Chapter – I Introduction

CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION

Indian agriculture has made remarkable strides during the green revolution phase of its growth but experience during the post-green revolution phase has cast doubts about its capacity to feed the growing population. Besides, green revolution has been largely crop and region specific and the benefits have largely accrued to the irrigated wheat growing areas, leaving vast areas of the country outside the development process, this has led to development duality.

Even after full exploitation of the irrigation potential, about

50 per cent of the cultivated land will still continue to depend on erratic rainfall for production. The country will have to depend for most of its requirements of coarse cereals, pulses, oilseeds and cotton upon this land. It is estimated that at present around 45 per cent of our food production is obtained from drylands and if estimated requirements are to be met, the productivity of drylands has to be increased by at least 72 per cent (Hegde,

1989).1

1 R.S. Hegde “Irrigation potentials in India”, Indian Journal of Agri. Eco. Vol:XXXI, No:13, April – Aug 1989, p.281.

Irrigation potential could be created and utilised at considerable cost.

The negative externality of irrigation has been that an area almost equivalent to the potential created is lost due to salinity and alkalinity with the result that the net productivity of irrigated land has remained low, around 1.7 tonnes per hectare. A team of dryland experts committee from the United

States which visited India in June 1987 highlighted this 'coming quiet crisis' in their report and opined that a large share of this increase has to come from drylands. There is a widely prevalent belief that dryland crops suffer only from shortage of rainfall. Hegde (1989)2 contends that most parts of the country receive about 500 mm of rainfall during the crop growing season and if at present 20 to 30 per cent of this rainfall which is reported to be runoff is effectively conserved, the dryland crops should not experience any moisture shortage. Associated with run-off the erosion of soil resulting in serious degradation of the production base in agriculture. An estimated 175 million hectares of land, i.e., about 53 per cent of the total geographic area of the country suffers from serious soil erosion. It has been estimated that annually about 6,000 million tonnes of soil are eroded from about 80 million hectares of cultivated land losing with it about 8.4 million tonnes of plant nutrients which is more than the quantity used in the country.

2 Ibid., Page No.283.

Considering the limited prospects of irrigated regions in meeting the future food requirements of the country and the equity considerations, there is the need for a shift in the development priorities in favour of dryland agriculture. Inherently, dryland agriculture areas are backward in resource base, in rural infrastructure, amenities and supporting services needed for agricultural growth. Rao (1990, 1991)3 argues that in their struggle for survival in a dirty environment farmers are likely to have acquired deep seated attitudes and behaviour patterns not conducive to innovation and growth. Given these major differences in the pre conditions for development as between the dryland areas and 'green revolution' areas, he contents that the fast pace of agricultural growth in the latter areas and the predominantly technocratic approach through which it was achieved are unlikely to be replicable in the dryland areas.

Sustaining the gains of production and reversing the process of degradation of soil are imperative. Sustainability can be achieved by designing programmes to maintain the synergistic relationship between land and water cycle, to raise productivity of the available land and restore, reclaim and rehabilitate the degraded land. It is now widely recognised that

3 Hemalatha Rao “Sustaining Agri growth” Journal of Economic Appraise Jan-Mar, Vol:40, No.1, 1999, P.14.

improvement of dryland agriculture is not just a problem of developing and disseminating improved technology and making on farm investments but of an integrated watershed approach involving participation of various development departments of the government such as agriculture, forestry, horticulture, the state agricultural universities, commercial banks and other credit institutions and other agencies Governmental and non-governmental.

Watershed is a geohydrological unit draining at a common point from a system of streams. Watershed is the area of land that drains into a body of water such as a river, lake, stream or bay. It is separated from other systems by high points in the area such as hills or slopes.

It includes not only the waterways, but also the entire land area that drains to it. From management perspective, a watershed is, in addition to the hydrological characteristics not just an area, but a land mass and a point of reference along the main flow channel, with its own particular drainage area.

The Government of India in early seventies initiated for an integrated development of all land and water resources on watershed basis through

Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP),4 Desert Development Programme

(DDP) and Integrated Watershed Development Programme along with

4 Report of the Ministry of Rural Development Government of India, 1994.

externally aided projects, private initiatives of local communities and NGOs.

However, all these schemes showed increase productivity of irrigated lands and rain fed lands in most of the states showed little or no sustained improvement.

In 1990-91 a 'Common Approach for Watershed Development' was jointly formulated and adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture and the

Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD 1994), through the National

Watershed Development Project for Rain fed Area (NWDPRA).5

CURRENT SITUATION

Mountain forest watersheds are drainage or 'catchment' areas where clean fresh mountain water gathers, separates and flows downstream to rivers, lakes and eventually into oceans. Yet over the last three decades, these upland watersheds have come under increasing threat. Population growth, deforestation, mining, non scientific agricultural practices, global warming, tourism and urbanization are all taking their toll on mountain watersheds and resulting world’s fresh water supply at risk.

Watersheds that are damaged pose serious problems to environment and people, both upstream and downstream. The cost of this damage can be

5 Ibid., P.No.160.

seen in eroded soil, landslides, diminished water quality and quantity, loss of biodiversity and severe ecological instability. Today, degraded watersheds are among the greatest constraints for sustainable development in the developing world. The need for the careful management and sustainable use of watersheds has never been greater.

NEED FOR WATERSHED PROGRAMMES

India shares 16% of the world’s population, while its land is only 2% of the total geographical area of the world. Naturally, the pressure on the land is often beyond its carrying capacity. Therefore, the productive lands, especially the farmlands in India are in the constant process of various degrees of degradation and are fast turning into wastelands.

WATERSHED APPROACH

Man is interdependent towards the environment. The changes in the environment directly affect the lives of the people depending on it. A degraded environment means a degraded quality for life of the people.

Environmental degradation can be tackled effectively through the holistic development of the watershed. Watershed provides a natural geohydrological unit for planning any developmental initiative.

PURPOSE OF WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT

Main purpose of watershed approach is the use of local resources for betterment of the villages with less external input. Watershed development has raised the living standard of the people in villages. Watershed development refers to the conservation regeneration and the judicious use of all the resources – natural (like land, water plants, animals) and human – within the watershed area. Watershed Management tries to bring about the best possible balance in the environment between natural resources on one side and man and animals on the other. Since it is man who is primarily responsible for degradation of environment. Regeneration and conservation is only possible by promoting awakening and participation among the people who inhabit the watersheds. Watershed development is important for the overall development of a village.

The physical and climatic conditions in India vary to a large extent.

Stable agriculture was a dream when watershed development was started.

Now it is not the situation. People have realized that they can survive only of they follow this technique.

Watershed development involves all the techniques mentioned above in an integrated manner. The techniques can be summarized as Grassland

development, Gully Plugs, Tree plantation and Contour trenching on hill tops and slopes, Contour bunding, Water conservation structures, Lift irrigation schemes, Land leveling etc.6

INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

(IWMP)

In 1994, a technical committee under the chairmanship of

Prof. C. H. Hanumantharao was appointed to assess the Drought Prone

Areas Programme (DPAP) and Desert Development Programme (DDP) with the purpose of identifying weakness and suggesting improvements. The committee after careful appraisal, opined that the programmes have been implemented in a fragmented manner in different departments through rigid guidelines without any well designed plans prepared on watershed basis by involving the inhabitants. Except in a few places the achievements have been sub-optimal. Ecological degradation has been proceeding nabagged in these areas with reduced forest cover, reducing water table and shortage of drinking water, fuel and fodder” (Hanumantha Rao Committee, 1994).7

6 M. Perumal, et al., Environmental and Ecological Issues in India I Edition. Abhijeeth publishers New Delhi, 2010. P.117. 7 Report of the Hanumantha Rao Committee on Ecological Imbalances Ministers, 1994 of Rural Development Quarterly Report 2004.

Against this backdrop, the committee made a number of recommendations and formulated a set of guidelines that brought the DDP, the DPAP and the Integrated Wastelands Development Programme (IWDP) under a single umbrella. The watershed projects taken up by the Ministry of

Rural Development (MoRD) from 1994 to 2004 followed these guidelines.

In 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture revised its guidelines for its programme; the National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas

(NWDPRA). These guidelines were intended to be common guidelines to make the programme more participatory, sustainable and equitable.

However, the MoRD revised the 1994 Hanumantha Rao Committee guidelines in 2001 and yet again in 2003 under the nomenclature “Hariyali guidelines”.

Meanwhile, emerging issues of ground water recharging and convergence to create a critical mass of investments demanded innovative guidelines. At the advent of the Eleventh Plan period, our main challenge is to move the nation decisively in the direction of “inclusive growth”. Rain fed areas of 85 million hectares out of the 142 millions of net cultivated area, have suffered neglect in the past. High untapped productivity and income potential exist in these areas.

The National Rain fed Area Authority has been setup in November

2006.8 Keeping in mind the need to give a special thrust to these regions. A close analysis of various types of rain fed situations would reveal that soil and water conservation, watershed development and efficient water management are the key to sustainable development of rain fed areas. The watershed approach has been accepted as a major theme for the development of rain fed areas with a view to conserving natural resources and livelihood.

In this context, in coordination with the planning commission, an initiative has been taken to formulate common guidelines for watershed development projects in order to have a unified perspective for all ministries.

These guidelines are therefore applicable to all watershed development projects in all departments, Ministries of Government of India concerned with Watershed Development Projects. During 11th Five year plan (2004)9 a major thrust would be laid on developing the untreated areas.

"Watershed management programme has emerged as a sustainable strategy to conserve the natural resources i.e. water, soil, and forest in an integrated manner. Since, the inception of human civilization, natural resources continued to provide vital life support system to human being.

8 Report of the NAWAPRA 2006, Government of India. 9 Eleventh Fiver Year Plan Mid-Term Appraisal 2004.

This symbiotic relation between the human beings and the nature and its vast resources (renewable and non-renewable) has sustained the human existence on earth. But it is unfortunate that, the rapidly growing interventions of human in the state of these rare natural resources, from which they derive their modes of subsistence are depleting rapidly in recent days. This calls for effectively managing the natural resources, with integrated initiatives.

Blending the best of modern technologies and some of the Traditional

Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of rural community for rain water management, soil conservation and management of common property resources should receive prioritization for sustainable development.

Water is the most vibrant form of the natural resources available on this earth. It constitutes a significant proportion of the food contents of the living organisms like plants and animals. Hence, the need for water is obvious for every living organism for its existence and survival. The growing quest for acquiring water resources in the global level is a matter of great concern in the present scenario. The scarcity of water is greatly realized in recent days. In the context of increasing water scarcity and competitive demands, water resources have become one of the critical imperatives for livelihood, particularly to the vulnerable poor who reside in the rural and tribal areas. Hence watershed management must get the

foremost priority among the various objectives, in our National Rural

Development policy for the overall development of rural area.

India has travelled a long distance in the path of development since independence and has made significant progress in various sectors.

However, the development in rural areas has not kept pace with the overall progress in other aspects of national life. Even today, most of rural poor subsists in poverty and lack of livelihood opportunities. The sustainable development of rural Bharat is essential for the country to realize its potential and to unleash the process of wide spread / extensive growth, based on the latent genious of the rural masses. To correct the imbalance, remedial steps have been taken in fee last few years to bring rural development to the forefront of national reconstruction. Accordingly, Government implementing a number of programmes for the sustainable development of rural areas. Watershed is one of them.10

Watershed development refers to treatment of an area to get different direct and indirect livelihood benefits through studying, taming harvesting and utilizing water as it falls, flows or accumulates in a unit of land shaped by its influence. To tame the running water as well as to harvest it on site

10 Desh Pande et al., “Rural Development through Integrated Watershed Management in Karnataka, Kurukshetra Vol.XX, No.4, April 2009, P.8.

and reduce runoff and soil loss, soil and water conservation techniques / measures are applied. The effectiveness of these measures increases manifold when the water flow is treated from top to bottom across topo sequences on watershed basis tackling both cause and effect through preventive and remedial measures.

IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

Watershed development involves re-generation of the environment and management of the needs of human community in such a way that their demands match with the resources available likes land, water and vegetation within that particular watershed. The watershed project aims at treating degraded lands with the help of low cost and locally accessed technologies such as in-situ soil and moisture conservation measures, afforestation and their participatory approach seeks to secure close involvement of the user communities. Watershed development involves both the human resource development as well as livestock development besides improvement of environment in the identified area which will lead to increase resistance to drought and increase agricultural production augmenting food supply, fodder, fuel and timber. Thus rural poverty has been checked and present rural scenario has been changed with the increase in application of watershed development programme.

RESEARCH GAP

GOI through a range of schemes, projects and programmes falling under three ministries (agriculture, forest and rural development) initiated watershed development to ensure the availability of drinking water, fuel wood and fodder and raise income and employment for farmers and landless labourers through improvement in agriculture production and productivity

(Rao.C Hanmantha 2000).11 Benefits from water harvest structures ranged from increased acquifer recharge from 5.2% to 38.5% (Khan 2004),12 intensified land use with emphasis on cash crops and livestock husbandry

(Sharma 2002),13 income generating schemes contributing in raising family status and improved water flow (Shrestha 1998),increase in the value of rain fed dry land by 17% (Lokesh 2004), increase in the net incremental income at Rs.1680 per hectare with family labour (Sripadmini), asset building by SHG (IWDP report) etc. have spatially touched the various aspect of watersheds besides being an area specific.

11 Rao. C. Hanmantha 2000, Water harvest structures serial publications II Edition, 2000 Sharma livestock Husbandary. 12 Khan, Land use pattern in India, U.NEP sponsored programme 2002. 13 Sharma, Livestock Husbandary and Income Generation in Watershed Area of U.P. Uttar Pradesh Economic and political weekly No.17, 2002, P.1283.

An integrated approach under one nodal agency (DPAP) in sub- tropical zones has remained untouched. The specific problems of Sue-

Chaker Watershed, collected through survey were:

a. Low soil moisture conservation, excessive runoff and severe soil

erosion leading to gully formation.

b. Low level of crop yield fuel and fodder production. Improved

agriculture practices are missing.

c. Unchecked grazing had rendered the lands denuded with poor soil

moisture retentivity and fertility.

d. Forest cover is poor and damaged due to increased biotic pressure and

people were under employed and their level of income was

abnormally low addressed systematically along with cost benefit

arising from individual crop, employment generation, participation

and sustainability of watersheds.

Even after full exploitation of the irrigation potential, about 50 per cent of the cultivated land will still continue to depend on erratic rainfall for production. The country will have to depend for most of its requirements of coarse cereals, pulses, oilseeds and cotton upon this land. It is estimated that at present around 45 per cent of our food production is obtained from

drylands and if estimated requirements are to be met, the productivity of drylands has to be increased by at least 72 per cent (Hegde, 1989).

IRRIGATION POTENTIAL IN TAMIL NADU

It is understood that the full irrigation potential of the state has already been realized and the per capita availability of water is lowest in Tamilnadu.

As per the World Bank report, the per capita availability of water resources in the state is 900 cubic meters (40.9%) in a year as against 2200 cubic meters in India. Well irrigation is dominant in Tamilnadu. Of the 1.8 million wells, approximately 10 per cent are defunct. Tine depth of bore wells in hard rock is between 600 to 1000 feet. This situation implies that water harvesting is the priority area both for the farmers and the in implementing authority. Gross area irrigated to gross cropped area was in the order of 55 per cent in 2001-02, 50 per cent in 2002-03 and 47 per cent in 2003-04. It indicates the fact that the fortune of agriculture still significantly relies on quantum and spread of precipitation. Of the irrigated area, the share of wells is 60.5 per cent , canals 20.5 per cent , tanks 17.9 per cent and others 0.7 per cent during 2003-04. Irrigation by canals has been influenced by factors such as the flow of Cauvery River to a great extent. So the dependence on

ground water has been increasing and it will indirectly accelerate rapid depletion of available ground water.14

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

It is a fact that the degradation of natural resources is the greatest constraint for sustainable agricultural development in most of the developing countries. It is also accepted that sustainable use and management of the land resources could only be achieved by adopting a system of improved land, water and vegetation use based on an integrated approach for land resources development with direct involvement and participation of the different actors.

In this connection, the watershed condition of topography, soil, vegetation and land use has direct implications on the water resources in particular and on the behaviour of the natural resources in general. It has been observed that the destruction of forests and rangelands have resulted in destructive torrents, considerable flood damages at downstream valuable agricultural lands and poor groundwater recharge. Also, the upper catchment management has a direct influence on soil loss and consequently sedimentation of reservoirs and irrigation infrastructures.

14 Report of the working groups on irrigation and public works Dept. 2010, Tamil Nadu Govt.

RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY

Presently, the Government has accorded very high priority to the holistic and sustainable development of rainfed areas on the 'Watershed

Approach'. It is being considered as the principal vehicle for transfer of rainfed agricultural technology and to bring in ever green revolution. The

National Agriculture Policy seeks to promote the integrated and holistic development of rainfed areas through conservation of rain water and augmentation of biomass production through agro forestry with active involvement of the watershed community. Such system based approach distinguishes watershed development from earlier plot/field based approach to soil and water management.

Watershed development being a multi-disciplinary approach, it has to integrate technical and scientific aspects of various disciplines.

In many most parts of the country water is the chief agent causing erosion, catchments degradation, including loss of protective cover, and also transporting the eroded materials to far away places such as reservoirs.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

To bring more uncultivated lands under the cultivable process,

Government has been initiating various measures like water harvesting and

water management techniques. In a country like India, the availability of excessive land are boon to the poor farmers, but the availability of irrigational facilities acted as major implement factor. Hence a novelistic and scientific approach is needed to bring more land under the irrigated process.

In this juncture watershed management programme acts as a ‘ Ray of Hope’.

The present study deal in detail about the implementation of water shed programmes and other related works covered in this area. Though, there were many studies have been already carried out in this sphere, but no study was undertaken on this topic. The present research is “An Economic

Analysis of Watershed Development Programme in Tiruchirappalli

District” Tamil Nadu is having a vast scope of uncovered areas of research and it in turn tires to solve the unanswered research questions and research gaps.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objective of the study in nutshell is to ascertain the change in rural scenario after implementation of Watershed Project in the study area.

To know the state at which the Watershed stands by now and what was before the intervention of Watershed Programme. The other objectives include:

 To measure the Cost – Benefit analysis of the watershed programme in

this area.

 To quantify the impact of watershed technologies on agriculture

productivity in respect of major crops and production of userfructs like

fodder, grass, fuel wood etc.

 To measure the socio-economic development of the community

directly or indirectly dependent on the watershed.

 To evaluate the impact of watershed technology on restoration of

ecological balance in the project area.

 To examine as to how can people's participation in watershed

programme and management of resources could be ensured.

HYPOTHESES

 There is no association between the benefit cost ratio among the

different groups and at different situations.

 There is a high degree of dependency between the level of

employment generated among the different groups of farmers.

 There is a perfect high degree of positive correlation between activity

wise outlay and experiment of the watershed programme.

 There is a significant difference between the production and yield

among watershed area and Non watershed area by hedonistic pricing.

METHODOLOGY

The study is mainly a case study of one watershed village in

Trichirappalli District of Tamil Nadu. The findings of the study can be applicable to all irrespective of the changes in sample. The methodology adopted for the study is Participatory Rural Appraisal and interview with the watershed functionaries, block officials, district officials, beneficiaries of villages etc. for collecting various information.

The present research purposely deals the “Sokkanathapuram watershed Programme in Tiruchirappalli District” In this district there are two ongoing watershed major Development Programmes namely

Sokkanathapuram (Thuraiyur Range) and Usilampatti, (Manaparai Range) are functioning. The researcher selected “Sokkanathapuram Watershed purposely for study purpose.

The PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) methodology is used basing on the following assumption:

 To learn directly in a face to face situation from the local people and to

gain insight from their local physical, technical, social and psychological

knowledge.

 Conscious exploration with the use of flexible methods and improvising,

repeatedly and cross checking the methods with the process of time.

 PRA would provide the insight into people's perception, needs and

aspirations that enable the stakeholders for the strategic development of

training module, basing on the training needs of the women.

 Participatory assessment of progress would reveal whether the village

had made any progress after the programme has been undertaken through

the watershed development programme.

The data will be collected from the households of watershed. The key informants and the traditional leaders are given due importance. Various tools are used to collect information from a group and single individual. The demographic data of the village has been collected from the concerned block office and are triangulated with the data collected through PRA. During data collection period special care has taken to record data from village leaders, women and women SGH group, watershed members and as well as not part

of the watershed living on the periphery of the village etc., thus covering all strata of the village.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

In this area ie. in Sokkanathapuram watershed area, the total number of beneficiaries of water projects covered under the various villages was estimated as 1016. Simple random sampling technique was used to select the sample size. 10% of the universe was made as sample 101(n1) (where

N=1010 n1=101) Again the same sampling technique was also used to select the respondents. i.e. 50 marginal farmers, 25 small farmers, 16 medium farmers, 10 Large farmers were selected.

The following chart will clearly reveal the sampling procedure.

Table – 1.1

Table showing the Universe and Sampling Size

Universe/Sample Size 1hectare = 2.2472acres

S. No. Villages / Farmers Type of Farmers Tool Universe Sample Village I - 60 Village II - 185 Marginal Farmers I Village III - 165 510 50 (Less than 1 hectare) Village IV - 100 Total - 510 Village I - 28 Village II - 110 Small Farmers II Village III - 86 256 25 (1.01 to 2.01 hectare) Village IV - 32 Total - 256 Village I - 16 Village II - 29 III Village III - 65 Medium Farmers 155 16 Village IV - 45 (2.01 to 3.00 hectare) Total - 155 Village I - 15 Village II - 16 Larger Farmers IV Village III - 39 95 10 (3.01 and above) Village IV - 25 Total - 95 Grand Total Universe 1016 101 sample

TIME PERIOD

The present research deals say one year say (July 2010 to June 2011) irrigational year about 12 months have been spared by the researcher to collect the necessary data.

SECONDARY DATA

Secondary data about the Sokkanathapuram watershed project has been collected form Joint Director of Irrigation (Trichy) Deputy Director of wasteland Development Programme Rural Development. Joint Director of

NAWAPRA Scheme Deputy Director of Agriculture/Thuraiyur Division.

B.DO/Taluk Statistical office and Assistant Director of Groundwater

Management and River beds Authority – Musiri Division of Tiruchirappalli

District.

STATISTICAL TOOLS

“Garrett's ranking” technique was applied to rank a set of benefits obtained from the impact of watershed development activities. The order of merit assigned by the sample respondents in the WTA (Water Treated Area) was transmuted into scores using the formula given by Garret and

Woodworth (1977). The results of the Garrett scores obtained for different activities are presented for easy understanding.

It could be inferred from the above table that among the benefits listed, the highest score was recorded for soil and water conservation (78).

This in turn had indicated that the construction of different water conservation measures such as percolation ponds and check dams had a greater impact on the conservation of water and controlling of soil erosion.

This benefit was then followed by the improvement in soil fertility with a score of 66. The results of the table also ranked the other benefits like cropping pattern, cropping intensity, yield increase, ground water recharge and resource conservation with Garrett scores of 57, 50, 43, 34, and 22, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

The present research on watershed analysis of Sokkanathapuram faces some constraints and limitations. This research exclusively deals only with a particular area covered under water treated areas. There may be the possibility of excluding non-water treated areas also owing the time constraint, the researcher was not able to devote his entire time to contact all the categories of farmers. Only the selected farmers among different groups were contacted there may be an exclusion of the progressive big farmers who technically followed the system of constructing gullives structures or even mini soil erosion systems.

The area covered under Sokkanathapuram is vast in coverage, but due to the capacity of resources, only the selected villages were interviewed. For plain truth the result of the experiment could not been affected too much.

CHAPTERIZATION

 Chapter I deals with introduction - International level – Indian

context – Importance of the Problem - Scope of the study – Statement

of the Problem – Objectives – Hypotheses – Methodology – Sample

Selection – Statistical tools – Time period – Limitations and

Chapterization.

 Chapter II discusses Review of Literature

 Chapter III describes Profile of Sokkanathapuram Watershed Project

 Chapter IV presents Progress of Watershed Management

Programmes in India

 Chapter V deals with Economic Analysis

 Chapter VI Summary of Findings, Suggestions and Conclusion

CHAPTER - II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

DEFINITION AND CONCEPTS

DEFINITION

Various definitions have been proposed for the term 'watershed' while the definitions use a wide variety of words, they all mean more or less the same. A watershed is a topographically delineated area that is drained by a river system. It is nothing but a manageable hydrological unit or area, which has a common drainage and often a smaller spatial unit (usually below 2000 km) than a river basin. A watershed is also defined as an area from which run off resulting in from precipitation flows past a single point into stream, river, or sea. It is synonymous to catchment area of a drainage basin often smaller manageable in size.

A watershed generally marks the divide between two drainage systems and usually runs along the highest points of interfluves which is called 'drainage divide'. The rainwater that is falling in the ridgeline follows the gradient of the landscape to reach on the river or sea, the outlet areas that shed water during a rainstorm is considered as watershed. Rainwater received on the opposite sides of a drainage divide do not contribute run off

water and hence may not be considered as watershed for that area. The word watershed is commonly used in Britain for a divide, but this term in USA signifies the whole gathering ground of a single river system equivalent to a drainage basin. In areas of strong relief this divide may be sharply defined while in low relief areas it is not easily discernible. The watershed may vary in sizes and contain different ecosystems.

Water shed (WS)15 is "an area from which all water drains to a common point, making it an interesting unit for managing water and soil resources to enhance agricultural production through water conservation".

Watersheds rationalize and assist the concept of integrated water resource management in India. It includes in its purview multidimensional activities like soil conservation, irrigation, agriculture, forestry, flood control, horticulture and animal husbandry. All the resources are integrated within geo-physical limits represented by water sheds.

Essentially water shed is made up of its physical and hydrological resources including human resources. WS degradation threatens and restricts the development of the Indian agricultural and natural resources base.

15 Watershed – Meaning and Definition- Encycopediac a Brittanica

The International Commission16 on runoff defines a small

Watershed as "the effect of overland flow rather than the effect of channel flow is a dominating factor affecting the peak runoff (criterion based definition). A small Watershed is very sensitive to high intensity rainfall of short duration and changes in the pattern of land use. For larger Watershed, the effect of channel flow or the basin storage effect becomes very pronounced, so that such sensitivities are greatly suppressed.

Watershed should represent the predominant land use system of the agro-ecological region. Management of Watershed causes minimum trauma and damage to natural and human resources on optimization of production through their effective utilization. The need to understand the occurrence and movement of water in the surface and sub-surface systems combined with soil and nutrient losses in a Watershed necessitated the need for Water

Shed Management (WSM).

WSM is the process of guiding and organizing land and other resources in the WS to provide desired goods and services, without adversely affecting soil and water resources. It incorporates the inter- relationships among land use, soil and water, and the linkages between

16 Report of International commission on Radcliff, 1962.

uplands and downstream areas. It helps to maintain the equilibrium of the natural ecosystem represented by land, water and vegetation on one hand , and human activities on the other. WSM is an integration of initiatives which result in the holistic development of all the natural resources and prevents them from degradation. Man is the fulcrum of the WSM techniques that include:-

 Village common lands and private lands

 Capacity building

 Institutionalized community participation

 Sustainable rural livelihood support system

 Integrated and holistic development of the unit

 Protects natural resources through stakeholders participation

 Ridge to valley treatment

 Best unit for planning a development programme.

Collective resource management occurs when individuals voluntarily cooperate as a group to coordinate their behavior to solve a shared problem.

This requires formulating and enforcing rules that govern their interactions as a group to achieve a common goal. Property rights are defined as the capacity to call upon the collective to stand behind one's claim to a benefit

stream (Bromely 1991)17. Since Harding's the article on the tragedy of the commons (Harding 1968)18, extensive work has been made in the past on collective resource maintenance and property rights institutions in relation to management of common property resources (eg. development of community forestry, grazing lands, fishery) (Runge 1986; Jodha 1986; Ostrom 1990;

Baland and Platteau 1996 Agrawal 2001)19.

The focus is now shifting towards the broader natural resource management (NRM) and poverty issues in the country and how community as well as collective maintenance of resources and property rights institutions contributes to this effort (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2002)20. Along these developments, another approach to resource management community based integrated watershed management has evolved as a viable strategy for soil and water conservation as well as improvement of rural livelihoods in drought prone areas. This approach focuses on a community in a given hydrological unit with emphasis on sustainable interventions that improve their livelihoods, and diverges substantially from the old focus on individual farmers, their plots and on soil and water conservation.

17 Bromely DW. (1991), Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy. Cambridge, Mass. Basil Blackwell, Inc. 18 Harding G. (1968), The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162: 1243-1248. 19 Agrawal A. (2001), "Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources". World Development 29 (10): 1623-1648. 20 Dick et al. 2002, Common Property Resources and Institution Capacity International Journal of Environment, California Press, 2002.

Farmer managed (co-operatives) resources are common in many regions especially in Europe (Nilsson, 2001),21 their performance accounts in relation to poverty reduction and provision of essential services to the rural poor has not been exemplary (Lele 1981; Hussi et al. 1993; Akwabi-

Ameyaw 1992).22 Many of the cooperatives in the past under centralized planning were established by the state to replace private commercial activities in the provision of essential services to the rural poor sector

(including credit and inputs). Hence, they functioned primarily as service cooperatives supported by governments rather than as business enterprises owned and managed by the members. With structural adjustment and economic reforms, many of the service cooperatives lost this special protection from the state, further reducing their viability in the competitive economic environment (Lele 1981).23

The World Bank Study of these cooperatives and other rural organizations in many African countries indicates that cooperatives and other farmer organizations have often failed to develop into viable and self- managed organizations capable of extending efficient services to their

21 Nilsson : Former managed co-operatives in Europe Allen and Unwin publishers London, 2001. 22 Akwabi-Ameyaw K. (1997), "Producer Cooperative Resettlement Projects in Zimbabwe: Lessons from a failed agricultural development strategy" World Development, 25 (3): 437-456. 23 Ibid, P.16.

members (Hussi et al. 1993).24 This analysis showed that lack of independent and high degree of political interference was the main reason for the failure of these organizations.

Community participation in watershed management has the potential to provide benefits to the poor. Watershed management contributes to enhancing resource productivity and sustainability. Social benefits can be maximized when the activity is carried out collectively. This collective action allows smallholder farmers to jointly invest in management practices that provide collective benefits to all members. When property rights to collectively held resources and investments are clearly defined and all beneficiaries respect the rules of collective action, farmers in drought-prone areas can benefit from increased availability of drinking and irrigation water, improved availability of fodder for livestock, reduced soil erosion, enhanced sustainability and improved environmental quality (Kerr et al. 2002;

Farrington et al. 1999).25 This collective effect of the joint NRJV1 investments and private production practices improves the productivity of available resources for the poor and reduces vulnerabilities to drought and other production risks.

24 An article world bank study group, 1993. 25 Farrington J, Turlon C and James AJ (eds.) (1999), Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty-first Century. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

Various kinds of interventions can be used to enhance awareness of the potentials of collective action and facilitate its emergence. While informal institutions of local cooperation commonly exist in the developing world (Bardhan 1993)26 the other external agencies of one or the other type facilitated the emergence of formal institutions of collective action in many documented case studies. The success of collective action in a given situation once it evolves depends upon several factors. The classic implements of collective action are group size and inequality. A number of factors, either internal or external to the group, are identified as important determinants for the success of collective efforts in managing commons.

These include clearly defined boundaries, monitoring, mechanisms for conflict resolution, and recognition of rights to organize and presence of graduated sanctions to penalize violators (Ostrom 1990).27 Some of the factors identified to the success of collective efforts of farmer organizations include homogeneity, size, choice of services, commercial activities, self- reliance and autonomy, finance, skills and education, participation, organizational structure and governance, legislation and focus.

26 Bardhan P. (1993), "Analysis of the Institutions of Informal Cooperation in Rural Development". World Development, 21 (4) 633-639. 27Ostrom, Monistoring mechanism of water in developing countries International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington. D.C. 1990.

(Stockbridge, et al. 2003).28 It is anticipated that many of these factors will be relevant for issues related to collective participation in watershed management.

In recent decades, more and more developed countries and developing countries have increasingly adopted watershed management to establish an enabling environment for integrated use, regulation and treatment of water and land resources of a watershed based ecosystem to accomplish resource conservation and biomass production objectives (Jensen et al. 1996) and thereby sustaining social and economic development (Kneese and Brower

1984, Newson 1992, Spulber and Sabbaghi 1998).29

In India, since the inception of WDP funded by the Ministry of Rural

Areas and Employment in 1995-96, an estimated US $ 3.5 billion has been invested by the Government for Rehabilitation and Development of Micro-

Watersheds, the World Bank, Danish Development Agency (DANIDA),

State Institute of Rural.

28 Stockbridge, Collective Management of Watersheds National Resources Perspectives Journal, Vol.34, London, 2001. 29 Kneese et al “Water and Land Resources” Journal of the International Institute of Economic Development Vol. XXI, No.1, Jan-Mar, 1993, London.

SIDA (2006),30 Swiss Development Corporation (SDC), Department for International Development (DFID) and Indo-German Watershed

Development Programmes (WDPs) through direct funding support as well.

It is, therefore, the need of the hour to review the impact of watersheds on conserving and developing natural resources, capacity building, empowerment of the village community etc, observed by different scholars and policy makers in India and abroad.

Ram, Balak (2004)31 emphasised on a systematic characterisation and mapping of bio-physical resources viz. climate, landform, soil, vegetation surface and groundwater, transport network and village settlement, land use etc. using conventional and remote sensing techniques, correlates with socio- economic data, integrate them and formulate sustainable land use planning zones for optimizing production potentials in watershed. Based on UMA

(Unique Mapping Area) system of Australia, CAZRI has evolved a concept of composite mapping system called Major Land Resource Units

(MLRU)for development planning and applied on 5426 ha area around

Kailana near Jodhpur for waste land development. Out of total 5000 ha area found worth for development, 74.32% has been proposed for regeneration

30 Report of the SIDA, Sweednishy International Development Association, Stockworm, 2006. 31 Ram, Balak, “Unique mapping system – climate change Australia confername, 2004.

and ecological management, 1.08% for rehabilitation forestry, 2.36% silvipastoral revegetation, 14.76% agro forestry, 6.96% agri-horticulture and

0.52 % for vegetable cultivation.

Khan, MA (2004)32 assessed and exploited specific technology package such as nadi, tanka, khadin, anicut, gully plugging, water harvesting dams, water spread, percolation tank, subsurface barriers and sand-filled dam for sustainability in agriculture production in water deficit regions such as western Rajasthan. In Barmer district, the development of trees with supplemental irrigation from the nadi has improved the environment, besides providing fodder and fuel. Tanka water was utilized for raising forest nursery and establishment of fruit orchards. Improved design of khadin have been used to optimise the process of infiltration, runoff generation and routing, as well as soil and water storage capacity. Construction of anicuts in

Ujalian watershed (Jodhpur district) has helped in regeneration of plants of different species and grasses in the upstream area. In Pah district, its presence has increased aquifer recharge from 5.2% to 38.5%. Studies conducted for 3 years at Kalawas in Jodhpur district revealed that with the construction of a sub surface barriers, the rate of depletion of ground water

32 Khan MA., “Watershed Management Practices in India – International Journal on scientific management, Vol.3, No.24, Jan-April-2004.

was reduced from average 1.0m to 0.3m per year. Studies carried out for four years at Jodhpur revealed that evaporation reduction in sand filled reservoir was about 92 %, although reduction in storage capacity was nearly half.

Joshi, N.L (2004)33 focused on agro-forestry such as agro-horticulture system, agro-sihvicultural system and silvo-pastoral system to increase total productivity per unit areas and simultaneously for conserving and improving the natural resources of soil. In drought years when annual crop fails or their production is highly depressed, fruit tree species yield considerable food, land fuel thereby greatly obviate the sufferings from general shortages. In agro-silvo systems, agricultural crop provide seasonal revenue, while trees are managed at 8 to 10 years rotation giving extra return of timber, fuel wood and fodder. Silvo-pastoral by emphasing on top feed tree species carrying grasses or legumes increases fodder supply in rural areas. Agro- pastoral maintains balance between fodder crops and pastures. He suggested that sustainability in production can better be achieved by optimally combining cropping system, alternative land use systems and live-stock systems and the means available to the farmer to raise them profitability.

33 Joshi, “Agro-forestry and methods of conserving natural resources through watershed approach” NEERI – Report Nagpur – 2004.

Such system interacts adequately with environment without dislocating the ecology and socio-economic balance on one hand and attempts to meet the national goals on the other.

Tejwani, K.C (2005)34 probed at the agents of deterioration in watersheds and concluded that the farmer beneficiaries will participate and even contribute to watershed management as long as they get short term on- site direct tangible benefits. They do not get enthused by the prospect or promise of soil conservation for the next generation or availability of timber ten years or more down the time, indirect benefits of betterment of environment and under ground water recharge which occurs elsewhere as springs and benefits others. Since farmers beneficiaries are the agents of change, discussing the local needs and benefits will trigger enthusiastic and committed participation by them. Having identified the needs, the goods and services have to be delivered in cost effective and efficiently, preferably through a single window delivery so that farmer beneficiaries does not have to run to many functionaries. Only when the farmer beneficiaries and the agents of change function in unison, then alone success of development activities is possible.

34 Jejwani, Economic Benefits of watershed management Development and change Journal, 35(2), 297-326, 2005.

Singh, Singh and Sharma (2005)35 highlighted the achievement of

Chenani Watershed Project of district Udhampur and provide suggestions on self observation basis for other ongoing watershed activities. On 1300 hectares of watershed project, 500 ha of land was afforested for fuel wood and fodder, 400 ha of land was used for pasture development, 200 ha of land was planted with various agro-forestry horticultural tree and rest of 200 ha is planted with shrubs, grasses and legumes to conserve moisture and to control erosion. To harness the benefits of micro watershed, suggestions offered are decentralise and initiate micro planning on the individual village basis, promoting enterprise lite sericulture, mushroom growing, horticulture etc., ensuring accountability of work done, raising carrying capacity of the area, coordinating activities of various department and timely release of funds to check undue delays and ensuring efficiency of activity implementing channels.

Wittayapak, Chusak and Philip Dearden (1999)36 examined four case studies of community based watershed management with emphasis on their operational decision making arrangements in Northern Thailand. All the case studies established community-based regimes as results of declining

35 Singh and Singh et al., Watershed Management in Udhampur District, Serials Publications, 2012, New Delhi. 36 Wittayak et al., Community Based watershed programmes in Thailand – International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington (IFPR), 1999.

resource abundance, but differ in their operational rules, administration, effectiveness and satisfaction among stakeholders. Ban Luang Watershed suffered from being too large, with too many stake holders and not very restrictive operational rules, leading to internal conflicts among the different stakeholders. Thung Hang,37 watershed being too small , though helped in terms of village input to decisions and recognising fellows users but was under severe resource pressure and outside recognition from the

Government.

Although Ban Lung is smaller than Thung Hang38 in terms of both the size of watershed and number of users, the long history of community awareness of the importance of maintaining water supplies from the watershed, the richness of the forests and increased dependence on off farm employment. But this robust institution can soon be weakened in the face of users discarding their obligations for reciprocity. The authors suggested that with establishment of legal forest communities comprising officials and provincial forest inspection committees chaired by the provincial governor would strengthen the weak institutions who apparently look for greater degree of reliance on outside authorities.

37 Thung Hang, Barn watershed management and stake holders International Food Policy Research (IFPR) Washington, P.316, 2000. 38 Ibid., P.319.

Webler Thomas et al. (2003)39 explored the decision of New

England local governmental officials (LGOs) to participate or not in regional collaborative environmental policy making on watershed management planning. Factor analysis resulted in five perspectives but consider three important. The study found that LGOs make their decision to participate or not based on three general considerations they feel they can help make a positive difference, they see working on the problem as consistent with their environmental ethic and it is in their community's interest that they participate in the process.

Dawel He and Chen Jingsheng (2001)40 focused on watershed management issues in China such as divided jurisdiction and overlapping responsibilities of water management agencies, water pricing lack of attention to non point sources, absence of legislation regarding both watershed organisations and public participation, illegal implementation of existing environmental laws and national policies concerning agriculture and farmers. They suggested that a multi-objective, multi-functional development programme should be constituted for integration of emigrant

39 Webler Thomas, “Study paper New England Local Government Official’s Report, 2003, UK. 40 Dawel He et al., Watershed management in China, - Some Issues Working Paper No.19, Washington DC-2002.

resettlement, poverty elimination, regional development and environmental protection.

Sharma Giridhari Paudel (2002)41 surveyed on farmers changing land use and management practices in two mountain watershed namely,

Phewatal Watershed project area and Yamdi Mardi non project area

Watershed confronted with shrinking landholding size and scarcity of non- farming employment opportunities. Based on the survey of 300 households, the study found that farmers in both watersheds have gradually intensified land use and cultivated new crops to increase farm production and income.

They have shifted from cereal crop to livestock husbandry, particularly along the road in the project watershed and to vegetable and other cash crops in the accessible foot hills of the non-project watershed. The degree of the adoption of various structural and biological measures to control soil erosion, landslides, gully expansion to increase farm production was higher in the project watershed than in the non project watershed.

Ghanbarpour Hipel and Abbaspour (2005)42 provided a framework for Strategic Watershed Management Planning (SWMP) to satisfy long-term objectives of a majority of stakeholders belonging to Kan Watershed located

41 Paudel, G. S., 2002. Research Issues on Watershed Management in Developing Countries. Rural Development, 21:187-214. 42 Ghanbarpour et al., Strategic watershed management planning Galekeeper series No.81 IIED, London.

north of Tehran, Iran. Within SWMP framework, a set of strategies was established and group decision analysis techniques were used to rank different strategies and alternatives that would best satisfy stakeholders objectives. From the analysis made, water resource development emerged out to be important strategy both by governmental personnel and community leaders.

SWMP imparts a degree of rationality to watershed planning as it provides an opportunity to learn from the vast range of knowledge and expertise of the community, identify many stakeholders preferences, furnishes a forum in which watershed managers can clarify and resolve conflicts before the implementation stage. They suggested establishment of

Watershed Council later coordinated governmental plans with community preferences and experts judgement in the initial stage of planning process.

Such organisations would have representatives from different parties in a watershed.

Li.Wang &Tang (2006)43 conducted field experiment about transfer mechanism of nutrients in soil on sloping lands influenced by natural and artificial factors on the soil collected from a sloping land at upstream of

43 Li. Wang and Tang, Study paper Taihu Lake Basin China Natural Resources Advisory Conference, London. 2006.

Taihu Lake basin, China. Result showed that the rainfall intensity had a small influence on nutrient concentrations in runoff, but a significant influence on the runoff flow on sloping lands. The slope length influenced the nutrient loss by soil erosion on areas that receive rainfall. They suggested different management practices for different sloping lands including changing fertilization, improving fertilization technology, adjusting vegetation coverage and cultivation system of arable land on different sloping lands within a watershed.

Ravnborg, Helle Munk (2002)44 explored the relationship between poverty, soil quality and soil management strategy based on field research carried in Rio Saco, Cuscateca and Tascalapa Watersheds in Honduras,

Central America.

The result showed casual relationship between poverty and soil degradation. Neither were the poor found to be more likely to clear forest for agriculture purposes than the less poor in any of three watersheds. Second, poor farmers were constrained by lack of capital, labour and land but capital constraint significantly affected the choice of soil management strategy of poor farmers, in that it inhibited them from using chemical fertilizers. Use of

44 Ravnborg et al., Poverty Reduction through Efficient soil and water management in Honduras. Central America. IIPR-Report-2002

velvet bean as a green manure crop was found to be within reach of poor farmers and built on the available resources.

Sharma et al. (2001)45 assessed the impact of remote sensing and GIS techniques to arrive at cost-effective plans for conservation and development measures for watersheds based on a part of Jasdan Taluka (district of Rajkot) in Gujarat. In the watershed studied, the actual implementation of soil and water conservation measures recommended along with the alternative land use systems resulted in a considerable decrease (up to 55% at sub-watershed level) in runoff, thereby improving the soil moisture regime. Multiple agriculture production system such as agro-horticulture, agro-silviculture etc.were found to be very effective in conserving rainwater. After conservation measures, the runoff yield was found to decrease by 42.88% of the pre-conservation value for the entire watershed.

Moore, Elizabeth and Koontz (2003)46 developed a typology of collaborative groups classified as citizen-based, agency-based and mix type based on the examination of 64 watershed groups in Ohio, USA.

45 Sharma et al., Watershed management in Rajkot, Gujarat State, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.XXXI, No.32 – 2001. 46 Moore, Elizabeth et al., Watershed groups Ohio USA – John Hopkin University Press hr (IFPR) 2003.

The study found the influence of collaborative groups on policy47 differs across the group types and different types of groups are likely to report different accomplishment. Citizen based groups more often relied on traditional .adversarial means such as lobbying and petitioning, the impact of mixed and agency-based groups was more such subtle and less visible, through technical advice and changes in individuals decision making. This helped the Government, to allocate its scarce resources by knowing which type of groups were inclined to achieve particular outcome. More over choice of collaborative group had implications for what the group was likely to accomplish.

Shrestha (Vaidya) and Pushpa Lata (1998)48 investigated the women's management role in the Shivapuri watershed which earlier was characterised by excessive environmental degradation, poverty, underemployed and population pressure. With the formation of the Forest

User's Group Network and Women's User Group Network, a number of training and workshops were conducted to resolve resource management problem. Increase is the use of improved cooking stove, coupled with private plantation to economise and make effective use of fuel energy along with

47 Report of the study group headed by M.S. Swaminathan MSSR Foundation, Chennai. 48 Shrestha et al., Watershed Management and SHGs Wishivapuri, Maharastra State, ICRISAT Report, 1998.

income generating scheme were initiated which contributed in raising family status. It further led to improved water flow from 0.08 m3 to 0.17 m3 per second from 1963 to 1990. It was suggested that fragile mountain area cannot provide enough land productivity but the tremendous resources under management can support an industrial complex. Therefore, industry must be started to supplement land productivity in Nepal.

Lokesh (2004)49 estimated the total economic value of Kallambella

Watershed Development Program (WDP) employing 'with and without project' framework using field data for 2001-01.He found that due to WDP, the value of rain fed dry land increased by 17 per cent (Rs.5,371 per acre) over non-watershed project area. The contribution from rain fed field crops agri-horticulture, agro-forestry and silvi-pasture was 46%, while contribution from groundwater irrigation was 49 per cent of the total economic value of Rs.20,375 per acre. Intangible benefits formed one per cent and livestock three per cent net return per acre of dry land field crops

(ragi and groundnut) in watershed area was Rs. 1,437 which was Rs. 719 in non-watershed project (NWP) area. Due to recharge of ground water, gross irrigated area per irrigation well increased by 53 per cent (by 24 acres),The

49 Lokesh, Economics of Watershed Management in Kallambella – Sivi Cultural Economics – International Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.3, No.1, 2004.

perennial crops in agri-horticulture and silvi-pasture contributed almost equally (around 45 %)to ground water irrigation in this watershed. While groundwater irrigation is investment intensive, perennial crops in agri-silvi system are not. Hence higher budgetary allocation in watershed be made for this sector to augment farm incomes. This also complements environmental goals through carbon sequestration.

Sripadmini. R50 lauded the role of National Watershed Development

Programme for Rainfed Agriculture (NWDPRA) which covered 4400 micro watershed covering an area of 4.2 m.ha with an outlay of Rs.9,800 lakhs in the nineth plan. An evaluation study conducted of Mendhwan Watershed

Project under IGWDP in Maharashtra State showed a phenomenal change in land use pattern, a substantial increase in the number of families owning wells, a increase in water table to the extent of 10 feet and the net incremental income estimated at Rs 1,680 per hectare with family labour. He suggested that sustainability issues in rain fed areas demand both conservation of resources and enhancement of productivity on a continuous basis.

50 Sripadmani, Working paper on watershed programmes in Rural Areas, 2006.

Report on 'Paraticipatory Watershed Development under

Integrated Watershed Development Project (Hill-11)' (2003)51 evaluated community empowerment and income generation activities carried under the

IWDP (Hills-11) project implemented in Kandi areas of Punjab in the districts of Gurdaspur, Hoshiarpur, Nawanshahar, Ropar and Patiala with the

World Bank support covering 17 sub watershed, 3, 27 lakh population with a total outlay of Rs. 214 crores. Under this watershed VDC and Women's Self

Help Groups accumulated a total saving of about Rs.60 lakhs. Women's Self

Help Groups were trained in tailoring, football making, detergent making, book binding, dari making etc. and IGAs linkages were created with local market and also markets in Ludhiana/ Jalandhar. For activities of the poor such as backyard poultry, bee keeping, small scale milk processing units etc. were taken. Three year programme was chalked out and provision for trainings, tools and raw material for income generating activities for enhancing training for community. Exposure visit of beneficiaries outsides the State and India was undertaken.

Report entitled Unsealing of Successful Experiences in

Mainstream Watershed Programme (2009)52 in India-Mechanism

51 Report of the Integrated Watershed Development Programme in Kandi Area, Punjab, 2003. 52 Report of the Government of India, 2009.

Instruments and Policy Consideration synthesised the detailed case studies of watershed projects funded by DANWADEP in three states namely,

Orissa, Karnataka and Mathiya Pradesh and experiences under innovative watershed project funded by various organisations like Govt, of India, bilateral projects and NGOs. The lessons from studies were analysed under five sub-themes :(i) user right (ii) capacity building (iii) equity for resources among poor families (iv) participatory monitoring and evaluation system and

(v) withdrawal strategy post project sustainability. In its review report, it highlighted that policy attention is required to improve coordination both at the central policy level and between ministries and departments at Central and State level, better NGO collaboration to improve the operation of the various project implementing agencies, careful policies regarding degree of subsidies and contribution involved in the financing of investment by the different parties participating, strengthening of the real participation by the poor and ensuring that benefits from watershed development accrue to the poor and women.

Farrington and Lobo (1997)53 evaluated Indo-German Watershed

Development Programme (IGWDP) covering 92000 ha of private and other

53 Farrington, J. and Lobo, C. (1997), 'Scaling up Participatory Watershed Development in India: Lessons from the Indo-German Watershed Development Programme'. Natural Resource Perspectives No.17. London: OD1.

land in 20 districts in Maharashtra, involving 50 NGO working in 74 watershed. They concluded that cases of participatory micro-watershed management especially those managed by NGO are becoming abundant.

Yet, almost without exception, they are small in scale and can be expanded only by repeating the same slow, costly, indepth techniques in successive villages. By contrast, many government sponsored approaches have expanded rapidly, but often lack the local ownership and group coherence necessary for sustainable management of the common pool components of watersheds. If approach to micro watershed rehabilitation are to be participatory and rapidly replicable, then a close engagement of stakeholders is needed in creating local watershed planning methodology, framework for local-level collaboration among NGO, CBOs and Govt, departments and creation of mechanisms which channel funds to local organisations with as few intermediate stages.

WASSAN report (2000)54 analysed the role perceptions, capacity building needs and enabling systems in place (with respect to participatory processes) at various stakeholder groups in a sample of 10 watersheds selected randomly from DPAP 3rd and 4th batch of the programme in A.P.

The study found that training and community organisation budgets were

54 Wassan Report on Drought Prone Area Programme in Hyderabad, 2000.

centralised and programs were centrally organised in Hyderabad or at

Mandal level. The capacity building efforts in no way matches the requirements of demands of the program both in quantity and in focus. Most of training programs conducted were 'lecture/ speeches oriented' without using any appropriate training methods. The report suggested creation of multi-stakeholder group and entrusting more responsibilities on Project

Director DPAP to extend necessary coordination with PIAs, WDTs, MDTs and watershed community for the purpose of survey and organising stakeholder workshops.

Bhattarai et al. (2006)55 observed allocation of fixed proportions of land to develop agriculture, forest, other uses in a watershed and modeled as an optimisation problem faced by single user. Two time period cross- sectional data for 60 watersheds were used in the analysis. A multinomial logit model was used to explain the effect of population density, mean age, market concentration, travel time to work, road accessibility, personal income, education level and longitude and attitude of watersheds developed.

Land use share was positively related to higher market concentration and

55 Bhattarai et al., Watershed Management Midels in India Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.21, 1169 – 1181 – 1986.

road accessibility, but with a higher average time to work, suggesting a rural urban job interface.

Turton and Farrington (1998)56 appreciated the Watershed

Guidelines of the Ministry of Rural Area and Employment towards institutionally and ecologically sustainable enhancement of rural livelihood.

They found that watershed development is not yet being planned strategically in the context of other rural development initiatives. At the project implementation (PIA), funding is insufficient for NGOs to attract and maintain quality staff. At the community level, there is inadequate effort to engage weaker groups in the process of WSD procedures for selecting and deselecting villages. WSD work best where it is integrated with other means of enhancing livelihood and needs to be tailored to local agro-ecological, socioeconomic and infrastructural conditions. For imparting the effectiveness and efficiency of state and nation, Government programme should include (i) support for a programme of capacity building at all levels

(ii) support for cross-learning across project (iii) strengthening monitoring and (iv) strengthening strategic planning at the state and district levels.

56 Turton et al., Watershed Development Programmes in Asian Countries Associated Publishing Company, P.Box. 2679, New Delhi, 1998.

Ahuja, Reena (2005)57 highlighted the pivotal role of women in management of natural resources, involvement in effective implementation and equitable distribution of the benefits of watershed management which at present is constraint by a number of socio-economic factors involvement in less remunerative activities, loss of access to common pool resources, denial of land ownership rights, inconsideration to gender differentiated impacts of forest protection and lack of technical expertise.

The intervention strategies suggested by her for improving decision- making as resource users and poverty alleviations are preparation of watershed plan with an understanding of gender needs and implementations; developing watershed plans on the basis of existing use and dependence pattern; reformulation of watershed guidelines to specify mechanisms for institutional arrangements for involvement of poor and women; development of microcredit self help groups shifting focus from watersheds to livelihood development and organising gender sensitisation programmes.

Arya and Sharma (2001)58 evaluated the role of participation during planning, designing, implementation, redesigning and maintenance of 27 watersheds inhabited by 2070 families in Haryana Shivalika. They found

57 Ahuja, Deena, Instutional Mechanism for Watershed Management Asian, African Journal of Rural Development, Vol. XXXVII, No.2, July – Dec. 2001, PP.65068. 58 Arya and Sharma, Watershed Management and livelihoods in Shivalika Hariyana – Study paper submitted to Hariyana, 2001.

that the examples of Bunga, Dhamala, Sukhomajri, Gobindpur, Mandappa and Lohgarh though showed a shift from self destruction to rejuvenation but was a short flip unless people are drawn into social programmes and given control of resources.

The formation of 'Hill Resource Management Societies' were encouraging and turned around economy of most villages. Immediate and direct economic benefits in the form of fodder and water provided to be attractive incentives for generating momentum in community participation dynamics.

These reviews have suggested site/area specific benefits, underlining the need for supporting them at macro level to sustain agriculture and economic development.

Chandrakanth, Bisral and Bhat (Economic and political weekly,

2004)59 indicated that initial and premature failure of irrigation wells are a predicament to farmers in hard rock areas due to cumulative well interference induced by drought situation. While demand side policies promote rapid extraction of groundwater, exacerbating the predicament of well failure, supply side policies like watershed development programme are

59 Chandrakanth, Watershed Development Programmes and EPW, Vol.XXX, No.19, 2004, pp.2280 – 81.

dampening the negative externalities. With the primary survey data from farmers of Basavapura watershed in Karnataka, India, this study proves that

Watershed Development Programme has potential to dampen the effect of drought by increasing the groundwater recharge. This has contributed to increased physical and economic access to groundwater for farmers in the upstream and downstream of watershed, through increased pumping at reduced costs of extraction.

Chandrakanth et al in their study on estimation60 of negative externality due to cumulative interference among irrigation wells (presented at the Second World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists,

Montery, California, 2002) provided methodology to value (cost) of groundwater used for irrigation by internalizing the negative externality due to initial and premature failure of irrigation wells arising from cumulative interference. The primary data for this study are obtained from farmers whose wells suffered due to cumulative interference in Channagiri taluk

(Southern transitional zone), Madhugiri taluk (Central Dry Zone).

Chamarajanagar taluk (Southern Dry Zone), Athani taluk (Northern Dry

Zone), Malur taluk and Devanahalli taluks (Eastern Dry Zone) Karnataka

State in the hard rock areas of peninsular India. In this study, Well failure is

60 Ibid., p.2281-82.

defined as initial or premature failure of irrigation wells, wells which required deepening, wells whose yields are reducing, not because of low rainfall, but because of additional wells being constructed or drilled.

Cumulative interference among irrigation wells is measured by a measure given by the number of irrigation wells per million cubic meter of groundwater available for irrigation.

Considering the five agroclimatic zones chosen in the above study, the average gross irrigated area per groundwater irrigated farm is 5.71 acres applying 11.6 acre inches of groundwater per acre of land, using 487 kilowatt hours of electricity to lift groundwater for one acre of gross irrigated area. The probability of well failure was 50 per cent . Hence each farm had at least two irrigation wells, one of which would be a failed well due to negative externality resulting from cumulative interference. The value cost of groundwater used for irrigation after internalizing the negative externality due to cumulative interference varied from US $ 1.5 per acre inch to US $ 20 7 per acre inch. The negative externality ranged from US $ 0.6 per acre-inch of groundwater to US $ 10.5 per acre inch of groundwater.

Thus, due to negative externality the per cent age increase in the value cost of groundwater increased from 38 per cent to 102 per cent . In one zone due to positive externality resulting from desiltation efforts in the irrigation tank,

the positive externality was US $ 2.3 per acre inch of groundwater which implied a 27 per cent reduction in the value (cost) of groundwater even though there was cumulative interference among wells. With an estimated use of 42 kilo watt hours to lift one acre inch (22,611 gallons) of groundwater, at a charge of US 2.12 cents per kilo watt hour, the total electricity bill amounts to US $ 59.17 per annum for using 66.24 acre inches of groundwater for irrigation. If electricity is charged at a flat fee of

US $6.38 per Horse Power, assuming that an average groundwater irrigated farm has only one irrigation pumpset of 5 HP capacity, the annual electricity payment is US $ 31.91. The net returis realized (after accounting for value of groundwater and electricity charges) works out to US $ 117 per acre of land totaling $ 667 for a groundwater Irrigated farm per year. The negative externality due to cumulative interference of irrigation wells can thus be substantially reduced by sustainable groundwater use and management of irrigation tanks in peninsular India.

Diwakara and Chandrakanth (2004)61 (Indian Journal of

Agricultural Economics, conference issue, 2003) in their study on measuring the watershed impact on farm economy in Chitradurga district indicated that

61 Diwakara et al., Inpact of watershed programmes on farm Economics Chitradurga, Karnataka. Indian Journal of Agricultural Eco. Conference Issue – 2003.

cost of groundwater extraction i.e., cost per acre-inch of groundwater is $

2.42 when compared with the corresponding cost of $ 51.46 per acre-inch of water in a comparable non-watershed area. Large farmers by virtue of larger gross irrigated area are reaping larger proportion of net returns, compared to marginal and small farmers. The well failure rate is a meager of 11 per cent when compared with that of 40 per cent in eastern dry zone of Karnataka state. About 56 per cent of the beneficiaries in the watershed belonged to marginal and small farmers. Watershed Development Programme (WDP) to recharge groundwater in peninsular India is studied to measure the programme impact. Synergistic effect of watershed treatments on farm economy is valued. Watershed treatments have dampened the negative externality due to cumulative interfereice of irrigation wells by groundwater recharge. The investment on irrigation wells in watershed is almost half of that in the non-watershed area, thus heralding the programme impact. Due to the watershed programme the rate of faikre of irrigation wells was a meager

11 per cent due to groundwater recharge in the watershed in addition to ensuring equity in access to groundwater resource.

Sripadmini and Chandrakanth (2000)62 (Unpublished MSc (Agri) thesis, Dept of Agricultural Economics, UAS, Bangalore) in their study on comparison of management of watershed development by NGO and

Government Department indicated that enforcement cost forms the least proportion of transaction costs in NGO watershed. This shows that farmers in NGO watershed have considered the watershed programme as their programme. Whereas in the G.O watershed, the enforcement cost formed 71 per cent of transaction cost which forms the largest part of total transaction costs. The transaction cost per beneficiary as well as per acre is lower in the

G.O watershed compared to the NGO watershed because of large number of beneficiaries and large area of arable land. This shows that people's participation will greatly reduce the enforcement cost component of transaction costs. Thus, a synergistic effort of both the NGO and the G.O agencies in implementing the watershed development programme will reduce the transaction costs to a large extent.

Research on a historical survey of tank irrigation in Karnataka indicated that restoration of all irrigation tanks which are silted up is necessary to improve the water table in the wells in the villages, develop

62 Sripadmini and Chanadrakanth, unpublished M.Sc (Agri. Eco.) thesis submitted to Bangalore University, 2000.

fisheries, and increase agricultural output, with minimum investment.

Towards this endeavor, irrigation panchayats be constituted to work with the guidance of the Mandal Panchayath. The Mandal panchayath needs to maintain one or two bullock carts and a tractor with the help of the contribution from irrigators and other villagers considering the size of the tank(s) [GS Dikshit, GR Kuppuswamy and SK Mohan, 1993, Tank irrigation in Karnataka. A historical survey, Gandhi Sahitya Sangha,

Malleshwaram, Bangalore, p.222.

Ninan (1997)63 has collated information on groundwater recharge from different watershed programmes in Karnataka (Table 2.1), which has shown that the percentage increase in groundwater area irrigated ranged from 13 to 600 per cent in different parts of Karnataka.

63 Ninan, Groundwater management in Karnataka Journal of Natural Resources, 1997.

Table – 2.1

Results and Findings of the Watershed Programme in Karnataka

Area irrigated wells (ha) Area from Area irrigated from Percentage District irri gated from Watersheds wells after the increase where wells before in Karnataka Watershed groundwater located the Watershed program area irrigated program (hectares) (hectares) 1.Seethanadi Dakshina 316 371 17 Kannada 2.Chandakavathe Bijapur 31 35 13 3. Mugalikatte Chikmagulur 95 122 28 4. Hirehalla Belgaum 225 379 68 5. Tattihalla Ultara 2 14 600 Kannada 6. Daddahalla Bidar 42 67 60 7. Asundinala Dhaiwar 177 213 120

Following results are from MG Chandrakanth, Valuing Groundwater

for Irrigation in Hard Rock Areas of Karnataka forthcoming in a publication

by Center for Economic and Social Sciences, Hyderabad.

In High Well Interference Villages of Devanahalli taluk, Eastern dry zone of Karnataka the influence of irrigation tank in recharging groundwater as reflected in terms of irrigation cost is conspicuous in both water intensive and water saving crops. In paddy, the irrigation cost in non-tank commands is 85 per cent of the total cost of cultivation, while that in tank command is around 40 per cent . In ragi crop, the irrigation cost is around 73 per cent in non tank command area and 48 per cent in tank command.

In areas of high well interference which have irrigation tank in proximity and where groundwater recharge due to desiltation is apparent, farmers realized rich benefits from desiltation of irrigation tank and experienced longer lives of irrigation wells and larger yields of groundwater.

Thus, savings in the cost of irrigation to the extent of Rs. 107 per acre inch of groundwater was possible, even with the existence of high well interference. Small farmers could realize a net return of Rs. 3067 per acre of gross area irrigated as an additional income (over and above Rs. 6970) if the village irrigation tank is desilted and aids in groundwater recharge. Thus, even after internalizing the desiltation cost (per acre of Rs. 6000; per well of

Rs. 4000) and the groundwater irrigation cost (per acre of Rs. 5956; per well of Rs. 6006), positive net returns (to the extent of Rs. 2650 per acre; Rs.

8031 per well) were still realized.

In Mutur (Kolar district), by silt application, net returns increased by

24 per cent in grapes; 17 per cent saving was achieved in the cost of cultivation of ragi; 20 per cent savings was achieved in the cost of cultivation of maize. The desiltation of Mutur irrigation tank, increased the groundwater yield in open wells by 300 gallons per hour; in bore wells by

350 gallons per hour. The IRR on investment in tank desiltation varied from

14 to 30 per cent , and NPV from Rs. 2 to Rs. 8 lakhs.

In Madhugiri taluk. Central dry zone of Karnataka, irrigation tanks, which facilitated in groundwater recharge, reduced the negative externality by Rs. 25,000 per farm of five acres of gross irrigated area. The economic loss due to cumulative well interference for small farmers in high well interference villages was Rs. 5814 per acre of gross irrigated area. And it was found that, this loss could be reduced to an extent of 84 per cent (Rs.

918), if the groundwater recharge were to toe facilitated by an irrigation tank in the vicinity.

In Channagiri taluk, southern transitional zone of Karnataka, in areas of high well interference, even though groundwater saving technologies (like drip irrigation for perennial crops tike arecanut) were not adopted, due to the influence of irrigation tanks in augmenting groundwater recharge, the net

returns per acre increased by Rs. 20,913. As a consequent of the improved water saving technology, the drip irrigation farms used 9 acre inches per acre

33 per cent of groundwater used by flow irrigation farms 27 acre inches per acre arecanut crop. Due to the influence of irrigation tank on groundwater recharge, the cost groundwater reduced by Rs. 2091 per acre inch (from Rs.

2509 to Rs. 418).

OVERVIEW OF LAND DEGRADATION IN DEVELOPING

COUNTRIES

During the last few decades, degraded watersheds have posed serious problems to environment and people, both upstream, and downstream

(Mountain, 2002). The people of developing countries came to the realization that land degradation was a serious threat to the environment and to the well being of millions of people (Ives and Messerli, 1989; Oldeman,

1994; Jodha, 1995; Lai, 1998). As it is often the result of human activities, it can therefore, be prevented or controlled by human efforts. Degradation of land resources is a global phenomenon and world wide soil degradation affects over 2 billion ha of land, putting at risk the livelihoods of more than

1 billion people (ESC, 2001). Perera and Fernado (2004) reported that 43 per cent of the agricultural lands in 8 South Asian countries were affected by some form of degradation. It was also estimated in the GLASOD study that

25 per cent of the regions cultivated land had been degraded by water erosion, 18 per cent by wind erosion, 13 per cent by soil fertility decline, 2 per cent by water logging, 9 per cent by salinization and 6 per cent by lowering of the water table (Young, 1994) Erosion by water is the most serious degradation problem in South Asia (Narwal et al., 2003). Past studies have indicated that water erosion is detrimental to soils globally both by the volume of soil removed and area of land influenced. It is reported that 1994 million ha is degraded globally due to water erosion of which 751 million ha is severely affected (Lal, 2002)64 while in Asia, 15 per cent of the total land is seriously eroded (Scheer, 1999). Partap and Watson (1994)65 reported that about 42 million ha of land has been degraded in mountain regions of

South Asia. Past reports indicated that the status of much of the natural resources in the mountains of South Asia has been deteriorating. A steady flow of information regarding the unhealthy state of the world environment became available from the 1970s prompting actions first in the advanced countries, followed by greater international awareness and subsequently local level action in the developing nations (Ives and Messerli, 1989;

64 Lal, Watershed and Soil Eroson in South Asia University printing press Washington DC, 2002. 65 Partap, T. and H. R. Watson, 1994. Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT): A Regenerative Option for Sustainable Mountain: Farming Occasional Paper, No.23. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICMOD.

Carson, 1992; Meadows, 2003; Sitaula et al., 2004).66 The 'Theory of

Himalayan Environmental Degradation' (TEED) (Eckholm, 1975)67 referring that the degradation of forest resources, improper land use and cultivation of crops on fragile steep land due to population pressure are the main causes of accelerated soil erosion and land degradation across the

Himalayan region impacting the plains. It implies that a few million

Himalayan hill farmers are responsible for the massive landscape changes that affect the lives and property of several hundred millions people living in

Gangatic plain in India and Bangladesh (World Resource Institute, 1985;

Rasul and Karki, 2007).68 The fundamental perception of the 'Theory of

Himalayan Environmental Degradation' (Ives, 2004)69 has been changed over time as many researches conducted in mountain areas after the 1990s have found that only anthropogenic factors are not responsible for

Himalayan degradation (Blaikie, 2001).70 Furthermore, farmers adopted different soil conservation technologies as well as government's policy and programmes such as community forest management, watershed

66 Ives, J. D. and B. Messerli, 1989. The Himalayan Dilemma: Reconciling Development and Conservation. London: Routledge, ppl-10. 67 Eckholm, E. 1975. The Deterioration of Mountain Environments. Science, 189,764-770. 68 Rasul, G. and M. Karki, 2007. A Pro-poor Policy Agenda for Sustainable Agricultural Development in the Hindu Kush Himalyan Region. Kathmandu, Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), 69 Ives, J.D., 2004. Himalayan Perceptions. London and New York: Routledge. 70 Blaikie, P., 2001. Is Policy Reform Pure Nostaligia ? A Himalayan Illustration: Barkeley Workshop on Environmental Politics. California, Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California.

management, and protected area management have been addressed to minimize forest and land degradation. The theory ignores the natural factors such as active geology, steepness, fragility, high rainfall and local evolved land management factors that also contribute to environmental degradation in the mountain areas of the Indian sub-continent. In recent decades, as a result of the increasing population growth at a rate of 2.17 per annum

(Global Health Facts, 2006)71 and development of infrastructure in mountain areas (midhill), subsistence agriculture has been intensified into commercial vegetable farming to meet the increased demand of food and day to day household expenditures (Paudel and Thapa, 2004; Brown and

Kennedy, 2005).72 This agricultural intensification with use of high yielding modern varieties and agrochemicals has many negative implications particularly for the unique landscape of the mountains where farmers are dependent on the local resources through locally developed technology (Sen et al., 2002).73 The degradation will have direct negative impacts on lives of

150 million people living in the HKH region and indirectly affect about 450

71 Report of the Global Health Facts, 2007. 72 Brown, S. and G. Kennedy, 2005. A case study of Cash Cropping in Nepal: Poverty Alleviation or Inequity ? Agriculture and Human Values, 22:105-116. 73 Sen, K. K., R.L.Semwal, U.Rana, S.Nautiyal, R.K.Maikhuri and K.S.Rao, 2002. Patterns and Implications for Land Use/Cover Change: A Case Study in Pranmati Watershed (Garhwal Himalaya,India). Mountain Research and D evelopment, 22:5 6 -62.

million more living downstream (Rasul and Karki, 2007),74 and has raised serious concerns about sustainability of mountain farming.

A few notable approaches have been employed in watershed and resource management in southern Asia over the past half-century or so.

These evolved in a more or less sequential manner as listed below:

Sectoral vs. integrated approach

Sectoral approach can be understood as activities targeted for particular sectors such as natural resource management. During the early period (70s-80s) in developing countries, both non-government and government agencies had sectoral narrow approach. The objective was to implement watershed management projects with the aim of land improvement, soil and water conservation, and forest management in mountain areas (Pretty and Shah, 2000).75 They were focused more on soil conservation activities applying technical measures such as terracing, contour-bunding, landslide and gully control and plantation on degraded

74 Rasul, G. and M. Karki, 2007. A Pro-poor Policy Agenda for Sustainable Agricultural Development in the Hindu Kush Himalyan Region. Kathmandu, Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), 75 Pretty, J. and P. Shah, 2000. Soil and Water Conservation: A Brief History of Coercion and Control. In: F. Hinchcliffe, J. Thompson, J. N. Pretty, I. Guijt and P. Shah (eds.), Fertile ground: The impact of participatory watershed management. London: Intermediate Technology Publications, ppl-12.

land (Rhoades, 1998; Pretty and Shah, 2000; Johnson et al., 2001).76 The emphasis was on building physical structures to control soil erosion and to rehabilitate degraded lands, and massive efforts were undertaken in this regard (Dejene, 2003).77 The Mahaveli scheme in Srilanka, and the Tarbela dam in Pakistan are examples of the largest sectoral approach irrigation projects in the world during the 1970s (ESCAP, 1997).78

Although the concept of watershed management should, by default be integrated and interdisciplinary (Montgomery et al., 1995; UNEP, 2004),79 many of the developing countries followed a sectoral approach implemented by different governmental agencies. They generally followed their national level targets based on their policy and plans. Paudel (2002)80 reported that sectoral integration often takes place at higher levels where decisions are made on allocation of resources. At the implementation level there is little integration among the line agencies. At the field level most line agencies implemented their programmes separately according to their own targets and

76 Rhoades, R.E. 1998. Participatory Watershed Research and Management: Where the Shadows Fall.Gatekeepers Series, no 81. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). 77 Dejene, Watershed Management System in Mahaveli in Srilanka International University Press, 2003. 78 ESCAP, 1997. Guidelines and Manual on Land-Use Planning and Practices in Watershed Management and Disaster Reduction. Bangkok: Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, United Nation. 79 Montgomery, D. R., G. Grant and E. K. Sullivan, 1995. Watershed Analysis as a Framework for Implementing Ecosystem Management. Water resource bulletin, pp369-386. 80 Paudel, G. S., 2002. Research Issues on Watershed Management in Developing Countries. Rural Development, 21:187-214.

priorities (Paudel, 2002).81 For example in India, departments are highly sectoral. Staffs have a strong allegiance to their particular professional cadre and are not accustomed to working collaborately (Kumar and Bakshi,

2002).82 The holistic nature of an ecosystem requires holistic management since one sector's activity will affect another's responsibilities. Sectoral approach is unsuitable for the environment, especially at the field level resource management. Conflicts between government agencies with different priorities (e.g. regarding the use of national parks and mangrove forests) will arise (ESCAP, 1997)83 in such cases there is problem of duplication, coordination and integration of the program. Even within a single ministry, different departments exhibit lack of integration and coordination. The sectoral approach is no longer appropriate (Shah and

Schreier, 1995)84 in watershed management programmes, because each sector constitute independent entities within the administrative and bureaucratic system whereas watershed components such as land, water, vegetation, livestock and human activities are all interlinked each other.

81 Ibid., P.82. 82 Kumar, N. and S. Bakshi, 2002. Making and Breaking a Community Forestry Institution: A Case Study. Forest, Trees and Livelihood, 12:165-174. 83 ESCAP, 1997. Guidelines and Manual on Land-Use Planning and Practices in Watershed Management and Disaster Reduction. Bangkok: Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, United Nation. 84 Shah, P. B. and H. Schreier, 1995. Maintaining Soil Fertility in Agriculture and Forestry. Paper presented at the Challenges in Mountain Resources Management in Nepal Process Trend and Dynamics in Middle Mountain Watersheds, Kathmandu, Nepal, ppl71-182

Townsely (1996)85 pointed out that sectoral division are meaningless at the local level particularly the poor watershed communities. Thus, the classic definition of watershed management has been modified by introducing the concept of integration and better sustainability of land, water and socio- economic resources to enhance environment quality and human welfare

(Ozyuvaci et al., 1997).86 Most natural environments in developing countries are not so easily conceived or modelled, and people are not closely integrated with their environments (Swallow et al., 2001).87

Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) which emerged in the

1980s can be defined as a comprehensive multi-resource management planning process, involving all stakeholders within the watershed, who together as a group, cooperatively work toward identifying the watershed's resource issues and concerns, as well as developing and implementing. a watershed plan with solutions that are environmentally, socially and economically sustainable (Botero, 1986; UNEP, 2004).88 The holistic approach allows organizations and stakeholders to consider "a system in the

85 Townsely, P., 1996. Rapid Rural Appraisals and Participatory Rural Appraisal and Aquaculture. Rome: FAO. 86 Ozyuvaci, N., S. Ozhan and E. Gorceliodlu, 1997. Integrated Watershed Management for Sustainable Development of Renewable Natural Resources. Paper presented at the XI WORLD FORESTRY CONGRESS, Antalya, Turkey. 87 Swallow, M. B., N. L. Johnson and R. S. Meinzen-Dick , 2001. Working with People for Watershed Management. Water Policy, 3:449-455. 88 Botero, L. S., 1986. Incentives for Community Involvement in Upland Conservation. Strategies, approaches and system in integrated watershed management. Rome: FAO Conservation Guide 14.

context of the higher levels in which it is embedded, and provide insight into the significance of phenomena at lower levels" (Thurow and Juo, 1995;

Archer and Smeins, 1991).89

Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) has come to be recognized internationally as an important holistic approach to natural resources management, which seeks to promote the concept of sustainable development (FAO, 1998).90 Such an integrated approach has been recommended in Agenda 21 of the Earth Summit of 1992 for all sectors dealing with the development and management of water resources

(UNCED, 1992).91 It not only deals with the management of natural resources but also involves community development and economic activities

(UNCED, 1992; JICA/HMG(N), 1998).92 Promoting integrated watershed development programmes through the effective participation of local people is intended to prevent further ecological imbalance. Such an approach is needed for conserving, upgrading and using land, water, plant, animal and human resources (Mountain, 2002).93 Experience has shown that a sectoral

89 Thurow, T. and A. Juo, 1995. The Rationale for Using a Watershed as a Basis for Planning and Development. In Agriculture and Environment; Bridging Food Production and Environmental Protection in Developing Countries. American Society of Agronomy Special Publication, 93-116. 90 FAO, Report of the Economic and Social Council for Asia and Pacific, 1998. 91 UNCED, 1992. Agenda 21. Rome, Italy: United Nations Commission on Environment and Development. 92 Ibid., P.46. 93 Mountain, 2002. Watershed Management. Beyond the International Year of Mountains. Retrieved Decemberl2, 2004, http://www.mountain partnership.org /themes/i-watershed.html

approach to natural resource development must be replaced by an integrated management approach with multiple stakeholders participation to address the environment issues and livelihoods of the rural communities.

TOP-DOWN APPROACH VS. BOTTOM-UP APPROACH

Top-down approach assumes comprehensive scope and strictly follows a formal process (Leganza and Brown, 2004)94 to give priority to the biophysical framework of watershed in the early periods of watershed management programmes (Douglass and Lawrence, 1997).95 Although called integrated management, the government fixed the targeted plan and implemented it directly by contractor or their own staff without consulting the local people (Ohler et al., 2000).96 This approach encountered many difficulties in terms of cost, maintenance, management, and implementation.

Since its inception during the early 1970s, the approach to resource management in Nepal consisted of top-down planning, implementing and monitoring of activities. Available maps and aerial photos were used to assess land and forest resources. Targets were fixed based on available

94 Leganza, G. and A. Brown, 2004. Top-down versus Bottom-up: Approaches to Enterprise Architecture: Helping Business Thrive on Technology Change. Forester Research, Inc. http://www.forrester.com/go 95 Douglass, M. and P. Lawrence, 1997. Planning Soil Conservation Project through Participation. A guide Report, ODI, 139. UK: Department for International Development, HR, Wallingford Group Limited, pp. 10-11. 96 Ohler, F. M. J., B. K. Rimal and P. Warren(eds.), 2000. Participatory and Integrated Watershed Management in Nepal. A Resource Book for District Soil Conservation Officers. Kathmandu: FAO, GCP, INT/542/ITA. pp25-28.

budgets. Terrace improvement programmes were administrated as individual farm activities, and other activities were planned for public land based on project quotas (Ohler et al., 2000).97 These types of activities, mainly focused on engineering work, were expensive for construction and maintenance (DSCWM, 2004).98 Target oriented top-down approach was not very successful for watershed management, but it has some strengths.

Experience has shown that centralized top-down conservation is only effective with large expenditures allocated for enforcement or under autocratic governance (CIESIN, 2004).

Farrington and Lobo (1997)99 discussed that in the Indian context, where a great deal of emphasis has been placed on watershed development,

99 per cent of projects are still based on conventional approaches emphasising physical planning without attention to local economic, social or ecological conditions. Many watershed management projects throughout the world have failed because they have been top-down, fixed or rigid technology solutions geared to replace, instead of complement local

97 Ibid., P.34. 98 DSCWM, 2004. Soil conservation and watershed management measures and low cost techniques. Kathmandu, Nepal: Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Component (NARMSAP) Department of Soil conservation and Watershed Management (DSCWM). Pp. l-2. 99 Farrington, J. and Lobo, C. (1997), 'Scaling up Participatory Watershed Development in India: Lessons from the Indo-German Watershed Development Programme'. Natural Resource Perspectives No.17. London: OD1.

conservation practices (Peraz and Tschinkel, 2003; Hudson, 1991).100

Despite an overabundance of participatory assessments, the provision of extension services by many implementing organizations is strictly practiced on a top-down basis (Thurow and Juo, 1995; Peraz and Tschinkel,

2003).101

By imposing new soil conservation technologies, there was a tendency to replace rather than supplement local methods of soil and watershed management in places where these had been practiced (Maarleveld,

1998).102 Often the result of these centrally controlled soil and water conservation programmes has been more erosion than previous (Kerr et al.,

1996; Johnson et al., 2001).103 Furthermore, watershed planning was done based on biophysical capability consideration rather than capacity and need of the local people (Datta and Virgo, 1998).104 Such planning generally did

100 Hudson, N. W., 1991. A Study of the Reasons for Success or Failure of Soil Conservation Projects. Rome.: FAO soil bulletin, 64. 101 Peraz, C. and H. Tschinkel, 2003. Improving Watershed Management in Developing Countries: A Framework for Prioritizing Sites and Practices. U.K: Agriculture Research and Extension Network. 102 Maarleveld, M., 1998. Improving participation and cooperation at the local level; lesson from economics, and psychology towards sustainable land use. In: H. P. Blume, H. Fleischhauer, E. Eger, Hebel, C. Reij and G. Steiner (eds.), Advance in Geology. New Delhijndia, pp971-977. 103 Kerr, J. M., N. K. Sanghi and G. Sriramappa, 1996. Subsidies in Watershed Development Projects in India: Distortions and Opportunities. Gatekeeper series No.61. London: IIED 104 Datta, S. K. and K. J. Virgo, 1998. Towards Sustainable Watershed Development through People's Participation: Lesson from the Lesser Himalaya, Utter Pradesh, India. Mountain Research and Development 18(1), 213-233.

not accommodate the interests of all stakeholders, nor learned from their feedback (Peraz and Tschinkel, 2003).105

Numerous studies elucidate the negative feelings of local people towards an alien effort of management, which the community has failed to understand and accept. Examples of such sentiment include acts like arson fires and illegal grazing in forest plantations, lack of maintenance in conservation work and theft of stakes, barbed wire and other materials, intended for protection of resources (Botero, 1986; Saxena et al., 2003).106

The conventional top-down approach was ineffective due to neglect of the local knowledge, traditional practices, socio-economic conditions and available resources (Hurni and Tato, 1992; Pretty and Shah, 2000).107 It is widely acknowledged that many of the soil conservation policies and activities in the past decades have not been successful (Pender and Ehui,

2000; Johnson et al., 2001).108

The bottom-up approach involving decentralization of planning and policy formulation has become popular in developing countries over the last

105 Peraz, C. and H. Tschinkel, 2003. Improving Watershed Management in Developing Countries: A Framework for Prioritizing Sites and Practices. U.K: Agriculture Research and Extension Network. 106 Botero, L. S., 1986. Incentives for Community Involvement in Upland Conservation. Strategies, approaches and system in integrated watershed management. Rome: FAO Conservation Guide 14. 107 Hurni, H. and K. Tato, (eds.), 1992. Soil Conservation for Survival: Soil and Water Conservation Society, USA. 108 Pender, J. and S. Ehui, 2000. Policies for Sustainable Land Management in the Highlands of Ethiopia. Washington, D.C: International Food Policy Research Institute (1FPRI).

decade. It is built-up on the principle of devolution of power and authority to local communities for management, utilization and conservation of the resources (Balogun, 2000; Wagley and Ojha, 2002; World Resource

Institute, 2003).109 It includes the democratic process of participation of the local people for planning, implementing and decision making for community development at the local level. Although decentralization efforts in developing countries go back to the early 1960s, most efforts to introduce democratic components emerged in the later 1980s (Blair, 2000). Bottom-up approach is practical for managing natural resources provided authority and empowerment is not confined to the local life as frequently tends to be the case. Farrington and Baumann (2003) as well as Jhonson (2001) exposed the dangers of decentralization, which often simply empowered the local elites and perpetuated existing poverty and inequality.

Nonetheless devolution of authority for natural resource management is shifting the responsibility for forest land and watershed management from government bureaucracies to local level community groups in many part of the developing world (Wagley and Ojha, 2002)110 and this shift can lead to

109 Balogun, M. J., 2000. The Scope for Popular Participation in Decentralization, Community Governance, and Development: Towards a New Paradigm of Centre Periphery Relations. Regional Development Dialogue 21(1), 21-39. 110 Wagley, M. P. and H. Ojha, 2002. Analyzing Participatory Trend in Nepals' Community Forestry. Policy trend report. Forest and Livelihood, ppl22-142.

significant gains in the efficiency of resource use and management (Swallow et al., 2001). The initiation of the decentralization policy in Nepal was with adoption of the buttom-up approach in the early 1980s (Wagley and Bogati,

1999).111

Decentralization Act of 1982 authorized users groups to manage land, forest and water resources in Nepal. Local village leaders or key persons were included in the planning phase, and the inputs of Village Development

Committee (VDC), District Development Committee (DDC), as well as government departments were taken into consideration in the planning and decision making process (Wagley and Ojha, 2002)112 User groups (UG) were established in view of maintenance and repair the project support activities (JICA/HMG(N), 1998; Ohler et al., 2000). Drawback of the bottom-up approach, however, includes delay in release of funds from the central government and still target oriented, government focused and decision making employed by local leader.

111 Wagley, M. and P. R. Bogati, 1999. State of the Art and Status of Watershed Management in Nepal. Paper presented at the Danida's Third International Workshop on watershed Development, Kathmandu, pp5-14. 112Wagley, M. P. and H. Ojha, 2002. Analyzing Participatory Trend in Nepals' Community Forestry. Policy trend report. Forest and Livelihood, ppl22-142.

PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

PARTICIPATORY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT (PWM)

Over the past decade the word 'participatory' has been incorporated into the vocabulary of government (GA) and non-government organizations

(NGO) projects and programmes both at the level of implementation and research (Rhoades, 1998). Participatory is now a basic principle in any development activities and natural resource management programmes in most developing countries. It is generally believed to be a good thing in development theory and key feature of natural resource management (NRM)

(Walker and Carpenter, 2002).113 The ideology of development through participation has been particularly influential in the field of NRM (Adams,

2001). There has been a rapid expansion of participatory approaches, which involves interactive learning between professionals and farmers

(Maarleveld, 1998; Sikka and Samra, 2000).114 Watershed management has evolved into a participatory multi-stakeholder exercise requiring institutional and organizational coordination to take into account the

113 Walker, B. and S. Carpenter, 2002. Resilience Management in Social Ecological System: A Working Hypothesis for a Participatory Approach. Conservation Ecology 6(1). 114 Maarleveld, M., 1998. Improving participation and cooperation at the local level; lesson from economics, and psychology towards sustainable land use. In: H. P. Blume, H. Fleischhauer, E. Eger, Hebel, C. Reij and G. Steiner (eds.), Advance in Geology. New Delhijndia, pp971-977.

economic, social, political and cultural dimensions (Peraz and Tschinkel,

2003).115

The definition of participation largely depends upon the context and background in which it is applied. Cohen and Uphoff (1977)116 point out that participation should include people's involvement in decision making, implementation of programmes, sharing in the benefits of development, as well as involvement in efforts to evaluate such programmes. FAO (1982) elaborated that people's participation is essential to enhance economic and political relationship within the wider society. It is not just a matter of involvement in project activities but rather the process by which rural people are able to organise themselves and, through their own organisation, to identify their own needs and share in design, implementation and evaluation actions. Kumar (2002)117 as well as Pretty (1995) classified different levels of participation ranging from passive participation to self mobilisation.

The participatory approach has come increasingly into favour in development thinking in the recent years (Gill, 1995), and South Asia has played a leading role in popularising its adoption in both government and

115 Peraz, C. and H. Tschinkel, 2003. Improving Watershed Management in Developing Countries: A Framework for Prioritizing Sites and Practices. U.K: Agriculture Research and Extension Network. 116 Cohen, J. and N. Uphoff, 1977. Rural Development Participation: Concept and Measures for Project Design, Implementation and Evaluation: Cornell University, Ithaca. 117 Kumar, S., 2002. Method for Community Participation. London, UK: WCIB 4HL, pp20-45.

NGOs. The rationale for popularising and funding participatory approaches is to redress the signs of the top down, heavily subsided approaches of the past, which alienated local populations and often contributed to further land and water degradation (Rhoades, 1998)118. Thus, participatory approach is full involvement of local people in the identification of priority problems and potential solutions with a team of scientists, planners and development specialists (Blackburn and Holland, 1998).119 It is bottom-up from participation in the sense that the local people engage in planning, implementing, evaluating and control over the process.

The approach to people's participation in watershed management in

Nepal, has been evolving since 1974 (Sharma and Wagley, 1996).120 Its evolution can be divided into four stages. In each stage people's participation has been described in terms of a five part project cycle watershed resources assessment, project activity planning; implementation, maintenance, follow up and benefit sharing and extension efforts. But in the absence of legal framework for people's participation in the past, influential persons attempted to obtain all the benefits of a project's activities in the name of

118 Rhoades, R.E. 1998. Participatory Watershed Research and Management: Where the Shadows Fall.Gatekeepers Series, no 81. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). 119 Blackburn, J. and J. Holland(eds.), 1998. Who Changes? Institutionalising Participation in development. London: Intermediate Technology Publication Ltd. 120 Sharma, P. N. and M. P. Wagley, 1996. Case Studies of People's Participation in Watershed Manageent in Asia. Kathmandu, Nepal: UNDP/FAO/Netherlands, RAS, pp47-50

community participation (Sharma and Wagley, 1996).121 People's participation in watershed management has gradually increased after the

Decentralization Act in 1982 and it has been institutionalised since 1991.

Participatory NRM was introduced as a consequence of the failure of the past approaches. The wide failure of past policies and control mechanisms to effectively manage natural resources and rise of more democratic regimes have led to new opportunities for negotiation between the government and local people. In the past, enforcement often was unsuccessful because of the increasing population and more demands on the natural resource base. The approach of integrating conservation and livelihoods improvement attempts to link enforcement with compensation to the communities that are directly affected by the presence of natural area

(Conroy et al., 2002).122 Realization of the continuous degradation of the natural resources and conflict between rural communities as well as high cost and difficulty in enforcement through traditional state control approach led policy to the aforementioned changes over the last decade or so. Policy

121 Ibid., P.54. 122 Conroy, C, A. Mishra, and A. ELai, 2002. Learning from Self Initiated Community Forest Management in Orissa India. Forest Policy and Economics, 4, 227-237.

makers realized that it was difficult to manage natural resource without local people's participation (Makela, 1999).123

To succeed, watershed management has to be participatory (Johnson et al., 2001). At present, PWM is the foremost programmes in most developing countries for natural resource management, land improvement and livelihoods enhancement of the people. In Bangladesh natural resource management policy addresses active community participation in planning, development and management activities (ESCAP, 1997).124 In China, series of land related laws pertaining to agricultural and natural resource management issues were enacted to unify the land management process,

Public participation is also a fundamental requirement in China's approach to watershed management (ESCAP, 1997).125

"Watershed management is meant to capture the sum of the actions taken to preserve and maintain watersheds" (Misra, 2001).126 Watershed management is a comprehensive package programme to make all natural

123 Makela, M., 1999. Community Based Environmental Protection and Natural Resources Management. Helsinki: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, Department for International Development Cooperation, ppl-10. 124 ESCAP, 1997. Guidelines and Manual on Land-Use Planning and Practices in Watershed Management and Disaster Reduction. Bangkok: Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, United Nation. 125 ESCAP, 1997. Guidelines and Manual on Land-Use Planning and Practices in Watershed Management and Disaster Reduction. Bangkok: Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, United Nation. 126 Misra, Archana: 'Watershed Management', Authors Press, Delhi, 2001.

resources productive from upper reaches to the lower reaches of a watershed. If upper reaches of the watersheds are not properly protected, the lower reaches will be affected. The watershed management includes all measures that can protect, manage and conserve water and other related land resources in a sustainable manner. Measures that can be used to protect watersheds include landuse controls, zoning, monitoring, restoration and landuse treatment. Watershed management is a process that guide and coordinate the use of land and water resources in a watershed. When applied locally it will enrich environment globally.

The watershed development is basically a holistic approach. The approach demands integrated development of arable and non-arable land, rainwater harvesting, vegetation, livestock, local materials development, common property resources programmes for landless people through participatory process. Livelihood gathering by increasing production of biomass, productive employment generation and conservation of resources for watershed development project. It is the cornerstone of planning and management of water resources in a watershed.

In earlier time, there was no need for watershed management because in most areas the inhabitants had taken up their traditional methods of

storing and conserving rainwater which was in most cases enough to meet their domestic and agricultural needs. There were proven technologies available for this purpose in all Agroclimatic regions which made the region self-sufficient in water resources. "In Udaipur, Rajasthan during the reign of

Maharanas good evidence of watershed management was found in which no water was let out of the area through bounding and total harvesting"

(Murthy, 1998).127

Watershed management has now become a major focus of study.

Much of the interests is centered on landuse practices that have led to increase soil erosion The impact of soil erosion is felt by rural people throughout the watershed areas through reduced incomes as well as inadequate supplies of food, fuel and clean water. There are also serious impacts on people living outside the watershed in both rural and urban areas if resource management problems result in reduced production of food, fuel, forest products etc. due to uncontrolled run off from the upper reaches of the watershed. The stability of landuse in the lower reaches rests on the stability of the upper reaches. It is therefore, essential to start management practices from the upper reaches progressively toward the lower reaches to obtain best

127 Murthy, J.V.S.: 'Watershed Management', New Age International Publishers, New Delhi, 1998, pp. 21- 25.

economic benefits. It is generally accepted that a good watershed management practice would help to retain more moisture on land and improve the river regime by reducing flood hike and sediment transportation. "Watershed management arrests soil erosion, reclaims eroded wastelands, improves soil-moisture, harvest rainwater, reduced floods, recharges ground water and revives greenery. In the long run it restores rainfall, revives healthy climate, regenerates soil regime, rejuvenates green foliage and revives environment. In addition, it renders the rural population self-sustaining in food, fodder, fiber and firewood, health and hygiene"

(Murthy, 1998).128

128 Ibid., P.32.

CHAPTER – III

PROFILE OF SOKKANATHAPURAM WATERSHED

PROJECT

Tiruchirappalli district is located at the central part of Tamil Nadu surrounded by Salem district in the north, Sivaganga and Madurai District in the south, Karur, Dindigul and Namakkal district in the west and

Perambalur, Thanjavur, Pudukkottai district in the east. It lies between

10o15' and 11o20' of the Northern latitudes and 78o10'and 79o5' of Eastern longitude in the centre part of the Tamil Nadu. The general slope of the district is towards east.

Tiruchirappalli district comprised of nine Taluks viz. Thuraiyur,

Lalgudi, Musiri, Trichirappalli, Thottiyam, Manachanallur, Srirengam,

Manapparai and Thiruverambur, which included 14 blocks, 408 Village

Panchayets and 1590 Villages.

The city of Tiruchirappalli is blessed with the magnificent river

Cauvery girdling as a garland around the little island of Srirangam and studded with three other main irrigation canals, the Uyyakondan river,

Kudamuratti river and Koraiyaru. The development of the city has been

phenomenal in the past 20 years. Scores of colonies have come up in all the main roads leading to Tiruchirappalli from all directions. Tiruchirappalli has also developed the apartment culture where within a short space vertical buildings provide shelter to hundreds.

However in the recent years, there has been a boom in house building in the city since with the rents skyrocketing all, rich and poor feel that they had to have a house of their own, small or big, before they actively retire from service or business. The liberal and attractive house loans had also helped accelerating the housing boom.

The city is criss crosses with rivers, defence and railway property which have sprawling campuses not available for building houses. And result is construction of hundreds of houses, apartments, commercial buildings etc. in all places, totally disregard of the rules laid down by government. Failure of the authorities to enforce the building laws, both as a matter commission an omission, Ingenuity of the builders, individual and greedy and intelligent corporate property developers, and ignorance and over-enthusiasm of those yearning for their homes and business buildings, have resulted mindless constructions coming up in many parts of the town.

Railway land, temple land, PWD land, river perombokes, river padukai

lands, canal flood bank area, have all been encroached upon. The reduction in the size of canals, river flood banks, etc have resulted shrinkage of the path for the water in these waterways to flow. And the recent floods in the town, caused by heavy discharge from Mettur reservoirs, has been a rude reminder of the current status of the canals and rivers in this town.

THURAIYUR BLOCK

Thuraiyur, a second grade Municipal Town in Tamil Nadu, is located

47 Kms North-West of Tiruchirappalli and 100 Kilometers South -East of

Salem. Perambalur, Attur, Namakkal, Musiri are located within 50 Kms radius. The town is well connected by major district roads with the surrounding area

Thuraiyur town is located at 11o09' of North Latitude and 78o36' of

East Longitude. The town is bounded north by Murugur, Maruvathur villages, south by Ammapatti, East by Muthampalayam and Kirambur villages and west by Venkatesapuram village. The town comprises 14.55 Sq.

Km. extends and composed of 31005 persons as per 2001 census. In this town, about 39% people are living in below the poverty line as per the 2003-

04 survey conducted.

HISTORY

Local enquiries reveal that villages comprised in the town limit were previously managed by Zamindars, locally known as “Thurai” and so the town might have been named as Thuraiyur. This town was called erst while

Theerthapuri. Zamindari had been abolished and town has been brought under Revenue administration and now under Municipal administration which explains the reasons for the scattered area which were included in the municipal limit. Study reveals that the town first developed as a commercial center to the surrounding rural settlements and now attained the status of the

Taluk head quarters and a Selection Grade Municipal Town.

TRANSPORTATION LINKAGE

Thuraiyur town is linked with the following towns directly by bus, i)

Perambalur ii) Trichy iii) Namakkal iv) Attur (Salem District) and v) Musiri.

While with the Kumbakonam – Nammakkal train facility made, this city is benefited.

MINERALS AND SOILS

Minerals of any importance are not available in this town. Only clay soil is found on the north and east & black and red soil is available in remaining part of this town. Paddy and Sorghum are the predominant crops.

CLIMATE

The climate of the town is normal throughout the year as there is no significant verification between maximum and minimum temperature. The town is having two tanks. Periya Eri on the north and Chinna Eri on the west, which reduces the heat.

A watershed can also be called a catchments area, since it catches all the rain that falls within the area such that it flows out through a common outlet.

WATERSHED CAN BE DIVIDED INTO THREE ZONES

 Upper reaches (higher elevation)

 Middle reaches (middle elevation)

 Lower reaches (valley)

This division is made because each zone requires zone - specific treatment interventions.

Watershed areas do not always conform to political or social boundaries. Hence, a watershed can be socially termed as a unit that contains one or more communities or settlement that depend on the resources of the watershed for their livelihood.

USES

 Collects excess water from the field and this water may be used for

protective irrigation.

 Facilitates recharge of ground water through infiltration.

 Ideal place for fish culture and multiplication of nitrogen fixing

acquatic flora (depending on quantum and duration of water

availability).

 Arrests run-off and enables percolation of surface water in order to

recharge ground water.

 Where water collection is good and there is good percolation, wells

can be successfully excavated in surrounding areas to enable irrigated

agriculture.

 Creates a favorable micro- environment around the pond (flora and

fauna, etc)

SUNKEN POND

Excavations done within or alongside nalas to collect seepage / surface water. It can be excavated in all (upper, middle and lower) reaches of a watershed.

 Prevents further widening of gullies.

 Reduces the velocity of following water and traps sediments/ silt, so

that the gully gradually starts filling up.

 Improves percolation and creates favorable soil moisture regime for

establishment of plant cover.

ADVANTAGES OF ENGINEERING STRUCTURES IN

RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER LEVEL GULLY

PLUGGING

Gully plug is one of the simple method of soil and water conservation.

It plays an important role in soil and water conservation, when they are put in series one below the other from top to bottom of the depression.

On common land village as a whole can work for gully plugs, with the intention that this work will increase water availability in the groundwater. and also stop further degradation around the gully.

THE RESULTS ARE AS UNDER

1. Soil along the hill slope and hill top is protected from erosion caused

due to flowing water. Thus work of soil conservation is done without

any special hi-tech technique.

2. Once soil degradation is stopped biomass is generated which can be

used as fodder and can be used as an organic manure.

3. Allows more time for water to percolate in the ground and thus helps in

recharging the ground water.

4. Soil along the sloppy fields is protected from erosion caused by

flowing water. Thus work of soil conservation is done without any

special hi-tech technique.

5. Huge biomass is generated along the bunds which can be used for

cattle as fodder and compost used as an organic manure.

6. As flowing water is obstructed, rate of infiltration is increased. At

Adgaon village there is good recharge of groundwater.

7. Income level from eroded land increased.

8. Yield in the intercropped agriculture increases if legume plants are

planted along the bund. 6. Income generation from the trees in the form

of fodder, nitrogen in the soil, fruits, fuel, green manure etc.

USES

 Water is held for a longer duration and can enable supplementary

irrigation, fish rearing, washing, cattle drinking, etc.

 A series of check dams appropriately positioned across the same

watercourse can transform a seasonally dry watercourse into a

perennial stream.

 It can increase the lifespan of bigger reservoirs downstream by

reducing silt load.

 It creates a favorable micro-environment around the reservoir (flora

and fauna)

 It facilitates recharge of ground water.

THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE IMPERVIOUS CHECK DAM IS TO

IMPOUND WATER.

CHECK DAMS (PERVIOUS / PERMEABLE)

This classification includes several lower - cost semi- permanent structures constructed across water courses (nalas, streams) such as brushwood dams, rock fill dams, gabion dams, etc. they are pervious because they allow water to slowly seep through while holding back sediments / silt. They are adoptable in all areas, irrespective of soil and rainfall. Water may collect near the structure, but the purpose of the structure is not to impound water.

USES

 The chief use is to check the erosive force of water and filter flood

flows.

 Improves percolation and recharge of groundwater.

 The uses are similar to gully plugs.

DETAILS OF SELF HELP GROUP

The Watershed Committee shall constitute SHGs in the watershed area with the help of WDT from amongst poor, small and marginal farmer households, landless/asset less poor agricultural labourers, women, shepherds and SC/ST persons. These groups shall be homogenous groups having common identity and interest who are dependent on the watershed area for their livelihood. Each Self Help Group will be provided with a revolving fund of an amount to be decided by the funding agency.

DETAILS OF USER GROUP

The Watershed Committee (WC) shall also constitute User Groups in the watershed area with the help of WDT. The User Groups will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of all the assets created under the project in close collaboration with the Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha.

IWMP – II PROJECT at THURAIYUR BLOCK

IWMP –II (Thuraiyur) project is located in Thuraiyur Block,

Tiruchirappalli Distirct of Tamilnadu State. The project is a cluster of 6 micro watershed with 4 B1 B2 a6d (V. A. Samutheram), 4B1B2 a6a

(Veeramachanpatti), 4B1B2 a4b (Senappanallur), 4B1B2 f1a1

(Kalingamudaiyanpatti), 4B1B2 a4b (Sokkanathapuram), 4B1B2 f2b

(Kannanur) being the respective codes and watershed name. The total area of the watershed is about 5541.21.0 hectares of which 4025.56.0 ha has been undertaken to be treated under Integrated Watershed Management

Programme - II (IWMP - II) starting in the year 2009-2010.

DISTRICT WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (DWDA)

TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

OBJECTIVES

The District Watershed Development Agency (DWDA)

Tiruchirappalli is a District level nodal agency to oversee the smooth implementation of the watershed project in the district. The District collector is the chairman of DWDA. The DWDA has dedicated and experienced staff comprising:

 One project officer (Joint Director of Agriculture (JDA),

 One District Development Officer (PT),

100

 An Extension Officer (Agriculture) from multi disciplinary team of

Agricultural expert,

 A technical expert (Assistant Executive Engineer) from Agricultural

Engineering Department

 Community mobilization expert (Project economist and Sociologist),

 An Accounts Officer

 Data Entry Operator.

The objectives of the DWDAO Tiruchirappalli are supervising, planning, implementing, documenting and promoting watershed development projects and related development activities in the district as per guidelines. The DWDAO Tiruchirappalli also works as a PIA for some watershed projects. (IWDP, DPAP, NWAPRA).

PROGRAMMES/ PROJECTS OF DWDA- TIRUCHIRAPALLI

At present 3 IWMP projects have been sanctioned by the Government of India for Tiruchirappalli District. The Entry Point Activity (EPA) of all the three IWMP projects has been identified by the PIA (DWDA) in the

District. The DWDA also itself is a PIA for ongoing DPAP and IWDP projects in the District. The DWDA Tiruchirappalli is also monitoring a

101

Central Government Scheme of NWDPRA, NADP and State Government scheme of Cluster Programmes in the District.

SWOT ANALYSIS OF THE DWDA – TIRUCHIRAPALLI

STRENGTH

 Dedicated and experienced multi disciplinary team.

 Independent district level nodal agency.

 Strong linkages with National and State level Institutions, Agriculture

Universities and NGOs for capacity building and technical guidance.

 Scientific planning in watershed projects with the help of TNAU

(Tamilnadu Agricultural University).

 District level monitoring, coordination and cooperation committee

WEAKNESS

There is no separate office building in this District.

Lack of Clerical Staff

There is no separate office vehicle for field visits

OPPORTUNITIES

 Better financial provisions under IWMP usage of new tools like GIS

and GPS

102

 A number of different other development schemes of the Government

are running. So there can be horizontal integration and convergence of

programmes.

THREATS

 Rainfall being very scarce and unpredictable in the project area the

activities planned to be taken up may yield limited impact.

DETAILS OF VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS (VO) APPOINTED

AS PIA

Not applicable. Since IWMP projects are in the pilot stages of implementation.

WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT TEAM MEMBERS

Watershed Development Team:-The Watershed Development Team is a multi-disciplinary team responsible for technical and financial supervision of the project activities. The team consists of field level officials drawn from various disciplines like forestry, soil conservation, horticulture, social sciences etc. These officials are key functionaries in sensitization of Self help Groups/User Groups and villagers at large.

103

Table – 3.1

Details of Watershed Development Teams (WDTs) in the project area

Date of Name S. Names of WDT M/F Age Qualification / Role/ appointment Monthly of the No. members Experience Function of WDT Honorarium PIA member A, B, F, J. Mohan M 38 DCE / 15 years 17.02.2010 4500.00 G, H 44 M.Sc, B.Ed 1 DWDA P.Ramachandran M A, B, K 13.02.2010 4500.00 Botany / 6 years A, B, C, RM.Lakshmanan M 28 M.S.W / 4 years 15.02.2010 4500.00 D, E, I, J (# M – Male, F – Female) ## In column 7, only the letter, assigned as below,

needs to be typed, except for `J’ where the type may be specifically

mentioned.

a. Participatory Net Planning (PNP) and PRA, Training and Capacity

Building

b. Planning

c. Maintenance of Accounts

d. Signing of cheques and making payments

e. Social audit

f. Engineering surveys, drawings and cost estimations

g. Physical verification & measurement

104

h. Record of labour employed

i. Livelihood opportunities for landless

j. Post project operation, maintenance of assets

k. Any other (please specify)

DETAILS OF WATERSHED COMMITTEE (WC)

Watershed Committee (WC) is the key institution at Watershed level consisting of about 4-5 representatives, each of UG, SHG, Panchayat, Caste and women etc. Committee also appoints a Watershed Secretary preferably a local man graduate from the same area. The watershed committee is controlled by the Gramsabha. The Watershed Committee (WC) will comprise of at least 10 members, half of the members shall be representatives of SHGs and User Groups, SC/ST community, women and landless persons in the village. One member of the WDT shall also be represented in the Watershed Committee (WC). Where the Panchayat covers more than one village, they would constitute a separate subcommittee for each village to manage the watershed development project in the concerned village. Where a watershed project covers more than one Gram Panchayat, separate committees will be constituted for each Gram Panchayat.

105

Table – 3.2 Details of Watershed Committees (WC) S. Names Date of Registration as a Any Educational Function(s) Designation M/F SC ST SF MF LF Landless UG SHG GP No. of WCs Society (dd/mm/yyyy) Other qualification assigned# President F 1 - 1 1 X D Secretary F - - 1 1 X B 1 Member F - - 1 1 - B Member F - - 1 1 VIII B Member F - - 1 1 XII B Member F 1 - 1 1 X B Member M 1 - 1 1 - B Member M 1 - 1 1 1 VIII B

Member M - - 1 XI B Sokkanathapuram 31.05.2012 Member F 1 - 1 - B Member F - - 1 1 1 IX B Member M - - 1 1 1 1 - B Member M - - 1 1 X B Member M - - 1 1 X B Member M - - 1 - B Member M - - 1 - B Member M - - XII B 1 Member M - - MSW A, B. C, D,E,H,I

## In column 17, only the letter assigned, as below, needs to be typed, except for `J’ where the type may be specifically mentioned. A. PNP and PRA B. Planning C. Maintenance of Accounts D. Signing of cheques and making payments E. Supervision of construction activities F. Cost Estimation G. Verification & Measurement H. Record of labour employed I. Social Aud

106

CHAPTER – IV

PROGRESS OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

PROGRAMMES IN INDIA

There is a great deal of hope bestowed on watershed management and development to meet a variety of needs in regions like South Asia and

Africa. Following on the recognition that the Green Revolution advances were limited to a handful of its better resource-endowed districts, India has made significant investments in "watersheds" (estimated at Rs. 14,000 crore and Rs.18,000 crore In the 1996-2001 9th Plan and 2001-06 10th Plan periods, or US$ 2.9 and 3.7 billion, respectively). The most important lessons from the Indian experience is that greater water availability made available by watershed development is quickly nullified by the increased use of water by conventional inefficient methods for irrigation and other purposes. The implication is that watershed management as practised now alone cannot satisfy increasing needs and that at some point allocation and demand management of water must be dealt with as well. In this regard, an issue that needs immediate attention is in water allocation and water rights to stakeholders. For example, while successful capture of rainfall in one part of the watershed can lead to improved local availability, this can also lead to

107

problems further downstream if proper water rights are not stipulated. Even at the scale of small watershed itself, there are problems linked to capture by landholders in the valley bottom of improved water resources created by investments in good land management on the hill slooes.

In countries around the world including India "watersheds" are seen as the silver bullet of environmental management, water resources improvement, poverty alleviation and a long wish list of rural development of governments and NGOs. By contrast, we support the notion that watersheds are water and land resource assessment and management units.

Physical watershed development alone is not sufficient this must be followed with the critical phase of management practices by the stakeholders for sustainability of the developed system. Special focus is given in this paper and the case studies it summarizes to the spatial and temporal distributions shortage and abundance of water. When linked with land resource parameters (soil quality, slope, holding size, etc.), management by users at different scales generates watershed outputs and benefits. There ia no doubt that these outputs and benefits have considerable linkages with other aspects of the rural development enterprise health care, education, markets, etc. however, we insist that water (and land) management need to be positioned at the center of watershed management. Water allocation and

108

demand management along with water conservation should play the central role in watershed development and management paradigm.

A brief recap of water management in India may provide a useful context in which to consider the growing importance of the watershed approach India's massive investments in irrigation infrastructure in the post-

Independence and Green Revolution periods are getting plataeuing and reducing year by year. The heyday of big dams and river valley projects has been replaced by a quiet but highly dynamic and equitable groundwater revolution (Shah et al., 2001). The groundwater boom since the early-1970s parallels another, political trend in the country towards decentralization of services and investment, but has largely been driven by farmers own investments and sheer determination. Yet there are signs that groundwater too will plateau, constrained by aquifer depletion, water quality problems, and competition with rural and urban water needs. This leaves watersheds and upper catchments as the ultimate frontier, for development and the closest point on land to where the water falls as rain. It is not without its tradeoffs, particularly in semi-arid and arid watersheds, where watershed development has resulted in decreased inflows to important reservoirs, many increasingly used for urban water supplies. The case study presented below illustrates the impact of upstream development on downstream reservoir

109

inflow and inequity in water use within villages where development of watershed work undertaken:

IMPACT OF WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AND

WITHOUT WATER RECHARGE STRUCTURES

Raj Samadhiyala and Padasen are two neighboring villages located within Agi 1 catchment with one difference. Raj Samadhiyala has more than

12 water harvesting structures such as percolation ponds, and check dams which holds not only run off generated from its own catchment but also a part of run off generated from upper catchment flowing through Aji river whereas Padasen gets only natural recharge from rainfall. The artificial recharge through watershed development has made the following differences of the two villages as shown in Table 4.1.

Table – 4.1

Impact of Watershed Development within and without Water Recharge

Structures

Pumping Hours Raj Samadhiyala Padasen Village Average(till Dec) - 2011 477 81 Till Sept 153 81 Till Sept as %of Total 31 100

110

PRESENT STATUS OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

It appears that in India the art and science of watershed development and management has gone through major changes. Initially, in certain water- scarce regions, the "anarchy model" of watershed development- indiscriminate management of scarce water and land resources-has come to the fore. Institutional and physical (spatial) scale linkages, which are critical to ensure equity and minimize conflicts, have largely been ignored. It has long been acknowledged that technological innovation alone is insufficient to address environmental sustainability concerns. Best watershed practices must be integrated with sound management and governance in order to be viable over the medium to long term. The goals and objectives vary considerably by project and region it has been difficult to assess the real outcome of watershed development for the past decade's massive efforts

(Kerr, et al, 2002). Land degradation driven by mounting population and other pressures on resources continues apace, suggesting that at best a holding pattern has been reached in other, more critical conditions, the battle is being lost, resulting in irreversible resource exploitation, abject poverty, out migration to cities and better endowed regions, and ultimately, collapse of the environmental underpinnings of agrarian societies.

111

This reads like a doomsday litany of unbridled resource appropriation and exploitation but does it have to be so there is evidence to suggest that in

India over the past decade and a half, since the 1987 drought, a subtle shift has been occurring in natural resource use centered on watershed management. The equity implications of intensification on agricultural and non-agricultural lands alike are important and looked into. Institutional strengthening, of community during pre-watershed development phase is given due recognition (Bhattacharya, 2002). What are the key elements of success or failure of these decentralized approaches envisaged to natural resource management? What are the management principles on which future development should take place? Finally, that is the appropriate mix of initiative and investment on the part of government, non-governmental organizations, community groups, and individual users.

A series of case studies on watershed based land and water management primarily in central India. We develop a conceptual approach that static, historical levels of watershed resource productivity are inadequate to confront today and tomorrow's realities, and that management is the critical variable in ensuring sustainability at various levels including biophysical resource use, local social and economic relations, and the macro institutional and policy contexts. We propose the outlines of a series of

112

watershed indicators that will continue to be developed, but which have the aim of establishing reliable assessments of the interactions between management approaches, resource use and livelihoods. An explicit attempt is made to address scale issues physical spatial, institutional, 'social and economic. There is growing agreement that scale out means to replicate, i.e., adopt the village level watershed approach in x number of villages in a state or region etc. but without explicit attempts to capture the benefits, tradeoffs, or negative outcomes of one watershed project on another particularly in an upstream-downstream relationship. On the other hand, scale up means to implement multiple watershed projects in nested scales, particularly, village or micro watershed projects concentrated from upstream to downstream in the larger basin of a river or large tributary with explicit recognition that omitting one or more contiguous sub watersheds will not allow the full impacts of scaling up to be achieved.

The central premise of the paper is that with growing livelihood dependence on water and land resources in a watershed context, there is a need to rise above the individual, household and even village community levels in order to address equity, productivity, and competition for resources.

Institutions that function quite well at subsidiary levels are not easily scaled up. Part of the constraint is the policy environment in which line agencies

113

and investments are stove piped and not integrated to the same degree to which their outcomes are felt by resource users.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR WATERSHED

DEVELOPMENT

A conceptual framework for watershed development over a period of time is presented. Initially when the population in the watershed is less than its carrying capacity, the actual production in the watershed is less than its potential production and the watershed is said to be in equilibrium condition from the point of bio-mass and sustainability considerations. In other words, the watershed is in its virgin condition. As the population increases and agricultural production takes place, actual production goes on increasing to reach the potential level of production. This is what we call as transition phase. Soon, the actual production level surpasses the potential production, which happens at the expense of over exploitation and degradation of vital natural resources such as land, forest and water. This over exploitation and degradation of watershed leads to progressive reduction in potential production of a watershed. At this juncture, the watershed development focuses primarily to arrest and reverse watershed degradation through land and water conservation. During this stage, very little management factors form part of watershed development project. This stage is called watershed

114

development phase. In the post watershed development phase, it is not only sufficient to raise the production level to its original production but also we need to go beyond that to the existing level of actual production so that sustainability of developed watershed can be maintained. Here in comes the need for improved agricultural practices such as introduction of high yielding varieties and application of chemical fertilizers etc and land and water management practices to increase agricultural productivity through farming system approaches. Therefore, in the post development phase attention has to be shifted to the efficient use of natural resource end increasing production potential by a) proper estimation and augmentation of available and sustainable natural resource base, b)improving agronomic practices by farming system approaches, and c)demand management of water.

INDICATORS

The following are the broad areas in which we develop indicators to monitor the process and outcome of the watershed development projects:

Baseline

 Biophysical

 Livestock

115

 Social

 Economic

Process

 Implementation

 Equity

 Productivity

 Watershed potential

Outcome/Impact

 Livelihoods

 Environmental Quality

 Sustainability

Scale Linkages

 Water Resources (conjunctive surface groundwater, upstream-down

stream, rain fed-irrigated, domestic-agriculture...)

 Multipliers (the up-spiral)

SCALES

There are multiple scales at which watershed interventions are implemented and their benefits are derived. Retaining the focus on water and land based resources in a watershed context, the scales of management are:

116

 Household (including intra household gender concerns, particularly

important in the context of migration)

 Community (in large villages, there may be differential approaches by

hamlets or caste based groupings)

 Watershed (this usually brings in government resources, e.g., forest

lands, in addition to private and village resources)

 Meso-watershed (groupings of watersheds)

 River basin.

Among the five scales of analysis and development focus is now on the first three aspects of Indian watershed development projects with limited emphasis on the remaining two aspects. It is hypothesized that the last two aspects are equally important for equitable and sustainable water; resources development, use and management in the long run especially when the basin turns form open to closing and closed basins.

CASE STUDY (FORMAL AND NON – FORMAL AGENCIES)

The Catholic Relief Services (CRS), a non-governmental organization is implementing about 200 watershed project in the central Indian tribal belt.

Among the 200 and odd projects to be implemented by Catholic Relief

Services (CRS), four pilot watershed projects (Nakna in Chhatgisgarh,

117

Nayagaon in Rajasthan, Karaighat in UP and Dundlu in West Bengal) were selected in association with International Water Management Institute

(IWMI), Colombo for learning watershed development process and forming guidelines relating to institutional arrangement and technical requirement with needed information base for sustainable watershed development. In selecting these pilot projects, considerable time and energy were spent to select those projects representing the geographic, agro climatic and socio- economic situation of the watershed projects being implemented by the

CRS. The pilot projects started in 2002 are in different stages of planning, development, and implementation. This paper summarizes the process adopted and lessons learned so far in implementing these pilot projects. The process adopted and the lessons learned will be valuable not only for implementing CRS projects but for similar projects being implemented in the Asian region.

Presently, the whole exercise of watershed development is being undertaken without really estimating how much water that we receive in the watershed, how much of it is stored where and how much of it can be used in a drought year, in a normal and in a surplus year. What we really do not know is the flow paths taken by the various components of the hydrological cycle both spatially and temporally we would like to know these flow paths

118

before and after the watershed development to match the supply and demand situation. A hypothetical situation of flow paths before and after the watershed development is depicted in taking watershed as a unit of analysis for a time period of one year. This figure is called a finger diagram since it is similar to a hand with five fingers. The wide width of the figure is an indication of how much water is stored or used in different components of the hydrological cycle. For example, after the watershed development, one would expect that transpiration will go up and runoff from the watershed will decrease compared to what it were before watershed development There is a need to continuously monitor the magnitude of the flow paths in the finger diagram to know how much water we are, utilizing now in this watershed how much water we will be using when it is fully developed and what will be the impact of such development on the downstream cluster watersheds. In the pilot watersheds arrangements have been made to collect requisite hydro-meteorological and other relevant data to track down the flow paths of watershed water.

River basin in essence will consist of a number of watersheds, the management of which will have impact on the basin management and vice versa. Similarly, the alteration of flow paths in a particular watershed will not only affect the neighboring downstream watersheds but it will also have

119

impact on the whole basin. Both institutions and hydrological variables, particularly quantity and quality of flow are inter-related as one moves from watershed level to basin level. Hydrological analysis for managing natural resource base especially water become complex as one moves from watershed to basin scale. The basic problem encountered in watershed management is the complexity of institutional arrangement needed to manage a large watershed such as a river basin, which consists of large number of small micro watersheds. Since watershed institutions are hierarchical and embedded within one another, crafting of smooth and cooperating institutional arrangements with forward and backward linkages assumes greater significance.

In additional mechanisms to manage the river basin in a top down approach. There are also attempts to develop institutions at micro level.

However, there are not very many studies to connect these two approaches for managing a large watershed with a number of clustered micro watersheds. This type of study would allow us to test a set of hypotheses on institutional arrangements from which to select the one that would be easy to implement and will be effective in managing up scaled watersheds.

120

The bigger problem in managing clustered watersheds will come not from hydrological issues although they are important but from institutional issues due to inclusion of extended administrative boundaries. If the institutional interface is not smooth and co operative, managing the watershed becomes difficult therefore, crafting institutions for collective choice decision making and Institutional arrangement needed for effective management are the areas for action and adaptive research. As a result of understanding and commitment to institutional issues, IWMI and QRS can play a crucial role in taking forward the clustered watershed approach to up scaling.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE ON-GOING STUDY

The four pilot project studies undertaken by IWMI-CRS collaboration are under different stages of development. Two of the pilot studies are progressing well while the other two are not doing so well. In those that are progressing well the following processes were adopted:

For setting the stage for participatory planning during the pro- watershed phase, the following activities were carried out in an intensive and systematic way.

 Awareness creation (meetings, street play, video presentation etc.,)

121

 Rapport building through entry point activities

 Creating programme for women and landless

 Creation of SHGs and mobilizing community for watershed

development works.

 Formation of Village lnstitutions (Watershed Committee, Core

Committees Hamlet Committee)

 Understanding the existing

 indigenous knowledge use

 ability for community to make decisions

 willingness to share cost of watershed development

 status of managing common property resource

 equity among all (poor, women, landless)

 mechanism for conflict management

 Identifying the core problems faced by the community through

brain storming and prioritizing

 Hydrologic and socio-economic data collection

 Preparation of watershed maps

 Identifying livelihood coping mechanisms

 Preparation of detailed watershed development proposal and getting it

approved by the Village Institutions and CRS

122

 Developing skills and knowledge of PIAs to promote participatory

planning

 Capacity building of Village Institutions for taking up

implementation programme

 Implementation and monitoring

It is necessary to brine all the communities within a watershed under one fold and make them feel that they all will get benefited both in the short term as well as in the long term this activity may need a flexible time period not fixed period as envisaged now to create awareness, convince all the community to work together and show the benefit through entry point activities. In addition, the Project Management Team should be recruited mostly from the locals within watershed hamlets and implemented through village institutions. They must speak the same language as the locals and must be well versed with their local customs and norms.

A systematic procedure in creating hamlet and watershed committees should be followed using grass root organization such as SHGs to select committee members giving representation to all. This broad based representation in the committee will have a good impact in bringing the community together great care should be bestowed in establishing smooth

123

and cooperative institutions for collective choice decision making it is also necessary to rope up the government and other institutions working within the watershed to be part and parcel of this activity.

Socio-economic, physical and hydrologic information base needs to be developed to the extent possible by the stakeholders and presented in the easily readable forms of charts and maps to the watershed community to make rational decisions. Water should play the confer stage in all development process. Hydrologic measurement of important parameters such as rainfall, groundwater level and outflow hydrograph of flow from the watershed should start simultaneously or even before the start of the watershed project.

Preparation of a detailed watershed development proposal through intense community involvement is a must detailing the activities envisaged, resources required, present status of that activity and expected benefits.

While preparing such plan upstream-downstream impact of developing the watershed and demand management of the water conserved must be given due consideration. Preparation of such a detailed proposal makes implementation of the project much more simpler, monitoring easy and allow corrective steps to be taken in time.

124

Displaying through pasting on each hamlet notice board, the sanctioned work, the cost estimate and expected contribution from the community has a marked effect on the community on the transparency of the project implementation this has to be followed.

For each intervention such as nursery raising, pond construction, a user group is identified and they are involved from the very beginning of the project they maintain and manage the whole activity and share the benefits with Watershed Committee.

During the implementation phase, it is very essential that the community and others involved in implementation be kept informed of the progress. Achievement and the work that lie ahead for which what should be the community contribution. For this, conduct of Annual General Body meeting with accounts and achievements is a must.

Capacity building of the village institutions is an important density for sustaining assets created and to get the benefit out of it presently, this component is not given that much importance either in allocation of funds or in the time allocated by the Project Management Committee (OP). This

125

aspect needs to be given almost importance while formulating the detailed watershed development proposal.

Monitoring the changes in hydrological flow paths and livelihood changes of the communities during and post implementation phases is important.

Institutional analysis becomes complex as watersheds are scaled up. It is time that we take up a few studies on clustering of watersheds with different institutional arrangement to learn lessons and to arrive at certain guidelines for scaling up of watersheds.

Watershed management provides a means to achieve sustainable management of land and water resources. It is the key to success of any development programme aiming at food security and eradication of poverty.

Early watershed development projects did not consider socio-economic dimensions of watershed development. Today, there is a growing appreciation of the need to organize communities to work collectively for the success of the project. All development activities within a watershed should be pooled into unified group action. Independent, uncoordinated development plan does not fit into the concept, and therefore invalid.

Integrated watershed development through participatory approach has been

126

conceptualized as an ideal means for rural development by its policy decision.

The essentials of watershed management include identification of priority areas and integrated development approach involving all community development departments of the governments, NGO's and people at the grass root level. The approach enables planners to harmonize the use of soil, water and vegetation in such a way that conserves these resources and maximizes the productivity while raising agricultural production. Under watershed development projects villagers could take up many small works to conserve water for drinking, irrigation, fisheries and aforestation. This would not only add Hariyali to the rural landscape but also create employment and income opportunities of the rural people.

The success of watershed development depends on effectiveness of technology adopted in the background of needs, priorities, cultural practices and community participation. The success would also depend on the political will of the government, acceptability of the people and coordination between government officials, NGOs and general public. A successfully implemented watershed development project would be the best investment for the future to reap benefits.

127

PRINCIPLES

The main principles of watershed management are as follows:

(i) Utilization of land according to its capability.

(ii) Maintenance of adequate vegetative cover on the soil for

controlling soil erosion, particularly during rainy season.

(iii) Conservation of maximum possible rainwater at a place where it

falls, on arable land by contour farming practices.

(iv) Draining out of excess water from the field with safe velocity to

avoid soil erosion and storing water in reservoirs for future use.

(v) Preventing erosion in gullies and increasing ground water recharge

through nullahbund and gully plugs at suitable points and intervals.

OBJECTIVES OF WATERSHED APPROACH

The objective behind watershed approach is to enhance and stabilize the agricultural production in rainfed areas through efficient use of soil- water resources. Its basic aim is to improve the standard of living of the common people by increasing their earning capacity through offering facilities required for optimum production. Different watersheds have different objectives of development depending on local needs, nature of soil

128

erosion, run off condition and pollution. The main objectives of watershed management programmes are as follows:

(i) Recognition of watershed as an unit for judicious utilization and

development of all lands. The land should be treated according to

the requirement by adopting suitable methods that will control soil

erosion, conserve water, improve farm income, encourage wildlife

conservation and prevent flood damage to all lands.

(ii) Prevention and control of floods through construction of reservoirs

and impounding structures within the watershed areas.

(iii) Provision of adequate water supply in agriculture, industry and for

domestic needs.

(iv) Control and reduction of soil, water and air pollution.

(v) Development of recreation facilities with more lakes and streams

suitable for swimming, boating, fishing, etc.

(vi) Utilization of all natural resources for improving agriculture and

allied occupation or industries in order to improve the socio-

economic condition of the local people. Forestry, pasture

development, livestock and diary development should be given

special emphasis.

129

(vii) Rain water harvesting for recharging ground water and steps to

control pollution.

The objectives of watershed management should be clearly defined before taking up any watershed development programme. Different objectives call for different techniques and approaches for proper planning and execution. The monitoring and evaluation criteria for watershed vary according to its objectives and this should be taken care of.

BENEFITS

Mahnot and Singh (1993) prescribed the following benefits accrue from the watershed management:

(i) Sound watershed management means controlling floods and

reducing erosion and sediment production.

(ii) Maximizing productivity per unit area per unit time and per unit of

water.

(iii) Increasing cropping intensity which is an indicator of agricultural

development.

(iv) Proper utilization of marginal or watersheds through alternate

landuse practices.

(v) Ensuring ecological balance.

130

(vi) Maximizing the combined income from the interrelated crop

livestock tree labour complex over years.

(vii) Stabilizing income even under unfavourable weather conditions.

CAUSES OF WATERSHED DETERIORATION

Watershed deterioration is caused due to the uncontrolled, unplanned, unscientific landuse practices of man. Adaptation of faulty agricultural practices, quick removal of forests and vegetation, Jhum cultivation practices, over grazing, mining and quarrying, forest fire etc. would increase run off cause soil erosion and excessive sedimentation in the lower reaches of the watershed. The agents of natural erosion are rain, wind, snow but some erosions are caused by wrong human interaction with nature.

Unscientific mining, bad road alignment and construction in hilly areas, industrial activities and its resultant pollution may cause deterioration of watershed.

CONSEQUENCE OF DETERIORATION

The deterioration of watershed causes following consequences:

(i) Low productivity in agriculture, grasslands and forest and

reduction of biomass production.

(ii) Erosion and denudation from the lands.

131

(iii) Quick siltation of reservoirs, lakes and channels.

(iv) Poor quality water yield.

(v) Occurrence of frequent floods and droughts.

(vi) Creation of conditions for poverty.

Watershed deterioration is generally caused due to improper use of soil and water. With the increase of population and decline of natural resources it becomes necessary to use watershed in a judicious manner.

Sustainable watershed management is now considered as the best approach and is widely practiced in many parts of the country. After independence, the government of India accorded high priority on watershed development projects. In the Fourth Five Year Plan integrated watershed management in the catchments of flood prone rivers were taken up in eight flood prone rivers of different states of India covering 16.7 million hectares. Drought prone area programme (DPAP) was started in 1973 as an integrated area development programme, covering 53.6 million hectare. In 1977-78, Desert

Development Programme (DDP) was introduced in five states i.e., Haryana,

Gujarat, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir, covering

36.2 million hectares under per cent Central government financial assistance.

Other government programmes on watershed development have taken in different times such as NWDPRA (National Watershed Development

132

Programme of Rainfed Areas in 1990). This programme is centrally funded and operates through state level agriculture or watershed development departments. During the Ninth FiveYear Plan NWDPRA has been considerably restructured with greater decentralization and community participation. The programme is now planned, implemented, monitored and maintained by the watershed communities. A number of externally aided projects of watershed development (IWDP-Hills, WDPSCA, etc.) were undertaken during the Tenth FiveYear Plan. These projects are run by

Ministry of Agriculture through direct funding to the state government. For the last two decades, the watershed management projects in operation in the country. This has increased substantially our food production.

This programme helps to infuse instrumentation for data generation on hydro meteorological, soil, nutrient and process related parameters at WS in accordance to various agro-climatic regions. It attempts to study the impact of on and off site management structures for conservation of soil and water. This is done with the help of modelling studies based on WS hydrology, with the development of spatial decision support system for land and water management at WS scale. This programme permits the calculation of scientific indices for assessment.

133

WORKING OF WSM (WATERSHED MANAGEMENT)

PROGRAMME

The Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, launched a coordinated programme on "Hydrology of small water sheds", which throw light on the importance of WS hydrology. Subsequently, the

WS Development Council (WDC) was brought into existence in 1983-84, to

 Integrating different uses of national resources at village level

 Addressing rural development

 Integration of different departments at project levels, and

 Spatially scaling the CBWM

The CBWM integrated community development using sectoral and centralized approaches, which permitted visits by government officials and interaction with people, regarding their changing lifestyle. It provides institutional restructuring with the aid of skilled staff who organize training about water supply and sanitation, besides health components by forming community institutions.

Agricultural inputs are distributed to aid farmers to avail extension services through experimental techniques and novel farm activities.

Similarly, initiatives are taken to promote and construct minor irrigation

134

resources for effective utilization and conservation of soil and water

resources. The minor irrigation introduced to farmers include drip irrigation,

subsidized sprinklers and furrow irrigation, besides tube wells for better use

of water resources.

Table – 4.2

Comparing the Past Traditional and Current Development Approaches

Development elements Traditional approach Current approach Purpose Single (Soil Multiple (Social, economical and conservation) environmental) Need assessment Central level Community help to identify the and planning government staff gap and select the priorities Strategy Increase production and Emphasis on livelihoods, poverty conservation and sustainability Approach Centralise, Top-down Participatory, community based planning with little focus to the women and poor input from community communities Institution Government and donor NGO, community based agencies organization (CBO) and private and Governments institutions Working Size Large watershed Small watershed, sub watershed Output Target meet, quantities Qualitative, sustainability

The Government of India initiated participatory process in watershed

management by establishing integrated wastelands development programme

135

in 1992 (Sikka and Samra, 2000). To prevent land degradation and manage natural resources in micro watershed, the approach has been practiced in

India (Turton, 2000). These micro watershed projects are undertaken in close consultation with the watershed communities, based on local farming experiences and directed towards the solution of the basic problems faced by local farmers (Farrington and Baumann, 2003). Some successful examples of the participatory natural resource management and rural development programmes in South Asia include Community Forestry in Nepal, Gal Oya

Irrigation Project in Srilanka, Participatory Watershed Movement in

Rajasthan, India and Aga Khan Rural Support Programme in Pakistan

(Pokharel, 2000; ESCAP, 2003). Nepal is one of the leading countries in the areas of community based natural resource management (CBNRM) in the South Asia region (Pokharel, 2000). It is recognized as a World leader in community forestry and has experienced community forest management over the past 25 years. At present people's participation is the basic requirement in the watershed management programme (Wagley and Bogati,

1999). An overall comparison of the different watershed management approaches is provided in Table 4.2.

In 1974, His Majesty's Government of Nepal established Department of Soil and Water Conservation (DSCWM) under the Ministry of Forest to

136

improve mountain watersheds. The department has been planning, implementing and monitoring soil conservation activities within a framework of the principles of integrated watershed management (IWM) since last two decades (Wagley and Bogati, 1999). IWM approach was designed from the very beginning in the watershed management programme.

It clearly marks major step forward in terms of addressing the problems of watershed communities in all their complexities (Paudel, 2002). However in early periods (70s-80s), only central level (top-down) target oriented, physical engineering conservation method was practiced in watershed management programme (JICA/HMG(N), 1998; Ohler et al. 2000). The watershed management approaches gradually included the bottom up planning and people's participation. Different stages in the evolution of watershed management in Nepal are described in the Table 4.3.

137

Table – 4.3 Watershed Management Approaches Adopted by Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Year Approaches Activities

First Stage Central level planning Project based activities conducted by 1974 to 1980 (top-down) construction companies or hired labour. Second Stage Initiation of Key persons or local leaders were taken 1981 to 1985 Decentralization into consideration in the project Third Stage In line with implementation process. VDC, DDC and 1986 to1990 decentralization DSCO on project implementation were taken into consideration in planning process, user groups were established. Started to handover community forestry. Fourth stage Bottom-up approach, and Sub-watershed planning was (1991 to 1994) people's participation institutionalised. Most activities were implemented through users. RRA, PRA techniques came into use to collect socio-economic data. Fifth stage Institutionalisation of Gender and social equity consideration, (1995 onwards Participatory approach, rights and access to community Watershed boundary to resources for local communities, political boundary indigenous knowledge integrated into new technology approach. UGs formal registration. The link between UG and VDC became more formal.

138

The initiation of people's participation concept for planning and implementation of soil conservation activities started after 1990 in Nepal

(Wagley and Bogati, 1999; Wagley and Ojha, 2002). Realizing the fallacy of excluding local people, there was a gradual shift to implement government's soil conservation projects more by UGs (User Groups) based on their own needs. Formation of UGs to run the programme was made mandatory.

STRENGTH OF THE PAST TOP-DOWN APPROACH

Inspite of many weaknesses in the past approaches, there are some strong points in management of watersheds and natural resources. The activities were more specific such as terrace improvement and gully control so that results could be seen readily and rapidly. Programmes were directly implemented and the costs covered by implementing office. Therefore, there was no financial burden on the local people, as well as less political and local conflicts due to direct implementation by the government. The major weaknesses of the past approach are listed as follows:

 Focused only on conservation aspects of natural resources.

 Insufficient attention paid to human activities and to needs of people.

 Lack of consideration of economic and environmental impacts.

139

 Lack of involvement of beneficiaries in planning and implementing

interventions.

 Limited scope of projects,

 Lack of long-term commitment to address underlying causes of

degradation.

 Ignored the local knowledge and more emphasis placed on technical

aspects rather than local capacity.

 Benefited mostly elite and rural landowners.

IMPACT OF PARTICIPATORY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

The top-down approach during the 70s and 80s was focused on degraded land improvement. But, outcomes were very poor because the project designs did not address the local people's needs (Blaikie, 1987;

Kumar and Bakshi, 2002). Villagers felt a loss of their grazing land and the planted species were not suitable for fodder (Saxena et al., 2003). For example, conifer species were planted in mountain region of Nepal. The mortality rate was also high, because farmers did not cooperate in plantation and grazed livestock, and burnt vegetation to regenerate new grass.

Moreover, the externally introduced seedlings were not suitable for most of local conditions (Saxena et al., 2003).

140

A study of the Bagmati Integrated Watershed Management

Project (BIWMP), covering six districts in mountain region of Nepal showed that it has indeed improved watershed quality and increased productivity and livelihood in its 23 priority sub-watersheds through participatory approach. The project expected 40 per cent increase in productivity, 25% more use of currently unproductive land, 40% female membership in all groups and 80% decrease in off season migration.

Moreover, 80% of disadvantage groups (DAGs) and 50% of women actively participated in the UG activities (BIWMP, 2003).

Similarly, Khadaka and Yadhav (1999) reported a successful example of PWMP at Pipal Tar watershed in Nuwakot. It helped to increase farm income through increased crop productivity and improved degraded land by planting different verities of grasses, fruits and natural regeneration of tree species by controlling open grazing. Community people constructed check dams in various places to stabilize gullies and minimize soil erosion.

To review participatory watershed management project, comparison of some direct impacts in the soil conservation activities can be made.

141

CHAPTER - V

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Rainfed agriculture in India is characterized by low productivity, degraded natural resources and widespread poverty. Most of the millions of people living in our country depend on agriculture and natural resource management for their livelihoods, so development planners are eager to implement productive, environmentally sustainable land and water management. It is in this context, the concept of watershed development has been introduced in our country. A watershed is a geographical area that drains to a common point, which makes it an attractive unit for technical efforts to conserve soil and maximize the utilization of surface and subsurface water for crop production. It is an ecosystem or bio-geographical unit in which the interdependence is internalized, in the words of Barrow, within a watershed physical and biological resources are linked by a complex of processes" (Barrow, 1987). These resource regions can thus appear in different forms or sizes and are not easily amenable to standardization in terms of mini, micro or macro typologies. Watershed development projects are designed to harmonise the use of water, soil, forest and pasture resources in a way that conserves these resources while raising

142

agricultural productivity, both through in situ moisture conservation and increased irrigation through water harvesting. Watershed development has been conceived basically as a strategy for protecting the livelihoods of the people inhabiting the fragile eco-systems experiencing soil erosion and moisture stress. The aim has been to ensure the availability of drinking water, fuel wood and fodder and raise income and employment for farmers and landless labourers through improvement in agricultural production and productivity.

The objective of any programme or project is to transform a set of resources into desired results or outcomes. Understanding the nature, objectives and scope of the development project and the responsiveness of target groups is an imperative for development personnel/specialist, economists and policy makers to recommend improvements that will guarantee more food, fodder, fuel and livelihood security for resource poor farmers who form the majority of the farming community and the landless poor. This calls for a systematic feedback of information from the project areas and beneficiaries for whom the project is intended. To provide the project management with such information, it is essential to understand the results of their activities and data should be gathered continuously and analysed without delay. A system combining such data gathering, analysis

143

and interpretation is called a monitoring and evaluation system. The most important feature of monitoring and evaluation of watershed development projects is the selection of indicators and collecting information on these indicators. Indicators are markers and they show the progress and help measure changes. Monitoring and evaluation of watershed development project requires, a number of indicators and selection of those indicators should be based on the following criteria.

Migration for a watershed development project, if successfully implemented, leads to increased availability of water, fodder and employment. These factors would help in reducing the migration of people and animals, especially those who migrate for want of employment, water and fodder.

Employment generated various activities taken up in a watershed development project generate employment for villagers. Employment is the immediate benefit that villagers get out of a project. Such a project can increase employment in agriculture, animal husbandry and non-farm activities. The level of employment can be taken as a measure of success.

144

INDICATORS FOR EVALUATION OF WATERSHED

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

There is no single indicator of successful watershed development project development, so the most feasible approach is to compare the performance of a variety of indicators. The various performance indicators also reflect the diversity of the project objectives. These include raising rainfed agricultural productivity, recharging ground water for drinking and irrigation, raising productivity of non-arable lands, creating employment, promoting collective action and building or strengthening social institutions.

BIO-PHYSICAL INDICATORS

Forest vegetable frequency, density, height, girth, canopy percentage and biomass Survival and growth percentage, changes in forest area etc.

Channel Morphology: Periodic survey of Channels for deposition of silt behind structures.

Arable Lands: Area under different crops, irrigated unirrigated area, inputs used, crop yields, fruit yields.

Land Use: Changes in land use pattern.

145

SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Human population, family income from different sources, revenue generated from Common Property Resources, cattle population, milk, meat production, changes in housing facilities, source of fuel energy for domestic uses, farm and house hold assets acquired, literacy level, infrastructural development, growth of social institutions organisations. The list of various indicators for monitoring and evaluation of watershed development projects are given in the Table.

EVALUATION MEASURES

Biophysical Measures: Some measures of productive, protective reclamation and ecological benefits that can be used for before and after implementation of works are as below:

 Hydrological Indices: (a) Changes in runoff, depth or water yield, (b)

Ratio of peak runoff before and after, (c) Changes in duration of flow

in the stream

 Water Availability Indices: (a) Changes in surface water storages e.g.,

ponds, tanks capacities, etc. (b) Changes, in ground water table (i.e.

water table rise) and well yield. Ground water levels as observed from

open wells can be used for determining changes by comparing water

table with that of outside the watershed development project or before

146

implementation of works (c) Some indirect measures include

increase on number of wells, increase in irrigated area, duration of

pumping before wed goes dry and time it takes to recuperate

 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Indices: (a) changes in soil loss, (b)

changes in sediment yield to pond tank, (c) silt deposition in channel

bed behind structures.

 Agricultural Crops Indices.

Crop Yield Index: A measure of comparison of the yield of all the crops in a given farm watershed development project with the average yield of these crops in the locality taluk, district, State, Country. The relationship is expressed in per cent.

Average Yield in the watershed village (Qtls/Ha) Crop Yield Index (CYI)  Average Yield in the Area (Qtls/Ha)

Apart from annual crops, yield of fruits, fodder and fuelwood may also be measured similarly.

The Common guidelines broadly indicate a fresh framework for the next generation watershed programmes. This guideline has to be adopted for implementation of IWMP. The key features of guidelines are as follows:

147

 Delegating powers to States

 Dedicated Institutions for selection of PIA

 Financial Assistance to dedicated Institutions

 Duration of the Programme ( 4- 7 years)

 Livelihood orientation to promote local livelihoods while ensuring

resource conservation and regeneration

 Cluster Approach the new approach envisages a broader vision of

geo-hydrological units normally of average size of 1000 to 5000

Hectares comprising clusters of micro-watersheds.

 Scientific Planning

 Capacity Building

 Multi tier approach - First tier, in the upper reaches of the hilly and

forested, the onus of implementation would mainly lie with the Forest

Departments and the Joint Forest Management Committee. The

second tier, is the immediate tier on the slopes which are just above

the Agricultural lands, in which possible options of treatment

measures, cropping pattern, horticulture and agro forestry will

commonly be implemented. In the third tier level of plain and flat

areas where typically farmers are operating, there would be large

concentration of labour intensive works.

148

GENERAL DESCRIPTION Sokkanathapuram micro watershed has been formed clubbing major area in Sokkanathapuram, Kollapatti, Veeramachanpatti, Vadakuveli revenue village Panchayat, and extends of 724.50.0 ha is taken off for the treatment out of 997.68.5 ha, which private land constituted 574.16.0 ha and common land 148.34.5 ha. This information is given below the Table.5.1.

149

Table - 5.1 General Description of the Watershed Area District Trichy Block Thuraiyur A. Sokkanathapuram No. of Village Name of Village B. Kollapatti 4 Panchayats Panchayats C. Veeramachanpatti D. Vadakuveli Name of Revenue Census Code No Village No. of Revenue A. Sokkanathapuram A. 00899500 4 Village B. Kollapatti B. 00899300 C. Veeramachanpatti C. 00899500 D. Vadakuveli D. 00899800

Name of the Sokkanathapuram Watershed Code No 4 B1B2 a4a Watershed Major Drainage system of which the Ayyaru watershed is a part Source : Primary Data

150

Table – 5.2

Classification of the Total Area of the Watershed

S. Classification Area of the Watershed (Hectares)

No of Area Sokkanathapuram Kollapatti Veeramachanpatti Vadakkuveli Total

1 Patta Land 194.660 99.119 140.872 267.38 702.031

2 Public Land 58.770 27.056 76.603 123.525 285.954

3 Others 3.500 - - 6.200 9.700

Total 256.93.0 126.175 217.475 397.105 997.685

Source : Primary Data Table – 5.3 Classification of the Total Area taken for treatment of watershed Waterrshed S.No Categroy Sokkanathapuram Kollapatti Veeramachanpatti Vadakkuveli (3+4+5+6)

Patta 1 200.170 59.884 114.866 199.240 574.160 Land

Public 2 54.830 15.116 30.534 47.865 148.345 Land

3 Others - - - 1.995 1.995

Total 255.000 75.000 145.400 249.100 724.500

Source : Primary Data

151

HOUSEHOLD AND POPULATION The total number of households is 458 with strength of 1216 of the

458 households, 47 belong to SC – ST category and the 1169 belong to

‘other category’ population wise, SC - ST category has 16 and ‘ other’ 442 belong to household wise. It is observed that the SC – ST population is 3.8% in this watershed.

Table – 5.4 Classification of Households and Population Classification Households & Population

Name of the SC /ST Others Total

S.No Revenue No. of No. of No. of Population Village House Population House Population House (4+6) Holds Holds Holds (3+5)

1 Village A 16 47 442 1169 458 1216

2 Village B

3 Village C

Total 16 47 442 1169 458 1216

Note: Land only Classified but household are not classified. Source : Primary Data

152

AGE WISE CLASSIFICATION OF THE POPULATION OF

SOKKANATHAPURAM WATERSHED AREA

From the table it is inferred that 6.08% of the respondents belong to the age group of <5 years, respectively 20.9% of the respondents belong to the age group of 5-15 years, respectively 30 % of the respondents belong to the age group of 15-40 years, respectively 31.5% of the respondents belong to the age group of 40-60 years, and 11.5% of respondents are above 60 years of age.

It is observed that this watershed women population (50.75%) over by men population (49.25%).

Table – 5.5 Age Wise Classification of Population of Watershed Area S. No Age Group Male Female Total

1 < 5 Years 38 36 74

2 5 - 15 Years 126 128 254

3 15 - 40 Years 188 178 366

4 40 - 60 Years 183 199 382

5 > 60 years 64 76 140

Total 599 617 1216

Source : Primary Data

153

LITERACY LEVEL

The literacy status of the community of this micro watershed is given below. Analysis of the figures in the format disclosed the following position:

1. 50.5% of the population is illiterate, 49.5% of the population literate.

2. The low literacy level of the women population is a matter of serious

concern and it is necessary that suitable measures may be thought of

creating awareness of adult and informal literacy under the

component of community organization.

Table – 5.6

Educational Status of the Population

S. No Educational Status Male Female Total

1 Illiterate 296 317 613

2 Read and Write only 67 73 140

3 Primary 61 64 125

4 Secondary 164 153 317

5 Higher Secondary 3 5 8

6 Graduate and Above 8 5 13

Total 599 617 1216

Source : Primary Data

154

OCCUPATIONAL PATTERN

Nearly 75% of the community forms the bulk of working force in this

watershed. Of them 33% of the population chose agriculture as their

avocation. The percentage of cultivators to the total population is 11%.

About 25% of population comes under non-workers category.

Table – 5.7

Details of Workers in the Watershed

Work force Name of Non Non Total S. the Revenue Agri. Cultivator Agri. Salaried Business others Total Workers Population No Village Labour Labour

1 Village A 249 90 244 11 12 142 748 468 1216

2 Village B

3 Village C

Total 249 90 244 11 12 142 748 468 1216

Source : Primary Data

155

Table – 5.8

Livestock Population

Name of Milch Non Milch Other

S.No the Animals Animals Animals Poultry Others

Watershed Cow Buffaloes Cattle Buffaloes Sheep Goat

1 Village A 87 18 21 33 147 22

2 Village B

3 Village C

Total 87 18 21 33 147 22

Source : Primary Data

156

SELF HELP GROUP (SHG)

The Watershed Committee shall constitute SHGs in the watershed

area with the help of WDT from amongst poor, small and marginal farmer

households, landless/asset less poor agricultural labourers, women,

shepherds and SC/ST persons. These Groups shall be homogenous groups

having common identity and interest who are dependent on the watershed

area for their livelihood. Each Self Help Group will be provided with a

revolving fund of an amount to be decided by the funding agency.

Table – 5.9 Details of SHGs

Member of Total No. of Member Name of the No of BPL (Below Registered of SC/ST Watershed Members the poverty S.No SHGs Category line) Category

M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total

1 Sokkanathapuram 0 10 10 0 127 127 0 6 6 0 6 6 Source : Primary Data

157

Table – 5.10 Temperature in the Watershed (year 2009-10) 1 Nearest Meteorological station or observation point Thuraiyur from which the data has been obtained 2 Distance of Meteorological centre from the 14 Km Watershed 3 Highest Intensity of Rainfall in the last 10 years 42.5 Mm / Hour 4 Highest Rainfall in 24 hours in last 10 years 91.78 mm 5 Temperature Maximum Minimum Summer 35 - 39 29 - 30 Monsoon 33 - 34 29 - 30 Winter 31 - 33 27 - 28

Source : Primary Data Table – 5.11 Climatic Conditions S.No Year Rainfall (mm) Remarks 1 1999-2000 820.40 June - May 2 2000-2001 965.30 Excess 3 2001-2002 798.20 June - May 4 2002-2003 967.80 Excess 5 2003 –2004 809.50 June - May 6 2004- 2005 963.30 Excess 7 2005 -2006 998.90 Excess 8 2007 -2008 801.66 June - May 9 2008 -2009 713.09 June - May 10 2009- 2010 621.20 June - May Source : Primary Data

158

Table – 5.12 Sources of Irrigation in the Watershed Canals Tanks Wells Name of Ayyacat of Ayyacat of Net Net S. the Classification Total Net less than more than Area Open Wells Bore Wells Area No Revenue Land Length Area 40 40 Ha Irri. Irri. Village No (KM) Irri. Ha by by (Ha) Net Net Net Net No Tank Wells No Area Area No Area No Area

Irri. Irri. Irri. Irri.

Patta 1. Village A Public ------30.696 32 46.044 76.74

2. Patta

Village B

Public

Total ------19 30.696 32 46.044 76.74 Source : Primary Data

159

Table – 5.13 Status of Irrigation Wells in the Watershed

Number of Open Wells Number of Bore Wells

Average Depth Present Water Average Depth Present Water Name of Functional Functional S of Well (m) Level (m) of Well (m) Level (m) the . Revenue No N n Village o Functional Oil With With Oil Val En EB Other Ridge Middle Valley Ridge Middle EB Other Ridge Middle Valley Ridge Middle Valley Engine le gin Motor Motor e

Non 30. 20. 26. 19. 53. 29. 48. 33. Functional Village A 24.7 22.4 22 - - 36.6 28.0 1 18 3 - 6 4 0 4 2 9 2 3

2 Village B 30. 20. 26. 19.

53. 29. 48. 33. Total - - 18 3 - 6 24.7 4 0 22.4 4 22 2 36.6 9 2 3 28.0

Source : Primary Data

160

Table – 5.14 Area Irrigated in the Watershed Name of the Source of Irrigation S. No Revenue Net Area Irrigated Area Irrigated more than once Gross Area Irrigated Village Canals Tanks Wells Canals Tanks Wells Canals Tanks Wells

Village A 4 69.00.0 5 69.00.0 1 Total 69.00.0 69.00.0 Source : Primary Data

161

Table – 5.15 Status of the Existing Water Bodies in the Watershed

Area Water Storage Area Type of Owned by Status Designed No. of Capacity (mcft) actually S.N o Water to be Wells Benefited Body Others Originally Benefited Benefited PWD Union Operating Defunction Present (Ha) (Ha) Panchayat Private Designed

1 Tanks 4 2 2 0.2 20 25

2 Ooranies ------

3 Village ------Tanks Check 4 Dam Source : Primary Data

162

Table – 5.16 Details of De-functional Structure

Type of Year of S.No Nos. Nature of Repair Structure Construction

Soil Erosion, Consists of 1 Tanks 2 1988, 1993 Jungles

2 Ooranines - - -

3 Village Tanks - - -

Source : Primary Data Table – 5.17 Drainage Line Remarks ( Name of Name of the Nature of Length of the laks in which S.No Revenue Village Channels Channel (m) the channel drained must be mentioned) 1 Village A Inflow 960 Irrigation 453 Channel 2 Village B Inflow Irrigation

Channel Source : Primary Data

163

Table – 5.18 Status of Drinking Water Availability in the Watershed

Source of Water Tap Name of the No. of S.No No. of Revenue No. of No of Ground Street House Total Open Village Bore Wells OHT Level Tap Tap (7+8) Wells Tank 1 Village A 18 4 47 42 99 2 Village B Source : Primary Data

SOIL

Soil is a reservoir that stores moisture and nutrients needed by plants to grow well. Plant roots are the pipes that transfer water and nutrients from the soil to plant leaves. How well roots do their job depends on soil quality.

In soils that are loose and rich in organic material, roots spread freely and can pull water and nutrients from a large area. Water is able to enter loose soils easily, and is stored in organic matter until plants need it.

Poor and compacted soils inhibit roots from spreading to reach nutrients and water. Water runs off compacted soils rather than entering the soil. Plants grown in poor soils can be stunted, and are susceptible to damage from disease, insects and drought.

164

Table – 5.19 Soil Characteristics Soil Texture as per feel Survey no method Patta (Where Soil Organic Soil S.No Gravel No. Sample Clay Silt pH Carbon Type % Texture is taken) % % Class Sandy 1 40 1.12 16.78 30.65 52.57 7.26 0.21 Red loam Sandy 2 106 1.10 16.67 30.62 52.71 7.24 0.20 Red loam Sandy 3 65 1.13 16.82 30.69 52.49 7.27 0.23 Red loam Sandy 4 25 1.10 16.67 30.62 52.71 7.24 0.20 Red loam Sandy 5 273 1.12 16.78 30.65 52.57 7.26 0.21 Red loam Sandy 6 321 1.11 16.76 30.67 52.57 7.26 0.21 Red loam Sandy 7 351 1.13 16.82 30.69 52.49 7.27 0.23 Red loam Sandy 8 75 1.12 16.78 30.65 52.57 7.26 0.21 Red loam Sandy 9 96 1.10 16.67 30.62 52.71 7.24 0.20 Red loam Sandy 10 110 1.13 16.82 30.69 52.49 7.27 0.23 Red loam Source : Primary Data

165

Table – 5.20 Cropping and Irrigation Intensity in the Watershed (Ha)

S. No Category Village A Village B Watershed (3+4)

1 Geographical Area 997.685 2 Net Area Sown 841.723 3 Gross Area Sown 935.105 4 Cropping Intensity (3/2x100) 111.094 5 Net Area Irrigated 76.74 6 Gross Area Irrigated 76.74 7 Irrigation Intensity (6/5x100) 100 Source : Primary Data

166

Table – 5.21 Cropping Pattern in the Watershed (Ha) Village A Village B Grand Total S. Crops Irrigated Rainfed No Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed (3+5) (4+6) 1 Cereals 2 Paddy 12.36 12.86 - - 3 Ragi - - 4 Cholam 22.80 - - 5 Maize 16.50 32.94 - - 6 Vegetables 6.84 - - 7 Lemon - - 8 Cambu 13.57 24.41 - - Sweet 9 - - Potato 10 Flower 5.32 10.25 - - 11 Cotton - - Ground 12 18.65 - - Nut 13 Gingelly - - 14 Sunflower 3.5 13.58 - - Total 76.74 116.84 - Source : Primary Data

167

Table – 5.22 Productivity of Crops in the Watershed (Quintal Per Ha) Village A Village B S. No Crops Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed 1 Cereals 2 Paddy 49.5 3 Ragi 4 Cholam - 37 5 Maize - 40 6 Surgarcane - - 7 Lemon - - 8 Tapioca 9 Sweet Potato 10 Flower 11 Cotton - - 12 Ground Nut 18 9 13 Gingelly - - 14 Sunflower - 19.25 Source : Primary Data

SOCIO-ECONOMIC MEASURES

There are a number of direct and indirect outcome of the project that can be associated with the impact of watershed development project. As a result, education, purchasing power of the households, assets position, infrastructural development are likely to improve. Some of the important

168

socio-economic measures (possession of assets, consumer durables, per capita availability of watershed development project produce, improvement in housing pattern, literacy) can be used for impact assessment. Apart from the above social-economic, measures, there are a number of indices that can be used to measure the levels of community participation, rate of adoption of technology, employment generation, change in borrowing pattern, performance of self help groups etc. These indices can also be used to monitor and evaluate the performance and community organization activities in the watershed development project.

ECONOMIC MEASURES

Measures such as (a) Not Present Worth (NPW), (b) Benefit-Cost

Ratio (BCR) and (c) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) are used for assessing the impact of watershed development project.

NET PRESENT WORTH (NPW)

The most straight forward discounted cash flow measures of development project worth is that net present worth (NPW). This is simply the present worth of the incremental net benefit or incremental cash flow stream. It may also computed by finding the difference between the present worth of the benefit stream less the present worth of the cost stream.

169

n B n C NPW  n  n  n  n i1 1 i i1 1 i

Where,

Bn = Benefits in the period

Cn = Cost in the period ‘n’

i = Discount rate

n = number of years

NPW may be interpreted as the present worth of the income stream generated by an investment on a project. The criterion is the NPW must be positive. Suppose the NPW worked out to be negative. Then we would have a case in which, at the discount rate assumed, the present worth of the benefit stream is less than the present worth of the cost Stream i.e. insufficient to recover investment. NPW is also the preferred selection criterion to choose among mutually exclusive projects.

Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR): This is the ratio obtained when the present worth of the benefit stream is divided by the present worth of the cost stream.

n n Bn /1 i BCR   n i1 Cn /1 i

170

The BCR implies that returns per rupee of investments. The criterion is BCR should be greater than one.

INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN (IRR):

This is the rate that makes the net present worth of the incremental net benefit stream or incremental cash flow equal zero. It is the maximum interest that a project could pay for the resources used if the project is to recover its investments and operating costs and still break even.

NPW at LDR IRR  LDR  HDR  LDR Sum of NPW at HDR and LDR signs ignored

Where LDR and HDR is respectively the lower and higher discount rates.

The criterion is to select the project with IRR greater than the opportunity cost of capital. The above measures can be used to assess the individual components of watershed development projects.129 While evaluating the watershed development projects care must be taken into consideration in distinguishing between financial and economic analysis of watershed development projects. Both the financial and economic analyses are not different and both types of analyses are required for project screening and

129 Thomas E.Daves, "Economics of Small -Watershed.. Planning in Minnesota', Technical Bulletin 295- 1974, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, 1974.

171

selection.130 However there is difference in approach since financial analysis deals with the cost and benefit flows from the point of view of a farm as

Opposed to economic analysis deals with the cost and benefits than the financial analysis. The methods never the less differ in several important ways. A farm is interested in financial profit and the stability of the profit, while society or government is concerned with much wider objectives such as food self sufficiency, rural employment, poverty alleviation and resulting net benefits to society as a whole. The two analysis also differ on account of the basis used for valuing inputs and outputs from a given project. The resulting cost and benefits are not necessarily the same under the two types of analysis. Financial analysis includes as costs at payments that reduce the monetary resources of the project, and considers as benefits or revenues all receipts that increase the project's financial resources. Economic analysis treats as costs only those payments reduce the nation's real resources, and as benefits only those receipts which increase the nation's real resources.

Therefore, the objectives of the two analysis are different.

130 K.Palanisami, "Financial Analysis in Agricultural Project Planning", In National Short term Training on Irrigation in Agriculture: Planning and Budgeting" (eds.) K.Palanisami, C.paulraj and A.Mohamed Ali, 16- 17, July, 1997, Tamil nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.3.

172

COST AND BENEFIT ESTIMATION IN WATERSHED

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EVALUATION

The watershed development activities are largely financed by the

Central, State governments, International development agencies and NGOs.

Therefore, the applicable view point for project evaluation is that of the society as whole. The primary enter on for project evaluation is whether the resources expended are allocated so that the resources will yield as high a return in social benefits as they would in alternative uses. The general objective is maximization social welfare. Operationally, this requires that the sum of all project benefits, wherever they accrue, be equal tc or greater than all project costs wherever they fall.

PROCEDURE FOR COST ESTIMATION

The cost of implementing various soil and water conservation measures in a watershed development project are classified as installation, operation and maintenance and induced costs.

 Installation costs/Establishment costs - Project installation costs

include costs of construction of various engineering structures,

establishment of tree plantations etc. Planning costs are almost borne

by the project implementing agency and are not included in the cost of

individual projects.

173

 Operation and maintenance costs - The basic assumption

underlying estimation of operation and maintenance costs is that

works of improvement must be operated and maintained so that they

will deliver throughout the life of the project the full benefits for

which they were designed. These costs involve largely maintenance,

including annual and periodic repairs and replacement of any project

components expected to have a lifetime shorter than the project.

Typically the operation costs include the costs of regulating water

levels or flows using manually operated gates and administration and

servicing.

 Induced costs - It is defined as all uncompensated adverse effects in

goods and services caused by the construction or operations of a

project. Examples of such costs include production losses in excess of

estimated damages to lands used by the project, detrimental

downstream effects, and damages to wildlife resources.

 In addition to the project costs, the associated costs - classified as

non-project costs can be included in the evaluation of watershed

development projects. The associated costs are costs over and above

project costs necessary to attain the benefits attributed to watershed

development projects. The two types of associated costs generally

174

considered are costs of changing land use pattern eg.land clearing and

increased on farm production costs necessary to achieve increased

output.

 Total costs not all costs estimated for a watershed development

project are included when total costs are arrived. Though the

associated costs are included in project benefit-cost analyses, they are

not include with other costs on the cost side. Rather, they are treated

as negative benefits and are subtracted from gross project benefits.

Before annual total project costs can be determined, installation

establishment costs must be converted to an annual basis. This is done

by amortising capital expenditure over the project life period.

PROCEDURE FOR BENEFIT ESTIMATION

In evaluating the watershed development project enough care must be taken into account in estimating the benefits of the project The benefits include both direct and indirect benefits. The direct benefits include increased production reduction in die cost of inputs used, increased income through enhanced employment level increased availability of fuelwood, fodder etc., The indirect benefits include drought mitigation benefits improvement in soil fertility, reduction of water loss, increased recreational

175

benefits etc The total benefits of the projects can then be arrived to assess the economic feasibility of the watershed development project.

Realising the potential and importance of Watershed development and their likely impact on the economy, enough efforts have been taken to identify and develop indicators for proper monitoring and evaluation of

Watershed development projects. This will be useful for the researchers, government agencies and other agencies involved in monitoring and evaluation of watershed development projects.

In order to meet the rising needs of food grains and also to restore ecological balance and generating employment, National Watershed

Development Project for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA) has been launched in

Seventh Five Year Plan covering 16 states including the state of Assam. The socio-economic survey in most of the watersheds in Assam has been completed. However, untill now no appropriate strategies have been drawn and development programmes undertaken for development of agriculture in these watersheds.

A simple random sampling technique without replacement was used to select the ultimate unit of sample. A sample of 101 farmers of which 50 marginal (less than 1.00 ha), 25 small (1.01 to 2.01 ha), 16 medium (2.01 to

176

3.00 ha) and 10 large (above 3.00 ha) was selected from 10 randomly selected villages of the watershed. The primary data has been collected with the help of a pre-tested schedule especially designed for the study through personal interview. The secondary data on various aspects of the watershed were collected from the District Agriculture Office.

PROJECT PLANNING AND EVALUATION

For integrated development involving the various productive activities, such as, crops, animal and other allied activities suitable for the watershed, both short term (5 years) and long term (10 years and above) projects has been prepared for various size groups of sampled farms and also for the entire watershed considering the present land utilisation as well as the projected utilisation of cultivable waste land subject to the conditions necessary for operationalisaion of strategies.

The project prepared was evaluated for financial feasibility with the help of the following criteria.

(1) Net Present Value (NPV): The net present value of an investment is the discounted value of all cash inflows less all cash outflows of the project during its life time.

t BnCn NPV   n n1 1 r

177

(2) Internal Rate of Return (IRR): The internal rate of return is that rate which makes present value of benefits equal to the present value of costs or reduces the present value to zero.

t BnCn IRR   n  0 n1 1 r

(3) Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR): The Benefit-cost ratio of an investment is the ratio of discounted value of all such outflows during the life of the project.

t n  Bn /1 r n1 BCR  t n Cn /1 r n1

Where, Bn is the benefit in each year, Cn is the cost in each year, t is the project life and r is the discount rate.

The existing and projected scenario of land utilisation, cropping pattern, strategies and conditions of operationalisation of strategies for the entire watershed is presented. The projected scenario showed a marked increase of 93.17 per cent in gross cropped area reflecting an increase of 121

V per cent in cropping intensity. Investment is made for conservation and harvesting of water in ponds and ditches and utilisation of ground water where water level, is beyond the reach of roots zone, through installation of

178

shallow tube-wells. This in turn will help in bringing about substantial increase in cropped area in the watershed. Similar finding on increase of cropping intensity because of creation of irrigation facilities was reported by

Guleria (1990), Guha (1990) and Jahagirdar (1990). Projected scenario also recorded increase in the size of dairy by 709.33 units and that of goat and poultry by 1064 units. Area allotted for fishery has also recorded an increase of 64.3 ha over the existing scenario.

INVESTMENT NEEDS

Water harvesting and utilisation devices (STW): In order to create devices for harvesting of water and its effective utilisation throughout the year in the crop fields and orchards, investment will be needed for creation of structures and installation of shallow tube-well as the water level in the watershed usually goes down during the rabi and early summer season The cost of installation of shallow tube-well covering the entire watershed has been worked out to be Rs. 56.5 lakhs to irrigate 642.0 ha of additional gross cropped area.

DAIRY

Total investment needs for purchase of milch cattle (Jersy Cross) and other necessary materials covering the entire farm families of the watershed

179

were observed to be Rs 99.20 lakhs so as to enable each farm family to purchase 2 numbers of milch cow.

FISHERY

Investment needs for fishery for the entire watershed were found to be

Rs 29.35 lakhs which would bring 64.3 ha of additional area under fishery.

In marginal size group of farms, dairy and fishery activities could not be undertaken due to nonavailability of suitable area for these enterprises.

Table 5.25 shows investment needs for water harvesting structures and shallow tube-well, dairy and fishery for various size groups of farms as well as for the entire watershed.

BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

Details of benefit-cost ratios under sixteen simulated situations for both short run (5 years) and long run (10 years) periods a presented in

Table 5.26.

The following chart will clearly reveals the sampling procedure.

180

Table – 5.23

Table showing the Universe and Sampling Size

Universe/Sample Size 1hectare = 2.2472acres

181

Table – 5.24 Existing and Projected Scenario of Land Utilisation and Cropping Pattern, and Strategies and Conditions of Operationalisation of Strategies of the Entire Watershed Land Utilisation and Conditions of Cropping Patterns Particulars Unit Strategies Operationalisation of Exisiting Projected Strategies Scenario Scenario A. Land used by crops 1. Paddy (hyvb) Ha 75.00 415.50 1. Out of total fallow land 1. Water harvesting and 2. Paddy local Ha 430.00 430.00 in season 345.55 ha (65%) creation of irrigation 3. Mustard Ha .61.50 163.00 to be brought under ahu potential for utilisation 4. Groundnut Ha 50.00 rice cultivation through installation of 5. Vegetables Ha 51.50 51.00 STW Gross Cropped Ha 688.00 1329.00 2. Of the total fallow land 2.Timely supply of in rabi season 301.5 ha quality seeds and other (55%) to be brought under inputs cultivation of mustard, and groundnut

Area Cropping % 130.00 251.12 3. Out of total fallows 3.Timely supply of Intensity upland within homestead working capital 20.45 ha to be utilised for 4. Supply of improved dairy, goat, poultry farms livestock breed and fish seed, etc. C. Goat Goat 124.67 1188.67 4. Of the total medium 5. Timely supply of Unit land remaining fallow in all livestock and fish feed, the three seasons 64.3 ha to minerals, vitamins, be brought under fishery medicines etc. D. Poultry Poultry 182.88 1246.88 5. Out of total cultivable 6. Bank ability of dairy Unit waste land 13.0 ha (20%) to and fishery schemes to be brought under bamboo be ensured plantation E. Fishery Ha NA 64.30 6. Orchard development in 7. Incentive support price 60 ha upland of medium and marketing of all and large farms disposable surpluses need to be ensured

Source : Primary Data

Highest benefit-cost ratio was observed in the case of the entire

watershed which might be due to better resource position of the watershed as

182

a whole. Among the size groups, the lowest benefit-cost ratio was observed in the case of marginal farms. This might be due to non inclusion of dairy and fishery projects which are remunerative enterprises in the area under study. The benefit-cost ratio recorded a gradual decrease with the increase of size of farms as the number of dairy units, goat and poultry birds included in the plans of these farms, declined with the increase in size of farms. As the number of farms involved became less and less with the increase in the size of farms, the number of livestock units included in the projects decreased from smaller to larger size groups.

Financial analysis carried out for different simulated situations revealed positive net present values and the benefit-cost ratios greater than unity indicating feasibility of the projects. Similar finding was also reported by Azad el. al (1978) for a minor irrigation project tube-well in Kalyanpur

Block of Kanpur district of Uttar Pradesh.

Hypothesis : 1

There is no association between the benefit cost ratio among the different groups and at different situations.

Null hypothesis is testified and accepted and we reject the alternative hypothesis.

183

Table – 5.25 Investment Needs for Water Harvesting and Shallow Tube- Well, Dairy and Fishery (in lakh Rupees) Particulars Investment Needs Total 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year 5th Year 1. Water Harvesting and

Shallow Tube-Well Marginal Farms 0.60 0.60 0.90 1.05 1.40 4.55 Small Farms 0.60 0.60 0.90 1.05 1.40 4.55 Medium Farms 0.60 0.60 0,90 1.40 1.75 5.25 Large Farms 0.60 0.60 0.90 1.40 1.75 5.25 Entire Watershed 3.00 6.00 9.00 16.45 22.05 56.50 2. Dairy Marginal Farms ------Small Farms 0.32 0.64 0.80 1.20 1.60 4.54 Medium Farms 0.40 0.60 0.60 1.00 1.00 3.60 Large Farms 0.20 0.28 0.40 0.60 0.80 2.28 Entire Watershed 6.00 8,80 14.00 27.50 42.90 99.20 3. Fishery Marginal Farms ------Small Farms 0.20 0.20 0.24 0.40 0.53 1.57 Medium Farms 0.12 0.20 0.40 60 0.66 1.98 Large Farms 0.10 0.20 0.40 - - 0.70 Entire Watershed 2.80 3.60 4.80 800 10.15 29.35 Source : Primary Data Investment needs of the entire watershed programme among the different activities are represented in the above table and one can easily conclude some observations in it.

184

Table – 5.26 Benefit-Cost Ratios of the Proposed Projects Particulars Benefit-Cost Ratios Situations I II III IV V VI VII VIII A. Long Term 1. Marginal 2.14 2.10 2.11 2.07 2.11 2.07 - 2.00 2. Small 2.36 2.34 2.35 2.33 2.35 2.33 2.13 2.38 3. Medium 2.28 2.25 2.26 2-23 2.27 2.23 2.06 2.27 4. Large 2.19 2.15 2.14 2.12 2.17 2.14 2.02 2.18 5. Entire Watershed 2.45 2.43 2.43 2.41 2.44 2.43 2.17 2.37

B. Short Term 1. Marginal 1.80 1.77 1.78 1.76 1.78 1.75 1.69 2. Small 1.90 1.88 1.88 1.87 1.89 1.87 1.72 1.87 3. Medium 1.82 1.80 1.81 1.79 1.81 1.79 1.67 1.81 4. Large 1.77 1.75 1.74 1.72 1.76 1.74 1.66 1.75 5. Entire Watershed 2.00 1.99 1.99 1.97 1.99 1.98 1.81 1.95

IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI 2.06 - 2.13 2.12 2.11 2.11 2.04 2.11 2.32 2.31 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.21 2.33 2.26 2.2) 2.27 2.27 2.26 2.26 2.16 2.24 2.17 2.15 2.18 2.17 2.16 2.16 2.09 2.15 2.40 2.38 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.29 2.41 1.74 - 1.79 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.72 1.76 1.88 1.86 1.89 1.89 1.88 1.89 1.89 1.84 LSI 1.77 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.74 1.76 1.76 1.74 1.76 1.76 1.75 1.75 1.70 1.71 1.97 1.96 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.89 1.94 Source : Primary Data

185

Situation I : Existing level of production and cost.

Situation If through X : Sensitivity analysis with 10 per cent decline in

production of IR 20, IR 8, mustard, potato, wheat,

groundunt, dairy, poultry, goat and fishery

respectively. .

Situation XI through XVI : Sensitivity analysis with 10 per cent increase in cost

of water harvesting and installation of STW,

fertilizer, human labour, bullock labour, other costs

and investment respectively.

Employment Generation

The additional employment opportunities likely to be generated as a result of the projects are shown in Table 5.27. The additional employment opportunities which can be generated in the watershed through these projects would be 66558 mandays. The mandays of employment which will be generated will vary from a minimum of 4596 mandays in marginal to a maximum of 6032.5 mandays in large size group of farms. Employment generation through integrated watershed development approach activities was also adderessed by Bhatia (1990).

186

Table – 5.27

Generation of Employment Opportunities through Implementation of

Projects for Various Size Group of Farms and the Entire Watershed

Additional human labour requirements (Mandays) Total Size Groups 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year 5th Year (Mandays) Marginal 548.5 746.8 893.2 1118.3 1288.2 4595.0 Small 527.5 716.5 945.0 1134.0 1359.1 4682.1 Medium -.662.5 716.5 980.0 1221.5 1790.8 5371.3 Large 620.0 822.0 1180.0 1492.0 1918.5 6032.5 Entire 5680.0 8460.0 11820.0 17410.0 23188.0 66558.0 Watershed Source : Primary Data

Additional Return

Table 5.27 shows additional gross returns realised from crops and livestock enterprises. In the case of entire watershed the additional gross returns from crops, livestock and fishery activities together would be roughly Rs 6 crores.

The study revealed that the existing resource use in the watershed was sub-optimal indicating ample potential for development of agriculture in the watershed. Field crops, livestock, horticulture, and fishery enterprises have been observed to be promising areas which could hopefully be explored by creation of some additional infrastructural facilities like irrigation and

187

through adequate initial investment on dairy, fishery etc. The financial analysis covering the core strategies suggested for development of agriculture in the watershed indicated the viability of the projects undertaken. An investment of approximately Rs. 1.85 crores on irrigation, dairy and fishery would be required for overall agricultural development in the watershed which could in turn generate additional employment to the tune of 66.6 thousand mandays and net return around Rs. 6 crores.

If the entire watershed is covered, substantial amount of fund will have to be injected into the command area. Financial institutions like

NABARD and other commercial banks can play a vital role in providing credit for development of agriculture in the command area.

188

Table – 5.28 Additional Gross Returns Realised from Crops, Dairy and Fishery Enterprises (in lakh Rupees) Additional Gross Returns Particulars Total 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year 5th Year 1. Crops Marginal Farms 0.568 0.958 1.364 1.869 2.423 7.182 Small Farms 0.525 0.883 1.368 1.170 2.437 6.983 Medium Farms 0.839 0.931 1.403 2.373 3.318 8.864 Large Farms 0.722 1.173 1.782 2.325 3.232 9.234 Entire Watershed 8.052 12.475 18.069 26.566 38.137 103.299 2. Livestock and Fishery Marginal Farms 0.690 0.725 1.100 1.163 2.087 5.775 Small Farms 1.593 3.372 4.295 4.630 6.878 20.768 Medium Farms 1.755 3.280 3.645 4.116 4.580 17.376 Large Farms 0.955 1.900 2.995 1.850 2.400 10.10 Entire Watershed 29.413 56.462 85.925 126.925 199.595 498.32 Source : Primary Data ‘p’ statistic value = 0.48 The study is expected to be helpful for the policy makers, field functionaries, financial institutions as well as for the beneficiary farmers of the watershed.

Hypothesis : 2 There is a high degree of dependency between the level of employment generated among the different groups of farmers.

Hence the statistic ‘p’ value of ‘t’ statistic is = 0.48 which shows that the calculated value is less than ‘p’ value 0.48 > 1.18. We accept the null hypothesis.

189

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The concept of watershed management envisages planning agricultural activities with due respect to conservation of natural resources of soil and water, taking watershed as a hydrologic unit. The specific objectives of the research are given below: a. To quantify the impact of watershed technologies on agriculture

productivity in respect of major crops and production of userfructs like

fodder, grass, fuel wood etc. b. Evaluation of achievements in enhancing in-situ moisture conservation,

reduction in run off, flash floods and in checking erosion of top soil. c. To measure the socio-economic development of the community directly

or indirectly dependent on the watershed. d. To evaluate the impact of watershed technology on restoration of

ecological balance in the project area. e. To examine as to how can people's participation in watershed programme

and management of resources could be ensured.

Based on these objectives, following twelve impact variables adopted by Deshpande and Narahayanmoorthy (1999) while reviewing the implementation of NWDPRA across studies in India, supplemented by area specific variables outlined under DPAP projects for J&K State are examined.

190

Table – 5.29 Impact Variables for Evaluating Agriculture Productivity in Sokkanathapuram Watershed Programme S.no Impact variables 1. Improvement in productivity per hectare 2. Improvement in employment 3. Shift towards higher remunerative crops 4. Cost-benefit analysis 5. Adoption level of new technology 6. Effectiveness of administrative machinery 7. Efficiency of the multi-disciplinary approach 8. Sustainability of the project 9. Adequacy of the project 10. Relevance of the project 11. Environmental impact a) Moisture conservation b) Biomass generation c) Ground water repletion d) Arresting water degradation 12. People's participation a) Planning process b) Implementation c) Sustenance Source : Primary Data

191

HEDONIC PRICING ANALYSIS

Hedonic price function relates to an individual's willingness to pay for environmental attributes, specified between the market prices and all the relevant attributes of the commodity. For the estimation of the hedonic price, the marginal implicit price of the environmental attribute needs to be considered. Thus it includes a price paid for a better environmental attribute, in the absence of which the value of land is equal to the cost of the land without appropriate marks for environmental benefits. In the present study, the hedonic price function was employed to estimate the marginal price of the different attributes of the Water Treated Area. The preliminary analysis inferred from the primary data revealed that the prices of the agricultural land had shown variations with respect to the extent of watershed activity in the area. Hence, the hedonic pricing function was employed to study the impact of land quality, water quality, proximity of farm household to the water harvesting structures, depth of water table in the open wells, the proportion of cropland to the total land area and the value of the farm products in the farm on the price of the agricultural land.

192

The hedonic price function employed in this study was of the following form.

PRICE =f(LQI, WQI, PROX, PCLA, WTDEP, VAP) Where,

PRICE = Value of agricultural land in rupees per hectare

LQI = Land quality index (1- Poor, 2- Average,3- Good)

WQI = Water quality index (1-Poor, 1- Average, 3- Good)

PROX = Proximity of sample farm to the watershed (metre)

PCLA = Proportion of cropland area to total farmland area (%)

WTDEP = Depth of water table in open-wells in the farm (metre)

VAP = Value of farm products (rupees per hectare)

Key Findings of the Field Level Observations

The details of the soil and water conservation structures adopted by the sample respondents and the unit cost of the conservation structures are presented in Table 5.30.

193

Table – 5.30

Unit cost of the water harvesting structures

Soil and water Number of Unit cost of the conservation structures structures adopted structure (Rs.) Major check dam 4 70000 Minor check dam 6 8000 Percolation pond 7 75000 Contour bunding 10 998(Rs/ha) Land leveling 10 3200(Rs/ha) Source : Primary Data

SOIL AND WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES- COST

ECONOMICS

The cost economics of the water harvesting structures in the study area were analyzed to assess the returns on investment on water harvesting structures. Hence, discounted financial measures such as Net Present Value

(NFV), Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) were calculated. The results of the analysis are reported crop wise for different water harvesting structures in the Table 5.31.

194

Table – 5.31

Cost Economics of Water Harvesting Structures

Crops Maize Chillies Onion Cocounut Major Check Dam BCR 1.29 1.42 1.20 1.58 NPV(Rs.) 9445 11426 8256 13677 IRR(%) 23 29 19 35 Minor Check Dam BCR 1.50 1.57 1.27 1.71 NPV (Rs.) 10256 11048 7482 12633 IRR(%) 32 35 22 40 Percolation Pond BCR 1.54 1.52 1.08 1.63 NPV (Rs.) 3382 13134 6794 3679 IRR(%) 32.24 32.12 14.3 37 Contour Bunding BCR 1.32 1.44 1.28 1.18 NPV (Rs.) 915 994 796 678 IRR(%) 27 29 22 18.23 Land Levelling BCR 1.19 1.35 1.43 _ NPV (Rs.) 976 1768 2164 IRR (%) 19 16 23 _ Source : Primary Data

195

From the Table 5.31, it could be elaborated that the BCR ranged from

1.08 for Percolation Pond to 1.71 for minor check dams. The BCR for percolation ponds varied from 1.08 for onion to 1.63 for Coconut. The range of BCR for contour bunding for the above crops varied from 1.18 for coconut to 1.44 for Chillies. The BCR for major check dams though above unity were low ranging from 1.20 to 1.58 for onion and Coconut. The reason for this could be attributed to the higher investment in the major check dams and the longer benefit realization period of the structure.

The NPV of crops for the different water harvesting structures reflect the impact of implementation of different harvesting structures. It is noticed from the Table 5.31, that among the water harvesting structures, major check dams had the highest NPV of Rs.13677 followed by percolation pond with the NPV of Rs.13134 for chillies. The major check dams had an NPV ranging from Rs.8256 for onion to Rs.13677 for coconut. Contour bunding and land levelling showed an NPV ranging from Rs.678 for coconut to

Rs.2164 for onion.

The minor check dam had the highest IRR (40.12 per cent for coconut). It was then followed by percolation pond with an IRR value of 37 per cent for coconut.

196

The major check dam gave an IRR value of 35 per cent for coconut.

However, contour bunding and land levelling had the IRK values ranging from 16 to 29 per cent. The BCR, NPV and IRR values for conservation structures like major check dam and minor check dams for coconut were found to be high. The reason for this could be attributed to increased realization of benefits by the coconut crop under these structures. The overall results on feasibility analysis for the various water harvesting structures, which include contour bunding, land levelling, minor check dams, major check dams and percolation ponds across the selected crops are encouraging and reiterated the advantages of the water harvesting structures in the watershed areas.

COST AND RETURNS AND PRODUCTIVITY OF CROPS

It was understood that the cropping intensity of the sample farms in

WTA was higher (114.31 per cent ) than the sample farms in NTA (102.90 per cent ). Enhanced cropping intensity in WTA could be attributed by the meticulous adoption of water harvesting structures. The comparative costs and returns of sample farms between WTA and NTA were analysis by calculating the cost and returns of some of the dominant crops discretely and presented in Table 5.32. The percentage difference in costs and returns was

197

also computed individually to understand the efficiency of the water harvesting structures. It could also be known from the table, that coconut, maize, sorghum, chillies and onion had shown a positive additional net return of 27.35, 31.68, 13.06, 24.54 and 28.06 per cent , respectively. Thus it is clear that the net returns of major crops in the study area had been found high in the sample farms of WTA than the sample farms in NTA.

198

Table – 5.32 Table showing the Cost - Benefit Analysis of Different Crops in Water Treated Area and Non – Water Treated Area Coconut Maize Chillies Sorghum Onion Particulars WTA NTA WTA NTA WTA NTA WTA NTA WTA NTA Preparatory j j 536.66 512.63 472.22 422.56 550.00 500.00 554.54 500.00 Cultivation Labour 2854.23 2120.25 2694.66 2428.41 2844.40 2520.28 800.00 730.00 3110.00 2565.00 Seed j j 693.00 450.00 211.11 195.84 530.00 470.00 1359.09 1124.61 Manures 2065.38 1874.63 1200.00 900.00 10005.60 982.54 j j 381.81 250.41 Fertilizers 1489.23 1290.26 922.00 678.58 1025.60 910.75 j j 1059.09 785.64 Plant Production 1471.92 854.31 250.00 200.00 344.44 254.21 404.54 352.19 Total cost 8290.76 6139.45 6046.33 5169.62 6245.00 5286.18 1980.00 1700.00 6969.07 5577.85 Total Return 61211.50 47692.10 20966.70 16500.00 21456.00 17500.00 5010.00 4380.00 22772.70 17996.50 Net return 52920.80 41552.70 14920.30 11330.40 15211.00 12213.80 3030.00 2680.00 15903.70 12418.70 Percentage Difference 27.35 31.68 24.54 13.06 28.06 (Net return) Source : Primary Data WTA – Water Treated Area

NTA – Non Treated Area

199

PRODUCTIVITY AND YIELD DIFFERENCE

The productivity of major crops and their yield difference were

analyzed to study the differences in yield among the sample farms in the

WTA and NTA. The results are reported in Table 5.33.

Table - 5.33

Productivity of Major Crops and their Yield Difference (Kg/lia)

Percentage of Crops WTA NTA Yield Difference Coconut (in numbers) 14170 12280 15.39 Maize 4869 4194 16.08 Green Chillies 10640 9350 13.00 Onion 31710 28801 9.20 Sorghum 747 694 7.64 Source : Primary Data

It could be observed from the Table 5.33, that the yield of maize

showed the highest increase in productivity (16.08 per cent) followed by

coconut (15.39 per cent). It is also clear that the crops like chillies, onion and

sorghum also indicated increase in productivity to an extent of 13.00 per

cent, 9.20 per cent and 7.64 per cent, respectively. Thus it could be

concluded that water-harvesting structures had a significant impact on the

productivity of the crops.

200

WATER QUALITY

The water quality of the sample farms in the WTA was assessed through collection of opinions from the sample respondents. The respondent's opinion for different quality attributes of water are tabulated for easy interpretation. From the Table 5.34 it could be interpreted that about 37 per cent of farmers in WTA perceived that the water quality had been good, while only 21.67 per cent of farmers in NTA observed that the quality of water was good, which shows the indirect benefit received by the adopters of water harvesting structures in WTA. About 47 per cent of the farmers in

WTA perceived that the water quality was medium while only 43.33 per cent of the farmers in NTA reported that the water quality was medium.

Thus it could be concluded that the overall quality of water in WTA had been superior to NTA.

Table - 5.34 Opinion of the Sample Farmers about Water Quality WTA NTA Water Quality Number Percentage Number Percentage Good 22 36.67 13 32.50 Medium 28 46.66 20 51.50 Poor 10 16.67 8 17.00 60 100 41 101 Source : Primary Data

201

In hedonic pricing analysis, the implicit prices for the various qualitative and environmental characteristics were estimated by looking at the real markets in which that distinctiveness are effectively traded.

Differences in these qualitative features of the land were thought to affect the flow of benefit from the property implicitly. Hence, to appraise the qualitative attributes of enhanced land use for agriculture and also to evaluate the improved values of the cropland, the data collected were subjected to hedonic pricing analysis. The results of the hedonic pricing estimates are represented in the Table 5.35.

From the Table 5.35, it could be noted that the coefficient of WQI was positive and significant at ten per cent probability level. It could be inferred that an increase in water quality resulted in significant positive change in the land value in the WTA. The distance of the sample farmer from the water harvesting structures showed a negative influence on land value but it was not significant. It could also be observed that proportion of cropland to the total land area had exerted probability. It could be discussed that for every one-hectare increase in the proportion of cropland to total land holding, the land value would increase by Rs. 57432 by keeping the other variables constant. This variable had the expected sign. Similarly, the depth of water table showed a negative influence on the land value. However, this variable

202

was not significant. As expected, the product value of the sample farm showed a positive relationship with land value and was significant at one per cent level of probability.

CHART NO.1

OPINION OF THE SAMPLE FARMERS ABOUT WATER QUALITY

(a) Water Treated Area (WTA)

16.67

36.67

46.66

Good Medium Poor

203

(b) Non Treated Area (NTA)

32.5

51.5 Good Medium Poor

204

Table - 5.35

Hedonic Pricing Estimates for WTA and NTA Crops Coefficients for WTA Coefficients for NTA Intercept 483740 265396.6* (17.7451) (11.3885) WQI 5086.89*** 23065.18* (1.6364) (4.7328) PROX -45.10 -24.05289 (-1.5603) (-4.5151) PCLA 57432.12* 14260.58 (2.7300) 0.8160) WTDEPTH -716.67 -1136.276* (-1.4886) (-3.2458) VAP 0.178146* 0.002028 (4.2228) (0.0561) Source : Primary Data Figures in parenthesis indicate the t Value. * Significant at one per cent level, ** Significant at five per cent level *** Significant at ten per cent level.

The Table 35 also explains the hedonic pricing estimates for farms in NTA.

PRICE =f(LQI, WQI, PROX, PCLA, WTDEP, VAP) Where,

PRICE = Value of agricultural land in rupees per hectare

LQI = Land quality index (1- Poor, 2- Average,3- Good)

205

WQI = Water quality index (1-Poor, 1- Average, 3- Good)

PROX = Proximity of sample farm to the watershed (metre)

PCLA = Proportion of cropland area to total farmland area (%)

WTDEP = Depth of water table in open-wells in the farm (metre)

VAP = Value of farm products (rupees per hectare)

It could be implied that for every unit increase in product value, the land value would increase by Re. 0.17 by keeping the other variable constant. Thus, from the above analysis, it could be concluded that the water quality, proportion of cropland to the total land parcel and product value showed a significant influence on the land value. Though, the distance and water table depth exerted a positive influence on the land value, the estimates of them were not significantly different at five per cent level.

Since the sample farms of NTA were located outside the geo-

hydrological boundaries of the watershed, the sample farms did not

experience any of the effects of the watershed. From the Table 5.35, it

could be observed that the coefficient for water quality was positive and

significant at one per cent probability level. It could also be implied that

an increase in water quality resulted in increase in land value by Rs.23065

by keeping the other variables constant in the NTA. The distance of the

206

sample farmers from the water harvesting structures showed a negative influence on land value and was significant at one per cent level of probability. The reason for this could be attributed to the higher implicit value that the sample farmers in the NTA assign to the proximity to watershed components. Thus it could be inferred that for every one meter increase in distance from the water harvesting structures major and minor check dams, percolation ponds the land value decreased by Rs. 24.05 by keeping the other variables constant. The proportion of cropland to the total land holding though positive was not significant. It could be explained that for every one hectare increase in the proportion of cropland to total land holding, the land value increased by 14261 rupees by keeping the other variables constant. The depth of water table showed a negative influence on the land value and was significant to one per cent level of probability. It could be implied that for every one meter increase in depth of water table, the land value decreased by 1136 rupees by keeping the other variables constant. The product value of the sample farms reveals the positive relationship with land value. Thus from the above analysis, it could be concluded that the water quality, proportion of cropland to the total land holding and product value showed a significant influence on the land value.

207

GARRETT'S RANKING STATISTICAL TESTS

Garrett's ranking technique was applied to rank a set of benefits obtained from the impact of watershed development activities. The order of merit assigned by the sample respondents in the WTA was transmuted into score swing the formula given by Garret and Woodworth (1977).

The results of the Garrett scores obtained for different activities are tabulated in the Table 5.36 for easy understanding.

208

Table – 5.36

Garrett’s Score value for the benefits Obtained from Different

Watershed Activities

Benefits Mean Garret Score Improvement in soil and water conservation 78 Enhanced soil fertility 66 Change in cropping pattern 57 Increased croppnig intensity 50 Yield enchancement 43 Ground water recharge 34 Resource conservation 22 Source : Primary Data

It could be inferred from the above table that among the benefits listed, the highest score was recorded for soil and water conservation 78. This in turn had indicated that the construction of different water conservation measures such as percolation ponds and check dams have greater impacts on the conservation of water and controlling of soil erosion. This benefit was then followed by the improvement in soil fertility with a score of 66. The results of the table also ranked the other benefits like cropping pattern, cropping intensity, yield increase, ground water recharge and resource conservation with Garrett scores of 57, 50, 43, 34, and 22, respectively.

209

Since the model uses panel data, in order to avoid spurious results, we first establish the integrating properties of each variable using panel unit root test. It is well accepted that the commonly used time series unit root test like

Dicky-Fuller (DF), Augmented Dicky-Fuller and Phillips and Peron (PP) tests lack power in distinguishing the unit root null from stationary alternative, and that the using panel data unit root tests is one way of increasing the power of unit root tests based on single time series (Maddala and Wu, 1999). Recent literature suggests that panel based unit root tests have higher power than unit root tests based on individual time series. A number of such tests have appeared in the literature. Recent developments in the panel unit root tests include: Levin, Lin and Chu (LLC) (2002), Im,

Pesaran and Shin (IPS) (2003), Maddala and Wu (1999).

From among different panel unit root tests developed in the literature,

LLC and IPS are die most popular. Both of the tests are based on the ADF principle. However, LLC assumes homogeneity in the dynamics of the autoregressive coefficients for all panel members. In contrast, the IPS is more general in the sense that it allows for heterogeneity in these dynamics.

It is particularly reasonable to allow for such heterogeneity in choosing the lag length in ADF tests when imposing uniform lag length is not appropriate.

In addition, slope “heterogeneity is more” reasonable in the case where cross

210

item data is used. In this case, heterogeneity arises because of differences in economic conditions and degree of development in each country. As a result, the test developers have shown that this test has higher power than other tests in its class, including LLC. IPS test is used for panel unit root test in this paper. IPS unit root test, which is based on individual-specific Dickey-

Fuller tests, allows for heterogeneity of trends and of the lag coefficient under the alternative hypothesis of stationarity as well as heteroskedasticity, serial correlation and non-normality. IPS test is based on the following equation:

yi,t  i ii,t1 y   i,j y i,tj   i t it j 1 where yit (i=l, 2,.....,N; t=l,2,...... ,T) is the series for panel member i over period t, pi is the number of lags in the ADF regression, and the error terms

i,t are assumed to be independently and normally distributed random variables for all i's and t's with zero means and finite heterogeneous

2 variances i . Both i and the lag order  in eqn. (3) are allowed to vary across sections (countries). The null hypothesis is i=0, while the alternative hypothesis is i<0.

211

Panel Cointegration Test

The available techniques for panel cointegration tests are residual based tests such as “Engle Granger”. Similar to single time series, these approaches test the residuals from the estimation for stationarity. The panel cointegration tests suggested by Pedroni (1999) extend the residual based

Engle and Granger (1987) cointegration strategy. This formulation allows to investigate heterogeneous panels, in which heterogeneous slope coefficients, fixed effects and individual specific deterministic trends are permitted. In its most simple form, this consists of taking no cointegration as the null hypothesis and using the residuals derived from the panel analogue of an Engle and Granger (1987) static regression to construct the test statistic and tabulate the distributions. Pedroni's tests are based on the estimated residuals from the following long run model:

Yit i i t 1it 2i X 2it ...  mi X mit  it

i = 1, 2, ...,N, t = 1, 2, ...... ,T, m = 1, 2, .T.M where T is the number of observations over time, N is the total number of individual units in the panel and M is the number of regression variables.

With tests for the null of no cointegration being based on the residuals

ˆ it

ˆit  i ˆ it 1  v it

212

This has the potential for a considerable amount of heterogeneity through the fixed effects aspect, i the individual item specific effect, it and by the different slope coefficients, all of which could vary across individual countries.

The way the dynamics are taken into account to correct for serial correlation depends in Pedroni on the model that is used. First of all he constructs three non-parametric tests that correct for serial correlation:

(a) a non-parametric variance ratio statistics;

(b) a test analogous to the Phillips and Perron (PP) rho-statistics; and

He also constructs a fourth parametric test similar to the ADF-type test.

Pedroni (1997, 1999) has developed seven tests for cointegration in a panel context. Four of the tests are within-dimension statistics and three are between-dimension statistics. The four within-dimension statistics are based on pooling the autoregressive coefficients across the different countries for the unit root tests on the estimated residuals. Whereas the three between dimension statistics are based on estimators that simply average the individual estimated coefficients for each country. For all seven tests, the null hypothesis is no cointegration. Endogeneity of the regressors is allowed

213

as is considerable heterogeneity in the dynamics, fixed effect and the cointegration vectors for the i individual in the panel.

Given i represents the autoregressive coefficient of the residuals in the ith cross-section, then the specification of the null and alternative hypothesis for the pooled (within-dimension) estimation are the following:

H0: i = 1 for all i

Ha: i =  < l for all i.

Whereas for the heterogeneous (between dimension) they are given by:

H0: i = 1 for all i

Ha: i

Under an appropriate standardisation, based on the moments of the vector of Brownian motion functional, these statistics are distributed as standard normal. The standardisation is given by:

K K   N / v  NT   

Where KNT is the respective panel group cointegration statistic, n and v are the expected mean and variance of the corresponding statistic both of which depend upon the number of regressors in the model and whether a

214

constant and or a time trend is included and are computed in Pedroni (1999).

Note that under the alternative hypothesis, the panel variance statistics diverges to positive infinity and thus the right tail of the standard normal distribution needs to be used to reject the null hypothesis of no cointegration.

For the other six tests these diverge to negative infinity, and large negative values imply that the null hypothesis of no cointegration is rejected.

The small sample size and power properties of all seven tests are discussed in Pedroni (1997). He finds that size distortions are minor, and power is high for all statistics when the time span is long. For shorter panels, the evidence is more varied. However, in the presence of a conflict in the evidence provided by each of the statistics, Pedroni shows that the group-

ADF statistic and panel ADF statistic generally perform best.

Panel Causality

Pedroni's heterogeneous panel cointegration method tests only for the existence of long run relationships. The tests indicate the presence or absence of long run links between the variables, but do not indicate the direction of causality when the variables are cointegrated. We carry out a multivariable panel causality test based on the methodology developed by

Engle and Granger (1987). Following Banerjee, Dolado, Juan, and Hendry

215

(1993), Shiu and Lam (2004) and Wigren and Wilhelmsson (2007), a general dynamic regression model in the form of error correction model

(ECM) is equal to:

GDPit  j 1iit e 1 1ik EXP itk   2ik IMP itk    3ik GCF itk    4ik LAB itk   I e it k k k k

EXPit  2j wiit e  1 1ik GDP itk   2ik IMP itk    3ik GCF itk    4ik LAB itk   I e 2it k k k k

where  denotes first differencing and k is the lag length and is chosen optimally for each item using a step down procedure up to a maximum of three lags.

The sources of causation can be identified by testing for the significance of the coefficients of the dependent variables in Eqs. (7) and

(8). First, the short-run effect can be considered transitory. For short-run causality, we can test

H0: Plik=0 for all

i and k in Eq. (7)

or 1ik=0 for all i and k in Eq. (8).

Next, the long-run causality can be tested by looking at the significance of the speed of adjustment , which is the coefficient of the error correction term, eit-1. The significance of  indicates the long-run

216

relationship of the cointegrated process, and so movements along this path can be considered permanent. For long-run causality, we can test H0: 1i=0 for all i in Eq. (7) or H0: 2i =0 for all i in Eq. (8). As we are using panel data, a fixed effect model will be used to account for idiosyncratic item effects (variable I in equation Eqn. (5)). This is indeed important as mentioned by Holtz-Eakin (1994).

In order to draw meaningful inference, statitistical properties of data series are tested. First, the order of integration in each of the variables is tested by using IPS panel unit root test. The results of the panel unit root tests (with trend and without trend) for each of our variables are shown in

Table 5.37. It is clear that the IPS panel test do not reject the null of unit roots for the panel at level. On the other hand, the null of unit roots is strongly rejected at the 1 per cent significance level for all series at their first difference. The results strongly support the conclusion that the series are stationary only after being differenced once. Hence, the IPS test indicates, that the series are integrated of order one, i.e., 1(1) at the 1 per cent significance level.

217

Table - 5.37 The Im, Pesaran and Shin (IPS) Panel Unit Root Test

Without Trend With Trend Order of Variables At level 1st. Diff. At level 1st. Diff. Integration

X1 3.95 -5.63* 1.28 -5.31** 1(1)

X2 0.84 -4.55** 0.12 -3.62** 1(1)

X3 0.41 -5.17** -0.13 -4.31** 1(1)

X4 8.49 -2.65** -1.32 -1.66* 1(1)

X5 -0.33 -5.13** -0.63 -3.49** 1(1) Source : Primary Data Notes: the critical values for the panel unit root test at the 1 per cent 5 per cent and 10 per cent Levels of significance are -2.326, -1.645 and -1.282 respectively. **denotes significance at 1 per cent level and *denotes significance at 5 per cent level. Ln stands for log transformation.

Having established that all the variables are integrated of the first order, the second step in testing the relationship between the variables is to test for the cointegration relationship between the variables, in order to determine if there is a long-run relationship. The test for the long-run relationship between watershed and non-watershed area along with other variables is conducted using Pedroni's heterogeneous panel test. The result of Pedroni (1999) cointegration test with time dummy, with time dummy and trend and without time dummy and trend is presented in Table 5.37.

218

Hypothesis -3

There is a perfect high degree of positive correlation between activity wise outlay and experiment of the watershed programme.

It can be seen from the test results in the table that most of the computed panel and group test statistics are well below the critical value and therefore they reject the null hypothesis of no cointegration. Out of seven tests, four tests suggest for long run equilibrium relationship. But three other panel cointegration tests (panel v-stat, panel rho-stat and group rho-stat) do not reject the null of no cointegration. Given the fact that group - ADF statistic and panel - ADF statistic test rejects the null of no cointegration, we can conclude that there exist cointegrating relationships for the panel of data.

Table - 5.38 Pedroni Panel Cointegration Test Without Trend With Time With Trend and and Time Dummy Dummy Time Dummy panel v-stat -0.14 -0.59 -1.37 panel rho-stat 0.61 1.28 1.13 panel pp-stat -3.44** -4.99 -3.05** panel adf-stat -1.78* -1.87* -2.53** Group rho-stat 1.76 2.35 2.04 Group pp-stat -4.09** -3.55** -4.22** Group Adf-stat -2.26** -1.79* -2.28** Source : Primary Data

219

Notes: the critical value for the panel v-stat at 5 per cent level is 1.645 and far others the critical value at 5 per cent level is -1.645. *" denotes null of no cointegration is rejected at 1 per cent level and * denotes null of no cointegration is rejected at 5 per cent significance level.

Hypothesis -4

There is a significant difference between the production and yield among watershed area and Non watershed area by hedonistic pricing.

Presence of cointegration relationship between the variables suggests that there exist causal relationship between Income and Expenditure at least in one direction and possibly in both directions (Engle and Granger (1987)).

Therefore, after confirming the long run relationship between our variables, we next test for causality hypothesis. For this purpose, we estimate Eq. (7) and (8). The estimations will be carried out on the panel data with fix item effects.

220

Table - 5.39

Panel Causality Test between Two Categories

Direction of No. of Lags i=0: t-statistic i or =0: F- Causality (AIC) (P-value) statistic (P-value) -3.51** 0.86 Category - I 1 (0.00) (0.35) -0.70 0.14 Category - II 1 (0.48) (0.83) Source : Primary Data Notes: **denotes significant at 5 per cent level

The above ‘t’ value of ‘p’ statistic – 3.51 which shows that the calculated value is more than the table value is 3.819. So the result of the experiment does not support the null hypothesis. Therefore Null Hypothesis is rejected.

The result of panel causality test is presented in Table 5.39. Akaike

Information Criteria (AIC) have been used to select the lag length of the model. It is clear that there exist oneway causality running from input to export Therefore, there is evidence of increase in input leads to higher outpurt through the lagged ECM term. However, we do not find short-run causality in any direction.

221

The basic problem of rain fed areas is degradation of natural resource base like soil and water through poor management leading to low productivity, low income and low surplus. This in turn leads to over exploitation of the existing natural resource base like groundwater. Among the natural resources water is the most crucial resource for the existence of living beings. Therefore, in order to obtain sustainable agriculture production as well as to improve soil productivity and ecosystem of vast rain fed agriculture, the efforts to conserve as much rainwater and to prevent soil erosion are considered vital. This can be implemented effectively and economically by adopting various water harvesting structures of cost effective integrated approach. In order to conserve the precious natural resources viz., soil, water etc. and also to sustain the existing resource endowments for future entitlement, the Government of India has formulated water-harvesting structures.

The field level experiences Tiruchirappalli also indicated that the cropping intensity of the sample farms in watershed treated area (WTA) was higher. The financial measures of water harvesting structures also indicated a favourable trend. The water conservation works extend the beneficial effects on recharge of ground water, control soil erosion, and alters the cropping pattern and cropping intensity with positive effects on productivity

222

of the crops. Hence the water harvesting structures may be scaled up and implemented in dry lands on large scale to reap the real benefits of the rainwater harvesting, sustainability of natural resource base and strengthening of economic prosperity of our country.

223

CHAPTER – VI

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND

CONCLUSION

Employment has always been a problem in the village. The principle occupations of the people are dry land agriculture, animal husbandry and casual labour work. However, rainfall being very limited and erratic, agriculture suffers, i.e. best they can take only a single crop which keeps them partially engaged for about 4 months. Lack of fodder makes animal husbandry does not keep them engaged full time. Thus the people mainly depend upon casual labour either in the village itself or outside it.

The Project plans for creation of both wage employment and self employment would be created by engaging people in watershed. Physical works like construction of earthen bunds, form ponds, village ponds, plantation, etc. Self employment would be created by providing the people with cash support in the form of direct livelihood activities like agriculture, animal husbandry and enterprises development.

Rain fall has been scanty but demand for ground water has been increasing all the time. The ground water table thus has depleted over the

224

years. Presently it stands at 20m. Proper harvesting structures and percolation tanks would go long way in increasing water table from 20m in the Pre-Project level to 17m in the Post-project level period.

The village has two dug wells on which they depend for their drinking water. In fact the GoTN (Government of Tamil Nadu) provided so many drinking water schemes to the entire block and district. Even though after the post-project level, due to the renovated and new forming water harvesting structures, the two wells also increasing his water. So, the post project level, people of this watershed, expect has no shortage of drinking water even during summer months. Depending upon the population of the street taps have been provided with OHT's and mini-water tanks with taps provision to cater more persons at a lime.

Agriculture primarily depends upon water. The village surface water is scanty due to low rainfall and ground water is saline. All this can change with the integrated land and water management during the watershed project. The planned earthen bunds would prevent the saline water to mix with sweet water and also help percolate sweet water underground, and preserve some moisture in the soil. This will help in additional area coming

225

under cultivation and increasing productivity too. The farmers can take more than one season of crop. Different varieties of crops can be taken.

The village has quite good livestock population. The interventions like provision of good quality cows and goats, the establishment of a fodder bank and other such related activities would raise up the dairy development in the watershed. It is expected that the post-project level period would see a substantial increase in livestock population and yield from them.

The Soil Conservation Scheme envisages various soil conservation measures to ameliorate the problem of soil erosion and to conserve manage and develop soil and water resources in the region. The Soil Conservation

Measures are mainly designed by applying engineering principles to land management. The engineering measures are necessitated as the velocity of runoff and discharge become high and agronomical measures alone are insufficient to handle the flow and control erosion. The rehabilitation measures recommended under soil conservation works include the essential and most appropriate components which are the best erosion mitigation techniques preferred in the selected watersheds. These measures are absolutely demand driven, location specific, cost effective and purely reflect the felt needs of the watershed community.

226

A small water body made either by embankment construction or excavating pit gugout in the lowest point of the field where water tends to accumulate. These ponds can be constructed to expose a minimum water surface area in proportion to volume. They are advantages in the places where evaporation losses are high and water is scarce. The ideal location for a farm pond is the lowest point of the private field in middle and lower reaches so that any excess water in the field can be stored here.

PERCOLATION POND

 Embankment constructed across natural depression / valley in slopes

between 4% to 8% to store run off for percolation. It is ideal for

location in upper and middle reaches of watershed areas. The soil

should have good infiltration and sub surface drainage properties.

 These ponds can be constructed to expose a minimum water surface

area in proportion to volume. They are advantages in the places where

evaporation losses are high and water is scarce.

 The ideal location for a farm pond is the lowest point of the private

field in middle and lower reaches so that any excess water in the field

can be stored here.

227

DRAINAGE LINE TREATMENT WORKS

 Gullies / Drainage Lines are the result of excessive and unrestricted

erosive action of flowing water from heavy rains pouring down over

the slopes. They develop very quickly on hill slopes and unchecked

scouring is allowed to continue. They have cumulative effect on

floods and silting of reservoirs besides constitute serious menace to

downstream lands. It is therefore necessary to treat the eroded

drainage lines of the hill slopes with appropriate Soil Conservation

Measures so that they can be vegetated.

 The gullies are reclaimed by constructing gully plugs of temporary

and permanent nature. The gully plugs with rubble stones random

rubble when constructed in series across the gullies reduce the steep

gradient and transform the longitudinal gradient of the gully.

Reduction in slope reduces the velocity of flow and silt carrying

capacity of stream causing the deposition of silt in the gully bed.

228

GULLY PLUG

 Small structures erected across gullies to prevent further widening and

to facilitate the filling of such gullies. These structures may be made

out of locally available materials like earth, rubble, masonry, sand

bags, gabion technology or vegetation.

 Gullies are formed due to erosion of top soil by the flow of rain water.

In course of time, a gully assumes a big shape and erosion goes on

increasing. To prevent erosion, barriers or plugs of different types of

material are put across the gully, at certain intervals.

 In the watershed area there are highly eroded areas which have given

rise to a number of drainage lines having abrupt changes in their

gradient. The network of drainage lines flowing inside the watershed

are treated in the upper reaches with appropriate gully control

measures in the first instance and gradually worked down to middle

and lower reaches.

 In the upper reaches, the first order (small) gullies receiving small

amount of runoff can be stabilized with temporary check clams

constructed of fairly good size loose stones available at the site itself.

 In the middle reaches for checking the run off velocity in steep and

broad gullies semi permanent check dams are constructed in series

229

where good size rough stones of durable quality in adequate quantities

can be quarried nearby. These structures arrest the speed of current

and prevent gully bank erosion. These structures have relatively

longer life and require less maintenance. Series of such check dams

constructed across the gully, check channel erosion, trap fine soil and

reduce erosive velocity of runoff and retain certain amount of

moisture. The average cost of construction of this structure is Rs.50,

000 per number.

CONTOUR BUNDING

 Contour bunding is one of the simple method of soil and water

conservation. Bunding is a embankment of earth. It plays an important

role in soil and water conservation in the field with medium slope.

 Contour bunding helps in soil and water conservation. When there is

rainfall, contour bund acts as a barrier to the water flow and checks

the velocity. This reduces chances of soil erosion. When "water starts

flowing along the fields bund becomes obstruction for ii. Due to the

obstruction velocity reduces and water percolates behind the bunds.

This allows in nitration of water into the soil. Thus bunding on the

fields with moderate slopes helps in soil and water conservation.

230

RETAINING WALL TREATMENT

 During monsoon, some of the lands get saturated resulting in

instability of the land mass along the sides of streams and on hinds

near road sides causing heavy soil erosion. Moreover heavy flash

floods in tropical region are common phenomenon in streams which

erode and cui the banks and deposit the soil materials on the other

besides inflicts serious damages to nearby agriculture lands. The

flashy, seasonal streams carry massive loads of soil and boulders

thereby raising the river beds and reducing the capacity of reservoirs,

hand slide erosion includes soil and earth movements caused by the

construction of roads, paths etc.

 For stabilizing precipitous soil erosion and provide stability to streams

Or gullies and road sides and to protect the adjoining agricultural

lands from eroding due to runoff, retaining walls are constructed at

vulnerable places to the required height using rough stones with or

without cement mortar. The average cost of construction of Flow

improvement Wall is Rs.100, 000 per number.

CHECK DAMS (IMPERVIOUS / IMPERMEABLE)

 Small dam constructed across a water course (e.g. nala, stream) to

create a water reservoir. It is called impervious impermeable because it

231

docs not allow water to permeate to the other side. Location wise the watercourse should have hard strata within reasonable depth for establishment of foundation. The nala bed must be without abrupt fall to achieve maximum water storage. The dam can be constructed of selected earth that is properly compacted, solid masonry, plain cement concrete, RCC, stone RCC slabs, etc.

232

FINDINGS

1. The BCR for percolation ponds varied from 1.08 for onion to 1.63 for

Coconut. The range of BCR for contour bunding for the above crops

varied from 1.18 for coconut to 1.44 for Chillies. The BCR for major

check dams though above unity were low ranging from 1.20 to 1.58 for

onion and Coconut.

2. Major check dams had the highest NPV of Rs.13677 followed by

percolation pond with the NPV of Rs.13134 for chillies. The major

check dams had an NPV ranging from Rs.8256 for onion to Rs.13677

for coconut. Contour bunding and land levelling showed an NPV

ranging from Rs.678 for coconut to Rs.2164 for onion.

3. The major check dam gave an IRR value of 35 per cent for coconut.

However, contour bunding and land levelling had the IRK values

ranging from 16 to 29 per cent . The BCR, NPV and IRR values for

conservation structures like major check dam and minor check dams

for coconut were found to be high.

4. It was understood that the cropping intensity of the sample farms in

WTA was higher (114.31 per cent ) than the sample farms in NTA

(102.90 per cent ). Enhanced cropping intensity in WTA could be

233

attributed by the meticulous adoption of water harvesting structures.

The comparative costs and returns of sample farms between WTA and

NTA were analyzed by calculating the cost and returns.

5. Coconut, maize, sorghum, chillies and onion had shown a positive

additional net return of 27.35, 31.68, 13.06, 24.54 and 28.06 per cent ,

respectively. Thus it is clear that the net returns of major crops in the

study area had been found high in the sample farms of WTA than the

sample farms in NTA.

6. The yield of maize showed the highest increase in productivity (16.08

per cent ) followed by coconut (15.39 per cent ). It is also clear that the

crops like chillies, onion and sorghum also indicated increase in

productivity to an extent of 13.00 per cent , 9.20 per cent and 7.64 per

cent , respectively.

7. About 37 per cent of farmers in WTA perceived that the water quality

had been good, while only 21.67 per cent of farmers in NTA observed

that the quality of water was good, which shows the indirect benefit

received by the adopters of water harvesting structures in WTA.

8. About 47 per cent of the farmers in WTA perceived that the water

quality was medium while only 43.33 per cent of the farmers in NTA

234

reported that the water quality was medium. Thus it could be concluded

that the overall quality of water in WTA had been superior to NTA.

9. The distance of the sample farmer from the water harvesting structures

showed a negative influence on land value but it was not significant. It

could also be observed that proportion of cropland to the total land area

had exerted probability.

10. That for every one meter increase in distance from the water harvesting

structures (major and minor check dams, percolation ponds) the land

value decreased by Rs. 24.05 by keeping the other variables constant

for non treated area.

11. It could be implied that for every one meter increase in depth of water

table, the land value decreased by 1136 rupees by keeping the other

variables constant.

12. The results of the table also ranked the other benefits like cropping

pattern, cropping intensity, yield increase, ground water recharge and

resource conservation with Garrett scores of 57, 50, 43, 34, and 22,

respectively.

235

SUGGESTIONS

 Social dimensions of watershed management are as important as the

technological components. Unless there is equality in water sharing,

cooperating in water saving there will be no prosperity. In watershed

area, the bulk of the work is carried out in the upper reaches while the

benefits accrue in the lower reaches. For example, planting of tree or

grazing ban etc. are all imposed in upper reaches. The people who live

and work in upper reaches (poor disadvantaged people) bear the brunt

of the cost of watershed development which primarily benefits

wealthier farmers in lower reaches. This inequality aspect should be

seriously considered,

 While planning for a watershed development, Agro-ecological

approach which represent soil, flora and fauna in a specific climatic

situation may be kept intact. This is needed for biodiversity,

 Watershed planning and management activities are generally carried

through different state, central government organizations viz., Ministry

of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Ministry of Water

Resources etc. Some Non-government organizations such as pradhan,

kalyan, priya, are also seen engaged in watershed development work in

236

the country. All are performing their respective work separately. There

is no coordination among them and as a result duplication of work and

misuse of fund are quiet rampant. As collaboration will expand

resources, knowledge and experiences, it should be implemented

among various organizations working in watershed development

projects for optimum benefits,

 Watershed development is a community oriented programme. The

success of such programme depends on the people's participation in

planning, implementation and management of watershed development

projects to realize the tangible results. In recent years decentralized

development approaches such as Irrigation Management Transfer

(IMT) and Joint Forest Management (JFM) have been promoted to

facilitate integrated Management of Natural resources in a watershed

context. IMT and JFM policies typically refer to devolving

management of previously government controlled forests and irrigation

systems to farmers groups or other private parties.

 Integrated watershed management is a holistic concept and to led

people's participation for the planning, implementation and future

management of the created structure and distribution of benefits in

237

equitable & sustainable manner, following suggestions are being

offered.

 A participatory micro-plan at grass root level must be prepared for the

overall development of cluster villages covering all socio-economic

and natural resources management dimension. The participation of

women and weaker sections of society must be ensured in planning,

implementation and evaluation of watershed

 Project people potentially affected by the project need to be more

actively involved at project design stage. Strengthening institutional

arrangement should receive highest priority.

 To actualise the concept of watershed management, encouragement

must be given to selfless leadership. The organisation of the people in

the homogeneous caste composition villages in comparison to the

heterogeneous caste composition village must be encouraged.

 The interests of small and marginal farmers, landless labourers, women

and other weaker sections of the society which were earlier neglected

must be included in designing diversified income generation activities.

Special training programme be planned for rural youth and women.

 The bureaucratic control on planning and management of forest

resources under the present guidelines and situations should be relaxed

238

and decision making power should be extended to the local people

also.

 Indigenous knowledge and local material should be better utilised in

the design and implementation of the project activities. This is

particular true in case of vegetative barriers and forestry models, which

emphasised fodder and fuel production.

 For development of the capacity and achieving sustainable

development, the staff must be trained both in technical skills and

institutional development with change of attitude from local

Government control to joint management. The extension expert must

also follow the participatory approach to empower the local people by

transferring the technical and managerial capabilities.

 Evolved catalysts and leadership in the effective functioning and

sustainable management of VDC (Village Development Committee),

WUS (Water Users Society), FPC (Forest Protection Committee),

NGO (Non-Government Organisation) and other social institutions

should be strengthened. Since VDC are the integral part of the village

protection force they must be given the status of sub committee, Up

Gram Sabha of village panchayat. Govt machinery should be set up to

239

resolve inter and intra village conflicts arising due to the

implementation of the programme.

 The NGO can be involved for project implementation. The master

degree students of local universities having sociology and agricultural

extension back round can be introduced in these projects and they

should be trained in PRA/RRA and other innovative techniques of

participatory exercises for data collection and rapport building.

 Appropriate education films and field trips can be used to teach farmers

about various methods of rain water conservation and afforestation.

Regular visits of field functionaries in watershed area and instituting

awards and prizes for the sincere involvement of farmers in practising

rain water harvesting techniques can motivate farming community in

this regard.

 Steps should be taken to popularise the Self Help Group concept

among farmers so that they get loans subsidised from the banks and

Govt, with marginal interest rates.

 The Rural Development Agency should work systematically on

improving attitude, communication, ensures devolution of power &

resources to village institution and evolve a transparent system of

cooperation and interaction. Training in modern participatory planning

240

technologies like PRA/RRA must be given to Government

functionaries so that they work as a facilitators by putting technical

know how in the right perspective.

 To ensure as similation of improved indigenous soil and water

technologies in the initial years focus should be placed on building

group and village level capacity through exposure visits, farmer to

farmer sharing workshops and training of village leaders, para

professionals and front line staff.

 Extension activities under watershed development projects include

rehabilitation of degraded tenain, demonstration of conservation and

income generating works, field observations, extension meetings etc.

The role of women in sharing ideas and experiences in these diverse

activities on conservation can not be undermined. In this connection,

efforts should be taken to develop leadership among women and

encourage them to form groups.

 A scientific study may be carried out on the use of different storage

technologies (earthern pots sacks etc.) for different type of seeds and

the results disseminated among the farmers.

 The most important pre requisite for people's participation is that the

expected private benefits from participation must substantially exceed

241

the expected private costs of participation. Programme interventions or

measures that seek to enhance die expected benefits to people or reduce

the expected costs are likely to elicit more of people's participation than

those that do not seek to do so. This condition was met in all the four

cases reviewed in this paper.

 People would participate in watershed development and management

programmes only if they are conscientised, organised and empowered

to do so. A great deal of effort and resources are required for

empowering local people and for building people centred local

institutions and organisations and linking them to higher level

institutions engaged or interested in similar work. Non-governmental

organisations (NGOs) are better oriented to enlist people's participation

and have necessary skills and patience to work with them. They could

play a crucial and unique role in organising, educating, conscientising,

and motivating local villagers, in mediating between them and the

government officials concerned, and in serving as public interest

‘watch dogs’. They are better than government agencies to train people

and thereby to empower them, so they could identify their problems

and resolve them on their own eventually. The NGOs played such a

role very effectively. Otherwise; huge amounts of scarce resources

242

would continue to be wasted on ill-conceived, ill-designed and badly

executed watershed development programmes as before.

 Local leadership plays an important role in enlisting people's

participation in watershed development programmes by mobilizing

people's resources, energy, and by assuring the people that they would

have access to the benefits from their participation in collective action

for watershed development and that the distribution of the benefits

would be fair and equitable. In all the three projects where people's

participation was high, the quality of the local leadership was good.

 The role of government should be confined to providing financial and

technical assistance, basic infrastructure, and enabling legal and

political environment conductive to people's participation in watershed

development programmes. A lot of investment is required initially for

construction of necessary structures for water harvesting and storage,

and soil and water conservation. Such investments in watershed

development should be made by government on the same principles as

in the case of irrigation projects. This is what was done by government

more or less in all the four projects reviewed and analysed.

 Formal systems for sharing the benefits from collective action among

the local people involved should be evolved and enforced by the people

243

themselves and backed up by legal provisions or appropriate

administrative decrees. Such systems existed in all the four projects but

were implemented more effectively in this area.

 The above mentioned determinants of people's participation revealed

by the case study serve not only to generalise but also expand the

theory of collective action as spelled out earlier in this research. The

theory is generalised in the sense that there are four more instances

where it holds, and expanded in the sense that, besides explaining

collective action, it also explains individual action in the context of

watershed development and management.

POLICY ISSUES

Large scale promotion of watershed management projects have been undertaken in the country in the recent past. The results of such work is not satisfactory. It is, therefore, necessary to review the performance of the existing policies on watershed development projects. Following policy issues may help in reorientation of watershed development programme and to take necessary steps for future research.

 Donor supported JFM and IMT projects have emphasized the need for

community participation in catchment protection, water allocation,

244

collection of irrigation fees and routine maintenance of irrigation

infrastructures.

 Continuous monitoring is essential for watershed development.

Monitoring helps in keeping track of the work progress and guides

mid-term corrections, if necessary due to changed situations. It

provides necessary documentation and a basis for evaluation of the

project at a later stage. Environmental impact on water quality as well

as other consequences of watershed development should be constantly

monitored, documented and rectified as soon as possible.

 Land inventory should be updated to assess its capability by improved

survey and analytical tools. GIS (Geographical Information System)

and Remote sensing techniques by using aerial photographs to be

applied for quick assessment of the progress of development.

Collection of data from district, local sources as well as compilation

of base maps through field surveys are most important. Watershed

management involves several disciplines (Agriculture scientists,

Engineers, Economists, Geographers etc.) and government

departments (Agriculture, Rural Development, Environment, Ground

water), a coordination among them is most important for proper

implementation of the programme. "Water resource development in a

245

watershed acts as a catalyst agent for other development activities". In

watershed development, individual's water right and ecological

balance should be maintained. Water flows on the surface knows no

boundary and as such assigning property rights is very difficult. The

system of water rights under common law in India effectively gives

ownership of ground water to the landowner, despite the fact that

ground water is shared resources for a common pool of aquifers. In

practice, the more affluent have more access to and control over

ground water than the less resourceful. Therefore, water flows not

down hill but towards power and money. This should be reoriented for

the underprivileged.

 The poor people, living in a watershed are forced to exploit natural

resources in an unsustainable manner and suffer from increasing

poverty because of watershed degradation. The high growth rate of

population coupled with growing poverty of the larger section of

population have caused increased demand on finite resources of the

watershed. It is, therefore, most important to consider the requirement

of the poor and their influences on the watershed while taking up any

watershed development policy formulation.

246

Watershed development is a holistic approach aimed at optimizing the use of land, water and vegetation in an area so as to provide an answer to alleviate drought, moderate floods, prevent soil erosion, improve water availability and increase food, fuel, fodder in a sustainable manner. The strategy adopted by managing natural resources of a watershed become now the cornerstone of planning, development and management of land and water resources. The programme should be taken up on priority basis as mass movement to all watershed areas particularly dry land areas.

247

CONCLUSION

The art to enlist people's participation remains one of the most baffling problems presently confronting planners and mangers of watershed development programmes all over the world. The experience of the selected project in Tiruchirappalli District reviewed and analysed in this research shows that the most important pre-requisite for people's participation is that the expected private benefits from participation must substantially exceed the expected private costs of participation. Programme interventions or measures that seek to enhance the expected benefits to people or reduce the expected costs are likely to elicit more of people's participation than those that do not seek to do so. Other important determinants of people's participation include organisation of people into small groups, good local leadership, existence and enforcement of rules for equitable sharing of benefits from collective action, and willingness and ability of government to make the needed investment in watershed development and provide technical information, training, and guidance. Non-governmental local organisations are better oriented to enlist people's participation and have necessary skills and patience to work with people, to organise them, to motivate them and to train them and thereby to empower them so they could

248

identify their problems and resolve them on their own eventually. It is high time that the governmental organisations engaged in watershed development and management programmes learn from the experience of the non- governmental organisations, involving people and incorporating the lessons into their strategies. Otherwise, huge amounts of scarce resources would continue to be wasted on ill-conceived, ill-designed and badly executed programmes as before in this district.

LIMITATIONS

The present research on watershed analysis of Sokkanathapuram faces some constraints and limitations. This research exclusively deals only with a particular area covered under water treated areas. There may be a possibility of excluding non water treated areas also owing the time constraint the researcher was not able to devote his entire time to contact all the categories of farmers. Only the selected farmers among different groups were contacted there may be an exclusion of the progressive big farmers who are technically following the system of constructing gullives structures or even mini soil erosion systems.

The area covered under Sokkanathapuram is vast in coverage, but due to the capacity of resources, only the selected villages were interviewed.

249

FUTURE DIRECTION OF RESEARCH

Though there were many studies carried out in this topic, no micro level study has been carried out. In this juncture government agencies like

National Watershed Development Agency / NGO’s and voluntary bodies may come forward to undertake extensive macro level study will be carried out in this area not only to protect ground water potentialities but also to preserve good Environmental conditions.

250

REFERENCES

 Adams,W.M., 2001. Green Development: Environment and

Sustainability in the Third World. London: Routledge.

 Agrawal A. (2001), "Common Property Institutions and Sustainable

Governance of Resources". World Development 29 (10): 1623-1648.

 Akwabi-Ameyaw K. 1997, "Producer Cooperative Resettlement Projects

in Zimbabwe: Lessons from a failed agricultural development strategy"

World Development, 25 (3): 437-456.

 Alsop, R. and Farrington, J. 1998, "Nests, Nodes and Niches: A System

for Process Monitoring, Information Exchange and Decision Making for

Multiple Stakeholders". World Development. Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.249-260.

 Anna Lawrence, Julian Barr and Graham Haylor (1999), "Stakeholder

Approaches to Planning Participation Research by Multi institution

Groups", Agren, Net Work Paper No 91.

 Archer, S. and F. E. Smeins, 1991. Ecosystem-level Processes Grazing

Management, an Ecological Perspective. Portland Timber Press ppl09-

130.

 At this juncture, it was found that a participatory approach with external

players would result in successful poverty alleviation. Hence, the

251

National Perspective Plan was devised with the help and participation of

international donors, corporate sector, NGOs, credit institutions and the

farming community.

 Azad, M. P. et al., 1980, "An Economic Appraisal of a Minor Irrigation

Project (Tube-Well) - A Case Study", Indian Journal of Agricultural

Economics Vol. 35, No. 3. PP 258-259.

 Baland J.M and Platleau J.P. 1996, Hailing Degradation of Natural

Resources Is there a Role for Rural Communities Oxford, U.K Clarendon

Press.

 Balogun, M. J., 2000. The Scope for Popular Participation in

Decentralization, Community Governance, and Development Towards a

New Paradigm of Centre Periphery Relations. Regional Development

Dialogue 21(1), 21-39.

 Baltacharya, Kamal 2003. Equity and Efficiency Consideration in

Watershed development. Unpublished Report, Catholic Relief Services

(CRS), India.

 Bansil, P.C. 'Integrated Watershed Development' in Water Management

in India, Concept Publishers, New Delhi, 2004.

 Bardhan P. 1993, "Analysis of the Institutions of Informal Cooperation in

Rural Development". World Development, 21 (4) 633-639.

252

 Bharat R. Sharma, J.S. Sharma, C A. Scott and Suhas P. Wani (2005),

Watershed Management Challenges Improving Productivity Resources

and Livelihoods, IWMI, Colombo, Srilanka.

 Bhatia, S 1991, "Labour Absorption through Integrated Watershed

Development". Indian Journal of Agril. Economics, Vol. 46, No. 3. PP

306-307.

 BIWMP, 2003. An Overview of the Bagmati Integrated Watershed

Management Project (BIWMP). Kathmandu, Nepal Bagmati Integrated

Watershed Management Project, Department of Soil Conservation and

Watershed Management.

 Blackburn, J. and J. Holland(eds.), 1998. Who Changes Institutionalising

Participation in development. London Intermediate Technology

Publication Ltd.

 Blaikie, P., 1987. Explanation and Policy in Land Degradation and

Rehabilitation for Developing Countries. Land Degradation and

Rehabilitation, 1, 23-27.

 Blaikie, P., 2001. Is Policy Reform Pure Nostaligia A Himalayan

Illustration Barkeley Workshop on Environmental Politics. California,

Berkeley Institute of International Studies, University of California.

253

 Blair, H., 2000. Participation and Accountability in the Periphery

Democratic Local Governance in Six Countries. World Development 28,

21-39.

 Botero, L. S., 1986. Incentives for Community Involvement in Upland

Conservation. Strategies, approaches and system in integrated watershed

management. Rome FAO Conservation Guide 14.

 Bromely DW. (1991), Environment and Economy Property Rights and

Public Policy. Cambridge, Mass. Basil Blackwell, Inc.

 Brooks, N. K., P. F. Folliot and J. L. Thames, 1991. Watershed

Management: A Global Perspective, Hydrology and the Management of

Watersheds. Ames, Iowa State University Press ppl-7.

 Brown, S. and G. Kennedy, 2005. A case study of Cash Cropping in

Nepal: Poverty Alleviation or Inequity Agriculture and Human Values,

22:105-116.

 Carson, B., 1992. The land, The farmer, and The future: A Soil Fertility

Management Strategy for Nepal. Kathmandu: ICIMOD CIESIN, 2004.

The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York: Columbia

Earth Institute.

 Central Water Commission: Pocket Book on Water Data, CWC, MoWR,

India.

254

 Chaurasia, S.P.R. and L.R.Singh 1991, “Optimal Cropping Pattern for

Minimizing Soil Loss in Nauraar Watershed of Almora District in Uttar

Pradesh. Parameters”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3):

320.

 Cities release 25,000 million litres of untreated waste water into rivers

and water bodies each day, making them into festering sewers and

cesspools. The amount of sewage discharged is a Herculean task to

measure due to overuse of groundwater. The government could do well

in not restricting the metering process only to water supply, but introduce

the same for treatment of waste water in Electronic Payment.

 Cohen, J. and N. Uphoff, 1977. Rural Development Participation:

Concept and Measures for Project Design, Implementation and

Evaluation: Cornell University, Ithaca.

 Conroy, C, A. Mishra, and A. ELai, 2002. Learning from Self Initiated

Community Forest Management in Orissa India. Forest Policy and

Economics, 4, 227-237.

 Corn, M. L., 1993. Ecosystems, Biomass, and Watersheds: Definitions

and Use. Washington, DC: National Council for Science and the

Environment.

255

 Datta, S. K. and K. J. Virgo, 1998. Towards Sustainable Watershed

Development through People's Participation Lesson from the Lesser

Himalaya, Utter Pradesh, India. Mountain Research and Development

18(1), 213-233.

 Daves, Thomas E. "Economics of Small Watershed Planning in

Minnesota", Technical Bulletin 295-1974, Agricultural Experiment

Station, University of Minnesota, 1974.

 Dixon Jhon, A. The application of Economic Criteria to watershed

Management potential and limits in Water Resources and their

Utilization, in Vinita M. Bhati (Ed.), Vigyan Prakashan, Jaipur, 1996,

Chapter 5, pp. 83-97.

 Douglass, M. and P. Lawrence, 1997. Planning Soil Conservation Project

through Participation. A guide Report, ODI, 139. UK: Department for

International Development, HR, Wallingford Group Limited, pp. 10-11.

 DSCWM, 2004. Soil conservation and watershed management measures

and low cost techniques. Kathmandu, Nepal: Soil Conservation and

Watershed Management Component (NARMSAP) Department of Soil

conservation and Watershed Management (DSCWM). pp. l-2.

 Eckholm, E. 1975. The Deterioration of Mountain Environments.

Science, 189,764-770.

256

 ESC, 2001. Agriculture, Land and Desertification: Report of the

Secretary General. Economic and Social Council: United Nations.

 ESCAP, 1997. Guidelines and Manual on Land-Use Planning and

Practices in Watershed Management and Disaster Reduction. Bangkok:

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, United

Nation.

 ESCAP, 2003. Rural Development and Poverty in South Asia:

Development papers No. 23 United Nation http://www.unescap.org/

pdd/publications/dp23/DP_23 .pdf.

 FAO, 1982. Participation in Forestry. Wageningen, Netherlands:

Department of Forest Management, Agriculture University.

 Farrington J, Turlon C and James AJ (eds.) 1999, Participatory

Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty-first Century. New

Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

 Farrington, J. 1997, Farmers Participation in Agricultural Research and

Extension: Lessons from the Last Decade. Biotechnology and

Development Monitor. Vol. 30, pp. 12-15.

 Farrington, J. and C. Lobo, 1997. Scaling-up Participatory Watershed

Development in India: Lessons from the Indo - German Watershed

Development Program. London: Overseas Development Institute, pp.1-5.

257

 Farrington, J. and Lobo, C. 1997, 'Scaling up Participatory Watershed

Development in India Lessons from the Indo-German Watershed

Development Programme'. Natural Resource Perspectives No.17.

London: OD1.

 Farrington, J. and P. Baumann, 2003. Decentralising Natural Resource

Management: Lesson from Local Government Reform in India. London:

Natural Resource Perspectives 86: Overseas Development Institute.

 Fisher, R. J. (ed.), 2000. Decentralization and Devolution in Forest

Management: A Conceptual Overview. Bangkok, Thailand

RECOFCT/FAO.

 GHF, 2006. The World Fact Book : Population Growth rate estimate.:

Global Health Facts.

 Ghosh, M.G. 1991, "An Evaluation of the National Watershed

Development Programme in West-Bengal", Indian Journal Of

Agricultural Economics, Vol. 46, No. 3. PP 299-300.

 Gill, G. J., 1995. Major Natural Resource Management Concerns in

South Asia: International Food Policy Research Institute.

 Gittinger, J. Price "Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects",

(Baltimore: The John Hopkins, Iversity Press), 1982.

258

 Government of India, 1994, "Guidelines for Watershed Development",

Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi.

 Grimble, R. and Wellard, K. 1997, 'Stakeholder methodologies in natural

resource management: A review of principles, contexts, experiences and

opportunities'. Agricultural Systems. Vol.55, No.2, pp.l73-193.

 Guleria, A. S. 1991, "Watershed Approach For Sustainable Development

in Hill Region", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 46, No.

3. P 321.

 Hanumantha, Rao, CR. 2000, "Watershed Development in India Recent

experiences and emerging issues." Economic and Political Weekly,

XXXV(45): 3943-3947.

 Harding G. 1968, The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162: 1243-

1248.

 Harsh Mitter, 2005, HARIYALI Planned Investment in Watershed

Development, Ministry of Rural Development, Govt, of India, New

Delhi, India.

 Hudson, N. W., 1991. A Study of the Reasons for Success or Failure of

Soil Conservation Projects. Rome FAO soil bulletin, 64.

259

 Huggins, C, 2004. Managing Watersheds, Managing Conflict, 4th.

Regional Session of the Globel Biodiversity Forum for Africa. Dar E -

Salaam, Tanzania: Global Biodiversity Forum for Africa.

 Hurni, H. and K. Tato, (eds.), 1992. Soil Conservation for Survival: Soil

and Water Conservation Society, USA.

 Huszar, P. C, 1998. Including Economics in the Sustainable Equation:

Upland Soil Conservation in Indonesia. H. P. Blume, H. Eger, E.

Fleischhauer, A. Hebel, C. Reij and G. K. Steiner Towards sustainable

land management: Advances in Geoecology. New Delhi: pp.889-96.

 In 2005, Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewable Mission (JNNURM)

accepted soft loans and funding from Asian Development Bank and

World Bank to introduce the system of 24x7 water. This system paves

way for commodification of water and preparation of private sector

involvement. The offshoot was in the form of "water hammer effect"

where the pipeline network operates under continuous pressure and

subject to fewer shocks such that round the clock water supply will

curtail the unregulated recourse to ground water.

 In Belgaum, Karnataka, tariffs on water consumption ranging between

Rs. 400 and 1,000 are levied on water to reduce indiscriminate use of

260

water besides providing a solution to the drudgery of physical fetching of

water. This method is also to be followed in this area.

 In this context, an initiative adopted in 2003-04 by the Chief Minister of

Tamilnadu, Dr. J. Jayalalitha was the "rain water harvesting". This was

extended not only to commercial establishments but also to residential

buildings. This was propagated to unburden the demand on the piped

system which ensured that the water table is enhanced and that water is

not wasted during monsoon. Initially, this initiative was subjected to

severe criticism, but on making it mandatory by setting deadlines and

levying penalties, she made a significant contribution towards WSM on

behalf of the state. Cooperative Banks also participated and encouraged

this endeavour by extending loans up to Rs 2,000 payable in 24

installments at 12 per cent rate of interest, to ensure that the rural folk

also implemented this scheme.

 It is found that urban India needs nearly 50 billion litres of water each

day, which is lost due to water treatment plants functioning devoid of

meters or that are defunct. The resultant is an excessive loss of water

which signifies the poor planning of networks together with corrupt

contractors who disregard technical specifications. In 2002, a group

bureaucrats and technocrats created a network called "change

261

management forum" at the Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI)

in Hyderabad to solve these problems.

 Ives, J. D. and B. Messerli, 1989. The Himalayan Dilemma Reconciling

Development and Conservation. London Routledge, ppl-10.

 Ives, J. D., 2004. Himalayan Perceptions. London and New York:

Routledge.

 Jahagirdar, D. V. 1991, "Manoli Watershed Development Project: A

Study of Some Growth Parameters", Indian Journal Of Agricultural

Economics, Vol, 46, No. 3. p 304.

 JICA/HMG(N),1998. The Development Study on Integrated Watershed

Management in the Western Hills of Nepal. Final Report. Kokusia,

Kogyo Co. Ltd: Japan Forest Technical Association.

 Jodha, N. S., 1995. The Nepal Middle Mountains. In J. Kasperson, R. E,

Kasperson and B. L. Turner (eds.), Regions at risk comparisons of

threatened environments, pp.140-185. Tokyo: United Nations University

Press.

 Johnson, N. L., H. M. Ravnborg, O. Westermann and K. Probst, 2001.

User Participation in Watershed Management and Research. Water

Policy, 3:507-520.

262

 Kerr, J. M., N. K. Sanghi and G. Sriramappa, 1996. Subsidies in

Watershed Development Projects in India Distortions and Opportunities.

Gatekeeper series No.61. London IIED

 Kerr.J. 2002 Watershed Development, Environmental Services, and

Poverty Alleviation in India. World Development 30 (8):1307-1400.

 Khadaka, B. and R. P. Yadhav, 1999. People's Participation in

Rehabilitation of a Degraded Watershed A case study of Sukauri Khola

Micro watershed. Paper presented at the Danida's Third International

Workshop on watershed Development, Kathmandu, Nepal, pp309-317.

 Kumar, N. and S. Bakshi, 2002. Making and Breaking a Community

Forestry Institution A Case Study. Forest, Trees and Livelihood, 12:165-

174.

 Kumar, S., 2002. Method for Community Participation. London, UK:

WCIB 4HL, pp20-45.

 Kurian Mathew, Ton Dietz and Murli, K.S.: 'Scaling up participatory

watershed Management, Evidence from Himalayan foothills', Economic

and Political Weekly, 13th December 2003, pp. 5285-93.

 Lai, R., 1998. Soil Erosion Impact on Agronomic Productivity and

Environment Quality. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 17(4);319-464.

263

 Lai, R., 2002. Soil Carbon Sequestration in China through Agricultural

Intensification, and Reforestation of Degraded and Desertified

Ecosystems. Land Degradation and Development, 13:469-478.

 Lal, B. 2001, “Impact of National Watershed Development Project on

Rain fed Agriculture in Alware District of Rajasthan”, Agricultural

Science Digest, 21(3):157-160.

 Lata.S.L, R.C.Koushal and S.S.Grewal, 1994, “Economic Viability of

Watershed Management Project Selected to Rehabilitate Degraded

Aravali Foothills of Haryana”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics,

49(4): 591-600.

 Leganza, G. and A. Brown, 2004. Top-down versus Bottom-up

Approaches to Enterprise Architecture Helping Business Thrive on

Technology Change. Forester Research, Inc. http://www.forrester.com

 Maarleveld, M., 1998. Improving participation and cooperation at the

local level; lesson from economics, and psychology towards sustainable

land use. In: H. P. Blume, H. Fleischhauer, E. Eger, Hebel, C. Reij and

G. Steiner (eds.), Advance in Geology. New Delhijndia, pp971-977.

 Mahandule, D.K., R.Pawar, D.L.Sale and S.A.Kadam, 1991, “Effects of

Watershed Development Programme on Resource Use Structure and

264

Returns of Farms in the Drought prone Area of Western Maharastra “,

Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 287.

 Mahnot, S.C. and Singh, P.K. 'Soil Water Conservation', Inter-

cooperation Coordination Office, Jaipur, 1993, p. 90.

 Makela, M., 1999. Community Based Environmental Protection and

Natural Resources Management. Helsinki: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of

Finland, Department for International Development Cooperation, ppl-10.

 Malla, Y. B., 2001. Impact of Community Forestry Policy in Rural

Livelihoods and Food Security in Nepal. Unasylva Watershed

Management, 200:38-45.

 Manhot, S.C., P.K.Singh and V.Sharma 1992, “Socio Economic

Evaluation of Watershed Management Project – A Case Study”, Journal

of Rural Development, 11(2): 219-227.

 Meadows, E., 2003. Soil Erosion in the Swartland, Western Cape

Province, South Africa: Implications of Past and Present Policy and

Practice. Environmental Science and Policy 6:17-28.

 Michaelsen, T., 1991. Participatory Approach in Watershed Management

Planning. Unasylva Watershed Management 42(164): 1-15.

 Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation, GOI, (www.agricoop.nic.in)

265

 Ministry of Water Resource Management, India. (www.agricoop.nic.in).

 Mishra, S. 1991, "Pernarmance Appraisal of a Watershed Project in West

Bengal - A Micro Level Study", Indian Journal of Agricultural

Economics, Vol, 46, No. 3. PP. 298-299.

 Misra, Archana: 'Watershed Management', Authors Press, Delhi, 2001.

 Monkhouse, F.J.: 'Principles of Physical Geography', Hodder and

Stonghton, London, U.K., 1988, p. 174.

 Montgomery, D. R., G. Grant and E. K. Sullivan, 1995. Watershed

Analysis as a Framework for Implementing Ecosystem Management.

Water resource bulletin, pp369-386.

 MOPE, 2004. Nepal- National Action Programme on Land Degradation

and Desertification Ministry of Population and Environment, Kathmandu

Nepal.

 Mountain, 2002. Watershed Management. Beyond the International Year

of Mountains. Retrieved Decemberl2, 2004, http://www.mountain

partnership.org /themes/i-watershed.html

 Murthy, J.V.S. 'Watershed Management', New Age International

Publishers, New Delhi, 1998, pp. 21-25.

 Narwal, R. P., B. R .Singh and R. S. Antil (eds.), 2003. Soil Degradation

as a Threat to Food Security. Washington, D.C. Lewis Publishers, pp.97.

266

 Ohler, F. M. J., B. K. Rimal and P. Warren (eds.), 2000. Participatory and

Integrated Watershed Management in Nepal. A Resource Book for

District Soil Conservation Officers. Kathmandu, FAO, GCP,

INT/542/ITA. pp.25-28.

 Oldeman, L. R., 1994. The Global Extent of Soil Degradation. In: D. J.

Greenland and I. Szabolces (eds.), Soil Resiliencies and Sustainable Land

Use (pp. 99-18). Walling, UK: CAB International.

 Ozyuvaci, N., S. Ozhan and E. Gorceliodlu, 1997. Integrated Watershed

Management for Sustainable Development of Renewable Natural

Resources. Paper presented at the XI WORLD FORESTRY

CONGRESS, Antalya, Turkey.

 Padmavathi, M. and M.S.Reddy, 2002, “Personal and Socio Economic

Characteristics of Mitra Kisans in National Watershed Development

Project for Rain fed Areas” , Journal of Research ANGARU, 30(1): 71-

75.

 Palanisami, K "Financial Analysis in Agricultural Project Planning", In

National Short term Training on Irrigation in Agriculture Planning and

Budgeting" (eds.) K.Palanisami, C.paulraj and A.Mohamod Ali, 16-17,

July, 1997, Tamil nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.3.

267

 Palanisami, K and D. Suresh Kumar and P. Gnanamurthy, Watershed

Development Outreach Research Activities, (Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu

Agricultural University), 2003.

 Palanisami, K, D.Suresh Kumar and P.Balaji, "Evaluation of Watershed

Development Projects Approaches and Experiences", Coimbatore Tamil

Nadu Agricultural University, 2003.

 Palanisami, K.D, Suresh Kumar and B.Chandrasekaran. (eds.)

"Watershed Management Issues and Policies for 21st Century". (New

Delhi: Associated Publishing Company Ltd.,), 2002.

 Palanisami, K, S.Devarajan, M.Chellamuthu and D.Suresh Kumar, Mid-

tern evaluation of IWDP Watersheds in Coimbatore District of Tamil

Nadu, (Coimbatore: Tamil Nadu Agricultural University), 2002.

 Pandey, B., 2003. Promoting Sustainable Livelihoods in the Kulekhani

Watershed. Project report. Kathmandu, Nepal Winrock International.

 Partap, T. and H. R. Watson, 1994. Sloping Agricultural Land

Technology (SALT): A Regenerative Option for Sustainable Mountain

Farming Occasional Paper, No.23. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICMOD.

 Paudel, G. S. and G. B. Thapa, 2004. Impact of social, institutional and

ecological factors on land management practices in mountain watershed

of Nepal. Applied Geography, 24:35-55.

268

 Paudel, G. S., 2002. Research Issues on Watershed Management in

Developing Countries. Rural Development, 21:187-214.

 Pender, J. and S. Ehui, 2000. Policies for Sustainable Land Management

in the Highlands of Ethiopia. Washington, D.C: International Food Policy

Research Institute (1FPRI).

 Peraz, C. and H. Tschinkel, 2003. Improving Watershed Management in

Developing Countries: A Framework for Prioritizing Sites and Practices.

U.K: Agriculture Research and Extension Network.

 Pereira Luis S., Cordery lan and Iacovids, 2002, “Coping with Water

Scarcity, International Hydrological Programme, IHP-VI, Technical

documents in Hydrology, No.5., UNESCO, Paris.

 Perera, N. and K. Fernado, 2004. Sustainable Land Management: South

Asia Perspectives. Colombo, Sri Lanka. South Asia Cooperative

Environment Programme.

 Pokharel, B. 2000. Contribution of Community Forestry to People's

Livelihoods and Forest Sustainability: Experience from Nepal:

http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Asia/Nepal.html

 Poudel, D. D., 2000. Farmer Participatory Research to Minimize Soil

Erosion on Steep land Vegetable Systems in the Philippines. Agriculture

Ecosystems and Environment 79:113-127.

269

 Pradhan, B. B., 2003. Watershed Management in Terrace Farming.

Kathmandu, Nepal, Institute for Sustainable Development.

 Pretty, J. and P. Shah, 2000. Soil and Water Conservation, A Brief

History of Coercion and Control. In: F. Hinchcliffe, J. Thompson, J. N.

Pretty, I. Guijt and P. Shah (eds.), Fertile ground. The impact of

participatory watershed management. London, Intermediate Technology

Publications, pp.1-12.

 Pretty, J., 1995. A Trainer's Guide for Participatory Learning and Action.

IIED Participatory Methodology series. London, IIED.

 R.Sakthivadivel, Kamal Bhattacharya and Christopher Scott, 2004. A

Comparative Analysis of Four Pilot Watershed Projects under CRS

Implementation; IWMI Working paper Forthcoming Colombo, Sri

Lanka, International Water Management Institute (IWMI).

 Rasul, G. and M. Karki, 2007. A Pro-poor Policy Agenda for Sustainable

Agricultural Development in the Hindu Kush Himalyan Region.

Kathmandu, Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain

Development (ICIMOD),

 Recycling of water through "reverse osmosis" is yet another method

followed to conserve water shed. "Aquafina" the packaged drinking

water from PepsiCo follows this method, through which over 2 billion

270

litres of water are saved. They also resort to recharging over 40% of the

water they consume through roof water harvesting and surface water

ponds. By the end of this calendar year, they have targeted to achieve

"zero water balance" through these initiatives. Its success has been

causative for other leading mineral water providers to follow suit.

 Rhoades, R.E. 1998. Participatory Watershed Research and Management:

Where the Shadows Fall.Gatekeepers Series, no 81. London:

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

 Sastry, G., O. Prakash, Y. R. Reddy and H. P. Singh, 2002. Watershed

Management Programme for Increasing Land Productivity and

Appropriate Withdrawal Strategies for Long Term Sustainability in

Rainfed Lands of India, 12th. International Soil Conservation conference.

Beijing, China, pp473-76.

 Saxena, K. G., K, S. Rao,, K. K. Sen, R. K. Maikhuri and R. L. Semwal,

2003. Integrated Natural Resource Management: Approaches and

Lessons from the Himalaya. In: B. M. Campbell and J. A. Sayer (eds.),

Integrated Natural Resource Management (pp.211-225): CAB

International Centre for International Forestry Research.

 Scheer, S. J. 1999. Soil Degradation: A Threat to Developing Country

Food Security in 2020 Food, Agriculture and the Environment.

271

Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C. International Food Policy Research

Institute.

 Sekar,C. 2001, “Externality Effects of Common Property Resource

Degradation”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(3): 346 -

357.

 Sen, K. K., R.L.Semwal, U.Rana, S.Nautiyal, R.K.Maikhuri and

K.S.Rao, 2002. Patterns and Implications for Land Use/Cover Change: A

Case Study in Pranmati Watershed (Garhwal Himalaya,India). Mountain

Research and D evelopment, 22:5 6 -62.

 Sen, S. K., T. Partap and P. N. Sharma, 1997. Farmer-Led Trainers'

Resource Book: Participatory Watershed Management Training in Asia

Programme. Kathmandu, Nepal, Netherlands, UNDP, FAO,

GCP/RAS/161/Net-RAS/93/062, pp11.

 Senthil Nathan, S. and Sekar, C. 2004, “Soil and Water Conservation

Activities in Watershed Technology, Production and Economics,

Research Report, 2004, Department of Agricultural Economics, Tamil

Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.

 Shackleton, S., B. M. Campbell, E. Wollenberg and D. Edmunds, 2002.

Devolution and Community-based Natural Resource Management:

272

Creating Space for Local People to Participate and Benefit. London:

Natural Resource Perspectives, ODI.No. 76.

 Shah, P. B. and H. Schreier, 1995. Maintaining Soil Fertility in

Agriculture and Forestry. Paper presented at the Challenges in Mountain

Resources Management in Nepal Process Trend and Dynamics in Middle

Mountain Watersheds, Kathmandu, Nepal, ppl71-182

 Shah.T, 2001. Wells and Welfare in the Ganga Basin, Public Policy and

Private Initiative in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. Research . Report 54,

Colombo, Sri Lanka, International Water Management Institute

(IWMI).

 Sharma, P. N. and M. P. Wagley, 1996. Case Studies of People's

Participation in Watershed Manageent in Asia. Kathmandu, Nepal,

UNDP/FAO/Netherlands, RAS, pp47-50

 Sheng, T. C, 1999. Important and Controversial Watershed Management

Issues in Developing Countries. Paper presented at the 10th. International

Soil Conservation Organization Meeting, Purdue University, USA.

 Sikka, A. K. and J. S. Samra, 2000. Participatory Watershed

Management. A New Paradigm for Integrated Watershed Management.

Paper presented at the International Conference on Integrated Water

273

Resource Management for Sustainable development, Roorkee, India,

pp900-910.

 Sikka, A.K. Subhash Chand and J.S. Samra, "Need and Measures for

Monitoring and Evaluating Impacts of Watershed Programmes",

Workshop on Watershed Development under IWDP Proceedings, (ed.)

S.Vijyakumar, A.K.Sikka and K.Subbian, District Rural Development

Agency, Coimbatore, 1999. pp.119-124.

 Singh, Mahadevi and Mahiawat, Majeet 'Women Participation in

Watershed Development' in Environment and People, Hyderabad, Vol. 8,

No. 6, Nov. 2001, pp. 13-29.

 Singh, Rajvir 'Watershed Planning and Management', Yash Publishing

House, Bikaner, 2003, pp. 1-60.

 Sitaula, B. K., P. L. Sankhayan, R. M. Bajrachrya and B. R. Singh, 2004.

Analysis of Forest Degradation, Soil Erosion and Carbon Losses in a

Mid-Hill Watershed of Nepal. A Bio- Economic Modelling Approach.

Special Issue on Land and Forest Degradation. Forestry, Journal of

Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, 12:45-48.

 Sthapit, K. M. and K. S. Bendtsen, 1999. Pitfalls in Participatory

Watershed Management: A Case Study from Nepal. Paper presented at

274

the Danida's Third International Workshop on Watershed Development,

Kathmandu.

 Stocking, M., 1998. Conditions Enhanced Cooperation Between People

and Institutions. In: H. P. Blume, H. Eger, E. Fleischhaurer, A. Hebel, C.

Reiji and K. G. Steiner (eds.), Towards Sustainable Land Use: Advance

in GeoEcology. Reiskrchen, India: CATENA VERLAG, pp857-865.

 Styczen, M. and S. Dreyer, 1999. Are We Finally Doing it Right. A

Review of Problems and Strategies in Soil and Water Conservation.

Paper presented at the Danida's Third International Workshop on

Watershed Development,- Kathmandu.

 Swallow, M. B., N. L. Johnson and R. S. Meinzen-Dick , 2001. Working

with People for Watershed Management. Water Policy, 3:449-455.

 The agricultural universities, cooperative sectors, NGOs, Krishi Vigyan

Kendras will come forward to train farmers training centres and ICAR

institutions pitched in their efforts and formulated backward and forward

linkage programmes, subsidies and grants, and self reliant development

strategies leading to asset creation on a cost effective basis to match the

national resource constraints. They recommended people centered

activities to maintain the acceptable rate of growth in per capita income

without depleting the capital asset stock and natural environment.

275

 The Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) was the outcome

of the Integrated Resource Management strategies, thanks to the

importance given to natural resources conservation by the five year plans.

 Thurow, T. and A. Juo, 1995. The Rationale for Using a Watershed as a

Basis for Planning and Development. In Agriculture and Environment;

Bridging Food Production and Environmental Protection in Developing

Countries. American Society of Agronomy Special Publication, 93-116.

 Townsely, P., 1996. Rapid Rural Appraisals and Participatory Rural

Appraisal and Aquaculture. Rome FAO.

 Turton, C, 2000. Sustainable Livelihoods and Project Design in India.

London, SW1E 5DP UK: Overseas Development Institute

 UNCED, 1992. Agenda 21. Rome, Italy, United Nations Commission on

Environment and Development.

 UNEP, 2004. Planning and Management of Lake and Reservoirs: An

Integrated Approach to Eutrophification: United Nations Environment

Programme Division of Technology and Economics.

 Village Watershed Development Committees (VWDC) were created to

identify problems, devise appropriate plans and implement the same.

Several committees like the water users committee, seed distribution

committee, fodder development committee, forest protection committee,

276

SHGs and socio-cultural committees are formed. They periodically meet

to discuss issues related to natural resource conservation, in the presence

of a village level motivator, who formulates informal rules and imposes

fines on violation of the same.

 Villages in India are urged to make small depressions around common

wells and fill them with pebbles so that water wasted when drawn is

allowed to permeate into the soil. This serves the twin objectives water

wasted on account of spillage is absorbed by the soil, and the water table

is not adversely affected. This initiative of the Centre of Science and

Environment (CSE) has since resulted in reducing the severity of the

water shortage during summer. In extreme cases where the water levels

exceed the permissible limits in catchment areas and reservoirs, diverting

them to farmlands through pipelines with a tapering end to facilitate drip

irrigation was resorted to.

 Wagley, M. and P. R. Bogati, 1999. State of the Art and Status of

Watershed Management in Nepal. Paper presented at the Danida's Third

International Workshop on watershed Development, Kathmandu, pp5-14.

 Wagley, M. P. and H. Ojha, 2002. Analyzing Participatory Trend in

Nepals Community Forestry. Policy trend report. Forest and Livelihood,

ppl22-142.

277

 Walker, B. and S. Carpenter, 2002. Resilience Management in Social

Ecological System. A Working Hypothesis for a Participatory Approach.

Conservation Ecology 6(1).

 WFP, 2002. Natural Resource Management and Livelihoods.

Programming Guidance World Food Programme.

 Winrock, 2002. Emerging Issues in Community Forestry in Nepal.

Kathmandu, Nepal, Occasional Papers Series No. 3,Winrock.

 With the launch of a nation wide WS development programme called

"Haryali" in 2003, villagers were encouraged to adopt steps to conserve

for drinking, irrigation, fisheries and afforestation, paving way for new

employment opportunities.

 WRI, 1985. Tropical forests. A call to action, Report of an international

task force convened by the World Resource Institute (WRI). Washington

DC World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme.

 WRI, 2003. Decentralization A Local Voice, Decision for the Earth:

Balance, Voice, and Power World Resource Institute UNDP, UNEP,

World Bank.

 Yet another initiative adopted in Tamil Nadu was By Sathguru Jakki

Vasudev who joined hands with Aachi Masala a EMCG corporate, as

part of their Corporate Social Responsibility initiative, in planting over

278

one lakh saplings to ensure the ecological balance is maintained

simultaneously with WSM.

 Young, A., 1994. Land Degradation in South Asia Its Severity, Causes,

and Effects upon the People. Rome, FAO.

279