88056 A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 0 4 WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA An Approach Evolving through Experience J I M S M Y L E , C R I S P I N O LO B O, G R A N T M I L N E , A N D M E L I S S A W I L L I A M S MARCH 2014 A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 0 4 WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA An Approach Evolving through Experience Jim Smyle, Crispino Lobo, Grant Milne, and Melissa Williams M A R C H 2 01 4 © 2014 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org All rights reserved 1 2 3 4 14 13 12 11 This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. Cover Photo: Cover images courtesy of Grant Milne, World Bank; and Sujala Project Office, Karnataka, India. CONTENTS iii CONTENTS Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Abbreviations and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Chapter 2: India’s Turbulent Water Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2.1 World Bank Support to Watershed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2.2 Defining a Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 2.3 What Is Watershed Management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2.4 Scales of Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2.5 Deciding Between Watershed Management and Other Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Chapter 3: Watershed Development in India: Policy and Technical Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1 Project Design in the Indian Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2 State-specific Contexts for Watershed Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Chapter 4: Good Practices from Project Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.1 Start from the Building Block of the Micro-watershed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.2 Decentralized and Participatory Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.3 Invest in Participatory, Evidence-Based Micro-Watershed Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.4 Ensure Inclusion of all Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.5 Invest in Capacity Building and Information Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.6 Link Conservation Efforts to Livelihoods for Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.7 Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Chapter 5: Challenges for Future Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5.1 Water: India’s Emerging Paradigm Shift in Watershed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 5.2 Whither Watershed Development? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5.3 Managing Upstream and Downstream Interrelations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5.4 Ensuring Effective Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R iv CONTENTS 5.5 Managing Common Pool Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 5.6 Promoting Effective Interagency Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5.7 Give Due Attention to Economic Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 5.8 Provide Incentives for Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Chapter 6: Lessons and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 APPENDIXES Appendix 1a: Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects 1995, 2001, 2011 & 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Appendix 1b: Water: India’s Emerging Paradigm Shift in Watershed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Appendix 2: Water Resources in Project States: Issues Identified in State Water Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Appendix 3a: Comparison of Watershed Development Project Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Appendix 3b: World Bank Support to Watershed Development Projects (1980 to Present) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Appendix 4: Novel Satellite and Ground-based Measurement Techniques for Watershed Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Appendix 5: Institutional Arrangements in the World Bank Watershed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 BOXES Box 2.1: Matching Approach to Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Box 3.1: Integrated Water Resources Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Box 4.1: The Pros and Cons of Technology-Intensive Resource Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Box 4.2: Generating a Demand Pull. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Box 4.3: Tapping Community Capacity through Paraprofessionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Box 4.4: Implementing a Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Box 5.1: Nonwater Investments to Manage Water Externalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Box 5.2: Clean Development Mechanism in Himachal Pradesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 FIGURES Figure 4.1: Activities Carried Out under Concurrent and Discrete M&E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure A5.1: Grassroots Institutions in Sujala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Figure A5.2: Overall Institutional Arrangements for Sujala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Figure A5.3: Institutional Arrangements for the HP Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Figure A5.4: Institutional Arrangements for Gramya. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E CONTENTS v TABLES Table 2.1: An Idealized Scheme of Changes in Watershed Management Approach and Focus with Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Table 2.2: Illustration of Time Lag for Ecosystem Response at Sub-Basin/Basin Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Table 2.3: Principal Watershed Management Content of the Three World Bank-Financed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Table 3.1: Overview of Water Resources Availability in Project States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 4.1: Micro-watershed Selection Criteria Used by the Three World Bank–Supported Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table A3b.1: World Bank-financed Watershed Development Projects (1980 to Present) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Table A3b.2: Objectives of World Bank-financed Watershed Development Projects (1980 to Present) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report represents a major step by the World Bank toward improving the understanding of Watershed Management in India, based on an assessment of three major projects supported by the World Bank. The report’s findings will contribute to ongoing policy dialogue and reform related to watershed development at the national and state level, and the design of new watershed programs in India. Further, the lessons learned in this report can guide watershed program development in other regions. The report was prepared by Jim Smyle,1 Crispino Lobo,2 Grant Milne,3 and Melissa Williams,4 for the South Asia Agriculture, Irrigation and Natural Resources (SASDA) unit of the World Bank. The report draws on seminal literature from Indian and global watershed community. Grant Milne, Task Manager, supervised the development of the report. The report benefited significantly from informal reviews and comments by World Bank-South Asia staff at critical points, including Ranjan Samantary, William Magrath, and Madhur Gautam. Thanks are also due to Shawki Barghouti and John Kerr for outstanding peer review of the near-to-final draft, and Joan H. Miller for excellent editorial services. This work was funded by the Program on Forests (PROFOR), a multidonor partnership managed by a core team at the World Bank. PROFOR finances forest-related analysis and processes that support the following goals: improving people’s livelihoods through better management of forests and trees; enhancing forest governance and law enforcement; financing sustainable forest management; and coordinating forest policy across sectors. In 2013, PROFOR’s donors included the European Commission, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the World Bank. Learn more at www.profor.info. While the team gratefully recognizes the collaboration of the many people who assisted in preparation of this report, the opinions presented here and any errors are the sole responsibility of the authors and should not be attributed to the individuals or institutions acknowledged above. 1 International consultant in watershed management, San Antonio, Texas. 2 Chief Executive, Watershed Organization Trust (WOTR), Pune, India. 3 Senior Natural Resources Management Specialist, SASDA, World Bank, Washington, DC. 4 Senior Rural Development Specialist, SASDA, World Bank, Washington, DC. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R A B B R E V I AT I O N S A N D A C R O N Y M S ix ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AG Activity Group IWMP Integrated Watershed Management BCM Billion Cubic Meters Program CAG Common Activity Group IWRM Integrated Water Resources CBO Community Based Organization Management CPR Common Property Resources M&E Monitoring & Evaluation DDP Desert Development Program MEL Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning DPD Divisional Project Director MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural DPAP Drought Prone Area Program Employment Guarantee Act DRDA District Rural Development Agency MIS Management Information Systems ET Evapotranspiration MoRD Ministry of Rural Development EC Executive Committee NGO Non-Government Organization FNGO Field-level NGO NWDPRA National Watershed Development GIS Geographic Information Systems Program in Rainfed Areas GLDAS Global Land Data Assimilation System O&M Operation & Maintenance GOI Government of India PBPS Performance Based Payment System GP Gram Panchayat PIA Project Implementation Agency GPWDP Gram Panchayat Watershed PNGO Partner NGO Development Plans PRI Panchayati Raj Institution GRACE Gravity Recovery and Climate PROFOR Program on Forests Experiment Rs Indian Rupees Gramya project Uttarakhand Decentralized Watershed SASDA South Asia Agriculture, Irrigation, and Development Project National Resources HP project Himachal Pradesh Mid-Himalayan SATCOM Satellite Communication Watershed Development Project SC Scheduled Castes IGWDP Indo-German Watershed Development SHG Self Help Groups Program ST Scheduled Tribes ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute Sujala project Karnataka Watershed Project for the Semi-Arid Tropics SWAP Sujala Watershed Action Plan IGA Income Generating Activities SWC Soil and Water Conservation IT Information Technology SWS Sujala Watershed Sangha IWDP Integrated Wasteland Development SWS-EC Sujala Watershed Sangha Executive Project Committee A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R x A B B R E V I AT I O N S A N D A C R O N Y M S TMC Thousand Million Cubic Feet WC Watershed Committee USD United States Dollars WDT Watershed Development Team UG User Group WOTR Watershed Organization Trust VWCS Village Watershed Committees WSM Watershed Management VGF Vulnerable Groups Fund ZP Zilla Parishad WA Watershed Association WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E P R E FA C E xi PREFACE This report seeks to review the performance of three watershed projects in India supported by the World Bank and implemented under the banner of the government's watershed development programs. It does this in the hope of providing a useful input into the discussions on how watershed development programs can be more effective instruments for simultaneously achieving both rural development and water resources conservation and management goals. In analyzing the lessons from the three World Bank–Supported watershed development projects, the report sought to capture what has been shown to be good practice (by both national and international standards) in pursuit of large-scale community-led watershed/rural development. It also set out to examine some of the weaknesses, gaps and shortfalls that have become apparent and that could undermine long-term rural poverty reduction, sustainable livelihood and water resources conservation and management objectives. In doing so, the report may make a small contribution to the large community of practice, both inside and out- side of India and the World Bank, that is engaged in the pursuit of more effective and efficient, results-based programs in natural resources management. The audiences for this report are Indian policy makers, practitioners in India and globally, and World Bank staff/specialists. Consultants carried out extensive desk and literature reviews and made field visits to the three projects, from which a draft report was pro- duced. Peer reviewers with long experience and recognized expertise in watershed development programs in India were invited to review and comment upon the draft of the current report. The report itself is divided into six sections. The Introduction provides a very brief overview of GOI’s watershed development programs. India’s Turbulent Water Future sets the stage and provides context on why water resources management is and should be a central concern in watershed development programs; an overview of the World Bank’s support to these programs and; how and where, conceptu- ally, watershed management as a tool may make a contribution to better water resources management within the programs. The Policy and Technical Guidelines section provides a summary of the national and state perspectives and priorities that were current at the time of the design and implementation of the three projects under review. This is followed by a section on Good Practices from Project Implementation that examines the different approaches and methodologies pursued by the projects and sets out to assesses the lessons and good practices both from the Indian and global perspectives. For the latter, the benchmarks against which the national practices are compared were derived from the 2008 World Bank report “Watershed Management Approaches, Policies and Operations: Lessons for Scaling-up” (Dhargouth et al 2008). Based on the learning and experiences of the three projects, the fifth section, Challenges for Future Programs, identifies six specific areas where attention is required in order to address the principal gaps and weaknesses encountered in the watershed development projects’ design and implementation compared with watershed management. The final section provides a summary of the lessons learned and the principal conclusions drawn from the review. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R EXECUTIVE SUMMARY x iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This report analyses the experiences and lessons from three World Bank–Supported watershed development projects in the Indian states of Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand.5 The primary reason for the analysis was to guide the development and execution of new watershed programs in India, including new Bank-supported state-level operations in Uttarakhand and Karnataka, and a proposed national project now under preparation. Accordingly, it was important to deepen the knowledge base about large-scale, community-led watershed development in order to share that knowledge with key stakeholders both inside and outside of the World Bank. Another important reason was the immediate and growing concern over water resources and their management in India and the question of how well watershed development programs internalize these concerns. A third impetus was the nexus between rural poverty and rainfed agriculture and the important role that watershed development programs are to fulfill in the development of sustainable rural livelihoods. India’s watershed development programs are one of the Government of India’s (GOI) principal tools for poverty reduction in rural areas. Poverty in India is concentrated in the drylands, hilly and tribal areas; one of the ascribed causes for which is the poor performance of India’s rainfed agriculture. The influential Parthasarathy Committee report on watershed development programs, in making these points, provided a strong case for Government to utilize these programs for poverty reduction and food security purposes. The report argued: While irrigated agriculture appears to be hitting a plateau, dryland farming has suffered neglect . . . [however] while it is the rainfed parts of Indian agriculture that have been the weakest, they are also the ones that contain the greatest unutilized potential for growth . . . [and poverty reduction impacts would be greatest] if growth were to be focused on these neglected regions; and In our view, raising the productivity of rainfed areas is an imperative if we are to meet the goal of national food security in the coming years. We have estimated that, even in the most optimistic scenario of further irrigation development in India, nearly 40% of national demand for food in 2020 will have to be met through increasing the productivity of rainfed dryland agriculture . . . and this demands intensive watershed work in these regions. Following from this, India’s watershed development programs place livelihood security as the overriding goal, not as an afterthought but livelihoods have to be sustainable and this demands an ecosystems perspective, with central emphasis on ecological balance. A central focus and approach of the programs is to capture rainfall and runoff and put it to productive use for enhancing agricultural productivity in rainfed areas. In the marginal drylands of India where millions of rural poor rely on rainfed agriculture for their subsistence and livelihoods, the logic of this approach is inescapable. Yet, as the nature of India’s growing water resources predicament and challenges in the 21st century become increasingly apparent, so does the concern that a one-size-fits-all approach to watershed development could potentially run the risk of aggravating competition over already scarce water resources. The nature of this concern is reflected, among other things, within a recent World Bank review of one of the three projects, which noted that watershed development [is] dryland agricultural development by another name [and] the sustainable management of water [is] very much a secondary objective. 5 Uttarakhand was formerly known as Uttaranchal until 2006; heretofore the state will be referred to as Uttarakhand. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R xiv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INDIA’S TURBULENT WATER FUTURE India’s current water development and management system is not sustainable. According to a 2006 World Bank study, overall water bal- ances are precarious with crisis situations existing in a number of basins. The same study suggests that about 15 percent of all aquifers were in critical condition at the beginning of the current decade and that this would grow to 60 percent over the next 25 years given current trends. If these projections are correct, water demands would exceed all available sources of supply by 2050. The most recent estimates predict that rising demands due to increasing population and economic growth may result in about half the demand for water being unmet by 2030; and this without taking into account how problems of poor water quality may exacerbate the situation. Solutions are needed that address constraints on both the supply side and the demand side and for both ground and surface water. Implementing good watershed management practices and approaches are amongst the opportunities that India has to potentially better manage these factors. WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: POLICY AND TECHNICAL GUIDELINES In this report, watershed management (WSM) is understood to be the integrated use and/or management of land, vegetation, and water in a geographically discrete drainage area for the benefit of its residents. Among the central objectives of WSM is the protection or conserva- tion of the hydrologic services that the watershed provides and the reduction or avoidance of negative downstream and/or groundwater impacts. That is, WSM inevitably concerns itself with the achievement of water resources-related objectives. The three Bank-supported projects reviewed were designed in accordance with and in support of the specific GOI policies and implem- entation frameworks current at the time. Under these frameworks, water resources concerns were focused strongly on maximizing the capture and productive use of water resources at the local level. The Guidelines did not contemplate the possibility of the existence of water resources-related externalities nor the possibility that such could result from program interventions. The main selection criteria provided in the Guidelines placed the focus on poor and marginalized populations, marginal and degraded lands, and the alleviation of poverty. Ultimately, the Guidelines operated on the assumption that the watershed development programs, by following good management prac- tices, would have an overall positive impact in conserving or restoring the integrity of the watershed system (and the hydrologic services that it provides) at the micro-watershed scale and, by extension, at larger-scales as well. Since, however, there were no provisions in the Guidelines for addressing local water resource-related externalities or for aggregating micro-watershed management into a larger (water- shed) context, it is not possible to conclude that this assumption was valid. PROJECT DESIGN IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT The Guidelines’ primary orientation was toward rural development programs with strong, central objectives related to sustainable use of natural resources and poverty alleviation. A high percentage of India’s population is rural and a disproportionate percentage of these are extremely poor and reliant upon rainfed agriculture for their livelihood. Overcoming poverty under these conditions required effective, efficient and productive use of the natural resource base; a principal asset of the rural poor. To enhance the productivity and reliability of rainfed agriculture—especially in India’s semi-arid and sub-humid regions—the goal became one of maximizing the use of available water (rainfall, surface and groundwater). The main strategy thus became one of detaining and exploiting, to the maximum extent possible, rainfall that fell in and near farmers’ fields. With such a strategy, the micro-watershed was a natural unit for planning and investment. As experience with micro-watershed development was gained, the concept of “ridge-to-valley” treatments became widely accepted by Government, donors and nongovernment organizations, which further strengthened the use of the micro-watershed as the unit of inter- vention. The basic concept is one of working with the natural hydrology of the watershed from “ridge-to-valley” in order to detain, divert, store (surface or subsurface) and use all available rainwater. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xv STATE-SPECIFIC CONTEXTS FOR WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT Between 2002 and 2004 the three project states drafted water policies. While the contexts and conditions vary greatly between the states, the policies demonstrated shared concerns regarding water availability and increasing stress upon and depletion of water supplies as a function of climatic variability, growing population and demand, inadequate management of water resources, and a general lack of water conservation efforts. All three expressed concerns over the institutionally fragmented nature of the mandates over water resources and WSM and stressed the need for much greater attention to the sustainable management of groundwater resources and the conjunctive use of sur- face and groundwater. In response, they called for a move toward integrated water resources management, proposed the need for institu- tional reforms, stressed the importance of implementing water resources planning at the basin and/or sub-basin levels, and established that the future modality for watershed development would be decentralized implementation, planning, and operation and maintenance (O&M) at the local levels. The policy objectives of the three states were also similar, each giving the highest priority to water for human consumption and domestic use followed by irrigation. Hydropower development and commercial and industrial uses were given a lower priority. Given the degree of specificity in the States’ policies on water resources issues and concerns, the Government's Watershed Development Programs could have usefully addressed themselves to the states’ well-articulated water resources management objectives. Yet, they did not. The Watershed Development Programs provided only a limited menu of options for engagement at the local level with the result that the states’ policy goals greatly transcended the scope and focus of the Watershed Development Programs. As an instrument, the Watershed Development Programs provided for putting in place the “bottom-up” component for WSM. What they did not provide, either then or as yet, is a response to the challenge of how to complement the bottom-up approach with a judicious mix of appropriate “top-down” instru- ments for water resources management within the watershed development context. Over the medium-to-long terms, it is critical that the “bottom-up” is informed and provided context through the development and deployment of broader-scale instruments, such as watershed- based information systems and zoning, land use and water resources planning at the basin and sub-basin levels, stakeholder management systems, and appropriate sets of policies, norms, regulations, and incentives. GOOD PRACTICES FROM PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The review of the three Bank-supported projects in Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand indicated a range of good practices that can continue to shape the design of national watershed programs in India. These include: Start from the building block of the micro-watershed. All three projects adopted objective criteria supported by satellite-based systems and socio-economic indicators to identify and prioritize micro-watersheds for treatment. Using objective criteria helped to minimize political interference once the project districts were decided upon. In keeping with the national guidelines, they used a mix of resource, poverty and livelihood-based criteria. The weighting of the criteria reflect the particular priorities of the states; all included ecological considerations. Each states’ composite index and ranking system identified and prioritized the neediest sub-watersheds, extending selection criteria beyond purely technical water and resource management concerns. Decentralized and participatory development. An assessment of the World Bank–Supported projects showed that their participatory and decentralized approaches were reasonably effective in engendering real participation by communities and local governments. A number of key lessons were taken from project experiences. These included: (i) the use of performance-based systems improve implementation at the field-level; (ii) allowing flexibility in applying project design and decision-making to recognize and overcome local constraints; (iii) applying systems of rewards and penalties evenly to all parties; (iv) effectively decentralizing decision-making, responsibility, financial resources and oversight; and (v) strong public scrutiny. Invest in participatory, evidence-based micro-watershed plans. Once the projects identified a micro-watershed, the action of developing a micro-watershed plan depended on the nature of land ownership, land quality and land use patterns in the project areas. The three proj- ects had in common three broad processes for micro-watershed planning and the formulation of proposals: (i) the collection of detailed A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R xvi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY socio-economic and natural resources data, information on land use and existing management regimes, and beneficiary preferences and expectations from all local stakeholder categories; (ii) the systematic collation and analysis of data and information collected, which in the case of Sujala, involved the use of proprietary IT-enabled tools; and (iii) the use of basic cadastral and thematic maps (based on remote sensing data) with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) applications to inform and facilitate decision making at the micro-watershed level. Based on these and other inputs, the plans: (i) identified the appropriate conservation and production measures to be supported according to the type of landholding; (ii) provided the estimated investment costs for the treatment measures, including the individual contributions from the farmer and/or other involved stakeholders; and (iii) established the calendar or timeframe for the implementation. Another good practice was the allocation of budgets to the local communities, giving them a firm knowledge of available resources and budgetary constraints. This helped to make planning realistic as communities were able to plan and prioritize in a meaningful manner. Also, appropriate mechanisms to allow for flexibility between planning and implementation were built in to allow communities the ultimate decision and to deal with the inevitable lags between planning and implementation and the learning that comes with experience. Ensure inclusion of all stakeholders. All three projects paid a great deal of attention to the challenges of stakeholder inclusion and participa- tion. Generally speaking, the efforts and attention by the projects paid off in terms of consensus building on local priorities, “democratizing” access to project resources and equitable sharing of project benefits. To foster inclusiveness, practices were adopted to provide a reasonable degree of confidence that vulnerable families and households were identified in each project village and that specific project interventions and instruments could be correctly targeted to assist them. The projects all prioritized the inclusion of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, especially women and the landless, from their inception. This was important as watershed development programs tend to have a natural bias in favor of those who own and have access to land and other natural resources. The projects organized the poor from marginalized households into self help groups (SHGs) or common activity groups (CAGs). The incentives to their mobilization were participation in thrift and credit or asset accumulation groups, access to capacity building, opportunity to become mainstreamed into local decision making institutions, direct access to resources (financial, managerial, technical, market access, information) needed to carry out income generating activities (IGAs), and inclusion in the development and man- agement of common property resources (CPRs). Invest in capacity building and information sharing. Capacity building for all stakeholders and, in particular, the beneficiaries and their CBOs was seen as a high priority to ensure successful implementation and to achieve objectives. Substantial resources were directed in all three to enhance the knowledge and skills of all actors and inculcate the behaviors and attitudes necessary to a people-centered, participatory approach. Capacity needs assessments were carried during the preparation processes and early on in the projects so that detailed training modules could be developed and tailored to the particular needs of the various project actors. All three projects developed fairly effective strategies for communication for and amongst their stakeholders, the general public, the respec- tive political establishments and the concerned line agency departments at the state level. A variety of instruments were utilized for building capacity and dissemination. Modern IT approaches were tested and extensively deployed in the case of the Sujala project, including the use of teleconferencing and satellite communication programs (SATCOM), along with more traditional media such as radio programs. Training manuals and teaching aids were developed for the different target groups. Multiple media were also extensively utilized for both training and communications purposes. Link conservation efforts to livelihoods for sustainability. The linking of livelihoods to watershed development objectives was a critical element in the projects’ successes. Planning processes were focused on seeking opportunities for livelihood development and improvement for all stakeholder groups. Special attention was paid to achieving the inclusion of vulnerable groups and considerations for social inclusion WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E EXECUTIVE SUMMARY x v ii and equity were balanced with technical objectives. As the land management interventions primarily benefited those relatively better-off segments of the population with landholdings, it was a best practice for the projects to address equity concerns and include significant resources targeted at income and employment generation activities for the aforementioned vulnerable groups. Participatory planning processes went beyond land management/use to include livelihoods, rural infrastructure, opportunities for women’s self-help groups and tribal development. Monitoring and evaluation. The Sujala project’s system stands out as a best practice as it utilized Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) outputs to improve project performance by integrating a decision support system into standard progress tracking. This is especially important in the multilevel matrix management structures that characterize most WSM projects. The projects undertook a total of five sub-activities: (i) input-output monitoring done on a weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual basis—to track physical and financial progress; (ii) process monitoring to track trends in project implementation, done on a monthly or semi-annual basis; (iii) community self-assessments to evaluate themselves and overall project performance, undertaken on a semi-annual basis; (iv) impact assessments on natural resources and socio-economic and institutional development at the household, community and micro- watershed/sub-watershed level, carried out in three stages (baseline, mid-term, and at the closing); and (v) thematic and assessment studies on specific management and project related concerns. The use of IT-enabled and technology-assisted systems was common to all three projects. CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS Water: India’s emerging paradigm shift in watershed development. The Planning Commission presented its proposed new water resources strat- egy for the 12th Five Year Plan. Entitled “Sustainable Water Security at a Time of Climate Change”, the presentation began with a review of the deepening water crisis in India, noting that policy makers had been for too long in “denial mode” regarding the dimensions, severity and urgency of India’s water resources issues. It went on to discuss the more recent and sobering assessments by independent researchers suggest- ing that India’s water budget is much tighter than current assumptions hold and that mining of groundwater is occurring over very large parts of the country. One of the main messages of the presentation was that business-as-usual will not do. Subsequently, the Planning Commission’s strategy document for the 12th Five Year Plan—“Faster, Sustainable and More Inclusive Growth—An Approach to the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–17)” (GOI, 2011)—reiterated the gravity of the situation regarding water resources and put forward a series of strategic priorities for water resources management. These included: (i) the maintenance of existing surface water bodies; (ii) groundwater management; (iii) aquifer mapping; (iv) stakeholder-based aquifer management; (v) reforms in major and medium irrigation; (vi) pricing of groundwater; (vii) regulatory changes for groundwater; (viii) environmental management (for water resources); and (ix) climate change (and water resources). Following from the above and a systematic review and evaluation of the prior Five Year Plan’s watershed development programs, the 2012 Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects were formulated. The Guidelines include specific instructions regarding: (i) the use of remote sensing data for assessment of runoff, for locating water harvesting and storage structures, assessing program impacts on the ground, to assess periodic changes in geo-hydrological potential, soil and crop cover, runoff etc. in the project area and for baseline surveys; (ii) hydro-geological surveys and aquifer mapping of the watersheds; (iii) development or strengthening of local mechanisms and systems for common property resource management, especially groundwater; (iv) efforts to establish detailed resource-use agreements for surface water, groundwater, and common/forest land usufruct among UG members; and (v) the setting up of institutional mechanisms to ensure sustainability in use of resources, especially common-pool resources (for example, groundwater). Whither watershed development? It is clear that under the 12th Five Year Plan the intention is for watershed development projects to actu- ally contemplate water and water resources management. The new framework provides the potential for making significant advances A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R xviii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY in overcoming many of the gaps and weaknesses identified through the learning generated by the three projects. In particular, the new framework (i) provides for the integration of water resources management—both surface and groundwater—into local level planning as well as in broader scale planning at the watershed level; (ii) continues decentralization of the programs to the states and proposes the devolution of responsibilities and strengthened involvement of civil society; (iii) proposes more realistic approaches to the management of common pool resources (including surface and groundwater); (iv) integrates several existing GOI programs (for example, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) with the watershed development programs; and (v) brings greater attention to the problems of post-project sustainability. Managing upstream and downstream interrelations. Because the micro-watershed approach is carried out in isolation, there is no certainty that at a larger scale the goals of protecting and conserving hydrologic services and/or managing negative downstream and groundwater impacts are being met. The micro-watershed projects largely measure progress on increasing local capture and consumption of water re- sources rather than on sustainability of management and avoidance of downstream impacts from the enhanced capture and consumption. This is not unusual for projects prepared several years ago; today with improved tools and models, hydrological objectives and indicators can be more easily incorporated and measured. Ensuring effective demand. There will always be tension between “top-down” and “bottom-up” and effective development schemes require a judicious mix of the two. Getting the balance correct so that “bottom-up, demand-driven” approaches to policy implementation are in line with the prevailing policy, regulatory, administrative and other normative frameworks will be inevitably complicated and require itera- tive, learning-based processes. As a result, one person’s “bottom-up, demand-driven” approach can be another’s “top-down, supply-driven” approach. Government’s programs have specific objectives and will offer a limited set of instruments, using those that are thought to be “the best” for achieving those objectives. Under these circumstances, voluntary participation—arguably an essential ingredient of achiev- ing real and effective demand—may not always be a reflection of actual demand, particularly amongst the rural poor where options and opportunities are limited and the initial choice comes down to opting in or going without. To this challenge, there is no durable solution. Rather it is one more factor to be recognized and accommodated when designing a demand-driven program with their limited menus of options. Managing common pool resources. Water as a common pool resource remains among the most serious, unresolved issue. There is a broad recognition and understanding of the problems around allocation and scarcity; however, addressing the larger issues of the political economy of water resource allocation is a challenge far beyond the scope of micro-watershed development projects. In that context, it becomes incumbent on all projects and programs to specifically include instruments, processes and mechanisms to ensure that they are not aggravating the problem. Depending on how critical water availability issues are, basic water balance and water accounting tools may suffice for micro-watershed level interventions. Promoting effective interagency collaboration. If micro-watershed programs are to effectively contribute toward achieving higher-level objec- tives at the watershed, sub-basin and/or basin-levels, effective institutional mechanisms will have to be developed for this purpose as well as to measure and monitor outcomes and impacts. While it is a necessary condition to rationalize both the local and state-level organization and coordination, it is arguably more important to make significant progress first in the local planning and implementation frameworks. Doing so provides both the impetus and logic for identifying the practical reforms needed to make the state agencies both accountable and responsible for harmonizing and coordinating their efforts with the other state agencies with whom they have overlapping and/or interde- pendent mandates. Furthermore, the development and organization of the local framework helps clarify what the roles and responsibilities of the state-level agencies should be—and thus the types of reforms and reorganization required—to promote sustainable use of water resources in a decentralized environment. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E EXECUTIVE SUMMARY x ix Give due attention to economic benchmarks. The projects monitored certain financial aspects—household income, income generating activi- ties, agriculture/livestock/horticulture income—all good practices and extremely important for assessing the likelihood of sustainability. Ultimately profitability and financial viability are also essential to obtaining improvements in natural resources management. Often ne- glected is the validation of technical/extension messages to ensure they are not placing project participants at financial risk. Such analysis is also critical for evaluating the efficiency of project interventions and approaches, for analyzing policy options, to test assumptions and to validate that the programs benefits outweigh its costs to society. Project support in this particular area would have been critical and potentially very influential on government’s overall approach. Provide incentives for sustainability. Sustainable WSM requires an incentive structure that continues beyond the project period, supported by economic instruments that assign costs and benefits according to public and private goods. At the project formulation and inception stage, all three projects considered post-project maintenance of assets and made provision for this by attempting to ensure that beneficiaries continue to receive a stream of benefits post project. This concern extends beyond project created works and assets to those of sustaining the organizational structures that have a role in ensuring continuity of assets and other project impacts. LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS The use of the micro-watershed as the basic unit for planning and intervention was largely appropriate, but. . . . Because the micro-watershed approach was carried out in isolation, the larger scale goals of protecting and conserving hydrologic services and/or managing negative downstream and groundwater impacts remain to be addressed. A micro project (at the sub-watershed level or micro-watershed level) should be planned for at least five to seven years in order that sufficient social capital is built up. It takes time and close accompaniment to develop vibrant and representative local institutions which are most necessary to ensure continued maintenance of created assets in the post project period. In the early stages, few resources are required as it is the community that must first demonstrate its desire (demand) to participate. Projects involving multiple agencies work best where institutional arrangements leverage the comparative advantages of each of the partners. In a situation where good NGOs are available, it is preferable to engage NGOs to mobilize and build the capacities of the villagers. Where NGOs have the requisite technical and managerial expertise, then it is preferable to give them the entire task as they can then efficiently calibrate and dovetail various aspects of a project and be held accountable for outcomes. This would leave project authorities free to focus on monitoring and overall management of the project. Programs need to adopt integrated water resources planning at the micro-watershed level. Micro-watershed development plan- ning focused on the productive aspects of water utilization and not on water resources planning per se. Planning does not systematically consider drinking water supply, water quality, or overall water availability and allocation (or, where relevant, include any other locally impor- tant uses). These are important local concerns. Linking livelihoods to watershed development objectives was a best practice among the three projects. All stakeholder groups in the communities and watersheds participated—including vulnerable groups of women, tribals, landless and marginal farmers—and planning sought opportunities in livelihood development and improvement for all, balancing technical objectives with considerations of social inclusion and equity. Natural resources based projects should be undertaken with a focus on developing sustainable livelihood options for the majority, if not all, of the beneficiaries. It is better to focus first on already existing and functioning livelihoods in order to improve their A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R xx EXECUTIVE SUMMARY earning potential; followed by developing new opportunities in agriculture, nature-based and allied sectors while also training youth in acquiring market demanded skills and competencies. The projects made strong contributions in the institutional aspects of WSM. The projects sought to strengthen the framework for local action within a context of decentralization and support to state-level harmonization of efforts between disparate agencies with mandates over water resources and WSM. The only shortfall may have been in not extending support to the policies articulated by the states of water resources planning at the basin and/or sub-basin levels and greater attention to the sustainable management of groundwater resources. Transparency and public accountability, especially in regards to works and monies, is the key to smooth implementation and harmonious social relations. CBOs that have continued to function effectively post-project have been those that consistently applied principals of transparency and accountability. Effective conflict resolution mechanisms were also key to maintaining group cohesion and momentum. The three projects all represent global good practice on social issues, given their focus on poverty, strengthening local governance and institutions, concerns (and effective approaches) for dealing with issues of equity and inclusion of vulnerable groups, and for their strong emphasis on improving livelihoods. The inclusion, empowerment and mainstreaming of women, the poor and vulnerable groups into the decision-making pro- cesses is crucial to the sustainability of the project. These groups draw upon common pool resources for their survival and unless they directly benefit from the development of these resources, they will have no incentive to protect or sustainably manage these assets. Youth constitute the largest demographic group in any village, and are a vulnerable group in terms of employment and livelihood opportunities, especially those from poor households who constitute the majority amongst them. Future watershed-based development projects should consider them also as a vulnerable and priority target group. The manner in which agency personnel interact with the community sets the tone for the project and determines its outcome. Respect, commitment, and integrity bring forth enthusiasm, cooperation and transparency from the community. A participation-based project must be sensitive to this aspect and make special efforts to inculcate these values into its procedures, interactions, and “way of doing business.” Performance-based payments systems, in order to be effective, must involve all stakeholders in their design and formulation and should be fairly administered, transparent, and sensitive to emergent and unanticipated events. All parties to the agree- ment, including government functionaries, should be held equally responsible and accountable. Since disputes will inevitably arise, there should be a conflict mediation mechanisms. In order to reduce discretion and arbitrariness, the system can be supported by an IT-enabled Decision Support System introduced at all decision making various levels. The projects followed good practices in monitoring certain financial impacts such as household income, income generating activities, and income from improvements in agricultural production. Lacking, however, was any economic analysis to evaluate project efficiency, to test assumptions, or validate the programs’ investment and incentive schemes for purposes of policy analysis. Given the objectives of utilizing the projects to influence state-level programs and approaches, a systematic approach to evaluating economic aspects in addition to the financial aspects could possibly have strengthened the projects’ influence on Government’s overall approach. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUC TION 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Watershed development is deeply rooted in the culture and social established a common set of operational guidelines, objectives, structures of India. In part this results from the country’s highly strategies, and expenditure norms for these “watershed develop- seasonal rainfall patterns, with 50 percent of precipitation falling in ment” projects (GOI 1994). Today, the GOI’s watershed development only fifteen days and over 90 percent of the annual flow volumes programs are a centerpiece of its rural development efforts in the in rivers occurring in just four months. Throughout history, the rainfed agricultural areas of the country. people of India have adapted by either living along river banks or by carefully harvesting, storing, and managing rainfall, runoff, and Since the Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects became stream flows. These water management traditions extend back over operational in 1995, there has been a massive country-wide increase thousands of years. The first known rainfall measurement devices in the number and financing for community-based projects for were employed some 2,400 years ago by Kautilya, an Indian teacher, micro-watershed development. These projects are based largely philosopher, and royal advisor (Hubbart 2008) and over 1,500 years upon rainfall and runoff harvesting schemes that involve such prac- ago the Cheras, Cholas, and Pandyans constructed thousands of tices as rehabilitating and building small check dams and tanks, and minor irrigation tanks. Historically, most of India’s water manage- groundwater recharge structures. Due to the perception that they ment has been at the community level, relying upon diverse, have been successful instruments for rural development, a high imaginative and effective methods for harvesting rainwater in tanks and increasing importance has been placed on these programs. and small underground storages (Briscoe and Malik 2006). Evidence of their perceived importance is GOI’s having steadily increased their financing over the years. In more recent history the Government of India (GOI) began a series of programs aimed at drylands development, based largely on tradi- In constant (2012) dollar terms, each of the last two Five Year Plans, tional water management approaches and, by the late 1980s, these the GOI has more than doubled the financing for watershed devel- began to utilize micro-watersheds as the basis for planning and opment programs over the preceding Plan’s. For the 11th Five Year intervention. The first to adopt a “watershed approach” for drylands Plan (2007–2012), a total of some USD 2.4 billion of financing was development were the Drought Prone Area Program (DPAP) and the provided to the Ministries of Agriculture’s and Rural Development’s Desert Development Program (DDP) in 1987. In 1989, the Integrated programs in support of watershed development. This compares Wasteland Development Projects scheme (IWDP) followed suit. to USD 1.2 billion under the 10th Five Year Plan, which itself was a Subsequently, a fourth major program based on the watershed 154 percent over the financing under the 9th Five Year Plan. Most concept was initiated through the Ministry of Agriculture’s National recently, in 2010, the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) consol- Watershed Development Program in Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA). All idated its various watershed development programs into one com- of these programs shared a common objective of land and water prehensive Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWMP). resource management for sustainable production. In recognition of Since then, the average annual financing for the IWDP’s watershed their shared objectives but disparate approaches, in 1994 the GOI development projects has increased by almost 43  percent to over A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 2 CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUC TION USD 503 million/yr as compared to the prior three year period that the rainwater harvesting schemes have two impacts—increased 6 (2007–2010). For the current 12th Five Year Plan, the GOI has sig- storage of water, and increased use of water. Since there are already very naled the intent to significantly expand even further its financing for low outflows from most of the highly-stressed basins, this means that the watershed development (Shah 2013). net additional storage is probably small. The result, in zero-sum cases, is that the new uses mean yet another set of additional claims on limited As the size and scope of the watershed development programs water, claims which are honored only by reducing the availability for some have grown, so also has the scrutiny over them as regards and in anonymous downstream user. light of the growing concerns over the state and future of India’s water resources. Because the watershed development programs are Some steps are being taken in the direction of improving water one of the principal instruments of government for improving rural resources management within the watershed development land and watershed management, their potential to contribute to framework. The new 2012 Common Guidelines for Watershed the better management and conservation of water resources has Development Projects recognized the need to clearly prioritize the also come to be of high interest. Both in 2006 (GOI 2006) and again objectives of watershed projects as regards water resources. The in 2012 (MoRD 2012), technical committees were formally consti- impetus cited for doing so was increasing local conflicts over the tuted by GOI to review the watershed development programs. In allocation of scarce water resources: both instances the committees called for radical shifts in the pro- grams’ approach to watershed and water resources management, . . . the record of watershed projects on [alleviating chronic particularly as regarded the internalization of water resources issues, drinking water shortages] has been mixed. Many stud- such as groundwater depletion and conservation of surface water ies show that the increased water made available by these resources. These concerns have been echoed by other observers projects gets diverted to irrigation, often at the cost of drink- of India’s watershed development programs (Kerr 2002; Lobo and ing water needs. Since irrigation and drinking water needs Smyle 2010; Independent Evaluation Group Public Sector 2011) are often met from the same aquifer, situations arise where who had concluded that these programs have generally been after two crops have been taken, there is shortage of drink- more about rural development than about watersheds and water ing water in summer. It is important that drinking water is resources management per se and suggested that the programs re-asserted as the first charge on the water resources of the would benefit from articulating and pursuing more focused water watershed and that protective irrigation for drought-proofing resources objectives. is accorded the next priority. Only in this way can the interests A darker picture of this challenge emerged in the World Bank’s of the resource-poor and small and marginal farmers be pro- water sector study (Briscoe and Malik 2006) that noted the pro- tected. (GOI 2012) liferation of the micro-watershed projects in terms of a large and active movement which sees community “rainwater harvesting” as The new Guidelines thus place drinking water security as the the solution, everywhere and for almost all problems. The study went paramount goal for watershed development projects. The targeting on to warn that . . . these projects “take hold” only in areas where water strategy was also updated under the 2012 Guidelines to place the is already very scarce . . . [and] communities will only participate . . . chronic shortage of drinking water as the first criteria for selection of if they can use the water, primarily to irrigate their crops. This means villages under the programs. 6 Figures derived from Department of Agriculture and Cooperation (2013) and MoRD (2013) reports. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 2 — I N D I A’ S T U R B U L E N T WAT E R F U T U R E 3 Chapter 2 INDIA’S TURBULENT WATER FUTURE For 150 years, India’s investments in large-scale water infrastructure watershed development projects in 1983 (Rainfed Area Watershed have complemented its traditional water harvesting infrastructure Development Project and the Himalayan Watershed Management and brought water to water scarce areas and benefited the poor. Project). Then, in the 1990s, the World Bank financed a total of However, India’s current water development and management three more “integrated watershed development” projects; two at system is not sustainable. According to a World Bank study (Briscoe the start of the decade (1990) and one at the end (1999). In the and Malik 2006), overall water balances are precarious with crisis decade between 2000 and 2009, again the World Bank–Supported situations existing in a number of basins. The same study suggests the implementation of another three “watershed development” that about 15 percent of all aquifers were in critical condition at the projects. It is these latter three that are the focus of this report, yet beginning of the current decade and that this would grow to 60 per- it is also interesting to reflect on how each “generation” of water- cent over the next 25 years given current trends with the result that shed project from the 1980s to the 2000s have evolved based on water demands would exceed all available sources of supply by learning from the prior generation. Very briefly, and at the risk of 2050. The most recent estimates predict that rising demands due oversimplification, the projects of the 1980s were heavily focused to increasing population and economic growth may result in about on natural resources management issues and watershed degrada- half the demand for water being unmet by 2030; and this without tion, justified primarily by downstream impacts (sedimentation, taking into account how problems of poor water quality may exac- flooding) and technical interventions to resolve these concerns. erbate the situation (Planning Commission GOI 2013). In the 1990s, the focus shifted to participatory natural resources management, with interventions targeted toward improvements in Aquifer depletion is concentrated in the most populated and eco- rural production systems and agricultural sector livelihoods with a nomically productive areas of India. This is not news to the GOI and primary justification being sustainable use of natural resources for the State governments; they are painfully aware of the situation. local livelihoods. The projects beginning in the 2000s are explored However, there are political, economic, and social pressures that make in much greater detail throughout the rest of the report, but for managing water resources complex and difficult. Solutions are need- purposes of this general comparison, it could be said this genera- ed that address constraints on both the supply side and the demand tion was more focused upon the potential for sustainably improv- side and for both ground and surface water. Implementing good wa- ing incomes of the rural poor through strategies for decentralized tershed management practices and approaches are amongst the op- governance and participatory development of the communities’ portunities that India has to potentially better manage these factors. asset base, especially their natural assets. The primary justification now being inclusive economic growth and sustainable livelihoods. 2.1 WORLD BANK SUPPORT TO WATERSHED A final observation on the three generations of projects is that DEVELOPMENT whereas the 1990s and 2000s projects have primarily been rural The World Bank’s involvement in India with watershed development development-oriented, the 1980s projects were more focused on began in 1980 with the Kandi Watershed and Area Development perceived hydrologic externalities and technical interventions for Project. This was quickly followed by two more rainfed agriculture/ watershed management. The inadequacies of that too-restrictive A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 4 C H A P T E R 2 — I N D I A’ S T U R B U L E N T WAT E R F U T U R E technical focus subsequently gave rise to the later projects more average, faced similar situations and had similar objectives to the “people-centric” approaches. Appendix 3b provides a brief overview three reviewed here. of the World Bank’s support for and to watershed development between 1980 and the present. 2.2 DEFINING A WATERSHED Since 2001, the World Bank has supported the implementation A watershed is an area that supplies water by surface or sub-surface of three watershed development programs in the Indian states flow to a given drainage system or body of water. Size is not a factor of Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. The Karnataka in the definition. Watersheds vary from a few hectares (or less) to Watershed Project (also called Sujala or Sujala project) began in millions of square kilometers (for example, Ganga river basin). If a 2001 and ended in 2009. The Uttarakhand Decentralized Watershed “watershed” does not discharge directly into the ocean, then it is Development Project (also called Gramya or Gramya project) and actually part of a larger watershed that does. the Himachal Pradesh Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project (or HP project) began in September 2004 and October 2005, Where a watershed is defined by surface drainage, a groundwater respectively, with the Uttarakhand project closing in 2012 and the basin or catchment’s is not necessarily so defined; that is, surface Himachal Pradesh project scheduled to end in March 2016. water and groundwater boundaries do not necessarily coincide. Shallower, surficial aquifers may and often do follow the same These projects invested approximately USD 276 million for devel- boundaries that define surface-water watersheds. Deeper aquifers, opment on 1.2 million ha in over 6,000 villages, directly impacting however, are less likely to follow surface features. For these, the almost 800,000 households. They cut across diverse human, institu- groundwater divide or boundary between two adjacent groundwa- tional and topographical landscapes, from the semi-arid lowlands ter basins is the high point in the water table, and is constituted by a and plains of Karnataka to the middle and upper Himalayan hill geologic or hydrologic, rather than a topographic, boundary. ranges of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh. While watersheds are one of the most basic units of natural organ- Given the different contexts and the different developmental think- ization in landscapes, they seldom if ever coincide with units of ing prevailing at the time each was initiated, the projects adopted social, economic, or political organization. Thus, organizing efforts different approaches and strategies to arrive at roughly the same and activities around watersheds are best pursued only when objectives. In assessing the lessons and good practices from these strictly necessary and relevant, such as when land or water-related three, it is necessary to identify those watershed management externalities are of sufficient concern to drive development objec- practices in India which would also constitute good practice from tives and priorities. India’s 1995 Common Guidelines for Watershed a global perspective. To do so requires benchmarks against which Development Projects took a pragmatic approach to resolving any the national practices may be compared. For this purpose, the 2008 such issues of “institutional” versus “natural” boundaries by defining World Bank report “Watershed Management Approaches, Policies “operational watersheds” that align largely to village boundaries. and Operations: Lessons for Scaling-up” (Dhargouth et al 2008) is This tactic—based on socially, politically, and/or administratively a primary source for deriving a framework to identify global good meaningful units—has been successfully applied throughout the practices. This report provides a stocktaking of global experiences, world, especially where decentralized approaches are taken and based upon the knowledge and lessons from sixty-nine watershed local governments are seen as principal actors and stakeholders. management projects, financed by the World Bank between 1990 The Report of the Technical Committee on Watershed Programs in and 2004, distilled by that 2008 report. The report assessed outstand- (GOI 2006) India went further and stated: ing issues and key lessons, provided an in-depth literature review of the state of knowledge and practice in watershed management, Since we believe the watershed program is primarily a social pro- and was subjected to an in-depth peer review process. Further, gram, and also because VWCs [Village Watershed Committees] the universe of watershed management projects it reviewed, on within each Gram Panchayat [GP] are to be the ultimate WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 2 — I N D I A’ S T U R B U L E N T WAT E R F U T U R E 5 implementing agency, the final selection of implementation BOX 2.1: Matching Approach to Objectives area must be according to the GP boundaries, to which [water- shed] boundaries are to be approximated. Many WSM projects start out with a series of hydrologic ob- jectives, but subsequently fail to pursue them in any substan- tive form. A common example is “soil conservation to reduce 2.3 WHAT IS WATERSHED MANAGEMENT? sedimentation downstream from agricultural watersheds.” If sedimentation is an issue, it cannot simply be assumed that Watershed management (WSM) is the integrated use and/or man- on-farm interventions will resolve the problem. Rather, there agement of land, vegetation, and water in a geographically discrete must be efforts to evaluate and identify the principal sources drainage area for the benefit of its residents, with the objective of of sediments so that appropriate interventions may be de- protecting or conserving the hydrologic services that the water- signed to address those specific sources and their causes. Such an evaluation may (unsurprisingly) find that agriculture shed provides and of reducing or avoiding negative downstream is not the primary source of sediments from rural watersheds. or groundwater impacts. That is, WSM is ultimately about achieving Quite commonly road systems, stream bank erosion and the water resources-related objectives. mobilization of sediments stored in flood plains and riparian zones are the main culprits. Concern for sustainable land man- In practice, one can observe that there are basically two approaches agement and soil productivity are ample justifications for sup- taken to WSM, which we will call here a “targeted approach” and a porting on-farm soil and moisture conservation; a “WSM proj- “mainstreamed approach”. The former has very specific objectives ect” is not required to address these. However, if off-farm and downstream impacts are real issues, the approach and and indicators related to water resources and hydrologic outcomes, instruments must be relevant to and support the stated WSM and the management interventions and the instruments applied are objectives. designed to address these. The latter has broader goals and objec- tives, such as sustainable land and natural resources management, poverty reduction, and/or rural development. Here, WSM practices 2.4 SCALES OF INTERVENTION are integrated (mainstreamed) into planning and investment. Most The scales of interest for a WSM program can be described in terms development-oriented WSM programs—certainly those in India— of hierarchy, physical magnitude and/or time. Hierarchical relation- are of this latter type. Irrespective of the approach, a number of fac- ships within the watershed of interest can be physical (for example, tors are (or should be) common to the two approaches: first order-streams originate from an accumulation of rainfall runoff § Clarity of objectives regarding WSM issues and desired and second-order streams are formed by the intersection of two outcomes regarding water resources and the interactions first-order streams) or socio-cultural (such as households, kin- with land use and vegetation; ship groups, tribes, and ethnic groups) or political (for example, § Appropriate matching of management and instruments to administrative boundaries and groupings from the farmer’s field to the defined hydrologic objectives (box 2.1); the nation to groups of nations). From a physical magnitude stand- § Adapted interventions that match local conditions—watershed point, the size of the biophysical unit (watershed)—often measured hydrology,7 natural resources use, climate and environment, and the social, economic, and institutional situation; and in hectares or square kilometers—takes on great importance when § Strong stakeholder management and communications in considering the impacts (externalities) of upstream land managers all phases (for example, problem identification; planning, and water users on those downstream. As impacts or externalities prioritization, and goal setting; decision-making; implemen- are attenuated over some area and distance due to other factors tation; follow-up). and interactions taking on greater importance (for example, geol- ogy, soils, buffering capacity of the stream and/or groundwater 7 How water moves through a watershed is the product of the interactions between a number of factors, which include the watershed’s underlying system, and rainfall patterns), impacts felt strongly at a local scale geology, climate and precipitation patterns, slope, soils, vegetative cover may manifest only weakly or not at all at another scale. Impacts that and land use. “Watershed hydrology,” as a term, encompasses these interactions. manifest strongly over relatively short distances may include such A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 6 C H A P T E R 2 — I N D I A’ S T U R B U L E N T WAT E R F U T U R E things as the physical destruction from a landslide or flash flood- The relative ability to influence and manage some hydrologic factors ing whereas others that may manifest across much larger areas and varies across scales. At local scales, WSM interventions (positive distances include impacts of the over-exploitation of groundwater and negative) can have very strong and immediate impacts. For on regional scales, such as loss of dry season flows and the dropping example, a strong rainstorm on a freshly ploughed field can cause aquifer levels. In temporal terms, there can be significant time lags in-field irrigation ditches to silt up overnight and cause the loss of between a cause and an effect. tens of tons of productive topsoil. Moving to minimum tillage and introducing vegetative hedgerows would be one set of measures From a physical magnitude standpoint, most WSM programs have to avoid this problem in the future. At this scale, cause and effect tended to adopt the micro-watershed as the basic unit and focus are tightly linked and management responses can have almost im- for management. This has proven to be a flexible, practical, and eco- mediate impacts. At a larger scale and a greater distance, however, nomical unit for project intervention. Within a micro-watershed all what the farmer and his neighbors do or do not do in their fields is stakeholders can be readily identified and included in participatory only very weakly related, if at all, to the growing delta that is begin- processes to establish a consensus vision on needs and priorities. ning to block access to a downstream, coastal port. The range and Management at this level is not overly complex, so local capacity extent of interventions that might be called for in order to save the can be built to plan and manage the interventions and to adminis- port could be far more costly than the alternative of ignoring the ter funds for the execution of plans. At this level, the links between problem and allowing the loss of access to the port, that is, at this water and land resources and stakeholders’ income, livelihoods, scale, the ability to influence and manage the causal factors could and welfare are readily apparent (and temporally, more immediate), be beyond the technical and/or economic capacity to do so. which facilitates the identification of potential win-win manage- ment scenarios that can provide positive incentives and align local The purpose of table 2.1 (on the next page) is to provide an stakeholder’s interests with broader watershed protection and illustrative example of how changes in scale—physical magni- conservation goals. Finally, collective action at the micro-watershed tude and hierarchy—introduces changes in focus, management level can result in lower costs and better use of financial and human approach, instruments and in the key stakeholders who must be resources, especially for the management of common property involved.8 Objectives as well may, and often do, change with scale. resources (CPRs). For example, at the local (micro-watershed) scale, the objective may be to improve livelihoods by intensifying and diversifying However, as has been the norm in India’s watershed development agricultural production in an environmentally sustainable manner. programs, the micro-watershed approach when done in isolation— However, at the watershed scale, the objective might be flood pre- that is, carried out as a patchwork of individual micro-watershed in- vention, protecting water quality for human consumption, and/or terventions and lacking prioritization or planning within the context maintaining environmental flows. In this example, interventions at of the larger watershed—has severe limitations as an instrument for the micro-watershed scale may require special orientation to ensure water resources management. An isolated approach will be uncertain compatibility with broader watershed objectives. of achieving broader goals of protecting and conserving the hydro- logic services of interest and/or of managing negative downstream The impacts of WSM interventions also can have significant time or groundwater impacts. Simply following “good land management lags, with scale being one determining factor in the length of the practices” and maximizing the local capture of rainfall and runoff at lag—that is, the smaller the scale, the more immediate the impact. the micro-watershed scale does not guarantee that the aggregate impacts of all the micro-watershed projects will be hydrologically 8 The role of stakeholders is necessary but not sufficient in designing beneficial for the watershed or groundwater aquifer as a whole. proper intervention in the overall performance of watershed activities. Equally important is to ensure an informed, science-based design that In thinking of the management of water resources beyond the mi- departs from an understanding of the hydrology of the watershed, irre- spective of scale. Ultimately, designs of interventions requires both tech- cro-watershed, issues of scale are once again important to consider. nical expertise and reliable ownership by the concerned communities. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 2 — I N D I A’ S T U R B U L E N T WAT E R F U T U R E 7 TABLE 2.1: An Idealized Scheme of Changes in Watershed Management Approach and Focus with Scale WATERSHED INFLUENCE OF RURAL MANAGEMENT INDICATIVE SIZE LAND USE ON WATERSHED HIERARCHY OF POLITICAL TYPICAL MANAGEMENT UNIT (ha) HYDROLOGY STAKEHOLDERS FOCUS/INSTRUMENTS Micro-watershed 1–500 Very Strong Those with land & resources rights (statutory & Participatory planning; best management practices; customary/traditional) site design Sub-watershed 500–5,000 Very Strong to Strong Local government w/ principal local stakeholders Stream classification; land use planning/zoning; land, water resources & stakeholder management Watershed 5,000–25,000 Strong to Moderate Local or multiple local governments with Watershed-based zoning; land use & water resources principal local & regional stakeholders planning; stakeholder management; policy, norms, regulations & incentives Sub-basin 25,000–250,000 Moderate to Weak Local, regional or state governments with Basin planning; stakeholder mgmt.; policy, legal principal regional stakeholders framework & incentives Basin >250,000 Weak to Very Weak State, multistate, or federal governments with Basin planning; stakeholder management; policy, principal regional & state stakeholders legal framework & incentives TABLE 2.2: Illustration of Time Lag for Ecosystem Response at Sub-Basin/Basin Scale TIME-LAG (YEARS) ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 >100 Water Quality/Hydrology Soil Quality Soil Structure Upland Soil Erosion Channel Erosion Riparian Shade Downstream Sedimentation Groundwater Recharge As adapted by J. Kerr, 2007 from Gregory et al, 2007. For example, sediments from inappropriate practices in the upper what might be achievable through other approaches for rural devel- watershed may take decades or centuries to work their way through opment and natural resources management. Implementation often the watershed. Most WSM projects assume they can have short- requires more elaborate decentralized and participatory approaches to-medium term impacts, but it is important to understand that a with organizational setups that involve numerous agencies and more problem encountered today may be the result of a causal factor complex financial and incentive arrangements. Given the inherently that no longer exists or that a solution implemented tomorrow may higher transaction costs, there should be a clear rationale and justi- take years or decades to achieve its desired downstream objective fication underlying the decision to pursue a WSM approach. It is not (table 2.2). a panacea that can or should be applied to every situation where natural resource and/or rural poverty problems exist. Where such a 2.5 DECIDING BETWEEN WATERSHED rationale does not exist, it will make more sense to follow approaches MANAGEMENT AND OTHER APPROACHES that are based on more socially, politically, administratively or eco- As previously discussed, WSM is ultimately about achieving water logically relevant land units or affiliations. In India this is a point that resources-related objectives. Thus, by taking a WSM approach it is is beginning to receive attention and become a focus of discussion. implied that one intends to deal with the myriad interactions of land, Watershed-based approaches are applied almost universally in rain- water, and people within complex systems. Doing so effectively will fed agricultural areas where issues of natural resource management add institutional complexity and costs in terms of time and effort to and poverty exist. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 8 C H A P T E R 2 — I N D I A’ S T U R B U L E N T WAT E R F U T U R E In the case of the three World Bank–Supported projects—consistent This is a common, and recognized, problem of the watershed de- with India’s Watershed Development Program Guidelines—the velopment programs that effectively blocks local communities from approach that was undertaken was one of watershed develop- prioritizing other types of natural resources options and interven- ment rather than of WSM; that is, a mainstreamed, rather than a tions. Second, because this approach focuses on the individual targeted, approach. This meant that the projects’ would seek to micro-watersheds in isolation from their downstream (or upstream) internalize good practices and concerns for WSM into broader plan- neighbors, there is no certainty that at a larger scale the goals of ning for poverty alleviation, rural livelihoods, increased agricultural protecting and conserving hydrologic services, and/or managing production and incomes, and sustainable land/natural resources negative downstream and groundwater impacts are being met.12 management. The principle means for the projects to achieve these This latter is not just a theoretical concern, especially in a country broader ends were through maximizing the local capture of water where demands on water resources are expected to exceed supply and intensifying and diversifying agricultural and livestock produc- by 2050. Relevant to the risks inherent in an “isolated micro-water- tion using that water. This gave the projects clear water resources shed development approach,” the World Bank’s 2005 study on water 9 management objectives, which were to be met through the as- resources in India (Briscoe and Malik 2006) observed that while tra- sumption that good agricultural and land management practices ditional technologies such as rainwater harvesting and tanks can play would result in good overall management of watersheds and their an important local role, they also create new and additional demands water resources. which often clash with existing uses, and they sustain the wishful think- ing that supply-side options are what will “solve the problem.” A more This approach had two principal trade-offs. First, it pre-deter- recent Planning Commission report (GOI 2011) echoes this same mined and imposed a generalized water resources management point: Water resources in many parts of the country are under severe goal—that is, in all three states, under all conditions and, in all stress leading to excessive exploitation of groundwater. There is some micro-watersheds and communities maximizing the local capture scope for increasing water availability . . . [and] these opportunities of water and intensification of productive use were the driving must be fully exploited, [but] the real solution has to come from greater water resources management objectives.10 This is a one size fits all efficiency in water use. Table 2.3 presents a summary of the WSM problem . . . [in that the approach] was developed for the semi-arid aspects of the projects as designed. zones and is being blindly applied in both low and high rainfall areas.11 9 An objective that was described by a number of participants as using each drop of rainfall as close as possible to where it falls. 10 Example: Visits to project communities resulted in the impression that a significant number of them felt that increasing domestic water supply was a critical need. The projects’ response to potable water supply or wa- ter allocation issues were, however, indirect—and this despite the three states’ policies that placed a higher priority on water for human con- sumption than for irrigation. In fairness, some micro-watershed invest- ments did indirectly provide increased access and availability of water for domestic use. The Gramya project (2012) reported increased access to domestic water, resulting from soil and water conservation measures. Reportedly, the time spent in collecting water was significantly reduced with a sharp increase (48 percent) in the number of households taking less than 1 hour to collect water and a similar decrease (39 percent) in 12 In Karnataka, micro-watershed plans were aggregated at the sub- the number of households taking between 1–2 hours. watershed level; however, the aggregation was mechanical—that is, 11 Dr. Suhas Wani, Principal Scientist, ICRISAT/Hyderabad, personal com- simply packaging the individual micro-watershed plans into a “sub- munication. watershed” plan. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 2 — I N D I A’ S T U R B U L E N T WAT E R F U T U R E 9 TABLE 2.3: Principal Watershed Management Content of the Three World Bank-Financed Projects KARNATAKA HIMACHAL PRADESH UTTARAKHAND Overall WSM • Strengthen capacity of communities within project • Implementation of watershed treatment activities as • GPs & other relevant local institutions have developed objectives cycle & of implementing department for participatory prioritized in Gram Panchayat Watershed Development sufficient capacity to design, prioritize, implement, management within a watershed planning framework Plans (GPWDP) operate & maintain watershed treatments Hydrologic/ • Groundwater recharge • Adopt integrated WSM framework . . . using water as • Integrating land-water use with the objectives of water resources • Water management for crop production (in situ soil the nucleus for community-based rural development moisture retention and biomass production objectives moisture conservation & irrigation) WSM-related • Strengthen capacity of communities for participa- • Panjayati Raj Institutions & other local village level • Communities mobilize & prioritize watershed & village institutional tory planning, implementation, management & institutions have capacity to plan, implement, monitor development technologies objectives maintenance & maintain the watershed treatments • GPs directly implement watershed treatments & • Have implementing department operate in a more • Awareness & capacity building of all stakeholders village development investments socially inclusive manner within framework of including line departments in participatory natural • Strengthening User Groups (UG)/subcommittees at watershed development plans resource management revenue village levels Specific instru- • Land management (Soil & Water Conservation [SWC], • SWC (vegetative measures) • SWC on arable lands ments to achieve productive revegetation with perennials) • Protection & reclamation of land (agro-forestry/ • Development of non-arable lands (forest, pasture, WSM objectives • Establish Micro-WSM Groups silvi-pasture) bunds, vegetative barriers) • Development participatory micro-watershed develop- • Improve moisture regime (vegetative & mechanical ment plans measures) • Capacity building of local actors • Water harvesting structures • Water use efficiency improvements (irrigation, promo- tion of conservation) • Establishing common interest groups • Information, education & communication • Local-level capacity building • Human resource development of implementing agencies • Knowledge management • Harmonization of watershed approaches (state-level) WSM-related • Groundwater recharge: increased cropping intensity; • Influence on state policies & guidelines for watershed • 15% increase in availability of water for domestic and/ indicators % irrigated area increase; # wells recharged development or agriculture use. • Soil erosion reduced • 2,500 UGs established & taking care of resources in a • 20% improvement in administrative capacity of GPs. • Micro-WSM groups & development plans sustainable manner • Water quantity & quality indicators to be incorporated • SWC measures • Two-thirds of GPs with tribals or nomads have repre- • % of activities in local plans addressing water resource • Watershed research & extension plans sentation in watershed committees management • Remote Sensing Center assisting with Geographic Information System (GIS) & prep of treatment plans for project watersheds Source: World Bank Project Appraisal Documents. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R C H A P T E R 3 — WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : P O L I C Y A N D T E C H N I C A L G U I D E L I N E S 11 Chapter 3 WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: POLICY AND TECHNICAL GUIDELINES The three projects under review were designed in accordance institutional arrangements; and (v) employment generation and with, and in support of, GOI’s policy implementation framework for poverty alleviation. watershed development. The Government has had a number of pro- Though implicit, WSM objectives—in the form of enhancing grams using watershed development approaches over the years— water resources availability and distribution—are found within the including, the Drought Prone Area Program (DPAP), the Desert Guidelines. The 1995 Guidelines call for optimizing water use, miti- Development Program (DDP), the Integrated Wasteland Develop- gating the adverse effects of drought, equitably distributing water ment Program (IWDP) scheme all in Ministry of Rural Development resource development benefits, alleviating drinking water shortages, (MoRD), and the National Watershed Development Program in harvesting and storing water for domestic and agricultural purposes, Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA) under the Ministry of Agriculture. Each and enhancing groundwater recharge. The 2001 Guidelines, for their program had its own guidelines, norms, funding patterns, and part, direct that attention should be given to in situ conservation technical components according to their goals, but they shared the of soil and water, water harvesting and storage for domestic and common objectives of land and water resource management for agricultural purposes, enhancing groundwater recharge, renovation sustainable production and a focus on local or micro-watersheds and augmentation of water resources for drinking water and irriga- as the unit for planning and intervention. A technical committee tion, and alleviation of drinking water shortages. constituted by MoRD studied the implementation and impact of the programs and recommended a common set of operational The Guidelines, however, did not provide any criteria for prioritiza- guidelines, objectives, strategies, and funding norms for these tion and selection of watersheds nor did they prescribe priority micro-watershed development projects, integrating the features interventions that would, in themselves, necessarily lead to improve- of the three programs under MoRD. Based on that review a set of ments in “WSM”. Neither did they contemplate the possibility that they Watershed Development Guidelines were promulgated in 1995. would be applied in situations where water resource-related external- Among others, the Guidelines defined the objectives of “watershed ities could already exist or possibly result from program interventions. development” as being [T]o promote the economic development of Just one criterion—prioritizing watersheds where communities face the village community, encourage restoration of ecological balance acute shortages of drinking water—speaks to a direct WSM concern. in the village, and improve the economic and social condition of the However, only very limited attention was given in the Guidelines to resource poor and the disadvantaged. planning or investment for the alleviation of drinking water shortages. All other selection criteria in both the 1995 and 2001 Guidelines focus Revisions to the Guidelines in 2001 expanded the focus to include: on poor and marginalized populations (scheduled castes and tribes), (i)  marginal and degraded lands; (ii) mitigating adverse effects of marginal and degraded lands, and the alleviation of poverty. The extreme climatic conditions; (iii) economic development of natural addition in 2001 of mitigating adverse effects of extreme climatic con- resources; (iv) sustaining project outcomes through community ditions as a goal added implicit elements of water conservation and involvement, empowerment and capacity building, and the use allocation. As such, WSM in India’s watershed development programs of simple, easy, affordable locally-based technical solutions and could be said to be an implicit rather than an explicit goal. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 12 C H A P T E R 3 — WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : P O L I C Y A N D T E C H N I C A L G U I D E L I N E S Ultimately, the guidelines operated on the assumption that the scarcity, degraded natural resources and widespread poverty (Palanisami watershed development programs, by integrating good man- et al 2009). Overcoming poverty under these conditions required agement practices and concerns into the planning/investment/ effective, efficient and productive use of the natural resource base; implementation cycle, would have an overall positive impact in con- a principal asset of the rural poor. To enhance the productivity and serving or restoring the integrity of the watershed system (and the reliability of rainfed agriculture—especially in India’s semi-arid and hydrologic services that it provides) at the micro-watershed scale and, sub-humid regions—the goal became one of maximizing the use of by extension, at the larger-scales as well. But, is this necessarily a good available water (rainfall, surface, and groundwater). To do so, emphasis assumption? Given that there were no provisions in the 1995 and was placed upon increasing irrigation potential through investments, 2001 guidelines for identifying, prioritizing or addressing local water for example, in tubewells, groundwater recharge, surface storage (in resource-related externalities or for aggregating micro-watershed farm ponds/tanks) and in-field practices to enhance soil moisture planning and interventions into a larger (watershed) context, it would recharge/conservation and thus provide additional moisture directly not be possible to conclude that this assumption was, or is, valid. to rainfed crops. The main strategy thus became one of detaining and However, it may be fair to conclude that the Watershed Development exploiting, to the maximum extent possible, rainfall that fell in and Guidelines did not address downstream benefits or costs. near farmers’ fields. With such a strategy, the micro-watershed was a natural unit for planning and investment. 3.1 PROJECT DESIGN IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT As experience with micro-watershed development was gained, For the design of the three projects under consideration, GOI’s the concept of “ridge-to-valley” treatments became widely Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects provided accepted by Government, donors and NGOs (Non-Government both the policy and technical/implementation frameworks. The Sujala Organizations), which further strengthened the use of the micro- project in Karnataka, the HP project in Himachal Pradesh, and the watershed as the unit of intervention. Over the past decade, the Gramya project in Uttarakhand were designed and prepared between “ridge-to-valley” approach has become idealized as the means for 2000 and 2005. Each reflects the different iterations of the Government achieving the rural development goals of the watershed develop- Watershed Development Guidelines current at the time of its prepa- ment programs. By seeking to maximize the capture of rainfall and 13 ration. The Sujala project was prepared under the 1995 Guidelines runoff—a “WSM” goal—the watershed development programs while the other two were prepared under the 2001 Guidelines. hope to provide adequate, “additional”14 water resources for pro- ductive use. The basic concept is one of working with the natural The Guidelines’ primary orientation was toward rural development hydrology of the watershed from “ridge-to-valley” in order to detain, programs with strong, central objectives related to sustainable use of divert, store (surface or subsurface) and use all available rainwater. natural resources and poverty alleviation (GOI 2006; GOI 1994; GOI In practice, the focus tends to be on (i) the natural drainage lines 2001). Both the 1995 and 2001 (revised) Guidelines defined the micro- with the construction of check dams, weirs, recharge and/or deten- watershed (on the order of 500 ha) as the unit of planning and inter- tion structures, and so on; and (ii) structural treatments in farmers’ vention. This definition evolved over time from earlier experiences in fields (for example, bunding). However, the concept and approach rural development where agriculture was the principal focus. A high also includes broader land treatments and land uses (for example, percentage of India’s population is rural and a disproportionate per- in-field agronomic and conservation practices, reforestation/re- centage of these are extremely poor and reliant upon rainfed agricul- vegetation, perennial crops, and improved pasture) as well as natural ture for their livelihood. As summarized by one author: The watershed resources conservation. More recently, the perception that the vari- development program assumes importance in India where 60 percent of ability and frequency of abnormal climate trends is on the increase the cropped area is rainfed and is characterized by low productivity, water 14 “Additional” is only from the perspective of those capturing that water and its benefits. In practice, the interventions are simply changing the 13 Sujala in 2000/01, Gramya in 2003/04, and HP project in 2004/05. way that rainfall and runoff were previously partitioned and allocated. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 3 — WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : P O L I C Y A N D T E C H N I C A L G U I D E L I N E S 13 (Ramachandran et al 2006) has added further justification to the use BOX 3.1: Integrated Water Resources Management of the micro-watershed unit and watershed development as a tool Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is a compre- for adaptation to climate change.15 hensive, participatory planning and implementation tool for managing and developing water resources in a way that bal- ances social and economic needs, and ensures the protection 3.2 STATE-SPECIFIC CONTEXTS FOR WATERSHED of ecosystems for future generations. Water’s many different DEVELOPMENT uses—for agriculture, for healthy ecosystems, for people and As watershed development projects, the three projects’ objec- livelihoods—are the subject of an open, flexible process that tives were oriented toward the broader goals of sustainable land brings together decision-makers across the various sectors that impact water resources and all the relevant stakeholders and natural resources management, poverty alleviation, and rural to set policy and seek to make sound, balanced decisions in development. They did not entertain any specific objectives related response to the specific water challenges faced. The four prin- to water resources and/or the hydrologic interactions of land, land ciples on which IWRM is based are the 1992 Dublin Principles use, and vegetation.16 As the watershed development programs for Water: were (and are) one of the principal instruments of Government for • Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to improving rural land and WSM, it is relevant to inquire here if the sustain life, development and the environment. inclusion of more focused water resources objectives might have • Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and been usefully included in the three projects. One means of look- policymakers at all levels. ing at that question is to review the states’ water policies that were • Women play a central part in the provision, management under development during the project design phase. and safe-guarding of water. • Water has an economic value in all its competing uses Between 2002 and 2004 the three states drafted water policies.17 and should be recognized as an economic good as well as While the contexts and conditions vary greatly between the states, social good. Source: Adapted from GWP Tool Box for IWRM (undated) and Integrated Water the policies demonstrate shared concerns regarding water availabil- Resources Management, Wikipedia (undated). ity and increasing stress upon and depletion of water supplies as a function of climatic variability, growing population and demand, inadequate management of water resources, and a general lack would be decentralized implementation, planning, and operation of water conservation efforts. All three expressed concerns over and maintenance (O&M) at the local levels. They also stressed the the institutionally fragmented nature of the mandates over water need for much greater attention to the sustainable management resources and WSM. In response, they called for a move toward inte- of groundwater resources and the conjunctive use of surface and grated water resources management (box 3.1), proposed the need groundwater. for institutional reforms, stressed the importance of implementing water resources planning at the basin and/or sub-basin levels, and Despite the similarities in policy, these states face different condi- established that the future modality for watershed development tions. For instance, Karnataka is one of India’s drier states. Rainfall is highly erratic and the rainy season is short. About two-thirds 15 For example, the late onset and/or early withdrawal of monsoons, of the state receives less than 750 mm of rainfall. In Karnataka, longer dry seasons, shifts in peak rainfall periods, increased rainfall inten- sities and incidences of droughts and floods. population growth and rising demand, urbanization, and indus- 16 See appendix 1a. Summary of Common Guidelines for Watershed trialization contribute significantly to increasing water stress. The Development Projects 1995, 2001, 2008, 2011 & 2012. State’s policy recognizes that it will face acute crisis within the next 17 Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka ultimately finalized and adopted their policies (International Environmental Law Research Center, undated). two decades . . . [with] serious destabilization of the water sector af- Uttarakhand, however, apparently never did. Nonetheless, the Uttarak- hand draft, along with the other states’ official policies, are useful for il- fecting the hydrology, economy and ecology of the State, if the water lustrating the concerns and priorities at the time of the three projects’ management situation does not change. For its part, Himachal preparation and implementation. The States’ policies are summarized in appendix 2. Pradesh gets significantly more annual rainfall than Karnataka A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 14 C H A P T E R 3 — WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : P O L I C Y A N D T E C H N I C A L G U I D E L I N E S TABLE 3.1: Overview of Water Resources Availability in Project States HIMACHAL AS OF 2003 KARNATAKA PRADESH UTTARAKHAND 1 Groundwater Usage / Net Annual Groundwater Availability 70% 30% 66% Irrigation Potential Created / Ultimate Irrigation Potential (Major & Medium Schemes)1 85% 27% 81% 1 Irrigation Potential Created / Ultimate Irrigation Potential (Minor Schemes) 46% 53% 97% Taluks (Karnataka) and Blocks (Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand)2 : % affected with semi-critical, critical or overexploited groundwater 47% None Undetermined3 % of total affected that are classified as “overexploited” 79% — — 1 Source: Ministry of Water Resources. Water Availability and Potential. www.wrmin.nic.in/index1.asp?linkid=143&langid=1 2 Source: Ministry of Water Resources, Central Groundwater Board. State Groundwater Profiles. www.cgwb.gov.in/gw_profiles/st_ap.htm 3 Only five of the state’s 13 districts have had developed groundwater use maps. In those districts, two blocks are classified as over- exploited and the others as having semi-critical status but it is concentrated within a three to four month period. Heavy river basin as a whole or for a sub basin, multi-sectorally, rainfall and high runoff result in seasonal scarcities. Domestic and conjunctively for surface and groundwater incorporating industrial demand in the rural areas is projected to increase sharply quantity, quality and environmental considerations . . . [to] establish Water Resource Data Information Center and in the coming years as economic conditions improve. This, in turn, collaborating arrangements with concerned Departments/ has led to concerns about water quality degradation from un- Agencies . . . develop protocols for data sharing and treated or inadequately treated industrial effluents and sewage. As exchange . . . establish direct access by water manage- for Uttarakhand, the state has moved from surplus to acute scarcity ment units to water resource data center’s databases and in 50 short years. This radical shift is attributed to decreasing water decision support systems like GIS and MIS [Management flow from glaciers, severe erosion, flooding, population increase, Information Systems] . . . make water accounting and audit increased demand for non-domestic use, and a lack of attention mandatory . . . assess overall water resource availability, current and future problems and conflicts . . . develop inte- to the natural resource base (Development Center for Alternative grated, conjunctive basin management plan using partici- Policies 2005). Table 3.1 provides an overview of the water situation patory approach. in each state. § Finally, in Uttarakhand the draft policy is reported to have called for the management of water resources in an The policy objectives of the three states are similar, each giving the integrated and holistic manner; the systematic consider- highest priority to water for human consumption and domestic use ation of surface and groundwater quality and quantity; followed by irrigation. Hydropower development and commercial for addressing interactions between water, land, and the and industrial uses have lower priority. environment; and for reconciling economic necessities with ecological imperatives (Upadhyay 2006). To achieve their water policy objectives: § In Himachal Pradesh, the position is that it [is] imperative that Given the range of water resources issues and concerns raised by the there is increased emphasis on improving planning for manage- States’policies, it appears that GOI’s Watershed Development Program ment and conservation of these resources . . . [and to] create a could indeed have usefully addressed itself to specific objectives of vision for the water resources development and management water resources management. The States’ water policies called for . . . [where] development and management of river basins . . . significant institutional and policy reforms as well as investments in or sub-basins . . . involving multi-disciplinary units that prepare diverse areas—such as institutional development, capacity building, comprehensive plans. § In Karnataka, the policy calls for water resources planning, water resources planning and regulatory frameworks, information development and management [to] be carried out, adopt- and monitoring systems, research, stakeholder management, and ing an integrated approach for a hydrological unit such as so on—to move toward a vision of integrated management of the WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 3 — WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : P O L I C Y A N D T E C H N I C A L G U I D E L I N E S 15 States’ water resources. The Watershed Development Program, how- day still presents a challenge for national and state-level actors con- ever, provided only a limited menu of options that primarily were cerned with watershed and water resources management is how for engagement at the local level. In result, the needs expressed to complement the bottom-up approach with a judicious mix of through the policies greatly transcended the scope and focus of the the appropriate “top-down” instruments. Over the medium-to-long Watershed Development Program. terms, it will be critical that such instruments as watershed-based information systems and zoning, land use and water resources plan- At the same time, however, it is also important to recognize that ning at the basin and sub-basin levels, stakeholder management the Watershed Development Program is a major instrument and systems, and appropriate sets of policies, norms, regulations, and opportunity for putting in place the “bottom-up” component for incentives are developed and deployed. IWRM. What transcended the scope of the Program then, and to this A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N 17 Chapter 4 GOOD PRACTICES FROM PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION This section outlines the WSM practices from the three World Bank– (ii) decentralized and participatory development; (iii) participatory, Supported projects that constitute best practices and/or provide evidence-based micro-watershed planning; (iv) stakeholder inclu- design and implementation lessons for future projects. As the three sion; (v) capacity building and information sharing; (vi) sustaining World Bank projects substantially conformed to the national-level outcomes through linking conservation to livelihoods; and (vii) Common Guidelines for Watershed Development that were in effect monitoring and evaluation (M&E). at the time of their preparation, they had many aspects in common. They all shared the broad objective of reducing poverty, and doing 4.1 START FROM THE BUILDING BLOCK so through watershed-based natural resources management, liveli- OF THE MICRO-WATERSHED hoods promotion, capacity building and institutional development. India has long focused on the micro-watershed as the building In each, selection criteria prioritized those micro-watersheds with block in its watershed development programs, an approach that predominantly poor and marginalized populations and with signifi- allows the concerns of all stakeholders to be integrated in a pack- cant problems of land degradation. Yet they each also had certain age of land, water, and infrastructure interventions that respond to unique objectives. The Sujala project had additional objectives to priority needs. The use of the micro-watershed as the basic unit for develop (i) in-house capacities and (ii) a model to support large-scale planning and intervention, as per GOI’s guidelines, was appropriate replication within and outside the state. In the case of the Himachal in all of the projects. Flexibility in defining micro-watersheds, how- Pradesh Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project (HP) and ever, is required. While the guidelines would have micro-watersheds Gramya projects, their specific objectives were similar: (i) strengthen defined as a unit of about 500 ha, in the projects the average size of the system of Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs), (ii) bring about har- the micro-watersheds and sub-watersheds ultimately selected were monization of approaches across various watershed projects being many times larger than this. Reflecting operational considerations implemented in the state, and (iii) convergence and dovetailing (for example, terrain, hydrology, administrative units, efficiency, and of on-going schemes. The different contexts, imperatives, needs so on), the average sizes of the micro-watersheds were approxi- and challenges resulted in structurally and operationally different mately 1,900, 3,100, and 5,200 ha in Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, approaches being adopted in the three projects. Together, they and Karnataka, respectively.18 provide a range of valuable learning, experience, and practices that All three projects adopted objective criteria supported by satellite- could facilitate successful implementation of large-scale participa- based systems and socio-economic indicators to identify and tory watershed development programs in a variety of contexts. As a means of evaluating the India projects and drawing out lessons 18 Karnataka’s larger average size was also a function of the aggregation of local micro-watershed plans at a sub-watershed level. In this fashion, and learning, the benchmarks for good practices identified by the implementation and institutional arrangements could be put in place at that larger-scale in order to better support the implementation of the World Bank (Dhargouth et al 2008) in a global stocktaking of World local micro-watershed plans and achieve some economies of scale. As Bank-financed projects are used here. These address seven differ- previously noted, this aggregation was mechanical and did not provide a “sub-watershed management” framework that both informed and was ent areas or themes: (i) the micro-watershed as a building block; informed by the micro-watershed plans. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 18 C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N TABLE 4.1: Micro-watershed Selection Criteria Used by the inclusion, political commitment and sustained capacity building for Three World Bank–Supported Projects all stakeholders (including government). Decentralization is an on- KARNATAKA HIMACHAL PRADESH UTTARAKHAND going process in many countries, just as it is in India. Thus local-level • Extent of waste lands (20 • Altitude (between 600 m • Altitude (between 700 m participatory approaches for governance of resources, planning, points) and 1800 m) and 2000 m) • Silt index & erosion hazard • Ecological degradation • Ecological degradation/ management, and technical functions must be careful to reinforce— (20 points) • Poverty (more than 30% Erodibility Index (50 • Extent of irrigated/dry below poverty, SC/ST percent weight) rather than conflict with—the broader policies and processes as area (10 points) percentage, marginal • Poverty (25 percent) workers percentage, regards decentralization of responsibilities for local development • Rainfall (20 points) • Backwardness (25 percent) • Schedule Castes (SC)/ population density, and natural resources management. The roles and responsibilities Schedule Tribes (ST) women’s literacy) population (20 points) • Backwardness (scarcity of elected government, technical agencies, nongovernment orga- • Proportion of agricultural villages, distance from motorable road, public nizations and community organizations must be rationally defined laborers (10 points) utilities, and so on) and carefully managed. Decentralized and participatory programs • Potential for treatment, watershed work (including are complex, but they are key to building effective partnerships arable land & population) • Compactness of the area at different levels. Such processes are time-consuming and gesta- • Social capital (status of tion periods can be lengthy, particularly where joint management village level institutions, level of conflicts, & of common resources is intended. In recognition of this, design co-operation, and so on) • Farming systems (irrigated and implementation must also allow the flexibility for each micro- area, livestock status, watershed to evolve and progress along its own development path. availability of fuel wood & fodder) An assessment of the World Bank–Supported projects showed that their participatory and decentralized approaches were reasonably prioritize micro-watersheds for treatment. Using objective criteria effective in engendering real participation by communities and helped to minimize political interference once the project districts local governments. In great measure this was due to the projects’ were decided upon. As table 4.1 details the selection criteria used mechanisms and resources transfers that supported the broader by the projects. In keeping with the national guidelines, they local development agendas. The projects’ approaches to resources used a mix of resource, poverty, and livelihood-based criteria. The governance, planning, management, and technical assistance rein- weighting of the criteria reflects the particular priorities of the forced the pre-existing and ongoing broader processes of decen- states; all included ecological considerations. Each states’ compos- tralization. Some key lessons can be taken from project experiences. ite index and ranking system identified and prioritized the needi- These are detailed below. est sub-watersheds, extending selection criteria beyond purely technical water and resource management concerns. Excluded Performance-Based Systems improve implementation at the from consideration were areas deemed to be protected areas, field-level. Sujala’s project structure was designed to work in a such as national parks and sanctuaries, and those covered by other decentralized context and operate through partnerships between watershed schemes. government, NGOs, communities, and other stakeholders from the micro-watershed to the state levels. This required all stakeholders 4.2 DECENTRALIZED AND PARTICIPATORY to adhere to principles of mutuality, complementarity, transparency DEVELOPMENT and fairness. To operationalize these principles, in 2007 the project Although effective participation imposes demanding require- introduced a new system of performance based payments (PBPS). ments, participatory approaches and the use of community WSM The PBPS was designed to (i) hold the local-level project imple- plans have been shown to be effective in empowering communi- menters accountable (that is, the District Watershed Development ties and in gaining their buy-in (ownership) of WSM programs. The Office and participating NGOs); (ii) incentivize good performance; approach requires appropriate sequencing, careful attention to (iii) sanction non-performers; and (iv) bring about uniformity and WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N 19 parity in service contract agreements. The PBPS helped improve initial PBPS Agreement acknowledged that circumstances beyond performance at the field level and sped up completion of the proj- the control of the stakeholders could delay progress, and defined ect within its extended time frame. Some of the good lessons from a category of “no fault” payments for such situations. In practice, this experience that could benefit future projects include: however, such circumstances as these were not acknowledged quickly enough and payments to FNGOs were unnecessarily and § Ensure that the actors responsible for delivery have ad- unjustly delayed. equate staff and resources to meet project milestones. If that is not possible, then make the milestones realistic relative Apply the systems of rewards and penalties evenly to all par- to the available capacity. Both the field-level NGOs (FNGO) and the District Watershed Development Office had too few ties. Sujala’s PBPS system ostensibly applied equally to both NGOs personnel to meet the original (overly optimistic) project and government agencies. In practice, however, while FNGOs could targets. easily be sanctioned through their project contracts, government § Watch for potential structural and procedural bottlenecks officials were largely untouchable. As a result, FNGOs were held dis- that could affect program outcomes and design the pro- proportionately responsible for implementation problems. Systems gram to either work around them or take them into account of performance incentives must be designed to work within the when setting milestones. Some of the issues encountered administrative and regulatory environments of each participat- included (i) the transition from a line of credit-based pay- ing institution. While the project could not sanction government ment systems to one of treasury checks, severely delayed the process of making payments to community groups officials as easily as NGOs, it could have used other performance and NGOs; (ii) additional new requirements—such as incentives. For instance, in the World Bank–Supported Hydrology II producing certified bank statements for remittance of local project, a central, public website tracked and showed the progress contributions—further delayed claim submissions; and (iii) (or lack thereof ) of dozens of state and federal agencies. Agencies a payment structure that reimbursed the District Watershed with consistently high performance were rewarded in very public Development Office for expenditures incurred in completing ways. Such systems of introducing productive competition among certain tasks and that left FNGO payment dependent upon public agencies and offices could work in circumstances such as the prior completion of those tasks by the Government func- tionaries. This resulted in inordinate delays in the release of those faced by Sujala. funds to the FNGOs that, in turn, led to staff turnover among the FNGOs that adversely affected the quality of project Sujala introduced the PBPS two years before the end of the project, implementation.19 so is it possible that many of the challenges it encountered might have been worked out had it had a longer operational window. Allow flexibility in applying project design and decision- Overall, the PBPS appears to have been an effective instrument for making to recognize and overcome local constraints. Sujala incentivizing improved implementation of project processes and decided early on to reduce, if not eliminate, mechanical equip- guaranteeing deliverables. However, for it to have fully delivered ment for civil works in order to promote local employment and on its promise, all parties to the agreement would have had to limit the potential for leakage. However, in several project areas be held equally accountable for fulfilling their expected roles and where soils were hard, local labor was not adequate for construct- functions. ing the works. The resultant delays in physical progress were mistakenly interpreted as poor performance, and the FNGOs had Effective decentralization means effectively decentralizing their payments either reduced or delayed. The project eventually decision-making, responsibility, financial resources and allowed the use of machinery to deal with the harder soils. The oversight. The HP and Gramya projects supported the states’ de- centralization efforts through utilizing a Panchayat-based approach for implementation. Because of the enabling policy environment, 19 The bulk of FNGOs did not have the financial wherewithal to sustain themselves for more than a couple of months at a time. the decentralization approaches avoided being ambiguous or A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 20 C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N half-hearted. Using the example of the Gramya project: to the ex- higher delivery standards. In the Gramya project, communities ex- tent possible, the project was implemented through local institu- pressed keen interest in participatory M&E and fully supported the tions that were statutory bodies whose existence is enshrined in exercises as evidenced by their majority presence and participation. legislation and would thus endure beyond the life of the project. Community members (men, women, and vulnerable groups) were As a principal, the creation of parallel institutions at the local level highly participative and unabashedly sought clarifications for any was to be avoided. The project placed the responsibility for approval doubts, especially those involving expenditure under the project. of Gram Panchayat Watershed Development Plans (GPWDPs) with The participatory M&E process opened project accounts to scru- the Gram Sabhas and the implementation responsibility with Gram tiny by the communities; including all vouchers, bills, and account Panchayat. All local-level interventions were managed, planned and books. Participatory M&E evolved as a public forum for seeking re- implemented by the communities and the GPs. The villages/com- dress of grievances and resolving conflicts around issues of project munities were the owners and the role of Government and NGOs implementations (for example, delays in payments or works, non- was as facilitators. Funds for watershed treatments were allocated to performance of project staff or committee members, and so on). each GP on the basis of area under GP’s jurisdiction and population of the GP. To promote broad participation, equity principals were operationalized by, among others, seeking to ensure that 50  per- 4.3 INVEST IN PARTICIPATORY, EVIDENCE-BASED cent of members were women in the village-level committees. MICRO-WATERSHED PLANS Fiscal autonomy was given to the local governments so that they Once the projects identified a micro-watershed, the action of de- could withdraw and disburse funds directly from the watershed ac- veloping a micro-watershed plan depended on the nature of land count. Local oversight mechanisms, such as having elected women ownership, land quality, and land use patterns in the project areas. ward members of the GP co-sign withdrawal and disbursement Thus, the approach taken by Karnataka, where over 85 percent of authorizations, were put in place. Incentives for good performance the landholding are private and cultivated, differed from that taken by local institutions were provided as was a systematic program for by Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, where over 65 percent of local capacity building in support of each actor’s roles and respon- land is public and only 25 percent is arable on average. sibilities. This approach successfully enhanced local participation. In Karnataka, Sujala Watershed Action Plans (SWAP) were based During the project, attendance in Gram Sabha meetings doubled on the Participatory Net Planning approach.20 The plans: (i) identi- and the participation of women increased fivefold. Assessments fied the appropriate conservation and production measures to be showed that an average of 79 percent of total households in a GP supported, which varied according to the type of landholding; (ii) had been involved in the preparation of GPWDP; that 49 percent of provided the estimated investment costs for the treatment mea- the community was aware of the GP budget and expenditures; and sures, including the individual contributions from the farmer and/ 91 percent were aware of project objectives, activities and meth- or other involved stakeholders; and (iii) established the calendar or odologies. Key elements for making the decentralized, participatory timeframe for the implementation. In Uttarakhand and Himachal approach work included the involvement of women as social mo- Pradesh, the GPWDPs focused on estimating the quantities and bilization workers and in project governance, targeted assistance costs of the specific activities along with the global contributions for vulnerable groups—the Vulnerable Group Fund for livelihood from the participating ward or revenue village. Detailed plans were activities, and participatory M&E. drawn up for each discreet activity at the time of implementation. Strong public scrutiny goes hand-in-hand with decentraliza- tion. Social auditing processes carried out through participatory 20 The Participatory Net Planning methodology was developed in the M&E proved to be an important tool and mechanism for support- early 1990s by the Watershed Organization Trust and deployed in a large ing communities’ aspirations as regarded their desired outcomes bilateral watershed project, the Indo-German Watershed Development Programme (IGWDP). Its use has since spread widely, suitably modified from the projects. It also helps to deter bad practices and motivate to accommodate local situations. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N 21 While the approach adopted for HP and Gramya projects has proven system intensification (integrated pest management; integrated appropriate given the predominance of public lands, the addition of nutrient management; integrated moisture management strate- the Participatory Net Planning methodology for private agricultural gies); and livelihood enhancement plans for vulnerable groups, all lands where productivity enhancement or market-linked produc- of which are subsequently vetted against any likely adverse impacts tion is a goal, might have been beneficial. on the physical and social environment (see box 4.1). In the cases of the HP and Gramya projects, the focus was less on high-tech Despite the different situations and approaches, the three projects inputs and more on participatory planning through public meet- had in common three broad processes for micro-watershed plan- ings. Meetings were carried out at all levels, starting at the wards ning and the formulation of proposals: and building up through the GP (HP project) or revenue village § The collection of detailed socio-economic and natural (Gramya). Ward meetings sought the participation of all the adult resources data; information on land use and, in the case of members on the voter list of the GP, including women and elders, Common Property Resources (CPRs) on the existing manage- the ward representative, community groups (SHGs [Self Help ment regimes; and beneficiary preferences and expectations Groups], Mahila Mandals, Nav Yuvak Mandals), and the Watershed from all stakeholder categories (land owners, landless and Development Coordinator/front line staff of the cluster (operational women, Community Based Organizations [CBOs] and User Groups [UGs]); area) in which the GP or revenue village fell. In keeping with their § The systematic collation and analysis of all data and informa- goals of strengthening the PRI system, harmonizing approaches, tion collected, which in the case of Sujala, involved the use and converging with on-going schemes, a greater emphasis on of proprietary IT-enabled tools;21 and processes for developing micro-watershed plans was emphasized § The use of basic cadastral and thematic maps (based on in these projects. remote sensing data) with GIS applications to inform and facilitate decision making at the micro-watershed level. Additionally, a very good practice followed by the projects was the allocation of budgets to the local communities, giving them a firm All of the projects supported multiyear planning (three year plans knowledge of available resources and budgetary constraints. This in Sujala project and five year plans in the HP and Gramya projects) helped to make planning realistic. Without such knowledge it is that incorporated data collection, analysis, and resource mapping. impossible for the communities to plan and prioritize in a meaning- However, the emphasis and use that each project gave to these ful manner. A situation in which communities are not given a firm informational and analytical inputs appears to have been be largely budget around which to plan is a situation where someone other determined by each projects’ overarching objectives. than the community will decide on the priorities. This makes com- In Sujala’s case, the SWAP incorporated most all of the compo- munity plans no more than “wish lists” and undermines the develop- nents of an integrated micro-watershed plan22—such as Soil and ment of self-governance/decision-making capacities. Water Conservation (SWC) measures; horticulture; forestry; farming Finally, as has been mentioned previously in other contexts, flex- ibility must be incorporated as a critical element of participa- 21 To manage the large amount of data and information collected in the planning process, Sujala developed a customized software package tory project design and demand-driven implementation. Although called Sukriya. This is a bilingual software package that enables quick, projects will have targets for inputs, outputs, and outcomes, these uniform, and systematic creation of beneficiary-wise databases that pro- vide for the generation of a variety of analytical and assessment reports. targets must be flexibly interpreted to allow the communities to The project also developed two other GIS-enabled software packages: Sukriya Nakshe, which allows for about 150 different types of activities have the ultimate decision over the choice of investments. Often to be depicted at micro-watershed level in a “pick and drop” mode and the lag between planning and implementation and the learning Nakshe Vivara, a map viewer tool that facilitates the display of various resource maps and allows the overlay of user defined layers with a spe- that comes with experience will result in the need to adjust targets. cific query facility. Thus, appropriate mechanisms to allow for such flexibility in the 22 The principal exception being water resources/hydrologic impacts with- in and downstream of the micro-watershed. implementation are necessary. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 22 C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N BOX 4.1: The Pros and Cons of Technology-Intensive Resource Mapping Resource maps play an important role in understanding the allowed for variations of up to 10 percent in the overall SWAP, problems and prospects of an area as well as the spatial nature however, even this degree of flexibility was generally exercised and interrelationship that existed between different resources. As by project authorities, resulting in instances of investments either part of SWAP development, Sujala used remote sensing and other not being undertaken or left incomplete. ancillary data, to generate various resource maps such as, land It is the case that detailed, stakeholder approved and implementable use and cover, soils, slope, land capability, erosion status, hydro- action plans can be developed without the types of high end (and geomorphology, drainage pattern, groundwater prospects, trans- somewhat costly) information inputs that Sujala had at its disposal. port network and settlement locations, and superimposed them Nevertheless, for large scale projects there is available technology on cadastral maps of the micro-watersheds, thus making perti- (remote sensing, GIS, watershed models, decision-support models, nent information available for resource management planning. and so on) that can facilitate integrated planning at the larger scale. The project used this information to make technical recommenda- Specifically, these technologies can allow local planning outputs tions such as, identification of sites/areas for surface water harvesting, (for example, micro-watershed plans) to be aggregated up into groundwater recharge zones, check dams and other water harvesting coherent larger-scale plans (for example, into sub-basin plans), structures, plantations and fodder banks, horticulture plots, and so on. which ensure that project support to local objectives and plans is consistent with broader scale policies, objectives, and plans. This process provided a complementary input for field-level deci- sion making, on a relatively micro-scale (five km2) across all sub- In Sujala, the technology inputs allowed for participatory processes watersheds and helped to improve SWC impacts in enhancing in which important details and information could be presented in productivity, while maintaining the ecological and environmen- user-friendly formats (thematic maps) that added both substance tal integrity of the micro-watershed. However, even after exhaus- and quality to the planning processes that otherwise would have tive consultations, farmers and stakeholders can and do change been missing. These inputs helped all parties arrive at a common their minds fairly frequently and for a variety of reasons. Therefore, understanding of the potential and constraints of the micro- action plans may on occasion have to be totally set aside and watershed that was both more precise and objective. It also facili- reformulated as changes occur in the field and amongst the tated the selection of investments by providing a more objective stakeholders. While project designs may seek to build in adequate means of prioritizing within the broad list of demands that often flexibility to avoid the need for formally updating plans, nonethe- result from community participation processes (for example, a less in certain instances approved plans will need to be scrapped shopping list of works) those interventions which are technically and a new one completely developed. In Sujala, program rules feasible and for which site characteristics are suited. 4.4 ENSURE INCLUSION OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS In the case of the three World Bank–Supported projects under Fostering inclusion is neither easy nor straightforward. Inclusion is review, a great deal of attention was paid to the challenges of not a neutral concept as it involves shifts in decision-making power stakeholder inclusion and participation. Generally speaking, the between the state and local communities and between different efforts and attention by the projects paid off in terms of consen- segments of the community. Inclusive participatory processes gen- sus building on local priorities, “democratizing” access to project erally require rules that promote equity in participation and decision resources and equitable sharing of project benefits. Among others, making and these must be tailored to the specific development and the projects sought to ensure that the concerns of all stakehold- distributional outcomes desired. Success in developing inclusive ers, including with respect to water resources,23 were highlighted processes tends to be more likely where: in the planning processes. A “ridge-to-valley” approach was taken for sequencing watershed treatments, which ensured that the poor § The purposes for seeking broad stakeholder participation are of common interest to all or most of the key stakeholders; 23 This process extended only to any locally-felt externalities. It remains § The processes and organization are flexible and enough to be tested whether this same process would hold up to externally time and resources are provided for capacity building and imposed constraints on water allocation and use—for example, from genuine empowerment; and operating within a broader watershed management framework where maximizing local capture and consumption of water would conflict with § There exist income and livelihoods incentives. downstream rights or prior uses. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N 23 more often benefited first since, if they have lands, they are usually In fact, all three projects envisaged SHGs taking over the develop- on the hillsides and upper reaches. To foster inclusiveness, practices ment and management of CPRs or otherwise having a stake in the were adopted to verify that the official lists of households below the sharing of usufruct benefits. In the HP project, an experiment was poverty line were also recognized as such within the community initiated in some project villages to hand over treatment, conserva- and to ensure that families’ economic status was correctly assessed. tion and management of forest lands to SHGs, entitling them to a By taking such approaches, there was a reasonable degree of con- share of the usufruct benefits as per existing statutory provisions. fidence that vulnerable families and households were identified While all three projects adopted the SHG route to promote women’s in each project village and that specific project interventions and empowerment, given their different frameworks and circumstances, instruments could be correctly targeted to assist them (see box 4.2). each had different strategies for doing so. To facilitate the integra- An important element in reaching the poor and ensuring that their tion of SHG members in the institutions supported by the Sujala voice and concerns were included was the use of baseline surveys project, they were enjoined to become members of the Sujala prior to the planning processes. Families were interviewed to deter- Watershed Sangha (SWS), by paying the membership fee and to mine their baseline economic and social status, and to understand actively participate in all proceedings. Additionally, the SHGs had their needs with regard to livelihood options. This also provided institutional representation on the Executive Committee (EC) of important insights into village dynamics and the existing resources the SWS. Fifty percent of the membership positions in the EC were in a community. This also allowed all three projects to earmark reserved for women. Moreover, out of 11 EC members (out of a total resources and correctly target them to the poor, vulnerable, and of 14 members), one each had to represent small farmers, SC/ST, the landless in order to provide incremental support for income and landless, and artisans. Either the president or the secretary of the EC employment generation schemes (including off-farm and non- had to be a woman. natural resource based alternatives). It also allowed assessments of the extent to which benefits accrued to the poor from the projects’ The HP project had no institutional requirements beyond those al- overall investments in public goods (for example, small roads, po- ready mandated through existing, statutory provisions (for example, table water supply, sanitation systems, community buildings, school 33 percent of seats are reserved for women in the GP and there are buildings, cattle troughs, and so on) as prioritized by the village-level reservations for other social groups as well). However, additional processes. training was offered and conducted for women PRI members in order to help them be more effective in representing women’s in- The projects all prioritized the inclusion of disadvantaged and terests and to make their voices heard. vulnerable groups, especially women and the landless, from their inception. This was important as watershed development programs In the Gramya project, once the GPWDPs were developed and tend to have a natural bias in favor of those who own and have consolidated by the Water and Watershed Committees, they were access to land and other natural resources. Without attention to the submitted for approval to the all-women’s body called the Mahila poor and landless, inevitably the greatest benefits will flow to those Aam Sabha. This body comprised all adult, voting-age women at the who are relatively better off, that is, those with the greatest access level of the GP; in effect, a body similar to the Gram Sabha but with- or ownership. The projects organized the poor from marginalized out the constitutional status and sanction that the latter enjoys. This households into SHGs or common activity groups (CAGs). The incen- helped to both identify and prioritize those issues of greatest con- tives to their mobilization were participation in thrift and credit or cern to local women. Only once the Mahila Aam Sabha approved asset accumulation groups, access to capacity building, opportunity the proposal, was it forwarded to the Gram Sabha for approval. After to become mainstreamed into local decision making institutions, di- the proposal cleared the Gram Sabha, the GP forwarded it to the rect access to resources (financial, managerial, technical, market ac- Divisional Project Director (DPD) for sanction. The GPs were assisted cess, information) needed to carry out income generating activities in this effort by the FNGOs and/or partner NGOs (PNGO) as well as (IGAs), and inclusion in the development and management of CPRs. the multidisciplinary project team and DPDs. Mahila Aam Sabhas A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 24 C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N BOX 4.2: Generating a Demand Pull All three projects were premised on people’s participation, stake- Maharashtra. It is called “self-selecting conditionalities.”c This ap- holder buy-in, and post-project sustainability. These outcomes proach is based on the philosophy and assumption that when can only be realized if they are demand-driven, not supply-led. people really want something, they are willing to do what it takes This “demand pull” of a potential project needs to be assessed in to secure it and, once they do, they are much more likely to look some way. after their acquisitions as they themselves have invested in it. The Among the three projects, Sujala attempted to use an entry point design principal that flows from this is the importance that felt activity during the initiation phase, when the project moved into a needs be well demonstrated and that ownership be created at new area, to establish rapport and win the confidence of the peo- the very start of a project in order to sustain the stream of project ple. This also served as a means of assessing “demand pull” at the benefits long after closure. outset. However, depending on the manner in which entry point In the IGWDP, communities that wanted to participate were activities were undertaken, they could be more or less effective as required to provide four days of shramdaan (voluntary labor) on an approach to testing, organizing, and building social and insti- an SWC work, in which at least 70 percent of the population par- tutional capital. It was learned that where an entry point activity ticipated. The landless and single parent poor households were intervention needs be undertaken, a “capacity building event”— excluded from this requirement and the work had to be accom- an instrument and occasion to train CBOs in some of the skills plished within a given period, generally three to four months. necessary to properly implement a projecta—is an effective tool to Communities can meet this requirement only if they have a begin to develop a relationship and secure initial villager “buy-in”. need strong enough to compel them to set aside their differ- Subsequently, the entry point activity could be undertaken after ences and come together and if they perceive that the project awareness building had resulted in the formation and establish- can address their needs at least in the short term. Those target ment of CBOs that meet project requirements. This approach, villages that fall within the micro- or sub-watershed of interest, however, is not yet the norm. As such, the risk exists that the entry but are either unwilling or incapable of meeting this initial re- point activity could become an exercise whose sole purpose is to quirement despite mobilization efforts, may yet receive some access resources, rather than serve to demonstrate that participa- project benefits in the form of those minimal physical interven- tory approaches and joint efforts are possible and lead to tangible tions needed to safeguard downstream activities. Because the benefits, as well as to build the confidence needed to take on a relationship between the watershed community and the po- heretofore unknown activity of “participatory watershed planning.” tential project is integral to the success and sustainability of the Another approach is one that was used with great effect in the project, this, or an equivalent approach to assess and validate Indo-German Watershed Development Program (IGWDP)b in demand is desirable. a c Such as decision making, planning, budgeting, responsibility sharing, These also included technical and social parameters such as whether a managing conflicts, making purchases, maintaining books and records, project was a clearly defined watershed, the extent of irrigation, the land managing the event to inaugurate the created facility, and so on. holding pattern, willingness to enforce social disciplines such as ban on b The IGWDP-Maharashtra is a large-scale NGO facilitated bilateral pro- free grazing on treated areas, ban on adopting water guzzling crops, on gram that operates in the rainfed regions of the state. bore wells, and so on. are now regularly organized throughout the project where they a government functionary, is the mandatory bank account cosigna- function as a platform for bringing up issues of concern to women, tory for any government-funded project and this had been the case identifying needs, and redressing grievances. initially with the local project account. Another innovation by the Gramya project to ensure the de facto in- All three projects also made specific provisions for vulnerable groups. volvement of women in governance was to make one of the female Livelihood activities and IGAs routed through SHGs and CAGs have members of the Water and Watershed Committee sub-committee been the preferred format for channeling project resources, capacity at the GP-level a cosignatory with the Gram Pradhan for the opera- building services, and benefits to the vulnerable individuals, families tion of the local project account. Normally, the Panchayat Secretary, and groups. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N 25 In the Sujala project, after the mid-term review, it was decided to vulnerable groups, in addition to the other funds spent separately substantially increase the project component of IGAs and reserve under the Tribal Action Plan. Beneficiaries could also participate them exclusively for SHG members, all of whom belonged to vulner- in skills training and entrepreneurial development programs that able families. Originally, only three and one-half percent of project included exposure visits, the provision of on-site technical support, funds were allocated to livelihood and income generating activities, assistance to access banking services and in marketing. No funds but this was raised to almost 13 percent by the time the project were disbursed without an acceptable business plan and/or project closed. This was in addition to the already substantial amounts dedi- proposal and without the beneficiary undergoing training related cated to capacity building, institution linkage building and market to their chosen livelihood activity. Such livelihood related sub-plans facilitation. Allocations and disbursements were done on the basis were made a year after the project began and became a part of the of a Vulnerable Group Sub-Plan that was developed within a year of GPWDP and were included in the Annual Work Plan and Budget of 24 the initiation of the project and appended to the SWAP. A revolv- the GPWDP. ing fund of Rs 75,000 per SHG was also disbursed. In fact, the project Similarly the Gramya project, in addition to its Tribal Action Plan, ensured that unit costs (per hectare) for investment on SC/ST and established a Vulnerable Groups Fund (VGF). To access the fund, marginal farmer’s lands was equal to or greater than the average eligible individuals and families had to be members of an SHG and per hectare project cost. To avoid undue favoritism, an investment have participated in thrift and credit activities for at least six months. ceiling of Rs 75,000 per farmer was also put in place. Other prior conditions included having undergone certain capac- In the HP project, the Mountain Livelihoods Enhancement Fund ity building, skill development and entrepreneurship development component comprised 15 percent of total project outlays.25 programs as well as having prepared a sub-plan for the identified This fund was accessible to anybody who became a member of income generating activity.27 The SHGs were networked with each a CAG (an SHG undertaking an income generating/livelihood other for mutual support. Once they reached a certain level of ma- activity is also considered a CAG). The fund consisted of two turity and economic activity, the project encouraged them to join sub-components: together based on common activities. While capital expenditures for such livelihood activities were subsidized, the working capital § The “Support for Livelihoods Enhancement” subcomponent was provided through a revolving fund to the concerned SHGs, that was exclusively meant for the poor and vulnerable which would onlend to the entrepreneurs on terms established by groups26 § The “Agri-Business Development” subcomponent the individual SHGs. So that all beneficiaries could afford to participate in project sup- For the first subcomponent, a grant of up to 90 percent of ported activities and reap roughly equal benefits, all three projects estimated costs was allowed and for the second subcomponent, allowed for differential (smaller) contributions from those partici- up to 50  percent The project was successful in ensuring that the pants classified as “vulnerable” and required the payment of equal majority of the Mountain Livelihood Enhancement Funds went to wages to men and women for equal work. Transparency in the amounts paid was also required, by directing that payment rates for 24 Around 250 livelihood opportunities were identified covering the fol- lowing categories: traditional/handicrafts, trade and commerce, indus- individual labor (for example, piece rates and volumetric rates) be tries and production, services and agriculture/nature-based. In practice, around 75 types of these livelihoods were most in demand. And of publicly displayed. these, 70 percent of them are farm and livestock-based. 25 Activities undertaken include production (milk production/dairy, weav- 27 Some of the activities taken up are: vegetable production/fruit preser- ing, poultry, floriculture, mushroom cultivation), processing (fruit juices, vation, herbs production, fibre handicraft, livestock production, mush- honey making, dairy products, pickle making, papad making), trade room cultivation, forest/horticulture nurseries, farming of medicinal (vegetable vending, meat, milk, grain and oil vending, kirana shops) and plants, tools for artisan activities, vegetable production, dairy unit (jointly services (auto/electronics/electrical repairs, para-vets, transport, cold owned/individually operated processing plants), stitching and tailoring, storage, tailoring). individual/jointly-owned shop or stall, marriage band, food processing 26 It is also called the “Vulnerable Group Fund” and is meant for women, plant, fisheries, catering unit, pickle making, plate/rope making (jointly- tribals, landless, small and marginal farmers. owned plant), tent house, carpet making. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 26 C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N 4.5 INVEST IN CAPACITY BUILDING AND and so on). Multiple media were also extensively utilized for both INFORMATION SHARING training and communications purposes, consisting of wall paint- All three projects envisaged a people-driven, integrated watershed ings and “magazines,” project newsletters, posters, illustrated litera- development program facilitated and supported by NGOs (in the ture, short videos and audio clips, banners, street plays, folk plays case of the Sujala and Gramya projects), project authorities and (jathas), radio jingles, flip charts, and pamphlets. In the Gramya functionaries, and both private and public, specialized institutions. project, monthly community newsletters (called Hamara Akhbaar) Capacity building for all stakeholders and, in particular, the benefi- were launched as local initiatives to be produced at the GP-level. ciaries and their CBOs was seen as a high priority to ensure success- The communities were assisted by FNGOs and the PNGO29 and the ful implementation and to achieve objectives. Substantial resources DPDs. The newsletters comprise single page broadsheets which were directed in all three to enhance the knowledge and skills of can be copied and shared with nearby GPs. Interesting stories in the all actors and inculcate the behaviors and attitudes necessary to a newsletters are shared throughout the project on a quarterly basis people-centered, participatory approach. Capacity needs assess- through a project-wide newsletter, Gramya Darpan. ments were carried during the preparation processes and early on in In the Sujala project almost 100 distinct training modules were de- the projects so that detailed training modules could be developed veloped, covering technical, social, managerial and financial aspects and tailored to the particular needs of the various project actors. of the project. Technical training topics included watershed devel- All three projects developed fairly effective strategies for communica- opment, SWC technologies, forestry, horticulture, integrated crop tion for and amongst their stakeholders, the general public, the respec- management, care and management of livestock, environmental tive political establishments and the concerned line agency depart- and social impact assessment, CPR management, quality control ments at the state level. The communications and outreach actions and joint forest management. Social training modules covered insti- were conceived as part of the overall design package for capacity build- tutional and social requirements of participatory watershed devel- ing, awareness creation, knowledge dissemination, and promotion opment, such as visioning, conflict resolution, negotiations, stake- of successful approaches and good practices. The Sujala project was holder roles, gender, and equity. Managerial and financial training particularly successful in ensuring widespread publicity, information topics included leadership, how to conduct meetings, bookkeeping dissemination, and generation of interest amongst national ministries and accounting, self-assessment of CBOs, participatory rural ap- and official development agencies (multilateral and bilateral). praisal techniques, stress management, and so on. Course content was designed to apply to needs and learning abilities for all levels A variety of instruments were utilized for building capacity and of stakeholders.30 dissemination—for example, classroom and village-based training, study tours/exposure visits, on-farm demonstrations, and farmer 29 At the state level, a PNGO was appointed for a period of five years. The field schools. Modern IT approaches were tested and extensively role of the PNGO was to advise and support the Watershed Develop- deployed in the case of the Sujala project, including the use of tele- ment Department in all matters related to the program, train local NGOs in discharging their roles, develop strategy papers on subjects relevant conferencing and satellite communication programs (SATCOM)28, to the project, produce, share, and provide support in training material development, and provide systems support. along with more traditional media such as radio programs. Training 30 The course content for SHGs, consisted of six modules that deal with manuals and teaching aids were developed for the different target watershed development, the role of CBOs, details on SHG formation and management, SHG book-keeping and financial management, eq- groups (CBOs, technical staff, field personnel, project functionaries, uity and inclusion of vulnerable groups, IGAs, sub-plan preparations, leadership, decision-making, conflict resolution and linkages building and relationship management with other institutions. The course con- tent for Activity Groups (AGs) consisted of 11 modules which deal with 28 SATCOM is a unique approach where two-way audio and one-way video an introduction to Sujala, the concept of watershed development; the broadcasts were made through satellite media to all the five project role of CBOs in particular the Area Group, SWS, and EC; record keeping, districts simultaneously from the State Institute of Rural Development, book-keeping and financial management; SWAP preparation processes; Mysore, on a regular basis. Good practices and success stories were dis- preparation of sub-plans for vulnerable groups; SWAP implementation seminated and stakeholders were enabled to share their experiences and monitoring; leadership development, conflict resolution, decision with a far wider audience than they would otherwise have had access to. making and linkage building with other institutions. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N 27 At the micro-watershed level the bulk of training was conducted by Village Committees, Vulnerable Groups, farmer interest groups, and NGOs. Multiple other agencies were involved in conducting training SHGs were elected as Gram Pradhans, heads of village councils or at other levels. In addition to the NGOs, there were also the Watershed ward members in the Panchayat elections in 2008. 31 Development Department, Antrix, Center for Continuing Technical Another useful indicator of the growing capacity of the GPs (and Education (Karnataka), Karnataka Livestock Development Agency, by implication the quality of training imparted) is the increasing Karnataka Milk Federation, the District Resource Group, Karnataka volume of funds being channeled through them. Up to March 2010, Remote Sensing Applications Center, the University of Agricultural in the HP project an amount of Rs 407.8 million had been disbursed Sciences, and a private chartered accountant firm as well as other to GPs for works and in the Gramya project an amount of Rs 47.6 specialized agencies and experts as needed. In the Gramya project million for capacity building and training purposes. a similarly detailed capacity building agenda was developed and delivered through FNGOs and PNGOs. All three projects periodically reviewed and refined the content and methodologies applied in their training programs. The Sujala For its part, the HP project developed 11 generic modules that broadly project, for instance, had a formal system of pre- and post-training covered the same topics as those found in the Sujala project. The evaluations that were carried out at the field-level on a randomized approach here however was for the project to directly provided train- basis. Feedback on the training schedule, content and process was ing, utilizing the project staff to organize and conduct community- captured through the monthly meetings, reports, and teleconfer- level training.32 A central purpose of the training program was to ences. This led to the finding that that what was of the greatest enhance the core administrative capacity of the PRIs in areas of plan- interest to project participants, that demonstrated concrete and ning, budgeting, financial management, and reporting. This required lasting impacts and, which had the broadest dissemination (spread making substantial investments in staff development and the and uptake) effect were the study tours/exposure visits, Farmer Field appointment of specialized personnel at all levels who could conduct Schools and village-based trainings that focused on addressing the and administer the capacity building program. The training was largely immediate needs of beneficiaries. Examples of this latter include operational in orientation, and the project has developed a number of livestock management, soil nutrient, pest and disease manage- manuals for standardizing and ensuring the quality of the content of ment, and integrated crop moisture management. the training, as well to facilitate the updating of courses as required.33 One indicator of the impact that the capacity building has had is the number of community members who have completed the 4.6 LINK CONSERVATION EFFORTS TO LIVELIHOODS FOR SUSTAINABILITY training program, have demonstrated success as local functionaries and then subsequently stood for and won elections to the GP and It is critical, and feasible, to conserve resources and improve liveli- other local bodies. Previously, most of these people would hardly hoods in the same project. When conservation actions generate have entertained the idea of standing for elections. In total some income, then sustainability is more likely in the long run. This is not 66 community members that worked with the Gramya project as an easy goal to achieve, however, since conservation is not always in motivators, assistant accountants, and members of the Revenue the interest of some or all stakeholders and local interests may con- flict with downstream interests. To manage these potential conflicts, project approaches should: 31 Antrix Corporation Limited is the marketing arm of the Indian Space Research Organization for promotion and commercialization of space § Undertake stakeholder analysis to identify potential winners products, technical consultancy services, and transfer of technologies developed by the organization. and losers, address equity concerns in distribution of costs 32 The services of agencies, both governmental and NGO, were engaged and benefits, assess losses to be incurred by different com- to train project staff. munity groups because of conservation practices; 33 Such as Community Operational Manual, Financial Manual for GPs, Tech- § Focus on generating positive income streams for affected nical Manual, Engineering Manual, Guidelines for Nursery Raising and Seedlings Specifications, Staff Induction Manual, and so on. stakeholder groups through intensification, diversification, A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 28 C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N downstream processing and marketing, and alternative BOX 4.3: Tapping Community Capacity through livelihoods; Paraprofessionals § Provide a technical analysis of the potential for improving resource conservation within livelihood systems and finan- The Sujala project introduced a barefoot veterinarian service, cial and economic analysis to establish the basis for project called Gopal Mitras, to strengthen livestock extension support incentives, identify interventions, and to provide clarity on if services. Para-vets were supported in all project watersheds in order to ensure local availability of basic animal health services and how subsidies and other incentives will create sustain- as well as to create a livelihood opportunity for the rural un- able WSM outcomes; employed with an aptitude for such a vocation. The para-vet § Design participatory approaches to developing and adopt- service met a keenly felt, unfulfilled need. Demand for services ing new technologies and local research and development to was good from the outset but greatly expanded as substan- construct least-cost and maximum-benefit technical packages; tial reductions began to result in livestock mortality rates and § Provide relevant stakeholders a secure stake in the benefits the convenience of having nearby animal health services con- from improved management of common pool resources vinced livestock owners to use the services. All Gopal Mitras and provide viable income alternatives where restrictions to had mobile phones to make it easier for people in more distant access or use are involved; and villages to call them. Earnings by the Gopal Mitras were esti- mated to be between Rs 3,000–6,000 per month.a § Promote interventions that reduce risk to livelihoods, such as improving water sources. In the HP project, the introduction of para-accountants to support GPs in project implementation was proven so useful The linking of livelihoods to watershed development objectives that the chief minister decided that para-accountants would was an area of best practice in all three projects. All stakeholder be appointed in all GPs where watershed projects were be- ing implemented. The project also developed para-technicals groups in the communities and watersheds participated, including in other skill areas relevant to the project and the individual vulnerable groups (women, tribals, landless, marginal farmers), and villages; examples include organic farming, dairy, floriculture, planning focused on seeking opportunities for livelihood develop- high value crops, and marketing. Called jankars, they are local ment and improvement for all. Technical objectives were balanced individuals who are nominated by the community and then with considerations for social inclusion and equity. As the land trained by the project. a management interventions primarily benefitted those relatively The poverty line in 2009–10, based on the monthly per capita consumption expenditure, was Rs 673 for rural areas and Rs 860 for better-off segments of the population with landholdings, it was urban areas (Times of India 2012). a best practice for the projects to address equity concerns and include significant resources targeted at income and employment micro-enterprises for value-added processing, alternative products, generation activities for the aforementioned vulnerable groups.34 trade, service provision, and so on. In two of the projects, innovative approaches were developed to Implicit in the support for the non-farm/non-timber income gen- help villages develop internal service providers for veterinary ser- eration activities was the assumption that the development of vices and accounting (see box 4.3). Participatory planning processes these alternatives would indirectly reduce pressure on the natural went beyond land management/use to include livelihoods, rural resources base and/or provide increased income for farming house- infrastructure, opportunities for women’s self-help groups and tribal holds so they could continue the improved production practices development. The HP and Gramya projects emphasized market- being introduced to enhance sustainability.35 One example is the oriented alternatives, diversification and improvement of non-farm Gramya project’s support for production of pine needle briquettes and non-timber forest products, as well as, improvements to intra- for provision of an alternative energy source and thus conserve the village connectivity for market access in addition to the agricultural production. The HP project managed a special fund exclusively for 35 It does not appear that these assumptions were tested during the proj- poor and vulnerable groups that supported the development of ects, either to define what might be the more successful linkages be- tween improving resource management and livelihood systems or to establish if and how the investments and other incentives were (or were 34 This came later in Sujala. not) leading to sustainable resource management outcomes. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N 29 existing trees and shrubs that would otherwise be utilized for fuel. in increased agricultural productivity, greater returns to farmers, This was initiated in 117 villages involving 3,500 households. Pine reduction in losses and more stable income flows as farmers are needles, otherwise unutilized and whose accumulation in local dealing directly with end purchasers. forests constitutes a fire hazard, are being briquetted and used in a stove specially made for the purpose. It is hoped that, if the initia- 4.7 MONITORING AND EVALUATION tive catches on, it will reduce pressure on forest resources, improve Establishment of M&E systems to track on-site achievement of air quality in kitchens and homes, reduce drudgery, and result in economic, environmental, and institutional objectives is something more “own time” for women. The potential impact and relevance of expected of all projects. However, the Sujala project’s system stands this initiative can be significant given the fact that 80 percent of the out as a best practice as it went a step further to ensure that M&E out- project area lies in the Chir pine zone. puts were utilized to improve project performance by integrating a In terms of livelihoods, people in the project areas in both HP and decision support system into standard progress tracking (see box 4.4). Gramya depend largely on rainfed agriculture, livestock, and forests. As one senior project official explained, Monitoring, Evaluation and The mountainous region is subject to unpredictable meteorologi- Learning (MEL) in Sujala is an integral part of the project’s day-to-day op- cal events, having limited connectivity and poor soils. The focus of erations rather than a periodic off-line activity. It is a continuous activity, both projects was to stabilize and increase agricultural production. not only to facilitate effective project implementation, but also to gener- To accomplish this goal, an emphasis was placed on practices ate learning processes. This is especially important in the multi-level considered to enhance sustainability as well as increase productiv- matrix management structures that characterize most WSM projects. ity—organic crops, vermicomposting, integrated pest manage- To the extent possible monitoring systems should rely on low-cost, ment, Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture, and so on. The easy-to-use, and effective techniques for collection of (i) quantitative overall strategy was to meet household food requirements while data—physical indicators and household surveys; and (ii) qualitative diversifying into more market–oriented production. Attention data—interviews and observations of stakeholders about perceived was also given to improving income opportunities from non-farm progress and challenges in project implementation. Participatory livelihoods and non-timber forest products. Improving intra-village M&E is a very useful way to collect information about projects, analyze connectivity was an essential activity in order to increase market information, and get stakeholders more involved. Hard, statistically- access and reduce input costs. Increasing diversifying opportunities based data assessments should be matched with feedback from and enhancing household incomes was critical given the paucity stakeholders. Remote sensing offers good opportunities to generate of income sources in these regions, requiring many households to data at a low cost, and the use of maps is a good way to have an depend upon migration and remittances in order to survive. overview of project progress and to communicate with stakeholders. The Gramya project in particular has focused on market-linked agri- The projects undertook two broad types of M&E for learning pur- culture, with the goal of helping farmers access those markets that poses: concurrent and discrete. Figure 4.1 illustrates the kinds of the larger, traditional suppliers do not reach so that the farmers may activities carried out under each type, of which there were a total obtain higher prices. The project disseminates technologies, pro- of five sub-activities: vides advisory services to farmers, produces and distributes qual- ity seeds and seedlings, and establishes linkages between farmer § Input-output monitoring—done on a weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual basis—to track physical and financial interest groups and suppliers to process and market off-season veg- progress of components against specified indicators. The etable and high value crops. The project also unites producers and system was integrated across all levels from the GP to the progressively builds their capacities to handle key components of district or division up to the state. It also served as an early the value chain so that they bring larger volumes to market, giving warning system to trigger corrective measures. them greater negotiation power and, ultimately better prices and § Process monitoring tracked trends in how the project was greater individual income. The agribusiness initiative has resulted being implemented and informed project management on A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 30 C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N FIGURE 4.1: Activities Carried Out under Concurrent and Discrete M&E Concurrent monitoring Discrete monitoring Input–output monitoring Impact assessment Process monitoring Thematic and assessment studies Community self assessments needs for adjustments to project orientation and implemen- methodologies, with the Sujala and Gramya projects be- tation. This was done on a monthly or semi-annual basis or ing particularly noteworthy. whenever required by the Sujala project and on an occa- § Impact assessments were carried out to assess the over- sional or needs basis by the other two. all impact on natural resources and socio-economic and § Community self-assessments functioned as a periodic institutional development at the household, community and “mirror” to be held up before the various CBOs (Area micro-watershed/sub-watershed level. The Sujala project Groups, SHGs, SWS-Executive Committee, Up-Gram carried this out in three stages: at project outset to establish Sabhas, GPs) to help them evaluate themselves and the a baseline, for the mid-term assessment and at the closing overall project performance against defined indicators. evaluation. The mid-term and ex post assessments measured This was an important activity for building ownership, “before and after” and “with and without project,” using non- exposing grievances and project gaps, enabling correc- project, control watersheds. tive actions, and promoting transparency. These self- § Thematic and assessment studies were used periodically, in assessments were usually undertaken on a semi-annual response to specific management related concerns, to inves- basis. All three projects developed participatory M&E tigate topics related to the projects’ specific concerns. BOX 4.4: Implementing a Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning System The Sujala project stands out for its monitoring, evaluation, and project implementation, bringing together remote sensing, GIS learning (MEL) system. Specifically, those elements that made and the project’s MIS, along with a conventional monitoring sys- the system excellent were: (i) its systemic, integrated, and com- tem (for physical and financial progress monitoring) to provide a prehensive nature which captured both quantitative and qualita- state-of-the-art information system for tracking evidence of the tive aspects; (ii) the extensive and intensive use of IT, GIS, satellite project’s progress, outcomes, and impacts. According to project based communications and remote sensing; (iii) the judicious management, this system allowed for more efficient and effective blending of conventional participatory and evaluative techniques implementation, provided timely learning to allow adjustments in with modern technologies;a (iv) the depth and range of areas, pro- implementation and policy/priorities and greatly enhanced trans- cesses and themes covered; (v) the manner in which information parency and accountability in the project. The impact indicators gathered was used by the Watershed Development Department that were developed and monitored included: and the World Bank to steer the project; and (vi) the involvement of an external independent agency as part of the project struc- • Natural resource indicators, with changes in: agricultural land use, crop yield and productivity, cropping intensity, ture (not an occasional entrant) tasked with coordinating, sup- cropping pattern, horticulture/forestry, wasteland extent porting and undertaking process, impact and thematic studies. and groundwater level/yield; and The MEL system’s development and operation were outsourced to • Socio-economic indicators, with changes in: household in- Antrix Corporation Limited, the corporate wing of the Indian Space come, livestock population, fodder, and fuel wood, migration, Research Organization. The approach evolved over the course of employment opportunity, empowerment, and milk yield. a For example: remote sensing, SATCOM. (continued) WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N 31 BOX 4.4: (continued) Impacts were evaluated using a combination of qualitative and • The MEL agency, Antrix, had a field presence (between quantitative indicators at pre-determined intervals to establish three to four skilled persons per district) in each of the five the net contribution of the project to poverty alleviation, capacity project districts; building, and natural resource regeneration by comparing project • Indicators, methods, technologies and feedback mecha- and non-project control areas. A combination of approaches— nisms were all designed through a consultative and remote sensing, household survey, focus group discussions, par- participatory process engaging all stakeholders; ticipatory observations, thematic studies, MIS data, and case stud- • Analysis and documentation sought to uncover problems ies—generated monitoring data and the information for impact with a view to finding solutions, rather than assigning fault, assessment inputs.b in addition to identifying positive trends; Sujala’s MEL system was developed from its outset to both define • Information and feedback provided was relevant, evidence-based, and timely; and validate the effectiveness of methodologies and processes deployed in the project for applicability, adoptability and repli- • Findings were widely disseminated across all stakeholders as were the responses by project management; and cability at larger scales, in addition to meeting the project’s more immediate needs. • Trainings were provided to all stakeholders to create a shared understanding of the MEL approach, secure buy-in This 360˚ approach to MEL resulted in greater poverty focus and and facilitate quality and uniformity in data collection. inclusiveness by: While the MEL system has proven to be impressive, it did have to • Providing more income and employment opportunities overcome several challenges: for women, the landless and agricultural laborers; • Promoting increased equity between small, medium and • Apprehensions to new processes and technology and capacity limitations were largely overcome through trainings and large farmers; familiarization sessions with the concerned stakeholders • Identifying needed changes and improvements in the and as the system started producing results; and capacity building modules; • Fostering greater transparency and accountability at all levels; • Attitudinal resistance to such transparent reporting that, for instance, brought out issues of malpractice at times was • Streamlining procedures and implementation; ultimately reduced through strong project leadership and • Incentivizing better performance from CBOs, NGOs and the consistent insistence on accountability and transparency. government functionaries; and • Introducing greater cost efficiency in SWC works. The system still faces challenges, which will be worked upon in The main reasons for the success of the MEL system include: a second phase, that other programs may face as the approach is scaled up: • It was embedded as an integral part of project implementation; • Avoiding structural and relational overlaps between the • Project managers accepted, supported and used the external agency running the MEL system and internal units system; addressing quality can lead to differences in interpretation • A single independent agency coordinated the system of data gathered and tensions; throughout the project life cycle; • NGOs can face excessive pressures and workloads given the • Project managers took a longer term view of facilitating burden of obtaining, collating and forwarding information large-scale successful replication of similar projects; with limited personnel and other requirements of social mobilization and technical assistance; and b Antrix used multistage sampling techniques for data collection and • Impacting the work culture of government departments since randomly selected sub-watersheds based on their agroclimatic zone, the expectation and requirements of the project often general land use, and soil types. Within each sub-watershed, they se- exceeded those placed on staff by other government pro- lected three micro-watersheds based on location criteria to represent ridge, middle, and valley portions of the watershed. Sample size was de- grams; it was a challenge to introduce new performance termined (10 percent) and selection of households based on land hold- standards and convincing staff to be open to scrutiny and ing class (marginal, small, big, and landless) was done using appropriate learning new lessons. statistical criteria. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 32 C H A P T E R 4 — G O O D P R A C T I C E S F R O M P R O J E C T I M P L E M E N TAT I O N The use of IT-enabled and technology-assisted systems was com- reports, feedback reports, evaluation reports, thematic reports, input- mon to all three projects. The Sujala project used remote sensing output reports, case studies, and special reports. These were all fed back data, proprietary software (Sujala Mahiti, Sukriya, Sukriya Naksha, into the system at all levels by means of regular fortnightly, monthly Nakshe Vivara), a web-based Management Information System and/or annual review meetings and, through teleconferencing36 and (MIS) and the field presence of Antrix in all the project districts. The workshops. Agreed actions and corrective measures/interventions HP and Gramya projects installed web-based MIS systems that ex- were recorded into the MIS input-output systems and subsequently tended from the divisional level up to the state level. monitored to ensure compliance or fine tuning, as the case may be. This feedback-action loop enabled the projects to make changes in Data and other information from monitoring were provided in the their implementation strategy and undertaken corrective measures. forms of monthly observation reports, assessment reports, impact 36 Extensively and effectively used in Sujala, especially via satellite. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E CHAPTER 5 — CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS 33 Chapter 5 CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS 5.1 WATER: INDIA’S EMERGING PARADIGM . . . and developing a sustainable groundwater use plan as an SHIFT IN WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT integral part of the watershed action plan. Since the revision in 2001 of the Common Watershed Guidelines, § There has to be clear prioritization of objectives–drinking water and protective irrigation, along with fodder and fuel must come first. there have been three additional revisions: in 2008, 2011, and 2012.37 § Watershed development . . . has been . . . preoccupied with The major, strategic revisions have been those associated with the supply augmentation. Little attention has been paid to the end- process of updating the Guidelines for each of the new Five Year uses . . . it has failed to break with the dominant development Plans, that is, the 2008 and 2012 revision for the 11th and 12th Five paradigms . . . characterized by supply-side solutions . . . [and so Year Plans,38 respectively. For each of the major revisions there has is] caught in the infinite regress of forever trying to catch up with been a systematic process to capture lessons learned from all levels ever-expanding demand. of implementation through a series of performance assessments, § What is required is to find ways of not just increasing water supply evaluation studies, and programmatic reviews by high-level com- but much more critically reducing demand and regulating end-uses. mittees organized by the Ministry and Planning and the Ministries § Watershed development is not merely a matter of harvesting rainwater. Its success crucially entails working out collective of Rural Development and of Agriculture. protocols of equitable and sustainable use of surface water The 2008 Revisions. In 2005 MoRD constituted a special technical and groundwater, bringing together of scientists and farmers committee—the so-called Parthasarathy Committee—to review to evolve a dryland agriculture package and a host of other livelihood options, detailed land-use planning at the micro- and evaluate the Ministry’s watershed development programs watershed level and the mobilization of rural communities in (Drought Prone Area Program [DPAP], Desert Development Program the direction of the disadvantaged. [DDP], and Integrated Wasteland Development Project [IWDP]). Of relevance here were its conclusions related to water resources man- Despite these sobering findings, in the 2008 revision (GOI 2008) the agement within the watershed development programs (GOI 2006): reforms introduced under the new Guidelines were quite modest when it came to responding to the water resources management § Perhaps the most critical weakness of watershed programs in India is that they operate almost as if groundwater does not exist . . . it concerns raised by the Committee. Instead, the reforms focused pri- appears to play almost no role in watershed planning. marily on: (i) further decentralization of the programs to the states § . . . there is a need to recognize and study . . . groundwater [and] and the strengthening of local mechanisms and capacity for deliv- hydrogeology at the earliest stages of planning. This is impor- ery, implementation and O&M; and (ii) introduction of a sustainable tant for . . . location of structures, ensuring equity, sustainability livelihood orientation (defined as productivity enhancement and livelihoods along with conservation measures). 37 Appendix 1a provides an overview and summary of all of the five ver- sions of the Common Guidelines from 1995 to 2012 and Appendix 1b Relevant to water resources management, the revised Guidelines provides additional details on the 2008 and 2012 Guidelines that have sought to introduce very significant changes into the watershed devel- (i)  allowed for larger project areas (cluster approach) comprising opment approach and programs. clusters of micro-watersheds of average size from 1,000 to 5,000 ha; 38 The 11th Five Year Plan covered the period from 2007 to 2012 and the 12th Five Year Plan will cover the period from 2012 to 2017. (ii) called for scientific planning . . . to utilize information technology A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 34 CHAPTER 5 — CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS [and] remote sensing inputs in planning, monitoring and evaluation; levels over large tracts. One of the main messages of the presentation 39 and (iii) emphasized the need for following a “sequenced” ridge-to- was that business-as-usual will not do. valley approach, involving the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Later in that same year the Planning Commission’s strategy docu- or the States’ forest programs to protect upper reaches. Ultimately, ment for the 12th Five Year Plan was made official and published. however, the Guidelines viewed the cluster approach as primarily a The report—“Faster, Sustainable and More Inclusive Growth–An means to support economic activities at scale, rather than for strength- Approach to the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-17)” (GOI 2011)—re- ening of the water resources management framework to address iterated the gravity of the situation as regards water resources and the types of concerns raised by the Parthasarathy Committee. As a put forward a series of strategic priorities for water resources man- result, while all states “clustered” at these larger scales, the cluster- agement. These included: (i) the maintenance of existing surface ing did not form the basis for a needed landscape level assessment water bodies; (ii) groundwater management; (iii) aquifer mapping; to initiate the planning process at a suitable scale, with a focus on (iv) stakeholder-based aquifer management; (v) reforms in major hydrological resources. and medium irrigation; (vi) pricing of groundwater; (vii) regulatory As regards to the sequenced ridge-to-valley approach, the changes for groundwater; (viii) environmental management (for Parthasarathy Committee (GOI 2006) had warned that . . . experience water resources); and (ix) climate change (and water resources). in the field suggests that it would be better to introduce a degree of Further details are provided in appendix 1b. flexibility in the way the ridge-to-valley principle is applied . . . [while it is conceptually correct to] plan various interventions within the wa- A systematic review and evaluation of the prior Five Year Plan’s wa- tershed, in a ridge-to-valley sequence . . . the actual sequence of treat- tershed development programs was carried out by GOI’s Planning ment may be kept a little flexible and responsive to local perceptions. Commission, under the auspices of Dr. Mihir Shah and the “Shah The 2008 Guidelines did not, however, respond to this critique and Committee” in anticipation of the 12th Five Year Plan. Following continued with “ridge-to-valley” as a one-size-fits-all approach. from their review, the Committee formulated the 2012 Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects. The stated intent The 2012 Revisions. In early 2011, the Planning Commission pre- of the revisions was to strengthen the innovative features of the ear- sented its proposed new water resources strategy for the 12th Five lier Guidelines but also make certain changes to impart greater flexibil- Year Plan. Entitled “Sustainable Water Security at a Time of Climate ity, clarity and momentum to the Integrated Watershed Management Change” (Shah 2011), the presentation began with a review of the Program (IWMP). An implicit purpose was to align the Guidelines deepening water crisis in India and the need to move decisively be- with the Planning Commission’s strategy for the 12th Five Year Plan. yond [the] complacency of ‘denial mode.’ It went on to discuss the Included among the principal changes from the previous Guidelines: more recent and sobering assessments by independent researchers suggesting that India’s water budget is much tighter than current § Project duration shall be five years; assumptions hold40 and the non-renewable depletion of groundwater § A stronger emphasis on institution building as required for more effective decentralization of the programs to the 39 This refers to “multi-tier” sequencing of watershed development by first States. One percent of program resources are earmarked for focusing on the upper reaches or forests “where the water sources orig- institution building; inate,” followed by “the second tier” or intermediate slopes just above the agricultural lands and then the “third level” or plains/flat areas § Earmarking of 10 percent of individual project resources to “where typically farmers are operating.” It also refers to the standardized deploy high-quality professional human resources for both phasing of the Watershed Development Projects into three phases: preparatory, works, and consolidation and withdrawal. social and technical aspects in order to improve technical 40 The Ministry of Water Resources estimates water supply at 1,123 BCM content and quality of the individual projects; (billion cubic meters) supply vs. a 634 BCM demand in 2010, rising to 1,180 BCM in 2050. Two other independent researchers from UC/Berke- § Some modifications to the “sequenced” ridge-to-valley ley and IIT Delhi have estimated current supply as between 654 and 668 approach to reduce rigidities that were antithetical to a BCM; the differences with Ministry of Water Resource’s figures ascribed to higher estimates of evapotranspiration and lower estimates of “utiliz- participatory approach and negatively impacted community able” supply vs. total supply. buy-in; WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E CHAPTER 5 — CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS 35 § An increase in the geographical scale of the individual proj- planning as well as in broader scale planning at the wa- ects to between 3,000 to 7,000 ha to achieve “economies of tershed level and encourages (and provides financing) for scale and proper planning,” strengthening the institutional capacity and applying the § Establishment of a Central Level Nodal Agency to provide technological and information tools available for doing so; more intensive support to the States as per their request; § The continued decentralization of the programs to the § A framework to facilitate working in forest lands, including State and the proposed devolution of responsibilities and tribal areas where procedural complexities have been an strengthened involvement of civil society should provide obstacle. significant advances in ensuring that the projects respond more closely to local demands and felt needs; Of relevance to improving water resources management, the § Especially important are the proposed approaches to the Guidelines also include specific instructions regarding: (i) the use management of common pool resources, both from the or- of remote sensing data for assessment of runoff, for locating water ganizational and institutional perspectives through attention harvesting and storage structures, assessing program impacts on the to creation of a framework for working in upper catchments ground, to assess periodic changes in geo-hydrological potential, soil and forest areas as well as strengthening local governance of common pool resources for the specific purposes of achiev- and crop cover, runoff and so on, in the project area and for baseline ing consensus on the sustainable use of those resources surveys; (ii) hydro-geological surveys and aquifer mapping of the (including surface and groundwater); watersheds; (iii) development or strengthening of local mechanisms § The integration (convergence) of several existing GOI and systems for common property resource management, especially programs (for example, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural groundwater; (iv) efforts to establish detailed resource-use agree- Employment Guarantee Act—MGNREGA) with the water- ments for surface water, groundwater, and common/forest land shed development programs as well as the definition of an usufruct among User Group (UG) members; and (v) the setting up of institutional framework and roles and responsibilities for institutional mechanisms to ensure sustainability in use of resources, coordination and facilitation of integration across programs is a good step in the right direction. The additional attention especially common-pool resources (for example, groundwater). being given to M&E within the new framework could be an important opportunity for promoting and facilitating align- 5.2 WHITHER WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT? ment and integration between the different institutions and programs. Challenges will remain to be successful in aligning The introduction of the Planning Commission’s strategy for the 12th the watershed-level planning processes with these other Five Year Plan and the new 2012 Common Guidelines suggests the programs while maintaining a true demand-driven approach; GOI does seem to signify their intention to operationalize the para- § Brings greater attention to the problems of post-project digm shift that was first broached as desirable by the Parthasarathy sustainability. Expected project duration of five years with Committee in 2006. First and foremost, it is clear that the intention is (hopefully) clear indicators for the consolidation of local for watershed development projects to actually contemplate water organization and capacity for maintenance following project and water resources management. Secondly, the new framework closure should provide better enabling conditions. The recommendations for establishing user fees, if followed and represents substantial progress across the board in meeting the successfully introduced, would overcome one of the princi- challenges for future programs as previously detailed in this paper. pal obstacles to post-project sustainability by providing local, This is a very significant development. In each of the suggested earmarked funding for that purpose. areas for attention the new framework provides the potential for making significant advances in overcoming many of the gaps and Some challenges still remain. The as yet “one-size-fits-all” concerns weaknesses identified through the learning generated by the three that have been raised by a number of different sources regarding projects. In particular, the new framework: how the ridge-to-valley approach is implemented—concerns go- § Provides for the integration of water resources manage- ing back at least to the Parthasarathy Committee’s 2006 observation ment—both surface and groundwater—into local level that it is of dubious relevance in a very large percentage of India’s A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 36 CHAPTER 5 — CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS lands—have not been resolved in the new framework. This could BOX 5.1: Nonwater Investments to Manage Water Externalities also impinge on the ability of the individual projects to actually Investing in improved cultivation practices—for example, respond to local needs and felt externalities if rigidly applied. Nor minimum tillage, crop residue management, planting geom- is there yet obvious attention or priority given to strengthening the etries, development and introduction of more drought tolerant M&E frameworks to consider the financial viability and desirability germplasm or alternative crops, and so on—can contribute to of the interventions being promoted at the individual household the goal of capturing and using water for productive uses. An and community-levels. Nor is economic analysis considered as a assessment of the three projects indicates that this received less attention than it could have, especially in the drier and more tool for evaluating efficiency of the programs or analyzing differing drought-prone areas. Instead, most of the investment and focus policy options. To the extent that the programs move toward water was on the structural interventions along the drainage lines and resources decision-making that affect water allocation and supply, structures such as bunds in farmers’ fields.a Still, there were some such analysis will become extremely important. Nonetheless, the activities of this type in the projects. For instance, the Sujala project helped farmers to plan appropriate cropping patterns, new framework broadly demonstrates that learning from experi- crop management practices, and irrigation regimes. In collabo- ence is a part of the process and that watershed development in ration with ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for India—policy, norms, and implementation—is actively seeking to the Semi-Arid Tropics), it introduced agro-meteorological cal- refine and perfect itself at each iteration. endars, soil nutrient mapping (soil analysis) and distributed soil health cards to each farmer in selected watersheds. The Gramya project provided crop calendars to farmer interest groups to ori- 5.3 MANAGING UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM ent management and cultivation practices for different crops. INTERRELATIONS It is similarly important to fully understand the potential impli- Water-related and downstream externalities are the central justi- cations of proposed revegetation schemes when maximizing fications for applying a WSM approach, yet linking and orienting water resource availability is a goal. In several areas reforesta- upstream activities to management objectives at the broader wa- tion efforts were being carried out in the upper reaches of the watersheds or in and around recharge areas for local springs to tershed level is a major challenge. If micro-watershed approaches increase the availability of water. However, an extensive body are to be aggregated up as a basis for management of larger of forest hydrology literature strongly indicates that simply watersheds, then their planning and implementation will have to planting trees may actually have the opposite effect—that is, proceed within the broader context of a watershed (or sub-basin/ evapotranspiration (ET) rates from trees tend to be higher than basin) planning and management process. The larger-scale process, for other vegetation types and can result in reduced annual water availability at the local level. A better understanding of among others, should: the potential hydrologic impacts of changes in the vegetative § Identify water resource issues and the links between structure and communities within a watershed (and also the associated land use practices that may increase or decrease upstream water and land use and downstream conditions, infiltration of rainwater) is important to ensuring that technical including groundwater and aquifers where relevant; interventions are compatible with desired outcomes. § Involve key stakeholders and deal with institutional chal- lenges of interagency collaboration and local-regional level a While earthen bunds promote some additional absorption of water, coordination; they are also designed to channel surplus water off the field and into drains and waterways. It is the loss of this water from the field (and § Identify relevant socio-economic and environmental charac- crop root zone) that is one factor explaining why empirical studies teristics, issues and parameters; and comparing bunding to other cultural and vegetative methods find smaller yield increases associated with bunds (Sheng et al 1981). § Define broad criteria to target critical watersheds/sub-water- sheds and the menu of potential interventions within these. Because the micro-watershed approach is carried out in isolation, Incorporating the broader context of existing or potential externali- there is no certainty that at a larger scale the goals of protecting and ties at a watershed-level (or sub-basin/basin) into project planning conserving hydrologic services and/or managing negative down- was largely beyond the scope of these projects and the Watershed stream and groundwater impacts are being met. Micro-watershed Guidelines under which they were implemented (see box 5.1). development planning focuses primarily on the productive aspects WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E CHAPTER 5 — CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS 37 of water management and not on water resources planning per se, Information Systems/Geographic Information Systems (MIS/GIS) for so the projects largely measure progress on increasing local capture IWRM (including planning, M&E and modeling); targeting over- and consumption of water resources rather than on sustainability exploitation of groundwater resources; entering into formal water of management and avoidance of downstream impacts from the allocation (surface and groundwater) processes at the local level; enhanced capture and consumption. This is not unusual for projects and institutional reforms for IWRM. Should the States be able to take prepared several years ago; today with improved tools and models, full advantage of the new Guidelines to improve their approach to hydrological objectives and indicators can be more easily incorpo- WSM, India could provide globally relevant models for sustainable rated and measured. watershed development in the future. The weakest element of monitoring in all three projects was in terms Another key challenge for understanding the downstream impacts of monitoring of hydrologic impacts. The HP and Gramya projects of upstream interventions is to test the projects’ implicit assump- did install relatively sophisticated sediment monitoring systems in a tions that the successful development of non-farm/non-timber in- limited number of sites. The Gramya project installed 12 automated come generation activities would result in the reduction of pressure hydrologic/weather stations to measure streamflow discharge and on the natural resources base and/or provide increased income for rainfall. Additionally, the HP project installed an advanced system— farming households so they could maintain the improved produc- comprising broad crested rectangular/triangular weirs, automatic tion practices adopted through the projects. It does not appear that digital water level recorders, automatic digital rain gauges, and digi- these assumptions were tested during the projects, either to define tal suspended solid analyzers—in three catchments ranging in size what might be the more successful linkages between improving from 50 to 200 ha to quantify their suspended sediment loads. These resource management and livelihood systems or to establish if and are potentially important contributions (depending on how the data how the investments and other incentives were (or were not) lead- is utilized) that in the future could provide useful information for ing to sustainable resource management outcomes. While there is managing watersheds and their water resources on a larger scale. evidence that livelihood diversification is generally a good thing for However this instrumentation will only provide insight into whether rural poverty reduction and that it can improve the quality and sus- the aggregate impacts of all upstream land use changes and man- tainability of natural resources management (Ellis and Allison 2004), agement interventions—including not only those physical and there is also a large body of evidence that such optimism can as (or conservation measures undertaken upstream through the projects more) often be false (for example, see Angelsen and Kaimowitz 1999; but also any and all other land use changes and interventions from Tropenbos International 2005; Roche 2007; Brock 2013). Evaluation non-project sources—are having net impacts (positive or negative) of alternative livelihood programs not uncommonly find that alter- downstream. They will not provide information on the relative im- native livelihoods and additional income do not necessarily translate pacts of any particular intervention or set of interventions or allow for into reduced resource pressures. In all cases, prior to promoting al- observed changes to be attributed to any of them. Nonetheless, they ternative livelihoods, the root causes of local resource degradation are useful first steps toward quantifying and developing a better un- must be understood in order to avoid unintended consequences. derstanding of the trends, if not dynamics, in watersheds of interest. And, by understanding root causes, addressing the processes, insti- tutions and politics in an area may have greater overall effectiveness This issue appears to be understood in the States’ water poli- in generating the desired effects on resource utilization patterns cies with their call for water resources planning to include basin than the introduction of an additional income activity on its own. or sub-basin aspects and in the new national Guidelines (2008 Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects) with the definition of a “geo-hydrological unit” comprising clusters of 5.4 ENSURING EFFECTIVE DEMAND micro-watersheds as the new unit for planning and intervention. There will always be tension between “top-down” and “bottom-up” In the case of the latter, an important innovation is the Guidelines’ as effective development schemes require a judicious mix of the two. prioritization of the development of shared databases Management Getting the balance correct so that “bottom-up, demand-driven” A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 38 CHAPTER 5 — CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS approaches to policy implementation are in line with the prevailing the chances of success are greater, that is, where people demon- policy, regulatory, administrative, and other normative frameworks strate an interest in the “set menu” of support and the ability to will be inevitably complicated and require iterative, learning-based manage common pool natural resources. Taking this approach is processes. As a result, one person’s “bottom-up, demand-driven” considered to have been a major contributing factor to the success approach can be another’s “top-down, supply-driven” approach. of the IGWDP, as detailed in box 3.1 of this report. Another alterna- Government’s programs have specific objectives and will offer a tive would be further reforms in the Guidelines that gave Panchayati limited set of instruments, using those that are thought to be “the Raj Institution (PRIs) more power in deciding how the funds were best” for achieving those objectives. Under these circumstances, utilized for rural development and natural resources management voluntary participation—arguably an essential ingredient of achiev- purposes. Ultimately, without some approach with self-selecting ing real and effective demand—may not always be a reflection of conditionalities the extent of real demand-pull across the programs actual demand, particularly amongst the rural poor where options will always be questionable. and opportunities are limited and the initial choice comes down to Other factors as well can be considered to strengthen the demand- opting in or going without. To this challenge, there is no durable driven approach. One that merits attention, but which could be solution. Rather it is one more factor to be recognized and accom- beyond the scope of projects to address, are requirements for cost- modated when designing a demand-driven program with their sharing.41 As background: In the Sujala project, despite the efforts limited menus of options. to ensure equity and transparency, it was found that the way that In the case of the watershed development programs, it has been dis- wages were being paid to laborers was undermining these efforts. cussed how their objectives have been primarily rural development The Sujala Watershed Sangha Executive Committee (SWS-EC) paid and natural resources management-related but they rely heavily on the farmers and landowners directly for the works done on their the concept of maximizing the local capture and utilization of water lands. They in turn were responsible to pay the laborers they en- to achieve its goals. It has also been mentioned that this approach gaged to carry out the work. Ex-post studies revealed that farmers has been critiqued as a “one-size-fits-all” approach that was devel- and landowners had been negotiating lower wages with the labor- oped for dry areas but is now applied everywhere. Clearly meeting ers who, having no other employment opportunities, accepted the rural development and natural resources goals will not always and lower wages. In keeping with tradition, they also paid women less in all cases be a matter of overcoming water deficit constraints. Just for the same work. Moreover, the farmers were able to use the labor as clearly there will be areas where this is the case. Funds are being savings to partially or fully recover their individual cash contribu- offered for watershed development. Local communities can choose tions that had been required to obtain project grant financing and to accept them or not. What they cannot do is decide to use the benefits. The studies showed that the actual net contributions of resources for some other rural development approach. these farmers and landowners was actually very low. Alone among the three states, the HP project included micro- Ultimately, about 57 percent of the Sujala project funds, exclud- watershed targeting and selection criteria regarding the exis- ing project management and coordination costs, were paid out in tence of some reasonable degree of social capital to provide a wages. Clearly, if the project had been as successful as envisaged basis for local implementation. None of the projects considered in ensuring fair and equal wages this would have resulted in better local demand—that is, willingness and readiness of the people to outcomes regarding equity and income for the most vulnerable and undertake the project measures together with the concomitant needy. It may also have resulted in better (or different) outcomes in social and institutional disciplines—as part of the criteria. Instead, regard to the demand-driven nature of project interventions. If it is the issue of community demand was to be addressed during the 41 The problem of underpayment of farmers—relative to the posted, of- community mobilization process. Given the very limited extent to ficial government wage rates—is a nation-wide issue, not specific to any which “demand pull” is currently a factor for selection of villages, it project or scheme. During the project, authorities in Karnataka made significant but unsuccessful efforts to deal with the issue. The practice is would seem important to consider such, and select villages where entrenched and endemic. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E CHAPTER 5 — CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS 39 true that landowners depressed wages and made only a minimal BOX 5.2: Clean Development Mechanism in Himachal contribution, if any at all, then the project’s benefits to laborers were Pradesh incremental wage labor at prevailing (low) rates and for landowners A BioCarbon, Clean Development Mechanism project to ob- it was receiving free, or almost so, work on their lands. This prob- tain Certified Emission Reduction credits by expanding forestry lem is an Indian-wide issue and extremely difficult to address, or for plantations on some 4,000 ha of mostly degraded lands (there- any one project to overcome. However, it raises the question if the by creating carbon sinks) has been launched in some project villages in the HP project. The idea is not only to contribute interventions on farmer and landowners lands were a supply-driven to atmospheric CO2 reduction while meeting local needs, response rather than a felt need. If the former, the sustainability of the but also generate a sustained stream of cash inflowsa to the works post-project would be doubtful. A mechanism whereby the concerned local communities. As per conservative estimates, EC engaged laborers and paid wages directly would perhaps have communities are likely to receive between Rs 2,000–2,500 per hectare per year, but actual amount will depend upon the real much better served the Sujala project’s purposes of ensuring both time growth of plants and carbon stocks accrual. This project equity and a demand-driven approach in response to real needs. is a first for India as well as a first for a World Bank-financed project in Asia to attempt to integrate a climate change miti- The Sujala project issue was not encountered in the HP and Gramya gation response within the framework of the United Nations projects as the private land developments constituted a small pro- Framework Convention on Climate Change. portion of the amounts spent. Funds were given to Self Help Groups Source: Ranjan Samantaray, personal communication. (SHGs) and User Groups (UGs) for use on their private lands and the a Of total receipts from the Clean Development Mechanism, the Forest 42 Department will retain 10 percent by way of overheads and manage- individual members largely undertook the works themselves. ment costs. In conclusion, the challenge to strengthening the demand-driven nature of the programs are overcoming constraints of: (i) limited flexibility for the PRIs to suggest alternative investments for achiev- successful implementation in those areas where land tenure is private. ing rural development and natural resources management goals; Success on common pool resource lands, where the Forest Department (ii) local contributions are diluted due to the fact that while wages has the primary institutional mandate, has been more elusive. are officially inflated, landowners are able to retain a significant per- The projects have piloted ways to work with the Forest Department centage for their own benefit; and (iii) there are no strong precondi- and India’s more restrictive resource access policies and regulations, tions that villages have to achieve in order to qualify. Given these and they have recently reached agreements on cooperation to conditions, every village will say “yes” to the project whether or not extend activities into forest areas in the upper catchments. Project they anticipate useful watershed outcomes or not. This diminishes managers are optimistic about cooperation in the future, especially, the prospects of post-project sustainability. for example, in Himachal Pradesh where new BioCarbon Financing through the Global Environment Fund will allow innovative liveli- 5.5 MANAGING COMMON POOL RESOURCES hood options, compatible with Forest Department regulations, to Projects require frameworks to assess and address the policy, institu- be taken up by communities in forest areas (see box 5.2).43 tional, and programmatic aspects of land tenure and common pool Water as a common pool resource remains as perhaps the most resources (beyond water), which have long been identified as critical serious, unresolved issue. There seems to be broad recognition and for WSM. Generally too little systematic attention has been paid to understanding of the problems around water resource allocation handling these issues at the policy, institutional, and program levels. and scarcity; however, addressing the larger issues of the political In the three World Bank–Supported projects, strong government commitment and supportive policy and legal frameworks led to 43 The BioCarbon financing would allow small and marginal farmers to carry out tree planting (with native species) in support of achieving both WSM and their livelihood objectives. In addition, there is an objective of 42 The fields are small and terraced with basic conservation measures assisting the villagers to sell Kyoto-compliant carbon credits under the largely in place. Clean Development Mechanism, which would be a first for India. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 40 CHAPTER 5 — CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS economy of water resource allocation is a challenge far beyond the § Improved M&E methodologies incorporating research, scope of micro-watershed development projects. In that context, it measurement and monitoring to provide the scientific, eco- becomes incumbent on all projects and programs to specifically in- nomic and social knowledge for managing and evaluating WSM programs and for, among others, assessing sustain- clude instruments, processes, and mechanisms to ensure that they ability and pricing costs and benefits. New modeling and are not aggravating the problem. Depending on how critical water satellite imagery tools can be of great value in this. availability issues are, basic water balance and water accounting tools may suffice for micro-watershed level interventions. The difficulty of achieving WSM objectives across the broad range of institutional actors who are concerned by or who affect watershed 5.6 PROMOTING EFFECTIVE INTERAGENCY hydrology—for example, power, transport, agriculture, forestry, COLLABORATION agribusiness, and local governments—can be reduced when these If micro-watershed programs are to effectively contribute toward agencies internalize and develop their own sectoral approaches to achieving higher-level objectives at the watershed, sub-basin and/ avoid or mitigate their impacts on water and land resources (for or basin-levels, effective institutional mechanisms will have to be example, within their environmental impact assessment processes, developed for this purpose as well as to measure and monitor development and specification of best management practices, outcomes and impacts. WSM programs will need to work toward monitoring indicators, and so on). An (overly-simplified) example an integrated institutional process with three complementary of this would be where forest departments implement and enforce components: good forest road building practices and streamside buffers to pro- tect water bodies; agricultural agencies concentrate on improving § A process of watershed planning to engage on issues of crop productivity through in-field management practices that water and land resources dynamics at the landscape scale improve moisture conservation and reduce non-point source pol- and within the (minimum) watershed, if not sub-basin or basin scales (see table 2.1), identify critical hydrologic ex- lution from sediments and agrochemicals; power and transport sec- ternalities to be addressed and/or services to be conserved tors avoid inducing development in sensitive areas (riparian zones, and protected, and to establish higher-level objectives. The aquifer recharge areas, critical watersheds) through extensions of level and complexity of this planning process will vary, but it the existing power grid and road networks; and, local governments may require new institutional arrangements and a broader promote the management and protection of the areas critical for range of planning tools—basic water balance and water the supply of good quality, potable water. accounting, environmental and social analysis, basin-level hydrological and groundwater modeling, and comprehen- Within the World Bank–Supported projects, very limited reorienta- sive basin-wide IWRM planning framework—adapted to the tion of the agencies and departments for working together within particular context. New hydrologic and WSM models and a decentralized framework has yet been accomplished. All state tools that do not necessarily require intensive data are read- ily available to support these processes. Irrespective of the policies noted the fragmented nature of the institutional man- level and complexity, appropriate stakeholder management dates in this area. For example, critical state agencies include Water approaches involving consultations and mechanisms for Resources, Groundwater Board, Agriculture, Rural Development, multisectoral, participatory diagnosis need to be integrated Environment and Forests as well as line departments such as Land into the process; Resources and Drinking Water Supply. Some small gains have been § A bottom-up institutional development and invest- made in demonstrating the value and potential for inter-agency ment process to set objectives and priorities, negotiate coordination through the implementation modalities of the water- between stakeholders, and to develop and measure the shed development projects. The most notable ones coming where impact of a set of interventions that can fulfill both upstream objectives (at the local community level and also between agency and department staff are seconded to the programs and are upstream communities) and broader watershed or basin- integrated into and respond to the projects/programs structures. wide and downstream objectives; and This provides individual experience and learning on the values WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E CHAPTER 5 — CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS 41 and potentials for better horizontal collaboration and cooperation has been secured and it dovetails with the Gramya proj- between agencies. Following their secondment they return to their ect. The Program will fund 20 micro-watersheds that have normal duties in their parent agency. While this transfers knowledge high erosion indexes, which were left behind in terms of socio-economic and other criteria and which have potential and experience back to the parent agency, it has yet to have any for agricultural development. The purpose is to facilitate visible impact on the parent agencies’ modus operandi. mainstreaming of sustainable WSM into local governance plans which include: areas of watersheds that cut across GP There is, however, the need for continuous efforts to fully institu- boundaries; implement alternative technologies for enhanc- tionalize and make effective the inter-sectoral and inter-agency ing water availability for agriculture; reduce community coordination among state agencies and departments desired for dependence on forests for fuel wood; develop a market effective WSM. While it is a necessary condition to rationalize both focused medicinal and aromatic plants sector; gather locally the local and state-level organization and coordination, it is argu- generated knowledge of the impact of climate change and ably more important to make significant progress first in the local variability on mountain ecosystems, develop coping strate- planning and implementation frameworks. Doing so provides both gies, and disseminate and upscale new and innovative tech- niques and approaches for sustainable land and ecosystem the impetus and logic for identifying the practical reforms needed management within the state. to make the state agencies both accountable and responsible for § The Panchayat Incentive Fund in Himachal Pradesh. In harmonizing and coordinating their efforts with the other state June 2009, the HP project initiated the Panchayat Incentive agencies with whom they have overlapping and/or interdependent Scheme to motivate and reward GPs that undertaken mandates. Furthermore, the development and organization of the successful project activities in accordance with project local framework helps clarify what the roles and responsibilities of principles. To reduce subjectivity in making awards, the the state-level agencies should be—and thus the types of reforms project introduced a scoring matrix called the Performance and reorganization required—to promote sustainable use of water Measurement Framework to assess performance on sustain- able WSM, mountain livelihoods, institutional development resources in a decentralized environment. and transparency. A team constituted at the level of the At the local level (micro-watershed and sub-watershed levels) the Chief Project Director annually assesses GPs where works have been on-going for at least two years. use of local government units and watershed committees of local stakeholders and multiagency, multidisciplinary technical units (in- There are two categories of awards—a State-level award cluding NGOs in two of the three states) is providing a workable called the Shresth Jalagam Panchayat Award (Best Watershed Panchayat Award) has three tiers of prizes44 and a Divisional approach for decentralized implementation and service delivery. award called the Shresth Mandal Jalagam Panchayat Award Local government, technical staff and community organizations (Best Divisional Watershed Panchayat Award) consisting of and members appear to be working together well enough that 11 prizes.45 Winning GPs can use their prize money only for planning and implementation are carried out in a reasonably timely infrastructure activities within their jurisdiction in accordance fashion with results that, according to the participatory M&E data, with project rules. The Panchayat Incentive Fund under- indicate acceptance by local stakeholders of the process and the scores the importance of the GPs in undertaking devel- outcomes. There clearly seems to be much that could be learned opmental activities, brings them additional resources and publicity which can also attract other resources (from both from these projects on participatory and decentralized micro- the public and private sectors), underscores the benefits of watershed development. Moreover, the projects are piloting ap- accountability in public works, generates a sense of pride proaches to mainstream community and government integrated and enthusiasm in implementing the project measures well planning and action on watershed related issues: and creates healthy competition amongst project GPs. § Sustainable Land and Ecosystem Management 44 The first prize consists of Rs 400,000; the second, Rs 250,000 and the Program in Uttarakhand. Additional financing of USD third, Rs 150,000 7.49 million grant from the Global Environment Facility 45 Each prize is of Rs 100,000; one for each Division. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 42 CHAPTER 5 — CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS 5.7 GIVE DUE ATTENTION TO ECONOMIC adequately resourced, they will continue to generate meaningful BENCHMARKS returns to those involved, which creates an abiding interest in their The projects monitored certain financial aspects—household maintenance and continuity.46 income, income generating activities, agriculture/livestock/horti- The issue arises largely for Common Property Resources (CPRs) and culture income—all good practices and extremely important for for those groups that were formed specifically to manage these— assessing the likelihood of a particular intervention to be sustained. such as, the SWS-EC and Activity Groups (AGs) in the case of the Ultimately profitability and financial viability are essential elements Sujala project and UGs and Common Activity Groups (CAGs) in the for obtaining improvements in natural resources management. In case of the HP and Gramya projects. The Sujala project’s strategy was addition, it is important to validate that the technical/extension mes- to create O&M funds largely with the AGs, build their management sages being given to the farmers and other project participants are capacities, integrate the SWS-EC as a sub-committee of the GP, and not putting them at financial risk. However, there is no indication that formally link these groups with the various related line departments. this type of information was used other than for reporting purposes. However, the project did not make any specific financial provisions,47 There is also a need for stronger economic analysis as a part of the nor generate any substantial funds (through contributions) toward overall Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning (MEL). Such analysis would the O&M funds, nor did they succeed in integrating the SWS-EC as be critical for evaluating the efficiency of project interventions and a subcommittee of the GP. As a result, a post completion study48 approaches, for analyzing policy options, to test assumptions and found that while over 80 percent of SHGs were functioning, only be- to validate that the programs benefits outweigh its costs to soci- tween three to five percent of the AGs and an insignificant number ety. Given the magnitude of the Watershed Development Program, of SWS-ECs had any degree of functionality. The memorandums of project support in this particular area would have been critical and understanding entered into between the respective SWS-ECs, the potentially very influential on Government’s overall approach. AGs and the GPs were largely a statement of intent rather than an implementable action plan and the concerned line departments were not a party to them. 5.8 PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR SUSTAINABILITY Sustainable WSM requires an incentive structure that continues A serious structural constraint faced by the Sujala project in this beyond the project period and that is supported by economic in- regard was the rather short period of three years given per micro- struments that assign costs and benefits according to public and watershed. The first six months usually go into mobilizing people private goods. At the project formulation and inception stage itself, which leaves only two and one half years to not only undertake all the three projects considered post project maintenance of the project investments, but also address issues of equity and inclusion assets created and made provisions for it—the idea being that ben- while preparing communities and beneficiaries for project with- eficiaries should continue to receive a stream of benefits long after drawal, which all involves a large number of different actors.49 One the project is over. This concern extends not only to works done must concede that the overall likelihood of achieving any reason- or assets created but also to organizational structures to the extent able degree of continuity of project-supported CPR assets is rather they have a role in ensuring continuity of these assets as well as small, a fact borne out by the post-completion study. other project objectives. In the case of the HP project, each project is implemented over The activities undertaken are either of a fixed nature (SWC works, five years giving adequate time for the capacities of groups to be plantations, weirs, and so on) done on private or common lands or of a livelihood type undertaken by individuals or groups. Generally, 46 Supported in terms of resources, linkages, and capacity building. for assets created on private lands and for livelihood activities 47 Such as in the case of HP/UK or in the case of projects funded by GOI under the IWMP. or interest groups that generate benefits to the stakeholders it is 48 This study was conducted by Antrix. believed that by virtue of their being well chosen, organized and 49 Many of whom experienced frequent personnel turnover. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E CHAPTER 5 — CHALLENGES FOR FUTURE PROGRAMS 43 built up for the post project period. Moreover, since the projects are least Rs 240,000 would accrue to each GP during the life of the proj- implemented through the GPs, which are part of the formal gov- ect. Toward the end of the fourth year of project implementation, ernance structure, the question of institutional continuity does not ‘empowerment plans’ will be created for each GP, whereby, for each arise. Provisions exist in the GP Act to make UGs sub-committees asset, the costs of O&M are calculated along with the correspond- of the GP, if required. The HP and Gramya projects made conver- ing beneficiary contribution/user fees required to cover these costs. gence—linking with and accessing additional resources from other These empowerment plans will be developed by the GPs, with the line departments and agencies in the private sector—one of their involvement of the concerned line departments where necessary, key objectives, thus ensuring that GPs, SHGs, CAGs, and UGs can con- and made public to ensure transparency. tinue to leverage relationships and resources well past the project. In the Gramya project, the approach adopted for sustainability is Most importantly, however, in the HP project, a Village Development similar to that of Sujala’s. It provides no mandatory, structural mech- and Maintenance Fund established at the level of the GP is manda- anism, such as the maintenance fund established under the HP proj- tory and provisioned with funds equivalent to the required benefi- ect. Still, that the same type of fund was envisaged in the Gramya ciary contributions, with the exception of those beneficiary contri- project, but no project funds were provided for maintenance 50 butions required for livelihood activities. The project calculates the purposes nor were mechanisms sought to obtain community and full cost of an item, nets the expected beneficiary contribution and beneficiary contributions. This raises doubts about the continuity of pays this amount into the Fund. It is expected that an amount of at such CPR assets in the post project period in this project as well. 50 Livelihood activities are expected to be financially viable and generate the returns necessary to meet recurrent maintenance costs. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R C H A P T E R 6 — L E S S O N S A N D C O N C LU S I O N S 45 Chapter 6 LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS The three World Bank projects in Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh and aspect, utilizing a simple methodology to account for increased Uttarakhand provide a wealth of lessons and insights on how large- water use.51 scale government-funded projects can be effectively managed A micro project (at the sub-watershed level or micro-water- so that project objectives are sustainably achieved. The strategies, shed level) should be planned for at least five to seven years tools, and mechanisms developed and the lessons learned should in order that sufficient social capital is built up. It takes time be documented and widely disseminated so that other large-scale and close accompaniment to develop vibrant and representative watershed development projects can profit from them. local institutions which are most necessary to ensure continued The three projects’ objectives were mostly consistent with national- maintenance of created assets in the post project period. In the early level Common Guidelines for Watershed Development that were in stages, the lessons from the IGWDP indicate that little resources are effect at the time of their preparation, emphasizing the develop- required from the project as it is the community that must first dem- ment, sustainable use and conservation of the productive potential onstrate its desire (demand) to participate. Capacity building is also of the local natural resource base. crucial for sustainable outcomes to be achieved and progressed, and it should be comprehensive, progressively undertaken and in- The use of the micro-watershed as the basic unit for planning volve all stakeholders in accordance with their requirements. and intervention was largely appropriate, but . . . . Because the micro-watershed approach was carried out in isolation, the Projects involving multiple agencies work best where insti- larger scale goals of protecting and conserving hydrologic services tutional arrangements leverage the comparative advantages and/or managing negative downstream and groundwater impacts of each of the partners. In a situation where good NGOs are avail- remain to be addressed. Given that by 2050 India’s estimated wa- able, as in the case of the Sujala and Gramya projects, it is preferable ter demand will exceed all available sources of supply, it is time to to engage NGOs to mobilize and build the capacities of the villagers. begin building from the current micro-/sub-watershed foundation Where NGOs have the requisite technical and managerial expertise, toward IWRM at the basin and aquifer scales. It has taken almost then it is preferable to give them the entire task as they can then 30 years to get to the current stage of knowledge and experience efficiently calibrate and dovetail various aspects of a project and with micro-watershed development. Getting to holistic manage- be held accountable for outcomes, not just deliverables as would ment at these larger and increasingly complex scales within the normally be the case where responsibilities pertain only to specified next forty years will be even more of a challenge. Knowledge of the components. This would leave project authorities free to focus on hydrogeology and water use (water balance) is critical to deciding monitoring and overall management of the project. if the current approach is correct at the micro-watershed-level and at the level of the aggregate impacts of the individual micro-wa- 51 According to personal communications with project staff : (i) an estimate tershed developments (that is, at the watershed and sub-basin and (assumption) is made on what increase in baseflow may be expected from the treatment of the micro-watershed; and (ii) a certain percentage aquifer levels). Only the HP project appears to be looking into this of that increment is “allowed” to be captured and used locally. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 46 C H A P T E R 6 — L E S S O N S A N D C O N C LU S I O N S Programs need to adopt integrated water resources planning so that viable products can be focused on and maximum value at the micro-watershed level. Micro-watershed development captured by the beneficiaries. In this regard, it is better to focus first planning seems to focus primarily on the productive aspects of on already existing and functioning livelihoods in order to improve water management and not on water resources planning per se. their earning potential; followed by developing new opportunities in Planning does not systematically consider drinking water supply, agriculture, nature-based and allied sectors while also training youth water quality, or overall water availability and allocation (or, where in acquiring market demanded skills and competencies. relevant, include any other locally important uses). These are im- The projects made very strong contributions in the insti- portant local concerns, for example, in Karnataka where potable tutional aspects of WSM. Starting from the community-level, water is trucked into some project villages during the “pinch period” the projects sought to strengthen the framework for local action of February to June. In Uttarakhand, project staff have noted that (planning, investment, management, maintenance, and monitor- domestic water supply is a priority of villagers. Some limited work ing) within a context of decentralization. Through support to state- on water quality is being done by Himachal Pradesh through the level watershed development agencies54 the projects also sought to micro-watershed planning and investments where, as prioritized by contribute to harmonizing efforts between the disparate state-level locals, critical areas for protecting potable water quality are closed agencies with mandates over water resources and WSM. The only off and investments in improving sanitation are made. shortfall may have been in not extending support to the policy Linking livelihoods to watershed development objectives priorities articulated by the states of water resources planning at the was a best practice among the three projects. All stakeholder basin and/or sub-basin levels and greater attention to the sustainable groups in the communities and watersheds participated—includ- management of groundwater resources. ing vulnerable groups of women, tribals, landless and marginal Transparency and public accountability, especially in regards farmers—and planning sought opportunities in livelihood develop- to works and monies, is the key to smooth implementation ment and improvement for all, balancing technical objectives with and harmonious social relations. As the post-project impact considerations of social inclusion and equity. The Karnataka system study of Sujala has indicated, all CBOs that have continued to func- is a true stand-out not only because of its award winning,52 state-of- tion effectively post-project have been those that consistently ap- the-art approach but also, and perhaps more importantly, because plied principals of transparency and accountability in the function- of the manner in which the MEL system was put to use by project ing of their group. This extended to all group members, not just the management. leaders. Effective conflict resolution mechanisms that are accepted Natural resources based projects should be undertaken with a and respected by the community and/or other involved stakehold- focus on developing sustainable livelihood options for the ma- ers were also key to maintaining group cohesion and momentum. jority, if not all, of the beneficiaries. Hence, focus must be given Conflict resolution mechanisms had to be established at all levels to 53 to identifying eligible beneficiaries, existing resources that can be handle disputes and complaints that often arose during implemen- capitalized upon, conducting market surveys, identifying service and tation. Those that worked best were those that were perceived as resource providers (input, output, technological, financial, capacity responsive, transparent and fair. building, and so on) together with undertaking value chain analysis In activities which involve payment of wages to labor, it is preferable that the project designated body (be it a GP, 52 Antrix was awarded the 2010 Globe Sustainability Research Award, an Sujala Watershed Sangha Executive Committee [SWS-EC], or initiative of the Sweden-based Globe Forum for its work with the Kar- nataka project for outstanding work that is both original and practical a Village Development Committee) contract the work itself, . . . that has led to sustainable poverty reduction and vulnerability reduc- tion. It has demonstrated clear gains in all three dimensions of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental. 54 Karnataka: Watershed Development Department; Himachal Pradesh: 53 Through wealth ranking, resource, skills and aptitude mapping, and Himachal Pradesh Natural Resource Management Society; Uttarakhand: other means Watershed Management Directorate WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E C H A P T E R 6 — L E S S O N S A N D C O N C LU S I O N S 47 hire laborers and make payment directly. Where this is not enthusiasm, cooperation and transparency from the community. feasible, then it may sub-contract the work to only those CBOs that However, for this dynamic to be realized at the field level, it must will, by themselves, undertake and complete the designated activ- also permeate the entire delivery structure and mechanism of the ity. Where grant funds include labor costs (and the grant amount project. Participatory processes at the village level will flourish only assumes payment of a fair wage) and these are passed directly to if the underlying values and behavioral patterns of the entire proj- private individuals or groups who will subsequently hire the labor ect delivery mechanism reflect these values. A participation-based 55 directly, then mechanisms should be in place to check and ensure project must be sensitive to this aspect and make special efforts to that laborers are paid as per the project’s expectations. inculcate these values into its procedures, interactions and “way of doing business.” The three projects all represent global good practice on social issues, given their focus on poverty, strengthening local Performance-based payments systems, in order to be effec- governance and institutions, concerns (and effective approaches) tive, must involve all stakeholders in their design and formu- for dealing with issues of equity and inclusion of vulnerable groups, lation and should be fairly administered, transparent, and and for their strong emphasis on improving livelihoods. sensitive to emergent and unanticipated events. All parties to the agreement, including government functionaries, should be The inclusion, empowerment and mainstreaming of women, held equally responsible and accountable. Since disputes will inevi- the poor and vulnerable groups into the decision mak- tably arise, there should be a conflict mediation mechanism set up ing processes is crucial to the sustainability of the project. at all the relevant levels coinciding with the introduction of such Generally, these groups draw upon common pool resources for a payment system. In order to reduce discretion and arbitrariness, their survival and unless they directly benefit from the develop- the system should be supported by an IT-enabled Decision Support ment of these resources, they will have no incentive to protect or System introduced at all decision making various levels. sustainably manage these assets. Furthermore, as income or qual- ity of life enhancing benefits increasingly accrue to all groups in a The projects followed good practices in monitoring certain community, especially the poor, not only is social capital enhanced, financial impacts such as household income, income gener- but the economic, cultural and political life of a community also ating activities and income from improvements in agricul- 56 improves. Youth constitute the largest demographic group in any tural production. Lacking, however, was any economic analysis village today, and they are also a vulnerable group in terms of em- to evaluate project efficiency, to test assumptions or validate the ployment and livelihood opportunities, especially those from poor programs’ investment and incentive schemes, or for purposes households who constitute the majority amongst them. It would be of policy analysis. Given the objectives of utilizing the projects to necessary in future watershed-based development projects to also influence state-level programs and approaches, a systematic ap- consider them as a vulnerable and priority target group, besides proach to evaluating economic aspects in addition to the financial women and other groups as is now the tradition. aspects could possibly have strengthened the projects’ influence on Government’s overall approach. The manner in which agency personnel interact with the community sets the tone for the project and determines In conclusion, based on the experience of these three World Bank– its outcome. Respect, commitment and integrity bring forth Supported projects, watershed development provides a credible approach to a range of tough challenges facing rural India. As a tool, 55 Except in the case where specialised works are undertaken (for example, masonry work) as prevailing market rates tend to be fairer for specialized it is most useful in assisting to: (i) increase productivity under dif- labour. ficult rainfed conditions; (ii) arrest and reverse land degradation; and 56 The poor can become powerful drivers of the local economy when they have access to stable and regular sources of income. Moreover, the social (iii) reduce water stress among project participants in their specific and institutional gains achieved during project implementation can only lands and micro-watersheds by capturing and utilizing rainfall and be secured and enhanced post project if the poor perceive that they have also benefited, and that too fairly, from their participation in the project. streamflow for productive purposes. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R BIBLIOGRAPHY 49 BIBLIOGRAPHY Angelsen, A. and D. Kaimowitz, eds., 1999. “Agricultural Technologies and Government of India. 2008. Common Guidelines for Watershed Tropical Deforestation.” Workshop Proceedings, Turrialba, Costa Rica, Development Projects. Mar. 11–13, 1999. Center for International Forestry Research. Government of India. 2011. Common Guidelines for Watershed Anon. 2005. Himachal Pradesh State Water Policy. Government of Development Projects—2008. Revised Edition 2011. Himachal Pradesh. 9 pp. http://www.ielrc.org/content/e0517.pdf. Government of India. 2011. Final Report of Working Group on Minor Anon. 1999. Uttar Pradesh State Water Policy. Government of Uttar Irrigation and Watershed Management for the Twelfth Five Year Plan Pradesh. 13 pp. www.ielrc.org/content/e9904.pdf. (2012–2017). Planning Commission. New Delhi. http://planning commission.nic.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp12/wr/wg_migra.pdf. Briscoe. J., and R.P.S. Malik. 2006. “India’s Water Economy Bracing for a Turbu- lent Future.” The World Bank and Oxford University Press. Government of India. 2011. “Faster, Sustainable and More Inclusive Growth— An Approach to the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–17).” Planning Brock, A. 2013. “Beyond Fishing? The Impact of Microcredit on Alternative Commission, October, 2011. Livelihoods in South Sulawesi, Indonesia.” Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences. Duke University. Government of India. 2012. “Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects.” Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Central Ground Water Board. Undated. State Profile: Ground Water Rural Development. Scenario of Uttarakhand. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. http://cgwb.gov.in/gw_profiles/Uttarakhand.htm. Gregory, S., A. Allen, M. Baker, K. Boyer, T. Dillaha, and J. Elliott. 2007. “Realistic Expectations of Timing between Conservation and Darghouth, S., C. Ward, G. Gambarelli, E. Styger, and J. Roux. 2008. Restoration Activities and Ecological Responses.” In: Managing “Watershed Management Approaches, Policies and Operations: Agricultural Landscapes for Environmental Quality, Soil and Water Lessons for Scaling-up.” Water Sector Board Discussion Paper No. 11. Conservation Society. Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 111–142. World Bank. Washington, DC. May 2008. Hubbart, J. 2008. History of Hydrology. http://www.eoearth.org/view Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. Annual Report 2012–2013. /article/153525. Ministry of Agriculture. Government of India. March 2013. http:// agricoop.nic.in/Annualreport2012–13/annualrpt1.4.13.pdf. Independent Evaluation Group Public Sector. 2011. “India—A Cluster Assessment of Forestry and Watershed Development Activities.” Development Center for Alternative Policies. 2005. “Irrigation Policy In World Bank Report No. 61065. Project Performance Assessment Uttarakhand–Past Trends and Future Directions.” Paper Prepared For Report. June 30, 2011. the IWMI-Tata Partners’ Meeting; Anand, Gujarat. February 2005. International Environmental Law Research Center. Undated. http:// Ellis, F. and E. Allison. 2004. “Livelihood Diversification and Natural www.ielrc.org/water/doc_states.php. Resource Access.” Overseas Development Group. University of East Anglia. UKLSP Working Paper No. 9. Livelihoods Diversification Kelkar, U., K.K. Narula, V.P. Sharma, and U. Chandna. 2008. “Vulnerability and Enterprise Development Sub-program. Food and Agriculture and Adaptation to Climate Variability and Water Stress in Uttarakhand Organization, Rome. State, India.” Global Environmental Change. Elsevier Press, 18 (2008). pp. 564–574. Government of India. 1994. Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects. Kerr, J.M. 2002. “Watershed Development Projects In India: An Evaluation.” (In collaboration with Ganesh Pangare and Vasudha Lokur Pangare). Government of India. 2001. Guidelines for Watershed Development. Research Report 127. International Food Policy Research Institute Revision. Washington, D.C. Government of India. 2006. “Hariyali to Neeranchal. Report of the Technical Kerr, J. 2007. “Watershed Management: Lessons from Around the World. Committee on Watershed Programs in India.” Department of Land Michigan State University.” Presented at: World Bank Watershed Resources, Ministry of Rural Development. Management Learning Event, November 18, 2007. Government of India. 2013. Planning Commission of the Government Lobo, C., and J. Smyle. 2010. “Good Practices and Innovations in World of India. Water and Environment, Sector Summary. Bank-Supported Watershed Development Projects in India.” Draft http://planningcommission.gov.in/hackathon/waterSummary.pdf. report. Washington, D.C. October 8, 2010. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 50 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ministry of Rural Development. 2013. Annual Report 2012–2013. Govern- Sheng, T.C., J.K. Jackson, J. Kraayenhagen, N. Nakasthin, and ment of India. http://rural.nic.in/sites/downloads/annual-report P. Watnaprateep. 1981. “The Effects of Different Structures on Erosion /anualreport0607_eng.pdf and Runoff.” In: South-East Asian Regional Symposium on Problems of Soil Erosion and Sedimentation. pp. 301–310. Ministry of Rural Development. 2012. “Report of the Mihir Shah Committee on Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects.” Ministry Upadhyay, V. 2006. “Water-Forest Management, Law and Policy in Uttarak- of Rural Development, Government of India. hand: Issues, Constraints, Opportunities.” Final Report, June 2006. Narula, K., and S. Bhadwal. 2003. “Impact of Climate Change on Hydrology Watershed Management Directorate. 2008. World Bank-Aided for Better Decision-making at a River Basin Level in India: A Case Uttarakhand Decentralized Watershed Development Project Mid- Study.” In: Environmental Threats, Vulnerability, and Adaptation: Case Term Review Status Paper. Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. November Studies from India. The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi. 2008. pp. 55–78. Watershed Management Directorate. 2010. Uttarakhand Decentralized Palanisami, K., D. Suresh Kumar, S.P. Wani, and M. Giordano. 2009. Watershed Development Project Status Report, July 2010. Watershed “Evaluation of Watershed Development Programs in India Using Management Directorate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Economic Surplus Method.” Agricultural Economics Research Review. Watershed Management Directorate. 2010. “Uttarakhand State Vol. 22 July-December 2009. pp. 197–207. Perspective and Strategic Plan, 2009–2027.” Indira Nagar, Forest Ramachandran, K., K.L. Sharma, T. Srinivas, M. Shankar Rao, M. Gayatri Colony, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. and V. Bhaskar. 2006. “Assessing Agricultural Sustainability in Watershed Management Directorate. 2012. “Gramya A Path Towards Watersheds in India using Geomatics.” Presentation at the 5th Map Development.” Uttarakhand Decentralized Watershed Development Asia Symposium, Bangkok Thailand. Project. Uttarakhand Indira Nagar Forest Colony, Dehradun, April 2012. Roche, R. 2007. “Livelihoods Approaches as a Conservation Tool.” IGERT Water Resources Department. 2002. Karnataka State Water Policy. Program. University of Rhode Island. Government of Karnataka. http://www.ielrc.org/content/e0205.pdf. The Energy and Resources Institute. 2008. “Mid-Term Impact Assessment World Bank. 2001. Project Appraisal Document—India, Karnataka of Uttarakhand Decentralized Watershed Development Project.” Watershed Development Project. Report No: 22230-IN. May 29, 2001. Prepared for Watershed Management Directorate Government of Rural Development Sector Unit. South Asia Regional Office. Uttarakhand. Project Report No. 2007SF04. World Bank. 2004. Project Appraisal Document—India, Uttarakhand Times of India. 2012. Rajeev Deshpande, TNN. “Government Study Fixes Decentralized Watershed Development Project. Report No: 27697-IN. Poverty Line at Rs. 66 for Cities and Rs. 35 for Villages.” Apr 29, 2012. April 14, 2004. Rural Development Sector Unit. South Asia Regional http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012–04–29/india Office. /31475601_1_poverty-line-population-expenditure. World Bank. 2005. Project Appraisal Document—India, Himachal Pradesh Tropenbos International. 2005. “Alternative Livelihoods and Sustainable Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project. Report No: 33434- Resource Management.” Proceedings of a workshop held in IN. November 14, 2005. Agriculture and Rural Development Sector Akyawkrom, Ghana. Tropenbos International Ghana Workshop Unit, India Country Management Unit. South Asia Regional Office. Proceedings 4, edited by D. K. B. Inkoom, K. Okae Kissiedu and B. Owusu Jnr. Wageningen, the Netherlands. World Bank. 2008. “India Uttarakhand Decentralized Watershed Development Project”—Aide Memoire of the Mid Term Review. Shah, M., D. Banerji, P.S. Vijayshankar, and P. Ambasta. 1998. India’s November 17–26, 2008. Drylands: Tribal Societies and Development through Environmental Regeneration. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. World Bank. 2009. Implementation Completion and Results Report for the Karnataka Watershed Development Project. Report No: ICR00001205. Shah, M. 2013. Water: Towards a Paradigm Shift in the Twelfth Plan. Washington. D.C. Economic & Political Weekly. January 19, 2013. Vol XLVII, No. 3. World Bank. 2009. “Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project Shah, M. 2011. “Sustainable Water Security at a Time of Climate Himachal Pradesh.” Draft Executive Summary of the Aide Memoire of Change: India’s 12th Five Year Plan.” Presentation by Dr. Mihir Shah, Mid Term Review Mission, November 9–18, 2009. Member of the Government of India’s Planning Commission. February 2011. http://www.slideshare.net/globalwaterpartnership /2-m-shah-gwp-iwmi-ws?from_search=1. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 1 A — C O M M O N G U I D E L I N E S F O R WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T P R O J E C T S 1995, 2001, 2008, 2011 & 2012 51 Appendix 1a COMMON GUIDELINES FOR WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 1995, 2001, 2008, 2011 & 2012 1995 GUIDELINES 2001 GUIDELINES 2008 GUIDELINES 2011 GUIDELINES 2012 GUIDELINES Objectives • Promote the economic • Develop wastelands/degraded No specific objectives are Improve rural livelihoods • Increase the availability of development of the village lands, drought-prone & desert articulated, however, the implicit through participatory watershed surface & groundwater to community areas objectives may be summarized development with focus on meet the needs of drinking • Encourage the restoration • Promote economic develop- as: integrated farming systems for water, drought proofing & of ecological balance in the ment & improving socio-eco- • Improve rural livelihoods enhancing income, productivity protective irrigation village nomic conditions of resource through participatory water- & livelihood security in a sustain- • Regeneration of degraded • Improve the economic poor & disadvantaged shed development with focus able manner. natural resources, reducing & social condition of • Mitigate adverse effects of on integrated farming systems soil erosion & restoration of the resource poor & the extreme climatic conditions to enhance income, productiv- ecological balance disadvantaged • Restore ecological balance ity & livelihood security in a • Improvement of land produc- by harnessing, conserving & sustainable manner tivity in rainfed areas developing natural resources • Develop rainfed areas with • Promote sustainable liveli- (land, water, vegetative cover) a view to conserving natural hoods & diversify livelihood • Encouraging sustained resources of water, soil & options, especially for small community action for O&M of vegetation by mobilizing & marginal farmers & the assets created & further de- social capital asset-less persons, especially velopment of natural resources women • Utilizing simple, easy & afford- • Strengthen local institutions able technological solutions & & people’s empowerment, institutional arrangements especially of women based upon local knowledge • Promote location-specific & available materials technological solutions based • Employment generation, on local resources & local poverty alleviation, com- knowledge munity empowerment & • Mitigate the adverse impacts development of human & of climate change & promote other economic resources of adaptation strategies the village Scale “Micro-watershed” on order “Micro-watershed” on order of “Geo-hydrological units” averag- Same as 2008 Watershed projects to be of 500 ha 500 ha ing 1,000 to 5,000 ha, compris- between 3,000-7,000 ha & ad- ing clusters of micro-watersheds. ditional contiguous watersheds May be smaller in hilly/difficult taken up to form larger clusters terrain areas. where possible. Smaller sizes may be sanctioned in hilly/ difficult terrain areas. Related • Optimize utilization of • In situ conservation of soil & • Upper watershed (headwa- • Ridge-to-valley, sequenced • Ridge-to-valley approach with hydrologic/ water & mitigate adverse water ters) protection approach (first, upper flexibility to work initially water resources effects of drought & • Water harvesting & storage • Development of shared watersheds; second, slopes in lower reaches nearer vil- objectives1 prevent further ecological for domestic, agricultural & databases, MIS, GIS systems just above agricultural lands; lages to respond to demand, degradation groundwater recharge for IWRM (planning, M&E, third, plains & flat areas) provide tangible benefits from • Equitable distribution of the purposes modeling) • Develop core GIS facilities for program early on & achieve benefits of water resources • Renovation & augmentation • Alleviation of drinking water planning, M&E, modeling; buy-in from community. development of water resources for drinking shortages information network to reach • Alleviation of drinking water/irrigation project areas water shortages (continued) A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 52 A P P E N D I X 1 A — C O M M O N G U I D E L I N E S F O R WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T P R O J E C T S 1995, 2001, 2008, 2011 & 2012 1995 GUIDELINES 2001 GUIDELINES 2008 GUIDELINES 2011 GUIDELINES 2012 GUIDELINES Related • Water harvesting & storage • Alleviation of drinking water • Target over-exploitation of • Equip Districts & State • Drinking water security to be hydrologic/water for domestic, agricultural shortages groundwater resources Centers with IT & domain paramount goal, followed resources & groundwater recharge • Formal water allocation professionals by protective irrigation for objectives purposes (surface & groundwater) at • Create National Portal to host drought-proofing (continued) local level based on principles data of all watershed projects • Increase availability of surface of equity & sustainability • Apply GIS data for local project & groundwater to meet drink- • Reduce volume/velocity planning (define project ing water, drought proofing, surface runoff boundaries, map treatment protective irrigation needs • Water harvesting & storage areas, assess runoff, ID optimal • Repair/restore/upgrade for domestic, agricultural location for structures, impact traditional water harvesting & groundwater recharge assessments that include structures purposes changes in geo-hydrological • Hydro-geological & aquifer • Promotion of water saving potential, soil & crop cover, surveys to map zones of technologies, management runoff, and so on potential groundwater re- practices & crop varieties • Provision of drinking water charge, storage & sustainable • Institutional reforms for IWRM • Augmenting groundwater groundwater utilization potential • Reduce volume/velocity • Repair/restoration/upgrading surface runoff village tanks • Develop water harvesting • Reduce volume/velocity structures surface runoff • In situ soil & moisture • Development of water conservation & drainage harvesting management • In situ soil & moisture • Water saving technologies conservation & drainage (drip irrigation, cultural management practices) • Water-saving technologies • Promotion of local, adapted (irrigation & cultural practices) germplasm • Promotion of use of local, • Establish local mechanisms adapted germplasm to charge & collect water user fees (excluding charges to landless, destitute or disabled/widow headed households) Watershed • ≈ 500 ha in size or several • ≈ 500 ha in size or several • Clusters of micro-watersheds Same as 2008 Guidelines • Watershed projects between selection criteria smaller, contiguous water- smaller, contiguous water- comprising 1,000 to 5,000 ha 3,000–7,000 ha, including sheds with an approximate sheds with an approximate • Acuteness of drinking water contiguous areas as possible total area of 500 ha total area of 500 ha scarcity to form larger clusters. • Acute shortage of drinking • Acute shortage of drinking • Proportion of SC/STs Weighted criteria (130 points water water • Preponderance of wastelands/ total): • Large population of SC/STs • Large population of SC/STs degraded lands • Drinking water shortage • Preponderance of • Preponderance of non-forest • Contiguity to another water- (15 points) wastelands wastelands/degraded lands shed that has already been • % of net sown area that is • Preponderance of common • Preponderance of common developed/treated unirrigated (15 points) lands lands; except where poverty • Extent of over exploitation of • Moisture index/DPAP/DDP • Where actual wages are alleviation & employment groundwater resources Block (15 points) significantly lower than the generation so justify • Willingness of village com- • % of degraded land (15 points) minimum wages • Where actual wages are munity to make voluntary • Productive potential of land • Contiguous to another wa- significantly lower than the contributions, enforce equi- (15 points) tershed which has already minimum wages table social regulations for • Depth of groundwater level been developed/is selected • Contiguous to another sharing of common property (10 points) for development watershed which has already resources, make equitable • % of small & marginal farmers • Not previously taken up been developed/is selected for distribution of benefits, create (10 points) under any of the programs development arrangements for the O&M of • % of SC/ST population (10 such as DPAP/DDP/ • Where people’s participa- the assets created points) NWDPRA/IWDP tion (raw materials, cash, • Area of the project should • Incidence of seasonal or long • Watershed contained labor, and so on) assured for not be covered under assured term distress outmigration within village boundaries development, as well as, O&M irrigation (10 points) or, if small part is outside, of created assets • Productivity potential of • Contiguity to another with consent of neighbor- the land watershed already developed/ ing village/Panchayat treated (10 points) • Extent of deviation of actual wages of farm labor from declared minimum wages (5 points) (continued) WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 1 A — C O M M O N G U I D E L I N E S F O R WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T P R O J E C T S 1995, 2001, 2008, 2011 & 2012 53 1995 GUIDELINES 2001 GUIDELINES 2008 GUIDELINES 2011 GUIDELINES 2012 GUIDELINES Institutional National-level National-level National-level National-level National-level Arrangements • Department of Wastelands • Department of Wastelands • National Rainfed Area Same as 2008 with following Same as 2011 with following Development, MoRD: Development, MoRD: admin- Authority: planning; norms & exception: exceptions: administration of the istration of the DPAP, DDP, guidelines; evaluation; inter- • Line ministries delegate • IWMP Steering Committee, DPAP, DDP & IWDP-related & IWDP-related watershed sectoral & inter-institutional powers to states to sanction & chaired by Secretary of watershed development development program coordination; financing; facili- oversee the implementation Land Resources; members program • Any other program notified tation of research; knowledge of watershed projects from Planning Commission, • Ministry of Agriculture: by the GOI sharing; technical inputs National Rainfed Area administration of • Line Ministries: oversee water- Authority, technical experts the NWDPRA-related shed development programs, from scientific institutions, watershed development with option to set up a nodal voluntary organizations, programs. agency at the central level in relevant departments of the department for managing central/state govt. & implementing watershed • National Rainfed Area development projects Authority: role is reduced, • National Level Data Center & no longer charged with National Portal: extend, store overall inter-sectoral & inter- & generate watershed & land institutional coordination resource information, data & or convergence with other knowledge; collate summary programs data for country; data archive; • MoRD/Central Level Nodal data for program & fund flow Agency: technical secretariat management of IWMP Steering Committee; facilitate fund flows, technical & implementation support for capacity building, information, education & communication; ensure qual- ity of monitoring system & its implementation thru states; organize system for evaluation/ studies, impact assessments, etc.; support & facilitate knowledge manage- ment; facilitate convergence between schemes/ resources of other departments/ministries • Central Watershed Data Center: store & generate information, data, & knowl- edge; collate summary data country-wide, archival data center for states; coordinate with state centers; provide aggregate picture of country- wide program State-level State-level State-level State-level State-level • Watershed Development • State Watershed Development • State Level Nodal Agency: Same as 2008, with exception: Same as 2011, with exception: Implementation & Review Committee: (i) coordina- (i) sanction watershed • State Level Nodal Agency • State Level Nodal Agency has Committee: (i) coordina- tion among government projects for the state on to also: (i) prepare states’ additional responsibilities in tion among government departments, agricultural the basis of approved state strategic plan for watershed developing state specific pro- Departments, Agricultural universities, voluntary perspective & strategy; development & for its cess/operational guidelines & Universities, Voluntary agencies & training institu- (ii) oversee all watershed implementation; (ii) establish strategies for human resource Agencies & training tions; (ii) review & evaluate projects in the state & maintain a state level data management policy. institutions; (ii) review & progress, cost norms & cell; (iii) provide technical • Watershed Cell cum Data evaluate progress, cost minimum area requirements support to Watershed Data Centers: (i) validate technical, norms, & minimum area • Designated Department Center; (iv) oversee capacity financial & social aspects requirements in State Government: building; (v) approve project of detailed project report & • Department of (i) nodal agency serving State implementing agencies (PIAs) recommend for approval; Rural Development: Watershed Development selected by locals; (vi) MEL (ii) regular updating of MIS nodal agency serving Committee; (ii) supervise systems; (vii) prepare state- Watershed Development implementation of Watershed specific process guidelines, Implementation & Review Development Programs manuals, etc.; (viii) coordinate Committee with Nodal Ministry/National Rainfed Area Authority & implement program (continued) A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 54 A P P E N D I X 1 A — C O M M O N G U I D E L I N E S F O R WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T P R O J E C T S 1995, 2001, 2008, 2011 & 2012 1995 GUIDELINES 2001 GUIDELINES 2008 GUIDELINES 2011 GUIDELINES 2012 GUIDELINES Institutional • Watershed Cell cum Data Arrangements Centers at district level: (continued) (i) oversee implementation; (ii) identify potential PIAs; (iii) facilitate preparation of strategic & annual action plans; (iv) provide technical support to PIAs; (v) develop capacity building plans; (vi) MEL; (vii) ensure fund flows; (viii) reporting to SLNA & Nodal Agency at central level; (ix) coordination with relevant programs; (x) integration of watershed development projects/ plans into District plans; (xi) maintain databases & link to state/national-level District-level District-level District-level District-level District-level • Zilla Parishads (ZPs) (or • ZP/DRDA: decide on the • District Watershed • Watershed Cell cum Data Same as 2011 District Rural Development suitability or otherwise of the Development Unit: oversee Center: (i) full responsibility Agencies [DRDA]), as case PIA, with caveat that the State the implementation of for oversight; (ii) work in close may be): (i) implementa- Government may change the watershed program in each collaboration with the District tion; (ii) approve watershed PIA if desired district & maintain separate, • Planning Committee (DPC). development plans & • Chairman, ZP or DRDA: independent accounts for this (i) assist District Planning selection of PIAs; (iii) funds (i) responsible for overall purpose Committee (DPC) in oversight administration & financial implementation; (ii) monitor • District Panchayat/ZP: (i) gov- of district program; (ii) management; (iv) supervi- & review implementation; ernance in matters relating collaborate with DPC; (iii) sion of works; (v) establish (iii) maintain accounts; to the coordination of various monitoring & evaluation. norms & guidelines for (iv) holds signing authority; sectoral schemes with water- • District Planning Committee: maintenance of accounts, (v) constitute District shed development projects, (i) support to program gov- community organization, Watershed Development (ii) review of progress, settling ernance; (ii) approve annual campaigns, farmers train- Committee disputes etc.; (iii) provide action plans; (iii) integrate the ing, exposure visits, etc. • District Watershed valuable support to PIAs & watershed development plans • Watershed Development Development Committee: GPs/WCs in technical guidance into district plans & oversee Advisory Committee: (i) ensure coordination at with the help of their subject implementation. advise & assist ZP/DRDA district level, (ii) advise & matter specialists. Where • District Panchayat/Zilla assist the ZP/DRDA on matters the Panchayat system is not Parishad: (i) intersectoral regarding selection of PIAs, in operation, this role will coordination; (ii) review members of watershed be played by the District of progress, (iii) dispute development teams (WDTs), Watershed Development Unit/ settlement. Where Panchayat training, community organiza- District Autonomous Councils system not in operation, role tion, publicity campaigns & • PIA: responsible for played by the Watershed Cell other such items/activities; implementation of watershed cum Data Center /District (iii) approve detailed action projects in different districts. Autonomous Councils. plan for watershed develop- These PIAs may include • Intermediate Panchayats: ment projects in the district; relevant line departments, (i) participate in planning; (iv) review progress; (v) assist autonomous organiza- (ii) support PIAs & GPs/ in resolving management & tions under state/central WCs; (iii) provide technical administrative problems; governments, government guidance. (vi) guide implementa- institutes/research bodies, tion; (vii) identify policy intermediate Panchayats, issues for reference to state voluntary organizations government/GOI Local-level Local-level Local-level Local-level Local-level • PIAs: (i) motivate GPs to • GP: (i) be fully involved in • GP: (i) supervise, support & Same as 2008, with exception: Same as 2011, with exception: pass necessary resolutions implementation; (ii) support advise WC; (ii) authenticate • Gram Sabha: constitute • Forest Department: PIA in to make public contribu- & encourage implementation; accounts/ expenditure; the WC watersheds where >50% is tions; (ii) conduct PRAs (iii) ensure funds from other (iii) convergence with under forests to prepare development developmental programs other projects/schemes; (iv) • GP: review of physical & plans; (iii) community supplement & complement; maintain asset register; (v) financial progress organization & training of (iv) review & discuss progress; provide office accommodation communities; (iv) technical (v) approval of watershed & other requirements to WC; guidance & supervision of action plan by Gram Sabha (vi) allocate usufruct rights to watershed development ac- the assets created tivities; (v) manage project implementation; (continued) WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 1 A — C O M M O N G U I D E L I N E S F O R WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T P R O J E C T S 1995, 2001, 2008, 2011 & 2012 55 1995 GUIDELINES 2001 GUIDELINES 2008 GUIDELINES 2011 GUIDELINES 2012 GUIDELINES Institutional (vi) inspect & authenticate • PIAs: (i) supervise & guide • WDT: part of the PIA, will • WDT: (i) assist GP/Gram Sabha • Gram Sabha: (i) constitute the Arrangements project accounts; (vii) project implementation by guide the WC in the formula- in constitution of the WC & WC; (ii) guide identification (continued) action research; (viii) the WCs; (ii) be responsible tion of the watershed action their functioning; (ii) organize of beneficiaries; (iii) mobilize monitor & review overall for 10-12 watershed projects plan & nurture UGs & SHGs; voluntary contributions for implementation; (ix) set up covering an area ranging from • WC: (i) implement the (iii) mobilize women to ensure different activities; (iv) guide institutional arrangements 5,000-6,000 ha (or more if has watershed project with the that the perspectives & inter- development of resource-use for post-project O&M capacity); (iii) motivate GPs technical support of the WDT; ests of women are adequately agreements, especially for • WDT: (i) carry out duties of to pass necessary resolutions (ii) administer investment reflected; (iv) conduct par- common property resources; PIA; (ii) work exclusively & to make public contributions; funds; (iii) constitute SHGs & ticipatory base-line surveys, (v) facilitate conflict-reso- full-time for the watershed (iv) conduct PRAs to prepare UGs training & capacity building; lution; (vi) approve detailed development projects development plans; (v) (v) prepare detailed resource project report/watershed ac- in 10-12 villages; (iii) be community organization & development plans tion plan for the village; (vii) located at the PIA/block training of communities; (vi) provide platform for social or local headquarters/any technical guidance & supervi- audit of the project; (viii) ap- other small town whichever sion of watershed develop- prove the activities that can be is the nearest to the cluster ment activities; (vii) manage taken up with the Watershed of selected villages project implementation; (viii) Development Fund. • Watershed Association inspect & authenticate project • WDT: (i) organize watershed (WA): (i) the Gram Sabha of accounts; (ix) action research; communities into UGs & the concerned Panchayat, (x) monitor & review overall SHGs & their apex bodies; except where watershed implementation; (xi) set up (ii) convergence with other comprises areas under institutional arrangements for projects/schemes; (iii) develop the jurisdiction of more post-project O&M systems for common prop- than one Panchayat, then • WDT: (i) carry out duties of erty resource management & members of the concerned PIA; (ii) working exclusively equitable sharing, especially communities will form the & full-time for the watershed groundwater; (iv) undertake WA; (ii) evolve/improve development projects in 10-12 engineering surveys, prepare watershed development villages; (iii) be located at the engineering drawings & cost plan; (iii) monitor & review PIA/block or local headquar- estimates for any structures progress; (iv) approve state- ters/any other small town to be built; (v) monitoring, ments of accounts; whichever is the nearest to the checking, assessing, undertak- (v) form UGs/SHGs; cluster of selected villages ing physical verification (vi) resolve differences • UGs: Homogenous groups & measurements of the or disputes; (vii) approve who may be most affected by work done; (vi) facilitate arrangements for collection each work/activity & shall in- development of livelihood of public/voluntary dona- clude the persons having land opportunities for asset-less tions & contributions from holding within the watershed persons, especially women; community & individual areas, responsible to take (vii) facilitate adoption members; (viii) lay down over O&M of completed com- of low-cost technologies procedures for O&M of munity works or activities on & build upon indigenous assets created; (ix) approve common property resources technical knowledge; (viii) activities within available • WA: (i) the Gram Sabha of the organize labor groups of budget; (x) nominate concerned Panchayat, except families dependent on wage members of the WC; (xi) where watershed comprises employment; (ix) facilitate ne- take disciplinary action for areas under the jurisdiction gotiations between WC, UGs & removal of membership of more than one Panchayat, labor groups on timing, rates from the WC or UGs & then members of the con- & nature of labor groups work; whatever other disciplinary cerned communities will form (x) pay wages directly to labor action it deems fit the WA; (ii) evolve/improve groups for work carried out; • WC: (i) carry out day-to-day watershed development plan; (xi) maintain project accounts; activities of the Watershed (iii) monitor & review progress; (xii) arrange physical, financial Development Projects; (ii) (iv) approve statements of ac- & social audits; (xiii) put in perform such functions as counts; (v) form UGs/SHGs; (vi) place impact assessment pro- are assigned to it by the resolve differences or disputes; tocols; (xiv) facilitate conflict- WA; & (iii) coordination & (vii) approve arrangements for resolution; (xv) set up suitable liaison with GP, WDT, the collection of public/voluntary arrangements for post-project DRDA/ZP & government donations & contributions O&M & future development of agencies. from community & individual the assets created during the members; (viii) lay down pro- project period cedures for O&M of assets created; (ix) approve activities within available budget; (x) nominate members of the WC; (xi) take disciplinary action for removal of member- ship from the WC or UGs & whatever other disciplinary action it deems fit (continued) A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 56 A P P E N D I X 1 A — C O M M O N G U I D E L I N E S F O R WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T P R O J E C T S 1995, 2001, 2008, 2011 & 2012 1995 GUIDELINES 2001 GUIDELINES 2008 GUIDELINES 2011 GUIDELINES 2012 GUIDELINES Institutional • Watershed Secretary: • WC: (i) carry out day-to-day • WC: (i) guide & participate Arrangements Full-time paid employee of activities of the Watershed in base-line survey, identi- (continued) the WA responsible for (i) Development Projects; fication of sites & activities, convening meetings of the (ii) perform such functions as identification of beneficiaries, WA & the WC & carrying are assigned to it by the WA; in formation of UGs & SHGs; out all their decisions; (ii) (iii) coordination & liaison (ii) mobilize voluntary maintaining all records & with GP, WDT, the DRDA/ZP & contributions; (iii) thrash out accounts of the WC & the Government Agencies. resource-use agreements, WA; (iii) helping the UGs • Watershed Secretary: Full- especially for common prop- & SHGs to maintain their time paid employee of the WA erty resources; (iv) enforce accounts responsible for (i) convening regulations on tubewells; (v) • Watershed Volunteers: meetings of the WA & the WC facilitate conflict-resolution; assist Watershed Secretary & carrying out all their deci- (vi) supervise watershed de- in their responsibilities sions; (ii) maintain all records velopment activities; (vii) en- & accounts of the WC & the sure payments to labor; (viii) WA; (iii) help the UGs & SHGs maintain project accounts; (ix) to maintain their accounts. arrange for social audit; (x) • Watershed Volunteers: assist initiate steps for post-project Watershed Secretary in their operation & maintenance & responsibilities further development of the assets created during the project period Role of voluntary • Five to six “Important • Two “Prominent NGOs” will be • Provide services in the areas of Same as 2008 Same as 2011, with exception: organizations Voluntary Associations” members of State Watershed awareness generation, capac- • Provide information, at state-level may Development Committee ity building, information, education & communication be members of • One NGO representative education & communication & services Watershed Development on District Watershed social audit, among others Implementation & Review Development Committee • May be PIAs if eligible based Committee • Eligible for selection as PIA on criteria (experience, • May be PIAs if active & experienced in technical & financial capacity, • May run training programs watershed or similar in rural antecedents, and so on) for WDT members areas Flow of Funds Government of India/State Government of India => ZP/ Nodal Ministry/Department Nodal Ministry/Department => Same as 2011 Governments => ZPs/ DRDAs DRDAs => PIA => (for works) => States => Districts => State Level Nodal Agency => => Panchayats/Watershed WC PIAs/WCs Districts => Watershed Cell cum Development Committees Data Center => PIAs/WC Priority Actions • Watershed treatment/ • Land development including • Ridge area treatment • Ridge-to-valley principle Same as 2011 with addition of: development plan for all in situ soil & moisture • Drainage line treatment with multi-tier sequenced • Promotion of seed banks & arable/non-arable (includ- conservation measures (for (vegetative & engineering approach seed villages ing degraded forest, govt., example, contour & graded structures) • Ridge area treatment (reduce • Promotion of non-pesticide community & private) lands bunds fortified by plantation, • Water harvesting structures volume/velocity surface management systems that & drainage lines bench terracing in hilly such as low-cost farm ponds runoff ) use local methods/material to • Emphasis on low-cost, terrain, nursery raising for • Regeneration of vegetative control pest attack • Nursery raising for fodder, simple & easy to operate & fodder, timber, fuel wood, cover in forest & common fuel, timber & horticultural • Promotion of agro-processing, maintain works & activities horticulture & non-timber land, afforestation, staggered species marketing arrangements of • In situ soil & moisture forest product species) trenching • Land development including produce & similar off-farm & conservation measures • Afforestation including block • Groundwater recharge informal sector enterprises in situ soil & moisture (contour & graded bunds, plantations, agro-forestry & through wells, bore wells & conservation & drainage • Seed capital assistance for fortified by vegetation, horticultural development, other measures management measures like groups (in the form of revolv- bench terracing in hilly shelterbelt plantations, sand field bunds, contour & graded • Drainage line treatment ing funds among groups) terrain) dune stabilization, and so on bunds fortified with planta- • Water harvesting structures • Supporting community in- • Drainage line treatment • Drainage line treatment with tion, bench terracing in hilly • Nursery raising for fodder, vestment initiatives of groups (vegetative & engineering a combination of vegetative & terrain, and so on engineering structures fuel, timber & horticultural • Income generating activities structures) • Crop demonstrations for species with natural resources man- • Small, water harvesting • Development of small water popularizing new crops/ • Building capacity of the CBOs agement & pro-poor focus structures (farm ponds, harvesting structures such as varieties, water saving tech- low-cost farm ponds, nalla to carry out the new agenda • Developing locally managed nalla bunds, check dams & nologies such as drip irrigation bunds, check-dams & percola- items during post project alternative food & social percolation tanks) or innovative management tion tanks & groundwater period security systems • Nurseries for fodder, timber, practices; as far as possible recharge measures • Sustainable management of fuel wood & horticulture varieties based on the local • Renovation & augmentation (developed) natural resources • Block plantations, shelter germplasm may be promoted belts, sand dune stabiliza- of water resources, desiltation tion, and so on of tanks for drinking water/ irrigation (continued) WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 1 A — C O M M O N G U I D E L I N E S F O R WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T P R O J E C T S 1995, 2001, 2008, 2011 & 2012 57 1995 GUIDELINES 2001 GUIDELINES 2008 GUIDELINES 2011 GUIDELINES 2012 GUIDELINES Priority Actions • Agro-forestry & horticul- • Pasture development either • Pasture development, sericul- • Land development including (continued) tural development by itself or in conjunction with ture, beekeeping, back yard in situ soil & moisture conser- • Pasture development plantations poultry, small ruminant, other vation & drainage manage- (alone or with plantations) • Repair, restoration & upgrad- livestock & micro-enterprises ment measures, priority given • Repair, restoration & ing of existing common prop- • Veterinary services for to local species upgrading of existing erly assets & structures (from livestock & other livestock • Field bunds, contour & graded common property assets & previous public investments) improvement measures bunds fortified with planta- structures (from previous • Crop demonstrations for • Fisheries development in tion, bench terracing in hilly public investments) popularizing new crops/ village ponds/tanks, farm terrain etc. • Crop demonstrations varieties or innovative ponds, etc. • Crop demonstrations for • Basic surveys (contour, management practices • Promotion & propagation popularizing new crops/ hydrological, bench- • Promotion & propagation of non-conventional energy varieties mark, remote sensing, of non-conventional energy saving devices, energy con- • Water saving technologies soil classification, land saving devices & energy con- servation measures, bio-fuel (drip irrigation or innovative capability, monitoring), servation measures plantations, and so on management practices) design analysis, research/ • Pasture development, sericul- action research/operational ture, bee keeping, back yard research, other technical poultry, small ruminant, other inputs livestock & micro-enterprises • Veterinary services for livestock & other livestock improvement measures • Fisheries development in village ponds/tanks, farm ponds, etc. • Promotion & propagation of non-conventional energy saving devices, energy con- servation measures, bio fuel plantations, and so on Funding Pattern • Watershed treatment/ • Watershed treatment/ • Watershed development • Watershed development • Watershed development development works/ development works/ works–50% works–56% works–55% activities–80% activities–80% • Production system & • Administrative costs–10% • Professional human resources • Watershed community • Watershed community micro-enterprises–13% • Production system & micro deployment–10% organization–6% organization (including entry • Livelihood activities for the enterprises–10% • Livelihoods for asset-less • Training–4% point activities)–5% asset-less persons–10% • Livelihood activities for the persons–9% • Administrative costs–10% • Training–5% • Administrative costs–10% asset-less persons–9% • Productivity enhancement • Administrative costs–10% • Institution & capacity • Institution & capacity activities–7% building–5% building–5% • Administrative costs–5% • Consolidation phase–5% • Entry point activities–4% • Capacity building–5% • Entry point activities–4% • Consolidation phase–3% • Entry point activities–4% • Monitoring–1% • Detailed Project Report–1% • Activities under consolidation • Evaluation–1% • Evaluation–1% phase–1% • Detailed project report–1% • Monitoring–1% • Detailed project report–1% • Evaluation, learning & documentation–1% • Institution building–1% • Monitoring–1% Project Duration 4 years maximum except up 5 years which includes an 4–7 years (preparatory phase: Same as 2008 5 years (preparatory phase: to 5 years where plantations initial phase of 9–12 months 1–2 years; works phase: 2–3 18 months; watershed works are being established on for establishing the necessary years; consolidation phase: 1–2 phase: 3 years; consolidation/ all or most of the areas, in institutional mechanisms years) withdrawal: 6 months) which case Cost Sharing Local voluntary donations/ Contribution in cash, labor, & • Natural resource management • Natural resource management Same as 2011 contributions in labor, raw raw materials for development works: minimum 10% on works: same as 2008 materials, cash, etc. for devel- & O&M; Local contributions to private lands; minimum 5% • Aquaculture, horticulture, opmental activities & O&M; be at least 10% for works on on SC/ST & small & marginal agro-forestry, animal Expected to be minimum 5% individual lands & 5% for works farmers’ lands husbandry: 20% on on public good/common lands on community lands • Aquaculture, horticulture, private lands & 10% for SC/ST & 10% on private lands agro-forestry, animal beneficiaries husbandry: 40% on private lands & 20% for SC/ST beneficiaries (continued) A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 58 A P P E N D I X 1 A — C O M M O N G U I D E L I N E S F O R WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T P R O J E C T S 1995, 2001, 2008, 2011 & 2012 1995 GUIDELINES 2001 GUIDELINES 2008 GUIDELINES 2011 GUIDELINES 2012 GUIDELINES Cost Ceiling Rs 4,000/ha (approx. $127 in Rs 4,000/ha (approx. $85 in 1995 • Rs 6,000/ha (approx. $90 in Rs 12,000/ha (approx. $133 in Rs 12,000/ha (approx. $121 in 1995 dollars) dollars) 1995 dollars). 1995 dollars). 1995 dollars) • Being revised to allow for: (i) promotion of livelihoods including improvement of productivity through farming systems; (ii) complete coverage of area under the watershed including common/forest land; (iii) general escalation in cost of material, as well as, minimum wages of laborers Sources: Government of India 1994, 2001, 2008, 2011, 2012. 1 Note that these are not necessarily from a statement of objectives within the Guidelines, in some cases they are gleaned from the sections of the Guidelines related to watershed development activities and taken as explicit objectives. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 1 B — WAT E R : I N D I A’ S E M E R G I N G PA R A D I G M S H I F T   I N  WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T 59 Appendix 1b WATER: INDIA’S EMERGING PARADIGM SHIFT IN WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT Since the revision in 2001 of the Common Watershed Guidelines, § Perhaps the most critical weakness of watershed programs in there have been three additional revisions: in 2008, 2011 and 2012. 57 India is that they operate almost as if groundwater does not ex- The major, strategic revisions have been those associated with the ist . . . it appears to play almost no role in watershed planning. § . . . there is a need to recognize and study . . . groundwater [and] process of updating the guidelines for each of the new Five Year hydrogeology at the earliest stages of planning. This is impor- Plans, that is, the 2008 and 2012 revision for the 11th and 12th Five tant for . . . location of structures, ensuring equity, sustainability Year Plans,58 respectively. For each of the major revisions there has . . . and developing a sustainable groundwater use plan as an been a systematic process to capture lessons learned from all levels integral part of the watershed action plan. of implementation through a series of performance assessments, § There has to be clear prioritization of objectives—drinking water evaluation studies and programmatic reviews by high-level com- and protective irrigation, along with fodder and fuel must come mittees organized by the Ministry and Planning and the Ministries first. of Rural Development and of Agriculture. § Watershed development . . . has been . . . preoccupied with supply augmentation. Little attention has been paid to the end- uses . . . it has failed to break with the dominant development 2008 − A RADICALLY NEW APPROACH? paradigms . . . characterized by supply-side solutions . . . [and so is] caught in the infinite regress of forever trying to catch up with In 2005, the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) constituted ever-expanding demand. a special technical committee—the so-called Parthasarathy § What is required is to find ways of not just increasing water sup- Committee—to review and evaluate the Ministry’s watershed ply but much more critically reducing demand and regulating development programs (DPAP, DDP and IWDP). Their final report, end-uses. published in early 2006, suggested the need for a radically new ap- § Watershed development is not merely a matter of harvesting proach (Shah, 2013) to watershed development under the 11th Five rainwater. Its success crucially entails working out collective Year Plan. The review was comprehensive, looking at all aspects of protocols of equitable and sustainable use of surface water and groundwater, bringing together of scientists and farmers the program. Among others it strongly reiterated the premise that to evolve a dryland agriculture package and a host of other the watershed programs are primarily social programs. Of relevance livelihood options, detailed land-use planning at the micro- here were its conclusions as regarded water resources management watershed level and the mobilization of rural communities in and how its recommendations for, what it considered, urgently the direction of the disadvantaged. needed improvements were ultimately internalized into the 2008 Common Watershed Development Project Guidelines. Among the The 2008 revision of the Guidelines started with the conclusion committee’s observations were (GOI 2006): that the programs’ successes—measured in terms of conservation, productivity enhancement, expansion of agricultural areas, employ- ment generation and social improvements—had been sporadic 57 Appendix 1a provides an overview and summary of all of the five ver- and intermittent during the previous five years. Overall impact of sions of the Common Guidelines from 1995 to 2012. the watershed development programs at the state and national 58 The 11th Five Year Plan covered the period from 2007 to 2012 and the 12th Five Year Plan will cover the period from 2012 to 2017. levels was characterized as having generally been inadequate and, in A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 60 A P P E N D I X 1 B — WAT E R : I N D I A’ S E M E R G I N G PA R A D I G M S H I F T   I N  WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T response, the new guidelines were to provide a fresh framework for the basis for what is needed: a landscape level assessment to initiate the next generation watershed programs (GOI 2008.). The key reforms the planning process at a suitable scale, with a focus on hydrological introduced under the new Guidelines, while wide ranging, were resources.60 fairly modest when it came to responding to the water resources As regards the sequenced ridge-to-valley approach, the management concerns raised by the Parthasarathy Committee. Parthasarathy Committee (GOI 2006) had warned that . . . experience Instead, the reforms focused primarily on: (i) further decentraliza- in the field suggests that it would be better to introduce a degree of flex- tion of the programs to the States and the strengthening of local ibility in the way the ridge-to-valley principle is applied . . . [while it is mechanisms and capacity for delivery, implementation and O&M; conceptually correct to] plan various interventions within the water- and (ii) introduction of a sustainable livelihood orientation (defined shed, in a ridge-to-valley sequence . . . the actual sequence of treatment as productivity enhancement and livelihoods along with conservation may be kept a little flexible and responsive to local perceptions. It also measures). noted that there are many cases where the ridge-to-valley principle Relevant to water resources management, the revised Guidelines may not apply for other reasons.61 It is also important to note that (i) allowed for larger project areas (cluster approach) comprising ridge-to-valley represents an idealized concept of watershed hy- clusters of micro-watersheds of average size from 1,000 to 5,000 ha; drology more appropriate to streamflow generation (that is, surface (ii) called for scientific planning . . . to utilize information technology water) than to groundwater.62 As for water resources management, [and] remote sensing inputs in planning, monitoring and evaluation; a too rigid application of the multi-tier, ridge-to-valley framework 59 and (iii) emphasized the need for following a “sequenced” ridge- would be antithetical to a framework for adaptive management to-valley approach, involving the Ministry of Environment and that responded to local conditions, existing externalities and felt Forest, or the states’ forest programs to protect upper reaches. The needs. The 2008 Guidelines thus ran the risks of embodying a type guidance provided on planning processes identified the need for of watershed management orthodoxy representing a top-down, hydro-geological surveys to map out zones of potential groundwa- technocratic, one-size-fits-all approach. ter recharge, storage and sustainable groundwater utilization and for detailed resource-use agreements for surface water and ground- water among UG members. 2012 − A DEEPENING WATER CRISIS The next round of systematic reviews and evaluations of the wa- The combination of the cluster approach and the call for a more tershed development programs were carried out by GOI’s Planning rigorous, science-based planning approach opened the door to Commission, under the auspices of Dr. Mihir Shah and the “Shah larger-scale, strategic water resources planning that incorporated Committee” in anticipation of the 12th Five Year Plan. The Committee upstream/downstream linkages and externalities not perceived at the micro-planning level. Ultimately, however, the Guidelines viewed the cluster approach as primarily a means to support eco- 60 This broader scale of planning is currently being piloted in both the new nomic activities at scale, rather than for strengthening of the water World Bank-financed Karnataka watershed project (under implementa- tion) and the new Neeranchal national watershed project (in 8 states, resources management framework to address the types of con- now under preparation). cerns raised by the Parthasarathy Committee. As a result, while all 61 The report identifies 10 agro-ecological sub-regions that comprise over 25 percent of India’s land area where it believes the watershed guide- states “cluster” at these larger scales, the clustering does not form lines require modification. In two-thirds of those land areas (about 17 percent of India’s total land area), the reason for the suggested modi- fications includes non-applicability of the conventional ridge-to-valley 59 This refers to “multi-tier” sequencing of watershed development by first principle. The other justifications include existence of traditional systems, focusing on the upper reaches or forests “where the water sources origi- atypical land situation, high poverty and low human development, and nate,” followed by “the second tier” or intermediate slopes just above the need of higher per hectare investment norms. agricultural lands and then the “third level” or plains/flat areas “where 62 Groundwater divides or boundaries are geologic or hydrologic and so typically farmers are operating.” It also refers to the standardized phasing do not necessarily follow topographic boundaries. Similarly, zones of of the Watershed Development Projects into three phases: preparatory, interest for enhancing groundwater recharge will be identified through works and consolidation and withdrawal. soils and geological factors rather that topography, per se. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 1 B — WAT E R : I N D I A’ S E M E R G I N G PA R A D I G M S H I F T   I N  WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T 61 reported that it had emerged that a number of practical impediments much tighter than current assumptions hold63 and the non-renew- were coming in the way of putting the new paradigm [represented by able depletion of groundwater levels over large tracts. One of the main the 2008 Guidelines] of watershed management into practice on the messages of the presentation was that business-as-usual will not do. ground and the pace of the program was found to be less than satisfac- Later in that same year the Planning Commission’s strategy docu- tory (Shah 2013). Among the key obstacles identified were the lack ment for the 12th Five Year Plan was made official and published. of adequate resources to actually employ the quality of technical The report—“Faster, Sustainable and More Inclusive Growth–An and social professionals required to inform planning processes as re- Approach to the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-17)”—reiterated the garded hydrological aspects and to assist in building local processes gravity of the situation as regards water resources and put forward for water resources governance. the following strategic priorities for water resources management (GOI 2011): A background report from the Planning Commission’s Working Group on minor irrigation and watershed management was much § Maintenance of Surface Water Bodies—focusing on re- less generous in its assessment, referring to the watershed devel- habilitation of existing structures and bodies, management opment approach as implemented as being a flawed solution (GOI of their catchment areas, and groundwater management to increase productivity of land. The Eastern and Northeastern 2011). The report recognized the highly relevant nature of the regions, where ample untapped groundwater resources are watershed development programs’ menu of activities and interven- available are prioritized for groundwater management. tions for the development of rainfed areas. It also recognized that § Groundwater Management—the proposed approach a watershed-based approach is broadly appropriate for developing is to greatly expand the scope of rainwater harvesting and rainfed areas. Its main criticisms were leveled at how the programs groundwater recharge. Where rainfall and recharge rates are were implemented: (i) the still fragmented institutional nature of high in the alluvial plains, the focus would be on recharge. the programs; and (ii) the continuing one-size-fits-all approach. It In the more rocky areas of Central India, where recharge identified departmental silos [with] no unified mechanism for coordi- rates are lower, the focus would be on rainwater harvesting and groundwater recharge, supplemented by the creation nation and convergence as being responsible for the programs’ not of small storage structures (reservoirs, tanks, farm ponds, achieving their potential and for the greatly reduced on-the-ground dug wells, etc.) to impound rainwater. To accomplish this, impacts and effectiveness. It went on to strongly question how wa- the government’s rural employment program—Mahatma tershed development—the main program for the development of Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act rainfed areas—was being carried out; warning of a ridge-to-valley (MGNREGA) would be used to support such activities as fundamentalism and a tool-kit approach of sticking on the ground vari- identified through the IWMP. ous structures and treatments. § Aquifer Mapping—this would include a comprehensive mapping of aquifers, along with their storage and transmis- sion characteristics. The current network of observation wells More compelling than the reviews of the watershed development (60,000 countrywide) would be expanded about five times programs and the Common Guidelines utilized under the 11th Five (300,000). By gaining a more accurate idea of actual ground- Year Plan are the strategic views on water resources management water use and aquifer dynamics, both policy and water that have come out for the 12th Five Year Plan. In early 2011, the resources management interventions can be better targeted. Planning Commission presented its proposed new water resources § Stakeholder-based Aquifer Management—Based on strategy for the 12th Five Year Plan. Entitled “Sustainable Water the aquifer mapping exercises, groundwater management Security at a Time of Climate Change,” the presentation began with a review of the deepening water crisis in India and the need to move 63 The Ministry of Water Resources estimates water supply at 1,123 BCM supply vs. a 634 BCM demand in 2010, rising to 1,180 BCM in 2050. Two decisively beyond [the] complacency of ‘denial mode’ (Shah 2011). It other independent researchers from UC/Berkeley and IIT Delhi have es- went on to discuss the more recent and sobering assessments by timated current supply as between 654 and 668 BCM; the differences with the Ministry’s figures ascribed to higher estimates of ET and lower independent researchers suggesting that India’s water budget is estimates of “utilizable” vs. total supply. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 62 A P P E N D I X 1 B — WAT E R : I N D I A’ S E M E R G I N G PA R A D I G M S H I F T   I N  WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T plans are to be developed for each aquifer. Promising and facilitation of the adoption of a model State-level Water models for groundwater management partnerships at the Resources Regulatory Authority Bill is also proposed, along village-level have been developed in Andhra Pradesh. The with the establishment of a National Water Commission to Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems monitor compliance with the national water strategy. project, supported by the FAO (Food and Agriculture § Environmental Management (for water resources)— Organization) and implemented by NGOs, employs partici- Several issues have been flagged by the Planning patory hydrogeological monitoring, complemented with Commission as regards to water resources. These include: crop water budgeting to estimate sustainable groundwa- (i) securing the ecology of watershed and catchments; (ii) ter use. Reportedly some one million farmers are reached carrying capacity studies in selected river-basins; (iii) protec- through these efforts, which are to be tested and extended tion of water quality and quantity through pollution control; under the 12th Plan. (iv) restoration of wetlands and lakes; and (v) management § Reforms in Major and Medium Irrigation—This would of waste water discharges from industrial and commercial include, inter alia, a mix of institutional (enhanced coordina- establishments into major water bodies. tion across agencies and departments and strengthening of § Climate Change (and water resources)—The proposed water users associations and devolution of system admin- approach comprises two National Missions, one for water istration responsibilities to them); developing monitoring (to promote the integrated management of water resources capacity through remote sensing over command areas; the and increase water use efficiency by 20 percent) and one for reform of water charge structures to better cover O&M; and sustainable agriculture (focusing on enhancing productivity changes in the staffing pattern of irrigation departments to and resilience to reduce vulnerability to extremes of weather, include a broader range of specialties (for example, social long dry spells, flooding and variable moisture availability). mobilizers) to develop capacity to work with the end-users. On the broader issue of adapting agricultural practices to § Pricing of Groundwater—While the urgent need for current and changing climatic conditions and managing significant changes in the pricing of both water and electric- water resources in a more comprehensive and an efficient ity for groundwater pumping are recognized, so too is the fashion, the strategy proposes developing agro-climatic political difficulty of doing so. The initial strategy will there- zone specific water harvesting and management technolo- fore be more modest and seek to introduce modest fees gies and the genetic improvement of agricultural crops to for the power used for pumping groundwater. At the very develop a flexible portfolio of adapted crop varieties. least, State governments are expected to levy a fee on all power for agricultural use and earmark the funds collected The 2012 Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects for groundwater recharge programs in the same aquifer. were formulated by the Shah Committee, following extensive con- Another approach will be to separate the power grid feeders sultations with the States and relevant stakeholders.64 The stated into the irrigation areas from the three-phased power for do- intent of the revisions was to strengthen the innovative features of the mestic uses, schools, hospitals and village industries. Doing earlier Guidelines but also make certain changes to impart greater flex- so would improve the quality of power supply to the villages ibility, clarity and momentum to the IWMP. An implicit purpose was while allowing rationing of power for irrigation (obtain eight to align the Guidelines with the Planning Commission’s strategy for hours or more of quality power on a pre-announced sched- ule). This approach has been proven in Gujarat and has been the 12th Five Year Plan. The principal changes from the previous taken up already by a number of other states. Guidelines included: § Regulatory Changes for Groundwater—A clear legal § Project duration shall be five years. This reduces the maxi- framework governing the use of groundwater is lacking and mum allowed project duration by two years due to concerns so a new groundwater law is to be proposed that would, that longer periods were diluting resources; among others, restrict the mining of groundwater. The need for an overarching Water Framework Law to give teeth to the new National Water Policy is also cited. State-level regula- 64 The new Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects tory bodies are proposed to resolve conflicts among and 2012 are to be applicable to all watershed projects sanctioned from between the different water uses and users. The formulation April 1, 2013 onwards. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 1 B — WAT E R : I N D I A’ S E M E R G I N G PA R A D I G M S H I F T   I N  WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T 63 § Earmarking of ten percent of individual project resources Of relevance to improving water resources management, the to deploy high-quality professional human resources for both Guidelines also include specific instructions regarding: (i) the use of social and technical aspects in order to improve technical remote sensing data for finalizing contour maps for assessment of content and quality of the individual projects. This re- runoff, for locating water harvesting and storage structures, assess- sponded to the findings of the Shah Committee that the ing program impacts on the ground, to assess periodic changes in previous five years’ program had been hobbled by the lack of technical and social professionals to integrate water geo-hydrological potential, soil and crop cover, runoff, etc. in the resources/watershed hydrology and local water resources project area, and for baseline surveys;65 (ii) hydro-geological surveys governance concerns into the individual projects; and aquifer mapping of the watersheds to map out zones of po- § A standardizing framework for capacity building, in the form tential groundwater recharge, storage and sustainable groundwater of a new national strategy for capacity building to provide utilization; (iii) development or strengthening of local mechanisms greater direction and momentum; and systems for common property resource management and § A stronger emphasis on institution building as required equitable sharing, especially groundwater; (iv) efforts to establish for more effective decentralization of the programs to the detailed resource-use agreements for surface water, groundwater States; to support greater devolution of implementation and and common/forest land usufruct among UG members; and (v) the administrative responsibilities to local authorities and com- setting up of institutional mechanisms to ensure sustainability in munities and; to enhance sustainability of outcomes. One percent of program resources are earmarked for institution use of resources, especially common-pool resources (for example, building; groundwater) through the assets created under the projects. This § Increasing the role of civil society in project implementation latter is to include the formal allocation of users’ right over CPRs; in response to the various reviews that demonstrate the collection of user charges for CPRs; repair, maintenance and protec- effectiveness of civil society organizations in implementa- tion of CPRs; establishment of local norms and regulatory systems tion; including new procurement procedures for increasing (for example, for control over bore wells, cropping pattern, use of transparency in the selection of these organizations; chemical pesticides, payment of user charges, sharing of ground- § Some modifications to the “sequenced” ridge-to-valley water resources, and so on) along with effective enforcement and approach to reduce rigidities that were antithetical to a conflict-resolution mechanisms. participatory approach and negatively impacted community buy-in. The changes allow that some work may initially be WHITHER WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT? done in the lower reaches nearer the village settlements so that the people can understand the benefits of the program and feel The introduction of the Planning Commission’s strategy for the 12th a sense of ownership over it . . . however, in each case, it must be Five Year Plan and the new 2012 Common Guidelines GOI does ensured that the ridges/catchments of each water body are fully indeed seem to signify the intention to operationalize the para- treated soon thereafter; digm shift that was first broached as desirable by the Parthasarathy § An increase in the geographical scale of the individual proj- Committee in 2006. First and foremost, it is clear that the intention is ects to between 3,000 to 7,000 ha to achieve economies of for watershed development projects to actually contemplate water scale and proper planning; and water resources management. Secondly, the new framework § Establishment of a Central Level Nodal Agency to provide represents substantial progress across the board in meeting the more intensive support to the States as per their request. The Agency is to be staffed with professionals whose role is to challenges for future programs as previously detailed in this paper facilitate implementation of the new guidelines; (see Challenges in main text). This is a very significant development. § A framework to facilitate working in Forest Lands, including tribal areas where procedural complexities have been an 65 Baseline surveys will be required for all watershed projects (that is, for the preparation of a Detailed Project Report). The surveys are to include, obstacle; among others, information on rainfall, temperature, geographical coordi- nates, topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, soils, forests, demographic § Provision of a clear list of monitorable indicators and green features, ethnographic details of communities, land-use pattern, major metrics that will be tracked on a regular basis. crops and their productivity, irrigation, livestock, socio-economic status etc. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 64 A P P E N D I X 1 B — WAT E R : I N D I A’ S E M E R G I N G PA R A D I G M S H I F T   I N  WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T In each of the suggested areas for attention the new framework pro- watershed-level planning processes with these other pro- vides the potential for making significant advances in overcoming grams while maintaining a true demand-driven approach; many of the gaps and weaknesses identified through the learning § Brings greater attention to the problems of post-project sustainability. Expected project duration of five years with generated by the three projects. In particular, the new framework: (hopefully) clear indicators for the consolidation of local § Provides for the integration of water resources organization and capacity for maintenance following project management—both surface and groundwater—into local closure should provide better enabling conditions. The level planning as well as in broader scale planning at the recommendations for establishing user fees, if followed and watershed level and encourages (and provides financing) successfully introduced, would overcome one of the princi- for strengthening the institutional capacity and applying the pal obstacles to post-project sustainability by providing local, technological and information tools available for doing so; earmarked funding for that purpose. § The continued decentralization of the programs to the Some challenges still remain. The as yet “one-size-fits-all” concerns state and the proposed devolution of responsibilities and strengthened involvement of civil society should provide that have been raised by a number of different sources regarding significant advances in ensuring that the projects respond how the ridge-to-valley approach is implemented—concerns go- more closely to local demands and felt needs; ing back at least to the Parthasarathy Committee’s 2006 observation § Especially important are the proposed approaches to the that it is of dubious relevance in a very large percentage of India’s management of common pool resources, both from the or- lands—have not been resolved in the new framework. This could ganizational and institutional perspectives through attention also impinge on the ability of the individual projects to actually to creation of a framework for working in upper catchments respond to local needs and felt externalities if rigidly applied. Nor and forest areas, as well as to strengthening local gover- is there yet obvious attention or priority given to strengthening the nance of common pool resources for the specific purposes of achieving consensus on the sustainable use of those M&E frameworks to consider the financial viability and desirability resources (including surface and groundwater); of the interventions being promoted at the individual household § The integration (convergence) of several existing GOI pro- and community levels. Additionally economic analysis is not grams (for example, MGNREGA) with the watershed devel- considered as a tool for evaluating efficiency of the programs or opment programs as well as the definition of an institutional analyzing differing policy options. To the extent that the programs framework and roles and responsibilities for coordination move towards water resources decision-making that affect water and facilitation of integration across programs is a good step allocation and supply, such analysis will become extremely impor- in the right direction. The additional attention being given tant. Nonetheless, the new framework broadly demonstrates that to M&E within the new framework could be an important opportunity for promoting and facilitating alignment and learning from experience is a part of the process and that watershed integration between the different institutions and programs. development in India—policy, norms and implementation—is Challenges will remain to be successful in aligning the actively seeking to refine and perfect itself at each iteration. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 2 — WAT E R R E S O U R C E S I N P R O J E C T S TAT E S : I S S U E S I D E N T I F I E D I N S TAT E WAT E R P O L I C I E S 65 Appendix 2 WATER RESOURCES IN PROJECT STATES: ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN STATE WATER POLICIES PROBLEM STATEMENT & OBJECTIVES WATER AVAILABILITY WATER RESOURCES ISSUES KARNATAKA1 Problem Statement Rainfall • Responsibilities are fragmented, no formal mechanisms or • The state is endowed with limited water resources that • Occurrence & distribution highly variable institutional arrangements at state-level to manage water & are stressed & depleting; Different sectoral demands are • State-wide average annual: 1,138 mm ensure co-ordination growing rapidly; Increase in population, urbanization, rapid • Range: 569 mm (east)—4,029 mm (west) • Demand for drinking water will increase & cannot be met industrialization & rising incomes are putting this resource entirely from groundwater sources; may result in conflict with • Average # rain days: 55 under stress; Unless water resources are properly developed & irrigation managed, the state will face acute crisis within the next two • Climate: ~ 65% area < 750 mm/yr rainfall • Some 4,500 villages where groundwater is unfit for drinking decades; Serious destabilization of the water sector affecting • All areas experience scarcity in some years (fluoride, iron or brackishness) the hydrology, economy & ecology of the State is likely. Surface Water • Water quality problems: agro-chemicals, industrial & Objectives • Seven river systems (Krishna, Cauvery, Godavari, West Flowing domestic pollution • Provide [a defined minimum quantity of] drinking water to Rivers, North Pennar, South Pennar & Palar) none fully • Groundwater depletion, water logging, salinization & siltation rural, town, city municipal council & city corporation areas contained within state reducing effective water availability. • Create an irrigation potential of 450,000 ha (major, medium • Utilization of West Flowing Rivers hampered by difficulties in Irrigation & minor schemes) constructing large reservoirs. Yield estimated as 3,418 TMC2 at • Inequitable distribution of water • Creation of additional irrigation in 160,000 ha by individual 50% dependability & 2,934 TMC at 75% dependability • Slow pace of development of irrigation potential, but under- farmers using groundwater • Yield excluding West Flowing Rivers estimated as 1,396 TMC utilization of potential created • Improve performance of all water resources projects at 50% dependability & 1,198 TMC at 75% dependability • Land degradation due to excessive use of water • Improve productivity of irrigated agriculture by involving • Economically utilizable water for irrigation estimated as 1,695 TMC • Productivity of irrigation is below potential users in irrigation management Groundwater • Imbalance between expenditure on new construction vs. • Harness state’s hydropower potential O&M, rehabilitation & modernization of existing & reclama- • Provide a legislative, administrative & infrastructural environ- • Availability estimated as 485 TMC tion of water-logged & problematic lands ment to ensure fair, just & equitable distribution & utilization • Deficiency of water for drinking, agricultural & industrial use • Minor irrigation tanks not maintained of the water resources to benefit all people in dry taluks of North & South interior Karnataka • Cost recovery non-existent • 72 critical taluks: over-exploitation in 43 & exploitation > 50% in 29 • Projects & water resources planning/ management/invest- ment multisectoral & on basin or sub-basin scale; conjunctive • About 400,000 wells irrigating 750,000 ha use surface & groundwater with quantity, quality & environ- • 300,000 wells have dried; shallow wells failing, deep well mental considerations with declining yields • Adopt demand management approaches for allocation & • Area irrigated by groundwater extraction structures is planning decreasing • Adopt participatory approaches; make needed legal & institu- tional changes; Goal to shift responsibility to UGs HIMACHAL PRADESH3 Problem Statement Rainfall • Domestic & industrial rural water demand expected to Availability of water is highly uneven in both space & time. • Highly variable in both space & time; Drought & floods of increase sharply Summer months are periods of water scarcity & [at other times] concern • Water quality impacted by untreated or inadequately treated heavy rains regularly cause havoc due to floods. Complex issues • Rainfall confined to three or four months/year industrial effluents & sewage of equity & social justice in regard to water usage & distribution • Varies from ~ 600 mm in Lahaul & Spiti District to • Drinking water quality of concern in several river systems have to be addressed. The development & exploitation of the ~ 3,200 mm in Dharamshala District Kangra • Expanding irrigation is a priority in 125,000 ha groundwater resources in the state have raised concerns about • Summer (dry) months are periods of water scarcity in many • Institutional reforms required for multisectoral planning, the need for scientific management & conservation. Expansion areas decentralized management & people’s participation (espe- of economic activity inevitably leads to increasing demands • Heavy rains regularly cause floods; Flash floods problematic cially women) for water for diverse purposes [whereas the current] major consumptive use of water [is] for irrigation. Domestic & industrial in the uplands • Priority to developing water information system for resource water demand in rural areas is expected to increase sharply as Surface Water planning economic conditions improve & more industry comes up. Water • The major consumptive use of water is for irrigation • Water resources development & management to be planned quality is [currently] impacted by untreated or inadequately • Gross irrigation potential estimated to be 335,000 ha as of at sub-basin to basin scales; multisectoral approach, both treated industrial effluents & sewage. Technology & training 2005, about 62% developed surface & groundwater have to play important roles in the development of water • Acute water scarcity is major problem due to population • River basin/sub-basins planning to prepare comprehensive resources & their management. increase & mismanagement plans for irrigation & harmonizing other water uses (continued) A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 66 A P P E N D I X 2 — WAT E R R E S O U R C E S I N P R O J E C T S TAT E S : I S S U E S I D E N T I F I E D I N S TAT E WAT E R P O L I C I E S PROBLEM STATEMENT & OBJECTIVES WATER AVAILABILITY WATER RESOURCES ISSUES Objectives Groundwater • Water allocation priorities (broadly): (i) drinking water; (ii) • To ensure that available water resources are utilized in an • Development & exploitation of the groundwater resources in irrigation; (iii) ecology/afforestation/ biodiversity/tourism; efficient manner to meet drinking water needs & irrigation the state have raised concerns about the need for scientific (iv) agro-industries; (v) hydropower; (vi) non-agro-based requirements in a manner that also promotes conservation management & conservation industries; (vii) navigation & other uses & engenders community participation. . . . [it] seeks to make • Goal is to conserve precipitation in the catchment area itself water everybody’s business & catch rain water where it falls • Exploitation of groundwater resources to be regulated to not or where it can be used optimally. Besides, the harnessing of exceed recharge potential water for commercial, industrial & hydro-power generation • Conjunctive use of surface & groundwater in planning/ usage must take place in a sustainable manner with due implementation regard to maintenance of water quality • Economic development activities to be planned with due regard to the constraints imposed by water availability • Water zoning to be done in a time bound manner & the economic activities guided & regulated in accordance with such zoning • Master plans for flood control & management in flood prone basins • Drought-prone areas to be given priority; vulnerability reduc- tion (soil-moisture conservation, water harvesting, reduction of evaporative losses, development of groundwater potential, and so on) • Research on effective & economical water resources management UTTARAKHAND4 Problem Statement Rainfall Development Center For Alternative Policies (2005): Policy spells Hydrological studies over the last decade confirm the diminish- • Averages 1,523 mm out certain important principles of water resources development ing water resources & the worsening crisis; a diminishing • Range: 1,200 mm/yr (Mid-Hills)–2,500 mm/yr (High Hills) & management: regulatory effect of glaciers; long term decreasing trend of • Reports 30–40% decline in average rainfall over the past • Integrated natural resources management through watershed stream discharges; capacities of the lakes have dwindled; sur- 50 years approach face runoff on the hillsides has shown high increases; there has • Empowerment of PRIs to plan/construct/ manage irrigation Rainfall pattern during last many years: been increase in floodwater & decrease in base flow; extensive systems soil erosion & landslips are recurring phenomena in the region; • Rainfall in monsoon is generally deficient & erratic over the years • Involvement of local communities in planning & These have resulted in decrease in underground seepage which implementation has directly contributed to the reduction of water availability • Peak rainfall is shifting from the mid-July to mid-August • Planning processes to include traditional rights & systems in springs & streams which are the primary source of drinking • The total number of rainy days is shrinking water, irrigation & the running of water mills in the state. • Well-developed information system • During rainy season, rainfall was erratic/negligible over the There has been a change from a situation of water surplus half years • Planning on the basis of hydrological units a century ago to a condition of acute scarcity at present. This • Peak rainfall in rainy season is shifting towards harvesting • Creation of watershed institutions period has witnessed a tremendous increase in population & season • Integrated & multidisciplinary approach to the planning, an expansion in the categories of water users, as a result of Surface Water formulation, clearance & implementation of projects; close developmental processes which have occurred without reference integration of water-use & land-use policies • ~ 95% of precipitation that converts to surface water is lost to the natural resource base. due to steep slopes & mountainous terrain • Integrated & coordinated development of surface & ground- water resources & their conjunctive use • 15 important rivers & more than 12 important glaciers in the Objectives state that are valuable fresh water reserves supporting about • Encouragement of private sector involvement • One objective . . . [is] that management of water resources . . . 200 large & medium sized hydro-projects; hydroelectricity is • Encouragement of water mills & vesting their management be done in an integrated & holistic manner rather than being primary source of power for local economy with Panchayats managed in a compartmentalized approach • Hydrological studies over the last decade corroborate that • Necessary legislation for preservation of existing water • Ensure preservation of the scarce water resources & optimize water resources in the state are decreasing, which would bodies by preventing encroachment, regulation to ensure no utilization of available resources affect surface water availability, as illustrated by: (i) receding pollution on the banks of rivers & streams & deterioration of • Qualitative improvement in water resource management [to] glaciers in the Great Himalayan Zone; (ii) long term decreas- water quality include user’s participation & decentralization of authority. ing trend of stream discharges; (iii) dwindling capacities of • Compulsory percentage of budget allocation fixed for water • Maintain water quality to established norms & standards lakes; (iv) increasing surface runoff on the hillsides; harvesting & water conservation structures • Promote formulation of projects on concept of basin/sub- (v) an increase in floodwater & decrease in base flow water in Flood & Disaster Management basin, treating surface & groundwater as a unitary resource, channels & rivers Upadhyay, V. (2006): ensuring multipurpose use of the water resource Groundwater • Management of water resource in an integrated & holistic • Among others provide water for: (i) drinking & domestic use; Uttarakhand can be divided into two distinct hydrogeological manner (ii) irrigation; (iii) hydro power generation within constraints regimes: • Water resource development & management for a hydro- imposed by other users; (iv) for industries; (v) navigation, • Gangetic alluvial plain is the zone for groundwater develop- logical unit as per the principle of integrated watershed recreation, health and for other uses ment; currently 66% of available groundwater (2.10 billion management • Ensure ecological & environmental balance cubic meters) is being extracted (1.39 billion cubic meters) • Priority shall be given to identification & rejuvenation of • Promote equity & social justice among individuals & groups of • Himalayan mountain belt has limited potential for large scale traditional water resources like naula, dhara, guls, ponds, users in water resource allocation & management development of groundwater (hard rock aquifers with fissure and so on • Ensure self-sustainability in water resource development & fracture porosity); springs are amenable to small scale development • Ensure flood management & drainage as integral part of Narula & Bhadwal (2003); cited in Kelkar et al (2008): Referring water resource development • Five groundwater “blocks,” of which two are classified as specifically to the Lakhwar sub-basin, part of the Upper Yamuna “over-exploited,” none as “critical” & three as “semi-critical” sub-basin, where study projected: (continued) WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 2 — WAT E R R E S O U R C E S I N P R O J E C T S TAT E S : I S S U E S I D E N T I F I E D I N S TAT E WAT E R P O L I C I E S 67 PROBLEM STATEMENT & OBJECTIVES WATER AVAILABILITY WATER RESOURCES ISSUES • Provide a substantive legal framework for management • Decrease of 20–30% in total flows due to climate change by • Provide an MIS for effective monitoring of policy 2041–60 relative to 1961–90 implementation • Monsoon rainfall likely to become less intense & more • Promote research and training facilities in the water resource sporadic sector • Potential impacts: (i) groundwater availability reduced by • Provide mechanism for the resolution of conflicts between ~30%; (ii) surface water availability reduced commensu- various users rately, impacting drinking water for humans & livestock; (iii) declining crop yields due to effects on intensity of irriga- tion & shifts in start of the monsoon season 1 Source: Water Resources Department, 2002. 2 TMC: Thousand Million Cubic Feet. 3 Source: Anon 2005. 4 It was not possible to obtain a copy of the state’s draft water policy (completed on June 15, 2004), therefore this section is based on the second-hand information provided from the Uttar Pradesh State Water Policy (Anon 1999) and the following sources: For “Problem Statement in Policy,” Development Center For Alternative Policies, 2005; “Objectives,” Upadhyay, V. 2006; Anon. 1999 (UP’s Water Policy under assumption that substantially similar); “Water Availability,” Central Ground Water Board. Undated, & Uttarakhand Watershed Management Directorate 2010. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R A P P E N D I X 3 A — C O M PA R I S O N O F WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T P R O J E C T D E S I G N S 69 Appendix 3a COMPARISON OF WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DESIGNS SUBJECT KARNATAKA HIMACHAL PRADESH UTTARAKHAND Project develop- Improve the productive potential of selected watersheds Reverse the process of degradation of the natural Improve the productive potential of natural resources ment objective1 & their associated natural resource base, & strengthen resource base & improve the productive potential of & increase incomes of rural inhabitants in selected community & institutional arrangements for natural resource natural resources & incomes of the rural households in watersheds through socially inclusive, institutionally management the project area & environmentally sustainable approaches WSM objectives1 Strengthen capacity of communities within project cycle & Support policy & institutional development to harmo- GPs & other relevant local institutions have developed of implementing department for participatory management nize watershed development projects & policies across sufficient capacity to design, prioritize, implement, within a watershed planning framework the state in accordance with best practices operate & maintain watershed treatments Related hydrologic/ • Groundwater recharge Adopt integrated watershed management framework Integrate land-water use with the objectives of water resources • Water management for crop production (in situ soil using water as the nucleus for community-based rural moisture retention and biomass production objectives1 moisture conservation & irrigation) development Related WSM insti- • Strengthen capacity of communities for participatory • PRIs & other local village level institutions have • Communities mobilize & prioritize watershed & tutional objectives1 planning, implementation, management & maintenance capacity to plan, implement, monitor & maintain village development technologies • Have implementing department operate in a more socially the watershed treatments • GPs directly implement watershed treatments & inclusive manner within framework of watershed develop- • Awareness & capacity building of all stakeholders village development investments ment plans including Line Department in participatory natural • Strengthen UGs/subcommittees at revenue village resource management levels Scale of WSM Micro-watershed (500 ha) to sub-watershed (5,600 ha) Ward-level to micro-watershed (size undefined). Micro-watersheds (size undefined) objectives1 WSM-related • Groundwater recharged; increased cropping intensity; % • Influence on state policies & guidelines for water- • 15% increase in availability of water for domestic indicators1 irrigated area increase; # wells recharged shed development &/or agriculture use • Soil erosion reduced • 2,500 UGs established & taking care of resources in • 20% improvement in administrative capacity of GPs • Micro-watershed management groups a sustainable manner • Water quantity & quality indicators to be • Micro-watershed development plans • Two thirds of GPs with tribals or nomads have incorporated • SWC measures representation in WCs • Percent of activities in local plans addressing water • Watershed research & extension plans resource management • Karnataka Remote Sensing Applications Center assisting with GIS & preparation of treatment plans for project watersheds Specific instruments • Land management Soil & water conservation: Soil conservation on arable lands: to achieve WSM • Soil & moisture conservation • vegetative measures, using local grasses, shrubs • bunds objectives1 • Productive revegetation with perennials & trees • vegetative barriers • Establish watershed societies • vegetative field boundaries • agro-forestry • protection & reclamation of land: agro-forestry & Development of non-arable lands: silvi-pasture in degraded lands • forest regeneration Improve moisture regime: • pasture development • vegetative measures—grass seeding, grass turfs, • silvi-pasture development brushwood, checkdams, live hedge & spurs (local • soil erosion bunds vegetation) • vegetative barriers • mechanical measures—drop structures, crate wire spur structures, drainage line treatments (gully • with potential to be WSM instruments2 plugging, dry stone check dams, etc.), terrace repair • potable water supply with vegetative reinforcement, improvement of • upgrading of roads, bridle paths, mule tracks forest area • building irrigation channels • water harvesting structures (drinking water & supplemental irrigation) • develop new/improve existing water resources • construction of village ponds, tanks, checkdams (continued) A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 70 A P P E N D I X 3 A — C O M PA R I S O N O F WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T P R O J E C T D E S I G N S SUBJECT KARNATAKA HIMACHAL PRADESH UTTARAKHAND Specific instruments • roof water harvesting to achieve WSM • lift irrigation objectives Water use efficiency: (continued) • improving conveyance systems, channels & kuhls, sprinkler & drip irrigation • promoting optimal use of available water • Establishing CGIs Watershed selection • Extent of waste lands (20 points) • Altitude (between 600 m & 1,800 m) • Altitude (between 700 m & 2,000 m) criteria3 • Silt index and erosion hazard (20 points) • Ecological Degradation • Ecological degradation/erodibility index (50% • Rainfall (20 points) • Poverty (> 30% below poverty line, SC/ST percent- weight) • SC/ST population (20 points) age, marginal workers percentage, population • Poverty (25%) • Extent of irrigated/dry area (10 points) density, women literacy) • Backwardness (25%) • Proportion of agricultural laborers (10 points) • Backwardness (scarcity villages, distance from motorable road, public utilities, etc.)4 Principal changes • No changes to objectives, indicators or targets No changes to objectives No changes to objectives at mid-term review • For purposes of achieving greater equity, funds were Changes in indicators: • Additional villages added for full coverage of relevant to WSM reallocated to target SHGs & landless • 50% increase in 25 demonstrative streams/springs project watersheds • 10% reduction in silt load in run-off water • Include degraded village forest lands (not in Key areas for attention: original design) for forestry/soil conservation & increase budget caps to allow comprehensive • Extend coverage to all Panchayats in micro- micro-watershed treatment & ensure watershed watersheds, but not currently in project GPs, to conservation goals met allow 100% coverage of micro-watersheds Changes in indicators: • Need to invest more in consolidating drainage line treatment to protect spring & stream flows • 15% increase availability of water . . . indica- tor changed to 10% increase in percentage of • Pilot bio-carbon project for small & marginal households accessing water for domestic use & 15% farmers to establish plantings of local species in increase in irrigated area support of WSM & livelihood enhancement; making villagers eligible to sell carbon credits under the • Additional Global Environmental Facility funds Clean Development Mechanism for Sustainable Land & Ecosystem Management/ bio-carbon investments in 20 micro-watersheds with high erosion & poverty/marginality: (i) to mainstream WSM into local government plans; (ii) to enhance water availability for agriculture & domestic use; (iii) to improve knowledge of impact of climate change to develop coping strategies. Relevant learning/ From Implementation Completion Report: From Mid-Term Review: From Mid-Term Review: lessons for WSM • More emphasis needed on groundwater management • Increased water availability allows significant • Increase in area with seasonal & off-season • Combining WSM with income generating activities & SHG expansion & intensification of irrigated lands with vegetable cultivation attributable to joint market- strengthening relevant, but may impact WSM outcomes subsequent improvements in agricultural yields & ing, improved technologies & water harvesting (pro-poor vs. WSM outcomes) household income structures • Positive impact on productive potential & natural resource • Increasing water availability & piloting a bio-carbon • Demonstrated capacity of local governments/ base, including groundwater (three monitoring wells component may provide models for climate change communities to plan, manage funds & implement showed significantly increased water levels) adaptation/mitigation project activities • Sustainability likely much higher where private ownership • Demonstrated capacity of local governments/ & incentives to maintain agriculture productivity communities to plan, manage funds & implement • Demonstrated capacity of community organizations to be project activities involved in planning, managing funds & implementing project activities • Watershed Development Department developed as effec- tive formal institution, facilitating participatory watershed planning, implementation & M&E • High percentage overall project achievements through investments in soil & water conservation on private, arable lands • Investments in common lands less successful except where managed by SHGs (especially, female SHGs) • Robust M&E system critical success factor in project performance & adaptability • Combine resource mapping with help to take up suitable income generating activities • Policy issue: investing to recharge groundwater while subsidies for pumping exacerbate scarcity (continued) WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 3 A — C O M PA R I S O N O F WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T P R O J E C T D E S I G N S 71 SUBJECT KARNATAKA HIMACHAL PRADESH UTTARAKHAND Relevant learning/ • Combination of watershed & livelihoods interventions lessons for WSM adds greater value than separate WSM & rural livelihoods (continued) projects • Need to focus on water through basin/sub-basin hydrology & land-use modeling & analyses to set context for local WSM with groundwater management integral component 1 Source: Project Appraisal Documents. 2 These may or may not be instruments for WSM. It depends on how they are applied (for example, water supply for human consumption and irrigation tied to water source protection and allocation; upgrading of roads targeting reduction of roads as major sediment sources). 3 Source: Lobo and Smyle (2010). 4 Additional criteria used were also applied: potential for treatment, watershed work (including arable land and population); compactness of the area; social capital (status of village level institutions, level of conflicts and cooperation, and so on); farming systems (irrigated area, livestock status, availability of fuel wood and fodder). A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R A P P E N D I X 3 B — W O R L D B A N K S U P P O R T TO WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T P R O J E C T S ( 1980 TO P R E S E N T ) 73 Appendix 3b WORLD BANK SUPPORT TO WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (1980 TO PRESENT) TABLE A3b.1: World Bank-financed Watershed Development Projects (1980 to Present) TOTAL PROJECT COST (USD PROJECT TITLE PROJECT ID MILLION) STATUS YEAR APPROVED Uttarakhand Decentralized Watershed Development Project Phase II P131235 100.00 Pipeline TBD1 Neeranchal National Watershed Project P132739 357.00 Pipeline TBD Himachal Pradesh Watershed Management Project P104901 8.00 Active 2012 AF-HP Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project P130944 37.00 Active 2012 Karnataka Watershed Development II P122486 60.00 Active 2012 Uttarakhand Decentralized Watershed Project Additional Financing P124354 7.98 Closed 2011 Sustainable Land, Water and Biodiversity Conservation and Management for Improved Livelihoods in P112061 7.49 Closed 2009 Uttarakhand Watershed Sector Himachal Pradesh Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project P093720 60.00 Active 2005 Uttaranchal Decentralized Watershed Development Project P078550 69.62 Closed 2004 Karnataka Watershed Development Project P067216 100.40 Closed 2001 Integrated Watershed Development Project P041264 135.00 Closed 1999 Integrated Watershed Development Project - Plains P009860 62.00 Closed 1990 Integrated Watershed Development (Hills) Project P009882 88.00 Closed 1990 Rainfed Area Watershed Development Project P009812 31.00 Closed 1983 Himalayan Watershed Management Project P009797 46.20 Closed 1983 Kandi Watershed and Area Development Project P009772 30.00 Closed 1980 Total World Bank Financing USD 1,087,690,000 1 The project was negotiated in January 2014, and is likely to be approved by the Bank’s Board of Executive Directors in 2014. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 74 A P P E N D I X 3 B — W O R L D B A N K S U P P O R T TO WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T P R O J E C T S ( 1980 TO P R E S E N T ) TABLE A3b.2: Objectives of World Bank-financed Watershed Development Projects (1980 to Present) PROJECT NAME PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND FOCUS Kandi Watershed And Area Development Central objective to apply an integrated development strategy to rehabilitate the Sub-Himalayan Shiwalik area. Focus on institution building Project (1980) to strength local capabilities to plan and implement similar projects in the future. Project to improve vegetative cover in upper catchments to regulate run-off, reduce soil erosion; protect agricultural land downstream from floods; and enhance productivity of forest/agricultural land. Himalayan Watershed Management Central objective to increase and stabilize crop and forage yields and production of fuelwood and timber in rainfed farming areas. Focus on im- Project (1983) proved crop and rangeland husbandry practices, SWC measures, research, training and technical assistance. Institution building to strengthen GOI and states’ capacities to plan and implement such schemes and invoke people’s participation. Rainfed Area Watershed Development Central objective to minimize the degradation of Himalayan ecosystems caused by depletion of forest cover, overgrazing and bad land use Project (1983) and decrease erosion and flooding in Gangetic Plains. Focus on establishment of fuel wood, timber and fodder plantations on government, community and private land; soil conservation measures; livestock development; improvement of agricultural extension services; horticultural development; minor irrigation; and research and training. Institution building to strengthen GOI’s and government of Uttar Pradesh’s capacity to plan and implement such schemes and invoke people’s participation. Integrated Watershed Development (Hills) Central objective to address environmental problem of watershed degradation by slowing and reversing degradation of the natural environ- Project (1990) ment and reducing flooding caused by degradation. Focus on soil and moisture conservation technology (vegetative technologies), manage- ment of non-arable lands, and improved production and income from grain crops, horticulture, fodder, fiber, fuel wood and livestock. Integrated Watershed Development Central objective to stabilize watersheds. Focus on a menu of land treatments, emphasizing soil and moisture conservation (vegetative contour Project—Plains (1990) barriers, improved production systems, stabilization of natural drainage lines, nurseries) and sustainable land management systems, including seeking long-term, community based, management solutions for public, non-arable lands. Institutional strengthening of state implementing agencies, including NGOs, and for participatory watershed planning and monitoring capability, research and training. Integrated Watershed Development Central objective to improve productive potential using evolving watershed treatment technologies and community participatory approaches. Project (1999) Focus on decreasing soil erosion, increasing water availability, and alleviating poverty through watershed protection and development (watershed treatments, fodder and livestock and rural infrastructure). Institutional strengthening through policy reforms, studies, and human resource development; beneficiary capacity building; income generating activities for women; information management and M&E; and support to project coordination. Karnataka Watershed Development Central objective to improve productive potential and strengthen community/institutional arrangements for natural resource management. Project (2001) Focus on participatory watershed planning, development, and protection; participatory farmer-driven research and extension processes; improved practices for agriculture, horticulture, silvi-pasture; extension; livestock improvement and health services; and alternative income generation activities. Institutional strengthening for M&E, environmental, and social assessments, development of a GIS database; and project management and coordination. Uttarakhand (initially Uttaranchal) Central objective to improve the productive potential of natural resources and increase incomes of rural inhabitants through socially inclusive, Decentralized Watershed Development institutionally and environmentally sustainable approaches. Focus on participatory watershed development and management (social Project (2004) mobilization, community-driven decision-making and planning for treatment of arable and non-arable lands, soil conservation, upgrading of link roads/paths/tracks), enhancing livelihood opportunities (improved technologies/practices for agriculture, horticulture, silvi-pastoral treat- ments and animal husbandry, non-government input supply and support services, farmer choice of technologies, agribusiness pilots, small income generating micro-enterprises, training to vulnerable groups) and institutional strengthening for GPs/local agencies and institutions for planning, budgeting, financial management, implementation and reporting, and establishment of incentive schemes to encourage good per- formance; information, education and communication to increase general awareness/transparency; to state agency for project management. Himachal Pradesh Mid-Himalayan Watershed Central objective to improve productive potential and increase incomes of rural inhabitants through socially inclusive, institutionally and Development Project (2005) environmentally sustainable approaches. Focus on watershed development and management (social mobilization, community-driven decision-making) and planning for treatment of arable and non-arable lands, soil conservation activities, upgrading link roads/paths/tracks; enhancing mountain livelihood opportunities (improved technologies and practices for agriculture, horticulture, silvi-pastoral treatments and animal husbandry), increase role of private sector in input supply and support services, farmer choice of technologies, agribusiness, common interest group-based storage, processing and other marketing infrastructure facilities, micro-enterprises and training for vulnerable groups. Institutional strengthening for GPs and other local agencies, communities and institutions in planning, budgeting, financial management, implementation and reporting, and activities to encourage good performance; comprehensive information, education and communication strategy to increase general awareness, communicate terms of participation and promote transparency. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 4 — N O V E L S AT E L L I T E A N D G R O U N D - B A S E D M E A S U R E M E N T T E C H N I Q U E S F O R WAT E R S H E D P L A N N I N G 75 Appendix 4 NOVEL SATELLITE AND GROUND-BASED MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES FOR WATERSHED PLANNING Bridget R. Scanlon, Prasanna Gowda,* Laurent Longuevergne, and Guillaume Favreau** Center for Sustainable Water Resources, Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, University Texas at Austin, USA; *U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Bushland, Texas. **Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Université de Montpellier, France. Watershed planning is a challenging problem, particularly in de- To disaggregate total water storage into individual components veloping countries with limited available data and severe water requires comparison of GRACE total water storage with modeling shortages which may increase with projected climate change. The results such as the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) primary objective of this presentation was to provide an overview program which simulates changes in soil moisture and is described of readily available data from satellite and modeling that can be below. Correspondence between GRACE and GLDAS time series accessed during early phases of watershed planning for reconnais- would suggest that changes in total water storage from GRACE reflect sance analysis and to guide project planning. changes in soil moisture storage. In cases where GRACE and GLDAS differ, the differences may reflect changes in groundwater storage GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) data are available that can be calculated by subtracting GLDAS data from GRACE. to monitor changes in total water storage at a global scale since March 2002. GRACE consists of two satellites that are ~400 kilometer Examples are provided of the use of GRACE that show increases in above the land surface and are separated by ~200 kilometer. By water storage in West Africa (18 millimeters per year) in the region of monitoring the distance between the two satellites to within a the Continental Terminal Aquifer that corresponds to ground-based few meters, global maps of the Earth’s gravity field are produced estimates of 23 millimeters per year in the southern part of the re- at spatial scales ~200,000 kilometer squared and larger at 10 days gion (at the scale of 20,000 km2). Large decreases in water storage in to monthly timescales. Gravity variations are interpreted in terms NW India were attributed to intense pumpage of groundwater for of changes in total water storage. No absolute water storage may irrigation. We have developed a Google Earth product that provides be calculated. Several processing centers gather GRACE raw data GRACE data for 215 river basins globally that is corrected for the (including Center for Space Research at the University of Texas at main processing issues and also provides a comparison of GRACE 66 Austin, GFZ, NASA-GSFC, CNES GRGS, and so on) and correct them total water storage changes with output from GLDAS. These data for atmospheric mass changes, among others, to better extract total can be used to estimate temporal variations in GRACE total water water storage from GRACE measurements. storage and, by comparison with GLDAS models, can be used to disaggregate total water storage into soil moisture and groundwa- On the continents, total water storage includes vertically integrated ter storage changes. Although the spatial resolution of GRACE data storage, including surface water, soil moisture, and groundwater. is coarse, it can provide valuable insights into water storage changes Changes in total water storage from GRACE may be related to glacier that can be used to close the water budget and comparison with melting (for example, Patagonian Ice Field, Greenland, Antarctica), watersheds can be used to assess whether trends in watersheds are drought (Australia, La Plata Basin, S. America), irrigation abstractions regional in extent. (NW India), and so on. GLDAS is a product from NASA that provides information on state 66 GFZ: German Research Center for Geosciences; NASA-GSFC: National variables (for example, soil moisture) and fluxes (ET, drainage below Aeronautical and Space Agency—Goddard Space Flight Center (USA); root zone and runoff ) for water resources management based on CNES GRGS: Center National d’Etudes Spatiales Groupe de Recherche de Géodésie Spatiale (France). output from four different land surface models (NOAH, CLM, MOSAIC A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 76 A P P E N D I X 4 — N O V E L S AT E L L I T E A N D G R O U N D - B A S E D M E A S U R E M E N T T E C H N I Q U E S F O R WAT E R S H E D P L A N N I N G and VIC). Land data assimilation is a processing scheme that inte- water or pumpage from each irrigation well is essentially infeasible. grates observations to force/drive land surface models and produce Therefore, an integrated approach to monitoring water demand optimal maps of states and fluxes. The grid size of GLDAS range from using satellite-based ET should provide valuable information to 0.25 degree (~25 kilometer) for NOAH to 1 degree for all four mod- water resources managers. Evapotranspiration of cropped systems els (~100 kilometer). Higher resolution (0.125 ~15 kilometer) Land is essentially synonymous with water consumption. The BEAREX Data Assimilation System (LDAS) is operational in the United project conducted in Texas was designed to test the use of different States and is currently being developed for the Middle East and satellite data at varying spatial and temporal resolutions (MODIS, North Africa by NASA in a project funded by the U.S. Agency for 1 kilometer, 1 day and Landsat 30 meter, 16 day) by comparing International Development. results with detailed information from airborne surveys (~2 meter resolution) and ground-based monitoring using weighing lysime- The Arab LDAS includes irrigation and agricultural land mapping ters and large aperture scintillometers. A variety of different models and assimilates GRACE and other satellite data. These LDAS prod- are being evaluated for estimating ET from the satellite data, includ- ucts provide near real time monitoring of water resources across ing METRIC, TSM, and SEBS. The objective of this study is to optimize political boundaries and can provide historical and regional per- spatial and temporal resolution of ET mapping using satellite data spectives on local hydrologic variability. The output can be used to and assess the use of ground referencing approaches. Because the assess the severity and extent of droughts and floods and provides models have been developed for specific regions it is important to a tool for agricultural planning, including irrigation, and a potential test the reliability of model output in other regions using ground to assess hydrologic impacts of climate change. The LDAS will pro- based data. The Jackson School of Geosciences at UT has provided vide a regional perspective for locally observed phenomena, such large aperture scintillometers to different regions (Niger, W. Africa as declining water tables and reduced river flows. Using forecast and North China Plain) to develop a ground based monitoring data from multiple climate change scenarios, the LDAS will be able dataset for comparison with satellite based ET estimates. The sat- to help in planning of agricultural policies and evaluate potential ellite approach can be used to estimate crop water consumption increases/decreases in irrigation water requirements under various coefficients to be used with reference ET models. Satellite based ET climate change scenarios. modeling allows one to quantify and locate where water is used Water resources is a demand driven system with irrigation consum- and in what quantity. The approach can also be used to identify ing 90 percent of global fresh water resources during the past cen- areas where water is being over-applied for water rights manage- tury. Therefore it is essential to monitor water demands to manage ment regulation. The efficiency of different irrigation technologies water resources. However, monitoring each diversion from surface can also be examined using this methodology. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 5 — I N S T I T U T I O N A L A R R A N G E M E N T S I N T H E W O R L D   B A N K WAT E R S H E D P R O J E C T S 77 Appendix 5 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS IN THE WORLD BANK WATERSHED PROJECTS KARNATAKA FIGURE A5.1: Grassroots Institutions in Sujala Sujala is a multi-actor, multilevel, multisector and multidisciplinary Sujala Watershed Sangha watershed based developmental program that works through public-private-civil society partnerships (figure A5.1). The center General body Executive (GB) committee (EC) 67 of action is the micro-watershed where the agency responsible for overall implementation of the project is the Sujala Watershed Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) Sangha (SWS), a local body registered under the Societies Act. The SWS has a General Body—comprising two members (one man and Self-help Area groups groups one woman) from each household in the village—and an Executive Committee (EC). Project beneficiaries are organized into two types Women Farmers of CBO: Vulnerable § women and other vulnerable groups are organized into Self Landowners groups Help Groups (SHGs); and § landowners and farmers are organized into Area Groups being developed—to implement the program (figure A5.2). At the (AGs) within their micro-watershed. grassroots level, Field NGOs (FNGOs) mobilize and coordinate the Both SHGs and AGs are represented in the SWS (including the grassroots institutions at the sub-watershed level through aware- EC). Their role in the project is to plan project interventions and ness raising; capacity building for planning, implementation, man- implement them, secure contributions from members, manage agement, and maintenance; and providing technical assistance to and account for funds received, manage the maintenance of works CBOs during implementation of the Sujala Watershed Action Plan. and work out management and usufruct sharing arrangements for Lead NGOs support FNGOs by creating effective and functional link- common property resources (CPRs). The Panchayat Raj Institutions ages between project partners at the district level, building FNGO (PRIs) are also involved in the program at the micro-watershed level capacity to train CBOs, direct technical assistance, and monitoring through representation on the SWS-EC). social mobilization activities. Specialized NGOs (SNGOs) at the sub-watershed level support SHGs with entrepreneurship aware- At the block (taluka) and district levels, PRIs are involved through ness programs, skills development training, and by helping SHG membership in Panchayat Samitees (elected committees), District members start income generating activities while establishing the Councils (Zilla Panchayats), and District Level Review Committees. forward and backward linkages required for sustainability. Sujala Sujala works through a network of NGOs—a model empha- appointed a Partner NGO (PNGO) for a period of five years to work sized by national program guidelines when the project was at the state level to provide advice and support to the Watershed Development Department (WDD) in all matters related to the program; to train lead NGOs in discharging their roles; to develop 67 Generally each micro-watershed is about 500 ha; 10 such micro- watersheds comprise a sub-watershed. strategy papers on subjects relevant to the project; to produce, A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 78 A P P E N D I X 5 — I N S T I T U T I O N A L A R R A N G E M E N T S I N T H E W O R L D   B A N K WAT E R S H E D P R O J E C T S FIGURE A5.2: Overall Institutional Arrangements for Sujala UAS-B PEC KSRSAC ISS State level PPMU Internal audit PFMS PNGO WDD ISRO-ANTRIX ZP LNGO DWDO DLRC District/ Taluk level DRG SNGOS FNGOS WDT Community level SWS-EC PRI AG SHG AG Area Group PNGO Partner NGO DLRC District Level Review Committee PPMU Project Planning & Monitoring Unit DRG District Resource Group PRI Panchayat Raj Institution DWDO District Watershed Development Office SHG Self Help Group FNGO Field NGO UAS-B Univ. of Agriculture Sciences–Bangalore KSRSAC Karnataka State Remote Sensing Application Center WDD Watershed Development Department LNGO Lead NGO WDT Watershed Development Team PEC Project Empowered Committee ZP Zilla Panchayat share, and provide support in training material development; and private sectors provided technical, managerial, financial and capac- to provide systems support to the project. ity building support on an ongoing basis through detailed service provision contracts. The WDD manages and coordinates the entire program at the state level, reporting to and supervised by a Project Empowered Committee chaired by the Principal Secretary for Agriculture and HIMACHAL PRADESH Horticulture, with Secretaries of other departments (such as Forest, The HP project focuses its activities on the Gram Panchayat (GP) Finance, Animal Husbandry, Minor Irrigation, Rural Development and the wards they comprise (figure A5.3). At the ward level, UGs, and Panchayat Raj) as its members. The Watershed Department SHGs, CAGs and their federations propose and implement project Director serves as Member Secretary. The WDD functions through activities. The Works and Budget Committees of the GPs propose District Watershed Development Offices at the district level, which GP-level plans, which the Gram Sabha considers and approves the is supported by a District Resource Group (DRG) and a District Level aggregated ward-level plans as well as GP-level plans, forwards the Review Committee. Watershed Development Teams (WDTs) exist at same to the project authorities and also monitors the implemen- the sub-watershed/taluka level. The DRGs and WDTs are multidisci- tation of the plans. Supporting this effort are women Motivators68 plinary teams of government functionaries seconded from various belonging to the GP, who are appointed and paid by the GP and line departments. This arrangement has proved quite successful. who liaison with project functionaries. These Motivators provide a vital link between the villagers and the project. An independent external agency, Antrix, managed the MEL for the entire program. Antrix established district level teams to work in close partnership with the WDD. Experts from the public and 68 The minimum qualification to become a Motivator is matriculation. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 5 — I N S T I T U T I O N A L A R R A N G E M E N T S I N T H E W O R L D   B A N K WAT E R S H E D P R O J E C T S 79 FIGURE A5.3: Institutional Arrangements for the HP Program GC HPNRMS EC State CPDO FC Regional RPDO Divisional/ WDO DLWDC sub-watershed WDCO Cluster (10–15 GPs) FLMST GP Community UGs WBC SHGs CAGs CAGs Common Activity Groups FLMST Front Line Multi-sectoral Team CPDO Chief Project Director’s Office RPDO Regional Project Director’s Office DLWDC District Level Watershed Development Committee SHGs Self Help Group EC Executive Committee UGs User’s Groups FC Finance Committee WBC Works and Budget Committees of GP GC Governing Council WDCO Watershed Development Coordinator’s Office GP Gram Panchayat WDO Watershed Development Office HPNRMS H. P. Natural Resource Management Society At the Cluster level (10-15 GPs), a Watershed Development The Watershed Development Office is responsible for all activities Coordination Office headed by a Watershed Development in the division. It sanctions the Gram Sabha approved plans, enters Coordinator (WDC) supports the GPs in implementing the project into Overall Financing Agreements with GPs, releases the funds, 69 as well as is responsible for inter-GP spaces. The WDC is assisted facilitates technical support and participatory monitoring of the 70 by a multidisciplinary team (Forestry, Agriculture, Horticulture progress and supervises the work of the WDCs. A District Level and Animal Husbandry) called the Front Line Multi-sectoral Team Watershed Development Committee72 headed by the Deputy which provides technical support to the GPs to implement project Commissioner, guides and reviews the project as well as monitors 71 activities. A key member of this team is the Facilitator, essentially the convergence of various watershed and livelihood schemes. The a graduate woman with good communication skills, whose task is Committee includes representatives from line departments, lead to mobilize the community. Generally each Facilitator is respon- banks and non-official members. sible for six to seven GPs and each WDC team would have at least Two regional offices (one at Dharamsala and the other at Bilaspur) two Facilitators. Supporting the Facilitators at the GP level are the headed by Regional Project Directors (RPDs) are responsible for local Motivators. planning, supporting and coordinating the implementation of proj- At the divisional or sub-watershed level, there is a Watershed ects in their respective regions. The project is led by the Chief Project Development Office headed by a Watershed Development Officer. 69 The project has 46 such WDCs and WDC Offices. 72 This Committee is part of the HP Natural Resource Management Society. 70 These are government officers on secondment or hired from the market. The Divisional Watershed Development Officer is the Member Secretary 71 Formally known as Watershed Development Plan Facilitators. of the Committee. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 80 A P P E N D I X 5 — I N S T I T U T I O N A L A R R A N G E M E N T S I N T H E W O R L D   B A N K WAT E R S H E D P R O J E C T S Director assisted by a team of Deputy Directors.73 This team provides each region) in the two project regions of Garhwal and Kumaon. technical support to RPDs, District Watershed Development Offices The two PNGOs not only undertake operational responsibilities, but and WDCs. have also been given project related administrative responsibilities and authority. This approach of devolving complete project and field Overseeing the entire project at the state level is the HP Natural responsibilities to selected NGOs is a marked departure from similar Resource Management Society. The Chief Minister is the Chairperson Government-funded projects and reflects a flexibility, openness and and the Forest Minister is the Vice-Chairperson. The Society func- willingness to experiment76 on the part of project authorities in the tions through the Governing Council74 and the Executive and quest for new and effective ways of achieving project objectives. It Finance Committees, respectively. The Forest Department is the also differs from the Sujala project which deployed a large number nodal department through which the Society operates. of NGOs but maintained project-related responsibilities and author- ity within the government structure. This institutional arrangement UTTARAKHAND of Gramya is promising and should be carefully assessed in terms of As in HP, the center of action is the GP, and more specifically, the learning gained and comparative advantages secured, if any, with Revenue Village (not the ward as in HP). The villagers elect a Revenue a view to informing similar government funded projects. In this Village Committee (RVC)—comprising at least 50 percent women— regard, the Gramya approach is a unique innovation, at least within to represent them. Within the Revenue Village, UGs, SHGs, farmer the Indian watershed context. interest groups and their federations where they exist, and van At the Divisional level, a Divisional Project Office headed by a Panchayats (forest councils) propose and implement project activi- Divisional Project Director (DPD) supports the GPs and the FNGOs ties. These plans are forwarded by the RVC to the Water and WC of in implementing the project as well as is responsible for inter-GP the GP which consolidates the plans with proposals from the GP and spaces.77 The DPD is assisted by a number of Multi-Disciplinary those pertaining to inter-GP areas where applicable. The Gram Sabha Teams78 which provides technical support to the GPs as well as to considers, approves, and monitors the implementation of plans. The the FNGOs to implement project activities.79 The DPD sanctions GP then ratifies and forwards the same to the project authorities. the Gram Sabha approved plans, enters into Overall Financing Supporting this effort at the village level are female Motivators75 who Agreements with GPs, releases the funds to both the GPs and the liaise with project functionaries and are appointed by and account- FNGOs, facilitates technical support and participatory monitoring of able to the RVC. These Motivators provide a vital link between the the projects and supervises the work of the FNGOs as well as the GPs. villagers and the project. Supporting the GP are Account Assistants who are appointed by the GP and are accountable to them. The PNGOs have their own technical teams. The FNGOs and the PNGOs respectively have appointed facilitators, essentially, Supporting the GPs and the various CBOs are two Facilitating NGOs graduate women with good communication skills, whose task is to (FNGOs) and two Partner NGOs (PNGOs). The FNGOs are responsible mobilize the community. The facilitators together with the village for project implementation in eight divisions (four each in each re- level motivators are the project’s direct communication channel to gion) and the PNGOs are responsible for two divisions (one each in the beneficiaries. 73 HRD & Administration, Livelihood & Institutional Development, Planning Monitoring & Information Management, Rural Infrastructure and Public Relations. 74 Other members of the Governing Council are the Chief Secretary, Prin- ciple Secretaries, and Heads of line departments (Forests, Agriculture, 76 And take the corresponding calculated, but necessary risks. Horticulture, Animal Husbandry and RD & Panchayat Raj), Pr. Adviser (Planning), Vice Chancellors of HP KVV Palampur and UHF Nauni, Project 77 The project has eight such DPOs; the other two divisions are looked after Directors of NRM projects (Forest Department), Chief Project Director by the PNGOs. and RPD Dharamsala and Bilaspur. Pr. Secretary (Forests) is the Member 78 These are government officers on secondment. secretary of the Council. 79 They consist of personnel having competence in Forestry, Agriculture, 75 The minimum qualification to become a Motivator is matriculation. Horticulture and Animal Husbandry. WAT E R S H E D D E V E LO P M E N T I N I N D I A : A N A P P R O A C H E V O LV I N G T H R O U G H E X P E R I E N C E A P P E N D I X 5 — I N S T I T U T I O N A L A R R A N G E M E N T S I N T H E W O R L D   B A N K WAT E R S H E D P R O J E C T S 81 FIGURE A5.4: Institutional Arrangements for Gramya Government of Uttarakhand state-level steering committee Watershed management State level directorate chief project director PMU & MDT Garhwal region Kumaon region (PD) (PD) Regional level FNGO FNGO District level Project divisions (4) Project divisions (4) PNGO (1) MDT, DSA MDT, DSA Village level PIA–GP/WWMC/VP/RVC/UG/FIG DSA District Support Agency PMU Project Management Unit FIG Farmers Interest Group PNGO Partner Non-government Organization FNGO Facilitating Non-government Organization RVC Revenue Village Committee GP Gram Panchayat UG User Group MDT Multi-disciplinary team VP Van Panchayat PD Project Director WWMC Water and Watershed Management Committee In addition, six development support agencies have been hired un- The project is managed by the Watershed Management Directorate der the project to provide support for value addition and marketing led by the Chief Project Director assisted by an Additional Director of agricultural produce as well as to develop forward and backward and a team of officials. This team provides technical, administra- linkages (agri-business). These development support agencies pro- tive and capacity building support to RPDs, DPDs, PNGOs and vide support services only to the farmer interest groups of the FNGO Facilitating NGOs.80 facilitated GPs; the PNGOs are resourced to provide likewise for the A state Steering Committee under the Chairmanship of the villages they facilitate. Additional Chief Secretary/Forest and Rural Development Two Regional offices headed by two RPDs are responsible for Commissioner and including other Secretary level officials provide planning, supporting and coordinating the implementation of overall guidance, policy support and to facilitate inter-departmen- projects in their respective regions. The DPD and the PNGOs report tal coordination. The Chief Project Director is the Member Secretary to the RPDs. At the district level, a Zilla (District) WC chaired by the of the Committee. Figure A5.4 outlines the institutional set up for Chairman of the Zilla Panchayat and with representatives from line Gramya. departments and the block level administration facilitates coordina- tion between the project, GPs and government departments. 80 The competencies represented are: administration, forestry, agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, planning, GIS/MIS and monitoring. A G R I C U LT U R E A N D E N V I R O N M E N TA L S E R V I C E S D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R Agriculture and Environmental Services (AES) 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org/agriculture