India Natural resources

India is a predominantly agricultural country, with 80 per cent of its population living in rural areas and a majority of its villages engaged in agriculture.Natural resources and particularly land and water are crucial for livelihood development. Increasing natural resource productivity isthus critical to enhance livelihoods and reduce poverty in rural areas as it is imperative for food, water and ecological security.About 55 per cent of our agriculture is rain-fed where delayed, deficient or erraticrains lead to severe reduction in crop production.
There has been lack of a coherent policy to develop natural resources asa means to enhance livelihoods, remove poverty, ensure household food security and spur decentralized growth. Self-sufficiencyin food grains production has been the main driver of strategies todevelop natural resources. The advent of green revolution technologies during the 1960s focused attention on the “high potential” plains, beginningwith the Intensive Agricultural Districts Programme during the 3rd Five Year Plan. While thisstrategy served the nation well in ensuring aggregate food security, it isinappropriate for rain-fed regions as it requires complete control over waterthat these regions lack.Rain-fed regions first received attention during the4th Five Year Plan with the launch of the Drought Prone Areas Programme (DPAP) in 70chronically drought-prone districts. DPAP was, however, concerned withdrought proofing rather than livelihoods and growth-focused development ofnatural resources. Programmes fordesert areas, mountains and coastal areas have been even smaller andhave not fared any better than DPAP.The national watershed development programme (NWDP) begun in 1995was the first significant and considered initiative to develop rain-fed areas.
There has been paradigm shift in development of rainfed areas and management of natural resources. The watershed development initiatives were undertaken basically for drought prone areas for conservation of water resources and development of agriculture. The public investment in rainfed areas was also low in the initial years however, with the change in government policy and development focus, there has been increasing trend of investment in watershed  development programmes both by government and  international donor agencies as watershed development programmes are aimed at conservation of natural resources such as water and land development besides improving the agricultural productivity in the rainfed areas.
Overall public investments in rain-fed areas have also been very low. Whilecumulative public investment in major and medium irrigation schemes isestimated at Rs 5.5 lakh crore at current prices, watershed development has cumulatively received less than Rs 40,000 crore. Private investment, themajor contributor to irrigation, is perhaps even lower in rain-fed areas. Also,procurement and price support policies have favored wheat and rice,neglecting millets and other crops most suited to rain-fed areas.
The declining per capita land and fresh water availability coupled with soilerosion and land degradation in India are posing serious threat to food,social, environmental and economic security. Land and water go togetherand their development cannot be considered independent of each other,especially for sustainability of rain-fed areas. Rain-fed areas constitute abouttwo-thirds of nation’s 142 million hectares cultivated area, are the resource poor areaswith low levels of productivity and suffer most from degradation and thevagaries of nature. It is estimated that these rain-fed areas contribute only 45per cent to total food production whereas irrigated areas which account for37 per cent of the cultivated area contribute 55 per cent to total food grainproduction.The productivity gains achieved during green revolution in irrigated areashave bypassed rain-fed areas. However, these irrigated areas are also nowunable to sustain the gains due to land degradation and falling factorproductivity. Even if full irrigation potential of the country is achieved, due topoor irrigation water utilization efficiency about 75 million hectares willstill remain as rain-fed and would continue to be a major food grainproduction domain.
Conservation and management of rainwater hold key for sustainableagriculture in rain-fed/degraded areas. It has also been amply demonstratedin India and elsewhere that it is impossible to envisage or implementsustainable solutions for land and water resources development andmanagement without active and full participation of local community.Development of land and water together with sustainable production systemwhen confined to small natural drainage unit such as watershed leads tosustainable development. Watershed management has, therefore, emergedas a new paradigm for planning, development and management of land,water and biomass resources with a focus on social and institutional aspectsapart from biophysical aspects following a participatory bottom upapproach.
Government has accorded very high priority to theholistic and sustainable development of rain-fed/ degraded areas based on the watershed approach. It is being considered as principal vehicle fortransfer of rain-fed agricultural technology and to bring in ever greenrevolution. The national agriculture policy seeks to promote the integratedand holistic development of rain-fed/degraded areas through conservationof rainwater and augmentation of biomass production through agro-forestrywith active involvement of the watershed community. Such system basedapproach distinguishes watershed development from earlier approach thatprimarily focused on soil and rainwater conservation.
Over the years, various Central Ministries and Departments have beenimplementing watershed development programmes. From river valleyprojects (1960s) to the Common Guidelines for Watershed DevelopmentProjects (2008), the watershed development programmes have come a longway. The Watershed Guidelines (1994) could be considered as a turning pointin the policy, practice and discourse of watershed approaches in India as theparticipatory watershed management and a focus on livelihoods, asopposed to merely resource conservation began with these guidelines.
Agro-Climatic Conditions:
The agro-climatic regional planning strategy was developed in order to promote scientific utilization of available resources by taking a holistic view of climate, soil type, topography, water resources and irrigation facilities and relating them to output and employment (Pangare, et. al., 2006). The country has been divided into 15 agro-climatic zones having 73 sub-regions and similar climate, rainfall, water demand and supply characteristic, aquifer conditions, soil types and topography (Table 1.1).
Table: 1.1
Agro-Climatic Regions in India

Region	Rainfall (mm)	Climate	Soils	Crops
Western Himalayas (Jammu and Kashmir and parts of Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal)	2,000+	Primarily humid, high altitude temperate, Laadakh is cold arid	Hill soils, Alluvial	Wheat, maize, rice, jowar, barley, potato, rapeseed.
Eastern Himalayas (northeastern states)	2,000 to 3,500	Humid, Sikkim has inadequate moisture	Red sandy laterite, acidic, alluvial, red loamy terai	Rice, maize, ragi, potato, wheat, jute, rapeseed
Lower Gangetic Plains (West Bengal)	1,300 to 1,600	Most sub-humid to dry sub-humid	Red and yellow alluvial, deltaic alluvium	Rice, jute, wheat, rapeseed, potato
Middle Gangetic Plains (parts of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar)	1,200 to 1,500	Most sub-humid to dry sub-humid	Alluvium, calcareous, terai	Rice, wheat maize, sugarcane, jute, gram, potato
Upper Gangetic Plains (parts of Uttar Pradesh)	720 to 980	Dry sub-humid to semi-arid	Alluvial, terai	Wheat, rice, tur, sugarcane, bajra, maize, potato
Trans-Gangetic Plains (foothills of Shivalik and Himalayas and plains of Punjab, Haryana and parts of Uttaranchal)	360 to 890	Semi-arid to extreme arid	Alluvial, calcareous	Wheat, rice, maize, sugarcane, bajra, gram
Eastern Plateau and Hills (Parts of Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh)	1,270 to 1,440	Moist sub-humid to dry sub-humid	Medium to deep black red and yellow, red sandy, red loamy	Rice, linseed, jowar, wheat, gram, groundnut, maize, nigerseed, ragi
Central Plateau and Hills (parts of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan)	490 to 1,570	Dry sub-humid to semi-arid and arid	Mixed red and black, red and yellow, deep black, alluvial	Wheat, gram, jowar, rice, maize, gram soyabean, bajra, rapeseed
Western Plateau and Hills (parts of Madhya Pradesh and most of Maharashtra)	600 to 1,000	Semi-arid and arid	Medium to deep black and sandy alluvial	Jowar, bajra, groundnut, cotton, wheat, gram
Southern Plateau and Hills (parts Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu)	670 to 1,000	Semi-arid to arid	Medium black, red loamy, red sandy, coastal alluvium, laterite, deltatic alluvium	Jowar, cotton, groundnut, ragi, castor seed, maize, rice, bajra
East Coast Plains and Hills (eastern coastal regions of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu)	780  to 1,300	Sub-humid to semi-arid	Deltaic alluvial, coastal alluvial lateritic, red loamy, red sandy	Rice, groundnut, jute, sesamum, ragi, cotton, jowar, tobacco, bajra.
West Coast Plains and Ghats (Western coastal strip of Maharashtra and Kerala)	2,700 to 3,640	Humid to dry sub-humid	Lateritic, red loamy, coastal alluvium, mixed red and black	Rice, ragi, sesamum, tapioca, groundnut, banana, jowar.
Gujarat Plains and Hills	340 to 1,800	Semi-arid to arid	Deep black, coastal alluvium, deltaic alluvium	Rice, ragi, sugarcane, jowar, cotton, wheat, maize, bajra, groundnut.
Western Dry (Rajasthan)	400	Arid to extremely arid	Desert soil, grey brown	Bajra, gram, wheat, rapeseed
Islands (Andaman and Nicobar)	Over 3,000	Equatorial		Paddy

Source: Springs of Life, Academic Foundation, 2006.

Wasteland:
As per Wasteland Atlas 2005, 17.45 per cent geographical area of the country is reported to be wasteland. The proportion of wastelands to the total geographical area was recorded highest in Jammu and Kashmir (69.24 per cent) followed by Manipur (59.01 per cent), Meghalaya (59.01 per cent) and Sikkim (53.67 per cent). The proportion of wasteland against the total wasteland of the country was recorded highest in Rajasthan (18.34 per cent) followed by Jammu & Kashmir (12.70 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (10.34 per cent), Andhra Pradesh (8.19 per cent) and Maharashtra (8.92 per cent) (Table 1.2).
Table: 1.2
State-wise Wastelands in India
(Area in Sq. Kms.)

States	Number of Districts	Total Geographical Areas of Districts Covered	Total Wastelands Area in Districts Covered	% of Wastelands to Total Geographical Area	% of Total Wasteland
Andhra Pradesh	23	275068	45267.15	16.46	8.19
Arunachal Pradesh	16	83743	18175.95	21.7	3.29
Assam	23	78438	14034.08	17.89	2.54
Bihar	37	94171	5443.68	5.78	0.98
Chhatisgarh	16	135194	7584.15	5.26	1.37
Goa	2	3702	531.29	14.35	0.09
Gujarat	25	196024	20377.74	10.4	3.69
Haryana	19	44212	3266.45	7.39	0.59
Himachal Pradesh	12	55673	28336.8	50.9	5.13
Jammu & Kashmir	14	101387	70201.99	69.24	12.70
Jharkhand	19	79706	11165.26	14.01	2.02
Karnataka	27	191791	13536.58	7.06	2.45
Kerala	14	38863	1788.8	4.6	0.32
Madhya Pradesh	49	308252	57134.03	18.53	10.34
Maharashtra	33	307690	49275.41	16.01	8.92
Manipur	9	22327	13174.74	59.01	2.38
Meghalaya	7	22429	3411.41	59.01	0.62
Mizoram	8	21081	4469.88	21.2	0.81
Nagaland	7	16579	3709.4	22.37	0.67
Orissa	30	155707	18952.74	12.17	3.43
Punjab	17	50362	1172.84	2.33	0.21
Rajasthan	32	342239	101453.86	29.64	18.34
Sikkim	4	7096	3808.21	53.67	0.69
Tamil Nadu	29	130058	17303.29	13.3	3.13
Tripura	4	10486	1322.97	12.62	0.24
Uttar Pradesh	70	240926	16984.16	7.05	3.07
Uttaranchal	13	53483	16097.46	30.1	2.91
West Bengal	18	88752	4397.46	4.95	0.79
UTs	20	10973	314.38	2.87	0.06
Total	597	3166412	552692.16	17.45	100.00

Source: Wasteland Atlas, 2005.
Estimates of wastelands in India are shown in Table 1.3. Out of total wastelands, about 28 per cent wasteland was categorized as forest degraded area. The largest forest degraded area was reported in Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Rajasthan and Bihar. Non-forest degraded area constituted 72.31 per cent and this proportion was reported 90 per cent in Rajasthan and 82 per cent in Uttar Pradesh. Non-forest degraded area was recorded high in Rajasthan followed by Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh.
Table: 1.3
Estimates of Wastelands in India
(‘000’ Sq. Km.)

States/UTs	Non-Forest Degraded Area	Forest Degraded Area	Total
Andhra Pradesh	76.82	37.34	114.16
Assam	9.35	7.95	17.30
Bihar	38.96	15.62	54.58
Gujarat	71.53	6.83	78.36
Haryana	24.04	0.74	24.78
Himachal Pradesh	14.24	5.34	19.58
Jammu & Kashmir	5.31	10.34	15.65
Karnataka	71.22	20.43	912.65
Kerala	10.53	2.26	12.79
Madhya Pradesh	129.47	71.95	201.42
Maharashtra	115.6	28.41	144.01
Manipur	0.14	14.24	14.38
Meghalaya	8.15	11.03	19.18
Nagaland	5.08	8.78	13.86
Orissa	31.57	32.27	63.84
Punjab	11.51	0.79	12.30
Rajasthan	180.01	19.33	199.34
Sikkim	1.31	1.5	2.81
Tamil Nadu	33.92	10.09	44.01
Tripura	1.08	8.65	9.73
Uttar Pradesh	66.35	14.26	80.61
West Bengal	21.77	3.59	25.36
UTs	8.89	27.15	36.04
Total	936.91	358.89	1295.80

Source: Forestry Statistics  India, 2000

Evolution of Watershed Development Programmes
Watershed Development Programmes in India are relatively new, which focus on soil and water conservation by the Ministry of Agriculture had begun in the early sixties (Planning Commission, 2004).After independence, India relied on multi-purpose reservoirs forproviding irrigation and generating hydro-electricity.  In order to stabilize thecatchments of reservoirs and to control siltation, a Centrally SponsoredScheme of Soil Conservation Work in the Catchments of River ValleyProjects was launched in 1962-63. The Ministry of Agriculture started a schemeof Integrated Watershed Management in the Catchments of FloodProne Rivers in 1980-81. During the 1980s, several successfulexperiences of fully treated watersheds, such as Sukhomajri inHaryana and Ralegaon Siddhi in Western Maharashtra came into light. The Ministry of Agriculture also launched a scheme for propagation of waterharvesting/conservation technology in rainfed areas in 19 identifiedlocations in 1982-83. In October 1984, Ministry of Rural Development adopted this approach in22 other locations in rainfed areas. In these 41 model of watersheds, ICAR was also involved to provide research and technology support.The purpose of these Operation Research Projects  was todevelop model watersheds in different agro-climatic zones of thecountry.
Keeping in view of the learnings, gained from all watershed development initiatives, the concept of integratedwatershed development was first institutionalised with the launching ofthe National Watershed Development Programme of RainfedAgriculturein 1990, covering 99 districts in 16 states.Meanwhile, conservation work was ongoing in the Drought Prone AreasProgramme launched by the Ministry of Rural Developmentin1972-73. The objective of this programme was to tackle thespecial problems of areas constantly affected by severe droughtconditions. In 1977-78, the Ministry of Rural Development started a special programme for hotdesert areas of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Haryana and cold desert areasof Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh called Desert Development Programme.

In 1988, the National Committee on DPAP & DDP was set upunder the Chairmanship of the Member, Planning Commission to appraise and review the DPAP and DDP. The committee was initiallyheaded by Dr. Y.K. Alagh and later by Shri L.C. Jain who took over asMember, Planning Commission in charge of the subject. The committeesubmitted its report in August, 1990.In 1994, a Technical Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof.C.H. Hanumantha Rao was appointed to appraise the impact of thework done under DPAP/DDP; identification of the weaknesses of theprogramme and to suggest improvements. The Hanumantha RaoCommittee felt that the programmes have been implemented in afragmented manner by different departments through rigid guidelineswithout any well-designed plans prepared on watershed basis byinvolving the inhabitants. Except in a few places, in most of theprogramme areas the achievements have been dismal. Ecologicaldegradation has been proceeding unabated in these areas withreduced forest cover, reducing water table and a shortage of drinkingwater, fuel and fodder. (Hanumantha Rao Committee, 1994).

 

On the basis of these recommendations, the Hanumantha RaoCommittee formulated a set of "Common Guidelines", bringing fivedifferent programmes under the Ministry of Rural Development, namely, DPAP, DDP and IWDP,as also the Innovative-Jawahar Rozgar Yojana andEmployment Assurance Scheme, 50 per cent of the funds of both ofwhich were to be allocated for watershed works. The watershedprojects taken up by Ministry of Rural Development from 1994 to 2001 followed these CommonGuidelines of 1994. In 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture revised its guidelines forNWDPRA, making them more participatory, sustainable andequitable. These were called Warasa – Jan SahabhagitaGuidelines. The Common Guidelines of 1994 were revised by Ministry of Rural Development in2001 and then again modified and reissued as “Guidelines for Hariyali”in April 2003. The watershed programme became the centerpiece ofrural development in India. The Ministry of Environment and Forestsas well as bilateral funding agencies are also involved inimplementation of watershed projects in India.
A brief review of watershed development programmes is being given to understand their impact on natural resources and livelihood development.
Ministry of Agriculture
National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas project was launched in 1990. At present it coversall the 25 states and two Union Territories. The twin objectives ofNWDPRA continue to be to improve production and productivity inthe vast rainfed areas and to restore ecological balance. Till March2005, 7.95 mha have been treated with a total expenditure of Rs.2398.76 crores.Soil Conservation in the Catchments of River Valley Projectswas launched by Ministry of Agriculture in 1962-63. Subsequently anotherscheme of Integrated Watershed Management in the Catchments ofFlood Prone Rivers  was launched in 1980-81. These schemesare primarily aimed at treating catchment areas, extending overmore than one state, with appropriate soil and water conservationmeasures and to cover degraded arable and non-arable lands onwatershed basis. In the Ninth Plan, both schemes were mergedtogether into a new scheme called Soil Conservation for EnhancingProductivity of degraded lands in the catchments of River ValleyProjects and Flood Prone Rivers. The Scheme is beingimplemented in 45 catchments spread over 20 states. 6.09 million hectares have been treated with an expenditure of Rs. 1894.12 crores tillMarch 2005.The Watershed Development Project inShifting Cultivation Area was first launched during theFifth Plan as a pilot project with 100 per cent financial assistance from theCentral Government, covering the whole of North Eastern Regionalong with Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and later on was transferred to the stateplan sector. However, due to various reasons, the state governments discontinued the scheme with effect from 1991-92.On pressing demand from North-East states, the Planning Commission and Ministry of Agriculture re-launched the scheme on watershed basis from 1994-95onwards in seven North-East states. Till March 2005, 0.28 million hectares have beentreated with a total expenditure of Rs. 236.35 crores.The scheme for Reclamation ofAlkali Soils was launched in 1974-75 in the states of Punjab,Haryana and Uttar Pradesh and extended to the states of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan in the 8th Plan period. The main objective of thescheme is to reclaim land affected by alkalinity and improve landand crop productivity including development of horticulture, fuelwood and fodder species. 0.56 million hectares have been treated under thisprogramme with an estimated expenditure of Rs. 82.54 crores tillMarch 2005.Watershed Development Fund has beenestablished in 1990-2000 at the National Bank for Agriculture andRural Development, with the objective of integratedwatershed development in 100 priority districts throughparticipatory approach. The total corpus of the fund is Rs. 200crore, which includes Rs. 100 crore by NABARD and a matchingcontribution of Rs. 100 crore by the DAC. The fund is to be utilizedto create favourable conditions to replicate and consolidate theisolated successful initiatives under different watershed Development programmes in the government, semi-governmentand NGO sectors.There are 17 Externally Aided Projects onWatershed and Land Reclamation & Development in operation in 15major states covering about 2.36 mha area with an estimated cost of Rs. 4756.26 crores.
Ministry of Rural Development
Drought ProneAreas Programme  was launched in 1972-73 to tackle thespecial problems faced by areas constantly affected by severedrought conditions. The main objective of the programme is tominimize adverse effects of drought on the production of crops,livestock and productivity of land, to promote overall economicdevelopment and improve the socio-economic condition of theresource-poor and disadvantaged sections of inhabitants. Thescheme covers 961 blocks of 180 districts in 16 States. Total areatreated under DPAP is 15.13 mha with an investment of Rs.2623.40 crores. Desert Development Programme aims to mitigate the adverse effects of desertification and adverseclimatic conditions on crops, human and livestock population, forcombating desertification through shelter-belt plantation, pasturedevelopment, soil moisture conservation & water resourcesdevelopment and also to restore ecological balance. At present,this programme covers 232 blocks of 40 districts in hot desertareas of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Haryana and colddesert areas of Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. Totalarea treated under DDP is 5.71 mha and investment is Rs. 1857.78crores as on March 2005.Integrated Wasteland Development Project wasstarted in 1988-89 by the Ministry of Environment and Forest with an objective of development of wastelands based on village/micro-watershed plans. However,the scheme was transferred to the Department of WastelandsDevelopment now called Department of Land Resources, during 1992-93. The projectsunder IWDP are being implemented in 216 districts of the country.Total area treated under DDP is 6.32 million hectares with a capital investmentof Rs. 2161.81 crores as on March 2005.The Department of LandResources, Ministry of Rural Development is also implementing Externally Aided Projects, assisted by the donoragencies like DFID, EEC, CIDA and SIDA, in the States of Orissa,Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Kerala, etc. Total area treated is 0.36 million hectares and expenditure is Rs. 212.67 crores till March 2005.Technology Development, Extension & Training scheme was launched during 1993-94 with a view to promoting thedevelopment of suitable technology for the reclamation ofwastelands. Its main objective is to operationalise appropriate, costeffective and proven technologies for development of wastelands.Till March 2005, total area treated is 0.99 mha and expenditure isRs. 80.16 crores.Investment Promotional Scheme waslaunched in 1994-95 in order to promote participation of thecorporate sector and financial institutions etc. with a view toenhance the flow of funds for the development of non-forestwastelands. The scheme has been reconstructed in August 1998with a major thrust for the development of degraded landsbelonging to small & marginal farmers including SCs/STs. Sinceinception, 26 projects estimated to be covering an area of 893.08 hectares have been sanctioned with an expenditure of Rs. 58.75 lakh.The objective of the scheme of support to NGOs is to createawareness, encourage the application of appropriate technologies for the development of wastelands and provide training forincreasing capability and capacity building. Extension & publicityare other components of the scheme. This scheme has now beentransferred to the Council for Advancement of People’ Action &Rural Technology. Since inception of the scheme, 238projects have been sanctioned with expenditure of Rs. 20.37crore. The Wastelands Development Task Force scheme was implemented using the services of ex-servicemen fordevelopment of 1200 ha of wastelands in ravines of Chambal inMorena district of Madhya Pradesh The objective of the scheme was to developwastelands through afforestation including soil & moistureconservation, plantation & protection. An area of 1200 ha ravineland is estimated to have been developed with an expenditure ofRs. 7.72 crores during till March 2005.
Ministry of Environment & Forests
Integrated Afforestation and Eco-development ProjectsScheme implemented by the Ministry of Environment and Forest has relevance to sustainable eco-system development inrainfed/degraded areas in the country. This scheme is implementedon watershed basis since 1989-90 with intention to promoteafforestation and development of degraded forests by adopting anintegrated watershed approach to development of land and otherrelated natural resources through the micro-planning process. Totalarea treated is 0.82 million hectares and expenditure is Rs. 813.73 crores tillMarch 2005.
Area treated under watershed development programmes in India is shown in Table 1.4. Upto the 8th Plan, 17.95 million hectares of land was treated under watershed development programmes in India. Out of total land treated, more than half of the land was treated under the programmes launched by Ministry of Agriculture. During the 9th Five Year Plan, 15.83 million hectares of land was treated under watershed developent programmes and more than 67 per cent land was treated under the watershed development programmes launched by Ministry of
Rural Development. During the 10th Five Year Plan, 11.80 million hectares land was treated under watershed development programmese and about 72 per cent area was reported to be treated by watershed development programmes launched by Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, and Government of India. Thus, upto March, 2005, 45.58 million hectares of land was treated under the watershed development programmes and the role of Ministry of Rural Development was found to be crucial.
Table: 1.4
Area Treated Under Watershed Programmes in India
(Area in Million Hectares)

Sl. No.	Programme	Upto 8th Plan	During 9th Plan	During 10th Plan	Total Upto March, 2005
1.	Ministry of Agriculture
A.	National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Area	4.22	2.77	0.96	7.95
B.	River Valley Projects and Flood Prone Regions	3.89	1.60	0.60	6.09
C.	Watershed Development Projects in Shifting Cultivation Areas	0.07	0.15	0.06	0.28
D.	Alkali Soils	0.48	--	0.08	0.56
E.	Externally Aided Projects	1.00	0.5	0.86	2.36
	Sub-Total-I	9.66	5.02	2.56	17.24
2.	Ministry of Rural Development (Department of Land Resources)
A.	DPAP	6.86	4.49	3.78	15.13
B.	DDP	0.85	2.48	2.38	5.71
C.	IWDP	0.28	3.58	2.46	6.32
D.	Externally Aided Projects	--	0.14	0.22	0.36
	Sub-Total-II	7.99	10.69	8.48	27.52
3.	Ministry of Environment and Forest
A.	Integrated Afforestation and Eco-Development Programme	0.30	0.12	0.40	0.82
	Grand Total	17.95	15.83	11.80	45.58

Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, 2006.
Investment under watershed development programmes in India is shown in Table 1.5. Upto March, 2005, Rs. 17037.42 crores were invested under watershed development programmes. Upto the 8th Five Year Plan, Rs. 4841.92 crores were invested on watershed development programmes however, the investment increased by 40.22 per cent during 10th Five Year Plan. Out of total investment under the watershed development programmes, more than half of the share was reported of the Ministry of Agriculture while the share of Ministry of Environment and Forest has been found to be low.
Table: 1.5
Investment Under Watershed Programmes in India
(Rs. Crore)

Sl. No.	Programme	Upto 8th Plan	During 9th Plan	During 10th Plan	Total Upto March, 2005
1.	Ministry of Agriculture
A.	National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Area	967.93	911.01	519.82	2398.76
B.	River Valley Projects and Flood Prone Regions	819.95	696.26	377.91	1094.12
C.	Watershed Development Projects in Shifting Cultivation Areas	13.73	82.01	60.61	236.35
D.	Alkali Soils	62.29	--	20.25	82.54
E.	Externally Aided Projects	646.00	1425.01	2685.25	4756.26
	Sub-Total-I	2589.90	3114.29	3663.84	1938.03
1.	Department of Land Resources
A.	DPAP	1109.95	668.26	845.19	2623.40
B.	DDP	722.79	519.80	615.19	1857.78
C.	IWDP	216.16	943.88	7001.77	2161.81
D.	Externally Aided Projects	--	18.39	194.28	212.67
	Sub-Total-II	2048.90	2150.33	2656.43	6855.66
3.	Ministry of Environment and Forest
A.	Integrated Afforestation and Eco-Development Programme	203.12	141.54	469.07	813.79
	Grand Total	4841.92	5406.16	6789.34	17037.42

Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, 2006.
During the Eleventh Five Year Plan, the activities under Watershed DevelopmentProgramme were focused to completion of large number of ongoing projectsunder Desert Development Programme, Drought Prone AreasProgramme & Integrated Wastelands Development Programmeand launching a new modified programme of Integrated WatershedManagement Programme by amalgamating the earlier programmes. The Department decided not to sanction any new projects under DDP, DPAP& IWDP programmes in the Eleventh Five Year Plan and shifted the focusentirely to accelerate completion of the projects. Department took the policydecision of completion of Pre-Hariyali projects (sanctioned before 2003-04) by2011 and Hariyali projects (sanctioned 2003-04 to 2006-07) by 2012except for snow-bound areas where a grace period of three years havebeen allowed for completion. As a result of the endeavor of the Department,32,495 projects out of 45,062 were either closed or completed by the end ofthe financial year 2010-11.During the Eleventh Five Year Plan, the total expenditurestands at Rs 6,978.32 crore which is 74% of the total outlay of Rs 9,429.68 crorefor the Eleventh Five Year Plan (Table 1.6).
Table: 1.6
Financing of Watershed ProjectsUnderDepartment of
Land Resources

Year	Area to be taken up for development (m. Ha.)		Finances (Rs. in Crore)
	Target	Achievement	Target	Achievement
2007-08	-		1,114.50	1,164.54
2008-09	-		1,545.00	1,594.40
2009-10	5.41	6.31	1,762.98	1,762.65
2010-11	8.5	8.82	2,458.00	2,456.73
2011-12	8.74	-	2,549.20	-
Total	22.65 (100%)	15.13 (67%)	9,429.68 (100%)	6,978.32 (74%)

Source: Planning Commission, Government of India.
The Department of Land Resources under the Ministry of Rural Developmentoriginally had a target to cover 25 mHa for the Plan period which wasreduced to 22.65 million hectares. The main reason for reduction in target was the factthat though the Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projectswere approved in 2008, the new programme of IWMP was operationalisedafter the Cabinet approval on 2009. Therefore, during the first two yearsof Eleventh Five Year Plan, no projects under IWMP could be sanctioned.However, the sanctioning of projects could commence towards the latterhalf of 2009-10 and an area of 15.13 million hectare could be sanctioned to23 States in the country shown in Table 1.7.The new generation of Watershed Projects under IWMP are characterized byfeatures which were hither to not known to pre-IWMP projects. The projectsare being implemented by dedicated agencies at State, District and Projectlevel. After mobilising the community with the assistance of Entry PointActivities (EPAs), Detailed Project Reports are prepared before taking upWatershed activities under the projects. The Projects also require taking uplivelihood activities, including development of micro-enterprises andenhancing the production system.
Table: 1.7
Details of Watershed Development Programmes

Pre-IWMP Programmes	No. of Projects Sanctioned During 1995-96 to 2005-06	Projects Completed/Closed by 2010-11
DPAP	27,439	20,580
DDP	15,746	10,998
IWDP	1,877	917
Total	45,062	32,495

Source: Planning Commission, Government of India.

The details of watershed development projects in India during 1995-96 to 2007-08 are shown in Table 1.8. Overall 45062 watershed development projects, covering an area of 322.93 lakh hectares were sanctioned by Government of India. Out of these projects, about 61 per cent projects were related to DPAP. The share of DDP was reported to be 34.9 per cent. During the corresponding period, Rs. 77386 million were released by the Central Government under these watershed development projects. Out of total funds released under the projects, 37 per cent funds was released under DPAP while 36 per cent funds was released under IWDP and 27.2 per cent funds was allocated under DDP.
Table: 1.8
WSD Projects in India During 1995-96 to 2007-08

Number of Programmes	Number of Projects Sanctioned	Area Covered (In Lakh Hactare)	Total Funds Released by Central Government (Rs. Millions)
DPAP	27,439 (60.9)	130.20 (41.2)	28,378 (36.7)
DDP	15,746 (34.9)	78.73 (24.9)	21,032 (27.2)
IWDP	1877 (33.9)	107.00 (33.9)	27,976 (36.1)
Total	45,062 (100.00)	322.93 (100.00)	77,386 (100.00)

Source: Ministry of Rural Development, 2010.
Table 1.9 shows water user associations in India. As per information available from Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, about 57000 water user associations have been formed under various watershed development programmes and development projects. Out of these water user associations, most of the associations were reported in the state of Orissa (28.45 per cent) followed by Andhra Pradesh (18.97 per cent) and West Bengal (17.56 per cent). The total geographical area covered under these water user associations was reported to be 1353.7 million hectares. Most of the geographical area was reported from the state of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa.

 

 

Table: 1.9
State-wise Number of WUAs and the Area Covered

States	Number of WUAs Formed	Area Covered (‘000’ Hactares)
Andhra Pradesh	10,800	4,169.00
Arunachal Pradesh	39	9.02
Assam	720	47.04
Bihar	67	182.36
Chhatisgarh	1,324	1,244.56
Goa	57	7.01
Gujarat	576	96.68
Haryana	2,800	200.00
Himachal Pradesh	876	35.00
Jammu & Kashmir	39	2,758
Jharkhand	0	0
Karnataka	2,557	1,318.93
Kerala	4,163	174.89
Madhya Pradesh	1,687	1,691,88
Maharashtra	1,539	667.00
Manipur	73	49.27
Meghalaya	123	16.45
Mizoram	110	14.00
Nagaland	23	3.15
Orissa	16,196	1,537.92
Punjab	957	116.95
Rajasthan	506	619.65
Sikkim	0	0
Tamil Nadu	1,457	1,176.21
Tripura	0	0
Uttar Pradesh	245	121.21
Uttaranchal	0	0
West Bengal	10,000	37.00
Total	56,934	13,537,94

Source: Ministry of Water Sources, 2010
Need of the Study:
Watershed development approach for conservation of land and water resources has been adopted by Government of India. Watershed development programmes  have treated a large chunk of wastelands in different states besides, a massive investment by the Government of India under these programmes. The government has undertaken development of wastelands, desert and drought-prone areas under the area development approach. These programmes are DPAP, DDP and IWDP, launched by Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. With the recommendation of Hanumantha Rao Committee, watershed approach with effect from 1995 was adopted. Though, a large chunk of wasteland, desert area and drought-prone area has been treated under watershed development programmes, however, the extent of land degradation and desertification is cause of concern which requires huge resources to harness the full potential of available land resources and prevent its further degradation. This requires management of watershed with multi-dimensional and multi-pronged strategies. Uttar Pradesh have large chunk of geographical land under wasteland, deserts and drought-prone area and therefore, a large number of watershed development projects were launched by Government of India to check the further degradation of land and conservation of natural resources. A study of the impact of watershed development projects in the state has been imperative to assess the functioning and performance of watershed development programmes and also to examine the impacts on natural resources and particularly on community. The present study purports to assess the impact of watershed development programmes in the selected areas of Uttar Pradesh.
Objectives of the Study:
The study has been conducted with the following main objectives:

• To review the plan, policies and programmes for watershed development in India and particularly in the state of Uttar Pradesh;
• To examine the role of watershed development projects in developing wasteland, degraded land, drought-prone and desert areas, keeping in view the capability of land site conditions, and local needs;
• To examine the role of watershed development projects in restoring ecological balance by harnessing, conserving and developing natural resources, i.e. land, water and vegetative coverage;
• To examine the role of watershed development projects in mitigating the adverse affects of extreme climate conditions such as drought and desertification on crops, human and livestock population;
• To assess the impact of watershed development projects on economic development and improving the socio-economic conditions of disadvantaged sections inhabiting in the selected areas;

To suggest the policy measures for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of watershed development projects.

 

Research Methodology:
Present study is empirical in nature and based on mainly primary data collected through field survey. Besides collection and analysis of primary data, secondary data and pertinent literature has been consulted through literature review and published and documented sources. Previous surveys, reports and research work have been consulted for literature review to get the insights on the topic of research. The publications of Planning Commission, Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India were also consulted to get the relevant data and information. Field survey has been conducted in Uttar Pradesh. Two districts from different agro-climatic zones were selected for the field survey. Bareilly and Hamirpur were selected for the field survey. For each selected district, two development blocks were selected randomly. Bhadpura and Shergarh development blocks in Bareilly and Muskara and Kurara development blocks in Hamirpur were selected for field survey. Overall 424 beneficiaries of the watershed development projects in the state were randomly selected for the field survey. In the study, DPAP, and IWDP were  covered. Field survey has been conducted with the help of structured interview schedule for beneficiaries. However, concerned government and non-government officials were also consulted and interacted for getting insights on the research. The field data has been checked, edited and tabulated manually for interpretation, discussion and analysis. The policy recommendations are based on analysis of research findings and critical appreciation of pertinent literature.

Limitations:
The present study has been conducted in Uttar Pradesh, covering only 2 districts. Thus, the wider coverage of watershed development projects and geographical area along with a higher number of beneficiaries could not ensure due to its resource constants. The study is again confined to primary data and analysis of time series data related to different watershed development programmes in India along with inter-state analysis could not be ensured. The statistical analysis also lacks application of statistical tools for drawing out inferences and results. Though the study has its own limitation however, this is important as it attempts to review the performance and impact of watershed development programmes in two major districts besides critical appreciation of pertinent literature. The study may be useful for the policy makers, administrators, and development professionals for operational view point as it provides policy measures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of watershed development programmes.

Chapter-2
Theoretical Perspective of Watershed Development
Watershed development projects are designed to harmonize the use of water, soil,forest and pasture resources in a way that conserves these resources while raisingagricultural productivity, both through in situ moisture conservation and increasedirrigation through tank- and aquifer-based water harvesting. Watershed projects havebecome widespread in rainfed areas in recent years, with a current annual budget from allsources that exceeds US $500 million (Farrington et al. 1999). Though the watershed development approach was adopted as early as 1949 yet it stands fragmented in terms of activities, programs and funding sources (Vaidyanathan, 1991). There had been a tendency for proliferation of activities with special area, rural development and employment programmes. Departments namely Agriculture, Forests, Rural Development, National Waste Land Development Board and voluntary organizations are working on different programs like soil conservation, land shaping and development, minor irrigation, silvipasture, social or farm forestry and afforestation.
Conceptual Framework
Watershed is a natural hydrological entity that covers a specific area expanded onland surface, within whose boundaries the entire rainfall run-off ultimately passes througha specifically defined stream. So, it is a unit of land on which all water that falls collects byforce of gravity, runs via common outlet. It is thus an area of land that contributes run-off to acommon point and is separated from adjoining areas by a natural ridgeline (Oswal, 1999).Singh (2000) has defined watershed as a geographic area drained by stream ofconnecting streams such that all precipitation in this area leaves the area in a concentratedflow through a single outlet.Watershed, as a natural unit of ecosystem planning and development, is widely usedin most of the countries. It has a wide spectrum of characteristics likeWatershed topography which consist of mountains, hills, plains, gullies, valleys and soon.These resources are interdependent and ultimately management of these factors isdetermined with the proper consideration of ecological and socio-economic factors maintaining the ecological development of the area by using the simple soil and waterconservation techniques.The process of watershed development involves co-ordinated multidisciplinaryactivities and expertise from several departments. In order to sustain the assets created under theprogramme, the participation of the people/ community as well as Panchayat Raj institutionsis also essential.
A watershed is a geographic area that drains to a common point,which makes it an attractive unit for technical efforts to conserve soil and maximize theutilization of surface and subsurface water for crop production. A watershed is also anarea that contains administrative and property boundaries, lands that fall under differentproperty regimes, and farmers whose actions may affect each others' interests. Humandefinedboundaries, however, normally do not match biophysical ones. In watershedmanagement projects, mechanical or vegetative structures are installed across gullies andrills and along contour lines, and areas are earmarked for particular land use based ontheir land capability classification. Cultivable areas are put under crops according tostrict principles of contour-based cultivation. Erosion-prone, less favorable lands are putunder perennial vegetation. This approach aims to optimize moisture retention andreduce soil erosion, thus maximizing productivity and minimizing land degradation.Improved moisture management increases the productivity of improved seeds andfertilizer, so conservation and productivity-enhancing measures are complementary.
Excess surface runoff water is harvested in irrigation or percolation tanks whilesubsurface drainage recharges groundwater aquifers, so conservation measures in theupper watershed have a positive impact on productivity in the lower watershed.Reducing erosion in the upper reaches also helps to reduce sedimentation of irrigationtanks in the lower reaches. The watershed approach enables planners tointernalize such externalities and other linkages among agricultural and related activitiesby accounting for all types of land uses in all locations and seasons.
In India, farmer-led agricultural intensification is also widespread. In semi-aridareas the most obvious example is that of private irrigation investments, which aretypically accompanied by land leveling and application of substantial organic matter andcommercial inputs. On rainfed lands the successes are less dramatic, but evidence showsthat private tree planting has grown steadily in recent years (Chambers et al. 1989), andthat many farmers invest in indigenous soil and water conservation measuresindependently of special project efforts (Kerr and Sanghi 1992). Likewise, some villageshave designed social institutions for managing common property resources in ways thatraise their productivity and protect against long-term resource degradation (Wade 1988).Several exceptional case studies of successful watershed development have beenwell-publicized in India. Success is often attributed to the efforts of a charismatic leader or some otherset of social conditions that would be difficult or impossible to replicate on a wide scale.There is undoubtedly a great deal of truth in this perception, but to date there has been littlesystematic effort to examine the extent to which policy-relevant factors have played a rolein causing some areas to be characterized by better resource management and higheragricultural production than others. Ralegan Siddhi (Hazare et al. 1996) and Sukhomajri (Chopra et al. 1990; Patel-Weynand 1997) arevillagelevel or regional differences in natural resource conditions, agriculturalproductivity and household incomes.
Watershed Development
Watershed Development Programmes have been accorded high priority in India’s development plans (Singh, 1991). These programmes have been initiated in India to improve and sustain productivity and the production potential of the dry and semi arid regions of the country through the adoption of appropriate production and conservation techniques. The watershed development programmes  approach seeks to improve and develop all types of lands-government, forest, community and private lands- that fall within a particular watershed. It is a holistic approach to improve and develop the economic and natural resource base of dry and semiarid regions (Ninan and Lakshmikanthamma, 2001). The programmes have stressed upon improvement of wasteland, runoff reduction, water conservation and protective irrigation mechanism in all areas including desert prone areas and drought prone areas. Development programs, envisaged under its purview include almost every activity which concerns land, water and biomass production. Experiences have shown that watershed as a base is very effective in use and management of land and water resources. With increasing awareness about the problems related to environment, use of watershed terminology is becoming popular and moreover in view of their potential for growth, improvement in income levels and augmenting the natural resource base of the disadvantaged regions of the country (Singh, 1991).
India has about 16 percent of the world’s population but only 4 percent of its freshwaterresources (Planning Commission, 2001). In India, the estimated rate of groundwater extractionin the 1990s exceeded the replenishment rate. (Postel, 2000). Currently, more than 10percent of central groundwater board blocks (the smallest administrative units for waterresource management in India) are overexploited. The World Bank (1999) has calculated thatblocks where exploitation is beyond the critical level have been increasing at a rate of 5.5 percenteach year.Since 1995, the Government of India has moved towards creating common guidelines as aframework for watershed development. However, concerns remain that legislative measures toprotect and manage India’s water resources are hindered by the lack of an integratedframework for watershed management, a lack of effective departmental coordination, and afocus on supply- rather than demand-side mechanisms. Another major problem is thatdisparities between the scientific and the public perceptions of the role of forests are embeddedwithin water and watershed policy.
There has been an increasing emphasis on watershed development in India in the past twodecades. This seeks to integrate land and water management in order to reverse the continueddegradation of the country’s land, water and forest resources. This degradation is caused bypressures from increasing population and economic development and manifests as increasing soilerosion, declining land productivity, lowering groundwater tables, lowering quality and quantityof drinking-water, and loss of forest cover. Frequent floods and droughts are further evidenceof improper catchment land use (MoA, 2002).
India’s approach to watershed development has arisen from the policy level and donorpreferences, and not from grassroots needs (ODI and partners, 2000). Participatory watershedmanagement was only institutionalized in government policy in the 1990s. This has led to theemphasis in many projects shifting from technological to social interventions. The HanumanthaRao Committee, in its review of the Drought-Prone Areas Programmes and the DesertDevelopment Programme, recommended increasing people’s participation. This led tothe Guidelines for Watershed Development (MoRD, 1994), which were adopted by the Ministryfor Rural Development (MoRD) in 1994. The Ministry of Water Resources’ (MoWR) 1987 and2002 national water policies have driven water resource policy at the national level (ODI andpartners, 2000).
A 1999 review by the Ministry of Rural Development  and the Ministry of Agriculture  led to a common set ofoperational guidelines, objectives, strategies and expenditure norms being established in 2001for watershed development programmes. The revised 2001 watershed guidelines frame auniform and unambiguous commitment for integrated land and water management usingparticipatory approaches. However, the new approach is weakened by the continuing lack ofinterdepartmental coordination (Amezaga et al.). The new Hariyali guidelinesissued by the Government of India in March 2003 seek to approach this problem by givingmore emphasis to the role of the panchayat local government bodies (MoRD, 2003).The Ministry of Agriculture has worked in watershed development since the 1960s and focuses on erosion-proneagricultural lands, optimizing production in rainfed areas and reclaiming degraded lands (ODIand partners, 2000). The Ministry of Rural Development has been implementing watershed projects since the late 1980s(ODI and partners, 2000). It attends to non-forest wastelands and poverty alleviation programmesby working on soil and water conservation. The Ministry of Forests and Environment remit covers forest and wasteland issues.The Ministry of water Resources mandate covers water policy, but not watershed development. Water isoverall regarded as a state responsibility (Richards and Singh, 2001), and so the administrativecontrol and responsibility for water development rests with state-level departments.
The Government of India has been advocating the integrated management of watershedprogrammes since the mid-1990s. The tenth plan’s Working Group Report on WatershedDevelopment: Rainfed Farming and Natural Resource Management (Planning Commission, 2001) recognizes the importance of macro-management for watershed development. It calls forwatershed development programmes to focus on regenerating the productivity of degradedlands through a single national initiative.However, in spite of the development of common guidelines, no mechanism has been put in placefor integrated watershed development from a water resources perspective. Furthermore, thereis no effective policy-level communication at both the national level and within individual statesamong the various ministries concerned with watershed management. The three ministries viz Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Forests and Environment thatare most involved in watershed management are drivenby separate and differing policy priorities. The Working Group Report on Watershed Developmentfor the Tenth Five-Year Plan recommended an integrated approach, but maintained thecompartmentalization among various ministries and line departments. If one ministry is workingin one implementation area, then no other ministry can work in the same area. However, thePlanning Commission states clearly that it would be desirable to have a single national initiativefor the watershed development programmes (Planning Commission, 2001).
The Working Group Report recommends the opposite to its posited integrated approach bydecreasing the overlapping responsibilities of concerned ministries and line departments. Itrecommends more coordination, but not improved cooperation. It also says that the Ministry of Agriculture  wants to be given the responsibility for programmes to regenerate degraded lands and wastelandsbecause it has the required technical workforce. It claims that the Department of Land Resourceslacks technical expertise, especially on productive activities. The Deptt  of Land Resources  on the otherhand, wants the single national initiative to happen under the Ministry of Rural development . A further problem is that,although the Ministry of Forests and Environment is responsible for coastal watersheds, it does not recognize water resource management as being within its mandate.The lack of links among the various ministries and bodies responsible for watershed developmentprogrammes means that a solution to India’s water resource situation is not supported by policy.The increasing over-extraction of groundwater in coastal areas is contaminating water resources with saline water, as seawater is pulled into terrestrial zones. This is recognized in the NationalWater Policy (MoWR, 2002) as a major problem in water resource management. The Ministry of Forests and Environment neither has the means nor is supported by policy to resolve this problem.
Government and private sector efforts have focused on increasing the amount of available water,rather than reducing demand by building new wells and de-silting tanks, dams and canals totransfer water from one basin to another, and by putting in place rainfall harvesting structures(KAWAD, 2001). Water management policies seem to be based on the assumption that waterwill continue to flow from upper to lower catchments in unlimited quantities, regardless of theamount of water extracted or harvested. It recommends that a series of small sunken waterharvesting structures be placed all over the landscape, and along drainage lines, to allow for theequitable distribution of water (Planning Commission, 2001).
Such structures retain storm flows to allow water to be used locally. However, when all the waterresources of a catchment or macro-watershed are fully used on an annual basis, there is little orno flow out of macro-catchments. In this situation, further investments in water conservationstructures and other measures such as bunding are less cost-effective, as water is capturedupstream at the expense of downstream users (Gosain, Rao and Calder, 2003).The guidelines of the National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA,2002) define surplus runoff as that which goes outside the watershed area. It defines one of thecriteria for a successful watershed project as about 50 percent of surplus runoff being conservedor harvested in the watershed. This highlights the policy focus on local benefits and the lack ofattention to effects on downstream users.Batchelor, Rama Mohan Rao and Manohar Rao (2003) conclude from water audits carried outin the Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project that intensive water harvestinghas altered the spatial and temporal pattern of availability and access to surface and groundwater.This has brought many benefits but, especially in semi-arid areas, these benefits have hadsignificant negative trade-offs in low rainfall years.Demand for water is outstripping supply owing to attitudes founded on the belief that there isunlimited scope for augmenting water resources. State policies are encouraging the inefficient,unsustainable and inequitable use of water (Batchelor, Rama Mohan Rao and Manohar Rao, 2003).
Importance of Watershed Development Programmes
Watershed development aims to balance the conservation, regeneration and use by humans of land and water resources within a watershed. Common benefits from successful watershed development projects include improved agricultural yields and increased access to drinking water. The overall attributes of the watershed development approach, by and large, are three fold, viz. promoting economic development of the rural area, employment generation, and restoring ecological balance (DoLR, 2006). However, the multiple objectives include:
Environmental-For protecting vegetative cover throughout the year, to create ecological balance in the watershed area, protecting fertile top soil, utilizing the land based on its capabilities, in situ conservation of rain water, increasing ground water recharge, etc.
Economic-It draws attention for increase in cropping intensity through inter and sequence cropping, maximizing farm income through agricultural related activities such as dairy, poultry, sheep and goat farming, improved and sustained livelihood status of the watershed community with special emphasis on the poor and women, etc.
Institutional-It includes formation of watershed committees and self-help- groups, establishing sustainable community organization, etc.
Social-It includes alleviation of poverty, awareness generation, improving skills of the local community, capacity building activities, women’s participation in decision-making process, empowerment of the community, etc.
Equity-To develop equitable distribution of the benefits of land and water resources development and the consequent biomass production, involvement of village communities in participatory planning, implementation, social and environmental arrangement, maintenance of assets and to operate in a more socially inclusive manner.
The components of watershed development programme would include; (i) soil and land management (ii) water management (iii) crop management (iv) afforestation (v) pasture or fodder development (vi) livestock management (vii) rural energy management (viii) other farm and non-farm activities (ix) and development of community skills and resources. All these components are interdependent and interactive. Watershed Development Programmes  are among the very important programmes placed under the purview of Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development Three important schemes namely, IWDP, DPAP, and DDP are widely implemented by the State Governments with due priority. The  Deptt. of Land Resources  has been committed in updating guidelines for these schemes with periodic inputs from Research Organizations, Voluntary Organizations, Technical Committees, Workshops and Seminars amongst others. Especially, the inputs from the C.H. Hanumantha Rao Committee and Parthasarathy Committee are quite popular.
Literature Review
The literature on watershed development in India is growing rapidly, but most ofit is confined to qualitative descriptions of success stories. Some of these contain excellent insights into the social processes that contribute to successful watershed development, but there is little frank discussion of less successful projects. The few quantitative studies available tend to be based on a small number of heavily supervised projects, with no information about long-term impacts. Benefits after the first year or two were typically assumed and, not surprisingly, cost-benefit findings were almost always favorable. At the same time, the vast majority of projects were never subject to evaluation and there were good reasons to suspect that most of them had little impact(Kerr and Sanghi 1992).
Studies by Farrington, et al (1999), Deshpande and Narayanamoorthy (1999), Kerr et al (2000), Vaidyanathan (1999, 2006), Reddy and Dev (2006), Biswas, et al (2005), Pascual, et al (2009) and others have discussed several issues in watershed development programmes. They have covered policy related issues, institutional drawbacks, implementation issues, community and participation issues, etc. Despite the fact that there are large numbers of issues already covered, the research scope in the issue of watershed management is tremendous. Over the years, with the attention shifted from more centralized to decentralized system of governance, watershed development programmes have equally emphasized on decentralized approaches such as more community and people’s participation and involvement of PRIs in planning, executing and monitoring of the projects, etc. In order to ensure good governance, mechanisms like social auditing, periodic review and better documentation processes are taken into account as best practices in some of the WDP regions. There are a good number of studies available on participatory aspects of watershed management. Wani, et al (2001) study in Kothapally in Andhra Pradesh is one of such studies that highlight the effective community participation in watershed management. In fact, their study has developed the model for effective participation in watershed management.
Deshpande and Reddy (1991), Shah (2001), Joshi (2004) and others have reviewed different dimensions of watershed management. These studies while addressing several issues have also focused the positive impact of watershed management on cropping, agricultural productivity, employment generation and increase in income amongst others. The Kothapally study by Wani et al (2001) has shown significant impact of watershed management on crop production, increase in ground water level, reduction in runoff water, increase in income, etc. Similarly, ICRISAT has reported various benefits of the watershed development programmes in the country.
Studies by Deshpande & Narayanamoorthy (1999), Kshirsagar,. Madhusoodhanan, Chavan and Rathod (2003) and many others have acknowledged that the watershed development programmes are potential to augment income and reduce poverty among the watershed communities. These studies have focused that there is positive change in crop yielding and productivity, cropping intensity and optimum use of farm implements despite some odds. Deshpande and Narayanamoorthy (1999) have observed several positive impact of National Watershed Development Programme for Rainfed Areas, implemented in 1990 across the four states in the Western and Central Rainfed zones of India viz. Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Further, their studies of NWDPRA in the southern plateau for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka show that there was lack of effective beneficiary participation in the meetings and training programmes. Moreover, there was lack of proper local planning in the hilly areas. They have emphasized the need for local planning, peoples‟ participation, training, capacity building, etc.
Bio-physical aspects of watershed development are studied by large number of researchers from both science and social sciences. Kerr et al (2002) noticed that many studies have revealed that watershed development interventions were successful in controlling soil erosion, runoff reduction, etc. Most of the studies on watershed management in India have reported significant changes in bio-physical aspects than in social and institutional aspects. Farrington et al. (1999) also noted that the successful watersheds have in fact reduced runoff water and recharged ground and surface water aquifers, improved drinking water supply, increased agricultural intensification and crop productivity. Studies by MYRADA, TERI, ICRISAT and other reputed organizations have focused on bio-physical, social, economic and institutional dimension of watershed development programmes. Kalpataru Foundation (2001) has observed similar changes after implementation of the WDPs under various schemes.
Participatory approaches of watershed management, emphasis on decentralized approach or bottom up approach, etc. are widely discussed by Farrington (1999), Yugandhar, et al (1999) Kerr (2000) D’silva Emmanuel and Sudha Pai (2003) and Vaidyanathan (2006) amongst others. All these studies have stressed importance of proper institutional mechanism both at the ground level and at the top level. Some of the authors have also talked about the issues of equity in distribution and lack of inclusiveness.
Sen (2008) has given significant comment on Indian policies with regard to watershed development programmes and rural development. Lahiri-Dutt and Wasson (2008) have extensively discussed some of the significant issues on mainstreaming participatory principles, reorienting the concept of sustainabilityin watershed development programmes , re-emphasizing equity aspects of watershed programmes, reconsidering scales of operationalisation of watershed programmes, cost-sharing, evaluation and mid-term correction of watershed development programmes amongst others. Despite the fact that the studies are aplenty in the area of watershed management, the documentation and analysis of the evaluation studies and impact assessment studies is essential to set up a benchmark for the future studies. This can help in further improvement of the programme in the wake of Integrated Watershed Management programme already implemented in the country.
Kerr et al. (2002) found that NGO-government collaborative projects performedthe best, followed by purely NGO projects and lastly by the first generationgovernment projects. The projects with an NGO component had a strongsocial organization focus that dealt specifically with the uneven distribution ofbenefits and costs, and they operated in smaller watersheds within a single village.On the other hand, government projects were solely technocratic, and theone government project that operated in multiple-village watersheds performedthe worst. The successes by the projects with an NGO component came in theform of reduced soil erosion, higher crop income, improved management of commonpastures, more employment, and increased irrigation. An assessment by the Centre for Science and Environment (Agarwal, 2000) estimates that if halfof India’s average annual rainfall of 1 170 mm were captured over 1.12 ha of land in each of thecountry’s 587 226 villages, then the 6.57 million litres of rainwater thus collected would meetthe annual cooking and drinking needs for an average village of 1200 people. Doing this wouldhelp both to sustain surface water supplies and to recharge aquifers.However, the National Sample Survey (NSS, 1994) reported that despite the extensiveprogrammes carried out to provide drinking-water to rural areas, 24 percent ofIndia’s villages  still had a drinking-water problem. Even the watershed development programme is set up to complement the drinking-water programmes in villages did not improve the situation .As a result, much of the 420 billion hectare metres of average annual available precipitation flowed uninterrupted to the sea without fulfilling its ecological functions of enhancing surface water supplies and recharging groundwater to any appreciable extent.The experiences of watershed development projects have been quite varied. The few successful projects are outnumbered by the many unsuccessful ones. There are situations where some successful watershed projects have not even provided for the minimum amounts of drinking-watered fodder. Many watershed projects, designed to conserve rainwater to improve irrigation, have tended to ignore communities’ primary need of access to drinking-water. On similar lines, some projects have neglected to develop pastureland and propagate soil-moisture conservation practices.One study of a watershed project in Chhattisgarh showed the implementing agency’s predicament in trying to complete the diverse range of activities on time (Sharma, 2001). Subsidies were made available to all households, irrespective of their economic status. Those with larger areas of land benefited most. This inequitable spread of benefits had a negative impact on local people’s sense of ownership of the project and on the project’s sustainability. The long-term impact and sustainability of watershed projects is threatened by the lack of well-defined institutional spaces for the landless, only partial responses to the concerns of small landholders and inequity in benefit sharing.
Many project implementing agencies know that rainwater harvesting needs to be a priority inflow-rainfall regions. However, in situ conservation does not help much if rainfall is scanty and erratic. Consequently, most watershed projects mainly concentrate on installing water harvesting structures such as check dams. The literature shows that the success rate of technology-based projects is no more than 25 percent (Shah, 2001; Reddy, 2000).A recent study in Gujarat found that check dams – the favoured technology for watershed projects – directly benefited only 15 percent of target households (Shah, 2001). While the benefits of check dams can easily be computed, benefits to individual farmers from structures such as nala plugs and contour bunds may not be so immediate and substantial. Consequently, a significant portion of project costs are invested in structures such as check dams, whose costs are high and that benefit only a few – in contrast to and at the cost of structures such as gully plugs that are less expensive and benefit more people. A typical check dam may account for 50 percent of a project’s costs. The remaining budget is thinly distributed over other project components. The social activities, including self-help groups and income-generating activities, often benefit only a few families. Households and communities that have not benefited from a project should not be expected to contribute towards sustaining project initiatives.
Mohiuddin (1983) noted that majority (64.4%) of the farmers had average attitude, while 25.60 per cent and 10.0 per cent of them had high and low levels of attitude, respectively towards dry land agricultural technologies.Sinha et al. (1984) in their study conducted on attitude of farmers towards soil conservation programme revealed that majority of the farmers (80%) had medium level of attitude and the rest were distributed under high (12%) and low (8%) attitude categories .Bhakhri (1985) observed that majority of the farmers were found to be favourably disposed in their attitude towards dryland agricultural technologies. Singh and Singh (1986) reported that majority of respondents had favorable attitude towards chemical fertilizers in community development block, Kanjhawala in the union territory of Delhi.Sunderrao (1988) found that majority of the watershed farmers had favorable attitude, while only 19 per cent of them had highly favourable attitude thus leaving only 16.7per cent of the farmers with unfavorable attitude towards dry land agricultural technologies.

 

Sivaprasad (1990) reported that 60.83 per cent of the farmers had favorable attitude towards recommended watershed management practices, while 22.5 and 16.67 per cent ofthem had more favourable and less favourable attitude, respectively .Narayana Gowda (1992) reported that attitude towards watershed development programme had positive and significant relationship with overall consequences of watersheddevelopment programme.Siddaramaiah and Reddy (1993) in their study on watershed management found thatbig farmers had exhibited more favourable attitude than small farmers on all three dimensionsof watershed management viz., soil and water conservation, dry farming technology and nonarableland development. They revealed that the programme had not succeeded in creating afavourable attitude towards watershed management, particularly among small farmers.
Manjula and Belli (1994) reported that 53.33 per cent of farm women and favourable attitude towards watershed management programme and rest 46.67 per cent of them had unfavourable attitude.Lakshmi and Manoharan (1995) in their study conducted in Rangareddy district ofAndhra Pradesh reported that 37.50 per cent of the respondents had low level of attitude,followed by 30.00 per cent had medium and 32.00 per cent had high level of attitude towardsdryland agricultural technology.Surekha et al. (1997) in their study conducted in Dharwad district of Karnatakareported that more than half of the total farmers had favourable attitude towards watersheddevelopment in all the four villages 37 to 45 per cent of the respondents had unfavourableattitude towards watershed development.Prasad and Sundaraswamy (2000) in their study conducted in Rangareddy district ofAndhra Pradesh reported that majority of the farmers in general, favourably disposed towardsdryland agricultural technologies and this result was attributed by significant relationshipattitude with socio-economic variables education, social participation and farm power etc.
Franda Marcus (1979) has successfully drawn a clear line between the ventures ofvoluntary organizations in India in uplifting the rural poor and state efforts. The planningcommission was convinced that voluntary agencies have to play a major role in ruraldevelopment effort that takes place within a democratic framework.Ghosh (1990) in his study on actual working of some leading voluntary organizationsin India found that the Social Work and Research Centre (SWRC) at Tilonia, Rajasthan is offeringprofessional advises and guidance’s to the farmers in health and hygiene, agriculturalproduction, engineering, marketing etc. besides health care, activities of Society forEducation, Welfare and Action (SEWA) covers water management, baseline economicsurvey, organizing vocational training etc.Ansari and Chandargi (2000) in their study conducted on effectiveness of inductiontraining programme organized for assistant agricultural officers (farm women) at theUniversity of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad revealed that a majority of the respondents werepartially satisfied with the training programme.
Pillai (1978) reported that 95 per cent of the farmers perceived that there wasincrease in yield in tapioca and coconut after 5 years of completion of soil conservation work.He further reported that 93.33 per cent of the farmers perceived that soil conservationpractices resulted in controlling of silting in paddy field and 100 per cent perceived that soilconservation measures have effect on conserving soil moisture.According to Krishnakumar (1987) considerable per cent of the respondents (51.11%)were satisfied with the working of soil conservation schemes. He further stated that most ofthe respondents had increase in knowledge about agriculture (82.2%), skills in cultivation(74.4%), enhancement in income (70%) and cropping intensity (60%). In case of adoption ofsoil conservation practices, one fourth of the respondents experienced heavy loss anddifficulty in growing crops.
Krishnakumar (1987) found that the reasons for adoption of soil conservationpractices were to get increased yield, to prevent runoff loss of water, to improve soil structureand texture, forced by agricultural engineering department to adopt contour bunds and toavail loan facilities offered through agricultural engineering department.According to Prabhu (1988), the reasons for adoption of soil conservation practicesare compelled to adopt, as neighbour is adopting, to avail subsidy, to get additional yield, toconserve top soil, to conserve moisture and to ease cultivation operations.Pagire (1989) in a study on the impact of watershed development observed thatalmost all the crops cultivated in the area showed an improvement in per ha yield comparedto that of the base year (1984-85) at Kolhewaji watershed, Maharashtra. The increase in yieldof kharif sorghum and wheat was 85 to 134 and 12 to 7 per cent, respectively.
Singh et al. (1989) from their study on the socio-economic impact of Kandi watershedand area development project in Punjab concluded that there were significant shifts in landuse pattern from uncultivated to cultivated, uncultivable to cultivable area and from un-irrigatedto irrigated due to the project. The cropping pattern analysis also indicated a slight shift infavour of commercial crops.Raghunandan (2004) reported that higher per cent of the respondents had feltadvantages like checks soil and water erosion (56.25%), helps in groundwater recharge(47.50%), increases infiltration rate of water (42.50%), increased yield (8.75%) and helps inincreasing the cropping intensity (7.50%).
Patil et al. (2000) in his study on correlates of knowledge and adoption of Konkanitribal farmers found that the most of the tribal farmers were in age group of 35-45 years.Madhavareddy (2001) in his study on peoples’ participation in watersheddevelopment programme implemented by government and non-government organization –A comparative analysis revealed that equal percentage of respondents (38.30% each)belonged to the middle age category in both government organization and non-governmentorganization watershed. Higher per cent of farmers (38.30%) of government organizationwatershed belong to young age category compared to 23.30 per cent of farmers belonging toold age group.Sridhar (2002) in his evaluative study of watershed programme in Pavagada taluk ofTumkur district in Karnataka found that 44.67 per cent of the respondents were middle aged,while, 28.00 per cent of them were young and remaining 27.33 per cent belong to old age.Raghunandan (2004) in his study, ‘A study on knowledge and adoption level of soiland water conservation practices by farmers in northern Karnataka’ reported that 45.00 percent of the respondents belonged to the middle age group, followed by old age (36.25%) andyoung age group (18.75%), respectively.
Marilingannavar and Manjunath (1992) reported that majority of the respondents(76.00%) were found to be illiterate. Whereas, only 17.33 per cent of them had education uptoprimary school and 5.33 per cent of them could just read and write. While, negligible(0.67%) of the respondents had education upto high school and college level.Gupta (1999) found that 43.34 per cent of the respondents were educated uptomiddle school, followed by 19.33 per cent each in primary school and high school whereas,only 0.67 per cent of them were graduates.Sridhar (2002) found that 26.67 per cent of the respondents were educated upto highschool, 24.66 per cent upto middle school, 12.67 per cent upto primary school, 12.00 per centcould read and write, 11.33 per cent had collegiate education. The percentage of illiterateswas 12.67.Raghunandan (2004) revealed that majority (73.75%) of the respondents are literatesof which 22.50 per cent studied upto primary school. 20.00 per cent studied middle school,15.00 per cent respondents upto high school, 11.25 per cent of respondents upto preuniversity,whereas, 5 per cent respondents had graduation, whereas, 23.28 per cent of therespondents were illiterate.Ninga Reddy (2005) in his study, ‘A study on knowledge, extent of participation andbenefits derived by participant farmers of the watershed development programme in Raichurdistrict of Karnataka’ reported that 30.00 per cent of the respondents had education upto highschool, followed by middle school (28.00%) and primary school (27.33%). Nearly 12.00 percent of them were illiterates, while a meager 4.00 per cent of them had education upto collegeand degree programme.
Ramchand and Sohal (1985) reported that 15 per cent of the farmers had large landholding, whereas 42.00 per cent each had medium and small land holding.Naik (1993) found that 40.00 per cent of the respondents were big farmers, followedby small landholders (30.00%) and marginal landholders (26.00%).Nagaraj (1996) reported that 48 per cent of the participant farmers belong to mediumland holding category, followed by 30.67 per cent in small landholding category, only 8 percent of them were big farmers.Madhavreddy (2001) reported that 35.00 per cent of the respondents were marginalfarmers, 26.60 per cent were small farmers and 21.80 per cent were medium farmers.Ninga Reddy (2005) reported that comparatively more number of farmers (64.00%)belonged to semi medium land holding category, followed by 22.00 per cent in mediumcategory, whereas 10.67 per cent of them had small land holding and a meager 3.33 per centof them belonged to big land holding category.
Narasimha (1980) reported that 68 per cent of trained farmers had low income level.Purushotham et al. (1988) reported that 62 per cent of the respondents belonged tolow income group, 24.00 per cent to middle income group and 14.00 per cent to high incomegroup.Nagaraj (1996) revealed that 44.00 per cent of participant farmers had incomebetween Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 10,000, while, 25.00 per cent of them had income of more thanRs. 10,000 annually.Sridhar (2002) reported that 43.00 per cent of the respondents belonged to incomegroup of Rs. 11,001 to Rs. 22,000 per annum, whereas only few of them (6.6%) belonged tohigher income group of Rs. 22,001 to Rs. 33,000.Ninga Reddy (2005) reported that majority (60.00%) of the respondents belonged toincome group of Rs. 11,001 to Rs. 22,000 per annum. Whereas 20.00 per cent of thembelonged to income group of Rs. 22,001 to 33,000 an equal per cent of respondents (10.00%)belong to income upto Rs. 11,000 and Rs. 33,000 and above respectively.
Srinivasareddy (1995) found that, 57 per cent of mango growers had medium levelfollowed by low level (33.00%) and high (10.00%) levels of organizational participation.Saikrishna (1998) conducted a study in Raichur district on Andhra migrant farmersreported that, six per cent of the respondents were members of milk co-operative society, only1.33 per cent of farmers were office bearers. Only 3.33 per cent of farmers were the membersof village Panchayat and no one was its office bearer and two per cent of migrant farmerswere members of youth club and co-operative bank.
Gupta (1999) reported that all the respondents possessed radio, while 86.60 per centof them possessed television sets and 72 per cent were of them regular listeners ofagricultural programmes and 64.67 per cent listen other programmes while 48.00 per centand 41 per cent of them were occasionally viewing agricultural and general programmes,respectively on television.Maraddi (1999) in a study on cotton growers reported that 49 per cent of therespondents were having low mass media exposure and 42 per cent and 9 per cent werehaving medium and high mass media exposure, respectively.
Kanavi (2000) reported that among the different mass media studied, 82 per cent ofthe respondents possessed radio and 42.66 per cent television, while 16.66 per cent ofthem subscribe newspapers and two per cent agricultural magazines. Further, it is reportedthat in case of television, 13.33 per cent viewed agricultural programmes regularly, followedby news (38.66%) and general programmes (15.33%).Madhavareddy (2001) found that most of the respondents of Governmentalorganizations watershed farmers had high (51.6%) mass media utilization, followed by low(16.8%) and medium level (31.6%) mass media utilization. Large number of nongovernmentalorganization watershed farmers had medium level of participation (53.4%),followed by high (25.00%) and low level (21.6%).Ninga Reddy (2005) reported that 80.00 per cent of the respondents possessed radioand 54.00 per cent possessed television, while 40.61 per cent of them subscribed newspaper.Further, in case of radio it is reported that 22.0 per cent of them listened to agriculturalprogramme regularly. In case of television 25.34 per cent of respondent farmers viewed theagricultural programmes regularly.Prasad (1994) observed that 51.00 per cent of farmers had medium extensioncontact, followed by 32.78 per cent had low and 16.66 per cent had high of extension contact.Angadi (1999) found that majority (65.62%) of the respondents had contact withAgricultural Assistants whenever there was a problem, while 62.50 per cent ofrespondents had no contact with Assistant Agricultural Officers , only 13.12 per cent ofthem had contact with scientists whenever they had problems.Karpagam (2000) conducted a study on turmeric growers and found that 93.33 percent of the respondents were aware of Assistant Agricultural Officers (AAOs), followed by 90per cent of them knowing Agriculture officer or Horticulture Officerand 68.33 percent of respondents were aware of Assistant Director of Agriculture or AssistantDirector of Horticulture.
Sakharkar (1995) found that, 36.00 per cent of the respondents had participated inone or more extension activities whereastwo-third (64.33%) of the respondents did notparticipate in any extension activity.Angadi (1999) reported that majority of the respondents had not participated invarious extension activities viz., discussions with extension personnel (98.76%), groupmeeting (75.23%) and training programmes (72.50%). Only 43.75 per cent and 38.13 per centof the respondents participated regularly in extension activities like method demonstrationsand Krishimela, respectively.Anitha (2004) reported that 17.50 per cent of respondents had high extensionparticipation, 44.20 per cent had medium and 38.30 per cent had low extension participation.
Visweswaran (1979) noticed that migrant farmers had better planning orientation thannon-migrant farmers.Sakharakar (1995) noticed that two third of the respondents belonged to mediumcategory of management orientation. However, an equal number of respondents had low andhigh level of management orientation.Chikhale et al [1996] revealed that majority of the respondents (71.00%) belonged tomedium management orientation category. while 16.5 and 12.5 per cent of them belonged tolow and high management orientation categories respectively.Chaudhari et al (1999) revealed that 50.00 per cent of respondents belonged to highmanagement orientation category. Ninga Reddy (2005) revealed that majority of the respondents (70.66%) belonged tomedium management orientation category, whereas 15.33 and 14.00 per cent of them fallunder high and low level of management orientation categories, respectively.
Reddy and Reddy (1977) revealed in his study that age is not related to attitude of therespondents in his study conducted in Rajendranagar block of Hyderabad.Ghosh et al. (1981) revealed non-significant relationship between age and attitude ofbeneficiary farmers towards intensive agricultural extension system in West Bengal.Bhakri (1985) revealed that age showed non-significant relationship with attitude ofrespondents towards recommended dry land agricultural technologies in Jammu district ofJammu and Kashmir.Perumal et al. (1988) revealed that there was non-significant relationship betweenage and attitude of beneficiaries towards fish farmer’s development agency.
Sinha et al. (1983) revealed that there is positive and significant relationship betweeneducation and attitude of contact farmers towards the system.Zotwana (1987) revealed positive and significant relationship between education andattitude towards high yielding varieties of paddy among farmers.Raju Naik et al. (1994) revealed positive and significant relationship betweeneducation and attitude of farmers towards seed supplying agencies in Dharwad.The reviews indicate that education and attitude of beneficiaries were positivelyrelated.Sinha et al. (1988) revealed positive and significant relationship between farm sizeand attitude of contact farmers towards the system.Manjula and Belli (1994) revealed a non-significant relationship between farm sizeand attitude of farm women towards watershed management programme in Kolar district ofKarnataka.Singh (1994) reported positively significant relationship between farm size andattitude of rajmash growers towards production technology in Samastipur district of Bihar.Patil (1994) reported significant relationship between annual income and perceptionof NAEP as to the usefulness by farmers of irrigated, dry zones of Dharwad district inKarnataka.Natarajan and Muthaiah (1995) revealed that a positive and significant relationshipexisted between annual income and attitude of farmers towards social forestry programme.Padmaiah (1995) reported non-significant relationship between annual income andperception of usefulness of watershed development project by the respondents inMahabubanagar district of Andhra Pradesh.
Narwal and Dixit (1991) reported positive and significant relationship betweenextension participation and attiude of dairy farmers in Hisar district of Haryana towardsfeeding practices in buffaloes.Prasad (1995) revealed that a positive and significant relationship existed betweenextension participation and attitude of farmers towards dryland technologies.Patil (1994) revealed positive and significant relationship between extension contactand perception of NAEP as to the usefulness by farmers of Dharwad district of Karnataka.Prasad (1995) revealed that a positive and significant relationship existed betweenextension contact and attitude of farmers towards dry land technologies.Natarajan and Muthiah (1995) revealed positively significant relationship betweenextension contact and attitude of farm forest farmers of Palani district of Tamil Nadu towardssocial forestry.
Nagpal and Yadav (1991) in their study on biogas users of Hissar district reportedpositively significant relationship between organizational participation and attitude of themtowards biogas.Mary et al. (1994) revealed non-significant relationship between organizationalparticipation and attitude of farm youth (girls) towards agriculture in Kanyakumari district ofTamil Nadu.Prasad (1995) revealed a positive and significant relationship existed betweenorganizational participation and attitude of farmers towards dry land technologies.Patil (1994) reported positive and significant relationship between mass mediaparticipation and perception of NAEP as to the usefulness by farmers of Dharwad district,Karnataka.Natarajan and Muthaiah (1995) revealed positive and significant relationship betweenmass media participation and attitude of farm forestry farmers of Palani district of Tamil Nadutowards social forestry programme.Prasad (1995) revealed that a positive and significant relationship existed betweenmass media participation and attitude of farmers towards dry land technologies.
Patil (1994) revealed that a positive and significant relationship existed betweenmanagement orientation and attitude of farmers towards dry land technologies.Shivasharanappa (1995) revealed that a positive and significant relationship existedbetween management orientation and attitude of farmers towards dryland technologies.Naryayanan (1979) in his review of the DPAP work in Kurnool (Andhra Pradesh)observed several weaknesses in the execution of the programme viz., lack of foresight inensuring wholehearted co-operation of officials at the grass root level, concentration of powerat the top, lack of adequate training of the administrations and the farmers, acute shortage oftransport facilities.
Reddy (1979), in his review of DPAP in Anantapur district of Andhra Pradeshobserved indefinite delays in getting approval of various schemes and appointment of staff asthe main hurdles at the initial stage of the implementation of the programme. Similarly, delaysin sanction of the estimates and flow of funds for various works led to in ordinate delay inmaking payments, serving facilities and technical guidance were not available in time even forminor repairs. Selection of sites for digging the wells was not proper. There was considerablemisuse of cattle, implements and subsidies made available to the weaker sections.While evaluating the adoption and diffusion of recommended technology in droughtprone areas of Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh, Chowdary and Prasad (1980) indicates inrespect of HYV seeds that susceptibility to pests and diseases, non-availability of seeds, highcosts and unsuitability of seeds to local conditions were some of the reasons retarding theprogress of adaption. Lack of awareness, lack of knowledge and risk aversion attitude of thefarmers were additional hurdles. In some cases, inadequate and uncertain supply of inputsalso contributed to the failure of the programme.Bhaskaran and Praveena (1982) examined the working of an Integrated Dry landAgricultural Development Project in Andhra Pradesh. They reported significant differences inthe adoption levels between different groups of farmers. The reasons for non-adoption ofrecommended practices were identified as lack of knowledge about practices, lack of properguidance and unrealistic nature of the practices recommended. High cost was an additionalhurdle.
Sanghi and Rao (1982) emphasized the indifference of the local farmers and lack ofparticipation in the programme as the greatest hurdle in implementation. The farmers werefound to revert back to their traditional systems, once the project support was withdrawn fromthem. Extension services did not keep pace with the requirements of the situations as theproject advanced.In a study, Patel (1983) emphasized the role of active interaction between thesupplies of technology, the users of technology and the facilitators of technology wereessential if new technology had to be successfully implemented. This required strengtheningof input supply mechanism, training of farmers in the optimum use of the inputs andcontinuous extension services with feedback information.Chitnis and Bhilegaonkar (1987), in their study of the constraints on adoption of newtechnology in Skehta, Aurangabad district, Maharashtra, found that the lack of adequatecredit, unsatisfactory extension services, inadequate and erratic input supply mechanism, lackof communication between the cultivators and the lower level functionaries and unsatisfactorytesting of technology were the main hurdles in the way. The administrative and organizationalsetup was also found to be weak and fragmented.Singh and Reddy (1987), in a case study of rainfed castor in Southern TelanganaZone of Andhra Pradesh, found the lack of capital as a serious constraint. Extension serviceswere inadequate and inefficient. Further seeds supply, plant protection chemicals and storagefacilities were also found to be inadequate.Krishnappa et al. (1988), in their study on Kabbalanala watershed at Bangalore foundpiece-meal and partial adoption of new technology as the main reason behind low rate ofadoption. Simultaneous adoption of all the components of technology was obstructed by lackof adequate capital and credit in more than one third of the farmers. Agro-climatic conditionsof the region accentuated the above difficulties. Scanty and uneven distribution of rainfall andundulating topography, shallow depth of soil, low moisture retention capacity, low fertility of soil, and small and fragmented nature of holdings as well as lack of adequate market facilities also camein the way of adoption of new agronomic practices.
Kulkarni and Sangle (1993) examined the constraints in execution of the Phuldhabawatershed project activities. The major economic constraints as expressed by farmers wereuntimely credit, insufficient credit, and high rate of interest and rigidity of loan norms. Further, theyreported the technical constraints such as percolation of earthern dams, Khus plants dry up insummer and fungus developed on it in rainy season. The constraints reported by extensionworkers were influence of elite farmers for benefits, inadequate transport facilities, lack offinancial power and lack of social support.While evaluating difficulties encountered in the adoption of improved cultivationpractices in Manoli watershed (Maharashtra) Ingle (1994) indicated the costly inputs, lack ofadequate finance, lack of adequate knowledge of the cultivation practices, and high rate ofmortality of forest plants were considered as major constraints. Further, a large majority of therespondents noted the lack of people/participation as an additional hurdle in the projectimplementation.Khalache et al. (1994) reported the major constraints related to the technicaldifficulties. They were expressed by the watershed beneficiary’s viz., lack of knowledge andskills pertaining to plant protection measures (72.00%), management of dairy cattle (48.00%)and application of chemical fertilizers according to types and stages of crops (45.00%).
There have been a number of evaluations of Indian watershed projects over the years but very few compared different approaches or tried to correct for selection bias. Among the individual evaluations there appears to be an overrepresentation of well-known, highly supervised projects known to be successful. Overrepresentation of successful cases often stems from implementing agencies aiming to promote their work and data sets being more available for heavily supervised projects with large budgets. Ratna Reddy et al.(2004) purposely selected success stories in an evaluation of the Ministry of Rural Development projects in order to assess the potential for successful watershed development to improve rural livelihoods.
Joshi et al. (2005) conducted an analysis of 311 evaluations that estimated benefit-cost ratios of watershed projects, based on all available studies. Presumably the success stories are also overrepresented in this work. Kerr et al. (2002) randomly selected 86 villages in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh to compare the performance of first-generation government watershed projects with a technical orientation, NGO projects focusing on social organization,and the two NGO-government collaborative projects described above. Thisstudy tried to correct for selection bias.Batchelor et al. (2003) found that successful water harvestingin upper watersheds came at the expense of lower watershed areas due to catchment closure after heavy pumping in upper watersheds.Most evaluations are favorable. The early evaluations of heavily supervisedprojects showed impressive results, as did the self-assessments in Hinchcliffe etal. (1999). Ratna Reddy et al. (2004) found only modest impacts on livelihoods.Joshi et al. (2005) found a mean benefit cost ratio of 2.14 in their meta-analysis, with stronger performance in more participatory projects than more technocraticones. Joshi et al. expressed surprise at finding projects covering more than 1250hectares performing stronger than those covering less than 1250 hectares. However,the 1250 hectare cutoff is not very useful for assessing the impact of watershedsize on performance. The more important distinction is whether the watershedcovers more than one village, because village-level watersheds are still part of anatural social unit. In the study by Kerr et al. (2002), 39 out of 86 villages exceeded1250 hectares, so the 1250 hectare dividing line does not address this issue.  The literature review simply demonstrates that watershed development approach has been widely adopted by India for conservation of water and land resources. The watershed development programmes have yielded positive and fruitful results as for as conservation of natural resources are concerned. The reviews also suggest that community participation besides effective linkages and coordination among the stakeholders is essential for successful management of watershed development projects.

 

Chapter-3
Performance of Watershed Development Programmes in India
Rainfed agriculture in India is characterized by low productivity, degraded natural resources and wide spread poverty. Watershed development projects are designed to harmonize the use of water, soil, forest and pasture resources in a way that conserves these resources while raising agricultural productivity. Watershed projects have become wide spread in rainfed areas in the recent years. In this part of the report, performance review of major watershed development programmes has been ensured to understand the dynamics of land resource development and conservation of water resources to watershed development programmes.
Desert Development Programme
The Desert Development Programme (DDP) was started both in hot desert areas of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Haryana and the cold deserts of Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh in 1977-78. From 1995-96, the coverage has been extended to a few more districts in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. In hot sandy desert areas, sand dune stabilization and shelterbelt plantations were given greater weightage. On the other hand, in cold desert areas, since rainfall is negligible, crop cultivation and afforestation were taken up only through assured irrigation. In these areas, the main activity was water resources development by construction of channels for diversion of water flow from glaciers and springs to the fields and lift irrigation works in the valleys. The programme was reviewed in 1994-95 by a Technical Committee. The main reason identified by the Committee for below satisfactory results under the programme was that area development was not taken up on watershed basis and the involvement of the local people was virtually non-existent, both in planning and execution of the programme. Besides inadequacy of funds, non-availability of trained personnel and taking up of too many activities, which were neither properly integrated nor necessarily related to the objectives of the programme, were also identified as contributory factors towards reducing the impact of the programme.
Based on the recommendations of the Technical Committee, new Blocks/Districts were included under the programme. Comprehensive Guidelines for Watershed Development commonly applicable to different area development programmes were issued in October 1994 and made applicable with effect from 1995. Subsequently, based upon the feedback received from the various stakeholders, revised guidelines were circulated in September, 2001. These guidelines are applicable for projects sanctioned during 2000-2001 and thereafter.
. The programme has been conceived as a long term measure for restoration of ecological balance by conserving, developing and harnessing land, water, livestock and human resources. It seeks to promote the economic development of the village community and improve the economic conditions of the resource poor and disadvantaged sections of society in the rural areas. The major objectives of the programme are as follows:

• To mitigate the adverse effects of desertification and adverse climatic conditions on crops, human and livestock population and combating desertification.
• To restore ecological balance by harnessing, conserving and developing natural resources i.e. land, water, vegetative cover and raising land productivity.
• To implement developmental works through the watershed approach, for land development, water resources development and afforestation/ pasture development.

Prior to 1995, the impact of the programme was felt only in the areas actually treated by core activities. Growing population and poverty compounded the problem by increasing pressure on fragile ecosystems. Based on the recommendations of the Hanumantha Rao Committee, the major elements of the new strategy include:
i)        Area development under the programme to be taken up on watershed basis only and a watershed development project of about 500 hectares would be the field unit for implementation over a period of four to five years.
(ii)      However, in some sandy areas where it is not physically feasible to demarcate a watershed, programme is to be implemented by adopting either a cluster of villages or an Index Catchment as the unit of planning.
(iii)     Direct participation of the local people in planning and development of watershed project areas as well as in the maintenance of assets after the project is completed.
(iv)     The Panchayati Raj Institutions were responsible for monitoring and reviewing the programme at district, block and village levels upto 2002-03. Under new HARYALI Guidelines applicable from 2003, the Panchayati Raj Institutions would function as Project Implementation Agencies (PIA) for the Watershed Development Projects sanctioned during 2003-04 and thereafter.
(v)      Keeping in view the problem of sand dune stabilization in 16 districts of Rajasthan, special projects would be taken up for three activities namely sand dune stabilization, shelter belt plantation and afforestation.
Since inception of the Desert Development Programme, 40.46 lakh hectares area has been treated. From inception to 1995, 5.15 lakh hectare area was treated under the programme while during 2005-06, 6 lakh hectares was treated under the programme (Table 3.1).
Table: 3.1
Physical Performance of DDP

Year	Area Treated (In Lakh Hectares)
From Inception Till 31st March, 1995	5.15
1995-96	2.02
1996-97	1.31
1997-98	1.40
1998-99	1.60
1999-2000	2.00
2000-01	3.41
2001-02	3.56
2002-03	4.39
2003-04	4.72
2004-05	4.89
2005-06	6.01
Total	40.46

Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
As per information available from Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, 40 districts in 7 states viz. Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka and Rajasthan have been covered under the programme. Out of 40 districts covered under the programme, 16 districts are from Rajasthan alone. The programme has been implemented in 234 development blocks. Overall, 4.58 lakh sq.km.area has been covered under the programme (Table 3.2).
Table: 3.2
State-wise Coverage Under DDP in India

Note: Figures in Parenthesis show Percentage to Total
Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
A review of the progress made in implementation of 13476 DDP Projects sanctioned from 1995-96 till 2005-06, in terms of amount that should have been claimed and amount actually claimed (as on 31.01.2006) indicates that the financial performance of this programme for all the States is about 72.34. The Desert Development Programme was in operation in 131 blocks of 21 districts in 5 States upto 1994-95. On the recommendations of the Hanumantha Rao Committee, 32 new blocks were brought within the purview of the programme and 64 blocks were transferred from DPAP. Consequently, coverage of the programme was extended to 227 blocks of the country from 1995. With the reorganization of districts and blocks, the programme is under implementation in 235 blocks of 40 districts in 7 States.

 

 

During the financial year 2004-05 as on 2005, 1600 new projects covering approximately 8.00 lakh ha for treatment and costing about Rs.480.00 crores were sanctioned. The dataindicates the number of watershed projects taken up in various programme States during the period from 1995-96 till 2005. Out of total 11476 projects sanctioned so far, 2041 projects have been completed with an approximate DDP area of 10.205 lakh hectares brought under treatment. The dataindicates the year-wise release of funds upto 2005 for implementing Desert Development Programme. The DDP is a Centrally Sponsored Programme and funds are directly released to DRDAs/ZPs for implementation of the programme.
With effect from 1999, the programme is being funded on the basis of 75:25 for the watershed projects sanctioned on or after 1999. However, projects sanctioned prior to 1999 would continue to be funded on the old pattern. Further, upto 1999-2000, the project cost was Rs.22.5 lakh per project in respect of Hot Arid (non-sandy) areas and Rs.25 lakh in other areas. However, this has been enhanced to a uniform rate of Rs.30 lakh per project and this revised rate is applicable for the projects sanctioned on or after 2000. The projects sanctioned before 2000 would continue to be implemented on old cost norms.
Since the adoption of watershed approach in the year 1995-96 till 2005-2006, 13476 projects have been sanctioned to treat 67.38 lakh hectares of arid area. The year-wise details of projects sanctioned from 1995-96 to 2005-06 are shown in Table 3.3. Out of total sanctioned projects, more than 47 per cent projects were from Rajasthan while about 20 per cent projects were from Gujarat. The project period of 2194 projects sanctioned from 1995-96 to 1998-99 has however been over; of these 1894 projects are deemed complete and funding stopped to 300 projects. Among 11282 projects sanctioned from 1999-2000 to 2005-06, 689 projects are deemed complete and 10593 projects are ongoing as on 31.3.2006. Thus, a total of 2583 projects are deemed complete, funding stopped to 300 projects and 10593 projects are ongoing.                                         

 

Table: 3.3
Number of Sanctioned Projects Under DDP

Note: Figures in Parenthesis show Percentage to Total
Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
The Union Government sanctions new projects every year taking in to consideration primarily the DDP coverage in the States, performance of the on-going projects, capacity to absorb new projects and annual budget outlay etc. During the year 2005-06, 2000 new watershed projects have been sanctioned under DDP to treat an area of 10 lakh hectares at a total cost of Rs. 600.00 crore over a period of five years. The Central share is Rs. 450 crore out of which the amount of first installment i.e. Rs. 67.50 crore has been released to the programme States. These projects will be implemented in accordance with the provisions contained in the Guidelines for Hariyali.
The total amount committed for these 13476 projects (sanctioned from 1995-96 to 2005-06) is Rs. 3817.68 crores of which Rs. 2952.67 crores is the central share. From 1995-96 to 2005-2006, an amount of Rs. 1568.79 crore has been released. The year-wise details of funds released to the programme States since 1995-96 to 2004-2005 are shown in Table 3.4. The budget outlay for 2006-07 under DDP is Rs.270 crore against which Rs. 7.67 crore has been released upto 19.5.2006. Out of total fund released under the programme, about half of the funds was released to Rajasthan only. The other major states were reported to be Gujarat, Haryana and Karnataka.
Table: 3.4
State-wise Funds Released Under DDP
 (Rupees in Crore)

Note: Figures in Parenthesis show Percentage to Total
Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
Drought Prone Area Programme:

The basic objective of the programme is to minimise the adverse effects of drought on production of crops and livestock and productivity of land, water and human resources ultimately leading to drought proofing of the affected areas. The programme also aims to promote overall economic development and improving the socio-economic conditions of the resource poor and disadvantaged sections inhabiting the programme areas. The Government did not agree for exclusion of existing DDP blocks. However, inclusion of new blocks and transfer of blocks from DPAP to DDP was agreed to. During 1995-96 to 2005-06, 65.74 lakh hectares land was treated under the programme (Table 3.5).
Table: 3.5
Physical Performance of DPAP

Year	Area Treated (In Lakh Hectares)
1995-96	5.95
1996-97	5.50
1997-98	4.54
1998-99	3.65
1999-2000	3.66
2000-01	7.50
2001-02	5.44
2002-03	6.56
2003-04	7.35
2004-05	7.49
2005-06	8.10
Total	65.74

Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
From 1995-96 total blocks covered under DPAP became 947. These 947 blocks were in 164 districts in 13 States. Subsequently, with the re-organization of States, Districts and Blocks, the programme is now covered in 972 blocks of 183 districts in 16 States. These States are Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal and West Bengal. The identified dry sub humid area under the programme is about 7.46 lakh sq.kms (74.6 million hectares).  State-wise coverage under DPAP is shown in Table 3.6.

 

 

Table: 3.6
State-wise Coverage Under DPAP

States	No. of Districts	No. of Blocks	Area in Sq. Kms.
Andhra Pradesh	11 (6.01)	94 (9.67)	99218 (13.30)
Bihar	6 (3.27)	30 (3.08)	9533 (1.28)
Chattisgarh	8 (4.37)	29 (2.98)	21801 (2.92)
Gujarat	14 (7.65)	67 (6.89)	43938 (5.89)
Himachal Pradesh	3 (1.64)	10 (1.03)	3319 (0.44)
Jammu & Kashmir	2 (1.09)	22 (2.26)	14705 (1.97)
Jharkhand	14 (7.65)	100 (10.29)	34843 (4.67)
Karnataka	15 (8.19)	81 (8.33)	84332 (11.30)
Madhya Pradesh	23 (12.57)	105 (10.80)	89101 (11.95)
Maharashtra	25 (13.66)	149 (15.33)	194473 (26.07)
Orissa	8 (4.37)	47 (4.84)	26178 (3.51)
Rajasthan	11 (6.01)	32 (3.29)	31969 (4.28)
Tamil Nadu	17 (9.29)	80 (8.23)	29416 (3.94)
Uttar Pradesh	15 (8.19)	60 (6.17)	35698 (4.78)
Uttaranchal	7 (3.82)	30 (3.08)	15796 (2.12)
West Bengal	4 (2.18)	36 (3.70)	11594 (1.55)
Total	183 (100.00)	972 (100.00)	745914 (100.00)

Note: Figures in Parenthesis show Percentage to Total.
Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
The prevailing cost for a prescribed watershed project of 500 hectares is Rs. 30.00 lakh i.e. Rs. 6,000 per hectare. Central and State Government share is in the ratio of 75:25. About 85% of the cost is devoted towards watershed development activities and rest 20%  for community organization, training and administrative jobs. The central share is released in 7 installments by following a prescribed procedure. The project is to be completed over a period of five years.
Since the adoption of watershed approach in the year 1995-96 till 2005-2006, 24363 projects have been sanctioned to treat 121.82 lakh hectares of drought prone area. The year-wise details of projects sanctioned from 1995-96 to 2005-06 are shown in Table 3.7. The project period of 6089 projects sanctioned from 1995-96 to 1998-99 has however been over; of these 4325 projects are deemed complete and funding stopped to 1764 projects. Among 18274 projects sanctioned from 1999-2000 to 2005-06, 1392 projects are deemed complete and 16882 projects are ongoing as on 2006. Thus, a total of 5717 projects are deemed complete, funding has been stopped to 1764 projects and 16882 projects are ongoing.
The Union Government sanction block wise new projects every year to programme districts taking in to consideration primarily the DPAP coverage, performance of the on-going projects, capacity to absorb new projects and annual budget outlay etc. During the year 2005-06, 3000 new watershed projects have been sanctioned under DPAP to treat an area of 15 lakh hectares at a total cost of Rs. 900.00 crore over a period of five years. The Central share is Rs. 675 crore out of which the amount of first installment i.e Rs. 101.25 crore has been released. These projects are being implemented in accordance with the provisions contained in the Guidelines for Hariyali.

Table: 3.7
State-wise Sanctioned Projects Under DPAP

State	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	2004-05	2005-06	Total (1995-96 to 2005-06)
Andhra Pradesh	314	166	291	287	287	342	3882 (15.93)
Bihar	28	46	60	60	68	90	453 (1.86)
Chhatisgarh	197	106	116	116	116	135	1020 (4.19)
Gujarat	329	110	241	250	250	290	2149 (8.82)
Himachal Pradesh	77	40	50	40	40	47	365 (1.49)
Jammu & Kashmir	132	44	66	66	66	77	483 (1.98)
Jharkhand	200	173	164	200	200	234	1453 (5.96)
Karnataka	266	245	221	227	227	265	2105 (8.64)
Madhya Pradesh	657	238	265	269	269	310	2934 (12.04)
Maharashtra	588	296	300	296	303	360	3180 (13.05)
Orissa	111	221	160	146	146	170	1146 (4.70)
Rajasthan	271	96	113	96	96	115	987 (4.05)
Tamil Nadu	0	61	144	160	160	190	1414 (5.80)
Uttar Pradesh	93	92	158	160	160	190	1576 (6.47)
Uttaranchal	58	90	97	90	90	105	737 (3.02)
West Bengal	60	28	32	72	72	80	479 (1.97)
Total	3381	2052	2478	2535	2550	3000	24363 (100.00)

Note: Figures in Parenthesis show Percentage to Total.
Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

The total amount committed for these 24363 projects (sanctioned from 1995-96-2005-06) is Rs. 6469.20 crores of which Rs. 4772.46 crores is the central share. From 1995-96 to 2005-2006, an amount of Rs. 2095.33 crore has been released. The year-wise details of funds released to the programme States since 1995-96 to 2005-2006 are shown in Table 3.8. The Budget outlay for 2006-07 is Rs.360 crore against which Rs.11.84 crore has been utilized upto 17.5.2006.

Table: 3.8
State-wise Funds Released Under DPAP
 (Rupees in Lakh)

State	2000-2001	2001-2002	2002-2003	2003 04	2004-05	2005-06	Total (1995-96 to 2005-06)
Andhra Pradesh	4759.58	4067.00	4854.99	4937.40	4008.315	5381.843	39989.178 (19.08)
Bihar	100.19	242.06	249.75	323.06	311.205	379.175	2947.55 (1.41)
Chhatisgarh	680.75	700.28	1599.62	1329.11	1793.525	1675.184	7778.469 (3.71)
Gujarat	1427.34	1165.31	3273.13	3363.14	2537.18	2911.103	18606.463 (8.88)
Himachal Pradesh	247.00	316.62	370.81	529.66	424.975	659.665	3053.73 (1.45)
Jammu & Kashmir	368.76	297.00	222.75	422.19	222.750	259.875	2623.675 (1.25)
Jharkhand	686.60	882.13	553.50	1212.34	1065.02	1555.760	5955.35 (2.84)
Karnataka	1425.97	2093.75	2265.04	3215.77	2503.363	2736.050	18389.113 (8.78)
Madhya Pradesh	2495.50	4361.00	4721.01	5021.66	5287.907	5327.917	34449.444 (16.44)
Maharashtra	1898.75	2009.62	1294.62	1484.30	3486.260	4449.39	20787.54 (9.92)
Orissa	681.69	970.10	901.10	1045.92	1141.620	2090.760	7914.67 (3.77)
Rajasthan	980.75	1195.13	1430.93	1979.36	1573.775	1712.385	10646.35 (5.08)
Tamil Nadu	908.50	864.88	1059.53	2401.60	2816.935	1659.958	13274.803 (6.33)
Uttar Pradesh	183.63	905.72	1717.85	1498.13*	1456.685	2643.835	14400.005 (6.87)
Uttaranchal	324.00	510.75	376.37	473.36	1126.485	1467.420	5418.8 (2.59)
West Bengal	135.00	317.65	108.00	243.00	243.00	387.680	2161.87 (1.03)
Total	18958.01	20899.0	24999.0	29480.00	29999.99	352.98000	208397.01 (100.00)
Other releases	42.00	52.62	1.00	20.00	-	20.00	1136.62
Grand Total	19000.01	20951.62	25000.0	29500.00	29999.99	353.18000	209533.63

Note: Figures in Parenthesis show Percentage to Total.
Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

Integrated Wastelands Development Scheme
This scheme is under implementation since 1989-90, and has come to this Department along with the National Wastelands Development Board. The development of non-forest wastelands is taken up under this Scheme. The scheme provides for the development of an entire micro watershed in an holistic manner rather than piecemeal treatment in sporadic patches.. The thrust of the scheme continues to be on development of wastelands. The basic objective of this scheme is an integrated wastelands development based on village/micro watershed plans. These plans are prepared after taking into consideration the land capability, site condition and local needs of the people. The scheme also aims at rural employment besides enhancing the contents of people's participation in the wastelands development programmes at all stages, which is ensured by providing modalities for equitable and sustainable sharing of benefits and usufructs arising from such projects. The major activities taken up under the scheme are:

• In situ soil and moisture conservation measures like terracing, bunding, trenching, vegetative barriers and drainage line treatment.
• Planting and sowing of multi-purpose trees, shrubs, grasses, legumes and pasture land development.
• Encouraging natural regeneration.
• Promotion of agro-forestry & horticulture.
• Wood substitution and fuel wood conservation measures.
• Awareness raising, training & extension.
• Encouraging people's participation through community organization and capacity building.
• Drainage Line treatment by vegetative and engineering structures
• Development of small water Harvesting Structures.
• Afforestation of degraded forest and non forest wasteland.
• Development and conservation of common Property Resources.

In order to restore the ecological balance in the degraded watersheds through sustained community action, mass mobilization is needed. The programme can only succeed when the community is motivated enough to realize that the programme is not only for eco-restoration through watershed development but also to addresses their other pressing socio-economic needs. The activities under this community organization include organizing Self Help Groups and User Groups, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) exercises, awareness camps, exposure visits & programmes on literacy, family welfare, social services, income generating activities etc. giving small contributions to SHGs or other village institutions like mahila mandals/ youth clubs/ anganwadis which are considered important for people participation. The idea is rapport building with the people at grass root level and PIA. The people must feel that the programme belongs to them and its success depends on them only. Once the people realize that it is they who own the programme, the sustenance of the project evolves.
One of the notable features of this component is the flexibility available to the PIAs (Project Implementing Agencies). There is a provision for entry point activities for trust building exercise and speedy community organization. Under this component they can even take up those works which are not directly related to conservation and wasteland development. Certain works of great priority and importance to villagers such as repairing and construction of community and panchayat houses, sanitation improvement, provision of drinking water school building etc. can be taken up. Effective community organization is important to establish credibility of the Watershed Development Team and create a rapport with the village community who is ultimately going to own and implement the programme even after withdrawing the Government machinery.
The IWDP scheme is being implemented on the basis of new Guidelines for Watershed Development from 1.4.1995. The new common Guidelines envisage the bottom up approach whereby the Users’ Group themselves decide their work programme.  The strength of the Guidelines lies in the decentralization of decision making process by involving local Panchayati Raj Institutions, NGOs, Government Departments and the watershed community at the grass root level It is an effort on the part of the Govt. to remove the stumbling blocks that have delayed the process of development. In fact , the initiatives taken by the DoWD aim at establishing a system under which village people can actually involve themselves in planning, implementation and monitoring of watershed development programmes. In preparation of the Watershed Development Plan, Users and Self Help Groups and other people directly depending on the watershed are actually involved. Another strength of these guidelines lies on the flexible approach followed in the method of release of funds, the area to be covered in each watershed as well as choice of components. The new guidelines attempt to make the projects sustainable by establishing Watershed Development Fund and involving people in deciding equity issues and usufruct sharing mechanism.
Physical and financial performance of IWDP in India is shown in Table 3.9. Prior to 2000, watershed development projects under the programme were sanctioned at a cost of Rs. 4000 per hectare. The projects were funded entirely by the Central Government. The cost norms were revised to Rs. 6000 per hectare for the projects sanctioned after 2000. The funding of the projects is shared between the central and states in the ratio of Rs. 5500 per hectare and Rs. 500 per hectare, respectively. Overall, 1877 IWDP projects were sanctioned since 1995-06 to treat a total project area of about 107.22 lakh hectares. 170 projects covering an area of 15.48 lakh hectares were completed by 2008. During 2007-08, 40 projects were completed. An area of 3.31 lakh hectares has been treated as a result of completion of these projects in 2007-08. The activities completed in these projects included pasture development, horticulture development and afforestation besides creation of water harvesting structures and soil and moisture conservation works.

Table: 3.9
Performance of IWDP in India

Year	Approved Outlays (Rs. Crore)	Funds Released (Rs. Crore)	Area Covered (Hectares)	Number of Projects
1999-2000	82.0	75.90	701316	73
2000-01	480.10	121.23	1109978	107
2001-02	410.00	167.87	797891	125
2002-03	410.00	207.96	335521	49
2003-04	335.00	296.18	1006382	190
2004-05	368.00	334.42	1117705	221
2005-06	485.00	486.32	2261831	497
2006-07	485.00	484.27	2268421	495
Total (Since 1995-96)	3055.00	3712.78	10722305	1877

Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

Integrated Watershed Management Programme
Development of rainfed /degraded areas through participatory watershed approach is the focal area of the Government. Planning Commission and National Rainfed Area Authority (NRAA) framed Common Guidelines, 2008 for watershed programmes for all Ministries/Departments based on the Parthasarathy Committee Report, other Committee’s observations and past experiences. The provisions in the Common Guidelines and the observations of the Parthasarthy Committee have necessitated modifications in the watershed schemes of the Department of Land Resources. Accordingly, Drought Prone Areas Programme (DPAP), Desert Development Programme (DDP) and Integrated Wastelands Development Programme (IWDP) of the Department of Land Resources have been integrated and consolidated into a single modified programme called Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP). This consolidation is for optimum use of resources, sustainable outcomes and integrated planning. The scheme has been approved by the Government on 2009.
Keeping in view the mandate of the Department of Land Resources and its watershed schemes, the following criteria are adopted for the allocation of target area among the States.

• Identified DPAP/DDP areas in the State as percentage of total DPAP and DDP area in the country.
• Total treatable wastelands in the State as percentage of total treatable wastelands in the country.
• Total SC/ST population of the State as percentage of total SC/ST population of the country.
• Percentage of rainfed area in the State to total cultivated area in the country.
• 10% mandatory allocation of North-Eastern States.

A Steering Committee has been constituted at National Level under the Chairmanship of Secretary (LR) with members from Planning Commission, NRAA/ related Ministries/ Departments/ organizations including NGOs to administer the IWMP. A State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA) has been constituted with professional support. SLNA with professional support is the dedicated institution for implementation of IWMP in the State. Watershed Cell-cum-Data Centre at DRDA/ZP has been created in all programme districts to supervise and coordinate IWMP projects in the district. Project Level: Project would be supervised by Project Implementing Agency (PIA). Under Common Guidelines, 2008 both Government and Non-Government agencies may act as PIAs for providing technical back up for IWMP projects. Each PIA is consisting of Watershed Development Team (WDT) comprising of 3 to 4 technical experts. Watershed Committee (WC) is to be constituted by the Gram Sabha for implementation of the project at field level. This comprises of at least 10 members. Half of which would be representatives of SHGs and User Groups (UGs), SC/ST community, women and landless. One member from WDT would also represent Watershed Committee. The main activities under the programme include:

• Soil & moisture conservation measures like terracing, bunding, trenching, vegetative barriers etc.
• Rain water harvesting activities like farm ponds, percolation tanks, checkdams etc.
• Planting & sowing of multi-purpose trees, shrubs, grasses, legumes and pasture land development
• Encouraging natural regeneration
• Promotion of agro-forestry and horticulture
• Measures needed to disseminate technology
• Training, extension and creation of a greater degree of awareness among the participants
• Encouraging peoples’ participation
• Livelihood activities for asset less people
• Production system and micro-enterprise

Land is the most important natural resource however; it suffers from various kinds of soil erosion, degradation and deforestation. In order to harness the full potential of the available land resources and prevent its further degradation, wasteland development is of great significance. The problem of degraded land and its management is complex and multi-dimensional and its development requires a scientific, holistic and innovative approach. In order to accelerate the pace of development of waste land / degraded land and to focus attention, Government of India had setup the National Wasteland Development Board in 1995 under the Ministry of Environment and Forest. Later on, a separate Department of Wasteland Development in the Ministry of Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation was created in 1992. During 1999, Department of Wasteland Development was renamed as the Department of Land Resources to act as the nodal agency for land resource management. Area Development Programme, Drought Prone Area Programme, Desert Development Programme and Integrated Wasteland Development Programme are being implemented in the project based approach in a watershed, which is a geo-hydrological unit draining into a common point, for in situ soil and water conservation, afforestation, etc.  With the introduction of new guidelines - Haryalli, the programmes of DPAP, DDP and IWDP have been merged into a single programme called Integrated Watershed Management Programme. This consolidation is for optimum use of resources, sustainable outcomes and integrated planning. The programme was operatonalized with effect from April, 2008.

Chapter-4
Profile of Selected State
As mentioned earlier, Uttar Pradesh was selected for the field survey Uttar Pradesh has distinct features as far as agro-climatic conditions and particularly implementation of watershed development programmes is concerned. State of Uttar Pradesh receives good quantity of rainfall and is fertile in terms of agricultural productivity as large chunk of geographical areas fall in the Indo-Gangatic plains. However, certain parts of southern Uttar Pradesh and Bundelkhand region are drought prone and receive scanty rainfall.
Uttar Pradesh is the most important agricultural state of India. It has the highest cropped area of 25,785 thousand hectares and highest number of over 21 million landholdings as well. In the country, Uttar Pradesh is the largest food grain producing state. It produces more than 41.1 million tonnes of food grains which is about 20% of total food grains of the country. More than half of the total area of Uttar Pradesh lies in Indo-Gangatic plains. The western part lies entirely in the Ganga-Yamuna Doab. Most of the districts in the region were once irrigated by canals. Central region comprises the Awadh districts lying between the Ganga and Ghaghara rivers, Kanpur, Fatehpur and parts of Allahabad, which lie in the Ganga-Yamuna Doab. The region is traditionally considered very fertile and closely cultivated. The Eastern part of the state is mainly flood-prone area however, Southern part comprising of Mirzapur, Sonebhadra, parts of Allahabad and the Bundelkhand region is traditionally considered drought-prone area. The distribution of districts in agro-climatic zones in the state is shown in Table 4.4.

 

Table: 4.4
Agro-Climatic Zones of Uttar Pradesh

S. No	Agro Climatic Zone	Districts
1.	Tarai and Bhabar	Saharanpur (58%), Muzaffarnagar Nagar (10%), Bijnor (79%), Moradabad (21%), Rampur (40%), Bareilly (19%), Pilibihit (75%), Shahjahanpur (6%), Khiri (39%), Bahraich (47%), Shravasti (71%)
2.	Western Plain	Saharanpur (42%), Muzaffarnagar Nagar (90%), Meerut , Bagpat, Gaziabad, Gautam Budha Nagar, Buland Shahar
3.	Mid Western Plain	Bareilly (81%), Badaun, Pilibihit(25%), Moradabad (79%), Jyotibaphule Nagar, Rampur (60%), Bijnor (21%),
	South Western	Agra, Firozabad, Aligarh, Hathras, Mathura, Mainpuri, Etah
4.	Central	Shahjahanpur (94%), Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur Dehat, Etawa, Auraiya, Farrukhabad, Kannauj, Lucknow , Unnao, Raibareilly, Sitapur, Hardoi, Khiri(61%), Fetehpur, Allahabad (58%), Kaushmbi
	Bundelkhund	Jhansi, Lalitpur, Jalaun, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Banda, Chitrkoot,
5.	North East	Gorakhpur, Maharajganj, Deoria, Kushi Nagar, Basti, St. Kabir Nagar, Siddhartha Nagar, Gonda, Baharaich(53%), Balrampur, Shravasti (29%)
6.	Eastern	Azamgarh, Mau, Balia, Pratapgarh, Faizabad, Ambedkar Nagar, Barabanki, Sultanpur, Varanasi, Chandauli, Jaunpur, Gazipur, St.Ravidas Nagar (86%)
7.	Vindhyan	Allahabad (42%), St. Ravidas Nagar (14%), Mirzapur, Sonebadhra

Source: Official website of Govt. of India and Uttar Pradesh
Note: Percentages in parentheses indicate the portion of district falling in respective agro-climatic zone.
The total cultivated area of the state is 166.83 lakh hectares and the gross cropped area is 255.24 lakh hectares. The cropping intensity in the state is 153 percent. The area sown during rabi is more compared to that in kharif. The area under sugarcane which is an annual crop is 0.38 lakh hectares. Land use pattern of Uttar Pradesh is given in
Table 4.5.

 

 

Land use Pattern of Uttar Pradesh
(2005-06)
(In Lakh Ha.)

Particulars	Uttar Pradesh	% of Total
Reporting Area	242.01	100.00
Forest	16.88	6.97
Barren Land	5.30	2.19
Non Agri. Use	6.49	2.68
Culturable Waste	4.54	1.87
Pastures	0.64	0.26
Misc. Trees etc.	0.44	0.18
Current Follow	12.17	5.32
Other Follow	5.74	2.37
Net Area Sown	166.83	68.93
Area Sown more than Once	88.41	36.53
Gross Cropped Area	255.24	105.47
Cropping Intensity	153.00	63.22
Kharif	118.57	48.99
Rabi	128.39	53.05
Zaid	7.91	3.26
Area Under Sugarcane (annual crop)	0.38	--
Gross Cropped Area	255.24	--

Source: Official website of Govt. of India and Uttar Pradesh
Water Resources and Irrigation in Uttar Pradesh
The irrigation facilities are provided to farmers in the State from different sources such as canals (72450 kms), State Tube wells (28366 Nos), Major nd Medium Pump Canals (27 Nos), Minor Lift Canals (243 Nos) and Reservoir (66 Nos) / Bundhies etc. The total irrigation potential created in the State by the year 2005-06 is to approximately 324.26 lakh hectares. The large part of it (241.84 lakh hectares) is through minor irrigation projects whereas, only 82.42 lakh ha is irrigated through large and medium irrigation projects. However, only 64.55% of this created potential is being utilized. The total irrigated area of state is 131.19 lakh hectares. Canal irrigation provides irrigation facilities to only 26.92 lakh hectares, which is about 20.5 percent of net irrigated area. State Tube wells account for just 3 percent of net irrigated area.
Watershed Development Programmes
In view of the growing importance of conservation of natural resources, a number of projects, programmes and schemes were launched by Government of India. Integrated Wasteland Development Programme, Desert Development Programme, Drought-Prone Area Programme and now Integrated Watershed Management Programme are some of the centrally sponsored programmes targeting towards conservation of natural resources through watershed management and land resources development.
Number of sanctioned projects under Integrated Wasteland Development Programme  is shown in Table 4.6. During 1995-96 to  2006-07, 1877 projects were launched by Government of India and out of them 130 projects under the programme were implemented in the state of Uttar Pradesh (6.93 per cent) ..
Table: 4.6
Number of Sanctioned Projects Under IWDP Programme

Year	Uttar Pradesh	India
1995-96	--	8
1996-97	8	19
1997-98	7	45
1998-99	7	48
1999-2000	9	73
2000-01	3	107
2001-02	7	125
2002-03	--	49
2003-04	13	190
2004-05	13	221
2005-06	25	497
2006-07	38	495
Total	130	1877

Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
Coverage of geographical area under Integrated Wasteland Development Programme in the selected states is shown in Table 4.7. Under the programme, 107.22 million hectares has been covered while about 8 per cent geographical area covered under the programme in India falls in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
Table: 4.7
Coverage of Geographical Area Under IWDP Programme
(In Hectares)

Year	Uttar Pradesh	India
1995-96	--	38633
1996-97	78659	118416
1997-98	80719	450292
1998-99	84452	515983
1999-2000	101105	701316
2000-01	25025	1109978
2001-02	40546	797891
2003-04	65000	1006382
2004-05	65000	1117705
2005-06	125000	2261831
2006-07	193277	2268421
Total	858783	10722305

Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

Funds released under IWDP in selected states in India are shown in Table 4.8. During 1995-96  to 2007-08, Rs. 271278.23 lakhs were released under the programme in India and funds released in the state of Uttar Pradesh accounted for 9.46 per cent .
Table: 4.8
Fund Released Under IWDP Programme
(Rs. In Lakh)

Year	Uttar Pradesh	India
1995-96	--	176.66
1996-97	471.94	852.24
1997-98	657.49	3373.92
1998-99	1450.48	5032.84
1999-2000	1462.15	7590.21
2000-01	1483.77	12123.19
2001-02	1223.35	16786.88
2002-03	1657.04	20796.28
2003-04	1974.33	29618.35
2004-05	1802.86	33442.47
2005-06	3222.78	48632.75
2006-07	4736.16	48427.16
2007-08	5519.12	44425.29
Total	25661.47	271278.23

Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
Fund released under DPAP in the selected states is shown in Table 4.9.  During 1995-96 to 2007-08, Rs. 2739.84 crores were released under the programme. Out of total fund released, about 8 per cent funds were released in Uttar Pradesh.
Table: 4.9
Fund Released Under DPAP Programme
(Rs. In Crore)

Year	Uttar Pradesh	India
1995-96	10.93	118.95
1996-97	16.50	109.98
1997-98	8.42	100.75
1998-99	8.39	73.00
1999-2000	10.93	95.00
2000-01	18.38	190.00
2001-02	9.06	209.52
2002-03	17.18	250.02
2003-04	14.98	294.99
2004-05	14.57	300.19
2005-06	26.44	353.18
2006-07	34.67	359.00
2007-08	34.75	285.26
Total	225.20	2739.84

Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

Number of sanctioned projects under DPAP in the selected states is shown in Table 4.10. During 1995-96 to 2006-07, 27439 projects were sanctioned at the national level while 1777 projects in Uttar Pradesh. Thus, about 6.5 per cent projects of India were implemented in Uttar Pradesh.
Table: 4.10
Number of Sanctioned Projects Under DPAP Programme

Year	Uttar Pradesh	India
1995-96	282	2523
1996-97	99	280
1997-98	56	406
1999-2000	286	2278
2000-01	93	3381
2001-02	92	2052
2002-03	158	2478
2003-04	160	2535
2004-05	160	2550
2005-06	190	3000
2006-07	201	3076
Total	1777	27439

Source: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
Details of Integrated Watershed Management Programme in Uttar Pradesh are shown in Table 4.12.  There has been wider coverage under the programme in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Overall 111.77 lakh hectares land has been covered under Micro Watershed Development Programme. Most of the beneficiaries of watershed development programme are marginalized and poor communities.

Table: 4.12
Details of IWMP in Uttar Pradesh

Particulars	Number
Number of Districts	71
Number of Blocks	820
Number of Revenue Villages	107451
Number of Gram Panchayats	52000
Population (2001) (Crore)	16.62
SC/ST Population (Crore)	3.53
BPL Population (Crore)	4.96
Landless Population (Crore)	3.08
Total Number of Micro Watersheds	21278
Area Under Micro Watersheds (Lakh Hectares)	240.93
Total Number of  Micro Watersheds Covered Under Programme	12172
Area Covered Under Micro Watersheds (Lakh Hectares)	111.77

Source: Department of Land and Water Resources, Government of U.P.
Details of sanctioned projects under IWMP in Uttar Pradesh are shown in Table 4.13. Overall 98 projects have been covered under the Integrated Watershed Management Programme in Uttar Pradesh  which cover 4.89 lakh hectares land. The total cost of the projects has been reported to be Rs. 587.28 crores. Out of total project cost, 90 per cent project cost has been in form of Government of India share.
Table: 4.13
Details of Sanctioned Projects Under IWMP in
Uttar Pradesh (2009-10)

Particulars	Number
Number of Projects	98
Number of Micro Watersheds	863
Project Area (Hectares)	489403
Cost of Projects (Rs. Crore)	587.28
Government of India’s Share (90%) (Rs. Crores)	528.55
Amount Sanctioned by Government of India (6% of Project Cost) (Rs. Crores)	31.71
Amount Released by Government of India (Rs. Crores)	22.68

Source: Department of Land and Water Resources, Government of U.P.
Utilization of funds under watershed development programmes in the state of Uttar Pradesh is shown in Table 4.15. Upto 2009, most of the funds released under the programme was utilized by the state however, the unspent amount under IWDP was found to be significant i.e. Rs. 1283.00 lakhs.
Table: 4.15
Utilization of Funds Under Watershed Development Programmes in Uttar Pradesh

Name of Programme	Total Funds Released upto 31st March, 2009 (Rs. Lakh)	Total Funds Utilized upto 31st March, 2009 (Rs. Lakh)	Unspent Balance (Rs. Lakh)
DPAP	45231.02	44323.37	776.30
IWDP	35295.55	34092.38	1283.00

Source: Department of Land and Water Resources, Government of U.P.
Status of watershed development programmes in Uttar Pradesh is shown in Table 4.16. Out of total sanctioned projects, 70 per cent projects under DPAP and only 12 per cent projects under IWDP were completed while about 11 per cent projects under IWDP and around 6 per cent projects under DPAP were foreclosed. Thus, out of total sanctioned projects, about 24 per cent projects under DPAP and 21 per cent projects under IWDP are under implementation.

 

Table: 4.16
Status of Watershed Development Programmes in Uttar Pradesh

Particulars	DPAP	IWDP
Total Number of Projects Sanctioned	1777	130
Number of Projects Completed	1246	16
Number Projects Foreclosed	101	14
Number of Projects in Which 100% Funds Released upto 2009-10	1246	73
Number of Ongoing Projects	430	27
Central Assistance Due in 2010-11 for Balance Projects (Rs. Lakh)	1752.00	1220.17

Source: Department of Land and Water Resources, Government of U.P.
The overall analysis demonstrates Uttar Pradesh have different agro-climatic conditions.  and has wider coverage under Drought-Prone Area Programme, though only certain part of the state is drought-prone. The implementation of watershed development programmes in the state is showing positive results in terms of conservation of land and water resources besides providing benefits to poor and marginalized communities in terms of livelihood development, income generation through agriculture and non-farm sector development.

Chapter-5
Socio-Economic Profile of Respondents
In view of the growing concern of environmental degradation and conservation of natural resources, watershed management has been adopted to establish and enabling environments for integrated use, regulation and treatment of water and land resources of watershed based eco-system to accomplish resource conservation and bio-mass production objectives and thereby sustaining social and economic development of the region. Socio-economic benefits have been the main objectives of centrally sponsored watershed schemes. In this part of the report, a brief description of the socio-economic profile of beneficiaries has been analyzed.
It is very difficult to compare rural and urban society. Gist and Halbert are of the view that rural and urban is more of a theoretical concept than a division based upon the facts of community life. The rural and urban societies may be differentiated in terms of social organizations – family, marriage, conditions of women, neighborhood, inequality of classes, social cohesion, etc.; differences in social restrictions; differences in social relationships; differences in social interactions; differences in social view point and differences in social mobility and stability (Sharma, 2005:17-19). Transportation and communication result in successful rural-urban contracts. It reduces the hold of religion and folk believes upon rural people and introduces some aspects of scientific attitude into the rural mentality. There may be several factors including economic, social, better living standards, better housing facilities, etc. that promote the rural-urban migration. However, migration from rural to urban areas creates problems to the urban dwellers since the poor cannot afford good living environment and are forced to live in squatters and slums where the environmental conditions are reported to be worse.
Age-wise distribution of respondents is shown in Table 5.1. Most of the respondents were found belonging to the age-group of 40-60 years. More than 2/5th respondents were found belonging to the age group of 50-60 years while more than 1/3rd respondents were from the age group of 40-50 years. The proportion of respondents belonging to higher age group was found higher in Rajasthan as compared to Uttar Pradesh.
Table: 5.1
Age-wise Distribution of Respondents

Age-Group (Years)	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
20-30	10	4.59	9	4.37	19	4.48
30-40	16	7.34	15	7.28	31	7.31
40-50	77	35.32	68	33.01	145	34.20
50-60	90	41.28	100	48.54	190	44.81
60+	25	11.47	14	6.80	39	9.20
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
The concept of sociology of religion was given by Durkheim.  Durkhiem argued that religious phenomenon emerge in any society when a separation is made between the spheres of the profane – the realm of every day utilitarian activities – and the sphere of the secret – the area that pertains to the numinous the transcendental the extra ordinarily. The religion is a great binding force. Thus, religion is not only a social creation but it is in fact society divinized (Coser, 2002:137-138)
The caste system in India has been studied with three perspectives: Indo-logical, Socio-anthropological and Sociological. The Indologists have viewed caste from the scriptural point of view, socio-anthropologist from the cultural point of view, and sociologists from the stratification point of view. There are several theories for the study of the caste system in India. The sociological perspective views the caste system in terms of social stratification in a society, and as a phenomenon of social inequality (Ahuja, 2007: 229). Scholars like Leach, Dumont, Pocock, Bougle, Hocart, Hutton, Senart, Sriniwas, Gould, etc. feel that the caste is a phenomenon peculiar to India only. However, Risley, Crook, etc. believe that a caste is a universal phenomenon. Ghurye (1961:138-156) has analyzed the elements of caste outside India. Leach (1960:4) has also studied social stratification system of Muslims in Swat, north Pakistan.  Dumont (1958) feels that caste is confined to India. Hocart (1950:45) maintains that castes are merely families to whom various offices in the ritual are assigned by heredity. Senart (1930:26) also feels that caste is peculiar to India since it is determined by ethnological, economic, geographical and psychological conditions which are essentially native. Hutton (1961:46) also refers to its uniqueness due to its complex origin. Gould (1986:33)   is of the view that caste in its fullest sense is an exclusively Indian phenomenon. Now-a-days, caste has acquired a new shape with the social change. The political mobilization of caste system has created social problems resulting in caste and class conflict. The social cohesion is being deteriorated with the change in caste system. No doubt education, inter-caste marriages, ban on untouchability, positive discrimination for the lower caste in job and education etc. have weaken the caste system, however, it has not totally withered away. With the decentralization of governance through implementing 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts in 1992 and the provisions for the reservation for the lower caste, the role of socially deprived and weaker communities and castes such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs, minorities has been enhanced in order to provide them an opportunity in decision-making process.
More than 1/3rd respondents were found belonging to Scheduled Castes while about 10 per cent respondents were from Scheduled Tribes. About 22 per cent respondents were found belonging to OBC communities while 1/3rd respondents were reported from the General communities. The proportion of respondents from weaker communities was reported high in Hamirpur as compared to Bareilly however; about 20 per cent respondents in Bareilly were from Scheduled Tribes (Table 5.2).
Table: 5.2
Social Group of Respondents

Social Group	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
SC	99	45.41	51	24.76	150	35.38
ST	0	0.00	41	19.90	41	9.67
OBC	71	32.57	22	10.68	93	21.93
General	48	22.02	92	44.66	140	33.02
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.

Most of the respondents were found educationally backward as about 1/4th respondents were found illiterates and 39 per cent respondents had primary education only. About 20 per cent respondents were Junior High School pass while only 4 per cent respondents were graduates and above. The poor educational levels were reported high in Hamirpur as compared to Rajasthan.

 

 

Educational Qualification of Respondents

Educational Qualification	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Illiterate	52	23.85	50	24.27	102	24.06
Primary	93	42.66	72	34.95	165	38.92
Junior High School	49	22.48	36	17.48	85	20.04
Intermediate	15	6.88	38	18.45	53	12.50
Graduate	9	4.13	10	4.85	19	4.40
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Occupation of respondents is shown in Table 5.4. The overwhelming majority of the respondents i.e. 71.70 per cent reported that their main occupation is agriculture. This was found more pronouncing in Bareilly (76.70 per cent) as compared Hamirpur (66.97 per cent). Similarly, about 14 per cent respondents reported that their main occupation is labour. This was found significantly high in Hamirpur as compared to Bareilly. Only 11 per cent respondents reported that their main occupation is petty business.
Table: 5.4
Occupation of Respondents

Occupation	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Agriculture	146	66.97	158	76.70	304	71.70
Labour	32	14.68	26	12.62	58	13.68
Service	9	4.13	6	2.91	15	3.54
Business	31	14.22	16	7.77	47	11.08
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Family is basic and universal social structure of the human society. It fulfills needs and performs functions which are indispensable for the community, integration and change in the social system. The forms and functions of family have undergone adoptive changes with changes in the technological and economic superstructure of the society (Singh, 2006:174). One way to characterize this change is to associate conjugal are nuclear forms of families with relatively modernized or industrial society and extended or joint types of families with traditional agrarian and pre-industrial societies. The transition from extended family-based society to nuclear family-based society is thus an example of the structural changes. Changes in the structure and functions of the joint families in India are thus following a reconciliatory pattern, a pattern common in the structural changes in the Indian society.
According to Cooley, the sociologist, and Freud, the psycho-analyst, the most important elements of the society is the family. However, Marxist social analyst treat class as a basic personality shaping group force, stating that the family is but a part of the super structure and is therefore itself shaped by the economic system (Marx and Engels). Thus, the family cannot be viewed in isolation from a society’s economic framework, in other words family is a dependent variable (Worsley et. al. 1970:141). The family has lost many of its earlier functions in modern industrial urban society. The family plays a vital role in one’s socialization (Lasswell and Kaplan, 1950:145). Robertlane suggests three ways in which family may play its important role: (1) overt and covert indoctrination, (2) putting the child in a particular social context, and molding the child’s personality (Lane, 1959: 502-511).
Most of the respondents reported that their family is large one. Slightly less than half of the respondents revealed that their family is comprising of 5-7 members while about 1/3rd respondents revealed that their family comprising of more than 8 members. The large family size was reported higher in Hamirpur as compared to Bareilly
(Table 5.5).
Table: 5.5
Family Size of Respondents

Family Size	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
2-4	40	18.35	45	21.84	85	20.05
5-7	106	48.62	97	47.09	203	47.88
8-10	53	24.31	37	17.96	90	21.23
11-13	17	7.80	26	12.62	43	10.14
14+	2	0.92	1	0.49	3	0.70
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
It is said that the Marxian class and class conflict theory has been reputed by certain unforeseen social changes that have taken place since Marx like separation of ownership and control, differentiation in the working class, rise of the so-called middle class, etc. in modern industrial society (Dahrendorf, 1959). Many sociologists conceptualize class chiefly in terms of occupation and income (Packard, 1964). There is another criterion to define social class. Cooley holds that the relation between the class of employer and the class of manual labour is a primarily a question of individual point of view (Cooley, 1902:98). RichardCenters put it, social class is a psychological phenomena in the fullest sense of the term (Centers, 1949: 27). Jordan while analyzing the Marxist theory defines the term as a distributive sense that it ceases to be a real and independent entity (Jordan, 1971:23).
Annual family income of the respondents is shown in Table 5.6. Most of the respondents reported that their family income is low. About 1/3rd respondents reported that their annual family income is less than Rs. 20,000. Moreover, about 2/5th respondents said that their family income is ranging in between Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 40,000. Again, about 18 per cent respondents further reported that their family income is less than Rs. 60,000 per year.  Thus, only small proportion of respondents revealed that their family income is somewhat good. It is to be noted that about 3/4th respondents were found belonging to BPL families as far as their annual family income is concerned.
Table: 5.6
Annual Family Income of Respondents

Annual Income (Rs.)	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Upto 20,000	67	30.73	71	34.47	138	32.55
20,000 - 40,000	94	43.11	80	38.83	174	41.04
40,000- 60,000	41	18.82	34	16.50	75	17.69
60,000- 80,000	7	3.21	15	7.28	22	5.19
80,000- 1,00,000	6	2.75	4	1.94	10	2.35
1,00,000 and above	3	1.38	2	0.98	5	1.18
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Marriage is conceived differently by social scientists in different fields. While the popular concept of marriage is a union between man and woman, however, it is accomplished by different rituals and ceremonies in order to promote cordial relations for life time. Sociologist like Blood, Lantz and Snyder, Bowman, Baber, Burgess, etc. view it as a system of roles and as involving primary relationships. A sociologist, while studying marriage, analyzes not only the primary relationship involved in marriage but also how marriage involves performing new and varied roles and whether the persons involved are capable of performing those new roles or not, and how the inadequacy of performing these roles leads to family disorganization.  What is important in marriage is how the role enactment of one partner correspondents to the role expectations of the other (Blood, 1960:189).
According to Koos (1953:44), marriage is a dividing line between the family of orientation and family of procreation in terms of the nature of roles one performs in the two families. According to Bowman (1960), the basic objects of the marriage are sex gratification, desire for home and children, companionship, social position and prestige, and economic security and protection. Today, as traditional society is changing into modern one, marriage has become a social necessity rather than a social ceremony. It is believed that spouse may significantly contribute in the development and maintenance of a house that is essential for performing human activities. Thus, the traditional concept of Hindu marriage as a sacrament to perform Dharma is gradually changing. Now-a-days, the new considerations are influencing the nature and rituals of Hindu marriage system. Couples are preferring marriages that fulfill the emerging needs of individual family. Thus, personal interest, economic earnings, mutual adjustment and compromising lifestyle is replacing the traditional criterion of Hindu marriage. Similarly, the nature and motives of Muslim marriage is also gradually changing with the change of time and technology. Thus, the basic concept of marriage in Muslim society as a contract is replacing with the change of time. Perhaps it is the growing influence of western culture and values of other religions. Earlier, the marriages were based on social value system rather than mutual understanding, personal relationship, personal interest and compromising living patterns. It is a growing tendency of later marriage due to economic reasons. It has also affected the social values, biological considerations and motives for the marriage.
A literature review demonstrates that most of the beneficiaries of watershed development programmes are engaged in agriculture and non-farm activities for their sustenance. Majority of the beneficiaries of watershed programmes are depend on agriculture for their sustenance. Since majority of the beneficiaries of watershed programmes are from poor and weaker sections and therefore their landholding size has been reported to be low and even a large proportion of landless farmers are also getting benefits from these programmes. The beneficiaries generally grow traditional crops however, with the development of watershed and ensured source of irrigation; they shift cropping patterns towards high value crops. The beneficiaries also start their subsidiary occupation of dairy and poultry due to increase in vegetation and forest area in watershed. Due to watershed development programmes and increased opportunities of economic empowerment such as increase in income, employment and convergence of social development programmes, the beneficiaries also participate in social and economic development programmes of the region.  

 

 

Chapter-6
Impact of Watershed Programmes
Watershed development is an important component of rural development and natural resource management strategies in many countries. A watershed is a special kind of common poor resource; an area define by hydrological linkages where optimal management requires coordinated use of natural resources by all users. Even through watershed programmes in India are relatively new, work on soil and water conservation by the Ministry of Agriculture had begun in the early 1960s. Government of India under the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ministry of Rural Development has introduced various programmes based on watershed management for conservation of water and land resources. These programmes include Drought Prone Area Programme, Desert Development Programme, Integrated Watershed Development Programme, Integrated Afforestation and Eco-Development Scheme, Watershed Development Project in Shifting Cultivation Areas, River Valley Project and Flood Prone Regions, National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas and Wasteland Development Programme. These watershed programmes have no doubt positive impact on ecology, environment, socio-economic development of the region, development of wasteland and conservation of natural resources. In this part of the report, an attempt has been made to assess the impact of watershed programmes in selected regions of Hamirpur and Bareilly.
Planning and Training:
The awareness about watershed development programmes is shown in Table 6.1. Most of the respondents were found aware about the programmes however, their knowledge level regarding these programmes was found least even through, they were the beneficiaries of the programmes. It appears that the beneficiaries do not have the complete information and knowledge regarding the various components, features, provisions, etc. about the watershed development programmes. About 22 per cent respondents revealed that they do not know about the watershed development programmes. Nearly 62% respondents know about the programmes but in other way
Table: 6.1
Awareness About Programmes

Programmes	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
DPAP	12	5.50	6	2.91	18	4.25
DDP	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
IWDP	18	8.26	34	16.50	34	12.27
Don’t Know	54	24.77	39	18.53	93	21.93
Known by Other way	134	61.47	127	61.66	261	61.55
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
The participation in watershed programmes is shown in Table 6.2. More than 1/3rd respondents reported that they are the members of user groups. This was found slightly high in Bareilly as compared to Hamirpur. About 1/3rd respondents reported that they are members of Watershed Association.  This was found significantly high in Bareilly (39.81 per cent) as compared to Hamirpur (27.98 per cent). About 17 per cent respondents were the members of Watershed Committees. The proportion of such respondents was found significantly high in Hamirpur as compared to Bareilly. Similarly, about 18 per cent respondents in Hamirpur were the members of Self Help Groups as against the only 9.22 per cent respondents  belonging to Self Help Groups in Bareilly.

Table: 6.2
Participation in Programmes

Participation	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Member of WA	61	27.98	82	39.81	143	33.73
Member of WC	42	19.27	30	14.56	72	16.98
Member of UG	76	34.86	75	36.41	151	35.61
Member of SHG	39	17.89	19	9.22	58	13.68
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
The respondents were asked that whether they are involved in planning process. Only 17 per cent respondents revealed that they were involved in planning process. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur (19.27 per cent) as compared to Bareilly (14.56 per cent). Thus, about 83 per cent respondents were not involved in planning process of the watershed development programmes (Table 6.3).
Table: 6.3
Involvement in Planning Process

Involvement	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Yes	42	19.27	30	14.56	72	16.98
No	176	80.73	176	85.44	353	83.02
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
State of involvement in planning process is shown in Table 6.4. Those who reported that they were involved in planning process of watershed development programmes said that they were mainly involved in the planning before the commencement of the programme. It was found more pronouncing in Bareilly as compared to Hamirpur. Thus, only 4 per cent respondents said that they were involved in the implementation of the watershed programmes. This requires the policy attention as community participation is imperative for successful implementation of any development programme.
Table: 6.4
Stage of Involvement in Planning Process

Stage of Involvement	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Before the Commencement of the Programme	39	92.86	30	100.00	69	95.83
During the Implementation of the Programme	3	7.14	0	0.00	3	4.17
Total	42	100.00	30	100.00	72	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Agencies involved in planning process are shown in Table 6.5. About 38 per cent respondents reported that they were involved in planning process through Project Implementing Agency with the help of Watershed Committee. This was found significantly high in Bareilly (53.88 per cent) as compared to Hamirpur (23.39 per cent). About 1/3rd respondents further revealed that they were involved in planning process through Project Implementing Agency alone. This was reported only in Hamirpur (62.39 per cent). Thus, about 28 per cent respondents reported that they were involved in planning process through Watershed Committees, mainly in Bareilly (46.12 per cent) while only 2.75 per cent respondents in Hamirpur revealed that they were involved in planning process of watershed development programmes through Watershed Associations. The analysis simply demonstrates that the participation of community in planning process is not through gross-root level organizations such as Watershed Committees and Watershed Associations.

Table: 6.5
Agencies Involved in Planning Process

Agencies	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Watershed Association	6	2.75	0	0.00	6	1.42
PIA alone	136	62.39	0	0.00	136	32.08
Watershed Committee	25	11.47	95	46.12	120	28.30
PIA + W.C.	51	23.39	111	53.88	162	38.20
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.

The respondents were asked that whether they supported action plan for disadvantaged sections of the society. About 58 per cent respondents accepted that they supported action plan under watershed development programmes  for the benefits of the socially disadvantaged  communities. This was found more pronouncing in Bareilly (66.02 per cent) as compared to Hamirpur (50.92 per cent). Thus, a large number of beneficiaries could not supported action plan of the watershed development programmes for the benefits of the socially disadvantaged communities.
Table: 6.6
Support for Disadvantaged Section of Society

Support	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Yes	111	50.92	136	66.02	247	58.25
No	107	49.08	70	33.98	177	41.75
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
The status of training of beneficiaries is shown in Table 6.7. About 70 per cent respondents revealed that they received training under watershed development programmes. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur (72.02 per cent) as compared to Bareilly (66.99 per cent). Thus, about 30 per cent respondents revealed that they were not provided any kind of training under watershed development programmes. This is also a cause of concern as training and orientation of the community regarding the various provisions, components and features of the watershed development programmes enhances the participation of community in planning process both before the commencement of the programme and in implementation of the programme.
Table: 6.7
Status of Training

Training Provided	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Yes	157	72.02	138	66.99	295	69.58
No	61	27.98	68	33.01	129	30.42
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.

 

 

The place of training is shown in Table 6.8. About 2/5th respondents reported that they were provided training in their villages. This was reported only in Hamirpur (77.07 per cent). However, slightly less than 1/4th respondents received training in development block, only in Bareilly (50.70 per cent). About 16 per cent respondents revealed that they were provided training at district while about 19 per cent respondents received training at state level offices. The proportion of respondents receiving training at state level offices was reported significantly high in Hamirpur as compared to Bareilly.

Table: 6.8
Place of Training

Place	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Village	121	77.07	0	0.00	121	41.02
Block	0	0.00	70	50.72	70	23.73
District	0	0.00	47	34.06	47	15.93
State	36	22.93	21	15.22	57	19.32
Total	157	100.00	138	100.00	295	100.00

Source: Field Survey.

Areas of training programmes are shown in Table 6.9. Most of the respondents (74.58 per cent) reported that they were provided training on programme implementation. This was found more pronouncing in Bareilly as compared to Hamirpur. About 9 per cent respondents reported that they were provided training on new techniques of harvesting while about 8 per cent respondents revealed that they were provided training on community participation.

Table: 6.9
Topics of Training Programmes

Topics	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Programme Implementation	113	71.97	107	77.54	220	74.50
Community Participation	13	8.28	10	7.25	23	7.80
New Techniques of Harvesting	15	9.55	13	9.42	28	9.49
Others	16	10.20	8	5.79	24	8.13
Total	157	100.00	130	100.00	295	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Social and Institutional Aspect:
The respondents were asked about the formation of SHGs under watershed development programmes. About 59 per cent respondents reported that one SHG has been formed in their village. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur (72.02 per cent) as compared to Bareilly (46.12 per cent). About 1/3rd respondents further reported that 2 SHGs have been formed in their village. This was found more pronouncing in Bareilly (47.08 per cent) as compared to Hamirpur (19.70 per cent). Thus, about 7 per cent respondents reported that more than 2 SHGs have been formed (Table 6.10).
Table: 6.10
Formation of SHGs

Number of SHGs	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
One	157	72.02	95	46.12	252	59.43
Two	43	19.72	97	47.08	140	33.02
Three	17	7.80	14	6.80	31	7.31
Four	1	0.46	0	0.00	1	0.24
None/ No Idea	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Frequency of meetings of SHGs is shown in Table 6.11. About 55 per cent respondents reported that SHGs have monthly meetings for their effective functioning. About 16 per cent respondents reported that meetings of SHGs are held fortnightly and weekly. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur as compared to Bareilly. About 10 per cent respondents revealed that SHGs do not have any meetings. This was found more pronouncing in Bareilly (11.17 per cent). This shows that SHGs are defunct as without meetings of SHGs effective functioning of the group cannot be ensured.

Table: 6.11
Frequency of Meetings of SHGs

Frequency	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Weekly	9	4.13	2	0.97	11	2.59
Fortnightly	41	18.81	16	7.77	57	13.44
Monthly	114	52.29	121	58.74	235	55.42
Bi-monthly	4	1.83	33	16.02	37	8.73
Never	19	8.72	23	11.17	42	9.91
No Idea	31	14.22	11	5.33	42	9.91
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.

Transparency of SHGs accounts is shown in Table 6.12. About 28 per cent respondents revealed that SHGs have transparent accounts. This was found more pronouncing in Bareilly as compared to Hamirpur. However, about 58 per cent respondents were not found aware about the transparency of SHG bank accounts as they are no more associated with SHGs.                                          
Table: 6.12
Transparency in Accounts of SHGs

Transparency	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Yes	51	23.39	66	32.04	117	27.59
No	38	17.43	23	11.17	61	14.39
No Idea	129	59.18	117	56.79	246	58.02
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.

About 43 per cent respondents reported that SHGs have received revolving fund for their effective functioning. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur (46.33 per cent) as compared to Bareilly (38.83 per cent). More than half of the respondents were found unaware about the granting of revolving fund to the SHGs
(Table 6.13).
Table: 6.13
Operation of Revolving Fund

Operation	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Yes	101	46.33	80	38.83	181	42.69
No	7	3.21	15	7.28	22	5.19
No Idea	110	50.46	111	53.89	221	52.12
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Modes of utilization of revolving fund are shown in Table 6.14. About 31 per cent respondents reported that revolving fund is being used for loaning to members. This was found more pronouncing in Bareilly (63.75 per cent) as compared to Hamirpur (4.95 per cent). About 29 per cent respondents further reported that revolving fund was used for purchasing of raw materials. About half of the respondents in Hamirpur reported this while more than 1/3rd respondents in the state revealed that revolving fund was used for purchase for animals and machines.

 

 

Table: 6.14
Mode of Utilization of Revolving Fund

Modes	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Loan to Members	5	4.95	51	63.75	56	30.94
Purchasing of Raw Material	49	48.51	4	5.00	53	29.28
Purchased of Animals/ Machine	35	34.65	3	3.75	38	20.99
No Idea	12	11.89	22	12.50	34	18.79
Total	101	100.00	80	100.00	181	100.00

Source: Field Survey.

The respondents were asked that whether they have proper marketing of the SHG products. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur (25.69 per cent) as compared to Bareilly (3.88 per cent). More than half of the respondents were not aware about the marketing facility for marketing of SHG products. Thus, a large proportion of the respondents reported that there is no proper marketing of SHG product (Table 6.15).
Table: 6.15
Proper Marketing for Products of SHGs

Marketing of SHGs Products	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Yes	56	25.69	8	3.88	64	15.09
No	60	27.53	79	38.35	139	32.78
No Idea	102	46.78	119	57.77	221	52.13
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Reasons for poor marketing of SHG products are shown in
Table 6.16.  About 47 per cent respondents reported that they do not have helping hands for marketing of SHG products. About  17 per cent respondents further reported that the SHG products are costly. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur as compared to Bareilly. Only 8 per cent respondents reported that they do not have proper market for marketing of SHG products.
Table: 6.16
Reason for Poor Marketing

Reasons	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
No Helping Hands for Marketing	37	61.67	28	35.44	65	46.76
No Proper Marketing for Product	6	10.00	5	6.33	11	7.91
Product is Costly	17	28.33	6	7.59	23	16.55
Others	0	0.00	40	50.64	40	28.78
Total	60	100.00	79	100.00	139	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
The respondents were asked that to what extent  the economic status of SHG members has changed due to  SHG based micro financing. Only 6 per cent respondents revealed that economic status of SHG members has changed to some extent. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur as compared to Bareilly. More than 1/3rd respondents revealed that there is no change in economic status of members of SHGs. This appears that SHGs are not properly linked with banks and markets besides initiation of income generating activities by their members (Table 6.17).
Table: 6.17
Changes in Economic Status of Members of SHGs

Changes	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
To a Large Extent	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
To Some Extent	18	8.26	9	4.37	27	6.37
Not at All	70	32.11	79	38.35	149	35.14
No Idea	130	59.63	118	57.28	248	58.49
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
The respondents were asked regarding the visit by government officials to the site. About 29 per cent respondents reported that government officials have visited the site quarterly. This was found more pronouncing in Bareilly (46.12 per cent) as compared to Hamirpur (12.39 per cent). About 18 per cent respondents further reported that government officials visit the site in six month. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur as compared to Bareilly. About 21 per cent respondents reported that government officials never visited the site (Table 6.18).
Table: 6.18
Visit by Government Officials

Visits	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Never	58	26.61	30	14.56	88	20.75
Monthly	5	2.29	31	15.05	36	8.49
Quarterly	27	12.39	95	46.12	122	28.77
Six Monthly	61	27.98	16	7.77	77	18.16
No Idea	67	30.73	34	16.50	101	23.83
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Earth Work
Most of the respondents reported that plantation was undertaken under the watershed development programme. However, about 5 per cent respondents revealed that no plantation was undertaken under the watershed programme while about 4 per cent respondents were found unaware about the issue (Table 6.19).
Table: 6.19
Plantation Under Projects

Plantation	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Yes	193	88.53	193	93.69	386	91.04
No	12	5.50	9	4.37	21	4.95
Can’t Say	13	5.97	4	1.94	17	4.01
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Survival rate of plants is shown in Table 6.20. About half of the respondents reported that 20-40 per cent plants have been survived while 26 per cent respondents reported that survival rate of plants is in between  40 to 60 per cent. Only 12 per cent respondents reported that survival rate is more than 60 per cent. Thus, only 10 per cent respondents reported that survival rate is less than 20 per cent. The less survival rate of plants was reported in Bareilly as the climatic conditions are not suitable for survival of plants.

 

 

Table: 6.20
Survival Rate of Plants

Survival Percentage	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Upto 20%	13	6.74	25	12.95	38	9.85
20-40%	102	52.85	97	50.16	199	51.55
40-60%	52	26.94	50	25.91	102	26.42
60-80%	26	13.47	21	10.88	47	12.18
Total	193	100.00	193	100.00	386	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Structure for water harvesting is shown in Table 6.21. About 56 per cent respondents reported that different types of bundings were constructed under the watershed development programmes for the rain water harvesting. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur (63.30 per cent) as compared to Bareilly (47.57 per cent). About 12 per cent respondents reported that check dams were constructed for rain water harvesting. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur (22.02 per cent) as compared to Bareilly (2.43 per cent). Thus, only 9 per cent respondents reported that ponds were constructed for water harvesting under the watershed development programmes. About 45 per cent respondents in Bareilly reported that other structures such as kund, tanka were constructed for water harvesting  under the watershed development programmes.
Table: 6.21
Structure for Water Harvesting

Structure	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Different Types of Bundings	138	63.30	98	47.57	236	55.66
Check Dam	48	22.02	5	2.43	53	12.50
Ponds	26	11.93	11	5.34	37	8.73
Others	6	2.75	92	44.66	98	23.11
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Quality of structure for rain water harvesting is shown in Table 6.22. About 70 per cent respondents reported that water harvesting structures are good as far as quality is concerned. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur (72.48 per cent) as compared to Bareilly (66.99 per cent). About 19 per cent respondents further reported that quality of water harvesting structures is found to be excellent. This was reported significantly high in Bareilly (27.67 per cent). Thus, about 12 per cent respondents were not found satisfied with the quality of water harvesting structure.
Table: 6.22
Quality of Structure

Quality	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Excellent	22	10.09	57	27.67	79	18.63
Good	158	72.48	38	66.99	296	69.81
Average	20	9.17	9	4.37	29	6.84
Bad	18	8.26	2	0.97	20	4.72
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
The respondents were further asked that whether any repair or upgradation work of previous structure was done. Only 15 per cent respondents admitted that repair or upgradation of previous structures was done under the watershed development programmes. This was found more pronouncing in Bareilly as compared to Hamirpur. About 37 per cent respondents were not about the fact (Table 6.23).
Table: 6.23
Repair or Upgradation of Previous Structure

Repair/ Upgradation	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Yes	25	11.47	40	19.42	65	15.33
No	126	57.80	76	36.89	202	47.64
Can’t Say	67	30.73	90	43.69	157	37.03
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
The respondents were asked that who did the earth work under the watershed development programme. About 68 per cent respondents reported that local people were involved in earth work under the programmes. However, about 8 per cent respondents revealed that earth work was done by outsiders. About 23 per cent respondents were found unaware about the methods of earth work (Table 6.24).
Table: 6.24
Methods of Earth Work

Methods	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Local People	149	68.35	141	68.45	290	68.40
Outsiders	16	7.34	20	9.71	36	8.49
By Machines	0	0.00	0	0.00	0.	0.00
Can’t Say	53	24.31	45	21.84	98	23.11
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Impact and Sustainability
The respondents were asked that to what extent watershed development programmes have helped in mitigating the drought effect. About 79 per cent respondents reported that watershed development programmes have impact to a large extent in mitigating the drought effect. This was found more pronouncing in Bareilly (87.38 per cent) as compared to Hamirpur (70.64 per cent). About 19 per cent respondents further reported that watershed development programmes have impact to some extent in mitigating the drought effects. This was found significantly high in Hamirpur as compared to Bareilly (Table 6.25).
Table: 6.25
Impact of Watershed Development Programmes in Mitigation of Drought Effect

Impact	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
To a large extent	154	70.64	180	87.38	334	78.77
To some extent	54	24.77	26	12.62	80	18.87
Not at all	10	4.59	0	0.00	10	2.36
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Increase in ground water level due to watershed development programmes is shown in Table 6.26.  Most of the respondents were of the view that there has been significant increase in ground water level due to watershed development programmes. About 40 per cent respondents reported that ground water level has increased upto 2 feet while 42 per cent respondents reported that water level has increased upto 2-4 feet. About 21 per cent respondents in Hamirpur reported that ground water level has increased 4-6 feet due to watershed development programmes. The low increase in ground water level was reported in Bareilly as the state is drought prone and has adverse climatic conditions while significant increase in ground water level was reported in Hamirpur.
Table: 6.26
Increase in Ground Water Level

Increase	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
No Change	6	2.75	9	4.37	15	3.54
Upto 2 Feet	57	26.15	115	55.83	172	40.56
2-4 Feet	109	50.00	68	33.01	177	41.75
4-6 Feet	46	21.10	14	6.79	60	14.15
More than 6 Feet	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	00.00
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.

Increase in irrigated area is shown in Table 6.27. Most of the respondents reported that there has been upto 20 per cent increase in irrigated area due to watershed development programme. This was reported significantly high in Bareilly as compared to Hamirpur. About 45 per cent respondents were of the view that the irrigated land has increased 10 to 20 per cent due to watershed development programme. This was found significantly high in Hamirpur as compared to Bareilly.

 

 

Table: 6.27
Increase in Irrigated Land

Increase	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Upto 10%	26	11.93	99	48.06	125	29.48
10-20%	110	50.46	81	39.32	191	45.05
20-30%	65	29.82	8	3.88	73	17.22
30-40%	7	3.21	0	0.00	7	1.65
No Idea	10	4.58	18	8.74	28	6.60
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Increase in agriculture production due to watershed development programme is shown in Table 6.28. About half of the respondents reported that there has been 10 to 20 per cent increase in agricultural production due to watershed development programme. This was found more pronouncing in Bareilly (64.56 per cent) as compared to Hamirpur (33.49 per cent). About 31 per cent respondents further reported that agriculture production has increased 20-30 per cent due to watershed development programmes. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur (40.83 per cent) as compared to Bareilly (20.39 per cent). About 12 per cent respondents reported that agriculture production has increased more than 30 per cent due to watershed development programmes.
Table: 6.28
Increase in Agriculture Production

Increase	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Upto 10%	18	8.26	20	9.71	38	8.96
10-20%	73	33.49	133	64.56	206	48.58
20-30%	89	40.83	42	20.39	131	30.90
30-40%	19	8.71	11	5.34	30	7.08
40-50%	19	8.71	0	0.00	19	4.48
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.

 

 

Watershed development programmes have effectively checked the migration of poor in search of livelihoods and other economic opportunities. This is also true in case of the present survey as more than 2/5th respondents reported that watershed development programmes have decreased 20-30 per cent migration of people from the area. About 30 per cent respondents further reported that there has been 10-20 per cent decrease in migration of people from the area. This was found more pronouncing in Hamirpur as compared to Bareilly (Table 6.29).

Table: 6.29
Decrease in Migration Percentage

Decrease	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Upto 10%	20	9.17	8	3.88	28	6.60
10-20%	84	38.53	44	21.36	128	30.19
20-30%	79	36.24	105	50.97	184	43.40
30-40%	26	11.93	42	20.39	68	16.04
40-50%	9	4.13	7	3.40	16	3.77
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.

The respondents were asked that whether gram panchayat will able to carry out work with same efficiency without external support. About 46 per cent respondents reported that village panchayat will be able to carry out the work under the watershed development programmes without external support. This was found more pronouncing in Bareilly (66.02 per cent) as compared to Hamirpur (27.07 per cent). Thus, about 2/5th respondents admitted that gram village will not be able to carry out the work under watershed development programmes with the same efficiency without external support.
Table: 6.30
Whether Gram Panchayat Will be Able to Carry Out  Work Without External Support

	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Yes	59	27.07	136	66.02	195	45.99
No	130	59.63	37	17.96	167	39.39
Can’t Say	29	13.30	33	16.02	62	14.62
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.

The respondents were further asked that whether the community will be able to carry out the maintenance of assets created under the watershed development programmes without external support. Only 45 per cent respondents were of the view that community is competent enough to carry out the maintenance of assets created under the watershed development programmes without government support. This was found more pronouncing in Bareilly (70.39 per cent) as compared to Hamirpur (21.10 per cent). Thus, about 65 per cent respondents in Hamirpur were of the view that community is not competent to carry out the maintenance work of assets created so far.

 

Table: 6.31
Whether Community Will Be Able to Carry Out the Maintenance of Assets Without Government Support

	Hamirpur		Bareilly		Total
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Yes	46	21.10	145	70.39	191	45.05
No	142	65.14	32	15.53	174	41.04
Can’t Say	30	13.76	29	14.08	59	13.91
Total	218	100.00	206	100.00	424	100.00

Source: Field Survey.
Natural resources such as soil, water and vegetation are most vital resources for the development of agricultural economy. The agricultural productivity is found to be significantly low in rainfed areas as compared to irrigated areas and therefore agricultural income is found to be low in rainfed areas. The extensive deforestation, increase in degradation of natural resources, the rainwater is running off in floods and there is less percolation to recharge groundwater sources. Watershed development programmes are being implemented by adopting farming system approach on watershed management principles in order to conserve valuable rainwater and top soil. The watershed development programmes have increased the soil moisture through developing vegetation coverage and have increased the groundwater level through promoting rainwater harvesting and groundwater recharge. This has improved the irrigation potential besides increasing the agricultural productivity, income and shifting of traditional crops towards high value crops. Thus, watershed development programmes have effectively checked the migration of people and created the employment opportunities in agriculture and non-farm sector for their sustenance and substantial income from agriculture sector.

Chapter-7
Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
India has witnessed remarkable progress in human and economic development since it gained independence in 1947. However, the path of economic development and growth has been challenging one since environmental sustainability is a major challenge in India. There are five priority issues pertaining to environment as identified by the Government of India as per the United Nations Environment Programme guidelines. These priority issues are land degradation, biodiversity loss, air pollution with special reference to vehicular pollution in cities, management of fresh water resources, and hazardous waste management with special reference to municipal solid waste management. All these issues need to be addressed by multi-pronged strategies, multi-dimensional approach with socio-economic developmental view point. The environmental pollution is posing a serious challenge for the sustainability of economic growth while the road to sustainable development is a tardy one. There is degradation of natural resources due to overexploitation, unsustainable economic and commercial activities and poor governance of environmental regulation, policies and enforcement of legislations. The land degradation which occurs through the natural and man-made process of wind erosion, water erosion and water logging has been identified as one of the priority concerns in India. The loss of biodiversity is of great concern to India since many plant and animal species are severely threatened by a destruction of their habitat and an overexploitation of forestry resources. Significantly, the availability of fresh water is going to be the most pressing problems in India in coming decades. The stress on water resources is a result of multiple factors such as urban growth, increased industrial activities, intensive farming, an over use of fertilizers and other chemical in agricultural production. In view of the growing importance of natural resource conservation, Government of India has launched various programmes and schemes for watershed development which basically aims at combating desertification, wastelands and drought-prone areas besides enhancing the potential of irrigation. Watershed development programmes have positive and long-lasting impact on soil moisture, agriculture productivity, poverty alleviation, livelihood development and vegetation coverage. The present study attempts to assess the impact of watershed development programmes in Hamirpur and Bareilly.
Main Research Findings:

• Most of the beneficiaries were from the middle age group i.e. 30-50 years. They were mainly from scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and OBCs.
• Most of the beneficiaries were educationally backward as the educational levels were reported to be primary and junior high schools while about 1/4th respondents were illiterate.
• The occupation of the respondents has been reported to be predominantly agriculture in both the states. Thus, the annual income of the respondents’ family was reported to be low i.e. less than Rs. 40,000 per annum in majority of the cases.
• Most of the respondents were found aware about existing watershed development programmes however, their knowledge and awareness regarding the provisions and components of the programmes was found low.
• Most of the respondents were member of the user groups and water associations. However, only small proportion of respondents reported that they were involved in planning process of the watershed development programmes.
• Most of the respondents reported that  project implementing agencies were mainly involved in planning process however, they also collaborated with watershed associations and watershed committees.  Majority of the respondents further reported that they get the support from disadvantaged sections of the society.
• Majority of the respondents received training under the watershed development projects. The training was mainly imparted at the village and block level. The topics of training mainly included the aspects of programme implementation, community participation and new techniques of water harvesting.
• Most of the respondents reported that SHGs have been formed in watershed areas. The SHGs are also organizing meetings fortnightly for effective functioning. SHGs have been bank linked for accessibility of micro finance. About 2/5th respondents reported that they have revolving funds for effective functioning of the SHGs. However, proper marketing of the SHG products could not be ensured.
• The overwhelming majority of the respondents reported that plantation was done under the project. The survival of plants is also ranges in between 20 to 60 per cent. The earthwork mainly involves construction of different types of bunding, ponds, kund etc. Most of the respondents were found satisfied with the quality of construction work. Majority of the respondents further reported that earthwork has been done by local people.
• Most of the respondents reported that watershed development programmes have positive impact on mitigation of droughts, increase in groundwater level, increase in irrigated area, increase in agriculture production and decrease in migration of people.
• The watershed development programmes have created economic opportunities for poverty alleviation, livelihood development, and substantial increase in income from agriculture and non-farm section. Besides watershed development programmes have effectively contributed in combating the desertification, dry land, wasteland and increase the groundwater level.
• Watershed development programmes have created employment opportunities in the local areas and therefore there has been occupational shifting and structural change in employment.
• The migration of people has been reduced as watershed development programmes have improved the agricultural productivity while substantial income from agriculture sector has been reported. There has been increase in the grass cropped area besides change in cropping patterns in favour of high value crops and agricultural diversification.
• The productivity of different crops has increased with the construction of check dams, water harvesting bunds and kunds etc. which are helping water storage for a longer period and resulting in increase in groundwater table and soil moisture.
• Local people were involved in the decision making process however, the programmes of SHGs has been reported to be slow and steady. People have shown their interest in SHGs however effective utilization of revolving fund of the SHGs could not be ensured.
• The training to the local farmers has increased their awareness regarding conservation of natural resources besides enhancing their technical knowledge which has resulted in adoption of new technology in agriculture.
• People do not pay adequate attention towards the maintenance of the plantation made on community land. The survival rate of plants on community land is also observed to be very poor.
• The planning was done mainly by Project Implementing Agencies and involvement of local people in planning process has been reported to be only symbolic representation rather than democratic representation.
• In some places, the quality of earth work was not found upto the mark and even at some places bundings constructed under the watershed development projects were cut off by the villagers just to increase their farm land.
• Due to significance variations in the wage structure in employment oriented rural development programmes and schemes; it is difficult to get labours for the work under the watershed development projects according to the existing guidelines. Due to variations in cost norm in different watershed development programmes, there have been marked variations in the cost of development work in the same areas.

Recommendations:

• There is need for a holistic perspective in order to develop a rain-fed area which requires pursuing three inter-connected goals simultaneously i.e. enhancing current livelihoods for most people, enhancing current carrying capacity and setting in motion regenerative processes to enhance future carrying capacity continuously.
• Convergence of socio-economic development programmes with watershed development programmes is imperative. The existing programmes of rural development such as MNREGA, National Rural Livelihood Mission, Minor Irrigation, etc. should be converged with watershed development programme for holistic impact on rural poor and livelihood development.
• Strengthening the implementing structure for convergence & quality is imperative. There should be a single agency at State and District levels for implementing IWMP and MGNREGS.A single Steering Mechanism should be created at the State and District levels for IWMP and MGNREGS.
• Consortia of NGOs and research organizations should be promoted for capacity building of PIAs/PRIs. However, all the training and orientation programmes both for the community and for the government functionaries should be entrusted to independent agencies at the district or regional level fully equipped for taking up of the task in a meaningful manner by designing appropriate training modules and course materials.
• There is imperative need to enhance livelihood focus & sustainability of watershed programmes. Areas treated in the past should be included in new projects since the treatment generally was marginal. Maintenance of watershed works should be included under MGNREGA.
• Necessary legal framework should be created to enable CBOs to play a regulatory role in the use of natural resources, such as groundwater, pastures, etc.
• The representatives of water committees, water associations and other community based organizations should be given adequate training in conducting the stipulated meetings at regular intervals in a systematic and meaningful manner so as to maintain the minutes book and other records required for facilitating / proper monitoring and impact assessment of the programme.
• Efforts should be made to strengthen the participation of user groups in the watershed programmes in terms of obtaining their consent before taking up works  in their fields and involving them in execution of these works. Community awareness and community mobilization is also imperative for decentralization and effective contribution of community in implementation of watershed development programme.
• SHGs should be effectively linked to the existing rural development programme in order to enable them to mobilize additional resources for strengthening the income generating activity initiatives. Linkages of SHGs with financial institutions and micro finance institutions are essential for effective functioning of the SHGs and extending micro finance to the poor. Market linkages of SHGs and initiation of income generating activities will require effective functioning of SHG federations at cluster and block level.
• Participatory approach with the involvement of all sections of the community at every stage i.e. selection, planning, implementation, maintenance, monitoring and sharing of future benefits in the watershed development programme is imperative. It is also suggested that special attention should be given to ensure the participation of women and other vulnerable groups in project activities.
• In order to avoid the political pressure in selection of the watershed villages, district should have a perspective plan for the area being considered for watershed development programme. The major criteria for the selection of villages/watersheds should include acute drinking water scarcity; high incidence of poverty and backwardness in human development indicators; willingness of village community to make voluntary contributions; preponderance of common lands, etc.
• Traditional rainwater harvesting structures should be revived and revamped. In this process, community participation and involvement should be ensured through providing them orientation and training and also providing monetary incentives under watershed development programmes.
• In order to avoid conflict in the watershed area, the entire range of activities to be included in the action plan must be discussed threadbare in a series of village meetings. The selection of beneficiaries should also done in a village meetings where detail criteria are enlisted, reflecting considerations of equity, transparency and fairness.
• In order to ensure equity and transparency in benefit sharing, the detail criteria involving the issues of hours of pumping, sequence of irrigation, cropping patterns, share of cattle, ensuring share of landless etc. should be pre-decided and discussed among the user groups.
• In order to promote livelihood developments, non-farm activities should be strengthened through providing effective convergence and linkages with micro financial institutions. However, training and capacity building is also important for promotion of non-farm activities in the watershed area.
• Diversification of agriculture and change in cropping pattern may provide substantial earnings from agriculture sector for the poor, marginalized and particularly women. Micro credit should be made available to the beneficiaries for promotion of diversification of agriculture.
• The role of NGOs should be recognized for creating of awareness, social mobilization and capacity building. However, identification of NGOs should be very careful and established, well-recognized and having required competency, experience and knowledge should be provided a chance for implementation of watershed development programmes.
• It is imperative to establish and strengthen ground water monitoring network through construction of observation wells, sanctuary wells for coastal aquifer management and water quality monitoring.
• It is high time to review the National Water Policy with a view to ensure integrated water resource management in the context of climate change challenges in water sector.
• There is also need to review the policies related to irrigation, crops and cropping pattern for ensuring efficient water use. The regulation and market based mechanism be introduced to check the overexploitation of groundwater and wastage of water resources.
• It is also imperative to adopt appropriate land use planning and watershed management practices for sustainable development of mountain ecosystems.
• State specific water policies need to be prepared. Ground water legislation needs to be promulgated in all states to promote sustainable water uses and water development. Emphasis should be given to developing surface water use and taking measures for rainwater harvesting to increase water resource availability.
• Water use efficiency programmes including water conservation, water recycling, piped water system, metering and regulation of water use and rationalizing energy supply need to be adopted.