Impact of Watershed Management Under PMKSY-WD, (Erstwhile …Impact... · The Commissioner...

The CommissionerKarnataka Watershed Development Department

KHB Complex, Cauvery BhavanBengaluru– 560009

The CommissionerKarnataka Watershed Development Department

KHB Complex, Cauvery BhavanBengaluru– 560009

Impact of Watershed Management Under

PMKSY-WD, (Erstwhile IMWP, Karnataka)

Batch II

Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects

1

A. Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................5

A. Survey methodology and Data analysis ...................................................................7

B. Profile of the study area ...........................................................................................8

C. Report on program implementation .........................................................................8

D. Evaluation of impacts ............................................................................................12

CHAPTER-1 ........................................................................................................................18

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................18

1.1 Watershed Development as a strategy ...................................................................20

1.2 Integrated Watershed Management Project; ..........................................................23

1.3 Institutional Base created for IWMP implementation: ..........................................23

CHAPTER-II .......................................................................................................................31

METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................31

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................31

2.2 Objectives of the study: .........................................................................................31

2.3 Methodology: .........................................................................................................32

2.4 Approach ................................................................................................................34

CHAPTER-III .....................................................................................................................36

PHYSICAL PROGRESS OF ACTIVITIES ...............................................................................36

3.1 Socio-economic conditions of the Project Taluks .................................................36

3.2 Demographic Details of the Taluks Selected .........................................................42

3.3 Particulars of watersheds selected for study ..........................................................44

3.4 Economic status of households ..............................................................................47

3.5 Fund management by SWSs ..................................................................................47

3.6 Entry Point activityand Community Mobilization .................................................52

3.7 Capacity building of Community Based Organisations.........................................57

3.8 Bio-Physical interventions .....................................................................................59

3.9 Rain Water Harvesting structures ..........................................................................69

3.10 Bio-mass Production: ...........................................................................................73

3.11 Production system ................................................................................................80

3.12 Livelihood activities.............................................................................................92


2

CHAPTER 4 ...................................................................................................................101

IMPACT EVALUATION .............................................................................................101

4.1.1. Land Use Changes: ..........................................................................................101

4.1.2. Soil and water conservation measures: ............................................................105

4.1.3. Drainage line treatment (Water harvesting structures): ...................................106

4.1.4. Crops and cropping pattern ..............................................................................106

4.1.5. Horticulture and forestry activities: .................................................................114

4.1.6. Village common property resources ................................................................116

4.1.7 Livestock activity and fodder production .........................................................119

4.1.8 Adequacy of drinking water and quality ...........................................................121

4.1.9. Depth to water table in tube wells ....................................................................121

4.2. Economic Impacts ...............................................................................................123

4.2.1. Significance of impact evaluation:...................................................................123

4.2.2. Average size of farm households: ....................................................................124

4.2.3. Size of operational land holdings: ....................................................................124

4.2.4. Impact of Watershed development on rural incomes: .....................................125

4.2.5. Trends in income across agro-climatic zones ..................................................131

4.2.6. Statistical significance of the results ................................................................131

4.2.7. Impact of SWS on farm credit position of farmers ..........................................133

4.2.8 Impact of watershed development on assets position of farmers .....................136

4.2.9 Impact of Watershed Development on per-hectare Crop Yields ......................140

4.2.10 Impact of Watershed Development on employment generation .....................140

4.2.11 Indicators of watershed sustainability .............................................................141

Conclusion .................................................................................................................148


3

List of tables

Table 1.0: Projects Implemented under Watershed Development in Karnataka .......................... 22

Table.1.1: Watershed projects, along with area selected for treatment for the next 18 years in

Karnataka: ............................................................................................................................. 26

Table 1.2: Taluk-wise Watersheds selected for development in Karnataka during 2010-11 ....... 27

Table 3.1: Agro-climatic zones of selected Taluks of different districts of Karnataka ................ 36

Table 3.2. Details of Taluks with respect to soils and land use .................................................... 40

Table 3.3: Taluk Level Demographic Information ....................................................................... 43

Table 3.4 Particulars of watersheds selected for the study ........................................................... 45

Table 3.5: Economic status (Average Annual Income per family) .............................................. 48

Table.3.6: Fund Management in watersheds (in Lakh Rs.) ........................................................ 49

Table 3.7: Details of structures constructed under E.P.A Entry Point Activities ........................ 54

Table.3.8: Awareness building activities in different watersheds ................................................ 55

Table 3.9: Formation of Community Based Organizations and representation of different

categories. ............................................................................................................................. 58

Table 3.10: Trainings for Capacity Building of different CBOs ................................................. 57

Table 3.11: Physical Progress Achieved - Soil Conservation..................................................... 60

Table 3.12: Increase in Production and income level across the watersheds due to bunding. ..... 62

Table 3.13: Physical Progress Achieved with respect to Disposal Systems for safe disposal run-

off water ................................................................................................................................ 66

Table 3.14: Physical Progress Achieved with respect to gully control cum water harvesting

structures. .............................................................................................................................. 71

Table 3.15: Impact of conservation measures on runoff conservation and groundwater levels. .. 72

Table: 3.16: Horticulture seedlings distributed in the selected watersheds .................................. 74

Table 3.17: Horticulture intensification ........................................................................................ 76

Table 3.18: Details of seedlings distributed for promoting agro-forestry .................................... 78

Table 3.19: Afforestation activities in the common lands ............................................................ 80

Table 3.20: Status of Animal Health Camps ................................................................................ 83

Table: 3.21: Details of members trained through Village Based trainings in different watersheds.

............................................................................................................................................... 85

Table 3.22: Status of Livestock maintenance activities ................................................................ 88

Table 3.23: Status of fodder mini-kit distribution and fodder production in selected watersheds 92

Table 3.24: Distribution of members across the new and old SHG groups (graded) .................. 94

Table 3.25: Distribution of members as per social class across watersheds ................................. 95

Table.3.26: Members trained through EAP and SEDP and number adopted in the watersheds .. 96

Table. 3.27: Savings group wise and bank linkages in the watersheds ........................................ 97

Table 4.1: Impact of watershed program on land use changes ................................................... 102

Table 4.1b: Change in Land use pattern due to watershed development programs across 29

watersheds ........................................................................................................................... 104


4

Table 4.2: Changes in cropping pattern and area under irrigation after implementation of

watershed program. ............................................................................................................. 109

Table 4.3. Area under different types of cropsacross the watersheds before and after the project

period. ................................................................................................................................. 113

Table.4.4. Density of trees per 100 ha across 29 watersheds. .................................................... 115

Table 4.5. Changes in the availability of Village Common Property Resources across watersheds

............................................................................................................................................. 117

Table 4.6. Increase in green fodder production and milk yield ................................................. 120

Table 4.7: Impact of watershed development programs on drinking water facilities and depth to

water table ........................................................................................................................... 122

Table 4.8. Change in depth to water table (in m from ground level) in tube wells due to

intervention of watershed programs across watersheds ...................................................... 123

Table 4.9: Average Size of Farm households across different locations (Nos.) ......................... 124

Table 4.10: Average Size of households across different holding size of farmers (Nos) ......... 124

Table 4.11: Average landholding size across different reaches of watershed (ha) ..................... 125

Table 4.12: Landholding size across different holding size (ha) ................................................ 125

Table.4.13: Per capita Income from different sources across farm locations (Rs.) .................... 127

Table 4.14: Per capita (PC) Income from different sources across Social classes (Rs.) ............ 128

Table 4.15: Per capita Income from different sources across Holdings (in Rs.) ....................... 129

Table 4.16: Per capita Income from different sources across agro-climatic zones (Rs.) ............ 131

Table 4.17: Paired t- test for Total Household Income ............................................................... 132

Table 4.18: Paired-test for Total per capita income .................................................................... 133

Table 4.19: Amount of loan (Rs.) taken by farmers across different social categories .............. 134

Table 4.20: Amount of loan (Rs.) taken by farmers across different Farm Size-classes ............ 135

Table 4.21: Amount of loan (Rs.) taken by farmers across different farm locations ................ 135

Table 4.22: Changes observed with respect to assets across holding size of farmers (in Nos) .. 136

Table 4.23: Yields (quintals per hectare) of principal crops grown by sample farmers in the

watershed areas ................................................................................................................... 140

Table 4.24. Impact of Watershed Development on employment generation ............................. 142

Table 4.25. Sustainability indicators of watersheds.................................................................... 143


5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Soil and water conservationists worldwide have been advocating practicing watershed-based

approach for holistic management of land and water resources. This approach has become the

cornerstone for sustainable development of agriculture sector to achieve food and water security.

Shrinking cultivated area in India coupled with intensification of high input-driven agriculture

have resulted in over-exploitation of land and water, and forced farmers to cultivate steep and

highly erosion-prone marginal lands. Good cultivation/management practices have also been

replaced by ineffective ones as an answer to external shocks like falling crop price. These factors

have resulted in the widespread degradation of watersheds. The term watershed degradation

(similar to land degradation in the Indian or global context), broadly defined as degradation of

both soil and water in a watershed thereby resulting in the long-term reduction of the quantity

and quality of these resources, has emerged as a critical issue in different states of the country,

particularly the states with large areas under degradation making them highly vulnerable to

climate change.

Karnataka is the seventh largest state of the country contributing about 7.4% to the nation’s

Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) ranking it fifth among the Indian states in 2016-17. The

state is third in terms of the area affected by land degradation (about 41% of the total

geographical area) and has a net sown area of about 105.23 lakh ha as per the 2010-11 census, of

which 70.3 lakh ha (67%) is rainfed. Further, around 62.8% of the rural population is dependent

on agriculture. Among the cultivators, while marginal farmers constitute 48% with an average

holding size of 0.45 ha, small farmers constitute 27% with an average holding size of 1.43 ha.

Such a situation aggravates the existing mounting pressure on natural resources in terms land-

man ratio making farming unviable. According to a recent report, 70% of the state is vulnerable

to droughts, with 13 of the last 17 years declared as drought years. Another study points out that

about 51% of the state supporting 42% of the population is climate change-vulnerable. The state

ranks 18 among the Indian States according to the Human Development Index (2017). One of the

main reasons for this is the stagnant or declining annual growth in agricultural sector and also a

decline in the share of agriculture in the economy of the state. These points indicate the inability

of the sector to absorb the growing work force leading to unemployment and social unrest.


6

In order to increase yields of rain fed crops and reduce poverty in drought prone areas, several

programs were initiated by the Government from time to time. However, most of these programs

were target-oriented with subsidies for the use of external inputs. Though these programs helped

to improve yield, production was insufficient to meet the ever-growing demands. In order to

provide a major thrust to the development of rain fed areas on a sustainable basis, the National

Rain fed Area Authority was established in November 2006. The watershed programs carried out

under Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) and Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) were merged

into a single program namely the Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWMP) with

the objectives of: (a) Improving the productive potential of degraded lands through various

interventions; (b) Increasing the bio-diversity through different agro-forestry activities; (c)

Promoting IGA to the asset-less residents and other vulnerable groups for improving their

economy; (d) Supporting livestock sector for higher incomes, and (e) Maximizing production

through efficient farming systems and micro-enterprises.

The Watershed Development Department (WDD), Government of Karnataka is the nodal agency

for the implementation of watershed development projects across all the districts of the state

through IWMP. The watersheds available for the treatment have been technically prioritized

using various indicators/parameters like rainfall, soil type, general slope, drought intensity,

extent of vulnerable groups, extent of irrigation etc., as suggested by the Department of Land

Resources (DoLR), Government of India (GoI). The Program has been implemented in batches.

Under Batch-II, 127 Projects were sanctioned for 127 taluks of 29 districts across the state during

2010-11 in order to develop 5.47 lakh ha covering 5272 villages and improve socio- economic

conditions of 16,11,090 households residing in these villages. The total cost involved in

developing these areas as per the guidelines was earmarked at Rs.141.58 crores.

The Department has facilitated the watershed development program through a network of

institutions, by entrusting the responsibility of program implementation to the village

communities. Watershed development Team (WDT) ensured proper implementation of the

programs through Grama Panchayat sub-committee (GPSC) or Executive Committee (EC), with

its President being the head of the EC/GPSC along with members of GP, and vulnerable groups

(SC, ST, landless/self-help groups and women) representing all sections of the society. The


7

Secretary of the committee is nominated from the Department to ensure accountability. As per

the guidelines, the capacities of the communities have been built by organizing trainings required

under the program for effective implementation as well as to enable them to take up management

of natural resources (soil, water and vegetation) on a sustainable basis after completion of the

withdrawal phase.

The WDD also established a well-developed Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning & Development

(MEL&D) framework for ensuring the success of the program. The agencies identified for this

purpose were M/s Consulting Engineering Services, New Delhi for Bengaluru and Mysuru

divisions, M/s Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology, Bengaluru for Belagavi

Division, and M/s Remote Sensing Instruments (RSI), Hyderabad for reporting on the activities

in Kalaburagi Division. These agencies have submitted their impact evaluation reports for the

respective divisions. Now, M/s RSI has been given the responsibility of submitting the

consolidated impact evaluation report for the state under Batch-II Projects, which has been done

and presented as below:

B. Survey methodology and Data analysis

The survey covers 29 SWSs in 29 taluks of 29 districts, representing all the agro-climatic zones.

The total number of watersheds in the districts is 127, spreading across 127 taluks in the state.

From each of the 29 SWSs selected for the study, the same 120 households used for baseline and

mid-term evaluation were selected for the study to assess the impacts. One micro-watershed,

each in ridge, middle and valley was selected to ensure representation. Villages were then

identified to select 40 sample farmers representing landless, marginal, small, and large farmers

numbering 10 in each category based on stratified sampling method. To ensure collection of

realistic data from households, the schedules were pre-tested on a small sample keeping in view

the objectives of the study. Both primary and secondary data were collected by trained field

investigato The sample village, where baseline survey was carried out, but not considered for

implementation of the project, was taken as control. The survey, therefore, provided scope for

impact assessment by adopting the cross-sectional as well as longitudinal approach. Based on the

data collected from each village, an estimate is made for the SWS and district as a whole. The


8

data were scrutinized and verified for correctness and consistency. Simple statistical tools like

averages and percentages were used to analyze and interpret the data for preparing the report.

C. Profile of the study area

The impact of development initiatives on improvement of natural resources varied depending

upon climate as well as soil conditions. The taluks in which sample projects were identified for

undertaking the study represented the 10 agro-climatic zones of the state. The predominant soil

types in the SWSs are: red (13 SWSs), black (9 SWSs), and mixed red/black/lateritic (7 SWSs).

The 29 SWSs comprises 1.34 lakh ha, covering 497 villages and 82,181 households. The average

area per SWS is 4637 ha, and ranges from 2750 ha in respect of Jakkenahalli SWS in Mandya

district to 8194 ha (Mavalli SWS, Uttara Kannada district). The income of all rural landless

families varied from about Rs.7,500/- (Doddamanikere SWS) to Rs. 1,64,000/- (Kerkalmatti

SWS) across the watersheds before the implementation of project. For marginal families, it

varied from Rs.13,400/- to Rs. 2,45,000/-, whereas for small farmers it varied from Rs.

16,700/- to Rs. 2,35,000/- and for large farmers it varied from Rs.33,900/- to Rs. 3,03,000/-.

D. Report on program implementation

Community Mobilization, Awareness Creation Programs and Entry Point Activity (EPA):

All the planned EPAs have been executed and the expenditure for the same in each of the sample

watersheds has also been fully made as per the guidelines. 106 check dams and 111 Gokattes

were constructed across the watersheds as a part of the EPA. The planned number and

expenditure on awareness activities have been achieved as per the guidelines. In all 205 Gram

Sabhas, 188 Kala Jathas, 150 Street Plays, 137 wall paintings and 14 exposure visits were

carried out across the watersheds. During discussions with the community, it was understood that

block wise meetings, film shows, slide shows and awareness through school children will help to

empower the communities better than the present training systems.

Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and Capacity building:

The WDD has trained the Non-Government Organization (NGO) staff namely Team Leader and

Income Generation (IG) specialist for 5 days at Soil and Water Conservation Training Centers at


9

Mysuru and Vijayapura on the concept of watershed development in general, and IWMP and its

implementation procedures in particular as well as their roles and responsibilities. Trainings have

been organized to CBOs - EC, User Groups (UGs) and Self Help Group (SHG) members - in all

the watersheds. These members were given trainings at 3 levels using Subject Matter Specialists

(SMSs) as resource persons in most of the cases. Totally, 1426 EC members, 41,750 UG

members, and 17,729 SHG members have been trained across the watershed projects. However,

interactions with stakeholders revealed that trainings need to have practical classes or exposure

to places where the programs are successfully implemented for better understanding as class

room lectures may not help them to comprehend the good impact of various Programs. Further,

they also suggested that refresher courses may help them to better understand at the time of

implementation of the Program, in addition to providing them hands-on experience.

Soil and Water Conservation activities

Bunding in cultivated areas of the SWSs is completed as planned as it has been achieved to the

extent of 74% across the 29 watersheds. In more than 17 watersheds, additional expenditure was

incurred (when compared to sanctioned) in order to complete the bunding activity, which has

proven benefits of conserving rain water in rain fed areas. Yields of ragi were found to increase

from 180 to 400 kg/ha and in case of maize, the yield improvement varied from 150 kg/ha to 900

kg/ha. Such yield improvements in ragi brought an additional income ranging from Rs. 3,200/-

per ha to Rs. 6,000/- per ha. The overall increase in the income ranged from Rs.12.7 lakh to 624

lakhs, considering the total ragi grown area across SWSs in the state.

The disposal systems such as waste weirs, diversion channel, rubble checks, boulder checks and

gully plugs were planned and implemented as per the needs of the SWS. In case of waste weirs,

the achievement varied from 21.9% in Hirehadagali (Ballary district) to more than 100% in six

watersheds, with an overall achievement of 74%. The diversion channels were planned in eight

SWSs and the achievement was 100%, in respect of these SWSs excepting in Yelakundi SWS

where the achievement was 9.3%.


10

Rain water harvesting structures were planned and executed as per requirement and through

participatory planning in the selected watersheds. These structures included farm ponds, mini

percolation tanks, check dams, nala bunds, vented dams and gokatte. Farm ponds were not

considered in eight SWSs, which suggests that need based planning is adopted in developing the

area. In case of Udupi, Dakshina Kannada, Uttara Kannada and Shivamogga districts, the vented

dams are constructed in place of check dams because of terrain conditions. Assuming 5% runoff

from the average annual rainfall, the expected runoff varied from 214 TCM in Khyadigera to as

high as 15865 TCM in Kalyadi. The average total runoff stored through the conservation

structures was 3910 thousand cubic metres (TCM), which is only 5% of the runoff generated

across watersheds. This indicates that the developmental activities are planned considering the

downstream requirements so as to prevent negative externalities associated with conservation

measures. The highest storage volume as percentage of runoff was observed in Kariyalpura

watershed of Chitradurga district (68%).

Horticulture /Agro forestry

Horticulture program consisted of providing mango, coconut, sapota, lemon, and pomegranate

and guava saplings to the farmers. The finance earmarked for the Program was fully utilized. The

number of seedlings distributed varied from 1945 in Vadaganahalli SWS (Kolara district) to

about 1,47,965 in Kuntahole SWS (Udupi district). At least, 10,000 seedlings were distributed in

all but four watersheds. Average survival rate at the end of project varied from 10 to 79% across

the watersheds under study. Under forestry, a total of 24 lakhs seedlings of different forest

species was distributed across all the watersheds, covering about 30,000 farmers with an

expenditure of Rs. 1115 lakhs (range: Rs. 2.09 lakhs in Mattighatta watershed to Rs. 72.6 lakhs

in Agadi watershed). The survival percentage of agro-forestry species taken together across all

watersheds was 51%. The horticulture/agro forestry interventions has remarkably improved the

density of different species (per 100 ha).

Livestock management

Animal health camps, village-based trainings for livestock maintenance and fodder enrichment

were amply carried out across all the watersheds. Further, fodder mini-kits (about 29,000


11

covering 2761 ha) were distributed to the farmers. A total of 306 camps (90% of target) were

organized to cover 236 villages by spending Rs 99.3 lakhs. This has helped to reduce the disease

incidence from 25 to 42%. Trevis, sheep pens, cattle sheds, silage pits and Azolla production

units have been provided wherever required.

Alternative Livelihoods

Across the selected watersheds, 403 old SHGs were already existing and functioning. In

addition, 730 new SHGs are formed out of left-over individuals to ensure justice and equity

among the landless. Over all, there are 6,610 members in the old SHGs and 11,088 members in

the new SHGs. All categories of people are considered according to their proportion in the total

population without any discrimination. Representation from the weaker sections of the society

was about 35% of the SHG members. A significant number belonged to landless and marginal

which indicated equity and justice in sharing limited benefits.

Income generation activities were promoted through members of the SHGs. All the members

have been provided EAP training wherein they are given a choice to select an activity suitable to

them. The members involved in the EAP were trained in either skilled or non-skilled activities,

with only 29% of them opting for the latter. This is a matter of serious concern as there is always

a question mark on the sustainability of non-skilled activities, particularly during drought years,

besides marketing risks. It would be more appropriate to enthuse people to develop technical

skills related to services required in the rural areas (tailoring, motor repairs, plumbing, electrical,

food products, etc.) for sustaining the activities as well as possible benefits from them.

Savings made by different groups varied from a minimum of Rs. zero in Mavalli watershed

(Uttara Kannada district) to Rs 27.5 lakhs in Doddamanikere watershed (Bengaluru Rural

district). These variations are mainly due to variations in the number of and members in the

groups. In order to undertake IGA by the members, initially a revolving fund of Rs. 50,000/- was

provided to each group. A total revolving fund of Rs. 465.8 lakhs was distributed across

watersheds and bank loan of Rs. 719 lakhs, obtained to undertake IG activities under Batch–II

across all the watersheds. The assets created among the existing SHGs in different Watersheds

ranged from Rs. 8.5 lakhs in Punacha SWS (Dakshina Kannada district) to Rs. 137.0 lakhs in


12

Ragimakalahalli SWS (Chikkaballapura district). A total asset creation of Rs.1105.4 lakhs is

generated through the watershed Program in all the districts.

Budget utilization

More than 90% of the amount released for the individual SWSs, except in six cases, has been

utilized. The utilization of funds was the least in Hirevankalakunta (45.5%) followed by

Ragimakalahalli (79.5%). This indicates that finances provided are effectively utilized for

implementing the Program in most of the watersheds.

E. Evaluation of impacts

Changes in land use

With the exception of three SWSs wherein the cultivated area remained unchanged from its

value before the start of the watershed project, the area increased varying from 3.0 ha in

Doddamanikere watershed to 150 ha in Khyadigera watershed of Raichuruu district. This clearly

established better use of land resources in the area due to better planning and education of

farmers. Increase in area under cultivation was mostly due to the conversion of cultivable fallows

(799 ha across all the watersheds). As a result of judicious conservation of soil and rainwater, an

additional 932 ha across the 29 watersheds could be brought under irrigation, which is an

increase by 6% over the pre-project area. Area under irrigation increased in all watersheds except

in Neginal and Kadadi SWSs of Belagavi and Gadaga districts, respectively. The increase in

irrigated varied from 5.0 ha in Kalyadi SWS, Hassan district to 151.0 ha in Yalakundi SWS,

Shivamogga district. Increase in irrigated area occurred as a result of decline in rain fed area

(420 ha) and fallow/wasteland (512 ha). The wastelands have been brought down to the tune of

176 ha in six watersheds taken together while being unchanged in the remaining 23 watersheds.

Changes in Water Resources

Soil and water conservation measures resulted in groundwater recharge and improved

groundwater level by an average of 15 m, with the rise in water table in the range of 2 to 70 m,

except in one watershed (Hulaginakati), where the water table was unchanged. The rise in water

table was maximum in Habalanala (30 m) followed by Hirevankalaunta (25 m) watersheds.


13

Further, across watersheds, construction of water harvesting structures have improved the

number of functional open wells (from 1247 before project to 1389 after the project) by 11% as

well as tube wells (from 3529 – before project to 4842 – after the project) by 13% – both in

quantity (from 1” discharge – before project to 1½” to 2½” discharge of water- after the project)

as well as duration of period (July to November – before project to July to January/April months

– at the end of Project). The quality of water which was hard/salty water prior to watershed

Program changed to good water in 12 watersheds. However, in one watershed (Khyadigera SWS,

Raichuru), fluoride content in drinking water remained unchanged even after the Program. The

time spent for fetching drinking water was reduced by two minutes to two hours across the

watersheds after the Program implementation.

Changes in cropping pattern and crop productivity

There was an increase in the gross cropped area by 6.82% from the base value of 113788 ha

across the watersheds. This was due to the combined effect of 7.01% increase in the rain fed area

(kharif + rabi), 20% increase in irrigated area (kharif + rabi), and 87% increase in the area of

crops grown during summer season. Under rain fed condition, the overall cropped area showed

an increase from 88116 ha (before project) to 88241 ha (at the end of project) and the increase

being 0.14% across the watersheds. Further, this increase in rain fed area across watersheds is

accomplished largely through increase in area during kharif and to a smaller extent during rabi

season particularly in northern Karnataka where rabi crops like sorghum, chickpea, sunflower,

wheat are grown on black soils. Under irrigation through the use of tube/open wells, increase in

area was to an extent of 6.0% over the irrigated area (15591 ha prior to the project) due to

groundwater recharge through water harvesting structures. This increase in area was reflected in

all districts of Karnataka barring Neginal SWS of Belagavi district. One encouraging fact is that

the area under irrigated pulses (kharif + rabi) was found to increase by 16.5%, as compared to

the increase of 17% and 14% in cereals and oilseeds, respectively.

By comparing crops grown during kharif, rabi and summer under irrigated condition, cropping

intensity was also worked out separately for area before and after the project. Among the

different watersheds, highest cropping intensity of 176% (post-project) was achieved in case of

Kariyalpura watershed (Chitrdurga district), which was a 10% rise from the base value (166%).


14

The highest increment in cropping intensity to the tune of 33% from the base value of 100% was

reported from Mallayanapura SWS (Chamrajanagara district), followed by 27% in Kaylyadi

watershed (Hassan district). Overall, there was an increase in cropping intensity from 110 to

116% at the end of the project mainly due to water availability in water harvesting structures.

There was no change in cropping intensity in respect of two SWSs, viz, Khyadigera and

Hirevankalakunta SWSs in Raichuru and Koppal districts respectively.

The watershed interventions not only improved the cropping intensity, but also improved crop

yields across all the watersheds due to improved moisture storage in soil profile and better

nutrient recycling. The rise in productivity per ha ranges from 41.5 percent in the case of

sunflower to 61.5 percent in the case of banana.

Changes in vegetation density

There was a more-than-seven-fold rise in tree density after implementation of the Program in

different watersheds of Kalaburagi Division (41 trees before the start of the project to 317 trees/

100 ha after the closure of the Program). In Bengaluru division, the average tree density/100 ha

under horticulture activity increased from 256 trees (before project) to 687 trees (after the

project) and thus registered an increase in tree density by 2.7 times. Similarly, in Mysuru

division, the average tree density/100 ha under horticulture activity increased by 53% from 1324

trees (before project) to 2030 trees (after the project).

The average tree density/100 ha under forestry increased from 49 trees (before project) to 1206

trees (after the project) and thus registered an increase in density by 24 times in Bengaluru

division. Similarly, in Mysuru division, the average tree density/100 ha under forestry increased

from 315 trees before project to 1311 trees after the project, which is a whopping 316% rise from

the base value. Tree density increased from 179 to 1192 per 100 ha across the watersheds of

Kalaburagi division. In case of Belagavi division, initial tree density was not recorded, however,

the density at the end of the project period was 873 trees/ 100 ha. Thus, tree density across the

divisions increase due to watershed Programs and their increase followed the trend Mysuru >

Bengaluru >Kalaburagi> Belagavi.


15

Livestock management and fodder production

Fodder mini-kits have been distributed in all but six districts of the 29 Batch-II IWMP districts to

cover an area of 2871 ha, and the overall production of green fodder amounted to 9024.0 tonnes

meeting the fodder requirement of the households, apart from dry fodder obtained through crops

grown in their respective fields. Due to more area under fodder crops in southern Karnataka,

more fodder production has been obtained than the northern parts of Karnataka. The yield of

fodder ranged from 12 to 60 q/ha under rain fed condition, while the fodder yield ranged from 45

to 90 q/ha under irrigated conditions. With this increased supply of green fodder along with dry

fodder, milk yield of cows have increased by 50 to 100% in all districts of southern Karnataka

(except four districts for which data is not available), while 14 and 25% increase in milk yield

have been reported from Belagavi and Kalaburagi divisions, respectively.

Changes in per capita income

After the implementation of the watershed project across 29 districts, the per capita income has

gone up substantially across all the reaches within the watershed areas varying from 21 to 254%.

The average annual per capita income from all sources which was Rs.42,413/- before the launch

of the watershed project rose to Rs. 71,635/- after the Program which amounts to about 69 % rise

in the per capita income. Among the different divisions, the rise in per capita income was the

highest in Bengaluru (195%), followed by Kalaburagi (190%), Mysuru (125%) and Belagavi

(30%). Further, the percentage of farm income to the total per capita income, which was 62.0%

before the launch of the Program rose to 77.0% at the end of the project. Across all the

watersheds, the rise in per capita income observed the trend: Upper reach (81%) > Middle reach

(78%) > lower-reach (55%) farmers.

Among the different farm categories, the largest gainers were landless farmers (202%), followed

by marginal (186%), small (168%) and large farmers (123%). However, the increase in per

capita income from agriculture followed the trend: landless farmers (235%) > small farmers

(163%) > marginal farmers (149%) > large farmers (110%).Share of agricultural income in the

total per capita income has gone up across all the agro-climatic zones, with the Hilly zone

registering the highest rise in per capita agricultural income (from 48% to 85%, i.e. a growth of


16

37%). The share of agricultural income in the total per capita income which was hardly 56%

across the nine zones before the launch of SWS shot up to 81% at the end of the project.

Changes in loans and assets, employment generation

Increased income from agriculture had a positive influence on declining amount of loans availed

from banks by the farmers of almost all the watersheds. There was an overall decrease in the

average amount of loan taken by sample farmers by about 21% after the project. Interestingly,

this decrease was mostly accounted for by the ST farmers in the three of the four divisions.

While the highest rise in the loan amount was seen in the watersheds of Belagavi Division

(28.6%), the maximum decline was noticed in the watersheds of Bengaluru Division (70.2%).

Among the farm categories, the percent decline followed the order: landless farmers (118%) >

marginal farmers (65%) > small farmers (20%) > large farmers (15%).

The asset position of the farmers has improved in respect of all the items under survey except a

few, for instance tractor-drawn implements and tillers in Bengaluru Division and plough in

Mysuru Division. Along with the rise in the number of farm assets, there has also been a rise in

the number of durable consumable family assets including two/four wheelers, biogas/LPG,

TV/Radios/Tape recorders and sundry assets in most of the watersheds.

A total of 88 lakh man-days were generated by the Project across the watersheds, with an

average of over 3 lakh man-days per watershed, which is a welcome sign in the sense that it has

helped in reducing out-migration of labour from the watersheds in search of work. Maximum

employment generation was observed in Hassan district (over 10 lakh man-days) followed by

Mysuru district (9.16 lakh man-days). Among the different employment generating activities,

about 47% of the total man-days was created by livestock rearing alone, followed by soil

conservation activities (25%).

Sustainability of the project

The success of any watershed Program depends on the post-withdrawal scenario, i.e. on how the

resources are collectively managed and improved after the watershed Program is completed. This


17

would depend on the sustainability of the Institutions created during the implementation of the

watershed Program. The status of all the evaluated sustainability indicators (functional status,

financial linkages, record maintenance, etc.) were encouraging in almost every watershed, which

leads us to conclude that sustainability issues were taken care of during the planning and

implementation of the watershed Program.


18

Chapter-1

Introduction

Land perhaps the most critical resource, for human and animal livelihood, is limited and a finite

resource. It is subject to competing and ever increasing demands from agriculture and non-

agriculture sectors. The compulsive need for augmenting food production to meet the demand of

the growing population has an adverse serious impact on land use resulting in large areas of

marginal lands being put to cultivation on one hand and increased demand for fire wood, timber

and fodder, leading to deforestation and over grazing of pasture lands adversely affecting the

grass and tree cover on the other. As a result, degradation of natural resources was set in and the

same is on the increase. The degradation of lands has marginalized further with time leading to

ecological imbalance. To prevent the above, there is a need to adapt scientific land use plans for

conserving resources and develop strategies to balance the competing as well as growing

demands so as to sustain productivity and production.

Karnataka state located between 110

30ǀ

and 180 30

ǀ N latitudes and 74

0 15

ǀ and 78

0 30

ǀ E

longitudes covering an area of 1,91790 sq.km with 300km coast line on the west. About 103.81

lakh ha is the net sown area of which 80 lakh ha is rain fed. It is the abode of poor people and

livestock. These lands are ecologically and economically disadvantaged and constitute

hinterlands. The natural resources in these areas are poorly managed and impoverished, in the

process enormous degradation has taken place. As a consequence to improper management, the

areas degraded due to water erosion, nutrient losses and salinity are 35.5%, 3.9 % and 0.6%

respectively (Plates 1, 2 and 3). More than 62.5% of the severely eroded and 59% of the

moderately eroded areas of the country is in the dry zones. In the command areas, more than

10% of the irrigated area has become water logged (1999). The absence of vegetation and lack of

protection measures both in arable and non-arable areas are causing enormous soil loss (plates 4

to 6). Soil erosion is estimated to reduce yields by 0.14t/ha/mm of soil loss (~~15t/ha/annum).

Thus, soil erosion is undermining our efforts to increase productivity and production, which

needs to be prevented.

Soil, thus, eroded from arable and non-arable lands settles in the water storage structures such as

tanks and reservoirs. The rate of silt deposition in irrigation tanks is estimated at 8.51 ha-m/

100sq km/ year against an assumed siltation of 3.02 ha m/ 100 sq.km/year. This not only reduced


19

the irrigated area year by year but ultimately the economic life of the storage structures. As a

result, the irrigated area under tanks which was once at 684,500 ha now reduced to 240,000 ha.

Thus, land degradation in the catchment area is not only reducing productivity and production in

the catchment areas but also adversely affecting the production of command area. Thus,

degradation of natural resources due to erosion is all pervasive and pernicious, and requires to be

prevented.

The occurrence and distribution of rainfall is highly erratic in the state and varies from as low as

569mm in the northern plateau region to as high as 4240.3mm in the coastal region. Though the

average annual rainfall is 1138mm received over 55 days, about 66% of the geographical area

receives less than 750mm with a climatic condition varying from semiarid to arid making

agriculture a gamble. Due to lack of vegetation and removal of top soils, rain water hardly

infiltrates to recharge ground water, and as a result, much of it is lost as runoff. Increase in the

number of wells (>10 lakh wells) coupled with absence of measures to recharge groundwater for

preventing fall in water table levels, reduced groundwater draft from 41 lakh ha-m in 1972 to

10.7 lakh ha-m in 2004. In about 43 Taluks groundwater is over exploited (2013) and in 14

Taluks it is critical and in 21 taluks semi critical. Hence continuous use of groundwater without

appropriate recharge measures will have severe impact on the ecological balance of the region

apart from reducing irrigated area. As of now, only 36.9 % of the area is irrigated across the state

with a cropping intensity of 117.9%.

Added to the above, the population pressures are continuously mounting and have doubled

between 1960 and 2011. The rural population dependant on agriculture is around 61.3%. Among

the farmers/cultivators, marginal farmers constitute 48% with an average holding size of 0.45 ha

and small constitute 27% with an average holding size of 1.4 ha. Such a situation is putting

tremendous pressure on natural resources in terms land-man ratio making farming an unviable

one. All the above is reflected in the Human Development Index (2017) where Karnataka ranks

18 among the Indiana States. One of the main reasons is the lack of growth in agricultural sector.

In sixties, it contributed to about 60% to the GSDP and it reduced to 36% during nineties and to

13.5% during 2015-16. Such a decline in the share of agriculture in the economy and its poor

growth indicates its inability to absorb the growing work force leading to unemployment and

social unrest.


20

The combined effects of the above related to farm sector is something that need to be given

proper weightage in formulating agriculture development plans. Government from time to time

being fully aware of the problems organized Programs to conserve soil and water since 1950 and

on augmenting production.

In order to increase yields of rain fed crops and reduce poverty in drought prone areas, several

Programs were initiated from time to time. However, these programs were target-oriented with

subsidies for the use of external inputs. Though these programs helped to improve yield,

production was still not sufficient to meet domestic demands. The overall impact of all the

Programs implemented earlier, is that (a) food and nutritional insecurity has been increasing at

the habitation level, (b) incidental effects have been neglected and (c) ecological damage is on

the increase.

1.1 Watershed Development as a strategy

Several developmental paradigms experimented during the India’s post-independence era have

indicated that development, to be sustainable, needs to be community-oriented rather than being

just a government-run program. Environmental degradation as a fallout of the development

models tried so far has brought into sharp focus that each effort needs to be in consonance with

Nature’s laws. This has led to visualize the watershed concept and philosophy for the overall

development of rain fed lands through an integrated approach by converging all developmental

programs under different departments into a comprehensive plan for resource conservation and

optimizing production by considering resources on one hand and the demands for the economic

wellbeing of the population living in a given watershed on the other. Several external agencies

have taken up watershed development programs in the backward areas of the state subsequent to

1984. These projects have proved that inclusion of livelihood support systems is a pre-requisite

for developing areas on a sustainable basis to achieve poverty reduction by establishing social

justice, and is now being pursued by all the agencies involved in watershed development

programs.

The main focus of watershed development Program is on developing land and water resources

and their judicious use to maximize production so as to improve economic status of people and

bring stability to livelihoods. The strategy aims to minimize risks involved in farming through


21

appropriate conservation strategies and promotion of area specific technologies to improve use

efficiency of resources. The conservation measures include land leveling, bunding, construction

of water disposal and impounding structures along the drainage lines, promotion of alternative

farming systems like agro-forestry, agro-horticulture and silvi-horti- pastoral systems through

climate smart agriculture and alternative livelihoods for landless to provide stable income.

Livestock based activities are also promoted to strengthen the draught and milch animals which

sustain the rain fed farmer by providing resilience to agriculture income.

Karnataka is the first State to conceive the necessity of watershed development following the

experiences gained from G.R. Halli, Kabbalnalawatersheds in 1980s. These experiences have

decisively proved that development adopting watershed approach results in ensuring food

security, enhancing farming viability, reestablishing ecological balance, ultimately leading to

equity, efficiency and stability to the economy. The state had approved the replication of this

model in 18 districts and created an organizational structure having 3 tier systems at state,

divisional and project level. At the divisional level, Dry Land Development Boards (DLDBs)

with multidisciplinary teams were set up to implement district watershed development projects.

The major learning from these pilot projects is that it would be easier to integrate sectoral

activities over small areas when compared to large area leading to micro-watershed as a planning

unit.

The watershed development program as a development strategy adopted by the Karnataka

Government has expanded from the earlier limited goals of increasing productivity of the land

through soil and water conservation to improving livelihoods, enabling greater distributive social

justice (direct and indirect). It was found to be sustainable as a development strategy because it

ensured conservation of natural resources and agricultural productivity. Thus, Watershed

Development today is considered a strategy for integrated development of a given area

(Watershed) involving people in every aspect of planning, implementation and management of

local resources. In essence these programs aim to convert resource users into resource managers.


22

Table 1.0: Projects Implemented under Watershed Development in Karnataka

Agency year

Name of the Major Project and Year of Initiation

IDALD DPAP SFDA/

MFOL CRVP NWDPRA

DLDA and

WS aided PIDOW KWDP KAWAD SUJALA

SUJALA

(RIDF)

1971 1973-74 1975-76 1984-85 1989-90 1985-86 1984-85 1991 1995 2002 2009

Extent of

Coverage by

the agency

Two

taluks

72 taluks All over the

State

41 out of 3

major

catchments

of reservoirs

Initially in 45,

subsequently

increased to

67 WS, all

over the State.

One each in

all districts.

Covering

25 - 35

thousand

ha.

Kalaburagi

dist.

Covering

3400 ha

Dharwad,

Belgaum

and

U.Kannada

dist.

3 taluks, one each

in Chithradurga,

Ballary&Vijayapura

districts.

5 dist, 77

SWS

(Kolara,

Tumakuru,

Haveri,

C.Durga

and

Dharwad)

6 dist, 69

WS

(Hassan,

C

Magalur,

C. Durga,

Kodagu,

Belgaum

and

Shimoga)

Implementing

Agency

Agri.

Dept

Various

govt. depts.

Coordination

at dist. Level

Staff of soil

conservation

and partly

through

commercial

banks

Soil

conservation

wing of

Agri. Dept.

Soil

conservation

wing of Agri.

Dept.

Watershed

devlp.

Team

draws from

agri. Forest

and horti.

NGO and

sectoral

staff

initially

and NGO

& WDT

later.

Team of

Agri. Horti

and Forest

Dept.

Society specially

created by the

Government for the

purpose – with

NGOs.

WDD and

NGO with

CBOs.

WDD and

NGO with

CBOs.


23

1.2 Integrated Watershed Management Project

In order to give a major thrust to developing rain fed areas on a sustainable basis using watershed

as a unit for integrated development, the National Rain fed Area Authority was established in

November 2006. The watershed programs carried out under MoRD and MoA have been merged

into a single program namely the Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWMP)

which is presently known as PMKSY-WD for which certain common guidelines are prepared

and implemented with effect from 1.4.2008. Watershed Development has thus become the

central focus for rural development throughout India. The major objectives of the IWMP are:

Improving the productive potential of degraded lands through various interventions;

Increasing the bio-diversity through agro-horticulture, agro-forestry and silvi-pastoral

activities;

Promoting IGA to the asset-less residents, and other vulnerable groups for improving

their economy;

Supporting livestock sector for higher incomes, and

Maximizing production through efficient farming systems and micro-enterprises.

1.3 Institutional Base created for IWMP implementation

In view of the fact that several agencies involved in watershed development programs had

followed different approaches, the Karnataka Government felt that it was essential to bring all

the programs under one umbrella. Towards this end, the Government established the Department

of Watershed Development with its Head Quarters at Bengaluru and District Watershed

Development Offices involving multidisciplinary staff with effect from 01-01-2000. All

Watershed Development Programs under the state sector including externally funded projects

were brought under the Watershed Development Department (WDD), whereas the centrally

sponsored schemes were implemented by the respective District Watershed Development Offices

under the administrative control of Zilla Panchayats.

The Watershed Development Department has prepared a strategic perspective plan to cover all

the uncovered areas considering the areas covered earlier under different Programs (Table-1) in

the coming years (Table.1.1) through IWMP. The area available for the treatment has been


24

technically prioritized using parameters such as, rainfall, slope, drought intensity, soil type and

the extent of vulnerable groups, extent of irrigation etc., suggested by DoLR, GoI keeping

watershed as unit. Based on this Prioritization, the critical ones are to be treated on priority in the

ensuing years. The year-wise list of watersheds to be treated in the next 18 years in Karnataka is

given in Table 1.1. The projects initiated with the approval of MoRD, GoI during 2010-11 in the

state are provided in Table.1.2. These projects have been implemented as per the common

guidelines.

The State has essentially played the role of a facilitator through a network of institutions, leaving

the responsibility of program implementation to the village communities. Watershed

development Team (WDT) will ensure implementation of the Watershed Development Programs

through Grama Panchayat Sub-Committee (GPSC)/ Executive Committee (EC). Grama

Panchayat President will be the head of the EC/GPSC along with members of GP, and vulnerable

groups (SC, ST, landless/self-help groups and women) representing all sections of the society to

ensure proper implementation of the Program. The Secretary of the committee is nominated from

the Department to ensure accountability of the Program. As per the guidelines, the capacities of

the communities have been built by organizing trainings required under the program for effective

implementation as well as to enable them to take up management of natural resources (soil, water

and vegetation) on a sustainable basis after the Government withdraws. The program included

several other sectoral schemes to enable poor and landless people to earn additional income

through agricultural and non-agricultural activities.

Across the state, 127 Projects are sanctioned in 123 taluks of 29 districts under Batch-II during

2010-11 and implemented to develop 5.47 lakh ha covering 5272 villages so as to improve socio-

economic conditions of 16,11,100 households residing in these villages. The total cost involved

in developing these areas as per the guidelines is around Rs. 141.58 crores.

Keeping in tune with the contemporary thinking on the importance of Monitoring, Evaluation,

Learning and Documentation (MEL&D), the Department guided by previous experiences

established a well articulated MEL&D frame work for successful implementation of the

Program. The Department procured external agencies for undertaking the MEL&D works as per

the accepted procedures. M/S Consulting Engineering Services, New Delhi to provide MEL&D

services in Bengaluru and Mysuru divisions; M/S Karnataka State Council for science and


25

technology, Bengaluru for providing services in Belagavi Division and M/S Remote Sensing

Instruments (RSI), Hyderabad for providing services in Kalaburagi Division were identified for

the purpose. These agencies as per their contracts have submitted their impact evaluation reports

for the respective divisions. Now, M/s RSI has been requested to consolidate the reports and

submit impact evaluation report for the state under Batch-II Projects. Accordingly RSI has taken

up the responsibility and the same is presented below.


26

Table.1.1: Watershed projects, along with area selected for treatment for the next 18 years in Karnataka:

Sl.

No District

Remaining Period of XI

Plan (2009-10 to 2011 -12)

XII Plan

(2012-13 to 2016-17)

XIII Plan

(2017-18 to 2021-22)

XIV Plan

(2022-23 to 2026-27) Total For 18 Years

Physical

('000 ha)

Financial

(Rs in Crore)

Physical

('000 ha)

Financial

(Rs in

Crore)

Physical

('000 ha)

Financial

(Rs in Crore)

Physical

('000 ha)

Financial

(Rs in

Crore)

Physical

('000 ha)

Financial

(Rs in Crore)

1 Bagalakote 53.1 63.72 48.46 58.15 17.22 20.67 9.15 10.98 127.92 153.51

2 Ballari 73.28 109.93 141.45 212.17 19.53 29.3 0 0 234.27 351.4

3 Belagavi 95.57 143.36 178.53 267.8 123.75 185.63 15.19 22.79 413.05 619.57

4 Bengaluru (R ) 33.58 40.3 51.86 62.23 21.34 25.6 0.05 0.06 106.83 128.19

5 Bidar 79.25 95.09 120.69 144.83 93.17 111.8 4.64 5.57 297.74 357.29

6 Chamarajanagaraa 56.31 67.57 82.25 98.7 64.6 77.52 28.61 34.33 231.78 278.13

7 Chikkaballapura 59.75 71.7 82.65 99.18 37.19 44.62 0 0 179.58 215.5

8 Chikkamagaluruu 57.42 68.91 133.07 159.68 43 51.6 13.48 16.18 246.97 296.36

9 Chitradurga 86.53 103.83 134.58 161.49 112.72 135.27 78.62 94.34 412.44 494.93

10 D.Kannada 53.23 79.84 115.32 172.98 103.6 155.41 45.9 68.85 318.05 477.08

11 Davanagere 71.74 86.09 106.27 127.53 66.56 79.87 32.07 38.48 276.64 331.97

12 Dharwad 62.68 75.22 62.95 75.54 33.35 40.02 0.07 0.11 159.05 190.88

13 Gadaga 58.98 70.78 101.52 121.82 88.67 106.41 24.09 28.91 273.26 327.92

14 Hassan 75.44 90.52 145.76 174.92 78.23 93.87 40.7 48.84 340.13 408.16

15 Haveri 75.41 90.49 108.18 129.81 31.24 37.49 0.01 0.02 214.84 257.81

16 Kalaburagi 91.27 109.52 207.38 248.86 175.44 210.52 157.61 189.13 631.69 758.03

17 Kodagu 24.53 29.44 51.85 62.22 34.68 41.62 0 0 111.06 133.27

18 Kolara 73.27 87.92 96.18 115.41 41.92 50.3 0.08 0.1 211.44 253.73

19 Koppal 61.07 91.6 79.99 119.98 50.97 76.45 0 0 192.02 288.03

20 Mandya 54.41 65.3 110.74 132.88 11.07 13.29 0 0 176.22 211.47

21 Mysuru 70.36 84.44 125.09 150.11 93.46 112.15 23.24 27.89 312.15 374.58

22 Raichuru 62.72 94.09 111.8 167.7 31 46.49 0 0 205.52 308.28

23 Ramanagaram 43.41 52.09 74.76 70.36 30.24 70.36 0 70.36 148.41 263.18

24 Shivamogga 90.17 135.26 135.83 203.75 84.51 126.77 63.77 95.66 374.29 561.43

25 Tumakuru 123.15 0 232.97 0 201.24 0 119.03 0 676.39 0

26 Udupi 28.93 70.36 70.06 70.36 65.35 70.36 42.53 70.36 206.86 281.45

27 Uttara Kannada 99.72 149.59 168.42 252.64 41.13 61.7 10.38 15.57 319.66 479.49

28 Vijayapura 66.83 100.24 95.71 143.56 83.69 125.53 54.65 81.98 300.87 451.31

29 Yadgirii 36.54 43.84 81.21 97.45 760.76 912.91 45.21 54.25 923.72 1108.46

Total 1918.65 2371.04 3255.53 3902.11 2639.63 3113.53 809.08 974.76 8622.85 10361.41


27

Table 1.2: Taluk-wise Watersheds selected for development in Karnataka during 2010-11

Sl. No. Name of the District Name of the Taluk/Block Name of the Project

Project Area

Proposed for

treatment (ha)

Agro-

Climatic

Zone

1 Bagalakote Badami IWMP -5/10-11 5443.1 NDZ

Hungunda IWMP -6/10-11 5572.43 NDZ

Badami IWMP -7/10-11 3634.07 NDZ

Hungunda IWMP -8/10-11 4871.4 NTZ

4 Total 19521

2 Ballari Kudligi IWMP - 7/10-11 5000 NDZ

Hosapete IWMP - 8/10-11 3200 NDZ

Sandur IWMP - 9/10-11 2300 NDZ

H. B. Halli IWMP - 10/10-11 3800 NDZ

Hadagali IWMP - 11/10-11 2280 NDZ

Ballary IWMP - 12/10-11 4000 NDZ

6 Total 20580

3 Belagavi Athani IWMP -9/10-11 4070.5 NTZ

Hukkeri IWMP -10/10-11 2994.28 NTZ

Saudathi IWMP -11/10-11 5992 NTZ

Bailhongal IWMP -12/10-11 4350 NTZ

Chikkodi IWMP -13/10-11 3560 NTZ

Raibag IWMP -14/10-11 3400 NTZ

6 Total 24366.78

4 Bengaluru Rural Hoskote IWMP - 4/10-11 4928.59 EDZ

Devanahally IWMP - 5/10-11 5052.08 EDZ

2 Total 9980.67

5 Bidare Aurad IWMP - 5/10-11 7685 NETZ

Basavakalyan IWMP - 6/10-11 7016 NETZ

Bhalki IWMP - 7/10-11 6002 NETZ

Humnabad IWMP - 8/10-11 6142 NETZ

4 Total 26845

6 Chamrajanagara Kollegala IWMP - 4/10-11 5407.49 SDZ

Gundlupet IWMP - 5/10-11 3523.11 SDZ

C.R.Nagara IWMP - 6/10-11 3467.68 SDZ

3 Total 12398.28

7 Chikkaballapura Bagepalli IWMP - 6/10-11 2610.12 EDZ

Bagepalli IWMP - 7/10-11 2701 EDZ

Chintamani IWMP - 8/10-11 5088.41 EDZ

Gowribidanur IWMP - 9/10-11 4843.45 EDZ

4 Total 15242.98

8 Chikkamagaluruu Tarikere IWMP - 3/10-11 5001 STZ

Chikkamagaluru IWMP - 4/10-11 4480 HZ

Kadur IWMP - 5/10-11 6180 CDZ

3 Total 15661.45

9 Chitradurga Molakalmuru IWMP - 7/10-11 2521 CDZ

Challakere IWMP - 8/10-11 4764.44 CDZ

Holalkere IWMP - 9/10-11 3936.22 CDZ

Hosadurga IWMP - 10/10-11 4393.96 CDZ

Hiriyur IWMP - 11/10-11 5400.56 CDZ

Chitradurga IWMP - 12/10-11 4220 CDZ

6 Total 25236.18

10 Dakshina Kannada Sulya IWMP - 3/10-11 4300 CZ

Puttur IWMP - 4/10-11 4000 CZ

Bantwal IWMP - 5/10-11 5000 CZ

3 Total 13300

11 Davanagere Jagalur IWMP - 6/10-11 4800 CDZ

Harapanahalli IWMP - 7/10-11 5104 NDZ

Channagiri IWMP - 8/10-11 5092 STZ

3 Total 14996

12 Dharwad Kalghatgi IWMP -5/10-11 2500 HZ

Dharwad IWMP -6/10-11 4910 HZ

Hubli IWMP -7/10-11 2928.97 HZ

Kundagol IWMP -8/10-11 2939.11 HZ

Navalgund IWMP -9/10-11 3156.07 HZ


28


Project Area

Proposed for

treatment (ha)

Agro-

Climatic

Zone

5 Total 16434.15

13 Gadaga Ron IWMP -5/10-11 5252 NTZ

Shirahatti IWMP -6/10-11 5220 NTZ

Gadaga IWMP -7/10-11 5476.28 NTZ

Mundargi IWMP -8/10-11 5122 NTZ

4 Total 21070.28

14 Hassan Hassan IWMP - 6/10-11 3832.78 STZ

Arasikere IWMP - 7/10-11 3624.59 CDZ

Channarayapatna IWMP - 8/10-11 3761.88 SDZ

Sakaleshpura IWMP - 9/10-11 3768 HZ

Alur IWMP - 10/10-11 4142 STZ

Arakalagudu IWMP - 11/10-11 3675 STZ

6 Total 22804.25

15 Haveri Ranebennur IWMP -6/10-11 3642 HZ

Hangal IWMP -7/10-11 6905 HZ

Shiggaon IWMP -8/10-11 5442.63 HZ

Haveri IWMP -9/10-11 5006 HZ

Byadgi IWMP -10/10-11 2631 HZ

Hirekerur IWMP -11/10-11 3314 HZ

6 Total 26940.63

16 Kalaburagi Afzalpur IWMP- 7/10-11 2957 NEDZ

Chincholi IWMP- 8/10-11 4854 NEDZ

Kalaburagi IWMP- 9/10-11 5204 NEDZ

Chitapur IWMP- 10/10-11 3464 NEDZ

Aland IWMP- 11/10-11 3335 NEDZ

Habalanala IWMP- 12/10-11 4263 NEDZ

Jewargi IWMP- 13/10-11 3603 NEDZ

7 Total 27702

17 Kodagu Madikeri IWMP 1/10-11 5104.24 HZ

1 Total 5104.24

18 Kolara Kolara IWMP - 6/10-11 3638.39 EDZ

Mulbagal IWMP - 7/10-11 3450.77 EDZ

Bangarpet IWMP - 8/10-11 3780.88 EDZ

Srinivasapura IWMP - 9/10-11 3891.97 EDZ

Malur IWMP - 10/10-11 3194.25 EDZ

5 Total 17956.26

19 Koppal Yalburga IWMP- 5/10-11 4690 NDZ

Koppal IWMP- 6/10-11 4960 NDZ

Gangavathi IWMP- 7/10-11 4936 NDZ

Kustagi IWMP- 8/10-11 4805 NDZ

4 Total 19391

20 Mandya Pandavapura IWMP - 4/10-11 2750 SDZ

Maddur IWMP - 5/10-11 4950 SDZ

Nagamanagala IWMP - 6/10-11 4300 SDZ

3 Total 12000

21 Mysuru Nanjanagudu IWMP - 5/10-11 4450.54 SDZ

Nanjanagudu IWMP - 6/10-11 5889.17 SDZ

Periyapatna IWMP - 7/10-11 6721.09 STZ

3 Total 17060.8

22 Raichuruu Devadurga IWMP - 5/10-11 6200 NEDZ

Sindanur IWMP - 6/10-11 5250 NEDZ

Raichuru IWMP- 7/10-11 4550 NEDZ

Lingsugur IWMP - 8/10-11 5100 NEDZ

Manvi IWMP - 9/10-11 3855 NEDZ

5 Total 24955

23 Ramanagara Kanakapura IWMP - 3/10-11 4593.66 EDZ

Channapatna IWMP - 4/10-11 3558.67 EDZ

Magadi IWMP - 5/10-11 3857.45 EDZ

3 Total 12009.78

24 Shivamogga Shikaripura IWMP 9/10-11 3026.79 STZ

Soraba IWMP 10/10-11 3020 HZ


29


Project Area

Proposed for

treatment (ha)

Agro-

Climatic

Zone

Shivamogga IWMP 11/10-11 3010 STZ

Sagara IWMP 12/10-11 3040 HZ

Thirthahally IWMP 13/10-11 3000 HZ

5 Total 15096.79

25 Tumakuru Pavagada IWMP - 9/10-11 2635 CDZ

Madhugiri IWMP - 10/10-11 4928.25 CDZ

Sira IWMP - 11/10-11 3500.2 CDZ

Koratagere IWMP - 12/10-11 3671 CDZ

Turuvekere IWMP - 13/10-11 4450.4 SDZ

Gubbi IWMP - 14/10-11 4524.1 EDZ

Tiptur IWMP - 15/10-11 3621 CDZ

Tumakuru IWMP - 16/10-11 4977 EDZ

Chikkanayakanahalli IWMP - 17/10-11 3503.01 CDZ

Kunigal IWMP - 18/10-11 4155 SDZ

10 Total 39964.96

26 Udupi Udupi IWMP - 2/10-11 4000 CZ

Kundapura IWMP - 3/10-11 6000 CZ

2 Total 10000

27 Uttara Kannada Joida IWMP -4/10-11 4990 CZ

Bhatakal IWMP -5/10-11 5000 CZ

Honnawar IWMP -6/10-11 5000 CZ

3 Total 14990

28 Vijayapura Vijayapura IWMP -6/10-11 4537.41 NDZ

B.Bagewadi IWMP -7/10-11 4163.12 NDZ

Muddebihal IWMP -8/10-11 3799.16 NDZ

Sindhagi IWMP -9/10-11 5298.12 NDZ

Muddebihal IWMP -10/10-11 3495.21 NDZ

Indi IWMP -11/10-11 5433.81 NDZ

B.Bagewadi IWMP -12/10-11 3182.51 NDZ

Vijayapura IWMP -13/10-11 2823 NDZ

8 Total 32732.34

29 Yadgirii Yadgirii IWMP- 3/10-11 9339 NEDZ

Shahpur IWMP - 4/10-11 3106 NEDZ

Shorapur IWMP - 5/10-11 4854 NEDZ

Total

3 Total 12299

Grand total for State (2010-11) 127 546640.47

NDZ - Northern Dry Zone, NTZ - Northern Transition Zone, NEDZ - North-eastern Dry Zone, NETZ - North-

eastern Transition Zone, CDZ - Central Dry Zone, EDZ - Eastern Dry Zone, SDZ – Southern Dry Zone, STZ -

Southern Transition Zone, HZ - Hilly Zone, CZ - Coastal Zone


30

Plate. 1: Status of soil erosion in Karnataka

sssssss

Eroded Land in Shirali village, Mavalli

SWS, Bhatkal taluk, Uttara Kannada

district

Eroded Land in Gharawade, Kadadi SWS,

Gadaga taluk & District

First Order Soil Erosion in Ballary

District

Dessert like situation: Due to lack of

Conservation Measures, Bidar district

Gully erosion is an advanced stage of rill

erosion

Rill Erosion


31

Chapter-II

Methodology

2.1 Introduction

Productivity and production enhancement in agricultural sector are the effective drivers of

economic growth resulting in poverty reduction both within and outside agriculture sectors.

Of late the share of agriculture in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is spiraling downward

from 30 percent in 1990-91 to 13.5 per cent in 2014-15. This clearly establishes that more

and more public investment in agriculture becomes imperative to promote economic growth.

Such investment in agricultural sector will also promote private investment to ensure growth

at individual and community level by safeguarding natural resources. However, the per cent

rate of investment towards agriculture declined from 2.43 in 1979-80 to as low as 0.59 in

1994-95. This shift in public policy of reducing public investment in general and particularly

in agriculture was indirectly responsible for the reduced share of agricultural sector in GDP.

Recognizing the above in the Eleventh Five Year Plan, the allocation was increased

significantly. In order to give a major thrust to develop rain fed agriculture on a sustainable

basis using watershed as a unit for integrated development National Rain fed Area Authority

was established in 2006 and funds are placed under DoLR, GOI. The watershed development

programs carried out under MoRD and MoA have been merged into a single Program as

Integrated Watershed Management Program and funds are channelized through DoLR. The

annual release ranged from 1500 crores in 2011 to 2721 crores in 2012-13. Since then the

amount of money spent annually is around 1500 crores. As a result, it has become a flagship

program of the country. Such investments call for the value realized for money spent so as to

make decisions regarding up sealing either the entire program or certain components. Hence

evaluation of the Program for its impacts is essential, as it contributes to evidence based

policy making. Impact evaluation helps the organization to decide whether to scale up

projects with proven positive results and to stop activities which have no impact. It will also

help to improve the design of development projects. In view of the above, monitoring and

evaluation are included as integral component of the project while formulating the program.

As the projects are now completed, impact evaluation is undertaken using the methodology

described below.

2.2 Objectives of the study

The basic objective of an evaluation is to assess the impact of the watershed development

project on socio-economic, environmental and other land related features of the villages


32

falling under the watershed projects. The evaluation process focuses on the resources

developed during implementation phase, changes in bio-physical parameters in the watershed

area and socio-economic conditions of people, with particular emphasis on the improvement

in local knowledge levels and capacities.

A baseline survey of the area as well as the villages was conducted at the start of the project

in order to evaluate the impact of the project on the socio-economic conditions of the

beneficiaries and also on the environmental conditions of the watershed villages. Four years

after the initial evaluation (baseline survey) of the projects, the present evaluation study

would help to compare the present socio-economic and environmental conditions of the area

with its pre-project conditions.

The specific objectives of the study are:

To examine the present cropping pattern, cropping intensity, crop yields, etc., in the

watershed areas as compared to prior to the launching of the watersheds.

To compare the socio-economic and environmental conditions of the village before

and after the implementation of the watershed projects.

To assess the impact of the watersheds development on the household income of the

stakeholders.

To examine the effect of the watershed program on the groundwater position in the

area.

To analyse the impact of the watershed on the livestock performance of the sample

farmers in relation to size of holdings.

To ascertain the present land use pattern of the sample farmers with respect to forestry

and horticulture as compared to their land use pattern before the commencement of

the watershed projects.

2.3 Methodology

The study covered all the districts and the watersheds across different agro-climatic zones of

the state where the IWMP was implemented. SWSs (one per district) were selected based on

stratified random sampling, the strata being agro-climatic zones, districts, taluks and SWS.

The total number of watersheds in the twenty-nine districts under IWMP is 127. 23% of the

total projects were selected.


33

As the projects are distributed in all the districts, a multi-stage sampling procedure was

adopted for impact assessment of the project. In the first stage of sampling, all districts were

considered to have representation in the sample. In each district, the one watershed project

was selected using random sampling method. However, during selection, criteria such as

good representative nature of the district scenario both in physical and social aspects and the

number of micro-watersheds in each project were given more weightage. After selecting the

SWS, one micro-watershed each in ridge, middle and valley were selected to ensure

representation. Villages were then identified to select 40 households per village (total of 120

in the three villages selected in the watershed) through stratified sampling for household

survey, thereby ensuring adequate representation of all classes within the village community.

The households are classified into the following Strata based on the land holding criteria:

i) Marginal farmers- (Up to 1 ha) - 10 Households

ii) Small farmers - (1 ha to 2 ha) - 10 Households

iii) Medium and Big farmers – (Above 2 ha) - 10 Households

iv) Landless households (Not owning any land) - 10 Households

Total 40 Households

In the cross-sectional approach, nearby villages not going to be covered by the project in the

coming 4 to 5 years were considered and 40 households representing the above categories

were selected for the impact study. The methodology used for selection of sample farmers is

schematically presented below (Fig.1.1).

Fig.1.1 Sampling Design for impact assessment under IWMP -GOK (2009-10 Project)


34

2.4 Approach

Detailed formats/schedules for the collection of household data, infrastructure and other

aspects of the sample farmers were prepared and finalized in consultation with the WDD.

They are:

Household schedule – to collect the socio-economic, demographic and other aspects of

the sample households (Annexure-I).

Village schedule – to collect information on the present status of infrastructure and other

facilities available in the area (Annexure – II)

To ensure collection of realistic data from households and villages, the schedules were pre-

tested on a small sample keeping in view the objectives of the study. Both primary and

secondary data were collected by trained field investigators. Intensive orientation was given

by the Consultants of the respective Agencies to the investigators and the field survey was

carried out under their supervision and guidance. The data were cross-checked at regular

intervals during the survey to ensure reliability and quality. Secondary data were collected

from published documents and records of the Department of Economics and Statistics.

The sample village, where baseline survey was carried out, but not considered for

implementation of the project was taken as control. This would enable to assess the impact

by adopting cross-sectional approach – comparing the villages with project implementation

and those without project. The survey, therefore, provided scope for impact assessment by


35

adopting the cross-sectional approach as well as longitudinal approach. This survey has a

unique incidental advantage for planning, policy and even academic purpose in future.

Data analysis for Impact Assessment involves livelihood analysis, economic analysis, socio-

economic changes, changes in cropping pattern and intensity, fuel and fodder availability,

changes in the groundwater level, and yield. Based on the data collected from each village, an

estimate is made for the SWS and district as a whole. The data were scrutinized and verified

for correctness and consistency. Simple statistical tools like averages and percentages were

used to analyze and interpret the data for preparing the report.


36

Chapter-III

Physical Progress of Activities

3.1 Socio-economic conditions of the Project Taluks

The impact of development initiatives on conservation and augmentation of natural resources

vary depending upon climate, soil and social-economic conditions of the stakeholders. The

taluks in which sample watershed projects are located for undertaking the study represent all

ten agro-climatic zones of the state, as given in Table 3.1 and described thereafter.

Table 3.1: Agro-climatic zones of selected Taluks of different districts of Karnataka

Agro-climatic

Zone District (Taluk)

Northern Dry zone Bagalakote (Badami),Vijayapura (Vijayapura), Gadaga ( Gadaga),

Koppal (Yelburga), Bellari (Hoovinahadagali)

Northeastern Dry

Zone Kalaburagi (Sedam), Yadgiri (Shapur), Raichuru (Devadurga)

Eastern Dry zone Bengaluru-R (Hoskote), Chikkaballapura (Chintamani), Kolara

(Malur), Ramanagara (Channapatna)

Central Dry zone Tumakuru (Tumakuru), Chitradurga (Hiriyur), Chikkamagaluru

(Kadur),

Southern Dry Zone Chamarajanagara (Chamrajanagara), Mandya (Pandavapura)

Northern Transition

zone Haveri (Haveri),Belagavi (Bailhongal)

Northeastern

Transition Zone Bidar (Humnabad)

Southern Transition

Zone Davanagere (Channagiri), Hassan (Hassan), Mysuru (Periyapattana)

Hilly Zone Dharwad (Kalghatgi), Shivamogga (Sagara), Kodagu (Madikere),

Coastal zone Dakshina Kannada (Bantwala), Udupi (Kundapura), Uttara Kannada

(Bhatkal)

Northern Dry Zone: Five taluks of five districts viz., Bagalkote, Vijayapura, Gadaga,

Yelburga and Bellari fall under northern dry zone. Annual rainfall in the zone varies from

465 to 977 mm and 76.5% of the cultivated area in the taluks is rain fed. Crops are grown in

red and shallow black soils during kharif and in medium and deep black soils during rabi


37

season. The major crops grown are sorghum, maize, bajra, groundnut, pulses, sunflower,

cotton and sugarcane (Table.3.2).

Northeastern Dry Zone: Sedam, Shahpur and Devadurga taluks fall under northeastern dry

zone. The general topography is flat, gently sloping forming broad valleys and flat-topped

hills. Three types of soils viz. black, lateritic and mixed are found. The climate is

characterized by general dryness throughout the year, except during southwest monsoon. The

average annual rainfalls in taluks vary from 669 to 1023 mm, with about 82.4% of the

cropped area being rain fed. About 80% of the annual rainfall is received during the period -

June to September.

Eastern Dry Zone: Hoskote, Chintamani, Malur and Channapatna taluks fall under the

Eastern dry zone. The soils are mostly red loam. The area under rainfed crops ranged from 74

to 85% of the cultivated area. The average annual rainfall is around 748 mm (ranging from

556 to 841). The major cropping season is kharif in which ragi, maize, pulses and oilseeds are

cultivated under rain fed condition, while paddy, mulberry, vegetables and flowers are

cultivated under irrigation.

Central Dry Zone: Tumakuru, Hiriyur and Kadur taluks fall under the central dry zone. The

rain fed area in the taluks varies from 75.7 to 80.5% of the cropped area and the rainfall

ranges from 450 to 750 mm. The areas are affected by periodic droughts ranging from 3 to 5

years in a decennial period. The major soil is red loam. Shallow and deep black soils are

found in pockets. The important rain fed crops are ragi, sorghum, oilseeds and pulses.

Southern Dry Zone: Chamrajanagara and Pandavapura taluks fall under the southern dry

zone. The rain fed area in the taluks accounts for 68.0 and 36.7% respectively and the rainfall

ranges from 829 to 892 mm. The area experiences periodic droughts (Fig-6). The major soils

are red loam. Shallow and deep black soils are found sporadically. The important rain fed

crops are ragi, minor millets, oil seeds, pulses and sugarcane.

Northern Transition Zone: Haveri taluk of Haveri district and Bailhongal taluk in Belagavi

district fall under this zone. The zone receives an average annual rainfall varying from 900-

2600 mm and about 77% of the cultivated area in these taluks is rain fed. Major soil types are

gravelly sandy clay loam and laterites. Paddy, pulses, groundnut, cotton, chillies and

sugarcane are the principal crops grown in the region.


38

North Eastern Transition Zone: Humnabad taluk in Bidar district falls under northeastern

transition zone. The altitude varies from 420 to 684 m above MSL. The general topography is

flat, gently sloping forming broad valleys with flat-topped hills. The soils found are lateritic

red soil, black cotton soil and loamy to sandy loam soil. The climate is characterized by

general dryness throughout the year, except during the southwest monsoon. The average

annual rainfall varies from 821 to 887 mm. About 86% of the cultivated area of the taluk is

rain fed.

Southern Transition Zone: Channagiri, Hassan and Periyapattana taluks fall under this

zone. The rainfall received in the zone varies from 610 to 1293 mm. The area under rain fed

crops is around 77.7%. The major soils are red loam. The important crops grown during

kharif are paddy, ragi, sorghum, pulses and tobacco (Table.3.2).

Hilly Zone: Kalghatgi, Sagara and Madikere taluks fall under this zone. The rainfall received

in this zone varies from 900-4318mm. The area under rain fed crops is around 81%. The

major soil types are red and laterites. The important crops grown in the region during kharif

are paddy, pulses and sugarcane. Plantation crops such as areca nut, coconut, banana,

cardamom, etc. cover large area.

Coastal Zone: Bantwala, Kundapura and Bhatkal taluks of Dakshina Kannada, Udupi and

Uttara Kannada districts, respectively, belong to this zone. The zone receives an average

annual rainfall ranging from 900 to 4500 mm, and 55 to 74% of the cultivated area is rain fed

in these Taluks. Crops grown are paddy, pulses, groundnut and sugarcane. Plantation crops

cover large areas. The major soils are red laterite and coastal alluvial.


39

Fig-3.1 Drought prone areas in Karnataka as determined by Length of growing season.

Source: NBSS&LUP Regional Centre, Bengaluru


40

Table 3.2. Details of Taluks with respect to soils and land use

District Taluk Agro-climatic

Zone

Rainfall

(mm)

Area cultivated (ha) Soil type Cropping season and crops

Total Rain fed

Bagalakote Badami

Northern Dry Zone 465 to 977

119494 75561

(63.23) Major soils are shallow to

medium black soils and red

loams distributed in equal

proportion

General crop season is kharif in shallow

black soils and rabi in medium and deep

black soils. Major crops are sorghum, maize,

bajra, groundnut, pulses, sugarcane, cotton

and sunflower.

Vijayapura Vijayapura 182723 116468

(63.74)

Gadaga Gadaga 552926 517613

(93.61)

Koppal Yelburga 135613 102996

(75.94) Clay soils

General cropping growing season is kharif in

shallow redand black soils, rabi in red and

deep black soils. Sorghum, ragi, maize,

bajra, groundnut, pulses, sunflower, cotton

and sugarcane are the crops grown. Fruits

and vegetables are also grown in pockets.

Ballari Hoovinahadagali 75361

(79.45)

64743

(85.91) Black and red Loam

Kalaburagi Sedam

North-eastern Dry

Zone

669 to

1023

110342 86132

(78.05) Predominantly Black soils

General cropping season is kharif and crops

grown are paddy, jowar, maize, wheat, tur,

black gram, green gram, bengal gram,

groundnut, sunflower, cotton vegetables are

also grown in pockets.

Yadgiri Shahpur 145130 112433

(77.47)

Raichuru Devadurga 90200 76093

(84.36%) Predominantly Black soils

Bengaluru (R) Hoskote

Eastern Dry zone 556 to 841

37719 31488

(83.48%)

Major soil type is non-

gravelly red loam with a

narrow belt of Laterite soil.

General cropping season is Kharif. Principal

crops are paddy, maize, pulses, oil seeds and

mulberry. A sizeable area is also under

vegetables and flower crops.

Chikkaballapura Chintamani 38188 32392

(84.82)

Kolara Malur 33508 25240

(75.33)

Ramanagara Channapatna 28961 17182

(59.33)

Tumakuru Tumakuru

Central Dry zone 450 to 750

67133 45126

(67.22) Major soil type is red loam

with sporadic occurrence of

shallow to deep black soils.

Predominantly kharif area. Paddy, sorghum,

ragi, oilseeds & pulses are the major crops. Chitradurga Hiriyur 89277

72016

(80.67)

Chikkamagaluru Kaduru 107217 99966

(93.2)

Chamarajanagaraa Chamarajanagaraa

Southern Dry zone 829 to 892

69568 47311 (68) Major soils are red loam

with pockets of black soils

Cropping season is kharif. Major crops are

Paddy, ragi, sugarcane, pulses and minor

millets and mulberry. Mandya Pandavapura 31030

11400

(36.7)


41

District Taluk Agro-climatic

Zone

Rainfall

(mm)

Area cultivated (ha) Soil type Cropping season and crops

Total Rain fed

Davanagere Channagiri

Southern

Transition Zone

610 to

1293

84187 52389

(62.23)

Major soils are red loam. Major season is kharif. Principal crops are

paddy, sorghum, ragi, pulses and tobacco. Hassan Hassan 84218

73035

(86.7)

Mysuru Periyapatna 87233 73636

(84.4)

Haveri Haveri

Nothern Transition

Zone

900 to

2600

74974 61989

(82.68) Major soil types are

gravelly sandy clay loam

and laterites.

Paddy, pulses, groundnut and sugarcane are

the principal crops grown in the region.

Plantation crops such as areca nut, coconut,

cashew, cardamom, banana, etc. cover a

large area. Belagavi Bailhongal 82891

59713

(72.03)

Bidar Humnabad North-eastern

Transition Zone 821 to 887 72044

62070

(86.15)

Lateritic, red and black

soils are the major soils

General cropping season is kharif in red and

black soils, rabi in, medium and deep black

soils. Crops grown are paddy, jowar, bajra,

maize, wheat, gram, pigeon pea, groundnut,

sunflower, sugarcane. Fruits and vegetables

are also grown in pockets.

Shivamogga Sagara

Hilly Zone 900 to

4318

26265 13370

(50.9) The major soils are red

gravelly clay, red clay:

lateritic clay: medium deep

black: non-saline and saline

alluvo-colluvial: and brown

forest soil

Most of the area is under forest cover. The

crops cultivated in this district are paddy,

maize, ragi, oilseeds, cotton, areca nut,

cashew nut, pepper, chilli and ginger.

Kodagu Madikeri 52513 52436

(99.9)

Dharwad Kalghatgi 50361 46657

(92.64)

Dakshina Kannada Bantwala

Coastal Zone 900 to

4500

34679 18955

(54.7)

Major soil types are red,

laterite and costal alluvial.

Paddy, pulses, groundnut and sugarcane are

the principal crops grown in the region.

Plantation crops cover large area.

Udupi Kundapura 48962 36447

(74.4)

Uttara Kannada Bhatkal 5760 4105

(71.26)

*Figures in parenthesis indicate percent of total cultivated area.


42

3.2 Demographic Details of the Taluks Selected

The total population across the taluks ranged from 1,11,846 in Bhatkal taluk, Uttara Kannada

to as high as 5,16,661 in Tumakuru taluk, (Table 3.3). The percentage of males and females

across the project taluks under study varied from 46.2 to 51.9% and 48.1 to 53.8%,

respectively (Figure 3.1a). The scheduled caste population accounted for 16.7% across all

taluks, the highest being 26.2% in Vijayapura taluk and the lowest 4.3% in Bantwala taluk.

Scheduled tribes represented 28.5% in Kudligi followed by Humnabad (15.7%) and the

average across the districts is 7.0% (Figure 3.1b). Together, these vulnerable groups

constitute 23.7%, indicating that any developmental program to be successful needs to focus

on inclusiveness and poverty reduction. It is interesting to note that the percentage population

of vulnerable groups is more in areas with recurrent droughts.

Figure 3.1 a: Gender details across sub watersheds in the state

Fig.3.1 b: Distribution of Social groups across sub watersheds in the state


43

Table 3.3: Taluk Level Demographic Information

District Taluk No of

Villages

Total

Households

(No)

Total

Population

(No)

District Taluk No of

Villages

Total

Households

(No)

Total

Population

(No)

Bengaluru Rural Hoskote 297 32103 222430 Udupi Kundapura 99 79417 377420

Chikkaballapura Chintamani 400 53922 271284 Bagalakote Badami 149 45260 246804

Kolara Malur 363 40047 207009 Belagavi Bailhongal 132 69611 332007

Ramanagara Channapatna 145 53496 252574 Vijayapura Vijayapura 130 72613 393648

Tumakuru Tumakuru 373 109576 516661 Dharwad Kalghatgi 87 27965 137742

Chitradurga Hiriyur 159 79393 332718 Gadaga Gadaga 60 36684 175883

Davanagere Channagiri 249 54933 292507 Haveri Haveri 90 43966 213260

Shivamogga Sagara 238 39077 200995 Uttar

Kannada Bhatkal 59 22559 111846

Chamarajanagaraa Chamarajanagaraa 184 81854 337571 Bidar Humnabad 112 48327 294587

Mandya Pandavapura 171 55128 175009 Kalaburagi Sedam 179 36057 196154

Hassan Hassan 391 127971 361147 Yadgiri Shahapur 73 48435 293518

Mysuru Periyapatna 203 58696 224254 Raichuru Devadurga 206 36709 222457

Chikkamagaluru Kaduru 312 80172 289406 Koppal Yalburga 143 41379 236373

Kodagu Madikeri 67 32819 142012 Ballary Hoovinahadagali 122 31084 168118

Dakshina

Kannada Bantwala 79 71847 361554 Total 5272 16,11,100 75,86,948


44

3.3 Particulars of watersheds selected for study

The details of the sample watersheds selected for the impact study are presented in Table.3.4.

Altogether, 29 SWSs were selected, one from each district. The 29 SWSs extend over 1.34

lakh ha, encompassing 497 villages and 82,181 households. Mattighatta SWS in

Chikkamagaluru district has the largest number of villages (49), followed by Doddamanikere

SWS (Bengaluru rural) with 34 villages, and Akkur SWS in Ramanagara district (31). About

seven SWSs have less than 10 villages. The topography in many of the SWSs is either hilly

or of undulating terrain caused by soil erosion. The predominant soil types in the SWS are:

red (13 SWSs), black (9 SWSs) and mixed red/black/lateritic (7 SWSs). While five SWSs

have a household density in excess of 1 per ha, 10 SWSs have less than 0.5 households in one

hectare.


45

Table 3.4 Particulars of watersheds selected for the study

Name of the

District Name of the SWS/ Code Latitude Longitude Area (ha) Topography Soil type Depth (m) Villages (Nos)

Total

Households

(Nos)

Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/Doddamanikere 13°4'56" -

13°8'31"

77°28'52" -

77°33'38" 4929

Plain

Red Sandy

loam

Moderately

Deep 34 4262

Chikkaballapura Chintamani/

Ragimakalahalli

13°19'28" -

13°22'13"

78°5'40" -

78°7'16" 4200 Shallow red Shallow 9 2038

Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 13°35'59" 76°18'00" -

76°21'43" 5400.56

Red Sandy

loam

Moderately

Deep to Deep 7 2754

Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 13°18'14" 75°45'08" 5092

Red sandy

loam & clay

loam

Moderately

Deep 14 2475

Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 13°02'50" 77°59'13" 3194.25 Red sandy

loam

Shallow to

Moderately

Deep

20 4108

Ramanagara Channapatna/ Akkur 12°39'0" 77°13'12" 3559 Red sandy

loam

Shallow to

Moderately

Deep

31 5160

Shivamogga Sagara/ Yelakundli 14°10'53" 75°35'40" 3040 Hilly

Red sandy

loam & clay

loam

Deep to very

Deep 26 1640

Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagiri 13°15'11" -

13°18'04"

77°04'36" -

77°09'00" 4977 Plain

Red sandy

loam

Shallow to

Moderately

Deep

19 3175

Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/

Mallayanapura 11°55'19"

76°49'19" -

76°52'55" 3467.68

Undulating

Red and Black Medium to

Deep 12 2472

Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 15

°24’19” -

15°32’

75°38’25” -

75°40’27" 2750 Red soil

Medium to

Deep 22 2831

Chikkamagalore Kadur/ Mattighatta 13°20’00” 75°50’00° 6180 Red sandy Deep 49 3860

Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 13°1'20" 76°35'46" 3832.78 Hilly

Gravelly red

sandy loam

Medium to

Deep 25 1360

Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigudu 12

°25'32" -

12°30'04"

76°05'41" -

76°11'16"

6721.09 Plain Red loam Medium to

Deep 27 3706

Dakshina

Kannada

Bantwala/

Punacha/Peruvai 12°56'0" 70

°7'0" 5000

Hilly

Red loam&

Lateritic soils Deep 6 5456

Udupi Kundapura/ Kuntahole/

Narasipura 13

°34'33" 74

°55'59" 6000

Red loam&

Lateritic soils Deep 7 2265


46

Name of the

District Name of the SWS/ Code Latitude Longitude Area (ha) Topography Soil type Depth (m) Villages (Nos)

Total

Households

(Nos)

Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/

Makandoor 12°31'18" 75

°38'24" 5104.24 Red loam Deep 13 1415

Bagalakote Kerkalmatti/ Badami 16°12'58" 75°47'43" 3355

Undulating

to nearly

level

Black clay

loam to clay

Moderate to

very deep 15 3226

Belagavi Neginal/ Bailhongal 15°89'12" 74°79'29" 4354 Black clay

loam to clay

Deep to very

deep 30 960

Vijayapura Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 16°61'02" 75°56'49" 4716.51 Black clay

loam to clay

Moderate to

very deep 14 936

Dharwad Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 15°12'15" 75°02'24" 3043.15 Black, clay

loam Deep 11 3126

Gadaga Kadadi/ Gadaga 15°52'47" 75°61'40" 4595.5 Black sandy

clay loam

Moderately

Deep to Deep 22 3026

Haveri Agadi/ Haveri 14°52'37" 75°45'33" 6107 Black clay

loam to clay

Moderate to

very deep 21 3619

Uttara Kannada Mavalli/ Bhatkal 14°16'11" 74°49'24" 8194.13

Undulating

to gently

sloping

Red and

laterite

Shallow to

Moderate 14 2483

Bidar Nirna/ Humnabad 17°42' 55" 77

° 16' 9" 6142

Undulating

& Hilly

Lateritic Red

and black

Shallow to

Moderately

Deep

11 3786

Kalaburagi Habalanala/ Sedam 17°15'2"

77° 18’

12.70” E 4263

Undulating

and Plain

Black Cotton,

loamy to sandy

Shallow to

Moderately

Deep

7 2151

Yadgiri Wadigera/ Shahpur 16°37'2" 77

°0'44" 3106

Plain &

Hilly Black

Moderately

Deep to Deep 6 2065

Raichuru Khyadigera/ Devadurga 16°17'6" 76

° 4’34" 6200

Plain,

Undulating

& Hilly

Black and red

Shallow to

Moderately

Deep

11 2250

Koppal Hirevankalakunta/

Yelburga 15

°43'39" 76

°6'30" 4690 Black and red

Moderately

Deep to Deep 11 3741

Ballary Hirehadagali/

Hoovinahadagali 14

°57'22" 75

°46'32" 2280 Black and red

Shallow to

Deep 3 1835

Total 134494 - - - 497 82181


47

3.4 Economic status of households

The economic status of households and their standard of living in any area are determined by

their income level. Table 3.5 shows the income level of different category of farmers at the

household level within the sample watersheds. The income of all rural landless families

varied from about Rs. 7,500/- (Doddamanikere SWS) to 1,64,000/- (Kerkalmatti SWS) across

the watersheds before the implementation of project. For marginal families it varied from

Rs.13,400/- to Rs. 2,45,000/-, whereas for small farmers it varied from Rs. 16700/- to Rs.

2,35,000/- and for large farmers it varied from Rs.33,900/- to Rs. 3,03,000/-. According to

the circular issued by the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, GoK, the people are

considered to be below poverty line if the rural household income is less than Rs.12,000/-. In

this respect, barring the landless labourers from six SWSs, none of the other farmer

categories across the 29 SWSs were under the poverty line before the project.

3.5 Fund management by SWSs

The magnitude of funds received and the amount utilized by the SWSs in the successive

years during the period is given in Table.3.6. The data presented in table reveals, that more

than 90% of the amount released for the individual SWSs, except in six cases, has been

utilized. The utilization of funds was the least in Gadaga (36.9%) followed by Badami

(58.0%). It can however be assumed that the finances provided are effectively utilized for

implementing the Program in most of the watersheds. Focus group discussions with WDT

and EC members revealed that advance planning as well as revised annual action plans have

helped to undertake the works as per the plan and book the expenditure. The WDT facilitated

the EC to complete assignments by guiding them wherever required. As a result of advance

planning after studying the local conditions and requirements, works could be handled with

continuous guidance from WDT and complete in time. The regular meetings held by EC

helped to review the progress from time to time and any constraints noticed were cleared in

time. This speaks of good co-operation between the WDT, EC and stakeholders.


48

Table 3.5: Economic status (Average Annual Income per family)

Name of the Taluk/SWS

Income to

land less (Rs)

Income to

marginal

farmers (Rs)

Income to

small

farmers (Rs)

Income to large

farmers (Rs)

Hosakote/ Doddaammanikere 7488 13486 26087 33901

Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 26628 21570 20778 41810

Hiriyur/ Kariyalapura 11218 13488 16778 59143

Channagiri/ Nallur 25975 58112 51905 171586

Malur/ Vadaganahalli 16895 38688 34070 140605

Channapattana/ Akkur 25526 30482 42470 50135

Sagara/ Yalakundi 10138 16728 27114 42738

Tumakuru/ Hanumanthagiri 10315 14703 26253 45330

Chamarajanagaraa/

Mallayanapura 23393 19409 34503 121928

Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 9525 22685 27855 36660

Kadur/ Mattighatta 62125 107766 97064 172805

Hassan/ Kalyadi 10220 35848 59173 116193

Periyapattana/ Attigudu 94829 94733 117000 163900

Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 13670 18113 19419 49588

Kundapura/ Kuntahole/

Narasipura 57551 42183 66208 112400

Madikere/ Vatahole/

Makandoor 41750 46836 68595 102725

Kerkalmatti/ Badami 164444 246615 173965 280969

Neginal/ Bailhongal 54830 53634 91940 133484

Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 46375 110266 129623 153692

Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 32033 46416 96615 113097

Kadadi/ Gadaga 12465 34533 78466 80366

Agadi/ Haveri 108615 84104 66964 139895

Mavalli/ Bhatkal 99856 98689 156930 303066

Nirna/ Humnabad 79606 141057 214421 290496

Habalanala/ Kalaburagi 54000 46800 124490 177765

Wadigera/ Yadgiri 78073 125521 171990 256431

Khyadigera/ Raichuru 28375 152183 220991 195895

HV Kunta/ Koppal 28300 160960 235347 300532

Hirehadagali/ Ballary 87083 161150 229152 296323

Average 45562 70923 94006 144257


49

Table.3.6: Fund Management in watersheds (in Lakh Rs.)

District. Name of the

SWS/Code

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/

Doddamanikere 23.7 0.5 33.4 32.7 104.8 92.2 177.4 152.4 79.8 73.5

Chikkaballapura Chintamani/

Ragimakalahalli 28.9 27.8 126.6 124.8 256.3 252.8 26.6 23.5 18.6 15.7

Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 0 0 111.7 107.8 143.7 142.2 174 161.7 134 132.6

Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 30 0 61.6 26.1 224.8 63.1 213.7 183.2 94.6 94.2

Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 18.6 15.3 25.6 6.9 108.6 77.2 58.1 137.3 91.9 82.6

Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 20.3 0 33.6 31.1 156.8 126.6 241.7 220.8 21.3 11.8

Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 21.6 0 43.8 27.1 267.5 234.7 169.5 122.6 38.4 21.9

Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumant

hagirir 38.2 33.2 121.5 121.2 296.7 296.4 126.7 124.3 2.4 0.8


Mallayanapura 16.7 0 26.2 24.7 86.2 79.3 135.4 113.1 57 55.3

Mandya Pandavapura/

Jakkenahalli 24 4.2 60.2 19.3 165 131.4 158.9 136.1 29.2 12.9

Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 30.6 29.3 128.7 88.5 268.3 288.6 105.3 81.6 36 74

Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 10 0 45.2 30.2 108.6 95.5 174 155.4 77.6 54.9

Mysuru Periyapattana/

Attigodu 52.3 14.8 100.7 78 361.3 303.4 305.7 286.2 52 49.6

Dakshina Kannada Bantwala/

Punacha/Peruvai 35.6 0 60.3 56.3 217.3 126.1 354.5 244.6 196.5 180.1

Udupi

Kundapura/

Kuntahole/

Narasipura 34.3 6.4 63.3 35.3 193.7 141.6 176.9 162.4 144.1 129.5

Kodagu Madikere/Vatahole/

Makandoor 36.4 0 38.7 32.2 171.7 132.8 154.7 149.6 110.4 54.2

Bagalakote Kerkalmatti/ Badami 45.2 0 168.6 70.1 485.5 292.1 316.5 216.5 108.9 67.9

Belagavi Neginal/ Bailhongal 26.1 0 37.7 33 194.1 192.5 293.4 267.3 59.8 51.2

Vijayapura Arjunagihalla/

Vijayapura 31.9 0 60.6 35 385.4 376.6 162.8 137.9 50 45.5

Dharwad Hulaginkatti/

Khalgatagi 0 0 22.9 16.9 55.6 31.8 135.2 104.7 106.3 89.7

Gadaga Kadadi/ Gadaga 31 0 88.2 37.9 240 153 279.1 264.9 714.3 55.7

Haveri Agadi/ Haveri 24.1 0 52.3 40.3 180.7 162.9 252.1 236.5 47.4 46.5

Uttara Kannada Mavalli/ Bhatkal 30 22.4 20.5 20.4 368.6 365.7 248.2 245 59.3 55.9

Bidar Nirna/ Humnabad 0 0 48.5 44.8 204.5 155.3 284.1 229.6 100.2 53.8


50

Kalaburagi Habalanala/ Sedam 22.6 0 48.4 31.8 167.8 164.8 217.2 208.5 38.6 37.4

Yadgiri Wadigera/ Shahpur 0 0 39.6 24 109.6 100.2 155.7 142.3 20.1 13.9

Raichuru Khyadigera/

Devadurga 44.2 0 55.3 12.6 218.1 169.2 208.4 196.9 103.5 85.8

Koppal Hirevankalakunta/

Yelburga 0 0 69.4 41.2 194.7 174.5 235.5 201 85.6 81.5


Hoovinahadagali 17.3 0.3 88.8 88.8 122.2 112.1 51.3 51 28.5 8.1

Table.3.6: continued

District. Name of the SWS/Code

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Total

%

Utilization

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 32.8 3.3 56.1 42.7 68.9 58.3 10.7 1 587.6 456.6 77.7

Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 19.9 17.1 3.2 1.2 3.1 1.8 1.3 1 484.5 465.7 96.1

Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 28.3 9.2 37.6 36.8 48.6 45.1 3.5 3.5 681.4 638.9 93.8

Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 82.5 2 104.1 92.1 152.1 145.4 7.3 1 970.7 607.1 62.5

Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 40.5 20.4 35.1 34.1 8.9 7.3 1.7 1.7 389 382.8 98.4

Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 33.9 10.6 25.1 18.2 7.1 1.3 5.9 0.9 545.7 421.3 77.2

Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 37.3 18.9 10.7 9.9 4.3 3.6 0.8 0.8 593.9 439.5 74.0

Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 1.6 0.5 1.6 0.5 1.4 0 1.5 1.5 591.6 578.4 97.8

Chamarajanagara

Chamarajanagaraa/

Mallayanapura 24.1 23 23.9 19.9 60.6 58.7 1.9 1.9 432 375.9 87.0

Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 21.9 12.1 2.4 1.5 1 0 1 1 463.6 318.5 68.7

Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 112.7 109.4 112.7 109.4 10.5 2.9 0 0 804.8 783.7 97.4

Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 45.9 26.3 97.4 53.1 70.8 35.5 35.8 9 665.3 459.9 69.1

Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 53.4 51 21.1 18.9 2.3 0 3.3 0.9 952.1 802.8 84.3

Dakshina

Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 86.4 74.4 12.4 2.3 32.2 30 1.2 1.2 996.4 715 71.8

Udupi

Kundapura/ Kuntahole/

Narasipura 88 43.5 49.4 28.5 67.2 55.3 11.3 1.4 828.2 603.9 72.9

Kodagu Madikere/Vatahole/Makandoor 126.5 129.5 0.8 59.9 0 0 0 0 639.2 558.2 87.3

Bagalakote Kerkalmatti/ Badami 61.4 41.4 30.9 30.2 22.5 13.4 21 1 1260.5 732.6 58.1

Belagavi Neginal/ Bailhongal 73.9 66.5 15.1 9.6 31.8 26.7 6.2 1.4 738.1 648.2 87.8

Vijayapura Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 50.4 16.2 50.7 46.9 7.4 4.2 3.3 0.9 802.5 663.2 82.6

Dharwad Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 27.5 15.6 21.6 19.5 21.5 6.5 15.2 15.1 405.8 299.8 73.9


51

Gadaga Kadadi/ Gadaga 50.3 2.4 0.9 0.1 7.8 7.3 0.5 0 1412.1 521.3 36.9

Haveri Agadi/ Haveri 46.5 30.6 24.8 22.7 37.9 36.77 4.8 4.3 670.6 580.57 86.6

Uttara Kannada Mavalli/ Bhatkal 43 39.6 3.6 0 3.7 0 3.7 0.9 780.6 749.9 96.1

Bidar Nirna/ Humnabad 105.7 79.4 51.3 30.1 84.3 69.2 15.9 0.9 894.5 663.1 74.1

Kalaburagi Habalanala/ Sedam 27.7 10.9 31.7 10.2 35.4 31.9 3.9 1.1 593.3 496.6 83.7

Yadgiri Wadigera/ Shahpur 23.5 10.3 13.3 12.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 362.8 304.5 83.9

Raichuru Khyadigera/ Devadurga 99.1 2.8 122 80.1 195.3 123.3 70.7 67.5 1116.6 738.2 66.1

Koppal Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 22.2 0 19.5 18 28 24.5 4 1.1 658.9 541.8 82.2

Ballary Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 34.6 0 56.1 11.5 6.9 5.2 4.2 1.6 409.9 278.6 68.0


52

3.6 Entry Point Activity (EAP) and Community Mobilization

The details of EPAs implemented in all the watersheds are presented in Table 3.7. It is

noticed that all the planned EPAs have been executed and the expenditure on them in each of

the sample watersheds has also been fully made as per the guidelines. The amount spent is as

per the guidelines (4.0%)

Focus group discussions with stakeholders revealed that activities under EPA are identified

through a democratic process, by conducting a transact walk with the stakeholders at several

places. In general, efforts were made to create surface storages to accommodate excess runoff

from rainfall so as to make water available for livestock and also other non-domestic uses at

the field level apart from facilitating groundwater recharge. These structures have helped to

improve groundwater recharge and thereby increased availability of water in the bore wells.

As of now, the water harvesting structures are in good condition.

Awareness building:

In all the SWSs, the planned number of awareness building programs has been fully

accomplished and the finances allocated for these programs have been fully utilized as per

plan.


53

Plate.2: Entry Point Activities (AHC, CD/VD/GK.RWS etc.) across SWS

sssssss

Stone pitching and de-silting of Tank at

Huluginakatti SWS, Kalaghatagi taluk,

Dharwad district

Check Dam at Nirna SWS, Humnabad

Taluk and Bidar District

Gokatte formed as EPA in Ragimakalpalli,

Chinthamani SWS, IWMP-8 during Batch

II/2010-11

EPA / Nala Bund, Mallaianapura SWS,

Chamarajanagaraa Taluk & District


54

Table 3.7: Details of structures constructed under E.P.A Entry Point Activities

No of the Taluk/SWS Planned Ach Gokatte

Nala

bund

(Nos)

Check

Dam MNB

Medicinal

Plants

Veg.

Kits AHC

Ravine

reclamation

structure

MPT V.D Kalyani Tank

desilting

Number

Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 13 13 1 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 12 11 2 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 9 9 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

Channagiri/ Nallur 10 10 0 5 0 4 1000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Malur/Vadaganahalli 9 9 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Channapatna/Akkur 7 7 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sagara/Yelakundli 18 18 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0

Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 9 9 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 18 18 10 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 25 25 13 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kadur/ Mattighatta 25 25 3 8 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hassan/ Kalyadi 42 42 40 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Periyapattana/ Attigodu 14 14 6 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0

Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 20 20 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0

Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 19 19 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0

Kerkalmatti/ Badami 7 7 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Neginal/ Bailhongal 5 5 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 7 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Kadadi/ Gadaga 21 21 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 8

Agadi/ Haveri 10 10 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mavalli/ Bhatkal 11 11 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

Nirna/ Humnabad 11 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Habalanala/ Sedam 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wadigera/ Shahpur 10 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0

Khyadigera/ Devadurga 1210 1210 0 0 0 0 0 1200 10 0 0 0 0 0

Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0

Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1604 1602 111 66 106 4 1000 1200 16 2 19 60 4 14


55

The details of the Programs organized are presented in Table 3.8. Totally, 205 Gram Sabhas,

188 Kala Jathas, 150 Street Plays, 137 wall paintings and 14 exposure visits were organized

across the watersheds. These Programs were either conducted in each village or in selected

villages of the watersheds. Building awareness about the project and making them to

understand the Program has resulted in motivation of stakeholders to actively participate in

implementing of the project. It was observed from the Programs conducted that attendance

level in these Programs is varied and not up to the mark. The District level agency needs to

follow a different road map for building awareness about the project, its necessity,

implementation arrangements for various components under different sectors to achieve the

goal. To this effect, organizing a cultural Program and a film show for attracting maximum

number of people would achieve the objective. In the school, these activities can be better

explained during parents’ day meet to children and parents together with documentary films

on the subject. Alternatively, weekly one-hour speech or short plays could be arranged in

schools so that the children will imbibe the need for protecting environment and sensitize

parents about the benefits of conservation. The timings of these Programs should be

convenient to the maximum number of stakeholders, particularly to women. Such campaign

needs to be on a mission mode rather than on target basis.

Table.3.8: Awareness building activities in different watersheds

SWS

Gra

ma

Sabh

a

Kal

a

Jat

ha

Stre

et

play

Wall

Painti

ng

Expos

ure

visits SWS

Gra

ma

Sabh

a

Kal

a

Jat

ha

Stre

et

play

Wall

Painti

ng

Expos

ure

visits

(Nos) (Nos)

Doddamanikere 27 10 4 0 0 Vatahole/

Makandoor 5 5 6 0 1

Ragimakalahalli 2 9 9 10 1 Kerkalmatti 21 10 6 10 3

Kariyalpura 9 17 16 9 1 Neginal 12 12 12 0 1

Nallur 6 16 16 17 1 Arjunagihalla 3 3 3 0 1

Vadaganahalli 22 8 5 0 1 Hulaginkatti 1 1 6 0 0

Akkur 31 20 20 0 1 Kadadi 5 5 5 4 25

Yelakundli 10 10 10 0 1 Agadi 3 4 4 0 4

Hanumanthagirir 10 19 8 40 1 Mavalli 8 16 16 8 1

Mallayanapura 9 9 9 24 1 Nirna 6 6 6 6 5

Jakkenahalli 22 8 8 0 1 Habalanala 6 6 6 6 1

Mattighatta 7 21 21 21 1 Wadigera 6 6 6 6 9

Kalyadi 9 4 4 16 1 Khyadigera 11 11 11 11 2

Attigodu 25 25 10 0 1 Hirevankalakunt

a 10 10 10 10 2

Punacha/Peruvai 6 6 6 0 1 Hirehadagali 4 4 4 4 3

Kuntahole/

Narasipura 10 6 4 0 1 Total 205 188 150 137 14


56

Plate.3: Awareness building Programs (Kalajatha, street Play, gram sabha,Jalanayana

mela) across SWS

sssssss

Jalanayana mela Program conducted in

Panja village of Idiyodi, Kunjethady,

Kenya SWS, SullyaTaluk, Dakshina

Kannada District

Gramasabha in Gadaga district

PRA in progress in Uttara Kannada Street Play in Yaliyur Village,

Kothathevanur Sub- watershed IWMP-5

Devanahalli Taluk Bengaluru Rural

District.


57

3.7 Capacity building of Community Based Organisations (CBOs)

The present watershed development Program was implemented following new guidelines

issued under National Rain fed Area Authority has specific provisions regarding the

formation of local level institutions like Watershed Committee (Executive Committee), User

Groups (UGs) and SHGs. These local institutions have certain roles to play for successful

implementation of the Program. For example, WC (EC) is the project implementer with

financial responsibility; UGs to identify interventions and maintain the assets created during

post project period for sustaining the development; and SHG members need to actively

participate in improving the conditions of common property resources to enable them to

improve their livelihood options.

In order to identify whether the CBOs had been formed with due representation of different

categories of members as prescribed in the guidelines, information is collected and presented

in Table 3.9. It could be seen from the data presented in the table that CBOs are formed in all

the SWSs as required under the guidelines.

The ECs formed have members representing the Panchayat Raj institution i.e. gram

panchayat and women varying from 31 (Mallayanapura SWS) to 78.8% (Kerkalmatti/

Badami SWS) and members from vulnerable groups (9 to 57%). A total of 106 ECs exist

across all watersheds with an average of three per watershed. These differences in

representation were due to variations in the population of different categories in a given

SWS. The members were selected unanimously through Grama Sabha.

UGs are formed on area basis as per the drainage line. A total of 1072 UGs were formed

across the twenty-nine watersheds, with the number of groups varying from 18 to 85 due to

variations in the number of villages and households. In UG women headed households are

also considered by making them as members in the group. Women’s enrolling in UG is a

clear indication that communities are mobilized as required under the guidelines.

Watershed Development Team consisting of multi – disciplinary team representing

agriculture, horticulture, forestry and animal husbandry is formed for each SWS. These staff

is well trained in the areas of resource conservation and management. These teams have

acted as facilitators for implementing the Program. This becomes clear when one examines

the type of entry point activity undertaken (identification process and its implementation).


58

Table 3.9: Formation of Community Based Organizations and representation of different categories.

Name of the SWS/ Code

EC SHG UG

No.

of

ECs

No. of

members

Representations

from local

institution (%)

Women

representation

(%)

SC/ST

representation

(%)

UG

Representation

(%)

SHG

representation

(%)

No. of

groups

No. of

Members

No. of

groups

No. of

Members

Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 4 49 32.6 42.8 34.6 42.8 24.8 55 1056 44 1092

Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 2 28 17.8 39.2 24.9 49.9 32.1 50 1000 30 600

Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 2 28 35.7 NA 28.5 53.5 32.1 54 972 44 880

Channagiri/ Nallur 5 71 21 40.6 57.4 39.2 32.2 48 717 48 952

Malur/Vadaganahalli 6 94 20.2 37.1 33.9 45.6 27.5 31 580 35 2485

Channapatna/Akkur 4 51 13.7 54.8 19 39 39.2 40 793 28 5280

Sagara/Yelakundli 2 32 18.7 31.2 9.4 49.9 31.2 16 298 25 820

Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 3 40 30 50 32.5 37.5 56 40 621 40 800

Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 2 29 31 31 37.9 31 34.5 30 525 18 360

Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 5 62 25.7 40.3 40.3 40.3 17.7 34 550 21 420

Kadur/ Mattighatta 7 109 25.7 41.3 44 43.6 14.7 46 676 83 670

Hassan/ Kalyadi 3 37 24.3 36 35 36 24.3 40 591 34 679

Periyapattana/ Attigodu 4 49 24.5 40.8 40.8 40.8 38.8 50 924 50 924

Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 5 60 25.1 48.4 41.7 41.7 21.7 60 594 34 466

Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 4 50 24 42 40 42.6 26 28 325 38 549

Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 3 37 24.3 62.1 40.5 40.5 24.3 33 499 33 449

Kerkalmatti/ Badami 3 33 NA 78.8 48.5 NA NA 45 553 35 657

Neginal/ Bailhongal 4 44 NA 54.5 25.4 NA NA 25 406 27 540

Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 3 33 NA 51.5 42.4 NA NA 40 533 30 2282

Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 2 30 NA 50 13.3 NA NA 20 265 18 1070

Kadadi/ Gadaga 4 44 NA 38.6 13.6 NA NA 42 496 32 1473

Agadi/ Haveri 2 24 NA 16.7 45.8 NA NA 21 339 42 3299

Mavalli/ Bhatkal 6 75 NA 36 48 NA NA 85 1285 85 1275

Nirna/ Humnabad 5 78 NA 38.5 38 NA NA 36 540 40 3286

Habalanala/ Sedam 2 32 NA 39.1 17.4 NA NA 40 760 41 1851

Wadigera/ Shahpur 3 48 NA 39.3 41.9 NA NA 25 434 18 1765

Khyadigera/ Devadurga 3 49 NA 33.9 45.9 NA NA 55 645 45 1950

Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 5 77 NA 38.9 32.9 NA NA 30 420 34 3241

Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 3 33 NA 41.6 46.7 NA NA 20 332 20 1635

Overall 106 1426 24.6 42.7 35.2 42.1 29.8 1139 17729 1072 41750


56

Capacity building of the CBOs:

As the new guidelines insist upon community participation in every aspect of watershed

development, planning, execution and maintenance, a provision has been made in the project

design to build the capacities of the community, who are the resource users so as to convert

them into resource managers to prevent degradation and reestablish ecological balance.

Towards this end the department has prepared 24 training modules for imparting training to

different groups in three schedules. These trainings are given by the Support Organization

(NGOs) recruited for the purpose under the supervision of the department.

The details of capacity building activities in the watershed projects under study are presented

in Table.3.10. It clearly reveals that lot of expenditure has been incurred to build capacities of

the farmers to handle the Program by becoming partners to it in the watershed area. The

Watershed Development Department has trained GO staff namely, Team Leader and IG

specialist for 5 days at Soil and Water Conservation Training Centers at Mysuru and

Vijayapura on the concept of watershed development in general and Integrated Watershed

Management Project and its implementation procedures in particular as well as their roles and

responsibilities. Similarly, Data Entry Operator engaged by NGO is trained for two days at

the Head Quarters of the Department regarding data entry and uploading into the State MIS.

These trainings are given only once and incase if there is change in the staff, the trainings

become waste and no provision exists for training the new entrants. Further such trainings

need to be not only focused but also intensive, as these persons in turn are required to train

the CBOs. These aspects need to be considered in the future Programs.

Trainings have been organized to CBOs (EC, UG and SHG members) in all the watersheds.

These members were given trainings at 3 levels using Subject Matter Specialists as resource

persons in most of the cases. In all 1426 EC members, 41750 UG members and 17729 SHG

members have been trained across the watershed projects. However, interactions with

stakeholders revealed that trainings need to have practical classes or exposure to places where

the Programs are successfully implemented for better understanding as class room lectures

are not enough to help them much. Further they also suggested that refresher courses may

help them to better understand at the time of implementation of the Program, which gives

them hands-on experience. In future Programs, steps need to be taken to address the above,

for improving the Program’s performance.


57

Table 3.10: Trainings for Capacity Building of different CBOs

Name of the SWS

NGO

Members

(Nos)

Expend

iture (in

Lakh Rs)

WAs

Trained

(Nos)

Expend

iture (in

Lakh

Rs)

UGs

(Nos)

UG

members

Trained

(Nos)

Expend

iture (in

Lakh Rs)

SHGs

(Nos)

SHG

Members

Trained

(Nos)

Expend

iture (in

Lakh Rs) ECs(Nos)

EC

members

Trained

(Nos)

Expend

iture

(in

Lakh

Rs)

Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 3 0.02 4 0.06 44 1092 1.97 55 1056 1.9 4 49 0.09

Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 3 0.02 3 0.06 30 600 1.08 50 1000 1.69 2 28 0.5

Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 3 0.02 5 0.02 44 880 1.58 54 972 1.75 2 28 0.5

Channagiri/ Nallur 3 0.02 5 0.02 48 952 1.71 48 717 1.29 5 71 0.12

Malur/Vadaganahalli 3 0.02 3 0.02 35 2485 4.47 31 580 1.04 6 94 0.16

Channapatna/Akkur 3 0.02 5 0.02 28 5280 9.5 40 793 1.37 4 51 0.09

Sagara/Yelakundli 3 0.02 3 0.02 25 820 1.48 16 298 0.54 2 32 0.05

Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 3 0.02 5 0.07 40 800 1.44 40 621 1.12 3 40 0.07

Chamarajanagaraa/Mallayanapura 3 0.1 4 0.13 18 360 0.65 30 525 0.95 2 29 0.05

Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 3 0.1 5 0.17 21 420 0.76 34 550 0.99 5 62 0.12

Kadur/ Mattighatta 3 0.1 5 0.17 83 670 1.51 46 676 1.21 7 109 0.2

Hassan/ Kalyadi 3 0.1 5 0.17 34 679 1.22 40 591 1.06 3 37 0.07

Periyapattana/ Attigodu 3 0.1 4 0.13 50 924 1.38 50 924 1.66 4 49 0.09

Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 3 0.1 5 0.17 34 466 1.1 60 594 0.84 5 60 0.1

Kundapura/ Kuntahole/Narasipura 3 0.1 5 0.17 38 549 0.59 28 325 1.41 4 50 0.09

Madikere/ Vatahole/Makandoor 3 0.1 5 0.17 33 449 0.85 33 499 0.44 3 37 0.06

Kerkalmatti/ Badami 3 0.04 4 NA 35 657 1.55 45 553 1.36 3 33 0.17

Neginal/ Bailhongal 3 0.04 4 NA 27 540 0.76 25 406 0.6 4 44 0.94

Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 6 0.05 2 NA 30 2282 4.73 40 533 1.16 3 33 0.13

Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 3 0.04 2 NA 18 1070 NA 20 265 NA 2 30 NA

Kadadi/ Gadaga 2 0.02 5 NA 32 1473 1.8 42 496 1.08 4 44 0.13

Agadi/ Haveri 5 0.01 2 NA 42 3299 4.1 21 339 0.07 2 24 0.04

Mavalli/ Bhatkal 3 0.04 3 NA 85 1275 2.7 85 1285 2.74 6 75 0.23

Nirna/ Humnabad 3 0.04 7 0.17 40 3286 0.8 36 540 1.09 5 78 0.08

Habalanala/ Sedam 3 0.04 4 0.17 41 1851 1.59 40 760 1.56 2 32 0.17

Wadigera/ Shahpur 3 0.04 3 0.17 18 1765 3.52 25 434 0.85 3 48 0.08

Khyadigera/ Devadurga 3 0.04 6 0.17 45 1950 2.25 55 645 1.45 3 49 0.1

Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 3 0.04 6 0.17 34 3241 1.48 30 420 0.83 5 77 0.19

Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 3 0.04 2 0.17 20 1635 0.74 20 332 0.58 3 33 0.05

Overall 91 1.44 121 1.02 1072 41750 57.31 1139 17729 32.63 106 1426 4.664


58

Plate.4: Capacity building zctivities and Net Plan Preparation

Net planning in Nandeganahalli SWS in

IWMP-9, Gauribidanur taluk.

E1 training at Rameswara SWS, Athani

taluk, Belagavi district

U1 training at Rameswara SWS, Athani

taluk, Belagavi district

Capacity building of SHGs of

Chikkaballapur district – batch 2


59

3.8 Bio-Physical interventions

Watershed development involves a series of bio-physical measures with the main objective of

in situ conservation of rain water, prevention of soil erosion, rainwater harvesting and bio

mass development. These measures are undertaken on private and common land resources

and along drainage lines as deemed necessary by the community in a given watershed. A

large variety of interventions for the purpose are undertaken based on the local conditions,

watershed characteristics and climatic conditions. The major aim of the present Program is to

spread investments widely to reach all the beneficiaries so as to achieve equity in investments

through an area-based approach. It is also ensured that beneficiaries will provide part of the

investment depending upon their social status so as to enable them to own the Program.

In all the watersheds, conservation measures like bunding, trenching, diversion drains, rubble

checks, waterways, farm ponds, mini percolation tanks, nala revetment and plantation works

are carried out under area development while check dams, nalabunds, gokatte and vented

dams are carried out as part of drainage line treatment. The physical and financial progress

achieved in different watersheds is presented in Table 3.11.


60

Table 3.11: Physical Progress Achieved - Soil Conservation

District Name of the SWS Bunding (ha) Total

Expenditure (In

Lakh Rs.) Planned Achieved

Bengaluru Rural Doddamanikere 469 287 17.13

Chikkaballapura Ragimakalahalli 3816 1442 108.2

Chitradurga Kariyalpura 4050 2116 257.2

Davanagere Nallur 3815 1195 34.1

Kolara Vadaganahalli 1885 717 59.1

Ramanagara Akkur 2668 1739 119.2

Shivamogga Yelakundli 0 0 0

Tumakuru Hanumanthagirir 2668 2022 112.72

Chamarajanagara Mallayanapura 1933 2479 151.0

Mandya Jakkenahalli 1650 2588 93.9

Chikkamagaluru Mattighatta 4660 2779 154.7

Hassan Kalyadi 1500 940 59.4

Mysuru Attigodu 2500 4249 325.2

Dakshina Kannada Punacha/Peruvai 0 0 0

Udupi Kuntahole/ Narasipura 12443** 12443** 4.41

Kodagu Vatahole/ Makandoor 758 758* 154.87

Bagalakote Kerkalmatti 2705 3120 177.2

Belagavi Neginal 3434 3434 187.6

Vijayapura Arjunagihalla 3868 4521 293.0

Dharwad Hulaginkatti 1594 1462 65.8

Gadaga Kadadi 5582 5582 276.1

Haveri Agadi 4606 4216 226.6

Uttara Kannada Mavalli 0 0 0

Bidar Nirna 5528 3562 225.6

Kalaburagi Habalanala 4263 3594 152.8

Yadgiri Wadigera 1818.85 1696 123.2

Raichuru Khyadigera 6200 3428 171.4

Koppal Hirevankalakunta 4690 4092 117.45

Ballary Hirehadagali 2140 2063 126.0

Overall 91243.85 76524 3793.88

* Staggered trenches ** Trenches in meters

The data presented in the table reveals that bunding in cultivated areas of the SWSs has been

achieved to the extent of 74% across the twenty-nine watersheds. In 10 watersheds,

additional expenditure was incurred (in comparison with sanctioned) in order to complete the

bunding activities, which has proven benefits of conserving rain water in rain fed areas.


61

Plate.5: Soil and water conservation works

TCB, Arasapur Village,

Chikkanarayangalakere SWS, Tumakuru

District

TCB, Kondlahalli Village & SWS,

Molakamooru Taluk, Chitradurga District

Bunding with Waste weir in Karjigi village, Agadi

SWS, Haveri taluk & district

Bund Sowing on bunds in Neginal SWS,

Bailhongal Taluk, Belagavi district


62

It was observed that the bunding conserved rain water and improved yields of ragi by 180 to

400 kg/ha and incase of maize the yield improvement are varied from 150 kg/ha to 900 kg/ha.

Such yield improvements in ragi brought an additional income ranging Rs. 3,200/- per ha to

Rs. 6,000/- per ha. In case of maize the increase in income varied from Rs 3,000/ ha to as

high as Rs 12,000/-. Consequent to this intervention, the total yield in the watershed area has

increased by 72 to 3177 tonnes across the watersheds. The overall increase in the income has

ranged from 12.7 to 624 lakhs (Table. 3.12). The results indicate that payback period for the

investment made on the intervention is one to two years.

Table 3.12: Increase in Production and income level across the watersheds due to

bunding.

District SWS

Total

Area

(ha)

Under

crop

Crop

Area

bunded

(ha)

Yield

increase

Kg/ha

Increase

in

income

Rs./Ha

Total

increase in

production

(tons)

Total

increase

in income

at

watershed

level (Rs.

lakhs)

Bengaluru Rural Doddamanikere 4929.0 Ragi 287.1 245 4400 70.34 12.7

Chikkaballapura Ragimakalahalli 4200.0 G.Nut 1442.0 125 4375 346.8 624.3

Chitradurga Kariyalpura 5400.6 G.Nut 2115.9 250 8700 985.25 343.5

Davanagere Nallur 5092.0 Maize 1195 550 7100 1365.1 176.22

Kolara Vadaganahalli 3194.3 Ragi 717 180 3200 126.86 22.55

Ramanagara Akkur 3559.0 Ragi 1739 250 4500 434.5 78.21

Shivamogga Yelakundli (D.C) 3040.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tumakuru Hanumanthagirir 2286.3 Ragi 1324.8 330 6000 441 74.09

Chamarajanagara Mallayanapura 3467.7 Ragi 2479 400 6000 1322.16 198.32

Mandya Jakkenahalli 2750.0 Ragi 2599 400 6000 568.83 85.32

Chikkamagaluru Mattighatta 6180.0 Ragi 2779 400 6000 1101.16 165.24

Hassan Kalyadi 3832.8 Ragi 940 400 6000 294.4 44.16

Mysuru Attigodu 6721.1 Ragi 4249 400 6000 126.66

Dakshina

Kannada Punacha/Peruvai*

5000.0

0 0 0 0 0 0

Udupi Kuntahole/ Narasipura 4000.0 0 12443 0 0 0 0

Kodagu Vatahole/ Makandoor 5104.2 0 758 0 0 0 0

Bidar Nirna 6142.0 Redgram 3562 100 4500 356 160.29

Kalaburagi Habalanala 4263.0 Togari 3594 400 22000 1206 542.9

Yadgiri Wadigera 3106.0 Cotton 1696 100 4800 180 204.07

Raichuru Khyadigera 6200.0 Cotton 3428 200 9600 706 338.88

Koppal Hirevankalakunta 4690.0 Maize 4092 150 3000 614 122.7

Ballary Hirehadagali 2280.0 Maize 2063 900 12000 3177 423.6

*Plantation crops


63

The data presented above amply demonstrate that the bunding, whether done alone or in

combination with trenches helps to conserve rain water and increase the proportion of rainfall

used in crop production resulting in higher yields and income (See box-1). Further, a bund of

0.54 m2 cross section provides an additional surface area of 135 sq. m per ha and could be

planted with cowpea/red gram /castor and other perennial vegetation. This is being done at

many places and farmers are realizing additional income ranging from Rs. 5,700 to Rs.

13,188/ha on seasonal basis.

In order to sustain such benefits, farmers are required to maintain size and shape of the bund

by periodically dressing as part of annual maintenance and establish appropriate vegetation.

Farmers also need to maintain equalizers particularly in places where waste weirs are not

organized to prevent gullying. It is observed that awareness towards this end is not up to the

mark as of now, which should be considered in future programs.


64

Box – I: Bunding/TCB effect on crop yields and income

Focus group discussions with stake holders revealed that trench cum bunds conserved rain

water which consequently helped to improve yields and income. The cost of bunding per

acre varied from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 2,600/-. Farmers have realized additional income ranging

from Rs. 1,500 to Rs.6,300 per acre. Thus, payback period for the investment is one to two

years. This could be further improved if improved practices are followed.

Name Crop Yield (q/ ha) Income (Rs. / ha)

Before After Before After

Sri HuchhaiahKattemalinahalli,

Hassan Ragi 20 25 25000 36000

Smt.Parvathamma, Bachenahalli,

Alur,Hassan Maize 55 60 49000 56500

Sri Shivabasappa, Heggatore,

Chamarajanagara Ragi 15 17.5 25000 32125

Sri Eranna, Udevu, Tarikere,

Chikkamagaluru Potato 80 92 52000 59200

Sri Rangappa, Udevu, Tarikere,

Chikkamagaluru Maize 37.5 42.5 42250 46125

Sri Mahadevaswamy, Nerale,

Nanjanagudu,Mysuru District Ragi 10.0 12.5 17000 21250

Devaraju,Chittenahalli, Pandavapura

Taluk,Mandya Ragi 15.0 16.25 8281 13438

Sri Gopalasetty,Terakanahalli,

Gundlupet Taluk Jowar 11.25 15.0 12625 19625

Sri Narayanappa,

Ankanahalli,Channarayapatana

Taluk, Hassan District

Ragi 15.0 18.0 16200 18850

VenkatappaGorke,Devanahalli Ragi 2180 2425 35000 41600

Srinivasappa,Kodigenahalli G.Nut 1125 1250 39300 43750

Devanayaka,

GowrasumdranMankalmuru

G.Nut 500 750 17500 26200

HanumanthappaRudrapuraChannagiri Maize 3500 4050 45500 52600

Channamma, Hirikondalahalli Ragi 750 930 13500 16700

Puttaswamaya, AkkinalaMagadi Ragi 1750 2000 31500 36000


65

Safe Disposal systems for preventing damage due to excess runoff on the downstream.

The progress achieved regarding the disposal systems in the catchment area of the watersheds

is presented in table 3.13. The disposal systems include waste weirs, diversion channels,

rubble checks, boulder checks and gully plugs. Not all these interventions were either

planned or taken up in every SWS. Waste weirs were planned and executed in all except

seven SWSs. Gully plugs were planned and constructed only in four SWSs, while rubble

checks were planned in two SWSs and bolder checks planned in nine SWSs only. Hence, the

achievements in respect of disposal systems varied from one to other SWS. In case of waste

weirs, none of the planned waste weirs could be executed in Doddamanikere SWS, and in the

remaining watersheds, the achievement varied from 21.9% in Hirehadagalli (Ballari) to more

than 100% in three watersheds, with an overall achievement of 74%. Diversion channels

were planned in eight watersheds. The achievement was 100%, in respect of these

watersheds.

Rubble Check, Marigowdanadoddi Village, Doddayalachegere SWS, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District


66

Table 3.13: Physical Progress Achieved with respect to Disposal Systems for safe disposal run-off water

Name of Sub watershed

Disposal Systems

Total

Expenditure

(in Lakh Rs.)

Waste Weirs

(WW)(Nos.)

Diversion Channel

(DC)(RMT)

Rubble Checks

(RC) (RMT)

Boulder Checks

(BC) (Nos.)

Gully Plugs

(GP)/LRS (No.)

Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd

Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 1387 956 6094 6094 0 0 69 69 0 0 43.8

Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 1975 2410 0 0 352 352 79 79 99 99 57.6

Channagiri/ Nallur 1241 920 0 0 0 0 1 1 184 184 5.98

Malur/Vadaganahalli 396 396 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 2.44

Channapatna/Akkur 869 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.82

Sagara/Yelakundli 0 0 17903 17903 0 0 0 0 0 0 40.4

Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 1011 1252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.13

Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 1653 534 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 8.47

Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 7879 7879 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51.21

Kadur/ Mattighatta 0 0 6527* 6527* 373 474 0 0 201 201 68.7

Hassan/ Kalyadi 98 64 538 800 0 0 75 75 0 0 27.7

Periyapattana/ Attigodu 674 674 700 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 49.88

Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 0 0 599 599* 0 0 0 0 0 0 52.96

Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 300** 300** 45398 45398 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.25

Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kerkalmatti/ Badami 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 NA

Neginal/ Bailhongal 1352 1393 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.07

Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 250 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 1550 1403 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 40.5

Kadadi/ Gadaga 300 185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Agadi/ Haveri 450 250 0 6630** 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.75

Mavalli/ Bhatkal 500 375 6630 6630 0 0 0 180 8 8 12.55

Nirna/ Humnabad 0 0

0 0 1000 925 0 0 27.8

Habalanala/ Sedam 2560 1283 0 0 0 0 1458 1458 0 0 26.8

Wadigera/ Shahpur 4263 3016 3** 3** 0 0

60 0 0 27.6

Khyadigera/ Devadurga 642 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.23

Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 6200 3530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.65

Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 1455 318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.14

Overall 37120 27557 84392 91284 725 826 2685 2914 500 500 615.43 * NRVT ** Water ways


67

In future Programs, it is essential to include cost of waste weirs within the bund cost and

execute along with bunding. Fortunately, as of now, no damage is noticed. Provision of

diversion drain for safe disposal of excess runoff from high ridges has stabilized agriculture

on the downstream. After formation of these channels, the farmers on the downstream are

able to cultivate and diversify the crops (ragi to maize) for higher returns. (See Box-2).

During field visit, it is observed that though the diversion drain is connected to natural drain,

required bed gradient is not given to prevent gullying while making the drain. The spoil is

used to form the bund on the downstream but no vegetation is established. It is, therefore,

necessary to educate farmers to establish vegetation on the bund and provide vegetative

checks in the gully bed at appropriate places to prevent collapsing of the drain and gullying.

To ensure this, the capacity building should be done at two stages viz. first stage during

planning and second stage during implementation to develop maintenance mechanism.

Name Crop

Yield (q/ha) Net income

(Rs. /ha)

Before After Before After Before After

Sri Palakshappa,

Kallur

Arakalagudu,

Hassan

Paddy

Maize

Paddy

Maize

27.5

40.0

37.5

50.0

23125

41500

Total

64625

39875

5775

97625

Sri Basavaraj,

Kumbarahalli, Alur

Taluk, Hassan

Paddy

Maize

Paddy

Maize

35.0

47.50

46.25

50.0

31125

44250

40125

54500

Sri Basavaraj,

Kumbarahalli, Alur

Taluk, Hassan

Paddy

Maize

Paddy

Maize

35.0

47.50

46.25

50.0

31125

44250

40125

54500

Smt.Revathi Casta,

Madamakki,

Kundapura, Udupi

Dist.

Paddy

Paddy

22.50 23.75 13583 15958

Sri Nage Gowda,

Vatahole, Madikeri,

Kodagu

Paddy

Maize

Paddy

Maize

35.0

43.75

40.0

50.0

44625

37375

62625

46750

Sri Subbaiah,

Vatahole, Madikeri,

Kodagu

Paddy

Paddy

40.0 43.75 63875 72500

Sri Ramanna

Gowda,

Idyodi, Puttur

Taluk, D.K.

Paddy

Paddy

47.73 61.36 71818 97727

Sri Kariyaiah,

Galaganakere,

Periyapatna,

Ragi+

Redgram

Paddy

16+

3.0

37 22760 46200


68

Mysuru Dist.

Smt.Sarvothamma,

Cherkady, Udupi

Dist.

Paddy

Paddy

36.67 40.0 16500 25167

Sri Eswara Naik,

Amasebail,

Kundapura Taluk,

Udupi Dist.

Paddy

Paddy

30.0 32.5 32625 36125

Sri Srinivasa

Gowda,

Kandenahalli,

Pandavapura,

Mandya

Ragi

Horsegram

Ragi

Horsegram

Chry……

9.50

5.0

12.50

5.17

300

2750

30

6081

2997

10500

Sri Lanke Gowda,

Sri Narashime

Gowda,

Sri Chennige

Gowda,

Adani Gowda

Koppalu,

Pandavapura,

Mandya

Ragi

Paddy

35.0

32.0

35.0

40.0

36.0

40.0

20850

16000

19350

41850

35000

38100


69

3.9 Rain Water Harvesting structures

Rain water harvesting structures planned and executed in the selected watersheds included

farm ponds, mini percolation tanks, check dams, nala bunds, vented dams and gokatte

(Table–3.14). It is observed that all the above structures are not planned in all the watersheds.

For example, farm ponds are not considered in six SWSs (Table–3.14). This clearly suggests

that need based planning is adopted in developing the area. This could be the result of

participatory planning. Achievement with respect to different activities such as farm ponds,

check dams, nala bunds, gokatte, vented dams and mini percolation tanks varied across

watersheds. In the watersheds of Udupi, Dakshina Kannada, Uttara Kannada and

Shivamogga districts, because of terrain conditions, vented dams are constructed in place of

check dams. These structures have helped to stabilize gully and also helped to retain water

in the off-season to provide protective irrigation to the crops around the site. The extent of

the area irrigated varied from structure to structure depending upon the site conditions.

Of the 22 watersheds for which data is available, the average total runoff stored was 3910

T.C.M. The amount of water retained varied between the watersheds due to number of

structures (Table – 3.15). Assuming 5% runoff from the average annual rainfall, the runoff

expected varied from 214 T.C.M in Khyadigera to as high as 15865 T.C.M in Kalyadi, and

the measures have helped to conserve only 5% of the runoff water across watersheds. The

highest storage volume as percentage of runoff was observed in Kariyalpura watershed of

Chitradurga district (68%).This clearly indicates that the developmental activities are planned

considering the downstream requirements so as to prevent negative externalities associated

with conservation measures. These interventions have positively impacted groundwater

recharge, as can be inferred from table 3.15.

The rise in water table was maximum in Attigodu (70 m) followed by Wadigera (51 m). A

minimum water table rise of 2 m was observed for all watersheds. Such rise in water table

helped farmers to stabilize the irrigated areas under bore wells and provided opportunity to

extend area under irrigation and cropping intensity.


70

Plate.6: Rainwater harvesting structures across SWS

Farm Pond, Koteganguru Village & SWS,

Shivamogga District

Check Dam, Kondavada Village,

ChikkamaluruKere SWS, Madhugiri

Taluk, Tumakuru District

Percolation Tank in Mavalli Village,

Mavalli SWS, BhatkalTq., UK District

Vented Dam filled with water in

Mavalli Village, Mavalli SWS,

BhatkalTq., UK District.

Gokatte in VK kunte SWS, Koppal taluk

and district

Nalabund at Chilakanahatti SWS,

Hospete taluk and Bellari district


71

Table 3.14: Physical Progress Achieved with respect to gully control cum water harvesting structures.

Name of the SWS

Water Harvesting

Check Dams (CDs)

(Nos)

VD (Vented Dams)

(Nos)

NB (Nala Bunds)

(Nos)

FP (Farm pond)

(Nos)

MPT (Mini

Percolation Tanks)

(Nos)

Gokattes

(Nos)

Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd

Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 17 17 0 0 60 60 35 35 0 0 1 1

Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 6 6 0 0 15 15 76 76 11 11 8 8

Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 0 0 0 0 13 13 5 5 31 31 0 0

Channagiri/ Nallur 59 59 0 0 25 25 3 3 0 0 24 0

Malur/Vadaganahalli 13 16 0 0 1 1 138 138 7 7 19 26

Channapatna/Akkur 12 12 0 0 0 0 63 63 0 10 1 1

Sagara/Yelakundli 12 12 24 24 6 6 0 0 3 3 30 34

Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 36 34 0 0 6 6 237 234 10 10 3 3

Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 1 1 0 0 0 0 41 7 0 0 5 5

Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 8 4 0 0 0 1 130 96 0 0 0 0

Kadur/ Mattighatta 30 29 0 0 0 6 30 172 0 0 41 30

Hassan/ Kalyadi 0 0 0 0 7 7 156 156 0 0 16 16

Periyapattana/ Attigodu 8 16 0 0 3 3 110 92 0 0 47 47

Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 70 70 55 55 0 0 58 58 0 0 2 2

Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 0 0 30 73 0 2 206 317 4 4 9 12

Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 4 4 0 0 0 8 20 294 0 0 0 0

Kerkalmatti/ Badami 20 43 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 3 0 6

Neginal/ Bailhongal 58 58 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 4

Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 10 10 0 0 13 17 0 0 2 2 0 0

Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 5 6 0 0 2 2 25 8 8 8 0 0

Kadadi/ Gadaga 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 08 14

Agadi/ Haveri 12 12 12 12 0 0 3 3 1 1 24 24

Mavalli/ Bhatkal 7 7 94 94 0 0 40 22 0 0 47 47

Nirna/ Humnabad 11 33 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0

Habalanala/ Sedam 28 46 0 0 0 0 15 12 0 0 0 0

Wadigera/ Shahpur 9 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Khyadigera/ Devadurga 20 48 0 0 2 2 0 0 20 35 0 0

Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 13 4 0 0 0 0 19 16 25 0 18 18

Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 27 27 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

496 591 219 262 157 178 1428 1827 122 125 307 298


72

Table 3.15: Impact of conservation measures on runoff conservation and groundwater levels.

Name of the taluk/SWS Area (ha)

Area

budnded

(ha)

Rainfall

(MM)

expected run

off (5% of

Avg. rainfall)

(TCM)

Water Collected (Cu. m) against storage type Change in ground

water level (m)#

Run off stored

in bunds

(TCM)

EPA WHS

Gully

control

structures

Total

Storage Before After

Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 4929.0 287.1 774 1908 38.75 5.20 8.37 16.89 69.21 60 50

Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 4200.0 1442 725 1523 374.59 4.00 33.75 3.00 415.34 340 320

Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 5400.6 2115.9 443.8 1198 710.81 99.00 0.81 0 810.62 95 73

Channagiri/ Nallur 5092.0 1195 767 1953 446.76 0.70 0.81 0.66 448.93 33 26

Malur/Vadaganahalli 3194.3 717 704 1107 95.04 5.30 37.26 11.53 149.13 335 295

Channapatna/Akkur 3559.0 1739 839 1493 233.28 1.40 4.86 1.33 245.87 147 125

Sagara/Yelakundli 3040.0 0 2164 3289 0 8.00 0 22.56 30.56 110 99

Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 4977.0 2022 625 1555 272.96 4.00 66.00 5.29 75.29 190 177

Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 3467.7 2479 739 1281 429.70 7.00 11.97 0 448.67 30 28

Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 2750.0 2588 668 918 184.90 118.50 35.10 2.55 234.40 97 95

Kadur/ Mattighatta 6180.0 2779 592 3658 358.00 925.00 8.10 21.15 396.50 80 60

Hassan/ Kalyadi 3832.8 940 828 15865 95.70 18.80 8.10 3.15 125.75 73 67

Periyapattana/ Attigodu 6721.1 4249 830 2789 274.40 6.30 27.70 5.15 313.45 170 100

Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 5000.0 0 4827 12067 0.00 5.30 15.70 13.30 34.10 100 95

Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 4000.0 12443* 3788 7576 5.80 7.50 55.60 11.15 80.15 37 32

Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 5104.2 578** 4300 10974 75.14 5.95 5.40 1.08 87.57 150 125

Kerkalmatti/ Badami 3355 3120 598 1627 0.27 0 4.20 30 4.47 51 45

Neginal/ Bailhongal 4354 3434 691 1503 0.08 0 3.10 26 3.18 13 10

Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 4716.5 4521 675 1531 0.21 0 1.70 20 1.91 56 54

Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 3043.2 1462 1004 1255 0.07 0 9.60 20 9.67 78 73

Kadadi/ Gadaga 4595.5 5582 671 1837 0.26 0 6.80 8 7.06 85 70

Agadi/ Haveri 6107 4216 781 1955 0.20 0 NA 3 0.20 38 32

Mavalli/ Bhatkal 8194.1 0 4252 10630 0.00 0 53.40 125 53.40 13 11

Nirna/ Humnabad 6142.0 3562 828 414 62.30 1.36 1.41 11 65.07 32 30

Habalanala/ Sedam 4263.0 3594 896 448 66.30 1.28 8.21 43 75.79 65 54

Wadigera/ Shahpur 3106.0 1696 873 436 35.00 0.30 0.68 9 35.98 222 171

Khyadigera/ Devadurga 6200.0 3428 428 214 78.00 0 14.16 33 92.16 210 173

Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 4690.0 4092 597 299 47.00 2.82 6.73 19 56.55 36 33

Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 2280.0 2063 596 296 24.30 0.76 1.77 14 26.83 70 60

Overall 132494.0 76344 36503.8 91599.6 3909.82 1228.47 431.29 479.79 4397.81 103.9 89.17

* Trenches, ** Staggered trenches, # Average change in water table depth


73

3.10 Bio-mass Production:

Watershed development under IWMP includes improvement in bio-diversity through

afforestation of common land and promotion of agro-horti and agro-forestry system in private

lands for providing resilience to income to farmers. It is observed that WDT and EC have

paid considerable attention to this kind of intervention and effectively organized activities.

Horticulture and Agro-Horti systems:

Horticulture development is taken up in all SWSs and the Program consisted of providing

seedlings to the farmers. The details of horticulture development taken up in the selected

watersheds are presented in Table 3.16. The finance earmarked for the Program is fully

utilized. The seedlings provided mostly consisted of mango, coconut, sapota, lemon,

pomegranate and guava. It was noticed that the number of seedlings provided varied from

1945 in Vadaganahalli (Kolara) SWS to about 1,47,965 in Kuntahole (Udupi) SWS. At least

10,000 seedlings were provided in all but four watersheds. The lesser number of seedlings

provided in the latter could be due to the fact that already considerable number of fruit trees

existed in these watersheds. This clearly indicates that activity is undertaken considering the

need, its performance and interests of the stakeholders. Average survival rate at the end of

project is noticed to vary from 10 to 79% across the watersheds under study. Focus group

discussions with stake holders revealed that farmers having watering facilities are able to

protect the plants during summer, whereas the farmers without irrigation facilities could not

protect the plants. It was also noticed that distribution time in relation to monsoon rains

greatly affects the survival percent. For better results farmers feel that individuals should be

permitted to buy the seedlings of their choice and plant by themselves.


74

Table: 3.16: Horticulture seedlings provided in the selected watersheds

Sub watershed

Total

Area

(ha)

No. of

Plants

Average

survival

(%)

No. of

Farmers

benefited

Total

expenditure

(Rs. In lakhs)

Doddamanikere 4929.0 7850 61.7 32 7.59

Ragimakalahalli 4200.0 20405 54.0 265 24.2

Kariyalpura 5400.6 36964 58.5 436 33.03

Nallur 5092.0 57478 49.1 594 57.47

Vadaganahalli 3194.3 1945 67.8 78 1.94

Akkur 3559.0 65913 60.3 1145 65.87

Yelakundli 3040.0 28820 63.3 359 25.29

Hanumanthagirir 4977.0 35034 60.1 398 35.04

Mallayanapura 3467.7 47273 62 1161 48.21

Jakkenahalli 2750.0 131745 65 3293 134.35

Mattighatta 6180.0 30056 65 751 32.65

Kalyadi 3832.8 42895 68 1081 44.93

Attigodu 6721.1 40415 62 1010 41.22

Punacha/Peruvai 5000.0 133174 76 3329 135.88

Kuntahole/ Narasipura 4000.0 147965 79 3699 147.99

Vatahole/ Makandoor 5104.2 47310 70.1 1415 48.24

Kerkalmatti 3355 62700 60.49 844 65.41

Neginal 4354 33248 32.36 473 16.05

Arjunagihalla 4716.5 24500 36.2 310 35.8

Hulaginkatti 3043.2 21026 65.55 215 22.01

Kadadi 4595.5 15008 26.37 673 35.05

Agadi 6107 111060 70.23 2806 40.34

Mavalli 8194.1 106800 76.4 897 79.92

Nirna 6142.0 55171 69.3 149 60.26

Habalanala 4263.0 43507 57 406 38.75

Wadigera 3106.0 45727 30 1500 31.91

Khyadigera 6200.0 3907 10 19 3.24

Hirevankalakunta 4690.0 53402 62 951 66.58

Hirehadagalli 2280.0 8000 40 136 7.35

Overall 132494.0 1459298.0 1657.8 28425.0 1386.6


75

Horticulture intensification:

The Program comprises of intensifying horticulture through high density plantation with fruit

and flower crops for generating higher incomes. Data on intensification was available in 10

out of the 29 SWSs (Table 3.17). Fruit crops and vegetable cultivation were taken up in eight

and six watersheds, respectively, while flower production was taken up in five SWSs. In

terms of the expenditure planned in this regard, the achievement varied from 25% (in

Yelakundi SWS) to 115% (Neginal SWS, Belagavi).

The farmers who preferred fruit crops are maintaining them properly and the survival

percentage ranged from 85 and above. Focus group discussions with farmers have revealed

that those who have invested directly towards plants and pits have been able to achieve 100%

establishment, by timely replacing the dead plants. This clearly indicates that wherever

personal investments are made the Program efficiency improves.

Floriculture was promoted in Haveri, Kolara and Shivamogga districts in view of the existing

traditional occupations. Under the Program, small and marginal farmers belonging to

vulnerable groups with irrigation facilities are considered. All the selected members have

planted rose and started harvesting flowers from 4th

month after planting. They are realizing

an annual income ranging from Rs. 8,750 to Rs. 14,000 per unit. The most important feature

of this activity is employment generation which is to the extent of 850 to 1000 man-

days/ha/year. This has indirectly helped to reduce migration.

Agro-forestry

Promotion of agro-forestry is one of the important activities undertaken in any watershed

development program. Table 3.18 shows the details of agro-forestry program taken up in the

sample SWSs. The program involved providing seedlings to the farmers and educating them

regarding their cultivation. A total of 24 lakhs seedlings spanning all the watersheds,

covering about 30,000 farmers and with an expenditure of Rs. 1115 lakhs (range: Rs. 2.09

lakhs in Mattighatta watershed to Rs. 72.6 lakhs in Agadi watershed), were provided. The

survival percentage of agro-forestry species taken together across all watersheds was 51%.


76

Table 3.17: Horticulture intensification

Name of the SWS

No. identified Total

Expenditure Fruits Flowers Vegetables # (in Lakh Rs.)

Nos Area

(ha) Nos Area

(ha) Nos Area

(ha) Plnd Achd Hosakote/Doddamanikere 43286 103.21 0 0 0 0 43.28 43.28

Chintamani/Ragimakalahalli 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Channagiri/Nallur 0 0 3200 0.18 0 0 3.96 3.96

Malur/Vadaganahalli 0 0 16902 0.95 0 0 20.09 5.07

Channapatna/Akkur 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sagara/Yelakundli 0 0 7100 0.4 0 0 8.8 2.13

Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kerkalmatti 62,700 539 6000 0.6 10250 20 68.41 65.41 Neginal 33,248 332 0 0 14,800 32 13.89 16.05 Arjunagihalla 24,500 240 0 0 12,000 16 36.5 35.8 Hulaginakatti 21,026 210.26 0 0 0 0 33.34 22.014 Kadadi 15,008 52.22 0 0 8500 11 35.05 35.05 Agadi 29,846 295.47 58,430 55.5 12,778 28 70.74 40.34 Mavalli 897 680.88 0 0 600 8 75.78 79.92

Forestry activities in watersheds - Afforestation

Practice of planting trees along with agricultural crops in cropped areas was also undertaken

in the watershed development Program. It is expected that such a practice would supply the

required timber, minor fruits and retain rain water, protect crops from the advective energy,

increase in biodiversity and prevent soil erosion. If done with proper planning and at

appropriate sites, it may become a commercially viable solution for meeting human needs

without disturbing ecological balance. It is hoped to serve dual purpose of developing

non0forest land and also to meet the domestic demand of fuel and timber wood.

Afforestation helps to establish favorable micro climatic condition at the village level, and

can be carried out in the public lands as well as private wastelands and

undulating/slopy/terrain zones.


77

Plate.7: Horticulture activities across SWS

Coconut Plantation at Bangre village, Mavalli

SWS, Bhatkal taluk, UK District

Convergence of Drip irrigation under RADP

Program for High density Mango block

plantation under IWMP Program in Angadi

SWS in Haveri Tq&District

Cashew plantation in Bailuru, Mavalli SWS,

Bhatkal taluk, UK district

Vegetable minikit demonstration under

Production system atMavalli village, Mavalli

SWS, Bhatkal taluk, UK District

Mango and sapota at Habalanana SWS, Sedum

taluk and Kalaburagidistict

Mango coconut and sapota at Hirehadagali

SWS, Hadagali taluk and Bellari district


78

Table 3.18: Details of seedlings provided for promoting agro0forestry

District Taluk/Subwatershed

Total

Area

(ha)

Seedlings

provided

(Nos)

Farmers

benefited

(Nos)

Survival

percent Total

Expenditure

(Lakhs)

Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 4929.0 228000 678 42.9 91.2

Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 4200.0 76000 487 55.5 31.14

Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 5400.6 38740 474 58.2 12.45

Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 5092.0 120686 929 48.0 45.85

Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 3194.3 11330 1037 40.5 4.46

Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 3559.0 185547 1246 53.2 70.5

Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 3040.0 61300 1246 60.1 24.52

Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 4977.0 88583 972 39.2 39.18

Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/Mallayanapura 3467.7 126966 2196 73.0 50.78

Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 6180.0 97142 2831 65.0 38.85

Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 5104.2 5248 68 65.0 2.09

Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 5000.0 86182 1492 65.0 34.47

Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 3832.8 138982 2792 60.0 57.34

Dakshina

Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 6721.1 82052 345 95.0 32.82

Udupi Kundapura/Kuntahole/Narasipura 6000.0 62056 2265 78.0 24.82

Kodagu Madikere/Vatahole/Makandoor 2750.0 Not taken up

Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 5443.1 28000 230 53.5 38

Belagavi Bailhongal/Neginal 4350.0 21700 278 41.2 7.59

Vijayapura Vijayapura/ Arjunagihalla 4537.4 32000 426 20.8 42

Dharwad Khalgatagi/ Hulaginkatti 2500.0 51550 567 65.1 25.67

Gadaga Gadaga/Kadadi 5476.3 73633 1018 22.6 41.81

Haveri Haveri/Agadi 5006.0 157300 404 42.1 72.58

Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/Mavalli 5000.0 61800 224 72.2 57.74

Bidar Humnabad/Nirna 6142.0 35552 932 63.3 67.27

Kalaburagi Sedam/Habalanala 4263.0 35000 500 40.0 35.34

Yadgiri Shahpur/Wadigera 3106.0 64600 1295 38.0 25.52

Raichuru Devadurga/Khyadigera 6200.0 150000 1020 12.0 51

Koppal Yelburga/Hirevankalakunta 4690.0 221364 2799 18.0 63.68

Ballary Hoovinahadagali/Hirehadagali 2280.0 66220 946 50.0 26.35

Overall 132441 2407533 29697.0 51.3 1115.0

Afforestation program, including planting and nurturing seedlings of appropriate varieties of

trees in common property lands, was undertaken in all SWSs under evaluation. Data available

from 21 SWSs at the time of evaluation (Table 3.19) indicates that survival rate of seedlings

planted varied from 10% in case of Doddamanikere and Kadadi SWSs to 70% in

Arjunagihalla SWSs. The average survival rate was about 36 % across the 21 SWSs. The


79

species planted were silver oak, teak and Hebbevu. In order to improve performance, it is

better to promote species native to the area and by using well grown tall seedlings before the

onset of monsoon.

Plate.8: Forestry and agro0forestry activities across SWS sssssss

Forestry Teak block plantation, Dastikoppa

Village, Huluginakatti SWS, KalghatgiTq.,

Dharwad Dist.

Teak & Silver Oak, NilogalVillagge,

Basaapatna SWS, Channagiri Taluk,

Devenagere District

Teak, KanchipuraNala SWS, Hosadurga

Taluk, Chitradurga District

Teak and silver oak at Kyadigera SWS,

Devadurga taluk and Raichuru district


80

Table 3.19: Afforestation activities in the common lands

District Subwatershed

Common land

Expenditure

(Rs. lakhs)

Area

Covered

(ha)

No. of

Seedlings

Planted

% of

Survival Achieved

Bengaluru

Rural

Hoskote/ Doddamanikere

224.25 26910 10* 10.76

Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 10 1000 40 0.4

Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 153 25830 33 10.33

Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 67 21772 30 8.71

Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 15 1500 30 0.64

Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 0 0 0 0

Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 179 78300 55 31.32

Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 0.77 310 15* 0.12

Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 68.82 13763 45 0

Belagavi Bailhongal/Neginal 0 0 0 0

Vijayapura Vijayapura/ Arjunagihalla 115.7 13836 70 0

Dharwad Khalgatagi/ Hulaginkatti 0 0 0 0

Gadaga Gadaga/Kadadi 0.2 1224 10* 3.74

Haveri Haveri/Agadi 0 0 0 0

Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/Mavalli 145.87 42500 65 57.74

Bidar Humnabad/Nirna 65 6500 NA 17.24

Kalaburagi Sedam/Habalanala 0 0 0 0

Yadgiri Shahpur/Wadigera 0 0 0 0

Raichuru Devadurga/Khyadigera 119.64 34510 NA 21.19

Koppal Yelburga/Hirevankalakunta 117.53 11753 NA 3.13

Ballary Hoovinahadagali/Hirehadagali 49 13540 NA 8

Overall 1330.78 293248 36.6 173.32

* Low survival due to less care taken in common lands NA: Not available

3.11 Production system

Livestock activities

Livestock activities is an important subsidiary component for rain fed farmers as it provides

additional income to the family apart from providing farm yard manure to enrich soil fertility.

In fact, it is a major income to the landless, small and marginal farmers who maintain

livestock. Accordingly, budget provision has been made in the project to the extent of 4 % of

project cost to undertake livestock improvement and animal husbandry activities. Animal

health camps, village based trainings for effective maintenance of livestock, fodder

enrichment, silage making, azolla production, and increasing green fodder production

through distribution of fodder minikits both perennial and annual, and construction of


81

livestock shelters (cattle sheds and sheep pens) are the important activities taken up by the

ECs facilitated by the project authorities in the watersheds.

Animal health camps are widely acclaimed by the stakeholders as they were able to get their

animals treated due to non availability of veterinary services within their reach. The project

has proposed to organize two camps in each village or a cluster of nearby villages and VBT

involving women so as to enable them to take care of the livestock. The details of the animal

health camps conducted, animals treated, expenditure involved and its impact on reduction of

diseases are presented in Table 3.20. It could be seen from the data presented in table that in

all 380 camps (92% of target) were organized to cover 235 villages by spending Rs 88.1

lakhs. Animals treated during the camps included birds, cows, buffaloes, goat and sheep.

Among the treated livestock, cattle are more in number and it helped to reduce the disease

incidence apart from improving health and productivity. The treatment records available at

veterinary hospitals have shown a smaller number of cases subsequent to the camps.

Reduction in disease incidences reported across watersheds varied from 25 to 42%, which

could be considered as a good achievement.


82

Plate.9: Livestock development activities across SWS

Veterinary doctor examining the animal

by using the Travis in Arjunagi

villageSWS0Arjunagihalla, Vijayapura

Taluk & District

Animals treated during Health Camp at

Garwade village in Kadadi SWS, Gadaga

Taluk & District

AHC, Vadrepaly Village, Musturu SWS,

Chikkaballapura Taluk & District

AHC, Peruvai Village & SWS, Bantwal

Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District

AHC at Hablanala SWS, Sedum taluk and

Kalaburagi district

AHC at Byalachinta SWS, Bellari taluk

and district


83

Table 3.20: Status of Animal Health Camps

Name of the District Name of the SWS

Target Achievement Reduction in

incidence of disease

(%) Camps Village

Finance

(Lakhs) Camps Village

Finance

(Lakhs)

Animals

treated

Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 12 28 2.9 5 8 1.2 1849 19 to 41

Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 28 9 2.9 28 6 2.9 8597 10 to 35

Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 16 7 3.9 3 3 2.7 16147 10 to 65

Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 14 5 3.4 4 5 2.4 8538 11 to 28

Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 14 20 3.4 28 20 3.4 5177 22 to 55

Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 21 38 4.3 21 36 4.3 3720 15 to 51

Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 9 10 2.2 6 10 2.2 5631 11 to 35

Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 10 19 2.4 30 19 2.4 5518 15 to 68

Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 12 12 2.8 15 12 2.8 4112 40 to 60

Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 18 12 2.2 18 12 2.2 8549 40 to 60

Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 23 21 2.2 23 21 6.4 5116 60 to 80

Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 28 16 3.8 28 16 3.8 6200 50 to 60

Dakshina Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 6 6 1.4 10 8 1.4 1713 80 to 100

Udupi Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 12 7 1.7 12 7 1.7 851 80 to 100

Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 3 3 0.7 10 3 0.7 710 80 to 90

Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 15 8 2.0 15 8 2.0 2110 5 to 10

Belagavi Bailhongal/Neginal 12 12 2.3 12 12 2.3 3000 8 to 12

Vijayapura Vijayapura/ Arjunagihalla 12 4 1.5 6 8 3.0 2230 5 to 10

Dharwad Khalgatagi/ Hulaginkatti 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0

Gadaga Gadaga/Kadadi 6 3 0.8 6 3 0.8 375 12 to 15

Haveri Haveri/Agadi 20 9 5.0 6 6 1.5 1852 10 to 20

Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/Mavalli 12 12 3.0 12 12 3.0 1335 10 to 15

Bidar Humnabad/Nirna 40 11 20.0 24 11 6.0 5130 18 to 29

Kalaburagi Sedam/Habalanala 6 7 3.0 7 7 3.0 1589 15 to 18

Yadgiri Shahpur/Wadigera 18 6 9.0 8 6 3.0 2092 12 to16

Raichuru Devadurga/Khyadigera 18 11 9.0 14 11 9.0 4021 11 to 21

Koppal Yelburga/Hirevankalakunta 22 11 11.0 22 11 11.0 19361 14 to 23

Ballary Hoovinahadagali/Hirehadagali 6 3 3.0 7 3 3.0 1276 11 to 13

Overall 413 310 110 380 284 88.1 126799


84

As per the opinion of District Officials, the Animal health camps are the most successful

Program due to the fact that i) Foot and Mouth disease is a highly contagious disease of

cloven0footed animals including cattle, sheep, goat and pigs. The F&M disease is controlled

in the watershed villages by at least 50 to60%. ii) Enterotoxaemia (ET) is a deadly disease of

sheep and goats, suitable treatment has lowered mortality of sheep by 60% and more in all

local breeds as all animals were compulsorily treated. iii) Mastitis 0 denotes an inflammation

of the udder and is responsible for heavy financial loss to dairy farmers due to discard of

milk, reduced production of milk and butter, decreased market value of cow and increased

cost of drugs and veterinary services. In addition to this, the mastitis milk causes deadly

diseases like tuberculosis, brucellosis, sore throat, and food poisoning etc. in human beings.

Treatment to the affected cattle has lowered this disease by over 62 to 65%.iv) Deforming in

Cows and Heifers'(reduction by 55 to 65%) and infertility treatment (reduction by 30 to 42%)

have led to increased in fertility and productivity of cows. Fodder enrichment with simple

techniques, awareness about animal maintenance through VBTs and improvement in

knowledge of local farmers on the need to contact local veterinary services has increased

milk yield by 200100% which is visible in terms of additional cans of milk pooled in each of

the milk pooling centres.

VBT Trainings

VBTs have been organized in all the districts. Total number of Programs were 655 and

ranged from two (Habalanala) to 133 (Vadaganahalli). Members attending the training

ranged from 91 in Habalanala SWS, Kalaburagi district to 7033 in Vadaganahalli SWS,

Kolara district. A total of 41103 members have attended the training as per records available

at the time of evaluation. It was observed that women participation in the training was much

more than men. The feedback collected from the community members, who attended the

training, revealed that they desire to have these trainings frequently. Hence a decision has

been taken to conduct these trainings once in 6 months and the same was followed in all the

districts. The details of the trainings conducted are presented in the Table 3.21.


85

Table: 3.21: Details of members trained through Village Based trainings in different watersheds.

Name of the

District Name of the SWS

Total

VBTs

conducte

d

Person

s

traine

d

(Nos.) Name of

the District Name of the SWS

Total

VBTs

conducte

d Persons

trained (Nos.) Bengaluru

Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 39 3110 Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 10 500

Chikkaballapur

a Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 4 2584 Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 1 NA

Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 38 1781 Belagavi Bailhongal/ Neginal 0 0

Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 50 2333 Vijayapura Vijayapura / Arjunagihalla 2 NA

Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 133 7033 Dharwad Khalgatagi / Hulaginkatti 3 NA

Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 97 6548 Gadaga Gadaga/ Kadadi 6 NA

Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 9 2328 Haveri Haveri/Agadi 4 NA

Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 83 4096 Uttara

Kannada Bhatkal/ Mavalli 14 NA

Chamarajanaga

ra Chamarajanagaraa/

Mallayanapura 0 0 Bidar Humnabad/ Nirna 6 398

Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 34 1516 Kalaburagi Sedam/ Habalanala 2 91

Chikkamagalur

u Kadur/ Mattighatta 0 0 Yadgiri Shahpur/ Wadigera 0 0

Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 92 3189 Raichuru Devadurga/ Khyadigera 20 650

Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 34 1516 Koppal Yelburga/ Hirevankalakunta 16 579

Dakshina

Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 25 4398 Ballary Hoovinahadagali /Hirehadagali 3 140


Narasipura 17 671 Overall 655 41103


86

In general, farmers were not aware of the fodder and nutrition requirement with respect to

different categories of livestock used for milching, draught, meat and wool production, and

also the type of diseases for which they are prone before the start of the Program. As a result,

performance of the livestock maintained was much below the average level. Village based

trainings have helped them to take timely steps for improving their performance.

Status of livestock improvement

The activities implemented across the division are: installation of trevis, construction of

Azolla production units, cattle sheds and sheep pens and promotion of fodder production.

The contribution from the farmers is collected for implementing activities that require

maintenance subsequently. The progress achieved is presented below in Table 3.22.


87

Plate.10: Fodder development Programs across the project

Fodder cultivation in Agadi village, Agadi

SWS, Haveri taluk& district

Fodder cultivation in Agadi village, Agadi

SWS, Haveri taluk& district

Fodder Development, Thalya Village,

Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District

Fodder Development, Pagadekallalli

Village, Melukote –Jakkanahalli SWS,

Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District

Fodder mini kits distribution at Nirna

SWS, Humnabad taluk and Bidar district

Perennial Fodder at Hirevenkalakunta

SWS, Yelaburga taluk and Koppal district


88

Table 3.22: Status of Livestock maintenance activities

District Taluk/ SWS Trevis

Catleshed

(Nos.)

Sheep

pen

(Nos.)

Silage

pit

(Nos.)

Azola

production

(units)

Veg.

Kit

Honey

bee (Nos.)

Bio0fertilizers/

Medicines

Sprinklers

(Nos.)

Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 12 37 13 2 0 0 0 0 0

Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170

Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 0 4 0 45 0 0 0 0 7

Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 12 43 21 2 0 0 0 0 0

Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 8 8 0 0 45 0 0 0 113

Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148

Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/Mallayanapura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 5 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 11 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105

Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222

Dakshina Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162

Udupi Kundapura/Kuntahole/Narasipura 0 161 0 0 0 0 2 0 131

Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 10 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 54

Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 12 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 43

Belagavi Bailhongal/ Neginal 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119

Vijayapura Vijayapura / Arjunagihalla 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 120

Dharwad Khalgatagi / Hulaginkatti 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 76

Gadaga Gadaga/ Kadadi 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Haveri Haveri/Agadi 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108

Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/ Mavalli 24 193 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bidar Humnabad/ Nirna 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 0

Kalaburagi Sedam/ Habalanala 6 0 0 0 0 160 0 0 41

Yadgiri Shahpur/ Wadigera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75

Raichuru Devadurga/ Khyadigera 10 0 0 0 0 1200 0 0 0

Koppal Yelburga/ Hirevankalakunta 10 2 0 0 0 200 0 0 12

Ballary Hoovinahadagali /Hirehadagali 6 0 0 0 0 50 0 10 0

Overall 176 541 51 49 45 2410 2 10 1707


89

Installation of Trevis

Trevises are installed in almost all the districts except in ten. In general, these Trevises are fixed

at public places to ensure accessibility to all the community members without any bias.

Construction of Cattle sheds

The highest number of Cattle sheds are constructed in the district of Uttara Kannada (193)

followed by Udupi (161). A total of 541 cattle sheds have been constructed across all the SWSs.

Wherever it is constructed, specifications are followed and the activity is liked by the

beneficiary.

Construction of Sheep pen

As of now, 51 sheep pens are constructed. The highest number constructed is in the district of

Ramanagara (21). The target fixed for constructing pens is almost achieved.

Azolla and silage production.

It is reported that Azolla production has been initiated in Shivamogga alone and silage

production in Chikkaballapura, Davanagere and Ramanagara districts. A total of 45 members

has taken up Azolla production and are realizing 2 kg green bio-mass per day. About 49

members have taken up silage production across the watersheds.

One of the important components under the project is to diversify and maximize the production

and productivity of agriculture system as a whole. Promotion of fodder development Programs

under the project has resulted in adequate green fodder production. As a result of increased

availability of fodder, the farmers are using green fodder which improved milk production by 14

to 100% with consequent improvement in economic status (See Box 03) Napier, Rhodes, CO03,

Riverdale, Multi cut sorghum, and African tall maize are promoted through fodder mini kit

Program across the districts. Farmers who have received the kits have sown the seeds. The area

under perennial grasses is increased by 50 ha in dry land and 100 ha under irrigation. This

Program is liked by the farmers as their requirement of fodder is met and thereby improved the

health of livestock. As a result, self0sufficiency is achieved with respect to fodder requirement

by many households.


90

Farmers who are having green fodder production now are expanding the area under perennial

fodder. The focus group discussions with the stake holders revealed demand for mini0kits and

frequent animal health camps. Further, the LEO needs to work with beneficiaries to enthuse

them to have silage pits so as to have multiplier effect of the benefits derived.

Production system improvement

Production system improvement is undertaken through micro enterprise component under

watershed development Program. Department intends to introduce innovative technologies for

saving water so as to improve water use efficiency with irrigated farmers and through use of

improved technologies enhancing productive utilization of conserved resources. The data related

to these aspects is presented in Table 3.22 and 3.23. That financial targets fixed are fully

achieved. In addition to fixing trevis, construction of cattle sheds and sheep pens, fodder mini

kits (about 33720 kits distributed for cultivation in 3372 ha), health camps and vegetable kits,

promotion of micro irrigation system and crop demonstrations are undertaken(Table 3.23). The

details of micro irrigation systems both sprinklers and drip systems supplied in different

watersheds indicates that micro irrigation systems are supplied in 18 out of 29 watersheds.

Nevertheless, such units are distributed in other watersheds in the district as per the demand.

The farmers are found to be extremely happy and able to irrigate more area now than before and

get higher returns.

It was surprising to see that crop demonstrations with improved technologies are not organized in

spite of the fact that present yields are much lower than that can be achieved. This clearly

reflects the weakness of the extension network which needs to be strengthened in future.


91

Box: 3 Fodder production vis-a-vis milk yield Farmers have increased the area under fodder as well as purchased a greater number of

animals. They are able to get better feed to their cattle.

Sri. Satish Chandra, a small farmer is one of the beneficiaries of fodder mini kit Program.

He was given fodder maize for growing in his field at a cost of Rs. 2200/0 for which the

farmer has contributed Rs. 220/0

The farmer is maintaining one dairy cow earlier and purchasing all the fodder from outside.

After growing green fodder in his field, a series of changes took place as detailed below.

Before After

Number of local cow 0 2 He purchased additional 3 buffalos, 8 goats and

10 sheeps.

Dry and green fodder purchased from

outside cost. Rs.60,000/0

No purchase from outside

Milk yield – 10 liters/day 20 ltr/day

Milk rate Rs.20/ltr Rate Rs. 20/0 ltr

Yearly income from milk Rs.72000/0 Yearly income Rs.1,44,000/animal

Subject to frequent foot and mouth

disease – more expenditure

No disease – no expenditure on disease control

Net income Rs.2400/buffaloes Net income Rs.18000/buffalso

The farmer is very happy that green fodder production has helped him and made dairying

more profitable and his herd size is increasing day by day. His milch animals are now

healthy and shining.


92

Table 3.23: Status of fodder mini0kit distribution and fodder production in selected

watersheds

District Taluk/ SWS

No of

Perennial

fodder

(No/ha))

No. of

fodder

minikits

distributed

(Nos.)

Rainfed Irrigated

(Nos)

Yield

(Q) (Nos)

Yield

(Q)

Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 66 1900 1900 100 20 66 40045

Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 248 2200 2200 15025 248 40045

Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 0 800 800 15020 0 0

Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 0 90 90 25030 0 0

Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 86 2750 2750 15020 86 40045

Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 86 9 9 20025 86 35045

Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 40 300 300 25035 40 40050

Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 0 4282 4282 20025 0 0

Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 0 95 95 25030 0 0

Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 21 3095 3095 25030 21 35040

Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 0 1680 1680 15020 0 0

Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 0 1645 1605 12015 40 25035

Dakshina

Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 0 308 0 0 308 35040

Udupi Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 90 0 0 0 90 25030

Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 0 1162 1162 5 to 6 0 0

Belagavi Bailhongal/ Neginal 0 800 800 7 to 8 0 0

Vijayapura Vijayapura / Arjunagihalla

0.4 2140 2140 6 to 8 0.4

20 to

25

Dharwad Khalgatagi / Hulaginkatti 0 2290 2290 6 to 8 0 0

Gadaga Gadaga/ Kadadi 0 800 800 0 0 0

Haveri Haveri/Agadi 0 700 700 7 to 8 0 0

Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/ Mavalli

40.9 2400 2400 8 to 10 40.9

25 to

40

Bidar Humnabad/ Nirna 0 1400 1400 9 to 11.5 0 0

Kalaburagi Sedam/ Habalanala

0 1214 1214

8.5 to

10.9 0 0

Yadgiri Shahpur/ Wadigera 0 0 0 0 0 0

Raichuru Devadurga/ Khyadigera

0 1300 1300

5.9 to

11.5 0 0

Koppal Yelburga/ Hirevankalakunta

30 360 360

9.5 to

25.5 30

25 to

55.5

Ballary Hoovinahadagali /Hirehadagali 0 0 0 0 0 0

Overall 708.3 33720 33372 1056.3

3.12 Livelihood activities.

In order to ensure economic development across watersheds it is essential to form a group of

people having common interest and goal in order to ensure economic development of

watersheds. The approach helps to make the collective wisdom available along with combined

resources to undertake any task and face any risk. Such an effort has led to the emergence of


93

SHGs formed out of women. Government of India felt that group strategy is the best for women

empowerment and would contribute substantially to the economic development. Accordingly, a

provision has been made in the project to grade the existing groups for their performance

efficiency and form new groups by considering the left over if any in the given watersheds. The

supporting organization deployed for the purpose have graded the existing SHGs for including

under the project and formed new SHGs considering all those that are left over earlier to ensure

justice among the landless and marginal families. The numbers of groups thus formed are

presented in Table 3.24.

Across the selected watersheds, 403 old SHGs were already existing and functioning. In

addition, 730 new groups are formed out of left0over individuals to ensure justice and equity

among the landless. In all there are 6,610 members in the old groups and 11,088 members in the

new groups. Distribution of the members according to social class presented in Table 3.25

indicates that all categories of people are considered according to their proportion in the total

population without any discrimination. Representation from the weaker sections of the society

was about 35% of the SHG members. A significant number belonged to landless and marginal

which indicated equity and justice in sharing limited benefits.

Income generation activities are promoted through members of SHG. Most of the members of

the SHGs are given EAP training wherein they are made to select an IGA of their choice and for

which business plans for taking up the activities are prepared. Members who are requiring

training for taking up activities requiring skills are provided EDP training. The details of the

trainings given are presented in Table 3.26.


94

Table 3.24: Distribution of members across the new and old SHG groups (graded)

District Taluk/ SWS

New SHG Existing SHG Total SHGs

No. Members No. Members No. Members

Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 45 874 10 183 55 1057

Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 20 400 30 600 50 1000

Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 28 556 26 416 54 972

Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 18 292 30 425 48 717

Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 10 168 21 412 31 580

Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 40 793 0 0 40 793

Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 16 298 0 0 16 298

Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 40 621 0 0 40 621


Mallayanapura 18 308 12 217 30 525

Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 10 181 24 369 34 550

Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 8 105 38 571 46 676

Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 19 329 15 230 40 591

Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 5 100 45 824 50 924

Dakshina Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 60 594 0 0 60 594


Narasipura 28 325 0 0 28 325

Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 33 499 0 0 33 499

Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 45 553 0 0 45 553

Belagavi Bailhongal/ Neginal 25 406 0 0 25 406

Vijayapura Vijayapura / Arjunagihalla 40 533 0 0 40 533

Dharwad Khalgatagi / Hulaginkatti 10 130 10 135 20 265

Gadaga Gadaga/ Kadadi 42 496 0 0 42 496

Haveri Haveri/Agadi 21 339 0 0 21 339

Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/ Mavalli 85 1285 0 0 85 1285

Bidar Humnabad/ Nirna 0 0 36 540 36 540

Kalaburagi Sedam/ Habalanala 10 160 30 600 40 760

Yadgiri Shahpur/ Wadigera 22 374 3 60 25 434

Raichuru Devadurga/ Khyadigera 32 369 23 276 55 645

Koppal Yelburga/ Hirevankalakunta 0 0 30 420 30 420

Ballary Hoovinahadagali /Hirehadagali 0 0 20 332 20 332

Overall 730 11088 403 6610 1139 17730


95

Table 3.25: Distribution of members as per social class across watersheds

District Taluk/ SWS No. of

members

in SHG

SC ST Others

% % % Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 1057 17.2 7.9 74.9 Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 1000 32.4 12.7 55 Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 972 41.7 7.8 50.5 Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 717 11.4 0 88.6 Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 580 26.1 6.8 67.1 Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 793 23.4 29.1 47.5 Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 298 31.2 34.6 34.2 Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 621 8.5 0.4 91.1


Mallayanapura 525 21.8 17.7 60.5 Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 550 0.5 0 99.5 Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 676 49.4 7.5 43.1 Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 591 19.4 6.2 74.5 Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 924 6.7 2.1 91.2 Dakshina

Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 594 17.8 4.7 77.5


Narasipura 325 14.5 53.4 32.2


Makandoor 499 10.6 10.3 79 Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 553 24.4 17.9 57.7 Belagavi Bailhongal/ Neginal 406 2.5 2 95.6 Vijayapura Vijayapura / Arjunagihalla 533 10.1 1.9 88 Dharwad Khalgatagi / Hulaginkatti 265 20.8 6.4 72.8 Gadaga Gadaga/ Kadadi 496 20.6 1.8 77.6 Haveri Haveri/Agadi 339 22.4 13.9 63.7 Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/ Mavalli 1285 19 20.5 60.5 Bidar Humnabad/ Nirna 540 6.9 4.6 88.5 Kalaburagi Sedam/ Habalanala 760 18.4 3.9 77.6 Yadgiri Shahpur/ Wadigera 434 29.9 14.7 55.3 Raichuru Devadurga/ Khyadigera 645 49 31.2 19.8 Koppal Yelburga/ Hirevankalakunta 420 18.6 28.8 52.6

Ballary Hoovinahadagali

/Hirehadagali 332 27.1 34.3 38.6 Overall 17730 20.8 13.2 66.0


96

Table.3.26: Members trained through EAP and SEDP and number adopted in the

watersheds

District Taluk/ SWS Members

involved in

EAP

IGA SDEP training

No. engaged in

IGA after

training

Non skill

activity

Nos.

Skill

activity

Nos.

Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 951 795 156 187

Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 925 637 288 270

Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 550 381 169 307

Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 713 299 414 234

Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 539 483 56 297

Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 496 315 181 290

Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 298 205 93 265

Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 274 149 125 239


Mallayanapura 525 415 110 NA

Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 550 453 97 NA

Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 676 576 100 NA

Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 591 564 27 NA

Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 924 686 238 NA

Dakshina Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 594 394 200 NA


Narasipura 325 298 27 NA

Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 449 159 290 NA

Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 543 374 169 510

Belagavi Bailhongal/ Neginal 406 223 183 73

Vijayapura Vijayapura / Arjunagihalla 533 235 53 161

Dharwad Khalgatagi / Hulaginkatti 203 228 36 0

Gadaga Gadaga/ Kadadi 494 293 201 137

Haveri Haveri/Agadi 339 258 81 268

Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/ Mavalli 1285 0 1285 855


97

Table 3.27: Savings-group wise and bank linkages in the watersheds

District Taluk/ SWS

SHGs

Revolving

fund (Rs.

In lakhs)

Initial

savings

amount

(Rs. In

lakhs)

Loan

from

other

sources

(Rs. in

lakhs)

Assets

created

(Rs. In

lakhs)

Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 55 27.5 14.5 31.5 73.3

Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 50 25.0 28.6 83.5 137.0

Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 54 27.0 8.5 11.6 47.1

Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 48 24.0 10.5 40.9 75.4

Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 31 15.5 1.2 84.3 101.0

Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 40 20.0 11.9 17.9 49.8

Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 16 8.0 2.3 6.4 16.7

Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 40 20.0 1.2 22.4 43.7


Mallayanapura 30 15.0 25.5 62.0 95.0

Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 34 10 21.0 16.5 46.0

Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 46 11.5 22.8 36.0 70.0

Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 40 8.5 14.6 25.5 46.2

Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 50 24.1 0.1 25.3 37.8

Dakshina

Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 60 15.0 8.2 23.0 46.2


Narasipura 28 7 0.4 25.3 32.2


Makandoor 33 8.2 0.3 0.0 8.5

Bagalakote Kerkalmatti/ Badami 45 22.5 4.2 38.0 59.7

Belagavi Neginal/ Bailhongal 25 12.5 15.1 16.0 43.6

Vijayapura Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 40 20.0 8.1 42.4 70.5

Dharwad Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 20 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0

Gadaga Kadadi/ Gadaga 42 21.0 10.2 11.8 43.0

Haveri Agadi/ Haveri 21 10.5 10.5 24.5 45.5

Uttara Kannada Mavalli/ Bhatkal 85 0.0 48.9 46.9 95.8

Bidar Nirna/ Humnabad 36 18.0 10.9 4.5 33.4

Kalaburagi Habalanala/ Sedam 40 20.0 17.3 12.0 50.3

Yadgiri Wadigera/ Shahpur 25 12.5 8.8 0* 21.3

Raichuru Khyadigera/ Devadurga 55 27.5 9.0 0* 22.0

Koppal Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 30 15.0 14.5 8.5 36.5


Hoovinahadagali 20 10.0 3.6 2.5 16.1

Overall 1139 465.8 332.7 719.2 1473.6

*Loan not availed


98

Plate.11: IG Activities (Tailoring, Petty Shop / Agarbhatti / Plate Making, Rope Making

etc)

EDP training on Tailoring at Kerakalamatti SWS,

Badami taluk, Bagalkot district

EDP training on Handbag making and Embroidary

at Byadagitaluk, Haveri

EDP on Beautician Course at Haveri Hotel business by a member of Sri Lakshmi SHG in

Kerakalmatti village, Badami taluk, Bagalakote

district

Bangal and fancy business at Belavadigi SWS,

Chitapura Taluk and Kalaburagi district

Snacks preparation at Kydigera SWS, Devdurga

taluk and Raichuru district


99

It could be seen from the data presented in Table 3.26 that all members involved in EAP were

trained in either skilled or unskilled activities, with only 29% of the members opting for the

latter. This is a matter of serious concern as there is always a question mark on the sustainability

of non0skilled activities, particularly during drought years, besides marketing risks. It would be

more appropriate to enthuse people to develop technical skills related to services required in the

rural areas (tailoring, motor repairs, plumbing, electrical, food products) for sustaining the

activities as well as benefits associated with it.

Savings made by different groups and number of members linked with bank for serving loan

varied from district to district. The saving amount varied from a minimum of Rs Nil in Mavalli

(Uttara Kannada) watershed to Rs 27.5 lakhs in Doddamanikere (Bengaluru rural) watershed.

These variations are mainly due to variations in the number of groups, year of formation and

members in the groups (Table 3.27).

Revolving fund and loan provided to SHGs

In order to undertake IGA by the members initially a revolving fund of Rs. 50,000/0 is provided

to each group. A total revolving fund of Rs. 465.8 lakhs is distributed across watersheds and

bank loan of Rs. 719.2 lakhs was obtained to undertake IG activities under Batch – II across all

the watersheds. All the members feel that revolving fund was a great boon and incentive to them

to initiate the activity chosen.

Assets created due to IGA

The assets created among the existing SHGs in different Watersheds ranged from Rs. 8.5 lakhs

in Makandoor/Vatahole SWS (Kodagu) to Rs. 137.0 lakhs in Ragimakalahalli SWS

(Chikkaballapura). A total asset creation of Rs.1473.6 lakhs is generated in the watersheds. The

increase in the assets due to the Program is two to four times when compared to the pre-project

status.

Impacts:

The members who have pursued alternative livelihoods started earning additional income. In

some SWS, for example (Box-4) members are earning an additional income ranging from Rs.

16600 to as high as Rs. 1,33,200 and all of them have crossed the poverty line. It clearly


100

establishes that watershed development Programs have helped to reduce poverty among landless

and vulnerable groups.

Box: 4 – SHG members who are pursuing alternative livelihoods are earning more income and

living with self0esteem and moved out of BPL.

Name of the

member Taluk Name of the SHG

Activities

selected

Income Rs. Per

year

Net

increase

Before After

Shashikala

Gulihosahalli

Holalkere Sri Thimappa Sheep

rearing

74000 140800 66800

Jayamma

Gulihosahalli

Holalkere Sri Thimappa Ragi

flouring

159000 279890 120890

Jayalakshmibai

Rudrapura

Channagiri Sri Thulaja Dairy 15000 37800 22800

Rathnabai

Rudrapura

Channagiri Sri Thulaja Nursery 30000 61400 31400

Sema

Horabailu

Shivamogga Sri Gavibasavewara Tailoring 10200 78600 68400

Yashoda

Horabailu

Shivamogga Sri Gavibasavewara Dairy 9000 43860 34860

Nagamma

Bommanahalli

Davanagere Sarvodaya Business 65000 131000 66000

Muniyamma

Mallenahalli

Davanagere Mother Theresa Business 19000 152200 133200

Prema

Dinnur

Bangarpet Sri Venakteshwara Dairy 23000 39600 16600

Kavyashree Chennaptna Mother Theresa Computer

Operator

20000 106000 86000

Kamalamma Chennaptna Prakruthi Mat

Mashing

22000 76000 54000


101

CHAPTER 4

IMPACT EVALUATION

Impact evaluation is an assessment to determine how a given project is affecting the outcome,

whether such effects are intended or unintended. It will also help to understand whether the

program under the project has brought any physical changes in the area that would have helped

the target population economically or not. Impact evaluation can be used as a tool for improving

the program and for deriving learnings. In view of this, final impact evaluation of the Batch–II

watersheds is undertaken and the results are presented below:

4.1.1. Land Use Changes:

Watershed development envisages the use of land according to its capability so as to optimize

production. Accordingly, information is collected under different uses during pre and end project

period, to assess the changes. Data on pre and post project land use changes pertaining to all the

watersheds are presented in Table 4.1a. With the exception of three SWSs wherein the cultivated

area remained unchanged from its value before the start of the watershed project, the area

increased varying from 3.0 ha in Doddamanikerewatershed to 150 ha in Khyadigera watershed of

Raichuru district (Figure 4.1a). This clearly established better use of land resources in the area

due to better planning and education of farmers. Increase in area under cultivation was mostly

due to the conversion of cultivable fallows (799 ha across all the watersheds), as could be seen in

Figure 4.1c and Table 4.1b. As a result of judicious conservation of soil and rainwater, an

additional 932 ha across the twenty nine watersheds could be brought under irrigation, which is

an increase by 6% over the preproject area. The impact of watershed program on the area under

irrigation before and after the project period is depicted in Figure 4.1b. Area under irrigation

increased in all watersheds except in Neginal and Kadadi SWSs of Belagavi and Gadaga

districts, respectively. The increase in irrigated area varied from 5.0 ha in Kalyadi SWS, Hassan

district to 151.0 ha in Yalakundi SWS, Shivamogga district. Increase in irrigated area occurred

as a result of decline in rain fed area (420 ha) and fallow/wasteland (512 ha). This has reduced

the risks associated with rain fed cultivation. Wastelands have been brought down to the tune of

176 ha in six watersheds taken together while no change is noticed in the remaining 23

watersheds.


102

Table 4.1: Impact of watershed program on land use changes

SWS

SWS

area

Changes in land use after implementation of SWS

Rainfed Irrigated Wasteland Community

land

Cultivable

fallow

(ha)

Doddamanikere 4929.0 (-) 3 (+) 6 0 0 (-) 3

Ragimakalahalli 4200.0 (-) 20 (+) 60 0 0 (-) 40

Kariyalpura 5401.0 0 (+) 12 0 0 (-) 12

Nallur 5092.0 (+) 63 (+) 7 0 0 (-) 70

Vadaganahalli 3194.0 (-) 34 (+) 44 0 0 (-) 10

Akkur 3559.0 (-) 3 (+) 21 0 0 (-) 18

Yelakundli 3040.0 (-) 151 (+) 151 0 0 0

Hanumanthagirir 4977.0 (+) 1.5 (+) 15.5 0 0 (-) 17

Mallayanapura 3467.7 (-) 5 (+) 15 0 0 (-) 10

Jakkenahalli 2750.0 (-) 0.5 (+) 20.5 0 0 (-) 20

Mattighatta 6180.0 (-) 10 (+) 45 0 0 (-) 35 Kalyadi 3832.8 0 (+) 5 0 0 (-) 5 Attigudu 6721.1 (-) 8 (+) 13 0 0 (-) 5

Punacha/Peruvai 5000.0 (-) 30 (+) 65 0 0 (-) 35

Kuntahole/ Narasipura 4000.0 (+) 32 (+) 56 0 0 (-) 88

Vatahole/ Makandoor 5104.2 (+) 10 (+) 48 0 0 (-) 58

Kerakalmatti 3355.0 (+) 90 (+) 10 (-) 90 0 (-) 10

Neginhal 4354.0 0 0 0 0 0

Arjunagihalla 4716.5 (+) 56 (+) 34 0 (-) 62 (-) 28

Hulaginakatti 3043.2 (-) 30 (+) 30 0 0 0

Kadadi 4595.5 (-) 10 (+) 10 0 0 0

Agadi 6107.0 (-) 8 (+) 14 0 0 (-) 6

Mavalli 8194.1 (+) 50 (+) 13 0 0 (-) 63

Nirna 6142.0 (+) 15 (+) 20 0 (-) 20 (-) 15 Habalanala 4263.0 (+) 7 (+) 34 (-) 7 0 (-) 34 Wadigera 3106.0 (+) 102.6 (+) 11.4 (-) 9 0 (-) 105

Khyadigera 6200.0 (+) 119 (+) 31 (-) 50 0 (-) 100

Hirevankalakunta 4740.0 (-) 106 (+) 121 0 0 (-) 15

Hirehadagali 2280.0 0 (+) 20 (-) 20 0 0

+ Indicates increase in area, (-) Indicates decrease in area


103

Figure 4.1: Impact of watershed development on Land use of watersheds.

a

b

c


104

Table 4.1b: Change in Land use pattern due to watershed development programs across 29 watersheds

District Name of the

Taluk/SWS

Area under cultivation (ha) Total Area under

cultivation (ha)

Area under waste

lands (ha)

Community lands

(ha)

Cultivatable

fallow land (Ha)

Rainfed Irrigated

Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After

Bengaluru Rural Doddamanikere 2950 2947 50 56 3000 3003 0 0 1758 1758 171 168

Chikkaballapur Ragimakalahalli 2932 2912 190 250 3122 3162 0 0 984 984 94 54

Chitradurga Hiriyur/ Kariyalpura 3480 3480 781 793 4261 4273 0 0 830 830 309.6 297.6

Davanagere Nallur 2140 2203 1189.1 1196 3329 3399 0 0 1464.1 1464.1 298.84 228.84

Kolara Vadaganahalli 2601 2567 144.89 188.88 2746 2756 50 50 383.31 383.31 15 5

Ramanagara Akkur 2808.4 2805.4 420.5 441.5 3229 3247 0 0 97 97 233.07 215.07

Shivamogga Yelakundli 2321.8 2170.8 496 647 2818 2818 43.2 43.2 179 179 0 0

Tumakuru Hanumanthagiri 2895 2893.5 76 91.5 2971 2985 0 0 1710 1710 296 282

Chamarajanagara Mallayanapura 2149.5 2144.5 316.28 331.28 2466 2476 301.9 301.9 420 420 280 270

Mandya Jakkenahalli 1873.2 1872.7 141 161.5 2014 2034 95.8 95.8 300 300 340 320

Chikkamagalore Mattighatta 4017.6 4007.6 556 601 4574 4609 282 282 1124.4 1124.4 200 165

Hassan Kalyadi 3080.8 3080.8 409 414 3490 3495 0 0 228 228 115 110

Mysuru Attigudu 5449.1 5441.1 410 423 5859 5864 0 0 612 612 250 245

Dakshina Kannada Punacha/Peruvai 2580 2550 1400 1465 3980 4015 0 0 844 844 176 141

Udupi Kuntahole/ Narasipura 2360 2392 900 956 3260 3348 80 80 250 250 410 322

Kodagu Vatahole/ Makandoor 1837 1847 2732.2 2780.2 4569 4627 70 70 315 315 150 92

Bagalakote Kerakalmatti 3150 3240 35 45 3185 3285 125 35 0 0 45 35

Belagavi Neginhal 4200 4200 50 50 4250 4250 25 25 77 77 2 2

Vijayapura Arjunagihalla 4010 4066 431 465 4441 4531 60 60 155.2 93 60 32

Dharwad Hulaginakatti 1470 1440 630 660 2100 2100 170 170 773 773 0 0

Gadaga Kadadi 4543 4533 23 33 4566 4566 0 0 19.5 19.5 9.5 9.5

Haveri Agadi 1748 1740 3258 3272 5006 5012 604.45 604.45 485.05 485.05 12 6

Uttara Kannada Mavalli 4400 4450 82 95 4482 4545 859 859 1870 1870 983 928

Bidar Nirna 4322 4337 290 310 4612 4647 742 742 753 733 35 20

Kalaburagi Habalanala 3767 3774 154 188 3921 3962 35 28 112 112 195 161

Yadgiri Wadigera 1828 1931 129 140 1957 2071 205 196 798.4 798.4 146 41

Raichuru Khyadigera 3446 3565 43 74 3489 3639 1000 950 1335 1335 376 276

oppal Hirevankalakunta 4177 4071 174 295 4351 4366 0 0 369 369 20 5

Ballary Hirehadagali 1580 1580 90 110 1670 1690 275 255 335 335 0 0

Total 88116 88241 15601 16533 103717 104774 5023 4847 18580 18499 5222 4431.01


105

4.1.2. Soil and water conservation measures:

Trench cum bund in cultivated areas and diversion drains along the foot hills are the major

interventions used in the program to conserve rain water for prevention of water erosion. Bunds

of cross sections 0 0.54, 0.72, 1.07 and 1.2 m2, and diversion drains of 1.0 to 1.5m top width, 0.5

to 0.6m bottom width and 1.0m depth with side slopes of 1:1 are made. Bunds of 0.54 and 0.72

m2 cross are formed by opening trenches of 5.0m length, 0.6 to 1.3m width depending upon

section, and 0.6m depth are made with 60cm equalizers. The spoil from trenches is used for

making bund. These trenches have acted as catch pits for runoff water and stored the water. A

total of 78,261 ha are covered with these measures across the watersheds. As a result of these

interventions, moisture status in the soil profile improved resulting in higher yields. It also

helped to improve groundwater recharge to benefit the wells in the surrounding area.

Consequently, ragi yields improved ranging from 180 to 400kgha01

(Figure 4.2), which resulted

in increased watershed income ranging from 12.7 to 198.3 lakhs. Similarly, maize yields

increased by150 to 900 kgha01

, resulting in additional income ranging from Rs. 3000 to Rs.

12000ha01

yr01

. As result the total production from bunded area of the watershed increased

varying from 615 to 3177 tonnes (Table 3.12).Similarly, diversion drains stabilized crops

adjoining the mounds, hills and helped to increase their income varying from Rs.3000 to 8000

every year. The extent of areas thus reclaimed varied from 40 to 50% of the catchment areas.

Figure 4.2 Impact of bunding on ragi yields and income in selected watersheds.


106

4.1.3. Drainage line treatment (Water harvesting structures):

Gully controls cum water harvesting structures are constructed to prevent gully erosion and

conserve rainwater. Depending upon the size of gully location, structures like percolation tanks,

check dams, vented dams, gokattes, nalabunds, farm ponds and seepage ponds were constructed

across the watersheds. A total of 317 Check dams, 188 vented dams, 193 Nala bunds, 1260 farm

ponds of different sizes, 170 percolation tanks and 153gokattewere executed during work phase

of the program, with a total expenditure of Rs. 1368 lakhs. These structures have helped to store

about 1700 TCM of rain water which otherwise would have been lost as runoff. Creation of such

storages across watershed(s) increased the surface water availability period from November to

April in many cases. This has resulted in groundwater recharge as evidenced by the increase in

area under irrigation both on spatial and time scale. The depth to water tables reduced by 30m in

Habalanala followed by and 25 m in Hirevankalakunta watersheds. Consequent to this the

discharge from bore wells improved from 1.0″ to 1.5″ 0 2.5″ with increase in pumping period

which is evident from the increase in irrigated area in most of the watersheds at the end of the

project when compared to the pre0project period.

4.1.4. Crops and cropping pattern

Across sample watersheds, area under rain fed (Kharif and Rabi seasons) and irrigated crops

(Kharif, rabi and summer seasons) showed an increase due to interventions of watershed. Under

rain fed condition, the overall cropped area showed an increase from 88116 ha (before project) to

88241 ha (at the end of project) and the increase being 0.14% across the watersheds (Table 4.1b).

Further, this increase in rain fed area across watersheds is accomplished largely through increase

in area during kharif and to a smaller extent during rabi season particularly from northern

Karnataka where rabi crops like sorghum, chickpea, sunflower, wheat are grown on black soils.

Nevertheless, increase in area during kharif season after the project was through growing of

maize, ragi, sorghum, bajra, groundnut, sunflower and redgram (Table 4.2). This increase in the

area under rain fed conditions is due to bunding activity carried out across the watersheds.

Under irrigation through the use of tube/open wells, increase in area was to an extent of 6.0%

over the irrigated area (15591 ha prior to the project) due to groundwater recharge consequent to

surface water availability from July to December/ January months in water harvesting structures.

This increase in area was reflected in all districts of Karnataka barring Nominal SWS of


107

Belagavi district (Table 4.1 and 4.2). Further, across watersheds, construction of water

harvesting structures have aided in recharging groundwater and consequential improvement in

functioning of open wells (from 1247 before project to 1389 after the project) by 11% as well as

tube wells (from 3529 – before project to 4842 – after the project) by 13% – both in quantity

(from 1” discharge – before project to 1½” to 2½“ discharge of water0 after the project) as well

as duration of period (July to November – before project to July to January/April months – at the

end of Project). The distribution of open and bore wells before and after the implementation of

the watershed program across the 29 watersheds is shown in Figure 4.3a and 4.3b. Thus,

increased water availability due to water harvesting structures have increased the irrigated area

by 6% from 15591 ha (before project) to 16523 ha (at the end of project) during kharif, rabi and

summer seasons. The area irrigated from open/tube wells was more during kharif mainly due to

supplemental/ lifesaving irrigation provided during rain0deficit period, followed by rabi season,

while it was pretty less during summer season due to cultivation of cereals – maize/ ragi, oilseeds

0 groundnut, horticulture 0 flower crops and vegetables fetching higher income (Table 4.1a,

4.1b, 4.2 and 4.3).

Perusal of data in Table 4.3 reveals that there was an increase in the gross cropped area by 6.82%

from the base value of 113788 ha across the watersheds. This was due to the combined effect of

7.01% increase in the rain fed area (kharif + rabi), 20% increase in irrigated area (kharif + rabi),

and about 87% increase in the area of crops grown during summer season. One encouraging fact

is that the area under irrigated pulses (kharif + rabi) was found to increase by 16.5%, as

compared to the increase of 17 and 14% in cereals and oilseeds, respectively. By comparing

crops grown during kharif, rabi and summer under irrigated condition, cropping intensity was

also worked out separately for area before project and after the project (Figure 4.4). Among the

different watersheds, highest cropping intensity of 176% (post-project) was achieved in case of

Kariyalpura watershed (Chitrdurga), which was a 10% rise, from the base value (166%). The

highest increment in cropping intensity to the tune of 33% from the base value of 100% was

reported from Mallayanapura sub0watershed (Chamrajanagara), followed by Kaylyadi

watershed, Hassan (27%).Overall, there was an increase in cropping intensity from110 to 116%

at the end of the project mainly due to water availability in water harvesting structures. There

was no change in cropping intensity in respect of two sub0watersheds, viz, Khyadigera

(Raichuru) and Hirevankalakunta (Koppal) sub0watersheds.


108

Figure 4.3a.Distribution of open wells across watersheds before and after the project period.

Figure 4.3a.Distribution of borewells across watersheds before and after the project period.


109

Table 4.2: Changes in cropping pattern and area under irrigation after implementation of watershed program.

Name of the SWS

Rainfed area (ha) Irrigated area (ha) Summer

Gross Cropped

Area (Ha) Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi


Doddamanikere Cereals 2747 2769 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 70 2767 2839

Oilseeds 62 70 0 0 50 53 0 0 30 90 142 213

Pulses 122 122 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 122 125

Commercial 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 15

Total 2931 2966 0 5 50 56 0 0 50 165 3031 3192

Ragimakalahalli Cereals 1331 1320 30 105 190 250 45 60 130 180 1726 1915

Oilseeds 1050 1050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1050 1050

Pulses 550 545 50 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 705

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2931 2915 80 265 190 250 45 60 130 180 3376 3670

Kariyalpura Cereals 685 710 375 425 0 0 150 160 40 50 1250 1345

Oilseeds 940 1040 200 220 0 0 50 53 60 75 1250 1388

Pulses 0 0 1925 2105 0 0 0 0 0 0 1925 2105

Commercial 1860 1860 0 0 580 580 0 0 200 230 2640 2670

Total 3485 3610 2500 2750 580 580 200 213 300 355 7065 7508

Nallur Cereals 1405 1505 100 180 985 990 190 260 95 140 2775 3075

Oilseeds 25 30 0 0 201 206 50 60 20 25 296 321

Pulses 20 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 25

Commercial 690 690 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 690 690

Total 2140 2250 100 180 1186 1196 240 320 115 165 3781 4111

Vadaganahalli Cereals 1150 1145 125 140 145 190 140 175 145 160 1705 1810

Oilseeds 875 855 155 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 1030 1045

Pulses 577 565 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 577 565

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2602 2565 280 330 145 190 140 175 145 160 3312 3420

Akkur Cereals 2243 2240 0 0 150 171 0 0 0 0 2393 2411

Oilseeds 320 309 0 0 66 66 0 0 0 0 386 375

Pulses 245 255 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 245 255

Commercial 0 0 0 0 205 205 0 60 0 60 205 325

Total 2808 2804 0 0 421 442 0 60 0 60 3229 3366

Yelakundli Cereals 2325 2160 0 0 155 40 50 55 0 0 2530 2255

Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial 0 0 0 0 290 335 0 210 0 210 290 755

Total 2325 2160 0 0 445 375 50 265 0 210 2820 3010


110

Name of the SWS


Gross Cropped



Hanumanthagirir Cereals 1650 1845 0 0 75 90 15 20 0 0 1740 1955

Oilseeds 168 255 0 0 0 0 50 70 0 0 218 325

Pulses 62 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 70

Commercial 1010 1010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010 1010

Total 2890 3180 0 0 75 90 65 90 0 0 3030 3360

Mallayanapura Cereals 1577 2075 0 0 200 216 0 0 0 0 1777 2291

Oilseeds 160 300 0 0 115 115 0 0 0 0 275 415

Pulses 225 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 400

Commercial 190 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 190

Total 2152 2965 0 0 315 331 0 0 0 0 2467 3296

Jakkenahalli Cereals 1180 1330 0 0 106 110 0 0 0 0 1286 1440

Oilseeds 58 70 0 0 35 51 0 0 0 0 93 121

Pulses 75 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 100

Commercial 560 560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 560 560

Total 1873 2060 0 0 141 161 0 0 0 0 2014 2221

Mattighatta Cereals 2300 2680 0 0 500 531 0 0 0 0 2800 3211

Oilseeds 645 785 0 0 46 50 0 0 0 0 691 835

Pulses 580 675 125 135 10 20 0 0 0 0 715 830

Commercial 493 493 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 493 493

Total 4018 4633 125 135 556 601 0 0 0 0 4699 5369

Kalyadi Cereals 1395 1600 0 0 26 46 0 0 0 0 1421 1646

Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial 1686 1950 0 140 107 136 276 276 0 276 2069 2778

Total 3081 3550 0 140 133 182 276 276 0 276 3490 4424

Attigudu Cereals 3251 3830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3251 3830

Oilseeds 15 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 20

Pulses 165 182 0 25 45 58 0 0 0 0 210 265

Commercial 2018 2018 0 0 365 365 0 0 0 0 2383 2383

Total 5449 6050 0 25 410 423 0 0 0 0 5859 6498

Punacha/Peruvai Cereals 2218 2465 0 0 40 50 0 0 0 0 2258 2515

Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial 362 362 0 0 1360 1415 0 0 0 0 1722 1777

Total 2580 2827 0 0 1400 1465 0 0 0 0 3980 4292

Kuntahole/ Narasipura Cereals 795 945 0 0 120 150 30 45 0 0 945 1140


111

Name of the SWS


Gross Cropped



Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 50 0 0 45 50

Pulses 0 0 0 0 50 70 25 30 0 0 75 100

Commercial 1565 1565 0 0 685 686 0 0 0 0 2250 2251

Total 2360 2510 0 0 855 906 100 125 0 0 3315 3541

Vatahole/ Makandoor Cereals 1620 1680 0 0 632 645 0 0 0 0 2252 2325

Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial 220 220 0 0 2100 2135 0 0 0 0 2320 2355

Total 1840 1900 0 0 2732 2780 0 0 0 0 4572 4680

Kerkalmatti Cereals 332 438 1480 1490 10 20 0 0 0 0 1822 1948

Oilseeds 788 780 510 472 20 20 0 15 12 12 1330 1299

Pulses 466 476 38 127 5 5 0 0 0 0 509 608

Commercial 416 416 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 416 416

Total 2002 2110 2028 2089 35 45 0 15 12 12 4077 4271

Neginhal Cereals 190 188 0 0 50 55 0 0 0 0 240 243

Oilseeds 3288 3290 988 1050 0 0 0 0 10 15 4286 4355

Pulses 120 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 126

Commercial 602 602 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 15 614 617

Total 4200 4206 988 1050 50 55 0 0 22 30 5260 5341

Arjunagihalla Cereals 370 386 1418 1457 350 375 0 0 22 24 2160 2242

Oilseeds 1129 1175 798 804 82 90 0 0 15 18 2024 2087

Pulses 1212 1200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1212 1200

Commercial 251 295 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 251 295

Total 2962 3056 2216 2261 432 465 0 0 37 42 5647 5824

Hulaginakatti Cereals 370 422 0 0 90 106 0 0 0 0 460 528

Oilseeds 500 550 0 0 50 55 0 0 0 0 550 605

Pulses 0 0 85 93 335 340 80 85 0 0 500 518

Commercial 600 600 0 0 155 160 0 0 0 0 755 760

Total 1470 1572 85 93 630 661 80 85 0 0 2265 2411

Kadadi Cereals 0 0 876 903 0 0 0 0 0 0 876 903

Oilseeds 200 258 705 756 23 33 0 0 0 0 928 1047

Pulses 1360 1387 175 212 0 0 15 18 0 0 1550 1617

Commercial 1602 1606 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1602 1606

Total 3162 3251 1756 1871 23 33 15 18 0 0 4956 5173

Agadi Cereals 753 776 45 58 1220 1234 42 43 0 25 2060 2136


112

Name of the SWS


Gross Cropped



Oilseeds 165 235 0 0 0 0 88 95 0 0 253 330

Pulses 20 32 135 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 147

Commercial 695 728 0 0 2038 2038 186 182 97 60 3016 3008

Total 1633 1771 180 173 3258 3272 316 320 97 85 5484 5621

Maavalli Cereals 1042 1100 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 70 1104 1170

Oilseeds 350 375 20 28 0 0 0 0 22 26 392 429

Pulses 435 440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 435 440

Commercial 2573 2617 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2573 2617

Total 4400 4532 20 28 0 0 0 0 84 96 4504 4656

Nirna Cereals 1375 1370 125 185 150 160 25 55 0 0 1675 1770

Oilseeds 550 560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 550 560

Pulses 1495 1500 625 715 0 0 0 0 0 0 2120 2215

Commercial 900 900 0 0 140 150 0 0 0 0 1040 1050

Total 4320 4330 750 900 290 310 25 55 0 0 5385 5595

Habalanala Cereals 985 990 110 130 70 80 0 0 15 35 1180 1235

Oilseeds 867 880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 867 880

Pulses 1515 1520 100 120 0 0 0 0 12 22 1627 1662

Commercial 400 400 0 0 80 110 0 0 0 0 480 510

Total 3767 3790 210 250 150 190 0 0 27 57 4154 4287

Wadigera Cereals 661 650 65 85 129 140 15 28 0 0 870 903

Oilseeds 475 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 475 500

Pulses 567 576 64 121 0 0 0 0 10 32 641 729

Commercial 125 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 130

Total 1828 1856 129 206 129 140 15 28 10 32 2111 2262

Khyadigera Cereals 1548 1586 0 0 43 74 0 0 0 0 1591 1660

Oilseeds 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20

Pulses 125 125 1418 1500 0 0 0 0 0 0 1543 1625

Commercial 460 460 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 460 460

Total 2153 2191 1418 1500 43 74 0 0 0 0 3614 3765

H V Kunta Cereals 1885 1845 145 100 100 135 0 0 0 0 2130 2080

Oilseeds 105 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 100

Pulses 0 0 1617 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 1617 1600

Commercial 570 570 0 0 74 160 0 0 0 0 644 730

Total 2560 2515 1762 1700 174 295 0 0 0 0 4496 4510

Hirehadagali Cereals 616 610 100 145 90 110 0 0 15 30 821 895


113

Name of the SWS


Gross Cropped



Oilseeds 205 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 200

Pulses 134 148 625 610 0 0 10 25 0 0 769 783

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 955 958 725 755 90 110 10 25 15 30 1795 1878

Note: Total gross cropped area in all SWSs have shown increase across the State

Table 4.3. Area under different types of crops across the watersheds before and after the project period.

Crop


Gross Cropped



Cereals 37999 40660 4994 5403 5626 5968 702 901 544 784 49865 53716

Oilseeds 12960 13707 3376 3520 688 739 283 343 169 261 17476 18570

Pulses 10070 10469 6982 7638 445 496 130 158 22 54 17649 18815

Commercial 19848 20247 0 145 8179 8475 462 728 309 856 28798 30451

Total 80877 85083 15352 16706 14938 15678 1577 2130 1044 1955 113788 121552


114

Figure 4.4.Cropping intensity scenario across watersheds before and after the project

period.

4.1.5. Horticulture and forestry activities:

Changes in tree density/100 ha was worked out based on cumulative distribution of saplings of

horticulture and forestry, and the area covered during different years in the project. The tree

density prior to start of the program and after the program was worked out and compared for the

benefit of increase in the tree density on account of saplings provided.

The data of tree density for Bengaluru, Mysuru and Kalaburagi divisions are available for pre-

project period (Table 4.4). In Bengaluru division, the average tree density/100 ha under

horticulture activity increased from 256 trees (before project) to 687 trees (after the project) and

thus registered an increase in tree density by 2.7 times. Similarly, in Mysuru division, the

average tree density/100 ha under horticulture activity increased by 53% from 1324 trees (before

project) to 2030 trees (after the project. Similar indications on higher tree density have recorded

even in Kalaburagi division. Provision of horticulture species has been highly successful, as

evident from the more0than0seven0fold rise in tree density after implementation of the program

in different watersheds of the Division (41 trees before the start of the project to 317 trees/100 ha

at the closure of the program).While data on initial density are not available for the watersheds of

Belagavi division (Table 4.4), the density of horticultural tree species at the end of the project

stood at 324 per 100 ha. Among the different watersheds, density of horticultural crops is higher


115

in southern Karnataka, particularly those under Mysuru division as compared to the watersheds

of northern Karnataka, which could be attributed to conducive soils, and higher amount and even

distribution of rainfall facilitating better growth of the horticultural crops.

Akin to horticulture, density of tree cover under forestry activities increased across all divisions

(Table 4.4). In Bengaluru division, the average tree density/100 ha under forestry increased from

49 trees (before project) to 1206 trees (after the project) and thus registered an increase in density

by24 times. Similarly, in Mysuru division, the average tree density/100 ha under forestry

increased from 315 trees before project to 1311 trees after the project, which is a whopping

316% rise from the base value. Tree density increased from 179 to 1192 per 100 ha across the

watersheds of Kalaburagi division. In case of Belagavi division, initial tree density was not

recorded, however, the density at the end of the project period was 873 trees/ 100 ha. Thus, tree

density across the divisions decreased in the order: Mysuru > Bengaluru> Kalaburagi>

Belagavi. Therefore, implementation of watershed programs has helped in bringing more area

under canopy coverage which would in due course mitigate the ill effects of adverse climatic

conditions.

Table.4.4. Density of trees per 100 ha across 29 watersheds.

Districts

Horticulture Trees’ density/ 100 ha Forestry Trees’ density/ 100 ha

Pre-project Post-project Pre-project Post-project

Bengaluru

Bengaluru Rural 0 107 0 1567

Chikkaballapura 199 627 69 600

Chitradurga 179 501 82 781

Davanagere 46 434 0 527

Kolara 857 1001 120 505

Ramanagara 0 1046 0 2782

Shivamogga 88 1065 92 1230

Tumakuru 685 1008 1040 1908

Mysuru

C R Nagar 556 912 3 22

Chikkamagalore 138 500 322 1614

Hassan 426 832 528 1718

Kodagu 0 732 NA NA

Mandya 1475 1721 137 1414

Mysuru 119 945 904 2116

Mangalore 7518 8936 278 642

Udupi 361 1659 NA 1421

Kalaburagi

Bidar 73 638 95 402

Kalaburagi 1 117 1 297

Yadgiri 7 152 645 1082

Raichuru 1 15 0 460


116

Districts

Horticulture Trees’ density/ 100 ha Forestry Trees’ density/ 100 ha

Pre-project Post-project Pre-project Post-project

Koppal 126 835 289 3688

Ballary 40 142 41 1220

Belagavi

Bagalkote NA 968.4 NA 1421

Belagavi NA 440.7 NA 72

Vijayapura NA 614.0 NA 404

Dharwad NA 840.1 NA 1922

Gadaga NA 400.8 NA 311

Haveri NA 535.0 NA 1107

Uttara Kannada NA 745.4 NA NA

4.1.6. Village common property resources

Common property resources in villages namely forest for fuel and grazing land in 29 watersheds

were analyzed for changes if any, due to interventions of watershed development programs, and

the data in this regard are presented in Table 4.5. The data relating to village forest for fuel

purpose are available for nine watersheds only, out of which, three watersheds showed an

increase in area for fuel purpose due to afforestation taken up by the watershed development

programs in the village communes, while no change has occurred in other six watersheds. The

increase in the village area for fuel collection ranged from 12% in Mavalli SWS, Uttara Kannada

district to 25% in Arjunagihalla SWS, Vijayapura district. With regard to change in grazing

land, a marginal increase in the area (6%) was observed in Kerakalamattu SWS in Bagalkote

district due to planting of fodder crops to a smaller extent. In the remaining three SWS for which

data is available, no change has occurred in grazing area.

Thus, watershed development programs have helped to maintain or improve the utility of

common land meant for fuel purpose and grazing in at least some of the sub0watersheds (where

data is available)


117

Table 4.5. Changes in the availability of Village Common Property Resources across watersheds

District Subwatershed Resources

Before W/s After W/s Increase/

Decrease/

Same

Change in

Area(Ha) Area (ha) Area (ha)

Bengaluru Rural

Village forest for fuel 0 0 0 0

Doddamanikere Grazing Land 0 0 0 0

Others 0 0 0 0

Chikkaballapur


Ragimakalahalli Grazing Land 20.66 20.66 Same 0

Others 0 0 0 0

Chitrudurga


Kariyalpura Grazing Land 0 0 0 0

Others 0 0 0 0

Davanagere

Village forest for fuel 175 175 Same 0

Nallur Grazing Land 0 0 0 0

Others 0 0 0 0

Kolara

Village forest for fuel 54 54 Same 0

Vadaganahalli Grazing Land 0 0 0 0

Others 0 0 0 0

Ramanagara


Akkur Grazing Land 0 0 0 0

Others 0 0 0 0

Shivamogga Yalakundi

Village forest for fuel 48.26 48.26 Same 0

Grazing Land 0 0 0 0

Others 0 0 0 0

Tumakuru


Hanumanthagirir Grazing Land 118.56 118.56 Same 0

Others 0 0 0 0

Bagalkote Kerakalamatti

Village forest for fuel 30 35 Increase 5

Grazing land 30 32 Increase 2

Others 0 0 0 0

Belagavi Neginhal Village forest for fuel 0 0 0 0


118

District Subwatershed Resources

Before W/s After W/s Increase/

Decrease/

Same

Change in

Area(Ha) Area (ha) Area (ha)

Grazing land 0 0 0 0

Others 0 0 0 0

Vijayapura Arjunagihalla



Others 0 0 0 0

Dharwad Hulaginakatti



Others 0 0 0 0

Gadaga Kadadi



Others 0 0 0 0

Haveri Agadi

Village forest for fuel 10 10 Same


Others 0 0 0 0

Uttara Kannada Mavalli


Grazing land 8 8 Same 0

Others 0 0 0 0


119

4.1.7 Livestock activity and fodder production

Fodder mini kits have been distributed in all but six districts of the 29 Batch-II IWMP districts.

Fodder min kits have been distributed to cover an area of 2871 ha and the overall production of

green fodder amounted to 9024.0 tonnes meeting the fodder requirement of the households, apart

from dry fodder obtained through crops grown in their respective fields. Due to more area under

fodder crops in southern Karnataka, more fodder production is obtained than the northern parts

of Karnataka. The yield of fodder ranged from 12 to 60 q/ha under rain fed condition, while the

fodder yield ranged from 45 to 90 q/ha under irrigated conditions. If perennial fodders are

provided and with supplemental irrigation, fodder yield can be to the tune of 150 to 250

tonnes/ha/year (from 5 cuts). Fodder mini kit distribution needs to be done in all watersheds in

order to meet the fodder requirement of livestock which provide substantial income throughout

the year and will provide resilience to agriculture during drought period. With this increased

supply of green fodder along with dry fodder, milk yield of cows have shown increase by 50 to

100% in all districts of southern Karnataka (except four districts for which data is not available),

while 14 and 25% increase in milk yield have been reported from Belagavi and Kalaburagi

divisions, respectively (Table 4.6). Thus, distribution of fodder mini kits is an important activity

which needs to be strengthened and prioritized from the initial phase of the project itself to make

subsidiary occupation like animal husbandry a profitable enterprise, to fetch additional income

for the farmer.


120

Table 4.6. Increase in green fodder production and milk yield

District Subwatershed Area under fodder

kits Yield (two cuts) (q/ha)

Increase in milk

yield

Rainfed Irrigated %

Bengaluru Rural Doddaammanikere 196 30 80

500100

Chikkaballapura Ragimakalahalli 244.8 40 80

Chitradurga Kariyalapura 80.0 40 80

Davanagere Nallur 8.0 30 80

Kolara Vadaganahalli 283.6 40 80

Ramanagara Akkur 9.5 50 90

Shivamogga Yalakundi 34.0 60 90

Tumakuru Hanumanthagiri 428.0 50 0

Chamarajanagaraa Mallayanapura 9.5 50 0

Mandya Jakkenahalli 311.5 50 80

Chikkamagaluru Mattighatta 168.0 40 70

Hassan Kalyadi 0.0 0 0

Mysuru Attigudu 164.5 22 45

Dakshina Kannada Punacha/Peruvai 30.8 0 75

Udupi Kuntahole/ Narasipura 9.0 50 90

25050

Kodagu Vatahole/ Makandoor 0

Bidar Nirna 140.0 20 0

Kalaburagi Habalanala 121.4 20 0

Yadgiri Wadigera 0 0 0

Raichuru Khyadigera 130 18 0

Koppal Hirevankalakunta 36 34 0

Ballary Hirehadagali 0 0 0

Bagalkote Kerkalmatti 116.2 12 0

14

Belagavi Neginal 80 15 0

Vijayapura Arjunagihalla 214.4 14 50

Dharwad Hulaginakatti 229.0 14 0

Gadaga Kadadi 80.0 15 0

Haveri Agadi 70.0 15 0

Uttara Kannada Mavalli 240.0 18 65

Total 3434.2


121

4.1.8 Adequacy of drinking water and quality

The favorable effect of watershed programs on parameters namely increase in the functional

efficiency of water sources (tanks, open wells and tube wells), adequacy of drinking water,

changes in quality of water (fluoride content, hard water, salty water, good water), time spent in

fetching drinking water and depth to water table were analyzed for all the 29 sub0watersheds and

are presented in Table 4.7.

Implementing watershed programs across the State improved the groundwater recharge

considerably which was reflected in terms of increase in water availability in tanks, open wells

(from 1247 wells initially to 3897 after the program, i.e., 11% increase) and tube wells (from

3437 initially to 1092 Nos. after the program, i.e., 13% increase).

Water availability was adequate in all the watersheds, with the exception of Mattighatta SWS of

Chikkamagaluruu district. Improvement in quality of drinking water due to intervention of

watershed programs was also assessed in all the watersheds. It revealed that quality of water

which was hard/salty water prior to watershed program changed to good water in 12 watersheds.

However, in one watershed (Khyadigera SWS, Raichuru), fluoride content in drinking water

remained unchanged after the program. The remaining 16 watersheds had good water for

drinking purpose earlier to watershed programs and quality continued further after the programs.

Time spent for fetching drinking water was reduced by 2 minutes to 2 hours across the

watersheds after the program implementation. This could be mainly due to increased

groundwater recharge, water availability in tanks, open wells and tube wells leading to

improvement in quality of water for drinking purposes (hard/salt water or fluoride content to

good/ potable water).

4.1.9. Depth to water table in tube wells

The favorable effect of watershed programs on parameters namely increases in the functional

efficiency of water source particularly tube wells and depth to water table were analyzed in all

the 29 SWSs and presented in Table 4.8. Soil and water conservation measures resulted in

groundwater recharge and improved the groundwater level by an average of 15 m, with the rise

in water table in the range of 2 to 70 m.


122

Table 4.7: Impact of watershed development programs on drinking water facilities and

depth to water table

Subwatershed Water Supply

Systems

Adequacy of

drinking

water

[Yes/No]

Quality of

drinking water

(Good/Salty/

Hard/Fluoride)

Time spent for

Fetching drinking

water [hrs]

Before

W/s

After

W/s

Before

W/s

After

W/s

Before

W/s

After W/s

Doddamanikere Wells/Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 20 min. 15 min.

Ragimakalahalli Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 10 min 5 min

Kariyalapura Tank/Borewells Yes Yes Hard Good 25 min 20 min

Nalluru Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 25 min 25 min

Vadaganahalli Borewells Yes Yes Hard Good 20 min 15 min.

Akkur Tank/Wells/Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 20 min 15 min.

Yalakundi Wells/Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 15 min. 10 min

Hanumanthagiri Wells/Borewells No Yes Salty Good 25 min 20 min

Mallayanapura Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 25 min 20 min

Mattighatta Borewells No No Good Good 20 min 15 min.

Punacha/Peruvai Borewells No Yes Hard Good 5 min 3 min

Kalyadi Borewells No No Good Good 30 min 25 min

Vatahole/ Makandoor Borewells No Yes Good Good 10 min 8 min

Jakkenahalli Wells Yes Yes Good Good 15 min. 10 min

Attigudu Wells/Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 20 min 15 min.

Kuntahole/Narasipura Wells Yes Yes Good Good 5 min 5 min

Kerakalmatti Borewell Yes Yes Good Good 30045

min.

30040

min.

Neginal Borewell Yes Yes Hard Good 102 hr 1hr

Arjunagihalla Well Yes Yes Hard Good 30050

min.

40045

min.

Hulaginakatti Tank Yes Yes Salty Salty 102 hr 1hr

Kadadi Tank Yes Yes Hard Good 40050

min.

30045

min.

Agadi Borewell Yes Yes Salty Good 20 min. 15 min.

Mavalli Borewell Yes Yes Salty Good 15min02hr 15min01hr

Nirna Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 103 h 1 h

Habalanala Borewells No Yes Hard Good 203 h 2 h

Wadigera Borewells No Yes Salty Good 102 h 3 h

Khyadigera Borewells No Yes Fluoride Fluoride 103 h 1 h

Hirevankalakunta Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 103 h 1 h

Hirehadagali Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 103 h 1 h


123

Table 4.8. Change in depth to water table (in m from ground level) in tube wells due to

intervention of watershed programs across watersheds

Name of the taluk/SWS Depth of Water Table (m)

Name of the taluk/SWS Depth of Water Table (m)

Before

W/s After

W/s Rise Before

W/s After

W/s Rise

Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 60 50 10 Madikere/ Vatahole/

Makandoor 150 125 25

Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 340 320 20 Kerkalmatti/ Badami 51 45 6

Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 95 73 22 Neginal/ Bailhongal 13 10 3

Channagiri/ Nallur 33 26 7 Arjunagihalla/

Vijayapura 56 54 2

Malur/Vadaganahalli 335 295 40 Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 78 73 5

Channapatna/Akkur 147 125 22 Kadadi/ Gadaga 85 70 15

Sagara/Yelakundli 110 99 11 Agadi/ Haveri 38 32 6

Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 190 177 13 Mavalli/ Bhatkal 13 11 2 Chamarajanagaraa/

Mallayanapura 30 28 2 Nirna/ Humnabad 32 30 2

Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 97 95 2 Habalanala/ Sedam 65 54 11

Kadur/ Mattighatta 80 60 20 Wadigera/ Shahpur 222 171 51

Hassan/ Kalyadi 73 67 6 Khyadigera/ Devadurga 210 173 37

Periyapattana/ Attigodu 170 100 70 Hirevankalakunta/

Yelburga 36 33 3

Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 100 95 5 Hirehadagali/

Hoovinahadagali 70 60 10 Kundapura/ Kuntahole/

Narasipura 37 32 5 Overall 103.9 89.17 15

4.2. Economic Impacts

4.2.1. Significance of impact evaluation:

This impact evaluation subsequent to the launching of the Watershed Development projects is

basically meant to assess the impact of Project interventions on socio-economic conditions of the

villagers in general and farmers in particular. For this purpose, the pre-project and post-project

socio-economic characteristics of 120 sample farmers in each of the twenty-eight SWSs (SWS’s,

for short) were studied and compared. The chief socio-economic characteristics analyzed in the

present study included the size of farm households, the size of the land holding, per capita

income, sources of income to the households and the proportion of farm income to the total

household income, amount of farm loans availed by the farmers, basic facilities available to the

villagers, asset holdings of farmers and yield per hectare of the principal crops grown in the

watershed area.


124

4.2.2. Average size of farm households:

The average size of the farm households is not affected across the reaches and watersheds at the

end of the project. There was a marginal improvement in average size of farm household by 0.10

from the initial average of 4.8 (Table 4.1), while there was no change in the size of households in

the watersheds of Bengaluru, Mysuru and Belagavi divisions, an increase in value across all

reaches (0.40) was observed in case of Kalaburagi division. Employment opportunities created

by the watershed programs have reduced out-migration from villages to urban areas thereby

maintaining or increasing the size of households across the watersheds.

Table 4.9: Average Size of Farm households across different locations (Nos.)

Division Bengaluru Mysuru Belagavi Kalaburagi

Farm

Location

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

TR 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.7 5.0 5.3 4.7 4.9

MR 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.5 5.5 5.0 4.1 4.9

LR 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.7 5.5 5.2 4.2 5.3

Average 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.6 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.0

Table 4.10: Average Size of households across different holding size of farmers (No’s)

Size class

Bengaluru Mysuru Belagavi Kalaburagi

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Large 5.9 5.7 5.3 5.0 5.2 5.5 3.8 5.2

Small 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.6 5.1 5.1 4.5 4.9

Marginal 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.5 5.0 5.1 4.9 4.7

Landless labor 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.5 5.2 5.8 4.2 4.8

Average 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.6 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.0

Table 4.10 shows the size of households according to farm sizes. The average size of the

households across the state was found to improve by 0.09 considering all holding sizes of

farmers (from the initial values of 4.80). While the increase was highest (0.29) in case of large

farmers, there occurred a decline in case of marginal farmers (00.20). This decline could be as a

result of the current trend in the rural areas where the erstwhile joint families are breaking up

into nuclear families.

4.2.3. Size of operational land holdings:

The average size of operational land holding has gone up significantly from 2.07 ha to 2.81 ha

across all the watersheds after the project. This rise has occurred across all the reaches within the


125

watershed area as well as across all the operational holding classes of farmers except Belgavi

(marginal and small farmers) and Kalaburagi (marginal farmers) divisions (Tables 4.11 and

4.12). Across all the watersheds and different size classes of farmers, the operational holding of

big farmers has improved from 3.80 to 5.23 ha, while that of the small farmers has improved

from 1.52 ha. to 2.09 ha. The size of operational holding of marginal farmers has increased from

0.89 ha to 1.10 ha (Table 4.12). This indicates an improvement in economic condition of the

farming communities as a result of project.

Table 4.11: Average landholding size across different reaches of watershed (ha)

Farm

location


Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Lower 1.79 2.8 1.7 3.3 3.02 4.13 2.05 1.85

Middle 1.67 2.6 2.1 3.7 2.06 2.26 2.16 2.07

Upper 2.04 3.0 2.1 3.7 2.04 2.14 2.02 2.25

Average 1.8 2.8 2.0 3.6 2.37 2.84 2.11 2.05

* TR0Top Reach, MR0Middle Reach, LR0Lower Reach.

Table 4.12: Landholding size across different holding size (ha)

Size class


Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Marginal 0.8 1.7 0.9 1.3 0.87 0.79 0.98 0.67

Small 1.4 3.0 1.6 2.7 1.82 1.37 1.35 1.4

Large 3.6 6.9 3.4 5.2 4.54 5.01 3.7 3.79

Average 1.9 3.8 2.0 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.0 2.0

The increase in the size of operational holdings is one of the salutary effects of watershed

development program. Harvesting runoff has helped to bring the hitherto uncultivated

(inoperative) lands into operation. Thus, the watershed development programs in the area under

study have led to an increase in the size of the operational holding.

4.2.4. Impact of Watershed development on rural incomes:

Tables 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15 presents the level and sources of per capita income of the sample

farmers according to different farm locations (reaches), social classes and farm sizes. The tables

clearly reveal that the per capita income has gone up substantially across all the reaches within

the watershed areas varying from 21 to 254%. The average annual per capita income from all

sources which was Rs.42413/0 before the launch of the watershed project rose to Rs. 71635/0


126

after the launch. This amounts to about 69% rise in the per capita income. Among the different

divisions, the rise in per capita income was highest in Bengaluru (195%), followed by

Kalaburagi (190%), Mysuru (125%) and Belagavi (30%).

The watershed development projects have generally impacted changes in the relative importance

of different sources of per capita income. An important point to be noted in this respect is that

the percentage of farm income to the total per capita income, which was 62.0% before the launch

of the program rose to 77.0% at the end of the project. This is perhaps due to the possibility that

watershed development facilitated cultivation of commercial crops in place of need based

subsistent crops for higher benefits. It is also interesting to note that while the per capita income

originating from agriculture rose faster (by 89%) than the total income (which increased by

69%),there was a decline in the non0agricultural income by 13% in Mysuru division. Across all

the watersheds, the rise in per capita income observed the trend: Upper reach (81%) > Middle

reach (78%) >lower0reach (55%) farmers (Table 4.13, Fig 4.5).

Social class wise analysis of the results related to the rise in the total per capita income revealed

that the per cent rise was the highest in the case of SC farmers (96%), followed by ST farmers

(70%) and other farmers (70%). The rise in per capita income originating from agriculture was

the highest (103%) in the case of SC farmers, while it was about 100 and 102%, respectively for

ST’s and others (Table 4.14, Fig 4.6). Further the proportion of income related to agriculture has

improved by 3.0, 8.0 and 12% respectively across SC, ST and others. This clearly establishes

that vulnerable groups have also reaped the benefits due to project in all the watersheds.

Looking at the rise in total per capita income from the angle of land holding size, the data (Table

4.15, Fig 4.7) reveal that the largest gainers were landless farmers (202%), followed by marginal

(186%), small (168%) and large farmers (123%). However, the increase in per capita income

from agriculture followed the trend: landless farmers (235%) > small farmers (163%) > marginal

farmers (149%) > large farmers (110%).


127

Fig.4.5. Per capita Income from different sources across different farm locations

Table.4.13: Per capita Income from different sources across farm locations (Rs.)

Source of Income LR MR UR Average %

Bengaluru

Before launch of

watershed

project

PC agriculture income 6411 5398 3968 5089 57.15

PC Non agriculture

income 4451 3171 4163 3816 42.85

PC Total income 10863 8568 8131 8905 100

During end of

watershed

project


PC Non agriculture

income 8202 7575 7999 7667 29.16

PC Total income 29937 29666 24520 26290 100

Mysuru

Before launch of

watershed

project

PC Agriculture 5247 7367 9395 7174 49.35

PC Non Agriculture 7800 6774 7355 7362 50.65

PC total income 13047 14142 16751 14535 100

During end of

watershed

project

PC Agriculture 26297 27285 25399 26252 80.38


PC total income 32371 35073 32609 32659 100

Kalaburagi

Before launch of

watershed

project

PC Agriculture 20400 16300 13850 17710 74.9


PC total income 27750 20950 19100 23637 100

During end of

watershed

project

PC Agriculture 56095 64107 58142 59799 87.3


PC total income 62863 74285 66977 68482 100


128

Source of Income LR MR UR Average %

Belagavi

Before launch of

watershed

project

PC Agriculture 90151 78041 77635 81942 66.8


PC total income 130636 126137 111490 122754 100

During end of

watershed

project

PC Agriculture 114110 110461 102544 109039 68.5


PC total income 157772 162470 157080 159108 100

Table 4.14: Per capita (PC) Income from different sources across Social classes (Rs.)

Source of Income SC ST Others Average %

Bengaluru

Before launch

of watershed

project


PC Non agriculture

income 3290 2996 4047 3817 42.8

PC Total income 7028 6842 9618 8919 100

End of

watershed

project


PC Non agriculture

income 5466 7009 8983 7667 29.2

PC Total income 21381 21629 29066 26290 100

Mysuru

Before launch

of watershed

project

PC Agriculture 3041 4114 7475 7174 49.4


PC total income 6386 10523 15093 14535 100

End of

watershed

project

PC Agriculture 14718 14146 28069 26252 80.4


PC total income 22899 23456 34148 32659 100

Kalaburagi

Before launch

of watershed

project

PC Agriculture 15250 12700 21000 17710 74.9


PC total income 21300 16350 28350 23637 100

End of

watershed

project

PC Agriculture 40774 44141 80958 59799 84.3


PC total income 51155 54572 92949 70920 100

Belagavi

Before launch

of watershed

project

PC Agriculture 67613 66516 85863 73331 71.1


PC total income 81342 98428 129504 103091 100

During end of

watershed

project

PC Agriculture 110813 101037 113066 108305 77.5


PC total income 132317 132639 154372 139776 100


129

Table 4.15: Per capita Income from different sources across Holdings (in Rs.)

Source of Income LL MF SF BF Average %

Bengaluru

Before launch

of watershed

project

PC agriculture income 0 3108 4561 12725 5089 57.1

PC Non agriculture income 4963 3327 3105 3869 3816 42.9

PC Total income 4963 6434 7666 16594 8905 100

End of

watershed

project



PC Total income 10460 19285 27726 47212 26290 100

Mysuru

Before launch

of watershed

project



PC Total income 12054 10338 12650 23879 14535 100

End of

watershed

project



PC Total income 17921 20752 41021 53850 32659 100

Kalaburagi

Before launch

of watershed

project



PC Total income 9892 17683 27233 39741 23637 100

End of

watershed

project



PC Total income 24766 35173 55373 107026 68482 100

Belagavi

Before launch

of watershed

project



PC Total income 74088 96322 113500 172081 113998 100

During end of

watershed

project



PC Total income 102971 123874 151873 209966 147171 100


130

Fig.4.6. Per capita Income from different sources across Social classes

Fig. 4.7. Per capita Income from different sources across different Size 0classes of farmers


131

4.2.5. Trends in income across agro-climatic zones

Table 4.16 reveals trends in per capita agricultural income as percentage of the total per capita

income across different agro-climatic zones. While data was available for nine out of the ten

zones, that pertaining toone zone (Northern Transition Zone) represented by the sub0watersheds

of Belagavi and Haveri districts was not available. Share of agricultural income in the total per

capita income has gone up across all the agro-climatic zones, with the Hilly zone registering the

highest rise in per capita agricultural income (from 48% to 85%, i.e. a growth of 37%). The share

of agricultural income in the total per capita income which was hardly 56% across the nine zones

before the launch of SWS shot up to 81% at the end of the project.

Table 4.16: Per capita Income from different sources across agro-climatic zones (Rs.)

Agro-climatic zone

PC Agriculture Income PC Total income

Pre0project

Post-

project

%

increase Pre0project

Post-

project

%

increase

Central Dry Zone 3586 31058 766* 5576 32947 591*

Eastern Dry Zone 4029 11701 190 8672 22128 155

Northern Dry Zone 14123 62456 342 24844 68665 176

Southern Dry Zone 4995 24964 400 8885 30045 238

North0eastern Dry

Zone 13801 39441 186 22908 55580 143

North0eastern

Transition Zone 14038 62108 342 23413 81351 247

Southern Transition

Zone 11149 38627 246 16320 43555 167

Hilly Zone 8283 37603 354 17243 44307 157

Coastal Zone 6688 23926 258 16600 32534 96

Average 8966 36876 311 16051 45679 185

* Very high increase in agriculture income in central dry zone is due to increased cropped yields

and consequential increase in PC total income

4.2.6. Statistical significance of the results

Paired t‐test compares one set of measurements with a second set from the same sample. It is

often used to compare “before” and “after” scores in experiments to determine whether

significant changes have occurred.

A paired t-test looks at the difference between paired values in the two sets of the sample, takes

into account the variation of values within each sample, and produces a single number known as

t-value.


132

The paired t-test, also referred to as the paired-sample t-test or dependent t-test, is used to

determine whether the mean of a dependent variable (e.g., income of farmers) is the same in two

related groups (e.g., two groups of farmers that are measured at two different "time points" or

who undergo two different "conditions"). For example, we could use a paired t-test to understand

whether there was a difference in farmers’’ income before and after launching of a watershed

program (i.e., our dependent variable would be income’’, and our two related groups would be

the two different "time points"; that is, incomes "before" and "after" launching of the watershed).

Specifically, we use a paired t-test to determine whether the mean difference between two groups

is statistically significant.

The data pertaining to income changes were subjected to paired t-test in order to ascertain the

statistical significance of the results of analysis of data. The test results are shown in Tables 4.17

and 4.18. The values presented in the tables clearly indicate that they are statistically significant.

Table 4.17: Paired t-test for Total Household Income

Statistical Parameters Total income - pre project

(Rs.)

Total income - post project

(Rs.)

Bengaluru

Mean 36654.8 105364

Std. Deviation 55075.3 174850.4

Pearson Correlation 0.02

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

t Stat 013.39

Mysuru

Mean 64078.6 128633.2

Std. Deviation 69391.3 156651.4



t Stat 013.96

Kalaburagi

Mean 53568.54 71256.54

Std. Deviation 57315.4 79654.35



T0Stat 5.505

Significant 0


133

Table 4.18: Paired-test for Total per capita income

Statistical Parameters Total income pre project

(Rs.) Total income -post project (Rs.)

Bengaluru

Mean 8932.94 26290.41

Std. Deviation 13518.45 41166.79



t Stat 014.23

Mysuru

Mean 14705.29 32703.837

Std. Deviation 16610.29 48698.55



t Stat 012.8

Kalaburagi

Mean 10088.24 14777.15

Std. Deviation 11463.08 15850.38



t0Stat 6.39

Significant 0

4.2.7. Impact of SWS on farm credit position of farmers

Tables 4.19 through 4.21 present details relating to loans availed by the sample farmers in the

watershed area. There was an overall decrease in the average amount of loan taken by sample

farmers increased by about 21% after the project. It is important to note that this decrease was

mostly accounted for by the ST farmers in the three of the four divisions (Table 4.19). While the

highest rise in the loan amount was seen in the watersheds of Belagavi Division (28.6%), the

maximum decline occurred in the watersheds of Bengaluru Division (70.2%).


134

Table 4.19: Amount of loan (Rs.) taken by farmers across different social categories

Social Class Average loan amount

Before

Average loan amount

End % increase

Bengaluru

SC 16959 12113 040.0

ST 57809 9877 0485.3

Others 25579 36979 30.8

Average 33449 19656 070.2

Mysuru

SC 30143 97538 69.1

ST 55000 3635 01413.2

Others 72973 25545 0185.7

Average 52705 42239 024.8

Kalaburagi

SC 31756 23005 038.0

ST 29516 26851 09.9

Others 35599 31721 012.2

Average 32290 27192 018.7

Belagavi

SC 24492 53006 53.8

ST 40534 46824 13.4

Others 71870 91834 21.7

Average 45632 63888 28.6

The amount of loans availed by all categories of farmers was found to decrease after the end of

the project as compared to the baseline values. The percent decline followed the order: landless

farmers (118%) > marginal farmers (65%) > small farmers (20%) >large farmers (15%) (Table

4.20).

An interesting finding with regard to credit availed by farmers located in different reaches within

the watershed is that the loans taken by the lower, middle and upper reach farmers have

decreased by 81,68 and 48%, respectively across all the watersheds (Table 4.21). Diverse

interpretations are possible on the phenomenon of declining loans by all classes of farmers across

most the watersheds. Firstly, the decline may be due to improvement in the income and hence in

the financial position of the farmers as a result of rise in farm incomes. Proper implementation

of watershed plans led to various benefits to farm families, which in turn would have reduced

dependence on fresh loans and increased repayment of outstanding loans. Secondly, the decline

in the amount of outstanding loans may also be due partly to the waiving0off of outstanding farm

loans and arrears thereof by the government.


135

Table 4.20: Amount of loan (Rs.) taken by farmers across different Farm Size0classes

Holding Size Average loan amount

Before Average loan amount End % increase

Bengaluru Landless 6589 4432 048.7 Marginal farmers 29668 28138 05.4 Small farmers 15800 19519 19.1 Large farmers 57491 68577 16.2 Average 27387 30166 9.2

Mysuru Landless 38669 6059 0538.2 Marginal farmers 61258 15766 0288.6 Small farmers 64863 28369 0128.6 Large farmers 128288 75854 069.1 Average 73269 31512 0132.5

Kalaburagi Landless 2950 21522 86.3 Marginal farmers 11800 16796 29.7 Small farmers 16200 26977 39.9 Large farmers 43516 37198 017.0 Average 18616 25623 27.3

Belagavi Landless 19743 26988 26.8 Marginal farmers 29804 31462 5.3 Small farmers 64520 59223 08.9 Large farmers 109716 122205 10.2 Average 55946 59970 6.7

Table 4.21: Amount of loan (Rs.) taken by farmers across different farm locations Location Average loan amount Before Average loan amount End % increase

Bengaluru

LR 30103 59392 49.3

MR 24117 16369 047.3

UR 32852 33434 1.7

Average 29024 36398 20.3

Mysuru

LR 56855 13129 0333.1

MR 65889 19703 0234.4

UR 85922 66193 029.8

Average 69555 33008 0110.7

Kalaburagi

LR 37421 30864 021.2

MR 32981 29954 010.1

UR 31271 22020 042.0

Average 33891 27613 022.7

Belagavi

LR 53041 44274 019.8

MR 55607 66196 16.0

UR 122924 55833 0120.2

Average 77191 55434 039.2


136

4.2.8 Impact of watershed development on assets position of farmers

With an improvement in the water availability for cultivation, better soil conservation and

consequent increase in crop yields per ha, the asset position of the farmers in farm assets as well

as in consumption assets is expected to improve. To ascertain the changes in the assets position

of the farmers, a survey of 16 important assets in both farm production and non-farm (personal

consumption) assets was conducted. Table 4.22 presents the changes in the assets position of the

farmers consequent upon the end of the watershed program. The table clearly shows that the

asset position of the farmers has improved in respect of all the items under survey except a few,

for instance, tractor-drawn implements and tillers in Bengaluru Division and ploughs in Mysuru

Division (Table 4.22). In case of these two items, the decline in their number possessed by the

sample farmers could be due to the fact that there is a perceptible shift from tractors and bullock-

drawn ploughs towards cheaper, fuel-efficient and more versatile power tillers and their

accessories in dry land agriculture apart from availability custom hire services within their reach

in recent years.

Table 4.22: Changes observed with respect to assets across holding size of farmers (in no’s)

Source

Type of farmer

LL MF SF BF Total

Bengaluru

Before

launch

of SWS

Tractor 9 14 16 59 98

Bicycle 119 134 117 154 524

Tiller 12 0 8 19 39

Tractor drawn implements 3 2 16 64 85

Two Four wheeler vehicles 57 117 168 310 652

Bullock cart 10 12 31 50 103

Threshing machine 0 3 1 7 11

Plough 37 325 347 495 1204

Drip Sprinkler irrigation 5 20 15 150 190

Crow bar pickaxe etc 167 547 550 773 2037

Sprayers 8 23 26 60 117

Biogas LPG cooking gas 49 101 115 168 433

Tables Chairs 490 884 859 1075 3308

TV Radio Tape recorder 317 346 359 437 1459

Toilets 99 148 164 209 620

Others 8 5 0 6 19

End

project

of SWS

Tractor 0 0 0 0 0

Bicycle 0 0 0 0 0

Tiller 3 0 8 21 32


Two Four wheeler vehicles 96 204 210 346 856

Bullock cart 9 18 26 54 107


Plough 85 412 476 531 1504


137


Crow bar pickaxe etc 287 672 711 873 2543

Sprayers 15 32 47 59 153

Biogas LPG cooking gas 149 197 218 257 821

Tables Chairs 1360 2064 2190 2743 8357

TV Radio Tape recorder 567 675 662 702 2606

Toilets 294 367 375 480 1516

Others 1 45 89 177 311

Mysuru LL MF SF BF Total

Before

launch

of SWS

Tractor 1 7 2 15 25

Bicycle 193 171 162 182 708

Tiller 0 2 0 4 6


Two/Four wheeler vehicles 53 88 94 154 389



Plough 306 409 452 493 1660


Crowbar pickaxe etc 496 651 631 677 2455

Sprayers . 63 53 127 243

Biogas/LPG cooking gas 55 68 77 128 328

Tables Chairs 601 718 801 914 3034

TV/Radio/Tape recorder 264 295 280 406 1245

Toilets 124 145 127 182 578

Others 7 6 4 19 36

End

project

of SWS

Tractor 0 0 0 0 0

Bicycle 0 0 0 0 0

Tiller 0 2 4 40 46


Two/Four wheeler vehicles 210 1999 333 489 3031



Plough 0 412 418 634 1464


Crowbar pickaxe etc 0 777 779 1234 2790

Sprayers 0 80 77 185 342

Biogas/LPG cooking gas 274 348 390 461 1473

Tables Chairs 2654 2574 2670 3310 11208

TV/Radio/Tape recorder 669 588 584 11635 13476

Toilets 380 415 396 473 1664

Others 0 16 30 122 168

Kalabuaragi Assets LL MF SF BF Total

Bef

ore

th

e p

roje

ct

Own Housing 85 219 438 147 889

RCC House 0 0 16 81 97

Tiled House 10 203 422 66 701

Thatched House 75 16 0 0 91

Tractor 0 2 5 40 47

Tractor Drawn Implements 0 0 0 7 7

Tillers 0 0 1 4 5

Farm implements 10 167 492 231 900

Bullock Cart 5 12 30 10 57


138

Pumpset 0 2 22 81 105

Sprayers 0 0 9 11 19

Threshing Machine 0 0 2 18 20

Drip/ Sprinkler Irrigation 0 0 1 5 6

Two/Four Wheeler 2 16 59 119 196

Biogas/ LPG 0 0 8 29 37

Jewellery 14 151 190 147 502

Electronic goods 28 171 228 147 574

Refrigerator 0 0 0 5 5

Furniture 22 330 520 394 1266

Telephone/ Mobile 11 15 16 101 143

Toilets 0 5 15 101 121

Others 13 15 105 126 259

En

d o

f th

e P

roje

ct

Own Housing 94 142 222 262 720

RCC House 30 37 21 41 129

Tiled House 11 16 32 94 153


Tractor 0 0 1 5 6


Tillers 0 0 1 1 2

Farm implements 0 222 365 317 904


Pump set 0 3 28 65 96

Sprayers 0 11 15 21 47



Two/Four Wheeler 6 27 64 101 198

Biogas/ LPG 6 6 10 36 58

Jewellery 72 32 132 194 430

Electronic goods 59 201 310 241 811


Furniture 367 414 640 771 2192


Toilets 11 31 63 90 195

Others 3 4 6 9 22

Belagavi

Assets

Landless

Labor

Marginal

farmer

Small

farmer

Medium

& Big

Farmers Total

Bef

ore

th

e p

roje

ct

Sample Households 212 232 206 190 840

Own Housing 200 225 190 180 795

RCC House 6 19 27 16 68

Tiled House 52 48 43 53 196


Mud 54 67 51 67 239

Tractor 0 0 2 16 18

Pumpset 3 48 45 54 150


Tillers 0 0 1 5 6

Jewelry 1 1 4 7 13


Two/Four Wheelers 27 25 46 79 177



139

Biogas/ LPG 47 68 32 34 181

Sprayers 0 36 42 48 126

Electronic goods/TV 62 104 99 89 354

Computer 0 0 0 4 4


Crow0bar, Pick axe, etc. 0 0 0 0 0


Furniture 62 98 68 65 293


Toilets 47 75 37 28 187

Farm Implements 1 85 57 52 195

Washing machine 0 0 0 1 1

Others 0 0 0 0 0

En

d o

f th

e P

roje

ct

Own Housing 195 226 189 180 790

RCC House 7 20 15 20 62

Tiled House 65 48 42 55 210


Mud house 54 67 64 65 250

Tractor 0 0 1 15 16

Pumpset 3 47 42 46 138


Tillers 0 0 2 4 6

Jewelry 3 5 11 19 38


Two/Four Wheelers 39 53 64 124 280


Biogas/ LPG 50 81 62 66 259

Sprayers 0 36 38 42 116

Electronic goods (TV) 110 149 151 152 562

Computer/Desktop 1 3 1 6 11


Crow0bar, Pick axe, etc. 0 0 0 0 0


Furniture 93 118 95 101 407


Toilets 71 81 69 55 276

Farm Implements 1 85 48 35 169

Washing machine 0 0 0 1 1

Others 0 2 1 0 3

The number of ploughs has come down perceptibly in view of the increasing tillage of land by

using tractors/tillers. This is corroborated by the fact that the number of tillers has steeply risen

in most of the watersheds in a span of four years.

Along with the rise in the number of farm assets, there has also been a rise in the number of

durable consumable family assets including two/four wheelers, biogas/LPG, TV/Radios/Tape

recorders and sundry assets in most of the watersheds.


140

4.2.9 Impact of Watershed Development on per0hectare Crop Yields

One of the salutary effects of Watershed Development is increase in the crop yields per hectare

as a result of enhanced water availability through soil and water conservation measures apart

from impounding rain water in water harvesting structures like check dams, Nala bunds, farm

ponds and gokatte. In addition, improvement in groundwater table through increased rain water

recharge on one hand and soil conservation on the other have helped to increase productivity.

Table 4.23 shows the impact of watershed development on the per-hectare yields of principal

crops grown in the watershed areas under study. The rise in productivity per ha ranges from 41.5

percent in case sunflower to 61.5 percent in banana.

Table 4.23: Yields (quintals per hectare) of principal crops grown by sample farmers in the

watershed areas

Crops Before the project End of the project % increase

Areca nut 12.4 32.4 61.5

Banana 9.6 28.9 66.8

Cotton 5.9 16.7 64.8

Groundnut 9.6 20.7 53.9

Maize 13.4 38.9 65.6

Paddy 30.3 55.1 45.0

Pigeon pea 6.3 11.0 43.2

Ragi 14.3 25.4 43.8

Sorghum 5.7 10.7 46.7

Sunflower 5.5 9.4 41.5

4.2.10 Impact of Watershed Development on employment generation

Table 4.24 shows the effect of watershed program on the employment (in terms of man days)

generated due to different activities (including livelihood generation) across all watersheds. A

total of 88 lakh man days were generated by the Project across the watersheds, with an average

of over 3 lakh man days per watershed, which is a welcome sign in the sense that it has helped in

reducing out migration of labour from the watersheds in search of work. Maximum employment

generation was observed in Hassan district (over 10 lakh man days) followed by Mysuru (9.16

lakh man days). Among the different employment generating activities, about 47% of the total

man days was created by livestock rearing alone, followed by soil conservation activities (25%).


141

4.2.11 Indicators of watershed sustainability

The success of any watershed program depends on the post-withdrawal scenario, i.e. on how the

resources are collectively managed and improved years after the watershed program is

completed. This would depend on the sustainability of the Institutions created during the

implementation of the watershed program. The sustainability indicators of different watersheds

were evaluated during the post-project period, and are presented in Table 4.25. It can be seen that

all the indicators (functional status, financial linkages, record maintenance, etc.) were

encouraging in almost every watershed, which leads us to conclude that sustainability issues

were taken care of during the planning and implementation of the watershed program.


142

bnTable 4.24. Impact of Watershed Development on employment generation

District SWS

Employment generated

Soil Conservation

measures

Water harvesting

structures Agriculture Horticulture Afforestation Livestock Total

Bengaluru Rural Doddamanikere 20384 29575 717 5233 28500 51425 135834

Chikkaballapura Ragimakalahalli 197010 11221 3469 136269 9500 74250 431719

Chitradurga Kariyalapura 49829 24149 1267 1296 1416 84425 162382

Davanagere Nalluru 123398 3149 4345 43942 23193 64350 262377

Kolara Vadaganahalli 94061 17040 4369 23355 11072 81675 231572

Ramanagara Akkur 280379 7071 9870 24643 4872 79750 406585

Shivamogga Yalakundi 176222 5213 13651 38318 15085 12450 260939

Tumakuru Hanumanthagiri 0 78000 0 19213 7662 65725 170600

Chamarajanagaraa Mallayanapura 234655 28650 8262 31515 15870 507375 826327

Mandya Mattighatta 102382 70250 3605 87829 12142 612975 889183

Chikkamagaluru Punacha/Peruvai 195534 100500 68854 20037 656 54800 440381

Hassan Kalyadi 52256 93775 1840 28596 10772 884675 1071914

Mysuru Vatahole/ Makandoor 149881 59850 5277 26943 17372 656975 916298

Dakshina Kannada Jakkenahalli 0 40710 0 88782 10256 433225 572973

Udupi Attigudu 2904 88400 0 98643 7757 240075 437779

Kodagu Kuntahole/Narasipura 53818 6900 0 31539 0 112475 204732

Bagalkote Kerakalmatti 36868 2450 0 14880 23319 0 77517

Belagavi Neginal 14426 980 0 8000 1238 0 24644

Vijayapura Arjunagihalla 32710 0 0 14304 9760 0 56774

Dharwad Hulaginakatti 11717 4900 0 8328 52355 0 77300

Gadaga Kadadi 47694 4655 0 3072 8622 0 64043

Haveri Agadi 40358 0 0 9600 27214 0 77172

Uttara Kannada Mavalli 20788 16180 0 21788 3209 0 61965

Bidar Nirna 46593 12100 23235 12551 26944 29725 151148

Kalaburagi Habalanala 45240 34475 17640 2523 9782 39460 149120

Yadgiri Wadigera 22053 9900 14000 14588 12684 8975 82200

Raichuru Khyadigera 52950 182605 18195 889 34943 21430 311012

Koppal Hirevankalakunta 50058 21650 19460 12149 42483 24590 170390

Ballary Hirehadagali 34518 14545 11400 1820 16324 10910 89517

Total 2188686 968893 229456 830645 445002 4151715 8814397


143

Table 4.25. Sustainability indicators of watersheds District Subwatershed Particulars Project initiation End of project

Bengaluru Rural Doddaamanikere

Total members Male: 0, Female:

1056

Male: 0, Female:

1056

Functional Status Good Good

Books maintenance Good Good

Group Savings 14.58 lakhs 73.29 lakhs

Individual Savings per

month Rs: 20/0 Rs 100/0

Financial Linkages & Status 0 22 lakhs

Chikkaballapura Ragimakalahalli


939

Male: 0, Female:

939



Group Savings 28.55 lakhs 137 lakhs


month Rs. 40 Rs. 40

Financial Linkages & Status 6.50 lakhs 10.0 lakhs

Chitradurga Kariyalapura


972

Male: 0, Female:

972

Functional Status Moderate Good




month Rs. 50 Rs. 50

Financial Linkages & Status 0 20.6 lakhs

Davanagere Nalluru


2717

Male: 0, Female:

2717


Books maintenance Moderate Good



month Rs. 50 Rs. 50


Kolara Vadaganahalli


580

Male: 0, Female:

580





month Rs. 80 Rs. 80


Ramanagara Akkur


762

Male: 0, Female:

762





month Rs. 100 Rs. 100

Financial Linkages & Status 15.72 lakhs 0

Shivamogga Yalakundi


282

Male: 0, Female:

282





month Rs. 50 Rs. 50



144

District Subwatershed Particulars Project initiation End of project

Tumakuru Hanumanthagiri


621

Male: 0, Female:

621





month Rs. 40 Rs. 40


Chamarajanagara Mallayanapura


555

Male: 0, Female:

555





month 25.47 lakhs 94.97 lakhs

Financial Linkages & Status Rs:20 Rs: 50

Chikkamagaluru Mattighatta


670

Male: 0, Female:

670





month Rs. 20 Rs. 80/0

Financial Linkages & Status 23 lakhs 36 lakhs

Dakshina

Kannada Punacha/Peruvai


594

Male: 0, Female:

594





month Rs. 40/0 Rs. 40/0

Financial Linkages & Status 8 lakhs 23.0 lakhs

Hassan Kalyadi


559

Male: 0, Female:

559





month Rs. 80/0 Rs. 80/0


Kodagu Vatahole/

Makandoor


449

Male: 0, Female:

449



Group Savings 0.32 lakhs 8.52


month Rs. 40/0 Rs. 40/0

Financial Linkages & Status No No

Mandya Jakkenahalli


550

Male: 0, Female:

550





month Rs. 80/0 Rs. 100


Mysuru Attigudu Total members Male: 0, Female: Male: 0, Female:


145


924 924





month Rs. 80/0 Rs. 10/0


Udupi Kuntahole/

Narasipura


878

Male: 0, Female:

878





month Rs. 20/0 Rs. 50/0


Bagalkote Kerkalmatti

Total members Male: 0 Female:

519

Male: 0; Female:

519

Functional Status

[functioning/defunct – Nos.]

Functioning: 130

Defunct: 389

Functioning: 505

Defunct: 14

Books maintenance [no] 35 145

Group Savings [Rs. In

Lakhs] 0.45 5.6

Financial Linkages & Status

[linked/ not linked – Nos.]

Linked: 0 Not

Linked: 0

Linked: 20 Not

Linked: 15

Group Meetings

[regular/irregular – Nos.]

Regular: 25

Irregular: 10

Regular: 35

Irregular:

Belagavi Neginal


406

Male: 0; Female:

406

Functional Status


Functioning: 0

Defunct: 0

Functioning: 18

Defunct: 7



Lakhs] 0 15.09



Linked: No Not

Linked: No

Linked: 2 Not

Linked: 23

Group Meetings


Regular: 25

Irregular: 0

Regular: 18

Irregular: 7

Vijayapura Arjunagihalla


533

Male: 0 Female:

596

Functional Status


Functioning: 40

Defunct: 0

Functioning: 45

Defunct: 0



Lakhs] 5.21 8.14



Linked: 21 Not

Linked: 0

Linked: 21 Not

Linked: 0

Group Meetings


Regular: 40

Irregular: 0

Regular: 40

Irregular: 0

Dharwad Hulaginakatti


265

Male: 0 ; Female:

265

Functional Status


Functioning: NA

Defunct: NA

Functioning: NA

Defunct: NA



Lakhs] 0 0



Linked: NA Not

Linked: NA

Linked: NA Not

Linked: NA


146


Group Meetings


Regular: Regular

Irregular: 0

Regular: Regular

Irregular: 0

Gadaga Kadadi

Total members Male: 0; Female:

497

Male: 0; Female:

497

Functional Status


Functioning: 42

Defunct: 0

Functioning: 42

Defunct: 0



Lakhs] 10.24 10.24



Linked: 23 Not

Linked: 0

Linked: 23 Not

Linked: 0

Group Meetings


Regular: Weekly

Irregular: 0

Regular: Weekly

Irregular: 0

Haveri Agadi


339

Male: 0 Female:

322

Functional Status


Functioning: Good

Defunct: 0

Functioning: Good

Defunct: 0



Lakhs] 0.35 0.4000.75



Linked: 21 Not

Linked: 0

Linked: 21 Not

Linked: 0

Group Meetings


Regular: Regular

Irregular: 0

Regular: Regular

Irregular: 0

Uttara Kannada Mavalli

Total members Male: 0 Female: 0 Male: 0 Female:

1285

Functional Status


Functioning: 0

Defunct: 0

Functioning: 85

Defunct: 0



Lakhs] 0 0.4500.85



Linked: 0 Not

Linked: 0

Linked: 85 Not

Linked: 0

Group Meetings


Regular: 0

Irregular: 0

Regular: 38

Irregular: 42

Bidar Nirna


540

Male: 0, Female:

534

Functional Status All new Operational

Books maintenance Just started Good

Group Savings 0 10.60 lakhs


month 40 60

Financial Linkages & Status 0 Linked00

Kalaburagi Habalanala


760

Male: 0, Female:

760

Functional Status Operational/ Few

new Operational

Books maintenance Average Good



month 40 100

Financial Linkages & Status 0 Linked08

Yadgiri Wadigera Total members Male: 0, Female:

394

Male: 0, Female:

394


147



new

Operational/ Few

new

Books maintenance Poor Good

Group Savings 0.37lakhs 8.74 lakhs


month 40 60

Financial Linkages & Status 0 Linked-0

Raichuru Khyadigera


645

Male: 0, Female:

645


new Operational

Books maintenance Average Good



month 40 100


Koppal Hirevankalakunta


420

Male: 0, Female:

420

Functional Status All New Operational




month 40 80


Ballary Pandavapura/

Jakkenahalli


332

Male: 0, Female:

332

Functional Status All New Operational




month 40 60



148

Conclusion

The foregoing analysis clearly reveals that watershed development does help to enhance

water availability for farming and reduce soil erosion, besides a number of welcome benefits

to the farmers in dry land regions. The benefits include increased groundwater availability,

rise in yields per hectare, increase in cropping intensity thereby leading to greater on-farm

employment opportunities and, above all, a substantial rise in farm incomes. The present

study revealed that with an active participative management of the watershed by the farmers,

they can reap much greater benefits from the integrated watershed development program,

through promotion of effective extension services.

MEL&D-AgencyRemote Sensing Instruments, Bengaluru

Prepared by

Date post:	27-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Impact of Watershed Management Under PMKSY-WD, (Erstwhile …Impact... · The Commissioner...

Documents