Impact of Watershed Management Under PMKSY-WD, (Erstwhile … · 2019. 11. 11. · 3.6 Entry Point...

Impact of Watershed Management Under

PMKSY-WD, (Erstwhile IMWP, Karnataka)

Batch I

The CommissionerKarnataka Watershed Development Department

KHB Complex, Cauvery BhavanBengaluru– 560009

Impact Evaluation of Batch I Projects `

1

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 12

1.1 Watershed Development as a strategy ........................................................................ 13 1.2 Integrated Watershed Management Project ............................................................... 16 1.3 Institutional Base created for IWMP implementation .............................................. 16 Plate 1: Cultivation on steep slopes leaves the land vulnerable to erosion and degradation 24 Plate 2: Eroded Land in Kotabala village, Kotbala SWS, Ron taluk, Gadag district .. 24 Plate 3: First Order Soil Erosion in Ballari District ........................................................... 25 Plate 4: Formation of gullies due to headword erosion in wastelands ......................... 25 Plate 5: Effect of gully erosion, Formation of deep gullies ............................................. 26 Plate 6: Dessert like situation: Due to lack of Conservation Measures, Bidar district 26

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................... 28 2.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 28 2.2. Objectives of the study .................................................................................................. 28 2.3. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 29 2.4. Approach ........................................................................................................................ 30

3. PHYSICAL PROGRESS OF ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 32 3.1 Socio-economic conditions of the Project Taluks ....................................................... 32 3.2 Demographic Details of the Taluks Selected .............................................................. 38 3.3 Particulars of watersheds selected for study .............................................................. 40 3.4 Economic status of households ..................................................................................... 45 3.5. Fund management by SW Ss ....................................................................................... 45 3.6 Entry Point activity and Community Mobilization ................................................... 49 3.7. Capacity building of Community Based Organisations .......................................... 55 3.8. Bio-Physical interventions ............................................................................................ 60 3.9. Bio-mass Production ..................................................................................................... 76 3.10. Livelihood activities. ................................................................................................... 98

4. IMPACT EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................ 106 4.1.1. Land Use Changes: ................................................................................................... 106 4.1.2. Soil and water conservation measures: ................................................................. 109 4.1.3. Drainage line treatment (Water harvesting structures): ..................................... 109 4.1.4. Crops and Cropping Pattern ................................................................................... 110 4.1.5: Horticulture and Forestry Activities: ..................................................................... 116 4.1.6. Village Common Property Resources .................................................................... 118 4.1.7. Livestock Activity and Fodder Production ........................................................... 120 4.1.8 Adequacy of Drinking Water and Quality ............................................................. 121 4.1.9. Depth to Water Table in Tube Wells ...................................................................... 125 4.2. Economic Impacts ........................................................................................................ 126 4.2.1. Significance of impact evaluation ........................................................................... 126 4.2.2. Average size of farm households ........................................................................... 126 4.2.3. Size of operational land holdings ........................................................................... 128 4.2.4. Impact of Watershed development on rural incomes ......................................... 129 4.2.5. Trends in income across agro-climatic zones ....................................................... 135 4.2.6. Statistical significance of the results ....................................................................... 136 4.2.7. Impact of SWS on farm credit position of farmers ............................................... 138 4.2.8 Impact of watershed development on assets position of farmers ...................... 141 4.2.9 Impact of Watershed Development on per-hectare Crop Yields ........................ 146 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 146


2

List of Tables

Table 1.0.: Projects Implemented under Watershed Development in Karnataka ..................................... 15

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

Karnataka .................................................................................................................................................... 18

Table 1.2: Taluk-wise Watersheds selected for development in Karnataka during 2009-10 ................... 19

Table 3.1: Agro-climatic zones of selected Taluks of different districts of Karnataka .............................. 32

Table 3.2: Details of Taluks with respect to soils and land use .................................................................... 35

Table 3.3: Taluk Level Demographic Information ......................................................................................... 39

Table 3.4 Particulars of watersheds selected for the study ........................................................................... 42

Table 3.5: Economic status (Average Annual Income per family) .............................................................. 46

Table.3.6: Fund Management in watersheds (in Lakh Rs.) ........................................................................ 47

Table 3.7: Details of structures constructed under E.P.A Entry Point Activities ..................................... 50

Table.3.8: Awareness building activities in different watersheds ............................................................... 53

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

categories. ................................................................................................................................................... 56

Table 3.10: Trainings for Capacity Building of different CBOs .................................................................. 59

Table 3.11: Physical Progress Achieved - Soil Conservation ...................................................................... 61

Table 3.12: Increase in Production and income level across the watersheds, due to bunding. .............. 63

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

water ............................................................................................................................................................ 67

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

structures. ................................................................................................................................................... 72

Table 3.15: Impact of conservation measures on runoff conservation and groundwater levels. ............ 74

Table: 3.16. Horticulture seedlings distributed in the selected watersheds .............................................. 77

Table 3.17: Horticulture intensification ........................................................................................................... 80

Table 3.18: Details of seedlings distributed for promoting agro-forestry .................................................. 82

Table 3.19: Afforestation activities in the common lands ............................................................................. 85

Table 3.20: Status of Animal Health Camps ................................................................................................... 88

Table: 3.21 Details of members trained through Village Based trainings in different watersheds. ....... 91

Table 3.22: Status of Livestock maintenance activities. ................................................................................. 93

Table 3.23: Status of fodder mini-kit distribution and fodder production in selected watersheds ........ 97

Table 3.24: Distribution of members across the new and old SHG groups (graded) .............................. 99

Table 3.25: Distribution of members as per social class across watersheds ............................................. 100

Table.3.26. Members trained through EAP and SEDP and number adopted in the watersheds ......... 101

Table 3.27: Savings group wise and bank linkages in the watersheds ..................................................... 102

Table 4.1: Impact of watershed programme on land use changes ............................................................ 107

Table 4.2: Change in Land use pattern due to watershed development programmes across 28

watersheds ................................................................................................................................................ 108

Table 4.3: Changes in cropping pattern and area under irrigation after implementation of

watershed programme. ........................................................................................................................... 111

Table.4.4: Density of trees / 100 ha across 28 watersheds ........................................................................... 117

Table 4.5: Changes in the availability of Village Common Property Resources across 28 watersheds 119

Table 4.6: Increase in green fodder production and milk yield ................................................................. 121

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

water table ................................................................................................................................................ 123


3

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

intervention of watershed programmes across watersheds .............................................................. 125

Table 4.9: Average Size of Farm households across different locations (No’s) ....................................... 127

Table 4.10: Average Size of Farm households across different Social classes of farmers (No’s) .......... 127

Table 4.11: Average Size of households across different holding size of farmers (No’s) .................... 127

Table 4.12: Average landholding size across different farm locations (ha) ............................................. 128

Table 4.13: Average landholding size across different Social-classes of farmers (ha) ............................ 128

Table 4.14: Landholding size across different holding size (ha) ................................................................ 128

Table.4.15: Per capita Income from different sources across farm locations (Rs.) .................................. 129

Table 4.16: Per capita Income from different sources across social classes (Rs.) ..................................... 131

Table 4.17: Per capita Income from different sources across Holdings (in Rs.). ...................................... 134

Table 4.18: Per capita Income from different sources across agro-climatic zones (Rs.) ......................... 136

Table 4.19: Paired t- test for Total Household Income ................................................................................ 137

Table 4.20: Paired-test for Total per capita income...................................................................................... 138

Table 4.21: Amount of loan taken by farmers across different Social categories of farmers ................. 139

Table 4.22: Amount of loan taken by farmers across different Farm Size-classes .................................. 140

Table 4.23: Amount of loan taken by farmers across different farm locations ....................................... 141

Table 4.24: Changes in holding size of farmers (in no’s) ............................................................................ 142

Table 4.25: Yields per hectare of principal crops grown by sample farmers in the watershed areas .. 146

List of Plates

Plate 1: Cultivation on steep slopes leaves the land vulnerable to erosion and degradation ................. 24

Plate 2: Eroded Land in Kotabala village, Kotbala SWS, Ron taluk, Gadag district ................................ 24

Plate 3: First Order Soil Erosion in Ballari District ........................................................................................ 25

Plate 4: Formation of gullies due to headword erosion in wastelands ....................................................... 25

Plate 5: Effect of gully erosion, Formation of deep gullies ........................................................................... 26

Plate 6: Dessert like situation: Due to lack of Conservation Measures, Bidar district .............................. 26


4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

India is identified as one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change. Among

different sectors, climate-dependent agriculture is relatively more vulnerable. The pattern of

droughts and floods are becoming more unpredictable. Rural livelihoods dependent on agriculture

are largely affected by the adverse effects of water stress. Further, excessive dependence leading to

over-exploitation of land for meting food, fuelwood, fodder and fibre by the ever growing human

and livestock population has triggered widespread land degradation. Among, the different Indian

states, nearly 49 % (9.40 M ha) of the total geographical area of Karnataka, the seventh largest state

of the country, is affected by water erosion (> 10 Mg ha-1

yr-1

), placing it fifth among the Indian

states, with district-wise soil loss ranging from < 5 to > 40 Mg ha yr-1

. The state has a net sown area

of about 103.81 lakh ha of which 80 lakh ha is rainfed. It is the abode of poor people and livestock.

With a view to mitigate soil erosion, and conserve rain water to improve overall

productivity, there is a need to adapt scientific land use plans for conserving resources and develop

strategies to balance the competing demands. The natural resources in these areas are poorly

managed and impoverished. The rural population dependent on agriculture is around 61.3%.

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

while small farmers constitute 27% with an average holding size of 1.4 ha. Such a situation

aggravates the already mounting pressure on natural resources in terms of land-man ratio making

farming unviable. All the above is reflected in the Human Development Index (2017) where

Karnataka ranks 18 among the Indiana States. One of the main reasons is the lack of growth in

agricultural sector. In sixties, it contributed to about 60 per cent to the Gross State Domestic

Product (GSDP) and it reduced to 36% during nineties and to 13.5% during 2015-16. Such a

decline in the share of agriculture in the economy and its poor growth indicates its inability to

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

In order to increase yields of rainfed crops and reduce poverty in drought prone areas,

several programmes were initiated from time to time. However, these programs were target-

oriented with subsidies for the use of external inputs. Though these programs helped to improve

yield, production was still not sufficient to meet domestic demands. In order to give a major thrust

to developing rainfed areas on a sustainable basis using the above-mentioned strategy, the National

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

under MORD and MOA have been merged into a single program namely the Integrated

Watershed Management Program (IWMP) and now known as PMKSY-WD with the objectives

of: (a) Improving productive potential of degraded lands through various interventions, (b)

Increasing bio-diversity through agri-horticulture, agro-forestry and silvi-pastoral activities, (c)

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

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

through efficient farming systems and micro-enterprises.

Department of Watershed Development, Karnataka has implemented watershed

development projects across all the districts of the state through Integrated Watershed Management


5

Programme. The area available for the treatment has been technically prioritized using like rainfall,

slope, drought intensity, soil type and the extent of vulnerable groups, extent of irrigation etc.,

suggested by the DoLR, GoI keeping watershed as unit. During 2009-10, the IWMP (first batch of

sub-watersheds) was initiated in 119 projects in 28 districts with a treatable area of 4.91 lakh ha

covering 5166 villages to improve the socio- economic conditions of 2.35 million households. The

projects were implemented over a seven-year period from 2009-10 to 2015-16 in Karnataka. The

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

responsibility of program implementation to the village communities. Watershed development

Team (WDT) ensured proper implementation of the watershed development programme through

Grama Panchayat (GP) Sub-Committee (Executive Committee), with its President being the head

of the EC/GPSC along with after elected members of G.P and, members from vulnerable groups

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

Secretary of the committee is nominated from the Department to ensure accountability of the

investments made. As per the guidelines, the capacities of the communities have been built by

organizing trainings required under the program for effective implementation as well as to enable

them to take up management of natural resources (soil, water and vegetation) on a sustainable basis

after the withdrawal phase. The total cost involved in developing these areas as per the guidelines is

around Rs. 632.7 crores.

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

Evaluation, Learning and Documentation, the WDD established a well-developed MEL& D

framework for the successful implementation of the programme. The Department procured external

agencies for undertaking MEL&D works as per the accepted procedures. The agencies identified

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

Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology, Bengaluru for Belgavi Division, and M/s

Remote Sensing Instruments, Hyderabad for reporting on the activities in Kalaburagi Division.

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

respective divisions. Now M/s RSI has been entrusted with the responsibilities of consolidating the

reports and submit final impact evaluation report for the state under Batch- I Projects. Accordingly,

RSI has taken up the responsibility and the same is presented below.

The survey covers 28 sub-watersheds in 28 taluks of 28 districts, representing all the agro-

climatic zones. The total number of watersheds in the districts is 119, spread across 119 taluks in

the state. From each of the twenty-eight sub-watersheds selected for the study, the same 120

households used for base line and mid-term evaluation were selected for the study to assess the

impacts. One micro-watershed each in ridge, middle and valley were selected to ensure

representation. Villages were then identified to select 40 sample farmers representing landless,

marginal, small and large farmers numbering 10 in each category based on stratified random

sampling method. To ensure collection of realistic data from households, the schedules were pre-

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

data were collected by trained field investigators. The data were cross-checked at regular intervals

during the survey to ensure reliability and quality. The sample village, where baseline survey was

carried out, but not considered for implementation of the project was taken as control. The survey,

therefore, provided scope for impact assessment by adopting the cross-sectional approach as well as


6

longitudinal approach. Data was analysed for determining the Impacts of interventions on

economic analysis, socio-economic changes, changes in cropping pattern and intensity, fuel and

fodder availability, changes in the groundwater level and yield. Based on the data collected from

each village, an estimate is made for the sub-watershed and district as a whole. The data were

scrutinized and verified for correctness and consistency. Simple statistical tools like averages and

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

Profile of the Study Area

The impact of development initiatives on improvement of natural resources varied

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

identified for undertaking the study represented ten agro-climatic zones of the state. The soils in

most of the sub-watershed areas are red-soils excepting in two sub-watersheds which have either

black or red and black soils. The twenty-eight sub-watersheds (hereinafter called SWSs) comprise

1.29 lakh ha, covering 429 villages and 83453 households. Singenahalli SWS in Kolar district

covers the largest number of villages (38), followed by Totagatti SWS (Belagavi) and Honnavara

SWS (Mandya) with 28 villages each, followed by Mavathur SWS in Bengaluru Rural district (27),

Doddabandarghatta SWS in Chikkaballapur district (26) and Thirumale SWS in Ramanagara

district (26). Eleven SWS have eight or less number of villages.

The total population across the taluks ranged from 83,118 in Dakshin Kannada to as high as

8,82,856 in Mangalore. The percent of males and females across the project taluks under study

varied from 47.1 to 51.6% and 48.4 to 52.9%, respectively. The scheduled caste population

accounted for 20.8% across all taluks, the highest being 36.1% in Chincholi taluk and the lowest

being 4.7% in Mangalore taluk. Scheduled tribes represented 27.9% in Kudligi followed by H.D.

Kote (21.8%) and the average across the districts is 8.2%. Together these vulnerable groups

constitute 28.9%. The percentage of population of vulnerable groups was more in the areas with

recurrent droughts.

The income of all rural landless families varied from Rs. 1000/- (Thirumale sws) to 2,70,249/-

(Shirur sws) across the watersheds before the implementation of project. For marginal families it

varied from Rs.7000/- to Rs.1,44,000/-, whereas for small farmers it varied from Rs. 10000 to Rs.

210000/- and for large farmers it varied from Rs. 8900/- to Rs. 4,80,000/-.

The finances provided are effectively utilized for implementing the programme. More than

90% of the amount released for the individual SWSs, except in seven cases, has been utilized. The

utilization of funds was the least in Hasagal (63.9%) followed by Hattinala (65%). The WDT

facilitated EC to complete assignments by guiding them wherever required. The regular meetings

held by EC helped to review the progress from time to time and any constraints noticed were

cleared in time. This speaks of good co-operation between the WDT, EC and stakeholders.

The planned number of awareness-creation programs have been fully accomplished and the

expenditures allocated for these programs have been fully utilized as per the guidelines. In all 309


7

Gram Sabhas 239 Kala Jathas, 199 Street Plays, 140 wall paintings and 58 exposure visits were

organized across the watersheds. However, the programmes are conducted only in selected villages,

and the attendance level was found to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, it is understood that, the basic

requirements of awareness creation programs are not met effectively suggesting the need for

effective and practical approaches for empowering the community.

To make this programme successful, the District Level Agency needs to follow a different

method for propagating about the project during the initial stage. During discussions with the

community, it was observed that, block wise meetings, film shows, slide shows and awareness

through school children will help to empower the communities.

All the planned EPAs have been achieved and the planned expenditure on them in each of

the sample watersheds has also been fully made. The amount spent is as per the guidelines (4% or

the project cost). Focus group discussions with stakeholders revealed that activities under EPA are

identified through ademocratic process. The structures created surface storage by collecting runoff

from excess rainfall to make water available for livestock and also other non-domestic uses at the

field level.

The Watershed Development Department has trained the NGO staff namely Team Leader

and IG specialist for 5 days at Soil and Water Conservation Training Centers at Mysore and

Vijayapura on the concept of watershed development in general and Integrated Watershed

Management Project and its implementation procedures in particular as well as their roles and

responsibilities. Similarly, Data Entry Operator engaged by NGO is trained for two days at the

Head Quarters of the Department regarding data entry and uploading into the State MIS. These

trainings are given only once and incase if there is change in the staff, the trainings become waste

and no provision exists for training the new entrants. Further such trainings need to be not only

focused but also intensive, as these persons in turn are required to train the CBOs. These aspects

need to be considered in the future programmes.

Trainings have been organized to CBOs (EC, UG and SHG members) in all the watersheds.

These members were given trainings at 3 levels using Subject Matter Specialists as resource

persons in most of the cases. In all 1088 EC members, 34996 UG members and 17266 SAG

members have been trained. However, interactions with stakeholders revealed that training need to

have practical classes or exposure to places where the programmes are successfully implemented

for better understanding as class room lectures may not help them much. Further they also

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

of the programme, which gives them hands-on experience.

Bunding in cultivated areas of the SWSs is completed as planned. The achievement is

nearly 100% in 19 out of 28 watersheds, and varied from 32 to more than 100%. bunding

conserved rain water and improved yields of ragi by 230 to 420 kg/ha and incase of maize the yield

improvement varied from 300 kg/ha to 2000 kg/ha. Such yield improvements in ragi brought an

additional income ranging Rs. 4140/- per ha to Rs. 7500/- per ha. In case of maize the increase in

income varied from Rs 4800/ ha to as high as Rs 24000/-. Consequent to this intervention, the total


8

yield in the watershed area increased by 66.5 to 1656 tonnes across the watersheds. The overall

increase in the income ranged from 8.08 lakhs to 198.7 lakhs. The disposal systems included waste

weirs, diversion channel, rubble checks, boulder checks and gully plugs. Not all these disposal

systems were either planned or taken up in every SWS.Hence, the achievements in respect of

disposal systems varied from one SWS to another. In case of waste weirs, the achievement varied

from 1% in Jambodahalla to more than 100% (Kumaranahalli and Hattinala). Diversion channels

were planned in ten watersheds. The achievement was 100%, in respect of these watersheds except

in Andavalli SWS where the achievement was 76%. It is noticed that in many places bunds are not

maintained. Farmers need to be educated in this regard by strengthening the extension services at

the field level.

Rain water harvesting structures executed in the selected watersheds included farm ponds,

mini percolation tanks, check dams, nala bunds, vented dams and gokatte. It is observed that all the

above structures are not planned in all the watersheds. For example, farm ponds are not considered

in eight SWS, which suggests that need based planning is adopted in developing the area. This

could be the result of participatory planning. Achievement with respect to different activities such

as farm ponds, check dams, nala bunds, gokatte, vented dams and mini percolation tanks varied

across watersheds. In case of Udupi, Dakshina Kannada and Shivamogga (Koteganur) because of

terrain conditions vented dams are constructed in place of check dams. These structures have

helped to stabilize gully and also helped to retain water in the off-season to provide protective

irrigation to the crops around the site. The extent of the area irrigated varied from structure to

structure depending upon the site conditions. Across the watersheds the average total runoff held

was 224 T.C.M. The amount of water retained varied between the watersheds due to variations in

the number of structures created across watersheds.

Although, the expected runoff varied from 570 T.C.M in Saidapur to 9078 T.C.M in

Komaranahalli, the measures have helped to conserve only 3% in Miyar to 32% in Chikkamalluru.

This clearly indicates that the developmental activities are planned considering the downstream

requirements so as to prevent negative externalities associated with conservation measures. These

interventions have positively impacted groundwater recharge. The rise is water table maximum in

Kotegangur (100 m) followed by Doddabandaraghatta (76 m) and Chinchahalli (72 m). As a result

of conservation measures the land use has significantly changed, and the area under cultivation has

increased so also the area under irrigation (to more than 300% in case of three watersheds) in all the

SWS through reduction in area under fallow and waste lands. Vented dams have helped to develop

irrigated agriculture ranging from 5 to 15 ha under each of them.

Horticulture program consisted of providing seedlings to the farmers. The finance

earmarked for the programme is fully utilized. The seedlings distributed mostly consisted of

mango, coconut, sapota, lemon, pomegranate and guava. It was noticed that the number of

seedlings distributed varied from 11900 in Totagatti (Belagavi) sub-watershed to about 212000 in

Sundekere (Hassan) sub-watershed. The number of seedlings distributed is less in, for example, in

Kolar, Bangalore Rural and Tumkur mainly due to the fact that already considerable number of

fruit trees exist in these watersheds. This clearly indicates that activity is undertaken considering


9

the need, its performance and interests of the stakeholders. Average survival rate at the end of

project is noticed to vary from 10 to 80 percent across the watersheds under study.

Agro-forestry program is undertaken in all the sample SWS and it consisted of providing

seedlings to the farmers. Afforestation was undertaken in all the sample SWS under evaluation.

Expenditure-wise, the achievement varied from 68 % (Kotbala SWS) to 100 % in others. This

program included planting and nurturing seedlings of appropriate tree in both common and private

lands of individual farmers. The major species distributed are teak, silver oak, pongamia, neem,

tamarind, bamboo etc. and the no. of seedlings supplied and survived after 3 years varied. The

survival percent varied from 9 to 91% among the species and across the districts. As a result, the

density of different species per 100 ha improved remarkably. The number of beneficiaries varied

from 99 to more than 4000. The density with respect to teak improved from 40 to 1458 and silver

oak from 150 to 824. The increase in density with respect to other species is nominal.

Under the programme, activities like animal health camps, village-based trainings for

livestock maintenance and fodder enrichment was carried out. Further, fodder mini-kits are

distributed to grow green fodder. This has helped in production of green fodder to the extent of 20

to 45 quintals per cut under irrigated conditions which has helped to increase milk production by 14

to 10%. In all 406 camps are organized to cover 280 villages by spending Rs 93.9 lakhs. About

3,37,228 animals have been treated across the districts. This has helped to reduce the disease

incidence from 3 to 50 %. Trevis, sheep pens, cattle sheds, silage pits and Azolla production units

are provided wherever required. Increased availability of green fodder and AHC changed the

livestock composition.

Income generation activities are promoted through members of the SHG. All the members

are given EAP training wherein they are given a choice to select an activity suitable to them.

Trainings are given to improve the skills for those who opted for skill based activities. The number

of people trained varied from 46 to 100% with the exception of Mysore and Raichur wherein no

member has availed training. In most of the watersheds, a greater number of people have opted for

non-skill activities. This needs to be carefully examined as sustainability of such activities may be

in danger during drought apart from marketing risks. It would be more appropriate to enthuse

people to develop technical skills related to services required in the rural areas (tailoring, motor

repairs, plumbing, electrical, food products) for sustaining the activities as well as benefits

associated with it.

Savings made by different groups and number of members linked with bank for serving

loan varied from district to district. The saving amount varied from a minimum of Rs Nil in

Dharwad watershed to Rs 95.75 lakhs in Gadag watershed.These variations are mainly due to

variations in the number of groups and members in the groups.

The assets created among the existing SHGs in different Watersheds ranged from Rs. 3.5

lakhs in Dharwad to Rs. 309.2 lakhs in Chamrajanagara watershed. A total saving of Rs.150.54

lakhs is generated in the sampled watersheds. The increase in the assets due to the programme is

two to four times when compared to the pre-project status.


10

It is found that water sources (like tube wells) have improved in more than half of the

watersheds after initiation of the projects. The quality of the groundwater is reported to have

improved in all, but for two SWS, i.e., in Kumaranahalli and Hattinala, where water is found to

contain fluoride before and after the launching of the SWS. The quantity as well as the number of

water sources (like tube wells) have been reported to have improved in all SWSs. The depth of

groundwater (bgl) has decreased in most of the watersheds ranging from 4 to 100 m. While the

depth of water table was constant before and after the project for some of the watersheds,

Jambodahalla (Chikkamagalur) registered a decline by 30 m. This could be the result of over

exploitation of groundwater in the watershed due to sudden increase in irrigated area by 264 ha

after watershed implementation.

In most of the SWSs under evaluation, the Self-Help Groups consisted of female members

only. The functional status of the groups is found to be good in most cases and meetings are held

usually every week. Book maintenance is reported ‘good’ in all watersheds. Group savings in every

watershed increased although the per-head individual saving has remained constant. However, the

user Groups created are not found to be very active in many watersheds.

The assets created are 1) farm pond, 2) boulder checks, 3) check dams, 4) bunds, 5) nala

bunds, 6) nala revetments, 7) gokatte, 8) mini percolation tanks (MPTs), 9) RFC’s, 10) vented

dams, 11) water ways, 12) diversion channel, 13) waste weir, and 14) RC’s. In all the SWSs, the

status of the assets / structures created was reported as ‘good’. In none of the cases, the status was

reported as ‘poor’.

The sample farmers were found to be growing only traditional food crops. Non-food

commercial crops such as cotton were rarely grown by the sample farmers. These crops are grown

mostly in kharif season in almost all the SWSs under evaluation. Cereals generally dominate the

cropping area, although the percentage of the area under cereals varied from one SWS to another.

Oilseeds and pulses are relatively less important in the cropping pattern in most of the SWSs. In

particular, watershed development is supposed to increase the area under rabi season and summer

season crops. Nevertheless, some evidence is noticed in respect of rabi crops. The percentage of the

rabi crop area under irrigated condition has increased in some of the SWSs where rabi season crops

are grown. The percentage of the summer season crops in the gross cropped area is negligible in

most of the SWSs under study. But there is evidence to show that the percentage has gone up after

launching the watershed projects.

Although precise measure is not available to assess the extent of rise in water availability,

changes in the number open wells, tube wells and in-well bores, as well as the changes in the total

area irrigated after the introduction of watershed project can be taken as a proxy to assess this

change. It is found that the GCA has gone up by 28.80 % in all the SWSs taken together, although

the extent of rise in the GCA varied from one SWS to another.

Crop yields per acre in respect of the major crops have gone up perceptibly thereby

enhancing the income from these crops. These yield increases have come from the protective

irrigation supplied from water-harvesting structures like farm ponds in many cases and from nala

bund, gokatte and check dam.


11

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

except two namely, tractor-drawn implements and plough. In case of these two items, the decline

in their number possessed by the sample farmers could be due to the fact that there is a perceptible

shift from tractors and bullock-drawn ploughs towards cheaper, fuel-efficient and more versatile

power tillers and their accessories in dry land agriculture in recent years. The number of ploughs

has come down perceptibility in view of the increased use of tractors. This is corroborated by the

fact that the number of tillers has steeply risen in a span of four years.

The impact of watershed development on the per-hectare yields of principal crops grown in

the watershed areas is positive. The rise in productivity per ha ranges from 8.5 percent in the case

of green gram to 88 percent in chickpea.

The employment created in terms of man-days for the watersheds as a whole is computed

considering the standards used in schedule of rates for each activity. Total number of man-days

varying from 23894 to 6,25,406 have been created across the watersheds, which has considerably

reduced out-migration from the watershed areas. In addition, members who are pursuing

livelihoods are engaged throughout the year which was not the case before the project.

Consequent to watershed development the holding size improved across all category of

farmers, locations and social classes which clearly establishes improved economic conditions over

the entire watershed area.

Rural income has improved by 18 to 122% (average: 51%) over the pre-project period. The

percentage of farm income which was at 47.8% to the total income rose to 56% at the end of the

project. Small farmers have recorded higher increases in income from agriculture (191%) followed

by big (147%) and marginal (93%) farmers.

Household income has gone up by 69.1% after the project and the rise was maximum with

small farmers (101%) followed by big (87%) and marginal farmers. The amount of loans availed

by farmers increased by 101% at the end of the project.

The foregoing analysis clearly proves that watershed development does help to enhance

water availability for farming and reduce soil erosion, besides bestowing a number of welcome

benefits on the farmers in dry land regions. The benefits include increased groundwater availability,

improvement in yields per hectare, increase in cropping intensity thereby leading to greater on-farm

employment opportunities and, above all, a substantial increase in farm incomes. The present study

revealed that with active participative management by the farmers in the watershed development

programmes, they can reap much greater benefits on a continuous basis.


12

CHAPTER - I

Introduction

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

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

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

the burgeoning population has serious impact on land use resulting in large areas of marginal lands

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

leading to excessive pressures on forest and pasture lands adversely affecting the grass and tree

cover. As a result, degradation of natural resources was set in and the same is on the increase.

Degradation of lands has marginalised further with time leading to ecological imbalance. To

prevent the above, there is a need to adapt scientific land use plans for conserving resources and

develop strategies to balance the competing demands so as to sustain productivity and production.

Karnataka state located between 110

30ǀ and 18

0 30

ǀ N latitudes and 74

0 15

ǀ and 78

0 30

ǀ E

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

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

These lands are ecologically and economically disadvantaged and constitute hinterlands. The

natural resources in these areas are poorly managed and impoverished, in the process enormous

degradation has taken place. As a consequence to improper management, the areas degraded due to

water erosion, nutrient losses and salinity are 35.5%, 3.9 % and 0.6% respectively (Plates 1, 2 and

3). More than 62.5% of the severely eroded and 59% of the moderately eroded areas of the country

are in the dry zones. In the command areas, more than 10% of the irrigated area has become water

logged (1999). The absence of vegetation and lack of protection measures both in arable and non-

arable areas is causing enormous soil loss (plates 4 to 6). Soil erosion is estimated to reduce yields

by 0.14t/ha/mm of soil loss (~~15 t/ha/annum). Thus soil erosion is undermining our efforts to

increase productivity and production, which needs to be prevented.

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

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

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

the irrigated area year by year and ultimately the economic life of the storage structures. As a result,

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

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

areas but also adversely affecting the production of command area. Thus natural resources

degradation due to erosion is all pervasive and pernicious, and requires to be contained.

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

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

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

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

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

infiltrates to recharge groundwater, as a result, much of it is lost as runoff. Increase in the number

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

fall in water table levels, reduced groundwater draft from 41 lakh ha-m in 1972 to 10.7 lakh ha-m


13

in 2004. As of 2013, in about 43 Taluks groundwater is over exploited and in 14 Taluks it is critical

and in 21 taluks semi critical. Hence continuous use of groundwater without appropriate recharge

measures will have severe impact on the ecological balance of the region apart from reducing

irrigated area. As of now only 36.9 % of the area is irrigated across the state with a cropping

intensity of 117.9%.

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

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

cultivators marginal farmers constitute 48% with an average holding size of 0.45 ha and small

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

pressure on natural resources in terms land-man ratio making farming unviable. All the above is

reflected in the Human Development Index (2017) where Karnataka ranks 18 among the Indiana

States. One of the main reasons is the lack of growth in agricultural sector. In sixties, it contributed

to about 60 per cent to the Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) and it reduced to 36% during

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

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

unemployment and social unrest.

The combined effects of the above related to farm sector is something that should matter in

formulating agriculture development. Government from time to time being fully aware of the

problems, organised programmes to conserve soil and water since 1950.

In order to increase yields of rainfed crops and reduce poverty in drought prone areas,

several programmes were initiated from time to time. However, these programs were target-

oriented with subsidies for the use of external inputs. Though these programs helped to improve

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

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

the habitation level, (b) incidental effects have been neglected and (c) ecological damage has not

been addressed.

Watershed Development as a strategy

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

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

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

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

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

development of rainfed lands through an integrated approach by converging all developmental

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

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

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

taken up watershed development programs in the backward areas of the state subsequent to 1984.

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

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

and is now being pursued by all the agencies involved in watershed development programs.


14

The main focus of watershed development programme is on the development of land and

water resources, judicious use of resources to optimize production so as to improve economic status

of people and bring stability to livelihoods. The strategy aims to minimize risks involved in farming

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

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

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

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

climate smart agriculture and livelihoods for landless households to provide stability to income.

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

sustain the rainfed farmer by providing resilience to agriculture income.

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

the experiences gained from G.R. Halli, Kabbal nala watersheds in 1980s. These experiences have

decisively proved that such a development adopting watershed approach results in ensuring

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

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

in 18 districts and created an organizational structure having 3 tier system at state, divisional and

project level. At the divisional level, Dry Land Development Boards with multidisciplinary teams

were set up to implement district watershed development projects. The major learning from these

pilot projects is that it would be easier to integrate sectoral activities over small areas when

compared to large area leading to micro-watershed as a planning unit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

involving people in every aspect of planning, implementation and management of local resources.

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


15

Table 1.0.: Projects Implemented under Watershed Development in Karnataka

Agency year

Name of the Major Project and Year of Initiation

IDALD DPAP SFDA/

MFOL CRVP NWDPRA

DLDA and

WS aided PIDOW KWDP KAWAD SUJALA

SUJALA

(RIDF)

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

Extent of

Coverage by the

agency

Two

taluks

72 taluks All over the

State

41 out of 3

major

catchments

of reservoirs

Initially in 45,

subsequently

increased to 67

WS, all over

the State.

One each in

all districts.

Covering 25

- 35

thousand ha.

Kalaburagi

dist.

Covering

3400 ha

Dharwad,

Belgaum and

U.Kannada

dist.

3 taluks, one

each in

Chithradurga,

Ballary &

Vijayapura

districts.

5 dist, 77

SWS

(Kolar,

Tumkur,

Haveri,

C.Durga

and

Dharwad)

6 dist, 69

WS

(Hassan, C

Magalur,

C. Durga,

Kodagu,

Belgaum

and

Shimoga)

Implementing

Agency

Agri.

Dept

Various govt.

depts.

Coordination

at dist. Level

Staff of soil

conservation

and partly

through

commercial

banks

Soil

conservation

wing of Agri.

Dept.

Soil

conservation

wing of Agri.

Dept.

Watershed

devlp. Team

draws from

agri. Forest

and horti.

NGO and

sectoral

staff

initially

and later

by NGO

and WDT.

Team of

Agri. Horti

and Forest

Dept.

Society

specially created

by the

Government for

the purpose –

with NGOs.

WDD and

NGO with

CBOs.

WDD and

NGO with

CBOs.

Impact Evaluation of Batch I Projects

16

1.2 Integrated Watershed Management Project

Watershed Development has thus become the central focus for rural development throughout

India with the following objectives.

Development of rainfed areas in order to maintain the momentum of agricultural growth.

Immediate action to remedy increased land degradation that affects productivity adversely.

Restore traditional water saving techniques and water saving initiatives to counteract the

effects of increasing demand for water and excessive exploitation of groundwater.

In order to give a major thrust to developing rainfed areas on a sustainable basis using the

above-mentioned strategy, the National Rainfed Area Authority was established in November 2006.

The watershed programs carried out under MORD and MOA have been merged into a single

program namely the Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWMP) which is presently

known as PMKSY-WD for which certain common guidelines are prepared and implemented with

effect from 1.4.2008. The major objectives of the IWMP are:

Improving the productive potential of degraded lands through various interventions,

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

activities,

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

economy,

Supporting livestock sector for higher incomes, and

Maximizing production through efficient farming systems and micro-enterprises.

Institutional Base created for IWMP implementation

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

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

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

Watershed Development with Head Quarter at Bengaluru and District Watershed Development

Offices involving multidisciplinary staff with effect from 1-1-2000. All Watershed Development

Programs under the state sector including externally funded projects were brought under the

Watershed Development Department (WDD), whereas the centrally sponsored schemes were

implemented by the respective District Watershed Development Offices under the administrative

control of Zilla Panchayats.

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

all the uncovered areas considering the areas covered earlier under different programmes (Table-

1)in the coming years (Table.1.1) through Integrated Watershed Management Programme. The area

available for the treatment has been technically prioritized using like rainfall, slope, drought


17

intensity, soil type and the extent of vulnerable groups, extent of irrigation etc., suggested by the

DoLR, GoI keeping watershed as unit. Based on this Prioritization, the critical ones will be treated

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

in Karnataka is given in Table 1.1. The projects initiated with the approval of MoRD, GoI during

2009-10 in the state are provided in Table.1.3. These projects have been implemented as per the

common guidelines.

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

leaving the responsibility of program implementation to the village communities. Watershed

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

through Grama Panchayat Sub-Committee (Executive Committee). Here, Grama Panchayat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

agricultural and non-agricultural activities.

Across the state 119 Projects are sanctioned under Batch- I during 2009-10 and implemented

to develop 4.91 lakh ha covering 5166 villages so as to improve socio- economic conditions of

2349324 households habilating in these villages. The total cost involved in developing these areas

as per the guidelines is around 632.7 cross.

Keeping in the time with the contemporary thinking on the importance of Monitoring,

Evaluation, Learning and Documentation the Department guided by previous experiences

established a well developed MEL& D frame work for successfully implementing the programme.

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

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

Bengaluru and Mysuru divisions; M/S Karnataka State Council for science and technology,

Bengaluru for providing services in Belgavi Division and M/S Remote Sensing Instruments,

Hyderabad for providing services in Kalaburagi Division. These agencies as per their contracts have

submitted their impact evaluation reports for the respective divisions. Nox M/S RSI has been

requested to consolidate the reports and submit impact evaluation report for the state under Batch- I

Projects. Accordingly RSI has taken up the responsibility and the same is presented below.


18

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

Sl.

No District

Remaining Period of XI Plan

(2009-10 to 2011 -12)

XII plan

(2012-13 to 2016-17)

XIII Plan

(2017-18 to 2021-22)

XIV Plan

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

Physical

('000 ha)

Financial (Rs in

Crore)

Physical

('000 ha)

Financial

(Rs in

Crore)

Physical

('000 ha)

Financial

(Rs in Crore)

Physical

('000 ha)

Financial

(Rs in

Crore)

Physical

('000 ha)

Financial

(Rs in Crore)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 Tumkur 123.15 232.97 201.24 119.03 0 676.39 0

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

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

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

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

Total 1918.65 2371.04 3255.53 3902.11 2639.63 3113.53 809.08 974.76 8622.85 10361.41


19

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

during 2009-10

Sl.

No.

Name of the

District

Name of the

Taluk/Block

Name of the

Project

Project Area

Proposed for

treatment (ha)

Agro-

Climatic

Zone

1 Bagalakote Bagalakote IWMP -1/09-10 3295 NDZ

Jamakhandi IWMP -2/09-10 2596 NDZ

Badami IWMP -3/09-10 5145 NDZ

Hungund IWMP -4/09-10 5953 NDZ

4 Total 16989

2 Ballary Hadagali IWMP - 1/09-10 2647 NDZ

H. B. Halli IWMP - 2/09-10 2541 NDZ

Kudligi IWMP - 3/09-10 4200 NDZ

Sandur IWMP - 4/09-10 3048 NDZ

Hospet IWMP - 5/09-10 3750 NDZ

Sirguppa IWMP - 6/09-10 2300 NDZ

6 Total 18486

3 Belagavi Bailhongal IWMP -1/09-10 3114.68 NTZ

Savadatii IWMP -2/09-10 3975.14 NDZ

Gokak IWMP -3/09-10 2777.77 NDZ

Belagavi IWMP -4/09-10 2827.25 NTZ

Hukkeri IWMP -5/09-10 2748.77 NTZ

Ramdurg IWMP -6/09-10 2700.25 NDZ

Athani IWMP -7/09-10 2639.5 NDZ

Khanapur IWMP -8/09-10 2581.7 HZ

8 Total 23365.06

4 Bengaluru Rural Hoskote IWMP - 1/09-10 4563.3 EDZ

Doddaballapur IWMP - 2/09-10 4510.71 EDZ

Nelamangala IWMP - 3/09-10 3641.7 EDZ

3 Total 12715.71

5 Bidar Bidar IWMP - 1/09-10 4999 NETZ

Aurad IWMP - 2/09-10 5914 NETZ

B. Kalyan IWMP - 3/09-10 4278 NETZ

Humnabad IWMP - 4/09-10 5385 NETZ

4 Total 20576


20

6 Chamrajanagar C.R. Nagara IWMP - 1/09-10 5908.16 SDZ

Gundlupet IWMP - 2/09-10 5094.58 SDZ

Kollegala IWMP - 3/09-10 5569.48 SDZ

3 Total 16572.22

7 Chikkaballapur Chikkaballapur IWMP- 1/09-10 5112 EDZ

Sidlaghatta IWMP- 2/09-10 5094 EDZ

Chintamani IWMP- 3/09-10 4050 EDZ

Bagepalli IWMP- 4/09-10 3976 EDZ

Gowribidanur IWMP- 5/09-10 5173 EDZ

5 Total 23405

8 Chikkamagalur Kadur IWMP - 1/09-10 5299 CDZ

Tarikere IWMP - 2/09-10 5489 STZ

2 Total 10788

9 Chitradurga Holalkere IWMP - 1/09-10 4603 CDZ

Chitradurga IWMP - 2/09-10 4811 CDZ

Molakalmuru IWMP - 3/09-10 2618 CDZ

Challakere IWMP - 4/09-10 4751 CDZ

Hiriyuru IWMP - 5/09-10 5116 CDZ

Hosadurga IWMP - 6/09-10 4278 CDZ

6 Total 26177

10 Dakshina Kannada Belthangadi IWMP - 1/09-10 3997 CZ

Mangalore IWMP - 2/09-10 5031 CZ

2 Total 9028

11 Davanagere Davanagere IWMP - 1/09-10 5023.19 CDZ

Jagalur IWMP - 2/09-10 5072.69 CDZ

Harapanahalli IWMP - 3/09-10 5930.09 NDZ

Channagiri IWMP - 4/09-10 5434.33 STZ

Honnali IWMP - 5/09-10 4121.88 STZ

5 Total 25582.18

12 Dharwad Dharwad IWMP -1/09-10 4558 NTZ

Kalaghatagi IWMP -2/09-10 5070 HZ

Kundagol IWMP -3/09-10 4380 NTZ

Navalagund IWMP -4/09-10 1476 NDZ

4 Total 15484


21

13 Gadag Gadag IWMP -1/09-10 5464.4 NDZ

Mundargi IWMP -2/09-10 4847 NDZ

Ron IWMP -3/09-10 5878.92 NDZ

Shirhatti IWMP -4/09-10 4253.35 NTZ

4 Total 20443.27

14 Hassan Belur IWMP - 1/09-10 4978.5 STZ

Hassan IWMP - 2/09-10 3272 SDZ

Arsikere IWMP - 3/09-10 2717.83 CDZ

Channaraya-

patna IWMP - 4/09-10 3198.53 SDZ

Holenarasipura IWMP - 5/09-10 3326.15 STZ

5 Total 17493.01

15 Haveri Ranebennur IWMP -1/09-10 4191 NTZ

Byadgi IWMP -2/09-10 2381 NTZ

Savanur IWMP -3/09-10 4959 NTZ

Hangal IWMP -4/09-10 4992 HZ

Hirekerur IWMP -5/09-10 5384 NTZ

5 Total 21907

16 Kalaburagi Jevargi IWMP- 1/09-10 2318 NEDZ

Afzalpur IWMP- 2/09-10 4854 NEDZ

Chincholi IWMP- 3/09-10 3465 NEDZ

Chitapur IWMP- 4/09-10 2957 NEDZ

4 Total 13594

17 Kolar Malur IWMP- 1/09-10 5465 EDZ

Mulbagal IWMP- 2/09-10 4881 EDZ

Srinivasapura IWMP- 3/09-10 5035 EDZ

Kolar IWMP- 4/09-10 4993 EDZ

Bangarpet IWMP- 5/09-10 5275.66 EDZ

5 Total 25649.66

18 Koppal Koppal IWMP- 1/09-10 4790 NDZ

Gangavathi IWMP- 2/09-10 3514 NDZ

Kustagi IWMP- 3/09-10 4587 NDZ

Yalburga IWMP- 4/09-10 5673 NDZ

4 Total 18564

19 Mandya Nagamangala IWMP - 1/09-10 5167 SDZ


22

K.R.Pet IWMP - 2/09-10 4657 SDZ

Malavalli IWMP - 3/09-10 2826 SDZ

3 Total 12650

20 Mysore Mysore IWMP - 1/09-10 3155 SDZ

K.R.Nagar IWMP - 2/09-10 2450 SDZ

Hunsur IWMP - 3/09-10 5112 STZ

H.D. Kote IWMP - 4/09-10 4966 STZ

4 Total 15683

21 Raichur Sindanoor IWMP - 1/09-10 5240 NDZ

Lingsugur IWMP - 2/09-10 4224 NDZ

Manvi IWMP - 3/09-10 2950 NEDZ

Raichur IWMP - 4/09-10 2850 NEDZ

4 Total 15264

22 Ramanagara Magadi IWMP - 1/09-10 5830 EDZ

Kanakapura IWMP - 2/09-10 3695 EDZ

2 Total 9525

23 Shivamogga Shivamogga IWMP - 1/09-10 4612 STZ

Thirthahalli IWMP - 2/09-10 3824 HZ

Thirthahalli IWMP - 3/09-10 3545 HZ

Bhadravathi IWMP - 4/09-10 1835 STZ

Shikaripura IWMP - 5/09-10 4687 STZ

Sagar IWMP - 6/09-10 4868 HZ

Soraba IWMP - 7/09-10 4166 HZ

Hosanagara IWMP - 8/09-10 4854 HZ

8 Total 32391

24 Tumkur

Chikkanayakanah

alli IWMP - 1/09-10 2700.98 CDZ

Gubbi IWMP - 2/09-10 2426.87 EDZ

Sira IWMP - 3/09-10 2452.86 CDZ

Pavagada IWMP - 4/09-10 2424.42 CDZ

Madhugiri IWMP - 5/09-10 2286.3 CDZ

Koratagere IWMP - 6/09-10 2734.75 EDZ

Tumkur IWMP - 7/09-10 2481.27 EDZ

Tiptur IWMP - 8/09-10 2785.13 SDZ

8 Total 20292.58


23

25 Udupi Karkala IWMP - 1/09-10 4382 CZ

1 Total 4382

26 Uttara Kannada Siddapur IWMP -1/09-10 5184.58 HZ

Yellapur IWMP -2/09-10 4544.44 HZ

Ankola IWMP -3/09-10 5138.64 CZ

3 Total 14867.66

27 Vijayapura

Basavana

Bagewadi IWMP -1/09-10 2654.75 NDZ

Vijayapura IWMP -2/09-10 2014.65 NDZ

Indi IWMP -3/09-10 3015.35 NDZ

Sindhagi IWMP -4/09-10 4811 NDZ

Muddebihal IWMP -5/09-10 5498 NDZ

5 Total 17993.75

28 Yadgir Shorapur IWMP - 1/09-10 5703 NEDZ

Yadgir IWMP - 2/09-10 5748 NEDZ

2 Total 11451

Grand total for State (2009-10) 119 491319.1

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

NETZ- North-eastern Transition Zone, CDZ- Central Dry Zone, EDZ- Eastern Dry Zone,

SDZ – Southern Dry Zone, STZ- Southern Transition Zone, HZ- Hilly Zone, CZ- Coastal

Zone


24

Plate 1: Cultivation on steep slopes leaves the land vulnerable to erosion and degradation

Plate 2: Eroded Land in Kotabala village, Kotbala SWS, Ron taluk, Gadag district


25

Plate 3: First Order Soil Erosion in Ballari District

Plate 4: Formation of gullies due to headword erosion in wastelands


26

Plate 5: Effect of gully erosion, Formation of deep gullies

Plate 6: Dessert like situation: Due to lack of Conservation Measures, Bidar district


27

Fig-1.1 Potential soil loss in Karnataka

Source: NBSS&LUP Regional Centre, Bangalore


28

CHAPTER-II

Methodology

2.1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in agriculture was indirectly responsible for the reduced share of agricultural sector in G.D.P.

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

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

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

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

Programmes carried out under MORD and MOA have been merged into a single programme

as Integrated Watershed Management Programme and funds are channelized through DoLR.

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

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

flagship Programme of the country. Such investments call for the value realized for money

spent so as to make decisions regarding upsealing either the entire programme or certain

components. Hence evaluation of the programme for its impacts is essential, as it contributes

to evidence based policy making. Impact evaluation helps the organization to decide whether

to scale up projects with proven positive results or to stop activities which have no impact. It

will also help to improve the design of development projects. In view of the above,

monitoring and evaluation are included in the project while formulating the programme. As

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

described below.

2.2. Objectives of the study

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

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

villages falling under the watershed projects. The evaluation process focusses on the

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

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

improvement in local knowledge levels and capacities.


29

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

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

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

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

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

with its pre-project conditions.

The specific objectives of the study are:

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

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

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

and after the implementation of the watershed projects.

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

stakeholders.

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

area.

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

farmers in relation to size of holdings.

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

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

the watershed projects.

2.3. Methodology

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

the state where the IWMP was implemented. Sub-watersheds (one per district) were selected

based on stratified random sampling, the strata being agro-climatic zones, districts, taluks and

sub-watershed. The total number of watersheds in the twenty-nine districts under IWMP is

119. Twenty-four percent of the total projects was selected.

As the projects are distributed in all the districts, a multistage sampling procedure was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


30

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

criteria:

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

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

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

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

Total 40 Households

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

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

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

farmers is schematically presented below (Fig.1.1).

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

2.4. Approach

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

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

WDD. They are:

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

the sample households (Annexure-I).


31

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

facilities available in the area (Annexure – II)

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

were pre-tested on a small sample keeping in view the objectives of the study. Both primary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

socio-economic changes, changes in cropping pattern and intensity, fuel and fodder

availability, changes in the groundwater level and yield. Based on the data collected from

each village, an estimate is made for the sub-watershed and district as a whole. The data were

scrutinized and verified for correctness and consistency. Simple statistical tools like averages

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


32

Chapter-III

3. Physical Progress of Activities

3.1 Socio-economic conditions of the Project Taluks

The impact of development initiatives on improvement of natural resources vary

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

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

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

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

Karnataka

Agro-climatic

Zone District (Taluk)

Northern Dry zone Davanagere (Harapanahalli), Bagalakote (Bagalakote), Belagavi

(Ramdurga), Vijayapura (B. Bagewadi), Dharwad

(Navalagund), Gadag (Ron), Koppal (Koppal), Ballary (Kudligi),

Raichur (Lingsugur)

Northeastern Dry

Zone Yadgir (Yadgir)

Eastern Dry zone Bengaluru-R (Doddaballapura), Chikkaballapura (Sidlaghatta), Kolar

(Mulbagal), Ramanagara (Magadi),

Central Dry zone Tumkur (Madhugiri), Chitradurga (Holalkere)

Southern Dry Zone Chamarajanagar (Kollegala), Mandya (Nagamangala)

Northern Transition

zone Haveri (Savanur)

Northeastern

Transition Zone Bidar (Aurad), Kalaburagi (Chincholi)

Southern Transition

Zone

Shivamogga (Shivamogga), Chikkamagalur (Tarikere), Hassan (Belur),

Mysore (H.D.Kote)

Hilly Zone Uttara Kannada (Siddapura)

Coastal zone Dakshina Kannada (Mangalore), Udupi (Karkala)

Northern Dry Zone: Eight taluks of eight districts viz., Harapanahalli, Bagalakote,

Ramdurga, B. Bagewadi, Navalagund, Ron, Koppal, Lingasugur and Kudligi fall under

northern dry zone. The zone receives an average rainfall of 585 mm and 79.3% of the

cultivated area in the taluks is rainfed. Crops are grown in red and shallow black soils during

Kharif and in medium and deep black soils during rabi season. The major crops grown are

sorghum, maize, bajra, groundnut, oilseeds, pulses and cotton (Table.3.2).

Northeastern Dry Zone: Yadgir taluk falls under Northeastern Dry Zone. The general

topography is flat, gently sloping forming broad valleys and flat-topped hills. Three types of

soils are black, lateritic and mixed soil. The climate is characterized by general dryness


33

throughout the year, except during the Southwest monsoon. The average annual rainfall in

Yadgir taluk is 822 mm. About 80% of the annual rainfall is received during the period - June

to September.

Eastern Dry Zone: Doddaballapur, Shidlaghatta, Mulbagal and Magadi taluks fall under the

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

to 85 % of the cultivated area. The average annual rainfall is around 776 mm (ranging from

680 to 890). The major cropping season is Kharif in which ragi, maize, pulses and oilseeds

are cultivated under rainfed condition, while paddy, mulberry, vegetables and flowers are

cultivated under irrigation.

Central Dry Zone: Holalkere and Madhugiri taluks fall under the Central dry zone. The

rainfed area in the taluks varies from 75.7 to 80.5% and the rainfall ranges from 450 to 715

mm, the average being 611 mm. The areas are affected by periodic droughts ranging from 3

to 5 years in a decennial period. The major soil is red loam. Shallow and deep black soils are

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

Southern Dry Zone: Kollegala and Nagamangala taluks fall under the southern dry zone.

The rainfed area in the taluks account for 64.0 and 82.0% respectively and the rainfall ranges

from 670 to 890 mm (average being 732 mm). The area experiences periodic droughts. The

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

rainfed crops are ragi, sorghum, oilseeds and pulses.

Northern Transition Zone: Savanur taluk in Haveri district represents the zone. The zone

receives an average annual rainfall of 780mm (620-1300mm) and 95.4% of the cultivated

area in this taluk is rainfed. Major soil types are gravelly sandy clay loam and laterites.

Paddy, pulses, groundnut, cotton, chillies and sugarcane are the principal crops grown in the

region.

North Eastern Transition Zone: Aurad taluk in Bidar district and Chincholo taluk in

Kalaburagi district fall under Northeastern Transition Zone. The altitude varies from 420 to

684 m above MSL. The general topography is flat, gently sloping forming broad valleys with

flat-topped hills. The soils found are lateritic red soil, black cotton soil and loamy to sandy

soil. The climate is characterized by general dryness throughout the year, except during the

southwest monsoon. The average annual rainfall varied from 667 to 1003mm. About 80% of

the annual rainfall is received during the period - June to September.

Southern Transition Zone: Shivamogga, Tarikere, Belur and H.D. Kote taluks fall under

this zone. The rainfall received in this zone varies from 610 to 1050 mm and the annual

average is 860 mm. The area under rainfed crops is around 42.7% being the least among the

taluks selected. The major soils are red loam. The important crops grown during Kharif are

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

Hilly Zone: Siddapura taluk of Uttara Kannada represents this zone. The rainfall received in

this zone varies from 900-3700 mm and the annual average is 2309 mm. The area under

rainfed crops is around 75.6%. The major soil types are red and laterites. The important crops


34

grown in the region during Kharif are paddy, pulses and sugarcane. Plantation crops such as

arecanut, coconut, banana, cardamom, etc. cover large area.

Coastal Zone: Mangalore and Karkala taluks of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts,

respectively represent the zone. The zone receives an average annual rainfall of 3893 mm,

and 62 to 69% of the cultivated area is rainfed in these districts. Crops grown are paddy,

pulses, groundnut and sugarcane. Plantation crops cover large areas. The major soils are red

laterite and coastal alluvial.

Fig-3 Drought prone areas in Karnataka as determined by Length of growing season.

Source: NBSS&LUP Regional Centre, Bangalore


35

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

District

Taluk

Rainfall(mm)

Area cultivated (ha) Soil type

Cropping season and crops

Total

Rainfed

Northern Dry Zone

Davanagere Harapanahalli

585

(465 - 785)

101098 80178

(79.3 %)* Predominantly

shallow to deep

black soils.

General crop growing season is Kharif in shallow

black soils, rabi in medium & deep black Soils.

Sorghum, maize, bajra, groundnut, pulses,

sunflower, cotton and sugarcane are the major

crops.

Bagalakote Bagalakote 503534 472386

(93.8%)

Belagavi Ramdurga 1008305 837880

(83.1%)

Vijayapura B. Bagevadi 971523 877334

(90.3%) Major - shallow to

medium black soils

and red loam equally

distributed

Major season is kharif. Principal crops are

sorghum, paddy, pulses, groundnut, sugarcane,

cotton and tobacco.

Dharwad Navalgund 346823 310816

(89.6%)

Gadag Ron 404457 388014

(95.9%)

Koppal Koppal 590 (390-917) 90043

64631

(71.8%) Clayey and loamy

General crop growing season is kharif in shallow

red loamy and black soils, rabi in red and deep

black soils. Sorghum, ragi, maize, bajra, groundnut,

pulses, sunflower, cotton and sugarcane, tobacco

are the major crops. Fruits and vegetables are

grown in pockets.

Ballary Kudligi 628 (302-

1152)

89422

76074

(85.1%)

Sandy, black cotton

and Red Loamy

Raichur Lingsugur 471 (294-647) 128089

105927

[82.7%]

Mixed red and Black

Cotton

General cropping season is kharif and crops grown

are paddy, sorghum, maize, wheat, pulses, oil

seeds, cotton, mulberry, fruits and vegetables.

Northeastern Dry Zone

Yadgir Yadgir 822 (767-873)

91629

70333

[76.8%]

Black cotton and

lateritic

General cropping season is Kharif in shallow red

and black soils, rabi in medium and deep black

soils. Crops grown are paddy, sorghum, bajra,

maize, wheat, cereals, minor millets, grams,

pigeonpea, groundnut, sunflower, sugarcane, cotton

and mulberry crops. Fruits and vegetables are also

grown in pockets.

Eastern Dry Zone


36

District

Taluk

Rainfall(mm)



Total

Rainfed

Bengaluru (R) Doddaballapura

776

(680-890)

43351 32098

(74.0%)

Major soil type is

non-gravelly red

loam with a narrow

belt of Laterite soil.

General cropping season is Kharif. Principal crops

grown are ragi, paddy, pulses, maize, oilseeds and

mulberry. A sizeable area is also under vegetables

and flower crops under irrigation.

Chikkaballapura Sidlaghatta 24989 19257

(77.1%)

Kolar Mulbagal 44128 35892

(81.3 %)

Ramanagara Magadi 44820 38226

(85.3%)

Central Dry Zone

Chitradurga Holalkere

611

(450-715)

70076 56421

(80.5%)

Major soil type is

red loam with

shallow to deep

black soils occurring

sporadically

Predominantly Kharif area. Ragi, sorghum, paddy,

oilseeds & pulses are the major crops. Tumkur Madhugiri 54211

41008

(75.6%)

Southern Dry Zone

Chamarajanagara Kollegala

734 (670-890)

75622

48539

(64.2%)

Major soils are red

loam with pockets of

black soils

Cropping season ingeneral is Kharif. Major crops

are paddy, ragi, sugarcane, pulses, minor millets

and mulberry. Mandya Nagamangala

78833

65049

(82.5%)

Northern Transition zone

Haveri Savanur 620 - 1300 381667 363939

(95.4%)

Gravelly sandy clay

loam, laterites.

Paddy, pulses, groundnut and sugarcane are the

principal crops grown in the region. Plantation

crops such as areca, coconut, cashew, cardamom,

banana, etc. cover a large area.

Northeastern Transition Zone

Bidar Aurad 886 (821-998) 80253

68495

[85.3%]

Lateritic Red and

black soils

General cropping season is similar to Northern Dry

Zone. Crops grown are paddy, sorghum, bajra,

maize, wheat, cereals, minor millets, grams, tur,

pulse, groundnut, sunflower, oil seeds, sugarcane,

cotton and mulberry. Fruits and vegetables are also

grown in pockets.

Kalaburagi Chincholi 777 (667-

1003)

109172

92236

[84.5%]

Black Cotton and

loamy to sandy

Southern Transition Zone


37

District

Taluk

Rainfall(mm)



Total

Rainfed

Shivamogga

Shivamogga

860 (610-

1050)

45724 19513

(42.7%)

Major soils are red

loam.

Major season is Kharif. Principal crops are ragi,

paddy, pulses, sorghum and tobacco.

Chikkamagalur Tarikere 68993

60036

(87.0%)

Hassan Belur 47946

38009

(79.3%)

Mysore H.D.Kote 78833 65049

(82.5%)

Hilly Zone

Uttara Kannada Siddapura

2309

(900 – 3700) 149420

112150

(75.1%)

Major soil types are

gravelly sandy clay

loam and laterites.



crops such as areca, coconut, cashew, cardamom,

banana, etc. cover large areas.

Coastal Zone

Dakshina Kannada Mangalore 3893 (3000-

4700)

30090

18705

(62.2%)

Major soil types are

red, laterite and

costal alluvial.



crops cover large area. Udupi Karkala 29239

20223

(69.2%)

*Figures in parenthesis indicate percent of total cultivated area.


38

3.2 Demographic Details of the Taluks Selected

The total population across the taluks ranged from 83,118 in Dakshin Kannada to as

high as 8,82,856 in Mangalore (Table 3.3). The percent of males and females across the

project taluks under study varied from 47.1 to 51.6% and 48.4 to 52.9%, respectively (Figure

3.1a). The scheduled caste population accounted for 20.8% across all taluks, the highest

being 36.1% in Chincholi taluk and the lowest being 4.7% in Mangalore taluk. Scheduled

tribes represented 27.9% in Kudligi followed by H.D. Kote (21.8%) and the average across

the districts is 8.2% (Figure 3.1b). Together these vulnerable groups constitute 28.9%,

indicating that any developmental program to be successful needs to focus on inclusiveness

and poverty reduction. It is interesting to note that the percentage of population of vulnerable

groups is more in the areas with recurrent droughts.

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

Ba

ga

lak

ote

Ku

dli

gi

Ra

md

urg

Do

dd

ab

all…

Au

ra

d

Ko

lle

gala

Sid

lag

att

a

Ta

rik

ere

Ho

lalk

ere

Ma

ng

alo

re

Ha

ra

pa

na

h…

Na

va

lgu

nd

Ro

n

Be

lur

Sa

va

nu

r

Ch

inch

oli

Mu

lbag

al

Ko

pp

al

Na

ga

ma

ng…

H.D

.Ko

te

Lin

gsu

gu

r

Ma

ga

di

Sh

iva

mo

gg

a

Ma

dh

ug

iri

Ka

rk

ala

Sid

da

pu

ra

B. B

ag

ew

ad

i

Yad

gir

Po

pu

lati

on

(%

of

tota

l)

Taluk

Male population Female population

Figure 3.1 a: Gender details across sub watersheds in the state


39

Table 3.3: Taluk Level Demographic Information

District Taluk

Village

s (Nos.)

Total

Household

s (Nos.)

Total

Populatio

n (Nos.)

District Taluk

No of

Village

s (Nos.)

Total

House

holds

(Nos.)

Total

Populati

on (Nos.)

Bagalakote Bagalakote 94 33316 173181 Haveri Savanur 65 24126 120954

Ballary Kudligi 85 59328 308901 Kalaburagi Chincholi 145 48431 254287

Belagavi Ramdurg 115 42240 223727 Kolar Mulbagal 343 54664 258935

Bengaluru Rural Doddaballapura 298 71158 198546 Koppal Koppal 151 73149 377781

Bidar Aurad 149 51672 278400 Mandya Nagamangal

a 367 54021 1,90,770

Chamarajanagara Kollegala 139 85489 3,36,838 Mysore H.D.Kote 281 764999 2,45,930

Chikkaballapura Shidlagatta 290 44772 214169 Raichur Lingasugur 147 68478 385699

Chikkamagalur Tarikere 249 40293 2,24,170 Ramanagara Magadi 286 49624 203841

Chitradurga Holalkere 202 45730 207260 Shivamogga Shivamogga 214 117601 507324

Dakshina

Kannada Mangalore 88 177971 8,82,856 Tumkur Madhugiri 320 63924 267866

Davanagere Harapanahalli 80 58561 302003 Udupi Karkala 101 44411 2,05,598

Dharwad Navalgund 57 27067 137328 Uttar Kannada Siddapura 195 19761 83118

Gadag Ron 93 38801 191763 Vijayapura B. Bagewadi 123 60490 315523

Hassan Belur 383 60615 1,83,755 Yadgir Yadgir 106 68632 398359

Total

2,322 8,37,013 22,35278

2,844 15,12,311 31,73,687


40

3.3 Particulars of watersheds selected for study

The details of the sample watersheds selected for the impact study are presented in

Table.3.4. Altogether, 28 sub-watersheds were selected, one from each district. The

topography of many of the sub-watersheds is either hilly or of undulating terrain caused by

soil erosion. The soils in most of the sub-watershed areas are red-soils excepting in two sub-

watersheds which have either black or red and black soils. The twenty-eight sub-watersheds

(hereinafter called SWSs) comprise 1.27 lakh ha, covering 429 villages and 83453

households. Singenahalli SWS in Kolar district covers the largest number of villages (38),

followed by Totagatti SWS (Belagavi) and Honnavara SWS (Mandya) with 28 villages each,

followed by Mavathur SWS in Bengaluru Rural district (27), Doddabandarghatta SWS in

Chikkaballapur district (26) and Thirumale SWS in Ramanagara district (26). Eleven SWS

have eight or less number of villages.

Fig.3.1 b: Distribution of Social groups across sub watersheds in the state


41


42

Table 3.4 Particulars of watersheds selected for the study

Name of the

District

Name of the

sub-

watershed

Latitude

Longitude

Area

(ha)

Topography

Average

Slope

(%)

Soil type

Soil Depth

(m)

Villa

ges

(Nos)

Total

Households

(Nos)

Bagalakote Shiruru 16°6'38"N 75°46'31"E 3295

Undulating

to nearly

level

3 to 5

Black clay

loam to

clay

Moderate

to very

deep

12 3026

Ballary Gajapura 14

0 51’ 28”

N

760 18’ 27”

E 4200

Undulating

& Hilly 3 to 45

Sandy,

Black

cotton &

Red

Loamy

Shallow to

Deep 7 2250

Belagavi Totagatti 16°1'20"N 75°10'31"E 2700.25

Undulating

to nearly

level

3 to 5

Black clay

loam to

clay

Deep to

very deep 28 960

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 13021’47”N 77

000’50”E 4510.71 Undulating 5 Red

Moderately

Deep 27 3533

Bidar Wadagaon 18

0 08’ 34”

N

770 30’ 57”

E 4999

Undulating

& Hilly 3 to 17

Lateritic

Red and

Black

cotton

Shallow to

Moderately

Deep

6 3581

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 12

0

03’46”N 76

058’39” E 5569.48 Undulating 4 to 6 Red Moderate 12 3241

Chikkaballapura Doddabandar

ghatta 12

046’58”N 77

030’51”E 5094 Plain 6.5 Red Shallow 26 3078

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 13039’85”N 75

047’25’’E 5489.5 Undulating 0 to 8

Red,

Sandy Moderate 13 1447

Chitradurga Halenahalli 14021’10”N 76

023’53”E 4603 Undulating

3 to 7,

35 to 50 Red

Moderately

Deep to

Deep

8 1969

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole

130

07’

37”N

750

06’

31”E 5031 Hilly - Red Moderate 11 4503


43

Name of the

District

Name of the

sub-

watershed

Latitude

Longitude

Area

(ha)

Topography

Average

Slope

(%)

Soil type

Soil Depth

(m)

Villa

ges

(Nos)

Total

Households

(Nos)

Davanagere Komaranahalli 14066’18”N 76

005’28”E 5930.09 Hilly 2

Red &

Black

Moderately

Deep 7 1281

Dharwad Saidapur 15°24'2"N 75°28'26"E 1476

Undulating

to nearly

level

3 to 8 Black,

clay loam Deep 25 3126

Gadag Kotbala 15°44'27."N 75°46'38"E 4847

Undulating

to nearly

level

3 to 8

Black

sandy clay

loam

Moderately

Deep to

Deep

22 3006

Hassan Sundekere 13

0 30’

30”N 75

045’17”E 4978.56 Hilly 3 to 4

Black,

Sandy Deep 25 2188

Haveri Kadakola 15°1'16"N 75°27'29"E 4959

Undulating

to nearly

level

3 to5

Black clay

loam to

cla

Moderate

to very

deep

11 3619

Kalaburagi Khanapur 17

0 37’ 53”

N

77 08’ 34”

E 4854

Undulating

and Plain 6 to 19

Black

Cotton &

Loamy to

sandy

Shallow to

Moderately

Deep

7 2400

Kolar Singenahalli 13008’74”N 78

031’64”E 4881 Undulating 4 Red

Shallow to

Moderately

Deep

38 8615

Koppal Hasagal 15

0 38’ 40”

N

760 13’ 44”

E 4790

Undulating

& Plain 2 to 6

Clay,

Loamy &

Black

Moderately

Deep to

Deep

8 2253

Mandya Honnavara 12050’16’N 76

036’30”E 5167 Undulating 3 to 5

Red,

Sandy Moderate 28 3827

Mysore Sagare 11054’55”N 76

021’22”E 4966 Plain 3 to 4

Red,

Black

sandy clay

loam

Moderately

Deep 22 3706


44

Name of the

District

Name of the

sub-

watershed

Latitude

Longitude

Area

(ha)

Topography

Average

Slope

(%)

Soil type

Soil Depth

(m)

Villa

ges

(Nos)

Total

Households

(Nos)

Raichur Hatti Nala 16

0 13’ 59”

N

760 37’ 48”

E 4224

Undulating

& Plain 1 to 5

Mixed red

and Black

Cotton

Shallow to

Moderately

Deep

7 2265

Ramanagara Thirumale 12033’00”N 77

025’00”E 5830 Plain 6.8 Red

Shallow to

Moderately

Deep

26 3069

Shivamogga Koteganguru 14020’07”N 75

030’18”E 4612 Undulating 5 Black

Deep to

very Deep 8 1927

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 13028’16”N 77

021’19”E 2286.2 Undulating 4 Red

Shallow to

Moderately

Deep

8 1200

Udupi Miyar 13010’23”N 75

020’48”E 4382 Hilly 3 to 5 Red Moderate 4 5423

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 14°22'32"N 74°54'55"E 5138.64

Undulating

to gently

sloping

3 to 8

Red

laterite

gravelly

clay loam

Shallow to

Moderate 4 2483

Vijayapura Hangaragihalla 16°30'11"N 75°56'44"E 2654.75

Undulating

to nearly

level

3 to 5

Black clay

loam to

clay

Moderate

to very

deep

13 936

Yadgir Dharmapura 16

0 22’ 27”

N

770 20’ 34”

E 5748

Plain &

Hilly 3 to 6

Black

cotton &

Lateritic

Moderately

Deep to

Deep

16 4541


45

3.4 Economic status of households

The economic status of households and their standard of living in any area is

determined by their income level. Table 3.5 shows the income level of different category of

farmers at the household level within the sample watersheds. The income of all rural landless

families varied from Rs. 1000/- (Thirumale sws) to 2,70,249/- (Shirur sws) across the

watersheds before the implementation of project. For marginal families it varied from

Rs.7000/- to Rs.1,44,000/-, whereas for small farmers it varied from Rs. 10000 to Rs.

210000/- and for large farmers it varied from Rs. 8900/- to Rs. 4,80,000/-. According to the

circular issued by the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, G.O.K persons are considered

to be below poverty line if the rural household income is less than Rs.12000/-. At least two

farmer categories of four watersheds, viz.Singenahalli, Halenahalli, Komaranahalli and

Chikkamaluru are below the poverty line. It could also be seen that income to the families is

higher in the watersheds which are nearer to urban areas due to alternative employment.

3.5. Fund management by SWSs

The magnitude of funds received and the amount utilized by the SWSs in the

successive years during the period is given in Table.3.6. Data presented in the table reveals

that the utilization of funds was the least in Hattinala (53.3%) while it was the highest in

Andavalli (99.1%). It can be assumed that the finances provided are effectively utilized for

implementing the programme in most of the watersheds. Focus group discussions with WDT

and EC members revealed that advance planning as well as revised annual action plans have

helped to undertake the works as per the plan and book the expenditure. The WDT facilitated

the EC to complete assignments by guiding them wherever required. As a result of advance

planning after studying the local conditions and requirements, works could be handled with

continuous guidance from WDT and complete in time. The regular meetings held by EC

helped to review the progress from time to time and any constraints noticed were cleared in

time. This speaks of good co-operation between the WDT, EC and stakeholders.


46

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

Name of the

SWS/ Code

Income to landless

labourers (Rs)

Income to

marginal farmers

(Rs)

Income to small

farmers (Rs)

Income to large

farmers (Rs)

Before After Before After Before After Before After

Andavalli 23708 35054 88038 114132 194684 348536 201985 206841

Chikkamaluru 4900 6000 14800 19000 12600 16000 8900 10560

Chinchahalli 45000 48000 84000 96000 90000 102000 126000 150000

Dharmapur 25830 35044 42677 52886 59585 79522 89066 117641

Doddabandarg

hatta 20000 25000 35000 45000 40000 63000 50000 125500

Gajapura 30583 48493 55637 69774 78474 104942 99157 141394

Halenahalli 8000 10000 10000 12000 11000 14000 35000 50000

Hangargihalla 99857* 146956 118848 236275 94896 134275 124294 205244

Hasagal 28300 40880 55998 70627 84831 109409 105341 148803

Hattinala 28375 39800 54262 69188 82936 108386 105119 137403

Honnavara 40000 42000 120000 126000 210000 216000 480000 540000

Jambodahalla 40000 40000 90000 90000 115000 115000 145000 150000

Kadakola 99857* 146956 118848 236275 94896 134275 124294 205244

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 65000* 85000 80000 125000 90000 155000 150000 189000

Khanapur 27133 37120 46800 57200 64353 86756 89270 124083

Komaranahalli 4500 15000 8000 30000 20000 40000 50000 150000

Kotbala 37800 49444 48269 80153 95680 107520 284636 311347

Koteganguru 8000 10000 15000 15000 20000 20000 70000 70000

Mavathur 5500 8500 20000 35000 15000 20000 40000 50000

Miyar 25000 30000 35000 46000 50000 63000 75000 96000

Sagare 70000* 72000 144000 144000 210000 216000 290000 300000

Saidapur 12000 35175 36666 42500 60000 112145 66000 119750

Shiruru 270249* 441249 125776 187649 91389 153312 176035 278550

Singenahalli 5800 6000 7000 8000 10000 12000 17000 20000

Sundekere 60000* 75000 90000 110000 95000 165000 150000 236000

Thirumale 10000 12000 13000 15000 18000 20000 40000 45000

Totagatti 129763* 202761 97828 164983 151983 240231 199800 320121

Wadagaon 26355 38242 50244 66750 75773 102909 104500 141538

Average 39,018 63,631 57,703 84,443 79860 109257 1,24,873 1,65,715

*Includes salary & alternative employment


47

Table.3.6: Fund Management in watersheds (in Lakh Rs.) Name of the SWS 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Andavalli 27.8 27.8 15.9 15.4 135.4 133.4 190.2 188.4 312.8 311.8 20 19.8

Chikkamaluru 0 0 21 21 38.5 36.2 146.5 145.9 56.8 55.5 3.7 2.3

Chinchahalli 26.7 0 76.1 35.7 111 106.9 97.3 81.9 169 166.1 85.4 55.2

Dharmapur 24.9 10 34.7 34.7 120.2 48 255.7 169.4 330.7 294.8 51.3 33.7

Doddabandarghatta 0 0 48.4 36.9 87.7 86.9 211.8 207.7 205.9 203.6 11.8 7.4

Gajapura 31.3 25.2 120.9 10.9 155.2 155 207.2 170.9 155.2 110 45.9 31.5

Halenahalli 0 10 0 19.4 64.7 58.2 121.6 113.9 242.5 213 80.01 80

Hangargihalla 22.8 - 88.9 26.7 61.3 41.9 214.1 195 110.7 89.2 26.2 4.9

Hasagal 34.7 16.5 21.2 20.6 128.1 97.3 195.3 192.8 208.8 194.4 61.5 56

Hattinala 35.5 23.3 90.8 10.7 75.1 29.8 233.3 147.5 277.6 200.5 49.3 41.2

Honnavara 33.5 24.8 72.5 7.8 94.1 71 158.7 120.4 270.1 218.4 90.4 23.2

Jambodahalla 26.4 26.4 17.4 17.4 63.5 56.8 157.9 154.8 143.1 140.5 62.9 61.3

Kadakola 32.1 3 101.1 32.5 108.3 75.4 250.8 245.2 166.4 153.9 27.9 26.5

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 32.6 23.9 81.4 17.8 217.6 157.9 352.5 321 53.5 50.5 4.7 1

Khanapur 34.5 19.3 58.4 19.6 86.2 70.7 183.2 151.3 198.1 170.2 32.7 31.8

Kotbala 31.4 5 96.6 26.4 120.9 77.8 261.6 201.8 243.8 113.5 70.7 47.8

Koteganguru 37.4 27.7 92.8 12.3 118.6 113.1 176.9 161.9 244.1 221.4 60.4 57.2

Kumaranahalli 48.1 0 137 52.2 88.6 71.5 327.6 276.6 274.1 216.3 136 135.3

Mavathur 21.7 0 31.4 30.3 76.9 68.3 230.1 229 166.8 167.4 11.8 11.4

Miyar 28.4 21.2 70.9 2.7 132.2 77.3 207.4 182.7 206.2 159.8 47.5 32.4

Sagare 0 0 59.2 36.1 147.7 138.8 224.3 208.8 154.2 149.5 6.4 5.2

Saidapur 9.6 0 31 9.9 43.1 35.7 62.8 49.3 43.8 37 10.1 5.2

Shiruru 26.8 19.8 67.1 9.1 94.7 80.8 244.7 243.2 79.2 48.8 35.8 26.3

Singenahalli 32.5 11.7 92.5 20.1 82 81.1 134.7 90.8 188.3 182.8 56.4 56.1

Sundekere 23.9 0 32.7 31.9 77.2 73.4 144.6 121.9 128.4 115.8 100.5 97.8

Thirumale 37.9 0 122.8 39.8 104.6 96.4 186.7 127.9 255.6 219.2 37 31

Totagatti 13.1 13 9.3 8.3 57.1 44.2 182.5 164.4 53.7 52.8 1.5 0.6

Wadagaon 32.4 0 105.1 28.4 86.8 46.5 249.5 218.6 188 174.9 60 45.8


48

Table.3.6: continued Name of the SWS 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Total %

Utilization Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Fund

received

Fund

utilized

Andavalli 7 6.8 1.5 1.3 2.9 2.5 0.8 0.8 714.3 708 99.1

Chikkamaluru 1.5 0.4 1.2 0.3 0.9 0 2.6 2.6 272.7 264.2 96.9

Chinchahalli 97.1 94.5 35.8 32.8 14.9 12 2.9 2.9 716.2 588 82.1

Dharmapur 22 9.3 18.9 7.7 11.5 0 11.6 0 881.5 607.6 69.8

Doddabandarghatta 13.5 10.8 11.9 11.1 3.3 0.4 2.9 1 597.2 565.8 94.7

Gajapura 43.3 1.8 52.9 29.9 17.6 8.2 15.3 0.9 844.8 544.3 64.4

Halenahalli 5.8 0 33 32.6 25.6 22.4 3.2 0.7 576.41 550.2 95.5

Hangargihalla 42 10 32.8 15 36.6 9.9 26.8 1.1 662.2 393.7 59.5

Hasagal 20.8 15 20.7 17.1 3.7 2.6 1.2 0.9 696 613.2 88.1

Hattinala 33.1 0.2 38.6 1.3 34.2 12.6 10.4 0.9 877.9 468 53.3

Honnavara 25.3 23.9 7.3 7.2 28.5 24.9 3.6 1 784 522.6 66.7

Jambodahalla 12.2 10.6 12.2 10.6 21.6 19.9 2.8 0.9 520 499.2 96.0

Kadakola 21.6 0 31.9 31 13.02 0.06 2.014 1.8 755.134 569.36 75.4

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 6.9 2.4 1.6 0.6 1 0 0.9 0.9 752.7 576 76.5

Khanapur 33 25 21.9 15.03 7.2 0.5 6.8 1.6 662 505.03 76.3

Kotbala 42.03 5.6 40.3 29.9 11.2 8.9 2.4 0 920.9 516.7 56.1

Koteganguru 42.6 38.7 4 3.3 0.6 0 0.8 0.8 778.2 636.4 81.8

Kumaranahalli 78.2 15.3 63.5 56 8.1 5 3.2 1 1164.4 829.2 71.2

Mavathur 20.5 19.9 0.5 0 13 12.8 1.1 1 573.8 540.1 94.1

Miyar 32.4 16.8 30.2 18.3 12.2 25.8 9.2 1 776.6 538 69.3

Sagare 15.2 4.8 10.7 8.9 1.7 0 1.9 1 621.3 553.1 89.0

Saidapur 5 0 5.5 0.2 5.2 0 5.9 0.9 222 138.2 62.3

Shiruru 24.9 14.3 10.67 0 0.7 0.2 0.05 0.05 584.62 442.55 75.7

Singenahalli 57.2 32.2 30.8 19.9 11.3 8.9 2.4 2.4 688.1 506.1 73.5

Sundekere 37.1 3.3 35.8 35.4 48.4 22.2 27.3 1 655.9 502.8 76.7

Thirumale 101.2 5.5 96.3 31.9 61.6 44.2 17.7 0.9 1021.4 596.8 58.4

Totagatti 26.8 26.6 7.6 7.3 5.7 4.4 1.3 0.9 358.6 322.5 89.9

Wadagaon 47.2 13.7 43.5 34.1 9.6 0.1 9.6 0.9 831.67 563 67.7


49

3.6 Entry Point activity and Community Mobilization

The details of EPAs implemented in all the watersheds are presented in Table 3.7. It is

noticed that all the planned EPAs have been executed and the expenditure on them in each of

the sample watersheds has also been fully made as per the guidelines. The amount spent is as

per the guidelines (4.0%).

Focus group discussions with stakeholders revealed that activities under EPA are

identified through a democratic process, by conducting a transact walk with the stakeholders

at several places. In general, efforts were made to create surface storage to accommodate

excess runoff from rainfall so as to make water available for livestock and also other non-

domestic uses at the field level so as to promote groundwater recharge. These structures have

helped to improve groundwater recharge and thereby increased availability of water in the

bore wells. As of now the water harvesting structures are in good condition.

Awareness building:

In all the SWS, the planned number of awareness building programs have been fully

accomplished and the finances allocated for these programs have been fully utilized as per

plan.


50

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

No of the SWS

Activities

Gokatte

Nala

bund

Check

Dam

Earthen

Bund

Medicinal

plants

Kalyani

Repair

Percolation

Tank

Water

ways

Tank

desiltation

Tank

development

VD

NRVT

Farm

pond

Number

Andavalli 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0

Chikkamaluru 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chinchahalli 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 0

Dharmapur 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Doddabandarghatta 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gajapura 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Halenahalli 1 8 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hangargihalla 9 14 12 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hasagal 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Hattinala 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Honnavara 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0

Jambodahalla 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0

Kadakola 0 21 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 - 0 0 0

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0

Khanapur 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kotbala 2 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 13 0 0 0

Kotteganguru 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0

Kumaranahalli 1 1 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mavathuru 4 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Miyar 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0

Sagare 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Saidapur 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0

Senegenahalli 2 13 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shiruru 20 1 22 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0

Sundekere 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

Thirumale 0 7 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totagatti 24 7 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0

Wadagaon 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 85 96 167 4 10 3 13 2 60 19 59 4 1


51

Structures created under Entry Point Activities

Gokatte restoration in Gummanahalli village,

Byadagi taluk

Around nine open wells have been rejuvenated

in Mannur SWS, Basavana Bagewadi Taluk,

Vijayapura district due to the construction of

Nala bund

District: Chikkaballapura

Village: Machanahalli

SWS: Chikkaballapura

Activity: Check dam

District: Chikkaballapura

SWS: Mustur

Taluk: Chikkaballapura

Village: Nallagutta Palya

MC: Soolakunte

Activity: DC


52

The details of the programmes organized are presented in Table 3.8. In all 309 Gram

Sabhas 239 Kala Jathas, 199 Street Plays, 140 wall paintings and 58 exposure visits were

organized across the watersheds. These programmes were either conducted in each village or

in selected villages of the watersheds. Building awareness about the project and making them

to understand the programme are the basic requirements for effective empowerment. This

will motivate the stakeholders to actively participate in the project implementation. It is

therefore, essential to cover all categories of population effectively. It was observed from the

Programmes conducted that attendance level in these programmes is not up to the mark. The

District level agency needs to follow a different road map for building awareness about the

project, its necessity, implementation arrangements for various components under different

sectors to achieve the goal. They can think of organizing a cultural programme and a film

show where attendance would be maximum to achieve the objective. In the school, these

activities can be better explained during parent’s day meet to children and parents together

with documentary films on the subject. Alternatively, weekly one-hour speech could be

arranged in schools so that the children will imbibe the need for protecting the environment

and influence parents so that conservation becomes a way of life with every individual. These

programmes need to be arranged at a time when it is convenient to the maximum number of

stakeholders, particularly to women. Such campaign needs to be on a mission mode rather

than on target basis. In all, 309 Grama Sabhas, 239 Kala Jathas, 199 street Plays, 140 Wall

Paintings and 58 Exposure visits were organized across the Watersheds.


53

Table.3.8: Awareness building activities in different watersheds

Name of Sub-

watershed

Grama

Saba

Kala

Jatha

Street

play

Wall

Painting

Exposure

visits Name of Sub-

watershed

Grama

Saba

Kala

Jatha

Street

play

Wall

Painting

Exposure

visits

Nos. Nos.

Andavalli 10 5 5 14 4 Khanapur 6 6 6 9 1

Chikkamaluru 10 6 6 0 0 Kotbala 6 6 12 11 14

Chinchahalli 7 7 5 0 2 Kotteganguru 9 4 4 0 0

Dharmapur 11 11 11 0 2 Kumaranahalli 7 7 7 5 0

Doddabandar-

ghatta 20 20 20 26 0 Mavathuru 16 3 1 19 0

Gajapura 4 6 6 15 3 Miyar 4 4 4 0 8

Halenahalli 10 20 20 12 0 Sagare 30 6 6 0 2

Hangargihalla 6 6 6 0 3 Saidapur 3 3 0 0 2

Hasagal 11 11 11 6 1 Senegenahalli 38 37 5 0 0

Hattinala 7 7 7 8 1 Shiruru 2 2 2 3 1

Honnavara 18 4 4 0 1 Sundekere 19 12 12 0 1

Jambodahalla 3 13 13 0 2 Thirumale 26 10 4 10 0

Kadakola 5 5 5 0 4 Totagatti 3 4 4 2 2

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 11 11 8 0 2 Wadagaon 6 6 6 0 2

Total - - - - -

309 239 199 140 58


54

Awareness building Programmes

Street play in Sonnavadi village, Singenahalli

SWS, Mulabagilu taluk, Kolar district

Gramasabha in Gadag district

Jalanayanamela, Dasanapura SWS, H D

Kote Taluk, Mysore District

Awareness building activity through

Kalajatha in Renjala Village by involving

school children in Udupi


55

3.7. Capacity building of Community Based Organisations

The present watershed development programme implemented following new

guidelines issued under National Rainfed Area Authority have specific provisions regarding

the formation of local level institutions like Watershed Committee (Executive Committee),

User Groups and Self Help Groups. These local institutions are assigned certain

responsibilities. For example, W.C (EC) is the project implementer with financial

responsibility; UGs to identify interventions and maintain the assets created during post

project period for sustaining the development; and SHG members need to actively participate

in improving the conditions of common property resources to enable them to improve their

livelihood options.

In order to identify whether the CBOs had been formed with due representation of

different categories of members as prescribed in the guidelines, information is collected and

presented in Table 3.9. It could be seen from the data presented in the table that CBOs are

formed in all the sub-watersheds as required under the guidelines.

The Executive Committees formed have members representing the Panchayat Raj

institution i.e G.P. and women varying from 11.0 (Hangargihalla, Kotegangur and Shirur sub-

watersheds) to 21% (Kotbala sub-watershed). The representation of members from

vulnerable groups ranged from 8.0 to 59.3%. These differences were due to variations in the

population of the vulnerable groups in a given sub-watershed. The members were selected

unanimously through Grama Sabha.

User groups are formed on area basis as per the drainage line. The number of groups

varied from ‘4’ to ‘60’ due to variations in the number of villages and households. In User

Groups women headed households are also considered by making them as members in the

group. Women enrolling in U.G are a clear indication that communities are mobilized as

required under the guidelines.

Watershed Development Team consisting of multi – disciplinary team representing

agriculture, horticulture, forestry and animal husbandry is formed for each sub-watershed.

These staff is well trained in the areas of resource conservation and management. These

teams have acted as facilitators for implementing the programme. This becomes clear when

one examines the type of entry point activity undertaken (identification process and its

implementation).


56

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

Name of the

SWS

E.C U.G S.H.G

No.

of

grou

ps

No. of

membe

rs

Representati

ons from

local

institution

Women

representat

ion

U.G

Representa

tion

S.H.G

representat

ion

S.C/S.T

representat

ion

No.

of

grou

ps

No. of

Memb

ers

No.

of

grou

ps

No. of

Memb

ers

%

Andavalli 3 45 NA 40.0 NA NA 22.2 4 80 48 720

Chikkamaluru 2 24 6 42 42 42 9 6 290 21 336

Chinchahalli 3 36 9 (25.02) 50 12 18 8 45 1431 60 1008

Dharmapur 5 75 NA 44.0 NA NA 37.3 29 1156 54 1080

Doddabandarg

hatta 3 44 12 45.5 44.6 33.45 15.6 34 600 70 1146

Gajapura 3 43 NA 46.5 NA NA 44.2 26 1137 25 365

Halenahalli 2 24 8 54.6 42 33.6 33.6 24 480 31 531

Hangargihalla 2 22 NA 54.5 NA NA 45.5 20 1135 27 411

Hasagal 2 30 NA 43.3 NA NA 50.0 50 3700 30 414

Hattinala 3 41 NA 53.7 NA NA 51.2 48 580 33 397

Honnavara 2 30 8 (22.24) 15 12 12 10 40 800 30 613

Jambodahalla 3 47 6 18 29 12 9 37 706 50 746

Kadakola 5 70 NA 14.3 NA NA 25.0 49 3437 47 786

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 4 50 19 15 19 15 13 41 820 61 859

Khanapur 2 30 NA 26.7 NA NA 46.7 40 535 30 862

Komaranahalli 4 51 14 43.34 45.3 35.5 52.1 26 520 40 510

Kotbala 2 42 NA 14.3 NA NA 21.4 37 618 46 659

Koteganguru 1 11 4 45.5 45.5 27.3 36.4 22 708 36 586

Mavathur 2 31 6 35.5 32.2 32.2 37 37 730 39 519

Miyar 4 60 16 24 24 20 32 26 870 43 586

Sagare 3 46 11 21 21 14 18 39 1149 61 859

Saidapur 2 30 NA 50.0 NA NA 33.3 11 220 7 125

Shiruru 1 11 NA 45.5 NA NA 36.4 20 400 25 444


57

Name of the

SWS

E.C U.G S.H.G

No.

of

grou

ps

No. of

membe

rs

Representati

ons from

local

institution

Women

representat

ion

U.G

Representa

tion

S.H.G

representat

ion

S.C/S.T

representat

ion

No.

of

grou

ps

No. of

Memb

ers

No.

of

grou

ps

No. of

Memb

ers

%

Singenahalli 6 80 23 46.25 40 38.25 42.5 60 3245 75 1231

Sundekere 5 75 15 30 30 30 2 40 591 28 446

Thirumale 2 28 6 29 49.9 29 21.5 48 3904 50 830

Totagatti 2 27 NA 11.1 NA NA 48.1 20 400 11 175

Wadagaon 2 27 NA 40.7 NA NA 59.3 29 2312 27 364

Total 80 1130

908 32554 1105 17608

*NA = Not available


58

Capacity building of the CBOs

As the new guidelines insist upon community participation in every aspect of

watershed development, planning, execution and maintenance, a provision is made in the

project design to build the capacities of the community, who are the resource users so as to

convert them into resource managers to prevent degradation and reestablish ecological

balance. Towards this end the department has prepared 24 training modules for imparting to

different groups in three schedules. These trainings are imparted by the Support Organization

(NGOs) recruited for the purpose under the supervision of the department.

The details of capacity building activities of the watershed projects under study are

presented in Table.3.10. It clearly reveals that lot of expenditure has been incurred to build

capacities of the farmers to handle the programme by becoming partners to it in the

watershed area. The Watershed Development Department has trained the NGO staff namely

Team Leader and IG specialist for 5 days at Soil and Water Conservation Training Centers at

Mysore and Vijayapura on the concept of watershed development in general and Integrated

Watershed Management Project and its implementation procedures in particular as well as

their roles and responsibilities. Similarly Data Entry Operator engaged by NGO is trained for

two days at the Head Quarters of the Department regarding data entry and uploading into the

State MIS. These trainings are given only once and incase if there is change in the staff, the

trainings become waste and no provision exists for training the new entrants. Further such

trainings need to be not only focused but also intensive, as these persons in turn are required

to train the CBOs. These aspects need to be considered in the future programmes.

Trainings have been organized to CBOs (EC, UG and SHG members) in all the

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

as resource persons in most of the cases. In all 1130 EC members, 32554 UG members and

17608 SHG members have been trained. However, interactions with stakeholders revealed

that training need to have practical classes or exposure to places where the programmes are

successfully implemented for better understanding as class room lectures may not help them

much. Further they also suggested that refresher courses may help them to better understand

at the time of implementation of the programme, which gives them hands-on experience. In

future programmes, steps need to be taken to address the above, for improving the

programme’s performance.


59

Table 3.10: Trainings for Capacity Building of different CBOs

District Subwatershed

NGO

Members

(No’s)

Expend

iture

(in

Lakh

Rs)

WAs

Trained

(No’s)

Expend

iture

(in

Lakh

Rs)

UG

groups

(No’s)

UG

members

Trained

(No’s)

Expend

iture

(in

Lakh

Rs)

SHG

groups

(No’s)

SHG

Members

Trained

(No’s)

Expend

iture

(in

Lakh

Rs)

EC

groups

(No’s)

EC

members

Trained

(No’s)

Expend

iture

(in

Lakh

Rs)

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 5 0.08 3 - 4 80 0.75 48 720 1.13 3 45 0.17

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 3 0.27 3 0.07 6 290 1.70 21 336 0.59 2 24 0.17

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 3 0.1 6 1.02 45 1431 1.18 60 1008 1.78 3 36 1.16

Yadgir Dharmapur 8 0.5 8 2.5 29 1156 2.25 54 1080 0.71 5 75 0.05

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 3 0.27 5 0.12 34 600 1.33 70 1146 3.72 3 44 0.14

Ballary Gajapura 3 0.18 - - 26 1137 0.85 25 365 0.89 3 43 0.73

Chitradurga Halenahalli 3 0.27 4 0.1 24 480 1.00 31 531 1.53 2 24 0.23

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 6 0.15 3 - 20 1135 1.89 27 411 0.96 2 22 0.08

Koppal Hasagal 8 0.5 7 2.54 50 3700 7.22 30 414 2.10 2 30 0.15

Raichur Hattinala 8 8.5 - - 48 580 1.13 33 397 1.10 3 41 0.06

Mandya Honnavara 3 0.1 4 0.32 40 800 1.61 30 613 1.21 2 30 0.18

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 3 0.1 6 1.02 37 706 1.64 50 746 1.69 3 47 0.14

Haveri Kadakola 5 0.09 1 - 49 3437 4.38 47 786 4.47 5 70 0.04

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 3 0.1 5 0.88 41 820 1.60 61 859 1.67 4 50 0.11

Kalaburagi Khanapur 3 0.81 - - 40 535 0.35 30 862 0.24 2 30 0.60

Gadag Kotbala 3 0.75 1 - 37 618 1.38 46 659 1.43 2 42 0.11

Shivamogga Koteganguru 3 0.27 4 0.1 22 708 1.30 36 586 1.90 1 11 0.04

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 3 0.27 5 0.12 26 520 1.17 40 510 1.54 4 51 0.18

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 3 0.27 5 0.12 37 730 0.19 39 519 0.69 2 31 0.08

Udupi Miyar 3 0.1 5 0.85 26 870 0.34 43 586 0.55 4 60 0.04

Mysore Sagare 3 0.1 5 0.85 39 1149 0.88 61 859 0.72 3 46 0.12

Dharwad Saidapur - - - - 11 220 - 7 125 - 2 30 -

Bagalkote Shiruru 6 0.45 2 - 20 400 1.09 25 444 0.94 1 11 0.04

Kolar Singenahalli 3 0.27 6 0.15 60 3245 1.20 75 1231 0.78 6 80 0.16

Hassan Sundekere 3 0.1 5 0.85 40 591 1.10 28 446 1.05 5 75 0.16

Ramanagara Thirumale 8 0.81 5 0.12 48 3904 1.56 50 830 3.02 2 28 0.09

Belagavi Totagatti 3 - 2 - 20 400 0.66 11 175 0.66 2 27 0.06

Bidar Wadagaon 3 0.045 4 0.06 29 2312 0.80 27 364 2.20 2 27 0.06

Total 111 15.455 104 11.79 908 32554 40.55 1105 17608 39.27 80 1130 5.15


60

EC/UG/SHG Trainings, Net Plan Preparation

UG training, Byragodlu Village, A. Agraharahalla

SWS, Koratagere taluk, Tumkur district

S2 Training, Badagalpura SWS, Gundlupet Taluk,

Chamarajanagara District

E1 Training, Jambodhahalli SWS, Chikkamagalur

District.

Exposure visit to UG members of M.

Agraharahalla SWS, Koratagere taluk, Tumkur

District

3.8. Bio-Physical interventions

Watershed development involves a series of bio-physical measures with the main

objective of in situ conservation of moisture, prevention of soil erosion, rainwater harvesting

and bio mass development. These measures are undertaken on private and common land

resources and drainage lines as deemed necessary by the community in a given watershed. A


61

large variety of interventions for the purpose are undertaken based on the local conditions,

watershed characteristics and climatic conditions. The major aim of the present programme

is to spread investments widely and reach all the beneficiaries so as to achieve equity in

investments through an area-based approach. It is also ensured that beneficiaries will provide

part of the investment depending upon their social status so as to enable them to own the

programme.

In all the watersheds under study, conservation measures like bunding, trenching,

diversion drains, rubble checks, waterways, farm ponds, mini percolation tanks, nala

revetment and plantation works are carried out under area development while check dams,

nalabunds, gokatte and vented dams are carried out as part of drainage line treatment. The

physical and financial progress achieved in different watersheds is presented in Table 3.11.

Table 3.11: Physical Progress Achieved - Soil Conservation

District Subwatershed Bunding (ha)

Total

Expenditure

Planned Achieved (In Lakh Rs.)

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 1198.9 1198.9 102.1

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 1120 1123 55.07

Chitradurga Halenahalli 3060 3060 153.8

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 4457 4457 237.9

Kolar Singenahalli 1250.6 1250.6 90.4

Ramanagara Thirumale 1132 1118 62.1

Shivamogga Koteganguru 267 267 10.19

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 1324.58 1324.58 50.57

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 3617 3617 228.3

Mandya Honnavara 3100 1035 54.2

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 1743 1570 67.1

Hassan Sundekere 233* 233* 23.3

Mysore Sagare 3046 3314 262.3

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 0 0 0

Udupi Miyar 0 0 0

Bidar Wadagaon 4800 3125 216.7

Kalaburagi Khanapur 4854 3880 167.6

Yadgir Dharmapur 4659 2749 164.9

Raichur Hattinala 4224 2777 180.5

Koppal Hasagal 4790 4535 150.90

Ballary Gajapura 3339 3339 167.0

Bagalkote Shiruru 2124 2104 174.1

Belagavi Totagatti 1956 1877 88.3

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 2654 2635 172.55

Dharwad Saidapur 1476 1254 56.4

Gadag Kotbala 4847 4797 205.2

Haveri Kadakola 4350 4347 238.4

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 6500** 4893** 185.5

Total 76130.98 65908.98 3565.4

* Staggered trench **Diversion channel


62

The data presented in the table reveals that, bunding in cultivated areas of the SWSs

has been achieved to the extent of 33 to 109% across the twenty eight watersheds. It was

observed that bunding conserved rain water and improved yields of ragi by 230 to 420 kg/ha

and incase of maize the yield improvement varied from 300 kg/ha to 2000 kg/ha. Such yield

improvements in ragi brought an additional income ranging Rs. 4140/- per ha to Rs. 7500/-

per ha. In case of maize the increase in income varied from Rs 4800/ ha to as high as Rs

24000/-. Consequent to this intervention, the total yield in the watershed area increased by

66.5 to 1656 tonnes across the watersheds. The overall increase in the income ranged from

8.08 lakhs to 198.7 lakhs (Table. 3.12). The results indicate that payback period for the

investment made on the intervention is one to two years.


63

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

District Subwatershed Total Area

(ha)

Area

bunded

(ha)

Crop

Yield

increase

Kg/ha

Increase in

income

Rs./ha

Total

increase in

production

(tons)

Total increase in

income at

watershed level

(lakh Rs.)

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 4510.71 1198.9 Maize 750 9000 683 81.8

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 5094 1123 Ragi 400 7200 448 80.6

Chitradurga Halenahalli 4603 3060 Ragi 420 7560 858.06 154.4

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 5930.09 4457 Maize 400 4800 1655.6 198.7

Kolar Singenahalli 4881 1250.6 Ragi 230 4140 287.64 51.8

Ramanagara Thirumale 5830 1118 Ragi 250 4500 283 50.9

Shivamogga Koteganguru 4612 267 Maize 2000 24000 534 64.1

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 2286.3 1324.8 Ragi 340 6100 450.43 8.08

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 5569.48 3617 - - - - -

Mandya Honnavara 5166.93 1035 Ragi 250 4560 345.8 41.49

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 5489 1570 Maize 300 4560 345.8 41.49

Hassan Sundekere 4978.5 233 Jowar 500 6500 66.5 8.64

Mysore Sagare 4966 3314 - - - - -

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 5031 - - - - - -

Udupi Miyar 4382 8.9 - - - - -

Total

73330.01 15588.1

5840 82920 5957.83 782


64

Bunding and Waste Weirs

Trench-cum-bund in Turuvanuru village,

Sangenahalli SWS, Chitradurga Taluk & District

Waste weirs, Upparigenahalli Village,

Halenahalli SWS, Chitradurga district

Trench cum Bunds laid out in black soils to

promote vigorous crop growth in Belagavi

TCB, Honnavara SWS, Nagamangala Taluk,

Mandya District

The data presented above amply demonstrate that bunding helps to conserve rain

water and increase the proportion of rainfall used in crop production resulting in higher yields

and income (See box-1). Further a bund of 0.54 m2 cross section provides an additional

surface area of 135 sq. m per ha and could be planted with cowpea/ red gram / castor and

other perennial vegetation. This is being done at many places and farmers are realizing

additional income ranging from 5700/ ha to 13,188/ha on seasonal basis.


65

In order to sustain such benefits farmers are required to maintain size and shape of the

bund by periodically dressing as part of annual maintenance and establish appropriate

vegetation. Farmers also need to maintain equalizers particularly in places where waste weirs

are not organized to prevent gullying. It is observed that awareness towards this end is not up

to the mark as of now which should be considered in future programs.

Box-1

Focus group discussions with stake holders revealed that trench cum bund conserved rain water

which consequently helped to improve yields and income. The cost of bunding per ha varied

from Rs.5000/- to Rs. 6500/-. Farmers have realized additional income ranging from Rs.5700/-

to Rs.13,188/- per ha. Thus payback period for the investment is one to two years. This could

be further improved if improved practices are followed.

Name Crop Yield (q/ ha) Income (Rs. / ha)

Before After Before After

Narasimha Murthy

Chikkahosahalli,

Gowribidanur

Maize 25 30 14,375 27,563

Venkataramanappa

Manchenahalli,

Bagepalli

Groundnut,

Redgram

9

0.75

11

1.0

14,107 20,536

Sri Shekarappa

Komaranahalli,

Holalkere

Maize 43.00 47.80 51,600 57,300

Sri Jayappa

Bavihalli,

Davanagere

Maize 27.50 33.00 33,000 39,608

Smt Narasamma

Tavadahalli

Hosakote

Ragi 18.00 22.00 32,000 39,000

Sri Ramappa

Pandavanahalli

Kolar

Ragi 6.20 10.00 11,000 18,000

Maheswarappa

Diggenahalli

Bhadravati

Maize 46.00 52.50 55,000 63,000

Sri Nagaraju

Tumkur

Maize 11.00 17.00 13,200 20,400


66

Safe Disposal Systems

Table 3.13 shows the progress achieved regarding the disposal systems in the

catchment area of the watersheds. The disposal systems included waste weirs, diversion

channels, rubble checks, boulder checks and gully plugs. Not all these interventions were

either planned or taken up in every SWS. For instance, while waste weirs were planned in all

but ten SWSs, gully plugs and recharge ponds were planned and executed only in three SWSs

namely Kelahole (Dakshina Kannada), Miyar (Udupi) and Andavalli (U.K.). Hence, the

achievements in respect of disposal systems varied from one SWS to another. In case of

waste weirs the achievement varied from 1% in Jambodahalla to more than 100% in

Kumaranahalli and Hattinala. Diversion channels were planned in ten watersheds. The

achievement was 100%, in respect of these watersheds except in Andavalli SWS where the

achievement was 75%.

Rubble Check, Marigowdanadoddi Village, Doddayalachegere SWS, Malavalli Taluk,

Mandya District


67

Table 3.13: Physical Progress Achieved with respect to Disposal Systems for safe disposal run -off water District Subwatershed Disposal Systems Total

Expen

diture

(in

Lakh

Rs.)

Waste Weirs

(Nos.)

Diversion Channel

(RMT)

Rubble

Checks

(RMT)

Boulder

Checks

(Nos.)

Waterways Nala revetment

Gully

plugs/shallow

well

Recharge

pond

Planne

d

Achie

ved Planned

Achiev

ed

Plan

ned

Achie

ved

Plan

ned

Achie

ved

Plan

ned

Achie

ved

Planne

d

Achiev

ed

Plan

ned

Achie

ved

Plan

ned

Achie

ved

Bengaluru

Rural Mavathur - - - - - - 65 65 - - - - - - - - 4.20

Chikkaballap

ura

Doddabandarg

hatta 1325 1325 1330 1330 - - 210 210 - - - - - - - - 18.29

Chitradurga Halenahalli 3214 3214 2785 2785 80 80 31 31 - - - - - - - - 38.57

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 2079 2480 - - 78 78 43 43 - - 1214 1214 - - - - 43.6

Kolar Singenahalli - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ramanagara Thirumale 8506 8506 - - 106 106 112 112 - - - - - - - - 47.42

Shivamogga Koteganguru 547 267 13557 13557 17 17 255 255 - - - - - - - - 96.5

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 486 162 - - 4 4 21 21 - - - - - - - - 3.56

Chamarajana

gara Chinchahalli 633 633 - - 10 10 9 9 - - - - - - - - 42.32

Mandya Honnavara 80 80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.15

Chikkamagal

ur Jambodahalla 960 10 22850 3600 1101 40 65 56 - - - - - - - - 41.5

Hassan Sundekere - - 3680 2965 - - - - 1060 1060 - - - - - - 1.53

Mysore Sagare 3897 1717 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.90

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole - - 1500 1500 - - - - 6 6 188.9 188.9 1 1 2 2 269.2

Udupi Miyar - - 53737 35558 - - - - - - - - 15 15 - - 105.7

Bidar Wadagaon 3786 2100 - - - - 18 18 - - - - - - - - 11.33

Kalaburagi Khanapur 3007 1805 - - 5367 5367 6 6 586 586 - - - - 35.2

Yadgir Dharmapur 1080 830 150 150 9 8 3 3 - - - - - - 16.48

Raichur Hattinala 2022 4000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.09

Koppal Hasagal 2754 2010 5800 5800 - - - - 80 80 1020 970 - - - - 24.86

Ballary Gajapura - 1735 - - 1324 1324 21 21 970 970 - - - - 18.0

Bagalkote Shiruru 2104 2104 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 28.94

Belagavi Totagatti 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 1026 1026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.09


68

District Subwatershed Disposal Systems Total

Expen

diture

(in

Lakh

Rs.)

Waste Weirs

(Nos.)

Diversion Channel

(RMT)

Rubble

Checks

(RMT)

Boulder

Checks

(Nos.)

Waterways Nala revetment

Gully

plugs/shallow

well

Recharge

pond

Planne

d

Achie

ved Planned

Achiev

ed

Plan

ned

Achie

ved

Plan

ned

Achie

ved

Plan

ned

Achie

ved

Planne

d

Achiev

ed

Plan

ned

Achie

ved

Plan

ned

Achie

ved

Dharwad Saidapur 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00

Gadag Kotbala 1747 1747 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 47.2

Haveri Kadakola 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00

Uttara

Kannada Andavalli 0 0 65000 48930 0 - - - - - - - 159 159 - - 42.44

Total

39207 35745 170390 109331 8087 7026 855 855 2705 2705 2422.9 2422.9 175 175 2 2 468.79


69

In future programmes, it is essential to include cost of waste weirs within the bund

cost and execute along with bunding. Fortunately as of now no damage is noticed. The

rubble and boulder checks as planned are executed except in Jambodahalla (Table 3.13).

Provision of diversion drain for safe disposal of excess runoff from high ridges has stabilized

agriculture on the downstream. After formation of these channels, the farmers on the

downstream are able to cultivate and diversify the crops (ragi to maize) for higher returns.

(See Box-2).

During field visit it is observed that though the diversion drain is connected to natural

drain, required bed gradient is not given to prevent gullying while making the drain. The

spoil is used to form the bund on the downstream but no vegetation is established. It is

therefore necessary to educate farmers to establish vegetation on the bund and provide

vegetative checks in the gully bed at appropriate places to prevent collapsing of the drain and

gullying. To ensure this, the capacity building should be done at two stages. First stage

during planning and second stage during implementation to develop maintenance mechanism.

Box-2

Diversion channel is formed at the foot hills/ridges/pasture lands to prevent flash floods

destroying crops on the downstream. Usually a channel of 1.5m top width, 0.3 to 9m bottom

width and 0.6 m depth with a gradient of 1 in 200m is made to safely dispose excess runoff

into natural drainage system. The spoil removed is used as a trapezoidal bund on the

downstream side after leaving 1.0m berm. The bund is to be established with suitable

vegetation for its stability and longevity. Benefits are stability to the crops on downstream and

higher incomes.

Yield and income per ha realized before and after execution of diversion channel.

Name Crop Yield Net income (Rs./ha)

Before After Before After Before After

Manjunath

Nallagatta palya

Chikkaballapura

Ragi Maize 25.0 37.5 19,250 36,625

Ramachandrappa

Kodagundanakoppa

Shikaripura

Paddy Paddy 3500 4250 38,500 46,750

Hanumanthappa Ragi Ragi 20 26.7 27,000 34,750


70

Rain Water Harvesting structures

Rain water harvesting structures planned and executed in the selected watersheds

included farm ponds, mini percolation tanks, check dams, nala bunds, vented dams and

gokatte (Table –3.14). It is observed that all the above structures are not planned in all the

watersheds. For example, farm ponds are not considered in three SWS (Table – 3.14). This

clearly suggests that need based planning is adopted in developing the area. This could be

the result of participatory planning. Achievement with respect to different activities such as

farm ponds, check dams, nala bunds, gokatte, vented dams and mini percolation tanks varied

across watersheds. In case of Udupi, Dakshina Kannada and Shivamogga (Koteganguru)

because of terrain conditions vented dams are constructed in place of check dams. These

structures have helped to stabilize gully and also helped to retain water in the off-season to

provide protective irrigation to the crops around the site. The extent of the area irrigated

varied from structure to structure depending upon the site conditions. Across the watersheds

the average total runoff held was 224 T.C.M. The amount of water retained is varied

between the watersheds due to number of structures (Table – 3.15).

Assuming 5% runoff from the average annual rainfall, the runoff expected varied from 570

T.C.M in Saidapur to 9078 T.C.M in Kelahole-Kinalabarehole. The measures have helped to

conserve only 3% in Miyar to 32% in Chikkamalluru. This clearly indicates that the

developmental activities are planned considering the downstream requirements so as to

prevent negative externalities associated with conservation measures. These interventions

have positively impacted groundwater recharge. The same is presented in the table 3.15.

The rise is water table is maximum in Kotegangur (100 m) followed by Chinchahalli (72 m)

and Dharmapur (32m). However, no change is noticed in some watersheds like Kelahole and

Miyar, which may be due to high water table. Such rise in water table helped farmers to

stabilize the irrigated areas under bore wells and provided opportunity to extend area under

irrigation and cropping intensity.


71

Vented dam created in Renjala Village (Survey No.

100) in Karkala taluk, Miyar sub-watershed

Gokatte constructed at Miyar village, Miyar

District, Udupi

Nala Bund, Shanabinagundi Village, Kadur Taluk,

Chikkamagalur District

Farm Pond, Koteganguru Village & SWS,

Shivamogga District


72

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

Water harvesting

District Subwatershed Check Dams

(Nos)

Vented Dams

(Nos)

Nala Bunds

(Nos)

Farm pond

(Nos)

Percolation

Tanks (Nos)

Gokattes

(Nos.)

Total

Expenditu

re (in

Lakh Rs.) Plan

ned

Acehie

ved

Plan

ned

Acehie

ved

Plan

ned

Acehie

ved

Plan

ned

Acehie

ved

Plan

ned

Acehie

ved

Plan

ned

Acehi

eved

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 18 18 - - 41 41 32 32 - - 4 4 209.7

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 2 2 - - 44 45 208 197 82 82 0 0 242.96

Chitradurga Halenahalli 41 41 - - 19 19 1 1 4 4 6 6 172.8

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 43 43 - - 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 183.8

Kolar Singenahalli - - - - 29 29 61 59 1 1 15 12 98.8

Ramanagara Thirumale 47 47 - - 8 6 110 105 - - 1 1 215.9

Shivamogga Koteganguru 17 17 8 9 14 14 93 93 10 10 12 12 261.3

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 24 4 - - 4 4 11 9 5 6 - - 11.02

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 17 17 - - 1 1 10 10 2 2 2 1 94.47

Mandya Honnavara 15 15 - - 14 14 200 169 - - - - 182.0

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 8 3 - - 32 32 22 22 - - 1 1 151.7

Hassan Sundekere 7 7 20 4 - - 191 191 - - 12 10 154.6

Mysore Sagare 13 12 - - 4 1 123 92 1 1 3 3 95.4

Dakshina Kannada Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole

- - 96 96 0 0 29 29 3 3 3 3 269.2

Udupi Miyar - - 37 72 4 4 195 138 - - 4 8 219.3

Bidar Wadagaon 27 27 - - - - 34 34 - - - - 83.4

Kalaburagi Khanapur 16 16 - - - - 41 41 - - - - 62.7

Yadgir Dharmapur 45 43 - - 1 1 11 4 3 1 - - 214.7

Raichur Hattinala 14 6 - - - - 3 3 10 6 - - 47.8

Koppal Hasagal 10 10 - - 6 2 53 51 76 76 16 16 138.9

Ballary Gajapura 37 37 - - 5 5 4 4 15 13 - - 133.3

Bagalkote Shiruru 21 21 0 0 0 0 21 20 1 1 0 0 82.7

Belagavi Totagatti 9 19 0 0 11 11 4 4 8 8 0 0 129.7


73

Water harvesting

District Subwatershed Check Dams

(Nos)

Vented Dams

(Nos)

Nala Bunds

(Nos)

Farm pond

(Nos)

Percolation

Tanks (Nos)

Gokattes

(Nos.)

Total

Expenditu

re (in

Lakh Rs.) Plan

ned

Acehie

ved

Plan

ned

Acehie

ved

Plan

ned

Acehie

ved

Plan

ned

Acehie

ved

Plan

ned

Acehie

ved

Plan

ned

Acehi

eved

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 11 19 0 0 5 6 3 2 4 4 0 0 81.6

Dharwad Saidapur 1 1 0 0 8 8 0 0 5 5 4 4 21.8

Gadag Kotbala 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 72.2

Haveri Kadakola 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 51.00

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 0 0 79 77 0 0 20 20 1 1 16 11 217.02

Total 469 453 240 257 263 259 1481 1301 236 219 122 122 3696.11


74

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

District

Subwatershed

Area

Av

annual

rainfall

(mm)

Expected

runoff

(5% of

Ave.

Rainfall)

Area

bunded

Run off retained in the watershed due to

Change in

water table

depth (m)

Trench

cum

bunds

E.P.A

Farm

ponds/Gokatte

Gully

control

structures

Total

storage

Before

After

(ha) (mm) (X 10

3 m

3) (ha) (X 10

3 m

3) (m)

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 4510.7 757 1707 1198.9 122.94 5.3 7.7 33.11 169.05 235 220

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarg

hatta 5094.0 779 1984 1123 241.07 15.1 159.7 41.7 457.57 355 320

Chitradurga Halenahalli 4603.0 602.8 1387 3060 329.1 7 - 26.77 329.1 94 90

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 5930.1 752 2230 4457 295.6 29.7 6.52 13.6 345.42 160 140

Kolar Singenahalli 4881.0 743 1813 1250.6 167 12.8 14.51 34.65 228.96 355 320

Ramanagara Thirumale 5830.0 928 2705 1118 148.3 4.7 30.25 12.45 195.7 90 60

Shivamogga Koteganguru 4612.0 941 2170 267 47.67 1.6 25.57 23.13 97.97 80 69.5

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 2286.3 557 637 1324 177.3 6.6 9.27 10.5 203.67 191 175

Chamarajanagar

a Chinchahalli 5569.5 882.1 2456 3617 176.8 3.3 88 0.45 189.35 20 14

Mandya Honnavara 5166.9 737 1904 1035 129.7 8.4 51.7 6.7 196.5 170 142

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 5489.0 924 2536 1570 118 3.74 3.3 3.9 188.94 49 44

Hassan Sundekere 4978.5 1023 2547 233 17.3 1.6 61.5 6.2 86.6 47.5 39

Mysore Sagare 4966.0 832 2066 3314.0 395.9 2.8 24.2 5.4 428.3 30 20

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 5031.0 3609 9078 - - - 7.7 8.8 16.5 50 32.5

Udupi Miyar 4382.0 3788 8300 0 0 43 37.9 5.2 86.1 60 51

Bidar Wadagaon 4999 886 2215 3125 307 - - 4.6 4.6 42.5 38

Kalaburagi Khanapur 4854 777 1886 3880 215 - 4.3 1.75 6.05 78 70

Yadgir Dharmapur 5748 822 2362 2749 232 - 1.3 11.44 12.74 301 270

Raichur Hattinala 4224 471 995 2777 302 - 0.4 4.2 4.6 299 241

Koppal Hasagal 4790 590 1413 4535 324 - 21.1 10.7 31.8 38 36

Ballary Gajapura 4200 628 1319 3339 197 - 5.3 14.3 19.6 25.2 23.2


75

District

Subwatershed

Area

Av

annual

rainfall

(mm)

Expected

runoff

(5% of

Ave.

Rainfall)

Area

bunded

Run off retained in the watershed due to

Change in

water table

depth (m)

Trench

cum

bunds

E.P.A

Farm

ponds/Gokatte

Gully

control

structures

Total

storage

Before

After

(ha) (mm) (X 10

3 m

3) (ha) (X 10

3 m

3) (m)

Bagalkote Shiruru 3295 562 926 2104 150 - 2.8 - 2.8 48 42.5

Belagavi Totagatti 2700.3 785 1060 1877 140 - - 1.4 1.4 85 65

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 2654.8 578 767 2635 188 - 0.98 - 0.98 92.5 77.5

Dharwad Saidapur 1476 772 570 1254 105 - 1.26 - - 77.5 50

Gadag Kotbala 4847 612 1483 4797 341 - - 0.14 0.14 85 55

Haveri Kadakola 4959 753 1867 4347 311 - 0.56 - 0.56 33.2 24

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 5138.6 2835 7284 0 0 - 2.86 - 2.86 80 76

Total 127215.7 28925.9 67667 60899.4 5340.68 145.64 568.68 281.09

115.03 98.67


76

3.9. Bio-mass Production

Watershed development under IWMP includes improvement in bio-diversity through

afforestation of common land and promotion of agro-horti and agro-forestry system in private

lands for providing resilience to income to farmers. It is observed that W.D.T and E.C have

paid considerable attention to this kind of intervention and effectively organized activities.

Horticulture and Agro-Horti systems:

Horticulture development is taken up in all SWS and the programme consisted of

providing seedlings to the farmers. The details of horticulture development taken up in the

selected watersheds are presented in Table 3.16. The finance earmarked for the programme

is fully utilized. The seedlings provided mostly consisted of mango, coconut, sapota, lemon,

pomegranate and guava. Cost of each seedling is in the range of Rs. 120 to 140 depending on

the species. It was noticed that the number of seedlings provided varied from 11900 in

Totagatti (Belagavi) sub-watershed to about 317000 in Doddabandaraghatta

(Chikkaballapura) sub-watershed. The number of seedlings provided is less, for example, in

Kolar, Bangalore Rural and Tumkur mainly due to the fact that already considerable number

of fruit trees exist in these watersheds. This clearly indicates that activity is undertaken

considering the need, its performance and interests of the stakeholders. Average survival rate

at the end of project is noticed to vary from 10 to 80 percent across the watersheds under

study. Focus group discussions with stake holders revealed that farmers having watering

facilities are able to protect the plants during summer, whereas the farmers without irrigation

facilities could not protect the plants. It was also noticed that distribution time in relation to

monsoon rains greatly affects the survival percent. For better results farmers feel that

individuals should be permitted to buy the seedlings of their choice and plant by themselves.


77

Table: 3.16. Horticulture species provided in the selected watersheds

District

Subwatershed

Total

Area (ha)

No of

Plants

Average

survival (%)

No of

Farmers

benefited

Major species distributed

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 4510.71 25750 60 135 Mango, coconut, sapota

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 5094 316943 60 124 Mango, coconut, sapota

Chitradurga Halenahalli 4603 65099 44 831 Mango, coconut

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 5930.09 88880 44 904 Mango, coconut, sapota

Kolar Singenahalli 4881 11913 74 342 Mango

Ramanagara Thirumale 5830 72389 50 736 Mango, coconut, sapota

Shivamogga Koteganguru 4612 70664 59 475 Mango, coconut, sapota, spices

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 2286.3 18945 63 432 Mango, coconut, sapota

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 5569.48 48170 56 550 Mango, coconut, sapota

Mandya Honnavara 5166.93 69622 60 2101 Mango, coconut, sapota

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 5489 64304 60 1452 Mango, sapota

Hassan Sundekere 4978.5 211792 55 2305 Mango

Mysore Sagare 4966 58636 75 528 Mango

Dakshina Kannada Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 5031 95336 80 121 Mango, coconut, sapota

Udupi Miyar 4382 29894 70 450 Mango, coconut, sapota

Bidar Wadagaon 5914 37952 56 248 Mango, sapota, guava, lemon,

coconut, drumstick, custard apple

Kalaburagi Khanapur 3465 32174 35 217 Mango, sapota, drumstick,

lemon, coconut, curry leaves

Yadgir Dharmapur 5748 89592 10 3071 Mango, sapota, guava, lemon,

coconut, tamarind

Raichur Hattinala 4224 30165 11 244 Mango, sapota, guava, lemon

Koppal Hasagal 4790 56376 44 418 Mango, coconut, sapota , guava

Ballary Gajapura 4200 24772 38 492 Mango, coconut, sapota

Bagalkote Shiruru 3295.0 31908 42 387

Mango, Sapota, Coconut, Guava,

Custard Apple, Pomegranate and

other species


78

District

Subwatershed

Total

Area (ha)

No of

Plants

Average

survival (%)

No of

Farmers

benefited

Major species distributed

Belagavi Totagatti 2700.3 11900 13 250 Mango, Sapota, Coconut

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 2654.8 16300 48 161 Mango, Sapota, Coconut, Guava,

Custard Apple, Rose

Dharwad Saidapur 1476.0 12400 53 203 Guava, Custard Apple, Mango,

Tamarind

Gadag Kotbala 5878.9 19426 45 167 Mango, Sapota, Coconut, Guava,

Curry Leaves

Haveri Kadakola 4959.0 26532 10 274 Jasmine, Mango, Sapota, Guava,

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 5184.6 38303 35 455 Mango, Sapota, Coconut, Pepper,

Cashew

Total

127819.61 1676137 1350 18073


79

Horticulture intensification:

The programme comprises of intensifying horticulture through high density plantation

with fruit and flower crops for generating higher incomes. Fruit crops and vegetable

cultivation are identified and taken up in few of the selected watersheds for the study, while

flower production is not considered in any of the selected sub watersheds, except in Kadakola

SWS in Haveri. This program was taken up only in 18 of the twenty eight sample SWSs

(Table 3.17). In terms of the expenditure planned in this regard, the achievement varied from

6.8% (in Singenahalli SWS) to 100%.

The farmers who preferred fruit crops are maintaining well and the survival percent is

ranging from 85 and above. Focus group discussions with farmers have revealed that those

who have invested directly towards plants and making pits have been able to achieve 100%

establishment, by timely replacing the dead plants. This clearly indicates that wherever

personal investments are made the programme efficiency improves.

Floriculture was promoted in other watersheds in Bengaluru rural, Davanagere and

Kolar districts in view of the existing traditional occupations. Under the programme, small

and marginal farmers belonging to vulnerable groups with irrigation facilities are considered.

All the selected members have planted rose and started harvesting flowers from 4th

month

after planting. They are realizing an annual income ranging from Rs. 8750 to Rs. 14000 per

unit. The most important feature of this activity is employment generation which is to the

extent of 850 to 1000 man-days/ha/year. This has indirectly helped to reduce migration.


80

Table 3.17: Horticulture intensification


No. identified

Total

Expenditure

Fruits Flowers Vegetables (in Lakh Rs.)

No’s

Area

(ha) No’s

Area

(ha) No’s

Area

(ha) Planned Achd

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 50 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 32683 326.8 0 0 2000 200 63.6 63.6

Chitradurga Halenahalli 0 0 0 0 700 7 2.2 2.2

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 0 0 0 0 10 1050 7.9 7.9

Kolar Singenahalli 15870 158.7 - - - - 117.2 8.0

Ramanagara Thirumale 71169 704 0 0 0 0 162.5 72.7

Shivamogga Koteganguru - - - - - - - -

Tumkur Chikkamaluru - - - - 480 6 1.4 1.4

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 49580 486.5 - - - - 113.7 113.7

Mandya Honnavara - 0 - - - - - -

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 1452 365 - - 960 96 63. 7 21.6

Hassan Sundekere - - - - 800 8 2.4 2.4

Mysore Sagare - - - - - - - -

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 986 675 - - - - 10.5 10.5

Udupi Miyar 98 90 - - 1890 780 11.0 10.3

Bidar Wadagaon 37,952 267 - - - - 56.9 36.9

Kalaburagi Khanapur 32,174 270 - - - - 63.9 55.1

Yadgir Dharmapur 89,592 584 - - - - 79.0 77.4

Raichur Hattinala 30,165 571 - - - - 79.0 32.3

Koppal Hasagal 56,376 635 - - - - 87.1 88.4

Ballary Gajapura 24,772 250 - - - - 26.6 22.7

Bagalkote Shiruru 31,908 389 0 0 100 10 46.0 45.2

Belagavi Totagatti 11,900 119 0 0 180 18 47.0 39.2

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 16,300 163 0 0 400 40 102.0 89.2

Dharwad Saidapur 12,400 124 0 0 358 362.7 9.5 8.3

Gadag Kotbala 19,426 194 0 0 0 0 46.0 38.8

Haveri Kadakola 26,532 265.3 3,17,971 624.3 800 80 64.8 68.0

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 38,303 192 0 0 0 0 17.5 17.0

Total

599,688 6829.8 3,17,971 624.3 8678 2651.7 749.2 933


81

Horticulture – Mango planting in P. Gangapur Village,

Senigenahalli SWS, Mulabagal taluk, Kolar district

Horticulture-Guava plantation started yielding in

Bagalakote

Horticulture-Drumstick started yielding in Bagalakote Blossom of flowers in Haveri

Unit cost for different agro forestry plantings is given below

Farm forestry and agro forestry 71.8

Institutional planting 219.8

Road side palnting 467.5

Drainage line planting 92.7

Common land (pit planting) 166.6

Common land (trench planting) 89.95

Agave suckers/ha (1600 suckers/ha) 30550

Bund sowing/ha 2400


82

Agro-forestry

Promotion of agro-forestry is one of the activities undertaken in watershed

development program. Accordingly, this program has been launched in all the sample SWSs.

Table 3.18 shows the details of agro-forestry program taken up in the sample SWSs. The

program involved providing seedlings to the farmers and educating them regarding their

cultivation. Expenditure-wise, the achievement varied from 68 % (Kotbala SWS) to 100 % in

others.

Table 3.18: Details of seedlings provided for promoting agro-forestry


Area

(ha)

No of

plants

Survival

%

Beneficiaries

(No.)

Expenditure

(in lakhs)

Planned Achd

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 4510.71 123200 48.5 635 49.3 49.3

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 5094 145504 46.5 2840 58.2 58.2

Chitradurga Halenahalli 4603 45850 48 314 18.3 18.3

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 5930.09 203103 42.5 896 81.2 81.2

Kolar Singenahalli 4881 125900 50 1347 50.4 50.4

Ramanagara Thirumale 5830 249363 61 2288 99.8 99.8

Shivamogga Koteganguru 4612 31050 60 371 12.4 12.4

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 2286.3 58780 47.5 490 23.5 23.5

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 5569.48 155325 68 3241 62.1 62.1

Mandya Honnavara 5166.93 181121 63.5 4323 72.4 72.4

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 5489 38211 93.5 1659 15.3 15.3

Hassan Sundekere 4978.5 66913 67 2168 26.8 26.8

Mysore Sagare 4966 137587 86 3692 51.0 51.0

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 5031 458313 91 2012 183.3 183.3

Udupi Miyar 4382 73267 84 1330 29.3 29.3

Bidar Wadagaon 5914 101180 24.5 191 60.0 57.0

Kalaburagi Khanapur 3465 41800 21.2 339 62.2 60.0

Yadgir Dharmapur 5748 231200 33.2 3795 91.4 91.3

Raichur Hattinala 4224 145700 9 769 24.8 24.7

Koppal Hasagal 4790 158502 20.3 2061 66.0 66.0

Ballary Gajapura 4200 132330 28.6 897 54.7 54.3

Bagalkote Shiruru 3295 46396 31.5 280 50.1 54.0

Belagavi Totagatti 2700.3 11270 39.5 110 4.6 3.9

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 2654.8 8500 12.9 99 3.2 3.1

Dharwad Saidapur 1476 37542 22.9 307 11.5 11.2

Gadag Kotbala 5878.9 19743 21.5 2034 57.6 39.3

Haveri Kadakola 4959 37500 24.5 255 72.8 74.5

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 5184.6 .- - - -

Total 127819.61 3065150 1246.6 38743 1392.2 1372.6


83

Forestry activities in watersheds

Agro-Forestry, Margowdanahalli Village, K R

Nagar Taluk, Mysore District

Healthy growth of Teak plants in Haveri

Forestry Plantation, Dasanapura SWS,

Hunsur/Neralakuppe Taluk, Mysore District

Forestry (Hebbevu, Red) Achagallidodd

Village, Chinchahalli SWS, Kollegala Taluk,



84

In the watershed development programme, the practice of planting trees along with

agricultural crops in cropped areas is undertaken. It is expected that such a practice would

supply the required timber, minor fruits and retain rain water, protect crops from the

advective energy and prevent soil erosion. If done with proper planning and at appropriate

sites, it can become a commercially viable solution for many human needs without disturbing

ecological balance. The programme is implemented in all the watersheds and the major

species provided are teak, silver oak, pongamia, neem, tamarind, bamboo etc. and the no. of

seedlings supplied and survived after 3 years along with expenditure is presented in Table

3.18. It could be seen that the survival percent varied from 9 to 91% among the species and

across the districts. As a result, the density of different species per 100 ha improved

remarkably. The number of beneficiaries varied from 99 to more than 4000. The density with

respect to teak improved from 40 to 1458 and silver oak from 150 to 824. The increase in

density with respect to other species is nominal.

Afforestation

Afforestation is done to increase ground cover with the trees to help in carbon

capture, sequestration and to improve bio-diversity. It is intended to strengthen the tree crop

areas. It is hoped to serve dual purpose of developing non forest land and also to meet the

domestic demand of fuel and timber wood. Such a practice helps to establish favorable

micro-climatic condition at the village level.

The public lands as well as private wastelands and undulating/sloppy/terrain zones in

a watershed area can be brought under forests as an integral part of watershed development.

Afforestation has multiple salutary effects on the environment and economy of the region.

Besides checking run-off of rain water and preventing soil erosion, trees provide the badly

needed local timber and non-timber forest products. Accordingly afforestation was

undertaken in all SWSs under evaluation. This program included planting and nurturing

seedlings of appropriate varieties of trees in common property lands. At the time of

evaluation, it was found that the survival rate of seedlings planted varied from 20% in case of

Halenahalli SWS to 60 % in Doddabandarghatta and Chikkamaluru SWSs. The average

survival rate was about 30 % for all the SWSs. The species planted were silver oak, teak and

Hebbevu. In order to improve performance, it is better to promote species native to the area

and those that will provide benefits to the Society using well grown tall seedlings before the

onset of monsoon (Table 3.19).


85

Table 3.19: Afforestation activities in the common lands


Common land

Expenditure (Rs.

lakhs)

Area

Covered

(ha)

No. of

Seedlings

Planted

%

Survival Planned Achieved

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 58 2320 39 9.28 9.28

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 20 8000 30 3.2 3.2

Chitradurga Halenahalli 40 4000 20 1.6 1.6

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 5 3000 46 1.2 1.2

Kolar Singenahalli 7.76 4850 49 1.94 1.94

Ramanagara Thirumale 11.7 7040 40 2.82 2.82

Shivamogga Koteganguru 309 103600 53 41.44 41.44

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 7.5 3000 41 1.2 1.2

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 55 11000 40 4.84 4.84

Mandya Honnavara 18 3416 30 1.37 1.37

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 253 63315 30 28.50 28.50

Hassan Sundekere - - - - -

Mysore Sagare 113.3 3500 40 0.14 0.14

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 10 1279 65 0.60 0.60

Udupi Miyar 8 2000 65 0.90 0.90

Bidar Wadagaon 19.54 1954 37 0.12 0.67

Kalaburagi Khanapur 16.4 1640 27 1.64 1.64

Yadgir Dharmapur 13.78 1520 27 10.96 0.68

Raichur Hattinala 350 80185 7 54.6 52.5

Koppal Hasagal 61.85 6185 10 0.5 0.484

Ballary Gajapura 438 49900 52 25.39 24.95

Bagalkote Shiruru 131.03 143569 50 11 6

Belagavi Totagatti 1.5 100 10 0 0

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 0 0 0 0 0

Dharwad Saidapur 0 0 0 0 0

Gadag Kotbala 0.6 100 5 3.51 1.01

Haveri Kadakola 0 0 0 0 0

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 1455 110535 45 38.32 38.32

Total

3403.96 547998

208.87 189.08

3.10 Production system

Livestock activities

Livestock activities is an important subsidiary component for rainfed farmers as it

provides additional income to the family apart from providing farm yard manure to enrich

soil fertility. In fact it is a major income to the landless, small and marginal farmers who

maintain livestock. Accordingly budget provision has been made in the project to the extent

of 4 per cent of project cost to undertake livestock improvement and animal husbandry


86

activities. Animal health camps, village based trainings for effective maintenance of

livestock, fodder enrichment, silage making, azolla production, and increasing green fodder

production through distribution of fodder minikits both perennial and annual, and

construction of animal shelters (cattle sheds and sheep pens) are the important activities taken

up by the ECs facilitated by the project authorities in the watersheds.

Animal health camps are widely acclaimed by the stakeholders as they were able to

get their animals treated due to non-availability of veterinary services within their reach. The

project has proposed to organize two camps in each village or a cluster of villages which are

nearby and VBT involving women so as to enable them to take care of the livestock. The

details of the animal health camps conducted, animals treated, expenditure involved and its

impact on reduction of diseases are presented in Table 3.20. It could be seen from the data

presented in table that in all 420 camps are organized to cover 531 villages by spending Rs

76.85 lakhs. Animals treated during the camps included birds, cows, buffaloes, goat and

sheep. Among the treated livestock, cattle and cows are more in number and it helped to

reduce the disease incidence apart from improving health and productivity. The treatment

records available at veterinary hospitals have shown less number of cases subsequent to the

camps.


87

Village Based Trainings/ Animal Health Camp

VBT training, Byragodlu Village, A.

Agraharahalla SWS, Koratagere taluk, Tumkur

district

Animal Health Camp in Vadrepalya village,

Musturu SWS, Chikkaballapura Taluk & District

VBT, Krishnagowdanadoddi Village,

Doddayalachegere SWS, Mandya District

Animal Health Camp, Chinchahalli SWS,



88

Table 3.20: Status of Animal Health Camps

District

Sub watershed

Target Achievement Reduction

in

theinciden

ce of

disease

(%)

First Round Second Round

Camp

s

Villag

e

Financ

e

(lakhs)

Camp

s

Villag

e

Animal

s

treated

Financ

e

(lakhs)

Camp

s

Villag

e

Animal

s

treated

Financ

e

(lakhs)

Bengaluru

Rural Mavathur 28 28 6.75 14 28 855 3.38 14 28 855 3.38 6-9

Chikkaballapur

a

Doddabandarghat

ta 45 26 10.85 16 26 10334 5.55 15 26 10534 5.3 10-22

Chitradurga Halenahalli 14 14 3.86 7 14 8221 1.69 7 14 8821 1.45 8-20

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 16 7 3.38 7 7 15257 1.69 9 7 153391 1.69 3-10

Kolar Singenahalli 24 36 5.79 12 36 8360 2.89 12 36 8685 2.89 5-15

Ramanagara Thirumale 12 26 2.89 6 26 9500 1.45 6 26 9160 1.45 10-40

Shivamogga Koteganguru 18 9 4.34 9 9 653 1.69 9 9 565 1.69 2-5

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 14 10 3.38 7 10 2541 1.69 7 10 2526 1.69 3-8

Chamarajanaga

ra Chinchahalli 17 12 4.25 17 12 6365 4.25 0 0 0 0 25-50

Mandya Honnavara 10 26 2.5 10 26 3706 2.5 8 26 3047 2 25-45

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 18 13 2 9 13 1890 2 9 13 1769 2 15-35

Hassan Sundekere 20 10 2.5 10 10 1952 2.5 10 10 1960 5.0 10-25

Mysore Sagare 22 10 2.85 10 15 3443 2.85 12 15 3686 3 25-50

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 11 11 2.6 6 11 250 1.4 5 11 NA 0.48 10-30

Udupi Miyar 9 9 1 4 4 924 0.48 5 3 360 0.72 10-15

Bidar Wadagaon 27 NA 6 12 NA 2660 NA 15 NA 2620 NA 9-14

Kalaburagi Khanapur 6 NA 1.5 3 NA 1482 NA 3 NA 1902 NA 10-13

Yadgir Dharmapur 24 NA 6 12 NA 7734 NA 12 NA NA NA 9-11

Raichur Hattinala 12 NA 3 6 NA 2127 NA 6 NA NA NA 10-12


89

District

Sub watershed

Target Achievement Reduction

in

theinciden

ce of

disease

(%)

First Round Second Round

Camp

s

Villag

e

Financ

e

(lakhs)

Camp

s

Villag

e

Animal

s

treated

Financ

e

(lakhs)

Camp

s

Villag

e

Animal

s

treated

Financ

e

(lakhs)

Koppal Hasagal 18 NA 4.5 9 NA 9635 NA 9 NA NA NA 15-18

Ballari Gajapura 12 NA 3 6 NA 978 NA 2 NA NA NA 25-30

Bagalkote Shiruru 12 2 3 4 1 1863 1 - - - - 5-10

Belagavi Totagatti 6 4 1 6 4 1970 1 - - - - 8-12

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 17 3 0.8 17 17 4841 0.8 - - - - 4-10

Dharwad Saidapur 2 3 0.5 2 3 107 0.5 - - - - 12-15

Gadag Kotbala 5 5 1.25 5 5 1842 1.3 4 4 1740 NA 8-15

Haveri Kadakola 16 8 2 8 8 906 2 1 1 NA NA 10-25

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 10 13 2.5 6 7 846 1.5 - - - - 10-15

Total

445 285 93.99 240 292 111242 44.11 180 239 226818 32.74


90

As per the opinion of District Officials, the Animal health camps are the most

successful programme due to the fact that i) Foot and Mouth disease is a highly contagious

disease of cloven-footed animals including cattle, sheep, goat and pigs. The F&M disease is

controlled in the watershed villages by at least 55to60% in animals. ii) Enterotoxemia (ET) is

a deadly disease of sheep and goats; suitable treatment has lowered mortality of sheep by

60% and more in all local breeds as all animals were compulsorily treated. iii) Mastitis -

denotes an inflammation of the udder and is responsible for heavy financial loss to dairy

farmers due to discard of milk, reduced production of milk and butter, decreased market

value of cow and increased cost of drugs and veterinary services. In addition to this, the

mastitis milk causes deadly diseases like tuberculosis, brucellosis, sore throat, and food

poisoning etc. in human beings. Treatment to the affected cattle has lowered this disease by

over 62 to 65%. iv) Deworming in Cows and Heifers'(reduction by 55 to 65%) and infertility

treatment (reduction by 30 to 42%) have lead to increase in fertility of cows. Fodder

enrichment with simple techniques, awareness of animal maintenance through VBTs and

improvement of knowledge of local farmers on the need to contact local veterinary services

has increased milk yield by 20% which is visible in terms of additional cans of milk pooled

in each of the milk pooling centre.

VBT Trainings

VBTs have been organized in all the districts. Total number of programmes

ranged from four (Miyar) to 204 (Singenahalli). Members attending the training ranged

from 162 in Gajapura SWs, Ballary district. to more than 20,000 in Singenahalli SWS, Kolar

district. A total of 70295 members have attended the training. It was observed that women

participation in the training was much more than men. The feedback collected from the

community members, who attended the training, revealed that they desire to have these

trainings frequently. Hence a decision has been taken to conduct these trainings once in 6

months and the same was followed in all the districts. The details of the trainings conducted

are presented in the Table 3.21.


91

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

different watersheds.


Total

VBTs

conducted

(Nos.)

Persons

trained

(Nos.)


Total

VBTs

conducted

(Nos.)

Persons

trained

(Nos.)

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 46 1794 Udupi Miyar 4 200

Chikkaballapura Doddabandar

ghatta 105 8615 Bidar Wadagaon 6 1143

Chitradurga Halenahalli 53 2300 Kalaburagi Khanapur 9 250

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 75 3606 Yadgir Dharmapur 10 280

Kolar Singenahalli 204 20235 Raichur Hattinala 30 560

Ramanagara Thirumale 46 4575 Koppal Hasagal 8 337

Shivamogga Koteganguru 29 5506 Ballary Gajapura 5 162

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 86 3345 Bagalkote Shiruru 1 70

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 26 1512 Belagavi Totagatti 3 225

Mandya Honnavara 49 3081 Vijayapura Hangargihalla 3 168

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 52 2673 Dharwad Saidapur 3 124

Hassan Sundekere 75 4788 Gadag Kotbala 3 262

Mysore Sagare 25 3383 Haveri Kadakola 3 244

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 18 1950

Uttara

Kannada Andavalli 3 159

Total

889 67363

91 4184

In general, farmers are not aware of the fodder and nutrition requirement with respect

to different categories of livestock used for milching, draught, meat and wool production. So,

also the type of diseases for which they are prone. As a result the performance of the

livestock maintained at present is much below the average level. Village based trainings

have helped them to take timely steps for improving their performance.

Status of livestock improvement

The activities implemented across the division are, installation of Trevis, construction

of Azolla production units, Cattlesheds and Sheep pens and promotion of Fodder production.

The contribution from the farmers is collected for implementing activities that require

maintenance subsequently. The progress achieved is presented below in Table 3.22.


92

Fodder Mini-kits

Fodder mini-kits in Thalya village, Halemahalli

SWS, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District

Fodder Production, Nagawala SWS, Mysore

Taluk

Fodder Production, Nagamangal Village & SWS,

Mandya District

Fodder production in Kotegangur SWS,

Shivamogga Taluk & District


93

Table 3.22: Status of Livestock and production system activities

District

Sub watershed

Trevis

No. of

Trevis

installed

No. of cattle

sheds

constructed

No. of sheep

pens

constructed

Silag

e pits

Azolla

producti

on

Drum

irrigatio

n (Nos.)

Hone

y bee

(Nos.)

Drip

irrigatio

n (Nos.)

Vegeta

ble kits

(Nos.)

Sprinkler

s (Nos.)

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 6 40 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 106

Chikkaballapura Doddabandargh

atta 16 19 11 13 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chitradurga Halenahalli 42 45 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 49

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 4 58 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 205

Kolar Singenahalli 4 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ramanagara Thirumale 7 9 1 0 2 4 0 0 0 0

Shivamogga Koteganguru 18 26 2 19 185 0 2 0 0 97

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67

Chamarajanagar

a Chinchahalli 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mandya Honnavara 10 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 6 15 1 9 60 0 0 0 0 10

Hassan Sundekere 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 326

Mysore Sagare 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 0 338 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Udupi Miyar 0 128 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 73

Bidar Wadagaon 0 110 32 0 0 6 0 6 560 40

Kalaburagi Khanapur 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 7

Yadgir Dharmapur 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82

Raichur Hattinala 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1200 0

Koppal Hasagal 4 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 155 52

Ballary Gajapura 2 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 150 15

Bagalkote Shiruru 3 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 47


94

District

Sub watershed

Trevis

No. of

Trevis

installed

No. of cattle

sheds

constructed

No. of sheep

pens

constructed

Silag

e pits

Azolla

producti

on

Drum

irrigatio

n (Nos.)

Hone

y bee

(Nos.)

Drip

irrigatio

n (Nos.)

Vegeta

ble kits

(Nos.)

Sprinkler

s (Nos.)

Belagavi Totagatti 3 11 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 85

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 63

Dharwad Saidapur 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15

Gadag Kotbala 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20

Haveri Kadakola 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 199

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 17 91 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 15

Total

196 938 129 42 330 10 16 6 2145 1682


95

Installation of Trevis:

There are 291 trevises installed across all the sub-watersheds. In general, these

trevises are fixed at public places to ensure accessibility to all the community members

without any bias.

Construction of Cattlesheds

The highest number of Cattlesheds are constructed in Dakshin Kannada district (338)

followed by Udupi (128) and Bidar (110). A total of 1237 cattlesheds have been constructed

across all the SWS. Wherever it is constructed, specifications are followed and the activity is

liked by the beneficiaries.

Construction of Sheep pen

About 145 sheep pens are constructed. The highest number constructed is in the

district of Bidar (32). The target fixed for constructing pens is almost achieved.

Azolla and silage production.

It is reported that Azolla Production has been initiated in Ramanagara, Shivamogga,

Chikkamagalur, Ballari and Belagavi districts while silage production is taken up in

Chikkaballapura, Chikkamagalur, Mandya and Shivamogga districts. A total of 330

members have taken up Azolla production and are realizing 2 kg green bio-mass per day.

About 42 members have taken up silage production across the watersheds.

One of the important components under the project is to diversify and maximize the

production and productivity of agriculture system as a whole. Promotion of fodder

development programmes under the project has resulted inadequate green fodder production.

As a result of increased availability of fodder, the farmers are using green fodder which

improved milk production by 50 to 100% with consequent improvement in economic status (

See Box-3).

Napier, Rhodes, CO-3, Riverdale, Multi cut sorghum, and African tall maize are

promoted through fodder minikit programme across the districts. Farmers who have received

the kits have sown. The area under perennial grasses is increased by 50 ha in dry land and

100 ha under irrigation. This programme is liked by the farmers as their requirement of

fodder is met and thereby improved the health of livestock. As a result self-sufficiency is

achieved with respect to fodder requirement by many households.

Farmers who are having green fodder production now are expanding the area under

perennial fodder. The focus group discussions with the stake holders revealed demand for

mini-kits and frequent animal health camps. Further, the LEO need to work with


96

beneficiaries to enthuse them to have silage pits so as to have multiplier effect of the benefits

derived.

Box-3

Farmers have increased the area under fodder as well as purchased more number of animals.

They are able to get better feed to their cattle.

Sri. Chikkamuni Reddy a small farmer is one of the beneficiaries of fodder minikit

programme. He was given fodder maize for growing in his field at a cost of Rs. 22000/- for

which the farmer has contributed Rs.220/-

The farmer is maintaining one dairy cow earlier and purchasing all the fodder from outside.

After growing green fodder in his field a series of changes took place as detailed below.

Before After

Number of cows-one He purchased one cow, one buffalo and 2

claves.

Dry and green fodder purchased from

outside cost. Rs. 2150/-

No purchase from outside

Milk yield – 8 ltr/day 30 ltr/day

Milk rate Rs.16/ltr Rate Rs.20/-ltr

Monthly income from milk Rs. 3840/- Monthly income from milk Rs.18000/animal

Subjected to frequent foot and mouth

disease – more expenditure

No disease – no expenditure on disease

Net income Rs.690/cow Net income Rs.8300/cow

The farmer is very happy that green fodder production has helped him and made dairying

more profitable and his herd size is increasing day by day. His milch animals are now

healthy and shining.

Production system improvement

Production system improvement is undertaken through micro enterprise component

under watershed development programme. Department intends to introduce innovative

technologies for saving water so as to improve water use efficiency with irrigated farmers and

through use of improved technologies enhancing productive utilization of conserved

resources. The data related to these aspects is presented in Table 3.22. Financial targets

fixed are fully achieved. In addition to fixing trevis, construction of cattlesheds and sheep

pens, fodder minikits (Table 3.23), health camps and vegetable kits, promotion of micro

irrigation system and crop demonstrations are undertaken. The details of micro irrigation

systems both sprinklers and drips supplied in different watersheds indicates that 1686 micro

irrigation systems are supplied in 21 out of 28 watersheds. Nevertheless, such units are

distributed in other watersheds in the district as per the demand. The farmers are found to be

extremely happy and able to irrigate more area now than before and get higher returns.

It was surprising to see that crop demonstrations with improved technologies are not

organized in spite of the fact that present yields are much lower than that can be achieved.


97

This clearly reflects the weakness of the extension network which needs to be strengthened in

future.

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

selected watersheds


Perennial

fodder

(No/ha)

Fodder

minikits

distributed

(Nos.)

Rainfed Irrigated

No Yield

(Q/ha) No

Yield

(Q/ha)

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 90

1700

1250 7-7.5 540 25-30

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 79 3499 0 0 3578 40-55

Chitradurga Halenahalli 0 1500 1200 4-12 300 22-65

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 0 584 584 10-16 0 0

Kolar Singenahalli 0 800 0 0 800 20-25

Ramanagara Thirumale 40 100 0 0 140 20-30

Shivamogga Koteganguru 700 950 0 0 1650 30-40

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 0 1600 0 0 1600 35-45

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 0 48 48 15-20 0 0

Mandya Honnavara 100 5500 4480 15-20 1120 20-25

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 375 495 635 20-25 235 20-25

Hassan Sundekere 0 800 600 15-20 200 20-25

Mysore Sagare 160 3215 2295 10-12 1080 20-25

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 160 960 960 NA 160 35-40

Udupi Miyar 100 0 0 0 100 30-35

Bidar Wadagaon 0 2340 0 0 2340 45

Kalaburagi Khanapur 0 200 0 0 200 50

Yadgir Dharmapur 0 1000 0 0 1000 40

Raichur Hattinala 0 1500 0 0 1500 40

Koppal Hasagal 0 200 0 0 200 45

Ballary Gajapura 0 225 0 0 225 40

Bagalkote Shiruru 0 1250 1200 10.5-14 50 20.25

Belagavi Totagatti 0 670 600 10.5-14 70 20.25

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 20 985 925 11.5-14 80 20-25

Dharwad Saidapur 0 800 700 10-15 100 20-25

Gadag Kotbala 0 300 150 10-12 150 20-25

Haveri Kadakola 7 1402 1399 10.5-14 10 35-40

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 12.5 200 200 10.5-14 12.5 30-35

Total

1843.5 32823 17226

17440.5


98

3.10. Livelihood activities.

It is now realized that in the process of economic development it would be more

useful to target a group of people having common interest and goal. Such an approach helps

to make the collective wisdom available along with combined resources to undertake any task

and face any risk. This has lead to the emergence of Self Help Groups (SHG) formed out of

women. Government of India felt that group strategy is the best for women empowerment

and would contribute substantially to the economic development. Accordingly a provision

has been made in the project to grade the existing groups for their performance efficiency and

form new groups by considering the left over if any in the given watersheds. The supporting

organization deployed for the purpose have graded the existing SHGs for including under the

project and formed new SHGs considering all those that are left over earlier to ensure justice

among the landless and marginal families. The number of groups thus formed is presented in

Table 3.24.

Across the selected watersheds, there are 585 old groups already existing and

functioning and in addition to this 525 new groups are formed out of left over individuals to

ensure justice and equity among the landless. In all there are 9070 members in the old groups

and 8276 members in the new groups. Distribution of the members according to social class

is presented in Table 3.25. It could be seen from the data presented that all classes are

considered according to their proportion in the total population without any discrimination.

Most of the members belonged to landless and marginal category which indicated equity and

justice in sharing limited benefits.

Income generation activities are promoted through members of SHG. Most of the

members of the SHGs are given EAP training wherein they are made to select an IGA of their

choice and for which business plans for taking up the activities are prepared. Members who

are requiring training for taking up activities requiring skills are provided E.D.P training.

The details of the trainings given are presented in Table 3.26.


99

Table 3.24: Distribution of members across the new and old SHG groups

(graded)

District Subwatershed New SHGs formed

Old (existing

SHGs Total SHGs

No. Members No. Members No. Members

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 7 105 32 414 39 519

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 10 160 60 986 70 1146

Chitradurga Halenahalli 13 301 18 230 31 531

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 32 402 8 108 40 510

Kolar Singenahalli 37 629 38 602 75 1231

Ramanagara Thirumale 5 86 45 744 50 830

Shivamogga Koteganguru 26 422 10 164 36 586

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 21 336 0 0 21 336

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 12 120 48 888 60 1008

Mandya Honnavara 5 90 30 523 30 613

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 15 225 35 521 50 746

Hassan Sundekere 10 152 18 294 28 446

Mysore Sagare 0 0 61 859 61 859

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 35 480 26 379 61 859

Udupi Miyar 26 422 17 164 43 586

Bidar Wadagaon 20 257 7 107 27 364

Kalaburagi Khanapur 10 162 20 438 30 600

Yadgir Dharmapur 49 980 5 100 54 1080

Raichur Hattinala 19 228 14 169 33 397

Koppal Hasagal 24 318 6 96 30 414

Ballary Gajapura 2 24 23 341 25 365

Bagalkote Shiruru 25 444 0 0 25 444

Belagavi Totagatti 11 175 0 0 11 175

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 6 120 21 291 27 411

Dharwad Saidapur 3 60 4 65 7 125

Gadag Kotbala 46 659 0 0 46 659

Haveri Kadakola 46 769 1 17 47 786

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 10 150 38 570 48 720

Total 525 8276 585 9070 1105 17346


100

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


No. of

members

in SHG

SC ST Others

No. % No. % No. %

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 519 208 40 33 6.3 278 54

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 1146 313 27 228 20 605 53

Chitradurga Halenahalli 531 144 27.1 91 17.2 296 55.7

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 510 74 14.5 285 55.9 151 29.6

Kolar Singenahalli 1231 499 40.5 67 5.5 665 54

Ramanagara Thirumale 830 247 29.8 20 2.4 563 67.8

Shivamogga Koteganguru 586 249 42.5 93 15.9 244 41.6

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 336 74 22 57 17 205 61

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 1008 250 24.8 100 9.9 658 65.3

Mandya Honnavara 613 136 26 65 12.4 322 61.6

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 746 125 17 19 3 602 81

Hassan Sundekere 446 23 5.2 50 11.2 373 83.6

Mysore Sagare 859 265 41.6 167 26.2 205 32.2

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 859 98 11.4 47 5.5 713 83.1

Udupi Miyar 586 143 21 7 1 545 78

Bidar Wadagaon 364 72 19.8 110 30.2 182 50.0

Kalaburagi Khanapur 600 170 19.7 32 3.7 660 76.6

Yadgir Dharmapur 1080 344 31.9 46 4.3 690 63.9

Raichur Hattinala 397 122 30.7 76 19.1 199 50.1

Koppal Hasagal 414 87 21.0 73 17.6 254 61.4

Ballary Gajapura 365 88 24.1 135 37.0 142 38.9

Bagalkote Shiruru 444 81 18.2 63 14.2 300 67.6

Belagavi Totagatti 175 38 21.7 9 5.1 128 73.1

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 411 101 24.6 24 5.8 286 69.6

Dharwad Saidapur 125 1 0.8 57 45.6 67 53.6

Gadag Kotbala 659 70 10.6 198 30.0 391 59.3

Haveri Kadakola 786 126 16.0 86 10.9 574 73.0

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 720 17 2.4 0 0.0 703 97.6

Total

17346 4165 23.9 2238 12.9 11001 63.2


101

Table.3.26. Members trained through EAP and SEDP and number adopted in

the watersheds


Members

involved

in EAP

IGA-SDEP training No.

engaged

in IGA

after

training

Non

skill

activity

Nos.

Skill

activity

Nos.

Total

members

trained

Nos.

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 519 130 109 239 64

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 1146 650 227 877 33

Chitradurga Halenahalli 531 63 37 100 36

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 510 407 66 473 310

Kolar Singenahalli 1231 683 375 1058 640

Ramanagara Thirumale 830 582 163 745 305

Shivamogga Koteganguru 586 521 65 586 430

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 336 171 125 296 259

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 1008 0 1008 1008 131

Mandya Honnavara 613 68 455 523 455

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 746 164 582 746 675

Hassan Sundekere 446 113 333 446 52

Mysore Sagare 859 0 0 0 0

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 859 0 810 810 400

Udupi Miyar 586 43 652 695 115

Bidar Wadagaon 364 104 41 145 145

Kalaburagi Khanapur 600 268 12 280 280

Yadgir Dharmapur 1080 245 24 269 269

Raichur Hattinala 397 172 28 200 200

Koppal Hasagal 414 83 76 159 159

Ballary Gajapura 365 153 7 168 160

Bagalkote Shiruru 444 130 314 444 444

Belagavi Totagatti 175 47 0 47 25

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 411 81 65 146 146

Dharwad Saidapur 125 46 76 122 0

Gadag Kotbala 659 0 192 192 167

Haveri Kadakola 786 79 707 786 494

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 720 572 0 572 265

Total

17346 5575 6549 12132 6659


102

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


SHG

groups

Revolving

funds

(Lakhs)

Initial

savings

amount

(Lakhs)

Loan

from

other

sources

(in

lakhs)

Assets

created

(Rs.

Lakhs)

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 39 19.5 10.41 26.5 58.38

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 70 35.0 36.625 36.625 94.77

Chitradurga Halenahalli 31 15.5 40.19 40.19 72.39

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 40 20.0 4.29 5 26.1

Kolar Singenahalli 75 37.5 33.01 132 208.78

Ramanagara Thirumale 50 25.0 4.1 59.85 133.74

Shivamogga Koteganguru 36 18.0 11.36 39 70.5

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 21 10.5 8.15 25 45.18

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 60 30.0 94 182 309.22

Mandya Honnavara 30 15.0 24.75 44.615 88.365

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 50 25.0 22.07 19.7 71.77

Hassan Sundekere 28 14.0 30.19 3.65 48.34

Mysore Sagare 61 30.5 30.07 25 82.47

Dakshina Kannada Kelahole, Kinalabarehole 61 30.5 7.21 20 60.21

Udupi Miyar 43 21.5 5 20 48.4

Bidar Wadagaon 27 13.5 19.54 3.6 36.64

Kalaburagi Khanapur 30 15.0 23.48 17 55.48

Yadgir Dharmapur 54 27.0 23.27 3 53.27

Raichur Hattinala 33 16.5 30.87 54 99.37

Koppal Hasagal 30 15.0 15.76 16.5 46.76

Ballary Gajapura 25 12.5 10.52 12.75 35.77

Bagalkote Shiruru 25 12.5 2.4 2.6 17.5

Belagavi Totagatti 11 5.5 13.15 1.5 20.15

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 27 13.5 18.55 60.8 92.85

Dharwad Saidapur 7 3.5 0 0 3.5

Gadag Kotbala 46 23.0 95.75 34.1 153.85

Haveri Kadakola 47 23.5 14.44 45 82.94

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 48 24.0 21.12 71 116.12

Total 1105 552.5 650.275 1000.98 2232.815


103

Activity: Dairying, Sappi Basavanna

Women SHG

Taluk: Humanabad, District: Bidar

District: Chikkamagalur

SWS: Jambudhahalla

Taluk: Tarikere Activity: Tailoring

District : Mysore Taluk: H.D.Kote

SWS: SagareActivity: IGA training(Tailoring)

District: Raichur

Taluk: Tarikere Activity: Tailoring


104

It could be seen from the data presented in Table 3.26 that the number of people trained

varied from 46 to 100% with the exception of Mysore wherein no member has availed training.

In most of the watersheds, more number of people have opted for non-skill activities. This needs

to be carefully examined as sustainability of such activities may be in danger during drought

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

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

food products) for sustaining the activities as well as benefits associated with it.

Savings made by different groups and number of members linked with bank for serving

loan varied from district to district. The saving amount varied from a minimum of Rs Nil in

Dharwad watershed to Rs 95.75 lakhs in Gadag watershed. These variations are mainly due to

variations in the number of groups and members in the groups (Table 3.27).

Revolving fund and loan provided to SHGs

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

provided to each group. A total revolving fund of Rs. 539.5 lakhs is distributed across

watersheds and bank loan of Rs. 1001 lakhs was obtained to undertake IG activities under Batch

– I in the Bangalore Division. All the members feel that revolving fund was a great boon and

incentive to them to initiate the activity chosen.

Assets created due to I.G.A

The assets created among the existing SHGs in different Watersheds ranged from Rs. 3.5

lakhs in Dharwad to Rs. 309.2 lakhs in Chamrajanagara watershed. A total saving of Rs.150.54

lakhs is generated in the sampled watersheds. The increase in the assets due to the programme is

two to four times when compared to the pre-project status.

Impacts:

The members who have pursued alternative livelihoods started earning additional

income. In some SWS, for example (Box-4) members are earning income ranging from Rs.

2600 to as high as Rs. 1,74,000 and all of them have crossed the poverty line. It clearly

establishes that watershed development programmes have helped to reduce poverty among

landless and vulnerable groups.


105

Box: 4 – SHG members who are pursuing alternative livelihoods are earning more income

and living with self-esteem and moved out of BPL.

Name of the member Taluk Name of

the SHG

Activities

selected

Income Rs. Per year

Before After

Arasamma,

Tumkur

Madhugiri - Sheep rearing 15000 25600

Parvathi, Davanagere Harapanahalli Kaveri Tailoring 15600 33500

Geetha

Ramanagara

Magadi - Goat rearing &

Renting of

Chandrike

108100 142585

Nalani,

Chikkaballapura

Shidlaghatta - Cow rearing 34000 49200

Sumalatha

Kolar

Mulbagal - Cow rearing 28000 42160

Shashirekha,

Shivamogga

Shivamogga - Cow rearing 10000 28000

Ramakka,

Bangalore Rural

Doddaballapura Sri

Valmiki

SHG

Sheep rearing 65000 79600

Drashainamma,

Chitradurga

Holalkere Valmiki

SHG

Goat rearing 43000 61600

Total 318700 462245


106

CHAPTER IV

4. Impact Evaluation

Impact evaluation is an assessment to determine how a given project affects outcome,

whether such effects are intended or unintended. It will also help to understand whether the

programme under the project has brought any physical changes in the area that would have

helped the target population economically or not. Impact evaluations can be used as a tool for

improving the programme and for deriving learning. In view of this, final impact evaluation of

the Batch – I watersheds is undertaken and the results are presented below.

4.1.1. Land Use Changes:

Watershed development envisages use the land according to its capability so as to

optimize production from a given land. Accordingly information is collected under different uses

during pre and end project period, to assess the changes. The data pertaining to all the sample

watersheds is presented in Table 4.1. It could be seen from the table that in most of the cases the

cultivated area increased varying from 9.3 ha in Kumaranahalli watershed to 4507 ha in Kelahole

of Dakshina Kannada dist. However no change in rainfed are is noticed in Raichur and Koppal

districts. This clearly established better use of land resources in the area due to better planning

and education of farmers. It is also noticed that fallow area is increased in Doddabandaraghatta

mainly due to migration of farmers to urban areas. Area under irrigation has increased due to

conservation of resources such as rain water in all watersheds except in Saidapur SWS, Dharwad

district which is converted into rainfed area. The increase in irrigated varied from 5.0 ha in

Kotegangur SWS Shivamogga district to 329.0 ha in Miyar watershed, Udupi district Much of

this increase has come from follow/waterland and partly from rainfed area. This has reduced the

risks associated with rainfed cultivation. In most cases, waste lands are reduced varying from 0

to 509 ha, which is a welcome sign for preventing resource degradation.


107

Table 4.1: Impact of watershed programme on land use changes


SWS

area Changes in land use after implementation of SWS

Rainfed

Irrigate

d Wasteland

Communit

y land

Cultivable

fallow

(ha)

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 4510.7 (+) 446 (+) 64 (-) 149 - (-) 361

Chikkaballapura

Doddabandarghat

ta 5094 (-) 325.75 (+) 9.75 - - (+) 316

Chitradurga Halenahalli 4603 (+) 485.93 (+) 23.26 - - (-) 509.19

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 5930 (+) 9.28 (+) 99.9 - - (-) 109.18

Kolar Singenahalli 4881 (+) 41.48 (+) 63.14 - - (-) 104.62

Ramanagara Thirumale 5830 (+) 191.41 (+) 14 - - (-) 205.41

Shivamogga Koteganguru 4612 (+) 26.6 (+) 4.5 - - (-) 31.1

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 2286.3 (+) 56.4 (+) 35 - - (-) 91.41

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 5569.48 (-) 238 (+) 364 (+) 0.72 (+) 2 (-) 128.72

Mandya Honnavara 5166.93 (+) 31 (+) 25.84 (-) 56.84 -

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 5489 (+) 276.72 (+) 245.6 (-) 522.32 - -

Hassan Sundekere 4978.5 (-) 48.40 (+) 51.4 (-) 3.00 - -

Mysore Sagare 4966 (+) 21.7 (+) 15.24 (-) 36.94 -

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 5031 (+) 506.96 (+) 313.67 (-) 687.20 - (-) 133.43

Udupi Miyar 4382 (+) 17 (+) 329.78 (-) 346.78 - -

Bidar Wadagaon 4999 (+) 50.0 (+) 10.0 (-) 60 0 0

Kalaburagi Khanapur 4854 (-) 35.0 (+) 58.0 (-) 23.0 0 0

Yadgir Dharmapur 5748 (+) 21.0 (+) 10.0 (-) 31.0 0 0

Raichur Hattinala 4224 0 (+) 6.0 (-) 6.0 0 0

Koppal Hasagal 4790 0 (+) 20.0 (-) 20.0 0 0

Ballary Gajapura 4200 (+) 34.0 (+) 30.0 (-) 64.0 0 0

Bagalkote Shiruru 3295 (+) 347 (+) 22 (-) 350 0 (-) 19

Belagavi Totagatti 2700.3 (+) 180 (+) 11 (-) 150 0 (-) 41

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 2654.8 (+) 61 (+) 15 (-) 60 0 (-) 16

Dharwad Saidapur 1476 (+) 10 (-) 10 0 0 0

Gadag Kotbala 4847 (-) 75 (+) 75 0 0 0

Haveri Kadakola 4959 (+) 148 (+) 33 (-) 161 0 (-) 20

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 5138.6 (+) 156 (+) 9 (-) 156 0 (-) 9

127215.6

(+)

3117.48 1958.07 2 316

(-) 722.15 10 2882.97 1779.16

+ Indicates increase in area, - Indicates decrease in area


108

Table 4.2: Change in Land use pattern due to watershed development programmes across 28 watersheds

Sub-watershed

Area under Cultivation [ha]

Cultivable Fallow

Land [ha]

Area under Waste

lands [ha]

Community

Lands/ Habitation

[ha] Total

Area

(ha)

Rainfed Irrigated Total

Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After

Shiruru 2438 2785 180 202 2618 2987 778 795 63 52 93 90 3295

Gajapura 2432 2466 335 365 2767 2831 264 230 311 322 488 488 4200

Totagatti 2359 2539 73 84 2453 2623 243 52 0 0 25 25 2700

Mavathur 2569 3015 196 260 2765 3275 808 447 469 320 469 469 4511

Wadagaon 3400 3450 400 410 3800 3860 129 119 781 781 141 141 4999

Chinchahalli 3196 2958 321 685 3517 3643 944 815 1003 1003 106 108 5569

Doddabandarghatta 2860 2534 675 685 3535 3219 618 934 26 26 915 915 5094

Jambodahalla 1683 1960 223 469 1906 2428 0 0 1907 1385 168 1676 5489

Halenahalli 1983 2469 32 55 2015 2525 958 448 634 634 996 996 4603

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 159 666 935 1249 1094 1915 1309 1175 1738 1051 890 890 5031

Komaranahalli 3950 3960 790 890 4741 4850 178 69 401 401 610 610 5930

Saidapur 1240 1250 236 226 1476 1476 0 0 0 0 0 0 1476

Kotbala 4655 4580 192 267 4847 4847 0 0 0 0 0 0 4847

Sundekere 3883 3834 282 334 4165 4167 0 0 235 232 578 578 4979

Kadakola 4394 3447 300 333 4694 4875 15 5 55 51 30 28 4959

Khanapur 4460 4425 294 352 4754 4777 113 90 854 854 0 0 4854

Singenahalli 3331 3373 417 480 3748 3858 1021 911 20 20 92 92 4881

Hasagal 3965 3965 569 589 4534 4554 0 0 234 214 22 22 4790

Honnavara 3286 3317 775 801 4061 4118 0 0 507 451 598 598 5167

Sagare 4100 4122 680 695 4780 4817 0 0 182 145 4 4 4966

Hatti Nala 3400 3400 54 60 3454 3460 0 0 316 310 454 454 4224

Thirumale 3671 3863 88 102 3759 3965 207 1 165 165 1700 1700 5830

Koteganguru 1593 1620 56 61 1649 1680 88 57 143 143 2762 2762 4642

Chikkamaluru 1893 1950 149 184 2043 2134 138 47 42 42 64 64 2286

Miyar 1790 1773 457 787 2247 2560 0 0 650 337 1485 1485 4382

Andavalli 2420 2576 15 24 2435 2600 175 155 15 9 1292 1175 5139

Hangargihalla 2519 2580 59 74 2578 2654 0 0 135 108 135 123 2655

Dharmapura 3588 3609 482 492 4070 4101 175 160 1321 1242 120 160 5748


109

4.1.2. Soil and water conservation measures:

Trench cum bund in cultivated areas and diversion drains along the foot hills are the

major interventions used in the programme to conserve rain water for prevention of water

erosion. Bunds of cross sections - 0.54, 0.72, 1.07 and 1.2 sq.m and diversion drains of 1.0 to

1.5m top width, 0.5 to 0.6m bottom width and 1.0m depth with side slopes of 1:1 are made.

Bunds of 0.54 and 0.72 sq.m cross are formed by opening trenches of 5.0m length, 0.6 to 1.3m

width depending upon section, and 0.6m depth are made with 60cm equalizers. The spoil from

trenches is used for making bund. These trenches have acted as catch pits for runoff water and

stored the water. In all 64,187ha are covered with these measures across the watersheds. As a

result moisture status in the soil profile improved resulting in higher yields. It also helped to

improve groundwater recharge to benefit the wells on the downstream. Consequently, ragi yields

improved ranging from 230kg/ha to 420kg/ha and so also Maize by 300kg/ha. Such additional

yields brought additional income ranging from Rs. 4000 to Rs. 7500/ha/year. As result the total

production from bunded area of the watershed increased varying from 66.5 to 1656 tonnes across

water sheds (Table – 3.12). Similarly diversion drains stabilized crops adjoining the mounds,

hills and helped to increase their income varying from Rs.3000 to 8000 every year. The extent of

areas thus reclaimed varied from 40 to 50% of the catchment areas.

4.1.3. Drainage line treatment (Water harvesting structures):

Gully control cum water harvesting structures are constructed to prevent gully erosion

and conserve rainwater. Depending upon the size of gully, location, structures like percolation

tanks, check dams, vented dams, gokattes and nalabunds, Farm ponds and Seepage ponds in the

cultivated are constructed across the watersheds, about 282 Check dams, 226 Vented dams, 205

Nala bunds, 1383 farm ponds of different sizes, 206 percolation tanks and 92 gokatte are

executed during work phase of the programme. These structures have helped to store 224 TCM

of rain water which otherwise would have been lost as ranoff. Creation of such storages across

watershed(s) increased the surface water availability period from November to April in many

cases. This has resulted in groundwater recharge as evidenced by the increase in area under

irrigation both on spqtial and time scale. The depth to water levels reduced by 100m in

Kotegangur, 76m in Doddabandanagatta and 72m in Chinchahalli. Consequent to this the

discharge from bore wells improved from 1.0″ to 1.5″ to 2.5″ with increase in pumping period

which is evident from the increase in irrigated area by 27.9% in Kharif, 38.3% during rabi and

36% during summer at the end of the project when compared to the pre-project period.


110

4.1.4. Crops and Cropping Pattern

Across sample watersheds, area under rainfed (Kharif and Rabi seasons) and irrigated

crops (Kharif, rabi and summer seasons) showed an increase due to interventions of watershed.

Under rainfed condition, the overall cropped area showed an increase from 81,217 ha (before

project) to 82,486 ha (at the end of project) and the increase being 1.6% across the watersheds

(Table 4.1a). Further, this increase in rainfed area across watersheds is accomplished largely

through increase in area during Kharif and to a smaller extent during rabi season particularly

from northern Karnataka where rabi crops like Jowar, bengal gram, sunflower, wheat are grown

on black cotton soils. Nevertheless, increase in area during Kharif season after the project was

through growing of maize, ragi, jowar, bajra, groundnut, sunflower and redgram (Table 4.2).

This increase in the area under rainfed conditions is due to bunding activity carried out across the

watersheds.

Under irrigation through the use of tube/open wells, increase in area was to an extent of

21.0% over the irrigated area (9265 ha prior to the project) due to groundwater recharge

consequent to surface water availability from July to December/ January months in water

harvesting structures. This increase in area was reflected in all districts of southern Karnataka

comprising Mysuru and Bengaluru divisions and to a smaller extent in districts of Belagavi

divisions (Table 4.1 and 4.2). Further across watersheds, construction of water harvesting

structures have aided in recharging groundwater and consequential improvement in functioning

of open wells (from 740 Nos. – before project to 808 Nos. after the project) by 9% as well as

tube wells (from 3529 – before project to 4842 – after the project) by 37% – both in quantity

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

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

end of Project). Thus increased water availability due to water harvesting structures have

increased the irrigated area by 28.8% from 9543 ha (before project) to 12,292 ha (at the end of

project) during Kharif, rabi and summer seasons. The area irrigated from open/tube wells was

more during Kharif mainly due to supplemental/ life saving irrigations provided during rain-

deficit period, followed by rabi season, while it was pretty less during summer season due to

cultivation of cereals – maize/ ragi, oilseeds - groundnut, horticulture - flower crops and

vegetables fetching higher income (Table 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4). By comparing crops grown

during Kharif, rabi and summer under irrigated condition, cropping intensity was also worked

out separately for area before project and after the project. Before project, cropping intensity

under irrigated conditions was 168%, while it increased to 173% at the end of the project mainly

due to water availability in water harvesting structures.

Thus interventions under watershed development programmes have helped in improving

the area under irrigation by 28.8% from 9543 ha (before project) and cropping intensity by 5%

from 168% (before project).


111

Table 4.3: Changes in cropping pattern and area under irrigation af ter implementation of watershed

programme.

Name of the

District Name of the SWS

Rainfed area (ha) Irrigated area (ha)

Summer

Gross Cropped

Area (Ha) Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi


Bengaluru Rural Mavathur Cereals 1800 1916 115 145 188 210 2103 2271

Oilseeds 500 750 0 0 50 65 0 0 0 0 550 815

Pulses 269 349 0 0 31 50 0 0 0 0 300 399

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2569 3015 0 0 196 260 0 0 188 210 2953 3485

Chikkaballapur Doddabandarghatta Cereals 1500 2000 500 600 450 475 50 50 15 20 2515 3145

Oilseeds 800 1200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 1200

Pulses 200 350 80 50 150 175 20 30 0 0 450 605

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2500 3550 580 650 600 650 70 80 15 20 3765 4950

Chitradurga Halenahalli Cereals 1324 2122 0 0 36 510 1360 2173

Oilseeds 320 342 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 322 346

Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1644 2464 0 0 38 514 0 0 0 0 1682 2519

Davangere Kumarana halli Cereals 2780 3430 190 250 317 325 280 320 100 200 3667 4525

Oilseeds 400 520 200 310 120 125 131 110 40 50 891 1115

Pulses 25 30 120 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 180

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3205 3980 510 710 437 450 411 430 140 250 4703 5820

Kolar Singenahalli Cereals 312.72 262.72 0 0 416.3 580 0 0 0 0 719.02 842.72

Oilseeds 2560 2430 0 0 320 444.92 0 0 0 0 2880 2874.92

Pulses 140 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 140

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3012.72 2832.72 0 0 736.3 1024.92 0 0 0 0 3739.02 3857.64

Ramanagara Thirumale Cereals 3335.46 3506.87 0 0 88 102 0 0 36 115 3459.46 3723.87

Oilseeds 15 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 21

Pulses 320.65 334.65 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 9 328.65 343.65

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3671.11 3862.52 0 0 88 102 0 0 44 124 3803.11 4088.52

Shivamogga Koteganguru Cereals 1405 1431.6 0 0 248 252.5 0 0 16 20.5 1669 1704.6


112

Name of the



Summer

Gross Cropped



Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1405 1431.6 0 0 248 252.5 0 0 16 20.5 1669 1704.6

Tumkur Chikkamaluru Cereals 1200 1350 0 0 138.36 155.36 15 22 20 48 1373.36 1575.36

Oilseeds 600 650 0 0 19.36 29 0 0 0 0 619.36 679

Pulses 93 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 116

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1893 2116 0 0 157.72 184.36 15 22 20 48 2085.72 2370.36

Chamrahjanagara Chinchahalli Cereals 3000 3025 0 0 410 421 0 0 0 0 3410 3446

Oilseeds 200 204 0 0 61 75.83 0 0 0 0 261 279.83

Pulses 380 382 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380 382

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3580 3611 0 0 471 496.83 0 0 0 0 4051 4107.83

Mandya Honnavara Cereals 2396 2439 890.21 878.21 110.75 257 210.25 428 - - 3607.21 4002.21

Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2396 2439 890.21 878.21 110.75 257 210.25 428 0 0 3607.21 4002.21

Chickamagalur Jambodahalla Cereals 1413 1754 0 0 156 328 0 0 0 0 1569 2082

Oilseeds 100 120 0 0 11.1 0 0 0 0 0 111.1 120

Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial 169.85 85.57 0 0 56.07 140.76 0 0 0 0 226.55 226.33

Total 1682.85 1959.57 0 0 223.17 468.76 0 0 0 0 1906.65 2428.33

Hassan Sundekere Cereals 100 150 0 0 130 165 0 0 0 0 230 315

Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial 3782.84 3730.2 0 0 152.1 168.55 0 0 0 0 3934.94 3898.75

Total 3882.84 3880.2 0 0 282.1 333.55 0 0 0 0 4164.94 4213.75

Mysore Sagare Cereals 1441 1713 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1441 1713

Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pulses 0 0 0 0 408 417 0 0 0 0 408 417

Commercial 2659 2408.78 0 0 272 278 0 0 0 0 2931 2686.78


113

Name of the



Summer

Gross Cropped



Total 4100 4121.78 0 0 680 695 0 0 0 0 4780 4816.78

Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole Cereals 159.74 665.6 882.42 1181 0 0 0 0 0 0 1042.16 1846.6

Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pulses - - 52.97 68.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 52.97 68.06

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 159.74 665.6 935.39 1249.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 1095.13 1914.66

Udupi Miyar Cereals 1790 1773 0 0 0 0 457.22 787 0 0 2247.22 2560

Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1790 1773 0 0 0 0 457.22 787 0 0 2247.22 2560

Bidar Wadagaon Cereals 0 0 340 361 0 0 36 47 0 0 376 408

Oilseeds 650 660 253 250 41 41 81 84 9 22 1034 1057

Pulses 1260 1339 747 660 120 113 122 125 3 7 2252 2244

Commercial 150 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 180

Total 2060 2179 1340 1271 161 154 239 256 12 29 3812 3889

Kalaburagi Khanapur Cereals 2161 2062 172 134 12 57 18 38 8 20 2371 2311

Oilseeds 502 795 115 130 29 45 0 0 0 0 646 970

Pulses 948 1028 112 125 120 92 0 0 2 12 1182 1257

Commercial 450 108 0 43 60 78 55 42 0 0 565 271

Total 4061 3993 399 432 221 272 73 80 10 32 4764 4809

Yadgir Dharmapura Cereals 360 386 1068 1112 152 156 168 172 2 4 1750 1830

Oilseeds 315 338 342 355 83 81 89 90 4 9 833 873

Pulses 1487 1418 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1487 1418

Commercial 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0

Total 2178 2142 1410 1467 235 237 257 262 6 13 4086 4121

Raichur Hattinala Cereals 525 640 350 450 14 8 13 12 0 0 902 1110

Oilseeds 125 150 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 137 162

Pulses 900 1200 330 350 0 10 0 0 11 13 1241 1573

Commercial 1170 610 0 0 15 18 0 0 0 0 1185 628

Total 2720 2600 680 800 41 48 13 12 11 13 3465 3473

Koppal Hasagal Cereals 1513 1736 275 78 98 225 87 256 17 21 1990 2316


114

Name of the



Summer

Gross Cropped



Oilseeds 700 814 320 35 68 0 0 0 0 0 1088 849

Pulses 650 756 82 93 136 0 0 0 0 0 868 849

Commercial 425 453 0 0 135 48 45 60 0 10 605 571

Total 3288 3759 677 206 437 273 132 316 17 31 4551 4585

Ballary Gajapura Cereals 1252 1293 26 0 61 42 108.5 107.5 2 13 1449.5 1455.5

Oilseeds 513 525 495 513 70 103 95 0 0 0 1173 1141

Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial 146 135 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 0 146 247

Total 1911 1953 521 513 131 145 203.5 219.5 2 13 2768.5 2843.5

Bagalkote Shiruru Cereals 159 192 1450 1490 20 24 25 43 0 0 1654 1749

Oilseeds 764 827 250 177 212 288 0 0 218 242 1444 1534

Pulses 50 72 218 237 40 68 0 0 60 70 368 447

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 973 1091 1918 1904 272 380 25 43 278 312 3466 3730

Belagavi Totagatti Cereals 1212 1185 385 400 150 170 0 0 0 0 1747 1755

Oilseeds 495 540 0 0 182 200 0 0 10 15 687 755

Pulses 445 457 600 622 0 0 0 0 8 10 1053 1089

Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2152 2182 985 1022 332 370 0 0 18 25 3487 3599

Vijayapura Hangargihalla Cereals 530 555 578 590 0 0 45 48 0 0 1153 1193

Oilseeds 595 612 82 90 0 0 50 65 0 0 727 767

Pulses 440 497 115 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 555 625

Commercial 90 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 55 142 175

Total 1655 1784 775 808 0 0 95 113 52 55 2577 2760

Dharwad Saidapur Cereals 630 672 45 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 675 728

Oilseeds 500 545 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 58 540 603

Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 24 20 24

Commercial 642 701 160 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 802 856

Total 1772 1918 205 211 0 0 0 0 60 82 2037 2211

Gadag Kotbala Cereals 952 988 1219 1200 0 0 8 10 0 0 2179 2198

Oilseeds 50 72 452 435 15 15 0 0 24 31 541 553

Pulses 471 517 385 455 0 0 50 40 0 0 906 1012

Commercial 1250 1282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1250 1282


115

Name of the



Summer

Gross Cropped



Total 2723 2859 2056 2090 15 15 58 50 24 31 4876 5045

Haveri Kadakola Cereals 2511 2608 340 340 0 0 6 11 0 0 2857 2959

Oilseeds 217 247 0 0 0 0 86 95 0 0 303 342

Pulses 30 36 289 308 0 0 0 0 0 0 319 344

Commercial 1635 1650 0 0 25 36 78 82 0 0 1238 1298

Total 4393 4541 629 648 25 36 170 188 0 0 4717 4943

Uttara Kannada Andavalli Cereals 1882 2032 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 46 1922 2078

Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial 552 572 0 0 23 32 0 0 0 0 575 602

Total 2434 2604 0 0 23 32 0 0 40 46 2497 2680


116

4.1.5: Horticulture and Forestry Activities:

Changes in tree density/ 100 ha was worked out based on cumulative distribution of

saplings of horticulture and forestry, and the area covered during different years in the project.

The tree density prior to start of the programme and after the programme was worked out and

compared for the benefit of increase in the tree density on account of saplings provided.

The data of tree density for Bengaluru and Mysuru divisions are available for pre-project

period. In Bengaluru division, the average tree density/100 ha under horticulture activity

increased from 347 trees (before project) to 803 trees (after the project) and thus registered an

increase of 2.3 times’ density. Similarly in Mysuru division, the average tree density/100 ha

under horticulture activity increased from 843 trees (before project) to 2036 trees (after the

project) and thus registered an increase of 2.4 times’ density. Similar indications on higher tree

density have recorded even in Kalaburagi division (910 trees/ 100 ha at the closure of the

programme) and Belagavi division (649 trees/ 100 ha at the end of the programme). However,

data on initial density is not available for these divisions (Table 4.3). Further density of

horticultural crops is relatively more in southern Karnataka being more in Mysuru division as

compared to northern Karnataka.

Similarly density of tree cover under forestry activity increased across all divisions

(Table 4.3). In Bengaluru division, the average tree density/100 ha under forestry increased from

400 trees (before project) to 1569 trees (after the project) and thus registered an increase of 3.9

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

increased from 790 trees (before project) to 2126 trees (after the project) and thus registered an

increase of 2.7 times’. Similar indications on higher tree density have recorded even in

Kalaburagi division (2803 trees/ 100 ha at the closure of the programme) and Belagavi division

(975 trees/ 100 ha at the end of the programme). Further, higher tree density of forest cover has

been observed in Kalaguragi division (2803 trees/100 ha), followed by Mysuru division (2126

tress/ 100 ha), Bengaluru division (1569 trees/100 ha), and the least being in Belagavi division

(975 trees/ 100 ha).

Thus, implementation of watershed programmes has helped in bringing more area under

tree coverage which would in due course mitigate the ill effects of adverse climatic conditions.


117

Table.4.4: Density of trees / 100 ha across 28 watersheds

Districts

Horticulture Trees’

density/ 100 ha Forestry Trees’ density/ 100 ha

Pre-project Post-project Pre-project Post-project

Bengaluru

Bengaluru Rural 427 745 0 1638

Chikkaballapura 118 221 886 2135

Chitradurga 48 731 132 513

Davanagere 93 500 66 1157

Kolar 421 723 52 802

Ramanagara 315 1026 290 2517

Shivamogga 84 740 42 821

Tumkur 1272 1735 1728 2965

Mysuru

C R Nagar 393 1522 782 2613

Chikkamagalore 1317 1874 52 711

Hassan 1560 2874 583 2297

Mandya 716 1899 751 2310

Mysuru 414 1262 275.17 375

Mangalore 1273 2795 855 2613

Udupi 228 2029 2288 3960

Kalaburagi

Bidar - 759.2 - 2024.0

Kalaburagi - 662.8 - 861.1

Yadgir - 1558.7 - 4022.3

Raichur - 714.1 - 3449.3

Koppal - 1177.0 - 3309.0

Ballary - 589.8 - 3150.7

Belagavi

Bagalkote - 968.4 - 1408.1

Belagavi - 440.7 - 417.4

Vijayapura - 614.0 - 320.2

Dharwad - 840.1 - 2543.5

Gadag - 400.8 - 407.3

Haveri - 535.0 - 756.2

Uttara Kannada - 745.4 - -


118

4.1.6. Village Common Property Resources

Common property resources namely villages forest are for meeting fuel requirement and

grazing land in 28 watersheds was analyzed for changes if any, due to interventions of watershed

development programmes and the data in this regard are presented in Table 4.4. The data

relating to village forest for fuel purpose are available for 20 watersheds only. Out of 20

watersheds, 7 watersheds showed an increase in area for fuel purpose due to afforestation taken

up by the watershed development programmes in the village communes, while no change has

occurred in other 13 watersheds. The increase in the village area for fuel collection ranged from

0.2% in Chikkamaluru SWS, Tumkur district to 190% in Sundekre SWS, Hassan district. With

regard to change in grazing land, a marginal increase in the area ranging from 2% in Kadakola

SWS in Haveri district to 8% in Hangargihalla SWS in Viajayapura district due to planting of

fodder crops. While considerable decrease in grazing land has occurred ranging from 5% in

Shiruru SWS in Bagalakote district to 154% in Halenahalli SWS in Chitradurga district as

compared to the area prevailed during initial stage of project operation. In nine SWS, no change

has occurred in grazing area.

Thus, watershed development programmes has helped to improve utility of the common

land meant for fuel purpose in 7 out of 20 sub-watersheds (where data available) and grazing

land in 5 out 28 sub-watersheds due to common planting of forest species and fodder cuttings. In

7 sub-watersheds out of 28 SWS across the State, there has been reduction in the grazing area

may be due to land being used for other purposes owing to increase in population.


119

Table 4.5: Changes in the availability of Village Common Property Resources

across 28 watersheds

District Subwatershed Resources

Before

W/s –

Area

[ha]

After W/s

– Area

[ha] Trend

Change in

Area [ha]

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur

Village forest for fuel 95 95 Same 0

Grazing Land - - - -

Chikkaballapur

Doddabandargh

atta

Village forest for fuel 50 80 Increase 30

Grazing Land 250 250 Same 0

Chitradurga Halenahalli


Grazing Land 910 756 Decrease -154

Davangere Kumaranahalli



Kolar Singenahalli


Grazing Land 20 25 Increase 5

Ramanagara Thirumale



Shivamogga Koteganguru



Tumkur Chikkamaluru

Village forest for fuel 8.9 9.1 Increase 0.2

Grazing Land - - - 0

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli

Village forest for fuel 12 80 Increased 68


Mandya Honnavara

Village forest for fuel - - - -


Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla



Hassan Sundekere

Village forest for fuel 320 510 Increased 190


Mysore Sagare



Dakshina

Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole



Udupi Miyar



Bidar Wadagaon

Village forest for fuel 140.59 140.59 Same 0

Grazing land 129 119 Decrease -10

Kalaburagi Khanapur



Yadgir Dharmapur



Raichur Hattinala


Grazing land - - - -

Koppal Hasagal


Grazing land - - - -

Ballary Gajapura


Grazing land 263.99 229.99 Decrease -34

Bagalakote Shiruru


Grazing Land 178.11 173.11 Decrease -5

Belagavi Totagatti Village forest for fuel 62 62 Same 0


120


Vijayapura Hangargihalla Grazing Land 68 76 Increase 8

Dharwad Saidapur

Village forest for fuel 86 86 same 0

Grazing Land 112 96 Decrease -16

Gadag Kotbala Grazing Land 72.7 72.7 same 0

Haveri Kadakola

Village forest for fuel 50 50 same 0


Uttara Kannada Andavalli



4.1.7.Livestock Activity and Fodder Production

Fodder mini-kits have been distributed in all districts of Bengaluru division, Mysore

division (except Udupi district), Belagavi division and Kalaburagi division. Across 28

watersheds, fodder min-kits have been distributed to cover an area of 3742.9 ha and the overall

production of green fodder amounted to 54,858.68 tonnes meeting the fodder requirement of the

households, apart from dry fodder obtained through crops grown in their respective fields. Due to

more area under fodder crops in southern Karnataka, more fodder production has been obtained

than the northern parts of Karnataka. The yield of fodder ranged from 22 to 55 q/ha under rainfed

condition, while the fodder yield ranged from 45 to 90 q/ha under irrigated conditions. If

perennial fodders are provided and with supplemental irrigations, fodder yield can be to the tune

of 150 to 250 tonnes/ha/year (from 5 cuts). Fodder mini-kits distribution needs to be done in all

watersheds in order to meet the fodder requirement of livestock which provide substantial

income throughout the year and will be resilience to agriculture during drought period. With this

increased supply of green fodder along with dry fodder, milk yield of cows have shown increase

by 50 to 100% in all districts of southern Karnataka (except Udupi district), while 14% increase

has been observed in Belagavi division (Table 4.6). The distribution of fodder mini-kits in

watersheds have really helped in producing green fodder to meet the fodder requirement of

livestock of many of the households and consequential increase in milk yield was to an extent of

14% in Belagavi division and 50 to 100% in districts of southern Karnataka. This is an important

activity which needs to be strengthened and prioritized for distribution from the initial period

itself to make subsidiary occupation like animal husbandry to provide additional income which

will have complimentary effect in improving the performance of agricultural and horticultural

crops.


121

Table 4.6: Increase in green fodder production and milk yield

District Sub-watershed

Area

under

fodder

min-kits,

ha

Green fodder yield

(q/ha – from two cuts)

Green fodder

production,

tonnes

Increase

in milk

yield, % Rainfed Irrigated

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 109 25 60 3145

50-100

Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 357.8 -- 90 16855.2

Chitradurga Halenahalli 150 25 60 176.75

Davanagere Kumaranahalli 58.4 -- 55 771.65

Kolar Singenahalli 137.2 35 70 3323.25

Ramanagara Thirumale 10.0 -- 75 363.75

Shivamogga Koteganguru 165 -- 70 8834.7

Tumkur Chikkamaluru 240 45 75 12043.75

Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 323.1 35 -- 168

Mandya Honnavara 410 34 45 2072

Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 87 55 75 182.75

Hassan Sundekere 80 35 45 300

Mysore Sagare 321.5 22 45 926

Dakshina Kannada

Kelahole,

Kinalabarehole 112 -- 75 720

Udupi Miyar 0 -- -- --

Bidar Wadagaon 234 25 -- 400

26

Kalaburagi Khanapur 85 25 -- 500

Yadgir Dharmapur 100 25 -- 250

Raichur Hattinala 150 20 -- 267

Koppal Hasagal 39.7 20 -- 40

Ballary Gajapura 22.5 22 -- 48

Bagalkote Shiruru 125 24 45 1110

14

Belagavi Totagatti 57 24 45 284.75

Vijayapura Hangargihalla 98.5 25 45 418.63

Dharwad Saidapur 80 25 45 340

Gadag Kotbala 30 22 45 637.5

Haveri Kadakola 140.2 25 75 595

Uttara Kannada Andavalli 20 25 65 85

Total/ Range* 3742.9 22 – 55* 45 – 90* 54858.68 14 -100*

4.1.8 Adequacy of Drinking Water and Quality

The favorable effect of watershed programmes on parameters namely increase in the

functional efficiency of water sources (tanks, open wells and tube wells), adequacy of drinking

water, changes in quality of water (fluoride content, hard water, salty water, good water), time

spent in fetching drinking water and depth to water table were analyzed in all the 28 sub-

watersheds and presented in Table 4.7.


122

Implementing watershed programmes across the State improved the groundwater

recharge considerably which was reflected in terms of increase in water availability in tanks

(from 62 tanks initially to 85 tanks after the programme, i.e., 37% increase) mostly in districts of

northern Karnataka, open wells (from 175 wells initially to 224 Nos. after the programme, i.e,

28% increase) and tube wells (from 1019 initially to 1092 Nos. after the programme, i.e., 7%

increase).

Improvement in quality of drinking water due to intervention of watershed programmes

was also assessed in 28 watersheds. It revealed that quality of water which was hard/salty water

prior to watershed programme changed to good water in 11 watersheds, while in 1 watershed

(Halenahalli SWS, Chitradurga), fluoride content in drinking water disappeared after the

programme. The remaining 16 watersheds had good water for drinking purpose earlier to

watershed programmes and quality continued further after the programmes. Time spent for

fetching drinking water was reduced from 2 - 20 hours in 9 watersheds particularly in northern

Karnataka (Bidar, Kalaburagi, Yadgir, Raichur, Koppal, Ballary, Dharwad, Haveri and Uttara

Kannada) before the implementation of watershed programmes to 1 – 2 hours after the

programme. This could be mainly due to increased groundwater recharge, water availability in

tanks, open wells and tube wells leading to improvement in quality of water for drinking

purposes (hard/salt water or fluoride content to good/ potable water). In addition, reduction in

depth to ground water due to rise in water table particularly in tube wells was also assessed in 28

watersheds. In 28 watersheds due to groundwater recharge on account of conservation measures,

there has been rise in the water table from 2 m in Hasagal and Gajapura sub-watersheds in

Koppal and Ballary districts respectively to 58 m in Hattinala SWS in Raichur district. This rise

in water table is due to surface water availability for 6 to 7 months (July to January) in water

harvesting structures created in the watershed programmes. In other watersheds also, there has

been moderate increase in water table due to intervention (Table 4.8).


123

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

Sub-watershed/District

Water

Supply

Systems

Source of

drinking water

(Nos.)

Adequacy of

drinking water

[Yes/No]

Quality of drinking

water (Good/Salty/

Hard/Fluoride)

Time spent for

Fetching

drinking water

[hrs]

Depth to Water

Table (m)

Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After

Mavathur/Bengaluru Rural Tank - - No Yes Good Good - - 235 220

Doddabandarghatta/Chikkaballapura Tube wells - - Yes Yes Good Good - - 350-360 310-330

Halenahalli/Chitradurga Wells/Tube

wells 306 346 No Yes Fluoride Good - - 90-98 85-96

Kumaranahalli/Davanagere Wells/Tube

wells 10 15 Yes Yes Fluoride Fluoride - - 120-200 100-180

Singenahalli/Kolar Bore wells - - Yes Yes Good Good - - 350-360 285-310

Thirumale/Ramanagara Wells/Bore

wells 36 42 Yes Yes Good Good - - 80-100 40-80

Koteganguru/Shivamogga Tube wells 20 20 Yes Yes Good Good 2 2 80 69.5

Chikkamaluru/Tumkur Tube wells - - No Yes Salty Good 2 0.5 182-200 165-190

Chinchahalli/Chamarajanagara Tube wells - - Yes Yes Good Good - - 20 14

Honnavara/Mandya Tube wells - - No No Good Good 2 1 165-175 140-145

Jambodahalla/Chikkamagalur Tube wells 44 49 No Yes Hard Good - - 1.9-12.4 0.55-10.3

Sundekere/Hassan Tube wells - - No No Good Good - - 44-51 38-40

Sagare/Mysore Tube wells 20 20 No Yes Good Good - - 30 20

Kelahole, Kinalabarehole/ Dakshina

Kannada Wells

- - Yes Yes Good Good - - 45-55 30-35

Miyar/Udupi Wells/Tube

wells 306 346 No Yes Good Good - - 60 49-52

Wadagaon/ Bidar

Wells 5 5 No Yes Salty Good 2-3 1-2 6.5-11.6 6-9.8

Tube wells 20 24 Yes Yes Good Good 2-4 1-2 42.5 38

Tank 6 9 No Yes Good Good 2-5 1-2 NA NA

Khanapur/ Kalaburagi

Wells 11 11 No Yes Good Good 2-6 1-2 15 13

Tube wells 25 29 Yes Yes Hard Good 2-7 1-2 78 70

Tank 8 12 Yes Yes Good Good 2-8 1-2 NA NA

Dharmapur/ Yadgir

Wells 8 8 No Yes Hard Good 2-9 1-2 2.9 2.5

Tube wells 29 31 Yes Yes Hard Good 2-10 1-2 301 270


Hattinala / Raichur

Wells 2 2 No Yes Salty Good 2-12 1-2 35 30

Tube wells 9 10 Yes Yes Hard/Fluoride Flouride 2-13 1-2 299 241



124

Sub-watershed/District

Water

Supply

Systems

Source of

drinking water

(Nos.)

Adequacy of

drinking water

[Yes/No]

Quality of drinking

water (Good/Salty/

Hard/Fluoride)

Time spent for

Fetching

drinking water

[hrs]

Depth to Water

Table (m)

Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After

Hasagal / Koppal

Wells 8 8 Yes Yes Good Good 2-15 1-2 20 18

Tube wells 13 15 Yes Yes Good Good 2-16 1-2 38 36


Gajapura/ Ballary

Wells 3 5 Yes Yes Hard Good 2-18 1-2 10-30 5-30

Tube wells 25 27 Yes Yes Good Good 2-19 1-2 75-110 65-90


Bagalakote/ Shiruru Wells 4 4

Yes

Yes

Good

Good

30-45

min.

30-40

min.

45-51 40-45 Tube wells 16 21

Tank 0 0

Belagavi/ Totagatti Tube wells 26 32 Yes Yes Hard Good

45-50

min.

30-40

min. 80-90 60-70

Tank 0 0

Vijayapura/ Hangargihalla Well 0 0

Yes Yes Hard Good 30-50

min.

40-45

min. 85-100 70-85 Tube wells 44 49

Tank 0 0

Dharwad/

Saidapur

Wells 0 0

Yes Yes

Hard Hard

1-2 hr 1hr 75-80 40-60 Tube wells 18 22

Tank 2 2

Gadag/

Kotbala

Wells 0 0

Yes

Yes

Salty

Salty

1-2 hr

1hr

80-90

50-60

Tube wells 7 8

Tank

0 0

Haveri/ Kadakola

Wells 2 3

Yes

Yes

Hard

Good

30-45

min.

30-35

min.

33.2 24 Tube wells 41 50

Tank 6 8

Uttara Kannada/ Andavalli Wells 140 186

Yes Yes Good Good 20

min.

15

min. 80 76 Tube wells 4 5

Tank 3 4


125

4.1.9. Depth to Water Table in Tube Wells

The favorable effect of watershed programmes on parameters namely increases in the

functional efficiency of water source particularly tube wells and depth to water table were

analyzed in all the 28 sub-watersheds and presented in Table 4.8.

Implementing watershed programmes across the State improved the groundwater

recharge considerably which was reflected in terms of increase in depth of water table

particularly tube wells, which showed an increase in functional efficiency from 1019 initially to

1092 Nos. after the programme (i.e., 7% increase over the initial tube wells). In addition,

reduction in depth to ground water due to rise in water table was also assessed in 28 watersheds.

In 28 watersheds due to groundwater recharge on account of conservation measures, there has

been rise in the water table from 2 m in Hasagal and Gajapura sub-watersheds in Koppal and

Ballary districts respectively to 58 m in Hattinala SWS in Raichur district. This rise in water

table is due to surface water availability for 6 to 7 months (July to January) in water harvesting

structures created in the watershed programmes. In other watersheds also, there has been

moderate increase in water table due to intervention (Table 4.8).

Table 4.8: Change in depth to water table (in m from ground level) in tube

wells due to intervention of watershed programmes across watersheds

District Subwatershed Total water depth (m)

Before After Change

Bengaluru Rural Mavathur 235 220 15 Chikkaballapura Doddabandarghatta 355 320 35 Chitradurga Halenahalli 94 90 4 Davanagere Kumaranahalli 160 140 20 Kolar Singenahalli 355 320 35 Ramanagara Thirumale 90 60 30 Shivamogga Koteganguru 80 69.5 11 Tumkur Chikkamaluru 191 175 16 Chamarajanagara Chinchahalli 20 14 6 Mandya Honnavara 170 142 28 Chikkamagalur Jambodahalla 49 44 5 Hassan Sundekere 47.5 39 9 Mysore Sagare 30 20 10 Dakshina Kannada Kelahole, Kinalabarehole 50 32.5 18 Udupi Miyar 60 51 11 Bidar Wadagaon 42.5 38 5 Kalaburagi Khanapur 78 70 8


126

District Subwatershed Total water depth (m)

Before After Change

Yadgir Dharmapur 301 270 31 Raichur Hattinala 299 241 58 Koppal Hasagal 38 36 2 Ballary Gajapura 25.2 23.2 2 Bagalkote Shiruru 48 42.5 6 Belagavi Totagatti 85 65 20 Vijayapura Hangargihalla 92.5 77.5 15 Dharwad Saidapur 77.5 50 28 Gadag Kotbala 85 55 30 Haveri Kadakola 33.2 24 9 Uttara Kannada Andavalli 80 76 4 Total 115.03 98.67

4.2. Economic Impacts

4.2.1. Significance of impact evaluation

This impact evaluation subsequent to the launching of the Watershed Development

projects is basically meant to assess the impact of Project interventions on socio-economic

conditions of the villagers in general and farmers in particular. For this purpose, the pre-project

and post-project socio-economic characteristics of 120 sample farmers in each of the twenty-

eight sub-watersheds (SWS’s, for short) were studied and compared. The chief socio-economic

characteristics analyzed in the present study included the size of farm households, the size of the

land holding, per capita income, sources of income to the households and the proportion of farm

income to the total household income, amount of farm loans availed by the farmers, basic

facilities available to the villagers, asset holdings of farmers and yield per hectare of the principal

crops grown in the watershed area.

4.2.2. Average size of farm households

The average size of the farm households is not affected to across the reaches and

watersheds at the end of the project. There was a marginal improvement in average size of farm


127

household by 0.04 from the initial average of 4.63 (Table 4.9), while there was no change in the

size of households in the watersheds of Bengaluru division, and a decline in values in case of

Belagavi and Kalaburagi divisions, the watersheds of Mysuru division registered an increase of

0.35 across all the reaches. The decline in the household size is in tune with the current trend in

the rural areas where the erstwhile joint families are breaking up into nuclear families and

reduction in migration, from villages to urban areas in search of better non-farm employment due

to the employment opportunities created in the project.

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

Division Bengaluru Mysuru Belagavi Kalaburagi

Farm

Location Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

TR 4.86 4.60 4.18 5.00 4.48 4.03 5.58 5.24

MR 4.95 4.80 4.43 4.70 4.54 4.18 5.14 5.00

LR 4.29 4.60 4.31 4.18 4.02 4.24 5.02 5.32

Average 4.70 4.70 4.31 4.66 4.21 4.12 5.31 5.18

Table 4.10: Average Size of Farm households across different Social classes of

farmers (No’s)

Caste Bengaluru Mysuru Belagavi Kalaburagi

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

SC 4.28 4.71 4.63 4.45 4.06 4.2 3.16 3.88

ST 4.45 4.85 3.54 4.31 4.12 4.3 3.2 3.6

Others 4.82 4.7 4.26 4.73 4.11 4.2 9.71 9.07

Average 4.7 4.71 4.31 4.66 4.21 4.12 5.31 5.18

Table 4.11: Average Size of households across different categories of farmers

(No’s)

Size class

Bengaluru Mysuru Belagavi Kalaburagi

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Big 5.75 5.15 4.69 4.68 5.21 5.48 9.21 7.48

Small 4.8 4.93 4.43 4.94 5.51 5.11 6.51 5.11

Marginal 4.73 4.55 4.37 4.59 2.91 3.13 1.91 1.13

Landless labor 3.69 4.21 3.73 4.36 2.16 3.83 2.16 1.83

Average 4.7 4.71 4.31 4.66 4.21 4.12 5.31 5.18


128

Tables 4.10 and 4.11 show the size of households according the social classes and

farm sizes respectively. The average size of the households across the state was found to

improve by 0.28 and 0.44 (from the initial values of 4.03 and 3.83) among the SC and ST

population, respectively. There was a marginal decline in the household size of other

category of farmers.

4.2.3. Size of operational land holdings

The average size of operational land holding has gone up significantly from 1.98 ha to

3.13 ha across all the watersheds after the project. This rise has occurred across all the reaches

within the watershed area as well as across all the social classes of farmers except Belgavi and

Kalaburagi divisions with respect to SC & ST (Table 4.12).Average land holding size across

different farm locations increased from 2ha to 3.1 ha (table 4.13). Across all the watersheds and

different size classes of farmers, the operational holding of big farmers has improved from 3.76

to 6.33 ha, while that of the small farmers has improved from 1.59 ha. to 2.21 ha. The size of

operational holding of marginal farmers has increased from 0.91 ha to 1.25 ha (Table 4.14). This

could happen only due to improvement in economic conditions of the farming communities as a

result of project.

Table 4.12: Average landholding size across different Social-classes of farmers

(ha)

Caste


Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

SC 0.83 2.81 0.88 3.19 1.97 1.41 1.98 1.42

ST 1.73 2.65 0.85 2.54 0.98 0.89 0.96 0.88

Others 1.48 4.19 1.99 4.64 3.41 4.21 3.49 4.23

Average 1.44 3.85 1.74 4.31 2.39 2.17 2.34 2.18

Table 4.13: Average landholding size across different farm locations (ha)

Farm

location


Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

TR 1.49 3.67 1.73 3.84 2.34 2.12 2.44 2.14

MR 1.41 4.08 2.05 5.53 2.66 2.16 2.86 2.26

LR 1.4 3.71 1.46 4.3 1.32 2.19 1.42 2.13

Average 1.44 3.85 1.74 4.31 2.39 2.17 2.34 2.18 * TR-Top Reach, MR-Middle Reach, LR-Lower Reach.

Table 4.14: Landholding size across different categories of farmers (ha)

Size class Bengaluru Mysuru Belagavi Kalaburagi


129

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Before

project

End of

project

Big 3.55 7.11 4.45 7.98 3.54 5.17 3.51 5.07

Small 1.4 2.72 1.32 3.52 1.82 1.31 1.81 1.3

Marginal 0.77 1.72 1.14 1.72 0.87 0.79 0.86 0.76

Landless

labor 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Average 1.44 3.85 1.74 4.31 2.39 2.17 2.34 2.18

The increase in the size of operational holdings is one of the salutary effects of watershed

development programme. Harvesting of otherwise runoff loss helps to bring the hitherto

uncultivated (inoperative) lands into operation. Thus, the watershed development programmes in

the area under study have led to an increase in the size of the operational holding.

4.2.4. Impact of Watershed development on rural incomes

Tables 4.15, 4.16 and 4.17 present the level and sources of per capita income of the

sample farmers according to different farm locations (reaches), social classes and farm sizes. The

tables clearly reveal that the per capita income has gone up substantially across all the reaches

within the watershed areas varying from 18 to 122%. The average annual per capita income from

all sources which was Rs.74,672/- before the launch of the watershed project rose to Rs.

112692/- after the launch. This amounts to about 51 percent rise in the per capita income. An

important point to be noted in respect of the watershed development programme on the per

capita income is that the percentage of farm income to the total per capita income, which was

47.8% before the launch of the rose to 56.0% at the end project. It is pertinent to note that the

per capita income originating from agriculture rose faster (by 77%) than the total income (which

incresed by 51%). Understandably, the rise in per capita income was greater (93%) in the case

of lower-reach farmers than in the case of top-reach (76%) and middle-reach farmers (72%),

respectively ( Table 4.15, Fig 4.1).

Table.4.15: Per capita Income from different sources across farm locations

(Rs.)

Source TR MR LR

Grand

Total %

Bengaluru

Before launch of

SWS

Agricultural income 5085.79 3820.26 6562.22 5156.09 37.88

Non Agriculture Income 7444.69 7498.79 10420.4 8454.61 62.12

Total income 12530.5 11319.1 16982.6 13610.7 100

End project of SWS

Agricultural income 22762.7 17944 22931.5 19499.2 64.48

Non Agriculture Income 13096.5 11371.2 10903.1 10742 35.52


130

Total income 35859.3 29315.1 33834.6 30241.2 100

Mysuru

Before launch of

SWS


Non-agriculture income 7683.65 5863.82 4561.96 6036.89 43.15

Total income 16089.6 15254.5 10633.2 13989.4 100

End project of SWS



Total income 49338.8 52008.3 46027.6 46815.5 100

Belagavi

Before launch of

SWS

Agricultural income 65164 77811 65337 69437 56.14

Non-agriculture income 62631 62054 38030 54238 43.86

Total income 127793 139864 103368 123675 100

End project of SWS



Total income 203232 227883 168614 199910 100

Kalaburagi

Before launch of

SWS



Total income 141641 161613 117084 147412 100

End project of SWS


Non-agriculture income 100425 101508 88437.9 94561.9 54.41

Total income 181798 181915 164817 173802 100

All Divisions

Before launch of

SWS



Total income 74514 82013 62017 74672 100

End project of SWS



Total income 117557 122780 103323 112692 100

Fig.4.1. Per capita Income from different sources across different farm locations


131

The watershed development projects have generally impacted changes in the relative

importance of different sources of per capita income. For instance, agriculture which accounted

for hardly 47.8% of the total per capita income prior to launching of SWSs, contributed about

56.0% of the total at the end of the project. This is perhaps due to the possibility that watershed

development facilitated cultivation of commercial crops in place of need based subsistent crops

for higher benefits.

Social-class wise analysis of the results related to the rise in the total per capita income

revealed that the per cent rise was the highest in the case of SC farmers (44%) when compared to

other farmers (37%) and the rise in case of ST farmers is 24%. The rise in per capita income

originating from agriculture was the highest (65%) in the case of ST farmers, while it was about

54% and 63%, respectively for SC’s and others (Table 4.16, Fig 4.2). Further the proportion of

income related to agriculture has improved by 4.0, 16.0 and 90% respectively across SC, ST and

others. This clearly establishes the benefits due to project are more with vulnerable groups.

Table 4.16: Per capita Income from different sources across social classes (Rs.)

Source SC ST Others

Grand

Total

%

share

0

30000

60000

90000

120000

150000

TR MR LR

74514 82013

62017

117557 122780

103323

Inc

om

e (

INR

)

Before w/s After w/s


132

Bengaluru

Before launch

of SWS



Total income 9010.07 14722.89 14190.23 13610.7 100

End project of

SWS



Total income 20554.28 33244.35 32219.72 30241.19 100

Mysuru

Before launch

of SWS



Total income 8589.66 8628.85 15507 13989.4 100

End project of

SWS



Total income 31837.41 25653.3 51905.7 46815.5 100

Belagavi

Before launch

of SWS



Total income 91394 93364 123461 102739 100.00

End project of

SWS



Total income 139980 144497 152807 145761 100.00

Kalaburagi

Before launch

of SWS



Total income 125422.203 188061.5 145073.4 147412 100.00

End project of

SWS



Total income 152341.823 177372.2 170813.2 173802.3 100.00

All Divisions

Before launch

of SWS



Total income 58604 76195 74558 69438 100

End project of

SWS



Total income 84546 95191 101936 98611 100


133

Fig.4.2. Per capita Income from different sources across Social classes

Looking at the rise in per capita income from the angle of land holding size, the data

(Table 4.17, Fig 4.3) reveal that the largest gainers were interestingly small farmers, with a rise

of 101% followed by big farmers (87%). Another interesting finding is that the rise in per capita

income originating from agriculture was the highest in the case of small farmers (191%)

followed by the big (147%) and marginal farmers (93%).

-15000

15000

45000

75000

105000

SC ST Others

58604

76195 74558

84546

95191

101936

Inc

om

e (

INR

)



134

Table 4.17: Per capita Income from different sources across Hold ings (in Rs.).

Source Big Small Marginal

Landless

labor

Grand

Total

%

Share

Bengaluru

Before

launch

of SWS

Agricultural income 11164.98 4968.65 4986.62 341.45 5156.09 37.88

Non Agriculture Income 11580.62 9096.88 8627.32 5097.48 8454.61 62.12

Total income 22745.6 14065.5 13613.94 5438.93 13610.7 100

End

project

of SWS

Agricultural income 38922.19 22436.4 16412.75 0 19499.2 64.48

Non Agriculture Income 13015.04 10426.9 8098.41 11434.42 10742 35.52

Total income 51937.23 32863.2 24511.15 11434.42 30241.2 100.00

Mysuru

Before

launch

of SWS



Total income 105097.14 18557.14 52411.33 48239.9 56095.08 100.00

End

project

of SWS



Total income 383620.98 170577.67 125865.91 46166.47 179530.55 100.00

Belagavi

Before

launch

of SWS

Agricultural income 95313 54581 50608 42198 60675 52.0

Non Agriculture Income 72836 57352 40003 53979 56043 48.0

Total income 168149 111933 90610 96176 116717 100.0

End

project

of SWS



Total income 235300 175756 151710 151085 178463 100.00

Kalaburagi

Before

launch

of SWS



Total income 170132.05 112899.2 136341.76 44496.84 147412 100.0

End

project

of SWS



Total income 202110.76 137430.9 148908.41 65612.15 173802.3 100.0

All Divisions

Before

launch

of

SWS



Total income 116531 64364 73245 48588 83459 100.00

End

project

of

SWS



Total income 218242 129157 112749 68575 140509 100.00


135

Fig. 4.3. Per capita Income from different sources across different Size -classes

of farmers

4.2.5. Trends in income across agro-climatic zones

Table 4.18 reveals trends in per capita agricultural income as percentage of the total per

capita income across different agro-climatic zones. As the data in the table 4.18 shows, the share

of agricultural income in the total per capita income has gone up across all the agro-climatic

zones. But the Southern dry zone registered the highest rise in per capita agricultural income.

The share of agricultural income in the total per capita income which was hardly 43.7% across

the zone before the launch of SWS shot up to 74.2% at the end of the project.

0

40000

80000

120000

160000

200000

240000

Big Small Marginal Landless labor

116531

64364 73245

48588

218242

129157 112749

68575

Inc

om

e (

INR

)



136

Table 4.18: Per capita Income from different sources across

agro-climatic zones (Rs.)

Zones

Average PC Agricultural

income Average PC Total income

Base

End

project

%

increase Base

End

project

%

increase

Bengaluru

Central Dry zone 6506.0 26351.6 305.0 14031.5 37390.9 166.5

Eastern Dry zone 3436.5 17389.7 406.0

13192.3 30944.3 134.6

Northern Dry zone 8990.3 23174.8 157.8

15370.2 28743.3 87.0

Southern Transition Zone 5500.2 20175 266.8

12683 29310.7 131.1

Grand Total 5156.1 21251.6 312.2

13610.7 30241.2 122.2

Mysuru

Coastal Zone 3701.6 16981 358.7 9485.05 25782.3 171.8

Southern Dry zone 5144.8 22754.9 342.3

11784.5 30656.8 160.1

Southern Transition Zone 12643 87873.3 595.0

18450 95949.8 420.0

Grand Total 7952.5 38662.6 386.2

13989.4 46815.5 234.7

Kalaburagi

North Eastern Transition Zone 54159 70204.7 29.6 60465 83161.2 37.5

North Eastern Dry Zone 40618 51056.7 25.7

45347.6 60479.4 33.4

Northern Dry Zone 55938 72450.7 29.5

62452 85821.7 37.4

Total 47981 61379.4 27.9

53568.6 72707.1 35.7

4.2.6. Statistical significance of the results

Paired t‐test compares one set of measurements with a second set from the same sample.

It is often used to compare “before” and “after” scores in experiments to determine whether

significant changes have occurred.

A paired t-test looks at the difference between paired values in the two sets of the

sample, takes into account the variation of values within each sample, and produces a single

number known as t-value.

The paired t-test, also referred to as the paired-sample t-test or dependent t-test, is used

to determine whether the mean of a dependent variable (e.g., income of farmers) is the same in

two related groups (e.g., two groups of farmers that are measured at two different "time points"

or who undergo two different "conditions"). For example, we could use a paired t-test to

understand whether there was a difference in farmers’’ income before and after launching of a


137

watershed programme (i.e., our dependent variable would be income’’, and our two related

groups would be the two different "time points"; that is, incomes "before" and "after" launching

of the watershed). Specifically, we use a paired t-test to determine whether the mean difference

between two groups is statistically significant.

The data pertaining to income changes were subjected to paired t-test in order to ascertain

the statistical significance of the results of analysis of data. The test results are shown in Tables

4.19 and 4.20. The values presented in the tables clearly indicate that they are statistically

significant.

Table 4.19: Paired t- test for Total Household Income

Bengaluru

Total income-before Total income-end

Mean 42821.11 117007.65

Std. Deviation 81238.86 123493.22

Pearson Correlation 0.006

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

t- Stat -17.56

Mysuru

Total income before Total income End

Mean 56095.08 179530.55

Std. Deviation 69507.78 304184.91

Pearson Correlation -0.03


t -Stat -12.69

Kalaburagi

Total income before Total income End

Mean 53568.54 72706.86

Std. Deviation 57315.4 93391.81



t Stat -6.78

Significant 0


138

Table 4.20: Paired-test for Total per capita income

Bengaluru

Total income-before Total income-end

Mean 11601.13 28993.64

Std. Deviation 26992.63 32159.99



t -Stat -15.64

Mysuru

Total per capita income

before


end

Mean 13989.41 46815.5

Std. Deviation 17675.71 84252.62



t -Stat -12.4

Kalaburagi


before


end

Mean 10088.24 14036.07

Std. Deviation 11463.08 18678.36



t Stat -6.78

Significant 0

4.2.7. Impact of SWS on farm credit position of farmers

Tables 4.21 through 4.23 present details relating to loans availed by the sample farmers in

the watershed area. There was an overall increase in the average amount of loan taken by sample

farmers increased by about 101% after the project. It is important to note that this increase was

mostly accounted for by the ST farmers in the three of the four divisions (Table 4.21). While the

highest rise in the loan amount was seen in the watersheds of Bengaluru Division, the lowest

occurred in the watersheds of Kalaburagi Division.


139

Table 4.21: Amount of loan taken by farmers across different Social categories

of farmers

Caste Average loan

amount before

(Rs)

Average loan

amount End (Rs)

% increase

Bengaluru

SC 18573.8 58797.1 216.6

ST 23884.1 34951.4 46.3

Others 27536.8 103941 277.5

Average 25837.2 82168 218

Mysuru

SC 19278.5 89600.5 364.8

ST 38923.1 246282 532.7

Others 57960.2 104297 79.9

Average 50076.4 107078 113.8

Belagavi

SC 71673 91456 27.6

ST 22536 112286 398.3

Others 60571 79943 32

Average 51594 94562 83.3

Kalaburagi

SC 33352.9 31481.8 -5.6

ST 24879.5 34932.8 40.4

Others 36947.5 47991.6 29.9

Average 33887.3 41253.3 21.7

While the amount of loans availed by landless and marginal farmers have increased by

more than 200% across the watersheds after the Project, the increase in loans taken by big (78%)

and small farmers (94%) are lower. (Table 4.22).

An interesting finding with regard to credit availed by farmers located in different

reaches within the watershed is that the loans taken by the middle-reach and lower reach farmers

have increased by 83 and 232%, respectively, while the loans availed by the top-reach farmers

increased only by 41% across all the watersheds (Table 4.23). This clearly established resources

conservation programmes have called for additional investments for effective management of

resource to derive higher income (ex. Lower and middle reach farmers).


140

Table 4.22: Amount of loan taken by farmers across different Farm Size-classes

Type

Average loan

amount before

(Rs)

Average loan amount

End (Rs)

% increase

Bengaluru

Big 47727.27 169308.7 254.7

Small 28391.3 94756.88 233.8

Marginal 27578.26 38052.38 38.0

Landless labor 3515.38 26289.97 647.9

Average 25837.23 82167.97 218.0

Mysuru

Big 134723.81 120200.89 -10.8

Small 34096.15 65601.05 92.4

Marginal 23390.48 246584.09 954.2

Landless labor 7942.86 14621.28 84.1

Average 50076.37 107077.64 113.8

Belagavi

Big 63843 93398 46.3

Small 93087 122635 31.7

Marginal 53570 72540 35.4

Landless labor 40798 51841 27.1

Average 62825 85103 35.5

Kalaburagi

Big 39175.18 48310.66 23.3

Small 33290.12 39261.8 17.9

Marginal 23259.46 28155.81 21.1

Landless labor 16129.63 23162.79 43.6

Average 33887.29 41253.3 21.7


141

Table 4.23: Amount of loan taken by farmers across different farm locations

Location

Average loan amount

before (Rs)

Average loan

amount End (Rs)

% increase

Bengaluru

TR 31496.88 79374.03 152.0

MR 19737.5 69030.77 249.7

LR 26306.67 87740.76 233.5

Average 25837.23 82167.97 218.0

Mysuru

TR 70207.14 63217.57 -10.0

MR 47417.27 53902.95 13.7

LR 32585.71 244239.5 649.5

Average 50076.37 107077.64 113.8

Belagavi

TR 87231 73386 -15.9

MR 82148 137674 67.6

LR 80901 93695 15.8

Average 83427 101585 21.8

Kalaburagi

TR 28436.13 39497.72 38.9

MR 37710.69 38506.22 2.1

LR 35000 45158.21 29.0

Average 33887.29 41253.3 21.7

4.2.8 Impact of watershed development on assets position of farmers

With an improvement in the water availability for cultivation, better soil conservation and

consequent increase in crop yields per ha, the assets position of the farmers - farm assets as well

as consumption assets - is expected to improve. To ascertain the changes in the assets position of

the farmers, a survey of sixteen important assets - both farm production and non-farm (personal

consumption) assets -was conducted. Tables 4.24, presents the changes in the assets position of

the farmers consequent upon the launch of SWSs. The table clearly shows that the asset position

of the farmers has improved in respect of all the items under survey except two namely, tractor-

drawn implements and plough. In the case of these two items, the decline in their number

possessed by the sample farmers could be due to the fact that there is a perceptible shift from

tractors and bullock-drawn ploughs towards cheaper, fuel-efficient and more versatile power

tillers and their accessories in dry land agriculture apart from custom wise services available

within their reach in recent years.


142

Table 4.24: Changes in asset position of farmers (in no’s)

Assets Big Small Marginal Landless labor Total % change

Bef

ore

Tractor 19 8 8 16 51

Bicycle 46 37 52 24 159

Tiller 2 3 0 0 5

Tractor drawn implements 26 19 5 15 65

Two/Four wheeler 91 37 43 18 189

Bullock cart 34 14 8 10 66

Threshing machine 4 0 1 3 8

Plough 179 154 123.6 2 458.6

Drip/Sprinkler irrigation 31.22 25.4 43 68 167.62

Sprayers 28 8 14 5 55

Crow-bar/pick axe etc. 468 321 310 136 1235

Bio gas/LPG cooking gas 39 22 23 3 87

Tables/Chairs 539 284 288 221.2 1332.2

TV/Radio/Tape recorder 140 101 114 80 435

Toilets 50 30 38 13 131

Others 12 2 4 0 18

Aft

er

Tractor 29 12 7 7 55 7.84

Bicycle 49 41 55 29 174 9.43

Tiller 10 7 11 0 28 460

Tractor drawn implements 37 10 10 3 60 -7.69

Two/Four wheeler 125 90 86 47 348 84.13

Bullock cart 41 21 24 10 96 45.45

Threshing machine 7 1 2 1 11 37.5

Plough 147 118 99.6 1 365.6 -20.28

Drip/Sprinkler irrigation 62.4 50 53 26 191.4 14.19

Sprayers 31 14 16 5 66 20

Crow-bar/pick axe etc. 468 334 337 208 1347 9.07

Bio gas/LPG cooking gas 65 33 34 18 150 72.41

Tables/Chairs 691 403 401 322 1817 36.39

TV/Radio/Tape recorder 284 189 204 166 843 93.79

Toilets 74 56 64 43 237 80.92

Others 60 6 30 2 98 444.44

En

d

Tractor

Bicycle

Tiller 29 7 11 0 47 67.9

Tractor drawn implements 87 165 66 0 318 430

Two/Four wheeler 247 164 135 54 600 72.4

Bullock cart 30 42 16 88 -8.3

Threshing machine 7 2 2 1 12 9.1

Plough

Drip/Sprinkler irrigation 150 65 64 26 305 59.6

Sprayers 34 18 16 5 74 12.1

Crow-bar/pick axe etc.

Bio gas/LPG cooking gas 202 171 159 110 642 328

Tables/Chairs 1228 947 945 665 3785 108.3


Toilets 209 186 180 134 709 199.2


143

Others 118 45 29 192 95.6

Mysuru Variables Big Small Marginal Landless labor Total % change

Bef

ore

Tractor 9 2 2 2 15

Bicycle 13 12 11 5 41

Tiller 10 2 1 0 13

Tractor drawn implements 28 3 5 1 37

Two/Four wheeler 81 64 52 7 204


Threshing machine 3 0 2 0 5

Plough 74 81 78 7 240

Drip/Sprinkler irrigation 180.6 101 132.8 10 424.4

Sprayers 46 21 16 3 86

Crow-bar/pick axe etc. 427 274 324 77 1102

Bio gas/LPG cooking gas 60 43 45 19 167

Tables/Chairs 399 275 275 162.2 1111.2

TV/Radio/Tape recorder 119 93 97 46 355

Toilets 82 62 64 38 246

Others 2 0 2 1 5

Aft

er

Tractor 27 9 16 9 61 306.67

Bicycle 38 33 31 26 128 212.2

Tiller 22 7 5 0 34 161.54

Tractor drawn implements 33 4 10 0 47 27.03

Two/Four wheeler 90 47 50 17 204 0

Bullock cart 17 4 8 0 29 -21.62

Threshing machine 19 15 15 1 50 900

Plough 101 100 99 7 307 27.92

Drip/Sprinkler irrigation 354.4 144.4 153.6 19 671.4 58.2

Sprayers 69 24 25 3 121 40.7

Crow-bar/pick axe etc. 407 276 274 79 1036 -5.99


Tables/Chairs 546 385 384 220 1535 38.14


Toilets 123 78 80 62 343 39.43

Others 68 27 36 4 135 2600

End

Tractor

Bicycle

Tiller 23 8 5 2 38 192.3

Tractor drawn implements 36 5 10 4 55 48.6

Two/Four wheeler 208 179 122 53 562 175.5

Bullock cart 7 3 4 14 -62.2

Threshing machine 26 18 19 3 66 1220

Plough 108 103 103 7 321 33.8

Drip/Sprinkler irrigation 426.4 187.4 168.6 20 802 89.1

Sprayers 121 69 36 4 230 167.4

Crow-bar/pick axe etc. 410 277 274 79 1040 -5.6


Tables/Chairs 1050 703 696 330 2779 150.1


Toilets 164 212 141 141 658 167.5


144

Others 123.5 56.06 15 1 196 3811.2

Belagavi

Assets

Landless

Labor

Marginal

farmer

Small

farmer

Medium

& Big

Farmers Total % change

Bef

ore

Own Housing 30 32 28 30 120

RCC House 0 2 3 3 9

Tiled House 0 0 0 1 1

Thatched House 7 6 6 5 24

Mud house 23 23 19 21 86

Pump set 0 2 4 6 11

Drip 0 0 0 2 2

Two/Four-Wheeler 4 7 11 15 36

Biogas/ LPG 1 3 2 9 16

Jewelry 2 3 3 2 9

Electronic goods/TV 9 14 16 19 59

Computer 0 0 0 1 1

Refrigerator 0 0 1 1 2

Furniture 5 9 10 11 35

Telephone/ Mobile 15 20 24 27 86

Toilets 1 3 3 5 13

sprinkler 0 0 0 0 1

Sprayer 0 2 5 6 13

Trashing machine 0 0 0 0 0

Farm implements 0 5 5 5 15

Tractor 0 0 1 3 4

Others 0 0 0 0 0


Aft

er

Own Housing 30 32 28 30 120 0

RCC House 0 2 3 3 9 2

Tiled House 0 0 0 1 1 0

Thatched House 7 6 6 5 24 0

Mud house 23 23 19 21 86 -1

Pump sets 0 3 5 10 18 65

Drip 0 0 2 3 5 143

Two/Four-Wheeler 9 16 14 22 61 67

Biogas/ LPG 4 8 7 15 35 123

Jewelry 3 5 6 2 15 61

Electronic goods/TV 18 24 23 27 93 58

Computer 0 0 0 1 2 57

Refrigerator 0 0 1 1 2 8

Furniture 11 16 13 15 54 57

Telephone/ Mobile 27 36 36 45 144 67

Toilets 6 10 9 12 38 196

Sprinkler 0 0 1 1 2 275

Sprayer 0 2 5 7 15 19

Farm equipment 0 5 4 7 16 7

Tractor 0 0 2 4 7 75

Others 0 0 1 3 4 -11

Bullock cart 0 1 1 3 5 150


145

Kalabuaragi

Assets

Landless

Labourers

Marginal

Farmers

Small

Farmers

Medi &

Big

Farmers Total

%

Change

Bef

ore

Own Housing 97 59 230 330 716

Rented/Lease 0 0 0 4 4

RCC House 2 2 4 20 28

Tiled House 23 6 16 27 72

Thatched House 72 51 210 287 620

Tractor/ Tillers 0 1 1 8 10

Bullock Cart 0 9 17 69 95

Pumpset 0 3 12 83 98

Sprayers 0 3 25 33 61

Threshing Machine 0 5 52 85 142

Farm Implements 3 54 130 241 431

Drip/ Sprinkler Irrigation 0 0 1 11 12

Two/Four Wheeler 7 7 35 48 104

Biogas/ LPG 0 2 0 8 10

Jewelry (gm) 285 131 580 871 2152

Electronic goods 28 31 110 169 366

Furniture 105 65 289 506 1070

Telephone/ Mobile 44 24 88 128 328

Toilets 2 1 1 7 13

Others 11 3 33 78 136

Aft

er

Own Housing 97 59 230 333 719 0.42

Rented/Lease 0 0 0 1 1 -75

RCC House 2 2 5 23 32 14.29

Tiled House 29 11 27 42 109 51.39

Thatched House 66 46 198 269 579 -6.61

Tractor/ Tillers 0 2 2 18 22 120

Bullock Cart 0 11 19 87 117 23.16

Pumpset 1 4 14 93 113 15.31

Sprayers 0 3 26 38 67 9.84

Threshing Machine 0 5 52 82 139 0

Farm Implements 5 70 191 311 582 35.03

Drip/ Sprinkler Irrigation 0 0 1 11 12 0

Two/Four Wheeler 9 8 54 89 169 62.5

Biogas/ LPG 2 2 4 23 33 230

Jewelry (gm) 369 233 965 1402 3338 55.11

Electronic goods 53 46 181 284 617 68.58

Furniture 142 97 395 695 1471 37.48

Telephone/ Mobile 98 54 301 461 1012 208.54

Toilets 12 4 32 100 160 1130.77

Others 13 3 37 87 153 12.5

The number of ploughs has come down perceptibility in view of the increasing tillage of

land by using tractors/tillers. This is corroborated by the fact that the number of tillers has

steeply risen in most of the watersheds in a span of four years.


146

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

of durable consumable family assets including two/four wheelers, biogas/LPG, TV/Radios/Tape

recorders and sundry assets.

4.2.9 Impact of Watershed Development on per-hectare Crop Yields

One of the salutary effects of Watershed Development is increase in the crop yields per

hectare as a result of enhanced water availability through soil and water conservation measures

apart from impounding rain water in water harvesting structures like check dams, Nala bunds,

farm ponds and Gokatte. In additions, improvement in groundwater table through increased rain

water recharge on one hand and soil conservation on the other have helped to increase

Productivity. Table 4.25 shows the impact of watershed development on the per-hectare yields of

principal crops grown in the watershed areas under study. The rise in productivity per ha ranges

from 8.5 percent in the case of green gram to 88 percent in the case of chickpea.

Table 4.25: Yields per hectare of principal crops grown by sample farmers in

the watershed areas

Crop Yield (q/ha)

% increase Before w/s After w/s

Bajra 13.5 15.0 11.1

Chickpea 3.3 6.3 88.0

Cotton 9.4 10.4 9.8

Greengram 5.9 6.4 8.5

Groundnut 12.0 16.9 40.9

Sorghum 8.5 9.7 15.0

Maize 22.4 35.3 57.8

Paddy 29.8 40.4 35.6

Potato 44.1 69.8 58.2

Ragi 16.1 23.4 45.3

Redgram 5.2 5.9 14.7

Sugarcane 62.4 74.2 19.0

Sunflower 12.0 14.5 20.0

Conclusion

The foregoing analysis clearly reveals that watershed development does help to enhance

water availability for farming and reduce soil erosion, besides a number of welcome benefits on

the farmers in dry land regions. The benefits include increased groundwater availability, rise in

yields per hectare, increase in cropping intensity thereby leading to greater on-farm employment

opportunities and, above all, a substantial rise in farm incomes. The present study revealed that

with an active participative management of the watershed by the farmers, they can reap much

greater benefits from the integrated watershed development programme, through promotion of

effective extension services.

MEL&D-AgencyRemote Sensing Instruments, Bengaluru

Prepared by

Impact of Watershed Management Under PMKSY-WD, (Erstwhile … · 2019. 11. 11. · 3.6 Entry Point...

Documents

Transcript of Impact of Watershed Management Under PMKSY-WD, (Erstwhile … · 2019. 11. 11. · 3.6 Entry Point...