After decades of initiatives in eliminating rural poverty through various programmes that were primarily sectoral based and met with limited success, the new approaches to rural development are increasingly adopting an integrated cross-sectoral approach. Sustainable use of natural resources is seen more and more as a means to ensure livelihoods. In recent years watershed management has increasingly become the focal point for poverty alleviation and drought mitigation particularly in rain fed areas of India. Around 170 million hectares of land in India are classified as degraded, roughly half of which falls in undulating semi-arid areas where rain-fed farming is practised.

The article has attempted to examine the watershed approach in detail, both at the field/ground level as well as at the policy level and make suggestions for its adoption as a viable option for meeting the livelihood needs of the focus group, especially the vulnerable communities.

The concept of "Watershed" as the planning unit for development of natural resources is effective and the watershed approach has gained significance since 1974 with various initiatives by the Government through DPAP, DDP, IWDP and NWDPRA programmes. These programmes were basically adopted a ‘Top-Down’ approach which lacked participatory planning and in which importance to sectoral issues like agriculture, wasteland development, soil conservation was accorded priority thus they did not prove effective and successful. As a result, a need was felt to design a new Watershed Guidelines in 1995 with more thought on people’s participation, a bottom-up approach at various levels of the project cycle, and also their integration with other employment generation and poverty alleviation programmes for generating more livelihood options for the focus groups.

The Watershed Framework recognises five capital assets where people can draw upon human, natural, financial, social and physical resources. Although the watershed programme spells a new initiative, however there are some emerging issues, mainly related to livelihoods of vulnerable communities, which need a greater focus. These include:

The above issues are analysed and addressed on the basis of past experiences of implementation of watershed projects.

Watershed programmes are generally implemented by adopting Ridge to Valley approach for rehabilitation. The approach may work against the interest of the poor who often have their small land holdings in the upper slopes, after rehabilitation and it benefits the well off farmers whose lands are located in the down stream valley areas. Though the poor benefited only through the construction of physical capital, mainly from soil and water management (such as bunds, check dams, gully plugs, ponds, shallow wells, and afforestation activities as casual, unskilled employment opportunities) they still remain as labourers and rely on village commons. The increased crop yield alone would not solve rural problems, as long the economic environment for rural people still remains adverse. This imbalance in equity of sharing resources means that the better off would capture the lion’s share of benefits generated through rehabilitation. However, it help in checking the seasonal migration to some extent during rehabilitation period. (See box for details)

Major learnings from Watershed Programmes

Participation by the focus groups during planning and management of the programme is not encouraging due to the existing socio-economic obstacles and feudalistic ‘leader-follower’ system prevailing in the country (Laxminagaram Watershed, Kurnool district, A.P.). Despite their participation at various levels, the needs and aspirations of the focus groups could not be taken care of in the programme design.

Common Property Resources or CPRs in reality do not exist in many areas. Even if they do, it is in a highly degraded form and often the only assets of poor to meet their fuel, fodder and other livelihood needs. After watershed rehabilitation, the increased potential of natural resources often attracts the attention of the landlords for encroachment and denies the access (and entitlement) to the poor. This leads to an increase the vulnerability as well as disparities within the community.

Financial Capital Establishment of credit groups (Self Help groups) to empower women within the watershed area was a good initiative but the multiplication strategies have to be worked out for sustaining the livelihood options of the focus group including women.

"Watershed" is an area covered by a ridge or stretch of highland dividing the area drained by different rivers/streams. It comprises not only its boundaries but also its people, birds and animals, vegetative cover and forests, soils and rocks, its topography, water and mineral resources and its climate within a well defined ridge line as its boundary.

The lacunae in the present approach as analysed above could be overcome to a large extent through the following interventions, while ensuring participation of the stakeholders in the implementation would also address the issues of usufruct rights and livelihoods of vulnerable communities in particular.

1. Participatory planning The roots of poverty in India are tied up in power and lack of entitlements and access to natural capital by the poor. The programme should be people-centred. Hence while planning and designing the watershed programmes, one has to understand and consider the dimensions of poverty and vulnerability, needs and priorities, existing skills to support the livelihoods of stakeholders to achieve a positive direction of change through the programme. To start with, an analysis of people’s livelihood needs and how these have been changing over time has to be worked out by adopting participatory approaches. Sometimes it is a crucial factor while selecting a watershed area.

2. Common Property Resources The focus groups generally have limited land, uncertain access to developed resources of physical and natural capital and limited access to commons. No Indian State has a policy to perpetuate the sanctity of common lands to ensure the ownership over the commons and usufruct after rehabilitation of the CPRs by the focus groups. There must be an appropriate property-rights structure in place pertaining to private and government owned lands, before the programme initiation. This can only be achieved through a proper legislation at the policy level.

3. Livelihood Needs Project intervention in watershed programmes, generally through land based activities and the rural non-farm sector, has rarely been a focus. It cuts across stakeholder interests, hence focus should be given to non land-based activities to address the livelihood options. The focus group seeks livelihoods in the non-farm sector to complement seasonal agricultural incomes as well as to supplement inadequate agricultural incomes. In order to achieve livelihoods, one has to understand the livelihood patterns and supporting systems, backward and forward linkages, viable alternative livelihood opportunities and upgradation of skills. To supplement this, there is a need to establish a Livelihood Fund especially for the vulnerable communities and the necessary modalities have to be worked out at the policy level. q

P S Chandrasekhra Rao