Changes in Socio-economic Status of Resource Poor Farmers through Watershed Management in Rainfed Area of South-Eastern Rajasthan

Transcription

1 Annals of Arid Zone 45(1): 75-82, 2006 Changes in Socio-economic Status of Resource Poor Farmers through Watershed Management in Rainfed Area of South-Eastern Rajasthan Ashok Kumar, S.V. Singh, K.D. Singh and S.N. Prasad Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Research Center, Kota , India Abstract: The present analysis was based on the data collected from beneficiary and non-beneficiary households in south-eastern Rajasthan during to assess the changes in socio-economic status of beneficiaries brought out by the implementation of watershed management project over non-beneficiaries. The results revealed a shift in cropping pattern of beneficiaries towards high value crops especially oilseeds. The consumption of nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilizers were higher in case of inside watershed by 72 and 63%, respectively, and the overall productivity improvement ranged from 20.93% in case of gram to 60.27% in soybean, whereas average productivity was 42% higher in inside watershed than outside area. The increased productivity as a result of soil and water conservation treatment leads to higher net income by 57% inside watershed against their counterparts. The study also found 134% more investment in faml assets by beneficiaries in comparison of non-beneficiaries. It can be deduced that watershed based approach in the rain fed area can lead to substantial improvement in rural livelihood. Key words: Investment, socio-economic changes, benefit-cost ratio, sustainability. Watershed management has been conceived basically as a strategy for protecting the livelihood of the people inhabiting the fragile ecosystem experiencing soil erosion and moisture stress. The aim of watershed development has been to ensure the availability of water, fuel and fodder and raise the income and employment in agricultural production and productivity. Since seventh five year plan ( ) very high priority has been accorded by Government of India for the sustained development of rain fed areas based on watershed approach. Studies conducted in four micro-watersheds revealed that irrigated area almost doubled during four years of implementation phase, which led to substantial increase in average yield of crops (Shah and Memon, 1999). However, Palanisami et al. (2002) reported that watershed program did not perform well in terms of controlling reservoir siltation, mitigating the impact of drought and improving/stabilizing the production of crops (like pulses and oilseeds) generally grown in rainfed areas. But a number of studies have indicated perceptible changes in variou;; facets of rural life (Mahandule et al., 1989; Sandhu et al., 1991; Singh, 1991 ; Nalatwadmath et al., 1997; Singh et al., 2004). In south-eastern Rajasthan nearly 56% arable lands are under rainfed farming and characterized by low levels of productivity and low input usage, erratic distribution of rainfall results in wide variations and instability in yields. A large number of projects are being implemented based on

2 76 KUMAR el III. watershed approach for productivity enhancement. However, the impact of watershed project on socio-economic status of resource poor farmers of the region has not been systematically assessed so far as some components of the program require time to show their impact. Keeping this in view, the present investigation was undertaken to study the economic status of the beneficiaries of Chhajawa watershed of Baran district, developed under ICAR model watershed during to and non-beneficiaries in the area for comparison. Materials and Methods The analysis was based on the data collected from beneficiary and nonbeneficiary households. For beneficiaries all the 108 households in Chhajawa, Gordhanpura and Barana villages of Chhajawa watershed (453.8 ha); located at 25 05' N latitude and 76 25' E longitude on Baran-Atru road in district Baran and developed by State Soil Conservation Department of Rajasthan Government under the technical guidance and supervision of CSWCRTI, Research Center, Kota, during to with a total cost of Rs lakh to increase the productivity of rainfed arable lands in the region; were taken in to account. For comparison another set of 108 non-beneficiary households were randomly selected in Amli, Chardana and Dooty as outside villages to assess the changes in various socio-economic indicators due to watershed development treatments. The data were collected through specially designed pre-tested schedule during year The data were subjected to tabular analysis with simple statistics. Results and Discussion Socio-economic households profile of sample The overall family size in the study area was about 8 persons and there was Table 1. Socio-ecollomic characteristics of sample households Particulrs Number of households Average family size (Nos.) Sex ratio (per 1000 males) Education (%) Illiterate Literate Social stratification (%) SC ST BC General Average size of land holding (ha) Average number of milch animals (ACU)/household ± indicate standard error of mean. Inside watershed ± ± ] I ±0.35 Outside watershed ± ±0. I ±0. I4

3 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN RAINFED AREA 77 Table 2. Area under different crops inside and outside the watershed (Iw) Crop Inside watershed Outside watershed Kharif Sorghum (7.55) (57.57) Soybean I (89.43) (32.19) Groundnut 2.50 (1.88) 1.05 ( 1.00) Maize 6.25 (5.95) Misc (1.14) 3.45 (3.29) Total Rabi Chickpea 6.69 (1.69) (26.84) Coriander (24.02) I (26. I7) Wheat (9.86) (15.52) Mustard (64.16) (28.3 I ) Misc (0.25) (3. I8) Total I Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage of total. no difference in family size between inside and outside watershed area (Table 1). The sex ratio (numberoffemales per 1000 males) inside and outside watershed area was 870 and 856, respectively, which was lower than Rajasthan state average (909). The composition of SC, ST, BC and others was 17, 19, 13 and 51 %, respectively in watershed, whereas ST population (38%) dominated at outside watershed village followed by others (28%). The literacy was 32% and 24% in and outside watershed villages, respectively, as against 39% in Rajasthan state. The study also revealed that average size of land holding was larger (32.64%) outside watershed villages than inside watershed, but the number of milch animals was 36.70% higher inside watershed. Cropping pattern The data presented in Table 2 clearly indicate that soybean was prominent crop inside watershed and sorghum dominated outside watershed during kharif season. In rabi season mustard occupied 64.2% area followed by coriander (24%) inside watershed, whereas the area under mustard (28.3%), chickpea (26.8%) and coriander (26.2%) was almost similar outside watershed. More area under high value oilseeds inside watershed might be attributed to better facilities of irrigation as a result of water resource development works executed during project implementation phase while subsistence level of cropping prevailed outside watersheds. Datta et al. (2004) also supported the view by his findings in two watersheds of Meghalaya state that development of watersheds makes significant contribution of decrease the area under traditional foml of cultivation. Fertilizer consumption The fertilizer consumption inside and outside watershed reveal that inside watershed farmers were using 72% and 63% 1-

4 KUMAR (!( "I. Tah/e 3. Yield of" crops inside ond ollfside Ihe \\'alershec1 (kg ha,l) Crops Inside wntershed Outside watershed lrrignted Un-irrigated A vernge lrrignted Un-irrigated A vernge Jowar 1920± ± ± ± ±0.48 Soybean 1390± ± ± ± I3±0.58 Groundnut 1375± ± ± ±0.92 Wheat 3272± ± ± ± ±0.70 Gram 1330± ± ± ± ±0.27 Coriander 1350± ± ± ± ±0.34 Mustard 1746± ± ± ± ± ±0.37 ± indicate standnrd error of mean. higher doses of nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively, through fertilizer (42.67 kg N and kg P20S ha'l) than outside watershed farmers. This was attributed to increased availability of water for irrigation apart from generated awareness among inside watershed farmers for resource conservation and improved package of practices to maximize production. Yield of crops The grain/seed yield of prominent crops recorded in and outside watershed is given in Table 3. the data indicate that the crops raised inside watershed produced % and % higher yield under irrigated and rainfed conditions, respectively, than crops raised outside watershed possibly due to better in-situ moisture conservation, soil fertility improvement and adoption of improved package of practices as a result of watershed development works done during to Verma et al. (2004) found similar results in Indore district of Madhya Pradesh. Production. productivity and costs The data presented in Table 4 indicted differential pattern of productivity and cost of production inside and outside the watershed area. The cost of per unit production of grain/seed was comparatively lower inside watershed than outside watershed area for all crops. The overall productivity improvement was maximum in case of soybean (60.27%) followed by sorghum (59.50%), mustard (44.58%), wheat (35.20(10) and gram (20.93). The difference in means of yield, cost of cultivation and unit cost of production between watershed and non-watershed farmers indicated significant differences in all the major crops such as sorghum, soybean, gram,.wheat, coriander and mustard at 5 ;() level of probability; which reflected impact of watershed project. This might be attributed to improvement in soil fertility as a result of soil and water conservation works taken up under the project besides adoption of better irrigation facilities and package of practices. In general, the crop productivity and cost of cultivation were higher inside watershed than cost of cultivation outside watershed area for all the crops probably due to adoption of resource conservation measures and improved package of practices. However, the magnitude of improvement

5 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN RAINFED AREA 79 TaMe 4. Impact of watershed managemelll project on productivity of selected crops Crop Inside Outside Per cent watershed watershed difference Sorghum Yield (q ha- I ) 15.60± ± * Cost of cultivation (Rs. ha- I ) ± I ± * Cost of production (Rs. q-i) ± ± * Soybean Gram Yield (q ha- I ) 13.03± ± * Cost of cultivation (Rs. ha- I ) 4730± ± * Cost of production (Rs. q:l) ± ± * Yield (q ha- I ) 11.61± ± * Cost of cultivation (Rs. ha- I ) ± ± * Cost of production (Rs, q-i) ± ± Coriander Wheat Yield (q ha- I ) 1O.82± ± * Cost of cultivation (Rs: ha- I ) ± ± * Cost of production (Rs. q-i) ± ± * Yi~ld (q ha- I ) 32.72± ± * Cost of cultivation (Rs. ha- I ) ± ± * Cost of production (Rs. q-i) ± ± *. Mustard Yield (q ha- I ) 16.15± ±0.37 "44.58* Cost of cultivation (Rs. ha- I ) ± ± * Cost of production (Rs. q-i) ± ± * ± indicate SE of mean; * significant at 5% level of probability. in crop productivity was proportionately much higher than the increased cost of cultivation of crops inside watershed, which leads to resource conservation from 7% in gram to 32% in soyabean, perhaps due to better moisture regime and fertility status as a result of watershed development works executed during project period_. The data further revealed that the cropping intensity inside watershed was %, which was 29.97% higher than out side watershed. This shows that % area inside watershed was double cropped, whereas only single cropping prevailed outside watershed. Increased cropping intensity might be attributed to increased area' under irrigation and adoption of short duration and high yielding varieties of crop inside watershed. Kulkarni (2004) also found similar results in Mendhawan watershed Of Maharastra state. The average productivity inside watershed was 1557 kg

6 80 KUMAR ('I ell. TaMe 5. Distribuiioll of!j(li'iilcs (ill ACU) Particular Milch animal Buffaloes Cow Goat Total Draught animal Young stock Total Inside watershed 0.82± ± ± ±0.351 (57.75) 1.27±0.081 (33.96) 0.31 ±0.002 (08.29) 3.74±0.373 Outside watershed 0.64± ± ±0.273 I.58±0.147 (51.47) 1.26±0.113 (41.04) 0.23±0.004 (07.49) 3.07±0.222 Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total and ± SE of mean. ha- I, which was 42% higher than outside watershed (1100 kg ha-'). However, oilseed production dominated inside watershed, whereas cereals and pulses dominated. outside watershed. Investment pattern The farm asset structure plays a vital role in streamlining the productivity of crop and dairy enterprises. The analysis of investment per household in fixed assets such as farm machinery and implements, dairy equipments and irrigation structures indicated that overall investment in different type of assets was higher inside w~tershed than outside watershed. The overall investment pattern was estimated to be Rs. 80,847 per household inside watershed, which was 134% higher than outside watershed (Rs. 34,524). The results also indicated that the investment was higher on irrigation structure (51.71%), followed by farm machinery and implements (46.45%) and dairy equipments (1.83%) in case of inside watershed whereas households belong to outside watershed have the maximum investment on farm machinery and implements (60.43%) followed by irrigation structure (36.7 I%) and dairy (2.34%). This disparity might be attributed to higher level of expenditure on irrigation structures by the farmers inside watershed than that of outside watershed. Reddy et al. (2004) reported % increase in value of productive assets in Kabbalanala tribal watershed after the project implementation. Distribution of bovines The distribution of bovine stock converted in terms of adult cattle unit (ACU) (Pandey and Yadav, 1982) shows that number of bovines reared by households inside watershed was about 22% more than that outside watershed (Table 5). Among the total bovines, milch animals comprising cows, buffaloes and goats were counted for about 58 and 51 % inside and outside watershed households respectively. The results further revealed that the average number of milch animals per household inside watershed was 2.17 as against Relatively higher number of milch animals inside watershed might be attributed to more availability of green fodder from graded bunds and wastelands planted with palatable grasses apart from better economic condition of the farmers.

7 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 11'\ RAINFED AREA 81 HOll~'ehold income The overall annual average gross income per household was about Rs. 74, inside watershed and Rs. 54, outside watershed. It was also interesting to note that income proportion from different sources, i.e., crop, dairy and off-farm were almost same in' both the categories, i.e., inside and outside watershed. The results also reveal that the average income from crop production obtained by the households' inside watershed was significantly higher as compared to outside watershed despite larger land holding by the latter. It may be attributed to improved package of practices for crops and better moisture regime as a. result of watershed development project which helped the farmers in increasing crop yields and taking up high value crops. This shows that WDP enabled the farmers inside watershed to increase their household income in the study area. The total income per household of beneficiary farms increased by I 12% as against 79.79% of non-beneficiary in Silyarinala watershed in Raipur district of Chhattisgarh state (Sharma and Athavale, 2004). Economic viability oj the project The economic viability of Chhajawa watershed project was worked out by taking into account the incremental cost incurred and incremental benefits accrued from crop and milk production at 12%' discount rate. The benefit-cost ratio of the project over a period of 13 years ( to ) was estimated 2.03: I with the net present value of lac. This indicates the economic feasibility of taking up Chhajawa watershed in rain fed area of south-eastern Rajasthan for increasing agricultural production and boosting dairy development (Kumar et al., 2002). Sustainability oj the project Watershed activities in Chhajawa were sustained over time after withdrawal of the implementing agency because it benefited mainly the private land owners and almost all the farmers registered' substantial rise in production as well as productivity as a result of various soil and water conservation measures adopted. Increased production leads to rise in income; which in turn may enhance farmers' capacity to invest for creating infrastructure especially irrigation fac'ilities at their farm for stabilizing income over a period. Over and above, CSWCRTI, Research Center, Kota, deputed two staff members at the place for seven years even after completion of the project for monitoring the changes and to have the interaction with beneficiaries for feed back. Thus the foregoing analysis indicated that watershed project implemented in Chhajawa had brought out significant changes in overall status of the beneficiaries household since crop productivity increased by 42%, which in turn enhanced net income of beneficiaries by 57% over nonbeneficiaries. Increased income motivates the farmers inside watershed to invest more in farm assets. Thus, it can be deduced that watershed-based approach in the rain fed areas can lead to substantial improvement in rural livelihood. However, there are three possible sources, by which the growth in' the crop yields achieved ;in the watershed could be sustained, even enhanced. These include: (i) to make efforts to improve

8 82 KUMAR et al. the farm l~vel land efficiency and management of input use especially water, (ii) the sustainability will also depend upon the preservation and maintenance of the infrastructure and engineering structures created' under the proj~ct, and (iii) The technology embodied cultivation practices should be undertaken on a full scale to take the advantage of the increased irrigation and soil moisture conservation. References Datta, K.K., Tomar, J.M.S., Mandai, S. and Tripathi, A.K Diagnosing watershed scheme in north-eastern hilly region of India: Threat and opportunity. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(3): Kumar, Ashok, Singh, S.V., Singh, K.D. and Prasad, S.N An economic enquiry into synergistic effects of watershed development project on farm economy in hot semi-arid eco-re~ion of Rajasthan, India. In Proceeding of Ii ISCO Conference, Beijing 4: Kulkarni, S.D Impact of watershed development programme in Maharashtra. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(3): 391. Mahandule, D.K., Pawar, J.R. and Kale, N.K Economic analysis of watershed management in drought prone area of western Mahrashtra. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 44(3): 274. Nalatwadmath, S.K., Ram Mohan Rao, M.S. and Padmaiah, M Joladarsi modal watershed development programme in Bellary district of Karnataka - A diagnostic evaluation. Journal of Rural Development 16(2): Palanisami, K., Kumar, S. and Chandrasekaran, B Watershed Management: Issues and Policies for 21 st Century, Associated Publishing Company; New Delhi. - Pandey, U.K. and Yadav, D.C; Environmental management and fodder ~aiiability'in Haryana. Agricultural Situation in lti(fta 37( 10): Reddy, Chinnappa, B.V., Reddy M.P. and Shobha, B.S Socio~economic impact of watershed intervention: A study of tribal settlement in Kabbalanala watershed. Paper presented in National Conference on Resources Conserving Technologies for Social Upliftment held at New Delhi during 7-9 December, Sandhu, H.S., Singh, N. and Kumar, B An evaluation of watershed development approach.for Shivalik hills in Punjab. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 46(3): Shah, A. and Memong, G Watershed development project in Gujarat: A quick review (Mimeo), Gujarat Institute of Development Research, Ahmedabad. Sharma, K.G. and Athavale, M.C. 2004: Impact of technology transfer through NWDPRA in Chhattisgarh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(3): Singh, K Dryland watershed development and management: A case study in Karnataka. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 46(2): Singh, K.D., Prasad, S.N., Singh, R.K., Ali, S., Prasad, A., Singh, S.V., Pranadiyal, A.K. and Ashok Kumar Participatory watershed management for sustainable development in Bada Khera watershed, Bundi, Rajasthan (Bulletin), CSWCRT1, Research Center, Kota. Verma, A.R., Rajput, A.M. and Srivastava, R.N Economic evaluation ofnalional watershed development programme for rainfed agriculture in Indore district of Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(3):