Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT
A REVIEW OF LIVELIHOOD, SUSTAINABILITY AND
EQUITY ISSUES
by
Abhinav Sharma
(Roll No. 128080011)
M.Phil in Planning and Development
Guided By:
Prof. Sarmishtha Pattanaik
Table Of Contents
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 3
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................. 5
CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS ..................................................................................... 6
What is Sustainable development? ............................................................................ 6
What do we mean by Equity? ..................................................................................... 7
What do we mean by livelihood? ............................................................................... 7
WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS IN THE LIGHT OF EQUITY, LIVELIHOOD AND
SUSTAINABILITY .............................................................................................................. 8
Equity Issues ................................................................................................................ 8
Livelihood Issues ....................................................................................................... 16
Sustainability issues .................................................................................................. 19
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 25
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 26
INTRODUCTION
Water scarcity and poor water quality are a major concern in numerous countries,
which mainly depend on agriculture for the livelihood of the people .Fresh water
availability, is already a major factor in sustainable use of resources. The water
scarcity is further accentuated by the ground and surface water pollution. So it is
impertinent to note that the management of water resources plays a pivotal role in
food & environmental security in the world characterized by increasing conflict over
water resources. The concept of watershed is very important in this regard and as it
is a basic hydrological unit and hydrological and ecological processes govern the
quality of soil and water in the area of watershed. Technically speaking the term
watershed is defined as the drainage basin or catchment area of a particular river
stream or an area from where the water flows into a particular drainage system, but
over the time it has acquired a broad meaning and is now considered as a biological,
physical, economic, and social system too (Menon, 2012 ).
As seen from above, watershed development is required to be holistic concept which
integrates several components like soil and water conservation, forestry
development, agriculture and livestock and other livelihood options, hence touching
broad contours of environment and public life. This kind of integration in turn leads
to environmental and social sustainability. But the question arises, how far have we
have been able to succeed in achieving Equity, sustainability through watershed
development? And how far this has succeeded in providing livelihood sources to the
people?
Though the watershed development approach was adopted as early as 1949 yet
status wise as today it stands fragmented in terms of activities, programs and
funding sources (Vaidyanathan, 1991). There had been a tendency for proliferation
of activities with special area, rural development and employment programs.
Departments namely agriculture, forests, rural development, National Waste Land
3
CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGS
What is Sustainable development?
Sustainable development has been defined in many ways. While it refers to the
minimisation of entropy in the production process according to quantum mechanics
principle, it is reworked to ascribe a development which is environmentally nondegrading, technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable [FAO
1991]. Operationally this definition has been further amended to take into account
the ecological sustainability in the case of renewable resources as managing the
environmental resources to ensure the long-term sustainable utilisation of species
and eco-systems, minimise the survival risk and generally keep open as many future
options as possible [IUCN 1980]. Hence, the concept of sustainability gradually gets
diluted to sustainable utilisation. Also, the Famous Bruntland commission also
defines sustainable development as.
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs". (Brundtland, 1987)
As the problem is in situ and man-made, the people of the region hold the key for
dispensing with the problem. People participation for management of Common
Pooled Resources (CPRs) becomes an important ingredient to translate the goals of
sustainable development in an organisational context at the local level. With the
growing realisation that development should be woven around people and not the
people around development (Haq, 1993), the concept of sustainable development
has attained a centre-stage. The important role of community participation in the
field of ecological, biological, technical and socio-cultural and economic context on
sustainable development is being realised.
Equity Issues
Equity issues are intrinsically linked with nature of participatory institutions built
within watershed development initiatives. Natural resources that are not privately
owned have the potential to play a key role in reducing disparities across households
within a watershed. While it is desirable that the entire stock of natural resources is
shared equitably, the least that the participatory institutions ought to ensure is that
the incremental resources generated through the interventions are shared fairly.
As put by Sangameshrawan (2006) in most natural resource management
programmes, considerations about collective action, efficiency and sustainability
have tended to get primacy over equity concerns. This is in spite of the fact that the
importance of equity in all developmental programmes has now been emphasised in
a variety of forums, for its linkages with sustainability and efficiency. In the case of
watershed programmes also, adequate attention has not been paid to equity
concerns.
Evaluation reports of watershed projects have very clearly brought out the fact that
successful watershed projects which have sustained over the years were designed in
such a way that every individual residing in the watershed area came to have a stake
in the successful completion and maintenance of the watershed project. This is an
important area, which many watershed projects have tended to neglect.
8
2006). This interconnected nature of the upstream and downstream areas raises
another concern for equity, because of uneven distribution of benefits of watershed
development between them.
The inequities arising out of the membership of persons to a particular class, caste or
gender is another aspect of several watershed development programmes. This kind
of inequity is a result of certain existing power structures in the region which tend to
get challenged by the community programs like watershed development. The
dominant groups then try to assert their dominance over the resources and try to
corner maximum benefits from the watershed development programs, leaving the
other groups (class, caste or gender) deprived of these benefits. The role caste and
class has been evident in many studies related to watershed development and has
been highlighted as a cause of success or failure in many examples. While a
democratically constituted watershed institution should be in a position to intervene
in the issues regarding encroachment of CPRs for cultivation, or sharing of forest
products, it may be difficult to do so in heterogonous societies ridden with class
and/or caste conflicts. In relatively homogenous societies, the participatory
institutions would have far greater potential to apply the principle of equity in many
of the above-mentioned settings. Also there are examples of unsuccessful projects
due to huge inequities and resulting conflict of interest among the heterogeneous
class & caste setup (DSilva & Pai, 2003). The role of women and the inequities faced
by women in the watershed development programs has also been studied and the
impact of these programs enabling women to participate on an equal footing with
men in the decision-making process regarding watershed management is highlighted
in sample studies from Madhya Pradesh by Action for social advancement in their
paper Watershed Development in Madhya Pradesh: Implications for Women,
wherein they have the problem of inequity due to gender and the ways of tackling
this exclusion. (ASA, 2007).
10
11
12
of the landless and marginal in rural areas as well as to empower them, and how to
reconcile different notions of equity( Sangameshwaran, 2006).
The success of watershed projects depends to a large extent on the ability of the
watershed community to address issues of equity, maintenance of watershed
community structures created and the sustainability of such arrangements. It has
been observed in a few cases that the initial cooperation of the community in a
watershed project had come about as all stake holders in the area were more or less
similarly placed economically. With the successful implementation of watershed
projects, land owning families experienced higher level of income which created
fissiparous tendencies in the community. The sections left out have very little stake
in maintaining Watershed structures or adhering to the strict conventions that
watershed community imposed on itself in the initial years of the project for natural
regeneration of grasslands or forests within the watershed. Reports of trees being
cut and grasslands being put under extreme biotic pressures have been documented.
These issues would need to be adequately tackled if the movement is to become
self-sustaining in the long run. (Sangameshwaran, 2006)
To address these issues the approach to these watershed programs needs to be
modified. One of the approaches may be where; the landholders in the watershed
get water for irrigation. However, the non-land owning families in the village get a
larger share of output from the Common Property Resources (CPR) which gets
rejuvenated after successful completion of the project.
families to take up animal husbandry as an occupation and meet their fodder and
fuel requirements from the CPR. Fishing rights on ponds constructed as part of the
watershed project are only given to the self-help groups of the landless. These
arrangements will effectively increase access of poor to the land and other sources of
livelihood and improve their standard of living. These innovations have yet to be
adopted widely and need to be up scaled. (Sangameshwaran, 2006)
14
15
Livelihood Issues
In the normative framework, natural capital is accorded primacy over social, physical,
human and financial capital in supporting livelihood needs. The relationship between
natural capital and livelihood is not predictable; a decrease in the base of natural
capital may not always lead to an adverse livelihood status. For example, a reduced
natural resource base may induce a farmer to adopt better cultivation management
practices. (Sen, Shah, Kumar, 2007)
Watershed management has been conceived basically as a strategy for improvement
in agriculture, prevention of soil erosion water harvesting etc. and is mainly centred
around land development. But as suggested by the Hanumantha Rao committee
report (1994) that if the watershed development programmes is viewed as a rural
livelihood rather that land development programme, women and poor marginal
farming households will benefit, given their dependence on many non- land based
activities. Also the Parthasarathy committee report (2006) has made contribution the
report makes is to introduce the word" livelihoods" into the watershed development,
to give watershed development a larger social perspective and purpose. By focusing
on livelihoods watershed development can be the main poverty alleviation
programme, given the varied contours of poverty in India. It would then also become
the driver of decentralised growth, growth with distribution. Unfortunately,
livelihoods come out in the report as an add-on, a kind of "water-shed plus" rather
than the core objective of watershed development programmes. To that extent, the
report has been shackled by contemporary programmes and practices. The Harayali
Guidelines (2003) brought out by Department of Land Resources for the
implementation of watershed development programmes under IWDP also envisage
Employment generation, poverty alleviation, community empowerment and
development of human and other economic resources in rural areas as the objectives
of watershed development.
16
The detail of watershed scheme is determined by what one wants from it and what
can be obtained sustainably. Livelihoods are the objective function which is to be
maximised through watershed development and sustainability is the constraint that
sets the boundaries. The specific interventions or "treatment" in the watershed are
dictated by the objective function of livelihood, and not vice versa. (Joshi, 2006)
According to Deep Joshi, this shift in emphasis towards livelihood is a new paradigm
and calls for a great deal of creativity and innovation. It has major implications for
the kind of agency required, the processes to be followed, equity, potential for social
conflict/cooperation, etc. Multiple plans can be made for a given watershed, each
with different implications for local livelihoods. For example a check dam may be
built to harvest rainwater and then begin to worry about fisheries as a livelihood, or
one may conceive of fisheries as a livelihood on the basis of objective analysis carried
out jointly with the watershed inhabitants and then plan appropriate water storage
structures to rear fish; clearly, the two are fundamentally different approaches.
Without the focus on livelihoods, water-shed development practice would continue
to follow the old paths and techniques. (Joshi, 2006).
Nevertheless, despite all the above concerns, the watershed development strategy
has contributed a great deal in enhancing the livelihoods of people in the areas
where these programmes were implemented. There are many examples arising out
of different parts of country where there was a considerable positive impact on the
livelihood of the people. Some of these stories are illustrated below:
The Sukhomajiri experience
This was a successful watershed management project in Haryana and it also gets
credit for the evolution of the concept of social fencing which is essentially the
strategy for protecting soil in the common areas of village. The main occupation of
the Gujjars living in the village was cattle and goat rearing and hence grazing was
rampant in the region leading to degradation of the land in the nearby forest. The
17
impetus of the watershed program was to protect the land from degradation and
increase the irrigation facilities to the villagers. After the increase of irrigation
facilities the crop yield increased and villagers gave up goat rearing. Due to reduced
grazing the land as well as the forest cover increased. The experiment was successful
in providing alternative occupation to the villagers for their livelihood and was
successful in increasing the household incomes as well. The other places where this
model was replicated also experienced a profound increase in the incomes and new
livelihood opportunities. For instance the farming community income increased by
around 21 percent in kandi watershed in Punjab, also additional incomes from milk
production accrued to the farmers. (Iyer and Roy, 2005)
18
Sustainability issues
The understanding of sustainability, in our view, is limited to environmental
sustainability as mediated by human intervention, and this is consistent with our
assumption about the primacy of the role of natural capital in supporting livelihoods.
Thus, from this perspective, watershed development should focus on conserving
natural capital. A possible conflict may arise between the aims to increase
productivity by increasing physical or financial capitals on one hand and conserving
the natural capital on the other. The primacy accorded to the natural capital would
require that the productive planning of the watershed. In bad years some transfers
from the stock of resources may be permitted to sustain livelihoods, with the
understanding that the stock would be replenished in the good years.
As discussed in the conceptual underpinning the concept of sustainable development
acquired prominence after it was formulated by the World Commission of
environment and development (Bruntdland Commission, 1987) in its reports our
common future .This concept of Bruntdland Commission has an implicit assumption
that development based on human plunder of natural resources is inhuman and
development with human face is only sustainable. However it neglects an important
issue of global equity and gives way to certain inequity. The concept of sustainable
development in the context of watershed development raises the issue of inequity
and advocates for the development with people participation and Equity as basic
ingredient of sharing of natural resources. This concept of sustainability is broad
based and incorporates ecological, economic and socio-cultural sustainability. By
ecological sustainability we mean the basic function of watershed development
programmes like regeneration of forest cover, reduction of soil erosion, increasing of
soil water potential by employing efficient natural resource management practices.
The economic sustainability would ensure sustainable livelihood in terms of
economic productivity, food & fodder security, fuel security and employment
security. Further, the socio-cultural sustainability include the formation of new
19
the water cycle, in a sustainable manner. But there are some basic issues to be
tackled first i.e. What should be sustained? A range of answers could be found in
different texts ranging from sustaining the existing level of production, sustaining the
current level and quality of productive resources and the symbiosis to sustain the
current well-being of the people. (Joshi, 2006)
A Contrast to conception of Sustainability in Irrigated and Dry regions
All the aspects mentioned suit perfectly to the irrigated region where the current
quality of life and the current level of productive resources as well as production
appear to be in conformity with the socially acceptable standard of living. On the
contrary, the prevailing situation neither is conducive nor provide for a socially
acceptable living in the dry region. In addition, the poor economic condition and
erratic weather further aids to the degradation process both in the quality of life and
quality of the natural resources. Hence, the sustainable development in the dry
watershed region has to be reworked to comprehend the situation completely. There
are evident changes in cropping pattern and the shift towards a set of lucrative
commercial crops. While most of the coarse millets noticeably have lost their
significance, the more drought resistant oilseeds gained more land than other crops.
It appears to be a common trend in both scarcity and transition zones, which
according to environmentalists, appears to be the beginning of an end. In such
situation watershed development prepares the ground for sustainable agriculture.
The considerable positive change in the tree crops also supports the environmental
aspects of agriculture by facilitating the rain water to leach greater depth along-the
roots of the trees which in turn ensures moisture retention for a longer period. This
emphasises the linkages among agricultural production and environment to have a
sustainable agriculture.
21
24
CONCLUSION
The issues of equity, livelihood and sustainability interplay with each other and
thereby play and important role in making a watershed development scheme a
success or a failure. These issues are quite overlapping and cannot be put into
separate compartments. Therefore a holistic approach is required when an attempt
is made to review the watershed development schemes with focus on equity,
sustainability and livelihood. Also, there is a need to recognise water-shed
technology as a common good, which needs participatory development. For a long
time Water-shed development programmes have been treated like any other
programmes, emphasising spread rather than sustainability. Unlike in the case of
individual based technologies like HYV the watershed technology is subject to the
constraints and hence the results are not dramatic. Unless this constraint is
recognised and given due importance, it is unlikely to achieve the desired objectives.
The recognition of importance of the intertwined nature of these three factors and
accordingly planning the implementation would go a long way in making the
watershed development a success story. Apart from that the realisation of
importance of social capital formation at different levels and forms would further
boost the impact of watershed development on the issues of equity, sustainability
and livelihood. Any perfect example of watershed development is difficult to find,
because it is contingent upon the local conditions, the social setup etc. but there is a
visible trend towards overall development the gradual evolution of watershed
development as a strategy for sustainable development with a profound equity in
outcomes and a positive impact on livelihood generation. The need of the hour is to
insulate this evolved and rejuvenated strategy for watershed development from the
detrimental factors like political influences, caste/class polarisations, hoarding of
benefits by influential groups and prevent it from losing its core focus on overall
development.
25
REFERENCES
1. Vaidyanathan
(1991)
Watershed
development-reflections
on
recent
8. DSilva Emmanual & Pai Sudha (2003) Social Capital and Collective Action:
Development Outcomes in Forest Protection and Watershed Development, in
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 14 (Apr. 5-11, 2003), pp. 14041415
9. Action for Social Advancement, Bhopal (2007)-Watershed Development in
Madhya Pradesh: Implications for Women
26
10. Sen Suchitra, Shah Amita, Kumar Amimesh (2006), Watershed Development
Programmes in Madhya Pradesh:Present Scenario and Issues for Convergence
(Pg. 16-21), by Gujarat Institute of Development Research Forum for
Watershed Research and Policy Dialogue
11. Chopra Kanchan, (2006) Social Capital and Development Processes: Role of
Formal and Informal Institutions,, (Pg. )
12. Fidelman Pedro I J, (1980) Challenges to decentralisation of watershed
management: The Case of new South Wales, Australia
13. Pillai Pheba Anand, Evaluating Watershed projects in India, in Watershed
Management: Concepts and Experiences by Sudha Menon and Pheba Anand
Pillai, 2012
14. Reddy M Gopinath, Reddy M Srinivasa (2006) - Watershed development,
Panchayats and village-based institutions: An Assessment of institutional
capacity, The IUP Journal of Public Administration
15. Government of India (2003): Guidelines for Hariyali, Ministry of Rural
Development
16. Government of India Government of India (1994): Hanumantha Rao
committee report , Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India
17. Government of India (2006):Parthasarathy committee report , Ministry of
Rural Development, Government of India
18. Bruntdland G.H,(1987) Our Common Future-Call For Action, Environment
Conservation, Vol. 14, Winter 1987, Journal of the Foundation for Environment
Conservation, Switzerland
19. Grewal S.S et.al. (1995) , Sukhomajiri Concept of integrated Watershed
management, CSWCRTI, Chandigarh
27
28