early stages of a project as we have to be the expected long-term outcomes seen in the previous chapter) what are of watershed development. the new structures, systems and challenges for moving to the next stage i.e. to ensure continuity of benefits 75 4.2 Sustainability of Assets Created possible in the absence of examples under Watershed Development in small scale at least. Certain trends can, however, be observed. Projects Watershed development interventions have some resources at their create a number of biophysical assets disposal such as maintenance funds, aimed at conserving soil, water and or the watershed development fund. biomass. These assets are created, Some places utilize these funds for either in private lands or in common maintenance and repair such as lands or in drainage courses that either plantations and aftercare, building of pass through privately owned land or new structures or paying for watch and nestle between private lands, but as a ward. But in large number of projects common. The location of the structure/ this resource is left idle in the absence asset, the nature of the property regime of proper management systems and in which it is located and the benefits it structures, institutional inactivity in the generates often determine its post project at local level etc. Most sustainability. The perception of the projects of this generation have beneficiary regarding the benefits from a recently completed their specific asset/intervention plays a implementation and have not yet crucial role in its care and maintenance. required any major maintenance. For Studies and experiences show that example in Shedasi-Wavoshi the assets created on private lands in assessment by NABARD notes that consultation with the farmer and those, leakage to the check dam (due to which generate immediate impact, have various reasons) was not even a higher chance of sustainability. Assets attempted to be rectified despite the on common property resources face availability of funds for maintenance. problems if the necessary social and But in Mendwan a better arrangement institutional arrangements are not in has been put in place by engaging a place. The time taken for benefits to person who has certain skills. The register also has an impact on assessment of 115 projects (DPAP sustainability, where the community may and IWDP) in Vidharbha by loss interest due to the lack of visible Dharamitra shows that in many impact in a short time. The longevity of instances loose boulder structures are an asset also depends on its technology either damaged or being removed by and quality. the farmers. In the case of Gabbion Soil and water conservation works need structures in seven watersheds either regular repair and maintenance for them they have been completely washed to be effective and generate positive away or are partially damaged. outcomes. Experiences from first Vegetative barriers are also either not generation projects and the status of visible in places or are damaged. In assets created under them have brought case of nala bunds and farm ponds, it the importance of care and maintenance is observed that they are fully silted in to the forefront. The situation of contour most places. bunds and large number of Nala Bunds Maintenance is also dependent on skills created in Maharashtra during the available at the community level. Low seventies and early eighties are part of cost and locally manageable assets the learning in disasters. Slowly it was generally are maintained if they are realized that the involvement of the seen as beneficial, but for technically- community is a precondition for oriented (engineered) assets like improving the effectiveness of the engineered structures external services intervention. Now it is realized that it is may be required. Generally if the quality not just participation but the social is good, such kinds of structures need arrangements, institutional mechanisms only some maintenance which can be their structure and functions, availability locally done. The transfer of technical of skills and resources in community knowledge and capacity enhancement etc., that impact the long-term during the implementation period also effectiveness; maintenance and repair matters as that is the period of fixing also depend a lot on these issues. New responsibility for the specific resources generation projects have created at and beneficiaries. Experience shows least certain mechanisms in this that many projects make it part of their direction especially for maintenance of strategy to adopt locally available assets. But definite conclusions are not materials and low cost structures so 76 that it is easy for the community to account. There is a lot of concern maintain them. However, one cannot about the status of maintenance fund ignore the importance of engineered after the withdrawal of the PIA. In water-harvesting structures. Issues instances where maintenance is related to maintenance of structures on reported, it may not reflect the actual common property resources are picture. First, much of the data on complex and clear arrangements are newer projects is in the form of case required in terms of getting maintenance studies that often comprise the more work done. promising projects, whereas the real experiences will emerge from studies One of the major problems encountered covering a large sample, including the is maintenance of biophysical not-so-promising and the failed interventions in the common property projects as well. All that one can say is resources. There are many reasons for that since the new projects have taken this such as no clarity about who the note of the problems and have users are or what their rights and evolved certain measures, and however responsibilities are, administrative elementary these measures be, there is problems regarding user rights and a greater likelihood that they will show rights to manage, long gestation better performance for longer periods. required for products to benefit the community, nature and kind of activities undertaken etc. Some experiences 4.3 Sustainability of Watershed emerging from the field show that when Impacts resource-poor self-help groups (SHGs) In the previous chapter we have seen are entrusted with the usufruct and quite a few evidences regarding the management rights for common impact of watershed development on resources, the performance is better. In soil erosion, on biomass production, on some places especially in tribal areas it ground and surface water and on is noted that cultivators downstream like agricultural production and livelihoods in water and biomass residues to flow into general. Though most of the reviews do the cultivated lands so that water can be not have sufficient quantitative data on impounded for rice cultivation. It has impacts of soil erosion and quality, also come to notice that during droughts some reduction in erosion is generally the pressure on commons increases as reported. In our field visits, farmers were does the cutting of trees and the able to provide some information about intensity of free grazing. There are the turbidity of flow based on their instances in which the village committee perception. There was sufficient has passed a resolution in favour of free evidence across many watersheds that grazing in common lands during a stream flow had become clearer and drought. sediment load had reduced. The review Even though there are resources also showed improved moisture status available for maintenance in new and water holding capacity of soil in projects and certain instances of watersheds. However, sustaining these maintenance and repair are reported impacts requires regular maintenance of from villages and programmes under soil conservation structures such as review one should not draw a hasty bunding and improvement of soil quality conclusion on this count. Many projects through mulching and biomass organize the maintenance fund through application. Erosion control in upstream local contribution, but it is often noted areas and grass and tree cover also that the fund is not used effectively for contributes in controlling erosion. Field operation and maintenance. In evidence shows that maintenance of Dharamitra evaluation in 21 per cent of conservation measures is better in good watersheds no maintenance fund was quality lands as compared to marginal organized whereas in 66 per cent of the and uncultivated private lands, and that cases five per cent of the project cost is the intensity of the problem increases in collected as maintenance fund. In a lot lands that are under common use. In of cases (in almost 73 watersheds out of almost all watershed projects the 90 where a watershed development fund responsibility of maintaining private has been orgainzed) there is lands is that of the owner and the discrepancy noted in what is reported tendency observed is that they and what is actually available in the concentrate their resources on better and productive lands (an economical 77 and rational decision) and ignore the Vawoshi, a watershed in a high rainfall problems in less capable lands. Thus area, the survival rate of plants (for breaching of bunds, rill and gully plantation done in year 1994) is only formations are left unattended in the 40 per cent when survival was post-implementation period in marginal assessed in year 1999, even though private lands. Some of the farmers do 92 per cent survival is reported for the take cereals like Jowar and Bajra on this plantation done in year in 1999, the land primarily for the fodder and grain evaluation year (NABARD, 1999). production is only incidental. However, Thus, it should be noted that even if a these lands are increasingly brought high survival rate is reported for under mono-crops such as castor which plantation during implementation, it itself has its impact on fodder and may not reflect the real picture, as it livestock development. Excess digging takes time for plants to stabilize and of soil for trenches in sloppy lands may grow. The survival rate after at least also add to soil erosion and in some five years of plantation might give us a instances where land leveling is done clear picture. Besides the low survival without much technical care and on rate, the diversity of plant species is sloppy lands with less soil depth it has also very limited. In Rajani watershed added to soil erosion as is evident in (assured rainfall area) the survival rate some watersheds in Konkan and is reported as low as 10 per cent Vidharba. (NABARD, 1999). If the condition is this in high and assured rainfall areas, one Sustainability of biomass production is can draw a picture of the situation in also very important in ensuring drought-prone areas to be even sustainable livelihoods. Seasonal and worse. annual biomass production estimates are good indicators of the variability of During field interaction it was noted that the ecosystem resources in time and plantations also lack effective space and review proves that there are management after the withdrawal of the good indications about improvements in PIA and many instances of tree cutting this respect at least in watersheds were reported. There is no quantitative where biomass development and social information either for biomass fencings are practiced. However our regeneration or the rate of extraction. analysis of 115 watersheds from Many projects have a ban on open Vidharbha shows that the investment on grazing and felling of trees and people biomass development is very poor and are allowed to cut and carry the fodder there is hardly any practice of social and collect the fallen dried branches. fencing and CPLR management. However, there are no clear rules Development of biomass in the regarding the rate of extraction of commons and its access to the poor is fodder and who has the prioritized very important from the livelihood point rights. Our field visit showed that, of view and low investments and except in a few cases, even these rules production show that this concern was are not followed after the withdrawal of not part of planning and that concerns the PIA, thus one is forced to question like equity and sustainability are still not the effectiveness of these rules are and thought about. The development of whether the community is convinced commons for usufructs like fodder and and has internalized these concerns. fuel is one of the major objectives of The IGWDP villages in Ahmednagar watershed development and very few district have worked out Joint Forest projects have succeeded in this respect. Management (JFM) with the forest Wherever the production of at least department in terms of sharing of grass has improved, very little produce and management information is available in respect of its responsibilities. To an extent this is sustainable development and use, . working, in terms of preserving the trees Whatever information exists is in the and biomass, as compared to the form of visual observations and previous situation of pilferage and anecdotal expressions of the destruction, sometimes in connivance community. In many projects, as with forest guards. The issue of reported earlier, the plantation survival is sustainability of biomass in non-forest poor and as the project progresses, the common lands needs further attention number of plants that survive is found to in almost all projects in the absence of decrease. For example, in Sedashi- effective management systems, rules 78 and administrative procedures. It is land-use practice. However, there are 29 Shri considered a very weak area, not only ways in which both these issues can Balkrishana in the state but also in almost all be addressed i.e., productivity Renke and his group have watersheds in the country. enhancement for increased livelihoods been doing this and ecosystem conservation. What is for the last five One of the ways to reduce biomass needed is a strong commitment to find years or so. He extraction is through herd rationalization. ways of integrating them rather than has kept a very Of course, this is an area that is very considering them conflicting objectives, good record of all the data contentious. Experiences in this regard, which makes it imperative to trade-off at least from the watersheds in Western including inputs one against the other. An integrated and labour Maharashtra, are that small ruminants land-use and production system is outputs. For and traditional breeds are reduced and required which should be part of details see the poor and women-headed watershed planning and implementation. Kulkarni (2000); YUVA (2001) households suffer the most. It also Another possible approach could be to impacts on ecological services that try to meet the food requirements from a these animals provide, such as manure reduced area. It has been observed that and fertility improvements. there is a tendency amongst the people to bring in more and more land 4.3.1 Land-use Change and unsuitable for shallow-rooted crop Sustainability production under crop production during drought and scarcity conditions (Joy and From the ecological sustainability point Rao, 1993). Experience and various of view, each landform or class has a experiments show that it is possible to particular function to play in a meet food needs from a smaller area watershed. One of the cardinal through sustainable productivity principles of watershed development, at enhancement methods. One such least theoretically, is that different types example is the experiments with small of lands have to be put to use as per plot intensive cultivation by many groups their capabilities. In fact, watershed in Maharashtra that have been able to intervention aims to improve the achieve very high levels of productivity functions performed by each of these with local inputs.29 Another example classes. Bringing sloping (with shallow that is talked about currently is the soil depths) non-crop areas under Madagascar Rice Intensification System seasonal and annual tillage could (also called System of Rice increase soil erosion. Also, it can cause Intensification, SRI to be brief), which is negative externalities in different ways. now spread over a very large area in In traditional land-use systems, there different countries. It has been reported used to be an organic link between the that it has been able to achieve an cropped area and non-cropped areas average productivity of something in the (forest, pastures, and wasteland). By vicinity of 10 t/ha (Uphoff et al., 2000). bringing in more and more non-crop land Yet another way is to ensure a certain under shallow-rooted, seasonal quantity of water to the people as part of agriculture, this organic link is broken. the watershed programme. Experience By converting more non-crop land to shows that in drought prone regions, cropland, we are encouraging mono- critical (or protective) irrigation can cultural tendencies which can decrease make all the difference between a total local biodiversity. Non-crop land has crop failure and a good crop. This different types of grasses, bushes, trees, minimum water assurance combined creepers and other types of vegetation with some of the emerging Low External including medicinal plants. It is a Input Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) repository of a great variety of rootstock. techniques can build up productivity in a It also supports a variety of micro- and very short time span and meet food macro-organisms, all of which have a requirements from a much smaller area. role to play in the ecosystem. Under The saved area can then be devoted to watershed projects quite a lot of a diversified biomass production system marginal lands are brought under without significantly disturbing the cultivation growing seasonal crops or different types of land-use classes. Of dry land horticulture and these days course, this calls for a restructuring of under non-browsable cash crops such the present-day watershed programme as castor. What one encounters here is a conflict between economic and livelihood issues vis-à-vis sustainable 79 30 An impact in terms of fund allocation, institutional minimize the need for efficient use and assessment of arrangements and phasing of the its sustenance. Injudicious use may five watershed programme. These issues are discussed result in permanent ecological projects in Andhra Pradesh further in the concluding chapter. damage as is evident from the ever shows that the receding water table (and it is investments in 4.3.2 Increase in Irrigation and its reported that about five per cent of the borewells began Impacts state's area has already crossed the immediately after danger mark) or intrusion of sea water the initiation of Many studies and evaluations have watershed proved that irrigated area has increased in costal aquifers as is evident from development and in almost all successful watershed other parts of the country, especially in soon outpaced projects. It also shows that the water parts of Tamil Nadu, Gujarat etc. The other types of table has consistently improved at least propagation and adoption of compact investment in pumps coupled with energy subsidy almost all during good rainfall years. Though there watersheds has been an increase in the water table, has contributed immensely to the (WASSAN, especially in the wells close to various exploitation of groundwater, which 2004). structures like checks dams, this has facilitated the adoption of green been more than offset by the revolution technology and water tremendous increase in the number of intensive crops by farmers. Thus what wells. In almost all cases that we visited, we see is a vicious circle. and those for which some data are The issue of groundwater is a complex available (and this is also confirmed by one from the hydrological and various other studies), the number of ownership perspective. The availability borewells and dug wells have gone up of groundwater depends upon the immensely. Now, the dominant trend is rainfall, and the geological and to construct borewells and tap water hydrological configuration of the region. from the deeper aquifer. Watershed One of the most important aspects of development seems to have acted as an groundwater is that though it is a additional impetus for investments in common pool resource (one can also wells and pumping devices, leading to a argue that it should be a common virtual pumping race. There are also property resource as well by virtue of cases of groundwater pollution and being under the ground with no water going saline because of the proprietary entitlement) the means of excessive withdrawal of groundwater. access to it is privately owned with The investments in borewells in the extraction through private tubewells and post-project phase sometime are more open wells. One farmer's extraction can than what was invested in the watershed 30 adversely affect the source of another development . Now the tendency farmer and his ability to invest more can among farmers is to go for borewells adversely affect many others. For all and submersible pumps. The reasons practical purposes, groundwater is an may include fewer investments as open access resource until it is compared to an open well (especially in captured and privatized and whoever basalt rocks, where blasting is required), does it first, owns it. These open less time involved in construction, and accesses put this resource at great very little land occupied by the borewell risks and push it into the realm of and easy availability of drilling competitive exploitation. Ungoverned technology etc. Whatever the reason, access to the resource, lack of increased irrigation through borewells institutional mechanisms to govern extracting groundwater from deep judicious utilization and access, lack of aquifers, which have a lower awareness about the resource and its recuperation rate as compared to availability among the end users, lack of shallow aquifers, may in the long run incentives for sustainable users, result in changed surface hydrology statutory measures not put in place are such as drying of springs and seepage some of the issues affecting sustainable zones and eventually lead to what is management. The issue of right over known as groundwater drought. groundwater is based on the doctrine of Groundwater is one the most important riparian right, the essence of this is natural resources for rural areas and the recognition of equal rights on use and recent expansion in irrigation owes extraction of water by all those who much to groundwater exploitation. It is a own the land above, provided that it renewable resource but does not does not interfere with the riparian right
80 of others. Though in reality, the depth of etc. These changes could be brought 31 The study of a specific borewell can affect another's about through decisive participation in the KAWAD right, very often it is not perceived as the programme of the community and project shows that extra water individual interference over rights but is stakeholder groups, strategic conflict storage on seen more as an outcome of resolution at the community level, drainage course technology. institution and social capital building, has brought making users aware and changes in Another unique aspect of groundwater conscientious, systems and surface hydrology. is that it is a non-stationary, fluid moving mechanisms of social regulation etc. resource merging with water in Though However it is also observed that after irrigation another's land. By lowering the depth of the exit of the PIA, tubewells started benefits in the tubewell access availability of water to resurfacing again especially in drought command have a neighbour's well can be denied. years when the open wells dried up. more or less Without collective arrangements for remained the proper use of ground water, there tends Water harvesting by creating extra same, the mode to be an infinite competitive extraction, water storage along drainage lines of irrigation has changed from with farmers outbidding each other in has also contributed to changes in surface to depth of drilling. Thus it can be said surface hydrology. Flow in ephemeral groundwater. that as land belongs to the tillers, streams now occurs less frequently, is This also means groundwater belongs to the drillers reduced in magnitude and/or is less that, in all prolonged after large rainfall events.31 likelihood, the users have also Secondary data of many villages in the There are many cases where existing DROP study showed that where changed. This minor, medium and major projects do change has watershed development was carried out not seem to get the flow required (or affected other and where water availability increased, the flow as per the original design) uses that water intensive crops such as sugarcane because of the upstream depended on and banana were cultivated and there the tank, like developments that have taken place watering for the was an increase in borewells for subsequently (Paranjape and Joy, irrigation. This in turn led to an excess of cattle, 2002). We came across only a few pisciculture, groundwater withdrawal leading once cases like Ralegaon Siddhi, washing and again to water scarcity (DROP, 2003). Babhulgaon of IGWDP, and Hivre bathing. The Awareness regarding water resource Bazar of Adarsh Gaon Yojana, with an study concludes that harvesting availability and its translation into the explicit agreement that water intensive practicing of a suitable cropping pattern should be crops like sugarcane and banana encouraged but is crucial for long-term sustainability. would not be taken up with the water within an Villages in Hivre Bazar, for instance generated through watershed integrated or have decided not to cultivate water- development efforts. However, in many adaptive water resource intensive crops and to use irrigation cases, people are prohibited from water from open wells of 30-50 feet and management taking water directly from the check framework, deep aquifers of more than 100 feet for dams or surface storages. using drinking purposes. There is also a shift procedures that towards horticulture and drip irrigation In most drought-prone areas, shallow weigh the practices. aquifers are not as contaminated by benefits and fluorides as the deeper ones. But tradeoffs However, some attempts have been watershed development has prioritized associated with made in regulating groundwater altered patterns water for irrigation in such a manner that of water use. exploitation and some lessons from all the better and shallower sources some watershed development projects have been utilized for irrigation. are worth observing here. There are Especially in summer, the deeper some social regulations brought into sources are the only ones left for some projects like IGWDP, Hivre Bazar drinking and other domestic purposes. etc., where digging of additional This shows the need to pay proper borewells are restricted through attention for prioritization of water use, community decisions. There are different components of water resources community and user group tubewells and their suitability for different introduced in some projects, social purposes. restriction on the use of tube wells for irrigation, discouraging water intensive The review brings out clearly that there crops, guidelines regarding spacing of has not been any attempt to carry out wells, protection of drinking water wells, water balance studies to understand equity in access including that for the what is happening to the different landless (in Naigaon, Pani Panchayat) components of water as a result of
81 watershed intervention. Without such Productivity studies, it is difficult to say whether we are using water in a sustainable manner In many cases, the initial high or not, in other words, whether we are productivity gains could not be using the annual flows or digging into sustained, especially in the post- the stock. project phase. During our field visits, we found that current yields were quite Another possibility of exploring good low, though the people generally yields with limited water assurance is sounded positive about the impact of that popularized by the late Prof. watershed development on Dabholkar of Prayog Parivar. It tries to productivity of crops. When asked create favourable soil regimes on such about the fall in productivity, they lands by concentrating the thin topsoil sought to explain it away by saying, into pits or heaps using locally available "This year, productivity was bad soil and biomass. The system works because it was a drought year". In well for horticulture, or for creepers like quite a lot of instances the initial grapes, and becomes very profitable productivity gains are achieved in when combined with pitcher irrigation or better quality lands and through high 'fertigation' methods that deliver water external inputs. and soil nutrients locally to the root zone of the plants. These measures can Very often, the productivity gains could sustainably enhance the productivity not be sustained, especially after the potential of degraded lands without withdrawal of the PIA. For example, the extensive land levelling activity, which mid-term appraisal of the IX Plan would disturb the earth and contribute to programme by the Planning soil erosion. Commission, Government of India (2001) shows that in watersheds Now there are quite a few instances in surveyed in Maharashtra and Andhra which farmers are opting for sustainable Pradesh, the productivity gains did not water use through the adoption of better last more than two years (Soussan and technology such as drip and sprinkler Reddy, 2003). Similar were the irrigation instead of the channel and outcomes in some of the model flood irrigation methods, but the water watersheds taken up by ICAR. saved generally through these methods Productivity and production went up are used for additional irrigation of during the implementation phase and lands. However, these methods can fell immediately after the completion of have better long-term impacts in terms the project, some of which had even of saving the soil from water logging. bagged national productivity awards. However the initial cost most often discourages farmers from going for it. Productivity associated crop practices, There are some instances in which the including those actively propagated and watershed committee has purchased supported by watershed development sprinklers and rain guns from the projects are something of a mixed bag, maintenance fund and hired it out to with little consistency in agronomic farmers. practices or in the nature of input. They are an eclectic mixture of productivity The best option is to educate and concerns and practices that are part of sensitize the community on the nature of the dominant high input agriculture, the water situation in their watersheds along with a sprinkling of eco-friendly through water balance analysis and inputs such as vermi compost, NADEP monitoring of water resources as an compost etc. Instances of integrated ongoing activity. Simple but robust pest management and integrated models that can give useful first nutrient management practices are also approximation which can then be visible in certain watersheds along with progressively refined through conventional chemical fertilizers. Most observation and 'ground-truthing', are studies also indicate that, for the most required. This is attempted in some part, crop technology and cultivation watersheds with the initiative of the practices follow the mainstream high- PIAs, but is rarely taken forward after input based agricultural framework and 32 See Reijntes the withdrawal. most of the performance evaluation et al. (1992) for a indicators also revolve around this good exposition 4.3.3 Sustaining Agricultural productivity framework. on LEISA. 82 Since initial input use in most created mechanisms and strategies watershed areas is quite low, higher for community participation, social input levels to achieve higher yields arrangements and institutional may not be negatively correlated with mechanisms. The larger issues ecosystem improvement. Yet, it is related to the above will be dealt with in necessary to identify crop practices detail in another chapter. Here we limit that have environmental ourselves to the performance issues in consequences. For example, an relation to sustainability. Institutions are appreciable rise in fertilizer use within expected to continue their functions in the LEISA32 paradigm may represent the post-implementation/PIA an equal productivity increase with little withdrawal phase with regard to environmental damage, while community actions for sustainable achieving the same productivity gains management of the project and PIAs from high-input strategies may lead to are expected to create a roadmap in significant pesticide and fertilizer this regard as part of their exit strategy. residues and other environmentally There are also a number of social harmful impacts. Nevertheless, the processes and community regulatory indicators used would show the latter systems evolved or put as part of as indicating better performance. project conditionality in quite a few programmes. The issues are whether In our field visits we found that, in the these institutional framework and case of the newer projects, there are management strategies are able to some concerted efforts to encourage continue in the post-project period and environment-friendly practices. For whether they are equipped to handle instance, AFARM in Dornali village has post-management responsibilities. A lot promoted organic farming through depends on the way institutional and awareness camps and also organised social frameworks are formed and demonstration of NADEP compost evolved, the capacities and the vision. method. A few farmers have expressed Since institutions are considered a willingness to follow natural pest control precondition for project implementation, methods and also use organic manure. they are organized as prescribed in the In some of the DROP initiatives, people guidelines into bodies such as the were encouraged to take up preparation Watershed Association, Watershed of compost using agriculture wastes and Committee, User Groups (UGs), SHGs were given training in different methods etc. They also perform certain of application of green manure and responsibilities in relation to project integrated nutrient management (INM). implementation, together with the Certain integrated pest management Watershed Development Team (WDT). (IPM) practices like placing poles in However very little information is fields to attract birds to eat the insects available on their structure and functions and pests have also been tried. in the post-project period. User groups, Following training to farmers on fertilizer in government-supported projects, are application methods, they have been organized with the objective of future able to bring in more efficiency by maintenance but our analysis of the adopting split application of fertilizer Vidharbha evaluation by Dharamitra doses. However, many of these shows that in 28 per cent of the cases practices occur few and far between and no UGs have been organized, and in most often with the active involvement of watersheds where they are organized, the PIAs. This is observable from the UG members are unaware about their defunct vermin composting and NADEP responsibilities nor has their capacity pits in some of the villages in which this been built to work cohesively as a unit. has been propagated. The IGWDP has no UGs and the responsibility of maintenance lies with the Village Watershed Committee 4.4 Sustainability of Institutions and (VWC). However there is no conclusive Social Processes evidence from IGWDP projects to prove It is assumed that participation as well that the VWC is performing its duty with as social and institutional issues play a respect to maintenance after the crucial role in effective implementation withdrawal of the NGO. and sustaining watershed efforts. With In the implementation phase, these this objective almost all projects have institutions play a complementary and 83 supportive role and many of their flow of inputs. Here one has to take a functions are more in terms of assisting practical and non-romantic approach the PIA in the smooth implementation of to ensure continuity of these the project. It is often noted that some institutions, such as ensuring that the members are only active in this and that active members are trained in some the institutional responsibilities are not of the post-project responsibilities and holistically realized. Capacity-building is systems of incentives are designed. noticed as being poor and many studies Their skills could be built in certain show that the funds earmarked for areas in which services are required capacity- building and community at the village level. Service users can organization are not fully utilized, pay them, and they can also be paid especially in government-supported honorarium for the public and projects. The Vidarbha evaluation community services they provide. shows that in 64 out of 115 watersheds, Such attempts are being made in training funds were neither released nor some of the watersheds. any training conducted. The situation is almost the same in the case of community mobilization funds. Even the 4.5 Conclusion curriculum is more oriented towards functional needs related to project- The programmes show a wide range of implementation and very little impacts, that affect not only the information is disseminated on environment but also bring about knowledge and vision building. The changes in livelihoods. However, it is abrupt withdrawal of the PIA leaves not as simple to make an observation these institutions in a vacuum and they about the direction of these effects - are unable to comprehend the emerging negative or positive. Each of the demands and to respond institutionally. 'natural' outcomes of a watershed In quite a few NGO projects, the NGO's programme is supplemented and continuous presence even after the multiplied by a 'human choices', leading project completion has at least kept to final outcomes which alone some active members. The best determine the long-term impacts in illustration is the large number of UGs terms of equity and sustainability. promoted under different watershed Unless choices are made scientifically programmes. In the post-project period and in a long-term perspective through almost all these groups (in quite a few the planning, implementation and cases it is noticed that during project monitoring of these programmes most implementation, they do not even know of them could fail, under-perform their that they are UG members) are non- potential or bring in negative impacts in existent, except in certain cases where terms of equity and sustainability! In they have a definite role in using and fact, at some places it has been managing certain resources such as observed that at the project fodder. Once the purpose is achieved, implementation stage itself there are i.e. meeting the project implementation serious lapses that could result in target they loose their original relevance negative externalities. Often, at places it and become defunct. There are no has been observed that Continuous clearly defined portfolios, nor activities Contour Trenches (CCTs) happen or resources for them to continue along the slope; or in waterlogged/ functioning. The moral/symbolic capital saline soils the rise in the water table of the group and their continuous might make the situation worse; influence on the community is thus at extensive land levelling using heavy jeopardy. It is also evident from our field earth moving machinery can have long- visits that enforcing norms and term negative impacts or the governance becomes difficult for these encouraging of subsidiary activities like groups after PIA withdrawal. This is setting up of brick kilns, soil mining from evident from instances of free grazing, hillsides etc., can right away bring in cultivation of water-intensive crops etc. negative environmental outcomes even which otherwise were part of the social at the start of watershed programmes. regulations in the implementation. One The current programmes and also exception, which is often noticed, is the studies lay great emphasis on the continuity of most SHGs created under implementation and design of watershed programme. This may be due watershed programmes with the aim of to the economic agenda and continuous 84 seeing a maximum number of The processes that lead to these kinds successful programmes. However, of impacts, and their dimensions are there seems to be much lesser related to the nature and extent of emphasis on, attention paid to and human activity. The onus of the type of management of the linkage of effects impact falls upon human decisions, related to the irrigation methods, crop which have to be guided by better choices, production methods and land- training and participation. use choices by farmers. These are important in light of the fact that these However, to put into practice the issues policies remain crucial to deliver the of sustainability at the community level desired long-term socio-economic or requires new systems and strategies even environmental effects, even if which may be qualitatively different most of the watershed programmes from what existed during the were successful in their mobilization and implementation implementation. Also, a normative phase of watersheds. Some of the approach to such development needs components can be integrated during to be adopted. Certain PIAs distribute the implementation phase itself, such and encourage use of chemical inputs as creating sustainable production and and HYV seeds to increase resource utilization models. However, productivity, while certain other PIAs as mentioned above, many attempts have concentrated on encouraging die immediately after the withdrawal of organic farming along with the creation the PIA. Watershed dwellers are of seed banks to preserve local variety mobilized for the attempt at of seeds and reduce dependence on rehabilitation, with the prospect of outside markets. Certain PIAs have improved productivity and livelihoods, consciously adopted other eco-friendly and farmers try to maximize the return technologies such as the promotion of even if it is at the cost of unsustainable bio-gas plants and solar lighting while practices. Then what are the incentives other PIAs are not concerned with soil which can be designed in the project mining in their watersheds or brick that will encourage farmers to adopt kilns. If the microcosm of watershed practices that encourage sustainable development is to be linked use and methods, and how can the successfully with sustainable rural changing demands and claims can be development then attention to these met without compromising the aspects assumes importance. It is also "balance" of the ecosystem (or its in the context of these interventions that primary productivity). Having achieved a issues related to equity are going to particular stage in the development that gain importance. For example, the is resource conservation, reaching the projects differed in their approach to next stage i.e., the sustainable use of granting land rights to the landless. resources, necessitates new challenges While some NGOs see the provision of and structures. This may be investment land to the landless as a way to flows to ensure sustainability (subsidies, resolve inequitable resource access at present, hardly make a difference within the watershed, others believe in between sustainable and unsustainable lifting encroachment by the landless to use that they are put into), service free common lands for regeneration. provision (rural service centers for a large cluster of villages), enforcing norms and governance and incentives for sustainable users, information provision, marketing and systems that ensure quality for sustainable products and general vision building for sustainable growth processes. The timeframe of watershed development also needs to be revisited as the unit of planning. For example, it may not be possible to address groundwater sustainability issues within a 500 ha watershed, but may require aquifer- based planning and mobilization.
85 selecting villages with a preponderance Chapter 5 of resource poor and SC/ST families. The Eswaran Committee, which looked into the question of training and capacity building in the context of watershed development, especially after the 1994 Common Guidelines, has been quite forthright in expressing its concern for equity as one of the goals of watershed development programmes. To quote from the executive summary of the report: Watershed Development: Equity and "There is need for undertaking activities Gender for the benefit of the rural poor, namely landless and other weaker sections. It should be clearly provided that the 5.1 Context landless and other weaker sections of the Watershed Community have equal Issues related to equity have become an rights of access and use of resources important concern in watershed available in the form of agricultural development especially of late and with products, namely, fruits, fuel, fodder the advent of watershed development as etc., in the village common lands. a strategy to create sustainable rural Wherever community assets are livelihoods. For a long time, however, created in the form of community water this issue did not enter the discourse resources, fishponds etc., a mechanism and practice of watershed development. of sharing it with the rural poor, namely Even now there is scant evidence on the landless and other weaker sections, how the issue is put into practice and should be worked out along with reflected in the outcomes of watershed sharing of usufructs from the village development. The focus of watershed common lands. Some of the benefits, development, and of earlier soil and which would accrue from watershed water conservation programmes like projects, would be in the form of greater bunding has been on soil conservation and equitable rights like generation of and to an extent on resource employment, higher agricultural augmentation. Equitable distribution of production and availability of greater the increased resources and its access biomass, especially fuel wood and and benefits to the resource poor were fodder. This helps in better not on the agenda of both policy makers opportunities for non-farm employment and practitioners. As a result, most of for the rural poor and an increase in the the studies at that time did not look at general wage level due to increase in distributive equity as an important opportunities." (Joy, Paranjape et.al, aspect in project assessment. 2005). Things have, however, changed over the The report of the technical committee years. More and more people are now on watershed development under the talking about equity and the term, in chairmanship of Shri. S. Parthasarathy general, has acquired some also highlights the importance of acceptability among practitioners, addressing the issue of equity. researchers, policy makers, and donors. The importance of the concern is also "Discrimination against women, Dalits, reflected in the watershed guidelines. Adivasis and the poor in resource-use The revised guidelines of the Ministry of and access is widespread. Any Rural Development (MoRD) list one of development programmes based on the objectives of watershed local initiative need to be necessarily development as promotion of overall accompanied by effective social economic development and improving mobilization in favour of these socially the socio-economic condition of the and economically disadvantaged resource poor and disadvantaged groups. Detailed agreements on sharing sections residing in the programmes water and other benefits need to be area. Selection criteria for watersheds worked out well before any construction also highlight the importance of activity is started. Otherwise, all the water harvested will be cornered by the 86 dominant elite. And this is what property rights. Because there are happened in all watershed programmes significant inequities in terms of in India. It must be recognized that the ownership and access to resources and benefits of public investments on public assets, watershed development could land must be seen as a public good, to potentially reinforce existing inequalities. be shared with equity amongst all Thus strategies of addressing the issue sections.' (From Hariyali to Neeranchal, of equity on one hand has to see that Report of the Technical Committee on existing inequalities are not widened as Watershed Development, 2006). a result of the intervention, but that benefits of interventions are more or Our review of the watershed experience less equitably distributed among illustrates that there is a wide range of different socio-economic and historically understanding of what is meant by disadvantaged sections. equity and how it manifests itself in particular watershed contexts. Since watershed development is an Addressing equity concerns in the area-based development implemented in watershed context, therefore, requires a specific geographical unit, the problematising equity itself and explicitly biophysical issues also impinge on highlighting what is meant by equity. equity in outcomes. The location where Watershed development, by its own one owns land, the capability of the land logic, often promotes inequitable based on the extent of slope, depth and outcomes. This is so because the nature structure of soil, nature of erosion, of benefits is often based on one's underlying geology and a host of other spatial location within the watershed and factors influence the extent of benefits/ upon the location of one's assets such outcomes and its distribution in different as land, well etc., and on pre-existing parts of the watershed. Most often, the inequalities of caste, class and gender. outcomes always favour the valley In areas where it is being promoted, it portion as compared to the upper has to cope with this context of reaches and the transitional zones in the inequitable resource endowments and watershed. Conservation in the ridge find ways and means to promote equity portion helps in percolation and in processes and outcomes. accumulation of water in the lower reaches. This issue is very important in This chapter examines how questions of the context of watershed-related equity, equity are being addressed within since the people on the upper reaches watershed development projects. The really do not have any control on such major part of the chapter focuses on the geo-hydrological processes even though spatial and socio-economic inequities they are conscious about the fact that that exist within watersheds, the manner the outcomes are unfavourable to them. in which these are being addressed in The emphasis on converting all the design and practice, and the success rainfall into groundwater results in and failures of such initiatives. We also people in the valley gaining most of the look at what is revealed in the scant benefits. The upstream-downstream literature on watershed and equity. A inequality in outcomes/benefits is small section analyses the issue of observed as a point of contention gender in watershed development. amongst people (based on their spatial location) in a given watershed, such as not agreeing for conservation in the 5.2 Watershed Development: Existing upper reaches, demanding a share and Inequities the lifting of water from common harvesting structures at downstream or The increased awareness about equity through disinterest in maintenance and issues in watershed development is an upkeep of conservation measures. acceptance, at one level, of the fact that watershed development per se does not Conservation measures on the upper promote equity. The nature of the reaches also create problems for those project has a lot to do with it. Since families who own these lands due to watershed development is a land-based rules of restrictions in use and access. It activity, the primary beneficiaries will be is generally observed that these lands landholders, as benefits will mostly are poor in quality, degraded and follow the contours of existing denuded and most often owned by the inequalities, resource ownership and resource poor such as dalits, small and 87 marginal farmers. In other instances, it has to engage with a whole lot of may be a common property land negative externalities and existing resource (CPLR), traditionally used by inequalities and traverse towards equity the herders, landless and the poor. in outcomes, which is not as easy as it Protecting such lands from erosion looks. It is often realized that existing hazards requires vegetating the inequalities in terms of land holding, landscape, which, in turn, means location and quality of land etc., are placing restrictions on grazing and difficult to overcome through a firewood collection. Many programmes watershed activity, but some kind of have such conditions where people are equity in benefits can be achieved expected to enforce a ban on free through ensuring access to augmented grazing and clear felling of trees for resources, that are direct outcomes of regenerating these lands either watershed interventions. For this to collectively or as individual owners. The happen, it is necessary that equity as a irony of a watershed development principle is integrated into the project is that the cost involved in such watershed development strategy, restrictions is often to be met by the design, rules and regulation and poor which is beneficial for the farmers processes of implementation. at the lower end of the watershed. Inhabitants of the upper reaches, It is important that concerns of equity therefore, provide an unpaid and strategies to reduce the environmental service to the lower vulnerability of the resource poor are reaches (Kerr, 2002). part of the project from the initial stages of designing and planning. Another set of possible losers in such a Unfortunately watershed development, scenario of social restrictions is the with its emphasis on an area-based community of herders and pastoralists, approach and land-based interventions/ especially those who rear small development, has very little to offer to ruminants. It is noted that (Kerr et al., the resource-poor, (especially the 2000), in some cases in Maharashtra, landless and women) in the planning the closing of the commons for stage and most often their concerns do regeneration has denied herders their not get any space in the planning, traditional rights. Herders, in fact, except may be as wage labourers in complained that even where watershed work. Even where such regeneration had already taken place, concerns find a place in the plan, it is in the commons have remained closed to terms of non land-based activities and them, threatening their livelihood not in terms of building a stake in the interest. It is often noticed that herders regenerated ecosystem resources. In are often forced to take their livestock to such situations, one can always say other areas outside the watershed. that such a strategy of addressing the issue of equity and vulnerability Another issue, which reinforces and reduction can be achieved even outside accentuates spatial inequality is the the watershed framework and location of water harvesting structures intervention. Another argument that such as check dams, percolation tanks, often emerges is that watershed larger nala bunds etc. These structures development is undertaken in areas are often constructed on the lower where everyone is poor and addressing reaches of the drainage system (where this concern of generic poverty is more the nala is wide, comparatively deep important than addressing the issue of and less sloppy), which is also the valley inequity in resource allocation and portion of the watershed area. Plots access. This however, ignores the closer to these structures benefit more relative vulnerability of certain sections, as compared to lands located in other especially the asset-less, and their high parts of the watershed. In this situation chances of falling into distress as too, the spatial issue of inequality is compared to those with some assets to closely linked to other socio-economic tide over a crisis. It is more important in aspects such as caste, class etc., the context of sweeping changes because most often the landholders in happening in the rural economy the lower reaches are better off farmers together with disappearance and with quality land and access to irrigation erosion of traditional safety nets. sources such as wells. Thus we could conclude that watershed development 88 33 5.3 Addressing the Issue of Equity make it part of the conditionality or However there are some facilitate it in the watershed, as programmes As mentioned earlier, watershed compared to equity in access to surface development is implemented in an like IGWDP and and groundwater. In some projects a MYRADA- unequal socio-economic space and the certain quantum of the fund is meant for implemented watershed community is divergent in its creating livelihoods for the resource- watersheds composition and relation/access to the poor, as is the case in NWDPRA where where villages with high resources. Thus the first step in the 7.5 per cent of the project cost is process of addressing the issue of incidence of earmarked for the landless, or as in landlessness equity is understanding the structure and IGWDP where five per cent of the are excluded composition of the community and the project cost is given to women's self- from watershed ways in which different sections depend help groups (SHGs) for undertaking implementation. These on watershed ecosystem resources for different socio-economic activities. their livelihoods. Watershed programmes There is also a provision of revolving give preference development, which is aimed at fund for SHGs in the MoRD/Hariyali to villages with regeneration and augmentation of projects. Now we will look how these fewer landless ecosystem resources, in many ways different systems/mechanisms, either as people. More impacts the livelihood systems of these than anything part of project design or as part of else, it is a frank different social sections and they include facilitation and implementation, could the landless and agricultural labourers, admission by address the issue of equity and create the poor and marginal farmers, middle and livelihoods for the resource poor.33 implementing rich farmers, women, sedentary and agencies of the migrant livestock herders etc. limitations of the Understanding their relation with the 5.3.1 Operationalizing Equity through watershed resources and planning the intervention Design/Strategy and Implementation programmes to address the in such a way that their livelihood In order to address the issue of equity in livelihood issues concerns (especially of the resource outcomes, watershed development of the resource- poor) are built into the intervention is projects have adopted certain strategies poor sections, necessary so that watershed in design and the method of especially in development becomes more equitable situations where implementation. These may be through the proportion of and livelihood-oriented. New-generation strategies of biophysical interventions, the landless is projects have realized the importance of institutional arrangements and very high and this aspect to a small extent and have mechanisms (including systems of rules projects do not incorporated strategies such as and regulations, resource/usufruct have budgetary allocations to stakeholder analysis and livelihood sharing mechanisms etc). However, we analysis as important aspects of undertake should keep in mind that most of these livelihood watershed development. Before going strategies are incorporated as part of the activities for into the details of these aspects, let us project design where the funding/ them see how this issue is addressed by facilitating organizations have a direct watershed projects in India. Kerr (2002) control in decisions regarding has worked out a detailed typology of implementation. An important but often approaches used by different projects to un-addressed issue in the context of address the issue of equity. They ensuring resource access to the include: a) working in particularly poor resource-poor is the issue of 'rights' over areas; b) employing poor people in resources. In most watershed watershed works; c) counting on trickled programmes it is often considered as down benefit to reach the poor; d) being something the community can facilitate sensitive to poor people's' needs during and ensure. To an extent this is true, but implementation; e) undertaking non in the absence of legal and land-based income-generation activity administrative frameworks and for the poor and the landless; f) giving pronunciations, ensuring rights may face poor people decision-making power; g) problems for resources located in using other subsidies in their favour; and different property regimes. Besides, h) guaranteeing poor people usufruct ensuring 'new rights' on resources may right to the resources whose productivity be in conflict with the traditional/ the project enhances. However, it customary rights and other forms of should be noted here that this typology accesses outside the framework of does not explicitly talk about equitable moral/legal view- points (for example access to water or equitable sharing of pilferage of resources from commons water resources. This may be because and others partly contributed to the these are the issues on which the livelihoods of the most poor and socially programmes can have an influence and excluded sections). 89 On addressing the issue of equity, the areas. This system is followed in quite a technical committee observes that, "the few projects being implemented by bottomline has to be that benefits from NGOs in the state. Many of these any resources created through the projects have also attempted to project must be equitably shared." The regenerate the fallow lands in the report also suggests certain foothills, either as cultivable lands or as mechanisms to address the issue of dryland horticulture plots. Most often, equity, such as conflict-resolution trough these poor quality lands belong to the democratic means; beneficiary selection poor and they are unable to invest on giving priority ranking to dalits, adivasis, their own and reclaim it for cultivation. poor farmers, women-headed As compared to this one could observe households, etc; working out detailed fewer investments in land-based agreements on benefit-sharing and activities in government-supported providing employment to those in dire projects, as revealed in the evaluation need. In what follows, we consider of 115 watersheds in Vidharba by specific interventions and how they have Dharamitra. This may be because farm addressed the questions of equity. bunding as an activity was not preferred in DPAP villages. However, there were attempts to dig contour trenches and Land-based activities undertake plantation even though achievements in plantation are only Most project measures in watershed around 15 per cent of what is being development predominantly revolve proposed. The emphasis is on water around land-based activities. Hence the harvesting structures mainly on the benefits also will be in favour of the common nala and, in some instances, landed section and within the landed in private lands. However one could sections, most benefits may accrue to conclude that ridge-to-valley is not the rich and large farmers in particular. clearly followed as a strategy in these Project design with the area as the unit projects. of investment, may also result in large investments for farmers with large The ridge-to-valley approach with its holdings as compared to small and high emphasis on area coverage may marginal farmers. Except for NWDPRA, not always result in equity in outcomes and some bilateral and multilateral and indeed often has many projects implemented by the shortcomings. First of all, while the government, there has been no financial ridge-to-valley approach helps in allocation or investments in favour of the treating the marginal lands of the resource-poor and landless. resource-poor, this does not guarantee them any share in the improved water The ridge-to-valley approach is resource, which generally is designed as an attempt to address the appropriated by farmers in the lower issue of equity to an extent in many reaches. In the absence of water projects. Besides the technical resources and other investments/inputs objectives of arresting soil erosion and required for cultivation of reclaimed siltation of downstream structures, the lands, the resource-poor often fail to ridge-to-valley approach is a strategy to make any substantial returns from these give preference to marginal farmers and lands. Even in marginal lands where their lands located in the ridge areas, so plantation is undertaken (either of that investments are not completely dryland horticulture or of timber cornered by well to do valley farmers. species), the results are not very This is commonly known as equity in encouraging because of low survival coverage (Soussan and Reddy 2003). rates, poor growth and high gestation This need not mean that equity in time required to get benefits in case of coverage means equity in investments forest and timber species. This is due to as people with more land get higher multiplicity of factors, and one of the investments and maybe higher returns, major reasons observed is non- even in a ridge-to-valley approach. This availability of water for some amount of pattern is strictly followed in IGWDP protective irrigation, especially during villages evaluated as part of this study. peak summer. Where the soil depth of Here the emphasis is on full coverage of such plots is good and the rainfall is the village starting from the upper better, the results are, to an extent reaches with high investments on these encouraging. Otherwise, most often 90 investments in these lands fail to create AFARM (villages in Nandurbar and 34 There is no sustainable livelihood assurance for the Solapur districts) and Social Center (in budgetary allocation for resource poor and defeat the purpose of Beed district) have tried to address the any livelihood ridge-to-valley in terms of ensuring issue through the targeted approach of activity for the equity in outcomes. There are also developing marginal lands belonging to landless in the short-term costs the marginal farmers the resource-poor 35. Though this IGWDP. and landless have to bear in terms of initiative may not be watershed 35 treatment in the upper reaches. development in the strict sense of the Deccan Development Protecting these (common as well as term, they do contour and soil surveys, Society (DDS) private) lands often creates problems for and uses several watershed measures has also them with regard to livestock grazing, such as farm bunds, farm ponds, gully undertaken and in places where they resist the ban, stabilization works etc. together with such measures certain social sanctions are also brought dryland agricultural techniques. AFARM with the objective of to bear upon them. To an extent we can has also started a grain bank and addressing the say that in the ridge-to-valley approach, implement bank. The implement bank, issue of equity. the marginal farmers and the poor are together with sharing of work, helps in For some bear a certain portion of the cost to timely agricultural operations. However details see a provide increased groundwater to the there is not much information regarding joint publication of DDS and valley farmers. However, we are able to the impact of these initiatives on WASSAN- On say that some investments are reaching livelihoods of the resource poor and the Margin -- out to the poor in a ridge to valley marginal sections. Poor and their approach, as compared to treatments Lands: a case undertaken on demands of the farmers. for comprehensive Analysing the issue of equity in an Common lands public IGWDP34 project, Srinivasa Reddy investments, The development of the CPLR is often August 2004. Srigiri notes that: strategized as a mechanism to provide "although the overall impact of the certain benefits to the resource-poor in a project on the livelihood of the people of watershed. Development of CPLR the project area has been remarkable, improves the availability of fodder and there have been significant differences fuel, and if proper strategies in terms of in the benefits accrued between allocation of rights and institutional marginal farmers and landless labourers. arrangements for management are While the marginal farmers benefited evolved in favour of the resource poor, it from the improved natural resource base can possibly address the issue of equity directly by increasing productivity and to an extent. However, experience adopting economically favourable shows that this is not always the case, cropping patterns, the landless could not and the reasons are many. derive their full share of benefits from the Although most watershed projects aim project due to lack of access to land. at regenerating the CPLR through soil Other institutional building efforts did and water conservation measures, less to strengthen their voice and planting and protection, we find that by bargaining power to articulate their and large the performance is not always interests. Hence equity and poverty encouraging, except maybe for fodder issues (in relation to landless) could not where open/free grazing is banned. be addressed effectively." (S. Reddy, However, the ban on open grazing has 2003). its negative impact on people especially The same concern has emerged in an for those who own small ruminants such analysis of equity issues in the Hivre as goats. In many villages in Bazar project. In her study of the village, Maharashtra where watershed Priya Sangamemeswaran notes that development has taken place, dalits and landed sections are the main agricultural labourers who have small beneficiaries from the improved ruminants have been affected by grazing resources, even though certain benefits bans (Kerr et al. 1998). The case of have accrued to the landless (such as Agadgaon is worth citing here. People drinking water and benefits from other here were forced to get rid of their goats subsidies); on both class and gender and this affected their livelihoods. Nearly lines the equity in outcomes (project a hundred women from the village were benefits/improved resources) is found to taken to the Mahatma Phule Agricultural be very weak. (Sangameswaran, 2005). University at Rahuri to be 'sensitized' on Some NGOs in Maharashtra like the environmental hazards of keeping 91 goats. Despite this sensitization the rights on non- timber forest produce exposure the local people were angry (NTFPs) such as grass, dry branches of when they have to find alternatives and trees and other minor forest produce. In nearly 5,000 of their goats were to be Vaiju Babulgaon, where JFM is sold or to migrate to other areas. The implemented, people have reported Asthayi Samiti (ad-hoc committee) had availability of grass to cut and carry. to bear the brunt of their rage. The ban However, under JFM too, rights over on grazing is always presented as a ban resources are assigned to all on goats and the difficulties the goat households living in the village, rather owners have to undergo is also reported than to any specific group. from IGWDP villages (Vaiju Babulgaon and Ambewadi). Most often it is noticed that a ban on open grazing has Water polarized villages and the powerless such as shepherds, landless and poor Water is among the critical components women have to bear the cost for the for increased productivity and general 'public good'. Converting small livelihoods, and the major objective of ruminants to stall-fed milch animals is any watershed development is not always feasible for the landless and enhancement of this resource to marginal farmers due to a variety of optimize productivity. Since water is reasons. crucial to any livelihood activity, its availability and access is very important It is also noticed that in lots of instances for those inhabiting the watershed, the CPLRs are not taken up for especially the resource-poor. But in treatments. Administrative bottlenecks, respect of equity, water is a encroachments and existing conflicts troublesome issue. The issue becomes are some of the reasons for this. Unlike more complex if the augmented water private lands, treatment of commons resource is in the form of groundwater, poses a lot of problems for the PIA. as often happens in watershed There are many pre-existing claims and development. In such a situation water conflicts to be resolved, besides working is treated strictly as a private resource out common and consensually evolved and rights over water are tied to land strategies for developing these lands. rights. Since water rights and land rights PIAs often find these tedious and are so closely tied, the location and the conflict creating. Getting administrative size of one's holding generally clearance to treat commons is also determines who gets how much water. found to be a problem, except, may be By and large there are very few for lands under the Gram Panchayat. In attempts to prioritize water use or places where commons are treated, the create strategies and norms for its degree of benefit-sharing and allotting distribution. People who have lands in rights in favour of the landless or the the valley and close to water harvesting resource-poor has not been very structures are locationally in a encouraging. Most often the entire favourable position to gain the most. In village community shares the benefits recent times one has observed attempts from the regenerated resources. This is by NGOs to decentralize the observed in the IGWDP villages under construction of water-harvesting review, where common lands are structures (farm ponds, water pits etc., treated under the watershed projects.In at the upper reaches) to address the many instances administrative/legal issue of equity. But one cannot say for allocation of user rights is found as a sure whether such attempts bear the problem due to resistance from intended outcomes. respective revenue/administrative bodies responsible for the CPLRs. Certain attempts have been made to work out a more equitable system for In many watersheds there are lot of the distribution of water, such as that forestlands and most often the forest undertaken by the Pani Panchayat. In department does not give permission to the Pani Panchayat effort, only group treat forest lands. An exception is in the schemes are undertaken and schemes case of IGWDP where VWC, in for individual farmers are discouraged, collaboration with the forest department, besides this, access to water is on the implements joint forest management basis of the number of persons in the (JFM) where the community is assigned family and not in proportion to the size 92 of the landholding of the family. A per employment opportunities during the 36 For a capita provision of half-an-acre of implementation, watershed development detailed irrigation, not exceeding 2.5 acres per has the potential of generating more analysis on family is the agreed norm for water employment opportunities in the post issues of equity in water with distribution. Water intensive crops like project phase, due to increased reference to sugarcane are not supposed to be agricultural activities. In a previous three water- grown in the project area and the section we have analysed the wage related preference is for seasonal crops with employment created by watersheds in initiatives in protective irrigation. The landless also detail and our analysis shows that Maharashtra have water rights. However, a study on watershed development projects have see Priya Sangameshwaran, Pani Panchayat shows that even though been able to generate considerable 2005. the intention behind the formation and employment opportunities for content of rules to get water to the agricultural labourers and other landless, was equity-based it could not resource-poor families. In the Dhramitra be translated into or achieve outcomes analysis of 115 watersheds too, except due to many reasons36 . Another for one instance where machinery was watershed project implemented in the used, all other works were executed village Hivre Bazar attempted to ensure through wage labourers. In a project like the sustainable use of water through the IGWDP the wage is based on outputs ban on borewell digging and cultivation and a labourer generally earns more of water-intensive crops, even though than Rs 60/- a day for seven to eight water rights are linked to land rights and hours of work. Besides, women and ownership and access to open wells. men are given equal wages in project This is the case in projects like IGWDP work. Generally full employment where there is 'rule formation' with opportunities are created in the project reference to a ban on cultivation of period and preference is given to water-intensive crops. In Ralegaon landless and marginal farmers. There Siddhi only group wells are promoted in are instances where landless and the watershed area. The objective of marginal farmers have created assets such strategies, in water stress areas, is through savings from watershed work. to ensure at least drinking water for all The NABARD evaluation of Rajani the watershed dwellers through watershed reports a landless person restraining overexploitation of buying land with the savings from groundwater resources. But in all these watershed work. The same is reported initiatives there are hardly any attempts for Adgaon project where full at distribution and rights of the employment is created during augmented water in favour of the implementation and during the post- resource-poor. Most often practitioners project period. However, higher wages feel that it is a very sensitive and difficult in watershed work and equal wages for issue to handle at the village, and if at all men and women are not always easily there is a possibility it can be done only accepted by the community, especially through legislation and state the rich farmers, fearing that this would intervention. Unequal access to water lead to an increase in the general wage also has its impact in generating water rate in the village and they would find markets in rural areas. People with difficulty in getting labourers for access to a considerable amount of agricultural work. To overcome this water sell it to farmers for a share in the problem, some PIAs slacken watershed crops. There are also instances where activities during the peak agricultural outsiders buy land in the watershed season. area, particularly those watersheds which are well connected, and lift the There are some PIAs who argue in water for other uses such as brick kilns favour of use of machinery for and small enterprises. watershed implementation due to: fast implementation; more robust and quality construction (compacting of soil); greater output as compared to labour Wage employment etc. It is noticed that big farmers also Employment-generation is one of the prefer to adopt machinery because it will stated objectives of many of the not affect the local wage rate and watershed programmes and it is being availability of labour. However, it should highlighted in all the major guidelines. It be noted that use of machinery results in is also assumed that besides creating a fair share of funds going out of the 93 37 Source: Priya village to contractors and owners of Non-land based activities Sangameshwaran, machinery instead of creating (2005) Equity in employment and livelihoods for the Non land-based income generation community- activities are often strategized as an based resource-poor. sustainable attempt to address the issue of equity development: a There are also arguments that and livelihoods of the resource-poor. case study in watershed development creates Certain projects have even a budget Western increased labour opportunities through allocation for the same. The NWDPRA Maharashtra, Ph. increased agricultural activities. This is guidelines have earmarked 7.5 per cent D thesis cited as the trickle down effect of of the project cost for livelihood University of Massachusetts, watershed development having an activities for the landless and the Amherst. impact on the equity. Change in resource poor. There is also a provision cropping pattern and cropping intensity for a Revolving Fund for resource-poor has the potential of generating more SHGs in the Hariyali guidelines. Most employment in rural areas but evidence often these are termed as 'watershed shows that there are regional and plus' measures. There are also seasonal variations in availability of attempts by some NGOs to facilitate labour, depending on agro-climatic other subsidy-oriented development factors and the cropping pattern. activities in favour of the poor. There Increased mechanization is also are instances of small income- observed with increased agricultural generation activities undertaken by the activity. It is also noted by many resource-poor in IGWDP watersheds in implementation agencies that watershed Hivre Bazar etc. These are in the form development results in an increased of diary activities, petty shops, tailoring, wage rate (at least nominally) for flour milling etc. Most often these agricultural activity, due to the increased activities are channeled through SHGs. bargaining capacity of the labourers WOTR reports a total of 174 income- having the option of working at a generation activities with SHGs watershed site. However, these issues (WOTR, 2004). However it is difficult need further investigation and say whether these activities are comparisons with non-watershed undertaken with the resource poor villages in the area. Most often changes SHGs benefiting mostly the poorest of occurring in the wage rate are observed the poor. In the case of Hivre Bazar, the for a larger area rather than for a benefits received by the landless and particular village. Another important marginal farmers are in the form of aspect is the seasonality of labour livestock, housing and small shops. availability, and it is often noticed that Other benefits such as wells were often labourers are finding it difficult to get given to medium and small farmers. work in the summer season when there Table 5.1 below show different subsidy- is not much agricultural activity. There oriented schemes and the respective are also instances in which seasonal beneficiaries in Hivre Bazar. migration reappears once the watershed Source: work is over. Household interviews, Table 5.1 village records Beneficiaries across Different Class Categories37
Semi- Marginal Small Medium Large Scheme Landless Medium Total Farmers Farmers Farmers Farmers Farmers 6 2 1 1 0 0 10 Housing (60) (13.33) (5.56) (3.45) (0) (0) 3 1 0 1 1 0 6 Animals (30) (6.67) (0) (3.45) (5.56) (0) 0 0 4 3 3 0 10 Wells (0) (0) (22.22) (10.34) (16.67) (0) 2 1 2 2 1 2 10 Other (20) (6.67) (11.11) (6.9) (5.56) (25)
N.B.: 1. Figures in brackets show beneficiaries as a percentage of each specific landholding class. 2. The category 'wells' also includes schemes for pipelines, motors etc. 3. Other schemes provide a variety of assets such as agricultural implements, cycles, a small tin shop to supply candy, toilets, etc. 4. Schemes for fruit orchards have not been included because complete data about them is not available. However, the beneficiaries of these schemes have typically been medium and large farmers. 94 Most often the non land-based income- questioned the process of generation activities are conventional in modernization on the one hand and the nature and very little assessment has eco-feminist view that linked the been done on the market potential of destruction of women and the such activities. Hence a lot of problem is destruction of nature. Most of the observed regarding its sustainability. In debates around this time portrayed the absence of proper forward and women as victims of the development backward linkages, many of these paradigm. Gradually the debate shifted programmes fail to survive after the from viewing women as mere victims, to withdrawal of the facilitating agencies. recognizing that they had a particular The sustainability of such programmes role to play in natural resource is also depending on the capacity of the management because of their local/ entrepreneur and the skills imparted as traditional knowledge and privileged part of the project activity. Most often experience gained from working closely group activities are not as successful as with their environment. In this new individual activities, due to lack of group scenario women came to be seen as coordination and proper management privileged knowers and therefore the structures. solution to the problem (Leach 1992). The bigger problem is that these non- At the programmatic level we find this farm activities have very little direct translating into extending women's linkage to watershed activities. Non reproductive roles to the community land-based activities for the resource- arena by seeking their participation in poor and landless, without a direct local resource management initiatives. linkage to the watershed activity, most Not only was this largely unpaid or often creates a situation where they feel poorly paid and often tedious work, but it isolated and without any stake in rested on the assumption that women resource management. This may also had free time and a positive, indeed sometime lead to their exclusion from voluntary inclination, towards protecting any claims on renewed resources their deteriorating environment. Such arguing that they have been given their increased responsibility without share (through labour and income commensurate gains in control over generating activities) and any other resources, knowledge and decision- demands and claims are unjust and making systems is beset with problems. unfeasible. It was around this time that we also see an emergence of critiques of this approach. Feminist political ecology 5.4 Gender issues in Watershed (Rocheleau et al. 1996) and feminist Development environmentalism (Agarwal 1992), see Before we venture into understanding the relationship of women and gender concerns in the watershed environment as being located in larger context both at the policy and social and political structures and programme level we need to understand cultural practices, and in the symbolic some of the debates that have construction of power. These influenced policies around gender and discourses believe that a two-way natural resources. relationship exists between gender and the environment. Gender relations have Since the early 1970s there has been an impact on how environments are considerable theoretical interest in the used and managed, which in turn relationship between women, particularly impacts a change in ecological patterns poor, rural women, and the natural over time. Similarly, environmental environment. The 'Women in changes also have a significant impact Development' discourse emerged as a on gender relations by altering the response to the growing awareness that gender distribution of resources (Leach, women had a significant role to play in Joekes and Green 1995). development and, it was assumed, that if their energies were channelized, The shift from the Women in development efficiency would increase. Development (WID) approaches in the early 1970s to the more recent feminist Debates on Women in Environment and environmentalism or feminist political Development (WED) were influenced by ecology approaches has not necessarily the growing body of literature that been one of a linear progression where 95 WID is viewed as the old approach to be women. They include: a) increased discarded. In fact what we see today in employment because of the physical natural resource programmes is the treatments of the watershed also domination of the WID approach, which because of the extension of the seeks women's participation for efficient agricultural period (it can also be a and effective implementation of negative aspect in the sense that it programmes, rather than empowerment. increases the workload); b) income and Prescriptions are often based on the skill-development through nursery current understanding about gender raising and allied activities; c) income- relations and roles and unfortunately this generation through dairy, stall-fed goat does not seem to have changed despite rearing and poultry keeping; d) the wealth of understanding provided by improvement in health and life style of gender studies. So whether it is the women; e) increased access to credit watershed or any of the programmes in and, as a consequence, improved the area of Natural Resource status both within the household and in Management most of them are oriented the village. along the WID approach. We feel that for understanding positive gender outcomes it would be important 5.4.1.Operationalizing gender in to look at a few critical areas, which can watershed policy and practice broadly form our framework of analysis. It would be rare to find a state-led or But before that it might be worthwhile to donor-supported resource development dwell a little on what we mean by programme that is silent on gender positive gender outcomes. Broadly equity concerns these days. The speaking (and this is certainly not an watershed programme is no exception exhaustive understanding of gender to this rule. However, there is a vast gap equity) an understanding of positive in statements made and in the gender outcomes would include an realization of these statements. Often equitable access to goods and the statements themselves are resources and a sharing of productive problematic leading to solutions that and reproductive roles. Apart from that rarely have a lasting impact on the it would be important to look at the question of gender equity. The underlying cultural beliefs, which questioning therefore needs to be done include ideas, perceptions, behaviour, both at the level of content, the tenor, skills, abilities, attitudes, aspirations etc. motivation as well as what translates of men and women. into action. Gendered content of the watershed Equity in general and gender equity in policy and programme still rests on the particular are less understood aspects in assumption that women need to be the context of watershed development. visible but not necessarily change their The few studies that do say something existing work patterns or their roles. on gender equity are those where gender equity is just a subtext in the 5.4.2.Division of work and larger canvas. Others have been more responsibility evaluatory in nature where a few stray recommendations mention the need for The NWDPRA Guidelines say: improving women's participation. But we "This project will focus on activities of find little that actually analyses the women both for reducing their drudgery policy and the experience of the and increasing their efficiency, and will watershed programme from a gender plan and provide for development of perspective. The few studies (Vaze and specific implements suited to women, Abraham 2004;, Seeley and Sarin 2000) provide fuel efficient stoves to save that have looked at the actual energy and also promote healthy experiences of watershed in the context environment in homes and the kitchen. of gender equity point to a great lack in Special training courses would be terms of addressing power relations, arranged to train women in processing improving the overall entitlements and and handling of bio-fertilizers in order to participation in decision-making of develop a cottage industry which will be women. D'Souza (1997) highlights a able to supply bio-fertilizers to the entire number of tangible benefits arising out block where these micro watersheds of watershed development in favour of are located. The state government and 96 project authorities would endeavour to Some studies have shown that 38 Research develop location specific strategies to watershed development increased the study made involve women in their areas in activities workload of women and continuity of the available by MSSM. meant for women". existing division of labour. A case study However the of Adgaon by Marathwada Sheti Sahaya copy did not What one sees in these guidelines is Mandal (MSSM) who facilitated the have any that the preferred role for women is the projects, notes: details, extension of their domestic roles and including title, skills. There is little effort to get women "What emerges is a sexual division of author, date etc. out of their current modes. To this effect, labour, where men's role involves a as far as present and past literature is great deal of coordination, planning, concerned, one fails to come across implementation and monitoring of farm even few references or studies, which activities. Women's domain of work is have documented the impact of more in areas which are preparatory in watershed development in terms of nature supportive of work that men generating or disseminating perform. What is striking is the strategic technologies other than agriculture. The location of the entire range of rural production system is a multi- technological aids to improve the work enterprise system requiring a wide range of men in fields. Technology and of technologies/matching skills and other modernization have left their work factors to improve overall productivity of untouched. Strange as it may sound, the land and labour. However, this has only work implements that women remained more in the domain of the continue to use are the traditional hand male rather than the female. sickle, dibbling tool and baskets. The entry of milch animals and increased It has been observed from the farm productivity has had a multiplier experience of even the most successful effect on women's work in the watershed management projects that household. For women in Agadgaon, women's participation is synonymous cattle care implies cutting, collection and with their training in sewing and transportation of fodder, cleaning and embroidery, carpet weaving and other caring of animals, an additional chore in art and craft activities, broadly clubbed their lives. Men milk and transport the together as non land-based activities. milk to collection centers and collect Even in nursery training women are payments, disbursed once every ten used more as labour and rarely allowed days." 38 to contribute to the selection of the species to be raised in the nursery. Knowledge and skills determine an 5.4.3 Property rights individual's position in the organizational Most activities undertaken under hierarchy set up to implement project watershed management projects are activities. Unfortunately, training land-based. The major portion of the programmes in watershed management budget provision, accounting for about target men rather than women. 70 per cent or more of the work Experience also shows that women are component, is spent on land preferred for physical tasks because development (Soussan and Reddy women are far easier to 'manage'. It is 2003). This is very well-known and often easier to handle the 'hassle free' documented that women control a very 'accommodating' women than the highly small fraction of all agricultural land. In politicized men. the absence of land title and ownership Thus women's participation in the of cattle, women do not have access to watershed programme is merely an credit. Despite the new guidelines, extension of their domestic roles with which look beyond the landowners, we very little space for enhancing their continue to find that the watershed participation in other areas. Even if this programme still largely focuses on soil space were provided women would not and water conservation works that are be in a position to participate on equal on private lands. As a result of this focus terms because of the reproductive work women see little role for themselves. that women engage in. Unless there is a Interestingly the socio-cultural shared responsibility of domestic work, constraints that prevent women from women's participation in the public coming into decision-making do not sphere would be restricted. usually prevent them from actively engaging in agricultural labour. More 97 than 80 per cent of rural women are the SHGs which seem to have no involved in agricultural activities and yet organic link with the watershed we find that their presence hardly programmes, are considered as the matters when it comes to resource- 'women's programme'. So, in all planning. decision-making positions we see a small representation which is It is stated in the Watershed compensated for by the formation of the Development Project Guidelines that SHGs -- the recognized and legitimized private landowners shall contribute 10 institutional form for women's per cent of their land development cost, empowerment. In fact, the watershed either through cash or through voluntary programme makes it mandatory to form labour, and the contribution towards the SHGs, which according to Abraham works done on common lands shall be and Vaze's study have become more of five per cent. There is, however, little thrift or credit groups rather than actual clarity on who would contribute this five self-help groups and lack integration/ per cent. This lack of clarity has often organic linkage of the SHG as an meant that commons get excluded from institution with the dominant the watershed programme and it is the development agenda of watershed landless and the women who depend rehabilitation. Often these SHGs cease largely on these commons for their fuel to function on completion of the and fodder needs. In fact some watershed programme and as long as experiences show that where the they live they are basically functioning commons were developed 5% of as thrift and credit groups. The contribution was charged from people watershed committee, the main using the land, such as gatherers of decision-making body, has a very fodder and fuel. These are mostly nominal representation of women. In women from poor and landless the evaluation conducted by Abraham households who are usually unable to and Vaze in the Indo-German contribute in cash and give it in the form Watershed Development Projects the of labour. Even if they do so, they may male members of the watershed not benefit greatly from such labour, in committees on being asked why women the absence of institutional are needed at all in the watershed arrangements for the priority access to committees said "because the project these women. requires it so" or, "because women are Most gains, whether they are of sincere". increased productivity or water are usually in the control of men and rarely 5.4.5 Ecology benefit women even in an indirect way. In fact these productivity gains usually Soil and water conservation measures result in increased workloads for taken up under watershed management women. programmes on common property resources such as village common A less studied area in this regard is how lands, forest and water, change the the changing land-use patterns and state of natural resources, especially enhanced productivities have changed that of water, soil and vegetation. This, the land and resource ownership in turn, impacts the way the women use patterns in the community. Improved resources. A piece of land allocated for resources always dislodge women from reforestation can appear to be a sound ownership and men take over. This is an conservation measure. However, if for area that may require a further enquiry. example, this was grazing land for goats and cows kept by women, then 5.4.4 Institutions women will suffer as they have to graze the goats elsewhere, probably further Property rights issues also link with the away. The imposition of access more general analysis of institutions: restrictions on commons and forest importantly, how positioning in the land has led to successful regeneration households, communities and other of resources in watershed development institutions involved in decision-making areas. Experiences from different in watershed programmes, is gendered. places indicate that women, however, rarely benefit from this regeneration, We see a small representation for mainly because they are unable to pay women in watershed committees, but for the right to cut and carry fuel and 98 fodder. As a result, many women have these issues. As willingness to been forced to reduce or sell their participate is considered a precondition livestock. Furthermore, women have to for undertaking watersheds, a go longer distances to fetch fuel wood, community's commitment to earmark a increasing the time spent in collection. share of the augmented resource for the Thus, without understanding or showing resource-poor should also be a basis for sensitivity to the dynamics of gender initiating watershed development. The relations in the use of natural resources, issue is not regarding redistribution of such CPR development efforts often existing resources, but creating certain curtail, rather than increase women's entitlements for the disadvantaged and access to resources. These changing resource-poor in the augmented ecologies have a negative impact on resources. To realize this it is necessary gender equity outcomes. that social arrangements and institutional mechanisms for resource- sharing be in place before the actual 5.5. Conclusion implementation and augmentation starts. It is often noticed that resource- Addressing the issue of inequity is one regeneration/augmentation especially in of the most difficult aspects of CPLRs, without working out the details watershed development. Watershed of access and sharing mechanisms, "plus" and livelihood approaches have have excluded the poor in a latter stage, emerged as a means to tackle this who otherwise had some access to concern. However, in these approaches these areas/resources informally or too the emphasis is on non land-based through pilfering. Working out the details measures for the resource poor. This in of institutional and resource-sharing turn denies them the opportunity to get a mechanisms and evolving a share in the renewed resources, such as commitment are time consuming and fodder, fuel, water etc., which are the conflict-ridden and often PIAs are in a very basis for livelihoods in rural areas. haste to start implementation citing that This is not to deny the importance of the community looses patience and the non-land income-generation activities. desire to participate in the absence of Quite often it is heard that a watershed "real action". A policy of 'arrangements project cannot and nor it is equipped to first, augumentation later' calls for address the issue of inequity, given the patience and flexibility. It means that limited time frame of the project and the one is prepared to go slowly, to spend inequalities that already exist in rural much more time in resolving conflicts areas. In our opinion, it is important to and bringing people together. It calls for assert that at least the augmented different skills and capacities for the resources that are generated through watershed development team (WDT) public funds and collective efforts must especially in facilitation, understanding count as common pool resources, of and sensitiveness to issues of poverty subject to collective decisions in respect etc. Projects also need to be more of their allocation. There is need to flexible and process-oriented, moving assert this principle, though there would away from the target-oriented still be a long way to practically realize it straitjacketed approach. on the ground. However, if the community accepts the principle as a Although women have come out of their desirable norm, it will evolve its own houses participated in the labour work, methods and strategies to realize it. It attended meeting and melawas and may work out different mechanisms have been thus empowered, their based on the imagination and ingenuity participation in decision-making and of its members. It is the initial their access to newly-created resources acceptance that is the most crucial issue does not seem to have altered. This is and the facilitating institutions have to true of most programmes which have an play a crucial role in this regard. empowering effect on women in a certain sense of the term. To a person Integrating poverty and gender concerns never exposed to the public sphere this in watershed is very important and exposure itself becomes empowering. without addressing these issues, the Perceptions around empowerment sustainability of the efforts may also be would change when the arena of in jeopardy. Planning, resource- possibilities increases and when allocation and monitoring has to factor choices are presented before them. In 99 39 WOTR has the present mode of the programme It is possible to begin with a long list of developed some there is no threat posed to the current recommendations as a corrective for attempts in this gender division of labour and neither is the present policy and programmes regard and a strategy known anything stated on the question of rights developed by the state. However, that as Gender- over scarce resources. These non- often remains a long wish list without a oriented threatening agendas usually go down perspective and a strategy to make Participatory well with the patriarchal state as well as change possible. A major lacunae in Operational the household and the community. For the watershed policy is that it speaks Pedagogy is being developed women this is nonetheless empowering, about women in the absence of a for capacity as this is a reality that they would gender perspective. We therefore building of perhaps have never been exposed to recommend that a well-defined gender women. In otherwise. So what sense does one policy for the watershed programme be IGWDP there is make out of this? The experience developed which not only lays out the also a financial provision made certainly cannot be negated. The space goals but also lays out a detailed for undertaking that has been created for women to strategy of how these goals would be different 'women participate needs to be acknowledged realized39. The policy will have to begin development' for whatever its worth but not with an understanding of gender issues activities uncritically. The question often is how and have a detailed plan for we look at these experiences critically implementation, monitoring and from a gender perspective. Developing evaluation. Here it would be important and designing policies has never been a to understand and document women's participatory process. People, civil perspective on livelihood. Programmes society or the NGOs are often the would have to be such that bring recipients of these with a mandate to women's skills to the fore. The entire implement. Participation is often sought programme will have to be backed by a to seek legitimacy to the predefined financial commitment, which is agendas. Thus, gender equity is one organically linked to the larger such area where only a paragraph or watershed development programme. section is added without understanding the various constraints under which women operate.
100 participation in natural resource Chapter 6 developmental projects, to the forefront. Even though participation is a desired strategy and goal, one has to be conscious about certain aspects in its application especially in the context of natural resource projects. These aspects include the degree and extent of participation envisaged and facilitated in project processes (nominal, or decision-oriented and emanicipatory), the issue of who participates (inclusion/ Watershed Development: Processes exclusion based on existing inequalities and Participation in the 'community'), nature and representative'ness' of institutions created as part of participatory 6.1 Context measures etc. However, these issues are often overlooked and participation is Participation has been a buzzword in operationalized outside these developmental discourse, practice and ramifications, which works toward policy guidelines since the mid 1980s, preserving the status quo. Most often, and the success or failure of a the notion of 'community' in community development intervention is often judged participation is assumed as a uniform on the basis of this component. It is and egalitarian entity without placing it in assumed that projects that have a sound the local context of prevalent participatory approach and strategy inequalities based on the economy, result in better efficiency, effectiveness land-holding, caste, gender etc., i.e. the and sustainable outcomes/ results. Even existing power inequalities. though the operational contours of Understanding these issues and participation vary from project to project, operationalizing participation within this it is endorsed as a normative principle by context is very important in watershed all development actors and projects development projects because the unit alike, and across various fields. In of 'community' is complex and all those watershed development projects residing in the watershed have a certain participation has become an important stake in the resources available in that ingredient and social processes have area. In the context of watershed become as important as those of the development the issue of community biophysical intervention. This realization participation can be judged from the role is an outcome of the reported success the watershed community plays (as an of projects that followed participatory aggregate, as different socio-economic processes as against those which were sections and as individual/family) in the techno-centric and where top-down entire process of watershed approaches were the pattern. development, i.e. having an active role and decisive say in issues related to Many factors have contributed in planning, implementation, technology bringing forward the issue of community choice, institution formation, evolving participation in natural resource rules, norms and regulation, financial management. One of the major factors, management, monitoring and as mentioned above, is the deficiency evaluation, ensuring transparency and inherent in the centralized and top-down accountability, capacity-building, approaches resulting in their failure to management and maintenance of deliver the desired result. Neo-liberal assets etc. This chapter is an attempt to philosophy of government/state understand the issues of participation in managed development being costly and different processes and in specific inefficient has also contributed to the functions, by the local community and growing preoccupation with community by individual actors, taking into participation. The increasing trend, consideration the multi-dimensionality of especially since the nineties, of social participation and multi- layeredness of capital and self-help as a panacea for 'community'. The attempt is to overcoming developmental contextualisze participation in different shortcomings, has also played a crucial aspects of project administration and to role in bringing the issue of community 101 understand the strategies and methods implemented, monitored and adopted in different programmes to maintained by the watershed operationalize participation. community itself. One of the objective of Hariyali guidelines is: "encouraging (the) village community towards 6. 2. 'Participation' in Watershed sustained community action for Guidelines operation and maintenance of assets created and further development of the Community participation is potential of the natural resources in the institutionalized in all watershed watershed." In both guidelines the guidelines after the Hanumantha Rao major assumption is that community Committee's report, viz., the Ministry of participation and collective action Rural Development (MoRD) guidelines ensures sustainability of assets and of 1994 and its revised version in 2001 resources, besides opportunities for and the Hariyali guidelines issued in better implementation of the project. 2003, MoA's (NWDPRA) WARSA- Jan Taking a closer look at the guidelines, Sahbhagita guidelines issued in 2001, however, one gets the feeling that guidelines of NABARD and CAPART participation is used more in an and all other major programmes being instrumental sense, the willingness of implemented in the country. communities to undertake specific tasks Participation is envisaged through related to project implementation. special provision (finance and activities) for community-mobilization; institution In projects outside the government formations and entrusting structure, especially those operated by responsibilities to these institutions/ NABARD, NGOs and in most bilateral organisations (such as watershed projects, participation is envisaged association (WA), watershed more or less on the same lines, like the committees (WC), user groups (UGs) formation of community-based and self-help groups (SHGs)); provision organizations (CBOs), willingness to for capacity building for management contribute shramdan and adopt social functions; participatory planning fencing, participation in planning, systems; provision for local volunteers implementation and monitoring, and secretary; adoption of indigenous willingness to take up responsibilities of technologies etc. In the Hariyali post-project maintenance of assets etc. guidelines, however, the institutional Some of these projects have also arrangements at the local level are introduced a probationary or capacity- considerably diluted and the provision of building phase to prepare the watershed associations and watershed community for active participation and committees are being done away with. to judge/gauge the community's Almost all guidelines also mention that a willingness to participate in watershed watershed will be selected where the activities. But one can conclude that community is ready to participate and community participation is clearly contribute towards project delineated, although in an instrumental implementation and achieving project manner, in both government-supported objectives. Parameters for judging the and other projects, and the degree and willingness of the community to extent of its application depends much participate are contributions in cash, on how it is being facilitated in the kind or labour, popularly known as watershed processes, the social and shramdan (or voluntary contribution) institutional spaces created for the and willingness to form a local purpose, and the philosophy and organization consensually and as a ideology of the facilitating institutions representative of different sections in the and personnel. watershed areas. To quote NWDPRA guidelines "the beneficiaries were too often merely passive recipients rather 6.3 Implementing Participation: than active participants in the Watershed Processes and Practice development of their watersheds (in first generation projects). The restructured From the mid-nineties, and especially second-generation watershed projects after the emergence of the 1994 have kept people's participation centre guidelines for watershed development, stage. It is now mandatory for watershed a set of processes have been designed development to be planned, to improve the participation of the 102 community and watershed dwellers in In most of the NGO- managed project implementation and watersheds it is noticed that they select management, starting from the project villages where they have already have a selection and initial awareness- rapport and relationship with the generation/community mobilization to community, or undertake watershed post-project management of resources. activities based on their experience of The assumption is that, if these process their association with the village and on steps are followed in their true spirit, a the villagers' demand. Improved genuine community-managed watershed participation in NGO villages can be in and resource management system can part attributed to this. IGWDP in be created, leading in the long run, to Maharashtra has a concept called 'self- resource governance at the community selection' by communities, where after level. In the following sections we will the initial series of interactions with look into the major processes in practice watershed dwellers, each family in the to see the degree and levels of village is expected to contribute four participation based on evidence from a person-days of voluntary labour on any cross-section of projects. resource conservation activity. The facilitating NGO is expected to mobilize 6.3.1 Watershed selection and initial and motivate the villagers for this. This is mobilization to judge the villagers' interest/keenness in undertaking project activities, as well Ideally speaking new-generation as to assess the NGO's rapport and projects are expected to be demand relationship with the villagers. This driven ones, where the community has a system is used as the initial qualifying keen interest in undertaking watershed criteria in all IGWDP projects. activities and is willing to participate in resource-mobilization and management. In most situations the community does The demand based selection of not participate nor is expected to watersheds (as against the target driven participate on its own, unless it is approach) is used as a parameter to provided with sufficient information and judge a community's initial interest and knowledge about the project, the future participation in all project methods and strategies of activities. However, it is often noticed operationalisation and intended benefits that target selection is still prevalent and that will accrue to it etc. To ensure that this is especially true for projects the community has the necessary implemented by government information it is imperative to have departments. Most often the decision to sufficient interaction between the include a village in a watershed community and PIA/WDT, besides programme is taken at Zilla Parishad or exposure (study tour), access to DRDA level and, in certain cases, literature (summary of guidelines in local prioritized villages are selected. In the language) etc. In most projects same way, the watershed community supported by NGOs, IGWDP, AGY, has no say in the kind of PIA they want NABARD-supported WDF etc., these to work with. From the environmental activities are compulsory for the project perspective and the genuine need for to move further. Dharamitra evaluations rehabilitation of the watershed, it is show that some kind of awareness necessary that highly degraded activities were undertaken only in 49 per watersheds in drought-prone areas be cent cases, but not in a concerted and selected even though the community is coherent manner and exposure visits not in a position to put forward their were organized only in 9.6 per cent of demand. In an assessment done by watersheds. Only in two cases were Dhramitra, of 115 state supported information dissemination, awareness- projects implemented in Vidharbha generation and mobilization judged as region , it was learnt that with the good. Even though provisions have exception of a few cases, the been made for this and the awareness community generally learnt about the phase is considered as crucial and a inclusion of its village in a watershed prelude for enhancing further programme much later than when the participation in the project period, it is village was actually selected. And of often a much-neglected aspect in most these cases, in quite a few, this was government-supported projects. surprisingly after the planning process Resource degradation and poverty are was over. 103 40 This would be two criteria for the selection of watershed association or gram sabha is the situation in watersheds under different programmes. not clearly formulated as is that of the most cases However, there are instances where a other watershed institutions. In almost because of higher incidence of landlessness makes all projects under review it is more an restrictions on 500 ha. in Govt a village ineligible for the programme. informal body without any specific projects or if one For example, the IGWDP gives membership system and 70 per cent goes clearly by preference to villages with less landless attendance of adult members is the hydrological people or landlessness not exceeding considered a sufficient quorum for the aspect of the Block level average. MYRADA also meetings to be conducted. In many watershed demarcation has a similar criterion. More than NGO projects such as Dornali and there is high anything else, this is a frank admission IGWDP, at least four meetings are chances that by the implementing agencies of the conducted on an annual basis, but it is some part of a limitations of the watershed programme noticed that the number of people village get or the absence of a project component attending the meeting reduce as the excluded or areas from other to address the livelihood issues of the watershed work progresses. However, villages becomes resource-poor sections, especially in many of these projects have not set up part of the situations where the proportion of the a separate watershed association. watershed. It is landless is very high. There are very few experiences of a not necessary gram sabha (as part of the PRI) being that hydrological the decision-making body for watershed and 6.3.2 Village-level institutions/ administrative community based organizations development, hence it is difficult to boundaries compare the effectiveness of these two coincide. Watershed projects organize a number systems of village-level institutions such as 41 In ISPWDK watershed associations/gram sabhas If the watershed association is an and DANIDA (WA/GS), watershed committees (WC), informal organization of watershed supported villagers, how far its decisions are projects in user groups (UGs), self-help groups Karnataka, (SHGs) etc. Community organizations legally valid and stand scrutiny is also a instead of a are formed with the objective to give point of concern. At the same time who watershed better and inclusive representation for all has the authority to call meetings also assocaition a watershed dwellers, including is not very clear. In the Dharamitra village evaluation of 115 watersheds, such development marginalized sections, as well as to associations were formed by the PIA society (VDS) is ensure responsibility and concomitant organized with authority for decision-making. The with farmers whose land was being two members (a nomenclature of institutions may vary planned for some watershed-related man and a from project to project, but essentially activities in almost all watersheds (since woman) from these kinds of organizations are this is a project condition) but in more each household than 60 per cent cases the watershed with a nominal established in all watershed projects. membership fee. association is at present inactive, except for few a individual members in They are Watershed Association /Gram Sabha involved in other institutions such as the watershed almost all According to the guidelines (of different committee. Only in seven per cent development cases has community participation activities and an programmes) the watershed association Apex Governing or gram sabha is the ultimate decision- been found to be good, and in 27 per Council is making body. When the watershed cent cases it appears to be satisfactory. nominated from boundary coincides with the village Meetings are also not conducted this VDS to boundary40, the gram sabha (consisting periodically. In 51.8 per cent cases the manage the of all adult members in the village) is the watershed association is registered affairs. The VDS under the Societies Act. is a registered watershed association. When the watershed boundary does not match body. The VDS However it should be very clear that the nominates other with the village boundary the PIA is existence of a gram sabaha, or institutions such supposed to constitute a watershed formation of watershed associations in as the watershed association. All major decisions -- such committee, cattle themselves do not guarantee the as the decision to take up a watershed breeders emergence of a participatory village programme, decisions regarding the committee etc. community. It has to be facilitated and approval of an action plan, on members educated about their rights shramdan, social disciplne etc. -- and duties. It also requires a system of regarding watershed development have membership and clarity of functions41. In to be taken in the meeting of the the absence of proper formation and watershed association or gram sabha. clarity of responsibilities any watershed The constitution and functioning of the association/gram sabha will have the 104 same fallacies as generally seen in gram also be 30 per cent representation of sabhas under PRI. It is also necessary women and also 'adequate' that the voice and opinions of the representation of SC/ST. In almost all marginalized such as landless, women, NGOsupported projects and IGWDP , and dalits among others are also different sections of the watershed facilitated in the functioning and community such as SC, ST and landless decision-making processes of the are given representation . In these watershed associations/gram sabhas. It projects committee members are appears that where the PIA has taken nominated with the objective of also extra effort to facilitate the organization giving spatial representation to different and functioning of the watershed hamlets/settlements that fall within the associations/gram sabhas, the watershed. Increasing awareness about participation of the village community is women's representation in a watershed found to be good. This is clearly committee is reflected in revised observable in watersheds facilitated by guidelines that have created space for PIAs which have been involved in representation of SHG members in the rejuvenating gram sabhas (such as the watershed committee. In IGWDP one- Mahila Rajsatta Andolan etc.) and is part third of the membership is reserved for of their mandate and philosophy. women. However, the issue needs further analysis: does representation Watershed committee given as part of design really translate into active and decisive participation in The watershed committee is a very day-to-day functioning? For example, in central and crucial institutional the Dhramitra evaluations, only in three arrangement at the local level and is villages out of 115 was participation of expected to perform a large number of women found to be good (in previous functions related to planning, chapter on gender we have analysed implementation, monitoring, financial this issue in detail). The roles and management, repairs and maintenance responsibilities of watershed committees etc. In projects like IGWDP- and are also elaborated in many projects. NABARD-supported watersheds it is These roles are prescribed by the known as the village watershed projects and and the community has committee (VWC) even though the very little say in its formulation. In designed responsibilities and functions IGWDP different portfolios are assigned are more or less the same. Generally the to different members in the committee membership of a watershed committee such responsibility to enforce social varies between 12 to 20. However in the discipline, wage disbursement, new Hariyali guidelines, this committee mobilizing farmers etc. The Jan is done away with and its responsibilities Sahbhagita guidelines elaborate on the entrusted to the Gram Panchayat. The roles and responsibilities of office watershed committee is expected to bearers of the watershed committee and function as the executive arm of the suggest that the committee be watershed association and is constituted only after the proper answerable to it. constitution of UGs, SHGs and the watershed association. This is to ensure Strategies and efforts are made to that active and interested members are ensure representation of all sections of represented in the watershed committee society. Not only is there increasing and its functions streamlined. In some awareness that various sections should projects the office bearers work on a be represented in the watershed rotational basis. In most projects under committee, but detailed norms and review meetings are usually held on a procedures are also laid down in various monthly basis and it is generally guidelines and programmes as to how to observed, as mentioned above, that as constitute a watershed committee. the project progresses the attendance at According to the 2001 guidelines the meetings reduces. The Dharamitra watershed committee is to be nominated evaluation notes that attendance at at a meeting of the watershed watershed committee meetings is poor associations with representatives of UG and in almost 80 per cent cases a (four or five members), SHGs (three to couple of members are only active on a four members), Gram Panchayat (two to day-to-day basis. Generally members three members) and a member of the who are office bearers and are WDT. As per the guideline there should responsible for finance are reported to 105 be active in many cases. intensive and alternative methods such as those available in social science Given the centrality of this committee, it research for e.g. interpretive is critical to see how well they are hermeneutic approaches are required at financed and how much financial least for certain samples. It is generally autonomy they have. In government- observed that quite a few members, supported programmes and in IGWDP, who may be active in the initial stages, the money under the work component lose interest when they realize the goes directly to the watershed voluntary nature of the work or once committee account and in government their interests are fulfilled. Money also projects a paid secretary is supposed to brings its own associated power keep the accounts. However, it is equations (watershed development noticed that often the PIA/WDT member being a high capital-intensive activity) who is a joint signatory to the account and it would be interesting to analyse takes the decisions regarding financial and look into the dynamics of power matters. The local contribution is also issues in the context and functioning of deposited in the watershed committee watershed committees with financial account, and is allotted to repairs and responsibilities. Dharamitra evaluations maintenance. The general observation often note that the signatories for is that there is quite a lot of money in the financial management -- the WDT hands of watershed committees as in leader and watershed committee the form of the maintenance fund and member -- exercises excessive there is very little information about it domination in the watershed activities. after the withdrawal of the PIA. Most Another issue is that of autonomy in the projects have made efforts to register functioning of the watershed committee. the watershed committee in order to Often projects are designed at a higher create certain accountability structures level and the watershed committee is in this regard in the post-project phase. an arm to facilitate and execute those Whether the watershed association or designs but have little say in many of the watershed committee should be a these meta-design issues. In certain registered body in order to ensure situations it is also noted that the PIA/ transparent financial functioning, is WDT is very skeptical about an debated in many platforms. It is autonomous and empowered generally proposed that the watershed committee fearing that it may affect the association be the registered body with 'smooth' implementation of the project. watershed committee members as office Another issue is whether the watershed bearers. In Dharamitra evaluations there committee is capable enough to are 17 instances in which the watershed function autonomously or sensitive committee is registered, as against 59 enough to function as a representative watersheds in which the watershed institution taking care of the concerns of association is registered. In IGWDP the all villagers. Instances of negotiations 42 In ISPWDK VWC is the registered institution. In among watershed committee members and WOTR many NGO-supported watersheds the supported non- to get structures built near their land or IGWDP projects financial responsibility and management wells, have also been observed. Hence the money meant lies with the NGO and the watershed it is important to analyse whether formal for work is given committee is consulted and informed representations to different spatial and as an advance to about financial matters. In some cases it social groups really translate into the watershed is due to the problems involved in FCRA committee decisive representation of all sections account and regulations and problems of transferring and whether the representatives are detailed bills and FCRA money into the non-FCRA 42 voicing the concerns of the section they vouchers, account of the watershed committee . represent. Instances of buy-offs of including copies of muster are At this point we have insufficient representatives through internal submitted to the information on the process of formation, negotiations have also been noted. NGO. Funds in functioning and performance of the the case of watershed committee; and wherever this Self-help groups IGWDP, due to information does exist and is the bilateral The formation of self-help groups status of the documented it generally is about cases project can be that have been successful. (SHGs) has been made a precondition directly Documentation also lacks in all watershed programmes, disbursed to a methodological vigour, and institutional irrespective of the agency or mode of non-FCRA analyses are often quick-fix studies; implementation. This condition has account. emerged as the result of the perceived 106 positive experiences generated by IGWDP watersheds44 (in all the ten 43 In case of organizations like MYRADA, especially watersheds 30 to 70 per cent of adult IGWDP certain in the PIDOW-Gulbarga project where women are organized into SHGs) it was financial provisions have the NGO was responsible for social noted that except in one case, where a been made for mobilization working in collaboration woman SHG/ watershed committee SHGs to with government projects. Later, the member is a co-signatory for finances, undertake SHG movement emerged in different there is very little role the SHGs have different socio- parts of the country and substantiated played in watershed development economic the relevance of this institution as a decisions, even though they have activities to improve the strategy for mobilizing the community, contributed voluntary labour regularly quality of life especially the women, and became part and have worked as labourers in and reduce of the lexicon of watershed guidelines. watershed activities. The Dharamitra drudgery. Five All guidelines have elaborate sections evaluation shows that in 42 per cent per cent of the on the need for and importance of SHG cases (i.e., 48 watersheds) have no project cost is earmarked for formations in watersheds. SHGs organized and in another 27 SHG-managed cases have only one SHG per activities. In SHGs are self-affinity groups often watershed. As mentioned earlier mainstream functioning as thrift, savings and lending women's participation in watershed government- groups. The SHG movement, at least activities is found to be fairly good only supported projects during its initial stages of evolution, was in three watersheds. Watershed provisions are intended to provide representation and development related decisions and organizational space for the resource- made for a functions still remain in the domain of revolving fund poor and disadvantaged sections of men even though the organization and for SHGs . women. However, this objective of the project staff are making attempts to 44 SHGs needs to be revisited critically, have it otherwise. In quite a few Unpublished report 'Women given the hype created around it and the instances the PIA is also not clear about co-option of the institution by other and watershed how to involve SHGs in watershed- development' by interests and agencies. related activities. Vrunda Vaze and Abraham Overall, it could be said that SHGs have Most often it has been noted that SHGs Samuel, a study functioned quite well in terms of savings remain in the sphere of savings and conducted for and lending, and the economic agenda credit and pay very little attention to the Programme Coordination and incentives have worked favourably social and gender issues, even though enough for the institution members to Unit IGWDP- there are a couple of instances in the Maharashtra. continue this sphere of activity. In fact, IGWDP review, where women have SHG activity is one area in which the successfully stalled the production of members seem to have greater control liquor in their villages. Crossing the over processes and decisions. But some threshold of savings and credit and important decisions, such as setting of taking up social issues often does not interest rates for lending or accessing get the support of men in comparison to bank loans, are taken by the PIA or savings and credit-related activities. Men NGO or with their concurrence. The view savings and credit and SHGs also provide a space for women opportunities for small loans favourably, to come together and interact. since it contributes towards meeting the A vast majority of SHGs are organized family's needs, and it is observed that around women in most watersheds. In men often influence decisions regarding NGO-supported projects, IGWDP and loan access. It is also important to NABARD-NWDF projects, special understand who in the group accesses emphasis is given on promoting women- loans, is it the powerful members? SHGs in terms of capacity building, Experiences show that there are hardly training and SHG-oriented activities43. In any issues discussed at SHG meetings, most projects SHGs find representation other than savings and lending, and in the watershed committee and in case most often the PIA staff lack the of government supported-projects it is capability or understanding to facilitate assumed that SHGs are organized prior gender issues in the day-to-day to watershed committee-formation and functioning of the SHGs. Issues related SHG members (three to four) are to SHG autonomy, with the advent of inducted in the watershed committee. micro finance and insurance activities But field realities show that the linkage through SHGs, needs further analysis. between SHGs and watershed activities The SHGs have not always functioned is either not very clear or is not well. For example, in Dornali (AFARM), facilitated. In an assessment of ten 107 out of the four SHGs started initially, dams, gabion structures etc. The main only two continued to function. The functions of such institutions are remaining two dissolved due to internal supervision of construction, collection conflicts. AFARM also started a Kishori of contribution, resolving conflicts if Vikas Ghat (Adolescents Girls Group) someone is negatively affected for which ceased to function because there instance, due to loss of land through was no lady social worker. The submergence. Guidelines also stipulate withdrawal of the woman social worker that UGs are responsible for the leading to SHGs becoming operation and maintenance of dysfunctional is reported in some structures/ assets. They are also IGWDP villages too.. Similar stories of responsible for working out benefit- SHGs closing down were also reported sharing mechanisms. from some other villages like Bhavathan (Manavlok). The most common reasons However, there seem to be a number of for such closure are internal conflicts, limitations in the UG model in poor attendance in meeting, non- watershed development prescription repayment of loans, dissolving after and practice. At one level UGs are a taking loans from banks, lack of money misnomer because they do not carry to save once watershed wage work is out any functions normally associated over especially for the poor group, with such user groups like the water continued migration once project work is users group or the forest protection over etc. committee. It is also not clear from various guidelines as to what will be the The SHGs are generally associated with mandate/status of UGs after the project non land-based livelihood activities and period and implementation of in watershed context also, it seems that biophysical activities. There is also is the major activity they are occupied confusion regarding the role of UGs in with. Thus they manage Revolving the post-project phase in the sense Funds or take up certain income- that, after the withdrawal of PIA it is the generation activities as is being watershed committee in consultation observed from the field, but their reach with the Gram Panchayat which is in watershed-related activities is very responsible for maintenance and repair negligent. On the whole SHG activity of assets and structures as elaborated has been peripheral to the watershed in the revised MoRD guidelines of 2001. programme and most often runs parallel to mainstream watershed activities It is observed that UGs are formed despite being represented in watershed because forming them is a laid down committees and meant to be involved in condition, and decisions concerning the the watershed. There are recent, location of structures, their design and arguments that SHGs together with UGs cost estimation, technology and should be the main implementing materials used, and so on are taken by institutions for watershed activities, and the WDT or the technical staff of the the watershed committee should only be PIA and not by UG members. Most often it is noticed that UGs are formed 45 a management and coordinating In a couple of after construction is over. Besides, watersheds agency. (Devgaon, among the benefits arising out of construction of structures is improved Shelvihire under User Groups IGWDP) in the groundwater which is an individual/ tribal areas of Another institutional arrangement at the private resource without any issues of Akole block, local level to enhance participation of social control or group action on its use group irrigation is and management. If the resource is done through the beneficiaries User Groups (UGs) surface water of have been formed around certain surface-harvested water, there are check dams. specific interventions (especially for instances in which water users have However in large structures and interventions) which come together to manage resources, IGWDP projects are expected to involve more than one including the levying of nominal water there are no UGs charges45 The UGs also have a role in except for a individual farmer or person, and its forest protection benefit is shared by a group of people. case of development of common lands group in areas Generally UGs are formed for such as village pastures or community where watershed interventions on common property managed forests. work is resources such as plantation and undertaken as The Dharamitra evaluations show that part of JFM. fodder, or for medium and large of the total of 115 watersheds, UGs are structures such as nala bunds, check organized in 72 per cent of the 108 watersheds. In some villages the number project administration. In NGO projects of UGs is as high as 30 to 40 even it is generally observed that the staff though major structures may be around performs other works besides the 10 to15! Some UG members do not watershed works. In IGWDP, a four- even know that they are in the groups person team manages a project and and most often there are no systems for generally the area ranges between 1000 the UGs functioning as is the case with to 1500 ha. watershed committees. The evaluations often note that the groups do not have At the outset it can be said that a project any capacity to perform their expected is as good as the people involved in it. functions and that there is no group The PIAs' approach and philosophy and cohesiveness. It is often noticed in many the WDT's commitment to participatory projects that UGs exist only on paper. processes can make a big impact in The future of any group, especially that empowering the community. It can of UGs, depends a lot on its capacity, influence the space provided for the clearly-defined mandate, agenda and democratic functioning of the CBOs, responsibilities, availability of resources their capability enhancement, role in and the real and perceived benefits decision-making and finance arising out of the assets around which management, inducing values etc. collective action is solicited. However, the Dharamitra evaluations show that most often the WDT works in Experience shows that a lot of rethinking isolation involving only a couple of is required to make the UGs an effective people and this is quite common for institution in watershed development. WDT leaders who are retired Some practitioners propose that UGs be government staff. It is often noticed that the planning and implementation agency WDT plays a dominating role rather than with financial responsibilities related to that of facilitation. Another issue that their sphere of activity. Local emerges in evaluations is the high contribution from beneficiaries and a turnover of WDT members due to regular system to collect user charges problems of fund release which results needs to be worked out and the group in irregular salaries. This is also should be entrusted with the reflected in irregular visits of the staff to responsibility of managing it. the site. If people are not paid regularly it can also result in financial irregularities. 6.3.3 Other organizations Staff turnover, especially women staffers, is also noticed in interior The other organizational structure IGWDP villages because of other involved in watershed development that difficulties. However, the high turnover has a direct impact on the participatory of trained staff is a problem which most processes at the local level is the PIA watershed projects face. Bringing in new and WDT. This is not to say that the staff and providing training takes 46 Mother NGO coordinating agencies such as District considerable time and always negatively is a district level Rural Development Agency (DRDA) or impacts the processes that are set in support Agricultural Department do not have a motion. organization direct stake in the watershed processes. responsible for supporting the PIA is selected at the district level by the For participation to be realized in the true spirit of the term, it is important to PIA and the coordinating and sanctioning agency watershed and on which the watershed community have the right PIAs at the helm of affairs. institutions in does not have any say. Since 1993, a But is there a proper system for the planning, support and resource organization selection of PIAs in watersheds, capacity building, called Mother NGO46 has also been especially in programmes supported by the government? It can be said that PIA monitoring etc. It introduced in watersheds projects in is also Maharashtra. Generally, a PIA is selection is shrouded in mystery and responsible to responsible for six to ten projects most often quality is compromised for oversee that ranging between 4000-5000 ha and are other considerations. Even though there participatory expected to constitute a four-member are instances of 'blacklisting' of PIAs, processes are one can't say for sure that such followed by the WDT consisting of a subject specialist in PIA in the exercises are objective. Besides, there engineering/forestry, agriculture, project community mobilization and livestock are no objective systems for monitoring implementation etc. The team is supposed to be the work of the WDT. During our field and also to exclusively for the projects and ten per visits we heard a number of complaints provide support against PIA staff, suggesting that a in areas related cent of the project cost is earmarked for to that. 109 significant gap still exists in what is the PIA before the start of programme prescribed in the guidelines and what is and also led to a slackening of work by often seen in practice. the VWC head, secretary etc., who could not be paid a regular salary. The Often the PIAs say that they are NGOs often voiced the concern of pressurized to complete the physical being sandwiched between the work, and social mobilization and villagers' expectations and the DRDA's facilitating participation needs casual attitude. comparatively more time, but the issue is what are the milestones achieved in Thus modes of participation varied participation in the given time of four to widely. In one case the watershed five years. In certain cases it is observed community was as much if not more that the WDT is inexperienced and lacks active than the PIA regarding the basic skills of relating to the community; watershed issues and prospects and in some instances it is noticed that they put in additional efforts to make their are skeptical of involving the community programme47a success. In another case and CBOs, fearing a reverse the PIA tried to motivate the entire domination. The issue is that one needs community, including children and confident community facilitators to build women, to become actively involved a confident watershed community. with the programme. In another case, though the wider watershed association Participation remains a word with an played only a passive role, the elusive workable meaning. Most watershed committee consisted of well- government agencies such as the informed and active members. There Agriculture Department remain poor at was also a case where only the even initiating participation. In fact, two chairman and the secretary were villages out of six visited in Vidarbha had actively involved. In one case the NGO been earlier rejected by the Agriculture 47 worked only as an 'outside' agency -- At Department on the pretext that there Ahmatwada, making links with only a few strategic taluka Murtzapur, was no cooperation from the village people in the village and implementing Akola even in a after it was taken up for watershed the programme through their assistance acute drought- development. In one such village, with benefits being concentrated in the prone situation Pimpalgaon Bainai, most villagers said people took hands of the privileged few. In fact, the that they were not even aware that their good performance or achievements on special efforts to village had been taken up under the provide water to their fields is now being showcased by plantations watershed development programme by the NGO. Mr. Khadse of Dharamitra manually from a the Agriculture Department. In contrast, feels that it is very important therefore river nearby. At at Bairwadi, where the project was also to attempt a functional definition of the Sanglud, Akola implemented by the Agriculture word 'participation' so that it does not people donated Department, good participation was labour worth Rs remain merely on paper or limited to a 2 lakhs to noted from all strata of the community. chosen few, leaving out the concerns of construct a hall When asked about this, Mr. Bala Athare, the marginalized groups. for conducting Agriculture Assistant and the person watershed chiefly responsible for the successful meetings and implementation of the programme said 6.3.4 Participation in Planning, activities, which Design and Technology Choice would value at that it was his approach to participation Rs 3 lakh today. and the attempts to motivate the people Participatory planning has emerged a At Adsool village through special incentives and major thrust area in new-generation a vanrai measures that was responsible for this. watershed projects in the same way bandhara was In another example the village itself that other participatory issues found constructed with approached the NGO with the 2500 empty their place through experiences cement bags proposition of a watershed development generated from certain projects. Before through project after it had heard of a successful the emergence of participatory planning shramdan and programme being implemented in a methods, the major assumption was no expenditure neighbouring village was incurred. that planning, design and choice of This helped Quite often, in spite of successfully technology etc., were technical issues water to stay till enlisting the cooperation of the people and that it was better that these issues January-February were decided by the experts. Thus we which solved in the initial stages of the project, these ties were later corroded due to the delay have experiences of construction of some of the contour bunds by experts and fodder problems in disbursal of funds by the DRDA. This in the village. angered the labourers who had been ploughing/or levelling it immediately assured work under the programme by after construction by farmers. 110 Participatory planning also assumes that overemphasized rather than the 48 This is very the technologies and measures of adoption of low-cost, locally available important from conservation, which are demanded by materials and technical know-how48. At the perspective of not only farmers, have a high chance of certain times the technology may be ensuring that sustaining, because they are convinced low-cost, but farmers are really not the money about its benefits. If we summarize interested nor convinced about its meant for different guidelines in respect to efficacy. This is observable in the watershed participatory planning the picture that Dahramitra evaluations. For example in activities remains or is emerges is -- WDT members along with almost all cases where vegetative spent in the farmers/users will document details such bunding and grass filters were village as as survey numbers, name of the owner, introduced, they failed to survive even wages, but also exact nature and extent of problem/ the project period. Most often farmers from future opportunity and indigenous technical are also reluctant to undertake bund maintenance and innovations, farmers'/users' concerns plantation fearing that it creates shade sustainability. and constraints, farmers' suggestions on and adversely affects crops. Many Realizing this, technical solutions, etc., identified conservation measures had to be certain projects through PRA exercises. Guidelines also altered and adapted according to like DANIDA- say that indigenous technical knowledge farmers needs and requirements in supported (ITK) emerging through informal IGWDP too. It is interesting to note that watersheds in Orissa, IGWDP research carried out by innovative when IGWDP commenced operations etc. have made farmers may also be considered while there were hardly eight to ten it part of their developing the action plan of the technologies, but over the course of strategy and watershed. programme evolution many conditions. In technologies were incorporated from DANIDA only local materials Even though the intentions behind the experiences that emerged from guidelines are good they are very rarely and locally locations and farmers. Today, there are manageable put into practice in the watershed more than 25 technologies. Most of technologies are villages. Dharamitra evaluations show these technologies have emerged from promoted with that plans are often prepared by the the local experiences of farmers49. It good results. In WDT with very little consultation with IGWDP the has also been observed at many emphasis is farmers and if the WDT leader happens watersheds that an overemphasis on to be a government employee he does also on local cement and large non-cement structures materials and draws up plans through his experience has drawn contractors and external creating local of working in soil-conservation activities. players into watershed development. employment Often, farmers get to know the kind of and only 15 per activities planned on their field only It is also important to note that cent of the when these are implemented. The consultation and the resultant choice of project cost is allowed for evaluations show that in more than 60 technology opted for by farmers need taking up per cent of the cases (out of 115 not always generate better results or be drainage line watersheds) there was no consultation technically adaptable. For example, treatments. or it was very poor and casual, while most often farmers suggest a boundary 49 only in five per cent of cases were good bund on plots even though the slope Some of them are a) bodi consultative and participatory strategies and general layout of the plots suggest bund, adopted adopted in action plan preparation. In 15 construction of intermediary bunds to from the adivasi per cent of the watersheds beneficiary cut the slope and reduce erosion. The experiences of participation was average and in 14 per same problem is observable in the water cent cases the action plans were revised layout and location of bund outlets, harvesting and after consultation with the community where little consideration is given to the protective irrigation in and watershed associations -- a good impact of flowing water on the Chandrapur sign that reflects the pressure exerted by neighbour's field. There is always a district, the community. collision of interest and priorities b)construction between farmers and the facilitating of low cost Very little importance is given to farmers' experts, especially in the context of dams using empty drums of interests and demands while consultation on technological options. technologies of conservation are tar used for road Historically, it is observable in the works, c) selected.. Most programmes have a pre- context of working with farmers, whether modification of determined set of technologies. These it is on issues related to agronomical gabion sets are often implemented regardless of practices or activities such as contour structures in whether the beneficiaries demand it or order to harvest bunding on croplands. Farmers are water etc. whether they doubt its benefits. High- often interested in individual and rapid cost, high external input-oriented returns and livelihood creation, whereas technologies are seen being the facilitators are traditionally more 111 50 A number of concerned about controlling erosion, methods give an impression of having path breaking improving the environment and issues of achieved a consensus, which may not studies have sustainability etc. However a meaningful actually exist, as very often people do emerged in discussion and consultation allows both not (or cannot) intervene and give their social and cultural concerns to be part of the opinion. Many times the realities are not anthropology, developmental agenda and strategy, at expressed in a public space or 'over the which highlight least to an extent. ground' because of the existing the issues of relations and networks.50 In PRA peasant The methods and tools adopted for methodology there is an element of behaviour and planning also play a crucial role in oversimplifying complex socio- how hierarchies ensuring farmer and community economic realities. and social participation. All major watershed relations influence programmes now use Participatory Besides these methodological issues of interpretations Rural Appraisal (PRA) as a tool for PRA, it is necessary to look critically at and planning and enlisting people's its effectiveness as a planning tool for understanding of participation. Today, almost all watershed development. It can give issues and the watershed programmes insist on certain approximations but to get way they vary according to the conducting different tools of PRA reliable data on issues of degradation, socio-economic exercises, especially because funding problems associated with land, issues categories based agencies also make it a condition for and problems related to soil, resource on caste, class, funding programmes. Like people's access and use pattern, land-use ethnicity, gender contribution or the organization of pattern of different communities etc., is etc. One of such community into groups, PRA too is found be very difficult. Since the interesting analysis is by taken as an indicator of people's philosophy behind PRA is based on James C Scott's participation. If PRA is taken as the validating the experiential knowledge of 'Weapon of the benchmark, however, many of the early the 'community', it looks upon any Weak: Everyday generation 'successful' projects like outside or expert knowledge as an Forms of Ralegaon Siddhi, Agadgaon etc., which imposition, thus PRA techniques leave Peasant Resistance, a were more rooted in the community, little scope for any fruitful mutual study of a would prove to be non-participatory or interaction between the local people Malaysian village all the projects which uses PRA should and their knowledge systems and the called Sedaka'. be truly participatory. However, the outside 'modern' system of knowledge. Even Clifford reality is different as evident from the However, it is often noticed that farmers Geertz's studies on irrigation Dharamitra evaluations where PRAs are interested in modern technical systems, were conducted in many villages but knowledge if it is demystified and agriculture etc., quality of participation is poor in most presented in a language they in Indonesia and villages. understand. Insistence on a PRA may Bali is also worth restrict people's option of using different looking into. At present, however, most implementing techniques, and also their access to agencies use PRA as a means to enlist other methods of enquiry. Also a PRA people's participation and capture local fails to provide reliable and comparable development priorities. The guidelines data to assess impacts. AFARM, which clearly say that PRA exercises should has used PRA extensively in its be conducted to analyse problems and watershed projects, recommends propose solutions, making it the tool for detailed baseline surveys prior to the planning with the community for programme so that the impact of the watershed measures. The priorities programme can be quantified. coming out of the PRA exercise are often taken to represent the priorities of IGWDP and NABARD-supported the whole community or taken as the projects use a different system known common opinion. This is problematic as 'participatory net planning' (PNP) for because they often represent only the watershed planning and based on the opinion of the dominant, vocal and outcomes of PNP and individual resourceful sections of the village. Also, household surveys, prepare a detailed as Kerr and Kolavalli (2002) argue, watershed plan known as the bureaucracy often reduces the PRA 'Feasibility Study'. PNP is a detailed merely to a prescribed procedure that plot survey done jointly by the has to be followed more in the letter facilitators and the farmer family where than in spirit. Many organizations treat each individual holding is assessed to the outcomes of a one or two-day PRA understand the land capability, land-use with ten or twenty people as reflecting and problems and a set of conservation legitimate community priorities. PRA measures and proposed land-use 112 systems are arrived at. It also provides ensuring participation, especially of the 51 Often the detailed baseline information and an resource-poor and marginal sections. A land in the ridge implementable plan. It is noticed that non ridge-to-valley implementation is more degraded and even though it is time consuming and process, where willing farmers are may require relatively costly, it ensures interaction of provided priority will create a situation more different viewpoints, consultation/ where benefits are amassed by a few conservation consensus-building and participation and make the work easier for the PIA. If measures as from the beginning. The efficacy of the that be the case then what is the role of compared to better managed system is acknowledged by different the project facilitators? There are other and less sloppy practitioners and is adopted in a large dimensions too which we cannot ignore, lands in the variety of watershed projects in the such as the lack of permission to treat valley. More country. forest land, hence difficulty in following measures the principle and delays in project means higher costs and a 6.3.5 Process of Implementation, implementation due to the correspondingly Local contribution/Cost sharing and uncompromising attitude of funding/ higher Participation supporting organizations with respect to contribution. the ridge-to-valley approach. In certain There is a lot of debate at present watersheds, especially in rice cultivating whether watershed implementation areas, it is noted that farmers like the should strictly follow the ridge-to-valley water and silt to flow into the fields principle or whether it should be rather than arresting them at the ridge. undertaken wherever (within the In private lands in ridge areas, which are watershed) the farmers are willing to relatively less productive, farmers may participate and are ready to implement not be willing to share the cost51; hence as per the project conditionalities. The it becomes difficult to enlist participation ridge-to-valley proponents also and follow ridge-to-valley acknowledge the fact that, while implementation. implementing different measures from ridge to valley, this is not at the cost of Peoples' contribution/cost-sharing is participation and others feel that better another commonly used indicator of participation is ensured if there is a participation and the willingness of the genuine demand from the farmers. farmers to share a certain part of the Leaving aside the technical advantages/ cost is considered their willingness to disadvantages of both systems, we have participate. The guidelines say that to look at it from the perspective of peoples' participation should be ensured participation. Most often, the village through voluntary donations in terms of commons, forest and marginal lands are cash, labour, raw materials, etc., for located in the ridge and adjacent areas developmental activities as well as for and these are either owned by resource- the operation and maintenance of poor families or they are dependent on assets created. The main purpose these lands for a variety of needs. These behind this is to build a stake and a are the lands which require rehabilitation sense of ownership in the project and, in on a priority basis. However it is noticed turn, to elicit greater enthusiasm for that the resource-poor are skeptical and other activities such as the maintenance suspicious of the intentions and of assets. Cost sharing also serves as outcomes as compared to the better off an indirect indicator that people have who are comparatively well-informed been part of the decision-making and often enter into/have initial contacts process. Maintenance of assets has with the PIA. Generally, the interaction been found to be positively associated of the PIA is with the 'centre' (in the with the share of costs borne by spatial and power-related sense) and community/beneficiaries (Kerr and peripheries get ignored or excluded due Kolavalli 2002). However, it is difficult to to this approach. Having a ridge-to- say that cost sharing alone is a valley approach and project condition, dominant factor in ensuring especially in multicaste complex maintenance, especially for assets on villages, where the peripheries are common properties. It may also be true occupied by the adivasis, dalits, nomads that cost-sharing will ensure selection of etc., creates a situation for them to appropriate and useful techniques participate and compels the PIAs besides ensuring quality of towards enlisting their support. The implementation. ridge-to-valley approach needs to be Different projects have different viewed as a social technology for 113 quantum (percentage contribution) and finance release till matters are systems for cost-sharing. For example, amended. in government-supported projects this falls in the range of five to ten per cent. Another major issue in relation to local In IGWDP and NABARD-supported contribution is the method in which it is WDF it is 16 per cent. In most NGO collected. Not only from Maharashtra, projects it ranges between ten to 20 per but also from the country as a whole, cent. Even within one project there are there is evidence that often in the name different contributions for different of local contribution the, 'the poor are activities/measures. For example in subsidizing the rich' in the sense that IGWDP, for horticulture (budded the method adopted by PIAs and saplings) development on an individual watershed committees is to cut the plot it is around 50 per cent. Area wage of the labourers' working at treatment like bunding in class III and watershed sites. Generally, the above it is 16 per cent of the cost and in argument put forward in such a case of classes I and II it is 25 per cent. scenario is that the wage rate in For cement structures the beneficiaries watershed work is much higher (due to have to contribute unskilled labour. This SSR rate and based on outputs) than differential contribution emerged later what they usually get locally, hence after a few years experience of having a they are not losing much. Personal common contribution system. There experiences show that the support and was continued resistance on the part of monitoring organisations have to play a NGOs which cited practical difficulties in very proactive role for this not to convincing farmers and problems happen, by organizing and educating related to computing the differential the labourers (by informing them about contribution. In some places, the the unit wage rate for different kinds of villagers also expressed their protest work and displaying the scheduled maybe at the behest of the NGOs. It is rates in public places etc.) besides interesting to note that during the facilitating the process with the PIA and consultative stage, different meetings watershed committees. For example in and workshops were organized to find the Dharamitra evaluations the system/ out systems for a differential contribution method of collection is not known, nor system based on expected benefits, are there any receipts given to those involving all project partners such as who made the contribution. The NGOs, VWCs from a representative set accounting procedure and recording of of watersheds etc., and many VWC contribution is one of the weakest areas members agreed that there should be in most projects. In some other such a system, but those who were in instances, where work is executed favour of the changed system were from through the landowners, the system is villages which had either completed their more interesting. In such instances, watersheds or had watersheds that were after planning and cost-estimation the nearing completion. farmer either using his own labour or together with hired labour executes the In government-supported projects the task. After measurement the wage is difference in contribution is based on paid to the farmer deducting the social categories and not in the kind of required contribution. In such instances measures and is five per cent for SC it is often possible that the farmer hires and ST families and ten per cent for the labour at the local wage rate and also general categories of beneficiaries.For makes some money out of the common resources and structures it is 5 differential. Whatever be the method, per cent. In the Dharamitra evaluations there is still a lot of transparency of 115 watersheds, in 22 per cent cases required in methods of collecting the either there was no contribution or the local contribution. details were not known, whereas in 75 cases (66 per cent) the contribution was Another argument is over what the to the tune of five per cent. In the quantum of contribution should be, and remaining watersheds local contribution is it necessary to have a high amount ranged between five and ten per cent. In given the fact that watershed projects IGWDP villages local contribution and are implemented in the most degraded project progress is linked and an and poorest areas in rainfed tracts excessive backlog of contribution may which are generally left out with regard affect project progress by withholding to development and investments, as 114 compared to irrigated areas and places by the PIAs and the CBOs. This 52 Historically where green revolution packages were component is by and large handled by speaking the implemented. The crux of such an the NGOs and in certain cases the state or the rulers played a argument is that it is the responsibility of support of resource organizations is crucial role in the state to invest in land and water also enlisted. To improve effectiveness, development of resource development52 and peoples' Mother NGOs are currently entrusted water contribution dilutes the responsibilities of with the responsibility of training and the resources. This the state, a neo liberal agenda. Cost- impact of this can be judged only in the is being corroborated by sharing should be seen in the wider course of time, as these projects where many political context of resource allocation and Mother NGOs are involved are only two economic political economy. Presently, the state or three years in implementation. analysts and spends more than a lakh of rupees to Generally, training and capacity building anthropologists. provide irrigation to one hectare of land include exposure visits to 'successful' The concept called Asiatic in the irrigated belts, besides other projects, training in administrative Mode of incentives through different subsidies matters like systems and procedures, Production and assured prices such as in the case records and book-keeping and on developed by of sugarcane. In the context of certain aspects related to watershed Karl Marx, watershed development, the cost management. CBOs and watershed based on generally ranges from Rs 6000/- and up secretaries are being provided training. anthropological evidences to Rs 10-12000/- in some bilaterally The WDT is also expected to undergo especially from assisted projects. The Parthasarathy certain training modules related to their India, highlights Committee has proposed a ceiling of Rs respective areas of responsibilities. the fact that 12000/- per hectare. When the relative However, in most government projects states played a spending on watershed is so little, this aspect is not taken very seriously crucial role in developing the asking people to share the cost -- that and most often the budget allotted is not water resources also to up to 30 to 40 per cent - seems at all utilized effectively. This is and organizing unfair. Moreover, local organizations corroborated by some reviews. The Kerr the societies need to play a greater role in deciding and Kolavalli (2002) study shows that around the volume of contribution and there the time spent by the PIA in social hydrology. In Maharashtra should be flexibility based on local organization efforts prior to taking up some of the situations. Experience shows that other biophysical activities ranged from a few popular rulers issues such as rights, access and weeks (in GOI projects) to several years were actively entitlements in water and common in (in some NGO-run projects). The involved in property resources especially for the projects covered in the study were developing resource-poor ensures a major stake divided into two categories: those which water resources through state and higher participation, rather than spend more than six months in social investments. making contribution the yardstick. organization and capacity-building and This trend could those which spend less than six months. be seen till the late 1970s and 6.3.6 Capacity building for The projects, which spent more than six months in social organization efforts, in the following Participation decades one consisted of all eight NGO projects could observe Capacity building and training of studied and 57 per cent of the seven the slow community-based organizations (CBOs) jointly implemented projects. withdrawal of and the community at a large is Significantly, none of the sixteen the state from considered an important aspect and government-funded/implemented and these prerequisite for effective participation. responsibilities five bilateral/multilateral funded, to a large Access to information, skills and government-implemented projects under extent. At knowledge helps in better understanding the study spent more than six months. present the pros and cons of the work in hand Maharashtra is which is a precondition for participation A major lacuna observed is that there is one of the in any activity. Capacity building, training no plan or system (as in case of experimental states for and awareness-generation are biophysical activities) to implement capacity building activities and it is not "sectoral considered important activities in the reforms" in the guidelines, and budget provisions are integrated with the project progress and water sector made available for the same. However, processes. There are no set milestones funded by the in the Hariyali guidelines the budget for on the expected capacity of the project World Bank and capacity building and community actors. This is reflected in the other multilateral organizations. mobilization has been reduced by half to Dharamitra evaluations. Only in 42 per 53 five per cent from ten per cent . The cent of cases (48 out of 114) has the 53 This is in general argument cited for reducing the WDT undergone some training. In 38 spite of the fact training budget was that, most often the per cent of cases there was no that a sanctioned budget is not being utilized information available and 20 per cent committee was 115 53 contd... there was no training at all. The capacity enhancement activities are integrated set up to enhancement of WDT is not only into the project cycle and failure to understand the important from the perspective of conduct different capacity building issues related to training and to effective functioning, but is also activities in the stipulated time frame evolve strategies important for CBO and community attracts certain sanctions such as and identify capacity building. In case of watershed withholding of NGO administration. Ten training needs for committees only 37 per cent had some to 12 per cent of the project cost is different CBOs training; no information was available for spent on training and exposure. This is and personnel involved in another 37 per cent; and 26 per cent not part of the project cost but is in watershed had no training. In case of watershed addition to what is being planned for the development secretaries only 33.3 per cent had some project. projects under training. This shows the abysmal state the chairmanship of affairs as far as training and capacity In many watershed related capacity of Mr. V.B. building strategies very little effort is Eswaran and the building are concerned. It was noted at the NGO workshop that even if the PIAs made to educate people on issues recommendations related to resources and their of the (at least the NGO PIAs) are serious Committee, in about capacity-building the sanctioned sustainable use, such as community- favour of budget is not received or released by based water balance assessment. It is improving the the DRDA when it is required. also true for issues of equity and benefit training and sharing mechanisms. Even though budget allocation The IGWDP projects start with a training programmes are conducted for for need-based training. capacity building phase lasting around all-women SHGs, little effort is made to one-and-a-half years. This is the integrate these with watershed community mobilization/institution development. There are also few building and capacity-enhancement attempts at developing participatory phase. At least 70 per cent of experiments and technologies involving households of the watershed community innovative farmers. However one are exposed to successful watershed should be aware of community fatigue projects, and orientation training and the time that people can devote for organized for project personnel. Village training and capacity building. The volunteers are also selected and SHGs methods and systems of training and and VWC organized during this phase. teaching also are very important and Village volunteers known as 'Panlot participatory learning systems can Sevaks' are given training in watershed create conditions for participation of the management, area treatment, taking community. measurements and wage calculation, including documentation. The VWC and 6.3.7 Participation in Monitoring and SHGs are also given detailed training in Evaluation. areas related to their functions. A separate exposure visit is organized for Community participation in monitoring women from the watershed. Biophysical and evaluation can be considered as an work is undertaken in a small area of indicator of a high level of participation around 100 ha for education and and of the empowerment of the demonstration purpose. The crux of this community and their representative phase is induction through participatory institutions. However when the issue of operational pedagogy (POP) and monitoring is elaborated in the learning by doing. The phase helps guidelines or when it is put into people understand aspects of practice, it is always in the sense of watershed planning and development, higher-level agencies doing besides building up consensus around 'surveillance' of activities at the local issues like voluntary labour, social level with the objective of setting things fencing and other conditions. Close right. It is more like Bentham's monitoring is done involving CBOs and Panopticon of surveillance and farmers with the objective of ensuring observation to instill fear that they are the quality of work as well as transfer of always under watch and deviations will monitoring skills. Successful completion be severely punished. The interesting of the phase is followed by the complete aspect is that such surveillance has treatment of watersheds. During that also not succeeded in preventing phase too a series of training and malpractices. This is not to say that capacity-enhancement activities are monitoring is not necessary to ensure organized for the CBOs and project accountability but the best option is staff. The training and capacity- always to ensure the participation of the 116 stakeholder in the process and create well and are able to interpret the conditions for self-monitoring. But the information and outcomes, but the community can participate in monitoring information generated is often narrative/ if conditions and systems are created. If qualitative and most often people do not know what is planned and approximations and not in terms of what are the allocations for different quantifiable and comparable data. components what will they monitor? However one should not expect Thus the precondition to create effective research data from the community; the systems for community monitoring is spirit and purpose is more important. access to information on various aspects of the intervention. Kerr and Periodic monitoring and evaluation by Kolavalli (2002) see community facilitating and external agencies are monitoring in terms of information flow, also necessary, but is always good to and talk of the need to devise innovative, involve the CBOs and interested transparent mechanisms to facilitate an community members in the process. objective flow of information from There may be many issues an outsider communities to donors and programme can locate, which the community may managers. According to them such a not have noticed/ignored due to different flow of information could potentially reasons. Sometimes the perspective on change power relations within issues also may vary and it helps in communities and between communities bringing new learning and different and development organizations. experiences. This may also help the Transparency in project administration is community in looking at issues a key factor in ensuring participatory differently. monitoring at the community level. The Participatory monitoring is closely second important aspect is availability of related to reliable benchmarks and a detailed information in a language the clearly elaborated plan. Participatory people can understand. And the related plan development, which also includes important component is the willingness measurable outputs, inputs and of the PIA to involve the community in outcomes, is necessary for effective understanding and monitoring the monitoring. To an extent planning based progress and outcomes. Equally on the logical framework approach is important is the development and very helpful. Benchmarking and baseline application of easy to use, cost effective information using a combination of PRA and simple monitoring systems and and other scientific methods of data tools. Even though many NGOs involved collection is also required. It is also in watershed projects talk about necessary to develop a set of indicators participatory monitoring there is very related to sustainability, equity and other little documented evidence in the state. project objectives and to build a However, it is noticed that many NGOs consensus around them within the use different PRA tools to monitor the community so that monitoring leads to progress and impacts. Watershed corrective action and improvement. Organization Trust, the support and capacity-building organization for 6.3.8 Financial Transaction, Issues of IGWDP has developed certain Transparency and Participation participatory monitoring tools and is applied periodically in all the projects Control over financial matters is an supported by the organization (Lobo and important indicator of local participation. Samuel 2005). In these projects, the By and large local organizations do not community regularly undertakes seem to have much say in decisions participatory monitoring on its own, as regarding fund allocation, expenditure well as joint monitoring involving the and management even though the work- community/CBOs, NGOs and the related funds are routed through supporting organization. There is also a watershed committees in almost all special effort through training government-supported projects. programmes to enhance the capacity of Generally one or two members of the the local community to undertake self- watershed committees together with the monitoring. WDT leader operate the account and it is often reported that decisions are However, it is often noted that taken by these people. Because of this community and CBOs understand the provision at least these few members process and methods of monitoring very 117 54 For details see know how much money is available for try to link these. For example, it is the Operations the project and how it is being spent on expected that action plans and the Manual of the different activities. However, often proposed budget be approved by the Indo-German Watershed decisions regarding financial matters are Gram Sabha and periodical social Development taken by the PIA with the consent of the auditing conducted to ensure Programme signatories and the watershed transparency in implementation and (IGWDP), committee as an institution mostly acts expenditure. It is also expected that published by as a conduit for channelling funds. wages be disbursed in a public place, WOTR. 1997. Besides these people the watershed and together by the watershed 55 In one case, secretary may be having some committee and the WDT. Wherever when the information about financial issues possible, wages and other expenses responsible because he is a paid employee and is are to be paid through cheques. The officials of DRDA expected to keep books, accounts and Gram Sabha has the right to scrutinize were out of office, no further records of the details of activities the financial transactions. However in disbursement undertaken. In quite few watersheds most government projects these things happened till generally the secretary is also a do not happen. The Dharamitra their return watershed committee member and is evaluations observe that in 38 (Prakash entrusted with the responsibility of the watersheds out of the 144, there were Wanare, in NGO joint signatory, often by the PIA. some problems in the way funds are Workshop) . being managed. There are As said earlier in many NGO-run discrepancies in certain cases, whereas programmes funds are directly managed in some cases, proper accounting and by NGOs. Since most NGOs work in a bookkeeping is not followed. In most participatory manner, they may be cases the watershed committee in consulting watershed committees in particular, and the WA in general, are matters related to planning and ignorant about the financial allocation of funds for different activities. transactions. In quite a few cases the In IGWDP and NABARD-supported sanctioned budget is also not released WDF projects the VWC is involved in entirely. Problems related to fund decisions regarding fund matters and release from the district authorities are the account is jointly operated by the often reported from all parts of the VWC members (two signatories) and the country. Generally, money is released NGO head. In IGWDP there is no fixed by the end of each financial year, which cost for watershed measures as in turn always impacts the mobilization compared to government projects, and and participation of the community. the cost of a watershed is based on the PIAs often find it difficult to keep the plan estimation and area proposed for community's interest and enthusiasm the treatment. Once the planning is over high due to these delays. In the and estimations are decided it is ratified workshop of practitioners held in in the watershed committee and Gram Vidharbha this issue was prominently Sabha and sent to the supporting highlighted. The poor interaction with organization for sanction. It is followed the government machinery and the by a filed verification by the support failure to get funds released at the organization and proposed changes if appropriate time was the major any are discussed in the village meeting 54 bottleneck expressed by almost all and consensus is evolved there itself . implementing agencies. Frequent During project sanction, both the PIA transfers of officials and a basic lack of and two to three representatives of the interpersonal trust between government VWC attend the Project Sanctioning officials and NGOs, the two institutions and Steering Committee (PSSC) committed to the cause of rural meeting and details of the sanctioned development, seem to be at the root of project are explained and discussed. most delays and snags. The committee also gets a copy of the sanctioned project. There is no separate department or even official appointed to look at the Financial issues, transparency and disbursement of funds55. There are participatory monitoring are closely multiple dimensions to the problem of linked and play a crucial role in ensuring fund release. It could be that the funds active participation. For better project for social organization have not been administration all these aspects require completely delivered, or that the release to be part of the implementation of funds for treatments is considerably strategy. Guidelines also in some way delayed. This has two repercussions: 118 first, there are possibilities that the for the NGOs, these norms were slack in 56 Another community, which has begun to be the government-implemented complexity motivated through community watersheds. A common complaint was noted was that due to the organization work, might lose interest in also the problem of repeated arbitrary increase in the the programme; second, since the time checks and surprise visits by various water table after that watershed treatments can be officials from different government the first year's undertaken on the field is limited, work departments and additional intervention, an may get delayed in spite of release of documentation (like getting a certificate additional crop is generally funds. This is true especially in the from the people's representative for taken and the Vidharbha region where the large completion of work) that was required labour/farmer portion of treatments are undertaken on from time to time by NGOs. The frequent get involved private lands after the crop has been transfer of officials and the consequent with it and is not harvested and the fields are empty. re-iteration of earlier procedures added free for 57 watershed work. Many heads of implementing agencies to these problems . In Amravati, felt that it is the government officials who Many NGO participants in the workshop where the first stand in need of training, especially year's work regarding the significance of the expressed a lack of adequate statutory began in timetable of farmers and the schedule of provisions to address the grievances of December and watershed development activities56. these scattered NGOs. They felt that in the second there should be an effort to come year the period It was reported that about 15 to 20 per together to form an association, which available for treatment was cent of the sum granted to projects is would have a greater voice with the further reduced, 58 usually never released by the DRDA. DRDA . The government officials on as labour was Prakash Shirke of the College of Social the other hand could make a common not free from Work, Yavatmal, whose proposal for two cause and also had the power to agricultural adjacent watersheds was for Rs 36 lakh, register complaints with the office of operations till end of March was able to get only Rs 22 lakh by the Commissioner of Charitable Trusts (workshop end of the project period. Another Rs 4 against the concerned PIA. It was discussion). lakh was spent from the watershed suggested in the workshop that a few development fund to complete certain detailed case studies could be 57 This problem treatments. Thus, an amount of Rs 14 undertaken and publicized to illustrate gets further lakhs was never released. Due to delay the problems that the implementing compounded if Mother NGO in fund release the programme went on agencies faced with state machinery in also adopts a for over nine years from 1995-6 to 2004. programmes such as DPAP. surveillance- Recently, Vanrai, an NGO has filed a oriented attitude lawsuit in this respect and has been able Even after two decades of implementing (NGO to get the DRDA to part with the rest of participatory watersheds and several workshop). recommendations by eminent the money. The practitioners also 58 committees still watershed projects are Certain complained that they were often not able NGOs that are to recover the funds that covered suffering from these maladies. Finance- politically remuneration for the NGO's staff and its related issues are still plaguing projects motivated and services. Madhukar Das of the NGO and an efficient community managed have some clout system where people have a decisive might be Dilasa was of the opinion that to run any indifferent to the project in association with DRDA was in say in village development could not be established. As compared to this the prospect of itself a frustrating task. After four months such coalitions, of the experience of implementing a NGO programmes do comparatively which only DPAP programme, he gave up due to better. In IGWDP has adopted a discourages the the inability to cope with the proactive system for the release of others. bureaucratic and indifferent approach of money in instalments (generally two the DRDA. He later worked on projects instalments in an year). When 60 per funded by the Aga Khan Foundation and cent of an instalment is utilized the VWC CAPART (Department of Science and through the NGO can apply for the next Technology) under which he found instalment. On receiving the application funds-disbursement as wells as NABARD conducts a two-day monitoring of work and accounts much monitoring involving CBOs and the NGO more efficient and prompt. and money is released. Availability of 40 per cent of the fund allows continuity of Vishnu Sarkate, of Varhad Vikas Seva work in the interim period. Work Pratishthan, Akola felt that the progress and expenditure are regularly government followed a dual policy. updated and displayed at a public place While people's participation and other and a cadastral map is used to display technical norms were strictly monitored the progress of the work. 119 6.3.9 Participation in Operation, conclusion. In most projects the Maintenance and Resource community and the CBOs are often Management seen playing a peripheral role and only time will tell how they embrace their Over the years institutional mechanisms responsibilities and actively participate and financial provisions have been in conserving and maintaining made for the operation and resources. maintenance of watersheds. Watershed committees and UGs are expected to The most crucial component to judge take up the responsibilities of participation is the systems and maintenance and the Watershed procedures adopted by the community Development Fund (local/beneficiary in regulating resource-use and its contribution) is expected to serve this sustainable management. Emergence, purpose. This is a very commendable formulation and application of development, as compared to the regulatory mechanisms shows the situation that existed earlier. For maturity and coming of age of the example, in early efforts at soil and community and their representative water conservation through the bunding institutions, and one can say that it is at programme in Maharashtra, it was taken this stage that a genuine watershed for granted that even after the community has come into existence. completion of the project, the There are very few instances to implementing agency, mainly the substantiate the argument, however it is government department, would be prudent to say that participation is a responsible for repair and maintenance. means to work out socially acceptable Hence, no institutional or financial and scientifically informed social arrangements were made. Even though regulation measures that lead to the institutional and financial sustainable use of resources and their mechanisms are put in place, that in governance. In the absence of such itself may not ensure participation of the socially accepted regulations, community in operation and competitive extraction of resources maintenance (for greater detail please becomes the order of the day and refer to discussion on operations and people who have resources and clout maintenance in the fourth chapter on often exploit the resultant benefits 'Watershed Development and whether it is water or biomass. This is Sustainability'). The active participation observed in many of the 'successful' of the community in other processes projects such as Agadgaon, and in decision-making is required for Pimpalgaon Wagha etc, where in them to take the responsibility of summer months, especially in a year of maintenance. At the same time issues drought, they fall into the previous of technology, user rights etc., also situation of even getting drinking water influence the process of participation in through tankers. Certain projects have operation and maintenance. If the made conditions like non-cultivation of measures planned and implemented are water intensive crops part of their not in consultation with the people and design, but it is noticed that after the they do not perceive or receive any withdrawal of the PIA people are opting benefits from it there is very little chance for the same. Regulations should that those assets are properly emerge from society through informed maintained. The sustainability of the choices, negotiations and democratic institutions designed and promoted is processes. As an example, in Ralegaon crucially linked to the operation and Siddhi, there was an understanding maintenance of assets. Most often it is amongst the people that nobody would noticed that these organizations go in for an individual well. They become dormant in the post-project decided to have community wells near phase and slowly lose relevance. each check dam on the major stream in Progressive empowerment of the the watershed with a clear community in different stages of project understanding as to how much water implementation is necessary for them to each one would receive. Each water take full responsibility for governance of user was given a card, something like a resources and assets in the future. ration card, in which the details of the However, our analysis is not fully irrigation rotations, etc., were recorded. leading to this direction which would They also decided not to grow water- have enabled us to come to a firm intensive crops like sugarcane with this 120 water (however, they laid down no such The new guideline gives priority to PRIs 59 Discussion restrictions the use of water received as implementation agencies, and in the with project staff from Kukudi irrigation canal). As a result state, projects implemented through the of the Social Centre, the village stayed self-sufficient for PRIs have only started since 2003, Ahmednagar, drinking water in even in acute drought hence it is difficult to say which the NGO years (Paranjape et al. 1998). In another institutional mechanism is better worked in project in Ahmadnagar district, Kasare, equipped to handle watershed Kasare after the implementation of watershed development and ensure community watershed in Ahmednagar and increased availability of water participation. It is observed that earlier taluka. people went in for sugarcane cultivation, projects had no active links with the but the drought and resultant shortage of Gram Panchayat (GP) except to gain drinking water during 1995-97, forced the consent of the gram sabha and the community to rethink about planting passing the resolution for initiating water intensive crops and over watershed development in the village. In exploitation of resources. This resulted case of IGWDP at least one Gram in a decision not to cultivate sugarcane Panchayat member is expected to be a in the watershed59. member of the VWC and it is observed in Vaiju Babulgaon and Ambevadi projects were there were common 6.4. Watershed Development and members who were part of VWC and Panchayat Raj Institutions GP. In case of Dornali (AFARM), Chale (DPAP) also, we could find common Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) are members. CBO members are also often constitutionally designed institutional observed contesting and getting elected mechanisms for democratic participation to the GP. at the micro/village level. However, there seems to be a sharp division of opinion At a practitioners workshop organized amongst researchers and practitioners as part of this review certain with regard to the role of PRIs in observations emerged in relation to the watershed development. This issue new Hariyali guidelines. There were becomes increasingly important in the mixed feelings, while some NGO and context of the 73rd amendment of the GO members felt that it was an attempt Indian Constitution aimed at devolving to marginalize the NGO's role in more powers to the PRIs and the watershed projects which would only emergence of Hariyali guidelines for impact the programmes adversely, watershed implementation. The issue in others felt that it was the right move in contention is whether it is the PRI, which the direction of enabling village-level is well equipped to handle watershed institutions to take the responsibility of development, or is it better handled by development in their own hands. the CBOs, as is the general practice. Prakash Shirke (College of Social Work, Those who are in favour of PRIs argue Yavatmal), supported the new guidelines that they are constitutionally valid bodies saying that till now the NGO had been and are more accountable and will have made the scapegoat between continuity as compared to CBOs, which Government departments and village- are more informal and do not have level bodies such as the VWC, with the, sufficient statutory powers. There is "government firing its gun placed on the another section, which argues that PRIs NGO's shoulder". However, now the should function as statutory bodies and NGO could render technical/ watershed developmental functions organizational assistance on a should not be their responsibility, contractual basis. Mr. Khadse of because they are already burdened with Dharamitra was sceptical of the Hariyali a lot of work and watershed guidelines, which might mean less development requires considerable time dedication and more confusion in for facilitation and implementation. There implementation. He felt that the is also a middle path that feels that it is emphasis should instead be on necessary that CBOs are responsible for identifying the right NGOs. In a watershed development, but they can discussion held in the village Sanglud, function as a sub-committee (like many the VWC chairman was pessimistic other committees functioning under the about Hariyali as he felt there would be Gram Panchayat such as education, increased scope of bribery and delays. health, sanitation etc) under the PRI. He felt that the programme would be hampered by political concerns as most 121 villages are anyway split into two requirements, but do not play any electoral factions and conflicting meaningful role; their composition is interests. The NGO on the other hand simply to satisfy a checklist and get the being a third party had a greater scope funds rolling. Similarly, for facilitating of getting the village to participate implementation of Hariyali, either the without necessarily inviting direct DRDA or the Zilla Parishad selects a confrontations. Also, the village programme implementation agency -- Sarpanch (president) and Sachiv usually an NGO that is floated politically (secretary) might not be able to give and serves private interests more than enough time given their other duties and the programmes. It is now being commitments. Mr. Chaudhari, project suggested that instead a District director of DRDA felt that unless village- Watershed Committee of technical level institutions were better trained, it experts should be appointed to select was difficult to expect efficient handling the implementers -- so that the of funds around Rs 25-30 lakhs involved selection would not smack of politics in the projects. The watershed but would be purely on merit and communities constituted presently under technical grounds. the DPAP projects usually include one or two GP members in spite of this not being mandatory in the earlier 6.5. Observations guidelines. However, selective NGOs seemed to work entirely through the Participation in the processes and participation of the gram sabha while practice of watershed development is others approached the gram sabha only considered the key to implementing an if there were any issues which coud not effective and sustainable watershed be resolved within the watershed development and during the course of committee. There seemed to be no evolution of watershed development major power conflicts in any of the one could observe certain decisive villages visited between the GP and the steps in this direction by both watershed committee. The secretary of government-supported projects and the VWC in the area of the Chandrapuri those of the NGOs. Even though there Maharaj Trust commented that when the are qualitative differences in the way watershed treatment work was participation is initiated and realized in happening, at that time the watershed different projects, there is increasing committee was seen as the more active acceptance and consensus among institution and considerable importance different actors about the importance of was given to the committee head as community-participation and its role in against the Sarpanch. In another resource conservation and instance at Vastapur, the PIA with the management. However our review Sarpanch's support constructed toilets shows that participation is often very that were later shown as being funded nominal and operationalized by GP funds! Another drawback in the instrumentally without much Hariyali guidelines was pointed by consideration shown to local conditions Madhukar Gharad of Vanrai Mitra or factors that influence participation of Mandal who commented that most of different sections and power groups. the important decisions were taken at Besides, the agenda and rules of the Mantralay (ministry) level which were participation are decided by higher level not made clear for those working at the agencies such as the funding district and taluka level. In fact, the PIA organizations and coordinating often did not understand the role and institutions, and villagers are expected duties that they had to undertake as a to participate in their agenda and terms PIA. without having any creative role. Consent of the 'community' is taken as The workshop observed that the the indicator of participation, even guidelines also encourage the though many practitioners are aware involvement of UGs and SHGs. But that such so called consent may not subsidies available to such groups reflect the actual reality of the village under other schemes -- like Sampoorna communities which are a Gram Rojgar Yojana -- are not available conglomeration of alliances and under Hariyali's watershed development conflicts based on different socio- efforts. Hence, the groups are often economic factors. It is also common formed to satisfy Hariyali's that participation often takes the view 122 and consent of the powerful, and watershed development governance minority views and non-vocal sections related to resources. Another aspect is get ignored in the process. The that most often many project-related philosophy, approach and culture of the decisions are taken at the higher level of facilitating PIAs play a crucial role in stakeholders (such as coordinating and preparing the community for funding organizational level) and the participation and creating space for it to community seldom has any say in such engage in decisive participation in matters. However, certain trends and the project management. Ideally speaking, direction of project implementation point participation should lead to towards the increasing community empowerment of the community and participation and consultation in project- their CBOs, which in turn will enable related decisions and this should be them to take up responsibilities of considered a welcome step. governance, and in the context of
123 technologies of conservation and Chapter 7 production, issues related to equity in benefits, sustainability, participation and devolution, downward accountability etc. Addressing these issues require changes in policy, approaches and implementation strategies. It is also necessary that sufficient information and knowledge be generated on different aspects of watershed development through interdisciplinary and intensive researches and studies, action-research projects and piloting of Issues, Concerns and Research experiments. As the review shows, Needs currently there is a dearth of information on major issues of concern and most often the information and knowledge Watershed development has emerged available are not based on rigorous as a key strategy for rural development methodology and analytical in the state of Maharashtra since the frameworks. early 1990s. This paradigm shift in rural development was facilitated by some There are a number of programmes pioneering examples of watershed being implemented in the state, development being undertaken in the involving different agencies and with state by motivated individuals and different implementation strategies. organizations in villages like Ralegaon Based on the information available Siddhi, Agadgaon, Pimpalgaon Wagha, more than Rs 22,5176 lakhs was spent Hivre Bazar etc. Even though the state on different projects during 1992-2002 had undertaken different conservation and still more than 145 lakh ha remains activities such as farm bunds and nalla to be treated. Even though so much is bunds since the early 1970s, the invested in drought-proofing and concept of integrated biophysical enhancing the productive potential of treatment of a watershed with the rainfed areas, our review shows that on- involvement of the community as the ground achievements are not very driving force came into existence with laudable or effective, barring certain the emergence of these villages in the projects and villages. This is not to drought-prone areas of the state. More deny the importance of watershed than half the state being drought-prone development as a rural development and agriculture activities determined by strategy, but to initiate a critical look at the vagaries of nature, these villages the experiences, so as to reformulate came as a ray of hope for development strategies and approaches to improve practitioners, policy makers and village the efficiency, effectiveness and communities at large. And the 1990s outcomes of watershed interventions. witnessed a large number of watershed The problem with a 'watershed projects being implemented throughout development programme' or WDP the state supported by government begins with the fact that the notion of agencies, bilateral organizations/ development that underpins the agencies, NGOs etc. concept of 'integrated watershed As projects reached a critical scale and development' is rather narrow, i.e., varieties of experiences got focused on production or income gains. accumulated through interactions At present, the main goals of WDPs do among the community of practitioners, not include equity, sustainability and researches and evaluations, newer participatory democratization or, if they problems and critical concerns started are included in the guidelines at all, it is emerging. The concerns are multiple, as in a very narrow sense without being is evident from our review; most often properly articulated. For example, interlinked and touching on different sustainable water use is not thought aspects related to policy and practice through clearly -- the thrust is on water such as project organization and resource augmentation. Similarly, management, micro- and macro-level participation is simplistically assumed to strategies, objectives and outcomes, ensure democracy (Joy et al. 2006). 124 The long-term possibility of ensuring that implementation of those measures sustainable livelihoods and resource will automatically lead to improved augmentation and use would depend a resource management, enhanced lot on how these goals are articulated production and livelihood options. and how they are incorporated in Neither a farming system approach nor watershed development practice. Some a livelihood system approach is followed of the key concerns that emerged in our for planning of watersheds. This is very review, and which have a bearing on important not only from the perspective what we have stated above, are of creating sustainable livelihoods, but discussed in the following section. also from sustainability and equity concerns. If different sections identify a livelihood stake in watershed 7.1 Change in Approach and Strategy development, the very sustainability of the intervention is more likely ensured. Planning from a livelihood perspective, 7.1.1 Project Planning involving all households and sections in All most all projects have more or less a watershed may create chances for the same objectives viz., improving bringing equity concerns to the center socio-economic conditions of the stage of watershed development. community, conserving and developing Currently the 'real planning' where the natural resource base, generating investments are involved is with the employment, community empowerment landholders; even though PRAs are etc. Even though the objective of conducted, they fail to elicit different watershed development has moved to concerns in relation to conservation, an extent from simple conservation to resource-regeneration and livelihoods. creation of rural livelihoods (GoI 2001), This may be the reason for livelihoods still the approach, strategies, methods of becoming non-farm income-generation implementation and financial allocations activities. This may lead to change and are more in terms of simple conservation flexibility in fund allocation for different of soil and water. Watershed measures. development still is not strategized in terms of creating sustainable livelihoods 7.1.2 Watershed Development Unit by improving the productive potential of the ecosystem. Unlike other Another issue with respect to planning, conservation strategies (for e.g., forest which has a policy bearing, is related to and species conservation), the the size of the 'unit of planning' and philosophy and practice of watershed- currently it is micro-watersheds based conservation is not at generally of just more than 500 ha. Most loggerheads with livelihoods of the often, such a small unit may not reflect community inhabiting the watershed macro issues and concerns, especially area. In fact, the very objective of those related hydrology and other watershed development should be externalities. Small basins and sustainable productivity enhancement catchments as units, with an integrated and, consequently, increased livelihood perspective of resource management options and support. To achieve this, a may be necessary without ignoring the critical shift is required in the way micro concerns. This also will mean watersheds are being planned and integrating the micro and macro implemented. Most often conservation concerns in the planning details. measures planned and implemented are Saturation of a larger area is also independent of the farming systems and important from the point of impacts, livelihood strategies of the local resource efficiency and evolving community. They stand as individual mechanisms for regulation of measures, independent of the regenerated resources. production potential of the ecosystem resources as a whole. Planning should 7.1.3 Project Implementation and look into the livelihood strategies of Community Participation different sections living in the watershed, and their relation/dependence to Another important concern is related to ecosystem resources. The dominant the methods and strategies of project practice currently followed is to identify a administration. Increased devolution of set of treatment measures, assuming authority to the community is required. At present, the community is expected 125 to participate in a set of agendas on Watershed Association which is more which they do not have much control, equipped to handle such issues. even though projects are called However there should be sufficient participatory. The community should attention paid to involving and creating have an increased say/role in project- space for the powerless and related issues such as finance disadvantaged sections such as dalits, management, allocations for different adivasis, women, landless etc .It may aspects, local contribution etc. More not be an easy task given the culture of devolution of authority should occur in exclusion and silence traditionally congruence with strategies for increased prevalent in our society. Community democratization of the community or it organization and institution building at may preserve the status quo. This may the local level requires more attention also require increased flow of project- and an increased time frame. related information to the community Implementation of conservation and different sections, especially the measures should start only after resource-poor such as labourers in the achieving this objective. Negotiations watershed site, women and other and arrangements for resource disadvantaged sections. Downward augmentation and sharing may also be accountability from the higher levels of part of institution-building. Most often hierarchy to the local level is also very the institution (read members) does not important. Currently, the community is see a stake in the project and the asked to undertake a lot of responsibility resultant benefits hence become in relation to the project implementation, dormant and inactive. Related to this is without sufficient devolution of authority, also the issue of capacity building of even though most state-supported relevant stakeholders. A capacity projects have systems to transfer the building strategy should be integral to project money to the watershed project management, resource- committee jointly operated with the augmentation and management. It WDT. However, most often it is the WDT needs to be embedded with the project which takes major decisions regarding strategy and project duration. In most its allocation and use. government-supported projects, as the review shows, it is a one-time effort and Effective and empowered participation progressive induction in improving the also requires strategies for capacity based on different democratization and decision-making at requirements of the project is not the community level. Our review shows visible. With the new Hariyali guidelines, that most often a couple of watershed even the fund allocation for community committee members are involved in organization and capacity building has decision-making and other institutions also been reduced to five per cent as promoted as part of watershed compared to ten per cent available development seldom have any role in earlier. Bringing in the concept of decisions. Even though formation of 'Mother NGO' as a resource SHGs and UGs are considered a organization in improving community precondition for watershed development organizations, capacity building and and formation of watershed committees, participation also need to be analysed they hardly have a role in decisions for their effectiveness in bringing regarding project administration. In changes in these areas. states like Andhra Pradesh attempts are made to increase the involvement of SHGs and UGs by getting different 7.1.4 Conservation and Production watershed activities implemented by Technology them with the watershed committee Related to this is the issue of watershed working as a management and technology and the role of the coordinating body. This creates a stake community in selecting relevant and and say for these institutions in appropriate technology. Most often the watershed-oriented decisions. Beside tendency is to choose conventional these responsibilities related to project technologies, like cement masonry administration there are also wider structures. It is also noticed that the issues related to regulation of resources better-off farmers who have lands in the at the local level. In our opinion it is valley often put pressure on the PIA to necessary that these responsibilities be opt for such measures. How ever entrusted with the Gram Sabha/ technologies should be a god mix of 126 low cost (using local material and skills) user rights to the community and with some components of conventional resource-poor, except may be for the measures. Efforts are needed in JFM resolution. Most often the identification and upgrading of local developed commons fail to ensure some technologies the farmers are using. returns, except for grass in some Technologies should have scope for instances, due to improper technology easy comprehension and acceptance by and plant species. However, the local community. The issue of development of commons and allocation technology has an implication for of certain rights in favour of the livelihoods, equity in investments and resource-poor is necessary in the sustainability of watershed measures. watershed development programmes to Besides conservation technologies, the address the issue of livelihoods of the kind of production technologies resource-poor. Increased investments, promoted under watershed are also resolving administrative bottlenecks, conventional and external-input oriented. interdepartmental coordination and Since increase in production is one of policy formulation for user rights are the major goals of watershed required to achieve this. development the facilitators, especially those from the government departments 7.1.6 Equity tend to choose such methods. At present there are not many incentives in Related to this is the issue of equity in favour of switching to low-external input access to augmented resources. While sustainable agriculture, in terms of the there could be an enabling environment subsidies available or pricing of the and legal provisions which can further product. Watershed development has equity, equity in and of itself cannot be the scope of bringing such incentives, legislated. A greater awareness of and especially for medium and small sensitivity to equity issues and their farmers. There should also be scope for implications are a precondition, if one participative experimentation with has to even explore various possibilities. farmers in developing conservation and There are many possibilities. Equity can production technologies. Addressing be achieved through social these issues will call for increased arrangements for increased access to allocation and rearrangements in budget rejuvenated resources such as biomass, allocation for different components. It water etc. Creating surface water will also mean improved capacity of the resources (in a conventional watershed, WDT and exposures and capacity the tendency to convert all water into building of farmers. groundwater requires rethinking) and biomass and access to it in favour of the 7.1.5 Common Property Land resource-poor is very important. Resources Increased allocation of project-related finance for developing such measures, Regarding development of common besides other biomass related income- property land resources (CPLR), both generation activities, are also important. the forest and community lands have Equity can also be addressed through also emerged as an important issue in increased investments in labour-oriented our review. It has its implication on conservation measures ensuring that the issues related to livelihoods of the labour goes to the resource-poor and resource-poor. Most often these lands they get the 'real' wage as factored in are not developed under the watershed the project. It is also important that programme due to practical and labourers receive equal wages and are administrative reasons. In places where not paying the contribution for the they are developed, this has not landholders as a 'wage cut'. Facilitating succeeded in ensuring the usufructs to equity concerns require 'out of the box' the resource poor. Ensuring rights over thinking, a different set of capacities and augmented resources in favour of the sensitivity with the WDT. resource-poor is essential. To an extent it can be facilitated at the community 7.1.7 Operation and Management of level, but the necessary administrative Assets and legal provisions (in relation to different common property regimes) are Sustainability of project measures and required to ensure this. There are no ecosystem resources are a major enabling policy frameworks to provide concern in most programmes under 127 review. Lack of strategy is observed in precondition to grant watershed maintaining and repair of measures and development projects. Besides assets created under the project. Even community-initiated regulation, it might though a watershed development fund also require certain enabling policy (WDF) is created and PIAs are expected initiative and legislation on the part of to chart out an exit protocol, the the state to enable Gram Sabhas to operation and maintenance of regulate water use. watershed measures is in disarray. Communities are found lacking a vision 7.1.9 Project Management or systems in respect of post-project management of assets. In many places A major concern that has emerged as the WDF is neither utilized nor is there part of the review is the overall much information about its status. A management (including issues related clear strategy for management of WDF to finance) and delivery systems in and systems for operationalizing asset watershed development. Reforms in the maintenance are required. institutional arrangement are required to streamline delivery systems of 7.1.8 Management of Groundwater watershed development. Currently, the Zilla Parisad/DRDA is responsible for The review also shows that the use of district-level project management and water for irrigation is expanding and has a number of other mandates of receiving greater priority in watershed which watershed development is one. A projects. In most projects for which dedicated Project Support Unit with information is available, the number of subject matter specialists in community water extraction sources such as open organization, capacity building, gender, wells and borewells have increased after monitoring and evaluation, GIS/MIS is watershed implementation. Even though required to bring professionalism into there is increased groundwater recharge the watershed management and as a result of water conservation, the delivery mechanism. Such a system is extraction is often outpacing the amount also required at the state level. There is of recharge, creating a water shortage a need to organize empowered during the summer months. The water committees with experts from state and situation in most watersheds during civil society to provide overall steering summer months is almost the same as and monitoring support. Financial what it was earlier, with water tankers allocation is also required for supplying water for drinking and undertaking embedded and periodic household use. Most often the scarcity monitoring and evaluations, issue- is explained as a result of poor rainfall, based studies and research. Flexibility ignoring issues related to over- in project administration is required so extraction, lopsided prioritization of that findings from such activities can be water use etc. A simple but scientific incorporated to improve the efficiency system of analyzing the water balance and effectiveness of the project. at the community level is also lacking. Overexploitation is leading to extraction A lot of problems are observed in relation of water from the deep aquifers with to fund disbursement. Most often money serious implications not just for long- is released at the fag end of the financial term sustainability of agriculture, but year, affecting the quality of biophysical also for the quality of water for the activity and community mobilization. A domestic sector. There are a few performance-related and transparent examples where the community has system of fund disbursement is required introduced self-regulation on for improving the efficiency of the groundwater extraction and use, such projects. This may also require the as a ban on borewells for agriculture creation of commonly agreed systems and on cultivation of water-intensive and procedures, including indicators for crops. These examples are far and few. performance assessment. There should However, it is very important to set up also be systems for redressal in cases regulatory mechanisms within the where decisions are found to be community that will ensure priority to arbitrary. An overall transparency is domestic water use and will also required in project administration and monitor and regulate groundwater details of financial allocation and status extraction. The self-regulation by of different projects should be available communities can be made a in the public domain. 128 7.1.10 Baseline/ Benchmarking years. 60 Parthasarthy Committee Another concern is the absence of Phasing of projects: capacity- report also reliable baseline data/information on building and community mobilization suggests an biophysical resources and sociological phase (social and institutional increased allocation (Rs aspects of watersheds. Such a baseline arrangements for augmented 12000/ha) and and benchmarking is very important to resources, capacity building of WDT an increased understand changes and impacts of and villagers); implementation project period. watershed development. In the absence phase (biophysical, production and of such information, impacts and livelihoods) and consolidation phase processes are assessed on the basis of (sustainable productivity estimations and recall, as is evident from enhancement, handing over all our literature survey. Financial allocation responsibilities, consolidating and development of easy-to-use livelihoods of resource poor etc.). scientific tools for information collection Progressive entry to the next phase and management is required in based on performance. watershed development. Increased allocation of funds: Rs. 12,000 ha from the current norm of Rs 600060. Fund to be earmarked 7.2 Some Strategies for Improving the for database and monitoring Efficiency and Effectiveness of information, targeted allocation for Watershed Development resource-poor. Selection and prioritization of Monitoring and evaluation: watersheds: eligible blocks may be development of systems and tools, prioritized based on additional MIS, systems of transparency, parameters (such as groundwater participatory end-phase evaluations, situation, status of biomass etc.) monitoring of process and other than those prescribed in the outcomes. guidelines. Delineation to be done at milli-watersheds/contiguous area of Enlisting the support of resource more than 5 to10000 ha and at organization and individuals for micro-watershed level for the entire support services in technology block. The strategy should to bring development, livelihood promotion, the prioritized Milli-watersheds, participatory resource budgeting/ sequentially under minimum soil and plan and use etc. water conservation measures, and one PIA should be made Creation of transparent processes responsible for that. Selection to be and systems for assessment, more objective and transparent. scrutiny and fund release. Assessing community's willingness. Embedded capacity-building plan in Selection of resource organization/ relation to capacity requirement in project support unit at district level. different phases. Selection of PIA: objective criteria, Strategy for increased devolution of proven record, capacity- authority and responsibility to the assessment, ideology and community. commitment to participatory Formation of nested institutions: to processes, non-political selection address issues above the village etc. level, for backward and for ward Planning: moving away from linkages in production, marketing conservation planning to livelihood etc. and land-use/ production (farming) system planning. 7.3 Research Needs Baseline and planning tools: natural resource and biophysical It is evident from our literature review benchmarking, sociological details, that, there is a 'knowledge gap' in some mix of participatory and scientific critical areas related to participatory planning tools. watershed development. Barring a few examples, there is very little in-depth Extended project period: eight to ten and holistic information on different 129 aspects of watershed development, intra- and inter-watershed covering the biophysical, social/ sociological and economic issues. anthropological and institutional aspects of watershed development. This has its Conservation/development impact in evolving sound strategies for measures/technologies and their improving the efficiency and impact on soil, water and effectiveness of watershed vegetation/biomass in different development. Most often these studies rainfall and geophysical conditions. are very limited in scope and objective, Grazing, resource-management, and are mostly done immediately after livestock and livelihoods in the project implementation, covering a few watershed context. biophysical and social aspects. Watershed development is a complex, Watershed development, multi-sectoral intervention and a host of mobilization of ecosystem factors influence its outcomes. Some resources and livelihood issues in outcomes take longer to register/ different socio-ecological regions. manifest their visibility and immediate Common property resources, evaluations fail to capture them. Most watershed development and its issues that need critical analysis and impact on livelihoods of the understanding require time-series data. resource-poor. Issues related to The human, ecosystem resource and user rights/access on rejuvenated livelihood interaction also undergoes common property resources. changes due to external factors such as changes in production system (means Comparison of tribal and non-tribal and methods), variations in climatic watersheds. conditions (drought), larger political economic policies and processes etc. Time-series studies of selected Understanding these in the context of watersheds over a period of time watershed development is also very covering issues of resource use, important and may require long-term sustainability, equity in access etc. studies. Watershed being a combination Process studies of different of biophysical and social intervention, projects or modes of researches and studies need to adopt implementation (government, NGO, inter-disciplinary approaches and bilateral) in terms of project- methods to capture the outcomes in a management systems, approaches holistic way. Resource utilization is also and strategies, participatory determined by the cultural habits and processes, devolution, monitoring economic behaviour of the community and evaluation systems, and economic/cultural anthropological withdrawal/exit strategies etc. analysis is required to understand these aspects. Institutions, social capital and its impacts on participation, equity and sustainability. Some areas in which research studies Watershed development and its and action research projects are scope and limits in livelihood required are61: generation in heterogonous units and resource-poor areas. GIS-based change detection and 61 The priority Study of the cumulative impact of focus areas for watershed development taking a impact analysis. research larger unit area, something like a Impact of support organization grouped under sub-basin (contiguous micro- (mother or support NGOs/ three broad watersheds of more than 10,000 ha areas, namely, organizations) in project or so) saturated by watershed hydrological, management, participation, activities to understand the impacts land-vegetation- capacity building, community water on hydrology (both surface and mobilization and institution-building. interactions, and groundwater), interaction amongst socio-economic different locations in the watershed Watershed development, aspects, are also (for example ridge and valley discussed in Joy employment generation, trickle- and Paranjape interactions), resource conflicts, down effect: the resource-poor and (2004). institutions and governance and their stake in watershed 130 development. reorientation that might be best captured 62 This section is as a shift from "integrated and drawn from Joy Action research on community- participatory watershed management" to et al. (2006), Reorienting the based water balance assessment, "integrated and decentralized resource budgeting and monitoring. Watershed governance". This entails: Programme in Developing robust models for this is India, important. Adopting productivity, livelihood Occasional assurance, sustainability, equity, Paper, Forum Action research on participatory and democracy as basic values or for Watershed technology development (PTD) for goals. Research and soil and water conservation and Policy Dialogue, agricultural/biomass production Integration across all resources and Pune. keeping the land capability classes related sectors (forest, livestock, so that interventions especially in drinking water and sanitation, minor land classes irrigation, etc.) and across scales (micro to milli to sub-basin). The newly formed Forum for Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue Moving towards a statutory system (ForWaRD), Pune, a collaborative effort to regulate resource use beyond the of the Society for Promoting life of the watershed programme. Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM), Pune, the Gujarat Moving towards greater downward Institute of Development Research accountability. (GIDR), Ahmedabad and Centre for Clearer separation of roles at Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment different levels, with central and and Development (CISED), Bangalore state agencies focusing on funding, are currently involved in some of these district agencies focusing on research areas and questions discussed provision of information, training, above in the three states of technical support, and monitoring, a Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and milli-watershed level institution Karnataka respectively. Some of the handling implementation and some broader aspects that ForWaRD would regulatory aspects, and micro- like to address in its research efforts are watershed level institutions handling productivity/livelihoods and other planning and long-term regulation. benefits, downstream impacts, cross- sectoral allocation of water and Looking at drought not as a purely democracy in implementation. hydrological drought but as a social phenomenon triggered by it, and therefore requiring the incorporation 7.4 Reorienting the Watershed of the notion of dependability. Programme62 ForWaRD is aware that mere rigorous research is not going to deliver; also mere tinkering with the existing guidelines and policies will not help in actualizing the full potential of WDP. The review clearly shows that the programme needs to be restructured significantly, if the watershed development approach has to deliver what it promises. Such a restructuring must clearly embrace a normative framework that treats livelihoods, productivity, sustainability, equity and decentralized governance as its central concerns, and must be based on strategies that respond to the varying socio-ecological contexts and past experiences with implementation. What is needed is a radical restructuring and reorientation of the programme -- a 131 Annextures
Table A 2.1: Land Utilization Statistics (2000-02) (Figures in percentage unless specified) Division Konkan Nashik Pune Kolhapur Abad Latur Awati Nagpur div. div. div. div. div. div. div. div. State total Reported area for land 29,790 41,653 47,518 26,955 28,48 35,945 45,967 51,266 307,583 utilization statistics 9 (00ha) Forest 19.70 24.44 7.63 12.43 3.54 3.52 15.30 38.67 16.96 Barren and unculturable 17.65 7.50 7.12 7.51 1.86 1.70 2.78 1.97 5.59 land Land under non agri-use 7.26 1.82 2.88 4.14 4.42 3.09 4.58 7.53 4 .47 Culturable waste 9.21 0.72 2.02 3.31 2.54 3.97 1.44 2.80 2.97 Permanent pastures 3.71 2.70 3.35 5.07 3.56 3.33 3.84 6.48 4 .07 Land under misc. trees 2.69 0.16 0.48 0.96 0.61 0.77 0.50 0.81 0.80 and grooves not included in net area sown
Current fallows 2.22 2.22 4.78 2.56 7.22 7.93 2.38 3.16 3.95 Other fallows 10.09 1.29 5.57 4.76 4.25 4.71 1.62 1.56 3.87 Net area sown 27.48 59.19 66.17 59.26 71.97 71 67.57 37.01 57 .32 Area sown more than 2.42 15.04 14.21 20.01 23.14 30.57 19.06 4.41 15.52 once Gross cropped area 29.90 74.23 80.38 79.27 95.11 101.57 86.63 41.42 72.84
Source: www.agri.mah.nic.in/agri/stat/Lus-main
132 Source: GoM, Table A 2.2: Agro-climatic Distribution of Drought-prone Areas and Extent of Irrigation in Maharashtra zones, 2003 Droug ht- Net Drought- prone Geographical cropped Irrigated Irrigated prone area area District area (000 ha) area area area (%) (000 ha) (%) Thane 972 244,600 12,375 5 Raigad 687 188,500 9,600 5 Ratnagiri 816 245,400 1,950 1 Sindhudurg 504 140,200 23,550 17 Konkan div. 2,979 818,700 47,475 5.80 Nashik 1,563 886,600 170,250 19 1,563 100 Dhule 1,438 734,700 77,400 11 1,062 74 Jalgaon 1,164 850,500 132,750 16 651 56 Nashik div. 4,165 2,471,800 380,400 15.39 3,276 79 Ahmadnagar 1,702 1,145,600 253,425 22 1,261 74 Pune 1,562 977,200 213,000 22 1,500 96 Solapur 1,488 1,037,700 192,900 19 1,327 89 Pune div. 4,752 3,160,500 659,325 20.86 4,088 86 Kolhapur 776 424,600 93,450 22 0 Satara 1,058 577,800 166,275 29 436 41 Sangli 861 591,700 109,275 18 719 83 Kolhapur div. 2,695 1,594,100 369,000 23.15 1,155 43 Aurangabad 1,008 702,500 141,600 20 802 80 Jalna 773 603,200 82,425 14 188 24 Bid 1,069 778,200 188,250 24 823 77 Aurangabad div. 2,849 2,083,900 412,275 19.78 1,813 64 Latur 716 534,400 29,325 5 488 68 Osmanabad 749 507,500 91,050 18 317 42 Nanded 1,033 710,600 55,575 8 470 46 Parbhani 1,097 825,700 83,325 10 126 11 Latur div. 3,595 2,578,200 259,275 10.06 1,401 39 Buldhana 967 692,900 37,725 5 684 71 Akola 1,056 818,500 23,475 3 1,056 100 Amravati 1,222 752,000 58,800 8 680 56 Yavatmal 1,352 849,900 47,400 6 1,034 76 Amravati div. 4,597 3,113,300 167,400 5.38 3,453 75 Nagpur 986 547,600 101,175 18 83 8 Chandrapur 1,092 459,600 83,400 18 349 32 Gadchiroli 1492 178,800 43,575 24 306 20 Bhandara 928 358,600 165,975 46 0 Wardha 629 366,500 33,450 9 0 Nagpur div. 5,127 1,911,100 427,575 22.37 738 14 Maharashtra 30,758 17,731,600 2,722,725 15.36 15,923 52 133 Table A 2.3: District/ Division-wise Distribution of Watersheds
District Number of watersheds Major- Sub- Mini- Micro- Thane 34 140 288 789 Raigad 17 91 220 678 Ratnagiri 20 82 116 504 Sindhudurg 11 68 191 650 Konkan div. 82 381 815 2,621 Nashik 80 283 501 2,518 Dhule/Nandurbar 65 302 589 1,600 Jalgaon 66 278 678 1,328 Nasik div. 211 863 1,768 5,446 Pune 71 303 637 3,290 Ahmadnagar 80 225 835 3,466 Solapur 64 185 415 1,296 Pune Div. 215 713 1,887 8,052 Satara 50 217 446 1,361 Sangli 38 202 400 1,005 Kolhapur 40 193 366 1,621 Kholapur div. 128 612 1,212 3,987 Aurangabad 52 226 0 1,190 Jalna 52 191 385 1,299 Beed 48 104 322 2,132 Aurangabad Div. 152 521 707 4,621 Latur 39 117 211 8,06 Osmanabad 41 151 291 9,35 Nanded 49 123 256 1,307 Parbhani/Hingoli 51 246 506 1,541 Latur div. 180 637 1,264 4,589 Buldhana 57 250 514 1,471 Akola 65 155 261 6,65 Washim 131 243 5,87 Amravati 63 228 450 1,341 Yavatmal 64 439 732 1,503 Amravati Div. 249 1,203 2,200 5,567 Wardha 39 144 0 1,162 Nagpur 54 206 0 1,792 Bhandara 54 157 0 1,416 Chandrapur 58 154 0 2,174 Gadchiroli 83 182 0 2,758 Nagpur Div. 288 843 0 9,302 Total 1,505 5,773 9,853 44,185
134 Table A 2.4: DPAP Projects Sanctioned in Maharashtra
District Number of projects sanctioned1 Batch 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8TH Har-I Har-II Total Year 95-96 96- 97- 98- 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 97 98 99 Installments 7 7 7 7 7 6 5 4 2 1 due Nashik 78(5) 0 0 0 0 0 26(1) 52(1) 26(1) 26(1) 208 Dhule 41(7) 41(1) 20(1) 14(1) 0 6(1) 6(1) 144 Nandurbar 0 0 0 8(1) 8(1) Jalgaon 38(4) 0 0 0 0 20(2) 14(2) 35(2) 14(1) 14(1) 135 Nashik div. 487 Ahmedngar 60(5) 0 0 0 0 85(1) 20(1) 0 20(1) 20(1) 205 Pune 72(4) 0 0 0 0 24(2) 48(2) 22(1) 23(1) 189 Sholapur 59(6) 0 0 0 0 84(2) 20(2) 0 20(1) 21(1) 204 Pune div. 598 Sangli 35(7) 0 0 0 35(2) 15(2) 12(2) 0 14(1) 15(1) 126 Satara 23(7) 0 0 0 23(2) 11(2) 8(2) 0 8(1) 8(1) 81 Kolhapur div. 207 A. Bad 35(6) 0 0 0 35(2) 15(2) 12(2) 0 12(1) 12(1) 121 Beed 34(5) 0 0 0 0 54(2) 12(2) 0 12(1) 12(1) 124 Jalna 11(5) 0 0 0 0 25(1) 4(1) 0 4(1) 4(1) 48 Aurangabad 293 div. Nanded 23(6) 0 0 0 23(3) 15(3) 8(3) 0 8(1) 8(1) 85 Osmbad 18(7) 0 0 0 18(3) 21(3) 6(3) 0 6(1) 7(1) 76 Parbhani 24(5) 0 0 0 0 39(1) 8(1) 0 4(1) 5(1) 80 Hingoli 0 0 0 0 0 4(1) 5(1) 9 Latur 24(6) 0 0 0 0 38(3) 8(1) 0 8(1) 8(1) 86 Latur div. 336 Akola 56(4) 0 0 0 0 0 26(2) 52(1) 14(1) 14(1) 186 Washim 12(1) 12(1) Amravati 47(4) 0 0 0 0 0 18(1) 36(1) 18(1) 18(1) 137 Buldhana 46(6) 0 0 0 0 61(2) 18(2) 27(2) 18(1) 18(1) 188 Yavatmal 44(7) 0 0 0 44(2) 25(2) 24(2) 36(1) 24(1) 24(1) 221 Amravati div. 732 Chandrapur 22(4) 0 0 0 0 20(2) 6(2) 9(2) 6(1) 6(1) 69 Garchiroli 20(5) 0 0 0 0 40(1) 6(1) 0 6(1) 7(1) 79 Nagpur 8(2) 0 0 0 0 0 2(1) 5(1) 2(1) 2(1) 19 Nagpur div. 167 Total 818 0 0 0 219 588 296 300 296 303 2,820
The average size of a watershed project is 500 ha. The total project cost is released in seven installments over a period of five years 135 Table A 2.5: Progress of DPAP in Maharashtra from 1995-96 up to 2003
1
3 4 4
7 . 69 41 46 01 97 3 4
. . . . .
4 4 3 3 2 7 4 6 9 4 8 2 2 2 1 5 0 . . . l 43 0 8 9 3 0 3 9 5 0 9 8 8 0 6 1 2 2 3 nd . 1 ...... a 18 58 t a 1 6 1 7 2 9 9 3 3 0 5 2 5 4 0 9 8 0 . 5 0 , 998 172 399 600 187 700 086 r o , , , , , , , T G 12 82 61 2 96 94 1 2 46 70 1 69 17 53 1 376 44 34 43 1 87 82 60 88 3 36 21 27 52 13
s t
p
i )
e s
92 4 73 96
79 91 c h ...... 43 5 98 98 13 4 43 62 88 6 01 21 e k
...... a R 0 0 0 0 27 8 7 42 7 3 10 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 7 17 0 3 0 21 0 0 0 0 84 l n
i
t s s
s
r
R e
e ( r 77 7 57
47 36 02 . . . h . . . e 01 62 36 75 04 85 14 19 44 67 34 62 24 12 57 11 75 t t . . . .
...... n 03 O I 13 1 7 22 5 5 1 11 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 10 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 52 0
) 8
7
. 41 15 54 une 2 L
. . .
5 6 5 4 2 003 J 68 A 8 5 0 3 7 1 5 5 2 ...... o T 18 44 . 0 t 0 9 0 6 0 0 9 0 5 6 2 0 2 1 9 4 0 . 4 0 , 944 160 395 591 154 248 677 078 6 O , , , , , , , , . T 1 82 60 2 93 93 1 2 46 70 1 68 17 53 1 37 44 34 43 1 85 81 60 88 3 36 21 27 52 13 96 - 30 5
O
T
02 48 5
. . E
8 3 8 2 5 5 . 199 66 78 53 5 8 5 3 3 1 5 5 2 7 T , 96 . . .
......
- 53 25 A 0 9 5 7 4 0 4 5 8 9 0 0 6 7 0 1 8 6 9 9 2 0 . 7 3 . 472 601 774 338 5 T , , , , 9 S 62 41 30 1 46 46 53 1 23 35 58 33 85 26 68 19 22 17 21 80 44 40 30 44 1 26 10 15 28 6 PAP D 19
( n
i L
s t A 0 e
52 30 5 s R
. .
0 8 3 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 5 . en T 76 38 15
5 9 5 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 2
...... ea m 25 N l 0 5 5 3 4 0 4 5 8 9 0 0 2 . 7 6 1 2 6 2 9 2 0 7 6 472 553 668 338 65 e E , , , , . op l C R 62 41 30 1 46 46 53 1 23 35 58 35 85 26 70 18 22 16 21 78 40 40 30 44 1 9 10 11 23 6 e v
e
9 4 2 4 9 0 3 0 6 9 7 4 4 9 4
d
. t 8 9 7 3 0 1 0 3 5 8 0 0 7 7 9 9 0 0 3 9 4 1 0 6 2 4 6 5 4 ...... c d
15 8 1 0 0 4 4 4 7 0 7 1 1 4 5 e t ...... j 94 s he 3 4 3 0 0 5 7 0 7 0 3 7 1 1 0 , o 361 899 100 109 093 303 160 413 728 210 199 119 137 666 s o r , , , , , , , , , , , , , , r C P 1 81 72 2 1 1 1 3 46 70 1 69 17 54 1 45 46 33 47 1 1 1 1 1 4 10 31 36 77 15 e t
a .
w S
3 0 2 f
. o
W 26 23 6 55 41 62 30 13 19 16 35 33 2 5 40 0 18 18 18 54 46 58 22 44 17 7 9 19 35 52
. ss
e O . r .
A .
0
G og I . . r
P N P 5 4 1 10 7 11 12 30 3 6 9 5 2 2 9 0 2 2 2 6 4 12 6 8 30 1 3 2 6 10
.
S
4 4 .
W 52 18 34 10 19 6 29 54 4 19 23 2 9 31 42 24 5 0 6 35 2 5 26 24 57 0 15 4 19 33
. . t A v .
I o .
G P 14 2 7 23 4 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 4 6 2 2 0 1 5 1 2 5 1 9 0 1 1 2 53
. .
7 7 6
9 s o . f
o N w 78 41 40 15 60 68 59 18 23 35 58 35 11 36 82 24 23 18 24 89 48 63 48 68 22 7 24 23 54 85
r
d . r .
a
v a
v g i
.
i . li b i l i r pu bad
bad i i
v d t v
o
t i a
d
i a a u
n a na r na r
a r t i r r a
L D d
d
k
k u a i v m c u v h on a u d ed i i l t i an e A e r r a a r c p a r e a a n p d l g e d h h l
a anga r ang bha t hap r a u T dh ap u . . . g n m s s l r n m n t e r l l r v t o t l l s v v v s ad i ag a a an ag ha hu un o u m u u u k m o a a e a h O a a i i i a a C d d d D N D J N A P S P S S K A J B A P N O La L B A A Y A N G N T
1 2 3 4 5 8 6 7 9 10 12 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
136
Table A 2.5: contd...
1
9 1 6 1 7 3
. 7 6 4 4 0 9 34 44
. . . . .
4 . . . l 8 2 9 0 7 43 8 80 04 83 0 93 32 6 07 34 9 5 06 99 84 88 02 62 12 21 25 3 .
...... a 9 7 9 0 8 1 5 0 8 t and 1 61 1 7 2 9 9 3 3 0 5 2 5 4 0 9 8 0 . 5 0 , 6 9 1 3 6 1 7 0 r o , , , , , 2 2 2 1 , 6 4 , 6 0 9 7 3 4 4 3 7 2 0 8 6 1 7 3 G 1 8 6 2 9 9 1 2 4 7 1 6 1 5 1 37 4 3 4 1 8 8 6 8 3 3 2 2 5 1 T s t
p i )
2 3 6
9 1 e s
3 9 4 7 9
7 9 8 8 3 3 2 8 1 1 c h ...... 4 5 9 9 1 4 4 6 8 6 0 2 e k
2 0 . . 1 4
. . 7 . . . . . 7 . . . a R 0 0 0 0 2 8 7 4 7 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 7 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 l n i t s s s r
7 7 R e
7 6 2 ( r 1 2 6 5 7 7 5 4 3 0 4 5 4 9 4 7 4 2 4 2 7 1 5 . . . he . . . e 0 6 3 7 0 8 1 1 4 6 3 6 2 1 5 1 7 t t 1 . . . 1 . 2 3 . . 2 ...... 0 . . n 03 O I 1 1 7 2 5 5 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0
) 8 1 5 4 3
7 ne 2
. 0 4 1 5 u L
. . .
J 4 0 5 1 4 68 A 8 42 8 7 8 85 5 06 3 75 1 54 5 20 .
...... 4 6 9 9 5 T 1 4 4 7 7 o . 0 0 9 0 6 0 0 9 0 5 6 2 0 2 1 9 4 0 . 4 0 , t 9 1 3 5 1 2 6 0 6 O , , , , , 2 , 2 0 , 3 3 , 6 0 8 7 3 7 4 4 3 5 1 0 8 6 1 7 3 . 6 T 1 8 6 2 9 9 1 2 4 7 1 6 1 5 1 3 4 3 4 1 8 8 6 8 3 3 2 2 5 1 0 9 - 3 5
O 9 2 8
T
0 4 5
. . E
. 19 6 2 66 78 1 53 4 5 3 5 8 88 53 3 38 1 52 5 25 75 T , 9
. . .
...... 7 0 7 - 2 5 3 A 0 9 5 7 . 4 0 4 5 8 9 0 0 6 7 0 1 8 6 9 9 2 0 . 7 3 4 6 7 3 T , 8 8 0 , 8 , 2 1 0 , 6 6 3 3 5 3 6 9 2 7 1 4 0 0 4 6 0 5 95 S 6 4 3 1 4 4 5 1 2 3 5 3 85 2 6 1 2 1 2 8 4 4 3 4 1 2 1 1 2 6 PAP 9 D 1
( n i L s 2 0 t A e
5 3 50 s R
. .
. en a T 2 76 38 3 15 8
5 50 8 98 53 38 00 00 02 50 00 00 25 25
. . .
...... e m 7 5 6 2 3 5 N l 0 5 5 3 4 0 4 5 8 9 0 0 2 . 7 6 1 2 6 2 9 2 0 7 6 p 4 5 6 3 6 e E , 8 0 8 , 3 , 2 1 0 , 6 6 3 3 5 5 5 6 8 2 6 1 0 0 0 4 . 0 1 o l C R 6 4 3 1 4 4 5 1 2 3 5 3 8 2 7 1 2 1 2 7 4 4 3 4 1 9 1 1 2 6 e v
e
9
. t 84 92 74 39 00 13 00 36 59 87 04 04 79 74 ...... c
15 44 1 89 19 9 0 9 3 3 00 00 0 43 49 44 3 71 00 76 12 8 0 9 9 7 6 14 46 55 e ed d t ...... j 9 6 9 0 0 9 0 6 1 2 1 9 1 3 6 s h 3 4 3 0 0 5 7 0 7 0 3 7 1 1 0 , o 3 8 1 1 0 3 1 4 7 2 1 1 1 6 s o r 7 , 1 2 , , , , , 6 0 , 9 7 4 , 5 6 3 7 , , , , , , 0 1 6 5 r C P 1 8 7 2 1 1 1 3 4 7 1 6 1 5 1 4 4 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 3 7 1 e t a . w S 3 0 2 f
. 3 5 0 4 7 5 2 o
6 3 5 1 2 0 9 6 3 8 8 8 6 8 2 4 9 W 2 2 6 5 4 6 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 5 4 0 1 1 1 5 4 5 2 4 1 7 9 1 3 5 s s . e O . r .
A .
0
G og I . . r 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 P N P 5 4 1 1 7 1 1 3 3 6 9 5 2 2 9 0 2 2 2 6 4 1 6 8 3 1 3 2 6 1
.
S
4 4 . 4 3 2 5 7 9 3
2 8 4 0 9 9 9 1 4 6 4 5 W 5 1 3 1 1 6 2 5 4 1 2 2 9 3 4 2 5 0 6 3 2 5 2 2 5 0 1 4 1 3
. . t A v .
I o .
3 4 3 G P 1 2 7 2 4 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 4 6 2 2 0 1 5 1 2 5 1 9 0 1 1 2 5
. .
7 7 6
9 s o . f 8 8 2 9 2 4 5
8 1 0 5 0 8 9 3 5 5 1 6 4 3 8 4 8 3 8 8 4 3 o N w 7 4 4 1 6 6 5 1 2 3 5 3 1 3 8 2 2 1 2 8 4 6 4 6 2 7 2 2 5 8
r
d . r . a v
a
u ad v ad g i
.
. li i b l ii r p b b i i a d
v a t v o
t
i a
d i a
r n r
a r t n i d r r a
ga L
na D pu ga an dn
k k v m c v a h li i i t i n a n a h e A r e r pu ha a r a c pu a r ao a e d pu nd de l h h l
a a r a b t h r a u a d T u . . . d g g n m u n g s s a n l r ne ng m t ed l r r l v o t t l l s v v v s a i a a a a a h h u o u m u u u k m o a a e a h O a a i i i a a a C d D N D J N A P S P S S K A J B A P N O L L B A A Y A N G N T d d
0 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
1 2 3 4 5 8 6 7 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 137 Table A 2.6: District-wise Details of IWDP Projects Sanctioned from 1995-96 to 2002-03 (as on 31.3.2003; Rs in lakhs)
s e s ea l e r f o
% 15 15 23 65 44 14 28 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 24 16 14 45 44 30 64 14 40
t
ed
s 37 95 65 41 48 43 91 54 02 98 54 12 27 09 48 34 10 ...... oun 48 90 06 99 99 03 03 76 ea ...... l m e
A 61 72 105 295 205 98 839 67 67 53 53 100 101 201 101 103 120 325 103 171 200 474 291 57 349 r
due
t
41
. 40 90 32 52 15 12 96 87 83 08 04 92 04 25 60 20 05 26 02 ...... oun 99 99 03 03 76 . . . . . 786 m , A 266 315 294 407 306 196 1 67 67 53 53 200 202 403 203 206 324 734 206 381 410 998 411 57 469
ed s s t ea l en
e
m l R 1 1 2 4 3 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 1 3 3 7 4 1 5 a t s n i f o
.
o ue
N D 4 4 4 6 4 2 24 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 4 8 2 7 6 15 6 1 7
t
s
o
48 6 57 38 c
. . . . l 84 8 8 16 46 68 68 78 7 48 22 87 6 78 96 06 02
...... a t 468 985 987 587 o , , , ,
T 409 486 452 452 471 713 2 494 385 385 730 737 1 738 749 499 1 750 381 455 1 456 420 877 n i
( ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 35 15 22 12 22 19 97 17 26 15 47 10 29 38 ea
( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( r
a
l
a ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 246 138 320 320 775 886 685 180 295 475 308 487 496 291 500 395 435 424 425
t ) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ) ) ) ) 428 241 241 428 540 001 o , , , , , , 12 20 16 15 9 15 16 16 7 9 9 ( ( T 10 12 11 11 11 11 68 8 8 6 6 12 12 24 12 12 12 37 12 9 11 33 11 7 18 ha ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (
02 03 05 06 06 05 05 05 05 05 03 03 06
------
04 04 04 04 04 - - - - - 04 05 05 04 04 04 04 04 05 od i r O O O O O O O O O 03 03 03 2002 03 03 2001 2002 2002 T T T T T T T T T pe O O O O O O O O O t T T T T T T T T T 01 02 02 01 01 01 01 01 02 c ------e j 00 00 00 99 00 00 98 99 99 ------o r
P 99 99 99 98 99 2000 2001 2001 2000 2000 2000 2000 99 2000 97 98 98 2001
e s
ha
P I I I I II III I I I I I I I I I II I I
. v i
. .
v v . i i g v
i d d r
.
l .
. i i i i r r v
t t r a
v v s i i
i i / t
a a
d li d m c v v li a an d
t i r k r r a a k r i a angabad d nag angabad bhan t r r gad a hapu hapu u u r gaon i t s r t l l r v t t l s ngo ndhudu i on u ang a a a i i une une d u eed a o o a m m a hane a
K A S
D T R R S J N P P A B S K K La H P La A Y A
138 Table A 2.6: contd...
14 24 16 14 45 44 30 64 14 40 14 14 14 23
81
. 02 98 54 12 27 09 48 34 10 35 ...... 76 10 25 . . . 444 , 103 120 325 103 171 200 474 291 57 349 87 46 133 2
84
. 04 92 04 25 60 20 05 26 02 21 46 ...... 76 25 . . 732 , 206 324 734 206 381 410 998 411 57 469 174 46 220 4
1 2 4 1 3 3 7 4 1 5 1 1 2
2 4 8 2 7 6 15 6 1 7 2 1 3
99
. 57 38
. . 22 87 6 78 96 06 02 48 32 8
...... 755 , 987 587 , , 749 499 1 750 381 455 1 456 420 877 633 336 969 10
)
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 312 ( 35 24 15 47 10 29 38 38 (
( ( ( ( ( ( (
143
, ) ) ) 558 487 496 291 500 395 435 424 425 163
, , , , , , , , , , ) ) 540 001 605 , , , 20 9 14 16 9 ( 12 12 37 12 9 11 33 11 7 18 10 5 16 213 ( ( ( (
02 05 05 03 03 06 05 06
------e 04 - 04 04 05 04 05 un O O O O O 03 2001 2002 2002 P T T T T T , O O O O e T T T T 01 01 02 01 02 r - - - - - u t 00 98 99 99 l - - - - u c 2000 99 2000 97 98 98 2001 2000 2001 i r g A f e o t a
r
I I I I II I I I I one i ss i
. . mm
v v o i . i v d d
C i
l . i i i r r d
: t t a
v
i /
r r a a e li d m v v a
c
t l r r r r a a dha a bhan a r r r a hapu hapu u u t l l r t v t t a ngo ou i agpu agpu a o o a m m a o S K K La H P La A Y A N W N T S Source: Commissionerate of Agriculture, Pune 139 Table A 2.7: Progress of Watershed Development in 50% EAS 1995-96 to June 2003 (Rs in lakhs)
e
6 78 c
94 20 . .
62 59 . .
78 . .
87 57 11 43 94 4 28 39 57 94 . . . . . 01 ...... an 34 94 50 44 03 l 93 84 ...... 21 60 a . . 107 21 10 1 130 12 81 3 24 124 13 1095 1223 1 B 1127 - - 813 75 334 - 92 91 - - 144 2 - - - - 10 665 20 - 571 - 63
93 01 25 36 85 64
30 16 36 20 69 29 07 ......
...... 55 75 18 63 44 47 87 37 14 91 51 15 45 ...... 96 p . x 1586 E 1213 1278 789 3281 1101 1806 1429 4337 681 905 1371 344 710 2426 766 879 413 653 2712 886 842 996 2685 5410 81 230
61 03 57 65 42 94
24 22 23 54 26 67 94 59 48 ...... l 15 82 12 35 55 07 48 53 57 41 48 ...... a 02 t and . r o 1677 T G 2341 1256 779 4376 1915 1881 1764 5561 679 998 1240 332 854 2427 769 798 409 628 2605 897 1507 1016 2560 5982 68 293
i
9
e .
26 93 04 26 67 06 24 c ...... 13 96 28 03 93 20 40 00 88 14 00 69 30 00 69 00 00 00 s e . . .
...... t 158 18 13 R 0 1 3 4 61 31 66 4 14 1 0 6 8 3 0 3 2 9 10 0 3 0 0 0 p 7
s
r
0 2 8
1
2 2 he . . . 93 36 06 45 49 77 8 00 61 84 73 20 00 36 00 67 70 83 00 00 49 35 00 00 t t...... n 1 1 13 O I 0 0 5 7 0 2 1 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 3 6 0 0 26 2 8 37 0 0
L 59 61 93 32 37 75
75 42 19 67 75 27 66 41 13 ...... A 42 89 86 99 67 26 78 01 27 17 48 ...... T 02 . O 1657 T 2340 1254 769 4364 1854 1847 1695 5397 673 983 1239 330 847 2417 763 794 399 626 2583 887 1481 1010 2552 5931 68 293
2 93 40 E
. .
00 8 92 45 92 50 58 92 90 47 56 10 72 01 06 44 57 48 35 85 72 T ) ...... 99 38 19 87 A 72 89 . . . . T 11 12 S 490 262 148 902 389 413 369 144 199 343 267 73 171 512 167 182 95 136 581 191 296 218 582 14 60 2003 .
6 . L
A
R 93 01 59 68 87 97
25 29 20 19 31 41 ...... o 30 T 84 50 79 14 26 75 20 34 63 7 69 56 61
...... t 83 N . E 96 1313 1905 C 1850 991 620 3462 1464 1434 1326 4224 529 784 972 257 675 596 612 303 489 2001 695 1185 791 1969 4641 53 232 .. 95 (
e
t s 12 17 09 58 70 87
30 93 86 26 86 00 69 00 28 58 97 04 c ......
...... 58 20 81 96 21 00 75 50 e t...... ea j l s o e o r C R P 2035 1817 1144 4998 1781 2469 2012 6263 767 2248 3015 1915 452 641 3009 878 1360 615 800 3654 2397 1254 1679 3297 8628 135 768
.
S
.
. 142 165 19 141 W 25 70 47 39 82 44 14 5 36 16 0 52 41 60 0 40 81 0 55 109 245 2 0 O . .
G
I . . .
14 N P 6 16 5 27 10 14 13 37 3 2 5 5 2 0 7 4 6 0 4 8 0 11 26 45 1 0 A
. . .
T 149 193 128 125 124 W S 105 28 16 56 73 64 26 102 71 12 42 6 8 27 0 41 0 51 24 49 11 19 V
.
I 1 1 7 2 GO P . A . 1 3 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 4 8 1 1 3 0 5 0 3 3 1 7 1 2
e t m s
e o
l 147 177 168 p d C 130 98 63 291 95 155 108 358 40 107 107 28 42 33 68 27 40 81 18 79 158 336 13 19 hed s r c
e
t e . l
a e ed 147 177 182 W S 130 98 63 291 95 155 108 358 40 107 107 28 42 47 68 27 40 81 51 79 158 369 13 19 t
r
.
. . l i r
i v i
t
v v
i t a i i apu
r
a t r r d a
d
v m c v a li t . i anaba k ednag r r e k a r a a r i l i v l
a angaba r angaba bhan t hapu r a u i apu dhana u . . s m gaon na s l r m l t r r l v
t o t l l s v v
s i a a hu anded agpu hand une d o u m h une o a ang u eed a u k m a i i r a a d a D N D J N A P S P S S K A J B A d P N O La La B A A Y A N C d d d 140 Table A 2.7: contd...
e
6 78 c
30
94 20 . .
62 59 . . . 68
78 . . 59
87 57 11 43 . 94 4 28 39 57 94 ...... 01 ...... an 03 34 94 50 44 03 l 93 84 ...... 21 60 a . . 107 21 10 1 130 12 81 3 24 124 13 158 63 109 3071 1095 1223 1 B 1127 - - 813 75 334 - 92 91 - - 144 2 - - - - 10 665 20 - 571 - 63
0
. 93 01 25 36 85 64
30 16 36 20 69 29 07 ......
...... 42 45 55 75 18 63 44 47 87 37 14 91 51 15 45 ...... 01 96 p . . x
2 230 77 389 20108 1586 E 1213 1278 789 3281 1101 1806 1429 4337 681 905 1371 344 710 2426 766 879 413 653 2712 886 842 996 2685 5410 81 230
3
. 61 03 57 65 42 94
24 22 23 54 26 67 94 59 48 ...... 10 l 48 60 15 82 12 35 55 07 48 53 57 41 48 ...... a 02 t and . r o
2 293 186 548 23179 1677 T G 2341 1256 779 4376 1915 1881 1764 5561 679 998 1240 332 854 2427 769 798 409 628 2605 897 1507 1016 2560 5982 68 293
i
9
1 e . .
26 93 04 26 67 06 24 c ...... 63 13 96 28 00 63 03 93 20 40 00 88 14 00 69 30 00 69 00 00 00 s e . . . .
...... t 6 0 7 7 221 158 18 13 R 0 1 3 4 61 31 66 4 14 1 0 6 8 3 0 3 2 9 10 0 3 0 0 0 p 7 s
r
5
0 2 8
4 1
2 2 he . . . . 33 93 36 06 45 00 33 49 77 8 00 61 84 73 20 00 36 00 67 70 83 00 00 49 35 00 00 t t...... n 0 0 0 65 1 1 13 O I 0 0 5 7 0 2 1 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 3 6 0 0 26 2 8 37 0 0
71
. L 59 61 93 32 37 75
75 42 19 67 75 27 66 41 13 ...... 14 A 48 64 42 89 86 99 67 26 78 01 27 17 48 ...... T 02 . O 293 178 540 22892 1657 T 2340 1254 769 4364 1854 1847 1695 5397 673 983 1239 330 847 2417 763 794 399 626 2583 887 1481 1010 2552 5931 68 293
2 93 40 E
49
. . .
97 00 8 92 45 92 50 58 92 90 47 56 10 72 01 06 44 57 48 35 85 72 T ) ...... 87 91 99 38 19 87 A 72 89 ...... T 110 60 35 4913 11 12 S 490 262 148 902 389 413 369 144 199 343 267 73 171 512 167 182 95 136 581 191 296 218 582 14 60 2003 .
6 .
L
A
22
. R 93 01 59 68 87 97
25 29 20 19 31 41 ...... o 30 T 17 61 73 84 50 79 14 26 75 20 34 63 7 69 56 61 . . .
...... t 83 N . E 96 232 142 429 17979 1313 1905 C 1850 991 620 3462 1464 1434 1326 4224 529 784 972 257 675 596 612 303 489 2001 695 1185 791 1969 4641 53 232 .. 95
(
e
90 t . s 37 12 17 09 58 70 87
30 93 86 26 86 00 69 00 28 58 97 04 c ......
...... 50 12 58 20 81 96 21 00 75 50 e t...... ea j l s o e o r 1279 768 375 30848 C R P 2035 1817 1144 4998 1781 2469 2012 6263 767 2248 3015 1915 452 641 3009 878 1360 615 800 3654 2397 1254 1679 3297 8628 135 768
.
S
.
. 0 0 2 766 142 165 19 141 W 25 70 47 39 82 44 14 5 36 16 0 52 41 60 0 40 81 0 55 109 245 2 0 O .
.
G
I . . .
1 0 0 136 14 N P 6 16 5 27 10 14 13 37 3 2 5 5 2 0 7 4 6 0 4 8 0 11 26 45 1 0 A
. . .
T 19 26 56 816 149 193 128 125 124 W S 105 28 16 56 73 64 26 102 71 12 42 6 8 27 0 41 0 51 24 49 11 19 V
.
I 2 1 4 5 5 1 1 7 2 GO P . A . 1 3 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 4 8 1 1 3 0 5 0 3 3 1 7 1 2
e t m s
e o l 19 26 58 1535 147 177 168 p d C 130 98 63 291 95 155 108 358 40 107 107 28 42 33 68 27 40 81 18 79 158 336 13 19 hed s r c e
t e . l
a e ed 19 26 58 1582 147 177 182 W S 130 98 63 291 95 155 108 358 40 107 107 28 42 47 68 27 40 81 51 79 158 369 13 19 t
. r r
v
.
i li . . l i r
i v i
d t v v o i t a i i apu apu
r r r
a t i r r r d a
d
v m c v h a li t . i anaba k ednag r r e l k a r a c a r i l i v l
a angaba r angaba bhan t hapu r a u a i apu dhana u . . s m gaon na s l r m l t r r l v t
t o t l l s v v
ad s agpu i a hand a hu anded agpu hand une d o u m h une o a ang u eed a u k m a o i i r a a C G N T d a D N D J N A P S P S S K A J B A d P N O La La B A A Y A N C d d d
141 Source: Commissionerate of Agriculture, Pune Table A 2.8: Details of Watersheds Programmes in Maharashtra (up to 2002)
T
R ) f ed o t 78 r . (
s a APA o
t C N 4 2 27 8 11 13 9 4 78 W s
2
o % c m 19 46 9 24 49 63 35 28 3
d f
P e o t r . D s a o t W I N 1870 2845 5959 1502 2133 2824 3103 2066 22302 W s
m o % c 48 43 25 59 44
P f ed o D t r .
G s a o
t W N 23 23 24 27 0 0 0 0 97 W s
m o
% c 51 74 71 70 78 78 71 60 70 A
R f P ed o t
D
r .
s a W o t N N 69 124 102 100 101 134 186 101 917 W s
m o % c 100 42 69 44 52
t
r .
s a VP o f
t 114 R N 11 55 16 0 0 32 0 0 ed o W s
m
o % c 100 0 46 33 11 8 33 20 28
P f
) ed D o t r .
W s a o
t 102 G 102 102 I N 3 3 37 3 28 12 6 10 W s (
o 16 % c m 20 26 25 17 15 13 5 3 f
e o t
Y r .
s a o G
t A N 61 85 105 46 47 152 62 87 645 d W s
m
o 14 % c 24 18 17 18 4 6 0
d f
) )
) ) ) ) e o
2 t ) ) ( r . s a o
t 766 142 165 19 52 141 245 1549 1549 ( EAS N 0 294 ( 383 ( 143 ( 164 ( 196 ( 345 ( 24 W s
m
o 19 % c 45 19 15 23 23 1 10
f
) ) ) ed o
t ) ) ) ) ) r . s
a PAP o t 522 55 133 35 40 54 170 35 D N 0 159 ( 212 ( 71 ( 79 ( 110 ( 206 ( 72 ( 909 ( W s
.
i r s
t v v
. i i t a r a v r d k i c v
i an i r a r a h k
anga t r hapu r u . . . . . s l r t t s aha v v v v v i a agpu on une d o u m s i i i i i d bad d d D K N P K d A La A N M h d d Note Figures in brackets refer to programmes implemented through NGOs; % com = per cent completed Source: Commissionerate of Agriculture, GOM, Pune 142 Table A 3.1: General Features of Four River Valley Projects
Dams Damanganga Nagarjun Sagar Pochampad Sardar Sarovar
River concerned Damanganga Krishna Godavari Narmada
Dam, location, district Valasad Nandi Konda Pochampad Rajpila
Catchment area (sq.km) 1,777 215,185 9,1751 88,000
Year of construction -- 1,974 1,983 Continuing
Maximum discharge 20,930 53,450 -- 62,296 cum/sec
Gross storage capacity 567,000 11,550,000 3,172,000 9,500,000 thousand cubic meter
Gross irrigated area (ha) 55,070 895,000 230,000 1,782,000 Source: Large dams in India, CBIP, 1987
Table A 3.2: NWDPRA Watersheds Selected for Impact Evaluation Study Source: AFC study, 1998-99
Village Taluka District Zone Average Study Period Rainfall (mm)
Kudawale Dapoli Ratnagiri Southern Konkan 3750 Nov. 15-18, 1998 Coastal Zone
Khandas Karjat Raigad Northern Konkan 3281 Sep. 14-16, 1998 Coastal Zone
Tambulwadi Chandgad Kolhapur Western Ghat 2684 Oct. 11-14, 1998 Zone
Wadivarhe Iagatpuri Nashik Western Ghat 2137 Sep. 9-12, 1998 Zone
Nune-gavadi Satara Satara Western 791 Oct. 8 14, 1998 Maharashtra Plain Zone
Kanhur-mesai Shirur Pune Scarcity Zone 450 Aug. 18-21, 1998
Phuldhaba Aundha Parbhani Central 983 Oct. 28-30, 1998 Maharashtra Plateau Zone
Khandwa Motala Buldhana Central Vidarbha 883 Sep. 28-30, 1998 Zone
Chatgaon Dhanora Gadchiroli Eastern Vidarbha 1462 Dec. 10-13 1998 Zone
143 Table A 3.3: Impact of Watershed Development on Irrigation in the NWDPRA Watersheds B.P- Before Project, A.P-After Project, Inc.-Increase (Source: AFC study, 1998-99)
.
0 0 0 0 c . . . .
n 0 0 0 0 3 i . . . . . 7 .
% 81 200 8 216 70 111 50 168 97 57
on i
t
.
P ga . i A 18 75 1001 190 575 379 243 201 495 3177 353 rr i r
44
. .
ea unde P 020 r . , A B 10 25 921 60 337 179 162 75 251 2 224
.
00 c .
n 34 i . 0 40 60 28 90 06 10 10 58 ...... % 2 1 190 1 2 0 1 2 1 14 1
. s r t
m . 50 59 . . P 80 20 10 36 70 73 10 10 73 n ...... i A 11 7 7 9 5 6 6 7 8 69 7 e l ab t
r
e . t 50 70 93 . . . a P 20 10 64 60 79 20 20 31 ...... W B 13 9 9 10 7 7 7 9 9 83 9
s
. ll 00 00 00 c e . . . n 00 00 80 00 30 00 00 i ...... w
% 24 30 26 210 17 181 30 237 83 75 on i t ga
i
rr i
P 462 f . , o A 62 30 350 127 162 430 86 118 97 1 162 r be
m
P u . N B 50 23 276 41 138 153 66 35 53 835 93
) .
ha ( r on i
t
a v i 883 t , l ea unde 183 168 169 800 665 075 089 553 181 987 r , , , , , , , , , , u A 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 17 1 c
. ) .
ha geo
( l a 507 t , ea 887 694 594 166 059 009 082 902 114 945 r o , , , , , , , , , , T 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 7 35 3 A
hed s r e
t i
i i a a
s
w
ad ad
e e
he f a l v s w r l a m w a w r- v
e o goan i age bu l dhaba t l r a m m t e ad a unega ha uda handa anu hu hand v a o N K K T W N K P K C T A 144 Table A 3.4: Improvement in Crop Yield (q/ha) in the Khed Watershedin Maharashtra Source: TERI, 2001
Crop Pre project Post project Kharif
Local cotton 6 6.9
Hybrid cotton 7.2 10.0
Jowar 11.4 14.2
Rabi
Wheat 14.0 22.5
Gram 10.0 12.1
Orange orchard 250 per tree 400 per tree
Table A 3.5: Six Watersheds Selected for ISRO Study Source: ISRO study, TERI, 2001 Watershed Block/District Area (ha) Characteristics
Karanjgavan Malegaon block, Nasik 11,766 The watersheds under Nashik district Parbhani and Kolhapur districts fall under the Central and Warshi Kalwan block, 8,500 Western Maharashtra plateau: a Nasik district hot, moist, semi-arid, agro- ecological sub-region. The average rainfall is 500-676 mm. Sawarde Kagal block, 5,180 The watershed has a dendritic Kolhapur district drainage pattern. Nagazari Parbhani district 2,840 The watershed under the Wardha district belongs to the Eastern Maharashtra plateau: a hot dry Pipari Samudrapur block, 4,006 sub-humid, agro-climatic sub- Wardha district region. The average rainfall is 1070 mm. The watershed under Osmanabad district falls under Sawargaon Paranda block, 6,372 the Southwestern Maharashtra Osmanabad district plateau: a moist, semi-arid, agro- ecological sub-region. The average rainfall is 600mm.
Table A 3.6: Yield Improvement (qn/ha) of Major Crops in Karanjgavan Watershed Crop Pre- treatment Post-treatment
Sorghum 11.5 (26.5) 15 (18.5)
Maize 13 (40.5) 19.5 (220.3)
Wheat 10.1 (110.6) 19 (201.5)
Gram 5 (60) 6.5 (102.3)
Onion 125 (60.5) 185 (150.5)
Pomegranate 80.0 (25.8) 100 (450) Source: ISRO Sugarcane 80.0 (8.5) 110 (25.6) study, TERI, 2001 145 Table A 3.7: Change in arable land in ISRO study
Village Pre-treatment Post-treatment (ha) (ha) Karanjgavan 2,646 3,443
Warshi 2,206 2,430
Sawarde 2,264 2,275
Pipari 2,671 2,694
Sawargaon 3,461 3,918
Nagazari 887 971
Source: ISRO Study, TERI, 2001
Table A 3. 8: Percentage Change in Satellite-based Indicators in Selected Watersheds in Maharashtra Watershed Agri- Fallow Wasteland Forest Plantation Water Total (district) crop land vegetation bodies Pipari +5 -4 -1.60 +1.27 - +0.05 +6 (Wardha) Warshi +3 -1 -3 +2.28 +1 +0.54 +7 (Nasik) Sawarde +6 -5 -0.40 +0.06 +0.15 +0.06 +6 (Kolhapur) Nagazari +2 +1 -7.57 +0.18 +0.18 - +35 (Parbhani) Source: ISRO Study, TERI, 2001
Table A 3.9: Change in Water-table in Shedashi-Wavoshi Watershed Reach 1996 1997 1998
Jan Mar May Jan Mar May Jan Mar May
Upper 0.80 0.40 1.20 0.70 0.30 1.20 0.80 0.60
Middle 3.70 2.40 0.50 3.90 2.80 0.90 0.90 3.00 1.20
Lower 3.30 1.50 3.60 2.40 0.50 0.50 2.70 1.20
Source: IGWDP, 1999
Table A 3.10: Details of Forest Plantation in Shedashi-Wavoshi Watershed Treatments Forest land Private land Total Area Plants Area Plants Area Plants (ha) (No.) (ha) (No) (ha) (No) Terrace 23.83 5,957 383.24 70,790 407.07 76,747 Bund Improvement Grassland 10.24 3,072 15.2 4,560 25.44 7,632 with trees Reforestation 464.49 871,514 464.49 871,514 Mix forestry 36.64 91,600 65.92 164,800 102.56 256,400 Total 535.20 972,143 464.36 240,150 999.56 1,212,293 Source: IGWDP, 1999
146 Table A 3.11: Change in Cropping Pattern in Shedashi-Wavoshi Watershed
Crop Pre 1993 Post 1998 Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Paddy (Kharif) 383 100 407 89.65 Vegetables (R) 36 7.93 Pulses (R) 8 1.76 Wheat (R) 3 0.66 Gross Area 383 100 454 100 Source: IGWDP, 1999
Table A 3.12: Change in Net and Total Incomes in the Shedashi-Wavoshi Watershed
Pre-Development Present Development Crop Area (Ha) Net income Total Area (Ha) Net income Total per Ha (Rs.) income per Ha (Rs.) income (Rs.) (Rs.) Paddy 383 4,500 1,723,500 407 7,520 3,060,640 Finger Millets 12 700 8,400 20 1,500 30,000 Minor millets 3 525 1,575 8 1,075 8,600 Vegetables 36 21,800 784,800 Pulses 8 2,850 22,800 Wheat 3 2,760 8,280 Total 1,733,475 3,915,120 Source: IGWDP, 1999
Table A 3.13: Water Table in Dug Wells in Rajani Watershed (in meters) Reaches 1993 1998 Jan March May Jan March May Upper 4.30 4.20 3.90 6.50 6.35 5.80 Middle 3.95 3.90 3.50 4.95 4.80 4.55 Lower 3.50 3.50 3.42 5.20 5.15 4.85 Source: IGWDP, 1999
Table A 3.14: Change in Net and Total Incomes in Rajani Watershed Crop Pre-Development Present Development Yield (Qn/ha) Net income Yield (Qn/ha) Net income (Rs) (Rs) Paddy 7 3,050 12 7,050 Wheat (R) 10 4,250 Jowar 5 1,250 10 3,750 Tur 3.5 3,575 5 5,675 Gram (R) 2 725 2.5 1,125 Soybean 9 6,550 Cotton 4.5 5,950 7.5 11,950
Source: IGWDP, 1999
147 Table A 3.15: Irrigated and Un-Irrigated Land Before and After the Intervention (in percentage)
Name of Earlier At Present village Irrigated Un-irrigated Fallow Irrigated Un-irrigated Fallow Change in irrigated land Hivre Bazar 29 61 10 64 25 11 35 Nagunichi 63 25 12 64 25 11 1 Wadi Asarkheda 48 33 19 57 25 18 9 Patnadevi 30 67 3 55 42 3 25 Borda 9 83 8 35 59 6 26 Murukute 22 40 38 23 68 9 1 Bhalgudi 0 56 44 15 42 44 15 Ganeshwadi 5 88 7 22 72 6 17 Mendha 5 91 5 5 91 5 0 Shedashi 75 25 75 25 0 Source: DROP Study, 2003
Table A 3.16: Change in Land Cultivated During Rabi Village % Increase in area under Rabi crops
Patnadevi 29
Hivre Bazar 23
Borda 18
Ganeshwadi 17
Bhalgudi 13
Asarkheda 5
Mendha 4
Nagunichi Wadi 3.5
Murukute 3
S ource: DROP Study, 2003
148 List of Abbreviations
APRA Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act AGY Adarsh Gaon Yojana AFARM Action for Agricultural Renewal in Maharashtra AFC Agricultural Finance Corporation BAIF Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation CISED Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development CPLR Common Property Land Resources CBO Community Based Organisation COWDEP Comprehensive Watershed Development Programme CCT Continuous Contour Trench CBA Cost Benefit Analysis CAPART Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology DFID Department of International Development DoLR Department of Land Resources MoA Ministry of Agriculture DDP Desert Development Programme DROP Development Resource Organisation through Planning DRDA District Rural Development Agency DPAP Drought Prone Areas Programme ERR Economic Rate of Return EGS Employment Guarantee Scheme EAS Employment Assurance Scheme FRR Financial Rate of Return ForWaRD Forum for Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue GOI Government of India GCA Gross Cropped Area GSDA Ground Water Survey and Development Agency GIDR Gujarat Institute of Development Research HYV High Yielding Variety ICAR Indian Council for Agriculture Research ICRISAT International Crop Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics
149 IJAE Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics ISRO Indian Space Research Organization IGWDP Indo-German Watershed Programme INM Integrated Nutrient Management IWDP Integrated Wasteland Development Programme IWDP Integrated Watershed Development Project IPM Integrated Pest Management IRDP Integrated Rural Development Programme IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management JFM Joint Forest Management JFMC Joint Forest Management Committee LEISA Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture LPG Liquid Petroleum Gas MSSM Marathwada Sheti Sahaya Mandal MoRD Ministry of Rural Development MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forests MIS Management Information System NABARD National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development NCMP National Common Minimum Programme NWDPRA National Watershed Programme for Rainfed Areas NPK Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potash NGO Non Governmental Organisation NRM Natural Resource Management NWDF National Watershed Development Fund PNP Participatory Net Planning POP Participatory Operational Pedagogy PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PTD Participatory Technology Development PIA Project Implementing Agencies PSSC Project Sanctioning and Steering Committee RVP River Valley Project SC/ST Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe SHG Self Help Group SL Sustainable Livelihoods SOPPECOM Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management SWC Soil and Water Conservation SSR Scheduled Standard Rate TERI The Energy Resources Institute UPA United Progressive Alliance
150 UG User Group VWC Village Watershed Committee WAT Water Absorption Trenches WUA Water Users Associations WA/GS Watershed Association/Gram Sabha WDF Watershed Development Fund WDPSCA Watershed Development Projects in Shifting Cultivation Areas WDT Watershed Development Team WGDP Western Ghat Development Programme WHS Water Harvesting Structure WID Women in Development WED Women in Environment and Development WOTR Watershed Organisation Trust
151 List of Tables
Table 1.1 List of villages/watersheds visited in Maharashtra Table 1.2 Comparison of Different Guidelines Table 2.1 Agro-climatic Zones and Rainfall: Maharashtra Table 2.3 All-India and Maharashtra Water Resource Situation Table 2.4 Area and Productivity of Major Crops in Maharashtra Table 2.5 Coverage and Expenditure under NWDPRA during 1990 to March 2004 Table 2.6 Status of Activities and Expenditure under WGDP 1974 to March 2004 Table 2.7 Status of Activities and Expenditure under RVP 1993 to March 2004 Table 2.8 Status of Adarsh Gaon Yojana Table 2.9 Adarsh Gaon Yojna Expenditure Details1992-2004 Table 2.10 Activities under AGY 1992-2003 Table 2.11 Details of Watersheds under Different Programmes 1992-2002 Table 2.12 Budgeted Spending (Maharashtra) on Watershed Development, 1992 to 2002 Table 2.13 An Overview of Watershed Development in Maharashtra Table 2.14 District-wise, Priority-wise, Category-wise Information of Incomplete Watersheds Table 5.1 Beneficiaries across Different Class Categories
152 List of Figures
Figure 1 Sites visited in Maharashtra Figure 2.1 Rainfall in Maharashtra Figure 2.2 Division-wise Land Utilization in Maharashtra Figure 2.3 Map of Drought-prone Areas in Maharashtra Figure 2.4 Major and Micro Watersheds in Maharashtra Figure 2.5 Percentage of Area Treated under Watershed Programmes in Maharashtra Figure 2.6 District-wise Expenditure under Watershed Programmes in Maharashtra
153 References
AFARM. 1998. "AFARM CA-WSD package programme: 1992-97 ." Final Evaluation Report, Action for Agricultural Renewal in Maharashtra, Pune.
AFARM. 1999. "Participatory Watershed Development Programme (PWSDP), Mid-Term Assessment Report on Dornali Project ".Action for Agricultural Renewal in Maharashtra, Pune.
AFARM Web Site http://www.afarm.org/waters
Anonymous. 2001. Completion Report of Kolwan Valley Project: Drought-prone Area Programme. Gomukh Trust, Mulshi, Pune
Anonymous. Undated. "Adgaon at a glance ". Marathwada Sheti Sahayak Mandal, Aurangabad.
Batchelor, Charles ,M. Rama Mohan Rao and K.Mukherjee, " Watershed development or should it be water management " paper presented in electronic workshop on land water management in rural watersheds" organised by FAO, Rome,18th Sept. 27 October.
Chopra, K. 1999. "Evaluations of Watershed Management Programmes in India -- A Review ", in John Farrington, T. Cathryn, and A. J. James ,Eds., Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Dabholker, S.A. 1997. Plenty for All. Mehta Publishing House, Pune.
Deccan Development Society and WASSAN. August 2004. " On the Margin -- Poor and their Lands: A Case for Comprehensive Public Investments". Hyderabad.
Deshpande, R. S. and V. R. Reddy. 1991. "Differential impact of watershed-based technology: some analytical issues", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 261.
DNRM. 2002. "Panchayati Raj and Natural Resources Management: How To Decentralize Management Over Natural Resources ", in Proceedings of the Overseas Development Institute (London) Social and Economic Research Associates (London), TARU Leading Edge (New Delhi and Hyderabad), Centre for Budget and Policy Studies (Bangalore), Centre for World Solidarity (Hyderabad) and Sanket (Bhopal), New Delhi.
DROP, Pune, 2002-3, Study of Water Sector Projects in Maharashtra - Case studies of Selected Villages, for Groundwater Survey and Development Agency (GoM).
D'Souza, M. 1997. "Gender and watershed development " Agricultural Research and Extension Network Newsletter, 36.
D'Souza, M. 2001. "Participatory Watershed Development: Impacting Under-nutrition in Rural India ". Study report --accessed from www.wotr.org.
Erappa, S. 1998. " Sustainability of watershed development programmes (WDPs), to dryland agriculture in Karnataka: A study of two sub-watersheds ", Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation (ADRT) unit, Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bangalore.
Farrington, John, Cathryn Turton and A.J. James (Eds). 1999. Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
GOI. 1994. "Guidelines for watershed development ", Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi.
GOI. 1997. Report of the Committee on Training for Watershed Development. Easwaran Committee Report, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi
GoI. 2000. WARASA-Jan Sahabhagita: Guidelines for National Watershed Development for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA). Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, MoA, GoI, New Delhi. 154 GOI. 2001. Guidelines for watershed development (Revised-2001). Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi.
GOI. 2001. Hariyali guidelines for watershed development 2003. Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi.
GOI. 2006. "From Hariyali to Neeranchal: Report of the Technical Committee on Watershed Programmes in India ," Parthasarathy Committee Report, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi.
GoM. 2004. Soil Conservation and Watershed Development, Annual Report 2003-04. Soil and Watershed Management Department, Commissionerate of Agriculture, Pune, 2004 (Marathi).
GoM. 2006. "Agro-climatic zones in Maharashtra" http;//agri.mah.nic.in/agri/stat/map/clazone.htm
GoM. 2006. "Land-use classification in Maharashtra " http;//agri.mah.nic.in/agri/stat/Lus_ Main/luslink.htm
GoM. 2006. "Evaluation of NWDPRA Watersheds " (by AFC, 2001) http;//agri.mah.nic.in/agri/soil/ html/nwdp_eva.html
GoM.2006. "Evaluation of RVP Watersheds " http;//agri.mah.nic.in/agri/soil/html/rvp_eva.html
GoM. Commissionerate of Agriculture. Pune, Status and statistics of different watershed programmes implemented in Maharashtra, (personally accessed), 2003-05.
GoM. , "Human Development Report 2002, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
GoM. 2003. "Report of the high-level committee on Action Plan for Agriculture for 25 years ", Dr. M.S. Swaminathan Committee Report, chapter 3, Commissionerate of Agriculture, Pune.
Hazra, C. R. 1999. "Biophysical Results of Watershed Rehabilitation in Khana Nala ", in C. T. a. A. J. J. John Farrington (Ed.) Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Joy, K.J. and Suhas Paranjape. 2004. Watershed Development Review: Issues and Prospects, CISED, Bangalore.
Joy, K.J., et.al. 2006. "Reorienting the Watershed Development Programme in India ", Occasional Paper, Forum for Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue.
Kakade, B. K., et al. 2001. "Integrated drinking water resource management: impact study of watersheds in different geo-hydrological and socio-economic situations in India ", BAIF, Pune.
Karanth, G. K. and A. Abbi. 2001. " Participative Integrated Development of Watershed (PIDOW): Report of Participatory Impact Assessment", Participatory Impact Assessment, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, New Delhi.
Kerr, J. 2002. "Sharing the benefits of watershed management in Sukhomajri, India ", in Stefano Pagiola, et.al (eds), Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-based Mechanism for Conservation and Development, Earthscan, London.
Kerr, J. and K. Chung, 2001. Evaluating Watershed Management Projects, Water Policy August, 3 (6).
Kerr, J., G. Pangare, V. L. Pangare and P. J. George. 2000. " An evaluation of dryland watershed development projects in India ", EPTD discussion paper no. 68, Environment and Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
Kerr, J et.al. 1998. "The role of watershed projects in developing rainfed agriculture in India " Study Report submitted to ICAR and World Bank, ICAR, New Delhi.
Kolavalli, Shashi and John Kerr. 2002. " Mainstreaming participatory watershed development ." Economic and Political Weekly,1 January 37(2).
Kolavalli, Shashi and John Kerr. 2002. " Scaling up participatory watershed development ." Development and Change, 33(2).
Landell-Mills, N. 1999. "Economic Evaluation of Watersheds: Methodological Issues ", in John Farrington C. Turton. a. A. J. James. eds. ,Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Leach, Melissa, Susan Joekes and Cathy Green. 1995. " Gender relations and environmental changes" IDS Bulletin, 26(1).
155 Lobo. C and Gudrun Kochendorfer. 1995. The Rain Decided to Help Us: Participatory watershed management in the State of Maharashtra, World Bank. Washington D.C.
Lobo, C and Abraham Samuel. 2005. Participatory monitoring and evaluation systems in watershed development: case studies of applied tools, WOTR, Ahmadnagar.
MANAGE. Undated. "Economic Evaluation of Manchal Watershed Development Project: A Study ", MANAGE, Hyderabad.
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. 1995. Guidelines for participating in IGWDP- Maharashtra, NABARD, Mumbai.
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. 1999. Evaluation of Mendhwan Watershed Project under IGWDP - Maharashtra State, NABARD, Pune.
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. 1999. Evaluation of Shedashi-Wavoshi Watershed Project under IGWDP, Maharashtra State, NABARD, Pune
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. 1999. Evaluation of Rajani Watershed Project under IGWDP-- Maharashtra State, NABARD, Pune.
Narain, S. 2003. "A Movement to Value Water" The Hindu Magazine.
Ninan, K. N. 1998. "An assessment of European-aided watershed development projects in India from the perspective of poverty reduction and the poor ". CDR Working Paper no. 98.3, Centre for Development Research, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, CUP, Cambridge.
Pangare, Ganesh. 1996. The Good Society: The Pani Panchayat Model of Sustainable Water Management, Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, New Delhi.
Paranajpe, S., K. J. Joy, S. Kulkarni and R. Samantray. 1997. "Evaluation Study of the Community- based Eco-regeneration in Dhar and Bagdunda Areas of South Rajasthan ", Ubeshwar Vikas Mandal, Udaipur.
Paranjape, S., V. Gore, K. J. Joy and A. Singh. 2001. "Status of Small Water Harvesting Structures in a Sub-Basin in Udaipur Region ", Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM), Pune.
Paranjape, S. and K. J. Joy, 2003, "The Ozar Water User Societies: Impact of Society Formation and Co-management of Surface Water and Groundwate r", Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM), Pune.
Paranjape, S., K. J. Joy, T. Machado, A. Varma and S. Swaminathan. 1998. Watershed- based Development -- A Source Book, Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samithi, New Delhi.
Reddy, Bakka and A. Ravindra, 2004, "Watershed Development -- Understanding Investments and Impacts: Report of Study of Impacts in Five Watersheds in Andhra Pradesh", Mission Support Unit, AP Water Conservation Mission, Hyderabad.
Reddy, V. R., M. G. Reddy, S. Galab and O. Springate-Baginski. 2001. "Watershed development and livelihood security: An assessment of linkages and impact in Andhra Pradesh, India ". This is a first draft which has been sent for comments and review. Centre for Economic and Social Studies, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Hyderabad and Leeds.
Sangameshwar, Priya. 2005. Equity in Community-based Sustainable Development: A Case Study in Western Maharashtra, Ph. D thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Shah, A. 1998. "Watershed development programmes in India -- Emerging issues for environment- development perspectives ", Economic and Political Weekly, 33(26): A-66.
Shah, M., D. Banerji, P. S. Vijayshankar and P. Ambasta. (1998), India's Drylands: Tribal Societies and Development through Environmental Regeneration , Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Sharma, S. 2002. "Watershed Development: No Cure for Drought ", The Hindu Survey of the Environment.
Srigiri, Srinivasa Reddy. 1993. " Equity and Poverty Issues in Watershed Development ", Dissertation http://www.tropentag.de/2003/abstracts/full/214.pdf
Soussan, J. and V. R. Reddy. 2003. "Andhra Pradesh: Evolving Appropriate Watershed Policy " Economic and Political Weekly, 38(1): 24. 156 Venkatachalam, L. and S. Lele. 2002. Economic Valuation of Watershed Services: A Review of Methodologies and Findings, Bangalore.
Second Irrigation Commission (GoM). 1998. Techno-economic Evaluation of Watershed Development Project - A Case Study of Kamini Sub-watershed. Gomukh Trust.
Vaswani, R.S.1995. Micro-Watershed Development: Three Success Stories from Maharashtra, State Institute of Rural Development, YASHADA, Pune.
Vaze, Vrunda and Abraham Samuel. 2004. " Report of the Study " Women and Watershed Development: Indo-German Watershed Development Programme", Pune.
Watershed Organization Trust. 1997. Operations Manual for Indo-German Watershed Programme, WOTR, Ahmadnagar.
Watershed Organization Trust. 2001, 2002, and 2003. Annual Reports, WOTR, Ahmadnagar.
Watershed Organization Trust. Undated. " Impacts of watershed development projects", accessed through http://www.wotr.org
157 158