Indian Society of Soil Science Platinum Jubilee Symposium - Proceedings, pp 154-164 Land Use Planning in Integrated Watershed Development Program for Improving Livelihoods SUHAS P. WANI AND G.S. SIDHU Globally, rain-fed agriculture plays an important role to achieve food security (Rockstrom et al. 2007) as 80% of the world’s agricultural land area is rain- fed and generates 58% of the world’s staple foods (SIWI 2001). Most food for poor communities in the developing countries is produced in rain-fed areas for e.g. in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) more than 95% of the farmed land is rain-fed, whereas the corre- sponding figure for Latin America is nearly 90%, for South Asia about 60%, for East Asia 65% and for Near East and North Africa 75%. In India, 60% of 142 million ha (Mha) arable land is rain-fed. The rain-fed areas are the hot spots of poverty, malnu- trition, water scarcity, severe land degradation; and the investments in the rainfed agriculture pose serious challenges as large numbers of households are small land holders (Wani et al. 2009). These ar- eas are also prone to more adverse impacts of cli- mate change due to lack of technologies and neces- sary resource to cope with the challenges of global warming. The vast potential of rain-fed areas remains untapped as the current farmers’ crop yields are lower by two to five folds than the achievable yields with large yield gaps in the semi-arid and sub humid tropical regions (Falkanmark 2000; Rockstrom et al. 2007; Wani et al. 2006, 2009; Singh et al. 2009). However, upgrading rainfed agriculture is a challenging task and needs a paradigm shift from the “business as usual” mental frame and adopting science-led integrated genetic and natu- ral resource management (IGNRM) using a partici- patory research and development (PR&D) approach (Wani et al. 2008, 2008a, 2009). An integrated ap- proach to rainwater management is necessary, where the links are addressed between invest- ments and risk reduction; between land, water and crop; and between rainwater management and multiple livelihood strategies. The missing links for scaling-up and scaling-out upgrading rainfed agri- culture are institutions and social and economic processes which can link to suitable policies (Sreedevi and Wani 2009). It also requires that tech- nologies (indigenous or improved) are strongly adapted to local biophysical and socio-cultural con- ditions along with the institutional and behavioural changes (Harris et al. 1991). Agricul- tural development and extension is a knowledge- intensive effort, which suffers from limited infor- mation about the options available, social and eco- nomic constraints to adoption, lack of enabling en- vironments and backup services, poor market link- ages, weak infrastructure and low means to pay (Wani et al. 2009). Integrated watershed manage- ment approach has shown the potential for scal- ing-out the benefits ensuring community partici- pation largely due to tangible economic benefits as well as capacity development through knowledge sharing (Wani et al. 2000, 2003). Watershed – A Suitable Unit for Sustainable Management of Natural Resources A watershed is a catchment area from which all water drains into a common point, making it an attractive hydrological unit for the technical efforts to manage water and soil resources. Watershed is a spatial unit that includes diverse natural resources (soil, water, trees, biodiversity, etc.) that are un- evenly distributed within a given geographical area (Knox and Gupta 2000; Johnson et al. 2002). The wa- ter flowing in a watershed interconnects up-stream and down-stream areas and provides life support to rural people holding unequal use rights making people and animals an integral part of watersheds. Activities of people/animals affect the health and sustainability of watersheds and vice versa. Clearly, watersheds are geologically, ecologically, and so- cially complex geographical units characterized by temporal and spatial interdependence between re- sources as well as resource users. This implies that effectiveness of the watershed interventions will depend on the ability to treat the entire hydrologi- cal landscape, following the ridge to valley ap- proach and not just a portion of it. In a watershed, the quality and status of land, water, and vegeta-
Land Use Planning in Integrated Watershed DevelopmentProgram for Improving Livelihoods
SUHAS P. WANI AND G.S. SIDHU
Globally, rain-fed agriculture plays an importantrole to achieve food security (Rockstrom et al. 2007)as 80% of the world’s agricultural land area is rain-fed and generates 58% of the world’s staple foods(SIWI 2001). Most food for poor communities in thedeveloping countries is produced in rain-fed areasfor e.g. in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) more than 95%of the farmed land is rain-fed, whereas the corre-sponding figure for Latin America is nearly 90%,for South Asia about 60%, for East Asia 65% andfor Near East and North Africa 75%. In India, 60%of 142 million ha (Mha) arable land is rain-fed. Therain-fed areas are the hot spots of poverty, malnu-trition, water scarcity, severe land degradation;and the investments in the rainfed agriculture poseserious challenges as large numbers of householdsare small land holders (Wani et al. 2009). These ar-eas are also prone to more adverse impacts of cli-mate change due to lack of technologies and neces-sary resource to cope with the challenges of globalwarming.
The vast potential of rain-fed areas remainsuntapped as the current farmers’ crop yields arelower by two to five folds than the achievableyields with large yield gaps in the semi-arid andsub humid tropical regions (Falkanmark 2000;Rockstrom et al. 2007; Wani et al. 2006, 2009; Singhet al. 2009). However, upgrading rainfed agricultureis a challenging task and needs a paradigm shiftfrom the “business as usual” mental frame andadopting science-led integrated genetic and natu-ral resource management (IGNRM) using a partici-patory research and development (PR&D) approach(Wani et al. 2008, 2008a, 2009). An integrated ap-proach to rainwater management is necessary,where the links are addressed between invest-ments and risk reduction; between land, water andcrop; and between rainwater management andmultiple livelihood strategies. The missing links forscaling-up and scaling-out upgrading rainfed agri-culture are institutions and social and economicprocesses which can link to suitable policies
(Sreedevi and Wani 2009). It also requires that tech-nologies (indigenous or improved) are stronglyadapted to local biophysical and socio-cultural con-ditions along with the institutional andbehavioural changes (Harris et al. 1991). Agricul-tural development and extension is a knowledge-intensive effort, which suffers from limited infor-mation about the options available, social and eco-nomic constraints to adoption, lack of enabling en-vironments and backup services, poor market link-ages, weak infrastructure and low means to pay(Wani et al. 2009). Integrated watershed manage-ment approach has shown the potential for scal-ing-out the benefits ensuring community partici-pation largely due to tangible economic benefits aswell as capacity development through knowledgesharing (Wani et al. 2000, 2003).
Watershed – A Suitable Unit for SustainableManagement of Natural Resources
A watershed is a catchment area from whichall water drains into a common point, making it anattractive hydrological unit for the technical effortsto manage water and soil resources. Watershed is aspatial unit that includes diverse natural resources(soil, water, trees, biodiversity, etc.) that are un-evenly distributed within a given geographical area(Knox and Gupta 2000; Johnson et al. 2002). The wa-ter flowing in a watershed interconnects up-streamand down-stream areas and provides life supportto rural people holding unequal use rights makingpeople and animals an integral part of watersheds.Activities of people/animals affect the health andsustainability of watersheds and vice versa. Clearly,watersheds are geologically, ecologically, and so-cially complex geographical units characterized bytemporal and spatial interdependence between re-sources as well as resource users. This implies thateffectiveness of the watershed interventions willdepend on the ability to treat the entire hydrologi-cal landscape, following the ridge to valley ap-proach and not just a portion of it. In a watershed,the quality and status of land, water, and vegeta-
LUP IN IWDP FOR IMPROVING LIVELIHOODS 155
tion vary as per the toposequence position; andsuitable strategies are essential for their develop-ment and sustainable use considering their capa-bility.
The terms catchment, sub-catchment and wa-tershed are often synonymously employed as aredefined by a single river system and furthergrouped in to macro, meso and micro levels in ahierarchical system for management using a codifi-cation system linking different levels. The conceptof stream order is often followed in geomorphicanalysis of natural drainage system. However, aparticipatory framework of watershed develop-ment calls for a different approach indicative ofmacro and micro level of delineation encompassingdifferent communities and administrative unitsavoiding social conflicts. Earlier, watersheds of 500ha were used for development in India as commu-nity watersheds covering one village or a cluster ofinhabitations. However, it was found that smallwatersheds were not effective in terms of economic,environmental and social impacts and watersheds>1200 ha were recommended (Joshi et al. 2005, 2008;Wani et al. 2008a). The Common Watershed Guide-lines released by the Government of India (2008)adopted larger size watersheds of 1000-5000 ha bydeveloping watersheds in clusters. Each of the bigdrainage system is divided and sub-dividedthrough stages using different codes to indicatevarious stages starting with macro-level and goingdown to micro level.
Importance of Land Use Planning in Water-shed Development
The unevenly distributed, diverse, and inter-connected natural resources and interdependenceof human beings and animals for their living andsustainability calls for proper planning for devel-opment, management, and use of land resources.Adinarayana (2008) employed Watershed Manage-ment Information System (WATMIS) to evaluateagro-ecological characteristics using primary data,soil erosion assessment and aspects of conservationmanagement. Data from various sources such asNBSS&LUP, remote sensing, groundwater, agricul-ture, forestry and rural development departmentscan be effectively used with the help of geographi-cal information system (GIS), simulation models(crop, water, soil loss, runoff), and bioeconometricmodels for the sustainable development and man-agement of watersheds (Wani et al. 2008, 2008a,2009; Sreedevi et al. 2009).
Land Use Mapping for Assessing Fallows andCropping Intensity using Satellite Data
A deductive approach using the Indian Re-mote Sensing Satellite data of rainy season fallowsin the state of Madhya Pradesh were delineated (Fig.1). The digital multispectral data from WiFS aboardIRS-1D/-P3 over the area acquired during the 1999–2000 and 2000–01 seasons was utilized for derivinginformation on fallow lands along with the use oftopographic maps at 1:250,000 scale. It was esti-mated that 2.02 million ha (Mha) accounting for6.57% of the total area of the state, were under fal-lowing (Fig. 1). Madhya Pradesh is endowed withwell distributed rains ranging from 700 to 1200mm. Vertisols with good moisture holding capac-ity can be used to grow short-duration soybean byadopting sound land management practices(Dwivedi et al. 2003). This helped in developing wa-ter and land management strategies in the water-sheds in Madhya Pradesh which helped increasingcropping intensity, crop production and farmers'income while minimizing land degradation.
Rice, the most extensively grown crop inSouth Asia, is cultivated on approximately 50 Mha.This study describes the use of satellite remotesensing and GIS technology to quantify and assessthe spatial distribution of rice-fallow lands and acorresponding classification of their potential andconstraints for the growing of post-rice legumes(such as soybean, mung bean, black gram,pigeonpea, groundnut, chickpea, lentil, khesari, fababean and pea) in South Asia (Bangladesh, India,Nepal and Pakistan) (Fig. 2). Rice fallows during1999/2000 season were estimated at 14.29 Mha inBangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan; and thisamounts to nearly 30% of the rice-growing area.Nearly 82% of the rice-fallows are located in theIndian states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, includingChhattisgarh, West Bengal, Orissa and Assam. Aneconomic analysis has shown that growing legumesin the rice-fallows is profitable for the farmers witha benefit-cost ratio exceeding 3.0 for many legumes.Also, utilizing rice-fallows for legume productioncould result in the generation of 584 million per-son-days employment for South Asia. That includesthe use of short-duration chickpea varieties, blockplanting so as to protect the crop from grazing ani-mals, sowing using rapid minimum tillage as soonas possible after harvesting rice, seed priming for4-6 hours with the addition of sodium molybdateto the priming water at a rate of 0.5 g L-1 (kg-1 seed)and Rhizobium inoculum at the rate of 5 g L-1 (kg-1
seed), application of manure and single superphos-phate. Chickpea yields following rice ranged from0.4 to 3.0 t ha-1 across various rice fallow areas in
156 SUHAS P. WANI AND G.S. SIDHU
Fig. 1. Spatial distribution of rainy season fallows in districts of Madhya Pradesh
Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of rice-fallows in Indo Gangetic Plains of South Asia
LUP IN IWDP FOR IMPROVING LIVELIHOODS 157
eastern India. More than six thousand farmers whohave been exposed to this technology are now con-vinced that a second crop can be grown withoutirrigation in the rice fallows (Subba Rao et al. 2001).
Criteria for Prioritization of WatershedsOne of the conventional approach for the
prioritization of the watershed was based on thesilt yield index method (SYI) developed by theAISLUS (now SLUSI), which consumed a lot of timeand sizable human and financial resources. Sidhuet al. (1998) used these approaches and prioritizedthe development of detailed work plan forMachkund watershed in Andhra Pradesh state. Toprovide efficient framework of watersheds in thecountry, AISLUS (1990) developed first WatershedAtlas of India comprising 17 sheets at a 1:1 millionscale. The country was hydrologically demarcatedinto 6 major water resource regions, 35 river ba-sins, 112 catchments, 500 sub-catchments and 3237watersheds (All India Soil and Land Use Survey1991). Subsequently, Digital Watershed Atlas of In-dia was developed by the AISLUS for a GIS-basedWeb service on watershed, soil and land informa-tion.
The Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihood Pro-gram (APRLP) devised a nine-point selection crite-ria (Sreedevi and Wani 2009) for watersheds, inte-grating the natural resource degradation criteriawith multiple deprivation criteria (social and ma-terial deprivation) in order to arrive at reliable in-dicators for both technical and social features. Mi-cro- and macro-watersheds were identified andprioritized, based on the SYI indicators of land deg-radation due to erosion and the dependability ofprecipitation and evapo-transpiration, which de-pend on the variability and deviation of rainfall.
Multiple deprivation criteria are indices ofpoverty, considering the multiple dimensions ofpoverty as reflected in deprivations of income, ac-cessibility to services and social status. SinceAPRLP took a holistic view of people towards theirlivelihoods and opportunities, it integrated the in-dices of natural resource degradation and multipledeprivations, and a matrix was drawn up whereeach was given equal importance, while selectingthe watersheds. A probation period of up to 18months was made mandatory for capacity build-ing plans for the primary and secondary stakehold-ers and the preparation of strategic (perspectiveplan for 5 years) and annual action plans. Thus, itis a farmer-friendly and Participatory Net Planning(PNP) approach.
Community Watershed as Growth Engine forDevelopment of Dryland Areas
Although, watershed development approachis embraced as a policy for development ofdrought-prone regions in the country, a number ofevaluations, however, showed that not all had gonewell with the watershed programmes (Kerr et al.2002, Wani et al. 2002, 2003, Joshi et al. 2005). Forexample, a meta-analysis of 311 watershed casestudies from different agro-eco-regions in India in-dicated that the watershed programmes were eco-nomically viable and productive with a benefit–cost ratio of 2.14 and the internal rate of return of22%. The watersheds also benefited farmersthrough enhanced irrigated areas by 33.5%, in-creased cropping intensity by 63%, reducing soilloss to 0.8 t ha-1 and runoff to 13%, and improvedgroundwater availability (Joshi et al. 2005). Withthese considerations, the watershed programmeshave been looking beyond soil and water conserva-tion into a range of activities from productivity en-hancement through interventions in agriculture,horticulture, animal husbandry to community or-ganization and gender equity. The conventionalwatershed approach attempted to optimize the useof precipitation through improved soil, water, nu-trient and crop management, but lacked the strat-egy for efficient use of the conserved natural re-sources. People and livestock being an integral partof the agricultural watershed, traditional water-shed programmes, which are structure-drivenalone, cannot offer solutions to improve rural live-lihoods. Though watershed serves as an entrypoint, a paradigm shift is needed from these tradi-tionally structure-driven watershed programmesto a holistic system’s approach to alleviate povertythrough increased agricultural productivity by en-vironment-friendly resource management practices(Wani et al. 2008b).
The recent Comprehensive Assessment (CA) ofwatershed programmes in India undertaken by theconsortium led by ICRISAT (International Crops Re-search Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) identi-fied community watershed as the growth enginesfor sustainable development of dryland areas, hasrecommended an urgent action to improve watermanagement and the opportunity to double theproductivity of dryland small farms in the rainfedareas and have recommended changes in water-shed guidelines, policies and approach (Wani et al.2008b).
The meta analysis of 636 watershed case stud-ies revalidated the results of the earlier meta analy-sis study (Joshi et al. 2008) and showed that water-
158 SUHAS P. WANI AND G.S. SIDHU
shed programmes were silently revolutionalisingdryland areas with average B:C ratio of 1:2, inter-nal rate of return of 27%, reduced run off by one-third and reduced soil loss (0.8 t ha-1). Only <1% ofwatershed projects were not economically remu-nerative, however, the impacts of watershedprogrammes can be substantially enhanced by im-proving the performance of 68% of watersheds per-forming below average (Fig. 3). The CA has recom-mended that watersheds be developed as businessmodel through public private partnership modeand the convergence of actors and programmeswith full community participation for addressingthe issues of enhancing crop productivity, incomegeneration through targeted activities for smalland marginal farmers, women, and vulnerablegroups of the society, conserving natural resourcesand most importantly building the resilience ofnatural resources and the community to cope withthe climate change (Wani et al. 2008a).
The government has moved the watershedagenda forward in various ways: with constitu-tional amendment to enforce more responsibilityon Panchayati Raj departments for rural develop-ment; by refining watershed guidelines as lessonshave been absorbed; and by converging thedrought-prone area programmes with NationalRural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS).The Planning Commission has taken cognisance ofthe recommendations of various task force groupsand has emphasized on the development of rain-fed areas for inclusive and sustainable develop-ment. The Common Watershed Guidelines (Gov-ernment of India 2008) have facilitated the conver-gence of the watershed programmes implementedby different ministries and Department of Land Re-
sources (DOLR) of Ministry of Rural Developmentas the nodal agency to implement all the water-shed programmes in India with common guide-lines.
Operationalizing Community Watershed asGrowth Engine
For community watershed developmentprogramme to become the growth engine for sus-tainable development of rainfed areas, the majorchallenge is the scaling-up to large areas as suc-cessful watersheds remained few and unreplicated(Kerr et al. 2002; Joshi et al. 2005). An integrated con-sortium approach for the sustainable developmentof community watersheds with technicalbackstopping and convergence is developed andevaluated in Asia (Wani et al. 2002, 2003). It encom-passed integrated solutions, with genetic, naturalresource management (NRM) and socio-economicrelated components to develop dynamic croppingsystems that respond to the changes in market op-portunities and climatic conditions. The systemsapproach looks at various components of the ruraleconomy – traditional food grains, new potentialcash crops, livestock and fodder production, as wellas socio-economic factors such as alternativesources of employment and income. The adoptionof this new paradigm in rainfed agriculture hasshown that with proper management of natural re-sources the systems productivity can be enhancedand poverty can be reduced without causing fur-ther degradation of natural resource base(Rockström et al. 2007; Wani et al. 2008a). The scal-ing-up of these innovations with technical supportfrom ICRISAT-led consortium has been attemptedin Andhra Pradesh, India through Andhra PradeshRural Livelihoods Programme (APRLP) supported
Fig. 3. Performance of different watersheds analyzed during meta analysis, with regards to BC ratio
LUP IN IWDP FOR IMPROVING LIVELIHOODS 159
by the Department for International Development(DFID), UK; in Karnataka, (India), Sujala watershedprogramme supported by the World Bank; in threedistricts of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan withthe support from Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT),Mumbai, India; and four countries in Asia (India,Thailand, Vietnam and China) with the support ofAsian Development Bank (ADB), Philippines.
Watershed as an Entry Point to Improve Live-lihoods
Watershed, as an entry point should lead toexploring multiple livelihood interventions (Waniet al. 2006, 2006a, 2007, 2008). The overall objectiveof the whole approach being poverty eliminationthrough sustainable development, the new commu-nity watershed management provides an envelopthat fits into the framework as a tool to assist insustainable rural livelihoods. The task is to inten-sify complex agricultural production systems whilepreventing damage to natural resources andbiodiversity and to improve the welfare of thefarmers through value addition and market link-ages.
ICRISAT’s consortium model for communitywatershed management espouses the principles ofcollective action, convergence, cooperation and ca-pacity building (4 Cs) with technical backstoppingby a consortium of institutions to address the is-sues of equity, efficiency, economics and environ-ment (4Es) (Wani et al. 2003a, 2006). The new inte-grated community watershed model provides tech-nological options for management of runoff waterharvesting, in-situ conservation of rainwater for
groundwater recharging and supplemental irriga-tion, appropriate nutrient, and soil managementpractices, waterway system, crop production tech-nology, and appropriate farming systems with in-come-generating micro-enterprises for improvinglivelihoods while protecting the environment. Thecurrent model of watershed management asadopted by ICRISAT watershed consortium team,involves environment-friendly options and use ofnew science tools (Wani et al. 2000, 2002, 2008a;Sreedevi et al. 2004).
Adarsha watershed (in Kothapally, RangaReddy district in Andhra Pradesh) led by theICRISAT consortium, has clearly demonstrated in-creased crop productivity from rainfed systemsthrough integrated watershed management ap-proach (Table 1).
Convergence in WatershedConvergence in the watersheds evolved with
community watershed management model, whichapart from IGNRM strategy encompasses severalother entities. The holistic community watershedis used as an entry point to converge and to explic-itly link watershed development with rural liveli-hoods and effective poverty eradication and in theprocess identify policy interventions at micro-,meso-, and macro-levels. Convergence takes placeat different levels, at the village level it requires fa-cilitation of processes that bring about synergy inall the watershed-related activities. Scope for issuesrelated to suitable processes for change in micro-practices, macro-policies, convergence, and infor-mation and management systems. The activities in
Table 1. Crop yields in Adarsha watershed, Kothapally during 1999-2007
Participatory Community WatershedThe consortium model is a participatory com-
munity watershed system with a multi-disciplin-ary and multi-institutional approach, a process in-volving people who aim to create a self-supportingsystem essential for sustainability. The process be-gins with the management of soil and water, whicheventually leads to the development of other capi-tals such as human, social, physical infrastructureand financial resources. However, large-scale com-munity participation is essential since finally it isthe people who have to manage their resources. Ac-cess to productive resources, empowering women,building on local knowledge and traditions, and in-volvement of local farmers or villagers in the localcommunities in watershed activities contributed tothe success story at Adarsha watershed. Farmers’participation and involvement is critical in inte-grated community watershed management (Waniet al. 2003; Sreedevi et al. 2004; Joshi et al. 2005) andit is complex and needs careful consideration.
The consortium approach enables to addressequity, gender, sustainability and improved liveli-hoods which are the pillars of inclusive and sus-tainable development. Drivers of higher impacts incommunity watershed are acute water scarcity,predisposition to work collectively for communitydevelopment, good local leadership, tangible eco-nomic benefits to individuals, equal partnership,trust and shared vision amongst the stakeholders,
transparency and social vigilance in the financialdealings, high confidence of the farmers, low-coststructures and equitable sharing of benefits, knowl-edge-based entry point activity, capacity buildingand empowerment of community, no free ridesthrough subsidized activities for few individualsand participatory and continuous monitoring andevaluation for midcourse correction (Sreedevi et al.2004; Shiferaw et al. 2006; Joshi et al.2009).
Multiple Benefits from Integrated WatershedDevelopment
Adoption of integrated watershed manage-ment effected remarkable multiple impacts on SATresource-poor farm households.
Reducing rural poverty in the watershed communi-ties was evident in the transformation of theireconomies. The improved productivity with theadoption of cost-efficient water harvesting struc-tures (WHS) as an entry point improved livelihoodsthrough crop intensification and diversificationwith high-value crops (Wani et al. 2003b, 2008,2009; Sreedevi and Wani 2009). It also benefitedwomen, landless and vulnerable members throughincome-generating activities.
Building on social capital made the huge differencein addressing rural poverty of watershed commu-nities. Crop livestock integration is another facetharnessed for poverty reduction. The Lucheba wa-tershed, Guizhou province of southern China hastransformed its economy through modest injectionof capital-allied contributions of labour and finance,to create basic infrastructures like access to roadsand drinking water supply. In Tad Fa and WangChai watersheds in Thailand, there was a 45% in-crease in farm income within three years. Farmersearned an average net income of US$ 1195 per crop-ping season.
Increasing crop productivity is a common objectivein all the watershed programmes; and the enhancedcrop productivity is achieved after the implemen-tation of soil and water conservation practicesalong with appropriate crop and nutrient manage-ment. Overall, in the 65 community watersheds inAndhra Pradesh and 30 watersheds in Karnataka(Table 2) (each measuring approximately 500 ha),implementing best-bet practices resulted in signifi-cant yield advantages in sorghum (35-270%), maize(30-174%), pearl millet (72-242%), groundnut (28-179%), sole pigeonpea (97-204%) and intercroppedpigeonpea (40-110%). In Thanh Ha watershed ofVietnam, yields of soybean, groundnut and mungbean increased by threefold to fourfold (2.8–3.5 tha-1) as compared with baseline yields (0.5 to 1.0 t
LUP IN IWDP FOR IMPROVING LIVELIHOODS 161
ha-1), reducing the yield gap between potentialfarmers’ yields. A reduction in nitrogen fertilizer(90–120 kg urea ha-1) by 38% increased maize yieldby 18% in Thanh Ha watershed in Vietnam. In TadFa watershed of northeastern Thailand, maize yieldincreased by 27-34% with improved crop manage-ment (Sreedevi and Wani 2009).
Improving water availability in the watersheds wasattributed to efficient management of rainwaterand in-situ conservation, establishment of WHS andimproved groundwater levels. Even after the rainyseason, the water level in wells nearer to WHS sus-tained good groundwater yield and benefited vil-lage women through drinking water availability aswell as men with increased irrigation (Wani et al.2006a; Sreedevi and Wani 2009; Pathak et al. 2009).Supplemental irrigation played a very importantrole in reducing the risk of crop failures and in op-
timizing the productivity in the SAT. On-farmstudies made during 2000-03 post-rainy seasons,showed increased chickpea yield by 127% andgroundnut pod yield by 59% over the control yield(0.82 t ha-1) by application of two supplemental ir-rigations of 40 mm (Pathak et al. 2009).
Sustaining development and protecting the environ-ment are the two-pronged achievements of the wa-tersheds reducing soil loss and run-off loss. Intro-duction of IPM in cotton and pigeonpea substan-tially reduced the number of chemical insecticidalsprays in Kothapally, India during the season andthus reduced the pollution of water bodies withharmful chemicals. Introduction of integrated pestmanagement (IPM) and improved cropping sys-tems decreased the use of pesticides worth US$ 44to 66 per ha (Ranga Rao et al. 2007). Increased car-bon sequestration of 7.4 t ha-1 in 24 years was ob-
Table 2. Different crop yields as influenced by best-bet options in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka
Watershed Grain yield (t ha-1) YieldImproved practice Traditional practice advantage(Can it be detailed (Details may please be (%)
elsewhere in the MS?) provided somewherein the MS)
Mean 2753 1454 203Source: Adapted from Sreedevi and Wani (2009)
162 SUHAS P. WANI AND G.S. SIDHU
served with improved management options in along-term watershed experiment at ICRISAT.By adopting fuel-switch for carbon, womenSHGs in Powerguda (a remote village of AndhraPradesh) have pioneered the sale of carbon units(147 t CO2 C) to the World Bank from their 4,500Pongamia trees, seeds of which are collected for pro-ducing saplings for distribution/promotion ofbiodiesel plantation. Normalized difference vegeta-tion index (NDVI) estimation from the satellite im-ages showed that within four years, vegetationcover could increase by 35% in Kothapally (Wani etal. 2005).
Conserving biodiversity in the watersheds was en-gendered through participatory NRM. Pronouncedagro-biodiversity impacts were observed inKothapally watershed where farmers now grow 22crops in a season with a remarkable shift in crop-ping pattern from cotton (200 ha in 1998 to 100 hain 2002) to a maize/pigeonpea intercrop system (40ha in 1998 to 180 ha in 2002), thereby changing theCAF from 0.41 in 1998 to 0.73 in 2002. In Thanh Ha,Vietnam the CAF changed from 0.25 in 1998 to 0.6in 2002 with the introduction of legumes (Wani etal. 2005).
References
Adinarayana, J. (2008) A Systems-Approach Model for Con-servation Planning of a Hilly Watershed. Centre ofStudies in Resources Engineering Indian Instituteof Technology, Bombay Powai, Mumbai - 400 076,India (website paper).
All India Soil and Land Use Survey (1990) WatershedAtlas of India, All India Soil and Land Use Survey,Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.
Dwivedi, R.S., Ramana. KV., Wani. S.P., and Pathak, P.(2003) Use of satellite data for watershed man-agement and impact assessment. In Integratedwatershed management for land and water conserva-tion and sustainable agricultural production in Asia:Proceedings of the ADB-ICRISAT-IWMI Project Re-view and Planning Meeting, 10–14 December 2001,Hanoi, Vietnam (S.P Wani,., A.R Maglinao,., A.,Ramakrishna, and T.J. Rego, Eds.), pp. 149-157.International Crops Research Institute for theSemi-Arid Tropics Patancheru 502 324, AndhraPradesh.
Falkenmark, M. (2000) Competing freshwater and eco-logical services in the river basin perspective –an expanded conceptual framework. Water Inter-national 25, 172-177.
Farrington, J., Turton, C. and James, A.J. (Editors) (1999)Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges forthe Twenty-First Century. Oxford University Press,New Delhi, India.
Government of India, (2008) Common guidelines for wa-tershed development projects. National Rain-fed AreaAuthority (NRAA), Ministry of Land Resources,Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, India, 57 pp.
Harris, H.C., Cooper, P.J.M. and Pala, M. (1991) Soil andCrop Management for Improved Water Use Effi-ciency in Rainfed Areas. Proceedings of an Interna-tional Workshop sponsored by MAFRA/ICARDA/CIMMYT, 15 19 May 1989 Ankara, Turkey. Interna-tional Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Ar-eas (ICARDA), Aleppo, Syria, 352 pp.
Johnson, N., Ravnborg, H.M., Westermann, O. andProbst, K. (2002) User participation in watershedmanagement and research. Water Policy 3, 507-520.
Joshi, P.K., Jha, A.K., Wani, S.P., Laxmi Joshi andShiyani, R.L. (2005) Meta-analysis to assess impactof watershed program and people’s participation. Com-prehensive Assessment Research Report 8. Compre-hensive Assessment Secretariat (IWMI), Co-lombo, Sri Lanka, pp. 18.
Joshi, P.K., Jha, A.K., Wani, S.P., Sreedevi, T.K. andShaheen, F.A. (2008) Impact of Watershed Programand Conditions for Success: A Meta-Analysis Ap-proach. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Interna-tional Crops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, Re-port no. 46, pp. 24.
Joshi, P.K., Jha, A.K, Wani, S.P. and Sreedevi, T.K. (2009)Scaling-out Community Watershed Managementfor Multiple Benefits in Rainfed Areas. In Rain-fedAgriculture: Unlocking the Potential (S.P. Wani, JohnRockstrom and Theib Oweis, Eds.). Comprehen-sive Assessment of Water Management in Agri-culture Series, CAB International, Wallingford,UK, pp. 258-275.
Kerr, J., Pangare, G. and Pangare, V. (2002) Watersheddevelopment project in India: An evaluation. Environ-ment and Policy Production Technology Division,International Food Policy Research Institute(IFPRI), Washington, DC, Research Report no.127, 102 pp.
Knox, A. and Gupta, S. (2000) Collective action PRi tech-nical workshop on watershed management insti-tutions: A summary paper. Collective action PRIWorking Paper No.8. IFPRI, Washington, DC.
Pathak, P., Sahrawat, K.L., Wani, S.P., Sachan, R.C. andSudi, R. (2009) Opportunities for water harvestingand supplemental irrigation for improving rain-fed agriculture in semi-arid areas. In Rain-fed ag-riculture: Unlocking the Potential. (S.P Wani,., JohnRockstrom and Theib Oweis Eds.). Comprehen-sive Assessment of Water Management in Agri-culture Series, CAB International, Wallingford,UK, pp. 197-221.
LUP IN IWDP FOR IMPROVING LIVELIHOODS 163
Ranga Rao, G.V., Rupela, O.P., Wani, S.P., Rahman, S.J.,Jyothsna, J.S., Rameshwar Rao, V. and Humayun,P. (2007) Bio-intensive pest management reducespesticide use in India. Journal of Integrated PestManagement. Pesticides News 76, 16-17
Rockström, J., Nuhu Hatibu, Theib Oweis and Wani, S.P.(2007) Managing water in rain-fed agriculture. In: Wa-ter for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assess-ment of Water Management in Agriculture, D.(Molden, Ed.) Earthscan, London, UK and Inter-national Water Management Institute (IWMI),Colombo, Srilanka, pp. 315-348.
Shiferaw, B., Bantilan, C. and Wani, S.P. (2006) Policyand institutional issues and impacts of integratedwatershed management: Experiences and les-sons from Asia. In Integrated Management of Wa-tersheds for Agricultural Diversification and Sustain-able Livelioods in Eastern and Central Africa: Lessonsand Experiences from Semi-Arid South Asia:(B.Shiferaw, and K.P.C. Rao, Eds). Proceedings ofthe International Workshop held at ICRISAT,Nairobi, Kenya, 6–7 December 2004. ICRISAT,Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, pp. 37-52.
Singh, Piara, Aggrawal, P.K., Bhatia, V.S., Murty, M.V.R.,Pala, M., Oweis, T., Benli, B., Rao, K.P.C. andWani, S.P. (2009) Yield Gap Analysis: Modelling ofAchievable Yields at Farm Level. In Rain-fed Agri-culture: Unlocking the Potential. (S.P Wani, JohnRockstrom and Theib Oweis Eds.). Comprehen-sive Assessment of Water Management in Agri-culture Series, CAB International, Wallingford,UK, pp. 81-123.
Sidhu, G.S., Das, T.H., Singh, R.S., Sharma, R.K andRavishankar, T. (1998). Remote sensing and GIStechniques for prioritization of watersheds: a casestudy in upper Machkund Watershed, AndrhaPradesh. Indian Journal of Soil Conversation 26, 71-75.
SIWI (2001) Water harvesting for upgrading of rain-fed ag-riculture. Policy analysis and research needs. SIWI Re-port II. Stockholm International Water Institute(SIWI), Stockholm, Sweden. pp. 104.
Sreedevi, T.K., Shiferaw, B. and Wani, S.P. (2004) Adarshawatershed in Kothapally: Understanding the drivers ofhigher impact. Global Theme on Agroecosystems.ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, ReportNo. 10, pp. 24.
Sreedevi, T.K. and Wani, S.P. (2009) Integrated farmmanagement practices and up-scaling the impactfor increased productivity of rainfed systems. In:Rain-fed agriculture: Unlocking the Potential. (S.P.,Wani, John Rockstrom and Theib Oweis Eds.).Comprehensive Assessment of Water Manage-ment in Agriculture Series, CAB International,Wallingford, UK, pp. 222-257.
Sreedevi, T.K., Wani, S.P. and Osman, M. (2009) Partici-patory research and development (PR&D) toevaluate pongamia seed cake as source of plantnutrient in integrated watershed management.Submitted to SAT Journal (in press)?
Subbarao, G.V., Kumar Rao, J.V.D.K., Kumar, J.,Johansen, C., Deb, U.K., Ahmed, I., Krishna Rao,M.V., Venkataratnam, L., Hebbar, K.R., Sai,M.V.S.R. and Harris, D. (2001) Spatial distributionand quantification of rice-fallows in South Asia - po-tential for legumes. ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324,Andhra Pradesh. 316 pp.
Wani S.P., Joshi, P.K., Raju, K.V., Sreedevi, T.K., Wil-son, J.M., Shah Amita, Diwakar, P.G., Palanisami,K., Marimuthu, S., Jha, A.K., Ramakrishna, Y.S.,Meenakshi Sundaram, S.S. and D’Souza, M.(2008a) Community Watershed as a Growth Enginefor Development of Dryland Areas. A ComprehensiveAssessment of Watershed Programs in India. GlobalTheme on Agroecosystems, ICRISAT, Patancheru,Andhra Pradesh. Report no. 47. pp. 145.
Wani, S.P., Joshi, P.K., Ramakrishna, Y.S., Sreedevi,T.K., Piara Singh and Pathak, P. (2008) A new para-digm in watershed management: A must for de-velopment of rain-fed areas for inclusive growth.In: Conservation Farming: Enhancing Productivity andProfitability of Rain-fed Areas (Anand Swarup, SurajBhan and J.S., Bali, Eds.). Soil Conservation Soci-ety of India, New Delhi, pp. 163-178.
Wani, S.P., Maglinao, A.R., Ramakrishna, A. and Rego,T.J. (Editors) (2003) Integrated Watershed Manage-ment for Land and Water Conservation and Sustain-able Agricultural Production in Asia. Proceedings ofthe ADB-ICRISAT-IWMI Annual Project Reviewand Planning Meeting, Hanoi, Vietnam, 10-14 De-cember 2001. ICRISAT, Patancheru, AndhraPradesh, p. 268.
Wani, S.P., Meera Reddy, Sreedevi, T.K. and DamleRaju (Eds.) (2006a) Corporate Science and Technol-ogy Institutions-Partnerships for Inclusive and Sustain-able Development and Economic Growth: Proceedingsof the CII-ICRISAT Workshop, 27 February 2006,ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, pp. 38.
Wani, S.P., Pathak, P., Jangawad, L.S., Eswaran, H. andSingh, P. (2003a) Improved management ofVertisols in the semi-arid tropics for increasedproductivity and soil carbon sequestration. SoilUse and Management 19, 217-222.
Wani, S.P., Pathak, P., Sreedevi, T.K., Singh, H.P. andSingh, P. (2003b) Efficient management of rainwa-ter for increased crop productivity and ground-water recharge in asia. In Water Productivity inAgriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement(J.W. Kijne, R. Barker and D. Molden, Eds.). CABInternational, Wallingford, UK; International Wa-ter Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, SriLanka, pp. 199-215.
164 SUHAS P. WANI AND G.S. SIDHU
Wani, S.P., Pathak, P., Tam, H.M., Ramakrishna, A.,Singh, P. and Sreedevi, T.K. (2002) Integrated wa-tershed management for minimizing land degra-dation and sustaining productivity in Asia. InZafar Adeel (Ed.) Integrated Land Management in theDry Areas. Proceedings of a Joint UNU-CAS Inter-national Workshop, 8-13 September 2001, Beijing,China, United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan,pp. 207-230.
Wani, S.P., Ramakrishna, Y.S., Sreedevi, T.K., Long,T.D., Thawilkal Wangkahart, Shiferaw, B., Pathak,P. and Kesava Rao, A.V.R. (2006.) Issues, con-cepts, approaches and practices in the integratedwatershed management: experience and lessonsfrom Asia. In Integrated Management of Watershedfor Agricultural Diversification and Sustainable Liveli-hoods in Eastern and Central Africa: Lessons and Expe-riences from Semi-Arid South Asia (B. Shiferaw, andK.P.C. Rao, Eds). Proceedings of the InternationalWorkshop held 6–7 December 2004 at Nairobi,Kenya, ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh,pp. 17-36.
Wani, S.P., Singh, P., Pathak, P. and Rego, T.J. (2000)Sustainable management of land resources forachieving food security in the semi arid tropics.In: Advances in Land Resources Management for 21stCentury, (S.P. Gawande, J.S. Bali, D.C. Das, T.K.
Sarkar, D.K. Das and G. Narayanasamy, Eds).Angrokor Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 290-306.
Wani, S.P., Singh, P, Dwivedi, R.S., Navalgund, R.R. andRamakrishna, A. (2005) Biophysical indicators ofagro-ecosystem services and methods for moni-toring the impacts of NRM technologies at differ-ent scale. In Natural Resource Management in Agri-culture: Methods for Assessing Economic and Environ-mental Impacts (B. Shiferaw, H.A. Freemen andS.M. Swinton, Eds). CAB International,Wallingford, UK, pp. 97-123.
Wani, S.P., Sreedevi, T.K., Rockström, J. andRamakrishna, Y.S. (2009) Rain-fed agriculture -past trend and future prospects. In Rain-fed agri-culture: Unlocking the Potential. Comprehensive As-sessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series(S.P Wani., J. Rockström and T. Oweis, Eds),. CABInternational, Wallingford, UK. pp. 1-35.
Wani, S.P., Sreedevi, T.K., Rockstrom, J., Wangkahart,T., Ramakrishna, Y.S., Yin Dxin, Kesava Rao,A.V.R. and Zhong Li. (2007) Improved livelihoodsand food security through unlocking the potentialof rainfed agriculture. In Food and Water Security(U. Aswathanarayana, Ed.), Routledge, UK, pp. 89-106.
