1

Watershed Development in Maharashtra:Present Scenario and Issues

for Restructuring the Programme

Abraham Samuel, K. J. Joy, Suhas Paranjape, Sowjanya Peddi,Raju Adagale, Prafull Deshpande and Seema Kulkarni

Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM), PuneForum for Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Chapter 1: Introduction1.1. The Context1.2 The Review State1.3 Methodology1.4 Normative Framework of Review

1.4.1 Livelihoods1.4.2 Sustainability and Equitable Access1.4.3 Participation and Democratic Governance

1.5 Comparison of Different Guidelines1.6 Structure of the Report

Chapter 2: Watershed Development in Maharashtra: Macro Scenario2.1 Introduction2.2 Maharashtra: Agro-climatic Profile

2.2.1 Region-specific Problems2.2.2 Land Utilization in Maharashtra2.2.3 Irrigation and Drought2.2.4 Water Resources

2.3 Agricultural Productivity2.4 Watersheds in Maharashtra2.5 History and Evolution of Watershed Programmes in Maharashtra2.6. Brief Description of the Important Programmes

2.6.1 Centrally-assisted Schemes2.6.2 State-supported Schemes

2.7. Maharashtra: The Overall Scenario

Chapter 3: Impacts of Watershed Development on Ecosystems and Livelihoods3.1 Context3.2 Impacts on the Ecosystem

3.2.1 Improvement in soil quality3.2.2 Change in soil erosion/runoff3.2.3 Change in Life of Wells and Streams; Rise in Water-level and Numberof Wells

3

3.2.4 Change in Green Cover, Biomass, Fodder and Fuel Availability3.3 Intermediary impacts

3.3.1 Increase in drinking water3.3.2 Changes in livestock numbers and composition

3.4 Impact on Agriculture3.4.1 Change in land-use pattern3.4.2 Increase in Yield3.4.4 Change in cropping pattern

3.5. Increase in irrigated area3.6 Methods of production3.7 Socio-economic Indicators

3.7.1 Increase in income3.7.2 Changes in employment and migration

3.8 Other social changes3.9 Viability of the Projects3.10 Watershed Development and Livelihoods

Chapter 4: Watershed Development and Sustainability4.1 Introduction4.2 Sustainability of Assets Created under Watershed Development4.3 Sustainability of Watershed Impacts

4.3.1 Land-use Change and Sustainability4.3.2 Increase in Irrigation and its Impacts4.3.3 Sustaining Agricultural Productivity

4.4 Sustainability of Institutions and Social Processes4.5 Conclusion

Chapter 5: Watershed Development: Equity and Gender5.1 Context5.2 Watershed Development: Existing Inequities5.3 Addressing the Issue of Equity

5.3.1 Operationalizing Equity through Design/Strategy and Implementation5.4 Gender issues in Watershed Development

5.4.1. Operationalizing gender in watershed policy and practice5.4.2. Division of work and responsibility5.4.3 Property rights5.4.4 Institutions5.4.5 Ecology

5.5. Conclusion

4

Chapter 6: Watershed Development: Processes and Participation6.1 Context6. 2. �Participation� in Watershed Guidelines6.3 Implementing Participation: Watershed Processes and Practice

6.3.1 Watershed selection and initial mobilization6.3.2 Village-level institutions/community based organizations6.3.3 Other organizations6.3.4 Participation in Planning, Design and Technology Choice6.3.5 Process of Implementation, Local contribution/Cost sharing andParticipation6.3.6 Capacity building for Participation6.3.7 Participation in Monitoring and Evaluation.6.3.8 Financial Transaction, Issues of Transparency and Participation

6.4. Watershed Development and Panchayat Raj Institutions6.5. Observations

Chapter 7 : Issues, Concerns and Research Needs7.1 Change in Approach and Strategy

7.1.1 Project Planning7.1.2 Watershed Development Unit7.1.3 Project Implementation and Community Participation7.1.4 Conservation and Production Technology7.1.5 Common Property Land Resources7.1.6 Equity7.1.7 Operation and Management of Assets7.1.8 Management of Groundwater7.1.9 Project Management7.1.10 Baseline/ Benchmarking

7.2 Some Strategies for Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of WatershedDevelopment

7.3 Research Needs7.4 Reorienting the Watershed Programme

List of Abbreviations

List of Tables

List of Figures

5

Executive Summary

The concept of integrated and participatory watershed development and management has emerged asthe cornerstone of rural development in the dry and semi-arid regions of India. Over the years the countryhas been making increasing investments in this area with the objective of enhancing the productionpotential of rainfed agriculture. Even more ambitious plans have been made for the future�the governmenthas set a target of Rs.76,000 crores for the next 25 years.In all likelihood the dry lands of India, hitherto neglected from the mainstream development process,would receive added attention in the years to come if we have to go by the recent pronouncements by thecentral government. The National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) of the United ProgressiveAlliance (UPA) government states that, �the UPA government will introduce a special programme fordryland farming in the arid and the semi-arid regions of the country. Watershed and wastelanddevelopment programmes will be taken up on a massive scale . . . all existing schemes for drought-pronearea development will be reviewed and a single major national programme will be launched�. The PrimeMinister Dr. Manmohan Singh has announced the government�s intention of setting up a Rainfed AreasAuthority. Thus we can say that a new generation of watershed based development projects are going tobe launched in the country.At the same time there are mixed feelings about watershed development programmes and what they haveachieved. While many now consider them to be the linchpin of rural development in dryland areas � one thatintegrates sectors and provides the foundation for subsequent development � there are growing murmursabout the effectiveness of watershed development and a feeling that they are falling far short of theirpromise. In fact the Hariyali guidelines, came into effect in 2003, are already under review by the �TechnicalCommittee on Watershed Programmes in India� (Parthasarathy Committee) appointed by the Ministry ofRural Development and a new set of guidelines for watershed development projects is expected to come intoexistence.As we enter this new generation of watershed-based development programmes with such heightenedtargets and expectations, it is important to ensure that the experiences from the first generation of widelyimplemented watershed development are fully understood and internalised. It is important that thepractitioners, researchers, policy makers, implementers and funders come together and initiate a discussionon how best watershed development can achieve its potential and become an important instrument ofbringing about a sustainable and equitable process of participative development in the rural areas.The present review of watershed projects in Maharashtra, undertaken by Society for Promoting ParticipativeEcosystem Management (SOPPECOM), on behalf of the Forum for Watershed Research and PolicyDialogue (ForWaRD), hopes to contribute to this process. It may be noted at the outset that the presentreview of watershed programmers in Maharashtra is not an attempt to evaluate nor assess the impact of thelarge number of watershed projects that have been implemented in the state. Rather, this is more or less anexercise in stock taking and learning from the past. Even though the review makes an attempt to provide a�bird�s eye view of achievements� of watershed projects in the state, the focus is on situating the programmein the context of the larger developmental objective of sustainable and equitable livelihoods in rainfed areas.In this larger context, the stock taking exercise has been carried out with a difference where the status ofwatershed development is being examined through the lens of a normative framework that lays specialemphasis on productivity and livelihoods, equity, sustainability, and participation/democratic decentralization.The present review of watershed development programmes in Maharashtra is also an effort to build on theearlier effort by Joy et al in 2003-04 (Watershed review: Issues and prospects brought out by CISED asTechnical Review in 2004) which reviewed the watershed programmes in the dry land regions with a focuson Karnataka and Maharashtra. The review is based mainly on the existing sources of information (studies,reviews, reports, data available with different state departments etc.), which in fact, are quite scanty. There isalso a serious problem of availability of such information in the public domain, besides inconsistency ininformation/data on issues related to the spread/coverage and physical and financial progress of projects.Nevertheless, we have tried to overcome the constraints in qualitative information, at least partly, by holdingdetailed discussions with a large number of key informants and also by visiting a few sites of selected

6

watershed projects.1.1. Watershed Development in MaharashtraWatershed development has a long history in Maharashtra. In Bhandara age old tanks, some around 500years old, exist and are managed today which support a much superior cropping pattern there than in therest of the state. Traditional water harvesting and diversion structures for purposes of artificial irrigation havebeen excavated in Central Maharashtra (Ahmednagar, Dhule and Pune) estimated to date around 1500-1200 B.C. Social reformers and public intellectuals of the state have exhorted the importance waterconservation since centuries. With the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act (APRA) enacted in 1950, rightsover tanks was transferred from the malguzars and local village communities to the irrigation departmentand the zilla parishads which were not equipped to address the maintenance and repair problems ofthese tanks adequately. Subsequently, during the British and post�independence period, major emphasiswas on construction of large reservoirs and dams.Maharashtra has a large drought prone area (52%) and has faced recurrent droughts and famines (1907,1911, 1918, 1920,1972 etc.), which generated attention on the improvement of agriculture in non-irrigatedareas. The Bombay Land Improvement Schemes Act (1942) became the precursor for the Government ofIndia�s Model Bill on Soil Conservation for enactment by all states in the post-independence period.Following the 1972 drought, the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) was initiated in the state andsubsequently Comprehensive Watershed Development Programme (COWDEP), in 1982, which saw the firststeps in the direction of a systematic watershed development approach within government programmes.Ralegan Siddhi and Adgaon in Maharashtra were the initial NGO successes that popularised these �model-villages� with watershed development as the central theme and they shot to fame even internationally. Todaythere are a large number of programmes being implemented in the state through central financial assistancesuch as Drought Prone Areas Programme (DPAP), National Watershed Programme for Rainfed Areas(NWDPRA), River Valley Projects (RVP), Integrated Wasteland Development Programme (IWDP), WesternGhat Development Programme (WGDP), state supported programmes such as Integrated WatershedDevelopment Projects (IWDP) Adarsh Gaon Yojana (AGY) and bilateral programmes such as Indo-GermanWatershed Development Progrmamme (IGWDP) besides a number of projects being implemented byNon Governmental Organisations (NGOs) with financial support from local and foreign sources. Almost allthese programmes have institutionalised the watershed approach to treating lands and water harvesting inassociation with people�s participation to enhance the production potential of rainfed farming. WithMaharashtra�s estimated potential of surface irrigation not expected to cross 30% of the cropped area (inconventional sense), the importance of watershed development as a bulwark for rainfed agriculture isobvious in these large tracts of drought prone lands.There are in all around 44,185 micro watersheds in Maharashtra. According to estimates around 67% ofthe geographical area requires watershed treatments. Around 26,713 micro watershed programmes havebeen started in the state since 1992 out of which 8,322 have been completed. Regionally, 23% of theprogrammes are in Vidharbha region, 8% in Konkan and 69% are in the drought prone regions ofMaharashtra. Eighty three per cent of the projects are under the IWDP (State) having 22,302 microwatershed development programmes followed by DPAP (909), NWDPRA (917), EAS (1549) and AGY(645). About 522 NGOs are involved in implementing the DPAP programmes, 766 NGOs in theimplementation of EAS programmes whereas all projects under AGY, IGWDP, CAPART etc areimplemented through the NGOs. However we should state that there are some discrepancies andinconsistency in the data available on status, progress and coverage of watersheds.For the state as a whole, of the total land available for watershed development, 29.50 per cent had beentreated by 2002 while above 70% of lands remain to be treated. In Konkan 30% land available for watershedhas been treated, in the Vidharbha region 21% of the land has been treated and in the rest of Maharasthra,33% of the land available for watershed has been treated. State programmes accounted for 64% of the totalexpenditure. The expenditure figures from 1992 shows that the distribution in different regions has fairlycorresponded with the size of area to be treated in these regions. About 10% of the total expenditure hasbeen in Konkan region, 69% has been in the drought prone region and 21% has been in Vidharba region.Out of the 16,678 incomplete programmes, 1,344 are in the dark and grey areas, 3,060 are in the droughtareas, and 7,681 are in the tribal areas. These incomplete watersheds are prioritised by the state foradditional investments and completion.An analysis of the expenditure pattern for different treatments shows that construction of nala bunds andmasonry dams has been one of the important treatments. For example, in many government supportedprojects, around 60% of the expenditure has been on nala bunds both earthen and masonry structuresignoring soil conservation and moisture improvement. There are also some projects like Indo-GermanWatershed Programme (IGWDP) where there is a ceiling on expenditure on water harvesting structures Ofcourse this is not to deny the fact that some of the measures (like gully plugging, continuous contourtrenches etc) do not check soil erosion and in situ conservation. Plantation has received very little

7

importance overall and where there has been expenditure on plantation, the survival rate has been verylow. Data from the evaluation of watershed programmes in the Vidharbha region by Dharamitra alsoshows that among PIAs there has been an excessive emphasis or focus on creating multiple waterharvesting structures at the cost of undertaking effective land treatment and in situ conservation andamelioration. When the emphasis is on water harvesting structures, what is generally reported as areacovered also becomes a problematic issue.

1.2 Impact of Watershed Development programme1.2.1 Impact on ecosystem and livelihoodImpacts on many aspects have been documented and they range from bio-physical impacts such as a risein water table to wide ranging changes in the economy and even social changes in certain places. Datahave been reported on various parameters: increase in crop area, cropping intensity, increase in cropyields, change in cropping pattern, increase in irrigated area, increase in the productivity of common/wastelands due to increase in green cover and therefore increase in fodder and fuel from them, change infodder/fuel consumption (both in terms of quantity and pattern) due to change in the land use or change incropping pattern, change in livestock composition due to the above, change in water levels leading tochanges in withdrawal rate, increase in number of wells, improvement in water quality, improvement insoil quality and reduction in soil erosion, improvement in environment, improvement in employmentopportunities, changes in labour requirements, changes in income levels and livelihoods and finallychanges in socio-economic structure of the community.Most of the available literature document many or some of these impacts in a somewhat ad hoc manner.The data are often impressionistic and lack rigour. Very few studies have based themselves on rigorousbenchmarks established beforehand and compared them with values obtained later. Most have relied onrecall and perception of respondents of the change or impact. Even fewer have tried to explore the linksbetween the initial soil and water conservation conditions, treatments and the later processes that lead tofinal impacts. The chapter on impacts shows that watershed programmes, if implemented scientifically,certainly assure positive changes in a few physical parameters such as an increase in water table,availability of biomass, increased duration in stream flow and a decrease in soil erosion/run-off. It is alsoobserved that soil erosion in non-arable lands reduced when investments were higher in such lands. Thereview also shows that watersheds where proper area treatments were undertaken could tolerate longerdrier spells. In most of the watersheds for which information is available, water level and duration of wateravailable in the wells have increased. However, we should note that most of the projects for whichinformation available are the promising ones. The review finds that watershed development has improvedlivelihood opportunities for watershed communities though the degree of improvement varies from thespectacular to the �now not very good�. The review finds that agricultural production has improved in most ofthe watersheds, but the aggregate information fail to reflect the impact on different class of land and fordifferent socio economic categories. One cannot also attribute the improvement in production as an outcomeof watershed measures alone. The distribution of benefits has not always been even, and there are alsoreversals though in all cases some livelihood improvement has carried over. On the whole, watersheddevelopment shows significant impact in better years, but has not mostly been able to insure against badyears. In certain cases conflict between drinking water and irrigation needs has been accentuated bywatershed development. In many watersheds the problem of drinking water could not be addressedeffectively and going back to tanker days is observed. Though watershed development has brought downmigration in the initial phases, the post-project phase does not show a uniform trend and in some instancesavailability of work has been reduced. One of the most neglected area, observed in the review, is thedevelopment of common property land resources (CPLRs) and the potential of creating biomass basedlivelihoods and wherever biomass development has been undertaken it could not produce the desiredresults due to low survival rate, inappropriate technology and lack of institutional and administrativemechanism of management and usufructs. Lack of coordination and support from forest department is alsoone of the major reasons for non-development of CPLRs.1.2.2 Impact on sustainabilityThe review shows that there has been a beneficial impact of watershed development on watershedecosystems: soil erosion has been checked, land cover has improved, and groundwater recharge hasincreased. Together with this, the number of wells, especially bore wells also have increased considerablyand there is no corresponding social regulation of water use. There are a couple of instances wherecultivation of water intensive crops is not encouraged and digging of bore wells is banned. The availableevidences show that resource exploitation (especially of ground water) and nature of agriculture productionin a specific watershed is closely related to the mode of agriculture production prevailing in that area. Groundwater exploitation and high external input agriculture is widely prevalent in watersheds in the scarcity zones

8

where agriculture is greatly in a �capitalist mode of production� as compared to watersheds in the tribalareas. The culture of the community also has an impact on these issues related to resource use.In many watersheds, non-cropped area is brought under cultivation, and there is a shift away from foodcrops without an accompanying shift to sustainable crop practices. Watershed activity is possibly showingup in decreased flows into downstream tanks and reservoirs. Drinking water is increasingly being met fromdeeper aquifers. However, many of these phenomena have not been adequately studied; neither havethere been many water balance studies.While the provision of the Watershed Development Fund (WDF) is a step forward in providing financialbacking for the institutionalisation of repair and maintenance of the structures created in the watershedprograms, the challenge of operationalising the fund lies largely unexplored as of now. Presently, manyprojects have significant amounts lying in their WDF accounts � the balances in the fund vary widely from aslow as Rs. 5000 to lakhs for certain watersheds. However, presently there is lack of any guidelines and anambiguity regarding the right to use the money and the purposes to which it can be used. It is generallynoticed that very little of it is being utilised even when structures need repair. Delineating the procedures,rights and purposes clearly is an immediate requirement to ensure against misappropriation as well to enableits proper utilization for maintenance of the structures. In almost all instances the local organisations andinstitutional arrangements promoted as part of watershed development is also not sustained beyond theproject period.Sustainability is an issue least articulated and operationalized as the review suggest. Most often theindicators that are used to judge the success of watershed itself is at loggerheads with issues ofsustainability. It is necessary to operationalize a set of criteria related to sustainable impacts including issuesrelated to 1) sustainable productivity enhancement measures, 2) regulation of biomass extraction rate, 3)planning watersheds on the basis of ridge to valley without taking a dogmatic position about it, 4) beingaware of the balance while planning run-off suppression measures, 5) studying and monitoring unintendedhydrological effects, 6) regulation of ground water extraction, 7) undertaking integrated planning, prioritisationand social regulation of water use, 8) make applied water part of project design and above all 9) designingand facilitating appropriate institutional and organisational mechanisms to facilitate sustainable use ofresources and impacts.1.2.3 Impact on equityIn respect of equity, the review finds that by itself, watershed development accentuates inequity: favours thelanded and the lower reaches; as well as those who have the wherewithal to invest in wells and pumps. Insome cases, measures like bans on grazing and cutting trees, closing of commons, and a ban on keepinggoats, which are imposed from above, have hit the rural poor, especially the Dalits and landless, very hard.However, it also finds now a greater awareness of equity issues related to the landless, the women, theDalits, and the marginal farmers. However, it often sees the solution as non-land based income generationactivity (watershed plus), unrelated to watershed development. There is a need for the resource poor to beensured a share of the increased resources that watershed generates.Employment during the project period remains the only important benefit to the landless with no clear andgeneral evidence of sustained increase in work availability once the programme related work has beencompleted. As agriculture develops it is also noticed that mechanisation is taking the roots slowly. At mostplaces, migration for employment completely halted at least during the project period. While the condition ofthe small landholders might improve as their lands become more productive and are cultivated across theyear, the situation of the landless can improve only with further determined interventions. Only at a fewplaces the landless have bought land in the watershed. At places such as Ralegaon Sidhi labour wasemployed from nearby villages (or permanently immigrated) due to the sustained increase in agricultureproduction either because of bringing in additional lands under crops (through irrigation) or due to anincrease in the cropping intensity. However in Ralegaon Sidhi, external water from the canal is also used forirrigation. The projects also differed in their approach to granting land rights to the landless. While someNGOs see the provision of land to the landless as a way to resolve the inequitable resource access in thewatershed, others believe in lifting encroachment by the landless to free CPLRs for regeneration.Development of CPLRs and issues related to user rights are one of the most neglected areas in thewatershed development.Increased awareness of gender has led to establishment of self help groups (SHGs) that have helpedwomen save, obtain credit, and become more active and visible. But this activity has not become an integralpart of the watershed development and has had little impact on traditional gender roles. Women SHGs role inwatershed development is not very clear, and nor there are efforts to integrate this institution in the planningand implementation process of watersheds. In some projects women are nominated in the watershedcommittees, but hardly they have any space in the decision-making. Considering �women� as homogenousentity also has its problem in addressing issues related equity.

9

1.2.4 Watershed development and participationSimilarly, the review finds an increased awareness of the need for participation. However, it is mostlyviewed as a means to obtain co-operation, raise efficiency, and gain legitimacy rather than an empoweringobjective in itself. Participation is operationalized in an instrumental way, which creates problem for realempowerment and democratisation. Much of the decision making still remains in the hands of thedevelopment agencies and Community Based Organisation (CBOs) function mostly as implementers ofdecisions taken by the Project Implementing Agencies (PIAs) and Watershed Development Teams(WDTs). It is also observed that the culture and philosophy of the PIAs greatly influence and determine theway participation is facilitated. In the comparatively newer projects, there is greater emphasis on providingrepresentation to all social groups and hamlets on multiple user committees for sectoral interest groups.However, participation of the local communities in crucial decisions has been pretty dismal along withcontrol over fund allocation and expenditure. Major decisions are taken (beforehand) by PIAs andconsultation with local people is often synonymous with consultation with the �powerful�.Participation needs to be more clearly defined so that the responsibility of the PIA can be pinned downaccurately in terms of the specific tasks and activities that need to be undertaken for effective communityorganization and participation in the programme. More than 50% of the NGOs seem to have failed toeffectively mobilize community participation in the programmes. The Agriculture Department also was poor atcommunity organization and often villages were rejected on the criteria that they were not co-operative,whereas the villagers were not even aware of the purpose and content of the programmes. The ones whichare successful in the beginning to kindle interest and encourage participation often get sandwiched at a laterstage between the community�s expectations from the programme and the DRDA�s procrastination.Treating cost sharing as an indicator of participation is also problematic. Though the core idea of cost sharingensuring people�s commitment may be acceptable, the issue of the quantum is not. Resource poor sectionsmay be �priced out� of the programme because they cannot afford the contributions. Sometimes contributionscome from withheld wages or from reduction in wages. Effectively this means that the poor, pay on behalf ofthe landed. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is being increasingly used as a tool for data collection, toenlist local participation and to capture local development priorities. Even when not reduced to a bureaucraticprocedure it is problematic because often it may represent only the opinion of a few, especially the dominantsections in the village. It is necessary to contextualise PRA and demarcate what it can do and what it cannot.PRA techniques can be an effective tool for a qualitative and rapid understanding of the situation. However,as it does not provide reliable quantitative data regarding quantities like resource status or land use patterns,and may leave no space for interactive learning between local knowledge systems and �external�, �modern�systems of knowledge. There is also a lack of adequate space for and articulation of watershed developmentorganisations with the Panchayati Raj institutions. Greater attention is needed to address 1) participatorymonitoring and evaluation, 2) the role of local communities as regulatory layers, 3) lack of nested institutions,and 4) the conditions for effective participation and moving on from participation to democraticgovernance.1.3. Capacity Building and TrainingGiven this background, it is important to strengthen the human intervention aspect, access to informationand capacity enhancement, which is found as the weakest link in the overall programme. As it is,allocations on training and community organization are only 5% of the entire programme provision. Eventhis expenditure is sometimes treated casually: typically it may involve one or two exposure visits tosuccessful watersheds such as Ralegan Siddhi, a few stage/road shows in the beginning and a few days�training that is usually limited to the chairperson and secretary of the village watershed committee. It is notuncommon to find that the expectation of policy makers that people themselves acquire the aptitude tounderstand the complex biophysical and socio-economic linkages that will evolve and take shape over thenext few years through watershed interventions rests in practice on the training received by one or twopeople for 4-5 days! The fact that changes brought in by watershed development impinge on all �actors�and sections at the village level � landed, landless, herders, women, children � and their consciousinvolvement is crucial from the beginning only makes the challenge of providing adequate �training� moreformidable. There are some projects, especially those facilitated by the NGOs (not as PIAs of governmentsupported projects) where capacity building is taken seriously and integrated with the projectsmanagement cycle.The performance of the PIAs range widely from those who have been accused of misappropriation offunds with little attention paid even in the construction of basic structures, to those that undertake technicalaspects of the watershed well only to fail with imitating effective community organization, to those thatinitiate long term changes in the economy and the watershed community and look at the effectiveimplementation of watershed programs as just the entry point into bringing in socio-economic change insociety.The Haryali guidelines make ambitious demands on the grassroots level organizations and institutions

10

such as the gram panchayats to undertake decisions, and are called on to understand and decide onmany complex matters. This is balanced by the fact that each community living in the environs of its ownwatershed is itself the best planning and monitoring agency in respect of watershed development and itsimpact. However, the community�s lack of adequate understanding of the environmental externalities anda traditionally discriminatory and exploitative social structure could lead to a skewed distribution of benefitsand selective environmental degradation.1.4. Constraints: Perceptions of NGO PractitionersThe failure of the DRDA to make timely release of funds to the PIAs seems to be the one major problemthat not only affects the performance of the programme but also the motivation of both the NGOs and theVWCs. The planning and the momentum of the work gets affected especially given that the schedule of thewatershed work has to be synchronized with the cycle of annual agricultural operations. Labour and even theprivate lands, where treatments need to be undertaken, are free only after the first crop (or the second crop ifit is taken in the village) has been harvested. This means that most of the physical works has to beundertaken between the months of November to May (before the start of the rainy season). Unless funds forthat particular year are released before this critical period, the delay of a few months in release of funds canmean postponement of the work by an entire year. Many PIAs felt that the government officials involved withthe fund release need to be adequately sensitised to this issue. A performance oriented fund release systemis required.Secondly, not only the fund release is irregular but most often it is incomplete right through the programme.Either the entire funds allocated to �community organization� are not disbursed, or the NGO�s remuneration(as PIA) is not covered and even the funds allocated for the treatments are not sometimes released. Many ofthe PIAs, which have completed some DPAP programmes, complained that at least 15-20% of the fundsallotted is never released and this percentage can be much more in certain cases.Finally, the DRDA seems to follow a dual policy when implementing norms regarding technical andorganizational performance of the NGO vis-à-vis other government departments when they acted as the PIA.The NGOs were often bogged down with superfluous demands made on them to produce additionaldocumentation, surprise checks or evaluations. There is also no statutory provision for the NGOs where theycan have their grievances redressed and they also found it difficult to form united forums to collectively raisetheir voice.There were mixed feelings about the new Haryali guidelines. While some NGO and GO personnel felt that itwas an attempt to marginalize the NGOs� role in watershed projects which would only impact theprogrammes adversely, others felt that it was the right move in the direction of enabling the Panchayati RajInstitutions and village level institutions to take the responsibility of their development in their own hands.While the guidelines prevent the hegemony of the NGOs over the programme funds, it assumes that thegram panchayat is a democratic body and takes the risk of placing the responsibility in the environ of localpower struggles which often bifurcate the community into at least two or more political fragments. Beyond the�for� and �against� arguments what remains clear is that in the absence of the NGO as the principalimplementing agency, there would be much more need for training and awareness on the part of the PRIsand local institutions on technical, financial and organizational fronts to ensure effective implementation ofthe programme. The responsibility of better community organization through greater training falls on thePanchayat Samiti or a PIA appointed by the DRDA/ PRIs as part of the Hariyali Guidelines.1.5 Need to re-orient the approach and policyThe review also highlights an immediate need to re-orient the present approach to watershed developmentand put an enabling policy framework in place to ensure that watershed development programmesadequately meet the requirements of the four central concerns, namely, sustainability, livelihoods, equity, andparticipation/self-governance. It calls first of all for a reorientation of approach to watershed developmentbased on the following: a sustainable productivity enhancement orientation; pro-active measures to deal withsustainability and equity issues; preceding resource generation with institutional arrangements to handlethose resources; making adequate technology choices; and taking dependability into account in watershedplanning.There is also an urgent need for an enabling legislation for collective regulation of ground water use andeventually moving towards IWRM from below. Many policies, which may not be directly related to watersheddevelopment programmes per se, also impinge on the outcomes, including electricity tariffs, irrigation policy,agriculture research and extension policy, fertiliser and agricultural produce pricing, and forest policy. Thereis also a need to restructure the watershed development programme by increasing the watersheddevelopment allocation and period, and conduct it in phases. The suggested first phase consists mainly ofupper reach programmes, plantation activity, capability building, and institution building; it does not includeconstructing any major water harvesting structures. The second phase deals mainly with full drainage linetreatment and the third phase with what is now being called watershed plus targeted mainly at the resource

11

poor. Each phase should be conditional on fulfilling the conditions for the earlier phase. Such arestructuring and phasing will provide an enabling environment for groups and organisations that want tofully address the foundational objectives of watershed-based development, namely, sustainability,livelihoods, equity and participation/self-governance.1. 6 Research needsThe review also identifies the following research needs: a) Development of easy, practical and robustmodels for water balance studies that can give good, workable, first approximations with sufficient scope forimprovement and adaptation as precise data become available; b) Study of the serious hydrological changesbeing brought about by watershed development at the micro-watershed as well as at sub-basin and basinlevels; c) Long term, co-ordinated, multi-locational studies through collaborative research network to captureimpacts of watershed interventions, especially the ecological impacts, which take a longer period to workthemselves out; d) Inter-disciplinary studies to understand the interventions, processes, and outcomes in amore holistic and integrated manner and capture the multi-dimensionality of the problem in an integratedmanner.The review also makes specific suggestions for research in different areas as listed below:Hydrological: a) cross-scale and inter-scale hydrological effects (upper to valley portions, intra- and inter-watershed relations up to basin-scale); b) surface water-ground water interactions; c) aquifer behaviour, inparticular balance between shallow and deep aquifers, their sizes, recharge rates, locations, and so on; d)net effect of different soil and water conservation measures as well as afforestation and agricultural practiceson quantities like infiltration and erosion under different geo-physical conditions.Land-Vegetation-Water interactions: a) agro-ecological relationships and impact on one another as anecosystem; b) grazing and forest management, in particular productivity, sustainability, and offsite effects.Socio-Economic and Institutional aspects: a) compare asset-based approaches with income-basedapproaches, in terms of benefits, their distribution and sustainability; b) scope for biomass-based valueaddition � biomass, labour, energy, capital and financial requirements, and identification of possiblebottlenecks; c) scope of watershed and NRM-based development in different regions, limits, and implications,especially in resource poor areas; d) indigenous knowledge, its scope, and issues in its interface withmodern knowledge; e) role of CBOs and SHGs in improving participation and sustaining benefits beyondproject period; f) ways of better addressing the problem of local heterogeneity by equitable and sustainablereconciliation of interests and conflict resolution; g) social and institutional mechanisms and capabilitybuilding for incorporating rigorous participatory grassroots benchmarking, monitoring, and assessment inwatershed based development programmes.

12

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1.The ContextIntegrated and participatory watersheddevelopment and management hasemerged as the cornerstone of ruraldevelopment in the dry and semi-aridregions of India. The programme,initially launched to arrest soil erosion incatchments of large and mediumreservoirs,1 has since grown in scope.The current generation of projectsrepresent an attempt to address theissue of sustainable livelihood-generation in resource-poor areas.Watershed development today is one ofthe largest interventions in the country interms of scale, resource allocation andagencies involved. Other than theministries of Rural Development (MoRD,specifically, the Department of LandResources), and Agriculture (MoA), theMinistry of Environment and Forests(MoEF) is also involved in watershedand eco-development programmes.

MilestonesThe decade of the 1980s saw efforts to�mainstream� successful experimentslike Sukhomajri and Ralegaon Sidhi.While some Community organisations/NGOs had already begun doing notablework in this area, the government in1982-83, started a programme in 19locations under the MoA to propagatewater harvesting/conservation in rainfedareas. In 1984, the MoRD also initiatedconservation strategies in 22 otherlocations with research and technologyinputs from the Indian Council ofAgricultural Research (ICAR) to develop41 �model watersheds�. In 1990,integrated watershed development waslaunched with the introduction ofNational Watershed DevelopmentProgramme for Rainfed Areas

(NWDPRA). Simultaneously,conservation work was undertakenthrough the Drought-prone AreasProgramme (DPAP) initiated by MoRDin 1972-73 and the Desert DevelopmentProgramme (DDP) initiated in 1977-78.Today the major programmes alsoinclude the Integrated WastelandDevelopment Programme or IWDP,River Valley Projects or RVP, andWatershed Development Projects inShifting Cultivation Areas or WDPSCA,among others.In 1994, important on-course correctionwas provided by an impact-assessmentand review committee set up under thechairmanship of Prof. C.H. HanumanthaRao, which revealed a very dismalpicture in terms of outcomes andimpact. It called for a total revamp interms of implementation andmanagement, drawing upon successstories initiated by individuals,communities and those NGOs that hadindependently done notable work duringthis period. The Committee alsoformulated comprehensive guidelinesfor MoRD-implemented watershedprojects. These MoRD guidelines werefurther revised in 2001 and again inApril 2003 as �Guidelines for Hariyali�.The MoA formulated guidelinesNational Watershed Development forRainfed Areas (NWDPRA)-WARASA,revising them in 2000 as the WARASA-Jan Sahabhagita Guidelines. Keyfeatures introduced in the course of theevolution of watershed developmentincluded community participation,participatory planning andimplementation, NGO-participation asproject facilitating agencies, capacitybuilding, social capital formation andissues related to livelihoods, gender,equity and sustainability. Following theXIth Schedule of the 73rd Amendment tothe Constitution in 1993, the GramPanchayats were made responsible forwatershed development. The latestHariyali guidelines aim at cementingpeople�s participation through themandatory participation of PanchayatiRaj Institutions as the PIA forwatershed development programmes.The two important Government of Indiaprogrammes � NWDPRA (under MoA)and projects following the CommonGuidelines (now Hariyali, under theMoRD) � together account for about 70per cent of the funds and area under thewatershed programme in the country.

1 To stabilizecatchments ofreservoirs and tocontrol siltation,a centrallyassisted schemeof �SoilConservationWork in theCatchments ofRiver ValleyProjects� wasinitiated in 1962-63.

13

A Few Fiscal MarkersThree ministries at centre are involvedin watershed and eco-developmentprogrammes namely, MoRD�s (Dept. ofLand Resources), MoA(Department ofAgriculture and Coperation)and Ministryof Environment and Forest (MoEF).Besides planned allocation of resourcesthese ministries also implementexternally aided projects. As of March2005, MoA had treated an area of 17.24mha at a cost of Rs 9368.03 crores(more than half the expenditure underMoA is through external aid2 and MoRDhad treated 27.52 mha at an outlay of Rs6855.66 crores.Some of the majorprogrammes of MoRD are DroughtProne Areas Programme (DPAP),Desert Development Programme (DDP),Integrated Wasteland DevelopmentProgramme (IWDP) and that of MoA isNational Watershed DevelopmentProgramme for Rainfed Areas(NWDPRA), River Valley Projects(RVP), and Watershed DevelopmentProjects in Shifting Cultivation Areas(WDPSCA) etc. National Bank forAgriculture and Rural Development(NABARD) and the Department ofAgriculture and Cooperation (MoA)established the National WatershedDevelopment Fund with an initial corpusof Rs 200 crores. There are also anumber of state-sponsored, bilateral andprivately funded projects implementedby a large number of agencies andNGOs. Watershed development hastoday virtually become the flagshipprogramme of rural development inIndia, with an estimated annualexpenditure of Rs 2300 crores duringthe Tenth Plan (Report of the TechnicalCommittee, 2006 p.42) and a target oftreating 63 million ha over the next 20-25years with an estimated total outlay ofRs 76,000 crores {GOI, 2000: p. 388}. Itis no longer seen as an �experiment�, butaccepted by governments, donors andNGOs alike, as a core strategy thatsubsumes all other activities, such asafforestation or common landregeneration and stabilizes rurallivelihoods through its multi-sectoralapproach, especially in the dry, rain-fedregions of India.3Such large investment in watersheddevelopment is justifiable if it enhancesproductivity of rainfed areas. Eventhough there is a paucity of reliable,scientific and methodologically rigorous

research and studies, those that havebeen undertaken show that manyprojects have created positive impactsin terms of increased water availability,agricultural production and ruralemployment.1.2 The Review StateThe state of Maharashtra is a pioneer inwatershed development. Examples suchas Ralegaon Siddhi, Adgaon andPimpalgaon Wagha among others arepart of watershed discourses assuccessful examples of droughtmitigation and rural developmentthrough the watershed approach. Morethan half the state�s geographical area isdrought-prone and also characterized byrecurrent droughts, famines, monsoonfailure and livelihood distress of the poorand marginal. Hence it is no surprisethat the cause of water conservation hasbeen espoused historically byMaharashtrian reformers andvisionaries. Successive governments,NGOs and community leaders have alsocontinued the tradition, taking it up as amajor rural developmental strategy andapproach. Thus, the Bombay LandImprovement Schemes Act (1942)became the precursor for theGovernment of India�s Model Bill on SoilConservation for enactment by all statesin the post-independence period.Following the severe drought in 1972,the first steps in the direction of asystematic watershed developmentapproach within governmentprogrammes were the introduction of theEmployment Guarantee Scheme (EGS)and subsequently ComprehensiveWatershed Development Programme(COWDEP) in 1982. As mentionedearlier, Ralegaon, Adgaon etc. havebecome models replicated throughoutthe country. Today DPAP, NWDPRA,RVP, IWDP, IWDP (state) Adarsh GaonYojana (AGY), Indo-German WatershedDevelopment Programme (IGWDP) etc.,are programmes that haveinstitutionalized the watershed approachof treating land and water harvesting inassociation with people�s participation tocreate �sustainable livelihoods�. WithMaharashtra�s estimated potential ofsurface irrigation not expected to cross30 per cent of the cropped area, theimportance of watershed developmentas a bulwark for rainfed agriculture isobvious in these large drought-pronetracts of land.

2 From Hariyalito Neeranchal:Report of theTechnicalCommittee onWatershedDevelopment inIndia pp. 42.3 Indeed, thesame approachis being adoptedeven in moisterand forestedregions like theWestern Ghatsand theHimalayas,whether underthe PlanningCommission�sWestern GhatsDevelopmentProgramme orthe Hill AreaDevelopmentProgramme, oras part of theWorld Banksupportedwatershedprogramme inKarnataka.

14

There are around 44,185 microwatersheds in Maharashtra. Around26,713 micro watershed programmeshave been started in the state since1992. As on March 2004, 8188watershed projects have beencompleted, covering an area of 41.63lakh ha incurring an expenditure of Rs3288.40 crores4 . About 522 NGOs areinvolved with the implementation ofDPAP programmes, 766 NGOs with theimplementation of EGS programmes,and all programmes under AGY,IGWDP, Council for Advancement ofPeople�s Action and Rural Technology(CAPART) supported watersheds etcare implemented through the NGOs.It is now more than a decade sincewatershed development as an approachand strategy for rural development wasinstitutionalized. All projects based onthe earlier guidelines have beencompleted and new watersheds basedon the Hariyali guidelines are underway.Implementation strategies, processesand institutional mechanisms also haveundergone modifications during thedecade. From mere soil and waterconservation measures, the objectivesof watershed development have movedtowards sustainable development ofrainfed areas for production andlivelihoods. This shift in objective andapproach has been facilitated through alarge number of innovations, interactionamong the community of practitionersand studies and evaluations of existingapproaches, strategies and impacts ofdevelopment. Through the efforts of amultiplicity of practitioners and projectsa wide range of experiences andlessons have emerged in the state. Thetime is ripe for an appraisal andsubsequent consolidation of theselearnings, for wider dissemination.There are a number of reviews, studies,evaluations and research reports onvarious aspects of watersheddevelopment. These cover the impacts,process, technology, institutional issues/arrangements, gender, and participation,among others. The perspective,objective, methodology and unit ofanalysis is also as varied as the studies.While some studies have beenconducted by external evaluators/agencies there are a number of thembeing generated by the implementingagencies themselves. Though most ofthese studies have generated a lot of

interesting information and highlight thecomplex and varied nature ofwatershed projects and their impacts,they do not always provide anintegrated picture of the outcomes inthe wider context of sustainabledevelopment goals. Many useindicators related to resourceregeneration such as increase in thewater table, biomass, agriculturalproduction etc., without looking into theissues of ecosystem sustainability oraspects of distribution of benefits. Mostof the time this is due to theoveremphasis placed on watersheddevelopment as a strategy to enhancedry land farming productivity.Sustainability of these biophysicalimpacts and their relationship tosustainable livelihoods does not seemto have received much attention. This isvery important since some of the�successful� watersheds have becomethe story of the �tragedy of commons� inthe post-implementation phase due toincreased competition for enhancedecosystem products and services.Those studies that do focus on theseaspects are not well grounded in thesocial issues and therefore fail to linkbiophysical parameters with livelihoodand equity concerns. First-generationprojects and their practitioners may nothave been very familiar with theseconcerns because the issues ofsustainability, participation, equity,livelihoods etc. emerged in thewatershed discourse and lexicon later.However, an analysis of outcomes ofwatershed development from thisperspective can help in understandingall the ramifications, besides providinginputs for better administration/implementation of a multi-sectoralintervention such as watersheddevelopment.1.3 MethodologyWith this background, an attempt ismade to analyse the performance ofwatershed development projects inMaharashtra covering inter sectoralecosystem issues from aninterdisciplinary perspective. Weattempt a comprehensive overview ofavailable literature and data to gain aninsight into the dominant patterns andperceptions on the various issues ofwatershed development. This review,therefore, draws upon many studies,reports and documents along withinsights from discussions with key

4 Soil and WaterConservationProgramme,Annual Report2003-04,Government ofMaharashtra,Department ofAgriculture,pp.17. This isexclusively forGovernment-supportedprogrammes.There arenumerous otherprojectsimplemented byNGOs throughother fundingsources. Thereare certaindiscrepancies inthe informationon the progressand status ofwatersheds.

15

actors: personnel from governmentaland non-governmental organisations,and watershed committees, people fromthe communities etc. and finally from thepersonal experience and visits of theresearchers to a few watersheddevelopment projects.The review is neither meant to be ahypothesis-driven study, based onprimary data collection, nor anevaluation study, but rather an overviewof important aspects related towatershed development and anassessment of the performance ofMaharashtra state in light of thesevarious dimensions. Information isanalysed within a broad normativeframework, which tries to capture somekey issues related to watersheddevelopment goals and objectives.The review draws on the following typesof material:

Literature related to watershedconcepts and strategies: policy andguideline documents, literature dealingwith broader concepts like livelihood,sustainability, equity, participation, andinstitutions; normative and prescriptivedocuments which guide action.Data from the soil conservationdepartment on different watershedprogrammes in Maharashtra since1992.

Studies which review watershedliterature: reviews, evaluations,research notes, articles andmethodologies, etc.Data from evaluations done byDharamitra, Amravati of about 115projects implemented by variousNGOs in the Vidharbha region.Focused workshops with differentframework actors in Vidharbha regionand in Pune.Evaluations of watershed experiencesand case studies.Our own historically evolved andaccumulated experience andobservations supplemented by fieldvisits that were undertaken as part ofthe present review.

The sites for field visits were notselected on the basis of strict sampling.The primary aim was to cover differenttypes of programmes that would providea cross-section of the range ofexperience in the state. We primarilyconcentrated on agro-climatic zoneswith (average) rainfall ranging fromabout 450 to about 1000 mm/year andfollowed it up with a workshop and a fewfield visits to the Vidharbha region. Thelist of villages/watersheds that werevisited is given in Table 1.1 (next page).

Figure 1:Sites visited inMaharashtra

16

PPrrooggrraammmmee OOrrgaganniizzaattiioonn VViillllaaggee//WWaatteerrsshheded DDiissttrriicctt Government Department (Soil Conservation)

Marathwada Sheti Sahayak Mandal, Aurangabad

Adgaon Aurangabad

Government Department (Soil Conservation, Social Forestry, etc.)

Local organization led by Anna Hazare Ralegaon Siddhi Ahmednagar

Adarsh Gaon Yojana Yashwant Agriculture, Village and Watershed Development Organization

Hivre Bazar Ahmednagar

Indo-German Watershed Programme

WOTR Vaiju Babhulgaon Ahmednagar Indo-German Watershed Programme

SEVA Ambewadi Beed NGO Manavlok Bhavthan Beed NGO AFARM Dornali Nanded DPAP � Common Guidelines

Gomukh Trust Chale Pune NWDPRA (ongoing) Prabhodini Kaute Malkapur �

Sangamner Ahmednagar

NWDPRA (completed) Agriculture Department Bairewadi Ahmednagar DPAP (completed) Sarvodaya welfare Vatpur � Nandgaon

Khandeshwar Amravati DPAP (ongoing) Chandrapuri Maharaj

Shikshan Prasarak Samstha

Pimpalgaon Bahinai Amravati

Aga Khan Foundation (completed)

Dilasa Yevat Yavatmal DPAP (completed) Prabhodankar Thakare Pulsa watershed,

Dharani Chikaldhara

Amravati

DPAP (ongoing) Mahila Utkashta Samstha

Hirangi � Manglurpir Washim

DPAP (ongoing) Sriram Shukshanik Sanskruti Samstha Sanglud Akola

Table 1.1:List of villages/watersheds visited in Maharashtra

Besides these watershed developmentefforts, we also looked at relevantexperiences that are not typicalwatershed interventions. Some suchexamples are the Pani Panchayat (Punedistrict), known for its strongcommitment to equity; the Ozar WaterUsers� Associations (Nashik district)known for their integration of canalwater and local water harvesting; BaliRaja Dam (Sangli district), a small dambuilt by the people themselves andagain recognized for equitable waterdistribution; and Khudwadi (Usmanabaddistrict), which is known for theresourcefulness exhibited by a poorwomen�s group in getting a share of the

canal water and farming the privatewasteland on a produce-sharing basis.A day-long workshop was arranged atAmravati on 6 January 2006 with thoseNGOs/government agencies that hadbeen working as implementingagencies.The sites of the field visits are shown inFigure 1.1 (previous page).A strict classification of projects interms of their mode of implementationwas not attempted. We have tried tocapture the broad trends by includingboth completed and ongoing projectsacross various zones and underdifferent programmes5 .

5 Though wehave not goneinto the detailsof each of theseprogrammes ortheirdistinguishingfeatures, fourtypes of fundingsources areidentified, basedon differences inimplementingpolicies, namelythe Governmentof India,multilateralsources,bilateral donors,and others. GOIsources areMoA andMoRD,Multilateralsourcesbasically boildown to theWorld Bank.Bilateralsources includeDANIDA, SDC,ICEF, SIDA,GTZ, KFW etc.Others includevarious nationaland internationalnon-profitorganizationsthat supportprojectsimplemented byNGOs (Kolavalliand Kerr, 2002,155; Kerr et al.,2000, 39) intheir studyclassifiesprojects interms of (i)projects underMinistry ofAgriculture (likeNWDPRA,ICAR projects);(ii) engineeringorientedprojects (SoilConservation,DPAP, etc.); (iii)NGO projects;and (iv)collaborativeprojectsbetweengovernment andNGOs (Indo-GermanWatershedDevelopmentProgrammes,Adarsh GaonYojana, etc.).

17

1.4 Normative Framework of ReviewUnderstanding watershed developmentrequires a �normative framework�embracing the notions of �watershed�and �watershed development�, and howthey are translated into practice. Suchtranslation may also be based uponadditional assumptions about what ispossible and desirable, and how to bringthese changes about. One may call thisa set of goals, specific objectives, andassumptions the normative frameworkanalyses.Catchments protection programmeslooked upon the watershed as a unit butfocused mainly on reducing reservoirsediment load. Soil and waterconservation are still central towatershed development, butafforestation, common landsregeneration, agronomic changes, andso on, are also linked to this centraltheme and watershed development isnow being seen a core strategy forstabilizing rural livelihoods in the dry,rainfed regions of India. Further,participation, gender, equity,sustainability, and livelihoods are nowmuch more prominent concerns in thewatershed development literature andare increasingly reflected in the officialwatershed development guidelines. Theemergence of these concerns may bethrough exogenous factors(developmental interactions) or due tointernal dynamics (access andexclusion) in the developmental spaceor may be because of reflections/learnings. Whatever the reason, theseissues bring into focus the povertyreduction objective of watershed to thefront.In a country like India where the vastmajority has been dependent on naturalresources for their livelihoods,�development� will have to be basedprimarily on long-term sustainableproductivity enhancement and, in thedrought-prone regions, on increasing thedependability of production and,consequently, the security of livelihoods.The interconnectedness of thebiophysical and the social is intrinsic towatershed development and drawsstrength from this interconnectedness.Biophysical and social interventions arenot two separate processes, but aspectsof a single unified process andecosystem processes and resources arebasic economic resources as well.

Moreover, historical processes andfactors also interact with the biophysicaland social interventions.1.4.1 LivelihoodsEarlier discussions of needs centred onthe fulfilment of basic or subsistenceneeds. Since the early 1990s, however,the concept of livelihoods and morespecifically �sustainable livelihoods�(SL) has entered the rural developmentdiscourse prominently. A definition ofthese terms is offered by the BritishGovernment�s Department ofInternational Development (DFID): �A livelihood comprises the capabilities,assets and activities required for ameans of living. A livelihood issustainable when it can cope with andrecover from stresses and shocks andmaintain or enhance its capabilities andassets both now and in the future, whilenot undermining the natural resourcebase.�Livelihood is conceptualized in thisreview in a similar manner. However,livelihood needs, in the sense the term isused in the study, include not only thebasic needs of food, shelter, andclothing, but also needs that areimposed due to the nature of thelivelihood activity. They also includecertain surpluses over and abovedirectly satisfied consumption needsthat can be exchanged with the largersystem. Finally, livelihood needs place ahigher premium on natural as comparedto other forms of assets, thus forexample, in watershed development,they emphasize the need to createequal access. However, most watershedprogrammes view the issue of livelihoodfrom the �watershed plus� angle, mostlyas income-generation activities, ignoringrights and access to regenerated andaugmented resources.An important question is how many ofthese needs should be fulfilled locallyand to what degree in kind? As a norm,we should consider basic food, fuel,fodder, and domestic water needsseparately, and treat self-reliance (notnecessarily self-sufficiency) in theseneeds as one of the objectives to beachieved at the watershed level. In mostconditions self-sufficiency in these ispossible and desirable at the watershedlevel. Even in exceptional situationswhere this may not be possible, it shouldbe possible and desirable for a

18

substantial component of theserequirements to be produced locally,and the rest to be met from exchangeon equal terms with the larger system.The fulfilment of needs must also beconsidered at the level of the watershedecosystem as well as at the householdlevel. Elsewhere, we have used biomassas the measure to quantify these needson the basis of a minimum upper boundapproach to show that a farming familyof five generally needs a productivepotential of about 15 to 18 T (dry weight)annual biomass increment to meet allthe above mentioned livelihood needs,including estimated minimum cashrequirements.

1.4.2 Sustainability and EquitableAccessIn the review we use the termsustainability in the specific sense ofenvironmental sustainability andconsider maintaining and enhancing theproductive and assimilative potential ofthe ecosystem as the sustainability goalwhilst deriving a few operational normsthat logically follow from this approachin the context of watersheddevelopment. Since watershed is asocio-environmental intervention, theissue of sustainability of local institutions(responsible not only for projectimplementation but for future care also)is an important one. Livelihood needsdepend crucially on who has access tohow much and what kind of productiveresources, that is, equity. In thenormative framework the first dimensionis the distribution of human wellbeingacross typical barriers of class, caste,ethnicity, and gender, with theimplication that one needs todisaggregate the �local community� andconsider the differential impacts ofwatershed development.The second dimension emanates fromspatial or locational inequalities and thisis primarily because of the biophysicalcharacteristics of the watershed itself.Given that the relationship is oftenfundamentally asymmetric (for example,activities upstream can affect thosedownstream, but not vice-versa), theissue needs to be carefully addressed atall levels or scales: within the micro-watershed, across watersheds, andacross the entire basin. It becomesimportant to see how those asymmetries

map on to the historical inequities ofaccess to productive resources andhow watershed development interactswith them. The general experience isthat the asymmetries map on to theinequities in a way that more likelyaccentuates rather than attenuates theinequities within the local communityunlike environmental sustainability,which watershed development is likelyto enhance per se. The implication isthat if there is no proactive element ofequity built into the programme it onlyaccentuates inequity.The normative framework treats wateras a common property resource to bemanaged and regulated collectively inorder to ensure equitable andregenerative use. This impliesprioritizing water use in the followingorder: drinking water; water fordomestic use and for cattle; waterrequired for ecosystem regeneration;water required for livelihood activity;and surplus/extra water that can beused for cash or commercial crops. Thenormative framework also aims at afairer distribution of increasedresources with privileged access to theresource poor.It is important to recognize that water isboth a local and non-local resource andthat the interdependence effects ofscales appear as �externalities� andunlike slogans like �gaonka panigaonme� (the rain that falls in a village isfor that village) that may help conservewater in the short run, we needcollective regulation and control ofwater resources at increasing scalesensuring inter-watershed or basin-levelequity as well. Hence, the normativeposition limits the right of everycommunity of assured access to waterfrom local as well as non-local sources,together necessary for assuredlivelihood. Accordingly, water is firsttreated as a common pool resource tobe managed and regulated collectivelyin order to ensure equitable andregenerative use for livelihoodassurance and to ensure equitablesharing of shortages and surpluses.Only the residual resource is treated asa resource to be regulated by themarket.The enhancement of ecosystemresources and productive potential withpublic funds and collective, communityeffort has the potential for ensuring

19

equitable access to the additionalresource created, even as prior right topreviously existing resources arerecognized and left largely undisturbed,thus making equity a positive sum game.

1.4.3 Participation and DemocraticGovernanceParticipation has gained increasedcurrency in developmental practice andin related research and literature andthis increased awareness is drawn fromvarious sources and standpoints.Participation is often seen as a means toachieve other goals, or as a value or agoal in itself. The framework sees it as agoal as well as a means of ensuringmore equitable, sustainable, andefficient outcomes.However, in highly differentiatedcommunities, the simple transfer ofdecision-making power to �thecommunity� may turn out to be handingdecision-making over to the dominantsections within the community. It isnecessary to recognize theheterogeneity and ensure that proactivespace is created within the localcommunity institutions for all sections,especially the lower, marginalized strata.This calls for disaggregated possibility ofparticipation for all sections in the entireproject process.The framework also recognizes theimportance of outside intervention andbelieves that participation, livelihoodassurance, regenerative use, andequitable access should be the explicitfoundational objectives of thecollaboration between the communityand outside agencies. The key role ofoutside agencies is that of capabilitybuilding, by providing information andoffering a forum for discussion aimed atresolving issues related to the objectivesthrough discussion and debate. It is alsoimportant to recognize that there is aneed for greater accountability andtransparency on the part of the outsideagency to the local communities.

1.5 Comparison of DifferentGuidelinesGuidelines are a set of proposedstrategies and methods for implementingwatersheds in different contexts and by

respective ministries and agencies.These guidelines are meant for projectsfinanced by the state as part of plannedinvestments for developing dry landareas. As mentioned above, the majorministries involved in watersheddevelopment are MoRD, MoA and MoEFand respective states are expected toadopt the main tenets outlined in theguidelines and formulate strategies andprocesses including those related to unitcost and Standard Schedule of Rates(SSR) rate for different conservationmeasures and items. There are otherprogrammes being implemented outsidethe purview of these guidelines such asbilateral and multilateral projects,NABARD-supported watershed projectsand other NGO initiated projects. Themain objective of watersheddevelopment, as outlined in theguidelines, is to improve the productionpotential of dry land areas, throughconservation, mobilization andsustainable use of natural resourcessuch as water, soil and biomass.Watershed is also visualized as astrategy to bring development into thehitherto underdeveloped and backwardareas like drought prone areas, desertareas and hilly regions of the country.There are many attempts to include andincorporate emerging concerns in theguidelines through periodic review andchanges. The latest exercise in thisdirection is the technical committeeappointed by the Ministry of RuralDevelopment. It aims, under thechairmanship of Shri. S. Parthasarathy,to study and suggest strategies andmechanisms to improve the deliverysystem and effectiveness of watersheddevelopment. One outcome of suchperiodic reviews are changes in theguidelines, and the introduction of issuesand concepts � such as participation,community organization, capacitybuilding, sustainability, transparency �into the watershed lexicon.A comparison of the different guidelinesis tabulated on the following pages.

20

Table 1.2:Comparison of Different Guidelines

Contents MoRD 2001 Hariyali WARASA,

MoA CAPART

Objectives

Overall economic development. Socio economic development of resource poor Restoring ecological balance by conserving, harnessing and developing NR Conserving and developing NR Sustained community action. Promoting use of simple, easy, and affordable technological solutions and institutional arrangements

To create sustainable sources of income for the village community as well as for drinking water supplies. Ensuring overall development of rural areas through the GP and income for GP Employment generation, poverty alleviation, community empowerment Restoring ecological balance by harnessing, conserving and developing NR

Conservation, development and sustained management of NR

Restoration of ecological balance through green cover. Enhancement of agri-production. Reduction of disparity between rainfed and irrigated areas. Sustainable employment opportunity for rural poor.

To promote sustainable economic development of the community Sustainable utilization of the watershed�s natural resources like land, water, grass, forests, etc

Improve the economic and social conditions of the resource poor

Sustained community action for the operation and maintenance of assets Unit of

development 500 ha

500 ha 500 ha 500 ha

Cost norms Rs 6000/ha Rs 6000/ha

Rs 6000/ha

Rs 6000-7500ha.

Responsible institution at national level

Department of Land Resources (MoRD)

Department of Land Resources (MoRD)

Department of Agriculture and Cooperation ( MoA)

CAPART (MoST)

Coordinating Agency

Zilla Parishad/ DRDA

Zilla Parishad/ DRDA

District Nodal Agency (Agri.Dept., ATMA, etc.)

CAPART supported by DRDA/SVOs

Implementing agency (PIA)

Govt. Depts. NGOs,KVKs etc.

PRI Institutions/ Govt. Agencies

Agri. Dept, NGOs, KVKs etc.

NGOs/VOs

Village institutions

Watershed association. Watershed Com. SHGs, UGs

Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat, UGs, SHGs

Watershed association, Watershed Com., UGs,SHGs

Watershed association, Watershed. SHGs, UGs.

21

BBudgeudget t aallllooccaattiioonn

CCoommmmununiitty y oorrganganiizzaattiioonn

TTrraaiinniingng

AAddmmiinniissttrraattiionon WWaatteerrsshhed ed wwoorrkk PPrroduoduccttiioon n sysysstteemmss LLiivveelilihohoooddss

Rs 30 lakh

5% (inc. EPA))

5%

10% 80%

_ ---

Rs 30 lakh

2.5%

2.5% 10% 85%

_

_ RF to SHGS

Rs 30 lakh

7.5% (3%EPA)

5% 10% 50% 20% 7.5%

Rs 30 to 37.5 lakhs

5%

5% 15% 75%

_ _ RF to SHG

SSeelleeccttiion on ccrriitteerriiaa Watersheds where

people�s participation is assured Preponderance of common and wastelands. Concentration of SC/ST Acute shortage of drinking water. Contiguous to treated watershed Actual wage is less than minimum wage.

Watersheds where people�s participation is assured Areas facing acute drinking water shortage. Preponderance of common lands, waste lands Contiguous to another watershed Where actual wages are significantly lower than the minimum wages .

Severity of land degradation Preponderance of resource poor and SC/ST Significant proportion of arable land under private cultivation Location in upper reaches Peoples participation No previous investments in watersheds.

Villages from where people�s participation is assured contributions made are genuine and not arising out of savings from estimate cost Villages having drinking water problems, food deficiency and migration. A plan for grazing and for sharing and utilization of fuel wood, fodder and other usufructs to be adopted. Preponderance of wastelands and highly degraded land. Large population of SC/ST

22

WWaatteerrsshed hed DDeevveellopopmmenent t TTeaeamm

4 Members for around 10 watersheds/One PIA with specialization in forestry/plant science, animal sciences, civil/agricultural engineering and social sciences.

Same as in MoRD, 2001.

4 members for PIA/10 watersheds. At least one women member and with a sociologist, animal science, civil engineer, agriculture/ forestry.

Four for a PIA and area of 3500ha preferably from the disciplines of plant sciences, agronomy, agro-forestry, animal husbandry, civil/ agricultural engineering and social sciences

PPrroojjeecct t peperriiod od and phaand phassiingng..

5 years of which one year is probation period. Community organisation, formation of CBOs and PRA/ action plan in probation.

5 years. No specific phasing, organizing community, PRA and action plan in the initial period.

5 years, one year as capacity building phase. Training of relevant stakeholders, formation of CBOs, PRA, action plan in CB phase.

5 years of which one year is pre action plan stage. During the phase include capacity building, baseline survey, action plan formulation and the execution of a mini NRM/Drought Proofing project.

PPllannanniing ng ttooooll PRA/ discussion with farmers and WA

PRA, bench mark survey

PRA (transect, resource map, ranking, timeline etc) secondary sources

PRA

CCononsseerrvvaattiion on MMeaeassuurreess

Land development including insitu conservation, afforestation, shelter belt, small water harvesting structures, pasture development, development of CPR, crop demonstration etc.

Development of small water harvesting structures such as low-cost farm ponds nalla bunds, checkdams, percolation tanks and other ground water recharge measures, afforestaion, block plantation, development of CPR, in-situ land development.

Simple and indigenous technologies, diversion drain, contour bunds, waste weir, check dams, drop structures, shelter belts, terraces in hilly region etc. Production technologies using ITK and sustainable production using IPM, INM, LEISA combined with modern production systems/methods.

Low-cost, simple and easy to operate and maintain works and activities Land leveling (50% share) vegetative measures and engineering structures. Block plantations, shelter belts

23

MMononiittoorriinng g AAnndd EEvvaalluauattiioonn

Quarterly reports to ZP/DRDA, independent evaluations, monitoring and observation through external agencies. DWDC and SWDC to review and monitor Review and evaluation based on a set of success criteria related to project implementation, social mobilization and community organisations.

Quarterly progress report to ZP/DRDA, monitoring by independent agencies/peoplestate department, state level vigilance committee

Progress reports on quarterly basis, concurrent evaluation by internal/external agencies. Review and monitoring by NWC, SWC and DWC; Review and evaluation based on a set of success criteria related to quality of implementation, social mobilization and community organisation, sustainability issues etc.

Progress reports on each of the watershed conservation projects once in every six months to NSC and DRDA;evaluationprocess documentation by other agencies appointed by NSC Review and evaluation based on success criteria

SSttrraattegegiiees s ffoor r TTrrananssppaarrenencycy

Action plan with SHGs, UGs, WC Approval of action plan in WA Display of action plan Review of progress by WA Payment through cheques/in open area

Action plan with SHGs, UGs, WC Approval of action plan in WA Display of action plan Review of progress by WA Payment through cheques/in open area

Wall posters on project SSR rate etc. Many meetings with community Application system for receiving proposal for treatments Payment through cheques/in open area Social auditing and review by WA

EExxiitt ssttrraattegegyy AAndnd MMaaiinnttenaenannccee

Formation of WDF through Local contribution

Preparation of exit protocol regarding maintenance, user charges and equity in access to resources

Formation of WDF through Local contribution

GP responsible for maintenance

Preparation of exit protocol with details on mechanisms for maintenance, collection of user charge, equity in access to resources.

Formation of WDF through Local contribution Common assets through WDF by WA/WC

Formation of Watershed Conservation Fund 50% of the funds will be set aside for the operation and maintenance of community assets created as part of the watershed conservation

24

1.6 Structure of the ReportFollowing an introductory chapter, and adiscussion on the macro scenario in thestate, the review is divided into fivesections. The first is an overview of thestate�s agro-climatic situation, andappraises the volume, scale andresources involved in Maharashtra�swatershed programmes with an analysisof regional variations. This is thebackground on which the other sectionsare formulated. The second sectionexamines the impacts generated bywatershed development on ecosystemsand livelihoods. Here sustainablelivelihoods are treated as an outcome oran end objective, resulting fromaugmentation of ecosystem productsand services. Different variables andindicators are analysed from availablesources to understand the impacts ofecosystem regeneration on livelihoodsand production. The third sectionfocuses on sustainability of resources /products and the related problems/issues thereon. Paucity of hard-corescientific information is a drawback thatwas faced by the researchers while

examining this area. They attempt,therefore, to understand the issue from(i) proxy variables (e.g. increase innumber of wells), (ii) from their ownexperience and observations, and (iii)interaction with practitioners. The fourthsection discusses issues related toequity and access, as well as issues ofgender and other forms discriminationinvolved in accessing benefits frominvestments and created resources.The last and fifth section is on theprocesses of participation andgovernance in the context ofdevelopment intervention. This sectioncovers participation issues in the entireprocess of watershed rehabilitation fromplanning, implementation, institution-and capacity building, monitoring etc.,onward. The last chapter concludes bysummarizing the review andhighlighting/ flagging issues with certainrecommendations for improving theadministration of the projects. Thissection also looks into the need forgenerating knowledge and informationon certain critical areas related towatershed development throughresearch and studies.

25

Watershed Development inMaharashtra: Macro Scenario

2.1 IntroductionMaharashtra is India�s third largest statewith a geographical area of 3,07,58300ha. Though agriculture and relatedactivities are the major source oflivelihood for more than two-thirds of itspopulation, agriculture is characterizedby low productivity � except forsugarcane, the productivity/ha of allother major crops such as food grains,cereals, oilseeds, cotton etc., are belowthe national average. The causes lie inthe low irrigation coverage (15.36 percent), high extent of light soil (39 percent), general degradation (42.50 percent), poor drainage, and salinity (4 lakhha and proneness to drought (52 percent). Besides this, 38 per cent of theland is affected by different categories ofsoil erosion, badly affecting the soil�smicronutrient status and henceproductivity. The problem is aggravatedby monsoon failure, untimely rain, lackof institutional credit facilities andindebtedness driving marginal farmersand the poor to extreme steps such assuicide.

Chapter 2 Attempts made by the state and otheragencies to reverse this situation and tostabilize dry land farming throughwatershed development over the pasttwo-and�a-half decades has led toenormous resources being poured intothis area. Many watershed programmesfunded by the national and stategovernment, multilateral and bilateralagencies, and by a large number ofNGOs have been implemented. Thischapter analyses issues related to theagro-climatic situation, water resources,land utilization pattern, agricultureproductivity, and the volume, extent andoutreach of watershed projects beingimplemented in the state.2.2 Agro-climatic SituationMaharashtra is usually divided intonine agro-climatic zones (Table 2.1).The average rainfall in these zonesranges from 450 mm (in the ScarcityZone) to 3,750 mm (in the SouthernKonkan Coastal Zone). A narrowcoastal plain (the Konkan region) whichhas very high rainfall separates theArabian Sea from the Western Ghats.To the east of the Ghats lies the largeDeccan Plateau which spans themajority of the state. Its western sidereceives very low rainfall since it lies inthe rain shadow of the Ghats. EasternMaharashtra sees much higher rainfallmaking conditions for rainfedagriculture favourable. Conditions forrainfed agriculture in the driest zonesare difficult, and this is wherewatershed projects are mostconcentrated.

Table 2.1:Agro-climaticZones andRainfall:Maharashtra

Source: GoM,2003, Agro-climatic Zonesof Maharashtra

MMahaaharraasshhttrraa SSrr. . NNoo.. ZZoneone AAvveerragage e RRaaiinnffaalll l ((mmmm))

1. Southern Konkan Coastal Zone 3,750 2. Northern Konkan Coastal Zone 3,281 3. Western Ghat Zone 2,684 4. Western Ghat Zone 2,137 5. Western Maharashtra Plain Zone 791 6. Scarcity Zone 450 7. Central Maharashtra Plateau Zone 983 8. Central Vidarbha Zone 883 9. Eastern Vidarbha Zone 1,462

26

Figure 2.1:Rainfall inMaharashtra

Maharashtra is divided into eightadministrative divisions: Konkan,Nashik, Pune, Kolhapur, Aurangabad,Latur, Amravati and Nagpur. The state isalso generally divided into the followingregions with respective administrativecentres � Konkan (Thane), SouthMaharashtra (Kolhapur), Western

RReeggiioonn11 CChhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss/ / SSpepecciiffiic c PPrroobblleemm

EEaasst t MMahahaarraasshhttrra a ((VViiddaarrbbhhaa))

Predominantly rainfed. Irrigation in Bhandara district higher than state average. Low percentage area under cultivation. Rainfall between 700 to 1500 mm. Moderate to high soil erosion even though good forest cover. Very high intensity of rainfall throughout the rains. Long dry spell between two wet spells. High possibility of fire hazard in forest area, threat to natural regeneration. Low level of ground water development (15%). SSiillttaattiioon on of f rreesseerrvvooiirrs s aand nd ttaannksks. .

Problem of salinity in Amravati, Akola and Buldhana districts across 4.69 lakh ha. Traditional agriculture with cotton and pulses as major crops. Regional underdevelopment. Well-developed horticulture in some areas. Predominantly tribal population.

CCeennttrraal l MMahahaarraasshhttrra a ((MMaarraatthhwwaaddaa))

Medium rainfall ranging between 700 to 1000mm. Irrigation less than the state average (Latur division 10%). High percentage of drought-prone area. Recurring drought. Two-thirds area under cultivation. Very little forest cover (4%), overgrazing and deforestation. Variation and late rainfall. Uneven spread of rainy days. Water shortage especially in bad rain years. Black light soil with slight erosion hazard. Ground water development � average (27%). Mix of traditional and modern agriculture. Strong caste-based society with feudal remnants.

6 Khandesh(part of Nashik,Dhule,Nandurbar andJalagaon) hasmore or less thesame problemsas Marathwadaand westernMaharashtra.However it ispredominantlytribal and landalienation oftribals and lackof livelihood is amajor concern.

Maharashtra (Pune), Khandesh(Nashik), Marathwada (Aurangabad andLatur) and Vidharbha (Amravati andNagpur). For the purpose of this reportwe adopt the classification as made inTable 2.2 below, as it allows us toexamine region-specific problems thatwatershed development needs toaddress.

2.2.1: Region Specific Problems

27

CCenenttrraal l MMahaaharraasshhttrra a ((MMaarraatthhwwaadada))

Medium rainfall ranging between 700 to 1000mm. Irrigation less than the state average (Latur division 10%). High percentage of drought-prone area. Recurring drought. Two-thirds area under cultivation. Very little forest cover (4%), overgrazing and deforestation. Variation and late rainfall. Uneven spread of rainy days. Water shortage especially in bad rain years. Black light soil with slight erosion hazard. Ground water development � average (27%). Mix of traditional and modern agriculture. Strong caste-based society with feudal remnants. Regional underdevelopment.

WWeesstteerrn n MMahaaharraasshhttrraa

Very low to medium rainfall (except in some parts of Satara and Kolhapur). Medium to severe erosion. Uneven spread of rain in time and space. Some major irrigation projects. Irrigation is above state average at around 23%. Recurrent droughts; large drought-prone area, except for Kolhapur. Undulating land. Poor forest cover. Around 60% area under cultivation. Light soil. Ground water development high (42%). High input and water intensive cultivation. Well developed region of the state. Heterogeneous society with history of collective action.

KKononkkanan High rainfall above 3000 mm. High intensity rainfall. Severe soil erosion along Western Ghats and coast. Very low irrigation. Forest area above state average. High percentage of barren, uncultivable waste land. Less than 30% of land under cultivation. Ground water development very poor (7.6%). Coastal salinity. Flooding of cultivated lands. Predominance of paddy and perennial horticulture. High incidence of migration, average development.

28

2.2.2 Land Utilization in MaharashtraFigure 2.2:Division-wiseLandUtilization inMaharashtra

Net sown area in the state is 57.57 percent, whereas the area sown more thanonce is about 15.52 per cent (see TableA 2.1). Konkan, Nashik and Nagpurdivisions have the highest percentage offorest area. Konkan and Nagpur alsohave the lowest net area sown, as wellas the area sown more than once. Latur(101.57per cent) and Aurangabad(95.11per cent) has the highest grosscropped area with around 15 per cent ofthe reported area under pasture andfallows. Cultivable waste and fallowlands are highest in Konkan, which alsohas the highest percentage of what isgenerally known in environmentaldiscussion as �sacred grooves�. Nagpurhas the largest forest cover (39 per cent)followed by Nashik (24 per cent) andKonkan (20 per cent). Thepredominance of forests, waste andfallows in these regions makes less landavailable for cultivation (hence the highincidence of landlessness andencroachments) whereas Marathwadaand Western Maharashtra have verylittle area under forest cover. The non-availability of forest and pasture land inthese regions also has implications forissues related to the livelihood of thepoor and marginal. It is interesting tonote that there is no category ornomenclature called �common propertyresources� in any official documents ofland classification, even though there

are a lot of discussions around thistheme in watershed development.

2.2.3 Irrigation and DroughtMaharashtra has very low irrigationcoverage. Only around 15 per cent ofthe area under cultivation is irrigated ascompared to the national average ofmore than 35 per cent. The state has arugged and uneven terrain, and manyrivers originate here, resulting in a largenumber of comparatively small irrigationprojects. However, the total number ofdams above 15 meters high is around900 as compared to 2900 for the entirecountry. Most of these dams areconcentrated in western and centralMaharashtra. In irrigated agricultureground water plays a dominant rolethrough 1.51 million wells.Table A 2.2 gives a district-wise anddivision-wise picture of the area undercultivation, under irrigation and of areasthat are drought-prone. Drought proneareas are affected by low andinadequate rainfall, long inter-spellbreaks and an erratic distribution of rainthrough peaks and troughs. A verylimited part of this area gets the benefitof the major irrigation projects eventhough a very high percentage ofdrought prone area has been broughtunder cultivation. Amravati, which has a

29

large area classified as drought prone,suffers considerably less in terms ofintensity of drought.Fifty-two per cent of the total area in thestate is prone to drought. Of this, morethan 60 per cent lies in the Nashik,Pune, Aurangabad and Amravatidivisions and 40 per cent in the Kolhapurand Latur divisions. The present studylays stress on these drought proneregions, where watershed developmentprogrammes are widely seen as adrought-proofing strategy.Only a little over 15 per cent of thestate�s cropped area is irrigated. Pune,Kolhapur, Aurangabad and Nagpur (byvirtue of high irrigation coverage inBhandara) divisions have above 20 percent irrigation, followed by Nashik (15per cent) and Latur (10 per cent). Onecould observe a trend of low irrigation inAmravati (five per cent) and Konkan (sixper cent) divisions. Bhandara district hasthe highest irrigation (46 per cent)followed by Gadchiroli (24 per cent).This is partly an outcome of thetraditional tank systems still functioning.The high incidence of drought with largetracts of drought-prone land in theDeccan plateau, and low irrigationpotential becomes the backdrop forlarge-scale watershed development inthe state.

Figure 2.3:Map ofDrought-prone AreasinMaharashtra

2.2.4 Water ResourcesTable 2.3 gives some importantindicators related to water resources inthe state and country. At present, thenet irrigated area as a percentage of netsown area is just 16.61 as against thenational average of 40.01. The surfacevis-à-vis groundwater potential is in theratio of 60:40, while the national ratio is55:45. The area under irrigation islimited and it is said that even with fullutilization of its irrigation potential, thetotal area under irrigation (in theconventional sense) would not cross 30per cent. Maharashtra is estimated tohave been exploited: According to asurvey by Ground Water Survey andDevelopment Agency (GSDA), groundwater development is maximum in tendistricts of Western Maharashtra (42 percent) followed by eight districts ofMarathwada (27 per cent) and elevendistricts of Vidarbha (15 per cent).Ground water development in the fourdistricts of Konkan is the least (7.6 percent). In 76 areas in the statecomprising about five per cent of thetotal state area, ground water is over-exploited causing concern aboutresource sustainability. The over-exploitation is manifested by progressivedecline of water table at the rate of 0.3mper year.

30

Table 2.3:All-India andMaharashtraW

aterResourceSituation

Mha-m: Million Hectare-metres.Source: Annual Report, 2002-03, Ministry of WaterResources, Government of India (excerpted fromEconomic and Political Weekly 4 October, 2003)

State/ Country

Ultimate Irrigation Potential: Major, Medium and Minor Irrigation

(In 1000 ha)

Net Irrigated and Sown Area (In 1000 ha) Ground Water Resources (as on 1.4.98)

Major and medium

Minor

Total mnor

Total Net area sown (NSA)

Net irri. area (NIA)

% of NIA to NSA

Total replenishable groundwater resource Mha-m/Yr

Provision for domestic, industrial and other uses Mha-m/Yr

Net available ground-water resources for irrigation Mha-m/Yr

Net usable ground-water resources for irrigation Mha-m/Yr

Gross draft (based on pro rata basis) Mha-m/Yr

Net draft Mha-m/Yr

Net balance ground-water resources for future use Mha-m/Yr

Surface water

Ground water

Maharashtra 4100 1200 3652 4852 8952 17732 2946 16.61 3.78677 1.23973 2.54704 2.29233 1.26243 0.8837 1.66334 India 58465 17378 64050 81428 139893 142598 57055 40.01 43.38593 7.12655 36.25938 32.63345 19.29173 13.50404 22.73145

31

2.3 Agricultural ProductivityData on area under important crops andtheir productivity since the 1960s ispresented in the table 2.4 below.Cereals occupied about 44 per cent ofthe gross cropped area (GCA) in 2000-01, but now reveal a declining trend. Theproportion of area under pulses andoilseeds shows an increase. There hasbeen an increase in productivity foralmost all crops except for a few like riceand tur (pigeon pea). The area occupiedby sugarcane has been steadilyincreasing, which, being a very water-intensive crop, consumes the bulk of theirrigation water.

19601960--6161 19801980--8181 20002000--20012001 CCrropopss\\YYeaearr AArreaea %% Yield AArreaea %% Yield AArreaea %% Yield Rice 1,300 -- 1,054 1,459 7.43 1,587 1,512 6.82 1,277 Sorghum

3,638 -- 810 3,999 20.36 822 2,977 13.44 1,039

Wheat 907 -- 442 1,063 5.41 834 754 3.40 1,256 Millet 1,473 -- 306 1,350 6.87 451 1,639 7.40 590 Total cereals 1010,,604604 ---- 637637 1010,,976976 5555..8888 788788 99,,824824 4444..3535 865865 Gram 402 -- 334 410 2.08 335 676 3.05 519 Pigeon pea. 530 -- 884 644 3.28 495 1,096 4.95 602 Soyabean -- -- -- -- 0 -- 1,142 5.15 1,117 Total pulses 22,,351351 ---- 421421 22,,685685 1313..6767 307307 33,,557557 1616..0606 460460 Groundnut 1,083 -- 739 674 3.43 621 433 1.96 904 Total Oilseeds -- -- 1,708 8.69 426 2,559 11.55 820 Sugarcane 155 10,404

* 319 23,706* 664 45,140*

GCA -- -- 1,964 100 2,215 100

Table 2.4: Area and Productivity of MajorCrops in Maharashtra(Area in 000 hectares, Yield in kg/ha)

* Production in thousand tonnesSource: Government of Maharashtra, 2003. Agro-climatic Zones

Productivity of major crop categories forthe state is below the national average.For example, food grain productivity perhectare at the national level is 1614 kg/ha but stands at 1058/ha inMaharashtra. A similar situation prevailswith regard to oilseeds, pulses, cottonetc. The only crop that stands above thenational average is sugarcane, which isfully irrigated in the state. The

Government of Maharashtra�sMaharashtra Human DevelopmentReport also highlights the concern overthe declining importance of agriculture inthe GDP of the state. The share ofagriculture declined from 42.14 per centin 1960-61, to 27.69 per cent in 1980-81,further falling drastically to 17.44 percent in 1999-20007 . This is generallydue to the declining productivity ofirrigated agriculture, stagnation inrainfed agriculture, low investments,fragmentation of holdings, skewedpreference for certain crops likesugarcane etc. This trend calls for long-term planning with an emphasis onimproving rainfed-farming systems.

2.4 Watersheds in MaharashtraTable A 2 .3 gives a district wise list ofmajor, sub, mini and micro watershedsas classified by GSDA. About 26,695watersheds fall in the drought-proneregions of Western Maharashtra andMarathwada

7HumanDevelopmentReport 2002,Government ofMaharashtra

32

Figure 2.4:Major andMicroWatersheds inMaharashtra

2.5 History and Evolution ofWatershed Programmes inMaharashtraThe history of watershed development inMaharashtra is said to date back to theperiod known as the Dark Ages, that is,the period at the end of the Indus valleycivilization and at the dawn of the sixthcentury AD Archaeologists excavatedover 200 Chalcolithic settlements inCentral Maharashtra which revealed thepractice of subsistence agriculture.Important among these were the sites atNewasa and Daimabad (Ahmadnagar),Prakasha (Dhule) and Inamgaon8(Pune). Through artificial irrigation in theEarly Jorwe culture (1500 to 1200 BC)winter crops like wheat, barley, jowar,rice, horse gram, hyacinth bean, peasand several other crops were grown.The earliest evidence of an artificial damin western India that survives today islocated at the Kanheri Caves in Mumbaiwhich date back to the Satvahanaperiod. In the midst of the cave systemthere still exists a system of waterharvesting, known as the �cascade�system, prevalent in those times in TamilNadu and Sri Lanka. Thus, watersheddevelopment was known and practicedsystematically in Maharashtra from veryearly periods9. Around 1514 the Britishbuilt a dam at Karle on river Bhokar thatcan be considered the earliest moderndam in Maharashtra. Later, in 1860, theVihar Lake at Powai was constructedand in 1870, a dam was constructedeast of the Kanheri Caves. Researchattention was focused in the post-independence period on soilconservation measures mainly tostabilize the catchment areas of largeand medium dams and to preventsiltation of reservoirs. In 1943, Bombaystate introduced contour bunding.

Drought is an age-old phenomenon inMaharashtra. Sant Dnyaneshwar, sevencenturies ago, advised, �Whileconstructing townships, you mustdevelop reservoirs, plant huge forests ofdifferent species of plants� as he hadrealized the significance of afforestationand water conservation (excerpted froma speech given by Anna Hazare). Theearliest evidence of the awareness ofneed for soil and water conservation asa means for increasing productivity andcontributing to the welfare of thefarming community may be seen in thewritings of Mahatma Jotiba Phule. Morethan hundred years ago, he wrote:�And so, in order that the vital elementfrom the rotting of meat and bones,dead insects and animals, leaves andflowers shed by trees, grasses growingin the hills and mountains shall not bewashed off by the early rains andcarried away by the floods to be wastedin the streams, the industriousgovernment should get all thesesuperfluous men from amongst theblack and white soldiery andconstabulary to judiciously build damsand obstructions in one and manyplaces in such a manner that the rainshall first wet and enter the fields fullybefore it flows into the streams�.Similarly our kind government shouldbuild as many as possible tanks andponds in all our hills and mountains, ourvalleys and gorges. Thereby, becauseall the streams and nallahs downstreamof them will have water throughout thesummer, they can be dammed and willserve all the wells with ample water andwill green all the fields benefiting thefarmers along with the government.�(Source: Shetkaryancha Asud � TheWhip of the Peasant (1883), cited inParanjape et al, 1998 , 90)

8 At Inamgaonthere arephysicalevidences of achannel and astone wall withits embankmentsthat are knownas guide bunds.9 ThestonecuttingVadarcommunity inMaharashtra wasexpert inconstructingdams by pilingloose bouldersand filling mortaror soil betweenthe gaps; theseage-oldstructures, someeven 500 yearsold, still exist inDhule, Bhandaraand many otherregions. Due tothese tanks,Bhandara has acrop pattern farsuperior to that ofthe rest of theState and hasthe lowestproportion ofbarren anduncultivableareas and fallowlands today, withthe proportion ofirrigated areahigher than stateaverages in alltalukas(Paranjape et.al,1998).

33

The recurrent droughts and famines(1907, 1911, 1918, and 1920) had madeit apparent that desperate measureswere needed to improve agriculture innon-irrigated areas, but it was only in the1930s that scientific inputs wereinstitutionalized through researchstations at Solapur, Bijapur, Hagari(Karnataka), Raichur (Hyderabad) andRohtak (Punjab). The Bombay LandImprovement Schemes Act (1942)provided the most enduring legacy of theperiod, and also became the precursorfor the Government of India�s Model Billon Soil Conservation for enactment byall states in the post-independenceperiod10 .Following the severe drought of 1972the Employment Guarantee Scheme(EGS) was launched in Maharashtra anddrought proofing the land was amongthe important activities undertaken bythe programme. Construction of waterharvesting structures (nala bunds) andcontour bunding was also undertaken ona large scale under it. 1n 1982, theComprehensive Watershed DevelopmentProgramme (COWDEP) was initiated inan attempt to combine the budgetaryresources of the EGS and the technicalprovisions of the 1942 Bombay LandImprovement Schemes Act for large-scalewatershed development effort. TheDrought Prone Areas programme (DPAP)was a central scheme under the Ministryof Rural Development (MoRD) started in1973-74 in 14 districts: 74 projects werefunded by the centre and 13 were fundedby the state. By the 1980s it became anexclusively watershed developmentprogramme. In the mid-1980s ICARlaunched model research watersheds at47 locations of which atleast one was ineastern Maharashtra (Kerr et al., 2000).The World Bank pilot project was initiatedin 1984 on lines similar to the ICAR�smodel watersheds. The NationalWatershed Development Projects forRainfed Areas (NWDPRA) initiated in1990, is the Ministry of Agriculture�s(MoA�s) counterpart to the World Bank-funded Pilot Project and IntegratedWasteland development Programme(IWDP) where again the emphasis wason low-cost vegetative bunding andcontour-based cultivation.11 In 1992, thelaunch of the Jal Sandharan Programmeattempted a more comprehensiveapproach where four differentprogrammes were brought under a singledepartment.

One of the first experiments of people-centred watershed development inMaharashtra took place at Naigaon,initiated by Shri Vilasrao Salunke in1974. Popularly referred to as the Pani(water) Panchayat, this initiative aimedat organizing people around existingvillage water resources, which were tobe shared equitably. In the early 1980s,two villages in Maharashtra too becamewell known for their watersheddevelopment programmes: RalegaonSiddhi12 (refer to next page)(Ahmadnagar) and Adgaon(Aurangabad). This marked one of thefirst instances of genuine people�sparticipation in watershed development(Pangare and Gondhalekar 1998; Gadgiland Guha 1995), the legacy of which isevident in many subsequent governmentschemes. Similarly, many farmers tookup soil and water conservationmeasures in the Gunjawani andShivganga valleys of the Haveli andBhor talukas of Pune district, under theguidance of Shri Appasaheb Bhagwat, asocial worker associated with JnanaPrabodhini. Today, the state has manypioneering NGOs that work in thewatershed development programmes.Social Centre, Ahmadnagar was one ofthe first NGOs to adopt the watershedapproach and it played a key role inlaunching and designing a state-wideIndo-German Watershed DevelopmentProgramme. Today many other NGOsprominently WOTR, BAIF, AFARM,ASSIFA, Manavlok, Dharamitra,Gomukh, Vanrai etc are dominantnames in watershed development.The next development has been thelaunching of collaborative programmesbetween government and non-governmentagencies. The two main examples are theAdarsh Gaon Yojana (AGY), started in1992, and the Indo-German WatershedDevelopment Programme or IGWDP). TheAGY started in 1992 is a major initiative thatseeks to replicate the Ralegaon Siddhimodel in 300 villages by combining thetechnical staff of the Jal Sandharanprogramme with the social orientation ofNGOs. The IGWDP is another example ofcollaboration between a public institution(NABARD) and NGOs that seeks to scaleup the success of small NGO programmes.It started in 1992 and as of March 2003 haddeveloped 158 projects covering about162,000 ha, with the involvement of 76NGOs (WOTR, Annual Report, 2003)

10For achronology ofsoil and waterconservationworks andwatersheddevelopmentprogrammes inIndia see Shah(1998: p. 158).11 In WesternMaharashtra,implementationof the NWDPRAwas stronglyinfluenced bythe fact that theproject wasimplemented bythe sameagency thatplans andimplements theengineering-basedapproaches ofthe COWDEP,Jal Sandharanand DPAP.Therefore, theprimary focusremained ontreatingdrainage linesand catchmentareas topromoteinfiltration ofwater, thedifference beingthat they weremuch cheaperand probablyless effective.

34

Thus, watershed developmentincreasingly came to be seen as thelynchpin of rural development in dry landareas � one that integrates and anchorsrural development efforts. Notableexamples of watershed developmentappear to offer a way out of stagnationand degradation for all those areas thatdevelopment had seemingly bypassed.Watershed development appears tohave had a positive impact on the drylands, wastelands, degraded commonsand semi-arid and arid regionsperpetually under the shadow ofdrought.13

2.6. Brief Description of the ImportantProgrammes

2.6.1 Centrally-assisted SchemesDrought Prone Area Programme(DPAP)A centrally-funded programmeimplemented in Maharashtra since1974-75, DPAP covered 87 talukas of14 districts covering 87 centers (ofwhich 74 centres were funded by thecentre and 13 by the state) by 1994-95.In 1995, with the emergence of a newset of guidelines based on therecommendations of the C.H.Hanumantha Rao Committee, theprogramme revised its approach andstrategies (including the unit ofintervention) and new DPAP Blockswere identified using scientific criteriabased on the moisture index, rainfalland evapotranspiration. The DistrictRural Development Agency (DRDA)was designated the responsibleorganization. From 1 April 1995, 22districts (25 districts at present) and 148talukas were brought under theprogramme and 856 micro watershedswere targeted with a total sanction of Rs15,944.89 lakh. Fifty-three governmentagencies implemented 334 watershedsand around 100 NGOs implemented 522watersheds as the PIA. The central andstate contributions were equal in thisphase of the programme. The NewDPAP programme, implemented from1999 onwards, has as its target 1403new watersheds at a total cost of Rs.39,690 lakhs. From September 2001new guidelines were issued and theproject cost norm increased from 4,000to 6,000 per ha with a total project cost

of Rs 30 lakhs per project. Since then1,009 projects are implemented through103 PIAs. The new guidelinesintroduced a capacity-building phase, aprobation period for PIA, an institutionalmechanism for maintenance afterproject completion, and planning for fiveyears of watershed development andpeople�s participation. With effect from1 April 1999, the allocation is shared ona 75:25 basis between the centre andstate governments with respect to newprojects sanctioned during 1999-2000.The old funding pattern continues forongoing projects sanctioned prior toApril 1999. About ten per cent of theprogramme�s national allocation (Rs1,136.23 crore) has been released toMaharashtra (Rs 113.67 crores) during1995-96 to 2002-03. The highestexpenditure under DPAP was made inAmravati division followed by Pune andNashik divisions. The number ofwatersheds undertaken under DPAP ishighest in Vidharba (281) followed byWestern Maharashtra (245) andMarathwada (171). If one considersdrought proneness as the criteria forselection of watersheds under DPAP,this is quite justifiable because 75 percent and 86 per cent of thegeographical area of Amravati andPune divisions respectively areconsidered to be drought prone. Thetotal expenditure under DPAP inMaharashtra from 1995-96 up to June2003 is Rs 12884.94 lakhs. Tables A2.4 and 2.5 give details of thewatershed programmes sanctionedunder DPAP and Hariyali and theprogress of DPAP from 1995-96 up toJune 2003.From April 2003, watersheds underDPAP have been implemented underthe new set of Hariyali Guidelineswhere PRIs supported by NGOs orGovernment Departments function asPIAs. The concept of �mother NGOs�also is being introduced to support andguide the PIAs and WatershedCommunities. According to the AnnualReport of 2004, (Department of SoilConservation and WatershedDevelopment, Commissionerate ofAgriculture, Government ofMaharashtra, Pune, 2004) under DPAPprojects, which also include 50 per centEAS projects, the expenditure incurredunder the programme from its inceptionto end-March, 2004 is Rs 134.7 croresand the number of watersheds

12 Ralegon Siddhiwas a poorlydeveloped villagealmost devoid oftrees and grassand plagued byproblems ofinadequate foodproduction andrampantalcoholismbefore AnnaHazareintervened.Realizing thatinsufficientretention ofrainwater wasthe major causefor lowproductivity, heorganized thevillagers to builda series ofstorage pondsandembankmentsalongside thesurrounding lowhills. The resultswere immediateand impressivewith rise ingroundwater andrecharge ofaquifers.Villagers werealso mobilized toplant over400,000 saplingsand soon thevillage emergedas a model eco-developmentvillage.13 For a detailedtreatment of thetheme�watersheddevelopment anddrylands� seeShah et al., 1998.

35

completed is around 1087. Since theemergence of the new guidelines of2001, a total of 1103 projects have beensanctioned.Tables A 2.4 and 2.5 give a picture ofthe watershed programmes sanctionedin Maharashtra under DPAP andHariyali. We should note that there arecertain discrepancies in the informationavailable and this may be due toproblems related to computation andcut-off dates for calculating progress.Quite a few projects from earlier phasesare always carried forward and recastaccording to the new guidelines withincreased cost, which also impacts thecalculation of progress. Besidesinformation in relation to progress is notavailable easily on the public domainand accessing information is also foundto be difficult.

National Watershed DevelopmentProject for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA)This centrally funded programme(sponsored by the MoA) was launchedin Maharashtra at the end of the SeventhPlan period. Its major emphasis wasstabilization of rainfed agriculture andimprovement in production of food, fueland fodder so as to improve the lives offarmers and landless agriculture labour.One objective was also to optimizeproduction in rainfed areas so as toreduce the inequality of irrigated andrainfed agricultural production. This wasto be achieved through low-costbiophysical measures of conservationand through better agricultural practicessuch as contour cultivation etc.NWDPRA was launched in Maharashtraduring the Eighth Five Year Plan with the

implementation of 266 watersheds. Anarea of 853,099.6 ha was treated at atotal cost of Rs 165.95 crores by the endof the Eighth Plan. A chief executiveofficer is placed as in charge of thedistrict watershed committee and adistrict superintending agriculture officeris the designated chief of the districtcoordination machinery/agency. By theend of the Ninth Plan 917 watershedswere selected, of which 646 werecompleted and 271 were incomplete.The incomplete watersheds in the NinthPlan were recast as part of the newguidelines under the Tenth Plan. Underthese guidelines, this programme isexpected to cover 33 districts, 440 microwatersheds (each around 500 ha)spanning 2.04 lakh ha. Rs 15.37 croresof worth of work has already beenaccomplished by March 2004 and thetotal budget outlay for the period is Rs116 crores

Integrated Wasteland DevelopmentProgramme (IWDP)The IWDP a centrally supported projectwas started in 1988-89 by the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests (MoEF) andlater transferred to the Department ofWastelands Development which is nowknown as the Department of LandResources (DLR) under MoRD. 1995-onward, projects worth Rs 24,38 lakhwere sanctioned with an additional Rs330,90 lakh sanctioned from 1999-2000for 1,103 micro watershed projects forMaharashtra. The IWDP started with 18talukas and 20 watershed developmentprojects in Nagpur, Amravati,Aurangabad, Beed, Latur, Hingoli,Parbhani, Thane, Raigad, Sindhudurg,Ratnagiri, Satara, Sangli, Kolhapur,

PPeerriiodod DDiissttrriicctt WWaatteerrsshedhedss AArrea ea ((llaakkh hah ha))

EExxpendpendiittuurre e ((ccrroorreess))

Seventh Plan (1987-92) 19 380 2.94 24.83 Eighth Plan (1992-97) 29 266 9.28 165.18 Ninth Plan (1997-02) 33 271 9.12 89.40 Tenth Plan (�04 March) 33 440 2.04 15.37

Total 33 1347 23.28 214.78

Table 2.5:CoverageandExpenditureunderNWDPRAduring 1990to March2004Source: Dept. ofSoil and WaterConservation:Annual Report2003-04,Commissionerateof Agriculture,GoM, Pune

36

Yavatmal, Wardha, Pune and Jalagaon.By the end of financial year (FY) 2002the total area proposed had stretched toinclude 213143.25 ha and the totalplanned budget was 10755.99 lakhs. Ofthis, only Rs 2444.81 lakh (27.73 of thetotal amount proposed under the plan)was released which works out to be onlyaround 22.73 per cent. This reflects theslow progress of the work under IWDP,which may be due to different reasonssuch as issue of title/ownership ofwastelands, encroachments, faultyplanning regarding the extent ofwastelands and possibility of treatments,selection of beneficiaries etc. FromMarch 2000 onwards per ha cost wasraised from 4000/ha to 6000/ha with thestate government�s share put at Rs 500/ha. For 2002-03, Buldhana,Ahmadnagar, Nandurbar, Ratnagiri,Amravati and Jalna were to be included.That the Konkan region has the highestnumber of projects under this schememay be because of the greater numberof waste and fallow lands as reportedhere (see Table A 2.6)

Employment Assurance Scheme(EAS)Commencing as the EmploymentGuarantee Scheme (EGS) was lateramalgamated with the Jawahar RojgarYojana and renamed the EmploymentAssurance Scheme (SampurnaGrameen Rogjar Yojana) in September2001, with the objective of ensuringsocial security through creatingemployment and offering the basicwage in rural areas. It also aimed atcreating community assets such as soiland water conservation structures,connecting roads etc. This programmeis now being replicated at the nationallevel with the objective of creating ruralemployment for poverty alleviation andis known as the National RuralEmployment Guarantee Scheme withan annual financial outlay of around Rs14,000 crores. The responsibility forprojects rests with the District Collectoris the responsible authority for theproject. Under EAS in 1995, 149drought-prone regions were selected fordeveloping 1582 watershed projects

AAccttiivviittiieess UUnniitt PPrrogogrreessss 19741974--19831983

PPrrogogrreessss 19831983--19921992

PPrrogogrreessss 19921992--20042004

TToottaall Terracing Ha. 13,777 29,074 12,114 54,966

Contour bunding Ha. 273 3,267 0 3,440

Nala bunding No. 139 1,767 1,370 3,286

Nala straightening

No 0 117 0 117

Mango plantation Ha. 3,226 8,274 0 11,502

Cashew plantation

Ha. 737 4,277 0 4,924

Land leveling Ha. 0 1,177 0 1,177

Cement structures

No. 0 0 432 432

Loose boulders No. 0 0 58,770 58,770

Diversion dams No. 0 0 223 223

CCT Ha. 0 0 6,636 6,636

Farm ponds No. 0 0 107 107

Earthen structures

No. 0 0 1,496 1,496

Expenditure (in Crores)

6.63 39.02 88.82 134.46

Table 2.6:Status ofActivities andExpenditureunder WGDP1974 to March2004

Source: AnnualReport 2003-04,Commissionerateof AgricultureGoM, Pune,August, 2004

37

with a financial outlay of Rs 30,848.90lakhs. Under this scheme 55government organizations (816watersheds) and 136 NGOs (766watersheds) were selected forimplementation. The funding ratiobetween the centre and state is 75:25.Most of the projects are in thecompletion stage today. As in DPAP,the maximum projects are in Amravati(369) followed by the Pune region (358).Konkan is not in the EAS programme(see Table A 2.7).

Western Ghats DevelopmentProgramme (WGDP)This fully centrally-assisted programmeis being implemented in the state since1974-75 in the hilly regions of 12districts consisting of 62 talukas. Thesedistricts are Thane, Ratnagiri,Sindhudurg, Nasik, Dhule, Nadurbar,Satara, Sangili, Kholapur, Pune andAhmadnagar. The objective is toimprove the lives of the communitiesliving around the Western Ghats throughthe sustainable and environmentallybalanced development of the region. Till

1983 the project had an areadevelopment approach, when it shiftedto a watershed development approach.Of the 120 watershed projects underwaysince then 53 have been completed.The total expenditure from 1973-74 upto 2003-04 stands at Rs 134.46 crores.

River Valley Projects (RVP)This centrally sponsored project is oneof the oldest projects in the country andis being implemented in the catchmentsof Damangaon (Thane, Nashik),Pochampada (Nanded, Nashik,Aurangabad), Ukkai (Dhule, Jalgaon,Nandurbar), Nagarjunsagar (Solapur,Usmanabad, Pune, Sangli, Satara) andNarmadsagar (Dhule, Nandurbar) in thestate. The major objectives were controlof dam siltation, land-use based on landcapability, and increasing the moisturecontent of land in the catchments. Oneof the interesting aspects of this projectwas the silt monitoring stations. Underthis programme, as on March 2004, 1.92lakh ha was treated at a cost of Rs92.30 crores. The project is nowconsidered as completed.

IItteemmss UUnniitt CCoovveerrageage//eexxpendpendiittuurre e ((1993 1993 -- MMaarrcch 2004h 2004))

Area treatment Ha. 192,446

Drainage structures No. 114,047

Expenditure on work Rs (crores) 69.46

Salary and allowances -- 18.44

Contingency fund -- 1.95

Silt monitoring center -- 0.89

Storage and construction -- 0.40

Training -- 0.29

Corpus fund -- 0.87

Total expenditure (in crores) -- 92.30

Table 2.7:Status of Activities and Expenditureunder RVP 1993 to March 2004

Source: AnnualReport,2003-04,CommissionerateofAgriculture,GoM,Pune,August,2004

38

2.6.2 State-supported SchemesIntegrated Watershed DevelopmentProject (IWDP)IWDP is a state sponsored project to beimplemented in villages having a severeproblem of drinking water as well aswatersheds declared as overexploited(dark) according to the GSDA analysis.The major source for funds under thisprogramme is the District Planning andDevelopment Corporation (DPDC),Tribal Sub Plan (TSP), funds with theWater Conservation Board, the state-level Plan fund etc. This is one of thelargest programmes being implementedin the state. Besides taking up newwatersheds IWDP funds are also usedfor completing incomplete watershedsstarted in other programmes. However,the information available for IWDP is notvery consistent and different sourcesshow different picture. Most sourcesshow it not as IWDP, but as part of thework undertaken under TSP, DPDC,OTSP etc, from which the funds areavailed for the work. According to theAnnual Report 2003-04 cited above,based on the Government Order of 30January 1996, 15,707 villages wereselected under IWDP and 32,139watersheds delineated. The total area ofthe proposed watersheds is 1,17,66,955 ha. The actual work started in11,386 villages and 24,111 watershedsand in an area of 90, 74,856 ha. Ofthese, 8188 watersheds were completedcovering an area of 41.63 lakh ha andthe expenditure incurred was Rs3288.40 crores (Annual Report: pp.16-17). The report notes that in the year2003-04 Rs 688.09 crores were spent.However a closer look at theexpenditure for 2003-04 shows that itincludes all programmes funded by the

state, central and district authorities(Annual Report: pp. 41-48). Thecumulative figure above for the IWDP,we may assume, includes allprogrammes implemented in the state.

Adarsh Gaon Yojana (AGY)Initiated in 1992, the programme is thestate�s attempt at a wider scalereplication of success stories such asthat of Ralegaon Siddhi, based on theprinciple of village development throughpeople�s participation. The villagesselected would follow the five tenetsprescribed by Anna Hazare: a ban ongrazing, tree felling, alcohol,contribution of voluntary labour andfollowing family planning. The majorobjective is not only the integrateddevelopment of the village but tointroduce social discipline and make thevillage self-reliant. The programme is tobe implemented through a village-levelNGO registered under theCommissionaire of Charitable Trusts.For selected villages other schemes ofrural development would also beimplemented on priority. Around 59programmes of 12 differentdepartments form part of this scheme.The programme is divided into core(watershed areas) and non-core areas.There is a state level committee forimplementation and monitoring whichmakes decisions regarding choice ofvillages, choice of PIAs, projectsanctioning, budgeted sanction, grantrelease, removal of inefficient villages,change of PIA etc. District, taluka andvillage level committees have also beenformed. At least one village has beenchosen in each taluka and the objectiveis to make at least one village in eachtaluka a success under this scheme.

Districts included in AGY 33 Total talukas selected in AGY 321 Included talukas in AGY 156

Total selected villages 221

Tribal villages included 15 Total PIA 184 Villages which have submitted proposals 201 Total amount for the received proposals (Rs. crore) 66.66

Table 2.8:Status of Adarsh Gaon Yojana

39

YYeaearr CCoorre e AArreaea NNonon--ccoorre e AArreaea TToottaal l EExxpendpendiittuurre e ((iin n llaakkh h RRss..))

1994-5 39.05 226.86 265.91 1995-6 147.56 702.78 850.34 1996-7 199.02 1,535.9 1,734.92 1997-8 270 1,574.85 1,844.85 1998-9 524.4 692.47 1,216.87 1999-0 483.4 806.4 1,289.8 2000-1 246.8 575.8 822.6 2001-2 271.42 180.69 452.11 2002-3 118.61 178.61 297.22 2003-4 24.66 40.59 65.25 Total 2,324.92 6,514.95 8,839.87

Table 2.9:Adarsh Gaon Yojna Expenditure Details1992-2004

Table 2.10:Activitiesunder AGY1992-2003

Source: (Table,2.8,2.9&2.10):Commissionerateof Agricultureand AnnualReport 2003-04,GoM,Pune,2004

2.7. Maharashtra: The OverallScenarioWatershed development is one of themajor public programmes in terms ofexpenditure. A rough estimate showsthat Rs 4,500 crores has been spentover the last two decades under differentprogrammes through central and stateassistance. Besides, there are a numberof programmes implemented by NGOsand some public institutions likeNABARD. This much expenditure,ideally speaking should have treatedaround nine million hectares of areafactoring Rs 5000/ha. During 2003- 04

the expenditure incurred under differentprogrammes was Rs 68,809.90 lakhs.Table A 2.8 gives programme coveragedetails under different schemes for aperiod of 10 years (1992-2002). TheIWDP (State) followed by EAS,NWDPRA, DPAP and AGY constitutethe bulk of programmes beingimplemented. Of the 44,185 microwatersheds in Maharashtra, around26,707 micro watersheds are beingcovered under various watershedprogrammes since 1992 out of which8258 have been completed. Twenty-three per cent of the programmes

AAccttiivviittiieess UUnniitt AAcchhiieevveemmenenttss 19921992--20032003

CCT/ afforestation Ha. 5,742 Plantation Ha. 3,082 Vegetative bunding/live check dam No. 5,560 Brush wood dam/loose boulder No. 2,634 Earthen nala bund No. 594 Cement nala bund No. 490 Underground/diversion dams No. 132 Farm pond/dug ponds No. 298 Terracing Ha. 1,079 Other works No. 204

40

started are in the Vidharbha region, 8per cent in Konkan and 69 per cent arein the drought-prone regions ofMaharashtra. During 2004 6.54 per centinvestment was in Konkan, the Nashikregion accounted for 7.05 per cent,Pune division for 32.50 per cent,Kholapur division for 11.98 per cent,Aurangabad division for 8.63 per cent,Latur division for 19.51 per cent,Amravati for 7.27 per cent and Nagpurfor 5.64 per cent. Here too, a largeshare went to the Pune region,consisting of only three districts withSolapur and Ahmadnagar accountingfor the highest investments in the state(Annual Report 2003-04).Eighty-three per cent of all projects(22,302 programmes) fall under IWDP(state) followed by DPAP (909),NWDPRA (917), EAS (1549) and AGY(645). About 522 NGOs are involvedwith implementing DPAP programmes,766 NGOs in the implementation ofEGS programmes. All programmesunder AGY, IGWDP, CAPART etc., areimplemented through NGOs.A cursory glance at investments ondifferent components of soil and waterconservation shows a preponderance ofdrainage and engineering structures.This aspect needs further analysis,which also has a bearing on the total

area reportedly covered. This will bedealt later in this review. According to the sources provided bythe Commissionerate of Agriculture83% of all projects started are under thestate Integrated WatershedDevelopment Program having 22302programs followed by DPAP (909),NWDPRA (917), EAS (1549) and AGY(645). About 522 NGOs are involvedwith implementing DPAP programs, 766NGOs in the implementation of EGSprograms whereas all programs underAGY, IGWDP, CAPART etc areimplemented through the NGOs.Another major issue is related to datamanagement and availability ofinformation. One could observe somediscrepancies in the available data, asmentioned earlier. This is true for boththe physical and financial details of thework.Data available in different sources varyand this is also reflected in certaininstances in this review. Tosubstantiate, expenditure as reported inthe Swaminathan Committee Report forall projects for 1992-2002 is Rs 2,252crores as compared to the reportedamount of Rs 3,288 crores for IWDP inthe Annual Report 2004 of theDepartment of Soil Conservation andWatershed Development,

Table 2.11:Details ofWatershedsunderDifferentProgrammes1992-2002

Source: Report(2003) of the highlevel committeeon the ActionPlan forAgriculture for 25years, under thechairmanship ofDr. M.S.Swaminathan.Chapter 3.

SScchehemmeess NNoo. . oof f WWaatteerrsshheedds s SSttaarrtteded

NNoo. . oof f WWaatteerrsshheedds s CCoommpplleetteded

NNoo. . oof f WWaatteerrsshheedds s IInnccoommpplleettee

IWDP 22,302 7,048 15,254

NWDPRA 917 646 271

WGDP 97 43 54

RBP 114 59 55

DPAP 856 132 724

Adarsh Gaon 645 100 545

EAS 50% 1,582 189 1,393

CAPART 78 0 78

IGWDP 116 41 75 (In progress)

Total 26,707 8,258 18,449

41

Commissionerate of Agriculture. It isnecessary that a proper data/informationmanagement system be put in placewhich is a combination of both GIS andMIS. This should also be made availableto the public domain. This is veryimportant from the perspectiveprogramme management and planning.The table below shows that stateschemes account for about 64 per centof the total spending, out of which

Table 2.12:Budgeted Spending (Maharashtra) onWatershed Development, 1992 to 2002

Source:Commissionerateof Agriculture,GOM, Pune

spending under EGS is a majorcomponent. Among the centralschemes, NWDPRA, EAS, JRY andDPAP are major sources. The totalspending comes to more than Rs22,5768.85 lakhs since 1992. If we lookat the expenditure as given in Table 2.13maximum expenditure is in the droughtprone areas of Pune (21 per cent), Latur(19.17 per cent) and Aurangabad (nineper cent) divisions. Vidharbha accountsfor around 21.47 per cent.

BBudgeudget t HHeaeadd TToottaal l EExxpp. . [[iin n llaakkhhss]]

PPeerrccenenttaagge e tto o ttoottaall

EGS 72,829.71 32 100-days Programme 1,511.21 1 District Planning and Development Council 14,819.48 7 BACKLOG 15,133.68 7 Constitutional Dev. Board 868.89 0 Tribal Sub-plan 11,201.5 5 Other than Tribal Sub-plan 487.55 0 Jalsandharan 17,258.42 8 World Bank Project 333.99 0 Other 9,555.79 4 Total State Schemes 14,4000.22 64 JRY 15,115.89 7 EAS 16,202.66 7 NWDPRA 24,747.67 11 Western Ghats 6,877.37 3 RVP 6,703.28 3 DPAP 12,121.76 5 Total Central Schemes 81,768.63 36 Total State and Central Schemes 22,5768.85 100

42

Table 2.13:An Overview of Watershed Development in Maharashtra

DDiissttrriicctt GGeogeogrrapaphhiiccaal l AArrea ea [[iin n HHaa]]

Area Available for

Watershed CCoommpplleetteed d WWaatteerrsshheedd

TToottaal l TTrreeaatted ed AArrea ea ((iinncclluuddiinng g iinnccoommpplleette e wwaatteerrsshheeddss))

BBaallanancce e AArrea ea ffoorr WWaatteerrsshheed d DDvvllppmmnntt..

EExxpendpendiittuurre e IInnccuurrrreed d ((iin n llaakkhhss))

Gtr. Mumbai 38,000 7,900 0 0 7,900 [0] Thane 933,700 372,870 134 158,956 213,914 10,185 Raigad 686,900 454,380 201 178,745 275,635 4,993 Ratnagiri 816,400 789,470 58 177,860 611,610 3,893 Sindhudurg 504,000 445,120 13 102,545 342,575 2,283 Kokan Divison 2,979,000 2,069,740 406 618,106 1,451,634 21,354 Nasik 1,563,400 1,052,160 994 331,513 720,647 14,323 Dhule 1,438,000 760,430 260 186,759 573,671 6,667 Jalgaon 1,163,900 821,900 340 214,592 607,308 5,860 Nashik Division 4,165,300 2,634,490 1,594 732,864 1,901,626 26,850 Ahmadnagar 1,702,000 1,265,650 206 420,137 845,513 14,271 Pune 1,562,000 1,005,800 243 322,067 683,733 13,221 Solapur 1,487,800 1,144,160 240 544,813 599,347 19,774 Pune Division 4,751,800 3,415,610 689 1,287,017 2,128,593 47,266 Satara 1,058,200 704,740 162 227,119 477,621 8,091 Sangli 861,000 601,720 116 207,906 393,814 5,133 Kolhapur 776,300 420,900 199 144,574 276,326 4,711 Kolhapur Division 2,695,500 1,727,360 477 579,599 1,147,761 1,7935 Aurangabad 1,007,700 811,610 61 121,758 689,852 5,957 Jalna 772,600 678,750 312 208,784 469,966 9,282 Beed 1,068,600 867,410 785 256,930 610,480 5,032 Aurangabad Division 2,848,900 2,357,770 1,158 587,472 1,770,298 20,271 Latur 715,700 606,240 655 272,431 333,809 7,433 Osmanabad 748,500 659,030 1,143 553,938 105,092 14,819 Nanded 1,033,100 752,190 90 152,618 599,572 12,005 Parbhani 1,097,200 829,030 33 113,688 715,342 8,888

Latur 3,594,500 2,846,490 1,921 1,092,675 1,753,815 4,3145

43

Source: Commissionerate of Agriculture, GOM,Pune; 2002

Figure 2.5:Percentageof AreaTreatedunderWatershedProgrammesinMaharashtra

Latur Division 3,594,500 2,846,490 1,921 1,092,675 1,753,815 4,3145 Buldhana 967,100 745,780 190 138,998 606,782 4,342 Akola 1,056,000 869,970 251 129,109 740,861 5,546 Amravati 1,221,700 806,210 369 165,694 640,516 5,470 Yavatmal 1,351,900 940,890 420 202,398 738,492 5,775 Amravati Divison 4,596,700 3,362,850 1,230 636,199 2,726,651 21,133 Wardha 628,900 461,430 108 85,164 376,266 2,613 Nagpur 986,400 590,870 94 140,003 450,867 6,393 Bhandara 927,900 412,760 175 171,232 241,528 6,194 Chandrapur 1,091,800 556,940 202 105,943 450,997 6,640 Gadchiroli 1,491,600 301,310 73 79,102 222,208 5,382 Nagpur Division 5,126,600 2,323,310 652 581,444 1,741,866 27,222 Maharashtra 30,758,300 20,737,620 8,127 6,115,376 14,622,244 225,176

44

Figure 2.6:District-wiseExpenditureunderWatershedProgrammesinMaharashtra

Table 2.14:District-wise, Priority-wise, Category-wise Information of Incomplete Watersheds

DDiivviissiiononss TToottaal l NNoo. . oof f WWaatteerrsshedhedss

DDaarrk k and and GGrraay y WWaatteerrsshedhedss

DDPAP PAP WWaatteerrsshedhedss

TTrriibabal l AArrea ea WWaatteerrsshedhedss

OOttheher r AArrea ea WWaatteerrsshedhedss

IInnccoommpplleette e WWss

%%aarrea ea rreemmaaiinniing ng tto beo be ttrreaeatteded

IInnccoommpplleette e WWss

%%aarrea ea rreemmaaiinniing ng tto bo be e ttrreaeatteded

IInnccoommpplleette e WWss

%%aarrea ea rreemmaaiinniing ng tto o be be ttrreaeatteded

IInnccoommpplleette e WWss

%%aarrea ea rreemmaaiinniing ng tto beo be ttrreaeatteded

IInnccoommpplleette e WWss

%%aarrea ea rreemmaaiinniing ng tto beo be ttrreaeatteded

KKononkkan an DDiivviissiionon 1,567 47 0 340 45 0 1,227 47 NNaasshhiik k DDiivviissiionon 1,913 44 277 34 909 51 640 39 87 48 PPune une DDiivviissiionon 5,292 48 672 43 320 63 3,383 48 917 48

KKoollhapuhapur r DDiivviissiionon 1,357 51 120 46 0 579 52 658 52 AAuurrangabangabaa--d d DDiivviissiionon 1,335 45 8 25 0 977 48 350 38

LaLattuur r DDiivviissiionon 1,340 42 81 32 56 59 723 42 480 44

AAmmrraavvaatti i DDiivviissiionon 2,247 45 107 48 591 45 1,314 46 235 41 NNagpuagpur r DDiivviissiionon 1,627 39 79 35 844 38 65 58 639 39

MMahaaharraasshhtt--rraa 16,678 46 1,344 39 3,060 48 7,681 46 4,593 45

Source: Commissionerate of Agriculture, GOM, Pune; 2002

45

The above table gives a priority-wiselisting of watersheds. Of the 16,678incomplete programmes 1,344 are in thedark and grey areas, 3,060 in droughtareas, 7,681 in tribal areas. Of the146.22 lakh ha available for watershedtreatment, 50.21 lakh ha, which isincomplete, should be the first priority.Dark and gray, DPAP and tribal areawatersheds should receive the highestpriority. According to the data availablewith the Commissionerate of Agriculture,Rs 2,511 crores is required to completesoil and water conservation work in thisarea. If we take Rs 6,000 as the perhectare cost as per the presentguidelines, it works out to Rs 3,012crores. Besides this, as per government

estimation, Rs 480 crore is required totreat 4.69 lakh ha of saline-affectedareas in the East Maharahstra districtsof Amaravati, Buldhana and Akola. Theremaining 96.01 lakh ha should be thenext priority for undertaking soil andwater conservation activities. Againwithin the same, dark and graywatersheds, DPAP and tribal areawatersheds should receive first priority.At Rs 6000 per hectare, the total cost totreat this area would work out to Rs5,760 crores (High Level Committeeheaded by Shri M.S. Swaminathan). Ifone goes by the recommendations ofthe Parthasarathy Committee, whichrecommends Rs 12000/ha, the requiredbudget would be almost double.

46

Impacts of Watershed Developmenton Ecosystems and Livelihoods

3.1 ContextWatershed development is a series ofbiophysical and social interventionsaimed at restoring a degradedecosystem to ensure livelihoods for thecommunity depending upon it. However,the issue of impacts on livelihoodentered watershed discourse andpractice very recently � earlier thisaspect was considered either a sideeffect or serendipitous. Bringing thelivelihood issue into focus can, to alarge extent, ensure the streamlining ofthe poverty reduction objectives ofwatershed development and renderproductive and sustainable ecosystemresources a precondition for creatinglivelihoods in rural rainfed areas. Manyimpact assessments of watershedprogrammes have been undertakencovering both biophysical and socio-economic programme aspects. Increasein crop area, cropping intensity, increasein crop yields, changes in the croppingpattern, increase in irrigated area,increase in the productivity of common/waste lands due to increase in greencover and therefore increase in fodderand fuel from them, change in fodder/fuel consumption quantity and patterndue to change in the land use or changein cropping pattern, change in livestockcomposition due to the above, changein water levels leading to changes inwithdrawal rate, increase in number ofwells, improvement in water quality,improvement in soil quality andreduction in soil erosion, improvement inenvironment, improvement inemployment opportunities, changes inlabour requirements, changes in incomelevels and livelihoods and finallychanges in the socio-economicstructure of the community are some of

Chapter 3 the changes that could be expected toemerge from watershed programmes.All these indices/indicators of impacthave a direct relation to the livelihoodissues of the community inhabiting thespecific ecospace/watershed.Augmented natural resources fromwatershed development are expectedto contribute towards improvedlivelihood opportunities for all strata andstakeholders.Studies document many or some ofthese impacts in a somewhat ad hocmanner. The data are oftenimpressionistic and lack rigour. Veryfew studies are based on rigorousbenchmarks established beforehandand rely on recall and perception ofrespondents of change or impact. Also,the multiplicity of studies looking at theshort-term impacts is not matched bystudies looking at the long-term impactsof watershed programmes � whetherbiophysical or socio-economic. Evencertain short-term changes, especiallyin socio-economic indicators, are oftenassumed to emerge from the sum of�watershed activity� and the physiologyof each process leading to a particularoutcome is often not made explicit orlooked into. There is a tendency toascribe all changes happening in thewatershed context as an outcome ofthe effects of watershed development.Attributing impacts/outcomes to specificwatershed interventions also may beproblematic because these impactsmay be visible even outside thewatershed context, and in the absenceof comparison with a controlleduniverse it may not stand scientificscrutiny. In certain indices such asenvironmental impacts, the longgestation required to register impactsalso throws up challenges. Moreover,studies do not deal with crucialquestions such as the ability ofwatershed programmes to deal withdrought, or the need to integrateexogenous water with what is locallyavailable to create the critical quantumof the resource required in thewatershed. Barring certain exceptionslike Ralegaon Siddhi, and some of theIndo-German Watershed Programme(IGWDP) projects, feedback from thefield indicates that by and largewatershed programmes seem to besuccessful under normal rainfallconditions of a particular area. Thisquestion of whether watershed

47

development programmes can reallyoffset the impact of reduction in rainfall,and if yes, to what degree, needs to befurther researched. The popularperception is that watersheddevelopment helps people in goodyears, but fails them in bad years, whenthey need the help the most14.Literature on impacts is substantial andgrowing. Many impact assessmentstudies have been conducted byprofessional organizations or NGOsthemselves or by individual researchers.Certain impact indicators are measuredconcurrently by the implementationorganizations as part of regular reportingand feedback systems and sometimesas post-project evaluations. Apart fromthis, results of various independentstudies have been compiled. Impacts onmany aspects have been documentedand they range from physical impactssuch as a rise in the water table to wide-ranging changes in the economy andeven social changes in certain places.We have grouped the impact variablesinto: impact on the ecosystem (soil,water, vegetation/biomass etc),intermediary impacts, impacts onagricultural production and socio-economic aspects. These are notindependent categories but impinge oneach other, however they loosely alsocapture the sequence of impacts inwatershed programmes. All these impactvariables have a direct relation tolivelihood resources available forwatershed dwellers, but to gaugewhether the benefit from augmentedresources has impacted the livelihoodopportunities of all sections in thewatershed requires disaggregatedinformation along different socio-economic categories. Earlier, soil andwater conservation activities were notvisualized or directly aimed at creatingan impact on livelihoods. However, thisaspect is now increasingly being broughtinto focus and quite few watershedbased development interventions arecalled Rural Livelihoods Projects. Oftenin such cases, the strategy earmarks acertain budget for livelihood creation forresource-poor families. However, ourposition is that watershed development(being an environmental regenerationprogramme aimed at augmenting theresource base and involving publicexpenditure) the creation/generation oflivelihoods for the resource-poor needs

to be strategized on the basis theseenhanced resources, i.e. throughaccess to water, fodder, fuel etc. The next few sections give an idearegarding the range of quantitativevalues and the specific indicatorsreported for capturing each impact. Thisis followed by a discussion at the end ofthe chapter, which tries to place theresults in a more normative perspective.

3.2 Impacts on the Ecosystem3.2.1 Improvement in soil qualitySoil quality has not been studiedintensively in many watershed impactassessments, but is generally reportedto have improved due to better in situmoisture retention. Due to reduced soilloss and improved farming approaches,the organic carbon content andavailability of nitrogen, phosphorus andpotash (or NPK) has been seen toincrease in the soils on farms ofbeneficiary households located in theNational Watershed DevelopmentProgramme for rainfed Areas(NWDPRA) watersheds (AFC, 1999,see Table A 3.2 for details ofwatersheds under study). Analyses ofsoil samples in the Khed watershedshowed that fertility improved to a verylimited extent but the availability of majornutrients such as NPK andmicronutrients went up appreciably(TERI, 2001). Lack of information on this importantcomponent which has direct bearing onproductivity, goes against one of themajor objectives of watersheddevelopment: sustainable productivityenhancement of rainfed areas. Theremay be a multiplicity of reasons for this,such as �time required to register soilquality improvement�; approach andmethods, whether interventions aremerely conservation based or adopt thefarming system approach; availability ofbaseline information15(refer to nextpage); failure to systematically analysepost-implementation changes whereverimprovements are reported, whether asan outcome of high external fertilizerinput in better land class etc.

3.2.2 Change in soil erosion/runoffThe general review of Kerr et al. (2000)throws up some very interesting findings

14 There is arelated lacuna inwatershedplanning: lack ofconsideration ofthe issue ofdependability.Very often,watershedplanning is doneon the basis ofaverage ormean rainfallfigures, which isvery close to 50per centdependability.This means thatwatershedplanning wouldwork for 50 percent of the timeor half thenumber ofyears. In otherwords, planningwould fail onceevery twoyears. Sincepeople�slivelihood is tiedto theprogramme, it isimperative that itbe planned at amuch higherdependability-level, say 80 percent or morewhen thequantum ofrainfall would besmaller than at50 per centrainfall. But at80 per centrainfalldependabilityi.e., four out offive years, oneis sure to getthat much rain.This addsstability to theprogrammewhich can thusachieve plannedtargets four outof every fiveyears. If there isone bad year infive, it is easierfor people tobuild upsurplusesduring the fourgood years (ofwhich one ortwo will be quitegood) to tideover the singlebad year. Referto Joy andParanjape, 2004for a moredetailedexposition.

48

about the erosion of crop and non-cropland. It suggests that irrigated plots aregenerally well maintained and show theleast erosion. Dry croplands on theother hand, are prone to erosionbecause they are generally not as wellmaintained as irrigated lands. The studyalso indicates that in this respect,control villages perform only marginallyworse than villages where the watershedapproach has been implemented.However, for uncultivated land they find� somewhat against expectations � thatmany watershed development areasperform marginally worse than thecontrol villages. (This may be becausethese control villages were perhapslocated in the lower reaches of a largerdrainage, and hence were less sloppyand erosion prone as compared towatersheds in the upper areas of thedrainage). Their study shows that allprojects improve the drainage line; AGY/IGWDP villages have the best averagescore and non-project villages theworst.16 Erosion in non-arable lands hasreduced especially when investment ishigher and for NGO and AGY/IGWDPprojects17 (Kerr et al., 2000). It isgenerally observed that farmers investmore in protection of irrigated lands(they do not want the water and fertilizerto flow into farms other than their own),and most often irrigated lands have aless than three per cent slope whichconsiderably reduces the possibility oferosion. Investment increases in non-arable, pasture, fallow and commonlands because of high degradation andmultiplicity of measures required toprotect, such as gully control measures,trenching, plantation, fodderdevelopment etc., which in turn maybenefit the poor and marginal if benefit-sharing mechanisms are in place.In the case of Vaiju Babhulgaon(IGWDP), people�s perception is that thesilt load has reduced by about 60 percent, which is a significant improvement.In Bugewadi watershed, bunding activityhas helped moisture conservation in soiland reduced soil loss. Besides, thevegetative key lines have providedbeneficiaries with fertile soil and bettergroundwater availability (AERC studyreported in TERI, 2001). The RPV18

projects (see Table A 3.1) helped inreduction in silt production rates rangingfrom 1 ha-m per 100 sq km to 6 ha-mper 100 sq. km. The cost benefitanalysis for just this one benefit

amounted to 0.66:1, which indicated 66per cent cost recovery only through siltload reduction. The rainfall runoffanalysis for the Pochampad catchmentindicated that runoff was as low as 7.1per cent after treatment (AFC, 1999).The review also shows that treatedwatersheds could tolerate longer dryspells compared to untreatedwatersheds. This is mainly because thesoil moisture status and water holdingcapacity of the soil improved withtreatment. This is reflected in peoplesaying that the productivity of the plotshas improved after watershedtreatment.Like the issue of soil fertility, measuringreduction in soil loss /reduced runoff isalso a complex issue and most oftencommunity ingenuity and understanding(like clean water in streams, sedimentsdeposited in gully plugs, vegetativestructures) is the source of informationin many projects. It is observed thattools and technologies used are notvery user-friendly at the communitylevel, besides the cost, requirement oftime series data etc.

3.2.3 Change in Life of Wells andStreams; Rise in Water-level andNumber of WellsThe water level has increased as aresult of treatments in most projects. InPimpalgaon Wagha (a projectimplemented by the social centre withgovernment support) the life of wellsincreased with water becomingavailable for 11 to 12 months in theyear, which helped irrigation andincrease in agricultural productivity bynearly 50 per cent. Before watersheddevelopment was introduced inPimpalgaon Wagha, only 40 of the 75wells had water and that too for justeight months. There was animprovement in the green cover ononce rocky hillsides, and streams whichwould flow only up to November, nowflow up to January even in a dry year.On an average, the water table in thewells increased by 1.5 m in the Khedwatershed and the number of wellswent up from 310 to 405 (TERI, 2001).The RVP projects saw a staggeringpercentage increase in the number ofirrigation wells in the four watershedsstudied between 24 to 237 per cent.The increase in the water table was

15 In someprojects such asIGWDP soiltesting is donefor a set of soilsamples in eachwatershed duringthe planningstage16 For everyrupee spent byAGY or IGWDP,the drainage linescore rises by0.27 on a scaleof 1 to 3. ForNGOs this is0.17 and for govt.projects lessthan 0.10.17 Many villageswhere NGOprojects operatethere are lesscommon lands.18 RVP projectssupported byGTZ andfacilitated byRODECO hadestablished a SiltMonitoringStation tomeasuresedimentdeposits.

49

between 0.90 to 2.28 per cent, and thearea under irrigation went up betweeneight per cent to 216 per cent. Thenumber of wells dug wells shot up to by65 in South Solapur watershed inNagarjunasagar catchment. In otherwatersheds this number increased byeight to ten. Seasonal wells turned intoperennial wells. The perennial wellsincreased in the range of 43 to 174 in allnine watersheds. The seasonal life ofephemeral streams of micro catchmentsincreased by a month or two as theycontinued to flow even after the rainyseason due to seepage from uplands(AFC, 1998-99).In the IGWDP-supported Shedashi-Wavoshi watershed in Raigad District (ahigh rainfall area) water table in theexisting wells persistently increased inall the season. For example, in theupper region, the water table increasedby 0.40 meters as of March 1998.Similarly it increased by 0.60 meters and1.20 meters in the middle and lowerregions respectively (see Table A 3.9).This is substantial given that the actualrainfall and the number of rainy daysduring 1997-98 were less than thenormal rainfall in the region. Thestreams, which dried in the middle ofDecember, continued till the end ofFebruary in the post-project phase.Tanker trips have been minimized(NABARD, 1999). In the Rajaniwatershed (IGWDP) in Yavatmal district,the water level persistently increased inall seasons from 1993-98 by about twometers in spite of the rainfall being lessthan normal (see Table A 3.13). Streamscontinued to flow up to the end ofFebruary instead of mid-December.Floods reduced and water was cleanerin nalas (NABARD, 1999). In Mendawanwatershed (IGWDP) in Ahmadnagardistrict, the number of wells in thewatershed has gone up from 41 to 64.As against 54 per cent of the wells,which remained dry in the summerbefore the intervention (1993), only 14per cent were dry in the summer of1998. The average water level of thewells from the ground level in thesummer months increased from 4.2 feetto 8.8 feet in some wells underobservation (NABARD, 1999). InSherikoldara watershed (IGWDP) thenumber of wells increased from 122 to143 during 1994-2000 (the projectperiod) while the number of perennialwell increased from eight to 32 and

defunct wells came down from 59 toseven (WOTR, 2002).In the NWDPRA study, where ninewatersheds were studied, the totalnumber of wells in the watershedincreased by a minimum of seven,including borewells (30.4 per cent) inKhandas watershed to a maximum by277 numbers (181%) in Kanhur-mesaiwatershed (see Table A 2.3) and in 80per cent of the older wells the waterlevel increased (Gomukh, 2001).Streams in both watersheds flowed forabout three months longer than they didbefore.The review shows that there has beenan increase (of between two to threemonths) in the duration of flow ofstreams after watershed developmentprogrammes were implemented. InDornali village (AFARM, 1999), wherethe stream was reported flowing up toNovember prior to the watershedprogramme, now reports water in thestream till the month of March or later,even under normal rainfall conditions.The situation is similar at villages likeBhavthan (in Manavlok) where stream-flow has increased by a couple ofmonths. In Adgaon, where water used torun off by the month of August, i.e.,immediately after the rains, it now stayson for another two months.Hence, it is hardly surprising thatreduction of runoff is one of the mostcommonly reported results of watersheddevelopment. Wherever intensive workshave been done on the upper reaches ofthe watershed, a decrease in runoffvelocity has been observed along with acorresponding increase in time ofconcentration and greater subsurfaceinfiltration, resulting in increased levelsand durations of base flow. An increasein the number of wells may also be areflection of increased groundwateravailability, as farmers tend to invest inwell-digging when they are sure ofgetting water. A note of caution must besounded here however, while attributingthe increased number of wells toincreased groundwater, because mostoften this information does not show thedepth of the wells and comparativechanges. Also, most of this reporting isby way of visual observation and localperception rather than systematic,scientific observation. However, manyprojects have seriously undertakenmonitoring of water level changes in wells.

50

3.2.4 Change in Green Cover,Biomass, Fodder and Fuel AvailabilityWith regard to pastures, forests andcommons, the main change is that inmost projects, they have been broughtunder some degree of plantation andfodder development. However, thegeneral experience is that the survivalrate of such plantation is quite low (lessthan even 50 per cent) and that they areunable to achieve significant growthrates. Plantation methods/technology,soil moisture, rainfall pattern, landcapability, availability and provision forprotective irrigation, regulation ongrazing etc. have an impact on thesurvival and growth of plantation.However it is generally observed that, ifsome care is taken, fodder is one of theimmediate impacts arising out of awatershed project.Canopy coverage has been reported aspoor in comparison with the coverexpected by the extent and density ofplanting, even though it may be betterthan what it was earlier. Hence, one ofthe major purposes for planting trees inthe commons � namely, to arrest soildegradation and improve the waterregime by providing some canopy coverover the exposed landscape � has beenonly partially fulfilled. In mostplantations, the reported canopy coverwas less than 50 per cent by the end ofthe project.The study of Kerr et al . (2000) assessesthe average performance of watershedprojects in terms of availability of fodder,especially from common lands. Thoughthe results are quite varied across thedifferent types of projects studied,projects generally show decreasedavailability of fodder and fuel due torestrictions on access to common lands.This is seen more in AGY/IGWDPprojects, which have strict restrictionson access, as compared to DPAP andNWDPRA projects (Kerr et al., 2000).However, restrictions may lead toincreased production and maturing ofgrass and shrubs.In the NWDPRA watersheds the rise inforage crop yield was a minimum of 1.6quintals/ha in Phuldhaba and maximumof 3.8 quintals/ha in the Nune-gavadiwatersheds, with an average rise ofabout 2.3 quintal/ha. There was anaverage 21.4 per cent rise. The forage-cultivated area was higher in

watersheds located in Kokan and theWestern Ghat zones (mainly in theRatnagiri, Kolhapur, Raigarh and Sataradistricts). Silvi-pasture cultivation waspracticed only in watersheds located inthe Konkan, Western MaharashtraPlateau and Vidarbha zones. This maybe due to better rainfall and soil depth inthe area. Forage areas for the first timeincreased by 0.01 to 0.08 ha in thewatersheds in other zones after projectimplementation (AFC, 1998-99). (Inscarcity and drought-prone zonesgenerally, species planted by forest andwatershed developments are of hardyand long gestation).Shedashi-Wavoshi watershed: Thecrown cover of the forest increasedhere. The Forest Department allottedland to the landless in encroachedareas to the extent of 50 ha, whoplanted horticultural plants. More than12 lakh saplings have been plantedunder the aegis of this project, coveringboth forest and private lands (see Table3.10) and the reported survival rate is61 per cent. It is also reported that dueto grazing restrictions fodder availabilityhas increased substantially, eventhough the quality of fodder has notimproved (NABARD, 1999).Rajani watershed: the community tookresponsibility of protecting the forestand stopped illegal felling. Protectivegrazing helped improve fodderavailability in qualitative and quantitativeterms. Improved leguminous grasseslike Stylo Hemata were planted onimproved bunds and mounds of WaterAbsorption Trenches (WATs) andContinuous Contour Trenches (CCTs).Six hectares of woodlot were developedon common lands and plantation wasdone on private lands, but the reportedsurvival rate was only 10 per cent(NABARD, 1999).In Sherikoldara also the fodderproduction has increased considerablyboth in forest and private waste lands.In RVP projects too, the biomassproduction from trees has increased,hence large quantities of fuel wood andfodder were produced. In Adgaon,nutritious green fodder availabilityincreased tremendously. Gross-cropped Area under green fodder whichwas nil, increased to more than 175 haincluding 125 ha in kharif and 50 ha inrabi and a few ha in summer in the year1991-92 (Vaswani, 1995).

51

The present review shows that the shareof fodder from commons has increasedin all villages. Earlier, the contribution ofcommon property land resources(CPLRs) to fodder consumption waszero. Now, it has increased to betweenthree and twelve per cent for beneficiaryhouseholds. Poor households are themain beneficiaries of the CPLRresources as their dependence onCPLRs is greater. The overallassessment implies that though theimpact of watershed development on theavailability of fodder is positive, theresults are not very emphatic. This leadsto the conclusion that the trends shownin this study may not be representativeof an average case, as the researchershave chosen better-managedwatersheds primarily to demonstrate thepotential and not the averageperformance. In an assessment of 114watersheds (DPAP and IWDP-state) inVidarbha by Dharamitra, some kind ofplantation activity was undertaken onlyin 60 watersheds. Among these,plantation was done only on privatelands in 40 watersheds. In 12watersheds plantation was done both onprivate and common lands. In manyinstances CPLRs are not brought underconservation measures.It is important to note that fodder needshave changed along with the increase/decrease in herd size and herdcomposition. In our field visits, we foundthat fodder availability generallyimproved after watershed developmentprogrammes. In some cases, theduration of its availability has increased,as observed in Dornali village (AFARM,1999). In this case, prior to thewatershed development programme,fodder was available only till December-January. After the watersheddevelopment programme, fodder isreported as being available throughoutthe year. Prior to the project, thevillagers had, at times, to depend onfodder from outside the village area.Now, this situation has changed withmeasures such as tree planting,protection of common lands and ban onopen grazing. As a result, the time andlabour involved in collecting fodder hasreduced. Similar changes were reportedin other villages like Bhavthan(Manavlok), Adgaon, etc. In Ambewadivillage (IGWDP), fodder availabilityincreased twofold as a result of thewatershed development programme.

The exception is villages like Chale(Kolwan Valley Project) where, evenafter the watershed programme thatcommenced in 2001, people still have tobuy fodder from places as far as 10 kmaway. There are also isolated cases likethat of Khudawadi village in Osmanabaddistrict where women took privatewasteland for development on a long-term lease and, with collective effort,carried out soil and water conservationworks, re-vegetation and protection.Within a year of such measures, therewas a significant increase in fodderoutput. This emboldened them to go fora group IRDP scheme for goat rearing.Trends in fuel availability follow foddertrends very closely. The review indicatesthat the availability of fuel in most well-managed cases has increased, althoughthe average performance seems to bepoor. In some villages like RalegaonSiddhi traditional fuel is also beingsupplemented by the introduction ofbiogas. Ralegaon Siddhi has acommunity biogas plant for the landlessand dalits in the village and even in newprojects there are places where oldbiogas plants are being renewed or newones started.In the Development ResourceOrganisation through Planning (DROP)study (2003), most villages noted anincrease in green cover and fodderavailability, however dairy activity wentup only in Hivre Bazar and anothervillage, Murkute. Free grazing of animalsremained a common practice, only inthe two villages above was there stall-feeding. The villagers in these twovillages also ban tree felling. More than50 per cent of the sample households inHivre Bazar have LPG cylinders, whileabout 58 per cent of the householdssampled in Murkute have installed gobargas plants. Mendha also shows anincrease in the use of gobar gas plants.In many IGWDP watersheds in westernMaharashtra and Marathwada women�sself-help groups (SHGs) purchased LPGcooking systems through loans fromtheir savings. Women�s SHGs from twoIGWDP villages have started small-scaleLPG agencies. However, there are alsoreports that the burden (in terms of timespent) of collecting fuel-wood hasincreased, especially during theimplementation phase of the project.This seems to be mainly because of theblanket ban on tree felling that some

52

projects impose to protect the re-vegetation of common lands.19 In ourfield visits, we found that the re-vegetation programme (on bunds, non-crop lands and commons) along withsome social regulations like a ban oncutting trees (allowing people to collectonly the fallen/dry branches), has helpedimprove fuel-wood availability. Villageslike Dornali (AFARM), Bhavthan(Manavlok), Adgaon, Vaiju Babhulgaon(IGWDP), Hivre Bazar, Ralegaon Siddhi,and others report increases inavailability of fuel-wood.Since the canopy cover on most non-crop land, whether private or public,continues to remain poor even after thewatershed development programme,this amounts to a shrinking of perennialcover. Since effective perennial cover inthe country has decreased to as low as15 per cent, an effort to increaseperennial cover, without necessarilysacrificing production possibilities andincomes, is urgently needed. Besideschange in land use, as increased area(which earlier used to be under shrubsand small trees), is brought undercultivation this leads to shrinkingavailability of fuel and fodder and greenmanure.

3.3 Intermediary impacts3.3.1 Increase in drinking waterOne of the main objectives of watersheddevelopment programmes, especially indrought-prone regions, is to mitigate thedistress with regard to water for drinkingand domestic purposes (including waterfor cattle). Almost all watersheddevelopment guidelines factor in theextent of drinking water shortage as acriterion for selection for watersheddevelopment. In fact, an assured sourceof potable water should be the minimumbenchmark to judge the success of awatershed programme. However,ground realities are not as encouragingas they should have been. The increasein groundwater recharge would give alonger life to the water in wells and eventhe spring flow period would beextended. However, if the waterwithdrawal is unduly high for the rabicrop then it is possible that the overdraftleaves no reserves left to last throughsummer, even for drinking, andhardships might increase. Similarly, in adrought year watershed programmes

might not be able to provide protectionagainst paucity of drinking water.Finally, in villages falling in the salinetract, the regular activities undertakenby watershed programmes might nothelp in alleviating drinking waterproblems.The indicators also do not alwaysdocument whether the village hadsufficient drinking water in the summerperiods and in drought years. The studyof NWDPRA projects noted an increasein the number of open dug wells fordrinking and domestic purposes, andassured availability of drinking waterdue to seasonal wells turning perennialexcept in Kundawale and Khandaswatersheds, both falling in the KonkanZone, where, though the volumetricwater availability has increased forlonger periods, water scarcity is still feltin late summer season (AFC, 1999). InPimpalgaon Wagha there was animprovement in availability of drinkingwater even in a dry year, but thesituation has changed of late withincreased extraction for agriculture andrepeated droughts. In the Shedashi-Wavoshi watershed too the number oftrips from tankers fell to a minimumafter the watershed programmes. In theRVP watersheds too drinking waterproblems were solved due to projectinterventions. In watersheds likeSherikoldara and Darevadi (IGWDP),potable drinking water schemes liftingwater from the local source started afterthe watershed programmes. It is alsoreported that during the year 2002-03,WOTR promoted 41 potable drinkingwater projects in different watershedprojects through other sources of funds.In quite a few cases the drinking waterprovision also included local ZillaParishad schools (WOTR, 2001, 2002& 2003)For many programmes such as the JalSandharan, DPAP and various NGO-implemented projects, overall waterscarcity or drinking water problemswould form a criterion for the selectionof certain villages under the watersheddevelopment programme. All theprojects except NWDPRA thatpromoted water harvesting throughsmall tanks and dams directly orindirectly try to increase the level ofwater in wells for drinking water (Kerr etal., 2000). Excluding villages withadditional drinking water schemes, the

19 In their study,Reddy et al.(2001) haveshown that thetime spent onfetching fuel-wood hasincreased inthree out of fourvillages studied.This seems toindicate that theadvent ofwatersheddevelopment hasnot improvedaccess to fuel-wood in thesevillages. This isalso reflected inthe shares ofdifferent sourcesin fuel-woodconsumption.CPLRs play animportant role inmeeting fuel-wood needs(followed bypurchase fromthe market) andtheir share variesfrom 34--72 percent in the fourvillages understudy. Thedependence onCPLRs is greaterin the case ofsmall andmarginal farmersin most situations(Reddy et al.2001).

53

AGY/IGWDP projects had the largestincrease in the percentage of villageswith adequate drinking water. Controlvillages had higher improvements thaneither NGO or Jal Sandharan villages.Drinking water supply (35 per cent),along with improved medical facilitiesand roads, were among the three mostcommonly listed priorities ininfrastructure development inMaharasthra (Kerr et al., 2000).All the watershed projects implementedby Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation(BAIF) prioritized the drinking waterproblem. Even though someprogrammes had no funding forproviding drinking water, BAIF organizedfunds from other sources to ensureadequate water supply to watershedpopulations. This leads to the importantobservation that some watershedprogrammes provide support only forsoil and water conservation leaving thedrinking-water issue untouched. Suchwatershed projects can only augmentexisting sources but cannot solve thedrinking water problem completely. Infact, this has become an issue in severaldrinking water and sanitation schemes,where drinking water schemes are notintegrated with the watersheddevelopment programmes. For instance,in Chale village (Kolwan Valley Projectunder DPAP), the drinking water issue iscompletely de-linked from watersheddevelopment efforts as the village issupplied with water by the MulshiPradeshik Water Supply Scheme. Onthe other hand, in the BAIF projectsrecharge through the programmes wassupplemented by water supply schemesto help solve drinking water problemeven in a water-scarcity situation. Thestudy noted that in every project at leastone downstream village benefited due toimproved groundwater (Kakade et al.,2001).  The present review shows a mixed trendin terms of the impact on drinking water.Most of the case studies indicate thatwatershed development has made adifference in mitigating distress, thoughthe degrees may vary. However, thereview also indicates that this holds trueonly during �normal� rainfall years. If therainfall is below average for that area,then most of these villages have todepend on external sources such aswater tankers. This was corroborated byour field visits to Ambewadi and Vaiju

Babhulgav villages (under IGWDP),Dornali (under AFARM), Bhavthan(under Manavlok) and other villages,which reported drinking water scarcity.In Adgaon, the situation is even worsethough they also get exogenous water.It was reported that during the summerof 1995-96, drinking water had to beprovided to this village by tankers, asituation similar to the one that existedbefore the programme.Ensuring availability of drinking waterwas one of the main objectives in manyvillages considered for the DROP study.Interventions in two villages, Washi andNagunichi Wadi, were focussed entirelyon drinking water availability whileothers took an integrated approach towater management so as to ensureyear-round availability of water. As allthe villages had an assured supply andwere �tanker-free� after the project it waswidely accepted that the ridge to valleyapproach could solve drinking waterproblem. In many villages it wasrevealed that there was also a shift insource from open well to hand pumps ortap water. An index was developedwhere tap water was denoted as thesafest source and the river or nala asthe unsafe source. In most villages therewas an improvement in the index tosafer sources. The improvement inindex however was not reflected in thelower occurrence of water-bornediseases. This could be due tounhygienic water use and storagepractices.The review shows clearly that watersheddevelopment has led to a significantincrease in the use of water foragricultural purposes. Unfortunately, inmany places, this has been at theexpense of drinking water. The reviewshows that many of the watershedsexperience drinking water shortageduring the summer months � mostvillages experience a dire need for watertankers in the summer months to fulfiltheir domestic water needs, especiallyduring years when the rainfall is lessthan normal.Of late, there have been conflicts overthe prioritization of water use � drinkingwater versus irrigation water.20 Forexample, one village covered during ourfield visits in Maharashtra,acknowledged improvement in thedrinking water situation after watersheddevelopment, but followed it with a rider:

20 The mindlessextraction ofgroundwaterhas ruined 54watersheds.Thegroundwaterlevel has gonedown by twometers in thepast five years.Areas of basaltrock deceleratethe process ofwaterpercolation,creating smallerand fewerundergroundpools. Even inareas ofabundantgroundwater, itis inadvisablefor agriculturalbore wells to godeeper than 125feet, whiledrinking waterwells can godown to 200feet. As theserudimentaryinstructionshave beenignored, it iscommon forbores to reachdown to 400 feet(Lyla Bavadam[2001], �OfLivelihoods andEntitlements�,Frontline, May10-25). 

54

�This year, because of drought, we hadto get water tankers in the months ofApril and May�. This turned out to be atypical response from most watershedsthat we visited in Maharashtra. However,in striking contrast, we also could see astanding sugarcane crop in the samewatersheds. Thus, a situation emergeswhere drinking water shortage runsparallel with sugarcane cultivation in thewatersheds during drier years. Thisonce again illustrates that mostwatershed development programmeshave overlooked prioritization of wateruse and access,21 especially duringdrought years when there is overallshortage of water in the watershed.Another issue is that even if the mainvillage is provided with potable drinkingwater, different hamlets/settlements inthe village often fail to get this benefit.This also leads to problems whileplanning a drinking water scheme in thevillage � meeting the demand of differenthamlets. In fact, NGOs often abandonthe drinking water schemes because oftheir inability to meet the requirementsof all settlements/hamlets due to a lackof funds.According to Sharma (2002), who takesa macro picture of the situation, thecontinuing drinking water problem inmany states indicates that the existingwatershed development interventionshave not succeeded in drought proofing.There are several examples andsituations where projects have not madeeven a minimum provision for drinkingwater (Sharma 2002). An article bySunita Narain on the World EnvironmentDay (2003) noted: �Despite efforts bythe government, the number of �problemvillages� � a euphemism used to describevillages with drinking water shortages �does not seem to be reducing.� Quotingofficial figures, she went on to say: �Inour mathematics, 2,00,000 problemvillages minus 2,00,000 problem villagesis still 2,00,000 problem villages�(Narain, 2003).There are also some indications thatwater quality has been deteriorating,especially in drought-prone regions. Theincreasing incidence of fluorosis is onlypart of the problem. Watersheddevelopment, in the absence of anycontrol on groundwater extraction, doesnot seem to have helped in decreasingthe intensity of this problem.

In years of drought, groundwater usedto act as a buffer to meet drinking waterand other essential needs. Now, thereare predictions that meteorologicaldrought would be accompanied bygroundwater drought. In Maharashtra,as in other states, drinking waterschemes are separate from watersheddevelopment efforts. Our review showsthat in many places, there are eitherexisting tanks that have been silted upand are not being used, or tanks thatare functioning, but are not integrated inwatershed planning. Integration canprobably overcome some of theproblems related to upstream versusdownstream, as well as groundwaterversus surface water conflicts and also,to some extent, take care of thelimitations of both if they function asexclusive systems (Datye et alUndated; Paranjape and Joy 1995).22

(refer to next page)Ralegaon Siddhi isan example of such integration.

3.3.2 Changes in livestock numbersand compositionMost watershed programmes tend toregard grazing as a harmful practiceand restrictions and bans are imposedon free grazing, when watershedinterventions are underway. Socialfencing and restrictions on access bringabout a forced migration or reduction oflivestock, particularly the smallruminants. One noticeable trend,especially in villages where the ban ongrazing has been enforced strictly (inAdgaon, for example), is that thenumber of smaller ruminants like goatsand sheep is decreasing. Dairyingseems to have picked up in manywatersheds. This also shows that thereis a shift towards bigger milch animals,the numbers of which seem to be rising,especially crossbred cows. Similartrends have been reported fromirrigated areas. In some watersheds,grazing restrictions have led to a change inherd composition and a shift from opengrazing to stall-feeding. For example, inSukhomajri, there has been a shift fromgoats to stall-fed buffaloes and an improvedbreed of cows (Kerr 2002).Increased mechanization also has animpact on draft animals, especiallybullocks and male buffalos. It is noticedthat in many successful watersheds thenumber of tractors as well as the use oftractors has increased.

21This iscorroborated byKakade et al(2001) whostudied sevenBIRD-Kwatershedinterventions,covering about7,000 ha andabout 2,500households, tounderstand theirimpact ondrinking water.According to thestudy, theproblem iscomplicatedbecause in manyplaces, peopledraw water forboth drinking andagriculture fromthe same aquifer.Since the water isused for the firsttwo crops (kharifand rabi),generally there isno water left inthe summermonths fordrinking ordomesticpurposes.According to thisstudy, in villageslike Rajkot, whichexperienced twoyears ofcontinuousdrought, thedrinking waterproblemcontinues evenafter watershedprojectimplementation.Two of theimportantrecommendationsof the study are:(i) water supply,sanitation andwatersheddevelopmentshould be linkedtogether to solvethe problems ofdrinking watersupply, sanitationand irrigation; and(ii) controlledutilization of waterfor irrigationneeds to beincorporated inprojects to avoidpotential conflictsbetween drinkingwater needs andirrigation needs(Kakade et al2001).

55

Generally, in most watersheds reviewedthere was an increase in milch animalsas compared to the smaller ruminantsand there was an increase in theproportion of cross breed cows. TheNWDPRA study, found the presence ofanimals of improved breeds in largernumbers, in the developed watershedsof Kanhur-mesai, Phuldhaba andKhandwa. The highest numbers of suchimproved breeds were found in Kanhur-mesai watershed and the lowest inTambulwadi watershed. The total milkproduction of the beneficiaries was morethan that of non-beneficiary farmers, itwas the lowest in Kudawale watershed(349 and 272 litres per annumrespectively), and the highest inPhuldhaba (1,212 and 190 litres perannum per animal respectively). Theaverage increase in milk production percow, buffalo, and goat was 17.1, 18.1and 16.1 respectively. The percentageincrease in milk production per cow andgoat was the highest in Khandaswatershed and the lowest in Phuldhabawatershed. However, in the case ofbuffaloes, percentage increase in milkproduction per animal was the highest inPhuldhaba watershed and the lowest inTambulwadi watershed (AFC, 1998-99).A dairy co-operative was startedPimpalgaon Wagha which continues torun successfully and milk production hasalso gone up to 1,200 litres per day. InSherikoldara (IGWDP) the number ofcrossbred cows has increased from 16to 174, and milk production from 100 to1,350 litres, between 1994 and 2000.In Mendawan, dairy activity has pickedup, adding considerably to incomes. Thenet income from dairy activity wasreported to have gone up from Rs. 538to Rs. 3,935 per household per annumin the post-implementation period. Stall-fed activity gained momentum from freegrazing. The quality of cattle improved.Veterinary services, however, seemed tolack behind the improvement in livestock(NABARD, 1999).In Ralegaon the total number of milchanimals increased from 225 in 1981 to574 in 1987 with 40 dairy cows,including 25 crossbred ones, and 25dairy buffaloes � due to which milk yieldincreased from one to two litres to sevento eight litres per day. A milk collectioncentre has been set up and a co-operative society of milk producersformed in village. A veterinary aid center

and community cattle shed have alsobeen established (Vaswani, 1995).In Adgaon, the income in the villagefrom dairy farming increased from Rs.81,000/- in 1983-84 to Rs. 15,84,000 in1990-91. The local variety of cows wascompletely wiped out, and the number ofcrossbred cows went up from zero to335. The number of dairy farmers shotup from 40 to- 126, and the averagedaily milk collection in litres went upfrom 100 to 864, while the selling priceof milk doubled (Vaswani, 1995).However the impact of many watersheddevelopments on small ruminants interms of the reduced numbers of thelatter cannot be ignored because theseare generally a livelihood support for thepoor and marginal groups. It is alsoimportant to note that most often theincrease in improved stall-fed cattle is infavour of the better-off farmers who havegreater access to water and fodder.Besides, livestock also contributes toecological services such as manuringand fertilizing land. Hence it is importantthat livestock issues, especially of smallruminants/nondescript verities, getspecific attention in the planning andimplementation of watershed projects. Itis also observed in many studies that thecut and feed system increases theworkload of women, who spend moretime collecting, cutting and carryingfodder.

3.4 Impact on AgricultureOne of the major objectives ofwatershed development programmes isto create conditions for improvement ofagricultural production in rainfed areas.Some projects have a specific budgetcomponent also for productionenhancement. However, in most cases itis assumed that a better soil moistureregime resulting from in situconservation enhances production andthis is corroborated by evidence fromthe fields and by available information.An increase in the value of agricultureproduction and the volume of productionwas noted due to an increase in irrigatedlands, bringing non-crop land underproduction, increasing croppingintensity, changing the cropping patternand adopting better farming practices.

22 It illustrateshow local watercan be integratedwith exogenouswater in thecontext of theSardar SarovarProject (SSP).Narmada water(through SSP) isused assupplementarywater tostrengthen andstabilize the localwater systems.

56

3.4.1 Change in land-use patternA review of most of the evaluationstudies showed a significant increase inthe cropped area after watershedinterventions. As discussed earlier, theincrease has been mainly at theexpense of privately owned non-croparea. Such new cropland, is mostlyearmarked for seasonal crops, while therest of the land is used almost entirelyfor dry land horticulture.There was an increase in the total sownarea in the RVP watersheds, varyingfrom lowest at 6.6 per cent in Mokhadawatershed in Damanganga catchment toa maximum of 62 per cent in SouthSolapur in the Nagrjunasagarcatchment. The AERC study too noted apre to post-project change in the land-use pattern, revealing that while somenon-arable land and wastelands havebeen brought under the arable category,more arable land was being irrigateddue to watershed activities (TERI, 2001).The Shedashi-Wavoshi (IGWDP)watershed brought 24 ha of wastelandunder cultivation, improved landproductivity, increased groundwaterrecharge and conservation of soil andmoisture, as well as helping to form twojoint forest management committees(JFMCs) to look after the agro-forestryplots where 12 lakh saplings wereplanted on nearly 1000 ha, coveringboth private and forest lands. Agro-horticulture was thus given importancein this watershed and during the projectperiod, above 4,8000 saplings ofmango, cashew and jackfruit were alsoplanted. The reported survival rate wasaround 71 per cent. The farmers(predominantly Adivasis) have stoppedshifting cultivation and marginal landsare being used for cultivation of fingermillets and for mixed forestry, besidesmango plantation, as mentioned above.The farmers (predominantly Adivasis)have stopped shifting cultivation andmarginal lands are being used forcultivation of finger millets and for mixedforestry, besides mango plantation, asmentioned above (NABARD, 1999).The cropped area in the Khedwatershed also went up by 236 ha inkharif and, by 145 ha in the rabi season.Watershed activities brought in 53.90 haof wasteland under cultivation in Rajaniwatershed. In Pimpalgaon Wagha,horticulture was introduced in the village

on wastelands and private wastelands,and around 33 ha were converted tocultivatable use. Eleven ha was broughtunder dryland horticulture, while theremaining 22 ha went under irrigatedhorticulture like mango, chickoo,orange and tamarind. In theMendhawan watershed, area under-cultivation increased on an average by23 per cent per family due to reductionin wastelands in the post-implementation period. In Sherikoldara,the area under kharif had increased by65 ha and rabi by 73 ha by the time theproject came to an end: 65 ha wasbrought under summer cultivation and14 ha converted into an agro-horticulture land useA satellite-based study by the IndianSpace Research Organization (ISRO)in six selected watersheds inMaharashtra showed that agriculturalcropland increased from between twoto five per cent in most of them, fallowland varied between (+1.0 to -5.0 percent) wasteland (-0.40 to -7.57 per cent)forest vegetation increased (+0.06 to+2.28 per cent), plantation increased(+0.15 to +0.18 per cent), and waterbodies also increased (+0.05 to +0.54per cent). Over the years, there hasbeen a considerable decrease in thearea under wastelands in thewatersheds of Karanjgavan andSawargaon, which have beenconverted into croplands andplantations (ISRO�TERI, 2001). TheKaranjgavan watershed shows a sevenper cent increase in cropland followedby Sawarde (6.0 per cent), Pipari (5.0per cent), Sawargaon (4.0 per cent) andWarshi (3.0 per cent) in the post-treatment period (1999), whereasNagazari watershed shows only a twoper cent increase in cropland (ISRO -TERI, 2001). The farmers in general,raised social forestry and horticulturalplantations along the field bunds and asa result there has been an increase inhorticultural plantations by one per centin the Warshi and Karanjgavanwatersheds, but less than one per centin the remaining watersheds (ISROStudy, TERI, 2001, see Table A 3.7&3.8)In Ralegaon, cultivable land increasedfrom 67 to 72 per cent between 1975-76to 1985-86. Wasteland (128 ha),community pastureland (50 ha) andgovernment reserve forests (136 ha)

57

were converted into social forestry plots.About 50 ha of wasteland was convertedinto cultivable land. The Department ofSocial Forestry planted about 30,0000trees in the village and orchards oflemon, orange, papaya becamecommon. In Adgaon, the availability ofcultivable area increased from 790 ha in1983-84 to 1005 ha in 1990-91. Rainfedarea came down from 67 to 48 per centof the total area. Wasteland was totallyreclaimed for crop production andcultivable wasteland went down from 25to 4.0 per cent. This enabled rainfedcrop cultivators of this village to bringtheir land under various cash crops andunder horticultural plantation (Vaswani,1995).However, it is also true that from thepoint of view of livelihoods it is importantto ensure certain quantities of differenttypes of biomass (food, fodder, fuel,timber) and also income. So the issue iswhether we can ensure these livelihoodrequirements without radically alteringthe land-use pattern through extensivelevelling, or bringing sloping land underseasonal crops and tilling. The questionis: what are the other options availablefor this? One option is to adopt methodspopularized by Dabholkar�s ParayogParivar network like creating nursery soilconditions near the root zone of theplants which does not call for disturbingthe soil extensively (Dabholkar, 1997). Asecond option is to bring such landsunder perennial biomass cover (grass,shrubs, trees) with different uses andeconomic values, along with appropriateinstitutional and financial back-up. Theargument against such an approach isthat it takes longer for people to get anytangible benefits. Here, the issue ofspecies selection becomes important. Ajudicious mix of short and long durationplants can take care of this problem.Also, because of biotechnology andother technological advancement innursery raising, the time taken formaturing has been greatly reduced.Tamarind is a good example of this.Increased fodder availability because ofprotection can also strengthen thepastoral and livestock component of thelivelihood basket.Another issue is the development ofcommon property land resources(CPLRs) such as community pastures,revenue lands and forestlands.Converting them for productive use

under watershed development projectsand ensuring usufructs can ensuresome livelihood opportunities for thepoor. But this is an area where very littleattempt is being made or wheresufficient information is not available.Most often forest departments do notcooperate nor do they ensure thatbenefits are given to those who require itdearly. In case of other CPLRs, such asrevenue land and commons, amultiplicity of issues emerges such asidentifying the current users and theirstatus vis-à-vis the land in question,building consensus and resolvingconflicts at the community level,resolving administrative and legalformalities for development and userrights, ensuring sharing mechanisms ofproducts and working out institutionalstructures for management anddevelopment of the resource in questionetc. Due to these difficulties it isobserved that facilitating agenciesgenerally leave this issue to its own fateor, in many instances, do not makesufficient effort to work out strategies(institutional and managementstructures) for sharing of benefits.

3.4.2 Increase in YieldThe improved productivity of crops,especially rain-fed crops, and itscontribution to the livelihoods of thepeople is taken as an importantoperational indicator of the performanceof watershed development projects. It isalso an important indirect indicator ofthe contribution of watershed projects tothe enhancement of ecosystempotential. However, it is very importantto note that most often the increase inproduction is achieved throughunsustainable practices such asoveruse of fertilizers etc. The reviewshows that there is a definite increase incrop productivity and total production ofagricultural crops. As discussed earlier,soil and water conservation treatments,coupled with specific productivityenhancement measures, have definitelyincreased productivity or at least helpedto stabilize the kharif crop (and, in someplaces, allowed a rabi crop), especiallyunder normal rainfall conditions.At places such as the Ranjaniwatershed, there was not much changein the methods of production or incropping pattern/intensity (except wherewheat and soyabean were introduced in

58

small patches) gains were in terms ofimprovement in productivity. The yieldrate of jowar increased cent per cent,paddy by 71 per cent, cotton 66 per centand tur by 42 per cent (IGWDP). Thoughcotton was grown without fertilizers orpesticides, production went up from 4.50q/ha to 7.50 q/ha. Net value ofagricultural production went up from Rs.20.97 lakh to 49.63 lakh. The totalproduction of cotton increased by 1146quintals and that of foodgrain by 1157quintals (NABARD, 1999)). Through justa little increase in the use of fertilizers (a50 kg bag of urea per acre) coupled withinter-culture operations and throughadequate protection from animals androdents � yields of paddy increased from17 to 25 quintals/ha, finger millets from 5to 7.5 quintals and minor millet fromthree to five quintals/ha in Shedashi-Wavoshi watershed. An increase cerealand oilseed yield was noted in theproject area in the RVP watersheds.Yields in the Khed watershed have risenby 15 per cent for local cotton and up to60 per cent for wheat and cotton (seeTable A 3.4) compared to the pre-project period. In the Naigaon projectfoodgrain yield rose from 1.5 to 2quintals/ha to 10-12.5 quintals/ha due toprotective irrigation and availability offodder, manure and other bio mass alsoincreased (Vaswani, 1995). Cropproductivity during kharif increased byan average 10 per cent, in rabi by 20 percent and in summer by 25 per cent inthe NWDPRA watersheds becauseirrigation yields more benefits in the dryseasons. The yield rate in Mendawanwatershed for almost all the crops hasgone up by 20 to 40 per cent. Amongthe farmers selected for the sample, thegross value of produce per hectare ofcultivated area in the pre-implementationperiod was Rs. 2,673 which increased toRs. 5,743 in the post-implementationperiod indicating an increase of morethan 100 per cent in the gross value ofproduce (NABARD, 1999). Productivityincreases ranged from 63 per cent forjowar and up to 367 per cent for wheatin the Bugewadi watershed (TERI,2001).The ISRO study also noted aconsiderable improvement in yields andagricultural production in all watersheds(ISRO-TERI 2001, see Table A 3.6). InRalegaon, kharif yields increased,ranging from the lowest for HYV jowar at1.25 times to bajra at 3.50 times. The

rabi increase in yield ranged from two-times for pulses and 5.62-times wheat.Total increase in yield for the yearacross all crops was 4.40-times.Among the field sites we visited, HivreBazar (AGY), Ralegaon Siddhi, Dornali(AFARM), Bhavthan (Manavlok), VaijuBabulgaon (IGWDP) etc. all reported anincrease in food production. In somecases, the villages are now able to fullymeet their food requirements. In certaincases like Vaiju Babulgaon, they havebeen able to meet a substantial portionof their requirements (70 to 80 per cent)locally. There are two caveats to thesefindings: one, these do not representthe average cases as they are the morepromising ones; and, two, the increaseis mostly during good or normal rainfallyears (and not drought years). However, larger studies such as thoseby Kerr et al. (2000) indicate that thereis great variation in productivity and thetrend is not as uniform as it would seemfrom the case studies of the morepromising ones. The aggregateinformation also may not reflect theregional/plot variations existing with in awatershed due to various reason suchas capability of land, inputs such aswater, fertilizers etc. In a drylandsituation the variation in production, orfor that matter the failure of crops,depends heavily on availability of somewater for protective irrigation in criticaland stress periods. Another importantissue is whether increase in agriculturalproduction ensures livelihoods and foodsecurity for all, especially the marginalsections.

3.4.3 Increase in cropping intensityCropping intensity generally increasedin the watershed with the rabi andsummer crop being undertaken inwatersheds due to an improvement inirrigation or moisture levels. Deshpande(1997) noted an increase in croppingintensity between 111-113 per cent inthe scarcity zone and 126-130 per centin the transition zone. In the Khedwatershed the cropping intensity wentup from 106.4 per cent to 117.3 percent. In the Shedashi-Wavoshiwatershed farmers started growingvegetables on small patches of land inthe rabi season, with water fetched fromwells or nalas. In the NWDPRAwatersheds, cropping intensity during

59

rabi and summer seasons in the case ofbeneficiary farms increased by aminimum of four per cent in Tambulwadito a maximum of 20 per cent in thePhuldhaba watershed � the variationdepending on rainfall, geologicalconditions and groundwater potential(AFC, 1998-99). In the Mendhawanwatershed cropping intensity increasedfrom 114 to 133 per cent.In the Shastabad-Chincholi watershed,the total area under two crops before theprogramme was 986 ha while the areaunder double cropping after the projectincreased to 1482 ha, an increase incropping intensity from 99 to 149percent. Area under improved seed varietyincreased from 230 ha to 400 ha. Thetotal consumption of chemical fertilizersincreased from 22 tonnes to 65 tonnesper annum. In the Kanhur Mesaiwatershed cropping intensity went upfrom 99 per cent to 138 per cent, and 38per cent of the arable area shifted fromone crop to double crop. Area underimproved seed varieties increased from389 ha to 732 ha.

3.4.4 Change in cropping patternMost of the watersheds showed achange in cropping pattern towardsgrowing cash crops such as sugarcane,vegetables, etc. Overall, there seems tohave been a slight shift towards growinghorticultural crops and plantations.Foodgrain, pulses and certain othertraditional crops appear to have lost out,in spite of an increase in overall areaunder cultivation. This is more so inthose watersheds where theinterventions have made a visibledifference in water availability. However,there is no uniform pattern to this shift.Different types of crops have beenchosen at different places, depending onlocal conditions and the market. InMaharashtra, the trend is mostly tochoose sugarcane, since it fetches anassured price. The area under tomatoand onion has also increased in manywatersheds, especially in areas of lowsoil depth, but with irrigation possibilities.Introduction of irrigated grass andsugarcane as fodder is also observablein many watersheds in the scarcity zoneof western Maharashtra. Increased areaunder soyabean is observed inwatersheds in the Vidarbha region. Oflate, there has also been an increase inthe area under horticulture and

vegetable crops in both scarcity andassured rainfall areas. In Dornali village(AFARM), there is a tendency to go forwater-intensive crops like sugarcaneand more than 10 ha is already undersugarcane. In Bhavthan village,(Manavlok), watershed treatments havemade it possible to grow rabi crops likecotton and wheat. In addition, somefarmers have started planting sugarcaneas the availability of water has increasedsince watershed development.In the Khed watershed soybean, blackgram, hybrid cotton, wheat and gramgained in area and due to wateravailability orchards of oranges andlemons came up. In the Shastabad-Chincholi watershed, prior to the project,80 ha were under cash crops increasingto 155 ha after project. The area underperishable vegetables prior to theproject was 15 ha which has nowincreased to 45 ha. Area under fruitsand orchards has gone up from 4 to 17ha. In Kanhur Mesai, the area undercash crops has increased from 102 hato 213 ha. The area under perishablevegetables prior to the project was 25 hawhich increased to 46 ha, while the areaunder fruits and orchards increased fromsix to 25 ha (Gomukh, 2001).In the NWDPRA watersheds, the kharifarea under cereals reduced and thatunder pulses (Khandwa � 89 more hawas brought under pulses) and oilseeds(Phuldhaba from 25 to 347 ha, Kanhur-mesai watershed � 287 ha to 701 ha)increased. In both Phuldhaba andKhandwa, hybrid cotton increased. Thearea cultivated under vegetablesdoubled and quadrupled in Nune-gavadiand Khandwa respectively due toimproved ground/surface wateravailability and assured supplementalirrigation (AFC, 1998-99). In rabi therewas a reduction in area of cereals andincrease in pulses, oilseeds (five timesin Nune-gavadi) and vegetables.Irrigated wheat increased from 20 to 160ha in Wadivarhe. The percentage rise inarea under pulses and oilseeds wasgreater in rabi than in kharif. Vegetablecultivation was started during rabi inKhandas, Wadivarhe and Khandwawatersheds (AFC, 1998-99). Vegetablecultivation increased from 10 to25 ha inKanhur-mesai watershed. Vegetablesand groundnut cultivation were taken upas a new activity in Khandwa andWadivarhe watersheds. Sugarcane

60

increased by more than 50 ha each inTambulwadi, Nune-gavadi andPhuldhaba watersheds. Horticulturecrop area increased in Kudawale (by354 ha) and Khandas (by 122 ha).The cropping pattern in Mendawanwatershed shifted in a limited patterntowards cultivation of wheat andsugarcane with a decline in coarsecereals and mixed cropping. Number ofcrops cultivated in the watershed wentup from seven to 18 because of theintroduction of a few commercial cropsand dryland horticultural crops(NABARD, 1999). The ISRO studynoted a change in the cropping patternwith the introduction of cash crops suchas sugarcane and soybean (ISRO-TERI,2001).In the Sedashi-Wavoshi watershedpaddy occupied almost 100 per cent ofthe area in kharif, but after theinterventions the paddy area increasedfrom 385 to 407 ha in kharif season butin rabi vegetables, pulses and wheatstarted being cultivated (see Table A3.11). Agro-horticulture was also giventop priority here including alphonsomango, cashew, jackfruit etc., some ofwhich were not grown here earlier.Nearly 50,000 horticultural plants wereplanted, of which 71 cent survived. Theagro-horticulture plants were providedprotective irrigation (through manuallifting) and farmyard manure.The BAIF-supported projects also noteda general increase in horticulture andtree-based farming (Kakade et al.,2002). In Ralegaon, the percentagechange in net cropped area in kharifchanged with bajra decreasing by 14per cent, HYV jowar fell by 28 per cent,pulses by 1.40 per cent, oilseeds by .85per cent and vegetables and horticulturegrew by 16.81. Rabi cultivationincreased from 426 to 491 ha with adecrease in HYV jowar (15.62 per cent),pulses (2.75), oilseeds (1.38) and anincrease in wheat (three per cent),vegetables and horticulture (16.62 percent). The total gross cropped areaacross both seasons increased from782 to 836 per cent (Vaswani, 1995).In Adgaon, the following changes incropping pattern occurred � the areaunder bajra increased from (500 to 800ha) in the kharif season, tur (150-300ha), cotton (60-100) and hulga andmatki (200-300), whereas mung got

wiped off and new crops such asgroundnut, sunflower, vegetables andgreen fodder were cultivatedadditionally. In the rabi season jowar,kardi, harbara, wheat, sunflower,vegetable, green fodder and mosambiwere cultivated. Kharif area increasedfrom 920 to 2,135 ha and rabi areaincreased to 1,375 (Anonymous,undated). Similarly, in Vaiju Babhulgaonvillage too, horticulture crops likepomegranate, oranges, sweet lime,chiku, and amla, were planted for thefirst time on 60 ha. Cultivation of onionand vegetables was also started afterthe project.In the DROP study there was anincrease in land cultivated during rabi,leading to a rise in incomes of thefarmers and increase in rabi crop in allthe villages in the study (see Table A3.17).The increased area under cash andwater-intensive crops needs to beanalysed in the context of its impact onlivelihoods, food security andsustainability. Most often, the marketfluctuation in cash/market crops suchas onion and tomato etc. createsinnumerable hardships and farmers areunable to meet even the cost ofproduction.

3.5. Increase in irrigated areaIt is generally observed in many studiesthat watershed activities increase theirrigation potential in a given watershed(and even in the downstream areas)thorough increased availability ofground and surface water. However, thecorrelation between the extent ofincrease in groundwater and the areabrought under irrigation through theincreased resource is something, whichrequires further analysis. This isimportant because the increasedirrigation is most often through anincreased number of borewells and incertain cases through increasing thedepth of existing dug wells. It is alsoimportant to look at the recuperationrate of wells and bore wells (before/after, normal rainfall/drought) tounderstand the issue of groundwaterrecharge.The Kerr study found a generalincrease in irrigation across all villages.

61

The NWDPRA villages had a higherpercentage of irrigated area to beginwith, but the percentage increase wasthe greatest between 1987-97 for anumber of project villages (104 percent). The next increase was of AGY/IGWDP villages at 54 per cent and NGOvillages at 47 per cent and JalSandharan at 37 per cent (the projectportfolio concentrates on water increasebut the actual performance has been lowprobably because it works in a water-scarce areas) and NWDPRA 22 per cent(NWDPRA also does not have largeWHS in its project portfolio). The meanincrease in irrigation intensity was 0.35for all projects. The AGY/IGWDP hadthe highest irrigation increase (.44) butthe difference was not statisticallysignificant (Kerr et.al, 2000). In theNWDPRA study, most watersheds sawan increase in the number of wells,which led to an increase in total irrigatedarea and irrigated area per wellbeneficiary farms. The area irrigated onbeneficiary farms by other means, i.e.from developed water resources ascheck dams and flowing streams,increased by more than 100 per cent inall watersheds, and to a maximum by of458 per cent in Nune-gavadi watershed(AFC, 1998-99). In the Khed watershedarea irrigation went up from 285 ha to502 ha. The ISRO study also noted anincrease in irrigation potential in thewatersheds and a substantial increase inthe yield of all crops, which can beattributed to in situ moistureconservation, control of erosion, andbetter agricultural managementpractices within the watershed. Theirrigation potential increasedsubstantially, which is reflected in anincrease in number of water bodies(ISRO-TERI, 2001, see Table A 3.8). InNaigaon, irrigated land rose from 60 hain the 1970s to 400 ha by the mid-1980sand in Ralegaon, irrigated landincreased from 26 to 340 ha in 1985-86.In Adgaon, area under irrigationincreased from 83 ha in 1984 to 500 ha(eight to 48 per cent of the total area)including about 140 ha of land underperennial irrigation in 1990-91 (Vaswani,1995). In the Khed watershed, areaunder irrigation rose by 162 per cent. Inthe BAIF watersheds too there was anincrease in area under irrigation anddouble cropping due to which cropproduction doubled. In Mendhawanwatershed the net irrigated areaincreased by 29 per cent, as compared

to the pre-implementation periodindicating that the additional infiltrationof rainwater due to activities like CCTsand WATs had helped increasegroundwater in watershed. Twenty-twoper cent of the farmers constructed newwells (NABARD, 1999). The land underprotective irrigation increased in manyvillages that adopted the watershedapproach as evident in the DROP study.The differences in land use are given inTable A 3.16. After watershedintervention, in three villages out ofeight, more than 50 per cent of landreceived protective irrigation.Amongst various factors like soil andwater conservation treatments, specificproductivity enhancement measures,bringing new area under cropproduction, and so on, applied waterseems to be making the greatestdifference in productivity enhancement.Various studies bring out very clearlythat productivity gains are much moresubstantial in irrigated holdings andwherever there has been a substantialincrease in irrigation as a result ofwatershed development, the productivityincrease has been more stable (Shah,1998). In the case of rain-fed farming,however, the increases have only beenmarginal. Farmers invariably say that ingood years, everything works out well,but productivity increases are notsustained during bad years. Suchexamples illustrate the rainfall thresholdfor the efficacy of measures taken underwatershed programmes.Almost all the evaluation studies withinthe frame of this review show thatwatersheds have witnessed an increasein the irrigated area, though there is agreat variation in the extent of increase.Mostly, this has been made possibledue to the increased number of wellsand borewells that came up in the wakeof the watershed projects. In suchareas, increase in cropping intensitiescould be another indicator ofimprovement where water availabilityextends beyond the kharif season(usually the only season where farmersare able to harvest an irrigated crop),allowing more than one crop in a year.Continued availability of water forsupplementary irrigation indicates theeffectiveness of watershed interventionsduring the dry season and the system�sincreased drought-proofing capability.However, this needs to be seen in the

62

context of the overall water balance ofthe area. The review also shows thatvery often, the increase in irrigated areais quite disproportionate to the potentialannual flows. This means that the waterhas been drawn mainly from the stock(deep aquifer) and raises issues ofsustainability (Paranjape et al., 1998;Batchelor et al., 2000).Applied water, as a rule, increases theproductive potential of an ecosystem.Provision for a longer period of moistureholding and evapo-transpirationincreases biomass production.However, it also usually corresponds tohigher rates of extraction of biomass. Itis quite possible that most of thebiomass increase goes out of thesystem and the amount of biomass thatis recycled within the ecosystem fallsrather than rises. If that is indeed thecase, then the higher ecosystemproductivity depends crucially on appliedwater supplements. If such supplementswere to be removed, ecosystemproductivity would fall to values that arelower than the initial values without thesupplement. This is already evident insome places where reversals havetaken place in the post-watershedperiod.The point, however, is that appliedwater, as a means of protective irrigationto stabilize even one crop, is not madepart of the project design. Alternatively,applied water is equated with irrigationand seen as falling outside the purviewof watershed development. There havebeen cases where watershed projectproposals have been rejected becausethey contained a component ofequitable water distribution system costas part of the watershed project.Still, there have been isolated caseswhere the implementing agencies havetaken certain measures or at leastshown some sensitivity to this issue.The three areas where such initiativesexist are: a) water sources mostly interms of certain surface storages orencouraging the community to invest incollective wells; b) water-efficienttechnologies like drip (including certainlow-cost drips); and c) promotion of lesswater-intensive crops. There are otherexamples where water has beenbrought from outside the watershed (andfrom major and medium irrigationprojects) to supplement waterrequirements over and above the

watershed development efforts.Examples like Ralegaon Siddhi andAdgaon fall under this. In the case ofAdgaon, water is brought from theSukna dam, which is about 10 kmaway, through pipelines and is used toprimarily irrigate the orange/sweet limegardens. Similarly, in Ralegaon Siddhi,water is lifted from the Kukadi canal(Kukadi is a major irrigation project) andflows down the side of Ralegaon Siddhivillage. This water is used to irrigateabout 200 to 300 ha in the village.

3.6 Methods of productionAn important indicator of the impact ofthe increased productivity of crops onthe ecosystem is the nature of croppractices that have led to this rise inproductivity. Productivity-associatedcrop practices, including those activelypropagated and supported bywatershed development programmes,are something of a mixed bag, with littleconsistency. Usually it is an eclecticmixture of productivity concerns andpractices that are part of the dominant,mainstream paradigm of high-inputagriculture23 , along with a sprinkling ofsome environment- friendly practices interms of agronomic practices andinputs . For example, activities likevermi-composting and use of INM andIPM are being encouraged as part ofsome watershed programmes, alongwith conventional chemical fertilizeruse.In Mendhawan watershed, the use ofnew varieties of seeds becamecommon and the use of chemicalfertilizers increased. There was anexpansion in HYV bajra in the dryland.The technological change in cultivationpractices was also reflected in theincreased cost of production due to useof improved inputs and machine powerlike electric motors, tractors etc. Areaunder improved seed varietiesincreased from 389 ha to 732 ha(NABARD, 1999). In Kanhur-mesai totalconsumption of chemical fertilizers hasincreased from 31 to 86 tonnes perannum (Gomukh, 2001).Though there has been an increasingawareness about and sensitivitytowards eco-friendly nutrient and pestmanagement practices, manyevaluation studies and our own field

23 Most studiesalso indicate that,for the most part,crop technologyand cultivationpractices followthe mainstream,high-input basedagricultureframework.Moreover, mostevaluationstudies alsoshare such aframework(Erappa 1998;Karanth and Abbi2001; Shah1998).

63

interactions show that use of chemicalfertilizers and pesticides have been onthe increase in areas where watersheddevelopment programmes have beentaken up, especially where irrigationwater is available.AFARM�s own evaluation of itswatershed development projects statesthat �the most serious negative impact ofthe watershed intervention, particularlyin the sphere of agriculture, is theincreased use of chemical inputs likefertilizers and pesticides and also theuse of hybrid seeds� (AFARM, 1998).This is an indication that the agriculturalcomponent of the watershedprogramme, by and large, still operateswithin the mainstream, high-input basedagricultural paradigm.

3.7 Socio-economic Indicators3.7.1 Increase in income Assessments of economic returns fromagriculture also often follow theeconomic-centred and high-inputproduction paradigm. They fail to factorin the issues of inputs, marketstructures, sustainability of productionand other harm that may be felt by theecosystem in the long run. In mostevaluation studies, increase in income(read cash income) is taken as asuccess indicator. The review showsthat by and large, there has been anincrease in the income levels of peoplethrough various means and options likeincreased productivity, shift towardsmore economically profitable crops,increased availability of employment,development of allied sectors like dairyand non land-based activities. Manyvillages like Adgaon, Hivre Bazar, andRalegaon Siddhi produce marketablesurplus (especially fruits, vegetables andother food and non-food crops). In mostvillages, a spin-off effect of watersheddevelopment has been the growth ofdairy activity as a supplementary sourceof income. A good example of this isAdgaon, where the dairy economy isflourishing. This was partially madepossible by an abundant and free supplyof fodder. Earlier, with a livestockdominated by goats (which did not yieldenough milk for mass marketing), onlyabout 100 litres of milk per day wasavailable in the entire village. Theprogramme promoted high-yielding

Jersey cows in a big way. As part of theprogramme, the farmers were taken foran exposure visit. Immediately after thevisit, a group of 10 farmers spent Rs.5,000 each to purchase 10 cows. Thisevent triggered a chain reaction in thevillage with the number of Jersey cowsincreasing to 100 in a brief time span.The village now has two milkcooperatives with a total of 156members, including nine women, andcollects about 2,000 litres of milk perday. The average annual income of thevillage from milk rose to an estimatedRs. 43 lakhs (Anonymous Undated). Inmany watersheds in the scarcity zone ofWestern Maharashtra one can observethis phenomena unfolding after theinitiation of the watershed programme.However, the income through the milkroute (diary) may not be a solution inmany places and for a certain section ofstakeholders, if livestock-basedlivelihoods are to be emerged.Increase in incomes was noted due tothe multiple changes occurring inagricultural production. Deshpande,(1997) reported an increase in income/ha in the scarcity zone up to 45 per centand in the transition zone up to 30 percent.Total production/yields in Shastabad-Chincholi watershed was 2668.745tonnes, including production in all threeseasons, which amounted to anincremental income of Rs. 45.1793lakhs. In the Kahnur-mesai watershedtotal production was up to 1324.4tonnes and the incremental incomeamounted to Rs 55.839 lakhs perannum. The increase in productionlevels ranged from 27.2 per cent to 83.9per cent, in all watersheds exceptMukhed watershed because of the lowlevel of agriculture activities there. Thehigher increase in production incomparison to increase in croppingareas indicates that soil fertility levels offarming areas have considerablyincreased (AFC, 1998-99).The incremental annual farming incomeper farmer has increased (the maximumbeing Rs 36,700 per farmer family andthe minimum Rs 4,700 per farmer family)in the RVP watersheds, which works outto an average increase of Rs 12,590 perfarmer family. In Nagarjunasagar andPochampad catchments income levelshave increased exceptionally becauseof cultivation of commercial cash crops

64

such as sugarcane, cotton andgroundnut increased employment duringthe project years and increasedemployment after project completion.Farmer income is higher in Solapur andNanded due to commercial agriculture,and lower in Nashik and Thane beingAdivasi undeveloped regions (AFC,1998-99). A comparative analysis ofstudies shows that the income increasefrom agriculture and related activities ishigher in case of caste-basedagricultural communities as comparedto tribal communities. The reasons maybe attributed to socio-cultural issues (fore.g., selling of milk), farming practices,reliance on subsistence farming, lessexploitation of groundwater, upperlocation of the watersheds etc. The total annual income of samplebeneficiary households in Khedwatershed was Rs 45,900, as againstRs 30,200 for non-beneficiaryhouseholds. The incremental income ofRs 15,700 accruing to the beneficiaryhouseholds or Rs 3,264 per capita islargely due to sample householdsgrowing cotton and horticulture crops.There was also an all-round economicimprovement with a rise in the number oftractors, their repairing centers, cotton-plugging machines, drip and sprinklerirrigation systems etc.In the Sedashi-Wavoshi watershed,income from crop husbandry rose fromRs 17 lakhs to around Rs 40 lakhs (seeTable A 3.12). Forest income wouldwork out to Rs 2.96 lakh per year ofwhich one-fourth would be retained byForest Department. The total incomefrom horticulture after 10 years ofstabilisation would work out to Rs 89.99lakh. The total income would be Rs122.53 lakh at the stabilization stagethat is at the fifteenth year (NABARD,1999). In Rajani watershed too the netincome has almost doubled during thewatershed implementation (see Table A3.14). In the Shastabad and Kanhurwatersheds the per capita income rosefrom Rs 2362 to Rs 5879, and there wasan increase in two-wheelers, TVs,biogas plants and latrines.In the NWDPRA watersheds, the annualincome of beneficiary and non-beneficiary household farmers was thelowest in Khandas watershed at Rs21572 and Rs 19682 respectively, and itwas highest in Nune-gavadi watershedat Rs 41362 and Rs 37013 respectively.

Income of beneficiary farmers washigher than the income of non-beneficiary farmers with the minimum ofRs 605 (eight per cent) in Kundawalewatershed and maximum by Rs 5086(19.2 per cent) in Khandas watershed.The main source of income in allwatersheds was from crop production. Itaccounts for more than 50 per cent ofthe total income. Whereas, income fromagricultural labour, work and livestock,the second and third major activities,accounts for about 20 and 10 per centof the total income respectively. Thehighest increase in income onpercentage basis was observed forlivestock and poultry activities. Thisindicates the overall success of thewatershed programme in increasinggreen fodder production and increasingassured drinking water availability foranimals. The Households ProductionSystem did not become the source ofincome as the beneficiary householdsconsumed whatever little productionthere was, at home (AFC, 1998-99).In Mendawan watershed the net incomegenerated from per hectare of grosscropped area of the samplebeneficiaries was Rs 2,089 in the pre-implementation period which has goneup to Rs 4,739 in the post-implementation period (NABARD,1999).In Adgaon, income from cultivationgrew twenty times, subsidiary incomesincreased nine times and service labourincreased 1.64 times. The sector-wisecontribution to income changeddrastically: cultivation grew from 22 to65 per cent; subsidiary occupation from14 to 19 per cent, while labour fell from63 to 15 per cent. The average annualincome per household increased morethan six times from Rs 4,838 to Rs32,500. Service sector income greweight times, from Rs 64,500 to 55,7000.The social infrastructure in the villageimproved greatly (Vaswani, 1995).In terms of expenditure, people tend tospend more on irrigation-relatedactivities like borewells, pump-motors oron other items like tractors, ploughingimplements, livestock (especially milchanimals), all of which have aproductivity-enhancing function. Forexample, in Sherikoldara watershed thenumber of threshing machines, andsprayers has increased considerably ashave electric pumps (26 to 114),

65

tractors (one to six) etc (WOTR, 2003).Increase in the number of consumerdurables such as TV, radio, two-wheelers, cycles etc. are also reportedfrom many watershed villages. Anotherimpact is that the value of land seems tohave gone up after the watersheddevelopment programmes, although thiscannot be attributed to interventioneffects alone.However, increase in yield does notmean an increase in real terms or in netincome. Many studies have shown thatthe increase in productivity has beenachieved with higher costs. It is alsoreported that as a result of watersheddevelopment, the composition of inputschanges, and there is more dependenceon modern inputs like improved/hybridseeds, chemical fertilizers andpesticides, etc. (To an extent, thisaspect explains the relatively lessincrease of income from agriculture inAdivasi-inhabited watersheds). This hasresulted in higher cost of cultivation inwatershed projects as compared to non-watershed areas (Erappa, 1998). Hence,net returns would be a better indicator toassess whether the incomes haveincreased or not.10 Besides, increasedincome may not always reflect theimpact on livelihoods, because thisincrease is often seen among farmerswith better land in the valley areas, andwith a subsequently better access towater resources

3.7.2 Changes in employment andmigrationSome issues related to migration andlabour availability in the context ofwatershed development are discussed inthe chapter on equity, since they arecrucial to the pattern of income-generation among regions and sections.Generally, it is assumed that watersheddevelopment helps to decrease theextent of migration. Changes in thepattern of migration are generally takenas indicators of changes in employmentopportunities, agricultural productivityand overall quality of life within thewatershed village (Kerr et al., 2000). Thereview of available literature and ourown field visits and interactions showthat watershed development does havethe potential to bring down distressedmigration temporarily, especially in theinitial phase of the programme when theemphasis is on physical works.

However, in the post-project phase,one does not find a uniform trend. Infact, there are some instances whereavailability of work, especially seasonalagricultural work, has been reducedbecause of watersheddevelopment25 .(refer to next page)The study by Kerr et al. (2000) showsthat �with the exception of AGY andIGWDP villages, seasonal migrationrose in every project category. The AGYand IGWDP villages had a net reductionin overall migration and the possiblereasons for this may be improvements ininfrastructure and access to services.However, the average figures mask thefact that more AGY and IGWDP villagesexperienced net out-migration than netin-migration.� The study also noted thatemployment opportunities were reportedto have risen in AGY/IGWDP and NGOproject villages, whereas in theNWDPRA, DPAP, Jal Sandharan andnon-project villages more peopleindicated that employment had declined.The review shows that crop intensity perse does not increase wage labouropportunities; instead, it depends on thetypes of cropping changes that takeplace as a result of watersheddevelopment. Labour intensive cropslike onion, tomato etc have the potentialof creating more labour as compared towater-intensive cash crops likesugarcane, banana etc. Labourreplacing technologies such as anincreased number of tractors, threshingmachines in the post-watershed phaseare also playing a role in the reducedlabour opportunities Another fact thatemerges out of the study is that villageswith higher water availability (eitherbecause of the water locally generatedor because of the water brought fromoutside, as in the case of Adgaon andRalegaon Siddhi) combined with certainbasic access to all (as in the case ofPani Panchayat in Pune district) have agreater potential to offer full employmentto the people. Also, there is evidencethat employment opportunities haveincreased during the rabi and summerseason because of availability of waterand people are shifting more towardshorticulture and vegetable cultivation. Before the project ten per cent of thevillagers in Adgaon had deserted it andgone to live in other villages, 70 per centhad to work under EGS or asagricultural labourers in other villages,

24 Many studieshave tried toestimate netreturns and alsothe internal rateof returns fromwatershedinvestments.Reddy et al.(2001) studiedfour watershedsin AndhraPradesh, butfound that onlythree reportedincremental netreturns in thecase of paddyand only two inthe case ofgroundnut. Theincremental netreturns variedfrom Rs 534/acreto Rs 1105/acreChopra (1999)used amultivariateanalysis over alarge samplesize of 13projects cuttingacross differentstates and agro-climatic zones todo an economicvaluation of thewatershedprojects. Thestudy showed awide range ofcost-benefitratios, rangingfrom 1.25 to 3.8,and the internalrate of returnvaried from 12.33to 41 per cent.There is alsoquite a bit ofliterature on themethodologies tobe used for botheconomic andnon-economicvaluation ofwatersheddevelopmentbenefits likeChopra (1999);Kerr (2001);Landell-Mills(1999); Shah etal. (1998) havetaken theposition thatvaluation has tobe done in theoverallframework of�ecologicaleconomics� . Fordetails of the

66

20 per cent were fully employed ontheir own farms. Now 20 families havereturned to this village and outsidelabour is being called to work on thefarms. Daily wage rates have tripled.People are no longer seekingemployment under EGS. About 100outside labourers have migrated to thisvillage, as local labour cannot meet therequirements because of intensificationof agriculture. In the Adgaon projectannual employment has risen from 75days to 200 days and labourer incomeshave risen above those of small farmers(Anonymous, undated).The Social Center found that after fouryears in watershed managementlabourers in Mendhwan village couldfind eight months of employment asopposed to three months earlier. InSherikoldara, landowners began tolease land to labourers rather than paythe high wage costs (discussion withstaff). In Shastabad and Kanhurwatersheds there was an increase inemployment on their own farms and indairy activities and workers were boughtin from outside. However, further analysis is needed tounderstand the issue of outside labourparticipation. Is it due to the low wagesfor which they are willing to work, ascompared to the local labour who maybe bargaining for a higher wagefollowing their experience of receivinghigher wages in watershed work. Lackof employment or work is not the onlyreason for which people migrate. Peoplealso migrate for other reasons such asbetter wages (as compared to thewages they can get in the villages), forthe opportunity of getting a lump sum fora specific period of work, and for moreassured labour opportunities26 and,last but not the least, to escape caste

and other discriminations.27 Hence,using decrease in migration as anindicator of the success of watersheddevelopment needs to be judiciouslycontextualised. Migration has stoppedcompletely in many of the studyvillages and good employmentpotential was created even after theproject withdrawal in villages such asRalegaon and Adgaon, where outsidelabour was needed to carry outagricultural operations in the lateryears and it was noted that somefamilies immigrated into the village.Ralegaon had seen massiveunemployment with people migrating toPune and Mumbai. After the project,marginal and small farmers could tilltheir land throughout the year. Labourwas imported by medium and largefarmers from nearby villages for theirown farm work. Earlier 45 per cent ofthe population lived under the povertyline, which almost became nil.Agriculture income rose from Rs3,45,910 to Rs 31,72,687, income fromother occupations rose from Rs 12,000to Rs 36,000 and labour income rosefrom Rs. 48,000 to Rs. 1,08,0000. Percapita income rose from Rs 271 to Rs2257 per annum. The sectoral share oflabour income rose from a mere 12 percent of the total village income to 25 percent of it. Social infrastructureincreased � renovated temple, school,housing, hostel, gymnasium, gobar gasplant etc. (Vaswani, 1995).Watershed development createsincreased availability of wage labourduring implementation and generatesincreased income from watershedlabour as compared to the agriculturalwage system. For example in theShedashi-Wavoshi the project hasgenerated 2.88 lakhs person days of

26 Often, the emphasis is also on completely stopping migration, and success is measured in terms ofthe degree to which migration has been stopped. However, there is a need to understand the nature ofmigration itself. In other words, one needs to see whether the migration is out of compulsion (to meetlivelihood needs) or out of (family) labour surplus or as an opportunity to increase one�s assets,opportunities and horizons. What is important is to see whether the nature of migration has changeddue to watershed development programmes. Unfortunately, this has not been explored properly. In astudy of natural regeneration programmes in Udaipur region, it was found that irrespective of the factthat there was substantial improvement in the resource base, the extent of migration did not show anysignificant decrease. While probing more on this, the people responded saying that �Earlier, we used tomigrate out of compulsion; now, there is no compulsion to migrate to meet basic needs; people migrateout of choice to improve upon the gains of the NRM programme� (Paranajpe et al. 1997). This indicatesthat though the figures may be the same, the nature of migration and the reasons for migration havechanged significantly.27 Dr. Ambedkar had given a call to the dalits to leave the villages and move and concentrate in thecities, as they would never be able to fight oppression and discrimination in the villages where theywere scattered.

25 There are alsoother caseswhere migrationhas increasedafter watersheddevelopment,which is seen asan externality(Reddy et al.2001). This maybe due to the factthat during theimplementationof watersheddevelopmentprojects, labourparticipationwould haveincreasedconsequent tothe demand forwatershed workswithin thevillages anddrawn peopleaway from thelarger labourmarket, then re-released to themarket aftercompletion of theworks(Deshpande andReddy, 1991).

24 contd. . .principles andmethodology seethe chapter�Towards a NewTheoreticalSynthesis: TheInterface ofEcology andEconomics� inShah (1998).NABARD�sanalysis of theRajani watershedshows aFinancial Rate ofReturn (FRR) of69.17 per centand an EconomicRate of Return(ERR) to thetune of 89.11 percent. ForSedashi-Wavoshi it is30.88 per centand 41 per centrespectively.

67

labour during four years ofimplementation, and a small projectlike Rajani (the cost of which is Rs 28lakhs) generated above 61,000 labourdays in four years. Better wages basedon output of labour also influenced thetraditional wage rate, as is observed inmany IGWDP watersheds. It wasestimated that recurring employment of15,000 man days every year would begenerated which would meanemployment of 67 persons through outthe year. One landless labourer wasable to purchase land from the incomehe earned from the wages in theimplementation period. In the Sedashi-Wavoshi watershed too, employmentduring project period checked migrationand daily commuting of the people to theThane-Mumbai Industrial Belt prior to theproject, leaving their crops at the mercyof stray animals. In this project it wasestimated that 3.10 lakh man days wouldbe created by the end of the project withthe generation of recurring employmentup to 14500 man days per year, i.e.,nearly 65 persons working for 225 daysa year (NABARD, 1999). In PimpalgaonWagha, some families who had earlierleft the village returned due to betteremployment opportunities. In Mendawanthe migration of the landless reducedand a few of them received a piece ofland from Village Watershed Committee(VWC). Fishing rights were grantedpreferentially to them. Among thesample population of 60 households 44were below the poverty line beforewatershed development. Of these, 22families crossed the poverty line incomeof Rs 17,500 per family due toaugmentation either from the farm ornon-farm business. New sources ofincome such as dairy and the retail tradegained importance while income fromwages and sheep grazing declined. Theincremental labour days available per haof GCA was 18 man-days per annum.Income from service activities rose from8.78 to 10.5 per cent and income frombusiness activities, which was absentearlier, rose to 10.91 per cent(NABARD, 1999).In an analysis of the state-levelComprehensive WatershedDevelopment Programme (COWDEP) ofMaharashtra (Deshpande and Reddy,1991), significant changes in thehousehold economy were noted. Thestudy covered 30 blocks in the state andindicated concentration of certain

specific components and overall goodresults of the technology. It was notedthat employment generated in each ofthe watersheds ranged between two and30,000 person days depending on theagro-climatic zone along with changesin crop pattern, crop intensity, proportionof wasteland and yield per hectare andan increase in moisture availability in thewatershed regions.The NWDPRA projects saw a rise inemployment of male beneficiary farmersover the non-beneficiary farmers at aminimum of 15.9 man days (8.5 per cent)in Chatgaon watershed to maximum of53.9 man-days (22.2 per cent) in Nune-gavadi watershed. The rise inemployment for women was by aminimum of 14.0 man-days (7.5 per cent)in Tambulwadi watershed to a maximumof 65.6 man-days (26.9 per cent) inPhuldhaba watershed. The number ofdays of annual employment for male andfemale members of beneficiary familieswas the highest in Kanhur-mesai at 300.9and 318.8 man-days respectively and thelowest in Kudawale at 174.7 and 204.3respectively. In watersheds having higherwork availability before projectcommencement, the rise in employmentin summer and rabi seasons was greaterthan the rise in the kharif season. In otherwatersheds, the increase in employmentwas the highest in the rabi season,medium during the kharif season, and lowin the summer. It was further noted thatthe female members of both beneficiaryand non-beneficiary families worked for agreater number of days as compared totheir male counterparts. Female membersof both the farmer and labourercategories were engaged for more farmwork on an average by about 20 workingdays (AFC, 1998-99).

3.8 Other social changesAmong the important changes that werebrought about in the watershed were areduction in alcoholism, an increase inliteracy levels, an increase in nutritionlevels of the families, an increase incapacities and relations with outsideworld. Many watersheds have also seenan improvement in the quality of life andbasic infrastructure. In the Sedashi-Wavoshi watershed, the women bannedproduction of alcohol. In Adgaon, earliermore than 80 per cent of the populationwas affected by alcoholism which hasnow been abolished.

68

At Pimpalgaon Wagha, the backwardcommunities were previously isolatedfrom the village. The watersheddevelopment brought about a change inthis attitude of the people of PimpalgaonWagha. Social taboos have been liftedand these people are now allowed freelyin the village. The backwardcommunities have a fair representationon the VWC and participate actively inthe decision-making process. Once theirfinancial condition improved, the peoplefrom these communities also began toget respect from the other villagers.Injustice by landlords and moneylendersalso greatly reduced. The incomeearned from the work on watershedsites helped them pay off their loans. Asmore children could go to school,literacy in the village improved andtoday the literacy rate is about 80 percent. Biogas plants were set up in somehouseholds in the village and their fuelwood consumption declined. As drinkingwater became available within thevillage, the women stopped going far tofetch water and so could contributemore positively to the development ofthe village. They set up a revolving creditand made loans available to the needyat the low interest rate of two per cent amonth (Lobo and Kochenderfor-Lucius,1995.)In Mendawan there were also otherpositive impacts on social aspects suchas education, housing, health care etc.Pucca houses went up from just one to34 out of 60 sample households afterimplementation.In the Shastabad-Chincholi watershed,five biogas plants came up after theproject apart from an increase inpesticide spraying machines andthreshers. Villagers were also dispersedfrom gaothan (village settlement) areasand they built good new houses in theirfields to ensure day round care. Theincome received from agriculture wasinvested in digging more wells, buyinghigh yielding seeds and construction ofpermanent houses of (Gomukh, 2001).D�Souza (2001) tried to examine theimpact of watershed developmentprogrammes on the nutritional status ofchildren � the linkage between increasedproduction and improved nutrition. Thesample for the study consisted of 1,532children in the 0-5 age group from 27villages where watershed projects werein different stages of implementation

(out of the 129 projects underimplementation in IGWDP). It was foundthat an increase in crop production andincome is not automatically reflected inthe improved nutrition of children. Thestudy notes that there is an increase ingrasses and fodder as barren degradedlands become more productive whichallows more households to owncrossbred cows. Thus, as watersheddevelopment advances, there is anincrease in the ownership of crossbredcows. There is a decrease in otherlivestock, especially indigenous cows.In Survey 2000, only 10.7 per cent ofhouseholds in Group I (wherewatershed work has just begun) owncrossbred cows, while this number is 50per cent among Group IV households(where watershed work has beenunderway for many years). However, inspite of this there is no direct increasein the number of children drinking cow�smilk across project duration. Frominformation obtained from thesevillages, one notes that as the projectadvances, the number of crossbredcows have increased with an increasein milk production. In the rain-shadowbelt of Ahmednagar district, milkproduction shot up by the fourth andfifth year in the project period, to over400 liters per day, and by the sixth andseventh year to over 900 litres per dayper village on an average. A dairycooperative was soon established andmore households sold milk. The resultsof this study also show that theenhanced land productivity translatedinto only a small improvement of thenutritional status of children. Aswatershed development advances, anincrease in the number of householdsthat have breakfast has been noted andin households where this happens,there is a positive impact on thenutritional status of children in somegroups. Data show that householdsregularly consume sorghum and wheatproducts with vegetables. Pulses arethe only mentioned source of proteinsconsumed regularly by less than 40 percent of households and only once a day(D�Souza, 2001).Large-scale use of bio fertilizer andvermi-compost increased in Khedwatershed. The participation of womenboth in design and implementation ofthe project in this watershed wasexemplary. On average, the literacylevels of males and females in

69

beneficiary families were higher by 4.4and 5.5 per cent over non-beneficiaryfamilies in NWDPRA. Literacy increasewas greater in economically better andwell-developed watersheds ofWadhivarhe, Nune-gavadi, Khanur-mesai and Phuldhaba (AFC, 1999). InSedashi-Wavoshi, housing improved(earlier 90 families were homeless, nowthis number has fallen to 58), education,assets etc. have increased. One tractorhas been added to the community. The15 self-help groups (SHGs) which beganwith provision of consumption loanshave already taken up some income-generating activities like thedevelopment of a forest nursery,transport activities, preparation ofgreeting cards and cardboard boxes.Among social aspects, empowerment ofwomen, development of self-confidenceand improvement in communicationskills has given them a feeling of selfworth. More children were sent to schoolin the Rajani watershed (NABARD,1999).The DROP (2003) study noted that therewas an increase in the workload ofwomen than earlier. Earlier manyfarmers used to cultivate only singlecrops and women had to do double dutyonly for one season. After the cultivationof two or three crops, their workincreased considerably. Also, manycash crops, especially vegetables, needintensive supervision.Across most projects however, theparticipation of women was found to beof a token nature or marginal. In mostprojects, women are organized intosavings and credit groups. Similarly,special factors such as efforts taken byan individual or the intense involvementof an NGO, are factors that improve thechances of success and sustainability ofwatershed programmes. The impact ofthe withdrawal of such an agency andwhether the community and institutionscreated under the project are self reliant,are worthy of examination. Thoughstudies have indicated that institutionalarrangements are crucial for sustainingwatershed interventions, not many haveelaborated upon the nature of theseinstitutional arrangements. These issueswill be dealt in detail in the forthcomingchapters.

3.9 Viability of the ProjectsIn this section we look at the economicand financial analyses available for afew projects in Maharashtra. A word ofcaution would be in place here, giventhe growing tendency to quantifyeverything in economic terms (andputting numbers to everything) andevaluate a project in income terms.Often, there is a tendency to equateincrease in income with cash income, orto use it as a proxy for increased welfareor a better livelihood scenario.Livelihood includes income, but alsomuch more. Women, for example, havea great deal to contribute to livelihood,though they may contribute little toincome, especially cash income, withinthe established meaning of the term.There are also situations in which theincome may show a rise withoutnecessarily increasing fulfilment oflivelihood needs. Dairy farming,vegetable and fruit cultivation are a fewexamples where the income from themilk, vegetable or fruit so produced mayeven mean a corresponding fall in theiravailability to the local community. Thesituation gets all the more accentuatedbecause men, in a patriarchal society,have full access and control over cashincome, which is generated throughmarket-oriented production.Another example discussed earlier is thetendency towards increased use ofimproved or hybrid varieties of seeds asa means of productivity improvement.This can lead to farmers losing self-reliance, becoming dependent on bothnational and transnational seedcompanies.A useful compilation of studies is foundin the 1991 issue of the Indian Journal ofAgriculture Economics (IJAE). Thegeneral results of these studies aregiven by Kerr (1996) who finds thatestimated returns to investment aregenerally high with BC ratios rangingfrom one to greater than two. While theyleave out crucial off-site and non-marketed impacts which would be likelyto raise the project�s net benefits, theIJAE studies fail to consider twoimportant problems � first they have atendency to attribute causation ofimproved crop and livestock productivityto Soil and Water ConservationMeasures (SWC) measures eventhough improvements may have beencaused by factors like good weather.

70

Second, they measure improvementsachieved while government supportcontinues, or just after support endedand assume sustainability of gains.In 1997, ICRISAT published a summaryof economic evaluations undertaken byresearch institutes, state departmentsand other central and stateorganizations (Babu et al., 1997). Of the29 projects listed all have ratios greaterthan 1.07 and one (Sutle in the westernHimalayas) has a ratio as high as 7.06.For those cases where an Internal Rateof Return (IRR) was calculated resultsvaried between 17 and 67 per cent �suggesting higher returns than those ofthe IJAE studies but leaving out the non-

marketed and off-site impacts. Alsomost studies are not comparable asthey use different techniques andassumptions, discount rates and timehorizons and also types of impactsincluded for study. Despitemeasurement difficulty, the generalimpression is that watershedsprogrammes yield high returns andthese would be higher if off-site andnon-marketed effects were added. Butgrowing evidence of project failure afterPIA withdraws shows that Cost BenefitAnalysis (CBA) needs to be revised oran alternative technique is needed.The financial rate of return (FRR) in theIGWDP watersheds is very high at 31

Impact of NWDPRA in MaharashtraThe study by Deshpande and Reddy (1991) has tried to capture the impact ofNWDPRA in three different zones or regions, namely, the scarcity zone, themoderate rainfall region, and assured rainfall zone. In the scarcity regionwatershed technology has led to intensification of agriculture, higherdiversification, risk spreading and increased stability in yield levels. The studynotes, "watershed treatment led to higher diversification and risk spreading. Theonly point of concern was the presence of sugarcane in the water scarceeconomy. The yield levels do not show any persistent increment across cropsand size classes of operational holdings but there is enough evidence to indicatean increased stability in yield levels. It was quite clear from the analysis that thescarcity zone would need a longer gestation period as compared to the otherregions -- mainly due to the level of degradation." It was noted that small andmarginal farmers of the project area gained on income fronts compared to theirpeers from non-project areas. The moderate rainfall zone also showed similarresults, the study indicates that "the proportion of fallows and uncultivated landsand the cropping intensity were higher in the watershed region, indicatingthereby higher resources intensity. The cropping pattern in the project region iswell diversified as compared to non-project area, indicating risk spread.... Exceptin the case of jowar and paddy, the watershed area has a distinct edge over thecontrol region even though the latter had slightly higher irrigated area. Thisregion has a good promise for watershed technology and it is essential to arrestthe speed of degradation in this area." The beneficiary group also showed highernet incomes. However, the level of income inequality was higher in theprogramme area while the reverse is true in the case of a scarcity zone. Theassured rainfall zone also showed lower inequalities in the watershed region.The study notes that the initial work of the watershed goes in recouping thedamage caused earlier because of the higher level of degradation of theecosystem. The cropping pattern in the project area is more commercialized,though diversified. Resources are not only concentrated on better quality oflands by releasing marginal lands out of cultivation but also on highlyremunerative crops like sugarcane, wheat and cotton to the detriment of others.The watershed region here also has better cost efficiency, ensuring that the netincome per hectare in this area is higher than that in the control region. The mostinteresting aspect of income generation is the inverse size-productivityrelationship in the project region as against a direct relationship in the controlarea. The assured rainfall zone watersheds are likely to yield better results in theshort run compared to those from the scarcity zone. Farmer response in thisregion indicated increased yield rates with greater stabilization, increasedincome, higher wages and employment.

Source:Deshpande andReddy, (1991).

71

per cent in Sedashi-Wavoshi and theeconomic rate of return (ERR) is 41 percent using the World Bank�s conversionfactors. In the Rajani watershed FRRwoks out at 69.17 per cent and ERRworks to 89.11 per cent. In theMendhwan watershed, FRR works out tobe 31.5 per cent without managerial costand without family labour cost and theERR under the same assumptionsworks out to be 35 per cent (NABARD,1999). The cost-benefit analysis lookingat the impact of a water reservoir in thewestern plateau and hills puts the BC at1.28 and the IRR at 12.33 (Saksena etal., 1989). The cost-benefit ratio of theKamini sub-watershed works out to be1.3 without including secondary benefitslike security and dependability ofdrinking water supply, increase inavailability and use of firewood andfodder, increase in employment etc(Gomukh). Walker et al. (1990) reviewedthe overall impact of the application ofwatershed-based technologies atdifferent locations in Maharashtra,Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. Theirresults indicated incremental net incomeranging between 49 and 203 per cent ofthe base level. The BC ratio worked outin the range of 1.08 to 3.81 across thelocations.

3.10. Watershed Development andLivelihoodsWatershed activities are expected tohave a wide range of impacts on thewatershed ecosystems and thelivelihood opportunities mainly dependon such ecosystems. Earlier, soil andwater conservation activity did notdirectly aim at creating an impact onlivelihoods; any such impact was, so tospeak, a side effect. The emergingconsensus on watershed development,however, no longer accepts such aviewpoint. Most programmes look ateffective watershed development as anentry point activity to stabilize and buildsustainable livelihoods. However, thestrategy in the area of livelihood creationmost often visualized is �watershed plus�along with earmarking a certainpercentage of the budget for livelihoodactivities. Planning and implementationgenerally follow the conservation andfarmer-centric approach andconsideration of livelihoods follow afterthe creation of assets. The livelihood

strategies of different stakeholders arenot analysed nor their relation anddependency on ecosystem productsand services as part of watershedplanning. Thus, one sees oftenexamples such as development ofCPRs (through biophysical measuresand by excluding current users throughsocial fencing) without ensuring userand management rights to those whodepend on it the most. It does not meanthat a watershed of a few hundredhectares can meet all the resourcesrequired for ensuring the basiclivelihoods of all watershed dwellers. The overall picture that emerges fromthe review is that generally, watersheddevelopment has resulted in someimprovement in livelihood opportunitiesfor watershed communities. The degreeof improvement varies from thespectacular (as in Ralegaon Siddhi andAdgaon), to the �once good but now notvery good�. The internal distribution ofbenefits has not always been even, withthe better-off farmers in the downstreambenefiting the most and the landless andfarmers in the upper reaches benefitingthe least. But in all cases, somelivelihood improvements are carried overinto the post-project phase. But arethere sufficient resilient institutionalmechanisms, moral and cultural capitalincluding a sensitive leadership withinthe community, to ensure livelihoodbenefits from renewed ecosystemresources to the disadvantaged andmarginals in the post project/NGOwithdrawn stage? With such aperspective, which implicitly looks atwatershed development programmes asproviding some degree of livelihoodsupport for watershed communities, theoverall performance of the programmewould rank as below average. But therewould be a great number of cases inwhich the overall performance has beenmore than satisfactory.In this respect, the remark thatwatershed development measuresworked well in good years; in goodyears, they did succeed in fulfilling theirlivelihood needs is illuminating. Butwhenever there was a �bad� year,whenever the rainfall was below averageor the rainfall pattern was not suitable,they faced acute shortage. This is alsoborne out by our experience in othersemi-arid zones in Karnataka, AndhraPradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan.

72

It is interesting to compare in thiscontext, Ralegaon Siddhi and Adgaon,two projects that have generally formeda contrast. Here, we shall look at someof the similarities, which exist betweenthem, despite their apparent divergencein many respects. In both places, andthis is significant, water from a majorsource has been brought to the village �from the Kukdi canal in Ralegaon andfrom the Sukna project in Adgaon.Norms evolved for the watershed area inRalegaon (the ban on sugarcane forexample) do not apply in the Kukdicanal area in the village. If we do notconsider, for the time being, the drinkingwater problem in Adgaon, we have nearfull employment in both villages, thoughRalegaon Siddhi has a much moreequitable distribution of benefits. It maybe said that in both villages, watersheddevelopment supplemented byexogenous water has led to livelihoodassurance (to those who have the basicmeans of production (land). However,this has been achieved in a moreharmonious and equitable manner inRalegaon, and in a trickle-down mannerin Adgaon; in a socially regulated andenvironmentally regenerative manner inRalegaon, but in an unregulated andenvironmentally unsound manner inAdgaon.We would not advocate the absence ofnorms for Kukdi water in Ralegaon, noris sugarcane the only route to stability,but the role that exogenous water hasplayed in both situations needs to berecognized. One of the conclusions of amore in-depth study of a sub-basin inUdaipur region in Rajasthan shows thateven under conservative assumptions,for three out of the 12 years, it would bedifficult to ensure even domestic waterrequirements; for another three out ofthe 12 years, it would be possible toensure domestic water requirements,but livelihood requirements would not bemet; and only in six out of 12 yearswould livelihood requirements be met. Inother words, if we have to ensurelivelihoods for this rural population at ahigher degree of dependability, a smallbut significant supplement of exogenouswater is certainly required.A critical analysis of canal irrigationwould also argue for a restructuring ofthe water sector so as to modify the roleof large systems from beingindependent, autonomous entities to a

role of supporting and supplementingsmaller systems based on microwatersheds and clusters of microwatersheds. The three Ozar WaterUsers Associations (WUAs) in Nashikdistrict of Maharashtra, to some extent,illustrate the potential of suchintegration. Unlike in the conventionalpractice of command management, thethree WUAs built check dams on thenalas crossing the command area ofthe WUAs and used these structures toharvest local rainwater and also to storepart of the water that they received fromthe dam. This recharged the wells in thecommand area and also added stabilityto the water regime. As a result, thepeople have much more control overwater delivery and now are in a positionto farm diverse crops. The area underirrigation has increased tremendously,as has productivity. One interestinginstitutional innovation is that the wellshave been brought under the purview ofthe WUAs and farmers are charged forusing well water.28

If we do require livelihood assurance forall, then we also need to define whatplace watershed development occupiesin the process of achieving thatobjective. From the review, it is clearthat at least in places where watersheddevelopment has made a difference, aprocess of development of waterresources and productivityenhancement has gone hand-in-handand continued beyond the projectperiod. Many other elements have alsocontributed to the phenomenon andhave their own importance for specificaspects. But this, we feel, is the criticalelement in all those places wherewatershed development has led tolivelihood assurance for a substantialsection of the watershed community.This points to the need to treatwatershed development as a first stepin the process of providing livelihoodassurance for all.This evaluation is good so far as itapplies to evaluating watersheddevelopment as an essentially soil andwater conservation activity, treatingimprovement in livelihood opportunitiesand fulfilment of livelihood needs as anassociated effect. However, watersheddevelopment programmes today areexpected to do much more than this.They are seen as being at the core ofthe process of rural development and

28 For detailson the Ozarexperience andthe issuesrelated to co-management oflocal andexogenouswater and alsosurface andgroundwater,see the study byParanjape et al,2003.

73

are often supposed to be the lynchpinaround which all government-rundevelopmental activity should converge.It is increasingly being claimed thatwatershed development will ensurefulfilment of livelihood needs, obviatingthe need for dams and canal irrigation.However, there are issues of sustainingproduction and livelihoods in the long runand the current trend of impacts,especially those related to water-use,agricultural production, technologyadoption management and use ofcommon resources etc., needs to belooked at from a wider perspective ofsustainable and equity-oriented ruraldevelopment.

74

Chapter 4

Watershed Development andSustainability

4.1 IntroductionThe objective of watershed developmentin rainfed areas from its early daysincluded economic development of thevillage community through the optimumuse of land, water and vegetation. Thesuccess/performance criteria included aset of quantifiable benefits such asincrease in ground water and rechargingof wells, prevention of soil run-off,improvement in soil quality and moisturecontent, improvement in agricultureproduction and production of usufructslike fodder, fuel, minor timber etc. This isreflected in all the guidelines and allimpact assessment and performanceevaluation used these indicators mostoften to assess the success of awatershed, as is evident from thereviews/studies analysed in the previouschapter. Most indicators are thosegenerally used to understand agriculturedevelopment projects, except the laterintroduction of social and institutionalindicators for performance assessmentbecause of the perception and practiceof community participation as adominant and determining condition forthe success of a project. This isunderstandable because the objective,policy pronunciations and practiceswere premised on development ofresources for improved productivity andgrowth in rural rainfed areas. Hence, thedeveloped ecosystem resources and theresultant productivity and livelihoodbecame the basis on which projectperformance and impacts are generallyassessed.By the late 1990s the issue ofsustainability emerged as a majorconcern in watershed developmentprojects following reversals in some

successful watersheds, problemsencountered in mainstream greenrevolution agriculture, and throughdebates, encounters and interactionsregarding sustainability of naturalsystems/resources at the national andinternational level. Thus one couldobserve the sustainability issueemerging in the policy statements andto some extent in the operational andimplementation strategies. Now mostwatershed development guidelines,even though in an eclectic way, raisethe issue of sustainability ofecosystems and methods of productionwhile pronouncing the objectives andstrategies of intervention. Thus onecould see statements such as'sustainable economic developmentthrough sustainable utilization of naturalresources; sustainable communityaction; rational long term utilization;sustainable management of naturalresources and their use; sustainableproduction methods and technologies;integrated and allied land-use systemsfor sustainable production; socialregulation on groundwater use;sustainability strategies as part of exitpolicy of PIAs etc. in all guidelineswhether of the MoA, MoRD, CAPART,bilateral, multilateral or NGOs.Assuming that all the measures in awatershed have been takenscientifically it would emanate into afirst round of effects, which let us sayare mostly environmental and probablymostly positive. Soil quality is expectedto improve, soil erosion is expected toreduce, water recharge should improve,there would be a general increase in thegreen cover and the carrying capacityof the environment would improve.These impacts are reflected in ourreview also. To a lesser degree ofcertainty it could be said that waterquality is expected to improve andsurface water storage might improve(through holding of water in tanks, nalasand streams flowing longer. However,the amount of water reaching thereservoirs might decrease.It is important to note here that theabove effects are just about all that canbe said to be emerging with anycertainty from scientifically implementedsoil and water conservation activity.However, these by themselves are shortterm in nature. Beyond this the furtherround of effects are inextricably linked

75

to human choices and sensitivity to theenvironment. The second important levelof effects would be increase in irrigation,rate of withdrawal of groundwater,expansion of croplands, croppingintensity, change in cropping pattern andchange in agricultural practices. Each ofthese second level effects is "choices"and not "happenings" emerging"naturally" from watershed developmentprojects. These will cause a furtherround of effects impinging on socio-economic and environmental variables.The time dimension in the third roundmight however be much longer beforethe nature [includes dimension, asdefined above] of the impact can bedetermined. It is these intermediatehuman choices, which mostly becomethe dynamic links in a whole range offurther effects, which most of theevaluation studies concern themselveswith. So when we look at only fodder,fuel, livestock, etc., they are projected tobe natural consequences of watersheddevelopment programmes. However,only a careful delineation of the abovelinks can determine whether thechanges happening in the various bio-physical and socio-economic indicatorsare going to bring in long termsustainability of incomes andenvironment, health and well being,biodiversity, food security etc., which arethe at the core of 'green' developmentprogrammes.Operationlizing the concept,sustainability is found to be a weak areaand there is very little informationavailable from our context. It is oftenequated with maintenance and repair ofassets, which in itself is a major aspectof sustainability strategy. However, it isalso brought to the fore that growthprocesses and production strategies areat loggerheads/ conflict withsustainability to an extent. The veryconcept of sustainability assumes acontinuity, a time frame and is this timeframe means 'staying for ever' or shouldwe consider sustainability within thecontext of the dynamic nature of society,modes of production and socialprocesses. Another important aspect isthat after achieving a particular stage inthe growth process (visible impacts inthe early stages of a project as we haveseen in the previous chapter) what arethe new structures, systems andchallenges for moving to the next stagei.e. to ensure continuity of benefits

without compromising the ecologicalbalance or reversing to the previoussituation of degraded ecology andendangered livelihoods. Sustainability isimpacted by human actions and 'rationalchoices' the watershed dwellers makevis-à-vis their environment and how farthese actions can be 'moulded' whenthe incentives are for growth (even atthe cost of endangering the resourcebase) both at micro and macro level.What are the implications of neo-liberaleconomic policies on sustainability ofnatural resources, when an increasingnumber of wastelands and commonsare being earmarked for SpecialEconomic Zones and corporatefarming? The issue is whetherwatershed development can work inisolation without being touched by thelarger economic and social processesunfolding in the march towards 'growthand development' and what are thestrategies and incentives available forthe historically deprived rainfedcommunities to preserve and sustain theecological balance and at the same timeearn a better livelihood.Attempts have been made to addressthe issues of sustainability in relation towatershed development and theresultant productive potential. Theyrevolve around core issues such asrepair and maintenance of assets,continuity of social and institutionalprocesses put in place during theimplementation, sustaining the resultsand impacts and sustaining the growthprocesses. All these issues are notindependent and they impinge on eachother. In the following sections of thechapter we will try to look into the statusof issues and look for strategies andmethods adopted from available sourcesand evidence. However, this is an issueon which very little information isavailable, that which is available is mostoften very sketchy and opinionated andwhat can be considered as 'bestpractices' are very limited to certainexamples here and there. But oneshould acknowledge that sustainabilityis increasingly gaining an importantplace in watershed discourse andpractice, and sustainable production andsustainable livelihoods are consideredto be the expected long-term outcomesof watershed development.

76

4.2 Sustainability of Assets Createdunder Watershed DevelopmentWatershed development interventionscreate a number of biophysical assetsaimed at conserving soil, water andbiomass. These assets are created,either in private lands or in commonlands or in drainage courses that eitherpass through privately owned land ornestle between private lands, but as acommon. The location of the structure/asset, the nature of the property regimein which it is located and the benefits itgenerates often determine itssustainability. The perception of thebeneficiary regarding the benefits from aspecific asset/intervention plays acrucial role in its care and maintenance.Studies and experiences show thatassets created on private lands inconsultation with the farmer and those,which generate immediate impact, havea higher chance of sustainability. Assetson common property resources faceproblems if the necessary social andinstitutional arrangements are not inplace. The time taken for benefits toregister also has an impact onsustainability, where the community mayloss interest due to the lack of visibleimpact in a short time. The longevity ofan asset also depends on its technologyand quality.Soil and water conservation works needregular repair and maintenance for themto be effective and generate positiveoutcomes. Experiences from firstgeneration projects and the status ofassets created under them have broughtthe importance of care and maintenanceto the forefront. The situation of contourbunds and large number of Nala Bundscreated in Maharashtra during theseventies and early eighties are part ofthe learning in disasters. Slowly it wasrealized that the involvement of thecommunity is a precondition forimproving the effectiveness of theintervention. Now it is realized that it isnot just participation but the socialarrangements, institutional mechanismstheir structure and functions, availabilityof skills and resources in communityetc., that impact the long-termeffectiveness; maintenance and repairalso depend a lot on these issues. Newgeneration projects have created atleast certain mechanisms in thisdirection especially for maintenance ofassets. But definite conclusions are not

possible in the absence of examplesin small scale at least. Certain trendscan, however, be observed. Projectshave some resources at theirdisposal such as maintenance funds,or the watershed development fund.Some places utilize these funds formaintenance and repair such asplantations and aftercare, building ofnew structures or paying for watch andward. But in large number of projectsthis resource is left idle in the absenceof proper management systems andstructures, institutional inactivity in thepost project at local level etc. Mostprojects of this generation haverecently completed theirimplementation and have not yetrequired any major maintenance. Forexample in Shedasi-Wavoshi theassessment by NABARD notes thatleakage to the check dam (due tovarious reasons) was not evenattempted to be rectified despite theavailability of funds for maintenance.But in Mendwan a better arrangementhas been put in place by engaging aperson who has certain skills. Theassessment of 115 projects (DPAPand IWDP) in Vidharbha byDharamitra shows that in manyinstances loose boulder structures areeither damaged or being removed bythe farmers. In the case of Gabbionstructures in seven watersheds eitherthey have been completely washedaway or are partially damaged.Vegetative barriers are also either notvisible in places or are damaged. Incase of nala bunds and farm ponds, itis observed that they are fully silted inmost places.Maintenance is also dependent on skillsavailable at the community level. Lowcost and locally manageable assetsgenerally are maintained if they areseen as beneficial, but for technically-oriented (engineered) assets likeengineered structures external servicesmay be required. Generally if the qualityis good, such kinds of structures needonly some maintenance which can belocally done. The transfer of technicalknowledge and capacity enhancementduring the implementation period alsomatters as that is the period of fixingresponsibility for the specific resourcesand beneficiaries. Experience showsthat many projects make it part of theirstrategy to adopt locally availablematerials and low cost structures so

77

that it is easy for the community tomaintain them. However, one cannotignore the importance of engineeredwater-harvesting structures. Issuesrelated to maintenance of structures oncommon property resources arecomplex and clear arrangements arerequired in terms of getting maintenancework done.One of the major problems encounteredis maintenance of biophysicalinterventions in the common propertyresources. There are many reasons forthis such as no clarity about who theusers are or what their rights andresponsibilities are, administrativeproblems regarding user rights andrights to manage, long gestationrequired for products to benefit thecommunity, nature and kind of activitiesundertaken etc. Some experiencesemerging from the field show that whenresource-poor self-help groups (SHGs)are entrusted with the usufruct andmanagement rights for commonresources, the performance is better. Insome places especially in tribal areas itis noted that cultivators downstream likewater and biomass residues to flow intothe cultivated lands so that water can beimpounded for rice cultivation. It hasalso come to notice that during droughtsthe pressure on commons increases asdoes the cutting of trees and theintensity of free grazing. There areinstances in which the village committeehas passed a resolution in favour of freegrazing in common lands during adrought.Even though there are resourcesavailable for maintenance in newprojects and certain instances ofmaintenance and repair are reportedfrom villages and programmes underreview one should not draw a hastyconclusion on this count. Many projectsorganize the maintenance fund throughlocal contribution, but it is often notedthat the fund is not used effectively foroperation and maintenance. InDharamitra evaluation in 21 per cent ofwatersheds no maintenance fund wasorganized whereas in 66 per cent of thecases five per cent of the project cost iscollected as maintenance fund. In a lotof cases (in almost 73 watersheds out of90 where a watershed development fundhas been orgainzed) there isdiscrepancy noted in what is reportedand what is actually available in the

account. There is a lot of concernabout the status of maintenance fundafter the withdrawal of the PIA. Ininstances where maintenance isreported, it may not reflect the actualpicture. First, much of the data onnewer projects is in the form of casestudies that often comprise the morepromising projects, whereas the realexperiences will emerge from studiescovering a large sample, including thenot-so-promising and the failedprojects as well. All that one can say isthat since the new projects have takennote of the problems and haveevolved certain measures, and howeverelementary these measures be, there isa greater likelihood that they will showbetter performance for longer periods.

4.3 Sustainability of WatershedImpactsIn the previous chapter we have seenquite a few evidences regarding theimpact of watershed development onsoil erosion, on biomass production, onground and surface water and onagricultural production and livelihoods ingeneral. Though most of the reviews donot have sufficient quantitative data onimpacts of soil erosion and quality,some reduction in erosion is generallyreported. In our field visits, farmers wereable to provide some information aboutthe turbidity of flow based on theirperception. There was sufficientevidence across many watersheds thatstream flow had become clearer andsediment load had reduced. The reviewalso showed improved moisture statusand water holding capacity of soil inwatersheds. However, sustaining theseimpacts requires regular maintenance ofsoil conservation structures such asbunding and improvement of soil qualitythrough mulching and biomassapplication. Erosion control in upstreamareas and grass and tree cover alsocontributes in controlling erosion. Fieldevidence shows that maintenance ofconservation measures is better in goodquality lands as compared to marginaland uncultivated private lands, and thatthe intensity of the problem increases inlands that are under common use. Inalmost all watershed projects theresponsibility of maintaining privatelands is that of the owner and thetendency observed is that theyconcentrate their resources on betterand productive lands (an economical

78

and rational decision) and ignore theproblems in less capable lands. Thusbreaching of bunds, rill and gullyformations are left unattended in thepost-implementation period in marginalprivate lands. Some of the farmers dotake cereals like Jowar and Bajra on thisland primarily for the fodder and grainproduction is only incidental. However,these lands are increasingly broughtunder mono-crops such as castor whichitself has its impact on fodder andlivestock development. Excess diggingof soil for trenches in sloppy lands mayalso add to soil erosion and in someinstances where land leveling is donewithout much technical care and onsloppy lands with less soil depth it hasadded to soil erosion as is evident insome watersheds in Konkan andVidharba.Sustainability of biomass production isalso very important in ensuringsustainable livelihoods. Seasonal andannual biomass production estimatesare good indicators of the variability ofthe ecosystem resources in time andspace and review proves that there aregood indications about improvements inthis respect at least in watershedswhere biomass development and socialfencings are practiced. However ouranalysis of 115 watersheds fromVidharbha shows that the investment onbiomass development is very poor andthere is hardly any practice of socialfencing and CPLR management.Development of biomass in thecommons and its access to the poor isvery important from the livelihood pointof view and low investments andproduction show that this concern wasnot part of planning and that concernslike equity and sustainability are still notthought about. The development ofcommons for usufructs like fodder andfuel is one of the major objectives ofwatershed development and very fewprojects have succeeded in this respect.Wherever the production of at leastgrass has improved, very littleinformation is available in respect of itssustainable development and use, .Whatever information exists is in theform of visual observations andanecdotal expressions of thecommunity. In many projects, asreported earlier, the plantation survival ispoor and as the project progresses, thenumber of plants that survive is found todecrease. For example, in Sedashi-

Vawoshi, a watershed in a high rainfallarea, the survival rate of plants (forplantation done in year 1994) is only40 per cent when survival wasassessed in year 1999, even though92 per cent survival is reported for theplantation done in year in 1999, theevaluation year (NABARD, 1999).Thus, it should be noted that even if ahigh survival rate is reported forplantation during implementation, itmay not reflect the real picture, as ittakes time for plants to stabilize andgrow. The survival rate after at leastfive years of plantation might give us aclear picture. Besides the low survivalrate, the diversity of plant species isalso very limited. In Rajani watershed(assured rainfall area) the survival rateis reported as low as 10 per cent(NABARD, 1999). If the condition is thisin high and assured rainfall areas, onecan draw a picture of the situation indrought-prone areas to be evenworse.During field interaction it was noted thatplantations also lack effectivemanagement after the withdrawal of thePIA and many instances of tree cuttingwere reported. There is no quantitativeinformation either for biomassregeneration or the rate of extraction.Many projects have a ban on opengrazing and felling of trees and peopleare allowed to cut and carry the fodderand collect the fallen dried branches.However, there are no clear rulesregarding the rate of extraction offodder and who has the prioritizedrights. Our field visit showed that,except in a few cases, even these rulesare not followed after the withdrawal ofthe PIA, thus one is forced to questionthe effectiveness of these rules are andwhether the community is convincedand has internalized these concerns.The IGWDP villages in Ahmednagardistrict have worked out Joint ForestManagement (JFM) with the forestdepartment in terms of sharing ofproduce and managementresponsibilities. To an extent this isworking, in terms of preserving the treesand biomass, as compared to theprevious situation of pilferage anddestruction, sometimes in connivancewith forest guards. The issue ofsustainability of biomass in non-forestcommon lands needs further attentionin almost all projects in the absence ofeffective management systems, rules

79

and administrative procedures. It isconsidered a very weak area, not onlyin the state but also in almost allwatersheds in the country.One of the ways to reduce biomassextraction is through herd rationalization.Of course, this is an area that is verycontentious. Experiences in this regard,at least from the watersheds in WesternMaharashtra, are that small ruminantsand traditional breeds are reduced andthe poor and women-headedhouseholds suffer the most. It alsoimpacts on ecological services thatthese animals provide, such as manureand fertility improvements.

4.3.1 Land-use Change andSustainabilityFrom the ecological sustainability pointof view, each landform or class has aparticular function to play in awatershed. One of the cardinalprinciples of watershed development, atleast theoretically, is that different typesof lands have to be put to use as pertheir capabilities. In fact, watershedintervention aims to improve thefunctions performed by each of theseclasses. Bringing sloping (with shallowsoil depths) non-crop areas underseasonal and annual tillage couldincrease soil erosion. Also, it can causenegative externalities in different ways.In traditional land-use systems, thereused to be an organic link between thecropped area and non-cropped areas(forest, pastures, and wasteland). Bybringing in more and more non-crop landunder shallow-rooted, seasonalagriculture, this organic link is broken.By converting more non-crop land tocropland, we are encouraging mono-cultural tendencies which can decreaselocal biodiversity. Non-crop land hasdifferent types of grasses, bushes, trees,creepers and other types of vegetationincluding medicinal plants. It is arepository of a great variety of rootstock.It also supports a variety of micro- andmacro-organisms, all of which have arole to play in the ecosystem. Underwatershed projects quite a lot ofmarginal lands are brought undercultivation growing seasonal crops ordry land horticulture and these daysunder non-browsable cash crops suchas castor. What one encounters here isa conflict between economic andlivelihood issues vis-à-vis sustainable

land-use practice. However, there areways in which both these issues canbe addressed i.e., productivityenhancement for increased livelihoodsand ecosystem conservation. What isneeded is a strong commitment to findways of integrating them rather thanconsidering them conflicting objectives,which makes it imperative to trade-offone against the other. An integratedland-use and production system isrequired which should be part ofwatershed planning and implementation.Another possible approach could be totry to meet the food requirements from areduced area. It has been observed thatthere is a tendency amongst the peopleto bring in more and more landunsuitable for shallow-rooted cropproduction under crop production duringdrought and scarcity conditions (Joy andRao, 1993). Experience and variousexperiments show that it is possible tomeet food needs from a smaller areathrough sustainable productivityenhancement methods. One suchexample is the experiments with smallplot intensive cultivation by many groupsin Maharashtra that have been able toachieve very high levels of productivitywith local inputs.29 Another examplethat is talked about currently is theMadagascar Rice Intensification System(also called System of RiceIntensification, SRI to be brief), which isnow spread over a very large area indifferent countries. It has been reportedthat it has been able to achieve anaverage productivity of something in thevicinity of 10 t/ha (Uphoff et al., 2000).Yet another way is to ensure a certainquantity of water to the people as part ofthe watershed programme. Experienceshows that in drought prone regions,critical (or protective) irrigation canmake all the difference between a totalcrop failure and a good crop. Thisminimum water assurance combinedwith some of the emerging Low ExternalInput Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA)techniques can build up productivity in avery short time span and meet foodrequirements from a much smaller area.The saved area can then be devoted toa diversified biomass production systemwithout significantly disturbing thedifferent types of land-use classes. Ofcourse, this calls for a restructuring ofthe present-day watershed programme

29 ShriBalkrishanaRenke and hisgroup havebeen doing thisfor the last fiveyears or so. Hehas kept a verygood record ofall the dataincluding inputsand labouroutputs. Fordetails seeKulkarni (2000);YUVA (2001)

80

in terms of fund allocation, institutionalarrangements and phasing of theprogramme. These issues are discussedfurther in the concluding chapter.4.3.2 Increase in Irrigation and itsImpactsMany studies and evaluations haveproved that irrigated area has increasedin almost all successful watershedprojects. It also shows that the watertable has consistently improved at leastduring good rainfall years. Though therehas been an increase in the water table,especially in the wells close to variousstructures like checks dams, this hasbeen more than offset by thetremendous increase in the number ofwells. In almost all cases that we visited,and those for which some data areavailable (and this is also confirmed byvarious other studies), the number ofborewells and dug wells have gone upimmensely. Now, the dominant trend isto construct borewells and tap waterfrom the deeper aquifer. Watersheddevelopment seems to have acted as anadditional impetus for investments inwells and pumping devices, leading to avirtual pumping race. There are alsocases of groundwater pollution andwater going saline because of theexcessive withdrawal of groundwater.The investments in borewells in thepost-project phase sometime are morethan what was invested in the watersheddevelopment 30. Now the tendencyamong farmers is to go for borewellsand submersible pumps. The reasonsmay include fewer investments ascompared to an open well (especially inbasalt rocks, where blasting is required),less time involved in construction, andvery little land occupied by the borewelland easy availability of drillingtechnology etc. Whatever the reason,increased irrigation through borewellsextracting groundwater from deepaquifers, which have a lowerrecuperation rate as compared toshallow aquifers, may in the long runresult in changed surface hydrologysuch as drying of springs and seepagezones and eventually lead to what isknown as groundwater drought.Groundwater is one the most importantnatural resources for rural areas and therecent expansion in irrigation owesmuch to groundwater exploitation. It is arenewable resource but does not

minimize the need for efficient use andits sustenance. Injudicious use mayresult in permanent ecologicaldamage as is evident from the everreceding water table (and it isreported that about five per cent of thestate's area has already crossed thedanger mark) or intrusion of sea waterin costal aquifers as is evident fromother parts of the country, especially inparts of Tamil Nadu, Gujarat etc. Thepropagation and adoption of compactpumps coupled with energy subsidyhas contributed immensely to theexploitation of groundwater, whichfacilitated the adoption of greenrevolution technology and waterintensive crops by farmers. Thus whatwe see is a vicious circle.The issue of groundwater is a complexone from the hydrological andownership perspective. The availabilityof groundwater depends upon therainfall, and the geological andhydrological configuration of the region.One of the most important aspects ofgroundwater is that though it is acommon pool resource (one can alsoargue that it should be a commonproperty resource as well by virtue ofbeing under the ground with noproprietary entitlement) the means ofaccess to it is privately owned withextraction through private tubewells andopen wells. One farmer's extraction canadversely affect the source of anotherfarmer and his ability to invest more canadversely affect many others. For allpractical purposes, groundwater is anopen access resource until it iscaptured and privatized and whoeverdoes it first, owns it. These openaccesses put this resource at greatrisks and push it into the realm ofcompetitive exploitation. Ungovernedaccess to the resource, lack ofinstitutional mechanisms to governjudicious utilization and access, lack ofawareness about the resource and itsavailability among the end users, lack ofincentives for sustainable users,statutory measures not put in place aresome of the issues affecting sustainablemanagement. The issue of right overgroundwater is based on the doctrine ofriparian right, the essence of this isrecognition of equal rights on use andextraction of water by all those whoown the land above, provided that itdoes not interfere with the riparian right

30 An impactassessment offive watershedprojects inAndhra Pradeshshows that theinvestments inborewells beganimmediately afterthe initiation ofwatersheddevelopment andsoon outpacedother types ofinvestment inalmost allwatersheds(WASSAN,2004).

81

of others. Though in reality, the depth ofa specific borewell can affect another'sright, very often it is not perceived asindividual interference over rights but isseen more as an outcome oftechnology.Another unique aspect of groundwateris that it is a non-stationary, fluid movingresource merging with water inanother's land. By lowering the depth oftubewell access availability of water toa neighbour's well can be denied.Without collective arrangements forproper use of ground water, there tendsto be an infinite competitive extraction,with farmers outbidding each other indepth of drilling. Thus it can be saidthat as land belongs to the tillers,groundwater belongs to the drillersSecondary data of many villages in theDROP study showed that wherewatershed development was carried outand where water availability increased,water intensive crops such as sugarcaneand banana were cultivated and therewas an increase in borewells forirrigation. This in turn led to an excess ofgroundwater withdrawal leading onceagain to water scarcity (DROP, 2003).Awareness regarding water resourceavailability and its translation into thepracticing of a suitable cropping patternis crucial for long-term sustainability.Villages in Hivre Bazar, for instancehave decided not to cultivate water-intensive crops and to use irrigationwater from open wells of 30-50 feet anddeep aquifers of more than 100 feet fordrinking purposes. There is also a shifttowards horticulture and drip irrigationpractices.However, some attempts have beenmade in regulating groundwaterexploitation and some lessons fromsome watershed development projectsare worth observing here. There aresome social regulations brought intosome projects like IGWDP, Hivre Bazaretc., where digging of additionalborewells are restricted throughcommunity decisions. There arecommunity and user group tubewellsintroduced in some projects, socialrestriction on the use of tube wells forirrigation, discouraging water intensivecrops, guidelines regarding spacing ofwells, protection of drinking water wells,equity in access including that for thelandless (in Naigaon, Pani Panchayat)

etc. These changes could be broughtabout through decisive participation inthe programme of the community andstakeholder groups, strategic conflictresolution at the community level,institution and social capital building,making users aware andconscientious, systems andmechanisms of social regulation etc.However it is also observed that afterthe exit of the PIA, tubewells startedresurfacing again especially in droughtyears when the open wells dried up.Water harvesting by creating extrawater storage along drainage lineshas also contributed to changes insurface hydrology. Flow in ephemeralstreams now occurs less frequently, isreduced in magnitude and/or is lessprolonged after large rainfall events.31

There are many cases where existingminor, medium and major projects donot seem to get the flow required (orthe flow as per the original design)because of the upstreamdevelopments that have taken placesubsequently (Paranjape and Joy,2002). We came across only a fewcases like Ralegaon Siddhi,Babhulgaon of IGWDP, and HivreBazar of Adarsh Gaon Yojana, with anexplicit agreement that water intensivecrops like sugarcane and bananawould not be taken up with the watergenerated through watersheddevelopment efforts. However, in manycases, people are prohibited fromtaking water directly from the checkdams or surface storages.In most drought-prone areas, shallowaquifers are not as contaminated byfluorides as the deeper ones. Butwatershed development has prioritizedwater for irrigation in such a manner thatall the better and shallower sourceshave been utilized for irrigation.Especially in summer, the deepersources are the only ones left fordrinking and other domestic purposes.This shows the need to pay properattention for prioritization of water use,different components of water resourcesand their suitability for differentpurposes.The review brings out clearly that therehas not been any attempt to carry outwater balance studies to understandwhat is happening to the differentcomponents of water as a result of

31 The study ofthe KAWADproject showsthat extra waterstorage ondrainage coursehas broughtchanges insurfacehydrology.Thoughirrigationbenefits in thecommand havemore or lessremained thesame, the modeof irrigation haschanged fromsurface togroundwater.This also meansthat, in alllikelihood, theusers have alsochanged. Thischange hasaffected otheruses thatdepended onthe tank, likewatering for thecattle,pisciculture,washing andbathing. Thestudy concludesthat harvestingshould beencouraged butwithin anintegrated oradaptive waterresourcemanagementframework,usingprocedures thatweigh thebenefits andtradeoffsassociated withaltered patternsof water use.

82

watershed intervention. Without suchstudies, it is difficult to say whether weare using water in a sustainable manneror not, in other words, whether we areusing the annual flows or digging intothe stock.Another possibility of exploring goodyields with limited water assurance isthat popularized by the late Prof.Dabholkar of Prayog Parivar. It tries tocreate favourable soil regimes on suchlands by concentrating the thin topsoilinto pits or heaps using locally availablesoil and biomass. The system workswell for horticulture, or for creepers likegrapes, and becomes very profitablewhen combined with pitcher irrigation or'fertigation' methods that deliver waterand soil nutrients locally to the root zoneof the plants. These measures cansustainably enhance the productivitypotential of degraded lands withoutextensive land levelling activity, whichwould disturb the earth and contribute tosoil erosion.Now there are quite a few instances inwhich farmers are opting for sustainablewater use through the adoption of bettertechnology such as drip and sprinklerirrigation instead of the channel andflood irrigation methods, but the watersaved generally through these methodsare used for additional irrigation oflands. However, these methods canhave better long-term impacts in termsof saving the soil from water logging.However the initial cost most oftendiscourages farmers from going for it.There are some instances in which thewatershed committee has purchasedsprinklers and rain guns from themaintenance fund and hired it out tofarmers.The best option is to educate andsensitize the community on the nature ofthe water situation in their watershedsthrough water balance analysis andmonitoring of water resources as anongoing activity. Simple but robustmodels that can give useful firstapproximation which can then beprogressively refined throughobservation and 'ground-truthing', arerequired. This is attempted in somewatersheds with the initiative of thePIAs, but is rarely taken forward afterthe withdrawal.

4.3.3 Sustaining Agricultural

Product iv i tyIn many cases, the initial highproductivity gains could not besustained, especially in the post-project phase. During our field visits,we found that current yields were quitelow, though the people generallysounded positive about the impact ofwatershed development onproductivity of crops. When askedabout the fall in productivity, theysought to explain it away by saying,"This year, productivity was badbecause it was a drought year". Inquite a lot of instances the initialproductivity gains are achieved inbetter quality lands and through highexternal inputs.Very often, the productivity gains couldnot be sustained, especially after thewithdrawal of the PIA. For example, themid-term appraisal of the IX Planprogramme by the PlanningCommission, Government of India(2001) shows that in watershedssurveyed in Maharashtra and AndhraPradesh, the productivity gains did notlast more than two years (Soussan andReddy, 2003). Similar were theoutcomes in some of the modelwatersheds taken up by ICAR.Productivity and production went upduring the implementation phase andfell immediately after the completion ofthe project, some of which had evenbagged national productivity awards.Productivity associated crop practices,including those actively propagated andsupported by watershed developmentprojects are something of a mixed bag,with little consistency in agronomicpractices or in the nature of input. Theyare an eclectic mixture of productivityconcerns and practices that are part ofthe dominant high input agriculture,along with a sprinkling of eco-friendlyinputs such as vermi compost, NADEPcompost etc. Instances of integratedpest management and integratednutrient management practices are alsovisible in certain watersheds along withconventional chemical fertilizers. Moststudies also indicate that, for the mostpart, crop technology and cultivationpractices follow the mainstream high-input based agricultural framework andmost of the performance evaluationindicators also revolve around thisproductivity framework.

32 See Reijnteset al. (1992) for agood expositionon LEISA.

83

Since initial input use in mostwatershed areas is quite low, higherinput levels to achieve higher yieldsmay not be negatively correlated withecosystem improvement. Yet, it isnecessary to identify crop practicesthat have environmentalconsequences. For example, anappreciable rise in fertilizer use withinthe LEISA32 paradigm may representan equal productivity increase with littleenvironmental damage, whileachieving the same productivity gainsfrom high-input strategies may lead tosignificant pesticide and fertilizerresidues and other environmentallyharmful impacts. Nevertheless, theindicators used would show the latteras indicating better performance.In our field visits we found that, in thecase of the newer projects, there aresome concerted efforts to encourageenvironment-friendly practices. Forinstance, AFARM in Dornali village haspromoted organic farming throughawareness camps and also organiseddemonstration of NADEP compostmethod. A few farmers have expressedwillingness to follow natural pest controlmethods and also use organic manure.In some of the DROP initiatives, peoplewere encouraged to take up preparationof compost using agriculture wastes andwere given training in different methodsof application of green manure andintegrated nutrient management (INM).Certain integrated pest management(IPM) practices like placing poles infields to attract birds to eat the insectsand pests have also been tried.Following training to farmers on fertilizerapplication methods, they have beenable to bring in more efficiency byadopting split application of fertilizerdoses. However, many of thesepractices occur few and far between andmost often with the active involvement ofthe PIAs. This is observable from thedefunct vermin composting and NADEPpits in some of the villages in which thishas been propagated.

4.4 Sustainability of Institutions andSocial ProcessesIt is assumed that participation as wellas social and institutional issues play acrucial role in effective implementationand sustaining watershed efforts. Withthis objective almost all projects have

created mechanisms and strategiesfor community participation, socialarrangements and institutionalmechanisms. The larger issuesrelated to the above will be dealt with indetail in another chapter. Here we limitourselves to the performance issues inrelation to sustainability. Institutions areexpected to continue their functions inthe post-implementation/PIAwithdrawal phase with regard tocommunity actions for sustainablemanagement of the project and PIAsare expected to create a roadmap inthis regard as part of their exit strategy.There are also a number of socialprocesses and community regulatorysystems evolved or put as part ofproject conditionality in quite a fewprogrammes. The issues are whetherthese institutional framework andmanagement strategies are able tocontinue in the post-project period andwhether they are equipped to handlepost-management responsibilities. A lotdepends on the way institutional andsocial frameworks are formed andevolved, the capacities and the vision.Since institutions are considered aprecondition for project implementation,they are organized as prescribed in theguidelines into bodies such as theWatershed Association, WatershedCommittee, User Groups (UGs), SHGsetc. They also perform certainresponsibilities in relation to projectimplementation, together with theWatershed Development Team (WDT).However very little information isavailable on their structure and functionsin the post-project period. User groups,in government-supported projects, areorganized with the objective of futuremaintenance but our analysis of theVidharbha evaluation by Dharamitrashows that in 28 per cent of the casesno UGs have been organized, and inwatersheds where they are organized,UG members are unaware about theirresponsibilities nor has their capacitybeen built to work cohesively as a unit.The IGWDP has no UGs and theresponsibility of maintenance lies withthe Village Watershed Committee(VWC). However there is no conclusiveevidence from IGWDP projects to provethat the VWC is performing its duty withrespect to maintenance after thewithdrawal of the NGO.In the implementation phase, theseinstitutions play a complementary and

84

supportive role and many of theirfunctions are more in terms of assistingthe PIA in the smooth implementation ofthe project. It is often noted that somemembers are only active in this and thatthe institutional responsibilities are notholistically realized. Capacity-building isnoticed as being poor and many studiesshow that the funds earmarked forcapacity- building and communityorganization are not fully utilized,especially in government-supportedprojects. The Vidarbha evaluationshows that in 64 out of 115 watersheds,training funds were neither released norany training conducted. The situation isalmost the same in the case ofcommunity mobilization funds. Even thecurriculum is more oriented towardsfunctional needs related to project-implementation and very littleinformation is disseminated onknowledge and vision building. Theabrupt withdrawal of the PIA leavesthese institutions in a vacuum and theyare unable to comprehend the emergingdemands and to respond institutionally.In quite a few NGO projects, the NGO'scontinuous presence even after theproject completion has at least keptsome active members. The bestillustration is the large number of UGspromoted under different watershedprogrammes. In the post-project periodalmost all these groups (in quite a fewcases it is noticed that during projectimplementation, they do not even knowthat they are UG members) are non-existent, except in certain cases wherethey have a definite role in using andmanaging certain resources such asfodder. Once the purpose is achieved,i.e. meeting the project implementationtarget they loose their original relevanceand become defunct. There are noclearly defined portfolios, nor activitiesor resources for them to continuefunctioning. The moral/symbolic capitalof the group and their continuousinfluence on the community is thus atjeopardy. It is also evident from our fieldvisits that enforcing norms andgovernance becomes difficult for thesegroups after PIA withdrawal. This isevident from instances of free grazing,cultivation of water-intensive crops etc.which otherwise were part of the socialregulations in the implementation. Oneexception, which is often noticed, is thecontinuity of most SHGs created underwatershed programme. This may be dueto the economic agenda and continuous

flow of inputs. Here one has to take apractical and non-romantic approachto ensure continuity of theseinstitutions, such as ensuring that theactive members are trained in someof the post-project responsibilities andsystems of incentives are designed.Their skills could be built in certainareas in which services are requiredat the village level. Service users canpay them, and they can also be paidhonorarium for the public andcommunity services they provide.Such attempts are being made insome of the watersheds.

4.5 ConclusionThe programmes show a wide range ofimpacts, that affect not only theenvironment but also bring aboutchanges in livelihoods. However, it isnot as simple to make an observationabout the direction of these effects -negative or positive. Each of the'natural' outcomes of a watershedprogramme is supplemented andmultiplied by a 'human choices', leadingto final outcomes which alonedetermine the long-term impacts interms of equity and sustainability.Unless choices are made scientificallyand in a long-term perspective throughthe planning, implementation andmonitoring of these programmes mostof them could fail, under-perform theirpotential or bring in negative impacts interms of equity and sustainability! Infact, at some places it has beenobserved that at the projectimplementation stage itself there areserious lapses that could result innegative externalities. Often, at places ithas been observed that ContinuousContour Trenches (CCTs) happenalong the slope; or in waterlogged/saline soils the rise in the water tablemight make the situation worse;extensive land levelling using heavyearth moving machinery can have long-term negative impacts or theencouraging of subsidiary activities likesetting up of brick kilns, soil mining fromhillsides etc., can right away bring innegative environmental outcomes evenat the start of watershed programmes.The current programmes and alsostudies lay great emphasis on theimplementation and design ofwatershed programmes with the aim of

85

seeing a maximum number ofsuccessful programmes. However,there seems to be much lesseremphasis on, attention paid to andmanagement of the linkage of effectsrelated to the irrigation methods, cropchoices, production methods and land-use choices by farmers. These areimportant in light of the fact that thesepolicies remain crucial to deliver thedesired long-term socio-economic oreven environmental effects, even ifmost of the watershed programmeswere successful in theirimplementation. Also, a normativeapproach to such development needsto be adopted. Certain PIAs distributeand encourage use of chemical inputsand HYV seeds to increaseproductivity, while certain other PIAshave concentrated on encouragingorganic farming along with the creationof seed banks to preserve local varietyof seeds and reduce dependence onoutside markets. Certain PIAs haveconsciously adopted other eco-friendlytechnologies such as the promotion ofbio-gas plants and solar lighting whileother PIAs are not concerned with soilmining in their watersheds or brickkilns. If the microcosm of watersheddevelopment is to be linkedsuccessfully with sustainable ruraldevelopment then attention to theseaspects assumes importance. It is alsoin the context of these interventions thatissues related to equity are going togain importance. For example, theprojects differed in their approach togranting land rights to the landless.While some NGOs see the provision ofland to the landless as a way toresolve inequitable resource accesswithin the watershed, others believe inlifting encroachment by the landless tofree common lands for regeneration.

The processes that lead to these kindsof impacts, and their dimensions arerelated to the nature and extent ofhuman activity. The onus of the type ofimpact falls upon human decisions,which have to be guided by bettertraining and participation.However, to put into practice the issuesof sustainability at the community levelrequires new systems and strategieswhich may be qualitatively differentfrom what existed during themobilization and implementationphase of watersheds. Some of thecomponents can be integrated duringthe implementation phase itself, suchas creating sustainable production andresource utilization models. However,as mentioned above, many attemptsdie immediately after the withdrawal ofthe PIA. Watershed dwellers aremobilized for the attempt atrehabilitation, with the prospect ofimproved productivity and livelihoods,and farmers try to maximize the returneven if it is at the cost of unsustainablepractices. Then what are the incentiveswhich can be designed in the projectthat will encourage farmers to adoptpractices that encourage sustainableuse and methods, and how can thechanging demands and claims can bemet without compromising the"balance" of the ecosystem (or itsprimary productivity). Having achieved aparticular stage in the development thatis resource conservation, reaching thenext stage i.e., the sustainable use ofresources, necessitates new challengesand structures. This may be investmentflows to ensure sustainability (subsidies,at present, hardly make a differencebetween sustainable and unsustainableuse that they are put into), serviceprovision (rural service centers for alarge cluster of villages), enforcingnorms and governance and incentivesfor sustainable users, informationprovision, marketing and systems thatensure quality for sustainable productsand general vision building forsustainable growth processes. Thetimeframe of watershed developmentalso needs to be revisited as the unit ofplanning. For example, it may not bepossible to address groundwatersustainability issues within a 500 hawatershed, but may require aquifer-based planning and mobilization.

86

Watershed Development: Equity andGender

5.1 ContextIssues related to equity have become animportant concern in watersheddevelopment especially of late and withthe advent of watershed development asa strategy to create sustainable rurallivelihoods. For a long time, however,this issue did not enter the discourseand practice of watershed development.Even now there is scant evidence onhow the issue is put into practice andreflected in the outcomes of watersheddevelopment. The focus of watersheddevelopment, and of earlier soil andwater conservation programmes likebunding has been on soil conservationand to an extent on resourceaugmentation. Equitable distribution ofthe increased resources and its accessand benefits to the resource poor werenot on the agenda of both policy makersand practitioners. As a result, most ofthe studies at that time did not look atdistributive equity as an importantaspect in project assessment.Things have, however, changed over theyears. More and more people are nowtalking about equity and the term, ingeneral, has acquired someacceptability among practitioners,researchers, policy makers, and donors.The importance of the concern is alsoreflected in the watershed guidelines.The revised guidelines of the Ministry ofRural Development (MoRD) list one ofthe objectives of watersheddevelopment as promotion of overalleconomic development and improvingthe socio-economic condition of theresource poor and disadvantagedsections residing in the programmesarea. Selection criteria for watershedsalso highlight the importance of

Chapter 5 selecting villages with a preponderanceof resource poor and SC/ST families.The Eswaran Committee, which lookedinto the question of training andcapacity building in the context ofwatershed development, especiallyafter the 1994 Common Guidelines, hasbeen quite forthright in expressing itsconcern for equity as one of the goalsof watershed developmentprogrammes. To quote from theexecutive summary of the report:"There is need for undertaking activitiesfor the benefit of the rural poor, namelylandless and other weaker sections. Itshould be clearly provided that thelandless and other weaker sections ofthe Watershed Community have equalrights of access and use of resourcesavailable in the form of agriculturalproducts, namely, fruits, fuel, fodderetc., in the village common lands.Wherever community assets arecreated in the form of community waterresources, fishponds etc., a mechanismof sharing it with the rural poor, namelythe landless and other weaker sections,should be worked out along withsharing of usufructs from the villagecommon lands. Some of the benefits,which would accrue from watershedprojects, would be in the form of greaterand equitable rights like generation ofemployment, higher agriculturalproduction and availability of greaterbiomass, especially fuel wood andfodder. This helps in betteropportunities for non-farm employmentfor the rural poor and an increase in thegeneral wage level due to increase inopportunities." (Joy, Paranjape et.al,2005).The report of the technical committeeon watershed development under thechairmanship of Shri. S. Parthasarathyalso highlights the importance ofaddressing the issue of equity."Discrimination against women, Dalits,Adivasis and the poor in resource-useand access is widespread. Anydevelopment programmes based onlocal initiative need to be necessarilyaccompanied by effective socialmobilization in favour of these sociallyand economically disadvantagedgroups. Detailed agreements on sharingwater and other benefits need to beworked out well before any constructionactivity is started. Otherwise, all thewater harvested will be cornered by the

87

dominant elite. And this is whathappened in all watershed programmesin India. It must be recognized that thebenefits of public investments on publicland must be seen as a public good, tobe shared with equity amongst allsections.' (From Hariyali to Neeranchal,Report of the Technical Committee onWatershed Development, 2006).Our review of the watershed experienceillustrates that there is a wide range ofunderstanding of what is meant byequity and how it manifests itself inparticular watershed contexts.Addressing equity concerns in thewatershed context, therefore, requiresproblematising equity itself and explicitlyhighlighting what is meant by equity.Watershed development, by its ownlogic, often promotes inequitableoutcomes. This is so because the natureof benefits is often based on one'sspatial location within the watershed andupon the location of one's assets suchas land, well etc., and on pre-existinginequalities of caste, class and gender.In areas where it is being promoted, ithas to cope with this context ofinequitable resource endowments andfind ways and means to promote equityin processes and outcomes.This chapter examines how questions ofequity are being addressed withinwatershed development projects. Themajor part of the chapter focuses on thespatial and socio-economic inequitiesthat exist within watersheds, the mannerin which these are being addressed indesign and practice, and the successand failures of such initiatives. We alsolook at what is revealed in the scantliterature on watershed and equity. Asmall section analyses the issue ofgender in watershed development.

5.2 Watershed Development: ExistingInequitiesThe increased awareness about equityissues in watershed development is anacceptance, at one level, of the fact thatwatershed development per se does notpromote equity. The nature of theproject has a lot to do with it. Sincewatershed development is a land-basedactivity, the primary beneficiaries will belandholders, as benefits will mostlyfollow the contours of existinginequalities, resource ownership and

property rights. Because there aresignificant inequities in terms ofownership and access to resources andassets, watershed development couldpotentially reinforce existing inequalities.Thus strategies of addressing the issueof equity on one hand has to see thatexisting inequalities are not widened asa result of the intervention, but thatbenefits of interventions are more orless equitably distributed amongdifferent socio-economic and historicallydisadvantaged sections.Since watershed development is anarea-based development implemented ina specific geographical unit, thebiophysical issues also impinge onequity in outcomes. The location whereone owns land, the capability of the landbased on the extent of slope, depth andstructure of soil, nature of erosion,underlying geology and a host of otherfactors influence the extent of benefits/outcomes and its distribution in differentparts of the watershed. Most often, theoutcomes always favour the valleyportion as compared to the upperreaches and the transitional zones in thewatershed. Conservation in the ridgeportion helps in percolation andaccumulation of water in the lowerreaches. This issue is very important inthe context of watershed-related equity,since the people on the upper reachesreally do not have any control on suchgeo-hydrological processes even thoughthey are conscious about the fact thatthe outcomes are unfavourable to them.The emphasis on converting all therainfall into groundwater results inpeople in the valley gaining most of thebenefits. The upstream-downstreaminequality in outcomes/benefits isobserved as a point of contentionamongst people (based on their spatiallocation) in a given watershed, such asnot agreeing for conservation in theupper reaches, demanding a share andthe lifting of water from commonharvesting structures at downstream orthrough disinterest in maintenance andupkeep of conservation measures.Conservation measures on the upperreaches also create problems for thosefamilies who own these lands due torules of restrictions in use and access. Itis generally observed that these landsare poor in quality, degraded anddenuded and most often owned by theresource poor such as dalits, small and

88

marginal farmers. In other instances, itmay be a common property landresource (CPLR), traditionally used bythe herders, landless and the poor.Protecting such lands from erosionhazards requires vegetating thelandscape, which, in turn, meansplacing restrictions on grazing andfirewood collection. Many programmeshave such conditions where people areexpected to enforce a ban on freegrazing and clear felling of trees forregenerating these lands eithercollectively or as individual owners. Theirony of a watershed developmentproject is that the cost involved in suchrestrictions is often to be met by thepoor which is beneficial for the farmersat the lower end of the watershed.Inhabitants of the upper reaches,therefore, provide an unpaidenvironmental service to the lowerreaches (Kerr, 2002).Another set of possible losers in such ascenario of social restrictions is thecommunity of herders and pastoralists,especially those who rear smallruminants. It is noted that (Kerr et al.,2000), in some cases in Maharashtra,the closing of the commons forregeneration has denied herders theirtraditional rights. Herders, in fact,complained that even whereregeneration had already taken place,the commons have remained closed tothem, threatening their livelihoodinterest. It is often noticed that herdersare often forced to take their livestock toother areas outside the watershed.Another issue, which reinforces andaccentuates spatial inequality is thelocation of water harvesting structuressuch as check dams, percolation tanks,larger nala bunds etc. These structuresare often constructed on the lowerreaches of the drainage system (wherethe nala is wide, comparatively deepand less sloppy), which is also the valleyportion of the watershed area. Plotscloser to these structures benefit moreas compared to lands located in otherparts of the watershed. In this situationtoo, the spatial issue of inequality isclosely linked to other socio-economicaspects such as caste, class etc.,because most often the landholders inthe lower reaches are better off farmerswith quality land and access to irrigationsources such as wells. Thus we couldconclude that watershed development

has to engage with a whole lot ofnegative externalities and existinginequalities and traverse towards equityin outcomes, which is not as easy as itlooks. It is often realized that existinginequalities in terms of land holding,location and quality of land etc., aredifficult to overcome through awatershed activity, but some kind ofequity in benefits can be achievedthrough ensuring access to augmentedresources, that are direct outcomes ofwatershed interventions. For this tohappen, it is necessary that equity as aprinciple is integrated into thewatershed development strategy,design, rules and regulation andprocesses of implementation.It is important that concerns of equityand strategies to reduce thevulnerability of the resource poor arepart of the project from the initial stagesof designing and planning.Unfortunately watershed development,with its emphasis on an area-basedapproach and land-based interventions/development, has very little to offer tothe resource-poor, (especially thelandless and women) in the planningstage and most often their concerns donot get any space in the planning,except may be as wage labourers inwatershed work. Even where suchconcerns find a place in the plan, it is interms of non land-based activities andnot in terms of building a stake in theregenerated ecosystem resources. Insuch situations, one can always saythat such a strategy of addressing theissue of equity and vulnerabilityreduction can be achieved even outsidethe watershed framework andintervention. Another argument thatoften emerges is that watersheddevelopment is undertaken in areaswhere everyone is poor and addressingthis concern of generic poverty is moreimportant than addressing the issue ofinequity in resource allocation andaccess. This however, ignores therelative vulnerability of certain sections,especially the asset-less, and their highchances of falling into distress ascompared to those with some assets totide over a crisis. It is more important inthe context of sweeping changeshappening in the rural economytogether with disappearance anderosion of traditional safety nets.

89

5.3 Addressing the Issue of EquityAs mentioned earlier, watersheddevelopment is implemented in anunequal socio-economic space and thewatershed community is divergent in itscomposition and relation/access to theresources. Thus the first step in theprocess of addressing the issue ofequity is understanding the structure andcomposition of the community and theways in which different sections dependon watershed ecosystem resources fortheir livelihoods. Watersheddevelopment, which is aimed atregeneration and augmentation ofecosystem resources, in many waysimpacts the livelihood systems of thesedifferent social sections and they includethe landless and agricultural labourers,poor and marginal farmers, middle andrich farmers, women, sedentary andmigrant livestock herders etc.Understanding their relation with theresources and planning the interventionin such a way that their livelihoodconcerns (especially of the resourcepoor) are built into the intervention isnecessary so that watersheddevelopment becomes more equitableand livelihood-oriented. New-generationprojects have realized the importance ofthis aspect to a small extent and haveincorporated strategies such asstakeholder analysis and livelihoodanalysis as important aspects ofwatershed development. Before goinginto the details of these aspects, let ussee how this issue is addressed bywatershed projects in India. Kerr (2002)has worked out a detailed typology ofapproaches used by different projects toaddress the issue of equity. Theyinclude: a) working in particularly poorareas; b) employing poor people inwatershed works; c) counting on trickleddown benefit to reach the poor; d) beingsensitive to poor people's' needs duringimplementation; e) undertaking nonland-based income-generation activityfor the poor and the landless; f) givingpoor people decision-making power; g)using other subsidies in their favour; andh) guaranteeing poor people usufructright to the resources whose productivitythe project enhances. However, itshould be noted here that this typologydoes not explicitly talk about equitableaccess to water or equitable sharing ofwater resources. This may be becausethese are the issues on which theprogrammes can have an influence and

make it part of the conditionality orfacilitate it in the watershed, ascompared to equity in access to surfaceand groundwater. In some projects acertain quantum of the fund is meant forcreating livelihoods for the resource-poor, as is the case in NWDPRA where7.5 per cent of the project cost isearmarked for the landless, or as inIGWDP where five per cent of theproject cost is given to women's self-help groups (SHGs) for undertakingdifferent socio-economic activities.There is also a provision of revolvingfund for SHGs in the MoRD/Hariyaliprojects. Now we will look how thesedifferent systems/mechanisms, either aspart of project design or as part offacilitation and implementation, couldaddress the issue of equity and createlivelihoods for the resource poor.33

5.3.1 Operationalizing Equity throughDesign/Strategy and Implementation In order to address the issue of equity inoutcomes, watershed developmentprojects have adopted certain strategiesin design and the method ofimplementation. These may be throughstrategies of biophysical interventions,institutional arrangements andmechanisms (including systems of rulesand regulations, resource/usufructsharing mechanisms etc). However, weshould keep in mind that most of thesestrategies are incorporated as part of theproject design where the funding/facilitating organizations have a directcontrol in decisions regardingimplementation. An important but oftenun-addressed issue in the context ofensuring resource access to theresource-poor is the issue of 'rights' overresources. In most watershedprogrammes it is often considered assomething the community can facilitateand ensure. To an extent this is true, butin the absence of legal andadministrative frameworks andpronunciations, ensuring rights may faceproblems for resources located indifferent property regimes. Besides,ensuring 'new rights' on resources maybe in conflict with the traditional/customary rights and other forms ofaccesses outside the framework ofmoral/legal view- points (for examplepilferage of resources from commonsand others partly contributed to thelivelihoods of the most poor and sociallyexcluded sections).

33 Howeverthere are someprogrammeslike IGWDP andMYRADA-implementedwatershedswhere villageswith highincidence oflandlessnessare excludedfrom watershedimplementation.Theseprogrammesgive preferenceto villages withfewer landlesspeople. Morethan anythingelse, it is a frankadmission bytheimplementingagencies of thelimitations of thewatershedprogrammes toaddress thelivelihood issuesof the resource-poor sections,especially insituations wherethe proportion ofthe landless isvery high andprojects do nothave budgetaryallocations toundertakelivelihoodactivities forthem

90

On addressing the issue of equity, thetechnical committee observes that, "thebottomline has to be that benefits fromany resources created through theproject must be equitably shared." Thereport also suggests certainmechanisms to address the issue ofequity, such as conflict-resolution troughdemocratic means; beneficiary selectiongiving priority ranking to dalits, adivasis,poor farmers, women-headedhouseholds, etc; working out detailedagreements on benefit-sharing andproviding employment to those in direneed. In what follows, we considerspecific interventions and how they haveaddressed the questions of equity.

Land-based activitiesMost project measures in watersheddevelopment predominantly revolvearound land-based activities. Hence thebenefits also will be in favour of thelanded section and within the landedsections, most benefits may accrue tothe rich and large farmers in particular.Project design with the area as the unitof investment, may also result in largeinvestments for farmers with largeholdings as compared to small andmarginal farmers. Except for NWDPRA,and some bilateral and multilateralprojects implemented by thegovernment, there has been no financialallocation or investments in favour of theresource-poor and landless.The ridge-to-valley approach isdesigned as an attempt to address theissue of equity to an extent in manyprojects. Besides the technicalobjectives of arresting soil erosion andsiltation of downstream structures, theridge-to-valley approach is a strategy togive preference to marginal farmers andtheir lands located in the ridge areas, sothat investments are not completelycornered by well to do valley farmers.This is commonly known as equity incoverage (Soussan and Reddy 2003).This need not mean that equity incoverage means equity in investmentsas people with more land get higherinvestments and maybe higher returns,even in a ridge-to-valley approach. Thispattern is strictly followed in IGWDPvillages evaluated as part of this study.Here the emphasis is on full coverage ofthe village starting from the upperreaches with high investments on these

areas. This system is followed in quite afew projects being implemented byNGOs in the state. Many of theseprojects have also attempted toregenerate the fallow lands in thefoothills, either as cultivable lands or asdryland horticulture plots. Most often,these poor quality lands belong to thepoor and they are unable to invest ontheir own and reclaim it for cultivation.As compared to this one could observefewer investments in land-basedactivities in government-supportedprojects, as revealed in the evaluationof 115 watersheds in Vidharba byDharamitra. This may be because farmbunding as an activity was not preferredin DPAP villages. However, there wereattempts to dig contour trenches andundertake plantation even thoughachievements in plantation are onlyaround 15 per cent of what is beingproposed. The emphasis is on waterharvesting structures mainly on thecommon nala and, in some instances,in private lands. However one couldconclude that ridge-to-valley is notclearly followed as a strategy in theseprojects.The ridge-to-valley approach with itshigh emphasis on area coverage maynot always result in equity in outcomesand indeed often has manyshortcomings. First of all, while theridge-to-valley approach helps intreating the marginal lands of theresource-poor, this does not guaranteethem any share in the improved waterresource, which generally isappropriated by farmers in the lowerreaches. In the absence of waterresources and other investments/inputsrequired for cultivation of reclaimedlands, the resource-poor often fail tomake any substantial returns from theselands. Even in marginal lands whereplantation is undertaken (either ofdryland horticulture or of timberspecies), the results are not veryencouraging because of low survivalrates, poor growth and high gestationtime required to get benefits in case offorest and timber species. This is due tomultiplicity of factors, and one of themajor reasons observed is non-availability of water for some amount ofprotective irrigation, especially duringpeak summer. Where the soil depth ofsuch plots is good and the rainfall isbetter, the results are, to an extentencouraging. Otherwise, most often

91

investments in these lands fail to createsustainable livelihood assurance for theresource poor and defeat the purpose ofridge-to-valley in terms of ensuringequity in outcomes. There are alsoshort-term costs the marginal farmersand landless have to bear in terms oftreatment in the upper reaches.Protecting these (common as well asprivate) lands often creates problems forthem with regard to livestock grazing,and in places where they resist the ban,certain social sanctions are also broughtto bear upon them. To an extent we cansay that in the ridge-to-valley approach,the marginal farmers and the poor arebear a certain portion of the cost toprovide increased groundwater to thevalley farmers. However, we are able tosay that some investments are reachingout to the poor in a ridge to valleyapproach, as compared to treatmentsundertaken on demands of the farmers.Analysing the issue of equity in anIGWDP34 project, Srinivasa ReddySrigiri notes that: "although the overall impact of theproject on the livelihood of the people ofthe project area has been remarkable,there have been significant differencesin the benefits accrued betweenmarginal farmers and landless labourers.While the marginal farmers benefitedfrom the improved natural resource basedirectly by increasing productivity andadopting economically favourablecropping patterns, the landless could notderive their full share of benefits from theproject due to lack of access to land.Other institutional building efforts didless to strengthen their voice andbargaining power to articulate theirinterests. Hence equity and povertyissues (in relation to landless) could notbe addressed effectively." (S. Reddy,2003).The same concern has emerged in ananalysis of equity issues in the HivreBazar project. In her study of the village,Priya Sangamemeswaran notes thatlanded sections are the mainbeneficiaries from the improvedresources, even though certain benefitshave accrued to the landless (such asdrinking water and benefits from othersubsidies); on both class and genderlines the equity in outcomes (projectbenefits/improved resources) is found tobe very weak. (Sangameswaran, 2005).Some NGOs in Maharashtra like

AFARM (villages in Nandurbar andSolapur districts) and Social Center (inBeed district) have tried to address theissue through the targeted approach ofdeveloping marginal lands belonging tothe resource-poor 35. Though thisinitiative may not be watersheddevelopment in the strict sense of theterm, they do contour and soil surveys,and uses several watershed measuressuch as farm bunds, farm ponds, gullystabilization works etc. together withdryland agricultural techniques. AFARMhas also started a grain bank andimplement bank. The implement bank,together with sharing of work, helps intimely agricultural operations. Howeverthere is not much information regardingthe impact of these initiatives onlivelihoods of the resource poor andmarginal sections.

Common landsThe development of the CPLR is oftenstrategized as a mechanism to providecertain benefits to the resource-poor in awatershed. Development of CPLRimproves the availability of fodder andfuel, and if proper strategies in terms ofallocation of rights and institutionalarrangements for management areevolved in favour of the resource poor, itcan possibly address the issue of equityto an extent. However, experienceshows that this is not always the case,and the reasons are many.Although most watershed projects aimat regenerating the CPLR through soiland water conservation measures,planting and protection, we find that byand large the performance is not alwaysencouraging, except maybe for fodderwhere open/free grazing is banned.However, the ban on open grazing hasits negative impact on people especiallyfor those who own small ruminants suchas goats. In many villages inMaharashtra where watersheddevelopment has taken place, dalits andagricultural labourers who have smallruminants have been affected by grazingbans (Kerr et al. 1998). The case ofAgadgaon is worth citing here. Peoplehere were forced to get rid of their goatsand this affected their livelihoods. Nearlya hundred women from the village weretaken to the Mahatma Phule AgriculturalUniversity at Rahuri to be 'sensitized' onthe environmental hazards of keeping

34 There is nobudgetaryallocation forany livelihoodactivity for thelandless in theIGWDP.35 DeccanDevelopmentSociety (DDS)has alsoundertakensuch measureswith theobjective ofaddressing theissue of equity.For somedetails see ajoint publicationof DDS andWASSAN- Onthe Margin --Poor and theirLands: a caseforcomprehensivepublicinvestments,August 2004.

92

goats. Despite this sensitizationexposure the local people were angrywhen they have to find alternatives andnearly 5,000 of their goats were to besold or to migrate to other areas. TheAsthayi Samiti (ad-hoc committee) hadto bear the brunt of their rage. The banon grazing is always presented as a banon goats and the difficulties the goatowners have to undergo is also reportedfrom IGWDP villages (Vaiju Babulgaonand Ambewadi). Most often it is noticedthat a ban on open grazing haspolarized villages and the powerlesssuch as shepherds, landless and poorwomen have to bear the cost for thegeneral 'public good'. Converting smallruminants to stall-fed milch animals isnot always feasible for the landless andmarginal farmers due to a variety ofreasons.It is also noticed that in lots of instancesthe CPLRs are not taken up fortreatments. Administrative bottlenecks,encroachments and existing conflictsare some of the reasons for this. Unlikeprivate lands, treatment of commonsposes a lot of problems for the PIA.There are many pre-existing claims andconflicts to be resolved, besides workingout common and consensually evolvedstrategies for developing these lands.PIAs often find these tedious andconflict creating. Getting administrativeclearance to treat commons is alsofound to be a problem, except, may befor lands under the Gram Panchayat. Inplaces where commons are treated, thedegree of benefit-sharing and allottingrights in favour of the landless or theresource-poor has not been veryencouraging. Most often the entirevillage community shares the benefitsfrom the regenerated resources. This isobserved in the IGWDP villages underreview, where common lands aretreated under the watershed projects.Inmany instances administrative/legalallocation of user rights is found as aproblem due to resistance fromrespective revenue/administrativebodies responsible for the CPLRs.In many watersheds there are lot offorestlands and most often the forestdepartment does not give permission totreat forest lands. An exception is in thecase of IGWDP where VWC, incollaboration with the forest department,implements joint forest management(JFM) where the community is assigned

the rights on non- timber forest produce(NTFPs) such as grass, dry branches oftrees and other minor forest produce. InVaiju Babulgaon, where JFM isimplemented, people have reportedavailability of grass to cut and carry.However, under JFM too, rights overresources are assigned to allhouseholds living in the village, ratherthan to any specific group.

WaterWater is among the critical componentsfor increased productivity andlivelihoods, and the major objective ofany watershed development isenhancement of this resource tooptimize productivity. Since water iscrucial to any livelihood activity, itsavailability and access is very importantfor those inhabiting the watershed,especially the resource-poor. But inrespect of equity, water is atroublesome issue. The issue becomesmore complex if the augmented waterresource is in the form of groundwater,as often happens in watersheddevelopment. In such a situation wateris treated strictly as a private resourceand rights over water are tied to landrights. Since water rights and land rightsare so closely tied, the location and thesize of one's holding generallydetermines who gets how much water.By and large there are very fewattempts to prioritize water use orcreate strategies and norms for itsdistribution. People who have lands inthe valley and close to water harvestingstructures are locationally in afavourable position to gain the most. Inrecent times one has observed attemptsby NGOs to decentralize theconstruction of water-harvestingstructures (farm ponds, water pits etc.,at the upper reaches) to address theissue of equity. But one cannot say forsure whether such attempts bear theintended outcomes.Certain attempts have been made towork out a more equitable system forthe distribution of water, such as thatundertaken by the Pani Panchayat. Inthe Pani Panchayat effort, only groupschemes are undertaken and schemesfor individual farmers are discouraged,besides this, access to water is on thebasis of the number of persons in thefamily and not in proportion to the size

93

of the landholding of the family. A percapita provision of half-an-acre ofirrigation, not exceeding 2.5 acres perfamily is the agreed norm for waterdistribution. Water intensive crops likesugarcane are not supposed to begrown in the project area and thepreference is for seasonal crops withprotective irrigation. The landless alsohave water rights. However, a study onPani Panchayat shows that even thoughthe intention behind the formation andcontent of rules to get water to thelandless, was equity-based it could notbe translated into or achieve outcomesdue to many reasons36 . Anotherwatershed project implemented in thevillage Hivre Bazar attempted to ensurethe sustainable use of water through theban on borewell digging and cultivationof water-intensive crops, even thoughwater rights are linked to land rights andownership and access to open wells.This is the case in projects like IGWDPwhere there is 'rule formation' withreference to a ban on cultivation ofwater-intensive crops. In RalegaonSiddhi only group wells are promoted inthe watershed area. The objective ofsuch strategies, in water stress areas, isto ensure at least drinking water for allthe watershed dwellers throughrestraining overexploitation ofgroundwater resources. But in all theseinitiatives there are hardly any attemptsat distribution and rights of theaugmented water in favour of theresource-poor. Most often practitionersfeel that it is a very sensitive and difficultissue to handle at the village, and if at allthere is a possibility it can be done onlythrough legislation and stateintervention. Unequal access to wateralso has its impact in generating watermarkets in rural areas. People withaccess to a considerable amount ofwater sell it to farmers for a share in thecrops. There are also instances whereoutsiders buy land in the watershedarea, particularly those watershedswhich are well connected, and lift thewater for other uses such as brick kilnsand small enterprises.

Wage employmentEmployment-generation is one of thestated objectives of many of thewatershed programmes and it is beinghighlighted in all the major guidelines. Itis also assumed that besides creating

employment opportunities during theimplementation, watershed developmenthas the potential of generating moreemployment opportunities in the postproject phase, due to increasedagricultural activities. In a previoussection we have analysed the wageemployment created by watersheds indetail and our analysis shows thatwatershed development projects havebeen able to generate considerableemployment opportunities foragricultural labourers and otherresource-poor families. In the Dhramitraanalysis of 115 watersheds too, exceptfor one instance where machinery wasused, all other works were executedthrough wage labourers. In a project likeIGWDP the wage is based on outputsand a labourer generally earns morethan Rs 60/- a day for seven to eighthours of work. Besides, women andmen are given equal wages in projectwork. Generally full employmentopportunities are created in the projectperiod and preference is given tolandless and marginal farmers. Thereare instances where landless andmarginal farmers have created assetsthrough savings from watershed work.The NABARD evaluation of Rajaniwatershed reports a landless personbuying land with the savings fromwatershed work. The same is reportedfor Adgaon project where fullemployment is created duringimplementation and during the post-project period. However, higher wagesin watershed work and equal wages formen and women are not always easilyaccepted by the community, especiallythe rich farmers, fearing that this wouldlead to an increase in the general wagerate in the village and they would finddifficulty in getting labourers foragricultural work. To overcome thisproblem, some PIAs slacken watershedactivities during the peak agriculturalseason.There are some PIAs who argue infavour of use of machinery forwatershed implementation due to: fastimplementation; more robust and qualityconstruction (compacting of soil);greater output as compared to labouretc. It is noticed that big farmers alsoprefer to adopt machinery because it willnot affect the local wage rate andavailability of labour. However, it shouldbe noted that use of machinery results ina fair share of funds going out of the

36 For adetailedanalysis onissues of equityin water withreference tothree water-relatedinitiatives inMaharashtrasee PriyaSangameshwaran,2005.

94

village to contractors and owners ofmachinery instead of creatingemployment and livelihoods for theresource-poor.There are also arguments thatwatershed development createsincreased labour opportunities throughincreased agricultural activities. This iscited as the trickle down effect ofwatershed development having animpact on the equity. Change incropping pattern and cropping intensityhas the potential of generating moreemployment in rural areas but evidenceshows that there are regional andseasonal variations in availability oflabour, depending on agro-climaticfactors and the cropping pattern.Increased mechanization is alsoobserved with increased agriculturalactivity. It is also noted by manyimplementation agencies that watersheddevelopment results in an increasedwage rate (at least nominally) foragricultural activity, due to the increasedbargaining capacity of the labourershaving the option of working at awatershed site. However, these issuesneed further investigation andcomparisons with non-watershedvillages in the area. Most often changesoccurring in the wage rate are observedfor a larger area rather than for aparticular village. Another importantaspect is the seasonality of labouravailability, and it is often noticed thatlabourers are finding it difficult to getwork in the summer season when thereis not much agricultural activity. Thereare also instances in which seasonalmigration reappears once the watershedwork is over.

Non-land based activitiesNon land-based income generationactivities are often strategized as anattempt to address the issue of equityand livelihoods of the resource-poor.Certain projects have even a budgetallocation for the same. The NWDPRAguidelines have earmarked 7.5 per centof the project cost for livelihoodactivities for the landless and theresource poor. There is also a provisionfor a Revolving Fund for resource-poorSHGs in the Hariyali guidelines. Mostoften these are termed as 'watershedplus' measures. There are alsoattempts by some NGOs to facilitateother subsidy-oriented developmentactivities in favour of the poor. Thereare instances of small income-generation activities undertaken by theresource-poor in IGWDP watersheds inHivre Bazar etc. These are in the formof diary activities, petty shops, tailoring,flour milling etc. Most often theseactivities are channeled through SHGs.WOTR reports a total of 174 income-generation activities with SHGs(WOTR, 2004). However it is difficultsay whether these activities areundertaken with the resource poorSHGs benefiting mostly the poorest ofthe poor. In the case of Hivre Bazar, thebenefits received by the landless andmarginal farmers are in the form oflivestock, housing and small shops.Other benefits such as wells were oftengiven to medium and small farmers.Table 5.1 below show different subsidy-oriented schemes and the respectivebeneficiaries in Hivre Bazar.

SScchehemmee LandLandlleessss MMaarrggiinanal l FFaarrmmeerrss

SSmmaall ll FFaarrmmeerrss

SSeemmii--MMedediiuum m FFaarrmmeerrss

MMedediiuum m FFaarrmmeerrss

LaLarrge ge FFaarrmmeerrss TToottaall

Housing 6 (60)

2 (13.33)

1 (5.56)

1 (3.45)

0 (0)

0 (0)

10

Animals 3 (30)

1 (6.67)

0 (0)

1 (3.45)

1 (5.56)

0 (0)

6

Wells 0 (0)

0 (0)

4 (22.22)

3 (10.34)

3 (16.67)

0 (0)

10

Other 2 (20)

1 (6.67)

2 (11.11)

2 (6.9)

1 (5.56)

2 (25)

10

Table 5.1Beneficiaries across Different Class Categories37

Source:Householdinterviews,village records

N.B.: 1. Figures in brackets show beneficiaries as a percentage of each specific landholding class. 2.The category 'wells' also includes schemes for pipelines, motors etc. 3. Other schemes provide avariety of assets such as agricultural implements, cycles, a small tin shop to supply candy, toilets, etc.4. Schemes for fruit orchards have not been included because complete data about them is notavailable. However, the beneficiaries of these schemes have typically been medium and large farmers.

37 Source: PriyaSangameshwaran,(2005) Equity incommunity-basedsustainabledevelopment: acase study inWesternMaharashtra, Ph.D thesisUniversity ofMassachusetts,Amherst.

95

Most often the non land-based income-generation activities are conventional innature and very little assessment hasbeen done on the market potential ofsuch activities. Hence a lot of problem isobserved regarding its sustainability. Inthe absence of proper forward andbackward linkages, many of theseprogrammes fail to survive after thewithdrawal of the facilitating agencies.The sustainability of such programmesis also depending on the capacity of theentrepreneur and the skills imparted aspart of the project activity. Most oftengroup activities are not as successful asindividual activities, due to lack of groupcoordination and proper managementstructures. The bigger problem is that these non-farm activities have very little directlinkage to watershed activities. Nonland-based activities for the resource-poor and landless, without a directlinkage to the watershed activity, mostoften creates a situation where they feelisolated and without any stake inresource management. This may alsosometime lead to their exclusion fromany claims on renewed resourcesarguing that they have been given theirshare (through labour and incomegenerating activities) and any otherdemands and claims are unjust andunfeasible.

5.4 Gender issues in WatershedDevelopmentBefore we venture into understandinggender concerns in the watershedcontext both at the policy andprogramme level we need to understandsome of the debates that haveinfluenced policies around gender andnatural resources.Since the early 1970s there has beenconsiderable theoretical interest in therelationship between women, particularlypoor, rural women, and the naturalenvironment. The 'Women inDevelopment' discourse emerged as aresponse to the growing awareness thatwomen had a significant role to play indevelopment and, it was assumed, that iftheir energies were channelized,development efficiency would increase.Debates on Women in Environment andDevelopment (WED) were influenced bythe growing body of literature that

questioned the process ofmodernization on the one hand and theeco-feminist view that linked thedestruction of women and thedestruction of nature. Most of thedebates around this time portrayedwomen as victims of the developmentparadigm. Gradually the debate shiftedfrom viewing women as mere victims, torecognizing that they had a particularrole to play in natural resourcemanagement because of their local/traditional knowledge and privilegedexperience gained from working closelywith their environment. In this newscenario women came to be seen asprivileged knowers and therefore thesolution to the problem (Leach 1992).At the programmatic level we find thistranslating into extending women'sreproductive roles to the communityarena by seeking their participation inlocal resource management initiatives.Not only was this largely unpaid orpoorly paid and often tedious work, but itrested on the assumption that womenhad free time and a positive, indeedvoluntary inclination, towards protectingtheir deteriorating environment. Suchincreased responsibility withoutcommensurate gains in control overresources, knowledge and decision-making systems is beset with problems.It was around this time that we also seean emergence of critiques of thisapproach. Feminist political ecology(Rocheleau et al. 1996) and feministenvironmentalism (Agarwal 1992), seethe relationship of women andenvironment as being located in largersocial and political structures andcultural practices, and in the symbolicconstruction of power. Thesediscourses believe that a two-wayrelationship exists between gender andthe environment. Gender relations havean impact on how environments areused and managed, which in turnimpacts a change in ecological patternsover time. Similarly, environmentalchanges also have a significant impacton gender relations by altering thegender distribution of resources (Leach,Joekes and Green 1995).The shift from the Women inDevelopment (WID) approaches in theearly 1970s to the more recent feministenvironmentalism or feminist politicalecology approaches has not necessarilybeen one of a linear progression where

96

WID is viewed as the old approach to bediscarded. In fact what we see today innatural resource programmes is thedomination of the WID approach, whichseeks women's participation for efficientand effective implementation ofprogrammes, rather than empowerment.Prescriptions are often based on thecurrent understanding about genderrelations and roles and unfortunately thisdoes not seem to have changed despitethe wealth of understanding provided bygender studies. So whether it is thewatershed or any of the programmes inthe area of Natural ResourceManagement most of them are orientedalong the WID approach.

5.4.1.Operationalizing gender inwatershed policy and practiceIt would be rare to find a state-led ordonor-supported resource developmentprogramme that is silent on genderequity concerns these days. Thewatershed programme is no exceptionto this rule. However, there is a vast gapin statements made and in therealization of these statements. Oftenthe statements themselves areproblematic leading to solutions thatrarely have a lasting impact on thequestion of gender equity. Thequestioning therefore needs to be doneboth at the level of content, the tenor,motivation as well as what translatesinto action.Equity in general and gender equity inparticular are less understood aspects inthe context of watershed development.The few studies that do say somethingon gender equity are those wheregender equity is just a subtext in thelarger canvas. Others have been moreevaluatory in nature where a few strayrecommendations mention the need forimproving women's participation. But wefind little that actually analyses thepolicy and the experience of thewatershed programme from a genderperspective. The few studies (Vaze andAbraham 2004;, Seeley and Sarin 2000)that have looked at the actualexperiences of watershed in the contextof gender equity point to a great lack interms of addressing power relations,improving the overall entitlements andparticipation in decision-making ofwomen. D'Souza (1997) highlights anumber of tangible benefits arising outof watershed development in favour of

women. They include: a) increasedemployment because of the physicaltreatments of the watershed alsobecause of the extension of theagricultural period (it can also be anegative aspect in the sense that itincreases the workload); b) income andskill-development through nurseryraising and allied activities; c) income-generation through dairy, stall-fed goatrearing and poultry keeping; d)improvement in health and life style ofwomen; e) increased access to creditand, as a consequence, improvedstatus both within the household and inthe village.We feel that for understanding positivegender outcomes it would be importantto look at a few critical areas, which canbroadly form our framework of analysis.But before that it might be worthwhile todwell a little on what we mean bypositive gender outcomes. Broadlyspeaking (and this is certainly not anexhaustive understanding of genderequity) an understanding of positivegender outcomes would include anequitable access to goods andresources and a sharing of productiveand reproductive roles. Apart from thatit would be important to look at theunderlying cultural beliefs, whichinclude ideas, perceptions, behaviour,skills, abilities, attitudes, aspirations etc.of men and women.Gendered content of the watershedpolicy and programme still rests on theassumption that women need to bevisible but not necessarily change theirexisting work patterns or their roles.

5.4.2.Division of work andresponsibilityThe NWDPRA Guidelines say:"This project will focus on activities ofwomen both for reducing their drudgeryand increasing their efficiency, and willplan and provide for development ofspecific implements suited to women,provide fuel efficient stoves to saveenergy and also promote healthyenvironment in homes and the kitchen.Special training courses would bearranged to train women in processingand handling of bio-fertilizers in order todevelop a cottage industry which will beable to supply bio-fertilizers to the entireblock where these micro watershedsare located. The state government and

97

project authorities would endeavour todevelop location specific strategies toinvolve women in their areas in activitiesmeant for women".What one sees in these guidelines isthat the preferred role for women is theextension of their domestic roles andskills. There is little effort to get womenout of their current modes. To this effect,as far as present and past literature isconcerned, one fails to come acrosseven few references or studies, whichhave documented the impact ofwatershed development in terms ofgenerating or disseminatingtechnologies other than agriculture. Therural production system is a multi-enterprise system requiring a wide rangeof technologies/matching skills and otherfactors to improve overall productivity ofland and labour. However, this hasremained more in the domain of themale rather than the female.It has been observed from theexperience of even the most successfulwatershed management projects thatwomen's participation is synonymouswith their training in sewing andembroidery, carpet weaving and otherart and craft activities, broadly clubbedtogether as non land-based activities.Even in nursery training women areused more as labour and rarely allowedto contribute to the selection of thespecies to be raised in the nursery.Knowledge and skills determine anindividual's position in the organizationalhierarchy set up to implement projectactivities. Unfortunately, trainingprogrammes in watershed managementtarget men rather than women.Experience also shows that women arepreferred for physical tasks becausewomen are far easier to 'manage'. It isoften easier to handle the 'hassle free''accommodating' women than the highlypoliticized men.Thus women's participation in thewatershed programme is merely anextension of their domestic roles withvery little space for enhancing theirparticipation in other areas. Even if thisspace were provided women would notbe in a position to participate on equalterms because of the reproductive workthat women engage in. Unless there is ashared responsibility of domestic work,women's participation in the publicsphere would be restricted.

Some studies have shown thatwatershed development increased theworkload of women and continuity of theexisting division of labour. A case studyof Adgaon by Marathwada Sheti SahayaMandal (MSSM) who facilitated theprojects, notes:"What emerges is a sexual division oflabour, where men's role involves agreat deal of coordination, planning,implementation and monitoring of farmactivities. Women's domain of work ismore in areas which are preparatory innature supportive of work that menperform. What is striking is the strategiclocation of the entire range oftechnological aids to improve the workof men in fields. Technology andmodernization have left their workuntouched. Strange as it may sound, theonly work implements that womencontinue to use are the traditional handsickle, dibbling tool and baskets. Theentry of milch animals and increasedfarm productivity has had a multipliereffect on women's work in thehousehold. For women in Agadgaon,cattle care implies cutting, collection andtransportation of fodder, cleaning andcaring of animals, an additional chore intheir lives. Men milk and transport themilk to collection centers and collectpayments, disbursed once every tendays." 38

5.4.3 Property rightsMost activities undertaken underwatershed management projects areland-based. The major portion of thebudget provision, accounting for about70 per cent or more of the workcomponent, is spent on landdevelopment (Soussan and Reddy2003). This is very well-known anddocumented that women control a verysmall fraction of all agricultural land. Inthe absence of land title and ownershipof cattle, women do not have access tocredit. Despite the new guidelines,which look beyond the landowners, wecontinue to find that the watershedprogramme still largely focuses on soiland water conservation works that areon private lands. As a result of this focuswomen see little role for themselves.Interestingly the socio-culturalconstraints that prevent women fromcoming into decision-making do notusually prevent them from activelyengaging in agricultural labour. More

38 Researchstudy madeavailable byMSSM.However thecopy did nothave anydetails,including title,author, date etc.

98

than 80 per cent of rural women areinvolved in agricultural activities and yetwe find that their presence hardlymatters when it comes to resource-planning.It is stated in the WatershedDevelopment Project Guidelines thatprivate landowners shall contribute 10per cent of their land development cost,either through cash or through voluntarylabour, and the contribution towards theworks done on common lands shall befive per cent. There is, however, littleclarity on who would contribute this fiveper cent. This lack of clarity has oftenmeant that commons get excluded fromthe watershed programme and it is thelandless and the women who dependlargely on these commons for their fueland fodder needs. In fact someexperiences show that where thecommons were developed 5% ofcontribution was charged from peopleusing the land, such as gatherers offodder and fuel. These are mostlywomen from poor and landlesshouseholds who are usually unable tocontribute in cash and give it in the formof labour. Even if they do so, they maynot benefit greatly from such labour, inthe absence of institutionalarrangements for the priority access tothese women.Most gains, whether they are ofincreased productivity or water areusually in the control of men and rarelybenefit women even in an indirect way.In fact these productivity gains usuallyresult in increased workloads forwomen.A less studied area in this regard is howthe changing land-use patterns andenhanced productivities have changedthe land and resource ownershippatterns in the community. Improvedresources always dislodge women fromownership and men take over. This is anarea that may require a further enquiry.

5.4.4 InstitutionsProperty rights issues also link with themore general analysis of institutions:importantly, how positioning in thehouseholds, communities and otherinstitutions involved in decision-makingin watershed programmes, is gendered.We see a small representation forwomen in watershed committees, but

the SHGs which seem to have noorganic link with the watershedprogrammes, are considered as the'women's programme'. So, in alldecision-making positions we see asmall representation which iscompensated for by the formation of theSHGs -- the recognized and legitimizedinstitutional form for women'sempowerment. In fact, the watershedprogramme makes it mandatory to formSHGs, which according to Abrahamand Vaze's study have become more ofthrift or credit groups rather than actualself-help groups and lack integration/organic linkage of the SHG as aninstitution with the dominantdevelopment agenda of watershedrehabilitation. Often these SHGs ceaseto function on completion of thewatershed programme and as long asthey live they are basically functioningas thrift and credit groups. Thewatershed committee, the maindecision-making body, has a verynominal representation of women. Inthe evaluation conducted by Abrahamand Vaze in the Indo-GermanWatershed Development Projects themale members of the watershedcommittees on being asked why womenare needed at all in the watershedcommittees said "because the projectrequires it so" or, "because women aresincere".

5.4.5 EcologySoil and water conservation measurestaken up under watershed managementprogrammes on common propertyresources such as village commonlands, forest and water, change thestate of natural resources, especiallythat of water, soil and vegetation. This,in turn, impacts the way the women useresources. A piece of land allocated forreforestation can appear to be a soundconservation measure. However, if forexample, this was grazing land forgoats and cows kept by women, thenwomen will suffer as they have to grazethe goats elsewhere, probably furtheraway. The imposition of accessrestrictions on commons and forestland has led to successful regenerationof resources in watershed developmentareas. Experiences from differentplaces indicate that women, however,rarely benefit from this regeneration,mainly because they are unable to payfor the right to cut and carry fuel and

99

fodder. As a result, many women havebeen forced to reduce or sell theirlivestock. Furthermore, women have togo longer distances to fetch fuel wood,increasing the time spent in collection.Thus, without understanding or showingsensitivity to the dynamics of genderrelations in the use of natural resources,such CPR development efforts oftencurtail, rather than increase women'saccess to resources. These changingecologies have a negative impact ongender equity outcomes.

5.5. ConclusionAddressing the issue of inequity is oneof the most difficult aspects ofwatershed development. Watershed"plus" and livelihood approaches haveemerged as a means to tackle thisconcern. However, in these approachestoo the emphasis is on non land-basedmeasures for the resource poor. This inturn denies them the opportunity to get ashare in the renewed resources, such asfodder, fuel, water etc., which are thevery basis for livelihoods in rural areas.This is not to deny the importance ofnon-land income-generation activities.Quite often it is heard that a watershedproject cannot and nor it is equipped toaddress the issue of inequity, given thelimited time frame of the project and theinequalities that already exist in ruralareas. In our opinion, it is important toassert that at least the augmentedresources that are generated throughpublic funds and collective efforts mustcount as common pool resources,subject to collective decisions in respectof their allocation. There is need toassert this principle, though there wouldstill be a long way to practically realize iton the ground. However, if thecommunity accepts the principle as adesirable norm, it will evolve its ownmethods and strategies to realize it. Itmay work out different mechanismsbased on the imagination and ingenuityof its members. It is the initialacceptance that is the most crucial issueand the facilitating institutions have toplay a crucial role in this regard.Integrating poverty and gender concernsin watershed is very important andwithout addressing these issues, thesustainability of the efforts may also bein jeopardy. Planning, resource-allocation and monitoring has to factor

these issues. As willingness toparticipate is considered a preconditionfor undertaking watersheds, acommunity's commitment to earmark ashare of the augmented resource for theresource-poor should also be a basis forinitiating watershed development. Theissue is not regarding redistribution ofexisting resources, but creating certainentitlements for the disadvantaged andresource-poor in the augmentedresources. To realize this it is necessarythat social arrangements andinstitutional mechanisms for resource-sharing be in place before the actualimplementation and augmentation starts.It is often noticed that resource-regeneration/augmentation especially inCPLRs, without working out the detailsof access and sharing mechanisms,have excluded the poor in a latter stage,who otherwise had some access tothese areas/resources informally orthrough pilfering. Working out the detailsof institutional and resource-sharingmechanisms and evolving acommitment are time consuming andconflict-ridden and often PIAs are in ahaste to start implementation citing thatthe community looses patience and thedesire to participate in the absence of"real action". A policy of 'arrangementsfirst, augumentation later' calls forpatience and flexibility. It means thatone is prepared to go slowly, to spendmuch more time in resolving conflictsand bringing people together. It calls fordifferent skills and capacities for thewatershed development team (WDT)especially in facilitation, understandingof and sensitiveness to issues of povertyetc. Projects also need to be moreflexible and process-oriented, movingaway from the target-orientedstraitjacketed approach.Although women have come out of theirhouses participated in the labour work,attended meeting and melawas andhave been thus empowered, theirparticipation in decision-making andtheir access to newly-created resourcesdoes not seem to have altered. This istrue of most programmes which have anempowering effect on women in acertain sense of the term. To a personnever exposed to the public sphere thisexposure itself becomes empowering.Perceptions around empowermentwould change when the arena ofpossibilities increases and whenchoices are presented before them. In

100

the present mode of the programmethere is no threat posed to the currentgender division of labour and neither isanything stated on the question of rightsover scarce resources. These non-threatening agendas usually go downwell with the patriarchal state as well asthe household and the community. Forwomen this is nonetheless empowering,as this is a reality that they wouldperhaps have never been exposed tootherwise. So what sense does onemake out of this? The experiencecertainly cannot be negated. The spacethat has been created for women toparticipate needs to be acknowledgedfor whatever its worth but notuncritically. The question often is howwe look at these experiences criticallyfrom a gender perspective. Developingand designing policies has never been aparticipatory process. People, civilsociety or the NGOs are often therecipients of these with a mandate toimplement. Participation is often soughtto seek legitimacy to the predefinedagendas. Thus, gender equity is onesuch area where only a paragraph orsection is added without understandingthe various constraints under whichwomen operate.

It is possible to begin with a long list ofrecommendations as a corrective forthe present policy and programmesdeveloped by the state. However, thatoften remains a long wish list without aperspective and a strategy to makechange possible. A major lacunae inthe watershed policy is that it speaksabout women in the absence of agender perspective. We thereforerecommend that a well-defined genderpolicy for the watershed programme bedeveloped which not only lays out thegoals but also lays out a detailedstrategy of how these goals would berealized39. The policy will have to beginwith an understanding of gender issuesand have a detailed plan forimplementation, monitoring andevaluation. Here it would be importantto understand and document women'sperspective on livelihood. Programmeswould have to be such that bringwomen's skills to the fore. The entireprogramme will have to be backed by afinancial commitment, which isorganically linked to the largerwatershed development programme.

39 WOTR hasdeveloped someattempts in thisregard and astrategy knownas Gender-orientedParticipatoryOperationalPedagogy isbeing developedfor capacitybuilding ofwomen. InIGWDP there isalso a financialprovision madefor undertakingdifferent 'womendevelopment'activities

101

Watershed Development: Processesand Participation

6.1 ContextParticipation has been a buzzword indevelopmental discourse, practice andpolicy guidelines since the mid 1980s,and the success or failure of adevelopment intervention is often judgedon the basis of this component. It isassumed that projects that have a soundparticipatory approach and strategyresult in better efficiency, effectivenessand sustainable outcomes/ results. Eventhough the operational contours ofparticipation vary from project to project,it is endorsed as a normative principle byall development actors and projectsalike, and across various fields. Inwatershed development projectsparticipation has become an importantingredient and social processes havebecome as important as those of thebiophysical intervention. This realizationis an outcome of the reported successof projects that followed participatoryprocesses as against those which weretechno-centric and where top-downapproaches were the pattern.Many factors have contributed inbringing forward the issue of communityparticipation in natural resourcemanagement. One of the major factors,as mentioned above, is the deficiencyinherent in the centralized and top-downapproaches resulting in their failure todeliver the desired result. Neo-liberalphilosophy of government/statemanaged development being costly andinefficient has also contributed to thegrowing preoccupation with communityparticipation. The increasing trend,especially since the nineties, of socialcapital and self-help as a panacea forovercoming developmentalshortcomings, has also played a crucialrole in bringing the issue of community

Chapter 6 participation in natural resourcedevelopmental projects, to the forefront.Even though participation is a desiredstrategy and goal, one has to beconscious about certain aspects in itsapplication especially in the context ofnatural resource projects. Theseaspects include the degree and extentof participation envisaged and facilitatedin project processes (nominal, ordecision-oriented and emanicipatory),the issue of who participates (inclusion/exclusion based on existing inequalitiesin the 'community'), nature andrepresentative'ness' of institutionscreated as part of participatorymeasures etc. However, these issuesare often overlooked and participation isoperationalized outside theseramifications, which works towardpreserving the status quo. Most often,the notion of 'community' in communityparticipation is assumed as a uniformand egalitarian entity without placing it inthe local context of prevalentinequalities based on the economy,land-holding, caste, gender etc., i.e. theexisting power inequalities.Understanding these issues andoperationalizing participation within thiscontext is very important in watersheddevelopment projects because the unitof 'community' is complex and all thoseresiding in the watershed have a certainstake in the resources available in thatarea. In the context of watersheddevelopment the issue of communityparticipation can be judged from the rolethe watershed community plays (as anaggregate, as different socio-economicsections and as individual/family) in theentire process of watersheddevelopment, i.e. having an active roleand decisive say in issues related toplanning, implementation, technologychoice, institution formation, evolvingrules, norms and regulation, financialmanagement, monitoring andevaluation, ensuring transparency andaccountability, capacity-building,management and maintenance ofassets etc. This chapter is an attempt tounderstand the issues of participation indifferent processes and in specificfunctions, by the local community andby individual actors, taking intoconsideration the multi-dimensionality ofparticipation and multi- layeredness of'community'. The attempt is tocontextualisze participation in differentaspects of project administration and to

102

understand the strategies and methodsadopted in different programmes tooperationalize participation.

6. 2. 'Participation' in WatershedGuidelinesCommunity participation isinstitutionalized in all watershedguidelines after the Hanumantha RaoCommittee's report, viz., the Ministry ofRural Development (MoRD) guidelinesof 1994 and its revised version in 2001and the Hariyali guidelines issued in2003, MoA's (NWDPRA) WARSA- JanSahbhagita guidelines issued in 2001,guidelines of NABARD and CAPARTand all other major programmes beingimplemented in the country.Participation is envisaged throughspecial provision (finance and activities)for community-mobilization; institutionformations and entrustingresponsibilities to these institutions/organisations (such as watershedassociation (WA), watershedcommittees (WC), user groups (UGs)and self-help groups (SHGs)); provisionfor capacity building for managementfunctions; participatory planningsystems; provision for local volunteersand secretary; adoption of indigenoustechnologies etc. In the Hariyaliguidelines, however, the institutionalarrangements at the local level areconsiderably diluted and the provision ofwatershed associations and watershedcommittees are being done away with.Almost all guidelines also mention that awatershed will be selected where thecommunity is ready to participate andcontribute towards projectimplementation and achieving projectobjectives. Parameters for judging thewillingness of the community toparticipate are contributions in cash,kind or labour, popularly known asshramdan (or voluntary contribution)and willingness to form a localorganization consensually and as arepresentative of different sections in thewatershed areas. To quote NWDPRAguidelines "the beneficiaries were toooften merely passive recipients ratherthan active participants in thedevelopment of their watersheds (in firstgeneration projects). The restructuredsecond-generation watershed projectshave kept people's participation centrestage. It is now mandatory for watersheddevelopment to be planned,

implemented, monitored andmaintained by the watershedcommunity itself. One of the objectiveof Hariyali guidelines is: "encouraging(the) village community towardssustained community action foroperation and maintenance of assetscreated and further development of thepotential of the natural resources in thewatershed." In both guidelines themajor assumption is that communityparticipation and collective actionensures sustainability of assets andresources, besides opportunities forbetter implementation of the project.Taking a closer look at the guidelines,however, one gets the feeling thatparticipation is used more in aninstrumental sense, the willingness ofcommunities to undertake specific tasksrelated to project implementation.In projects outside the governmentstructure, especially those operated byNABARD, NGOs and in most bilateralprojects, participation is envisagedmore or less on the same lines, like theformation of community-basedorganizations (CBOs), willingness tocontribute shramdan and adopt socialfencing, participation in planning,implementation and monitoring,willingness to take up responsibilities ofpost-project maintenance of assets etc.Some of these projects have alsointroduced a probationary or capacity-building phase to prepare thecommunity for active participation andto judge/gauge the community'swillingness to participate in watershedactivities. But one can conclude thatcommunity participation is clearlydelineated, although in an instrumentalmanner, in both government-supportedand other projects, and the degree andextent of its application depends muchon how it is being facilitated in thewatershed processes, the social andinstitutional spaces created for thepurpose, and the philosophy andideology of the facilitating institutionsand personnel.

6.3 Implementing Participation:Watershed Processes and PracticeFrom the mid-nineties, and especiallyafter the emergence of the 1994guidelines for watershed development,a set of processes have been designedto improve the participation of the

103

community and watershed dwellers inproject implementation andmanagement, starting from the projectselection and initial awareness-generation/community mobilization topost-project management of resources.The assumption is that, if these processsteps are followed in their true spirit, agenuine community-managed watershedand resource management system canbe created, leading in the long run, toresource governance at the communitylevel. In the following sections we willlook into the major processes in practiceto see the degree and levels ofparticipation based on evidence from across-section of projects.

6.3.1 Watershed selection and initialmobilization Ideally speaking new-generationprojects are expected to be demanddriven ones, where the community has akeen interest in undertaking watershedactivities and is willing to participate inresource-mobilization and management.The demand based selection ofwatersheds (as against the target drivenapproach) is used as a parameter tojudge a community's initial interest andfuture participation in all projectactivities. However, it is often noticedthat target selection is still prevalent andthis is especially true for projectsimplemented by governmentdepartments. Most often the decision toinclude a village in a watershedprogramme is taken at Zilla Parishad orDRDA level and, in certain cases,prioritized villages are selected. In thesame way, the watershed communityhas no say in the kind of PIA they wantto work with. From the environmentalperspective and the genuine need forrehabilitation of the watershed, it isnecessary that highly degradedwatersheds in drought-prone areas beselected even though the community isnot in a position to put forward theirdemand. In an assessment done byDhramitra, of 115 state supportedprojects implemented in Vidharbharegion , it was learnt that with theexception of a few cases, thecommunity generally learnt about theinclusion of its village in a watershedprogramme much later than when thevillage was actually selected. And ofthese cases, in quite a few, this wassurprisingly after the planning processwas over.

In most of the NGO- managedwatersheds it is noticed that they selectvillages where they have already have arapport and relationship with thecommunity, or undertake watershedactivities based on their experience oftheir association with the village and onthe villagers' demand. Improvedparticipation in NGO villages can be inpart attributed to this. IGWDP inMaharashtra has a concept called 'self-selection' by communities, where afterthe initial series of interactions withwatershed dwellers, each family in thevillage is expected to contribute fourperson-days of voluntary labour on anyresource conservation activity. Thefacilitating NGO is expected to mobilizeand motivate the villagers for this. This isto judge the villagers' interest/keennessin undertaking project activities, as wellas to assess the NGO's rapport andrelationship with the villagers. Thissystem is used as the initial qualifyingcriteria in all IGWDP projects.In most situations the community doesnot participate nor is expected toparticipate on its own, unless it isprovided with sufficient information andknowledge about the project, themethods and strategies ofoperationalisation and intended benefitsthat will accrue to it etc. To ensure thatthe community has the necessaryinformation it is imperative to havesufficient interaction between thecommunity and PIA/WDT, besidesexposure (study tour), access toliterature (summary of guidelines in locallanguage) etc. In most projectssupported by NGOs, IGWDP, AGY,NABARD-supported WDF etc., theseactivities are compulsory for the projectto move further. Dharamitra evaluationsshow that some kind of awarenessactivities were undertaken only in 49 percent cases, but not in a concerted andcoherent manner and exposure visitswere organized only in 9.6 per cent ofwatersheds. Only in two cases wereinformation dissemination, awareness-generation and mobilization judged asgood. Even though provisions havebeen made for this and the awarenessphase is considered as crucial and aprelude for enhancing furtherparticipation in the project period, it isoften a much-neglected aspect in mostgovernment-supported projects. Resource degradation and poverty are

104

two criteria for the selection ofwatersheds under different programmes.However, there are instances where ahigher incidence of landlessness makesa village ineligible for the programme.For example, the IGWDP givespreference to villages with less landlesspeople or landlessness not exceedingthe Block level average. MYRADA alsohas a similar criterion. More thananything else, this is a frank admissionby the implementing agencies of thelimitations of the watershed programmeor the absence of a project componentto address the livelihood issues of theresource-poor sections, especially insituations where the proportion of thelandless is very high.

6.3.2 Village-level institutions/community based organizations Watershed projects organize a numberof village-level institutions such aswatershed associations/gram sabhas(WA/GS), watershed committees (WC),user groups (UGs), self-help groups(SHGs) etc. Community organizationsare formed with the objective to givebetter and inclusive representation for allwatershed dwellers, includingmarginalized sections, as well as toensure responsibility and concomitantauthority for decision-making. Thenomenclature of institutions may varyfrom project to project, but essentiallythese kinds of organizations areestablished in all watershed projects.

Watershed Association /Gram SabhaAccording to the guidelines (of differentprogrammes) the watershed associationor gram sabha is the ultimate decision-making body. When the watershedboundary coincides with the villageboundary40, the gram sabha (consistingof all adult members in the village) is thewatershed association. When thewatershed boundary does not matchwith the village boundary the PIA issupposed to constitute a watershedassociation. All major decisions -- suchas the decision to take up a watershedprogramme, decisions regarding theapproval of an action plan, onshramdan, social disciplne etc. --regarding watershed development haveto be taken in the meeting of thewatershed association or gram sabha.The constitution and functioning of the

watershed association or gram sabha isnot clearly formulated as is that of theother watershed institutions. In almostall projects under review it is more aninformal body without any specificmembership system and 70 per centattendance of adult members isconsidered a sufficient quorum for themeetings to be conducted. In manyNGO projects such as Dornali andIGWDP, at least four meetings areconducted on an annual basis, but it isnoticed that the number of peopleattending the meeting reduce as thewatershed work progresses. However,many of these projects have not set upa separate watershed association.There are very few experiences of agram sabha (as part of the PRI) beingthe decision-making body for watersheddevelopment, hence it is difficult tocompare the effectiveness of these twosystemsIf the watershed association is aninformal organization of watershedvillagers, how far its decisions arelegally valid and stand scrutiny is also apoint of concern. At the same time whohas the authority to call meetings alsois not very clear. In the Dharamitraevaluation of 115 watersheds, suchassociations were formed by the PIAwith farmers whose land was beingplanned for some watershed-relatedactivities in almost all watersheds (sincethis is a project condition) but in morethan 60 per cent cases the watershedassociation is at present inactive,except for few a individual members inother institutions such as the watershedcommittee. Only in seven per centcases has community participationbeen found to be good, and in 27 percent cases it appears to be satisfactory.Meetings are also not conductedperiodically. In 51.8 per cent cases thewatershed association is registeredunder the Societies Act.However it should be very clear that theexistence of a gram sabaha, orformation of watershed associations inthemselves do not guarantee theemergence of a participatory villagecommunity. It has to be facilitated andmembers educated about their rightsand duties. It also requires a system ofmembership and clarity of functions41. Inthe absence of proper formation andclarity of responsibilities any watershedassociation/gram sabha will have the

40 This would bethe situation inmost casesbecause ofrestrictions on500 ha. in Govtprojects or if onegoes clearly bythe hydrologicalaspect ofwatersheddemarcationthere is highchances thatsome part of avillage getexcluded orareas from othervillages becomespart of thewatershed. It isnot necessarythat hydrologicalandadministrativeboundariescoincide.41 In ISPWDKand DANIDAsupportedprojects inKarnataka,instead of awatershedassocaition avillagedevelopmentsociety (VDS) isorganized withtwo members (aman and awoman) fromeach householdwith a nominalmembership fee.They areinvolved inalmost alldevelopmentactivities and anApex GoverningCouncil isnominated fromthis VDS tomanage theaffairs. The VDSis a registeredbody. The VDSnominates otherinstitutions suchas the watershedcommittee, cattlebreederscommittee etc.

105

same fallacies as generally seen in gramsabhas under PRI. It is also necessarythat the voice and opinions of themarginalized such as landless, women,and dalits among others are alsofacilitated in the functioning anddecision-making processes of thewatershed associations/gram sabhas. Itappears that where the PIA has takenextra effort to facilitate the organizationand functioning of the watershedassociations/gram sabhas, theparticipation of the village community isfound to be good. This is clearlyobservable in watersheds facilitated byPIAs which have been involved inrejuvenating gram sabhas (such as theMahila Rajsatta Andolan etc.) and is partof their mandate and philosophy.

Watershed committeeThe watershed committee is a verycentral and crucial institutionalarrangement at the local level and isexpected to perform a large number offunctions related to planning,implementation, monitoring, financialmanagement, repairs and maintenanceetc. In projects like IGWDP- andNABARD-supported watersheds it isknown as the village watershedcommittee (VWC) even though thedesigned responsibilities and functionsare more or less the same. Generally themembership of a watershed committeevaries between 12 to 20. However in thenew Hariyali guidelines, this committeeis done away with and its responsibilitiesentrusted to the Gram Panchayat. Thewatershed committee is expected tofunction as the executive arm of thewatershed association and isanswerable to it. Strategies and efforts are made toensure representation of all sections ofsociety. Not only is there increasingawareness that various sections shouldbe represented in the watershedcommittee, but detailed norms andprocedures are also laid down in variousguidelines and programmes as to how toconstitute a watershed committee.According to the 2001 guidelines thewatershed committee is to be nominatedat a meeting of the watershedassociations with representatives of UG(four or five members), SHGs (three tofour members), Gram Panchayat (two tothree members) and a member of theWDT. As per the guideline there should

also be 30 per cent representation ofwomen and also 'adequate'representation of SC/ST. In almost allNGOsupported projects and IGWDP ,different sections of the watershedcommunity such as SC, ST and landlessare given representation . In theseprojects committee members arenominated with the objective of alsogiving spatial representation to differenthamlets/settlements that fall within thewatershed. Increasing awareness aboutwomen's representation in a watershedcommittee is reflected in revisedguidelines that have created space forrepresentation of SHG members in thewatershed committee. In IGWDP one-third of the membership is reserved forwomen. However, the issue needsfurther analysis: does representationgiven as part of design really translateinto active and decisive participation inday-to-day functioning? For example, inthe Dhramitra evaluations, only in threevillages out of 115 was participation ofwomen found to be good (in previouschapter on gender we have analysedthis issue in detail). The roles andresponsibilities of watershed committeesare also elaborated in many projects.These roles are prescribed by theprojects and and the community hasvery little say in its formulation. InIGWDP different portfolios are assignedto different members in the committeesuch responsibility to enforce socialdiscipline, wage disbursement,mobilizing farmers etc. The JanSahbhagita guidelines elaborate on theroles and responsibilities of officebearers of the watershed committee andsuggest that the committee beconstituted only after the properconstitution of UGs, SHGs and thewatershed association. This is to ensurethat active and interested members arerepresented in the watershed committeeand its functions streamlined. In someprojects the office bearers work on arotational basis. In most projects underreview meetings are usually held on amonthly basis and it is generallyobserved, as mentioned above, that asthe project progresses the attendance atmeetings reduces. The Dharamitraevaluation notes that attendance atwatershed committee meetings is poorand in almost 80 per cent cases acouple of members are only active on aday-to-day basis. Generally memberswho are office bearers and areresponsible for finance are reported to

106

be active in many cases.Given the centrality of this committee, itis critical to see how well they arefinanced and how much financialautonomy they have. In government-supported programmes and in IGWDP,the money under the work componentgoes directly to the watershedcommittee account and in governmentprojects a paid secretary is supposed tokeep the accounts. However, it isnoticed that often the PIA/WDT memberwho is a joint signatory to the accounttakes the decisions regarding financialmatters. The local contribution is alsodeposited in the watershed committeeaccount, and is allotted to repairs andmaintenance. The general observationis that there is quite a lot of money in thehands of watershed committees as inthe form of the maintenance fund andthere is very little information about itafter the withdrawal of the PIA. Mostprojects have made efforts to registerthe watershed committee in order tocreate certain accountability structuresin this regard in the post-project phase.Whether the watershed association orthe watershed committee should be aregistered body in order to ensuretransparent financial functioning, isdebated in many platforms. It isgenerally proposed that the watershedassociation be the registered body withwatershed committee members as officebearers. In Dharamitra evaluations thereare 17 instances in which the watershedcommittee is registered, as against 59watersheds in which the watershedassociation is registered. In IGWDP theVWC is the registered institution. Inmany NGO-supported watersheds thefinancial responsibility and managementlies with the NGO and the watershedcommittee is consulted and informedabout financial matters. In some cases itis due to the problems involved in FCRAregulations and problems of transferringFCRA money into the non-FCRAaccount of the watershed committee 42.At this point we have insufficientinformation on the process of formation,functioning and performance of thewatershed committee; and wherever thisinformation does exist and isdocumented it generally is about casesthat have been successful.Documentation also lacksmethodological vigour, and institutionalanalyses are often quick-fix studies;

intensive and alternative methods suchas those available in social scienceresearch for e.g. interpretivehermeneutic approaches are required atleast for certain samples. It is generallyobserved that quite a few members,who may be active in the initial stages,lose interest when they realize thevoluntary nature of the work or oncetheir interests are fulfilled. Money alsobrings its own associated powerequations (watershed developmentbeing a high capital-intensive activity)and it would be interesting to analyseand look into the dynamics of powerissues in the context and functioning ofwatershed committees with financialresponsibilities. Dharamitra evaluationsoften note that the signatories forfinancial management -- the WDTleader and watershed committeemember -- exercises excessivedomination in the watershed activities.Another issue is that of autonomy in thefunctioning of the watershed committee.Often projects are designed at a higherlevel and the watershed committee isan arm to facilitate and execute thosedesigns but have little say in many ofthese meta-design issues. In certainsituations it is also noted that the PIA/WDT is very skeptical about anautonomous and empoweredcommittee fearing that it may affect the'smooth' implementation of the project.Another issue is whether the watershedcommittee is capable enough tofunction autonomously or sensitiveenough to function as a representativeinstitution taking care of the concerns ofall villagers. Instances of negotiationsamong watershed committee membersto get structures built near their land orwells, have also been observed. Henceit is important to analyse whether formalrepresentations to different spatial andsocial groups really translate intodecisive representation of all sectionsand whether the representatives arevoicing the concerns of the section theyrepresent. Instances of buy-offs ofrepresentatives through internalnegotiations have also been noted.

Self-help groupsThe formation of self-help groups(SHGs) has been made a preconditionin all watershed programmes,irrespective of the agency or mode ofimplementation. This condition hasemerged as the result of the perceived

42 In ISPWDKand WOTRsupported non-IGWDP projectsthe money meantfor work is givenas an advance tothe watershedcommitteeaccount anddetailed bills andvouchers,including copiesof muster aresubmitted to theNGO. Funds inthe case ofIGWDP, due tothe bilateralstatus of theproject can bedirectlydisbursed to anon-FCRAaccount.

107

positive experiences generated byorganizations like MYRADA, especiallyin the PIDOW-Gulbarga project wherethe NGO was responsible for socialmobilization working in collaborationwith government projects. Later, theSHG movement emerged in differentparts of the country and substantiatedthe relevance of this institution as astrategy for mobilizing the community,especially the women, and became partof the lexicon of watershed guidelines.All guidelines have elaborate sectionson the need for and importance of SHGformations in watersheds.SHGs are self-affinity groups oftenfunctioning as thrift, savings and lendinggroups. The SHG movement, at leastduring its initial stages of evolution, wasintended to provide representation andorganizational space for the resource-poor and disadvantaged sections ofwomen. However, this objective of theSHGs needs to be revisited critically,given the hype created around it and theco-option of the institution by otherinterests and agencies.Overall, it could be said that SHGs havefunctioned quite well in terms of savingsand lending, and the economic agendaand incentives have worked favourablyenough for the institution members tocontinue this sphere of activity. In fact,SHG activity is one area in which themembers seem to have greater controlover processes and decisions. But someimportant decisions, such as setting ofinterest rates for lending or accessingbank loans, are taken by the PIA orNGO or with their concurrence. TheSHGs also provide a space for womento come together and interact.A vast majority of SHGs are organizedaround women in most watersheds. InNGO-supported projects, IGWDP andNABARD-NWDF projects, specialemphasis is given on promoting women-SHGs in terms of capacity building,training and SHG-oriented activities43. Inmost projects SHGs find representationin the watershed committee and in caseof government supported-projects it isassumed that SHGs are organized priorto watershed committee-formation andSHG members (three to four) areinducted in the watershed committee.But field realities show that the linkagebetween SHGs and watershed activitiesis either not very clear or is notfacilitated. In an assessment of ten

IGWDP watersheds44 (in all the tenwatersheds 30 to 70 per cent of adultwomen are organized into SHGs) it wasnoted that except in one case, where awoman SHG/ watershed committeemember is a co-signatory for finances,there is very little role the SHGs haveplayed in watershed developmentdecisions, even though they havecontributed voluntary labour regularlyand have worked as labourers inwatershed activities. The Dharamitraevaluation shows that in 42 per centcases (i.e., 48 watersheds) have noSHGs organized and in another 27cases have only one SHG perwatershed. As mentioned earlierwomen's participation in watershedactivities is found to be fairly good onlyin three watersheds. Watersheddevelopment related decisions andfunctions still remain in the domain ofmen even though the organization andproject staff are making attempts tohave it otherwise. In quite a fewinstances the PIA is also not clear abouthow to involve SHGs in watershed-related activities.Most often it has been noted that SHGsremain in the sphere of savings andcredit and pay very little attention tosocial and gender issues, even thoughthere are a couple of instances in theIGWDP review, where women havesuccessfully stalled the production ofliquor in their villages. Crossing thethreshold of savings and credit andtaking up social issues often does notget the support of men in comparison tosavings and credit-related activities. Menview savings and credit andopportunities for small loans favourably,since it contributes towards meeting thefamily's needs, and it is observed thatmen often influence decisions regardingloan access. It is also important tounderstand who in the group accessesloans, is it the powerful members?Experiences show that there are hardlyany issues discussed at SHG meetings,other than savings and lending, andmost often the PIA staff lack thecapability or understanding to facilitategender issues in the day-to-dayfunctioning of the SHGs. Issues relatedto SHG autonomy, with the advent ofmicro finance and insurance activitiesthrough SHGs, needs further analysis.The SHGs have not always functionedwell. For example, in Dornali (AFARM),

43 In case ofIGWDP certainfinancialprovisions havebeen made forSHGs toundertakedifferent socio-economicactivities toimprove thequality of lifeand reducedrudgery. Fiveper cent of theproject cost isearmarked forSHG-managedactivities. Inmainstreamgovernment-supportedprojectsprovisions aremade for arevolving fundfor SHGs .44 Unpublishedreport 'Womenand watersheddevelopment' byVrunda Vazeand AbrahamSamuel, a studyconducted forthe ProgrammeCoordinationUnit IGWDP-Maharashtra.

108

out of the four SHGs started initially,only two continued to function. Theremaining two dissolved due to internalconflicts. AFARM also started a KishoriVikas Ghat (Adolescents Girls Group)which ceased to function because therewas no lady social worker. Thewithdrawal of the woman social workerleading to SHGs becomingdysfunctional is reported in someIGWDP villages too.. Similar stories ofSHGs closing down were also reportedfrom some other villages like Bhavathan(Manavlok). The most common reasonsfor such closure are internal conflicts,poor attendance in meeting, non-repayment of loans, dissolving aftertaking loans from banks, lack of moneyto save once watershed wage work isover especially for the poor group,continued migration once project work isover etc.The SHGs are generally associated withnon land-based livelihood activities andin watershed context also, it seems thatis the major activity they are occupiedwith. Thus they manage RevolvingFunds or take up certain income-generation activities as is beingobserved from the field, but their reachin watershed-related activities is verynegligent. On the whole SHG activityhas been peripheral to the watershedprogramme and most often runs parallelto mainstream watershed activitiesdespite being represented in watershedcommittees and meant to be involved inthe watershed. There are recent,arguments that SHGs together with UGsshould be the main implementinginstitutions for watershed activities, andthe watershed committee should only bea management and coordinatingagency.

User GroupsAnother institutional arrangement at thelocal level to enhance participation ofthe beneficiaries User Groups (UGs)have been formed around certainspecific interventions (especially forlarge structures and interventions) whichare expected to involve more than oneindividual farmer or person, and itsbenefit is shared by a group of people.Generally UGs are formed forinterventions on common propertyresources such as plantation andfodder, or for medium and largestructures such as nala bunds, check

dams, gabion structures etc. The mainfunctions of such institutions aresupervision of construction, collectionof contribution, resolving conflicts ifsomeone is negatively affected forinstance, due to loss of land throughsubmergence. Guidelines also stipulatethat UGs are responsible for theoperation and maintenance ofstructures/ assets. They are alsoresponsible for working out benefit-sharing mechanisms.However, there seem to be a number oflimitations in the UG model inwatershed development prescriptionand practice. At one level UGs are amisnomer because they do not carryout any functions normally associatedwith such user groups like the waterusers group or the forest protectioncommittee. It is also not clear fromvarious guidelines as to what will be themandate/status of UGs after the projectperiod and implementation ofbiophysical activities. There is alsoconfusion regarding the role of UGs inthe post-project phase in the sensethat, after the withdrawal of PIA it is thewatershed committee in consultationwith the Gram Panchayat which isresponsible for maintenance and repairof assets and structures as elaboratedin the revised MoRD guidelines of 2001.It is observed that UGs are formedbecause forming them is a laid downcondition, and decisions concerning thelocation of structures, their design andcost estimation, technology andmaterials used, and so on are taken bythe WDT or the technical staff of thePIA and not by UG members. Mostoften it is noticed that UGs are formedafter construction is over. Besides,among the benefits arising out ofconstruction of structures is improvedgroundwater which is an individual/private resource without any issues ofsocial control or group action on its useand management. If the resource issurface-harvested water, there areinstances in which water users havecome together to manage resources,including the levying of nominal watercharges45 The UGs also have a role incase of development of common landssuch as village pastures or communitymanaged forests.The Dharamitra evaluations show thatof the total of 115 watersheds, UGs areorganized in 72 per cent of the

45 In a couple ofwatersheds(Devgaon,Shelvihire underIGWDP) in thetribal areas ofAkole block,group irrigation isdone throughsurface water ofcheck dams.However inIGWDP projectsthere are no UGsexcept for aforest protectiongroup in areaswhere watershedwork isundertaken aspart of JFM.

109

watersheds. In some villages the numberof UGs is as high as 30 to 40 eventhough major structures may be around10 to15! Some UG members do noteven know that they are in the groupsand most often there are no systems forthe UGs functioning as is the case withwatershed committees. The evaluationsoften note that the groups do not haveany capacity to perform their expectedfunctions and that there is no groupcohesiveness. It is often noticed in manyprojects that UGs exist only on paper.The future of any group, especially thatof UGs, depends a lot on its capacity,clearly-defined mandate, agenda andresponsibilities, availability of resourcesand the real and perceived benefitsarising out of the assets around whichcollective action is solicited.Experience shows that a lot of rethinkingis required to make the UGs an effectiveinstitution in watershed development.Some practitioners propose that UGs bethe planning and implementation agencywith financial responsibilities related totheir sphere of activity. Localcontribution from beneficiaries and aregular system to collect user chargesneeds to be worked out and the groupshould be entrusted with theresponsibility of managing it.

6.3.3 Other organizationsThe other organizational structureinvolved in watershed development thathas a direct impact on the participatoryprocesses at the local level is the PIAand WDT. This is not to say that thecoordinating agencies such as DistrictRural Development Agency (DRDA) orAgricultural Department do not have adirect stake in the watershed processes.PIA is selected at the district level by thecoordinating and sanctioning agencyand on which the watershed communitydoes not have any say. Since 1993, asupport and resource organizationcalled Mother NGO46 has also beenintroduced in watersheds projects inMaharashtra. Generally, a PIA isresponsible for six to ten projectsranging between 4000-5000 ha and areexpected to constitute a four-memberWDT consisting of a subject specialist inengineering/forestry, agriculture,community mobilization and livestocketc. The team is supposed to beexclusively for the projects and ten percent of the project cost is earmarked for

project administration. In NGO projectsit is generally observed that the staffperforms other works besides thewatershed works. In IGWDP, a four-person team manages a project andgenerally the area ranges between 1000to 1500 ha.At the outset it can be said that a projectis as good as the people involved in it.The PIAs' approach and philosophy andthe WDT's commitment to participatoryprocesses can make a big impact inempowering the community. It caninfluence the space provided for thedemocratic functioning of the CBOs,their capability enhancement, role indecision-making and financemanagement, inducing values etc.However, the Dharamitra evaluationsshow that most often the WDT works inisolation involving only a couple ofpeople and this is quite common forWDT leaders who are retiredgovernment staff. It is often noticed thatWDT plays a dominating role rather thanthat of facilitation. Another issue thatemerges in evaluations is the highturnover of WDT members due toproblems of fund release which resultsin irregular salaries. This is alsoreflected in irregular visits of the staff tothe site. If people are not paid regularly itcan also result in financial irregularities.Staff turnover, especially womenstaffers, is also noticed in interiorIGWDP villages because of otherdifficulties. However, the high turnoverof trained staff is a problem which mostwatershed projects face. Bringing in newstaff and providing training takesconsiderable time and always negativelyimpacts the processes that are set inmotion.For participation to be realized in thetrue spirit of the term, it is important tohave the right PIAs at the helm of affairs.But is there a proper system for theselection of PIAs in watersheds,especially in programmes supported bythe government? It can be said that PIAselection is shrouded in mystery andmost often quality is compromised forother considerations. Even though thereare instances of 'blacklisting' of PIAs,one can't say for sure that suchexercises are objective. Besides, thereare no objective systems for monitoringthe work of the WDT. During our fieldvisits we heard a number of complaintsagainst PIA staff, suggesting that a

46 Mother NGOis a district levelsupportorganizationresponsible forsupporting thePIA and thewatershedinstitutions inplanning,capacitybuilding,monitoring etc. Itis alsoresponsible tooversee thatparticipatoryprocesses arefollowed by thePIA in theprojectimplementationand also toprovide supportin areas relatedto that.

110

significant gap still exists in what isprescribed in the guidelines and what isoften seen in practice.Often the PIAs say that they arepressurized to complete the physicalwork, and social mobilization andfacilitating participation needscomparatively more time, but the issueis what are the milestones achieved inparticipation in the given time of four tofive years. In certain cases it is observedthat the WDT is inexperienced and lacksbasic skills of relating to the community;in some instances it is noticed that theyare skeptical of involving the communityand CBOs, fearing a reversedomination. The issue is that one needsconfident community facilitators to builda confident watershed community. Participation remains a word with anelusive workable meaning. Mostgovernment agencies such as theAgriculture Department remain poor ateven initiating participation. In fact, twovillages out of six visited in Vidarbha hadbeen earlier rejected by the AgricultureDepartment on the pretext that therewas no cooperation from the villageafter it was taken up for watersheddevelopment. In one such village,Pimpalgaon Bainai, most villagers saidthat they were not even aware that theirvillage had been taken up under thewatershed development programme bythe Agriculture Department. In contrast,at Bairwadi, where the project was alsoimplemented by the AgricultureDepartment, good participation wasnoted from all strata of the community.When asked about this, Mr. Bala Athare,Agriculture Assistant and the personchiefly responsible for the successfulimplementation of the programme saidthat it was his approach to participationand the attempts to motivate the peoplethrough special incentives andmeasures that was responsible for this.In another example the village itselfapproached the NGO with theproposition of a watershed developmentproject after it had heard of a successfulprogramme being implemented in aneighbouring villageQuite often, in spite of successfullyenlisting the cooperation of the peoplein the initial stages of the project, theseties were later corroded due to the delayin disbursal of funds by the DRDA. Thisangered the labourers who had beenassured work under the programme by

the PIA before the start of programmeand also led to a slackening of work bythe VWC head, secretary etc., whocould not be paid a regular salary. TheNGOs often voiced the concern ofbeing sandwiched between thevillagers' expectations and the DRDA'scasual attitude.Thus modes of participation variedwidely. In one case the watershedcommunity was as much if not moreactive than the PIA regarding thewatershed issues and prospects andput in additional efforts to make theirprogramme47a success. In another casethe PIA tried to motivate the entirecommunity, including children andwomen, to become actively involvedwith the programme. In another case,though the wider watershed associationplayed only a passive role, thewatershed committee consisted of well-informed and active members. Therewas also a case where only thechairman and the secretary wereactively involved. In one case the NGOworked only as an 'outside' agency --making links with only a few strategicpeople in the village and implementingthe programme through their assistancewith benefits being concentrated in thehands of the privileged few. In fact, thegood performance or achievements ontheir fields is now being showcased bythe NGO. Mr. Khadse of Dharamitrafeels that it is very important thereforeto attempt a functional definition of theword 'participation' so that it does notremain merely on paper or limited to achosen few, leaving out the concerns ofthe marginalized groups.

6.3.4 Participation in Planning,Design and Technology ChoiceParticipatory planning has emerged amajor thrust area in new-generationwatershed projects in the same waythat other participatory issues foundtheir place through experiencesgenerated from certain projects. Beforethe emergence of participatory planningmethods, the major assumption wasthat planning, design and choice oftechnology etc., were technical issuesand that it was better that these issueswere decided by the experts. Thus wehave experiences of construction ofcontour bunds by experts andploughing/or levelling it immediatelyafter construction by farmers.

47 AtAhmatwada,taluka Murtzapur,Akola even in aacute drought-prone situationpeople tookspecial efforts toprovide water toplantationsmanually from ariver nearby. AtSanglud, Akolapeople donatedlabour worth Rs2 lakhs toconstruct a hallfor conductingwatershedmeetings andactivities, whichwould value atRs 3 lakh today.At Adsool villagea vanraibandhara wasconstructed with2500 emptycement bagsthroughshramdan andno expenditurewas incurred.This helpedwater to stay tillJanuary-Februarywhich solvedsome of thefodder problemsin the village.

111

Participatory planning also assumes thatthe technologies and measures ofconservation, which are demanded byfarmers, have a high chance ofsustaining, because they are convincedabout its benefits. If we summarizedifferent guidelines in respect toparticipatory planning the picture thatemerges is -- WDT members along withfarmers/users will document details suchas survey numbers, name of the owner,exact nature and extent of problem/opportunity and indigenous technicalinnovations, farmers'/users' concernsand constraints, farmers' suggestions ontechnical solutions, etc., identifiedthrough PRA exercises. Guidelines alsosay that indigenous technical knowledge(ITK) emerging through informalresearch carried out by innovativefarmers may also be considered whiledeveloping the action plan of thewatershed.Even though the intentions behind theguidelines are good they are very rarelyput into practice in the watershedvillages. Dharamitra evaluations showthat plans are often prepared by theWDT with very little consultation withfarmers and if the WDT leader happensto be a government employee he doesdraws up plans through his experienceof working in soil-conservation activities.Often, farmers get to know the kind ofactivities planned on their field onlywhen these are implemented. Theevaluations show that in more than 60per cent of the cases (out of 115watersheds) there was no consultationor it was very poor and casual, whileonly in five per cent of cases were goodconsultative and participatory strategiesadopted in action plan preparation. In 15per cent of the watersheds beneficiaryparticipation was average and in 14 percent cases the action plans were revisedafter consultation with the communityand watershed associations -- a goodsign that reflects the pressure exerted bythe community.Very little importance is given to farmers'interests and demands whiletechnologies of conservation areselected.. Most programmes have a pre-determined set of technologies. Thesesets are often implemented regardless ofwhether the beneficiaries demand it orwhether they doubt its benefits. High-cost, high external input-orientedtechnologies are seen being

overemphasized rather than theadoption of low-cost, locally availablematerials and technical know-how48. Atcertain times the technology may below-cost, but farmers are really notinterested nor convinced about itsefficacy. This is observable in theDahramitra evaluations. For example inalmost all cases where vegetativebunding and grass filters wereintroduced, they failed to survive eventhe project period. Most often farmersare also reluctant to undertake bundplantation fearing that it creates shadeand adversely affects crops. Manyconservation measures had to bealtered and adapted according tofarmers needs and requirements inIGWDP too. It is interesting to note thatwhen IGWDP commenced operationsthere were hardly eight to tentechnologies, but over the course ofprogramme evolution manytechnologies were incorporated fromexperiences that emerged fromlocations and farmers. Today, there aremore than 25 technologies. Most ofthese technologies have emerged fromthe local experiences of farmers49. Ithas also been observed at manywatersheds that an overemphasis oncement and large non-cement structureshas drawn contractors and externalplayers into watershed development.It is also important to note thatconsultation and the resultant choice oftechnology opted for by farmers neednot always generate better results or betechnically adaptable. For example,most often farmers suggest a boundarybund on plots even though the slopeand general layout of the plots suggestconstruction of intermediary bunds tocut the slope and reduce erosion. Thesame problem is observable in thelayout and location of bund outlets,where little consideration is given to theimpact of flowing water on theneighbour's field. There is always acollision of interest and prioritiesbetween farmers and the facilitatingexperts, especially in the context ofconsultation on technological options.Historically, it is observable in thecontext of working with farmers, whetherit is on issues related to agronomicalpractices or activities such as contourbunding on croplands. Farmers areoften interested in individual and rapidreturns and livelihood creation, whereasthe facilitators are traditionally more

48 This is veryimportant fromthe perspectiveof not onlyensuring thatthe moneymeant forwatershedactivitiesremains or isspent in thevillage aswages, but alsofrom futuremaintenanceandsustainability.Realizing this,certain projectslike DANIDA-supportedwatersheds inOrissa, IGWDPetc. have madeit part of theirstrategy andconditions. InDANIDA onlylocal materialsand locallymanageabletechnologies arepromoted withgood results. InIGWDP theemphasis isalso on localmaterials andcreating localemploymentand only 15 percent of theproject cost isallowed fortaking updrainage linetreatments.49 Some of themare a) bodibund, adoptedfrom the adivasiexperiences ofwaterharvesting andprotectiveirrigation inChandrapurdistrict,b)constructionof low costdams usingempty drums oftar used for roadworks, c)modification ofgabionstructures inorder to harvestwater etc.

112

concerned about controlling erosion,improving the environment and issues ofsustainability etc. However a meaningfuldiscussion and consultation allows bothconcerns to be part of thedevelopmental agenda and strategy, atleast to an extent.The methods and tools adopted forplanning also play a crucial role inensuring farmer and communityparticipation. All major watershedprogrammes now use ParticipatoryRural Appraisal (PRA) as a tool forplanning and enlisting people'sparticipation. Today, almost allwatershed programmes insist onconducting different tools of PRAexercises, especially because fundingagencies also make it a condition forfunding programmes. Like people'scontribution or the organization ofcommunity into groups, PRA too istaken as an indicator of people'sparticipation. If PRA is taken as thebenchmark, however, many of the earlygeneration 'successful' projects likeRalegaon Siddhi, Agadgaon etc., whichwere more rooted in the community,would prove to be non-participatory orall the projects which uses PRA shouldbe truly participatory. However, thereality is different as evident from theDharamitra evaluations where PRAswere conducted in many villages butquality of participation is poor in mostvillages.At present, however, most implementingagencies use PRA as a means to enlistpeople's participation and capture localdevelopment priorities. The guidelinesclearly say that PRA exercises shouldbe conducted to analyse problems andpropose solutions, making it the tool forplanning with the community forwatershed measures. The prioritiescoming out of the PRA exercise areoften taken to represent the priorities ofthe whole community or taken as thecommon opinion. This is problematicbecause they often represent only theopinion of the dominant, vocal andresourceful sections of the village. Also,as Kerr and Kolavalli (2002) argue,bureaucracy often reduces the PRAmerely to a prescribed procedure thathas to be followed more in the letterthan in spirit. Many organizations treatthe outcomes of a one or two-day PRAwith ten or twenty people as reflectinglegitimate community priorities. PRA

methods give an impression of havingachieved a consensus, which may notactually exist, as very often people donot (or cannot) intervene and give theiropinion. Many times the realities are notexpressed in a public space or 'over theground' because of the existingrelations and networks.50 In PRAmethodology there is an element ofoversimplifying complex socio-economic realities.Besides these methodological issues ofPRA, it is necessary to look critically atits effectiveness as a planning tool forwatershed development. It can givecertain approximations but to getreliable data on issues of degradation,problems associated with land, issuesand problems related to soil, resourceaccess and use pattern, land-usepattern of different communities etc., isfound be very difficult. Since thephilosophy behind PRA is based onvalidating the experiential knowledge ofthe 'community', it looks upon anyoutside or expert knowledge as animposition, thus PRA techniques leavelittle scope for any fruitful mutualinteraction between the local peopleand their knowledge systems and theoutside 'modern' system of knowledge.However, it is often noticed that farmersare interested in modern technicalknowledge if it is demystified andpresented in a language theyunderstand. Insistence on a PRA mayrestrict people's option of using differenttechniques, and also their access toother methods of enquiry. Also a PRAfails to provide reliable and comparabledata to assess impacts. AFARM, whichhas used PRA extensively in itswatershed projects, recommendsdetailed baseline surveys prior to theprogramme so that the impact of theprogramme can be quantified.IGWDP and NABARD-supportedprojects use a different system knownas 'participatory net planning' (PNP) forwatershed planning and based on theoutcomes of PNP and individualhousehold surveys, prepare a detailedwatershed plan known as the'Feasibility Study'. PNP is a detailedplot survey done jointly by thefacilitators and the farmer family whereeach individual holding is assessed tounderstand the land capability, land-useand problems and a set of conservationmeasures and proposed land-use

50 A number ofpath breakingstudies haveemerged insocial andculturalanthropology,which highlightthe issues ofpeasantbehaviour andhow hierarchiesand socialrelationsinfluenceinterpretationsandunderstanding ofissues and theway they varyaccording to thesocio-economiccategories basedon caste, class,ethnicity, genderetc. One of suchinterestinganalysis is byJames C Scott's'Weapon of theWeak: EverydayForms ofPeasantResistance, astudy of aMalaysian villagecalled Sedaka'.Even CliffordGeertz's studieson irrigationsystems,agriculture etc.,in Indonesia andBali is also worthlooking into.

113

systems are arrived at. It also providesdetailed baseline information and animplementable plan. It is noticed thateven though it is time consuming andrelatively costly, it ensures interaction ofdifferent viewpoints, consultation/consensus-building and participationfrom the beginning. The efficacy of thesystem is acknowledged by differentpractitioners and is adopted in a largevariety of watershed projects in thecountry.

6.3.5 Process of Implementation,Local contribution/Cost sharing andParticipationThere is a lot of debate at presentwhether watershed implementationshould strictly follow the ridge-to-valleyprinciple or whether it should beundertaken wherever (within thewatershed) the farmers are willing toparticipate and are ready to implementas per the project conditionalities. Theridge-to-valley proponents alsoacknowledge the fact that, whileimplementing different measures fromridge to valley, this is not at the cost ofparticipation and others feel that betterparticipation is ensured if there is agenuine demand from the farmers.Leaving aside the technical advantages/disadvantages of both systems, we haveto look at it from the perspective ofparticipation. Most often, the villagecommons, forest and marginal lands arelocated in the ridge and adjacent areasand these are either owned by resource-poor families or they are dependent onthese lands for a variety of needs. Theseare the lands which require rehabilitationon a priority basis. However it is noticedthat the resource-poor are skeptical andsuspicious of the intentions andoutcomes as compared to the better offwho are comparatively well-informedand often enter into/have initial contactswith the PIA. Generally, the interactionof the PIA is with the 'centre' (in thespatial and power-related sense) andperipheries get ignored or excluded dueto this approach. Having a ridge-to-valley approach and project condition,especially in multicaste complexvillages, where the peripheries areoccupied by the adivasis, dalits, nomadsetc., creates a situation for them toparticipate and compels the PIAstowards enlisting their support. Theridge-to-valley approach needs to beviewed as a social technology for

ensuring participation, especially of theresource-poor and marginal sections. Anon ridge-to-valley implementationprocess, where willing farmers areprovided priority will create a situationwhere benefits are amassed by a fewand make the work easier for the PIA. Ifthat be the case then what is the role ofthe project facilitators? There are otherdimensions too which we cannot ignore,such as the lack of permission to treatforest land, hence difficulty in followingthe principle and delays in projectimplementation due to theuncompromising attitude of funding/supporting organizations with respect tothe ridge-to-valley approach. In certainwatersheds, especially in rice cultivatingareas, it is noted that farmers like thewater and silt to flow into the fieldsrather than arresting them at the ridge.In private lands in ridge areas, which arerelatively less productive, farmers maynot be willing to share the cost51; henceit becomes difficult to enlist participationand follow ridge-to-valleyimplementation.Peoples' contribution/cost-sharing isanother commonly used indicator ofparticipation and the willingness of thefarmers to share a certain part of thecost is considered their willingness toparticipate. The guidelines say thatpeoples' participation should be ensuredthrough voluntary donations in terms ofcash, labour, raw materials, etc., fordevelopmental activities as well as forthe operation and maintenance ofassets created. The main purposebehind this is to build a stake and asense of ownership in the project and, inturn, to elicit greater enthusiasm forother activities such as the maintenanceof assets. Cost sharing also serves asan indirect indicator that people havebeen part of the decision-makingprocess. Maintenance of assets hasbeen found to be positively associatedwith the share of costs borne bycommunity/beneficiaries (Kerr andKolavalli 2002). However, it is difficult tosay that cost sharing alone is adominant factor in ensuringmaintenance, especially for assets oncommon properties. It may also be truethat cost-sharing will ensure selection ofappropriate and useful techniquesbesides ensuring quality ofimplementation. Different projects have different

51 Often theland in the ridgeis moredegraded andmay requiremoreconservationmeasures ascompared tobetter managedand less sloppylands in thevalley. Moremeasuresmeans highercosts and acorrespondinglyhighercontribution.

114

quantum (percentage contribution) andsystems for cost-sharing. For example,in government-supported projects thisfalls in the range of five to ten per cent.In IGWDP and NABARD-supportedWDF it is 16 per cent. In most NGOprojects it ranges between ten to 20 percent. Even within one project there aredifferent contributions for differentactivities/measures. For example inIGWDP, for horticulture (buddedsaplings) development on an individualplot it is around 50 per cent. Areatreatment like bunding in class III andabove it is 16 per cent of the cost and incase of classes I and II it is 25 per cent.For cement structures the beneficiarieshave to contribute unskilled labour. Thisdifferential contribution emerged laterafter a few years experience of having acommon contribution system. Therewas continued resistance on the part ofNGOs which cited practical difficulties inconvincing farmers and problemsrelated to computing the differentialcontribution. In some places, thevillagers also expressed their protestmaybe at the behest of the NGOs. It isinteresting to note that during theconsultative stage, different meetingsand workshops were organized to findout systems for a differential contributionsystem based on expected benefits,involving all project partners such asNGOs, VWCs from a representative setof watersheds etc., and many VWCmembers agreed that there should besuch a system, but those who were infavour of the changed system were fromvillages which had either completed theirwatersheds or had watersheds that werenearing completion.In government-supported projects thedifference in contribution is based onsocial categories and not in the kind ofmeasures and is five per cent for SCand ST families and ten per cent for thegeneral categories of beneficiaries.Forcommon resources and structures it is 5per cent. In the Dharamitra evaluationsof 115 watersheds, in 22 per cent caseseither there was no contribution or thedetails were not known, whereas in 75cases (66 per cent) the contribution wasto the tune of five per cent. In theremaining watersheds local contributionranged between five and ten per cent. InIGWDP villages local contribution andproject progress is linked and anexcessive backlog of contribution mayaffect project progress by withholding

finance release till matters areamended.Another major issue in relation to localcontribution is the method in which it iscollected. Not only from Maharashtra,but also from the country as a whole,there is evidence that often in the nameof local contribution the, 'the poor aresubsidizing the rich' in the sense thatthe method adopted by PIAs andwatershed committees is to cut thewage of the labourers' working atwatershed sites. Generally, theargument put forward in such ascenario is that the wage rate inwatershed work is much higher (due toSSR rate and based on outputs) thanwhat they usually get locally, hencethey are not losing much. Personalexperiences show that the support andmonitoring organisations have to play avery proactive role for this not tohappen, by organizing and educatingthe labourers (by informing them aboutthe unit wage rate for different kinds ofwork and displaying the scheduledrates in public places etc.) besidesfacilitating the process with the PIA andwatershed committees. For example inthe Dharamitra evaluations the system/method of collection is not known, norare there any receipts given to thosewho made the contribution. Theaccounting procedure and recording ofcontribution is one of the weakest areasin most projects. In some otherinstances, where work is executedthrough the landowners, the system ismore interesting. In such instances,after planning and cost-estimation thefarmer either using his own labour ortogether with hired labour executes thetask. After measurement the wage ispaid to the farmer deducting therequired contribution. In such instancesit is often possible that the farmer hireslabour at the local wage rate and alsomakes some money out of thedifferential. Whatever be the method,there is still a lot of transparencyrequired in methods of collecting thelocal contribution.Another argument is over what thequantum of contribution should be, andis it necessary to have a high amountgiven the fact that watershed projectsare implemented in the most degradedand poorest areas in rainfed tractswhich are generally left out with regardto development and investments, as

115

compared to irrigated areas and placeswhere green revolution packages wereimplemented. The crux of such anargument is that it is the responsibility ofthe state to invest in land and waterresource development52 and peoples'contribution dilutes the responsibilities ofthe state, a neo liberal agenda. Cost-sharing should be seen in the widercontext of resource allocation andpolitical economy. Presently, the statespends more than a lakh of rupees toprovide irrigation to one hectare of landin the irrigated belts, besides otherincentives through different subsidiesand assured prices such as in the caseof sugarcane. In the context ofwatershed development, the costgenerally ranges from Rs 6000/- and upto Rs 10-12000/- in some bilaterallyassisted projects. The ParthasarathyCommittee has proposed a ceiling of Rs12000/- per hectare. When the relativespending on watershed is so little,asking people to share the cost -- thatalso to up to 30 to 40 per cent - seemsunfair. Moreover, local organizationsneed to play a greater role in decidingthe volume of contribution and thereshould be flexibility based on localsituations. Experience shows that otherissues such as rights, access andentitlements in water and commonproperty resources especially for theresource-poor ensures a major stakeand higher participation, rather thanmaking contribution the yardstick.

6.3.6 Capacity building forParticipationCapacity building and training ofcommunity-based organizations (CBOs)and the community at a large isconsidered an important aspect andprerequisite for effective participation.Access to information, skills andknowledge helps in better understandingthe pros and cons of the work in handwhich is a precondition for participationin any activity. Capacity building, trainingand awareness-generation areconsidered important activities in theguidelines, and budget provisions aremade available for the same. However,in the Hariyali guidelines the budget forcapacity building and communitymobilization has been reduced by half tofive per cent from ten per cent 53. Thegeneral argument cited for reducing thetraining budget was that, most often thesanctioned budget is not being utilized

by the PIAs and the CBOs. Thiscomponent is by and large handled bythe NGOs and in certain cases thesupport of resource organizations isalso enlisted. To improve effectiveness,Mother NGOs are currently entrustedwith the responsibility of training and theimpact of this can be judged only in thecourse of time, as these projects whereMother NGOs are involved are only twoor three years in implementation.Generally, training and capacity buildinginclude exposure visits to 'successful'projects, training in administrativematters like systems and procedures,records and book-keeping and oncertain aspects related to watershedmanagement. CBOs and watershedsecretaries are being provided training.The WDT is also expected to undergocertain training modules related to theirrespective areas of responsibilities.However, in most government projectsthis aspect is not taken very seriouslyand most often the budget allotted is notat all utilized effectively. This iscorroborated by some reviews. The Kerrand Kolavalli (2002) study shows thatthe time spent by the PIA in socialorganization efforts prior to taking upbiophysical activities ranged from a fewweeks (in GOI projects) to several yearsin (in some NGO-run projects). Theprojects covered in the study weredivided into two categories: those whichspend more than six months in socialorganization and capacity-building andthose which spend less than six months.The projects, which spent more than sixmonths in social organization efforts,consisted of all eight NGO projectsstudied and 57 per cent of the sevenjointly implemented projects.Significantly, none of the sixteengovernment-funded/implemented andfive bilateral/multilateral funded,government-implemented projects underthe study spent more than six months.A major lacuna observed is that there isno plan or system (as in case ofbiophysical activities) to implementcapacity building activities and it is notintegrated with the project progress andprocesses. There are no set milestoneson the expected capacity of the projectactors. This is reflected in theDharamitra evaluations. Only in 42 percent of cases (48 out of 114) has theWDT undergone some training. In 38per cent of cases there was noinformation available and 20 per cent

52 Historicallyspeaking thestate or therulers played acrucial role indevelopment ofwaterresources. Thisis beingcorroborated bymany politicaleconomicanalysts andanthropologists.The conceptcalled AsiaticMode ofProductiondeveloped byKarl Marx,based onanthropologicalevidencesespecially fromIndia, highlightsthe fact thatstates played acrucial role indeveloping thewater resourcesand organizingthe societiesaroundhydrology. InMaharashtrasome of thepopular rulerswere activelyinvolved indevelopingwater resourcesthrough stateinvestments.This trend couldbe seen till thelate 1970s andin the followingdecades onecould observethe slowwithdrawal ofthe state fromtheseresponsibilitiesto a largeextent. AtpresentMaharashtra isone of theexperimentalstates for"sectoralreforms" in thewater sectorfunded by theWorld Bank andother multilateralorganizations.53 This is inspite of the factthat acommittee was

116

there was no training at all. The capacityenhancement of WDT is not onlyimportant from the perspective ofeffective functioning, but is alsoimportant for CBO and communitycapacity building. In case of watershedcommittees only 37 per cent had sometraining; no information was available foranother 37 per cent; and 26 per centhad no training. In case of watershedsecretaries only 33.3 per cent had sometraining. This shows the abysmal stateof affairs as far as training and capacitybuilding are concerned. It was noted atthe NGO workshop that even if the PIAs(at least the NGO PIAs) are seriousabout capacity-building the sanctionedbudget is not received or released bythe DRDA when it is required.The IGWDP projects start with acapacity building phase lasting aroundone-and-a-half years. This is thecommunity mobilization/institutionbuilding and capacity-enhancementphase. At least 70 per cent ofhouseholds of the watershed communityare exposed to successful watershedprojects, and orientation trainingorganized for project personnel. Villagevolunteers are also selected and SHGsand VWC organized during this phase.Village volunteers known as 'PanlotSevaks' are given training in watershedmanagement, area treatment, takingmeasurements and wage calculation,including documentation. The VWC andSHGs are also given detailed training inareas related to their functions. Aseparate exposure visit is organized forwomen from the watershed. Biophysicalwork is undertaken in a small area ofaround 100 ha for education anddemonstration purpose. The crux of thisphase is induction through participatoryoperational pedagogy (POP) andlearning by doing. The phase helpspeople understand aspects ofwatershed planning and development,besides building up consensus aroundissues like voluntary labour, socialfencing and other conditions. Closemonitoring is done involving CBOs andfarmers with the objective of ensuringthe quality of work as well as transfer ofmonitoring skills. Successful completionof the phase is followed by the completetreatment of watersheds. During thatphase too a series of training andcapacity-enhancement activities areorganized for the CBOs and projectstaff. The training and capacity-

enhancement activities are integratedinto the project cycle and failure toconduct different capacity buildingactivities in the stipulated time frameattracts certain sanctions such aswithholding of NGO administration. Tento 12 per cent of the project cost isspent on training and exposure. This isnot part of the project cost but is inaddition to what is being planned for theproject.In many watershed related capacitybuilding strategies very little effort ismade to educate people on issuesrelated to resources and theirsustainable use, such as community-based water balance assessment. It isalso true for issues of equity and benefitsharing mechanisms. Even thoughtraining programmes are conducted forall-women SHGs, little effort is made tointegrate these with watersheddevelopment. There are also fewattempts at developing participatoryexperiments and technologies involvinginnovative farmers. However oneshould be aware of community fatigueand the time that people can devote fortraining and capacity building. Themethods and systems of training andteaching also are very important andparticipatory learning systems cancreate conditions for participation of thecommunity.

6.3.7 Participation in Monitoring andEvaluation.Community participation in monitoringand evaluation can be considered as anindicator of a high level of participationand of the empowerment of thecommunity and their representativeinstitutions. However when the issue ofmonitoring is elaborated in theguidelines or when it is put intopractice, it is always in the sense ofhigher-level agencies doing'surveillance' of activities at the locallevel with the objective of setting thingsright. It is more like Bentham'sPanopticon of surveillance andobservation to instill fear that they arealways under watch and deviations willbe severely punished. The interestingaspect is that such surveillance hasalso not succeeded in preventingmalpractices. This is not to say thatmonitoring is not necessary to ensureaccountability but the best option isalways to ensure the participation of the

53 contd. . .set up tounderstand theissues related totraining and toevolve strategiesand identifytraining needs fordifferent CBOsand personnelinvolved inwatersheddevelopmentprojects underthe chairmanshipof Mr. V.B.Eswaran and therecommendationsof theCommittee, infavour ofimproving thetraining andbudget allocationfor need-basedtraining.

117

stakeholder in the process and createconditions for self-monitoring. But thecommunity can participate in monitoringif conditions and systems are created. Ifpeople do not know what is planned andwhat are the allocations for differentcomponents what will they monitor?Thus the precondition to create effectivesystems for community monitoring isaccess to information on variousaspects of the intervention. Kerr andKolavalli (2002) see communitymonitoring in terms of information flow,and talk of the need to devise innovative,transparent mechanisms to facilitate anobjective flow of information fromcommunities to donors and programmemanagers. According to them such aflow of information could potentiallychange power relations withincommunities and between communitiesand development organizations.Transparency in project administration isa key factor in ensuring participatorymonitoring at the community level. Thesecond important aspect is availability ofdetailed information in a language thepeople can understand. And the relatedimportant component is the willingnessof the PIA to involve the community inunderstanding and monitoring theprogress and outcomes. Equallyimportant is the development andapplication of easy to use, cost effectiveand simple monitoring systems andtools. Even though many NGOs involvedin watershed projects talk aboutparticipatory monitoring there is verylittle documented evidence in the state.However, it is noticed that many NGOsuse different PRA tools to monitor theprogress and impacts. WatershedOrganization Trust, the support andcapacity-building organization forIGWDP has developed certainparticipatory monitoring tools and isapplied periodically in all the projectssupported by the organization (Lobo andSamuel 2005). In these projects, thecommunity regularly undertakesparticipatory monitoring on its own, aswell as joint monitoring involving thecommunity/CBOs, NGOs and thesupporting organization. There is also aspecial effort through trainingprogrammes to enhance the capacity ofthe local community to undertake self-monitoring.However, it is often noted thatcommunity and CBOs understand theprocess and methods of monitoring very

well and are able to interpret theinformation and outcomes, but theinformation generated is often narrative/qualitative and most oftenapproximations and not in terms ofquantifiable and comparable data.However one should not expectresearch data from the community; thespirit and purpose is more important.Periodic monitoring and evaluation byfacilitating and external agencies arealso necessary, but is always good toinvolve the CBOs and interestedcommunity members in the process.There may be many issues an outsidercan locate, which the community maynot have noticed/ignored due to differentreasons. Sometimes the perspective onissues also may vary and it helps inbringing new learning and differentexperiences. This may also help thecommunity in looking at issuesdifferently.Participatory monitoring is closelyrelated to reliable benchmarks and aclearly elaborated plan. Participatoryplan development, which also includesmeasurable outputs, inputs andoutcomes, is necessary for effectivemonitoring. To an extent planning basedon the logical framework approach isvery helpful. Benchmarking and baselineinformation using a combination of PRAand other scientific methods of datacollection is also required. It is alsonecessary to develop a set of indicatorsrelated to sustainability, equity and otherproject objectives and to build aconsensus around them within thecommunity so that monitoring leads tocorrective action and improvement.

6.3.8 Financial Transaction, Issues ofTransparency and ParticipationControl over financial matters is animportant indicator of local participation.By and large local organizations do notseem to have much say in decisionsregarding fund allocation, expenditureand management even though the work-related funds are routed throughwatershed committees in almost allgovernment-supported projects.Generally one or two members of thewatershed committees together with theWDT leader operate the account and itis often reported that decisions aretaken by these people. Because of thisprovision at least these few members

118

know how much money is available forthe project and how it is being spent ondifferent activities. However, oftendecisions regarding financial matters aretaken by the PIA with the consent of thesignatories and the watershedcommittee as an institution mostly actsas a conduit for channelling funds.Besides these people the watershedsecretary may be having someinformation about financial issuesbecause he is a paid employee and isexpected to keep books, accounts andrecords of the details of activitiesundertaken. In quite few watershedsgenerally the secretary is also awatershed committee member and isentrusted with the responsibility of thejoint signatory, often by the PIA.As said earlier in many NGO-runprogrammes funds are directly managedby NGOs. Since most NGOs work in aparticipatory manner, they may beconsulting watershed committees inmatters related to planning andallocation of funds for different activities.In IGWDP and NABARD-supportedWDF projects the VWC is involved indecisions regarding fund matters andthe account is jointly operated by theVWC members (two signatories) and theNGO head. In IGWDP there is no fixedcost for watershed measures ascompared to government projects, andthe cost of a watershed is based on theplan estimation and area proposed forthe treatment. Once the planning is overand estimations are decided it is ratifiedin the watershed committee and GramSabha and sent to the supportingorganization for sanction. It is followedby a filed verification by the supportorganization and proposed changes ifany are discussed in the village meetingand consensus is evolved there itself54.During project sanction, both the PIAand two to three representatives of theVWC attend the Project Sanctioningand Steering Committee (PSSC)meeting and details of the sanctionedproject are explained and discussed.The committee also gets a copy of thesanctioned project.Financial issues, transparency andparticipatory monitoring are closelylinked and play a crucial role in ensuringactive participation. For better projectadministration all these aspects requireto be part of the implementationstrategy. Guidelines also in some way

try to link these. For example, it isexpected that action plans and theproposed budget be approved by theGram Sabha and periodical socialauditing conducted to ensuretransparency in implementation andexpenditure. It is also expected thatwages be disbursed in a public place,and together by the watershedcommittee and the WDT. Whereverpossible, wages and other expensesare to be paid through cheques. TheGram Sabha has the right to scrutinizethe financial transactions. However inmost government projects these thingsdo not happen. The Dharamitraevaluations observe that in 38watersheds out of the 144, there weresome problems in the way funds arebeing managed. There arediscrepancies in certain cases, whereasin some cases, proper accounting andbookkeeping is not followed. In mostcases the watershed committee inparticular, and the WA in general, areignorant about the financialtransactions. In quite a few cases thesanctioned budget is also not releasedentirely. Problems related to fundrelease from the district authorities areoften reported from all parts of thecountry. Generally, money is releasedby the end of each financial year, whichin turn always impacts the mobilizationand participation of the community.PIAs often find it difficult to keep thecommunity's interest and enthusiasmhigh due to these delays. In theworkshop of practitioners held inVidharbha this issue was prominentlyhighlighted. The poor interaction withthe government machinery and thefailure to get funds released at theappropriate time was the majorbottleneck expressed by almost allimplementing agencies. Frequenttransfers of officials and a basic lack ofinterpersonal trust between governmentofficials and NGOs, the two institutionscommitted to the cause of ruraldevelopment, seem to be at the root ofmost delays and snags.There is no separate department oreven official appointed to look at thedisbursement of funds55. There aremultiple dimensions to the problem offund release. It could be that the fundsfor social organization have not beencompletely delivered, or that the releaseof funds for treatments is considerablydelayed. This has two repercussions:

54 For details seethe OperationsManual of theIndo-GermanWatershedDevelopmentProgramme(IGWDP),published byWOTR. 1997.55 In one case,when theresponsibleofficials of DRDAwere out ofoffice, no furtherdisbursementhappened tilltheir return(PrakashWanare, in NGOWorkshop) .

119

first, there are possibilities that thecommunity, which has begun to bemotivated through communityorganization work, might lose interest inthe programme; second, since the timethat watershed treatments can beundertaken on the field is limited, workmay get delayed in spite of release offunds. This is true especially in theVidharbha region where the largeportion of treatments are undertaken onprivate lands after the crop has beenharvested and the fields are empty.Many heads of implementing agenciesfelt that it is the government officials whostand in need of training, especiallyregarding the significance of thetimetable of farmers and the schedule ofwatershed development activities56.It was reported that about 15 to 20 percent of the sum granted to projects isusually never released by the DRDA.Prakash Shirke of the College of SocialWork, Yavatmal, whose proposal for twoadjacent watersheds was for Rs 36 lakh,was able to get only Rs 22 lakh by theend of the project period. Another Rs 4lakh was spent from the watersheddevelopment fund to complete certaintreatments. Thus, an amount of Rs 14lakhs was never released. Due to delayin fund release the programme went onfor over nine years from 1995-6 to 2004.Recently, Vanrai, an NGO has filed alawsuit in this respect and has been ableto get the DRDA to part with the rest ofthe money. The practitioners alsocomplained that they were often not ableto recover the funds that coveredremuneration for the NGO's staff and itsservices. Madhukar Das of the NGODilasa was of the opinion that to run anyproject in association with DRDA was initself a frustrating task. After four monthsof the experience of implementing aDPAP programme, he gave up due tothe inability to cope with thebureaucratic and indifferent approach ofthe DRDA. He later worked on projectsfunded by the Aga Khan Foundation andCAPART (Department of Science andTechnology) under which he foundfunds-disbursement as wells asmonitoring of work and accounts muchmore efficient and prompt.Vishnu Sarkate, of Varhad Vikas SevaPratishthan, Akola felt that thegovernment followed a dual policy.While people's participation and othertechnical norms were strictly monitored

for the NGOs, these norms were slack inthe government-implementedwatersheds. A common complaint wasalso the problem of repeated arbitrarychecks and surprise visits by variousofficials from different governmentdepartments and additionaldocumentation (like getting a certificatefrom the people's representative forcompletion of work) that was requiredfrom time to time by NGOs. The frequenttransfer of officials and the consequentre-iteration of earlier procedures addedto these problems57. Many NGO participants in the workshopexpressed a lack of adequate statutoryprovisions to address the grievances ofthese scattered NGOs. They felt thatthere should be an effort to cometogether to form an association, whichwould have a greater voice with theDRDA58. The government officials onthe other hand could make a commoncause and also had the power toregister complaints with the office ofCommissioner of Charitable Trustsagainst the concerned PIA. It wassuggested in the workshop that a fewdetailed case studies could beundertaken and publicized to illustratethe problems that the implementingagencies faced with state machinery inprogrammes such as DPAP.Even after two decades of implementingparticipatory watersheds and severalrecommendations by eminentcommittees still watershed projects aresuffering from these maladies. Finance-related issues are still plaguing projectsand an efficient community managedsystem where people have a decisivesay in village development could not beestablished. As compared to this theNGO programmes do comparativelybetter. In IGWDP has adopted aproactive system for the release ofmoney in instalments (generally twoinstalments in an year). When 60 percent of an instalment is utilized the VWCthrough the NGO can apply for the nextinstalment. On receiving the applicationNABARD conducts a two-daymonitoring involving CBOs and the NGOand money is released. Availability of 40per cent of the fund allows continuity ofwork in the interim period. Workprogress and expenditure are regularlyupdated and displayed at a public placeand a cadastral map is used to displaythe progress of the work.

56 Anothercomplexitynoted was thatdue to theincrease in thewater table afterthe first year'sintervention, anadditional cropis generallytaken and thelabour/farmerget involvedwith it and is notfree forwatershed work.In Amravati,where the firstyear's workbegan inDecember andin the secondyear the periodavailable fortreatment wasfurther reduced,as labour wasnot free fromagriculturaloperations tillend of March(workshopdiscussion).57 This problemgets furthercompounded ifMother NGOalso adopts asurveillance-oriented attitude(NGOworkshop).58 CertainNGOs that arepoliticallymotivated andhave some cloutmight beindifferent to theprospect ofsuch coalitions,which onlydiscourages theothers.

120

6.3.9 Participation in Operation,Maintenance and ResourceManagementOver the years institutional mechanismsand financial provisions have beenmade for the operation andmaintenance of watersheds. Watershedcommittees and UGs are expected totake up the responsibilities ofmaintenance and the WatershedDevelopment Fund (local/beneficiarycontribution) is expected to serve thispurpose. This is a very commendabledevelopment, as compared to thesituation that existed earlier. Forexample, in early efforts at soil andwater conservation through the bundingprogramme in Maharashtra, it was takenfor granted that even after thecompletion of the project, theimplementing agency, mainly thegovernment department, would beresponsible for repair and maintenance.Hence, no institutional or financialarrangements were made. Even thoughthe institutional and financialmechanisms are put in place, that initself may not ensure participation of thecommunity in operation andmaintenance (for greater detail pleaserefer to discussion on operations andmaintenance in the fourth chapter on'Watershed Development andSustainability'). The active participationof the community in other processesand in decision-making is required forthem to take the responsibility ofmaintenance. At the same time issuesof technology, user rights etc., alsoinfluence the process of participation inoperation and maintenance. If themeasures planned and implemented arenot in consultation with the people andthey do not perceive or receive anybenefits from it there is very little chancethat those assets are properlymaintained. The sustainability of theinstitutions designed and promoted iscrucially linked to the operation andmaintenance of assets. Most often it isnoticed that these organizationsbecome dormant in the post-projectphase and slowly lose relevance.Progressive empowerment of thecommunity in different stages of projectimplementation is necessary for them totake full responsibility for governance ofresources and assets in the future.However, our analysis is not fullyleading to this direction which wouldhave enabled us to come to a firm

conclusion. In most projects thecommunity and the CBOs are oftenseen playing a peripheral role and onlytime will tell how they embrace theirresponsibilities and actively participatein conserving and maintainingresources.The most crucial component to judgeparticipation is the systems andprocedures adopted by the communityin regulating resource-use and itssustainable management. Emergence,formulation and application ofregulatory mechanisms shows thematurity and coming of age of thecommunity and their representativeinstitutions, and one can say that it is atthis stage that a genuine watershedcommunity has come into existence.There are very few instances tosubstantiate the argument, however it isprudent to say that participation is ameans to work out socially acceptableand scientifically informed socialregulation measures that lead tosustainable use of resources and theirgovernance. In the absence of suchsocially accepted regulations,competitive extraction of resourcesbecomes the order of the day andpeople who have resources and cloutoften exploit the resultant benefitswhether it is water or biomass. This isobserved in many of the 'successful'projects such as Agadgaon,Pimpalgaon Wagha etc, where insummer months, especially in a year ofdrought, they fall into the previoussituation of even getting drinking waterthrough tankers. Certain projects havemade conditions like non-cultivation ofwater intensive crops part of theirdesign, but it is noticed that after thewithdrawal of the PIA people are optingfor the same. Regulations shouldemerge from society through informedchoices, negotiations and democraticprocesses. As an example, in RalegaonSiddhi, there was an understandingamongst the people that nobody wouldgo in for an individual well. Theydecided to have community wells neareach check dam on the major stream inthe watershed with a clearunderstanding as to how much watereach one would receive. Each wateruser was given a card, something like aration card, in which the details of theirrigation rotations, etc., were recorded.They also decided not to grow water-intensive crops like sugarcane with this

121

water (however, they laid down no suchrestrictions the use of water receivedfrom Kukudi irrigation canal). As a resultthe village stayed self-sufficient fordrinking water in even in acute droughtyears (Paranjape et al. 1998). In anotherproject in Ahmadnagar district, Kasare,after the implementation of watershedand increased availability of waterpeople went in for sugarcane cultivation,but the drought and resultant shortage ofdrinking water during 1995-97, forcedthe community to rethink about plantingwater intensive crops and overexploitation of resources. This resultedin a decision not to cultivate sugarcanein the watershed59.

6.4. Watershed Development andPanchayat Raj InstitutionsPanchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) areconstitutionally designed institutionalmechanisms for democratic participationat the micro/village level. However, thereseems to be a sharp division of opinionamongst researchers and practitionerswith regard to the role of PRIs inwatershed development. This issuebecomes increasingly important in thecontext of the 73rd amendment of theIndian Constitution aimed at devolvingmore powers to the PRIs and theemergence of Hariyali guidelines forwatershed implementation. The issue incontention is whether it is the PRI, whichis well equipped to handle watersheddevelopment, or is it better handled bythe CBOs, as is the general practice.Those who are in favour of PRIs arguethat they are constitutionally valid bodiesand are more accountable and will havecontinuity as compared to CBOs, whichare more informal and do not havesufficient statutory powers. There isanother section, which argues that PRIsshould function as statutory bodies andwatershed developmental functionsshould not be their responsibility,because they are already burdened witha lot of work and watersheddevelopment requires considerable timefor facilitation and implementation. Thereis also a middle path that feels that it isnecessary that CBOs are responsible forwatershed development, but they canfunction as a sub-committee (like manyother committees functioning under theGram Panchayat such as education,health, sanitation etc) under the PRI.

The new guideline gives priority to PRIsas implementation agencies, and in thestate, projects implemented through thePRIs have only started since 2003,hence it is difficult to say whichinstitutional mechanism is betterequipped to handle watersheddevelopment and ensure communityparticipation. It is observed that earlierprojects had no active links with theGram Panchayat (GP) except to gainthe consent of the gram sabha andpassing the resolution for initiatingwatershed development in the village. Incase of IGWDP at least one GramPanchayat member is expected to be amember of the VWC and it is observedin Vaiju Babulgaon and Ambevadiprojects were there were commonmembers who were part of VWC andGP. In case of Dornali (AFARM), Chale(DPAP) also, we could find commonmembers. CBO members are also oftenobserved contesting and getting electedto the GP.At a practitioners workshop organizedas part of this review certainobservations emerged in relation to thenew Hariyali guidelines. There weremixed feelings, while some NGO andGO members felt that it was an attemptto marginalize the NGO's role inwatershed projects which would onlyimpact the programmes adversely,others felt that it was the right move inthe direction of enabling village-levelinstitutions to take the responsibility ofdevelopment in their own hands.Prakash Shirke (College of Social Work,Yavatmal), supported the new guidelinessaying that till now the NGO had beenmade the scapegoat betweenGovernment departments and village-level bodies such as the VWC, with the,"government firing its gun placed on theNGO's shoulder". However, now theNGO could render technical/organizational assistance on acontractual basis. Mr. Khadse ofDharamitra was sceptical of the Hariyaliguidelines, which might mean lessdedication and more confusion inimplementation. He felt that theemphasis should instead be onidentifying the right NGOs. In adiscussion held in the village Sanglud,the VWC chairman was pessimisticabout Hariyali as he felt there would beincreased scope of bribery and delays.He felt that the programme would behampered by political concerns as most

59 Discussionwith project staffof the SocialCentre,Ahmednagar,the NGOworked inKasarewatershed inAhmednagartaluka.

122

villages are anyway split into twoelectoral factions and conflictinginterests. The NGO on the other handbeing a third party had a greater scopeof getting the village to participatewithout necessarily inviting directconfrontations. Also, the villageSarpanch (president) and Sachiv(secretary) might not be able to giveenough time given their other duties andcommitments. Mr. Chaudhari, projectdirector of DRDA felt that unless village-level institutions were better trained, itwas difficult to expect efficient handlingof funds around Rs 25-30 lakhs involvedin the projects. The watershedcommunities constituted presently underthe DPAP projects usually include oneor two GP members in spite of this notbeing mandatory in the earlierguidelines. However, selective NGOsseemed to work entirely through theparticipation of the gram sabha whileothers approached the gram sabha onlyif there were any issues which coud notbe resolved within the watershedcommittee. There seemed to be nomajor power conflicts in any of thevillages visited between the GP and thewatershed committee. The secretary ofthe VWC in the area of the ChandrapuriMaharaj Trust commented that when thewatershed treatment work washappening, at that time the watershedcommittee was seen as the more activeinstitution and considerable importancewas given to the committee head asagainst the Sarpanch. In anotherinstance at Vastapur, the PIA with theSarpanch's support constructed toiletsthat were later shown as being fundedby GP funds! Another drawback in theHariyali guidelines was pointed byMadhukar Gharad of Vanrai MitraMandal who commented that most ofthe important decisions were taken atthe Mantralay (ministry) level which werenot made clear for those working at thedistrict and taluka level. In fact, the PIAoften did not understand the role andduties that they had to undertake as aPIA.The workshop observed that theguidelines also encourage theinvolvement of UGs and SHGs. Butsubsidies available to such groupsunder other schemes -- like SampoornaGram Rojgar Yojana -- are not availableunder Hariyali's watershed developmentefforts. Hence, the groups are oftenformed to satisfy Hariyali's

requirements, but do not play anymeaningful role; their composition issimply to satisfy a checklist and get thefunds rolling. Similarly, for facilitatingimplementation of Hariyali, either theDRDA or the Zilla Parishad selects aprogramme implementation agency --usually an NGO that is floated politicallyand serves private interests more thanthe programmes. It is now beingsuggested that instead a DistrictWatershed Committee of technicalexperts should be appointed to selectthe implementers -- so that theselection would not smack of politicsbut would be purely on merit andtechnical grounds.

6.5. ObservationsParticipation in the processes andpractice of watershed development isconsidered the key to implementing aneffective and sustainable watersheddevelopment and during the course ofevolution of watershed developmentone could observe certain decisivesteps in this direction by bothgovernment-supported projects andthose of the NGOs. Even though thereare qualitative differences in the wayparticipation is initiated and realized indifferent projects, there is increasingacceptance and consensus amongdifferent actors about the importance ofcommunity-participation and its role inresource conservation andmanagement. However our reviewshows that participation is often verynominal and operationalizedinstrumentally without muchconsideration shown to local conditionsor factors that influence participation ofdifferent sections and power groups.Besides, the agenda and rules ofparticipation are decided by higher levelagencies such as the fundingorganizations and coordinatinginstitutions, and villagers are expectedto participate in their agenda and termswithout having any creative role.Consent of the 'community' is taken asthe indicator of participation, eventhough many practitioners are awarethat such so called consent may notreflect the actual reality of the villagecommunities which are aconglomeration of alliances andconflicts based on different socio-economic factors. It is also commonthat participation often takes the view

123

and consent of the powerful, andminority views and non-vocal sectionsget ignored in the process. Thephilosophy, approach and culture of thefacilitating PIAs play a crucial role inpreparing the community forparticipation and creating space for it toengage in decisive participation inproject management. Ideally speaking,participation should lead toempowerment of the community andtheir CBOs, which in turn will enablethem to take up responsibilities ofgovernance, and in the context of

watershed development governancerelated to resources. Another aspect isthat most often many project-relateddecisions are taken at the higher level ofstakeholders (such as coordinating andfunding organizational level) and thecommunity seldom has any say in suchmatters. However, certain trends and thedirection of project implementation pointtowards the increasing communityparticipation and consultation in project-related decisions and this should beconsidered a welcome step.

124

Issues, Concerns and ResearchNeeds

Watershed development has emergedas a key strategy for rural developmentin the state of Maharashtra since theearly 1990s. This paradigm shift in ruraldevelopment was facilitated by somepioneering examples of watersheddevelopment being undertaken in thestate by motivated individuals andorganizations in villages like RalegaonSiddhi, Agadgaon, Pimpalgaon Wagha,Hivre Bazar etc. Even though the statehad undertaken different conservationactivities such as farm bunds and nallabunds since the early 1970s, theconcept of integrated biophysicaltreatment of a watershed with theinvolvement of the community as thedriving force came into existence withthe emergence of these villages in thedrought-prone areas of the state. Morethan half the state being drought-proneand agriculture activities determined bythe vagaries of nature, these villagescame as a ray of hope for developmentpractitioners, policy makers and villagecommunities at large. And the 1990switnessed a large number of watershedprojects being implemented throughoutthe state supported by governmentagencies, bilateral organizations/agencies, NGOs etc.As projects reached a critical scale andvarieties of experiences gotaccumulated through interactionsamong the community of practitioners,researches and evaluations, newerproblems and critical concerns startedemerging. The concerns are multiple, asis evident from our review; most ofteninterlinked and touching on differentaspects related to policy and practicesuch as project organization andmanagement, micro- and macro-levelstrategies, objectives and outcomes,

technologies of conservation andproduction, issues related to equity inbenefits, sustainability, participation anddevolution, downward accountabilityetc. Addressing these issues requirechanges in policy, approaches andimplementation strategies. It is alsonecessary that sufficient informationand knowledge be generated ondifferent aspects of watersheddevelopment through interdisciplinaryand intensive researches and studies,action-research projects and piloting ofexperiments. As the review shows,currently there is a dearth of informationon major issues of concern and mostoften the information and knowledgeavailable are not based on rigorousmethodology and analyticalframeworks.There are a number of programmesbeing implemented in the state,involving different agencies and withdifferent implementation strategies.Based on the information availablemore than Rs 22,5176 lakhs was spenton different projects during 1992-2002and still more than 145 lakh ha remainsto be treated. Even though so much isinvested in drought-proofing andenhancing the productive potential ofrainfed areas, our review shows that on-ground achievements are not verylaudable or effective, barring certainprojects and villages. This is not todeny the importance of watersheddevelopment as a rural developmentstrategy, but to initiate a critical look atthe experiences, so as to reformulatestrategies and approaches to improvethe efficiency, effectiveness andoutcomes of watershed interventions.The problem with a 'watersheddevelopment programme' or WDPbegins with the fact that the notion ofdevelopment that underpins theconcept of 'integrated watersheddevelopment' is rather narrow, i.e.,focused on production or income gains.At present, the main goals of WDPs donot include equity, sustainability andparticipatory democratization or, if theyare included in the guidelines at all, it isin a very narrow sense without beingproperly articulated. For example,sustainable water use is not thoughtthrough clearly -- the thrust is on waterresource augmentation. Similarly,participation is simplistically assumed toensure democracy (Joy et al. 2006).

Chapter 7

125

The long-term possibility of ensuringsustainable livelihoods and resourceaugmentation and use would depend alot on how these goals are articulatedand how they are incorporated inwatershed development practice. Someof the key concerns that emerged in ourreview, and which have a bearing onwhat we have stated above, arediscussed in the following section.

7.1 Change in Approach and Strategy

7.1.1 Project PlanningAll most all projects have more or lessthe same objectives viz., improvingsocio-economic conditions of thecommunity, conserving and developingthe natural resource base, generatingemployment, community empowermentetc. Even though the objective ofwatershed development has moved toan extent from simple conservation tocreation of rural livelihoods (GoI 2001),still the approach, strategies, methods ofimplementation and financial allocationsare more in terms of simple conservationof soil and water. Watersheddevelopment still is not strategized interms of creating sustainable livelihoodsby improving the productive potential ofthe ecosystem. Unlike otherconservation strategies (for e.g., forestand species conservation), thephilosophy and practice of watershed-based conservation is not atloggerheads with livelihoods of thecommunity inhabiting the watershedarea. In fact, the very objective ofwatershed development should besustainable productivity enhancementand, consequently, increased livelihoodoptions and support. To achieve this, acritical shift is required in the waywatersheds are being planned andimplemented. Most often conservationmeasures planned and implemented areindependent of the farming systems andlivelihood strategies of the localcommunity. They stand as individualmeasures, independent of theproduction potential of the ecosystemresources as a whole. Planning shouldlook into the livelihood strategies ofdifferent sections living in the watershed,and their relation/dependence toecosystem resources. The dominantpractice currently followed is to identify aset of treatment measures, assuming

that implementation of those measureswill automatically lead to improvedresource management, enhancedproduction and livelihood options.Neither a farming system approach nora livelihood system approach is followedfor planning of watersheds. This is veryimportant not only from the perspectiveof creating sustainable livelihoods, butalso from sustainability and equityconcerns. If different sections identify alivelihood stake in watersheddevelopment, the very sustainability ofthe intervention is more likely ensured.Planning from a livelihood perspective,involving all households and sections ina watershed may create chances forbringing equity concerns to the centerstage of watershed development.Currently the 'real planning' whereinvestments are involved is with thelandholders; even though PRAs areconducted, they fail to elicit differentconcerns in relation to conservation,resource-regeneration and livelihoods.This may be the reason for livelihoodsbecoming non-farm income-generationactivities. This may lead to change andflexibility in fund allocation for differentmeasures.

7.1.2 Watershed Development UnitAnother issue with respect to planning,which has a policy bearing, is related tothe size of the 'unit of planning' andcurrently it is micro-watershedsgenerally of just more than 500 ha. Mostoften, such a small unit may not reflectmacro issues and concerns, especiallythose related hydrology and otherexternalities. Small basins andcatchments as units, with an integratedperspective of resource managementmay be necessary without ignoring themicro concerns. This also will meanintegrating the micro and macroconcerns in the planning details.Saturation of a larger area is alsoimportant from the point of impacts,resource efficiency and evolvingmechanisms for regulation ofregenerated resources.

7.1.3 Project Implementation andCommunity ParticipationAnother important concern is related tothe methods and strategies of projectadministration. Increased devolution ofauthority to the community is required.At present, the community is expected

126

to participate in a set of agendas onwhich they do not have much control,even though projects are calledparticipatory. The community shouldhave an increased say/role in project-related issues such as financemanagement, allocations for differentaspects, local contribution etc. Moredevolution of authority should occur incongruence with strategies for increaseddemocratization of the community or itmay preserve the status quo. This mayalso require increased flow of project-related information to the communityand different sections, especially theresource-poor such as labourers in thewatershed site, women and otherdisadvantaged sections. Downwardaccountability from the higher levels ofhierarchy to the local level is also veryimportant. Currently, the community isasked to undertake a lot of responsibilityin relation to the project implementation,without sufficient devolution of authority,even though most state-supportedprojects have systems to transfer theproject money to the watershedcommittee jointly operated with theWDT. However, most often it is the WDTwhich takes major decisions regardingits allocation and use.Effective and empowered participationalso requires strategies fordemocratization and decision-making atthe community level. Our review showsthat most often a couple of watershedcommittee members are involved indecision-making and other institutionspromoted as part of watersheddevelopment seldom have any role indecisions. Even though formation ofSHGs and UGs are considered aprecondition for watershed developmentand formation of watershed committees,they hardly have a role in decisionsregarding project administration. Instates like Andhra Pradesh attempts aremade to increase the involvement ofSHGs and UGs by getting differentwatershed activities implemented bythem with the watershed committeeworking as a management andcoordinating body. This creates a stakeand say for these institutions inwatershed-oriented decisions. Besidethese responsibilities related to projectadministration there are also widerissues related to regulation of resourcesat the local level. In our opinion it isnecessary that these responsibilities beentrusted with the Gram Sabha/

Watershed Association which is moreequipped to handle such issues.However there should be sufficientattention paid to involving and creatingspace for the powerless anddisadvantaged sections such as dalits,adivasis, women, landless etc .It maynot be an easy task given the culture ofexclusion and silence traditionallyprevalent in our society. Communityorganization and institution building atthe local level requires more attentionand an increased time frame.Implementation of conservationmeasures should start only afterachieving this objective. Negotiationsand arrangements for resourceaugmentation and sharing may also bepart of institution-building. Most oftenthe institution (read members) does notsee a stake in the project and theresultant benefits hence becomedormant and inactive. Related to this isalso the issue of capacity building ofrelevant stakeholders. A capacitybuilding strategy should be integral toproject management, resource-augmentation and management. Itneeds to be embedded with the projectstrategy and project duration. In mostgovernment-supported projects, as thereview shows, it is a one-time effort andprogressive induction in improving thecapacity based on differentrequirements of the project is notvisible. With the new Hariyali guidelines,even the fund allocation for communityorganization and capacity building hasalso been reduced to five per cent ascompared to ten per cent availableearlier. Bringing in the concept of'Mother NGO' as a resourceorganization in improving communityorganizations, capacity building andparticipation also need to be analysedfor their effectiveness in bringingchanges in these areas.

7.1.4 Conservation and ProductionTechnologyRelated to this is the issue of watershedtechnology and the role of thecommunity in selecting relevant andappropriate technology. Most often thetendency is to choose conventionaltechnologies, like cement masonrystructures. It is also noticed that thebetter-off farmers who have lands in thevalley often put pressure on the PIA toopt for such measures. How evertechnologies should be a god mix of

127

low cost (using local material and skills)with some components of conventionalmeasures. Efforts are needed inidentification and upgrading of localtechnologies the farmers are using.Technologies should have scope foreasy comprehension and acceptance bythe local community. The issue oftechnology has an implication forlivelihoods, equity in investments andsustainability of watershed measures.Besides conservation technologies, thekind of production technologiespromoted under watershed are alsoconventional and external-input oriented.Since increase in production is one ofthe major goals of watersheddevelopment the facilitators, especiallythose from the government departmentstend to choose such methods. Atpresent there are not many incentives infavour of switching to low-external inputsustainable agriculture, in terms of thesubsidies available or pricing of theproduct. Watershed development hasthe scope of bringing such incentives,especially for medium and smallfarmers. There should also be scope forparticipative experimentation withfarmers in developing conservation andproduction technologies. Addressingthese issues will call for increasedallocation and rearrangements in budgetallocation for different components. Itwill also mean improved capacity of theWDT and exposures and capacitybuilding of farmers.

7.1.5 Common Property LandResourcesRegarding development of commonproperty land resources (CPLR), boththe forest and community lands havealso emerged as an important issue inour review. It has its implication onissues related to livelihoods of theresource-poor. Most often these landsare not developed under the watershedprogramme due to practical andadministrative reasons. In places wherethey are developed, this has notsucceeded in ensuring the usufructs tothe resource poor. Ensuring rights overaugmented resources in favour of theresource-poor is essential. To an extentit can be facilitated at the communitylevel, but the necessary administrativeand legal provisions (in relation todifferent common property regimes) arerequired to ensure this. There are noenabling policy frameworks to provide

user rights to the community andresource-poor, except may be for theJFM resolution. Most often thedeveloped commons fail to ensure somereturns, except for grass in someinstances, due to improper technologyand plant species. However,development of commons and allocationof certain rights in favour of theresource-poor is necessary in thewatershed development programmes toaddress the issue of livelihoods of theresource-poor. Increased investments,resolving administrative bottlenecks,interdepartmental coordination andpolicy formulation for user rights arerequired to achieve this.

7.1.6 EquityRelated to this is the issue of equity inaccess to augmented resources. Whilethere could be an enabling environmentand legal provisions which can furtherequity, equity in and of itself cannot belegislated. A greater awareness of andsensitivity to equity issues and theirimplications are a precondition, if onehas to even explore various possibilities.There are many possibilities. Equity canbe achieved through socialarrangements for increased access torejuvenated resources such as biomass,water etc. Creating surface waterresources (in a conventional watershed,the tendency to convert all water intogroundwater requires rethinking) andbiomass and access to it in favour of theresource-poor is very important.Increased allocation of project-relatedfinance for developing such measures,besides other biomass related income-generation activities, are also important.Equity can also be addressed throughincreased investments in labour-orientedconservation measures ensuring that thelabour goes to the resource-poor andthey get the 'real' wage as factored inthe project. It is also important thatlabourers receive equal wages and arenot paying the contribution for thelandholders as a 'wage cut'. Facilitatingequity concerns require 'out of the box'thinking, a different set of capacities andsensitivity with the WDT.

7.1.7 Operation and Management ofAssetsSustainability of project measures andecosystem resources are a majorconcern in most programmes under

128

review. Lack of strategy is observed inmaintaining and repair of measures andassets created under the project. Eventhough a watershed development fund(WDF) is created and PIAs are expectedto chart out an exit protocol, theoperation and maintenance ofwatershed measures is in disarray.Communities are found lacking a visionor systems in respect of post-projectmanagement of assets. In many placesthe WDF is neither utilized nor is theremuch information about its status. Aclear strategy for management of WDFand systems for operationalizing assetmaintenance are required.

7.1.8 Management of GroundwaterThe review also shows that the use ofwater for irrigation is expanding andreceiving greater priority in watershedprojects. In most projects for whichinformation is available, the number ofwater extraction sources such as openwells and borewells have increased afterwatershed implementation. Even thoughthere is increased groundwater rechargeas a result of water conservation, theextraction is often outpacing the amountof recharge, creating a water shortageduring the summer months. The watersituation in most watersheds duringsummer months is almost the same aswhat it was earlier, with water tankerssupplying water for drinking andhousehold use. Most often the scarcityis explained as a result of poor rainfall,ignoring issues related to over-extraction, lopsided prioritization ofwater use etc. A simple but scientificsystem of analyzing the water balanceat the community level is also lacking.Overexploitation is leading to extractionof water from the deep aquifers withserious implications not just for long-term sustainability of agriculture, butalso for the quality of water for thedomestic sector. There are a fewexamples where the community hasintroduced self-regulation ongroundwater extraction and use, suchas a ban on borewells for agricultureand on cultivation of water-intensivecrops. These examples are far and few.However, it is very important to set upregulatory mechanisms within thecommunity that will ensure priority todomestic water use and will alsomonitor and regulate groundwaterextraction. The self-regulation bycommunities can be made a

precondition to grant watersheddevelopment projects. Besidescommunity-initiated regulation, it mightalso require certain enabling policyinitiative and legislation on the part ofthe state to enable Gram Sabhas toregulate water use.

7.1.9 Project ManagementA major concern that has emerged aspart of the review is the overallmanagement (including issues relatedto finance) and delivery systems inwatershed development. Reforms in theinstitutional arrangement are required tostreamline delivery systems ofwatershed development. Currently, theZilla Parisad/DRDA is responsible fordistrict-level project management andhas a number of other mandates ofwhich watershed development is one. Adedicated Project Support Unit withsubject matter specialists in communityorganization, capacity building, gender,monitoring and evaluation, GIS/MIS isrequired to bring professionalism intothe watershed management anddelivery mechanism. Such a system isalso required at the state level. There isa need to organize empoweredcommittees with experts from state andcivil society to provide overall steeringand monitoring support. Financialallocation is also required forundertaking embedded and periodicmonitoring and evaluations, issue-based studies and research. Flexibilityin project administration is required sothat findings from such activities can beincorporated to improve the efficiencyand effectiveness of the project.A lot of problems are observed in relationto fund disbursement. Most often moneyis released at the fag end of the financialyear, affecting the quality of biophysicalactivity and community mobilization. Aperformance-related and transparentsystem of fund disbursement is requiredfor improving the efficiency of theprojects. This may also require thecreation of commonly agreed systemsand procedures, including indicators forperformance assessment. There shouldalso be systems for redressal in caseswhere decisions are found to bearbitrary. An overall transparency isrequired in project administration anddetails of financial allocation and statusof different projects should be availablein the public domain.

129

7.1.10 Baseline/ BenchmarkingAnother concern is the absence ofreliable baseline data/information onbiophysical resources and sociologicalaspects of watersheds. Such a baselineand benchmarking is very important tounderstand changes and impacts ofwatershed development. In the absenceof such information, impacts andprocesses are assessed on the basis ofestimations and recall, as is evident fromour literature survey. Financial allocationand development of easy-to-usescientific tools for information collectionand management is required inwatershed development.

7.2 Some Strategies for Improving theEfficiency and Effectiveness ofWatershed Development

Selection and prioritization ofwatersheds: eligible blocks may beprioritized based on additionalparameters (such as groundwatersituation, status of biomass etc.)other than those prescribed in theguidelines. Delineation to be done atmilli-watersheds/contiguous area ofmore than 5 to10000 ha and atmicro-watershed level for the entireblock. The strategy should to bringthe prioritized Milli-watersheds,sequentially under minimum soil andwater conservation measures, andone PIA should be maderesponsible for that. Selection to bemore objective and transparent.Assessing community's willingness.Selection of resource organization/project support unit at district level.Selection of PIA: objective criteria,proven record, capacity-assessment, ideology andcommitment to participatoryprocesses, non-political selectionetc.Planning: moving away fromconservation planning to livelihoodand land-use/ production (farming)system planning.Baseline and planning tools: naturalresource and biophysicalbenchmarking, sociological details,mix of participatory and scientificplanning tools.Extended project period: eight to ten

years.Phasing of projects: capacity-building and community mobilizationphase (social and institutionalarrangements for augmentedresources, capacity building of WDTand villagers); implementationphase (biophysical, production andlivelihoods) and consolidation phase(sustainable productivityenhancement, handing over allresponsibilities, consolidatinglivelihoods of resource poor etc.).Progressive entry to the next phasebased on performance.Increased allocation of funds: Rs.12,000 ha from the current norm ofRs 600060. Fund to be earmarkedfor database and monitoringinformation, targeted allocation forresource-poor.Monitoring and evaluation:development of systems and tools,MIS, systems of transparency,participatory end-phase evaluations,monitoring of process andoutcomes.Enlisting the support of resourceorganization and individuals forsupport services in technologydevelopment, livelihood promotion,participatory resource budgeting/plan and use etc.Creation of transparent processesand systems for assessment,scrutiny and fund release.Embedded capacity-building plan inrelation to capacity requirement indifferent phases.Strategy for increased devolution ofauthority and responsibility to thecommunity.Formation of nested institutions: toaddress issues above the villagelevel, for backward and for wardlinkages in production, marketingetc.

7.3 Research NeedsIt is evident from our literature reviewthat, there is a 'knowledge gap' in somecritical areas related to participatorywatershed development. Barring a fewexamples, there is very little in-depthand holistic information on different

60 ParthasarthyCommitteereport alsosuggests anincreasedallocation (Rs12000/ha) andan increasedproject period.

130

aspects of watershed development,covering the biophysical, social/anthropological and institutional aspectsof watershed development. This has itsimpact in evolving sound strategies forimproving the efficiency andeffectiveness of watersheddevelopment. Most often these studiesare very limited in scope and objective,and are mostly done immediately afterproject implementation, covering a fewbiophysical and social aspects.Watershed development is a complex,multi-sectoral intervention and a host offactors influence its outcomes. Someoutcomes take longer to register/manifest their visibility and immediateevaluations fail to capture them. Mostissues that need critical analysis andunderstanding require time-series data.The human, ecosystem resource andlivelihood interaction also undergoeschanges due to external factors such aschanges in production system (meansand methods), variations in climaticconditions (drought), larger politicaleconomic policies and processes etc.Understanding these in the context ofwatershed development is also veryimportant and may require long-termstudies. Watershed being a combinationof biophysical and social intervention,researches and studies need to adoptinter-disciplinary approaches andmethods to capture the outcomes in aholistic way. Resource utilization is alsodetermined by the cultural habits andeconomic behaviour of the communityand economic/cultural anthropologicalanalysis is required to understand theseaspects.

Some areas in which research studiesand action research projects arerequired are61:

Study of the cumulative impact ofwatershed development taking alarger unit area, something like asub-basin (contiguous micro-watersheds of more than 10,000 haor so) saturated by watershedactivities to understand the impactson hydrology (both surface andgroundwater), interaction amongstdifferent locations in the watershed(for example ridge and valleyinteractions), resource conflicts,institutions and governance and

intra- and inter-watershedsociological and economic issues.Conservation/developmentmeasures/technologies and theirimpact on soil, water andvegetation/biomass in differentrainfall and geophysical conditions.Grazing, resource-management,livestock and livelihoods in thewatershed context.Watershed development,mobilization of ecosystemresources and livelihood issues indifferent socio-ecological regions.Common property resources,watershed development and itsimpact on livelihoods of theresource-poor. Issues related touser rights/access on rejuvenatedcommon property resources.Comparison of tribal and non-tribalwatersheds.Time-series studies of selectedwatersheds over a period of timecovering issues of resource use,sustainability, equity in access etc.Process studies of differentprojects or modes ofimplementation (government, NGO,bilateral) in terms of project-management systems, approachesand strategies, participatoryprocesses, devolution, monitoringand evaluation systems,withdrawal/exit strategies etc.Institutions, social capital and itsimpacts on participation, equity andsustainability.Watershed development and itsscope and limits in livelihoodgeneration in heterogonous unitsand resource-poor areas.GIS-based change detection andimpact analysis.Impact of support organization(mother or support NGOs/organizations) in projectmanagement, participation,capacity building, communitymobilization and institution-building.Watershed development,employment generation, trickle-down effect: the resource-poor andtheir stake in watershed

61 The priorityfocus areas forresearchgrouped underthree broadareas, namely,hydrological,land-vegetation-waterinteractions, andsocio-economicaspects, are alsodiscussed in Joyand Paranjape(2004).

131

development.Action research on community-based water balance assessment,budgeting and monitoring.Developing robust models for this isimportant.Action research on participatorytechnology development (PTD) forsoil and water conservation andagricultural/biomass productionkeeping the land capability classesso that interventions especially inland classes

The newly formed Forum for WatershedResearch and Policy Dialogue(ForWaRD), Pune, a collaborative effortof the Society for PromotingParticipative Ecosystem Management(SOPPECOM), Pune, the GujaratInstitute of Development Research(GIDR), Ahmedabad and Centre forInterdisciplinary Studies in Environmentand Development (CISED), Bangaloreare currently involved in some of theseresearch areas and questions discussedabove in the three states ofMaharashtra, Madhya Pradesh andKarnataka respectively. Some of thebroader aspects that ForWaRD wouldlike to address in its research efforts areproductivity/livelihoods and otherbenefits, downstream impacts, cross-sectoral allocation of water anddemocracy in implementation.

7.4 Reorienting the WatershedProgramme62

ForWaRD is aware that mere rigorousresearch is not going to deliver; alsomere tinkering with the existingguidelines and policies will not help inactualizing the full potential of WDP. Thereview clearly shows that theprogramme needs to be restructuredsignificantly, if the watersheddevelopment approach has to deliverwhat it promises. Such a restructuringmust clearly embrace a normativeframework that treats livelihoods,productivity, sustainability, equity anddecentralized governance as its centralconcerns, and must be based onstrategies that respond to the varyingsocio-ecological contexts and pastexperiences with implementation.What is needed is a radical restructuringand reorientation of the programme -- a

reorientation that might be best capturedas a shift from "integrated andparticipatory watershed management" to"integrated and decentralized resourcegovernance". This entails:

Adopting productivity, livelihoodassurance, sustainability, equity,and democracy as basic values orgoals.Integration across all resources andrelated sectors (forest, livestock,drinking water and sanitation, minorirrigation, etc.) and across scales(micro to milli to sub-basin).Moving towards a statutory systemto regulate resource use beyond thelife of the watershed programme.Moving towards greater downwardaccountability.Clearer separation of roles atdifferent levels, with central andstate agencies focusing on funding,district agencies focusing onprovision of information, training,technical support, and monitoring, amilli-watershed level institutionhandling implementation and someregulatory aspects, and micro-watershed level institutions handlingplanning and long-term regulation.Looking at drought not as a purelyhydrological drought but as a socialphenomenon triggered by it, andtherefore requiring the incorporationof the notion of dependability.

62This section isdrawn from Joyet al. (2006),Reorienting theWatershedProgramme inIndia,OccasionalPaper, Forumfor WatershedResearch andPolicy Dialogue,Pune.

132

Annextures

DDiivviissiionon KKononkkan an ddiivv..

NNaasshhiik k ddiivv..

PPune une ddiivv..

KKoollhapuhapur r ddiivv..

AA��bad bad ddiivv..

LaLattuur r ddiivv..

AA��wwaatti i ddiivv..

NNagpuagpur r ddiivv.. SSttaatte e ttoottaall

Reported area for land utilization statistics (�00�ha)

29,790 41,653 47,518 26,955 28,489

35,945 45,967 51,266 307,583

Forest 19.70 24.44 7.63 12.43 3.54 3.52 15.30 38.67 16.96 Barren and unculturable land

17.65 7.50 7.12 7.51 1.86 1.70 2.78 1.97 5.59

Land under non agri-use 7.26 1.82 2.88 4.14 4.42 3.09 4.58 7.53 4 .47 Culturable waste 9.21 0.72 2.02 3.31 2.54 3.97 1.44 2.80 2.97 Permanent pastures 3.71 2.70 3.35 5.07 3.56 3.33 3.84 6.48 4 .07 Land under misc. trees and grooves not included in net area sown

2.69 0.16 0.48 0.96 0.61 0.77 0.50 0.81 0.80

Current fallows 2.22 2.22 4.78 2.56 7.22 7.93 2.38 3.16 3.95 Other fallows 10.09 1.29 5.57 4.76 4.25 4.71 1.62 1.56 3.87 Net area sown 27.48 59.19 66.17 59.26 71.97 71 67.57 37.01 57 .32 Area sown more than once

2.42 15.04 14.21 20.01 23.14 30.57 19.06 4.41 15.52

Gross cropped area 29.90 74.23 80.38 79.27 95.11 101.57 86.63 41.42 72.84

Table A 2.1:Land Utilization Statistics (2000-02)(Figures in percentage unless specified)

Source: www.agri.mah.nic.in/agri/stat/Lus-main

133

Table A 2.2: Distribution of Drought-prone Areas and Extent of Irrigation in Maharashtra

Source: GoM,Agro-climaticzones, 2003

DDiissttrriicctt GGeoeoggrraapphhiiccaal l aarrea ea ((�000 ha)

NNeet t ccrropoppped ed aarreaea

IIrrrriiggaatteed d aarreaea

IIrrrriiggaatteed d aarrea ea ((%%))

DDrrougoughhtt--pprronone e aarrea ea ((�000 ha)

DDrrougoughhtt--pprronone e aarrea ea ((%%))

Thane 972 244,600 12,375 5 Raigad 687 188,500 9,600 5 Ratnagiri 816 245,400 1,950 1 Sindhudurg 504 140,200 23,550 17 KKoonnkkan dan diivv.. 22,,979799 818188,,770000 4747,,447755 55..8080 Nashik 1,563 886,600 170,250 19 1,563 100 Dhule 1,438 734,700 77,400 11 1,062 74 Jalgaon 1,164 850,500 132,750 16 651 56 NNaasshhiik k ddiivv.. 44,,161655 22,,474711,,880000 383800,,440000 1515..3399 33,,272766 7979 Ahmadnagar 1,702 1,145,600 253,425 22 1,261 74 Pune 1,562 977,200 213,000 22 1,500 96 Solapur 1,488 1,037,700 192,900 19 1,327 89 PPuunne e ddiivv.. 44,,757522 33,,161600,,550000 656599,,332525 2020..8866 44,,080888 8686 Kolhapur 776 424,600 93,450 22 0 Satara 1,058 577,800 166,275 29 436 41 Sangli 861 591,700 109,275 18 719 83 KKoollhhaapupur r ddiivv.. 22,,696955 11,,595944,,110000 363699,,000000 2323..1155 11,,151555 4343 Aurangabad 1,008 702,500 141,600 20 802 80 Jalna 773 603,200 82,425 14 188 24 Bid 1,069 778,200 188,250 24 823 77 AAuurrananggabaabad d ddiivv.. 22,,848499 22,,080833,,990000 414122,,227575 1919..7788 11,,818133 6464 Latur 716 534,400 29,325 5 488 68 Osmanabad 749 507,500 91,050 18 317 42 Nanded 1,033 710,600 55,575 8 470 46 Parbhani 1,097 825,700 83,325 10 126 11 LaLattuur r ddiivv.. 33,,595955 22,,575788,,220000 252599,,227575 1010..0066 11,,404011 3939 Buldhana 967 692,900 37,725 5 684 71 Akola 1,056 818,500 23,475 3 1,056 100 Amravati 1,222 752,000 58,800 8 680 56 Yavatmal 1,352 849,900 47,400 6 1,034 76 AAmmrraavvaatti i ddiivv.. 44,,595977 33,,111133,,330000 161677,,440000 55..3838 33,,454533 7575 Nagpur 986 547,600 101,175 18 83 8 Chandrapur 1,092 459,600 83,400 18 349 32 Gadchiroli 1492 178,800 43,575 24 306 20 Bhandara 928 358,600 165,975 46 0 Wardha 629 366,500 33,450 9 0 NNaaggpupur r ddiivv.. 55,,121277 11,,919111,,110000 424277,,557575 2222..3377 737388 1414 MMahahaarraasshhttrraa 3030,,775588 1717,,773311,,660000 22,,727222,,772255 1515..3366 1515,,992233 5252

134

Table A 2.3:District/ Division-wise Distribution of Watersheds

DDiissttrriicctt NNuummbeber r oof f wwaatteerrsshedhedss Major- Sub- Mini- Micro- Thane 34 140 288 789 Raigad 17 91 220 678 Ratnagiri 20 82 116 504 Sindhudurg 11 68 191 650 KKononkkan dan diivv.. 8282 381381 815815 22,,621621 Nashik 80 283 501 2,518 Dhule/Nandurbar 65 302 589 1,600 Jalgaon 66 278 678 1,328 NNaassiik k ddiivv.. 211211 863863 11,,768768 5,446 Pune 71 303 637 3,290 Ahmadnagar 80 225 835 3,466 Solapur 64 185 415 1,296 PPune une DDiivv.. 215215 713713 11,,887887 88,,052052 Satara 50 217 446 1,361 Sangli 38 202 400 1,005 Kolhapur 40 193 366 1,621 KKhohollapuapur r ddiivv.. 128128 612612 11,,212212 33,,987987 Aurangabad 52 226 0 1,190 Jalna 52 191 385 1,299 Beed 48 104 322 2,132 AAuurrangabad angabad DDiivv.. 152152 521521 707707 44,,621621 Latur 39 117 211 8,06 Osmanabad 41 151 291 9,35 Nanded 49 123 256 1,307 Parbhani/Hingoli 51 246 506 1,541 LaLattuur r ddiivv.. 180180 637637 11,,264264 44,,589589 Buldhana 57 250 514 1,471 Akola 65 155 261 6,65 Washim 131 243 5,87 Amravati 63 228 450 1,341 Yavatmal 64 439 732 1,503 AAmmrraavvaatti i DDiivv.. 249249 11,,203203 22,,200200 55,,567567 Wardha 39 144 0 1,162 Nagpur 54 206 0 1,792 Bhandara 54 157 0 1,416 Chandrapur 58 154 0 2,174 Gadchiroli 83 182 0 2,758 NNagpuagpur r DDiivv.. 288288 843843 00 99,,302302 TToottaall 11,,505505 55,,773773 99,,853853 4444,,185185

135

Table A 2.4:DPAP Projects Sanctioned in Maharashtra

The average size of a watershed project is 500 ha. The total project cost is released in seven installments over a period offive years

DDiissttrriicctt NNuummbeber r oof f pprroojjeecctts ss sananccttiionedoned11 Batch 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8TH Har-I Har-II Total Year 95-96 96-

97 97-98

98-99

99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04

04-05 Installments due

7 7 7 7 7 6 5 4 2 1 Nashik 78(5) 0 0 0 0 0 26(1) 52(1) 26(1) 26(1) 208

41(7) 41(1) 20(1) 14(1) 0 6(1) 6(1) 144 Dhule Nandurbar 0 0 0 8(1) 8(1) Jalgaon 38(4) 0 0 0 0 20(2) 14(2) 35(2) 14(1) 14(1) 135 NNaasshhiik k ddiivv.. 487487 Ahmedngar 60(5) 0 0 0 0 85(1) 20(1) 0 20(1) 20(1) 205 Pune 72(4) 0 0 0 0 24(2) 48(2) 22(1) 23(1) 189 Sholapur 59(6) 0 0 0 0 84(2) 20(2) 0 20(1) 21(1) 204 PPune dune diivv.. 598598 Sangli 35(7) 0 0 0 35(2) 15(2) 12(2) 0 14(1) 15(1) 126 Satara 23(7) 0 0 0 23(2) 11(2) 8(2) 0 8(1) 8(1) 81 KKoollhapuhapur r ddiivv.. 207207 A. Bad 35(6) 0 0 0 35(2) 15(2) 12(2) 0 12(1) 12(1) 121 Beed 34(5) 0 0 0 0 54(2) 12(2) 0 12(1) 12(1) 124 Jalna 11(5) 0 0 0 0 25(1) 4(1) 0 4(1) 4(1) 48 AAuurrangabad angabad ddiivv..

293293 Nanded 23(6) 0 0 0 23(3) 15(3) 8(3) 0 8(1) 8(1) 85 Osm�bad 18(7) 0 0 0 18(3) 21(33) 6(3) 0 6(1) 7(1) 76 Parbhani 24(5) 0 0 0 0 39(1) 8(1) 0 4(1) 5(1) 80 Hingoli 0 0 0 0 0 4(1) 5(1) 9 Latur 24(6) 0 0 0 0 38(3) 8(1) 0 8(1) 8(1) 86 LaLattuur r ddiivv.. 336336

56(4) 0 0 0 0 0 26(2) 52(1) 14(1) 14(1) 186 Akola Washim 12(1) 12(1) Amravati 47(4) 0 0 0 0 0 18(1) 36(1) 18(1) 18(1) 137 Buldhana 46(6) 0 0 0 0 61(2) 18(2) 27(22) 18(1) 18(1) 188 Yavatmal 44(7) 0 0 0 44(2) 25(2) 24(2) 36(1) 24(1) 24(1) 221 AAmmrraavvaatti i ddiivv.. 732732 Chandrapur 22(4) 0 0 0 0 20(2) 6(2) 9(2) 6(1) 6(1) 69 Garchiroli 20(5) 0 0 0 0 40(1) 6(1) 0 6(1) 7(1) 79 Nagpur 8(2) 0 0 0 0 0 2(1) 5(1) 2(1) 2(1) 19 NNagpuagpur r ddiivv.. 167167 Total 818 0 0 0 219 588 296 300 296 303 22,,820820

136

Table A 2.5:Progress of DPAP in Maharashtra from 1995-96 up to 2003

Progress of watershed development in DPAP, 1995-96 to June 2003 (Rs in lakhs)

DDiissttrriicctt PPrroojjeecct t

GGoovvtt.. NN..GG..OO..

RReelleaeassees s ((19199955--96 96 TTO O 3030..66. . 22003003)) OOtthheerrss

NNoo. . oof f w.s.

P.I.A. W.S. P.I.A. W.S. Cost CENTRAL STATE TOTAL Interest Receipts

GGrraand nd TToottaal l

1 Nashik 78 14 52 5 26 1,361.84 624 624 1,248 13.47 0 1261.47 2 Dhule 41 2 18 4 23 814.89 410 410 820 1.04 0 821.04 3 Jalgaon 40 7 34 1 6 723.19 304.50 304.5 609 7.85 0.98 617.83 Nashik diiv. 159 23 104 10 55 2,899.92 1,338.50 1,338.5 2,677 22.36 0.98 2,700.34 4 Ahmednagar 60 4 19 7 41 1,100.74 465 465 930 5.14 27.79 962.93 5 Pune 68 1 6 11 62 1,109.39 468 468 936 5.19 8.13 949.32 8 Solapur 59 1 29 12 30 1,093.00 539 539 1,078 1.44 7 1,086.44 PPunune e ddiivv.. 181877 66 5454 3030 131333 33,,303303..1133 11,,472472 11,,472472 22,,944944 1111..7777 4242..9292 22,,998998..6969 6 Satara 23 1 4 3 19 460.00 230 230 460 1.67 7.4 469.07 7 Sangli 35 1 19 6 16 700.00 350 350 700 0.34 3 703.34

KKoollhaphapuur r ddiivv.. 5858 22 2323 99 3535 11,,160160..0000 585800 585800 11,,160160 22..0101 1010..44 11,,172172..4141

9 Aurangabad 35 1 2 5 33 695.43 352.98 336.88 689.85 2.62 1.43 693.9 10 Jalna 11 1 9 2 2 177.49 85.25 85.25 170.5 0 0 170.5 12 Beed 36 4 31 2 5 540.44 267.53 267.53 535.06 0 0 535.06

AAuurrangaangabbaad d ddiivv.. 8282 66 4242 99 4040 11,,413413..3366 707055..7676 686899..6666 11,,395395..4141 22..6262 11..4343 11,,399399..4646

11 Parbhani 24 2 24 0 0 457.71 186 190.3 376.3 0 0 376.3 13 Nanded 23 2 5 2 18 460.00 221.38 221.38 442.75 0.24 0 442.99 14 Osmanabad 18 0 0 2 18 333.76 162.00 178.1 340.1 1.12 4.62 345.84 15 Latur 24 1 6 2 18 477.12 216.00 216 432 0 2.88 434.88 LLaattuur r DDiivv.. 8989 55 3535 66 5454 11,,728728..5599 787855..3838 808055..7878 11,,591591..1515 11..3636 77..55 11,,600600..0101 16 Buldhana 48 1 2 4 46 1,210.87 402.02 449.52 851.54 0.57 17.91 870.02 17 Akola 63 2 5 12 58 1,199.04 409.50 409.5 819 10.02 0.6 829.62 18 Amravati 48 5 26 6 22 1,119.04 302.00 302 604 1.11 3.01 608.12 19 Yavatmal 68 1 24 8 44 1,137.79 440.00 440 880 0 0.21 880.21

AAmmrraavvaatti i ddiivv.. 222277 99 5757 3030 171700 44,,666666..7744 11,,553553..5252 11,,601601..0202 33,,154154..5454 1111..77 2121..7373 33,,187187..9797

20 Nagpur 7 0 0 1 7 101.14 9.65 26.53 36.18 0 0 36.18 21 Chandrapur 24 1 15 3 9 311.46 107.25 107.25 214.5 0.75 0 215.25 22 Gadchiroli 23 1 4 2 19 360.55 116.25 153.75 270 0 0 270 NNagagppuur r ddiivv.. 5454 22 1919 66 3535 777733..1515 232333..1515 282877..5353 525200..6868 00..7575 00 525211..4343 TTOOTTAALL 858566 5353 333344 101000 525222 1515,,949444..99 66,,668668..3030 66,,774774..4848 1313,,444422..7788 5252..5757 8484..9696 1313,,585800..3311

137

Table A 2.5: contd...

Progress of watershed development in DPAP, 1995-96 to June 2003 (Rs in lakhs)

DDiissttrriicctt PPrroojjeecct t

GGoovvtt.. NN..GG..OO..

RReelleeaassees s ((11999595--996 6 TTO O 3300..66. . 20200033)) OOttheherrss

NNoo. . oof f w.s.

P.I.A. W.S. P.I.A. W.S. Cost CENTRAL STATE TOTAL Interest Receipts

GGrrand and TToottaal l

1 Nashik 78 14 52 5 26 1,361.84 624 624 1,248 13.47 0 1261.47 2 Dhule 41 2 18 4 23 814.89 410 410 820 1.04 0 821.04 3 Jalgaon 40 7 34 1 6 723.19 304.50 304.5 609 7.85 0.98 617.83 Nashik diiv. 159 23 104 10 55 2,899.92 1,338.50 1,338.5 2,677 22.36 0.98 2,700.34 4 Ahmednagar 60 4 19 7 41 1,100.74 465 465 930 5.14 27.79 962.93 5 Pune 68 1 6 11 62 1,109.39 468 468 936 5.19 8.13 949.32 8 Solapur 59 1 29 12 30 1,093.00 539 539 1,078 1.44 7 1,086.44 PPuunne de diivv.. 118877 66 5544 3300 113333 33,,330033..1313 11,,447722 11,,447722 22,,994444 1111..7777 4422..9922 22,,999988..6699 6 Satara 23 1 4 3 19 460.00 230 230 460 1.67 7.4 469.07 7 Sangli 35 1 19 6 16 700.00 350 350 700 0.34 3 703.34

KKoollhhaapupur r ddiivv.. 5588 22 2233 99 3355 11,,116600..0000 558800 558800 11,,116600 22..0011 1100..44 11,,117722..4411

9 Aurangabad 35 1 2 5 33 695.43 352.98 336.88 689.85 2.62 1.43 693.9 10 Jalna 11 1 9 2 2 177.49 85.25 85.25 170.5 0 0 170.5 12 Beed 36 4 31 2 5 540.44 267.53 267.53 535.06 0 0 535.06

AAuurraanngagabbaad d ddiivv.. 8822 66 4422 99 4400 11,,441133..3636 770055..7676 668899..6666 11,,339955..4411 22..6622 11..4433 11,,339999..4466

11 Parbhani 24 2 24 0 0 457.71 186 190.3 376.3 0 0 376.3 13 Nanded 23 2 5 2 18 460.00 221.38 221.38 442.75 0.24 0 442.99 14 Osmanabad 18 0 0 2 18 333.76 162.00 178.1 340.1 1.12 4.62 345.84 15 Latur 24 1 6 2 18 477.12 216.00 216 432 0 2.88 434.88 LLaattuur r DDiivv.. 8899 55 3355 66 5544 11,,772288..5959 778855..3838 880055..7878 11,,559911..1155 11..3366 77..55 11,,660000..0011 16 Buldhana 48 1 2 4 46 1,210.87 402.02 449.52 851.54 0.57 17.91 870.02 17 Akola 63 2 5 12 58 1,199.04 409.50 409.5 819 10.02 0.6 829.62 18 Amravati 48 5 26 6 22 1,119.04 302.00 302 604 1.11 3.01 608.12 19 Yavatmal 68 1 24 8 44 1,137.79 440.00 440 880 0 0.21 880.21

AAmmrraavvaatti i ddiivv.. 222277 99 5577 3300 117700 44,,666666..7474 11,,555533..5522 11,,660011..0022 33,,115544..5544 1111..77 2211..7733 33,,118877..9977

20 Nagpur 7 0 0 1 7 101.14 9.65 26.53 36.18 0 0 36.18 21 Chandrapur 24 1 15 3 9 311.46 107.25 107.25 214.5 0.75 0 215.25 22 Gadchiroli 23 1 4 2 19 360.55 116.25 153.75 270 0 0 270 NNaaggpupur r ddiivv.. 5544 22 1199 66 3355 777733..1515 223333..1515 228877..5353 552200..6868 00..7755 00 552211..4343 TTOOTTAALL 885566 5533 333344 110000 552222 1155,,994444..99 66,,666688..3300 66,,777744..4488 1133,,444242..7788 5522..5577 8844..9966 1133,,558080..3311

138 Table A 2.6: District-wise Details of IW

DP Projects Sanctioned from1995-96 to 2002-03(as on 31.3.2003; Rs in lakhs)DDiissttrriiccttss PPhahasse e PPrroojjeecct t peperriiodod TToottaal l aarrea ea ((iin n

haha)) TToottaal l ccoosst t NNoo. . oof f iinnssttaallmmenenttss AAmmounount t duedue AAmmounount t rreelleaeasseded % % oof f rreelleaeasseess

Due Released Thane I 99-00 TO 03-04 10,246 (15) 409.84 4 1 266.40 61.48 15 Raigad I 99-00 TO 03-04 12,138 (22) 486 4 1 315.90 72.90 15 Ratnagiri I 99-00 TO 03-04 11,320 (12) 452.8 4 2 294.32 105.37 23

I 98-99 TO 2002-03 11,320 (22) 452.8 6 4 407.52 295.95 65 II 99-00 TO 03-04 11,775 (19) 471 4 3 306.15 205.65 44 Sindhudurg

III 2000-01 TO 04-05

11,886 (7) 713.16 2 1 196.12 98.06 14

Konkan div. 68,685 (97) 2,985.6 24 12 1,786.41 839.41 28

Jalgaon I 2001-02 TO 05-06 8,241 (15) 494.46 1 1 67.99 67.99 14

Nasik div. 8,241 (15) 1 1 67.99 67.99 14

Pune I 2001-02 TO 05-06 6,428 (16) 385.68 1 1 53.03 53.03 14

Pune div. 6,428 (16) 385.68 1 1 53.03 53.03 14

Aurangabad I 2000-01 TO 04-05 12,180 (9) 730.78 2 1 200.96 100.48 14

Beed I 2000-01 TO 04-05 12,295 (17) 737.7 2 1 202.87 101.43 14 Aurangabad div. 24,475 (26) 1,468.48 4 2 403.83 201.91 14

Sangli I 2000-01 TO 04-05 12,308 (12) 738.48 2 1 203.08 101.54 14

Satara I 2000-01 TO 04-05 12,487 (20) 749.22 2 1 206.04 103.02 14

Kolhapur I 99-00 TO 03-04 12,496 (15) 499.87 4 2 324.92 120.98 24 Kolhapur div. 37,291 (47) 1,987.57 8 4 734.04 325.54 16

Latur I 2000-01 TO 04-05 12,500 (9) 750 2 1 206.25 103.12 14

Hingoli/ I 97-98 TO 2001- 02 9,540 (16) 381.6 7 3 381.60 171.27 45

Parbhani II 98-99 TO 2002-03 11,395 (10) 455.78 6 3 410.20 200.09 44 Latur div. 33,435 (35) 1,587.38 15 7 998.05 474.48 30 Amravati I 98-99 TO 2002-03 11,424 (29) 456.96 6 4 411.26 291.34 64

Yavatmal I 2001-02 TO 05-06 7,001 (9) 420.06 1 1 57.76 57.76 14

Amravati div. 18,425 (38) 877.02 7 5 469.02 349.10 40

139

Table A 2.6: contd...

Source: Commissionerate of Agriculture, Pune

Satara I 2000-01 TO 04-05 12,487 (20) 749.22 2 1 206.04 103.02 14

Kolhapur I 99-00 TO 03-04 12,496 (15) 499.87 4 2 324.92 120.98 24 Kolhapur div. 37,291 (47) 1,987.57 8 4 734.04 325.54 16

Latur I 2000-01 TO 04-05 12,500 (9) 750 2 1 206.25 103.12 14

Hingoli/ I 97-98 TO 2001- 02 9,540 (16) 381.6 7 3 381.60 171.27 45

Parbhani II 98-99 TO 2002-03 11,395 (10) 455.78 6 3 410.20 200.09 44 Latur div. 33,435 (35) 1,587.38 15 7 998.05 474.48 30 Amravati I 98-99 TO 2002-03 11,424 (29) 456.96 6 4 411.26 291.34 64

Yavatmal I 2001-02 TO 05-06 7,001 (9) 420.06 1 1 57.76 57.76 14

Amravati div. 18,425 (38) 877.02 7 5 469.02 349.10 40 Nagpur I 2000-01 TO 04-05 10,558 (24) 633.48 2 1 174.21 87.10 14

Wardha I 2001-02 TO 05-06 5,605 (14) 336.32 1 1 46.25 46.25 14

Nagpur div. 16,163 (38) 969.8 3 2 220.46 133.35 14 TToottaall 213,143 (312) 10,755.99 4,732.84 2,444.81 23 Source: Commissionerate of Agriculture, Pune

140 Table A 2.7:Progress of W

atershed Development in 50% EAS 1995-96 to June 2003(Rs in lakhs)DDiissttrriicct t

WWaatteerrsshedhedss GOGOVVTT.. NN..GG..OO..

RReelleaeasse e ((9595....9696.t.to 30o 30..66..20032003)) OOttheherrss

Selected.

Completed

P.I.A.

W.S.

P.I.A. W.S. Project

Cost. CENTRAL STATE TOTAL Int. Receipts

Grand Total

Exp. Balance

Nasik 130 130 13 105 6 25 2035.30 1850.25 490.50 2340.75 0.49 0 2341.24 1213.30 1127.94

Dhule 98 98 2 28 16 70 1817.93 991.84 262.58 1254.42 0.77 1.03 1256.22 1278.16 -21.94 Jalgaon 63 63 2 16 5 47 1144.86 620.50 148.92 769.42 5.8 3.93 779.15 789.55 -10.4

NNaassiik k ddiivv.. 291291 291291 1177 149149 2727 142142 49984998..0909 34623462..5959 902902..0000 43644364..5959 77..0606 44..9696 43764376..6161 32813281..0101 10951095..66

Ahmednagar 95 95

10 56 10 39 1781.26 1464.29 389.90 1854.19 0.00 61.04 1915.23 1101.36 813.87

Pune 155 155 1 73 14 82 2469.86 1434.20 413.47 1847.67 2.61 31.26 1881.54 1806.20 75.34 Solapur 108 108 1 64 13 44 2012 1326.19 369.56 1695.75 1.84 66.67 1764.26 1429.69 334.57

PPune dune diivv.. 358358 358358 1122 193193 3737 165165 62636263..1212 42244224..6868 11117272..9393 53975397..6161 44..4545

158158..9977 55615561..0303 43374337..2525 12231223..7878

Satara 40 40 1 26 3 14 767.58 529.79 144.10 673.89 1.73 4.20 679.82 681.75 -1.93 Sangli 107 107 1 102 2 5 2248.00 784.14 199.72 983.86 0.20 14.06 998.12 905.18 92.94 KKoollhapuhapur r ddiivv.. 147147 147147 22 128128 55 1919 30153015..5858 13131313..9393 343343..8822 16571657..7575 11..9393 1818..2626 16771677..9494 15861586..9393 9191..0101 Aurangabad 107 107 3 71 5 36 1915.69 972.26 267.01 1239.27 0.00 1.40 1240.67 1371.29 -130.62 Jalna 28 28 1 12 2 16 452.20 257 73.99 330.99 1.36 0.00 332.35 344.63 -12.28 Beed 42 42 4 42 0 0 641.81 675.75 171.92 847.67 0.00 6.88 854.55 710.44 144.11 AAuurrangabaangabad dd diivv.. 177177 177177 88 125125 77 5252 30093009..7070 19051905..0101 512512..9292 24172417..9393 11..3636 88..2828 24272427..5757 24262426..3636 11..2121 Parbhani 47 33 1 6 4 41 878.96 596.20 167.06 763.26 2.67 3.14 769.07 766.47 2.60 Nanded 68 68 1 8 6 60 1360.00 612.34 182.44 794.78 3.70 0.00 798.48 879.87 -81.39 Osmanabad 27 27 3 27 0 0 615.21 303.63 95.38 399.01 6.83 3.69 409.53 413.37 -3.84 Latur 40 40 0 0 4 40 800.00 489.7 136.57 626.27 0.00 2.30 628.57 653.14 -24.57 LaLattuur r ddiivv.. 182182 168168 55 4141 1414 141141 36543654..1717 20012001..8787 581581..4545 25832583..3232 1313..2200 99..1313 26052605..6565 27122712..8585 --107107..2020 Buldhana 81 81 0 0 8 81 2397.28 695.69 191.48 887.17 0.00 10.24 897.41 886.91 10.50 Akola 51 18 3 51 0 0 1254.58 1185.31 296.35 1481.66 26.28 0.00 1507.94 842.51 665.43 Amravati 79 79 3 24 11 55 1679.97 791.56 218.85 1010.41 2.49 3.69 1016.59 996.15 20.44 Yavatmal 158 158 1 49 26 109 3297.04 1969.41 582.72 2552.13 8.35 0.00 2560.48 2685.07 -124.59 AAmmrraavvaatti i ddiivv.. 369369 336336 77 124124 4545 245245 86288628..8787 46414641..9797 12128989..4040 59315931..3737 3737..1122 1313..9393 59825982..4242 54105410..6464 571571..7878 Nagpur 13 13 1 11 1 2 135.75 53.83 14.19 68.02 0.00 0.00 68.02 81.96 -13.94 Chandrapur 19 19 2 19 0 0 768.50 232.61 60.87 293.48 0.00 0.00 293.48 230.45 63.03

141

Table A 2.7: contd...

Source: Commissionerate of Agriculture, Pune

DDiissttrriicct t

WWaatteerrsshedhedss GOGOVVTT.. NN..GG..OO..

RReelleaeasse e ((9595....9696.t.to 30o 30..66..20032003)) OOttheherrss

Selected.

Completed

P.I.A.

W.S.

P.I.A. W.S. Project

Cost. CENTRAL STATE TOTAL Int. Receipts

Grand Total

Exp. Balance

Nasik 130 130 13 105 6 25 2035.30 1850.25 490.50 2340.75 0.49 0 2341.24 1213.30 1127.94

Dhule 98 98 2 28 16 70 1817.93 991.84 262.58 1254.42 0.77 1.03 1256.22 1278.16 -21.94 Jalgaon 63 63 2 16 5 47 1144.86 620.50 148.92 769.42 5.8 3.93 779.15 789.55 -10.4

NNaassiik k ddiivv.. 291291 291291 1177 149149 2727 142142 49984998..0909 34623462..5959 902902..0000 43644364..5959 77..0606 44..9696 43764376..6161 32813281..0101 10951095..66

Ahmednagar 95 95

10 56 10 39 1781.26 1464.29 389.90 1854.19 0.00 61.04 1915.23 1101.36 813.87

Pune 155 155 1 73 14 82 2469.86 1434.20 413.47 1847.67 2.61 31.26 1881.54 1806.20 75.34 Solapur 108 108 1 64 13 44 2012 1326.19 369.56 1695.75 1.84 66.67 1764.26 1429.69 334.57

PPune dune diivv.. 358358 358358 1122 193193 3737 165165 62636263..1212 42244224..6868 11117272..9393 53975397..6161 44..4545

158158..9977 55615561..0303 43374337..2525 12231223..7878

Satara 40 40 1 26 3 14 767.58 529.79 144.10 673.89 1.73 4.20 679.82 681.75 -1.93 Sangli 107 107 1 102 2 5 2248.00 784.14 199.72 983.86 0.20 14.06 998.12 905.18 92.94 KKoollhapuhapur r ddiivv.. 147147 147147 22 128128 55 1919 30153015..5858 13131313..9393 343343..8822 16571657..7575 11..9393 1818..2626 16771677..9494 15861586..9393 9191..0101 Aurangabad 107 107 3 71 5 36 1915.69 972.26 267.01 1239.27 0.00 1.40 1240.67 1371.29 -130.62 Jalna 28 28 1 12 2 16 452.20 257 73.99 330.99 1.36 0.00 332.35 344.63 -12.28 Beed 42 42 4 42 0 0 641.81 675.75 171.92 847.67 0.00 6.88 854.55 710.44 144.11 AAuurrangabaangabad dd diivv.. 177177 177177 88 125125 77 5252 30093009..7070 19051905..0101 512512..9292 24172417..9393 11..3636 88..2828 24272427..5757 24262426..3636 11..2121 Parbhani 47 33 1 6 4 41 878.96 596.20 167.06 763.26 2.67 3.14 769.07 766.47 2.60 Nanded 68 68 1 8 6 60 1360.00 612.34 182.44 794.78 3.70 0.00 798.48 879.87 -81.39 Osmanabad 27 27 3 27 0 0 615.21 303.63 95.38 399.01 6.83 3.69 409.53 413.37 -3.84 Latur 40 40 0 0 4 40 800.00 489.7 136.57 626.27 0.00 2.30 628.57 653.14 -24.57 LaLattuur r ddiivv.. 182182 168168 55 4141 1414 141141 36543654..1717 20012001..8787 581581..4545 25832583..3232 1313..2200 99..1313 26052605..6565 27122712..8585 --107107..2020 Buldhana 81 81 0 0 8 81 2397.28 695.69 191.48 887.17 0.00 10.24 897.41 886.91 10.50 Akola 51 18 3 51 0 0 1254.58 1185.31 296.35 1481.66 26.28 0.00 1507.94 842.51 665.43 Amravati 79 79 3 24 11 55 1679.97 791.56 218.85 1010.41 2.49 3.69 1016.59 996.15 20.44 Yavatmal 158 158 1 49 26 109 3297.04 1969.41 582.72 2552.13 8.35 0.00 2560.48 2685.07 -124.59 AAmmrraavvaatti i ddiivv.. 369369 336336 77 124124 4545 245245 86288628..8787 46414641..9797 12128989..4040 59315931..3737 3737..1122 1313..9393 59825982..4242 54105410..6464 571571..7878 Nagpur 13 13 1 11 1 2 135.75 53.83 14.19 68.02 0.00 0.00 68.02 81.96 -13.94 Chandrapur 19 19 2 19 0 0 768.50 232.61 60.87 293.48 0.00 0.00 293.48 230.45 63.03 Chandrapur 19 19 2 19 0 0 768.50 232.61 60.87 293.48 0.00 0.00 293.48 230.45 63.03 Gadchiroli 26 26 1 26 0 0 375.12 142.73 35.91 178.64 0.33 7.63 186.60 77.01 109.59 NNagpuagpur r ddiivv.. 5858 5858 44 5656 11 22 12791279..3737 429429..1717 110110..9797 540540..1414 00..3333 77..6363 548548..1010 389389..4242 158158..6868

Total 1582 1535 55 816 136 766 30848.90 17979.22 4913.49 22892.71 65.45

221.16

23179.32

20108.02 3071.30

142

Table A 2.8:Details of W

atersheds Programmes in Maharashtra(up to 2002)

Note Figures in brackets refer to programmes implemented through NGOs; % com = per cent completedSource: Commissionerate of Agriculture, GOM, Pune

DDPAPPAP EASEAS AAGGYY IIGGWWDDPP RRVPVP NNWWDDPPRRAA WWGGDDPP IIWWDDPP CCAPAAPARRTT

DDiissttrriicctt

NNoo. . oof f WWs s ssttaarrtteded

% % ccoomm

NNoo. . oof f WWs s ssttaarrtteedd

% % ccoomm

NNoo. . oof f WWs s ssttaarrtteedd

% % ccoomm

NNoo. . oof f WWs s ssttaarrtteded

% % ccoomm

NNoo. . oof f WWs s ssttaarrtteded

% % ccoomm

NNoo. . oof f WWs s ssttaarrtteded

% % ccoomm

NNoo. . oof f WWs s ssttaarrtteded

% % ccoomm

NNoo. . oof f WWs s ssttaarrtteedd

% % ccoomm

NNoo. . oof f WWs s ssttaarrtteded

Konkan div. 0 0 61 20 3 100 11 100 69 51 23 48 1870 19 4 Nashik div.

159 (55) 45

294 (142) 24 85 26 3 0 55 42 124 74 23 43 2845 46 2

Pune div. 212 (133) 19

383 (165) 18 105 25 37 46 16 69 102 71 24 25 5959 9 27

Kolhapur div.

71 (35) 15

143 (19) 17 46 17 3 33 0 100 70 27 59 1502 24 8

Aurangabad div.

79 (40) 23

164 (52) 18 47 15 28 11 0 101 78 0 2133 49 11

Latur div 110 (54) 23

196 (141) 4 152 13 12 8 32 44 134 78 0 2824 63 13

Amravati div.

206 (170) 1

345 (245) 6 62 5 6 33 0 186 71 0 3103 35 9

Nagpur div.

72 (35) 10 24 (2) 0 87 3 10 20 0 101 60 0 2066 28 4

MMahaaharraasshhssttrraa

909 909 ((522522)) 1919

1549 1549 ((766766)) 1414 645645 1616

102 102 ((102102)) 2828 114114 5252 917917 7070 9797 4444 2230222302 3322 7878((7878))

143

Dams Damanganga Nagarjun Sagar Pochampad Sardar Sarovar River concerned Damanganga Krishna Godavari Narmada Dam, location, district Valasad Nandi Konda Pochampad Rajpila Catchment area (sq.km) 1,777 215,185 9,1751 88,000 Year of construction -- 1,974 1,983 Continuing Maximum discharge cum/sec

20,930 53,450 -- 62,296

Gross storage capacity thousand cubic meter

567,000 11,550,000 3,172,000 9,500,000

Gross irrigated area (ha) 55,070 895,000 230,000 1,782,000

Table A 3.1:General Features of Four River Valley Projects

Source: Large dams in India, CBIP, 1987

VVillillageage TTaalluukkaa DDiissttrriicctt ZZoneone AAvveerrage age RRaaiinnffaall ll ((mmmm))

SSttududy y PPeerriiodod

Kudawale Dapoli Ratnagiri Southern Konkan Coastal Zone

3750 Nov. 15-18, 1998

Khandas Karjat Raigad Northern Konkan Coastal Zone

3281 Sep. 14-16, 1998

Tambulwadi Chandgad Kolhapur Western Ghat Zone

2684 Oct. 11-14, 1998

Wadivarhe Iagatpuri Nashik Western Ghat Zone

2137 Sep. 9-12, 1998

Nune-gavadi Satara Satara Western Maharashtra Plain Zone

791 Oct. 8 �14, 1998

Kanhur-mesai Shirur Pune Scarcity Zone 450 Aug. 18-21, 1998 Phuldhaba Aundha Parbhani Central

Maharashtra Plateau Zone

983 Oct. 28-30, 1998

Khandwa Motala Buldhana Central Vidarbha Zone

883 Sep. 28-30, 1998

Chatgaon Dhanora Gadchiroli Eastern Vidarbha Zone

1462 Dec. 10-13 1998

Table A 3.2:NWDPRA Watersheds Selected for Impact Evaluation StudySource: AFC study, 1998-99

144 Table A 3.3:Impact of Watershed Development on Irrigation in theNW

DPRA Watersheds

B.P- Before Project, A.P-After Project, Inc.-Increase(Source: AFC study, 1998-99)

NNuummbeber r oof f iirrrriigagattiion on wweellllss WWaatteer r ttabablle e iin n mmttrrss.. AArrea undeea under r iirrrriigagattiionon NNaamme oe of f wwaatteerrsshedhed TToottaal l geogeo. . AArrea ea ((haha..))

AArrea undeea under r ccuullttiivvaattiion on ((haha..))

B.P A.P % inc. B.P. A.P. % inc. B.P. A.P. % inc. Kudawale 2,887 1,183 50 62 24.00 13.50 11.50 2.0 10 18 81.0 Khandas 3,694 1,168 23 30 30.00 9.20 7.80 1.40 25 75 200.0 Tambulwadi 3,594 2,169 276 350 26.80 9.10 7.20 190.00 921 1001 8.7 Wadivarhe 3,166 1,800 41 127 210.00 10.70 9.10 1.60 60 190 216.0 Nunegavadi 4,059 2,665 138 162 17.00 7.64 5.36 2.28 337 575 70.0 Kanur-mesai 4,009 3,075 153 430 181.00 7.60 6.70 0.90 179 379 111.0 Phuldhaba 4,082 2,089 66 86 30.30 7.79 6.73 1.06 162 243 50.0 Khandwa 2,902 2,553 35 118 237.00 9.20 7.10 2.10 75 201 168.0 Chatgoan 7,114 1,181 53 97 83.00 9.20 8.10 1.10 251 495 97.0 Total 35,507 17,883 835 1,462 83.93 69.59 14.34 2,020 3177 Average 3,945 1,987 93 162 75.00 9.31 7.73 1.58 224.44 353 57.3

145

CCrropop PPrre pe prroojjeecctt PPoosst t pprroojjeecctt

Kharif

Local cotton 6 6.9

Hybrid cotton 7.2 10.0

Jowar 11.4 14.2

Rabi

Wheat 14.0 22.5

Gram 10.0 12.1

Orange orchard 250 per tree 400 per tree

Table A 3.4:Improvement in Crop Yield (q/ha) in the Khed Watershed in MaharashtraSource: TERI, 2001

WWaatteerrsshedhed BBlloockck//DDiissttrriicctt AArrea ea ((haha)) CChaharraacctteerriissttiicscs

Karanjgavan Malegaon block, Nasik district

11,766

Warshi Kalwan block, Nasik district

8,500

Sawarde Kagal block, Kolhapur district

5,180

The watersheds under Nashik Parbhani and Kolhapur districts fall under the Central and Western Maharashtra plateau: a hot, moist, semi-arid, agro-ecological sub-region. The average rainfall is 500-676 mm. The watershed has a dendritic drainage pattern.

Nagazari Parbhani district 2,840

Pipari Samudrapur block, Wardha district

4,006

Sawargaon Paranda block, Osmanabad district

6,372

The watershed under the Wardha district belongs to the Eastern Maharashtra plateau: a hot dry sub-humid, agro-climatic sub-region. The average rainfall is 1070 mm. The watershed under Osmanabad district falls under the Southwestern Maharashtra plateau: a moist, semi-arid, agro-ecological sub-region. The average rainfall is 600mm.

Table A 3.5: Six Watersheds Selected for ISRO StudySource: ISRO study, TERI, 2001

CCrropop PPrree-- ttrreeaattmmenentt PPoosstt--ttrreaeattmmenentt Sorghum 11.5 (26.5) 15 (18.5) Maize 13 (40.5) 19.5 (220.3) Wheat 10.1 (110.6) 19 (201.5) Gram 5 (60) 6.5 (102.3) Onion 125 (60.5) 185 (150.5) Pomegranate 80.0 (25.8) 100 (450) Sugarcane 80.0 (8.5) 110 (25.6)

Table A 3.6:Yield Improvement (qn/ha) of Major Crops in Karanjgavan Watershed

Source: ISROstudy, TERI,2001

146

VVillillageage PPrree--ttrreaeattmmenent t ((haha))

PPoosstt--ttrreaeattmmenent t ((haha)) Karanjgavan 2,646 3,443 Warshi 2,206 2,430 Sawarde 2,264 2,275 Pipari 2,671 2,694 Sawargaon 3,461 3,918 Nagazari 887 971

Table A 3.7:Change in arable land in ISRO study

Source: ISRO Study, TERI, 2001

WWaatteerrsshed hed ((ddiissttrriicctt))

AAggrrii--ccrropop

FFaalllloow w llandand

WWaasstteellandand FFoorreesst t vveegegettaattiionon

PPllananttaattiionon WWaatteer r bodbodiieess

TToottaall Pipari (Wardha)

+5 -4 -1.60 +1.27 - +0.05 +6 Warshi (Nasik)

+3 -1 -3 +2.28 +1 +0.54 +7 Sawarde (Kolhapur)

+6 -5 -0.40 +0.06 +0.15 +0.06 +6 Nagazari (Parbhani)

+2 +1 -7.57 +0.18 +0.18 - +35

Table A 3. 8:Percentage Change in Satellite-based Indicators in Selected Watersheds inMaharashtra

Source: ISRO Study, TERI, 2001

RReaeacch h 19961996 19971997 19981998 Jan Mar May Jan Mar May Jan Mar May Upper 0.80 0.40 1.20 0.70 0.30 1.20 0.80 0.60 Middle 3.70 2.40 0.50 3.90 2.80 0.90 0.90 3.00 1.20 Lower 3.30 1.50 3.60 2.40 0.50 0.50 2.70 1.20

Table A 3.9:Change in Water-table in Shedashi-Wavoshi Watershed

Source: IGWDP, 1999

TTrreaeattmmenenttss FFoorreesst t llandand PPrriivvaatte e llandand TToottaall Area

(ha) Plants (No.)

Area (ha)

Plants (No)

Area (ha)

Plants (No)

Terrace Bund Improvement

23.83 5,957 383.24 70,790 407.07 76,747

Grassland with trees

10.24 3,072 15.2 4,560 25.44 7,632 Reforestation 464.49 871,514 464.49 871,514 Mix forestry 36.64 91,600 65.92 164,800 102.56 256,400 Total 535.20 972,143 464.36 240,150 999.56 1,212,293

Table A 3.10:Details of Forest Plantation in Shedashi-Wavoshi Watershed

Source: IGWDP, 1999

147

CCrropop PPrre 1993e 1993 PPoosst t 19981998 Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Paddy (Kharif) 383 100 407 89.65 Vegetables (R) 36 7.93 Pulses (R) 8 1.76 Wheat (R) 3 0.66 Gross Area 383 100 454 100

Table A 3.11:Change in Cropping Pattern in Shedashi-Wavoshi Watershed

Source: IGWDP, 1999

PPrree--DDeevveellopopmmenentt PPrreessenent t DDeevveellopopmmenentt Crop Area (Ha) Net income

per Ha (Rs.) Total income (Rs.)

Area (Ha) Net income per Ha (Rs.)

Total income (Rs.)

Paddy 383 4,500 1,723,500 407 7,520 3,060,640 Finger Millets 12 700 8,400 20 1,500 30,000 Minor millets 3 525 1,575 8 1,075 8,600 Vegetables 36 21,800 784,800 Pulses 8 2,850 22,800 Wheat 3 2,760 8,280 Total 1,733,475 3,915,120

Table A 3.12:Change in Net and Total Incomes in the Shedashi-Wavoshi Watershed

Source: IGWDP, 1999

RReaeacchehess 19931993 19981998 Jan March May Jan March May Upper 4.30 4.20 3.90 6.50 6.35 5.80 Middle 3.95 3.90 3.50 4.95 4.80 4.55 Lower 3.50 3.50 3.42 5.20 5.15 4.85

Table A 3.13:Water Table in Dug Wells in Rajani Watershed(in meters)

Source: IGWDP, 1999

CCrropop PPrree--DDeevveellopopmmenentt PPrreessenent t DDeevveellopopmmenentt Yield (Qn/ha) Net income

(Rs) Yield (Qn/ha) Net income

(Rs) Paddy 7 3,050 12 7,050 Wheat (R) 10 4,250 Jowar 5 1,250 10 3,750 Tur 3.5 3,575 5 5,675 Gram (R) 2 725 2.5 1,125 Soybean 9 6,550 Cotton 4.5 5,950 7.5 11,950

Table A 3.14:Change in Net and Total Incomes in Rajani Watershed

Source: IGWDP, 1999

148

NNaamme oe of f vvillillageage

EEaarrlilieerr AAt t PPrreessenentt Irrigated Un-irrigated Fallow Irrigated Un-irrigated Fallow Change

in irrigated land

Hivre Bazar 29 61 10 64 25 11 35 Nagunichi Wadi

63 25 12 64 25 11 1 Asarkheda 48 33 19 57 25 18 9 Patnadevi 30 67 3 55 42 3 25 Borda 9 83 8 35 59 6 26 Murukute 22 40 38 23 68 9 1 Bhalgudi 0 56 44 15 42 44 15 Ganeshwadi 5 88 7 22 72 6 17 Mendha 5 91 5 5 91 5 0 Shedashi 75 25 75 25 0

Table A 3.15:Irrigated and Un-Irrigated Land Before and After the Intervention(in percentage)

Source: DROP Study, 2003

VVillillageage % % IInnccrreaeasse e iin an arrea undeea under r RRababi i ccrropops s

Patnadevi 29

Hivre Bazar 23

Borda 18

Ganeshwadi 17

Bhalgudi 13

Asarkheda 5

Mendha 4

Nagunichi Wadi 3.5

Murukute 3

Table A 3.16:Change in Land Cultivated During Rabi

Source: DROP Study, 2003

149

APRA Abolition of Proprietary Rights ActAGY Adarsh Gaon YojanaAFARM Action for Agricultural Renewal in MaharashtraAFC Agricultural Finance CorporationBAIF Bharatiya Agro Industries FoundationCISED Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and DevelopmentCPLR Common Property Land ResourcesCBO Community Based OrganisationCOWDEP Comprehensive Watershed Development ProgrammeCCT Continuous Contour TrenchCBA Cost Benefit AnalysisCAPART Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural TechnologyDFID Department of International DevelopmentDoLR Department of Land ResourcesMoA Ministry of AgricultureDDP Desert Development ProgrammeDROP Development Resource Organisation through PlanningDRDA District Rural Development AgencyDPAP Drought Prone Areas ProgrammeERR Economic Rate of ReturnEGS Employment Guarantee SchemeEAS Employment Assurance SchemeFRR Financial Rate of ReturnForWaRD Forum for Watershed Research and Policy DialogueGOI Government of IndiaGCA Gross Cropped AreaGSDA Ground Water Survey and Development AgencyGIDR Gujarat Institute of Development ResearchHYV High Yielding VarietyICAR Indian Council for Agriculture ResearchICRISAT International Crop Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics

List of Abbreviations

150

IJAE Indian Journal of Agriculture EconomicsISRO Indian Space Research OrganizationIGWDP Indo-German Watershed ProgrammeINM Integrated Nutrient ManagementIWDP Integrated Wasteland Development ProgrammeIWDP Integrated Watershed Development ProjectIPM Integrated Pest ManagementIRDP Integrated Rural Development ProgrammeIWRM Integrated Water Resource ManagementJFM Joint Forest ManagementJFMC Joint Forest Management CommitteeLEISA Low External Input Sustainable AgricultureLPG Liquid Petroleum GasMSSM Marathwada Sheti Sahaya MandalMoRD Ministry of Rural DevelopmentMoEF Ministry of Environment and ForestsMIS Management Information SystemNABARD National Bank for Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentNCMP National Common Minimum ProgrammeNWDPRA National Watershed Programme for Rainfed AreasNPK Nitrogen, Phosphorus and PotashNGO Non Governmental OrganisationNRM Natural Resource ManagementNWDF National Watershed Development FundPNP Participatory Net PlanningPOP Participatory Operational PedagogyPRA Participatory Rural AppraisalPTD Participatory Technology DevelopmentPIA Project Implementing AgenciesPSSC Project Sanctioning and Steering CommitteeRVP River Valley ProjectSC/ST Scheduled Caste/Scheduled TribeSHG Self Help GroupSL Sustainable LivelihoodsSOPPECOM Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem ManagementSWC Soil and Water ConservationSSR Scheduled Standard RateTERI The Energy Resources InstituteUPA United Progressive Alliance

151

UG User GroupVWC Village Watershed CommitteeWAT Water Absorption TrenchesWUA Water Users AssociationsWA/GS Watershed Association/Gram SabhaWDF Watershed Development FundWDPSCA Watershed Development Projects in Shifting Cultivation AreasWDT Watershed Development TeamWGDP Western Ghat Development ProgrammeWHS Water Harvesting StructureWID Women in DevelopmentWED Women in Environment and DevelopmentWOTR Watershed Organisation Trust

152

List of Tables

Table 1.1 List of villages/watersheds visited in MaharashtraTable 1.2 Comparison of Different GuidelinesTable 2.1 Agro-climatic Zones and Rainfall: MaharashtraTable 2.3 All-India and Maharashtra Water Resource SituationTable 2.4 Area and Productivity of Major Crops in MaharashtraTable 2.5 Coverage and Expenditure under NWDPRA during 1990 to March

2004Table 2.6 Status of Activities and Expenditure under WGDP 1974 to March

2004Table 2.7 Status of Activities and Expenditure under RVP 1993 to March

2004Table 2.8 Status of Adarsh Gaon YojanaTable 2.9 Adarsh Gaon Yojna Expenditure Details1992-2004Table 2.10 Activities under AGY 1992-2003Table 2.11 Details of Watersheds under Different Programmes 1992-2002Table 2.12 Budgeted Spending (Maharashtra) on Watershed Development,

1992 to 2002Table 2.13 An Overview of Watershed Development in MaharashtraTable 2.14 District-wise, Priority-wise, Category-wise Information of

Incomplete WatershedsTable 5.1 Beneficiaries across Different Class Categories

153

List of Figures

Figure 1 Sites visited in MaharashtraFigure 2.1 Rainfall in MaharashtraFigure 2.2 Division-wise Land Utilization in MaharashtraFigure 2.3 Map of Drought-prone Areas in MaharashtraFigure 2.4 Major and Micro Watersheds in MaharashtraFigure 2.5 Percentage of Area Treated under Watershed Programmes in MaharashtraFigure 2.6 District-wise Expenditure under Watershed Programmes in Maharashtra

154

AFARM. 1998. "AFARM CA-WSD package programme: 1992-97 ." Final Evaluation Report, Actionfor Agricultural Renewal in Maharashtra, Pune.AFARM. 1999. "Participatory Watershed Development Programme (PWSDP), Mid-Term AssessmentReport on Dornali Project ".Action for Agricultural Renewal in Maharashtra, Pune. AFARM Web Site http://www.afarm.org/watersAnonymous. 2001. Completion Report of Kolwan Valley Project: Drought-prone Area Programme.Gomukh Trust, Mulshi, PuneAnonymous. Undated. "Adgaon at a glance ". Marathwada Sheti Sahayak Mandal, Aurangabad.Batchelor, Charles ,M. Rama Mohan Rao and K.Mukherjee, " Watershed development or should it bewater management " paper presented in electronic workshop on land water management in ruralwatersheds" organised by FAO, Rome,18th Sept. 27 October.Chopra, K. 1999. "Evaluations of Watershed Management Programmes in India -- A Review ", inJohn Farrington, T. Cathryn, and A. J. James ,Eds., Participatory Watershed Development:Challenges for the Twenty-First Century. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.Dabholker, S.A. 1997. Plenty for All. Mehta Publishing House, Pune.Deccan Development Society and WASSAN. August 2004. " On the Margin -- Poor and their Lands:A Case for Comprehensive Public Investments". Hyderabad.Deshpande, R. S. and V. R. Reddy. 1991. "Differential impact of watershed-based technology: someanalytical issues", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 261.DNRM. 2002. "Panchayati Raj and Natural Resources Management: How To DecentralizeManagement Over Natural Resources ", in Proceedings of the Overseas Development Institute(London) Social and Economic Research Associates (London), TARU Leading Edge (New Delhiand Hyderabad), Centre for Budget and Policy Studies (Bangalore), Centre for World Solidarity(Hyderabad) and Sanket (Bhopal), New Delhi.DROP, Pune, 2002-3, Study of Water Sector Projects in Maharashtra - Case studies of SelectedVillages, for Groundwater Survey and Development Agency (GoM).D'Souza, M. 1997. "Gender and watershed development " Agricultural Research and ExtensionNetwork Newsletter, 36.D'Souza, M. 2001. "Participatory Watershed Development: Impacting Under-nutrition in Rural India ".Study report --accessed from www.wotr.org.Erappa, S. 1998. "Sustainability of watershed development programmes (WDPs), to drylandagriculture in Karnataka: A study of two sub-watersheds ", Agricultural Development and RuralTransformation (ADRT) unit, Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bangalore.Farrington, John, Cathryn Turton and A.J. James (Eds). 1999. Participatory Watershed Development:Challenges for the Twenty-First Century, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.GOI. 1994. "Guidelines for watershed development ", Department of Land Resources, Ministry ofRural Development, Government of India, New Delhi.GOI. 1997. Report of the Committee on Training for Watershed Development. EaswaranCommittee Report, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Governmentof India, New DelhiGoI. 2000. WARASA-Jan Sahabhagita: Guidelines for National Watershed Development forRainfed Areas (NWDPRA). Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, MoA, GoI, New Delhi.

References

155

GOI. 2001. Guidelines for watershed development (Revised-2001). Department of Land Resources,Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi.GOI. 2001. Hariyali guidelines for watershed development 2003. Department of Land Resources,Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi.GOI. 2006. "From Hariyali to Neeranchal: Report of the Technical Committee on WatershedProgrammes in India ," Parthasarathy Committee Report, Department of Land Resources, Ministry ofRural Development, Government of India, New Delhi.GoM. 2004. Soil Conservation and Watershed Development, Annual Report 2003-04. Soil andWatershed Management Department, Commissionerate of Agriculture, Pune, 2004 (Marathi).GoM. 2006. "Agro-climatic zones in Maharashtra" http;//agri.mah.nic.in/agri/stat/map/clazone.htmGoM. 2006. "Land-use classification in Maharashtra "http;//agri.mah.nic.in/agri/stat/Lus_ Main/luslink.htmGoM. 2006. "Evaluation of NWDPRA Watersheds " (by AFC, 2001) http;//agri.mah.nic.in/agri/soil/html/nwdp_eva.htmlGoM.2006. "Evaluation of RVP Watersheds " http;//agri.mah.nic.in/agri/soil/html/rvp_eva.htmlGoM. Commissionerate of Agriculture. Pune, Status and statistics of different watershed programmesimplemented in Maharashtra, (personally accessed), 2003-05.GoM. , "Human Development Report� �2002, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.GoM. 2003. "Report of the high-level committee on Action Plan for Agriculture for 25 years ", Dr. M.S.Swaminathan Committee Report, chapter 3, Commissionerate of Agriculture, Pune.Hazra, C. R. 1999. "Biophysical Results of Watershed Rehabilitation in Khana Nala ", in C. T. a. A. J.J. John Farrington (Ed.) Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty-FirstCentury, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.Joy, K.J. and Suhas Paranjape. 2004. Watershed Development Review: Issues and Prospects,CISED, Bangalore.Joy, K.J., et.al. 2006. "Reorienting the Watershed Development Programme in India ", OccasionalPaper, Forum for Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue.Kakade, B. K., et al. 2001. "Integrated drinking water resource management: impact study ofwatersheds in different geo-hydrological and socio-economic situations in India ", BAIF, Pune.Karanth, G. K. and A. Abbi. 2001. "Participative Integrated Development of Watershed (PIDOW):Report of Participatory Impact Assessment", Participatory Impact Assessment, Swiss Agency forDevelopment and Cooperation, New Delhi.Kerr, J. 2002. "Sharing the benefits of watershed management in Sukhomajri, India ", in StefanoPagiola, et.al (eds), Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-based Mechanism forConservation and Development, Earthscan, London.Kerr, J. and K. Chung, 2001. Evaluating Watershed Management Projects, Water Policy August, 3(6).Kerr, J., G. Pangare, V. L. Pangare and P. J. George. 2000. " An evaluation of dryland watersheddevelopment projects in India ", EPTD discussion paper no. 68, Environment and ProductionTechnology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.Kerr, J et.al. 1998. "The role of watershed projects in developing rainfed agriculture in India " StudyReport submitted to ICAR and World Bank, ICAR, New Delhi.Kolavalli, Shashi and John Kerr. 2002. " Mainstreaming participatory watershed development ."Economic and Political Weekly,1 January 37(2). Kolavalli, Shashi and John Kerr. 2002. " Scaling up participatory watershed development ."Development and Change, 33(2).Landell-Mills, N. 1999. "Economic Evaluation of Watersheds: Methodological Issues ", in JohnFarrington C. Turton. a. A. J. James. eds. ,Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges forthe Twenty-First Century, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.Leach, Melissa, Susan Joekes and Cathy Green. 1995. " Gender relations and environmentalchanges" IDS Bulletin, 26(1).

156

Lobo. C and Gudrun Kochendorfer. 1995. The Rain Decided to Help Us: Participatory watershedmanagement in the State of Maharashtra, World Bank. Washington D.C.Lobo, C and Abraham Samuel. 2005. Participatory monitoring and evaluation systems inwatershed development: case studies of applied tools, WOTR, Ahmadnagar.MANAGE. Undated. "Economic Evaluation of Manchal Watershed Development Project: A Study ",MANAGE, Hyderabad.National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. 1995. Guidelines for participating in IGWDP-Maharashtra, NABARD, Mumbai.National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. 1999. Evaluation of Mendhwan WatershedProject under IGWDP - Maharashtra State, NABARD, Pune.National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. 1999. Evaluation of Shedashi-WavoshiWatershed Project under IGWDP, Maharashtra State, NABARD, PuneNational Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. 1999. Evaluation of Rajani WatershedProject under IGWDP-- Maharashtra State, NABARD, Pune.Narain, S. 2003. "A Movement to Value Water" The Hindu Magazine.Ninan, K. N. 1998. "An assessment of European-aided watershed development projects in India fromthe perspective of poverty reduction and the poor ". CDR Working Paper no. 98.3, Centre forDevelopment Research, Copenhagen, Denmark.Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for CollectiveAction, CUP, Cambridge.Pangare, Ganesh. 1996. The Good Society: The Pani Panchayat Model of Sustainable WaterManagement, Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, New Delhi.Paranajpe, S., K. J. Joy, S. Kulkarni and R. Samantray. 1997. "Evaluation Study of the Community-based Eco-regeneration in Dhar and Bagdunda Areas of South Rajasthan ", Ubeshwar VikasMandal, Udaipur.Paranjape, S., V. Gore, K. J. Joy and A. Singh. 2001. "Status of Small Water Harvesting Structures ina Sub-Basin in Udaipur Region ", Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management(SOPPECOM), Pune.Paranjape, S. and K. J. Joy, 2003, "The Ozar Water User Societies: Impact of Society Formation andCo-management of Surface Water and Groundwate r", Society for Promoting Participative EcosystemManagement (SOPPECOM), Pune.Paranjape, S., K. J. Joy, T. Machado, A. Varma and S. Swaminathan. 1998. Watershed- basedDevelopment -- A Source Book, Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samithi, New Delhi.Reddy, Bakka and A. Ravindra, 2004, "Watershed Development -- Understanding Investments andImpacts: Report of Study of Impacts in Five Watersheds in Andhra Pradesh", Mission Support Unit,AP Water Conservation Mission, Hyderabad.Reddy, V. R., M. G. Reddy, S. Galab and O. Springate-Baginski. 2001. "Watershed developmentand livelihood security: An assessment of linkages and impact in Andhra Pradesh, India ". This is afirst draft which has been sent for comments and review. Centre for Economic and Social Studies,School of Geography, University of Leeds, Hyderabad and Leeds.Sangameshwar, Priya. 2005. Equity in Community-based Sustainable Development: A CaseStudy in Western Maharashtra, Ph. D thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Shah, A. 1998. "Watershed development programmes in India -- Emerging issues for environment-development perspectives ", Economic and Political Weekly, 33(26): A-66.Shah, M., D. Banerji, P. S. Vijayshankar and P. Ambasta. (1998), India's Drylands: TribalSocieties and Development through Environmental Regeneration , Oxford University Press, NewDelhi.Sharma, S. 2002. "Watershed Development: No Cure for Drought ", The Hindu Survey of theEnvironment.Srigiri, Srinivasa Reddy. 1993. " Equity and Poverty Issues in Watershed Development ", Dissertationhttp://www.tropentag.de/2003/abstracts/full/214.pdfSoussan, J. and V. R. Reddy. 2003. "Andhra Pradesh: Evolving Appropriate Watershed Policy "Economic and Political Weekly, 38(1): 24.

157

Venkatachalam, L. and S. Lele. 2002. Economic Valuation of Watershed Services: A Review ofMethodologies and Findings, Bangalore.Second Irrigation Commission (GoM). 1998. Techno-economic Evaluation of Watershed DevelopmentProject - A Case Study of Kamini Sub-watershed. Gomukh Trust.Vaswani, R.S.1995. Micro-Watershed Development: Three Success Stories from Maharashtra, StateInstitute of Rural Development, YASHADA, Pune.Vaze, Vrunda and Abraham Samuel. 2004. " Report of the Study " Women and Watershed Development:Indo-German Watershed Development Programme", Pune. Watershed Organization Trust. 1997. Operations Manual for Indo-German Watershed Programme,WOTR, Ahmadnagar.Watershed Organization Trust. 2001, 2002, and 2003. Annual Reports, WOTR, Ahmadnagar.Watershed Organization Trust. Undated. " Impacts of watershed development projects", accessedthrough http://www.wotr.org

158