12 Integrated Farm Management Practices Productivity of ...

12 Integrated Farm Management Practicesand Upscaling the Impact for Increased

Productivity of Rainfed Systems

T.K. Sreedevi* and S.P. Wani**International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT),

Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India;emails: *[email protected]; **[email protected]

Introduction

Most countries in the world depend primarily onrainfed agriculture for their food grains. Despitelarge strides made in improving productivity andenvironmental conditions in many developingcountries, more than 850 million poor people inAfrica and Asia still face poverty, hunger, foodinsecurity and malnutrition, where rainfed agri-culture is the main agricultural activity. Althoughthe importance of rainfed agriculture variesregionally, it produces most food for poorcommunities in developing countries (Rockströmet al., 2007; also see Chapter 1, this volume).These problems are exacerbated by adversebiophysical growing conditions and the poorsocio-economic infrastructure in many areas inthe semi-arid tropics (SAT). The SAT is home to38% of the developing countries’ poor, 75% ofwhom live in rural areas. Over 45% of the world’shungry and more than 70% of its malnourishedchildren live in the SAT.

The challenges of outscaling in investmentsand policies

In a recent Comprehensive Assessment of Waterfor Food and Water for Life, a detailed review ofmanaging water in rainfed agriculture listed the

challenges of outscaling in investments andpolicies (Rockström et al., 2007). Investments inagricultural research in savannah agroecosys-tems in the past have generated highly disap-pointing results (Seckler and Amarasinghe,2004). A reason for this is the lack of focus onwater resource management in rainfed agri-culture. Instead, the focus at farm level since thelate 1950s has mainly been on crop researchand soil conservation and partly on in-situ waterconservation (maximizing rainfall infiltration),through various strategies of terracing, bundingand ridging. Management of water resourceshas been conducted on a larger scale orientedtowards blue water flows in irrigated agriculture.It is only in the past 10–15 years that scienceand technology development has focused morestrongly on water management in rainfed agri-culture (on water harvesting and supplementalirrigation in rainfed systems), and on tillageresearch focused in more explicit terms on waterconservation (conservation tillage systems) atthe farm scale (Rockström et al., 2007).

Failure of outscaling innovation – indigenousand external

Upgrading rainfed agriculture requires that tech-nologies (indigenous or improved) are strongly

© CAB International 2009. Rainfed Agriculture: Unlocking the Potential222 (eds S.P. Wani et al.)

adapted to local biophysical and socioculturalconditions accompanied by institutional andbehavioural changes (Harris et al., 1991; vanDuivenbooden et al., 2000). As experienced byseveral researchers, it is quite difficult to assessthe impact of various natural resource manage-ment (NRM) interventions simply by adoptingnormal econometric methods used for assessingthe impact of commodity-based interventions(Shiferaw et al., 2004).

Well-established evidence points to theimportant role of social and ecological crises inthe adoption of new thinking and system trans-formation. Adoption of conservation agriculturein several parts of the world was driven bycrises, e.g. in the USA as a response to the DustBowl in the 1930s, in part of Latin America as aresponse to an agrarian yield crisis, and inZambia as a response to droughts. Increasedemphasis on watershed management in India islargely to cope with droughts in drought-proneareas, i.e. drylands in India after severe droughtsin the early 1980s. Established but incompleteevidence from the Sahel suggests that recentwidespread adoption of soil and water manage-ment practices in Niger and Burkina Faso formspart of a response to crises related to land degra-dation and possibly climate change.

Moreover, investments in rainfed agriculturepose serious challenges as large numbers ofhouseholds are small with marginal farmers.Furthermore, most rainfed areas have poorinfrastructure facilities as large investmentshave been laid out in high-potential irrigatedareas for a long time. Integrated watershedmanagement approaches have shown thepotential for scaling-out benefits, ensuringcommunity participation largely due to tangibleeconomic benefits as well as capacity develop-ment through knowledge sharing (Wani et al.,2000; 2003d).

In rainfed areas the challenges are many,along with the widespread limitations of thecapacity of local institutions engaged in agri-cultural development and extension to promotemanagement of rainwater. This is a knowledge-intensive extension effort, which suffers fromlimited information of the options available,social and economic constraints to adoption, lackof enabling environments and backup services,poor market linkages, weak infrastructure andlow means to pay.

Previous focus on blue water has generatedweak policies for water investments in

rainfed agriculture

The Comprehensive Assessment of Water forFood and Water for Life has recommendeddiscarding the artificial divide between irrigatedand dryland agriculture as there is a continuumfrom fully rainfed to fully irrigated agriculture(Molden et al., 2007). However, traditionally theobsolete distinction between rainfed and irri-gated agriculture translates to a wider approachto water resource management, focusing onmanagement of rainfall. A result of the historicblue water (run-off) focus in agricultural policy isa history of weak water governance and policiesfor rainfed agricultural development. Waterresource management for agriculture is normallygoverned under ministries for water affairs, andfocuses entirely on developing and allocatingwater for large-scale irrigation, drinking waterand hydropower. This has resulted in a down-stream focus, with upper catchment areas, whererainfed agriculture predominantly is practised,being seen primarily as run-off- or blue-water-generating zones. Ministries of agriculture havefocused on the ‘dry’ parts of agricultural de-velopment, and the tendency in the past was togive highest priority to erosion control ratherthan water management in general. Thus,although proven knowledge for better manage-ment of rainwater exists, investments in turningthis knowledge into innovations in governance,policy, institutions, practices and technologies tosupport the smallholder farmers have been verylimited.

Lately, increasing attention is being paid tomanagement of green water (soil moisture)resources to upgrade rainfed agriculture. In thelast few years, there has been an increased prior-ity to develop policies and to build capacity infavour of investments in water management inrainfed agriculture. In several countries, centraland state governments have emphasizedmanagement of rainfed agriculture under variousprogrammes. Important efforts have, for exam-ple, been made under the watershed develop-ment programmes in India. Originally, theseprogrammes were implemented by differentministries such as the Ministry of Agriculture, theMinistry of Rural Development, and the Ministryof Forestry and Environment, causing difficulties

Increased Productivity of Rainfed Systems 223

for integrated water management. Recently,steps were taken to unify the programme accord-ing to the ‘Hariyali Guidelines’ (Wani et al.,2006b). In 2005, the National Commission onFarmers adopted a holistic integrated watershedmanagement approach, with focus on rainwaterharvesting and improving soil health for sustain-able development of drought-prone rainfedareas (Government of India, 2005). In India, thegovernment has established the NationalRainfed Area Authority (NRAA) and it hasbrought out common guidelines for watersheddevelopment (Government of India, 2008).Recently the Ministry of Agriculture and theMinistry of Rural Development, who implementa large number of watershed programmes, initi-ated a Comprehensive Assessment of impacts ofwatershed programmes in India to identifystrengths and weaknesses for enhancing impacts(Wani et al., 2008a).

There is thus growing evidence of the im-portance of water investments in rainfed agri-culture. Governance and management isgradually re-directed in certain regions of theworld towards water management for upgrad-ing rainfed agriculture as a key strategy forreducing poverty and increasing agriculturalproduction. It is further increasingly clear thatwater management for rainfed agriculturerequires a landscape perspective, and involvescross-scale interactions from farm householdscale to watershed scale.

New Efforts Required to PromoteInnovation and Adaptive Adoption

Upgrading rainfed agriculture involves integratedapproaches to social and ecological manage-ment. A challenge facing low-productive rainfedagriculture is the need for innovations inmanagement of water, which requires the intro-duction of novel technologies and managementpractices, e.g. water harvesting and conservationagriculture (Rockström et al., 2007). A key forsuccessful adoption and outscaling is the com-bination of innovation and adaptation. Adaptiveco-management between local communities andknowledge-providing agents, e.g. researchers,where knowledge sharing and transformation iscarried out in an iterative process, is a promising

approach for successful adoption. Participatoryapproaches, farmer field schools and actionresearch methods are but a few important toolsfor adaptive co-management.

Integrated approaches required to upgraderainfed agriculture

An integrated approach to rainwater manage-ment is necessary, where the links are addressedbetween investments and risk reduction,between land, water and crop, and betweenrainwater management and multiple livelihoodstrategies. Strategies to enable upgrading includ-ing technologies and management are generallyknown; however, the missing links for scaling-upand scaling-out are institutions and social andeconomic processes which can link to suitablepolicies.

Important success from integrated approacheshas been experienced in Asia, e.g. the integratedwatershed management approach in India,where local ownership is combined with tangibleeconomic benefits for individual rural households(Wani et al., 2003d). The experience in Indiahighlights the limitation of a compartmentalapproach, where the benefits from increasedproductivity were not realized to the desiredextent, equity issues were not addressed and,moreover, community participation was notachieved, resulting in neglect of the variouswater-harvesting structures in the watersheds(Joshi et al., 2005).

An integrated approach to land, water andcrop management is required on-farm whilemeeting watershed and basin developmentstrategies to increase yields in rainfed agriculture.Bright spots and successes are not directly trans-ferable to other socio-ecological conditionsbut require adaptation and co-management.Benefits from rainwater in supporting all forms ofbiomass growth, e.g. for cultivated crops, pasturefor livestock, non-cultivated food-plants, fuel andconstruction wood, indicate that rainwater playsan important role in determining overallresilience of rural communities practising rainfedfarming systems. Thus, an integrated approachwhich takes into account all these aspects ofwater use is needed when investing specificallyin upgrading rainfed agriculture.

224 T.K. Sreedevi and S.P. Wani

Community watershed as a growth engine fordevelopment of dryland areas

The recent Comprehensive Assessment ofwatershed programmes in India undertaken bythe consortium led by ICRISAT (InternationalCrops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics) has recommended an urgent action toimprove water management and the oppor-tunity to double the productivity of drylandsmall farms in rainfed areas (Wani et al.,2008a). The Comprehensive Assessment ofwatersheds has identified the community water-shed as a growth engine for development ofdryland areas.

The government has moved the watershedagenda forward in various ways: (i) with con-stitutional amendment to enforce more responsi-bility on panchayati raj departments for ruraldevelopment; (ii) by refining watershed guide-lines as lessons have been absorbed; (iii) byconverging the drought-prone-area programmeswith rural employment guarantee and watershedprogrammes around unified watershed guide-lines; and (iv) most recently by unifying the guide-lines and establishment of the NRAA. Further, thePlanning Commission has taken cognizance ofthe recommendations of various task forcegroups. There are studies of public–private sectorpartnerships in watershed execution. TheGovernment of Andhra Pradesh, which accountsfor 40% of the total of watersheds in the countryunder implementation, has adjusted watershedbudgetary allocations up to 27% for livelihoodactivities for women and vulnerable groups; andthe Government of Madhya Pradesh appointednon-governmental organizations (NGOs) aswatershed-implementing agencies throughoutthe state. Since 2003, several countries haveapproached India for assistance in piloting water-shed work.

The Common Features of the WatershedDevelopment Model

Government agencies, development thinkers,donors, researchers and NGOs have graduallylearnt from each other (though some are aheadof the field and others deficient in some aspector other, principally in people participation or inthe science), but generally nowadays the better

models have some or all of the followingfeatures in common (Wani et al., 2008c):

● Participation of villagers as individuals, asgroups or as a whole, increasing their con-fidence, enabling their empowerment andtheir ability to plan for the future and for self-determination.

● Capturing the power of group action in thevillage, between villages and from federations,e.g. capturing economies of scale by collectivemarketing.

● The construction of basic infrastructure withcontributions in cash or labour from thecommunity.

● Better farming techniques, notably theimproved management of soil and water,diversifying the farming system and integrat-ing the joint management of communalareas and forest.

● The involvement of the landless, often inproviding services.

● Arrangements for the provision of basicservices and infrastructure.

● The establishment of village institutions andlinks with the outside world.

● Improved relationships between men andwomen.

● Employment and income generation byenterprise development in predominantly butnot exclusively agricultural-related activities.

And sometimes:

● The fusion of research and development(R&D) by capturing the extraordinary powerof participatory technology development,including varietal selection with direct linksto germplasm collections.

● Complete avoidance of corruption so thattrust is built and all the benefits pass to thecommunity.

● Reduction in distressed migration.

Recent additions to the watershed model

● The pragmatic use of scientific knowledge asthe entry point rather than money, completedole-out by ensuring tangible economic bene-fit from low-cost interventions that generaterapid and substantial returns at low level ofrisk. Among these are novel interventions


focusing on seeds of improved cultivars, inte-grated pest management (IPM), micronu-trients, and soil conservation and water tablerecharge structures.

● A broad-based approach to income gener-ation, involving the private sector associatedwith scientific advances and markets: forinstance, in the remediation of micronutrientdeficiencies; in the marketing of medicinaland aromatic plants; with premium paymentspaid by industrial processors for aflatoxin-free maize and groundnut; with high-sugarsorghum, and selected crops such as Jatrophaand Pongamia sold to industry for ethanoland biodiesel production; with the productionfor sale of commercial seed, hybrid varietiesand biopesticides.

● Using new science methodologies to improveperformance such as remote sensing formonitoring and feedback to farmers, yieldgap analysis and rapid assessment of thefertility status of the watershed.

● Building productive partnerships andalliances in a consortium for research andtechnical backstopping, with the membersbrought together from the planning stage.

● A concern to create resilience in the watershedand its community to climate change and toevents of post-programme intervention.

Where best applied, the model has led toprofound farming-system changes, improvedfood self-sufficiency, expanded employmentand commerce, and enhanced incomes. Whereindifferently executed the approach has led tovery little impact, as we shall see in what follows.There is indeed something here analogous tothe ‘yield gap’ exhibited between researchstation and farmers’ yields. Much of the differ-ence can be captured by implementing agencies‘catching up’ with best practice. The more recentlinking of natural resource science with theprivate sector markets and with people’sbroader livelihoods in consultation with them istransforming the dynamic and success rate ofdevelopment efforts (Wani et al., 2008c).

Broad overall conclusions about watershedperformance and impact

The importance of rainfed agriculture in Indiahas been underscored by several recent studies.

The watershed approach is a paradigm thatworks in all rainfed circumstances, has deliveredimportant benefits and impacts, and needs to beimplemented on a large scale. But watershedimpact covers a spectrum from ‘no better thanad hoc development schemes’ to impressiveimprovements of the natural resource endow-ment and of agricultural production, and atransformation of the socio-economy.

The difference in result between indifferentand best watershed practice is analogous to the‘yield gap’ in crop production. In part, this isbecause the watershed approach has beenrapidly evolving and the ComprehensiveAssessment has been looking at a field in whichthe goal posts have repeatedly been moved. Inpart, it is due to deficiencies in execution.

To consolidate and build upon the foundationalready laid and universally gain the impact thatis possible, the government should undertakesome difficult tasks, most notably introducing anew ‘mind set’ or different form of approach thataccepts the following (Wani et al., 2008c):

● Watershed development is not just a meansto increase production or to conserve soiland water but an opportunity for the fullyintegrated and sustained development ofhuman and natural resources.

● The approach is valid across various rainfallregimes over vast tracts of India and cancontribute in large measure to the simul-taneous achievement of the government’sproduction, environmental and social goals.

● Sustainability and better social impact andequity are very important issues with pro-poorinterventions not as a spin-off or afterthoughtbut planned and integrated with the whole.

● There are vast opportunities to reduce costsand increase output by improving theappropriateness and extent of technology.

● There is obvious value in converging govern-ment schemes in the interest of impact andsustainability, rather than a spread of activity;this is particularly important in the case ofwater and schemes aimed to reach the poor.

Watersheds should be seen as a businessmodel. This calls for a shift in approach fromsubsidized activities to knowledge-based entrypoints and from subsistence to gaining tangibleeconomic benefits for the population of thewatershed at large. This is being done by pro-


ductivity enhancement, diversification to high-value enterprises, income-generating activities,market links, public–private partnerships, micro-entrepreneurship and a broad-based communityinvolvement.

Moving forward requires that a lack ofcapacity to effectively implement programmesis addressed. Implementing agencies need toexpand and broaden their capacities and skills,while communities need to strengthen theirinstitutions and their skills. This will require alonger implementation period of 7–8 years,with more time spent in preparation and inpost-intervention support. It also requires ad-ditional funds and more flexibility in usingbudgets and the engagement of specialistservice providers (Wani et al., 2008c).

One of the weakest aspects lies in the gener-ation and dissemination of technology. A bigimprovement is needed in making appropriatetechnology and information accessible to thewatershed community. The remedy lies indevising technology for the drier and wetterparts of the rainfed area, more participatorydevelopment research and in forming con-sortia, and employing agencies to providespecialist technical backstopping.

There is a crucial need to improve monitor-ing and evaluation and the feedback of theinformation obtained to constantly improveperformance. Only a few key indicators need tobe monitored in all watersheds. At one or tworepresentative watersheds in each district, abroad range of technical and socio-economicparameters should be measured to provide ascientific benchmark and a better economicvaluation of impact than is currently possible(Wani et al., 2008a,c).

Operationalizing the community watershedas a growth engine

Community watershed development pro-grammes are used as growth engines for sustain-able development of rainfed areas (Wani et al.,2003a, 2006b, 2008b; Chapter 14, thisvolume). However, the major challenge isscaling-up to large areas, as successful water-sheds remain few and unreplicated (Kerr et al.,2002; Joshi et al., 2005). Recently ICRISAT hasdeveloped and evaluated an integrated consor-

tium approach for sustainable development ofcommunity watersheds with technical backstop-ping and convergence (Wani et al., 2002,2003a). Most farming problems require inte-grated solutions, with genetic, management-related, and socio-economic components. Inessence, plant breeders, social scientists andNRM scientists must integrate their work withthat of private and public sector change agentsto develop flexible cropping systems that canrespond to rapid changes in market oppor-tunities and climatic conditions. The systemsapproach looks at various components of therural economy – traditional food grains, newpotential cash crops, livestock and fodderproduction, as well as socio-economic factorssuch as alternative sources of employment andincome. The Integrated Genetic and NaturalResource Management (IGNRM) approach isparticipatory, with farmers closely involved intechnology development, testing and dissemina-tion. The adoption of this new paradigm in rain-fed agriculture has shown that with propermanagement of natural resources the systemsproductivity can be enhanced and poverty canbe reduced without causing further degradationof the natural resource base (Rockström et al.,2007; Wani et al., 2008b). The scaling-up ofthese innovations with technical support fromthe ICRISAT-led consortium has been attemptedin Andhra Pradesh, India through AndhraPradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme (APRLP)supported by the Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID), UK; in Karnataka (India),Sujala watershed programme supported by theWorld Bank; in three districts of MadhyaPradesh and Rajasthan with support from theSir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT), Mumbai, India;and four countries in Asia (India, Thailand,Vietnam and China) with the support of theAsian Development Bank (ADB), Philippines.

For realizing the goal of sustaining rurallivelihoods and effective utilization of existingresources, a convergence (tendency to meet ata point) of activities mode was chosen.Adoption of convergence in APRLP is toimprove rural livelihoods, which implies that allactivities under APRLP should bring in better-ment in rural livelihoods (APRLP, 2006b,2007). For maximizing the efforts so as to meetstrategic and practical livelihood concerns ofthe poor, small and marginal farmers, and


women, the convergence system forms thestrategy of APRLP. The APRLP has chosen thewatershed as a logical unit for efficient manage-ment of natural resources collectively, andsimultaneously thereby sustaining rural liveli-hoods, where the focus is on the scope andpriorities for development of rural people.

The watershed as an entry point

For improving rural livelihoods, the watershedforms a logical unit for efficient management ofnatural resources, thereby sustaining rural liveli-hoods. A hydrological watershed is a delineatedarea from which the run-off drains through aparticular point in the drainage system. Sincesoil and vegetation can also be convenientlyand efficiently managed in this unit, the water-shed is considered the ideal unit for managingthe vital resources of soil, water and vegetation.Watershed management is the integration oftechnologies within the natural boundaries of adrainage area for optimum development ofland, water and plant resources to meet thebasic needs of people and livestock in a sustain-able manner (Wani et al., 2002, 2003a, 2005).

Integrated watershed management approach

The conventional watershed approach attemptsto optimize the use of precipitation throughimproved soil, water, nutrient and crop manage-ment but lacks the strategy for efficient use of theconserved natural resources. In an agriculturalwatershed approach, management of water andland is most important. People and livestockbeing an integral part of the watershed, tradi-tional watershed programmes alone, which arestructure driven, cannot offer solutions toimprove rural livelihoods. Although the water-shed serves as an entry point, a paradigm shift isneeded from these traditionally structure-drivenwatershed programmes to a holistic systemsapproach to alleviate poverty through increasedagricultural productivity by environment-friendlyresource management practices (Wani et al.,2008b).

The watershed as an entry point should leadto exploring multiple livelihood interventions(Wani et al., 2006a,b, 2007, 2008b). The over-

all objective of the whole approach beingpoverty elimination through sustainable de-velopment, the new community watershedmanagement model fits into the framework as atool to assist in sustainable rural livelihoods. Forthe development of rainfed-agriculture-basedlivelihoods, the community watershed modelconceptually provides an envelope throughwhich many of the steps for sustaining agri-culture and agriculture-related activities can beimplemented. The task is to intensify complexagricultural production systems while prevent-ing damage to natural resources and bio-diversity and to improve the welfare of thefarmers through value addition and marketlinkages. Watershed management is the inte-gration of technologies within the naturalboundaries of a drainage area for optimumdevelopment of land, water and plant resourcesto meet the basic needs of the people andlivestock in a sustainable manner.

ICRISAT’s consortium model for communitywatershed management as shown in Fig. 12.1espouses the principles of collective action,convergence, cooperation and capacity build-ing (four Cs) with technical backstopping by aconsortium of institutions to address the issuesof equity, efficiency, economics and environ-ment (four Es) (Wani et al., 2006a).

The new integrated community watershedmodel provides technological options formanagement of run-off water harvesting, in-situconservation of rainwater for groundwaterrecharging and supplemental irrigation, ap-propriate nutrient and soil managementpractices, waterway system, crop productiontechnology, and appropriate farming systemswith income-generating micro-enterprises forimproving livelihoods while protecting theenvironment. The current model of watershedmanagement, as adopted by the ICRISATwatershed consortium team, involves environ-ment-friendly options and the use of newscience tools, along with the concept of theconsortium approach and emphasis on em-powering farmers through capacity building.The model includes the consortium approachand adopts the concept of convergence inevery activity in the watershed (Wani et al.,2002, 2006a,b; Sreedevi et al., 2004).

The Adarsha watershed (in Kothapally,Ranga Reddy district in Andhra Pradesh, India),


led by the ICRISAT consortium, has clearlydemonstrated increased crop productivity fromrainfed systems through an integrated watershedmanagement approach. APRLP’s working modeto improve the rural livelihoods through thewatershed approach has adopted the Adarshawatershed as an example of a more holisticvision that brings the concept of sustainabilityand eco-regionality and focuses on increasedproductivity and profitability of complex farmingsystems at the smallholder level.

Convergence in the watershed

Convergence in the watershed has evolved withthe community watershed management model,which apart from the IGNRM strategy encom-passes several other entities. By adopting aholistic watershed management approach, thecommunity watershed is used as an entry pointto converge and to explicitly link watershed

development with rural livelihoods and effec-tive poverty eradication and in the processidentify policy interventions at micro-, meso-,and macro-levels (Fig. 12.2). Convergence cantake place at different levels. Convergence atthe village level requires facilitation of processesthat bring about synergy in all the watershed-related activities. Scope for issues relatedto suitable processes for change in micro-practices, macro-policies, convergence, andinformation and management systems alsoformed part of the APRLP mandate. Socio-economic institutional and policy needs toincrease adoption of improved options by therural people are adapted in the convergenceapproach. The complex agricultural productionsystems were intensified while preventingdamage to natural resources and biodiversityand improving the welfare of the farmers andlandless rural poor. The activities in integratedwatershed management approach whereconvergence mode works included:


Fig. 12.1. Innovative farmers’ participatory consortium.

State Govt Depts.FTCs

KVKs

CRIDA

NGOs

SAUs

AdvancedRes. Instt.

● Increasedproductivityincomes

● ImprovedLivelihoods

ICRISAT

● Rainwater conservation and harvesting.● Productivity enhancement.● Soil conservation.● Watershed development.● Establishing village seedbanks through self-

help groups (SHGs).● Availability of quality seeds to farmers at

reasonable rates.● Processing for value addition (seed material,

poultry feed, animal feed, grading andmarketability, quality compost preparation).

● Livestock-based livelihood activities throughimprovement of breed, health and feedquality.

● Poultry rearing for egg and meat productionand local hatching to provide chicks.

● Vermicomposting with cow dung, fodderwaste and weeds, providing quality compostlocally.

Participatory community watershed

The consortium model is a participatorycommunity watershed system with a multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional approach, aprocess involving people who aim to create aself-supporting system essential for sustain-

ability. The process begins with the manage-ment of soil and water, which eventually leads tothe development of other capitals such ashuman, social, physical infrastructure and finan-cial resources. However, large-scale communityparticipation is essential since finally it is thepeople who have to manage their resources.Access to productive resources, empoweringwomen, building on local knowledge and tra-ditions, and involvement of local farmers orvillagers in the local communities in watershedactivities contributed to the success story atAdarsha watershed. Farmers’ participation andinvolvement is critical in integrated communitywatershed management (Wani et al., 2003a;Sreedevi et al., 2004; Joshi et al., 2005) and it iscomplex and needs careful consideration. Thereis a need to harmonize working between exist-ing institutions such as panchayats and water-shed management and users’ associations.

Strategies for integrated farm management

To achieve the goal of increased productivity inrainfed systems and enhance livelihoods, thefollowing strategies are critical for integratedfarm management practices:


Agricultural-based activities

Livestock-basedactivities

Fishery and relatedactivities

Small enterprises in the watershed(value addition to the products,

improved efficiency of operations etc.)

Poultry-basedactivities

Horticulture and forestry-based activities

Improve rural livelihoods for all people in the watershed

Fig. 12.2. Convergence in community watershed.

● Need-based selection of watersheds to ensurethat programmes are demand driven ratherthan supply driven, as is the case generally.

● Participatory approach involving differentstakeholders (farmers, NGOs, local institutions(Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs)), and regionalresearch stations) for planning, execution andevaluation of project activities.

● A multi-institutional consortium approach fortechnical backstopping to empower farmersand develop human and institutional re-sources through capacity-building measuresby integrating the activities of KVKs, Farmers’Training Centres, NGOs, research organiz-ations and line departments of the stategovernment for technical backstopping toundertake the action research at watershedlevel. Good and honest facilitator for effectiveand efficient functioning of the consortium.

● Productivity enhancement measures forincreasing the farmers’ incomes through in-situ conservation of soil and water, stress-tolerant high-yielding cultivars, improvedcrop, nutrient and pest management options,and equipment in addition to the normal soiland water conservation measures.

● Convergence of crop–livestock-based activi-ties and other income-generating micro-enterprises in the watersheds by linkingwatershed development and research activi-ties to increase the effectiveness of holisticwatershed programmes through efficient useof conserved/harvested water and othernatural resources for increasing productionand incomes of the rural poor.

● Create awareness among NGOs and farmersabout environment-friendly resource manage-ment options to minimize land degradationand improve natural resource base.

● Construction of small and low-cost water-harvesting structures throughout the topo-sequence to benefit all farmers, as against thelarge storage structures at the lower end ofthe watershed that benefit only a few, andthus address equity issues for water use.

● Complementary action-research designs formaking effective links between on-farm prob-lems and solutions to ensure the success ofwatershed development programmes bybringing together the knowledge gainedthrough national and international experi-ences to the farmers.

● Networking of community-based organiz-ations (CBOs) to achieve the common goalswith appropriate incentives of increasingproductivity and alleviating poverty.

● Participatory identification of farmer-acceptable crop cultivars to increase thesystems’ productivity in watersheds.

● Use of new science tools such as remote sens-ing (RS), information and communicationtechnologies (ICTs), geographic informationsystems (GIS) and crop simulation models forefficient management of natural resources.

● Collective action through SHGs and micro-financing institutions to benefit voicelessvulnerable group members.

● Enrich human resources with special em-phasis on women and youth to undertakeincome-generating activities through SHGs.

● Establish an ICT-enabled learning system forencouraging interactions among farmergroups to empower the community.

● Participatory monitoring and evaluationusing new science tools as a measure formid-course correction for enhancing impactsrather than for post-programme intervention.

The consortium approach enables the address-ing of equity, gender, sustainability and im-proved livelihoods, which are the pillars ofinclusive and sustainable development. Driversof higher impacts in the community watershedare acute water scarcity, predisposition to workcollectively for community development, goodlocal leadership, tangible economic benefits toindividuals, equal partnership, trust and sharedvision among the stakeholders, transparency andsocial vigilance in the financial dealings, highconfidence of the farmers, low-cost structuresand equitable sharing of benefits, knowledge-based entry point activity, capacity building andempowerment of community, no free ridesthrough subsidized activities for few individuals,and participatory and continuous monitoringand evaluation for mid-course correction (fordetails see Sreedevi et al., 2004; Shiferaw et al.,2006; Chapter 14, this volume).

Upscaling of Consortium Approach forIntegrated Watershed Management

Based on the knowledge gained from Adarshawatershed, Kothapally, India, where the


consortium approach was developed andpiloted, the ICRISAT-led consortium scaled-outthe approach in different states of India andselected provinces in Thailand, Vietnam andChina. In India, the APRLP (supported by DFID,UK) adopted the watershed as an entry point forimproving rural livelihoods in 500 pilot water-sheds in five districts of Andhra Pradesh. TheICRISAT-led consortium established 150 water-sheds (one nucleus; four satellites) as a pilot forthe integrated watershed approach for improvingrural livelihoods.

This project has joined the ongoing, state-wide watershed programme to promote a changein focus so that the livelihoods of the poorestpeople in rainfed areas take centre stage. Theproject has fully financed all activities for 500watersheds in five districts, Anantapur, Kurnool,Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda and Prakasam inAndhra Pradesh, which are semi-arid, drought-prone and among the poorest in the state. Theproject also provided extra finance to theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh for ‘watershedplus’ activities such as capacity building, pro-ductivity enhancement, livelihood support andconvergence with other schemes and services, in2000 more watersheds. In 2004–2005, theAPRLP approach was extended to all the water-sheds in all 22 rural districts of Andhra Pradesh.

APRLP approach

The convergence system forms the strategy ofAPRLP for maximizing the efforts so as to meetstrategic and practical livelihood concerns of thepoor, small and marginal farmers and women inthe communities. Watershed management isused as an entry point to increase croppingintensity and also to rehabilitate degraded landsin the catchments with the aim of increasingproductivity, enhancing biodiversity, increasingincomes and improving livelihoods. Such anapproach demands integrated and holisticsolutions from seed to final produce withinvolvement of various institutions and actorswith divergent expertise varying from technical,social, financial, market, human resource de-velopment and so on (Wani et al., 2003c, 2007;Sreedevi et al., 2006).

As discussed earlier, in the Adarsha water-shed, ICRISAT has clearly demonstrated in-

creased crop productivity from rainfed systemsthrough an integrated watershed managementapproach, which further helped in improvingthe soil quality and reducing the land degra-dation. Farmers adopted improved manage-ment practices such as sowing on a broadbedand furrow (BBF) landform, Gliricidia plantingalong bunds, integrated nutrient management(INM) treatment including inoculation withRhizobium or Azospirillum spp., environment-friendly IPM, using improved bullock-drawntropicultor for sowing and interculture op-erations, and in-situ conservation and harvest-ing of excess rainwater and storage for use assupplemental irrigation and for increasedgroundwater recharge (Wani et al., 2003a;Chapters 6 and 11, this volume). These inno-vations have been scaled up by APRLP in all thedistricts of Andhra Pradesh.

APRLP has also adopted the path with tech-nical backstopping from research organizationslike ICRISAT, the Central Research Institute forDryland Agriculture (CRIDA), and Acharya NGRanga Agricultural University (ANGRAU) forimproving the rural livelihoods in the state ofAndhra Pradesh. The concept of consortium isan integral part of the new integrated watershedmanagement model.

Selection of watersheds and unique features in APRLP

APRLP devised a nine-point selection criteria(Table 12.1) for watersheds integrating naturalresource degradation criteria with multipledeprivation criteria (social and material depri-vation) in order to arrive at reliable indicatorsfor both technical and social features. Micro-and macro-watersheds were identified andprioritized, based on the Sediment Yield Indexindicating land degradation due to erosion andthe dependability of precipitation and evapo-transpiration, which depends on the variabilityand deviation of rainfall. Habitations wereranked according to the levels of degradationand the categories renamed as natural resourcedeprivation typologies.

Multiple deprivation criteria are indices ofpoverty, considering the multiple dimensions ofpoverty as reflected in deprivations of income,accessibility to services and social status. Since


APRLP takes a holistic view of people towardstheir livelihoods and opportunities, it sought tointegrate the indices of natural resource degra-dation and multiple deprivation, and a matrixwas drawn up where each was given equalimportance, while selecting watersheds.

A probation period of up to 18 months wasmade mandatory in watersheds, during whichthe major activities were the preparation ofcapacity-building plans for primary andsecondary stakeholders and the preparation ofstrategic (perspective plan for 5 years) andannual action plans. In each watershed 50 ha ofland was selected as an entry point, out ofwhich 20–30 ha of land belonging to small andmarginal communities were selected for thetreatment during the probation phase. Thesuccess of the probation phase was assessedusing a set of agreed objective performance

indicators (Table 12.2) by the community them-selves, by which the project empowered thecommunity and instilled a sense of ownershipof the project, leading to its sustainability.APRLP adopted a site-specific and farmer-friendly participatory net planning (PNP)approach for preparing action plans for theindividual farm holdings. Similarly, the poorestof the poor are identified through participatorysituational analysis and wealth ranking of differ-ent households, based on their social andeconomic conditions.

Operationalizing APRLP–DFID–ICRISATwatersheds

A coalition of partners consisting of CRIDA,ANGRAU, National Remote Sensing Agency


Table 12.1. Nine-point selection criteria for selection of watersheds used in APRLP.

Parameters Range Mark Weightage

% of small and marginal farmers <25 5>25–50 10

>50 15 15

% of SC/ST holdings <10 3>10–25 10 10

% of women organized in self-help groups <20 3and participating in the programme >20–50 5

>50 10 10

Status of groundwater (m) <10 2>10–15 3

>15 5 5

Andhra Pradesh Remote-sensing Application Very low 6Centre (APSRAC) prioritization Low 12

Medium 18High 24

Very high 30 30

Livestock population <1000 2>1000–<2000 3

>2000 5 5

Number of families affected/involved in migration <50 3>50–<100 5

>100 10 10

Contiguity Yes 5No 0 5

Availability of fallow/wasteland and common property <10 3resources for the poor to utilize usufruct (%) >10–<20 5

>20 10 10

Total 100


Table 12.2. Parameters assessing the success of the probation phase for new watersheds in APRLP,Andhra Pradesh, India.

Item Activity Expected outcome

Situation analysis Conducting participatory situation analysis Strategic action plan of watershed (for 5 years)

Conducting participatory rural appraisal Probation-phase action plan Situational analysis of ground conditions Livelihood action planWealth ranking exercise Identification of poorest of the poor

Capacity building Capacity needs assessment survey Capacity-building plan of watershed incorporated in the district-level calendar

Organizing mandatory training for Completion of mandatory training of:community-based organizations (SHGs, ● Project-implementing agency/watersheduser groups, watershed committees, development team at MANAGEwatershed associations) and ● SHGs /user groups/watershed committeesproject-implementing agency/watershed at district leveldevelopment team

Identification and training of paraworkers – At least one paraworker for agriculture, agriculture, animal husbandry, health, etc. animal husbandry from each watershed

village trainedConsolidating SHGs Categorizing existing SHGs as per District ● Self-monitoring through the Participatory

Rural Development Agency norms Situational Analysis charts● About 50% of SHGs in ‘A’ category or show

upward trendOrganizing poor families who had not joined About 50% of target population organized

any SHGs into new SHGs into SHGsPromoting federation of SHGs into village About 70% of SHGs federated into village

organization organizationLinking with revolving fund/bank loan About 50% of SHGs linked with banks

Village organization If it does not exist, then forming of village Constitution of village organization if it doesorganization not exist

If it already exists, ensuring linkage with ● Village organization strengthened to shownewly formed SHGs improvement in category and scores

60 marks as per defined norms● Documentation on functioning process of

village organization● Signing MoU with village organization

Linking with livelihood fund ● Finalization of livelihood plan● Approval for the release of Livelihood

Revolving FundIdentification of Preparing action plan for probation area ● Watershed implementation should start

probation-phase ● Preferable location – ridge/valley from ridge to valleyarea, say 50 ha ● Area type – private land of about ● Priority to common property resource

25–30 ha (poor, marginal/small farmer) ● No work on private lands of large/mediumand common land of about 25–30 ha farmer should take place till lands of

marginal/small farmers get saturatedIntegrating with annual/strategic plan Preparation of perspective planForming user groups 2–3 user groups formedPlanning for low-cost structures Priority to cost-effective structuresCollection of contribution Identification and evaluation of natural

leaders and SHGs having potential forconverting to watershed committees

Promotion of common Plantation on common lands Identification of common lands for plantationpool resources activities

Accessibility to poor ● Usufruct rights to the poor● MoU for usufruct rights to the poor

(NRSA), Drought Prone Area Programme(DPAP) (now District Water ManagementAgency (DWMA)), Department of Agriculture(DoA), Project Implementing Agencies (PIAs),APRLP Programme Support Unit and ICRISATwas operationalized through a set of roles andshared responsibilities with a common vision.The emphasis was on empowerment ofthe community and gender equity throughknowledge-based technological and institutionalinterventions, targeting multiple developmentconstraints. The representative benchmarkwatersheds were identified for testing the tech-nological findings. In the three target districts(Mahabubnagar, Kurnool and Nalgonda) ofAndhra Pradesh, 50 watersheds (10 nucleusand 40 satellite) were selected based on severalcriteria: (i) representative typology; (ii) extent ofrainfed area; (iii) productivity levels; and (iv)willingness of farmers to participate in the testsites for implementing the project activities(ICRISAT, 2006a). An additional 100 water-sheds were added later. The nucleus watershedsserved as the sites for undertaking actionresearch for development and critical monitor-ing and also as sites of learning where farmersconducted experiments with improved soil,water, crop, nutrient and pest managementoptions with technical backstopping from theconsortium partners.

The farmers from nucleus watersheds, whenempowered, became trainers to fellow farmers inboth nucleus and satellite watersheds, while thePIAs empowered and developed as master PIAsand trained other PIAs in the districts. A detailedbaseline socio-economic household survey wasconducted in selected nucleus watershedsthrough participatory rural appraisal, a structured

questionnaire and secondary data to study majorsocio-economic and biophysical constraints forsustainable crop production and to documentdetailed baseline data for impact monitoring atthe end of the APRLP project in each village.

Equity issues were addressed appropriatelywhile preparing action plans for sharing benefitsfrom the interventions. Similarly, micro-enter-prises had been promoted under plus activitiesto generate income for the communities duringthe off-season. This also reduced migration ofrural people during the non-agricultural seasonto urban areas. A microfinance component hadgiven priority to poor communities (SHGs) bylinking local microcredit institutions for generat-ing their revolving funds and for sustainability.

Knowledge-based entry point – widespreadmicronutrient deficiencies in SAT soils

The ICRISAT consortium team assessed 3622soil samples from the farmers’ fields in differentstates of India (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and TamilNadu) and observed widespread deficiencies ofsulfur (S), zinc (Zn) and boron (B), along withtotal nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) (Table12.3) (Sahrawat et al., 2008). For rapportbuilding – knowledge-based entry point activity,for example – the results of the soil analysiswere presented in the gram sabhas, and the im-portance of soil analysis and nutrient deficien-cies in crop production were discussed (Fig.12.3). A large number of farmers wereconvinced about the importance of balancednutrition in crop production and came forwardas volunteers to evaluate the INM options.


Table 12.3. Percentage of farmers’ fields deficient in soil nutrients in different states of India.

No. of farmers’ Org. C

Nutrients (mg/kg soil)

State fields (%) Av. P K S B Zn

Andhra Pradesh 1927 84 39 12 87 88 81Karnataka 1260 58 49 18 85 76 72Madhya Pradesh 73 9 86 1 96 65 93Rajasthan 179 22 40 9 64 43 24Gujarat 82 12 60 10 46 100 82Tamil Nadu 119 57 51 24 71 89 61Kerala 28 11 21 7 96 100 18

Land and water management

In drought-prone areas in-situ rainwater con-servation measures improve the security forgrowing the crops. The approach has been tostore as much rainwater in the soil as possiblebefore channelling run-off from the fields forstorage in the tanks. The bullock-drawntropicultor, which is referred to as the poor man’stractor, provides all the help to undertake timelyland preparation operations. Farmers haveevaluated the following landform treatments:

● Flat sowing on contour.● Flat sowing on contour and a dead furrow at

10–15 m distance.● Planting on ridges.● Broadbed and furrows on 0.4–0.8% grade.

About 1000 farmers in nine nucleus water-sheds evaluated improved crop and soilmanagement options in their fields with the tech-nical support. Several farmers in nucleus water-sheds have sown sole and intercrops in linesalong with fertilizers using tropicultors (Fig. 12.4).

Integrated nutrient management (INM)

On the basis of soil test results, farmers usedmicronutrient amendments on various crops

such as mung bean, sorghum, maize, pigeonpea,castor and groundnut. In spite of drought in2002, the farmers in Nalgonda district, AndhraPradesh recorded 17–125% increase in mungbean yield (with 44% more yield, i.e. 1110 kg/haversus 770 kg/ha) in their village in spite of theprevailing drought condition during the season.Farmers recorded 13–230% increase in maizeyields with an average increase of 72% over thebase yield of 2980 kg/ha; the increase in castoryields was 21–70% with an average increase of60% over the base yield of 470 kg/ha. Similarlygroundnut yield increased by 28% over the baseyield of 1430 kg/ha.

Based on the experience in the first year,participatory R&D trials were designed to studythe response of crops like mung bean, sorghum,maize, pigeonpea, castor and groundnut toeach deficient nutrient over farmers’ nutrientinputs as well as to secondary and micronu-trients with optimum N and P nutrients. Goodresponse has been observed in maize,sorghum, mung bean and groundnut not only to combined application of S, B and Znbut also to individual application of these nu-trient elements (Table 12.4). The balancednutrient supply resulted not only in significantincreases (70–119%) in grain production but also in substantial additional incomes(Table 12.5).


Fig. 12.3. Scientists explaining results of soil analysis to villagers in a gram sabha in a village at Palem,Mahabubnagar, Andhra Pradesh, India.


Fig. 12.4. Sowing with a tropicultor.

Table 12.4. Yield and total dry matter (TDM) of different crops based on response to nutrients during therainy season, 2003 in APRLP watersheds.

No. of Control Sulfur Boron Zinc C+SB+ C+NP+SBCrop farmers (C) (S) (B) (Zn) Zn +Zn SE CV (%)

Maize grain (kg/ha) 24 2,790 3,520 3,710 3,710 4,140 4,880 466 12% increase over control 26 33 33 49 75Maize TDM (kg/ha) 6,370 7,650 8,120 7,950 9,060 104,00 947 12% increase over control 20 27 25 42 63Groundnut pod (kg/ha) 30 830 930 1,000 1,050 1,230 1,490 134 12% increase over control 12 20 27 48 78Groundnut TDM (kg/ha) 2,920 3,150 3,453 3,590 4,140 4,730 333 9% increase over control 8 18 23 42 62Mung bean grain (kg/ha) 6 900 1,210 1,130 1,320 1,390 1,530 114 9% increase over control 33 24 46 54 70Mung bean TDM (kg/ha) 2,900 4,140 3,840 4,510 4,840 5,410 335 8% increase over control 43 32 55 67 86Sorghum grain (kg/ha) 6 900 1,190 1,160 1,330 1,460 1,970 190 14% increase over control 32 29 47 62 119Sorghum TDM (kg/ha) 4,800 5,460 5,480 6,420 6,640 8,030 790 13% increase over control 14 14 34 38 67

Table 12.5. Economic returns through application of micronutrients to different crops during 2003.

Economic returns (Rs/ha)

Particulars Maize Groundnut Mung bean Sorghum

Farmers inputs (FI) 13,930 12,490 13,570 4,510FI + B 18,350 14,850 16,710 5,970FI + S 17,230 13,650 17,770 5,620FI + Zn 17,480 14,780 18,760 5,590FI + B + S + Zn 19,430 16,850 19,290 5,730FI + B + S + Zn + NP 21,770 19,520 20,330 7,170

Soil organic matter: an important driver ofincreased productivity

Soils in the dryland tropical areas are marginal toirrigated. Assessment of the fertility status of farm-ers’ fields showed that almost all farmers’ fieldssampled were low in organic carbon (Sahrawat etal., 2008). It is, however, recognized and em-phasized that the productivity of tropical drylandsis low due to water shortages. However, ratherthan water quantity per se, management of avail-able water with enhanced water use efficiency is aproblem and soil fertility is an important limi-tation (Wani et al., 2008c; Chapter 2, thisvolume).

Farmyard manure is in short supply and isgenerally applied to high-value irrigated crops indrylands. In-situ generation of N-rich organicmatter by growing Gliricidia sepium, Cassiasemia and other N2-fixing legumes on contourand property bunds and maintaining as shrubshelps in adding organic matter to the soil (Fig.12.5). Gliricidia sepium is drought tolerant, sturdyunder varying temperature conditions andanimals do not like it. Once established, from thesecond year onwards G. sepium loppings provide30–50 kg N/ha, which is largely fixed from the

atmosphere, and other plant nutrients are alsorecycled from deeper soil layers. In addition itprovides valuable organic matter, much neededin the tropics for maintaining soil fertility. TheSHGs grew the nurseries of Gliricidia in thevillages as an income-generating micro-enterpriseand provided the plants for planting on the fieldbunds.

Vermicomposting

Large quantities of organic wastes are generatedregularly in farms as well as in houses. Disposalof such residues is difficult and generallybecomes a serious problem. Most of the organicwaste is either burned or used as land fillings.These residues contain valuable plant nutrientsand can be effectively recycled and usedfor increasing the agricultural productivity.Earthworms convert the residues into a valuablesource of plant nutrients by feeding on theorganic material and excreting valuable organicmanure. The role of earthworms is to improvesoil fertility and soil health. They eat farmresidues and vegetable peelings and convertthese into an N-rich compost called vermicom-


Fig. 12.5. Gliricidia plants on field bund conserving soil and generating nitrogen-rich organic matter.

post. Vermicompost increases the water-holdingcapacity of the soil, promotes crop growth,increases production and improves food andfodder quality. Generally, rock-phosphate-enriched vermicompost contains 1.0–1.4% N,0.6% P, 0.7% potassium (K) and also manyother micronutrients (Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe, Zn) whichare very important for increasing crop pro-ductivity and maintaining soil quality.

These alternate sources supply sizeablequantities of nutrients, reducing the need forhuge quantities of costly fertilizer, and alsoprovide an alternate source of income for thewomen SHGs as a micro-enterprise (Fig. 12.6).However, suitable capacity building and aware-

ness measures are needed to harness multiplebenefits such as recycling valuable plant nu-trients, disposal of organic wastes through en-vironment-friendly methods and generatingadditional income for women SHGs.

A commercial model of vermicompostingdeveloped at ICRISAT, Patancheru consists offour chambers enclosed by walls (1 m high,1.5 m wide, total of 4.5 m long). The walls canbe made up of different materials such as normalbricks, hollow bricks, Shabad stones, asbestossheets or locally available rocks. The partitionwalls contain small holes to facilitate the easymovement of earthworms from one chamber toanother (Fig. 12.7). The outlet provided at the


Fig. 12.6. Vermicomposting by women’s self-help groups in a village in Andhra Pradesh, India.

Fig. 12.7. Commercial model of vermicomposting.

corner of each chamber helps collect excesswater, which can be reused. The four compo-nents are filled with plant residues one afteranother and earthworms are released once thefirst chamber is filled. Once the contents in thefirst chamber are decomposed the earthwormsmove to the second chamber and so on. Thisfacilitates continuous supply of vermicompost,saving on labour and introduction of earth-worms each time.

Integrated pest management

Crop production in the semi-arid tropics isseverely threatened by increased difficulties incontrolling insect pests and diseases of cropplants, as pests are developing resistanceagainst the pesticides used, which results in anincrease in cultivation costs and environmentalproblems with pesticide residues. The IPMmeasures include use of improved pest-tolerantcultivars, pest monitoring, use of biopesticidesand plant-based pesticides, cultural practicessuch as use of trap crops and need-based use ofchemicals. The major purpose of monitoring isto ensure protection of crops of the partnerfarmers in the watersheds from insect pestsusing scientifically accepted and economicallyviable field-applicable practices (Fig. 12.8). This

was achieved by: (i) familiarizing the partnerfarmers on scouting for insect pests andmonitoring their population; and (ii) using thedata/information thus collected for decisionmaking on spray material for protection againstthe insect pest threatening a given crop.

Shaking off larvae of Helicoverpa armigerafrom pigeonpea stems and manual killing ofSpodoptera larvae on castor leaves werelaborious but effective methods. Neem fruitextract (25 kg/ha) in boiling water was rec-ommended for control of semilooper on castorand Helicoverpa on pigeonpea, when thelarvae were in early instar stages. As a con-tinuous effort to enhance capacity building,community video shows on IPM in groundnut,pigeonpea and chickpea were organized inthese villages. In north-east Thailand, Tad Fawatershed farmers use low-cost sugarcanemolasses kept in open plastic bottles to attractinsects and control the pests. In vegetable plots,700 ml capacity bottles with two side openingsare filled with molasses and placed at 30 cmabove ground level (Fig. 12.9). The insects areattracted by molasses, get trapped and die.About 3–73% damage is caused in cabbagefields due to loopers, leaf-eating beetles andcabbage cutworms (Table 12.6). At Wang Chaiand Tad Fa watersheds in north-east Thailand,farmers are successfully and effectively using


Fig. 12.8. Farmers in India monitoring pest population with pheromone traps.

molasses to control pests in vegetable fields(Table 12.6). Similarly, in China watersheds,farmers are successfully using light traps andtobacco waste to control pests in vegetablefields in Xiaoxincun watershed, Yuanmou insouth China.

Crop intensification and diversification

Farmers’ participatory selection of improved varieties

One of the important weak links in increasingcrop productivity is poor crop stand due to poorseed quality and use of traditional varieties.Watershed farmers were empowered through

technical backstopping, and the dependency offarmers on subsidies was minimized. Thefarmers selected improved cultivars and estab-lished village seedbanks. To build the stocks ofseeds of improved crop cultivars in the water-shed villages, activities on continued strengthen-ing of village-based seedbanks were taken up byincreasing the quantity of breeders’ seeds ofdifferent crops.

The empowered farmers and SHG membersoperated village seedbanks based on thedemand from the farmers who had identifiedsuitable cultivars through participatory R&D.The SHGs buy back the seeds of varieties (notthe hybrids) produced under the technical guid-ance of the consortium partners. The improvedseeds of high-yielding varieties of all the crops


Fig. 12.9. Simple IPM system installed in a cabbage field in north-east Thailand.

Table 12.6. Estimation of damage to cabbage crop by insects without using IPM technique in Thailanda.

Total worms (eggs)that could have No. of worms to

Adult insects Insects trapped been produced by potentially damage Degree of damage(worms source) in bottle (no.) trapped insects (no.) one plant completely without IPM (%)

Cabbage loopers 165 123,750 150 15Cabbage cutworms 115 28,750 7 73Leaf-eating beetles 108 15,050 100 3Total 388 167,550 257 91

aCalculated based on 25 IPM trap sets used in 5,600 cabbage plants.

proved remunerative because of their highyields (Table 12.7). Similarly, farmers inRajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Karnatakahave selected cultivars and established villageseedbanks. In Andhra Pradesh, the governmenthas scaled-out the village seedbank initiative byinstitutionalizing the concept with revolvingfunds provided by the government.

Yield maximization trials

Farmers’ yields are two- to fivefold lower thanthe potential yields realized at research stationsor obtained by progressive farmers (Rockströmet al., 2007; Wani et al., 2008a). Yield maximiz-ation in participatory R&D trials on prominentcrops (castor, pearl millet, maize, sorghum,pigeonpea, groundnut, soybean and sunflower)with best-bet options (improved seed, integratednutrient and pest management and improvedcrop husbandry practices) resulted in spectacularyield advantages in sorghum (35–257%), maize(30–174%), pearl millet (72–242%), groundnut(28–179%), pigeonpea (97–204% in sole and40–110% in intercropping) and mung bean(42–111%) crops despite a not so favourablecropping season due to prolonged early andmid-season drought (Tables 12.8–12.12 and Fig. 12.10).

Crop intensification in watersheds

Double cropping (sorghum–chickpea, maize–chickpea) introduced in the traditionally rabi(post-rainy)-season-cropped vertisol areas ofKurnool and Nalgonda districts (850 ha) andintercropping (sorghum/pigeonpea, castor/pigeonpea, groundnut/ pigeonpea, groundnut/pearl millet, cotton/pigeonpea) in the alfisolareas (2500 ha) of Mahabubnagar, Nalgondaand Kurnool (Fig. 12.11) gave substantial yieldadvantages and captured farmers’ interest, andconsiderable area increase is envisaged.

Water management: key investment fordiversification of agricultural income

Established but incomplete evidence indicatesthat off-farm employment in rural areas usuallyexpands parallel to agricultural growth. It hasbeen estimated that a 1% growth in agriculturalyields brings about a 0.5–0.7% reduction in thenumber of poor (World Bank, 2005). Thus ruralemployment, both on-farm and off-farm, isstrongly conditioned by the rate of agriculturalgrowth.

A recent study in the developedRajasamadhiyala watershed in Gujarat, India


Table 12.7. Farmer participatory selection of groundnut varieties in Karivemula in Andhra Pradesh, Indiaduring 2003.

Improved practice Farmer practiceIncrease in

Variety Yield (kg/ha) Variety Yield (kg/ha) % Increase income (Rs/ha)

ICGS 11 1730 TMV-2 1140 52.0 8850ICGS 76 1480 TMV-2 900 64.0 8700Mean 1605 1020 58.0 8775

Table 12.8. Mung bean yields as affected by best-bet options in Nalgonda district in in Andhra Pradesh,India during rainy season 2003.

Grain yield (t/ha)

Watershed Improved practicea Traditional practiceb Yield advantage (%)

Nandyal Gudem 1.42 1.00 42Atmakur 1.44 0.92 57P. Suryapet 2.15 1.02 111Mean 1.67 0.98 70

a Improved seed, integrated nutrient and pest management, and targeted crop husbandry; bFarmers’normal crop husbandry practices with or without improved seed.

revealed that public investments in rainwaterharvesting enabled individual farmers to investin digging open wells and bore wells, pump sets,sprinkler sets and drip irrigation systems in ad-dition to investments in fertilizers, and improvedpest and disease management options (Sreedeviet al., 2006; Wani et al., 2006a). Integratedwatershed development triggered a shift towardscommercial cereal crop production, such asmaize, whereas in the surrounding villages with-

out watershed development, farmers continuedto grow low-value cereals like sorghum. In ad-dition, farmers put more area under vegetablesand horticultural crops in the developed water-shed village, Kothapally, as compared with thesurrounding non-project villages in AndhraPradesh (Wani et al., 2006b) (Fig. 12.12). Aprerequisite for such a diversification is theaccess to markets. In India the output from rain-fed agriculture has in many areas increased


Fig. 12.10. Performance of crops with best-bet options in community watersheds in Karnataka, India.

Table 12.9. Pearl millet yields as influenced by best-bet options in Kurnool district in Andhra Pradesh,India during rainy season 2003.

Grain yield (t/ha)

Crop Watershed Improved practice Traditional practice Yield advantage (%)

Pearl millet Devanakonda 2.29 1.33 72Obulapuram 2.50 0.73 242Madhapuram 1.62 0.59 175


Table 12.10. Maize yields as influenced by best-bet options in Nalgonda and Mahabubnagar districts inAndhra Pradesh, India during rainy season 2003.

Grain yield (t/ha)

Watershed Improved practice Traditional practice Yield advantage (%)

NalgondaKacharam 4.40 1.68 162D. Gudem 2.96 2.25 32K. Gudem 3.83 2.34 64Sadhuvelli 4.02 2.84 42Gouraipalli 3.85 1.91 102

Mean 3.81 2.20 73Mahabubnagar

Sripuram 5.76 4.44 30Uyyalawada 3.90 2.02 93Aloor 4.37 2.40 82Nallavelli 5.81 4.27 36Vanapatla 5.92 4.31 37Naganool 5.64 4.20 34Malleboinpally 3.89 1.62 140Sripuram 8.32 3.04 174Naganool 8.00 3.12 156Vanapatla 8.39 5.52 52Gollapally 4.73 3.56 33

Mean 5.88 3.50 68Grand mean 5.24 3.10 69

Fig. 12.11. Pearl millet/groundnut intercropping in Devanakonda, Andhra Pradesh, India.


Table 12.11. Groundnut yields as influenced by best-bet options in Nalgonda and Kurnool districts inAndhra Pradesh, India during 2003.

Grain yield (t/ha)

Groundnut Watershed Improved practice Traditional practice Yield advantage (%)

NalgondaNemmikal 1.98 0.75 164P.Suryapet 1.36 0.83 64Gattikal 1.00 0.53 89Nassempet 1.09 0.58 88

Mean 1.36 0.67 102Kurnool

Karivemula 1.44 0.85 69Karidikonda 1.78 1.02 75Jilledabudakala 1.21 0.74 64Devanakonda 1.99 1.55 28Burrakunta 1.14 0.73 56Karivemula 2.37 0.85 179Karidikonda 1.66 1.16 43Jilledabudakala 1.15 0.81 42Burrakunta 2.23 1.47 52Venkatapuram 0.81 0.46 76Rallakottur 1.55 1.03 50

Mean 1.58 0.97 62Grand mean 1.52 0.89 70

Table 12.12. Sorghum yields as influenced by best-bet options in Nalgonda and Mahabubnagar districtsin Andhra Pradesh, India during 2003.

Grain yield (t/ha)

Sorghum Watershed Improved practice Traditional practice Yield advantage (%)

NalgondaSadhuvelli 2.68 1.59 69Dharmareddigudem 2.14 1.58 35

Mean 2.41 1.59 52Mahabubnagar

Burreddypally 1.92 0.94 104Gangapuram 1.47 0.93 58Burreddypally 3.18 0.89 257Nandipet 3.07 0.97 217Gollapally 1.65 0.98 68

Mean 2.26 0.94 140Grand mean 2.30 1.13 104

rapidly and at the same pace as in irrigatedareas, including widespread adoption of high-yielding varieties in rainfed areas (Kerr, 1996).

Similarly, in many parts of Tanzania, rain-water harvesting has enabled farmers in semi-arid areas to upgrade rainfed farming byshifting from the cultivation of sorghum andmillet to rice or maize, with follow-up legume

crops that exploit residual moisture in the field.Currently, production of rice in semi-arid areasusing rainwater harvesting accounts for over35% of the rice produced in the country(Gowing et al., 1999; Meertens et al., 1999).Most importantly, upgrading rainfed farmingthrough rainwater harvesting has enabledfarmers to grow a marketable crop in dry areas,

thus providing opportunity for poverty re-duction (Rockström et al., 2007). In China,rainwater harvesting and storage on a smallscale enabled farmers to grow vegetables andmarket collectively to earn more income (seeBox 12.1).

Multiple benefits of farm-scale watermanagement

Investments in water management in rainfedsystems can have important additional benefitsdue to the multiple roles of water for livelihoodsand health. Benefits from rainwater in supportingall forms of biomass growth of cultivated crops,pasture for livestock, non-cultivated food plants,and fuel and construction wood indicate thatrainwater plays an important role in determiningoverall resilience of rural communities practisingrainfed agriculture. Rural livelihoods are alsostrongly dependent on non-agricultural income,i.e. other livelihood strategies (remittances,seasonal off-farm work, rural complementarysources of income, etc.), which reduce vulnera-bility to rainfall variations (Rockström et al.,2007). A study in East Africa shows that strategiesfor poverty reduction to meet the MillenniumDevelopment Goals require investments that

promote productivity growth in: (i) major staples,which were found to be key for overall economicgrowth and poverty reduction. Since rainfedsystems dominate the production of staples, thisis proof of the importance of investing in theupgrading of rainfed systems; (ii) the livestocksubsector, which consists of predominantly rain-fed systems, is a key livelihood source for thepeople in the SAT region; and (iii) non-farm ruralenterprises, especially those linked to value-adding processing of crop and livestock produces(ASARECA-IFPRI, 2005).

Apart from livestock enterprises, there areother options available for generating morebenefits from systems such as forests and range-lands, which deplete rainwater naturally. Theyinclude investments to further add value to rain,e.g. the development of micro-enterprisesassociated with natural resources such as vermi-composting, nursery raising, biodiesel plants, oilextraction and value addition through process-ing of farm produce. These activities ensureddiversified livelihood options for women as wellas youth and provided resilience during thedrought years (Wani et al., 2003b, 2006b; Joshiet al., 2005). Micro-enterprises benefitedwomen and vulnerable groups in the societyand addressed equity issues in rainfed areas(Box 12.2).


Cash crops

Oil crops

Pulses

High-value cereals

Low-value cereals

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Total no. of crop growers (%)

Watershed project village Adjoining non-project village

56.5

66.2

2.7

3.9

32.5

30.9

29.4

33.3

26.4

22.2

Fig. 12.12. Income stability and resilience in Kothapally, Andhra Pradesh, India.


Box 12.1. Contribution to women’s development.

Women’s tenacity in householding is remarkable. In the watershed villages, women’s propensity to workagainst all odds is shown in the management of household consumption and production under conditionsof increasing poverty.

Lakshmi, a poor resident of Kothapally village, Andhra Pradesh, India, eked her livelihood as a farmlabourer until she was introduced to vermicomposting, i.e. converting degradable garbage, weeds andcrop residues into valuable organic manure using earthworms. She earned US$36 per month from thisactivity. She has also inspired and trained 300 peers in 50 villages of Andhra Pradesh. Lakshmi has alsoachieved a singular recognition by becoming a Fellow of the Jamsetji Tata National Virtual Academy forRural Prosperity for her achievement of empowering women members.

Subhadrahbi is the key person in the change in the role of women and the transformation ofPowerguda, a tribal village in Andhra Pradesh, into one of self-sufficiency. She pioneered the integratedwatershed management approach and biodiesel enterprise, specifically Pongamia nursery raising andextraction of oil in the village. With this, her women’s group sold carbon credits to the World Bank andgained worldwide accolade.

A woman in Wang Chai watershed, Thailand who had the chance to be part of a cross-visit sponsoredby the watershed project learned much about cooperative work. This paved the way for the various self-help groups organized, such as fish sauce, soap making, shampoo and fish feed.

In Addakal mandal, India, a group of 500 women from 17 villages federated to form the MahilaSamaikhya. To date, they operate a bank, a resource centre for training and a knowledge hub. They areconnected worldwide through information technology and facilitated empowerment of other women,especially of their district.

These cases epitomize how women in certain situations and relationships can wield power and usepossibilities for maneuvering to achieve better livelihoods. Watershed projects provided the platform forcreativity and innovations without jeopardizing social norms.

Box 12.2. Poultry farming leading the way to prosperity in Lucheba.

Mr Peng Fay Ou, a normal farmer with a 1 ha landholding in Lucheba watershed in China, has sevenmembers in the family and was earning 3000 CNY per year. However, with the watershed projectinterventions his agricultural income has been raised by threefold to 10,000 CNY per year and it is largelyowing to growing vegetables three times in a year using the harvested rainwater. The way Mr Peng Fay hasmoved out of poverty, leveraging the allied sector activities through increased income is exemplary. Hehas 200 chicks and plans to sell these when they are 70 days old. He is expecting 30 CNY per bird and atotal income of 6000 CNY. He has two female pigs, seven male pigs and 15 piglets, which he sold at 1500CNY. He also has one buffalo. His income has increased to 4000–5000 CNY per year. In this village hesays that his family is one of the few (15) families having higher income, although the income of all thefamilies has substantially improved due to the project activities.

Mr Chen Shao Bao is another enterprising farmer, who has 1500 chicks in his unit for the first time. Hesaid that income from pigs was less and they decided to invest more in poultry to earn more income.From pigs he got 10,000 CNY total income whereas by investing 4000 CNY in chicks he will get 7000CNY net income in less time. He plans to have a 20-day cycle for the poultry. His mother Liu Yun Zhenhelps him in taking care of the poultry. His family is a joint family with eight members. Similarly there areten other farmers who are rearing poultry in this group of 44 farmers.

Run-off and soil loss from the APRLP watersheds

At each of the ten watersheds of APRLP inAndhra Pradesh, a digital run-off recorderand microprocessor-based automatic sediment

sampler were installed, which measured run-offand soil losses. Among the ten watersheds,considerable variations in seasonal run-off,peak run-off rate and soil loss were recorded(Table 12.13). The highest seasonal run-off of68.9 mm (12.8% of the seasonal rainfall)

was recorded at Appayapally watershed inMahabubnagar district and no run-off wasrecorded from Nandavaram watershed inKurnool district, where vertisols were pre-dominant. The highest peak run-off rate of 82.8m3/h/ha was recorded at Nemmikal watershedin Nalgonda district. Due to very low seasonalrun-off, the soil loss in most of the watershedswas less than 1 t/ha. Only at Nemmikal andAppayapally watersheds was the soil loss higherthan 1 t/ha (Table 12.13).

Revolving fund to improve livelihoods

The loans provided through the revolving fundmechanism to the SHGs and to the selectedmembers of various categories of householdsprovided monetary support for undertaking vari-ous activities in the villages. In Prakasam district(APRLP, 2006a), the households undertook anumber of activities through the revolving fund.The majority of members (51%) have taken upmilch cattle units for income generation throughselling of milk in the village or nearby areas (Fig.12.13). At least 8% of members have utilized theloan amount to set up grocery shops, followedby 9% for sheep and goats, and 3% for agri-cultural purposes. Interestingly, 28% of themembers were reported to have invested theamount in miscellaneous activities like tea stalls,cloth shops, STD booths, cable business, tailor-ing, hotels, etc.

Capacity building

Empowerment of different stakeholders throughcapacity building in participatory integratedwatershed management facilitated the scaling-up of the benefits from the nucleus and satellitewatersheds in the target regions (Fig. 12.14).

Sensitization of policy advisors and policy makers

Policy advisors and policy makers are very criticalfor dissemination and upscaling of the benefits ofimproved technologies. The principle of ‘seeing isbelieving’ was adopted, and exposure visits aswell as orientation programmes were organizedfor members of the district capacity-buildingcentres, SHGs, PIAs and farmers, and also forsensitizing the policy makers. Specialized trainingcourses tailored for the farmers, SHGs and youthare needed for enhancing the impacts.

ICT-enabled farmer-centred learning systemsfor knowledge exchange

It is increasingly realized that facilitation ofknowledge flows is key in fostering new rurallivelihood opportunities using modern infor-mation and communication technologies (ICTs).The concept adapted is one of intelligent


Table 12.13. Rainfall, run-off, peak run-off rate and soil loss in APRLP watersheds during 2003.

PeakSeasonal Seasonal run-off

rainfall run-off rate Soil lossDistrict Nucleus watershed (mm) (mm) (m3/h/ha) (t/ha)

Mahabubnagar Appayapally 540 69 58.7 1.04Malleboinpally 654 55 57.6 NAa

Mentapally 335 29 10.8 0.28Sripuram 474 46 25.2 0.98

Nalgonda Kacharam 700 30 7.2 0.58Tirumalapuram 474 17 79.2 0.53Nemmikal 695 75 82.8 1.45

Kurnool Devanakonda 502 79 370.8 0.78Karivemula 320 25 61.2 0.69Nandavaram 354 Nil Nil Nil

a NA = data not available.


400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

No.

of m

embe

rs

TotalPercentage

348

5165

9 193

53

8 1 0

28

190

Milch c

attle

Sheep

/goat

Agricu

lture

purp

oses

Groce

ry sh

op

Baske

t mak

ingOthe

r

Activities

Fig. 12.13. Activities undertaken through the revolving fund in APRLP watersheds in Andhra Pradesh, India.

Fig. 12.14. Knowledge transfer within the institution and the region. (WS = watershed)

intermediation for facilitation of flows of informa-tion and knowledge. The community centre man-aged by the PIAs functions as a Rural InformationHub, connecting participating villages (or groupsof villages, as the case may be) and also withother internet-connected web sites (Fig. 12.15). Itis operated or managed by a rural group (womenor youth SHGs) identified by the village water-shed council through a consultative process. Theactivities on this module are planned to adopt ahub-and-spokes model for information dissemi-nation among the participants and stakeholders.The electronic network across select nuclearwatersheds enables sharing of experience andbest practices.

Other Scaling-out Experiences

The success of the model watersheds ofICRISAT also attracted the Asian DevelopmentBank, Philippines, to upscale the benefits inIndia, China, north-east Thailand and northernVietnam. The Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and theSujala watershed programme in Karnataka,with support from the World Bank, scaled-outthe model in the states of Madhya Pradesh,Rajasthan and Karnataka in India to minimizeland degradation and improve rural livelihoodsthrough technical backstopping from theICRISAT-led consortium. Results from the water-shed interventions in these locations are veryencouraging (Wani et al., 2007).

Improved land, soil and water management practices

Sowing on a BBF landform at Lalatora,Ringnodia (Madhya Pradesh) and Kothapally(Andhra Pradesh) on vertisols and alfisols main-tained better moisture conditions, increasedinfiltration, reduced run-off during the entirecrop growth period and increased crop yields(10–40%) through enhanced rainwater useefficiency. At Lalatora watershed the seasonalrun-off from the treated watershed was less thanone-fifth (55 mm) of that from the untreatedwatershed (291 mm) (ICRISAT, 2005a). At TadFa watershed, Thailand, less than half ofseasonal run-off (194 mm) was recorded fromthe watershed under the improved (fruit treesand seasonal crops) land-use system comparedwith the watershed with the conventional(seasonal crop) land-use system (473 mm)(ICRISAT, 2006b). Improved watershed tech-nologies were also quite effective in reducing soilloss; the improved technologies recorded a 70%lower seasonal soil loss compared with theuntreated watershed at Lalatora. Similarly, atTad Fa watershed a seasonal soil loss of 15.4t/ha was recorded from the untreated watershedcompared with 10.3 t/ha from the treated water-shed (ICRISAT, 2006b), whereas in Karnataka(India) soil loss ranging from 0.7 to 2.0 t/ha wasrecorded (Table 12.14).

A major impact of improved watershed tech-nologies was seen in improving the groundwater


Fig. 12.15. Information and communication technology services enabled in Mahabubnagar, AndhraPradesh, India.

recharge. Groundwater level rose by 5.75 m inthe treated watershed at Lalatora compared withthe groundwater level in the untreated watershed.Improvement of marginal lands with appropriatemanagement has resulted in biodiversity im-provement, as achieved in Bundi, a very drywatershed in Rajasthan, India (ICRISAT, 2005a).

At Thanh Ha watershed, northern Vietnam,polyethylene and straw mulch increased the soiltemperature by 2–3 °C in autumn–winter and1–2 °C in spring at 10 cm depth, with increasedconservation of soil moisture in the entire soilprofile (Long et al. 2003). Farmers harvested71–100% increased groundnut yields in thewatershed through improved cultivars and inte-grated soil, water, nutrient and pest manage-ment options, and this resulted in doubling thegroundnut yield (1.5 t/ha) compared with thecontrol (0.7 t/ha). Farmers in surrounding areasalso started adopting this technology (ICRISAT,2006b).

Introduction of improved crop cultivars andcropping systems

Improved cultivars of soybean, groundnut,wheat, pigeonpea, chickpea, sorghum, pearlmillet, maize, vegetables and mung bean wereevaluated for large-scale cultivation with im-proved soil, water and nutrient managementoptions. At Lalatora, the introduction of chick-pea varieties ICCV 10, ICCV 2 and ICCC 37increased production by 4–50% (960–1470kg/ha) over local varieties. Similarly, in other

benchmark watersheds crop productivity in-creased by 10–50% through adoption of high-yielding cultivars. In Tad Fa watershed ofnorth-east Thailand, maize yield increased by27–34% over the maize–maize system whenpreceded by short-duration legumes (blackgram, rice bean and sunnhemp). At Thanh Hawatershed, Vietnam, mungbean–groundnut–watermelon, mungbean–soybean–watermelonand groundnut–watermelon cropping systemsgave highest income (262–268%) over thetraditional maize–maize cropping system. InRajasthan, short-duration pigeonpea, which issturdy, drought tolerant and has N-fixingcapability, was introduced in three districts andwas a great success in the first year alone. About100 farmers participated in the programme andhave harvested up to 1500 kg/ha. Consideringthe low soil fertility and drought-proneness ofthe region, this kind of productivity, valued atabout INRs 22,000/ha, is a good achievementfor the farmers. Improved cultivars and propri-etary hybrids of crops with better adaptation tobiotic and abiotic stresses and with best practicesresulted in more than doubling the crop yields(Table 12.15) in Sujala watershed of Karnataka(ICRISAT, 2007).

Farmers in the Bundi watershed in Rajasthanevaluated IPM options using pheromone trapsand Trichograma for controlling Helicoverpaand Lepidoptera pests (ICRISAT, 2005a). Theyobserved that they could reduce inputs by 9%with increased yield of 18% along with 39%higher net economic gain due to adoption ofIPM in the case of vegetables. In the watershed


Table 12.14. Rainfall, run-off and soil loss at Sujala watersheds in Karnataka, India during 2006a.

Run-off Peak Rainfall Run-off as % of run-off rate Soil loss

Watershed (mm) (mm) seasonal rainfall (m3/s/ha) (t/ha)

Haveri(Aremallapur) 350 44.5 12.6 0.011 2.01

Dharwad(Anchatageri) 652 20.5 3.1 0.070 1.24

Kolar(Huttur) 547 22.5 4.0 0.025 0.80

Chitradurga(Toparmalige) 508 16.5 3.1 0.011 0.66

Mean 514 25.5 5.7 0.029 1.18

a Source: ICRISAT (2007).

areas, farmers have started using 40–45% lesschemical pesticides on vegetable cultivationthan earlier.

Improved soil and water management andcropping systems (sorghum/pigeonpea inter-crop) resulted in higher carbon sequestration invertisols. Soils up to 120 cm depth containedabout 34% more organic carbon than the tra-ditional (fallow–sorghum) system and a gain of335 kg carbon/ha/year was obtained (Wani etal., 2003b). When replicated on a large scale inAsian agriculture, substantial global environ-mental benefits in terms of reduced greenhousegases and global warming are likely to beobtained.

Micronutrient amendments for enhancingincomes and rainwater use efficiency

During baseline characterization, soil analysisresults showed that 80–100% of farmers’ fieldswere critically deficient in B, Zn and S, in addi-tion to N and P. Micronutrient amendmentswith Zn, B and S to overcome deficiency haveshown remarkable gains. In Thanh Ha water-shed, Vietnam, micronutrient applicationresulted in 27% higher pod yields over farmers’practice (2.75 t/ha) in groundnut. In theLalatora watershed of India, micronutrientamendments increased the net profit byUS$193/ha in the case of the soybean–wheatsystem over the profit of US$394/ha from the farmers’ practice. At Lalatora, MadhyaPradesh, the economic analysis of the on-farmtrials showed that intervention of combinedapplication of B and S gave maximum benefit,with 1:1.8 benefit–cost ratio as compared with

the control with traditional practices (1:1.3),and gave almost 49% higher benefits to thefarmers (Patil et al., 2003). Farmers’ partici-patory R&D trials in the states of AndhraPradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan andGujarat showed 30–60% increased crop yieldsdue to micronutrient amendments (Rego et al.,2005). Micronutrient amendments also in-creased rainfall use efficiency. In soybean, therainfall use efficiency was increased by 25%through micronutrient amendments. Highestrainfall use efficiency of 117% was observed forsorghum. The rainfall use efficiency in terms ofnet economic returns for the rainfed crops wassubstantially higher by 1.5–1.75 times.

Crop harvests from INM trials in Karnataka,India indicate a gain of 2.5 t/ha maize grainyield and 0.5 t/ha additional fodder yield withapplication of micronutrients along with N andP (Fig. 12.16). In Haveri, farmers obtained47% higher maize grain yield and in Dharwad71% higher soybean seed yield with INM treat-ments compared with their own management(ICRISAT, 2005b).

Micro-enterprises and income-generating activities

Micro-enterprises, such as village seedbanks,vermicomposting, nursery raising, artificialinsemination for animals, poultry, piggery, etc.,are initiated for increasing income. Village seed-banks have provided access to farmers forimproved varieties in the village itself at afford-able costs and reduced their dependence onexternal seed sources. Women SHGs in severalwatersheds in India have set up vermicompost-


Table 12.15. Farmers’ participatory evaluations for productivity enhancements in watersheds of fivedistricts of Karnataka under ICRISAT Sujala project during 2005–2006.

Watershed No. of Yield (kg/ha)

District villages Crop trials Cultivars FMa Best bet

Kolar & Tumkur 7 Groundnut 63 JL 24, ICGV 91114, K1375, K6 915 2260Kolar & Tumkur 9 Finger millet 62 MR 1, L 5, GPU 28 1154 1934Chitradurga 2 Sunflower 30 KBSH-41, KBSH-44, GK 2002 760 2265Chitradurga & Haveri 4 Maize 49 PA 4642, GK 3014 3450 5870Haveri 4 Sole groundnut 16 ICGV 91114 1100 1720Dharwad 4 Soybean 12 JS 335, JS 9305 1350 2470

a FM = farmers’ management.

ing enterprises. Women members each earnabout INRs 500/month. By becoming an earn-ing member of the family, they are involved inthe decision-making process, which has raisedtheir social status. Vegetable cultivation, nurs-ery raising and enhanced milk yields throughbetter livestock management have improvedrural livelihoods, particularly of women. InThailand and Vietnam, farmers’ incomes aresubstantially augmented through piggery, poul-try and fish rearing.

Impact on National Policy

Integrated watershed management is identified asthe most suitable approach to improve the rurallivelihoods through increased productivity andefficient management of natural resources in thedrylands of the SAT. The National Commissionon Farmers (2004), India, has stated that theprincipal constraints observed in reaping the fullbenefits from dryland farming research are: (i) lack of a watershed approach with all membersof the watershed community working together to

save and share water; and (ii) lack of socialsynergy in the area of land and water useplanning, with emphasis on collaborative effortsin both production and postharvest phase offarming. The Commission recommends that thehighest priority should be given to augment wateravailability by vigorously promoting rainwaterharvesting, restoring water bodies and a millionwells recharge programmes. Convergence andsynergy of all agricultural programmes around awatershed is the need of the day. The NationalCommission on Farmers has appreciated thesuccess of the ICRISAT-led consortium modeland pointed out that the holistic innovative modelhas changed the paradigms for watershedmanagement in India, where the watershed isused as an entry point for improving the liveli-hoods and protecting the environment.Watershed programmes have a very high po-tential for bringing favourable changes in thedrylands of the SAT. On-farm watershedsmanaged through community participation couldsustain productivity of drylands and preserve thequality of the land resources and environment inthe SAT. An holistic systems approach through


Fig. 12.16. Maize and soybean grain yields as affected by INM treatments in farmers’ fields in Sujalawatershed in Karnataka. Absolute = control with no fertilizer application; FI = farmers’ management andinputs; FI+Micro = farmers’ inputs + 5 kg borax + 200 kg gypsum + 50 kg zinc sulfate/ha; FI+NP = farmers’ inputs + 70 kg DAP + 100 kg urea; FI+NP+Micro = farmers’ inputs + 70 kg DAP + 100 kgurea + 5 kg borax + 200 kg gypsum + 50 kg zinc sulfate/ha (if the crop sown was a legume, application ofnitrogen in the form of urea was reduced to 40 kg/ha instead of 100 kg/ha).

integrated watershed management can result insustainable and increased farm productivity andimprove the livelihoods of the rural poor in thedry regions (National Commission on Farmers,2004). The recent Comprehensive Assessment ofwatershed programmes in India (Wani et al.,2008c) and new guidelines for watershedmanagement by the NRAA (Government ofIndia, 2008) clearly highlight the importance ofrainfed agriculture for improving rural livelihoods.

Summary

Most farming problems require integratedsolutions, with genetic, management-related, andsocio-economic components. In essence, plantbreeders and NRM scientists must integrate theirwork with that of private- and public-sectorchange agents, to develop flexible croppingsystems that can respond to rapid changes inmarket opportunities and climatic conditions.The IGNRM approach is participatory, withfarmers closely involved in technology develop-ment, testing and dissemination. ICRISAT, inpartnership with National Agricultural ResearchSystems (NARS), has conceived, developed andsuccessfully evaluated an innovative farmers’participatory consortium model for integratedwatershed management. The model includes theconsortium approach and adopts the concept ofconvergence in every activity in the watershed.

The new paradigm for upgrading rainfedagriculture can double the productivity in Asiaand also reduce poverty without causing furtherdegradation of the natural resource base.

Successful scaling-up of these innovations inAndhra Pradesh, India through APRLP and inother states of India with support from the SirDorabji Tata Trust and the World Bank (SujalaProject, Karnataka) as well as in Thailand and Vietnam have opened up opportunities toupgrade rainfed agriculture in all these countriesas well as in China.

Along with rainwater harvesting andagumentation, water demand managementthrough enhanced water (rainwater and ground-water) use efficiency by adopting a holisticapproach has benefited the farmers. Farmersobtained a 13–230% increase in maize yields,with an average increase of 72% over the baseyield of 2980 kg/ha; the increase in castor yieldswas 21–70%, with an average increase of 60%over the base yield of 470 kg/ha. Similarly,groundnut yield increased by 28% over the baseyield of 1430 kg/ha. The issues of equity for all inthe watershed call for innovative approaches;institution and policy guidelines for equitable useof water resources are needed. Along with wateruse, equity issues concerning sustainable use ofcommon property resources in the watershedalso need to be addressed. Building on micro-enterprises enhanced the benefits for womenand vulnerable groups in society. Knowledgemanagement and sharing is an important aspectin management of natural resources for sustain-able development. Use of ICTs to cover the lastmile to reach the unreached is a must, as theexisting extension mechanisms are not able tomeet the ever-growing demand, as well as toshare the new and vast body of knowledge withthe large number of small and marginal farmers.


References

APRLP (Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme) (2006a) A Study on Utilisation Pattern of RevolvingFund for Enterprise Promotion and Productivity Enhancement in Prakasam District. APRLP, Governmentof Andhra Pradesh, India.

APRLP (Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme) (2006b) Building Livelihoods: the APRLP Experience.Government of Andhra Pradesh, India.

APRLP (Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme) (2007) Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project: anOverview. Government of Andhra Pradesh, India.

ASARECA-IFPRI (2005) Strategic Priorities for Agricultural Research-for-Development in Eastern and CentralAfrica. Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA),Entebbe and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, USA.

Government of India (2005) Serving Farmers and Saving Farming – 2006: Year of Agricultural Renewal. ThirdReport. December 2005. National Commission on Farmers, Ministry of Agriculture, Government ofIndia, New Delhi, India.

Government of India (2008) Common guidelines for watershed development projects. National Rain-fed AreaAuthority (NRAA), Ministry of Land Resources, Government of Andhra Pradesh, India.

Gowing, J.W., Mahoo, H., Mzirai, O.B. and Hatibu, N. (1999) Review of rainwater harvesting techniques andevidence for their use in semi-arid Tanzania. Tanzania Journal of Agriculture Science 2(2), 171–180.

Harris, H.C., Cooper, P.J.M. and Pala, M. (1991) Soil and Crop Management for Improved Water UseEfficiency in Rainfed Areas. Proceedings of an International Workshop sponsored byMAFRA/ICARDA/CIMMYT, 15–19 May 1989, Ankara, Turkey. International Center for AgriculturalResearch in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Aleppo, Syria.

ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) (2005a) Combating LandDegradation and Increasing Productivity in Madhya Pradesh and Eastern Rajasthan. Interim Report2005. Tata–ICRISAT–ICAR Project, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.

ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) (2005b) Establishing ParticipatoryResearch-cum-Demonstrations for Enhancing Productivity with Sustainable Use of Natural Resources inSujala Watersheds of Karnataka. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.

ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) (2006a) Improved LivelihoodOpportunities through Watersheds. APRLP–ICRISAT Project Completion Report (2002–04). ICRISAT,Patancheru, India.

ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) (2006b) Participatory WatershedManagement for Reducing Poverty and Land Degradation in SAT Asia (RETA 6067). The AsianDevelopment Bank–ICRISAT Project. TA Completion Report. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.

ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) (2007) Establishing ParticipatoryResearch-cum-Demonstrations for Enhancing Productivity with Sustainable Use of Natural Resources inSujala Watersheds of Karnataka – Progress Report. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.

Joshi, P.K., Jha, A.K., Wani, S.P., Joshi, L. and Shiyani, R.L. (2005) Meta-analysis to assess impact of watershedprogram and people’s participation. Comprehensive Assessment Research Report 8. ComprehensiveAssessment Secretariat, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Kerr, J. (1996) Sustainable development of rain-fed agriculture in India. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 20.International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, USA. (http://www.ifpri.org/divs/eptd/dp/papers/eptdp20.pdf).

Kerr, J., Pangare, G. and Pangare, V. (2002) Watershed development project in India: an evaluation. ResearchReport No. 127. Environment and Policy Production Technology Division, International Food PolicyResearch Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, USA.

Long, T.D., Ramakrishna, A., Tam, H.M., Viet, N.V. and Chinh, N.T. (2003) Efficient management of naturalresources: a way to sustain food security in the rain-fed sloping lands of northern Vietnam. In: Wani, S.P.,Maglinao, A.R., Ramakrishna, A. and Rego, TJ. (eds) Integrated Watershed Management for Land andWater Conservation and Sustainable Agricultural Production in Asia. International Crops ResearchInstitute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India, pp. 109–122.

Meertens, H., Ndege, L. and Lupeja, P. (1999) The cultivation of rain-fed lowland rice in Sukumaland,Tanzania. Agricultural Ecosystems Environment 76, 31–45.

Molden, D., Frenken, K., Barker, R., de Fraiture, C., Mati, B., Svendsen, M., Sadoff, C. and Finlayson, M.C.(2007) Trends in water and agricultural development In: Molden, D. (ed.) Water for Food, Water for Life:a Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. International Water ManagementInstitute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp. 57–89.

National Commission on Farmers (2004) Serving farmers and saving farming. First Report of the NationalCommission on Farmers. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, India.

Patil, B.R., Pande, A.B., Rao, S., Dixit, S.K., Pathak, P., Rego, T.J. and Wani, S.P. (2003) Conjunctive use of waterresource technology and extension in improving productivity of rain-fed farming: an experience atLalatora, Madhya Pradesh, India. In: Wani, S.P., Maglinao, A.R., Ramakrishna, A. and Rego, T.J. (eds)Integrated Watershed Management for Land and Water Conservation and Sustainable AgriculturalProduction in Asia. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru,India, pp. 97–108.

Rego, T.J., Wani, S.P., Sahrawat, K.L. and Pardhasardhy, G. (2005) Macro-benefits from boron, zinc, andsulphur application in Indian SAT: a step for grey to green revolution in agriculture. Global Theme onAgroecosystems Report No. 16. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics(ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.

Rockström., J., Hatibu, N., Oweis, T. and Wani, S.P. (2007) Managing water in rain-fed agriculture. In:Molden, D. (ed.) Water for Food, Water for Life: a Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in


http://www.ifpri.org/divs/eptd/dp/papers/eptdp20.pdf

http://www.ifpri.org/divs/eptd/dp/papers/eptdp20.pdf

Agriculture. Earthscan, London, UK, and International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo,Sri Lanka, pp. 315–348.

Sahrawat, K.L., Rego, T.J., Wani, S.P. and Pardhasaradhi, G. (2008) Stretching soil sampling to watershed:evaluation of soil test parameters in a semi-arid tropical watershed. Communications in Soil Scienceand Plant Analysis 39, 2950–2960.

Seckler, D. and Amarasinghe, U. (2004) Major problems in the global water–food nexus. In: Scanes, C. andMiranowski, J. (eds) Perspectives in World Food and Agriculture 2004. Iowa State Press/World FoodPrize, Ames, Iowa, USA, pp. 227–251.

Shiferaw, B., Freeman, H.A. and Swinton, S. (2004) Natural Resource Management in Agriculture: Methodsfor Assessing Economic and Environmental Impacts. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

Shiferaw, B., Bantilan, C. and Wani, S.P. (2006) Policy and institutional issues and impacts of integratedwatershed management: experiences and lessons from Asia. In: Shiferaw, B. and Rao, K.P.C. (eds)Integrated Management of Watersheds for Agricultural Diversification and Sustainable Livelihoods inEastern and Central Africa: Lessons and Experiences from Semi-Arid South Asia. Proceedings of theInternational Workshop held at ICRISAT, Nairobi, Kenya, 6–7 December 2004. International CropsResearch Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India, pp. 37–52.

Sreedevi, T.K., Shiferaw, B. and Wani, S.P. (2004) Adarsha Watershed, Kothapally: Understanding the Drivers ofHigher Impact. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.

Sreedevi, T.K., Wani, S.P., Sudi, R., Patel, M.S., Jayesh, T., Singh, S.N. and Shah, T. (2006) On-site and off-siteimpact of watershed development: a case study of Rajasamadhiyala, Gujarat, India. Global Theme onAgroecosystems Report No. 20. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics(ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.

van Duivenbooden, N., Pala, M., Studer, C., Bielders, C.L. and Beukes, D.J. (2000) Cropping systems andcrop complementarity in dryland agriculture to increase soil water use efficiency: a review. Journal ofAgricultural Science 48, 213–236.

Wani, S.P., Singh, P., Pathak, P. and Rego, T.J. (2000) Sustainable management of land resources for achievingfood security in the semi arid tropics. In: Gavande, S.P., Bali, J.S., Das, D.C., Sarkar, T.K., Das, D.K. andNarayanamurthy, G. (eds) Advances in Land Resources Management for 21st Century. AngrokorPublishers, New Delhi, India, pp. 290–306.

Wani, S.P., Pathak, P., Tam, H.M., Ramakrishna, A., Singh, P. and Sreedevi, T.K. (2002) Integrated watershedmanagement for minimizing land degradation and sustaining productivity in Asia. In: Adeel, Z. (ed.)Integrated Land Management in the Dry Areas. Proceedings of a Joint UNU–CAS International Workshop,8–13 September 2001, Beijing, China. United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 207–230.

Wani, S.P., Maglinao, A.R., Ramakrishna, A. and Rego, T.J. (eds) (2003a) Integrated Watershed Managementfor Land and Water Conservation and Sustainable Agricultural Production in Asia. Proceedings of theADB–ICRISAT–IWMI Annual Project Review and Planning Meeting, Hanoi, Vietnam, 10–14 December2001. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.

Wani, S.P., Pathak, P., Jangawad, L.S., Eswaran, H. and Singh, P. (2003b) Improved management of vertisols inthe semi-arid tropics for increased productivity and soil carbon sequestration. Soil Use andManagement 19, 217–222.

Wani, S.P., Pathak, P., Sreedevi, T.K., Singh, H.P. and Singh, P. (2003c) Efficient management of rainwater forincreased crop productivity and groundwater recharge in Asia. In: Kijne, J.W., Barker, R. and Molden, D.(eds) Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement. CAB International,Wallingford, UK, pp. 199–215.

Wani, S.P., Singh, H.P., Sreedevi, T.K., Pathak, P., Rego, T.J., Shiferaw, B. and Iyer, S.R. (2003d) Farmerparticipatory integrated watershed management: Adarsha watershed, Kothapally, India – an innovativeand upscalable approach. Case 7. In: Harwood, R.R. and Kassam, A.H. (eds) Research TowardsIntegrated Natural Resources Management: Examples of Research Problems, Approaches andPartnerships in Action in the CGIAR. Interim Science Council, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 123–147.

Wani, S.P., Singh, P., Dwivedi, R.S., Navalgund, R.R. and Ramakrishna, A. (2005) Biophysical indicators of agro-ecosystem services and methods for monitoring the impacts of NRM technologies at different scale. In:Shiferaw, B., Freeman, H.A. and Swinton, S.M. (eds) Natural Resource Management in Agriculture: Methodsfor Assessing Economic and Environmental Impacts. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 97–123.

Wani, S.P., Reddy, M., Sreedevi, T.K. and Raju, D. (eds) (2006a) Corporate Science and TechnologyInstitutions – Partnerships for Inclusive and Sustainable Development and Economic Growth.Proceedings of the CII–ICRISAT Workshop, 27 February 2006, at ICRISAT. International Crops ResearchInstitute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.


Wani, S.P., Ramakrishna, Y.S., Sreedevi, T.K., Long, T.D., Wangkahart, T., Shiferaw, B., Pathak, P. and KesavaRao, A.V.R. (2006b) Issues, concepts, approaches and practices in the integrated watershedmanagement: experience and lessons from Asia. In: Shiferaw, B. and Rao, K.P.C (eds) IntegratedManagement of Watershed for Agricultural Diversification and Sustainable Livelihoods in Eastern andCentral Africa: Lessons and Experiences from Semi-Arid South Asia. Proceedings of the InternationalWorkshop held 6–7 December 2004 at Nairobi, Kenya. International Crops Research Institute for theSemi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India, pp. 17–36.

Wani, S.P., Sreedevi, T.K., Rockström, J., Wangkahart, T., Ramakrishna, Y.S., Yin Dxin, Kesava Rao, A.V.R. andZhong Li (2007) Improved livelihoods and food security through unlocking the potential of rainfedagriculture. In: Aswathanarayana, U. (ed.) Food and Water Security. Routledge, UK, pp. 89–106.

Wani, S.P., Joshi, P.K., Raju, K.V., Sreedevi, T.K., Wilson, M., Shah, A., Diwakar, P.G., Palanisami, K.,Marimuthu, S., Ramakrishna, Y.S., Meenakshi Sundaram, S.S. and D’Souza, M. (2008a) CommunityWatershed as Growth Engine for Development of Dryland Areas – Executive Summary. AComprehensive Assessment of Watershed Programmes in India. International Crops Research Institutefor the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.

Wani, S.P., Joshi, P.K., Ramakrishna, Y.S., Sreedevi, T.K., Piara Singh and Pathak, P. (2008b) A new paradigmin watershed management: a must for development of rain-fed areas for inclusive growth. In: Swarup,A., Bhan, S. and Bali, J.S (eds) Conservation Farming: Enhancing Productivity and Profitability of Rain-fed Areas. Soil Conservation Society of India, New Delhi, India, pp. 163–178.

Wani, S.P., Sreedevi, T.K. and Marimuthu, S. (2008c) A Comprehensive Assessment of WatershedProgrammes in India. Proceedings of the Review Meeting and Component Workshops, 23–27 July2007. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.

World Bank (2005) Agricultural Growth for the Poor: an Agenda for Development. The International Bank forReconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.


12 Integrated Farm Management Practices Productivity of ...

Documents

Transcript of 12 Integrated Farm Management Practices Productivity of ...