WATERSHED BASED DEVELOPMENT : EXPERIENCE OF IRTC FROM NELLAYA TO MUNDATHICODE Sathish R, Raghunandanan V.R., Parameswaran M.P. Integrated Rural Technology Centre, Palakkad. 1.Introduction In a state like Kerala whose major natural resources consist of its soil, its sunshine and its water, a state where still the majority of the people have to eke out their livelihood from land related activities, in a state in which more than 1000 persons are to be sustained in a square kilometer of land with a per capita arable land availability of only 0.07 ha,. the importance of soil conservation, its physical, chemical and biological health and the most economic use of water cannot be overstated. Watershed being a natural unit of the hydrological cycle, where flowing water play havoc with soil, where excess or shortage of water mean starvation and death it becomes imperative to manage its soil and water in the most scientific way. Integrated Watershed Management Programme of the Government of India was the transformed version of what was originally a Soil Conservation, Flood Control and Forest Management Programme. In 1980-81 the Government of India initiated in 240 catchments of flood prone areas, 240 watershed programmes (CAPART, 1992). Revival of traditional systems, recognition of the inter-dependence of land, water and biomass and realization of the fact that poor people generally reside in the upper reaches of watersheds while water resources projects invariably target the better endowed valley dwellers- these formed the basis of the 1980-81 programme for Integrated Watershed Management. Watershed as a natural unit of development planning came into prominence in India only in the nineties. Hanumantha Rao Report(1994) was the starting point. It emphasised on the following aspects: • A “ridge to valley” approach • Participation of stake holders- beneficiaries. • Integration of soil conservation, water management and vegetative cover. • Appropriate land use for sustainability • Re-induction of appropriate traditional practices. This led to the concept of land and water management at household and community level instead of the conventional target oriented departmental plans. Enough experience have been accumulated by that time, through the efforts of stalwarts like P.R. Mishra (Down To Earth, May 2001) in Suckomajri and Anna Hazare,(1997), in Ralegan Sidhi and many others to give credence to this concept. However, one cannot get such leadership automatically in hundreds of thousands of villages; it has to be consciously created and nourished. Learning from their experience a mass campaign for empowering the poor through watershed based development programmes could be mounted. This will throw up local leadership in hundreds and thousands. This was the conclusion of a three-day National Consultation held in Bangalore in 1994. It had been organized by the Rural Development Department, Government of India at the request of Shri B.N. Yuganthar the then Secretary of RDD (Government of India) the Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samithi agreed to collaborate with them to initiate a pilot campaign for watershed based development with people’s participation. The Kerala Sastra Sahithya Parishad (KSSP) had imbibed the concept of watershed development even by mid-eighties as an extension of its intervention in the Silent Valley Hydro Electric Project into the Western Ghats Development Programme. Watershed development demands accurate knowledge of a host of parameters pertaining to the area. It was with this objective in view that the Integrated Rural Technology Centre (IRTC) of the KSSP took up the project “Integrated Management of Land and Water Resources of a Micro-Watershed in Kerala”(IRTC,1993). The project was funded by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India. The watershed chosen was Nellaya, in Palakkad district and had an area of about 770 ha. This was a technical programme not a participatory action project- with the objective to carry out an exhaustive study of the hydrology of the area and prepare a plan of action which can be implemented by the panchayat, step by step, with the participation of farmers. Data related to rainfall, stream flow, evaporation, run off and infiltration were collected. The project was initiated in 1991 and finished in 1993. Only with the advent of the People’s Plan Campaign (PPC), the panchayat could carry out some of the recommendations of the study. KSSP and IRTC initiated (IRTC,1991), in collaboration with the Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS) yet another programme- the Panchayat Resource Mapping (PRM, in other parts of India it is referred to as Participatory Resource Mapping). It was the experience of the Vazhayoor panchayat Survey carried out by the KSSP volunteers and the entire people of Vazhayoor – in 1981 and the publication of the Resource Atlas of Kerala by CESS that led the KSSP to the concept of PRM – a Resource Atlas for each Panchayat. Kalliassery Panchayat was selected for piloting this project. It was carried out in 25 other panchayats too as part of the project. Later the State Government took it as an official programme. By middle of 2001 already about 250 panchayats have finished PRM, though with much less people’s participation. The attempt to prepare an integrated development plan for Kalliasseri (Thomas Isaac, et.al.,1995) brought out a host of gaps in the information so far collected. One of them was the lack of information about micro-drainage. A novel and cost effective methodology was innovated to delineate micro-drainage simply by following the little-little water streams on the cadastral map. Thus, when the Panchayat Level Development Planning (PLDP) project was taken up by the IRTC/ KSSP, over and above education and health (areas in which KSSP has worked for long) water management too became an immediate agenda. In 1996 itself in the five PLDP panchayats and in a number of other panchayats the monsoon was welcomed in a festival mode-Kalavarsha Varavelpu. Amongst these panchayats Kumarakom, a part of Kuttanadu, was not amenable to watershed based interventions. In all the other four (mid land) panchayats there is good scope. However in none of them it has been possible to implement any major activity- except a few bund repairs, Vented Cross Bars (VCBs), gully plugging, infiltration pits and trenches etc. IRTC has helped Akathethara, Elappully panchayats in Palakkad district, Koduman and Kalavoor panchayats in Pathanamthitta district and Vellangalloor panchayat in Thrissur district to prepare their preliminary watershed plans. It has done, also some successful work in campus interventions. In the meanwhile requests came from two other quarters to help them in the preparation of watershed based master plans. The first was from Attappady (Attappady Hill Development Society) and the other was from Mundathikkode gram panchayat. 2.Objectives, Stake Holders and Conflicts The primary objectives of any watershed development programme are: (1) Water conservation and Management (2) Soil conservation and enrichment and (3) Increased and sustainable biomass production. Water conservation and management implies spatial and temporal changes in water availability. Much of this could be desirable but occasionally it can lead to conflict of interests, the most classic being the inter-state river water disputes and the upstream –downstream problem. There could be also conflicting demands on available water. Agriculture and drinking water, current users and potential users, one crop and another crop for example sugarcane cultivators and cultivators of livelihood crops, tribals in upper reaches and settlers in the valleys (Attappady) etc. are some examples. Large scale diversion of water from rivers for irrigation and consequent reduction in summer flow can increase saline water incursion into the rivers. Most of these conflicts arise in the use of surface water. Riparian disputes have existed for thousands of years and many a battle have been fought over them. Inter-state water disputes are, even now, powder kegs ready to explode any time. In the case of ground water management, apparently the conflicts are less. However, the fact is that whatever is happening to surface water is happening to ground water too- the rich and the powerful appropriate most of the ground water, often denying even drinking water to the majority. Already there is a growing demand for legislation in ground water usage. Most of these conflicts have definite and opposing economic interests and the powerful group always wins. However, there are, especially in Kerala, a set of pseudo- stake holders. Their stake lies in the fact that they live on conflicts and their resolution will make them irrelevant. One classic example is the controversy ranging in the municipal solid waste treatment issue of Thrissur Corporation. The real stake holders are the citizens of the Corporation, but the play is on the stakes of warring political groups. We will later, examine together with the technical programmes arrived at for the Development Unit 8 of Attappady and the Mundathicode panchayat, the concerned stake holders and the conflicts that have already arisen or are likely to arise. 3.Participatory Approach As IRTC moved from Nellaya (1991-93) to Mundathicode (2000-2001) via Attappady (1997-99) one can observe a definite change in the character of the programme, from an almost technological approach to a mainly participatory approach. One can discern also, an apparent reduction in the hard science and technology content from Nellaya to Mundathicode. The question how much of hard science and technology are necessary and useful, too has been raised. The Nellaya Watershed Study was basically one which was conceived and initiated from the IRTC. Though addressing to some of the real needs of the people there, it was not built upon their expressed needs. The objective was to carry out a total water balance study hoping that it will reveal some of the existing problems and suggest solutions. This hope was not belied. Though initially the panchayat was only “just cooperating” out of good will, later they themselves began to see the usefulness of the project and began to cooperate actively. However, no people’s structures- no Neighbourhood Group, no Technical Support Group, no Panchayat Development Society was formed there. The Panchayat board was the “beneficiary”. It got a lot of information on its own land and water and set of solutions for the problem it was facing. The recommendations included repair and rejuvenation of existing structures, construction of new ones, changes in cropping pattern, sub-surface dams, provision for drainage, location for open wells etc. From the cumulative water inflow- demand curve it was found that the watershed required to store 4.27 Mm3 of water. Several ponds have been identified for de-silting and increase of storage capacity. Sites for sub-surface dams too were identified. Plans for wet land agriculture, dry land agriculture, waste land utilization, animal husbandry and soil conservation had been prepared. As mentioned earlier the entire work was done by the project team from IRTC. The recommendations of the project could be used by the panchayat only after the initiation of PPC. In the Vazhayoor survey conducted in 1981 participation of the people was massive. However the findings of the survey could not be utilized because there was no resources available at their disposal. Participation alone would not have led to action unless it leads to mobilization of sufficient resources. On the other hand, resources without participation would be squandered or misused. Attappadi is a classic example for this. Attappady is a Tribal Development Block in the Mannarkad taluk of Palakkad district. Once inhabited by tribals alone, consequent to waves after waves of immigration from the plains, now tribals are in minority- only one third of the total population. Once covered with lush green forests today it is a devastated land. 507 Sq. Kms out of a total area of 862 Sq Kms is now wasteland. The living condition of tribals have been deteriorating decade after decade. Perhaps no other region in Kerala would have pricked the conscience of the “civilized” people of Kerala as Attappady. Consequently it witnessed a series of Tribal Development Projects. Each one left the tribals poorer and the land more devastated (IRTC,1998). The last and latest of these Development waves is the Attappady Eco-Restoration Project, being implemented with a massive loan aid (more than Rs. 200 crores) from the Japanese Government. The Attappady Hill Area Development Society (AHADS) was formed to implement this project. If implemented in the old fashion, the plight of the tribals would be further worsened and the ecology destroyed beyond redemption. So, at the instance of the Governing Body of AHADS, KSSP/ IRTC first undertook a study of the impact of various developmental intervention in Attappady for the past few decades. It revealed highly depressing facts. There was a general consensus that this shall not be repeated, that the present intervention should lead to a visible betterment of the lives of the tribals and also an improvement in the ecology of the entire area. Both these objectives are mutually compatible. In fact the second is a necessary condition for the first. Hence, the name of the project : Eco-Restoration. The question raised was this: how to prevent past mistakes, the perpetrators of which being still in command of the situation. The strategy adopted was to consciously bring the tribals and the dispossessed into command. IRTC/ KSSP was requested by the AHADS to prepare a model intervention plan in one of the 15 Development Units into which the area has been divided-in DU-8. In response to this the IRTC/KSSP put in, all the expertise it had- both technical and organizational- at its disposal, into this project. The plan of action consisted of (a) social mapping (b) socio-economic survey (c) matrix analysis of different problems identified in the social mapping and socio-economic survey (d) civil engineering survey (e) formation of Ayalkoottoms (NHGs) and discussion of draft action plan with the stake holders (f) participatory rural appraisal and (g) consultation with experts. Attappady did not have the type of civil society structures like NHG, PDS, TSG etc. which were available in Kalliasseri or the PLDP panchayats. It had its Oorukoottams (village councils) presided by the chief. It had a number of NGOs working both among the tribals and among non-tribals- each one of them working in isolation from others. All the three panchayats are highly polarised politically, thanks to the dominance of non-tribal settlers. Every one was paying lip service to the cause of tribals. At the very beginning itself IRTC recruited 35 local volunteers and gave them intensive training both in location and away from location. The latter was purposely done to help them to view Attappady and themselves from outside, to make them realize the seriousness of the situation and the importance of their role in alleviating it. Almost all of the first batch was absorbed by AHADS as its project own volunteers. So a second batch was selected and trained, for 20 days in all, in four stretches. From among them an active team of about 30 emerged. There were 18 women in it. 20 were from among tribals. The training consisted of: • PRA for team building • Knowledge enrichment for eco-restoration • Principles of decentralized and participatory planning • Social mapping • Resource assessment • Field visits • Historical time-line • Data analysis. One of the initial responsibilities of the volunteer team was the formation of NHGs. The existing Oorukoottam were not disturbed. The NHGs were made co-terminus with them. In an attempt to form a DU-8 development society one male and one female convenor was identified frome ach NHG (Oorukoottam). Two rounds of trainings were given to these NHG convenors. The most important thing was to instill confidence and a sense of optimism among the tribals. This itself made the non tribals suspicious. As far as the tribals themselves were concerned, decades of past experience did not provide for any optimism. It was a Herculian task to break the hard-shell of cynicism. In fact, we had succeeded in making only hairline cracks, not breaking it down. This problem was compounded by the constant resistance of the established power brokers in the area. So, the NHG could not be groomed into a lively group. There was no possibility of building a higher level organization of them. The volunteers together with the project technical team performed the function of the Technical Support Group. Detailed engineering surveys were done. Micro-watersheds within DU-8, which itself is a larger watershed, were identified. Plot by plot intervention plans were prepared in consultation with the owners and a very detailed implementation programme was formulated for the entire DU-8 area (IRTC,1998). A good section of the AHADS own technical management team was, from the very beginning, unhappy about any “external” agency getting involved in the project. IRTC team did get very little cooperation from them. The crux of the IRTC team’s proposal was “Ridge to Valley” approach and Eco-restoration. Both these favoured the tribals preferentially. It had proposed a number of simple water retention structures in the streams in the valley, but strongly recommended against the use of this water in the valley itself. It had proposed to pump the water to high level tanks on the ridge and allow controlled gravity flow to stabilize silviculture operations on the slopes leading to the restoration of the tree cover. It has also suggested to plant among others, fruit-bearing trees like jack, mango, gooseberry, etc. which will provide both food and cash for the people and fodder for the animals. However, these suggestions did not find favour with the projects implementors – the AHADS. Even before the present eco-restoration project the Attappady area had been split into three specific interest groups- stake holders. The tribals, the settlers and the contractor/ politicians. The project added one more interest group- the officials of AHADS. Unfortunately the tribals have been trained to misconceive their interests. They were anxious to get employment, wages and grants. They had become immune to eco-destruction and the permanent loss of their livelihood base. They did not have any organization worthy to be called so, of their own. This Japan aided eco-restoration project too is likely to share the fate of previous projects leading to - tribal impoverishment and eco-destruction unless constant vigil is established. PLDP Panchayats: As noted earlier of the five panchayats, three –Mezhuveli, Madakkathara and Mayyil offered great potential for watershed based land and water management. In 1996 itself in all these panchayats and in Onchium panchayat, which hosted the state level training programme, drainage maps were prepared and micro watersheds delineated. Outlines of watershed development projects were prepared for each panchayat and were submitted to CAPART for project funding. CAPART has sent its evaluation team to two panchayats: Onchium and Mezhuveli, in 2001. The funds are yet to come. In the meanwhile as part of the PPC, several small and scattered interventions have been made in these panchayats. Because of the pressure of PPC and the involvement of PLDP team in it, watershed based master plans for development, remained at conceptual stage. In Mayyil the Kaivayal watershed attracted all the attention. It has an area of 619 ha., of which 200 ha. are paddy fields and rest garden land. The three major problems of this watershed, especially in the paddy fields are: 1) Flooding during monsoon. 2) Shortage of water in December-January. 3) Salinity intrusion from December onwards. A detailed study to arrive at a set of interventions was initiated under the guidance of Dr. Terry Machado of CESS. But it was dropped half way through. Diversion of water from Pazhassy Irrigation Project, lift irrigation from Valapattanam river etc were some initial suggestions. But they were not part of a total plan. Katchithode watershed is the major intervention area in Madakkathara. A dam built by the Minor Irrigation Department two-decades ago, has already created a 5 ha. reservoir. The leakage through the base of the dam was plugged last year. A proper spill way was constructed and overall height increased by about one meter. A substantial portion of the reservoir area has been encroached upon. Tapioca cultivation and similar activities have caused substantial silting of the reservoir. These problems are being addressed to. A large number of percolation pits and trenches have been dug to increase ground water recharge, resulting perceptible improvement. A number of existing VCBs have been repaired, a few new ones built. Rigorous cost-benefit analysis has not been done for any of these interventions before or after implementation. Besides Katchithode, the rest of the area come under four distinct watersheds, each of which extend beyond the boundaries of the panchayat. Other than delineating them, very little further planning has been done. Mezhuveli is a panchayat of hills and valleys, demanding and responsive to watershed development activities. However, being a comparatively middle class village with substantial foreign remittance their agricultural interests are limited to rubber. The major problem experienced and recognised by them is one of water-logging due to seepage from irrigation (Pampa irrigation Project) canals (1.5 Km length). A 50 ha. of paddy fields have become totally unsuitable for agriculture. Converting them for pisciculture, developing into a tourist centre, duck farming etc. are some of the solutions suggested. No detailed projects could be made yet. In the meanwhile with the help of a local NGO, Pazhkulam Social Service Society (PASS) a programme to preserve and develop five out of the 23 natural springs within the panchayat was taken up and completed. This attracted substantial participation from the people- 55 per cent of the work being done voluntarily. Preparation of Master Plans for total watershed based development demand much larger human and financial resources into it, than what was possible through PLDP project. They are to be proper projects of the panchayats. None of these panchayats made provision for such a project in their plans. Mundathicode panchayat did exactly this. Mundathicode is not one of the PLDP panchayats, but an associate panchayat. During the first phase of the project, the various training programmes were not limited to the five PLDP panchayats. 15-20 other panchayats too availed of the training programmes. Mundathicode was one of them. It had a very strong KSSP presence, three strong units. Several district and block level activists of the KSSP came from the panchayat. The President of the panchayat himself was a strong activist of the KSSP. The watershed development project came up at a certain stage of the PPC in which the PLDP team has been helping them actively. It had all the desired organizational structures already established and functioning. It had 85 NHGs functioning, an active PDS called MUDRA (Mundathicode Rural Development Association). It had 150 Sthree Shakti Units (SHGs). The line departments were cooperative. It had won twice the award for the best performing PPC panchayat. It had, also, a fairly good Technical Support Group (TSG) with 10 women members. TSG – about 40 members- had been given intensive training for ten days. They were taken to Attappady for field visits. Later as part of the training they prepared a draft action plan for 1000 ha. of land in Puthurithy –Parlikkad watersheds. This plan was submitted through the agricultural department to the district authorities, but was not sanctioned. In the meantime the panchayat was selected for the pilot implementation of a major World Bank aided Drinking Water and Sanitation project. Centre of Science and Technology for Rural Development (COSTFORD) –major developmental NGO in the state) was entrusted with the responsibility of providing technical support to the panchayat. One of the first steps envisaged was the formation of a micro-watershed level comprehensive water resources and utilization plan of which drinking water becomes an important component. The IRTC was entrusted with the responsibility of this work by the panchayat. The PLDP team took up this challenge. In a joint meeting of the TSG and PDS executive committee the modalities were worked out. Unlike, Nellaya and Attappady all the stake holders were involved in this programme from the very beginning. The panchayat selected 15 qualified volunteers (ITI, civil diploma, social activists etc.) and they were given training for four days to begin with. They worked as part of the IRTC technical team. At every stage NHG meetings were held and suggestions sought. The volunteers with the help of TSG and PDS organised these NHG meetings. In all 7 rounds of NHG meetings were organised ( 600 meetings) with a total participation of about 13000 persons days. The entire action plan was evolved through continuous interaction with them so that every NHG has internalised it and also recognised its own specific role in the programme. As the details of the technical programme began to evolve, the people began to recognise the difference in their stakes. The comprehensive forest improvement and waste land reclamation plan immediately roused the concern of fuel wood collectors and cattle grazers. But they had known from the very beginning that at some stage or other conflicts of interests can occur and that they themselves would have to solve them. The next section gives a summary of the various technical programmes suggested and the stake holders involved and the already surfaced or potential conflicts. 4.Watershed Development and Management Package for Mundathicode Three streams divide the panchayat area into as many Micro Watersheds(MW), out of which two are relatively larger units, having about 1000 ha. land area each. In order to help people to organize themselves in more convenient smaller units, they were sub-divided into two each, thus making a total number of five MWs. The land is classified into 4 types as follows: class (4) – steep slop (15%) shallow soil ( 10 cents.(3) Ornamental hatchery unit based on small ponds. Out of the 41 ponds in the panchayat, 10 ponds are seasonal. It is expected that they can be converted to perennial through desilting. This would help both irrigation and drinking water supply. Using this water vegetable cultivation in an area of 170 ha. is recommended which could generate roughly 7000 labour days. About 300 families are to be identified from among 26 NHGs linked to the programme. For fish farming the entrepreneurs could be identified from SHGs A pond in a private garden land situated near Rajagiri Ashram inside Mundathicode MW was renovated by desilting during 1999-2000 using plan grant by the panchayat. The understanding was to use the available water for public purpose and solve drinking water scarcity of Rajagiri NHG area. There was no community participation in the desilting operation. Once the work was complete problems cropped up in relation to the sharing of water. The problem arose due to unscientific implementation of the project. The water potential was not properly estimated. Particularly the water availability in summer. There was no understanding reached as to how much water to be given to how many people and how it could be supplied and so on. The case study revealed the following points: 1.Water availability should be quantified before supply is linked to it through NHG. (2) A community water supply system has to be developed by fixing the exact number of beneficiaries which in turn has to be done after calculating per capita availability of water. There are four temple ponds in Mundathicode. The temple management committee did not allow irrigation project based on pond water. However, drinking water supply system has been put up in two temple based ponds. This is done by digging wells inside the ponds (Thottamthottachira in Parlikad MW as well as Cheriyambalam in Mundathicode MW). Both these projects are implemented through the World Bank project. About 150 families are benefited. NHG level management committee looks after the health and hygiene aspect of the project. 4.Contour Trench cum bund. Contour trench cum bund is recommended in severely degraded class 4 and class 3 lands among mixed trees and low yielding rubber plantations The treatment suggested is at the rate of 500 M/ Ha having cross section 0.4m top width o.8 m bottom width 0.8 m height Fodder/vetiver grass cover is prescribed on the bund. A total length of 15,000 M trench having a storage capacity of 3600 M3 is prescribed to yield a ground water replenishment of 25,000 M3 expecting 10 times recharging annually. The ground water replenishment would benefit an area of 7.5 ha. The number of NHGs involved is 4 . The number of families directly linked are only 18. However the treatment proposed in the upland area would certainly enrich the ground water potential of the lower areas through seepage. The entire land belong to private ownership. By growing fodder grass on bunds the cattle gracing possibility could be strengthened. A few land owners sought financial support from the panchayat to take up the work. 5.Wasteland utilization A sizeable area of cultivable land fallow in different MWs. Out of this 38 ha. wasteland belong to class 3 and class 4 category. Vegetable, fodder grass and tree crops are recommended for these areas in accordance with stage by stage improvement in the soil and moisture conditions. Planting materials could be developed locally in nurseries. 10 ha. paddy fallow could be developed to cultivate vegetables. There are roughly 48 ha. waste land, all under private ownership. Some of the owners reside outside the panchayat. The beneficiaries could be identified from among the 140 families belonging to 28 NHGs in the area. The wastelands are not protected by fencing at present. Hence it is used as a gracing land. About 250 cattle grace here (total cattle population 1300). These cattle belong to roughly 200 families. Cattle gracing has to be stopped before the land improvement measures are implemented. This would necessitate fencing. Some of the poor farmers may have to be helped by providing fodder grass which they now get free of cost. This problem has to be tackled at NHG level. Fodder grass cultivation and vegetable cultivation could be done by leasing out the land on proper contract. 6.Participatory Forest Management Vested forest lands in Mundathicode panchayat belong to Puthuruthi Kunnu, Trippan Kunnu reserve. An area of 125 ha. highly degraded land is available. At present this area is under acacia (100 ha) and eucalyptus (25 ha) plantation with little/ no management. This land is proposed for PFM. Contour stone walls using locally available boulders. Gully plugging using boulders across the streams and gullies. Phasing out the acacia and eucalyptus and replacing them with indigenous tree species- mango, tamarind, neem, cashew, bamboo, gooseberry etc. Fodder and vetiver grass cultivation. 9 NHGs could be linked to PFM. Beneficiaries can be identified from among 180 families. The proposed plan to form 3 village forest committees is in conformity with the guidelines of the department of Forest. Some of the issues surfaced are the following: (1)Open grazing facility at present being enjoyed by the local farmers will have to be withdrawn. Therefore, the area have to be protected by vegetative fencing using Agav, glyricedia, careeta etc. (2)Adequate compensation to restore the fodder grass availability to poor farmers have to be done. (3)There is an organized fuel collection going on in these areas. They are fairly powerful and often cut and remove trees from the area. Hence some amount of resistance is to be anticipated from these groups. (4)Pumping water from lower areas to promote fodder grass cultivation, nursery etc. in the high lands would not be feasible. 7.Low land agriculture An additional paddy production of 1575 tonnes is proposed (a) by increasing productivity at the rate of 2 tonnes per ha. for 600 ha. and (b) by cultivating an additional area of 150 ha. For 390 ha. the effective area is 600 ha. Group farming is proposed and a moderate increase in productivity from 2.5 tonne/ha. to 4.5 tonne/ha. is anticipated. An annual increase in production of 1200 tonne is expected. About 450 ha. of effective land is kept fallow. There are several reasons for this. The major reason is water scarcity. In a few cases at least water logging is a problem. Through proper water mangement an additional paddy cultivation of 150 ha. (out of the total 450 ha) could be possible. Anticipating a moderate productivity of 2.5 tonne/ha. an additional grain production of 375 tonne could be realized. There are about 900 farm land owners and 18 padasekhara Samities. Out of this 200 are true farmers. Paddy cultivation labourers would come to 250. Group farming is solely managed by Padasekhara samithi. The NHG at present seemed to have no assigned role in it. This is mainly because the paddy cultivators do not reside in the concerned NHG area. There is an increasing trend for irreversible conversion of paddy land for non-agricultural purposes. Paddy cultivation is considered as high risk low profit area. Only three padasekha-rams (80 ha) have group farming at present. A number of local issues related to water sharing need urgent attention. In the upstream part of Aravoorthode, water is diverted for paddy cultivation by the Aravoor Padasekara samithi. This has created acute water scarcity in the down stream paddy land belonging to Periamakavu Padasekhara samithi. The Mundathicode Padasekhara samithi is facing water scarcity consequent to the retention of water in Medical College campuses by blocking the Peechi irrigation canal. Water seepage in Pathazhakund Dam is an issue raised by the people for a long time now. The loss of water has reduced the volume of stoped water in the dam considerable as a result of which during summer, the Pathazhakunnu Thodu go dry. The paddy and vegetable cultivation in Minaloor area are affected by this. In Minaloor Thekkekara Padasekharam (Ward 8) the issue is water logging. This is a low land area and a drainage basin. People have proposed a check dam to regulate the flow of water through an interconnecting passage in order to revive the paddy cultivation. At present the padasekhara samithis are not aware of the technical implications of these water management issues. A lot of interactions have to go down here among various stakeholders and TSG, before these issues are solved satisfactorily. The present trend in many Padasekharams is for converting paddy land to other crops like coconut, banana and cassava rather than retaining paddy cultivation by solving the issue. Already 103 ha. of paddy land (26%) has undergone irreversible conversion in recent years in Mundathicode panchayat. 5.Watershed Based Development Programme : A SWOT Analysis A comprehensive and integrated watershed based development programme is yet to be implemented. There is practically no experience in Kerala of implementing such a programme across at least one whole watershed- even in a micro watershed. Only isolated works have been taken up. So, it is yet too early to make a SWOT analysis based on the full range of experience. Still a SWOT analysis at this stage will help plan future activities more effectively. Strength and Weaknesses Strength and weakness are two sides of the same coin. Absence of one manifests in the presence of other. The strength consists of what we have and what we can have (opportunities). • The micro level organizations can mobilise substantial amount of human and material resources for activities which grip their imagination (experience of literacy movement amply proves this). • The terminology watershed based development is now widely accepted, even though not withfull understanding. • The terrain of Kerala, the entire midland and high land demand integrated soil and water conservation measures, for which, watershed offers itself as a natural unit. • The people as a whole are today in a position to understand the concept of a watershed and are able to use their resource maps to delineate micro-drainages, using the (rain water) stream tracing technique. • They have local level organizational structures like NHG and SHG which can be easily used to form various types of user groups and pre-empt conflicts to a great extent. • Decentralization of powers enables the local self government to take initiative. • In the long run each panchayat will have a coherent technical support group with development projects. • The possibility watershed development offers to solve drinking water shortage appeals to a large number and they are ready to put in efforts. • Emergence of a set of parasitic stake holders like contractors, officials, power-brokers is both a weakness and a threat to any developmental activity, watershed development included. • Intolerance to dynamic leadership, and pseudo politicisation of issues at the expese of development have weakened and often prevented developmental action. • Extremely sub-critical level of inputs have resulted in wasting them. Opportunities and Threats Opportunities and threats form a dialectical unity. What is perceived as an opportunity by one can be conceived as a threat by another who in turn becomes a threat to the first. • Watershed based development offers efficient means to conserve soil and water and thereby enhance agricultural production. • The present attitude of “writing off” agriculture as un-remunerative is suicidal. Primary sector forms the solid foundation for development. Its collapse will eventually lead to a considerable slide back in our “human development”. • Kerala’s land and water resources are now used sub-optimally. The potential is three to four times. At least a doubling of output is possible. Soil and water form the basis for this. • A massive biomass (structural timber, energy wood, fruit trees and fodder) generation programme can give benefits which normally we do not even dream such as reduction in global warming, improved hydrological cycle, stable micro climate increased food security etc. etc. • Drinking water shortage programme can be solved permanently. All these are opportunities thrown open by watershed development. • Change over to politicking from politics leading to unprincipled coalitions of political parties/ leaders is a threat to watershed development programme as it is to all development programmes. • Certain irreconcilable conflicts of interests may develop. The Karnataka – Tamilnadu dispute on Kaveri waters is a case in example. Check dams and subsurface dams can lead to upstream-down stream conflicts. They can also lead to conflicts with sand mining interests.-panchayat, contractor and construction workers. • Non-availability of resources, obstructionist tactics of line departments, cold attitude of state government etc. can make all these studies infructuous. 6.Conclusions Experience of KSSP/ IRTC/ PLDP till now persuades us to the conclusion that, • Watershed development plans cannot be conceived partially, through implementation may require several stages. • Even implementation should have a definite continuity and time frame. • Isolated and sub-critical inputs will become infructuous. • If further growth in primary sector is written off, if a gradual slide-back in agriculture is considered inevitable, then there is no economic compulsion for watershed development. • The possibility of substantial increase in the productivity and profitability of agriculture and other primary sector operations and the positive role that can be played by watershed based soil and water management have to be demonstrated in a convincing manner. • A few selected micro watersheds of 500-600 ha. and even meso-watersheds of 1500-2000 ha. may be selected for an all out demonstration programme. The watersheds are to be selected on the basis of a level of excitement of participating farmers/ agricultural labourers and on the technical potential for high level of response to soil/ water management. • At the rate of a total investment of Rs. 10,000 per ha. this will need only an amount of Rs. 20 million for 2000 ha. One can aim at a doubling of productivity and an increase of Rs. 6000-7000 in the net value creation. • The owners of the land should show willingness to share the increased profit with the workers and the workers in turn should share part of the risk and show patience for the benefit to mature. • That the topography of Kerala, which we cannot change should be and could be turned into advantage. References: 1.Anna Hazare.,(1997), Ralegan Siddhi: A Veritable Transformation, Ralegan Siddhi Parivar Prakashan, Ahmednagar. 2.CAPART., (1992), Guidelines for Watershed Conservation and Development Programme, Council for Advancement of People’s Action & Rural Technology, New Delhi 3.CESS,KSLUB,IRTC.,(1991), Panchayat Level Resource Mapping: An Approach Paper, published by CESS, Thiruvananthapuram. 4.Down To Earth.,A Tribute to P.R. Mishra, Vol.10, No.1, May 31,2001, p.52. 5.Hanumantha Rao Report., (1994), Technical Committee on Integrated Watershed Management, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. 6.IRTC.,(1993), Land and Water Management on small Watershed Basis, Department of Science& Technology, Government of India, Project 1991-93. 7.IRTC.,(1998), An Evaluation of Development Interventions in Attappady : Finds and Recommendations. 8.IRTC.,(1999), Micro-level Action Plan for Eco-restoration of Development Unit –8 in Attappady. 9.Thomas Isaac T.M., Unnikrishnan P.V., Gangadharan T., Srikumar Chattopadhyay, Lalitha Bhai Sathyan., Ajay Kumar Varma,(1995), Kalliasseri Experiment in Local Level Planning, IRTC, Palakkad
Posted on: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:13:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015