A Seminar Paper on

WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT
A REVIEW OF LIVELIHOOD, SUSTAINABILITY AND
EQUITY ISSUES

by
Abhinav Sharma
(Roll No. 128080011)
M.Phil in Planning and Development
Guided By:
Prof. Sarmishtha Pattanaik

Department of Humanities & Social Sciences

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
November 2012

Table Of Contents
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 3
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................. 5
CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS ..................................................................................... 6
What is Sustainable development? ............................................................................ 6
What do we mean by Equity? ..................................................................................... 7
What do we mean by livelihood? ............................................................................... 7
WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS IN THE LIGHT OF EQUITY, LIVELIHOOD AND
SUSTAINABILITY .............................................................................................................. 8
Equity Issues ................................................................................................................ 8
Livelihood Issues ....................................................................................................... 16
Sustainability issues .................................................................................................. 19
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 25
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 26

INTRODUCTION
Water scarcity and poor water quality are a major concern in numerous countries,
which mainly depend on agriculture for the livelihood of the people .Fresh water
availability, is already a major factor in sustainable use of resources. The water
scarcity is further accentuated by the ground and surface water pollution. So it is
impertinent to note that the management of water resources plays a pivotal role in
food & environmental security in the world characterized by increasing conflict over
water resources. The concept of watershed is very important in this regard and as it
is a basic hydrological unit and hydrological and ecological processes govern the
quality of soil and water in the area of watershed. Technically speaking the term
watershed is defined as the drainage basin or catchment area of a particular river
stream or an area from where the water flows into a particular drainage system, but
over the time it has acquired a broad meaning and is now considered as a biological,
physical, economic, and social system too (Menon, 2012 ).
As seen from above, watershed development is required to be holistic concept which
integrates several components like soil and water conservation, forestry
development, agriculture and livestock and other livelihood options, hence touching
broad contours of environment and public life. This kind of integration in turn leads
to environmental and social sustainability. But the question arises, how far have we
have been able to succeed in achieving Equity, sustainability through watershed
development? And how far this has succeeded in providing livelihood sources to the
people?
Though the watershed development approach was adopted as early as 1949 yet
status wise as today 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 programs.
Departments namely agriculture, forests, rural development, National Waste Land
3

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. MoRD has been implementing watershed
development projects only since the late 1980s. It deals with non-forest wastelands
and poverty alleviation programmes having components of soil and water
conservation. Watershed programmes implemented by MoRD include the Drought
Prone Areas Programme, Desert Development Programme, Integrated Wastelands
Development Programme, and Externally Aided Projects (EAPs). Since 1989, the
MOEF has been implementing the National Afforestation and Eco-Development
Project, with the intention of promoting afforestation and development of degraded
forests within an integrated watershed approach.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

Broad objectives of the present review are as follows:
To review the literature on watershed development with emphasis on the
issues of equity, sustainability and livelihood.
Examine the experiences of the various watershed programmes brings to light
the issues through the lens of a normative framework adopting three
important interconnected themes of sustainability, livelihoods, and equity.
To emphasise upon the importance of interconnectivity of the themes of
sustainability, livelihood and equity and the impact of watershed development
on them.

CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS
What is Sustainable development?
Sustainable development has been defined in many ways. While it refers to the
minimisation of entropy in the production process according to quantum mechanics
principle, it is reworked to ascribe a development which is environmentally nondegrading, technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable [FAO
1991]. Operationally this definition has been further amended to take into account
the ecological sustainability in the case of renewable resources as managing the
environmental resources to ensure the long-term sustainable utilisation of species
and eco-systems, minimise the survival risk and generally keep open as many future
options as possible [IUCN 1980]. Hence, the concept of sustainability gradually gets
diluted to sustainable utilisation. Also, the Famous Bruntland commission also
defines sustainable development as.
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs". (Brundtland, 1987)
As the problem is in situ and man-made, the people of the region hold the key for
dispensing with the problem. People participation for management of Common
Pooled Resources (CPRs) becomes an important ingredient to translate the goals of
sustainable development in an organisational context at the local level. With the
growing realisation that development should be woven around people and not the
people around development (Haq, 1993), the concept of sustainable development
has attained a centre-stage. The important role of community participation in the
field of ecological, biological, technical and socio-cultural and economic context on
sustainable development is being realised.

What do we mean by Equity?

The term Equity is used in many fields ranging from finance, & accounting to law,
economics to the social issues. Equity here implies fair access to livelihood, education
and other resources; full participation in political, cultural & economic life of
community and self-determination in meeting of fundamental needs (President's
Council on Sustainable Development, 1996). The concept of equity is related to equal
life chances regardless of identity and membership to any particular caste, class or
group. The principle of equity applies to wide ranging issues relating to access to
natural resources and sharing of gains, and it requires one to take cognizance of the
disabilities created by class, gender, caste, and ethnicity. (Sen, Shah, & Kumar, 2007)

What do we mean by livelihood?

The dictionary definition of livelihood defines it as a means of securing the
necessities of life. In social sciences the concept of livelihood extends to include
social and cultural means i.e. the command and individual family, or other social
group has over income or resources that can be exchanged to satisfy its needs. This
may involve information, cultural knowledge, social networks, legal rights as well as
tools, land and other physical resources. Livelihood encompasses building
capabilities and assets to generate activities to support a basis for living. Some
distinction has been made between basic needs and livelihood needs on the basis of
whether they are unmediated or imposed with relation to production. In the field of
watershed development we are mainly concerned with the physical resources of
livelihoods (Sen, Shah & Kumar, 2007)

WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS IN THE LIGHT OF EQUITY,

LIVELIHOOD AND SUSTAINABILITY
There is plethora of literature available on watershed management programme
covering wide range of issues. However, In this section an attempt has been made to
review the literature on different issues related to equity, sustainability & livelihood
to arrive at a coherent understanding of Watershed development in light of these
issues.

Equity Issues
Equity issues are intrinsically linked with nature of participatory institutions built
within watershed development initiatives. Natural resources that are not privately
owned have the potential to play a key role in reducing disparities across households
within a watershed. While it is desirable that the entire stock of natural resources is
shared equitably, the least that the participatory institutions ought to ensure is that
the incremental resources generated through the interventions are shared fairly.
As put by Sangameshrawan (2006) in most natural resource management
programmes, considerations about collective action, efficiency and sustainability
have tended to get primacy over equity concerns. This is in spite of the fact that the
importance of equity in all developmental programmes has now been emphasised in
a variety of forums, for its linkages with sustainability and efficiency. In the case of
watershed programmes also, adequate attention has not been paid to equity
concerns.
Evaluation reports of watershed projects have very clearly brought out the fact that
successful watershed projects which have sustained over the years were designed in
such a way that every individual residing in the watershed area came to have a stake
in the successful completion and maintenance of the watershed project. This is an
important area, which many watershed projects have tended to neglect.
8

Inequities arise in watershed programmes due to a number of factors, some of them

important ones are
Approach to Watershed development (i.e. integrated approach vs landholder
centric approach)
Spatial location (i e, upstream versus downstream)
Differences of class, caste and gender
A landholder centric approach tends to align with the technical point of view but has
severe ramifications on the equity concerns. Gains from a watershed project largely
accrue to the landholders. Marginal farmers and agricultural labourers only benefit
from the project on account of increased agricultural activity, which increases
opportunities for employment. If flow of benefits from the watershed is not
specifically channelized to these groups in terms of greater access to Common
Property Resources (CPRs), fodder for their cattle and fuel requirements, little
incentive remains for these groups to cooperate in rejuvenation of the CPRs through
the mechanisms of social fencing or any other method which the community might
choose for regeneration of non-agricultural land. The issue of equitable distribution
of gains, therefore, is crucial to the sustainability the project in the long run. In this
regard, providing access to land to the marginal and landless agricultural labourers
through the mechanism of rights on harvested water could be one alternative. It may
be desirable to incorporate sharing of water by all residents in a watershed project as
one of the preconditions for selecting a village for watershed development project.
The rain-fed regions in India are typically in undulating, hilly or mountainous terrain.
Such landscapes are characterised by great agro-ecological diversity as soil conditions
and water availability may vary markedly even within a village. The great variation in
rainfall across the country is the other source of ecological diversity in the rain-fed
regions. Such landscapes also tend to be ecologically "connected" - what happens
upstream affects the downstream and isolated actions bear no results (Deep Joshi,
9

2006). This interconnected nature of the upstream and downstream areas raises
another concern for equity, because of uneven distribution of benefits of watershed
development between them.
The inequities arising out of the membership of persons to a particular class, caste or
gender is another aspect of several watershed development programmes. This kind
of inequity is a result of certain existing power structures in the region which tend to
get challenged by the community programs like watershed development. The
dominant groups then try to assert their dominance over the resources and try to
corner maximum benefits from the watershed development programs, leaving the
other groups (class, caste or gender) deprived of these benefits. The role caste and
class has been evident in many studies related to watershed development and has
been highlighted as a cause of success or failure in many examples. While a
democratically constituted watershed institution should be in a position to intervene
in the issues regarding encroachment of CPRs for cultivation, or sharing of forest
products, it may be difficult to do so in heterogonous societies ridden with class
and/or caste conflicts. In relatively homogenous societies, the participatory
institutions would have far greater potential to apply the principle of equity in many
of the above-mentioned settings. Also there are examples of unsuccessful projects
due to huge inequities and resulting conflict of interest among the heterogeneous
class & caste setup (DSilva & Pai, 2003). The role of women and the inequities faced
by women in the watershed development programs has also been studied and the
impact of these programs enabling women to participate on an equal footing with
men in the decision-making process regarding watershed management is highlighted
in sample studies from Madhya Pradesh by Action for social advancement in their
paper Watershed Development in Madhya Pradesh: Implications for Women,
wherein they have the problem of inequity due to gender and the ways of tackling
this exclusion. (ASA, 2007).

10

Some of the important examples highlighting the issue of equity in watershed

development programs are given below:

11

The Sukhomajiri Experience

This watershed development program in Haryana introduced a new approach to
equitable water resource sharing in line with the traditional methods of allocation
called Warabandi . As per the method water was allocated first to people and then to
land. Even a landless had equal share in water available for the irrigation in the dam.
Thus as a result of this watershed development program the village has achieved
ecological and economic sustainability, people have achieved food security. In about
3 decades the villagers have faced problems of drought even in drought period. This
model was further replicated in parts of shiwalik and Punjab and had a profound
impact of the people participation and equity in the dimensions of income, resource
distribution etc. in the watershed development (Grewal S.S 1995, Krishna 1996).
The Hivre Bazar Experience (Sangameshwaran, 2006)
An important example of equity in watershed development has been given by Priya
Sangameshrawan in her study of the Watershed program in Hivre Bazar,
Maharashtra. The project has led to at least some improvement in the lives of most
villagers. In addition, measures such as the targeting of developmental schemes and
provision for fodder via turns on the common grazing lands have meant that even
those traditionally excluded from the benefits of a watershed development
intervention or those losing out from it - usually the lower landholding classes such
as marginal farmers, and the landless - have benefited in some way. Increased
demand for wage labour - one of the indirect effects of watershed development - has
benefited the landless households. Further, watershed-plus measures such as better
access to health and education facilities and improvement in drinking water facilities
have contributed to improving the quality of life of the landless. SHGs provide the
means to overcome temporary monetary shortfalls; along with developmental
schemes, they may also increase access to assets like small animals. Also, that this

12

targeting of the landless and marginal farmers while implementing watershed-plus

measures took place without any "demands" for the same emanating from them.
According to her the equity concerns in any project are influenced by a many of
factors such as the different concepts of equity by the various agents involved,
macro-level factors such as government policies and laws on relevant subjects, and
the nature of the development process that people are interested in setting in
motion. The equity potential of watershed development is limited by certain
minimum requirement of land-holding by the beneficiaries; while the logic behind
this is that without a certain level of landholding, the water would not be optimally
used, the result is that marginal farmers find it difficult to avail benefits of the
schemes. There is also the question of whether the indirect gains of watershed
development as well as watershed-plus measures offer an adequate substitute for
access to significant assets such as water and land
The Hivre Bazar experience is quite inspiring despite of the constraints, not only in
terms of its equity outcome, but also in terms of improvement in livelihoods and the
impact on sustainability. The measures to minimize the negative impact of measures
like the ban on grazing, the restrictive rules about use of water and the careful
targeting of watershed-plus measures have resulted in balancing out the equity
concerns of the watershed program .
The lesson on equity learnt from Hivre bazar Watershed development program:
Hivre Bazar therefore gives an important lesson, that some of the inequities
considered "inherent" to watershed development projects can be partially remedied
by local-level initiative, and it is important to think about ways in which this
experience can be used to improve the equity outcome in other watershed
development projects. At the same time, it would also be useful to reflect upon the
limitations in equity in Hivre Bazar and the questions raised by them about the kind
of development one is aiming for, the best way to meet the livelihood requirements
13

of the landless and marginal in rural areas as well as to empower them, and how to
reconcile different notions of equity( Sangameshwaran, 2006).
The success of watershed projects depends to a large extent on the ability of the
watershed community to address issues of equity, maintenance of watershed
community structures created and the sustainability of such arrangements. It has
been observed in a few cases that the initial cooperation of the community in a
watershed project had come about as all stake holders in the area were more or less
similarly placed economically. With the successful implementation of watershed
projects, land owning families experienced higher level of income which created
fissiparous tendencies in the community. The sections left out have very little stake
in maintaining Watershed structures or adhering to the strict conventions that
watershed community imposed on itself in the initial years of the project for natural
regeneration of grasslands or forests within the watershed. Reports of trees being
cut and grasslands being put under extreme biotic pressures have been documented.
These issues would need to be adequately tackled if the movement is to become
self-sustaining in the long run. (Sangameshwaran, 2006)
To address these issues the approach to these watershed programs needs to be
modified. One of the approaches may be where; the landholders in the watershed
get water for irrigation. However, the non-land owning families in the village get a
larger share of output from the Common Property Resources (CPR) which gets
rejuvenated after successful completion of the project.

This will enable many

families to take up animal husbandry as an occupation and meet their fodder and
fuel requirements from the CPR. Fishing rights on ponds constructed as part of the
watershed project are only given to the self-help groups of the landless. These
arrangements will effectively increase access of poor to the land and other sources of
livelihood and improve their standard of living. These innovations have yet to be
adopted widely and need to be up scaled. (Sangameshwaran, 2006)
14

Decentralisation of Watershed development programs and equity

In India a kind of decentralisation approach which involves the panchayats and
village based institutions has been studied by M. Gopinath Reddy and M. Srinavas
Reddy (2006), wherein they have tried to understand the process issues of
institutional assessment of the institutions like village panchayats given their
emergence at the centre stage of the management of the natural resources as
mandated by the constitutional amendments (73rd amendment) and policy
guidelines (Harayali guidelines, 2003) which necessarily have equity as their
objective.
The decentralised approach to watershed development is being studied by many
authors. I J Fidelman have brought forward the examples of decentralised natural
resource management from New South Wales, Australia. The paper provides a
detailed account of Catchment management strategy at different levels, wherein the
policy and the organisational levels are more centralized and involve the formulation
of acts, regulations and several authorities and committees, while the at the
operational level decentralisation strategy is adopted and the local bodies and user
groups play a larger role. The author has also tried to approach challenges through
an evaluative framework for this kind of decentralised natural resource management
strategy. The increased involvement of the local bodies and user groups has positive
implication on addressing the equity issues arising out of the watershed
development programs. (I.J.Fidelman, 2000)

15

Livelihood Issues
In the normative framework, natural capital is accorded primacy over social, physical,
human and financial capital in supporting livelihood needs. The relationship between
natural capital and livelihood is not predictable; a decrease in the base of natural
capital may not always lead to an adverse livelihood status. For example, a reduced
natural resource base may induce a farmer to adopt better cultivation management
practices. (Sen, Shah, Kumar, 2007)
Watershed management has been conceived basically as a strategy for improvement
in agriculture, prevention of soil erosion water harvesting etc. and is mainly centred
around land development. But as suggested by the Hanumantha Rao committee
report (1994) that if the watershed development programmes is viewed as a rural
livelihood rather that land development programme, women and poor marginal
farming households will benefit, given their dependence on many non- land based
activities. Also the Parthasarathy committee report (2006) has made contribution the
report makes is to introduce the word" livelihoods" into the watershed development,
to give watershed development a larger social perspective and purpose. By focusing
on livelihoods watershed development can be the main poverty alleviation
programme, given the varied contours of poverty in India. It would then also become
the driver of decentralised growth, growth with distribution. Unfortunately,
livelihoods come out in the report as an add-on, a kind of "water-shed plus" rather
than the core objective of watershed development programmes. To that extent, the
report has been shackled by contemporary programmes and practices. The Harayali
Guidelines (2003) brought out by Department of Land Resources for the
implementation of watershed development programmes under IWDP also envisage
Employment generation, poverty alleviation, community empowerment and
development of human and other economic resources in rural areas as the objectives
of watershed development.
16

The detail of watershed scheme is determined by what one wants from it and what
can be obtained sustainably. Livelihoods are the objective function which is to be
maximised through watershed development and sustainability is the constraint that
sets the boundaries. The specific interventions or "treatment" in the watershed are
dictated by the objective function of livelihood, and not vice versa. (Joshi, 2006)
According to Deep Joshi, this shift in emphasis towards livelihood is a new paradigm
and calls for a great deal of creativity and innovation. It has major implications for
the kind of agency required, the processes to be followed, equity, potential for social
conflict/cooperation, etc. Multiple plans can be made for a given watershed, each
with different implications for local livelihoods. For example a check dam may be
built to harvest rainwater and then begin to worry about fisheries as a livelihood, or
one may conceive of fisheries as a livelihood on the basis of objective analysis carried
out jointly with the watershed inhabitants and then plan appropriate water storage
structures to rear fish; clearly, the two are fundamentally different approaches.
Without the focus on livelihoods, water-shed development practice would continue
to follow the old paths and techniques. (Joshi, 2006).
Nevertheless, despite all the above concerns, the watershed development strategy
has contributed a great deal in enhancing the livelihoods of people in the areas
where these programmes were implemented. There are many examples arising out
of different parts of country where there was a considerable positive impact on the
livelihood of the people. Some of these stories are illustrated below:
The Sukhomajiri experience
This was a successful watershed management project in Haryana and it also gets
credit for the evolution of the concept of social fencing which is essentially the
strategy for protecting soil in the common areas of village. The main occupation of
the Gujjars living in the village was cattle and goat rearing and hence grazing was
rampant in the region leading to degradation of the land in the nearby forest. The
17

impetus of the watershed program was to protect the land from degradation and
increase the irrigation facilities to the villagers. After the increase of irrigation
facilities the crop yield increased and villagers gave up goat rearing. Due to reduced
grazing the land as well as the forest cover increased. The experiment was successful
in providing alternative occupation to the villagers for their livelihood and was
successful in increasing the household incomes as well. The other places where this
model was replicated also experienced a profound increase in the incomes and new
livelihood opportunities. For instance the farming community income increased by
around 21 percent in kandi watershed in Punjab, also additional incomes from milk
production accrued to the farmers. (Iyer and Roy, 2005)

18

Sustainability issues
The understanding of sustainability, in our view, is limited to environmental
sustainability as mediated by human intervention, and this is consistent with our
assumption about the primacy of the role of natural capital in supporting livelihoods.
Thus, from this perspective, watershed development should focus on conserving
natural capital. A possible conflict may arise between the aims to increase
productivity by increasing physical or financial capitals on one hand and conserving
the natural capital on the other. The primacy accorded to the natural capital would
require that the productive planning of the watershed. In bad years some transfers
from the stock of resources may be permitted to sustain livelihoods, with the
understanding that the stock would be replenished in the good years.
As discussed in the conceptual underpinning the concept of sustainable development
acquired prominence after it was formulated by the World Commission of
environment and development (Bruntdland Commission, 1987) in its reports our
common future .This concept of Bruntdland Commission has an implicit assumption
that development based on human plunder of natural resources is inhuman and
development with human face is only sustainable. However it neglects an important
issue of global equity and gives way to certain inequity. The concept of sustainable
development in the context of watershed development raises the issue of inequity
and advocates for the development with people participation and Equity as basic
ingredient of sharing of natural resources. This concept of sustainability is broad
based and incorporates ecological, economic and socio-cultural sustainability. By
ecological sustainability we mean the basic function of watershed development
programmes like regeneration of forest cover, reduction of soil erosion, increasing of
soil water potential by employing efficient natural resource management practices.
The economic sustainability would ensure sustainable livelihood in terms of
economic productivity, food & fodder security, fuel security and employment
security. Further, the socio-cultural sustainability include the formation of new
19

institutions and strengthening of existing socio-cultural institutions, the main

components of socio-cultural sustainability are promotion of social equity and social
empowerment. (Iyer, and Roy, 2005)
The socio-cultural sustainability has many ingredients some of which are facilitating it
like the building up of local level institutions for CPR management, equitable
distribution of resources, consistent government support, participation of people
organisations, dynamic leadership, improved education status and people
participation in every stage of the watershed development; class, gender and caste
euity etc. ; while others hindering the growth like conflicts in CPR management (both
inter & intra village), lack of government support, lack of unity among people, lack of
motivation and illiteracy, hoarding of benefits by influential people, flow of
migration, gender-caste-class inequity etc. (Iyer & Roy, 2005)
Social Capital formation and sustainability
The relation between social capital and sustainability is being analysed by Chopra
(2006). An evolving and increasing stock of social capital forms a necessary input for
sustained development. The paper examines concepts of social capital, and its role as
an index of synergy between agents located in different formal sectors. Development
is seen as the policy objective in a large number of developing countries. Achieving it
with sustainability of resource use shall require formulation policy interventions
which use formal institutions in conjunction within informal institutions like village
level communities etc. The concept of 'social capital' is useful when interpreted as
the networking between sets of agents located in different sectors, which is critical
to the success of such development interventions. This networking creates the
ground rules for sustainability in watershed development interventions and develops
trust and coordinated actions for development (Chopra, 2006)
Watershed development has emerged as only a way of developing and managing
natural resources to make the most of the elements from the land-based portion of
20

the water cycle, in a sustainable manner. But there are some basic issues to be
tackled first i.e. What should be sustained? A range of answers could be found in
different texts ranging from sustaining the existing level of production, sustaining the
current level and quality of productive resources and the symbiosis to sustain the
current well-being of the people. (Joshi, 2006)
A Contrast to conception of Sustainability in Irrigated and Dry regions
All the aspects mentioned suit perfectly to the irrigated region where the current
quality of life and the current level of productive resources as well as production
appear to be in conformity with the socially acceptable standard of living. On the
contrary, the prevailing situation neither is conducive nor provide for a socially
acceptable living in the dry region. In addition, the poor economic condition and
erratic weather further aids to the degradation process both in the quality of life and
quality of the natural resources. Hence, the sustainable development in the dry
watershed region has to be reworked to comprehend the situation completely. There
are evident changes in cropping pattern and the shift towards a set of lucrative
commercial crops. While most of the coarse millets noticeably have lost their
significance, the more drought resistant oilseeds gained more land than other crops.
It appears to be a common trend in both scarcity and transition zones, which
according to environmentalists, appears to be the beginning of an end. In such
situation watershed development prepares the ground for sustainable agriculture.
The considerable positive change in the tree crops also supports the environmental
aspects of agriculture by facilitating the rain water to leach greater depth along-the
roots of the trees which in turn ensures moisture retention for a longer period. This
emphasises the linkages among agricultural production and environment to have a
sustainable agriculture.

21

IWDP and Sustainability

The Integrated Watershed Development Project (IWDP) for rainfed (plain) regions is
a manifestation of the shift in the policy approach which emphasised long-term
environmental sustainability rather than enhancing farm productivity. It deviates
from the earlier approach of the model watershed projects for the dry land area
which was heavily focused on mechanical Soil water conservation measures along
with a comprehensive package of agronomic practices to bring significant increase in
farm productivity. Unlike the earlier strategy, the new approach adopted by IWDP is
to achieve sustainable productivity gains over a longer period of time. Therefore, the
project lays special emphasis on in situ conservation.
An analysis to examine the performance of IWDP from the two micro-watersheds,
viz, Vatrak and Narmada in the dryland regions of Gujarat has been done by Amita
Shah. At the time of the survey (i e, in July 1994), the project had completed three
years of implementation which is rather a short time span to ascertain the impact on
crop productivity. Therefore, besides quantitative estimates, qualitative information
was also collected to capture farmers' perceptions. The analysis is based on a
primary survey of 200 cultivating households, "with and without" the project's
interventions. The major issues addressed by the study are: (a) what kind of
traditional Soil Water Conservation measures were adopted by the farmers? (b) To
what extent vegetative measures have contributed to yield gains? (c)What are the
farmers' perceptions about the impact of vegetative measures, and what kind of
support do they expect from the project? (Shah, 1998 )
As per the authors, the above analysis suggested that in a farming environment,
where a large number of farmers have already adopted soil water conservation
measures along with fairly wide adoption of improved seed varieties and chemical
fertiliser, vegetative measures alone cannot make any significant impact on crop
productivity. What they need therefore is a set of measures which they cannot
22

manage with their individual resources. Hence, external intervention to overcome

financial as well as organisational constraints becomes essential for facilitating
farmers' investment in land and water resources. Vegetative measures, having
environmentally favourable impact but bringing limited yield gains create divergence
between the private and social returns. Hence, these measures cannot be promoted
in isolation of the measures that improve farm productivity on private land; provision
of subsidy or motivational efforts may bring only limited success which also may not
last for long. (Shah, 1998)
Institutional Approach to Sustainable Watershed Management
An institutional approach to watershed management has been proposed by V.Ratna
Reddy with main emphases is on the sustainability of the approach. The paper has
analysed the theories of Collective Action related to watershed development and has
focussed on critical evaluation of approach and its evolution. The paper also focusses
on problems & dilemmas related to the management of common pool resources
(CPR) and the issues related to equity in these programs, and propose an innovative
institutional approach to the above problems which is also conducive to the
evolution of watershed management as a sustainable process. (Reddy, 2003)
Some of the important examples highlighting the impact on sustainability in
watershed development programs are given below:
The impact on sustainability in Punjab
The impact evaluation studies on sustainability were conducted in Punjab in 1998 in
12 villages of 2 watershed areas, and the major points that were highlighted in the
studies were related to all the three types of sustainabilities discussed above. In the
realm of ecological sustainability, afforestation was a major achievement which
resulted in increased vegetative cover and restoration of degraded hill slopes and the
deployment of soil conservation measures was also successful. In Economic
23

sustainability the increase in irrigated area (29.6 % to 55.1 %) resulted in change in

cropping pattern and increased yield, also the livestock was increased resulting in
increased milk production (25-50 %). On the social sustainability front both positive
and negative outcomes were observed. Among the positive outcomes was the
increased awareness level about the village development committee (VDC), among
the negative outcomes was the minimal participation of women, no NGO
participation, no participation in microplanning and siphoning off of majority of
benefits by the farming community. Hence we see that the watershed development
strategy touches every aspect of sustainability in some or the other way. (Roy & Iyer,
2005)
The impact on sustainability in Bundelkhand Watersheds
The Bundelkhand region represents transition zone of tropical dry sub-humid and
tropical dry arid regions. In view of the fragile status of the natural resources in the
region, there is no alternative to their management than on a watershed basis. The
watershed development in this arid region of bundelkhand had a profound impact on
sustainability in the region. On ecological front the measures for increasing the
vegetative cover and reduction of soil and water loss, increased water availability for
future use by storing in ponds, increased water table , on the economic front it was
through maximising productivity, and stabilizing the income of people through
integrated crop-livestock-tree-people development. Also on socio-economic front
the people were integrated together by ensuring their participation in the watershed
program and the effects on the ecological and economic sustainability further
percolated in the socio economic upliftment of people in the watershed region.
( Solanki, Karimulla & Dadhwal )

24

CONCLUSION
The issues of equity, livelihood and sustainability interplay with each other and
thereby play and important role in making a watershed development scheme a
success or a failure. These issues are quite overlapping and cannot be put into
separate compartments. Therefore a holistic approach is required when an attempt
is made to review the watershed development schemes with focus on equity,
sustainability and livelihood. Also, there is a need to recognise water-shed
technology as a common good, which needs participatory development. For a long
time Water-shed development programmes have been treated like any other
programmes, emphasising spread rather than sustainability. Unlike in the case of
individual based technologies like HYV the watershed technology is subject to the
constraints and hence the results are not dramatic. Unless this constraint is
recognised and given due importance, it is unlikely to achieve the desired objectives.
The recognition of importance of the intertwined nature of these three factors and
accordingly planning the implementation would go a long way in making the
watershed development a success story. Apart from that the realisation of
importance of social capital formation at different levels and forms would further
boost the impact of watershed development on the issues of equity, sustainability
and livelihood. Any perfect example of watershed development is difficult to find,
because it is contingent upon the local conditions, the social setup etc. but there is a
visible trend towards overall development the gradual evolution of watershed
development as a strategy for sustainable development with a profound equity in
outcomes and a positive impact on livelihood generation. The need of the hour is to
insulate this evolved and rejuvenated strategy for watershed development from the
detrimental factors like political influences, caste/class polarisations, hoarding of
benefits by influential groups and prevent it from losing its core focus on overall
development.

25

REFERENCES
1. Vaidyanathan

(1991)

Watershed

development-reflections

on

recent

development, in Watershed management & Sustainable development,

K.Gopal.Iyer and U.N. Roy, 2005 (ed.)
2. Iyer Gopal, Roy UN, (2005) watershed management & Sustainable
development (ed)
3. Reddy V.Ratna, (2000), Sustainable Watershed Management: Institutional
Approach in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 38 (Sep. 16-22, 2000),
pp. 3435-3444.
4. Rajasekaran N , (1997), Farmers, Sustainability and Watershed Programmes,
in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 26 (Jun. 28 - Jul. 4, 1997), pp.
A55-A61
5. Deep Joshi, (2006), Broadening the Scope of Watershed Development,
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 27/28 (Jul. 8-21, 2006), pp. 29872991
6. Sangameswaram, Priya (2006). Equity in Watershed Development: A Case
Study in Western Maharashtra, in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No.
21 (May 27 - Jun. 2, 2006), pp. 2157-2165
7. Amita Shah, (2000), Watershed Programmes: A Long Way to Go in Economic
and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 35/36 (Aug. 26 - Sep. 8, 2000), pp. 31553164

8. DSilva Emmanual & Pai Sudha (2003) Social Capital and Collective Action:
Development Outcomes in Forest Protection and Watershed Development, in
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 14 (Apr. 5-11, 2003), pp. 14041415
9. Action for Social Advancement, Bhopal (2007)-Watershed Development in
Madhya Pradesh: Implications for Women
26

10. Sen Suchitra, Shah Amita, Kumar Amimesh (2006), Watershed Development
Programmes in Madhya Pradesh:Present Scenario and Issues for Convergence
(Pg. 16-21), by Gujarat Institute of Development Research Forum for
Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue
11. Chopra Kanchan, (2006) Social Capital and Development Processes: Role of
Formal and Informal Institutions,, (Pg. )
12. Fidelman Pedro I J, (1980) Challenges to decentralisation of watershed
management: The Case of new South Wales, Australia
13. Pillai Pheba Anand, Evaluating Watershed projects in India, in Watershed
Management: Concepts and Experiences by Sudha Menon and Pheba Anand
Pillai, 2012
14. Reddy M Gopinath, Reddy M Srinivasa (2006) - Watershed development,
Panchayats and village-based institutions: An Assessment of institutional
capacity, The IUP Journal of Public Administration
15. Government of India (2003): Guidelines for Hariyali, Ministry of Rural
Development
16. Government of India Government of India (1994): Hanumantha Rao
committee report , Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India
17. Government of India (2006):Parthasarathy committee report , Ministry of
Rural Development, Government of India
18. Bruntdland G.H,(1987) Our Common Future-Call For Action, Environment
Conservation, Vol. 14, Winter 1987, Journal of the Foundation for Environment
Conservation, Switzerland
19. Grewal S.S et.al. (1995) , Sukhomajiri Concept of integrated Watershed
management, CSWCRTI, Chandigarh

27

20. Krishna (1996), Transmitting and Sustaining Co-Operation: The Case of

Sukhomajiri-Rediscovering Co-operation (ed) Rajgopalan, Vol. 1
21. Solanki K.R, Karimulla K & Dadhwal K.S., Peoples participation on a
watershed basis in Bundelkhand region, in Watershed management &
Sustainable Development by K.Gopal Iyer and U N Roy, 2005.
22. Shah Amita, (1998), Watershed Development Programmes in India: Emerging
Issues for Environment-Development Perspectives, in Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. 33, No. 26 (Jun. 27 - Jul. 3, 1998), pp. A66-A79

28