Beneficiary perceptions of Action Fraterna's watershed development programme activities.

Rao, E. Arjun ; Reddy, M. Srinivas

I. Introduction

Watershed programmes, inter-alia, changed the very face of rural India. This has resulted, to some extent, stopping the migration of rural population to towns and cities in India. Smaller and marginal farmers could earn their living without succumbing to various undersired pressures. The watershed programme has come to stay in rural India. This research paper highlights the perceptions of beneficiaries of watershed programmes taken up by AF (1), an NGO, which earned the positive reputation for having been engaged in the rural development arena. AF, an active NGO inAnanthapur district in Andhra Pradesh had entered into several areas of rural development. The office bearers of AF are associated with several programmes taken up by Panchayatraj institutions. The office bearers of the NGO are on most of the development committees of Panchayatraj Institutions (PRIs). in a way the NGO under discussion had officially become a party in the rural development activities undertaken by PRIs. Watershed is one of the rural development programmes actively sponsored by AE The study desired to understand the perceptions of beneficiaries of watershed programmes managed by it and know the merits and demerits of the said programme. The research describes in detail about the perceptions of beneficiaries on several aspects associated with the watershed programmes and suggests certain corrective measures in the light of the findings of the research study.

Some writers estimate that by 2020, the national demand (2) for groundwater in India will exceed its availability for irrigation by nearly 30%. The next two to three decades may also see a doubling in demand for domestic water use, which will lead to increasing competition and conflict if adequate measures are not taken in time. (3) Meanwhile, drinking water supplies from traditional open wells and bore wells have often been negatively affected as the agricultural areas under irrigation increased. (4) Issues surrounding water use and management are thus now at the forefront of many development efforts.

Andhra Pradesh (AP) is a drought-prone and resource-poor area of southern India, where issues pertaining to the livelihoods of the poor- particularly, water resource management- are of vital importance. Approximately three-fourths of the state's population i.e. around 75 million people live in rural areas. While the share of the state's overall income from agriculture has been declining in comparison with other sectors, the overwhelming majority of the people continue to be employed in agricultural work. As so many people depend on rainfed agriculture, the loss of productivity due to drought can have serious consequences in many areas of the state. The Government of India is spending over $500 million annually on watershed development projects. (5) Thus the successes and shortcomings of these initiatives have potentially enormous financial outcomes.

Action Fraterna (AF), a non-governmental organisation founded in 1982 as a subsidiary of the Rural Development Trust (RDT), has taken a leading role in watershed development in Anantapur District of AP--an area of the state that has lowest rainfall. Its activities range from watershed development works to promotion of self-help groups for targeted communities.

The present study was undertaken at the request of the Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme's PSU Coordinator, in order to better understand and document the perceptions of the intended beneficiaries of the various projects of AF. There has been increasing recognition over the past several years, especially with the adoption of the new guidelines for watershed development in 1995, that the success of many watershed programmes is highly dependent upon the level of participation of the community members it aims to benefit. (6) It is hoped that an investigation into stakeholders' perceptions of programme impacts may provide insight into aspects of projects they believe have been most beneficial, challenges to be met, and potential areas for future focus.

Methodology

Background information on the main villages included in the study, as well as on facets of AF's various programmes, was provided by AF staff from their fieldwork and previous studies.

The perceptions of villagers regarding the impacts of AF's projects were gathered through focus group discussions and individual interviews. The researchers, accompanied by a team of six AF staff familiar with the villages, made six field visits, to conduct discussions and interviews. Focus group discussions involved participants selected according to the primary projects they benefited from one of the six sectors: horticulture, rainwater harvesting, employment generation, bio-gas promotion, soil moisture conservation, and women's leadership development. These categories were not meant to be mutually exclusive, as many of the participants often benefited from more than one type of AF project. Practical considerations also limited the number of participants who could be included from any given list of potential beneficiaries. It should be noted that this was not a random sampling procedure, and the participants were largely male landowners from the non-poor castes, and in many cases were part of decision-making bodies (for example, as members of the watershed committees). The group sessions were conducted in a semi-structured format, lasting between 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with some individuals selected from among the participants in the group discussions, which lasted from one to two hours. Semi structured formats were chosen for discussions and interviews in order to balance the desire on the part of the researchers to investigate specific topics, while still allowing some flexibility for the participants to discuss issues that they saw as relevant.

It should be noted that participants' comments in this study may have been influenced by, among other factors, their familiarity with one of the researchers (in some instances, leading to a clear desire to make a case for more funding), and their unfamiliarity with the other (whose presence, as a foreign national, caused more than a little disturbance in the villages). Truly "individual" interviews were also almost impossible to conduct, as other family members, former employers, husbands and other men (in the case of interviewing women), random onlookers, and occasionally AF staff were present for most of the duration. In addition, when referring to project donors, funding sources, and implementing agencies, there was frequently a confusion in people's minds as to which entity or organisation was responsible for which project - particularly regarding the distinction between those projects under the support of the Rural Development Trust, and those undertaken by AF. Any such ambiguities were left uncorrected--as part of people's perceptions throughout the report.

The villages selected for the present study are 1. Mallapuram; 2. Kadiridevarapalli and Thimmapuram; 3. Settur; 4. H.R. Palli and Seeboi; 5. Kundurpi.

Findings

General Effects of Drought and Coping Strategies Employed

People identified drought as the root cause of a wide variety of problems they now face. It resulted in all open wells and nearly half of the bore wells-drying up. This has had a major impact on agricultural activities, which most people directly or indirectly depend on for their livelihoods.

The effects were felt by rain fed groundnut farmers, who in many cases were unable to recover even the seed for the next crop. Apart from this, there were heavy losses and high prices for the next crop, which is also at great risk due to continuing water scarcity, pests, and diseases that threaten weakened plants. However, some benefited from interest-free loans available through permanent drought funds (instituted as part of watershed development programmes by RDT) (7) that enabled purchasing of groundnut seeds during the year under study.

Some large landholding farmers report more reliance on irrigation. However, even irrigated groundnut crop yielded less (reduced by 2/3rd to 4/5th of normal) due to erratic power supplies to well pumps and greater incidence of diseases. Even those who reported no problems as yet, expect problems in the near future if the drought continues. In some cases there was scaled back or discontinued cultivation of water-intensive crops such as paddy, and increased cultivation of sunflower. However, problems rose regarding the increasing costs and decreasing quality of sunflower seeds, and they lost paddy straw as a source of fodder for livestock.

Backyard plantations of coconuts reduced yield due to drought related problems. Farmers were selling less produce in major town markets, and more in nearby village markets, as the quality and quantity of their goods considerably decreased.

Many farmers now are faced with increasing indebtedness due to the loans borrowed to overcome agricultural losses. It is difficult to convert other assets (such as land and livestock) into cash because no one would buy them during the drought. Some expressed the hope that the government would order waiver on bank interest, as a form of drought relief.

Farmers with livestock were compelled to sell their animals, as they required the cash to make up for lost income from agriculture, and also due to the increasing scarcity of fodder and water. According to some estimates, half the cattle farmers sold some livestock, many to traders in larger towns buying them for beef. It was commonly reported that they sold livestock at large losses (less than what the animals would normally be valued at). Lower groundnut yields was a major cause of the reduced fodder availability for livestock. Some reported having sold 1/2 to 1/3 rd of their sheep and goats due to lack of fodder in common property forest areas as well.

Even those who acquired bullocks and cows with RDT-supported loans, and those who previously received some RDT fodder vegetation seeds, had to sell off some due to fodder scarcity. In many villages, the government-supplied fodder centres were too far away (30-40 kilometres) for them to use. In some areas, farmers used watershed development funds for construction of cattle watering tubs to cope with water shortage.

Wealthier farmers with irrigation facilities reduced the area under irrigation, and reduced the cultivation of water-intensive crops such as paddy. They also grazed their livestock in their agricultural fields, in addition to buying fodder. Generally, they faced less difficulty coping with the drought than those without irrigation and the landless labourers--who had to migrate to other areas for work.

The drought resulted in decreased productivity and value of common property resources. This especially affects Schedule Caste members, some of whom rely on collection of minor forest produce from CPR areas for sale in nearby towns.

Reduced incomes even made the people of the study area very poor to pay for health care needs. Some sought free care at government hospitals, while others sought care at RDT hospitals, which was subsidised according to their ability to pay. In one instance, a family's inability to pay for medical treatment resulted in the death of a boy. Difficulty in procuring fresh food daily led the people to eat leftovers from the day before, sometimes leading to illnesses. Some reported changes in food intake,' as indicated by the reduced frequency with which they could consume chicken and mutton, and by replacing rice with less-desirable ragi.

Most of these people reported a reduction in festival activities, celebrations, and postponement of marriages, along with the reduction or elimination of other nonessential activities--such as travel to visit relatives. Some reported an increase in the occurrence of marriages without families' consent in SC/ST communities, as most of the people could not afford to hold proper ceremonies. In some cases, this led to more interpersonal disputes. The inability of some village residents to pay school expenses, coupled with child labour, increased dropout rates.

It is important to note that the people included in the study made little mention of any drinking water problems. Many areas received assistance through drinking water projects supported by Satyasai drinking water scheme. Some villages also had overhead tanks with public taps provided by their respective gram panchayats.

Horticulture

Many expressed the view that the large landholding farmers with irrigation facilities benefit the most from horticulture activities. Many large farmers switched over to mango and tamarind cultivation because it is less risky than rainfed groundnut cultivation, and also due to the financial incentives from RDT. Farmers who adopted horticulture reported that it constitutes an increase in their incomes, though recent declines in yield due to drought made it more risky. Many of the large farmers leased out their land to tenants during the crop season (January to May or June). The leased out values declined to less than 50% of pre-drought levels as yields declined by more than half due to lack of water, and an increase in the incidence of diseases. Meanwhile, some small farmers believed that mangoes present less of risk than other crops. A small landholding farmer, who grows mangoes and sells them directly, reported that mango has made up for the loss of income from agriculture during the period of drought. Landowners with mango depend on wage labourers, especially, as watchmen. This, in combination with the creation of wage labour for watering (among other watershed projects) reduced the need for migration by workers (typically landless, and small/marginal farmers without irrigation facility). Without the watershed works, many labourers would have been forced to migrate during the present drought, though some wondered how long they could depend on such wage works. Also, as areas under cultivation and crop yields declined due to the drought, more farmers used family labour to do the work on their fields, resulting in less wage labour opportunities for workers. Still, many landowners believed that the horticulture programme mitigated the effects of drought not only for direct beneficiaries (themselves), but also the tenants who leased their land. It provided work for labourers during summer season, after completion of groundnut harvesting.

Most farmers would like greater promotion of horticulture. They would like to see the continued expansion of horticulture on their lands, through the continuation of financial incentives (for watering, pit-digging, and other related activities). Many also would like to have assistance with the implementation of micro-irrigation systems by augmenting the 273rd government subsidy offered, as these systems would improve water conservation. They also needed some assistance with marketing, facilities for value-addition of horticulture products (such as food-processing and juice-making), and cold storage (to cope with temporary market surpluses) in local areas. Farmers who did not adopt mango cultivation cited concerns about water scarcity for irrigation, lack of electricity connection for a well pump, and limited family labour availability. Backyard horticulture and kitchen garden programmes provided produce for household consumption as well as for sale. Women cited backyard horticulture and kitchen garden projects as beneficial, and more economical. During the present drought, some beneficiaries reported that their trees were less productive than normal. If drought conditions persisted the continued viability of the plants was doubtful.

Employment Generation

Reduced outputs from borewells, well failures, and problems with the erratic supply of electricity to well pumps have led to shortages of water for agricultural and household use. As the drought continues, and the areas under cultivation decrease, many farmers have been increasingly working in their own lands. All these factors contributed to decreasing agricultural work available for labourers. Rainfed groundnut cultivation is still a major source of employment for many of them. Some landless people who were engaged in collecting neem and kanuga seeds, were getting low returns compared to their efforts.

During the drought, many labourers sought out non-farm activities, such as construction and borewell digging. Some migrated for papaya transporting and processing work at Anantapur. Others migrated to work in irrigated agricultural lands. Most migration occurs during the lean season after rainfed groundnut harvesting is completed, from March to June. If drought conditions persist, more would be forced to migrate to wherever work was available.

The need for migration among labourers has been largely reduced by both RDT and government wage labour works in those areas where they are available. Drought related food for work (such as road repairing) is implemented by local gram panchayat. Though consensus emerged that landed farmers benefit more from watershed activities than the labourers, it was also discovered that the labourers also benefit as increased agricultural productivity is reflected in more work availability and higher earnings for them. In addition, many got benefited from the wage labour directly created by the watershed projects. Watershed works (especially pebble bunding, construction of check dams, and horticulture-related activities) had thus been a major source of employment for many of the labourers, especially when no agricultural work was available. There were other benefits as well, as greater unity and organisational ability created among workers through the watershed programme meant that they could press for their concerns--such as better wages, gender equity, and skills training. Income earned through watershed development programme helped some labourers to survive during the drought, and even pay off their debts. This steady source of employment mitigated the effects of drought to a large extent. Women labourers also shared many of the concerns expressed by men. Their main concern regarding the effects of the present drought was the reduced availability of agricultural wage labour. Many women also were relying on wage labour associated with watershed development activities, such as avenue plantation. Gender equity in wages for such work led women to press farmers for better wages in agriculture as well. As they typically did most or all of the work in their homes, it was a challenge for women to find time for both income-generating and household work. Some expressed a need for more training in the development of non-farm activities (such as skilled trades and crafts), marketing, and the promotion of dairy activities (specifically, the need for local milk collection centres).

As long as drought continued, labourers stated that they would need an assistance from the government and NGOs, especially for their wage works. The watershed development fund, created for the future maintenance of watershed structures, would potentially allow for the continuance of some wage labour activity in future. Many also expressed a need for greater diversification of livelihoods, more employment generation, training in job skills, marketing of handicrafts (such as tailoring, basket making), larger loans from self-help groups to purchase more livestock and other items for sustainable income-generating activities, and loans for starting new businesses or other livelihood activities. Some expected that non-farm activities (garment-making, motor mechanics) and horticulture would increase in importance in future.

Women's Leadership Development

As a result of the RDT programmes and, subsequently, the AF watershed development programme, the active participation and leadership of women in decision-making became an important characteristic of many villages. In particular, many women took the opportunity through self-help groups to increase their participation in a variety of activities. Since the inception of the watershed programme, women's attendance increased at gram panchayat meetings, as well as mandal and district-level meetings. Formerly, most women would not attend government meetings. Now, many felt they could approach officials to discuss about issues of concern to them, such as drought-relief works, equitable distributions of benefits, compensation for agricultural losses, and other issues. Many members of the women's groups also attended the recent International Women's Day celebrations in Anantapur.

Equal pay for men and women through watershed works was an improvement over the gender disparity in traditional agricultural labour settings. Due to gender disparity in agricultural labour, the wages of women were reduced substantially, and as such increasing numbers of women asked the farmers why their wages were not equitable. Women reported increased productive activities available for them through RDT self-help groups. In addition, instead of borrowing from rich farmers, they used the groups as an alternative source for loans. In one village, women's management of common property land near a tank has increased its value. Fund-raising for village development through auctioning of the land has led to greater funds for roads, lighting, and school improvements. The lack of local schooling above primary level caused some students (especially girls) to dropout. To rectify this situation, women were advocating for school upgradation. Another issue of concern to them was the demands on women to do both income-generating activities and household work.

Rainwater Harvesting

With regard to horticulture activities, many perceived that irrigated farmlands benefit most from water harvesting structures such as check dams. Some benefits were reported for common property areas as well, as some water for livestock could be found behind a checkdam near a reserve forest, for example. Rainwater harvesting structures brought most benefit to farmers whose lands were within the radius of one kilometre of the structure. Many reported that since the onset of the watershed development programme, new borewells were dug, and additional irrigated crops were grown. Some large farmers increased their area under irrigation drastically (up to 100%) following completion of watershed projects on or near their lands. In one particular area, 100 new borewells were drilled since the start of watershed development work. The conversion of an irrigation tank into a percolation tank for groundwater recharge also allowed the drilling of several new borewells - most of which remained functional, even while the open wells dried up. This allowed nearby farmers to increase their cultivated area and the number of crops grown per year. In combination with contour bunding and checkdams, these activities helped raise water levels in wells. Both contributed to increased crop yields in non-drought years, and allowed some irrigation even during the drought.

According to some farmers, the watershed development programme minimised the effects of the drought, but many farmers were still hoping for good rains to increase crop yields. Virtually all mentioned that open wells on or near their land have gone dry or are nearly dry. Most also reported decreased borewell water discharge rates, which was compensated to a degree with the installation of water-conserving drip irrigation systems. Water scarcity thus led to decreases in the area of fields under irrigation. For household use, some complained of increased time spent in fetching water (due to queuing), and the reduced availability of drinking water.

Many villagers believed that rainwater harvesting structures provided about a one-year cushion against drought. They expected that when good rains were there, the rainwater harvesting structures would have positive effects. As a potential additional benefit in future, some would like assistance with large-scale de-silting of village tanks in order to put the productive silt on their fields.

Soil Moisture Conservation

Pebble bunding treatment of fields resulted in numerous benefits: less injuries to cattle's feet, less injuries to people's hands (while weeding/planting), as much as 50% higher crop yields, reduction in ploughing time, and increased land value (to some, the most important benefit), in addition to availability of water in wells during and after the rainy season. During drought, pebble bunding treatment allowed the recovery of inputs (seeds) for the next groundnut crop. Many other farmers reported positive results regarding both soil moisture conservation and rainwater harvesting projects in their fields. Due to drought, other farmers reported increased time spent to irrigate their fields due to low soil moisture content, and some began watering two months earlier than usual. Most stated that they needed an extension of time for funding of the watershed development programme to cover further areas under treatment.

Bio-gas Promotion

Assistance on account of providing fuel for cooking (both government-funded gas cylinders, and RDT-supported bio-gas systems) benefited some women by saving their time spent in collecting fuel wood, and reducing pollution in their households caused by burning wood. However, the cost of refilling the gas cylinders deterred some from acquiring them. The cost of acquiring at least four cattle needed for bio-gas inputs was an obstacle keeping away more women from participating in that scheme. To remedy this, they required assistance in acquiring milch cattle for the dual purposes of income generation and inputs for bio-gas programmes.

Conclusion

Previous studies raised the concern that while watershed programmes could have significant benefits, the landless poor gained little in comparison to the landed (8). The impacts were, in many cases, limited to increasing irrigation for a few households on only a small portion of the total land under cultivation for a village (9). Several times in the course of the present study, participants expressed a similar belief that the watershed development programme benefited the landed farmers more than the landless. If the programme intended to uplift "the poorest of the poor," it would be useful to map the distribution of programme benefits across households within the villages, to gauge progress in terms of meeting the needs of the poorest people, and assess whether or not adjustments to the programme needed to be made.

Clearly, many of the landless labourers in the study areas felt that they were benefited from the employment generated by the programme. One strong indicator of this was the common report that migration rates in their villages decreased to very low levels since the inception of watershed work. However, uncertainty remained in the minds of many as to what the future would hold for them, once the majority of projects were completed and that source of wage labour was gone. A recurring request from those interviewed was for training and assistance in non-farm activities. Most of the labourers felt that they would simply have to return to migration as a livelihood strategy once the watershed works were completed, and when agricultural labour was scarce due to drought. One strong message emerging from these discussions is the need for continued effort in the area of employment generation and livelihood's diversification for the poor.

Women reported benefiting from the programme in various ways, from greater empowerment in decision-making (especially for those now serving on the watershed committees), to time-saving on household work by using bio-gas systems. Many also benefited indirectly from the programme, as the gender-equitable wages paid for watershed work led in some cases to less disparity in wages for other agricultural work as well. However, the sample size in the present study was too limited to address the question of how widely the benefits to women were distributed.

Yet another area where the participants reported benefits from this programme is the provision of drinking water, with the introduction of watershed programme. A continuing concern for various watershed programmes was the strong focus on increased groundwater extraction for improved irrigation and crop yields, while there was a lack of coordination with efforts to improve domestic water services. 10 Among those interviewed, little concern was generally shown for issues relating to domestic water use. Sometimes, it was simply reported that there were no problems, while at other places no mention of the issue was made at all. Drinking water supplies were often provided through other NGOs (such as Satyasai drinking water scheme) or government institutions, and it was unclear how well these were coordinated with AF's efforts to improve water availability for expressly agricultural purposes.

How well the watershed development programmes enabled people to cope with drought? Many participants felt that the programme had in one way or another helped mitigate the effects of drought. While very few reported actually doing better than in the past, most believed that their situation at present would be worse if it were not for the assistance they received through AF (and RDT). Significant problems remained that deserve further attention, such as the fact that so many people had to sell livestock due to scarcity of fodder, and that many farmers reported drastic reductions in crop yields due to less water availability.

At the same time, it was often felt that the full benefits of the water harvesting and soil moisture conservation projects were yet to be seen, due to the perceived lack of adequate rainfall in recent years. Some people also reported that in the past, they were able to increase the number of borewells and the area of irrigated crops on their lands due to the beneficial effects the projects had on groundwater levels. It remained questionable, whether gains in groundwater recharge due to watershed development projects were in conformity with the increased demands for irrigation that resulted. An obvious question emerged that the present study was not designed to answer, yet that could have very important ramifications for the future direction of the programme: how much of the present water scarcity is truly due to drought (decreased rainfall), and how much of it is attributable to over-extraction of groundwater for irrigated agriculture?

It is hoped that the feedback provided by the study participants would help to clarify some of the strengths and gaps in AF's watershed development programme. A number of areas were suggested for further study and action. More in-depth investigation and documentation of how the programme benefits were distributed within communities --across gender, class, and caste--would be useful in helping to ensure that those in greatest need were getting assistance. The need for employment generation for the landless that was sustainable beyond the completion of watershed work also required further attention. Follow-up studies were also needed to assess the needs and management of water for domestic and agricultural use, and whether, as some predicted, the programme's rainwater harvesting structures would offer more benefits--including greater drought preparedness--once there was an adequate rainfall.

End Notes

(1) Accion Fraterna, a non-governmental organisation, established in 1982, as a subsidiary of the Rural Development Trust (RDT), has played a leading role in watershed development in Anantapur District of Andhra Pradesh, by taking up several programmes to strengthen watershed development.

(2) Rao, C.H.H. (2000), 'Watershed Development in India: Recent Experience and Emerging Issues'. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(45). November 4, 2000.

(3) Butterworth J, YV Malla Reddy and Charles Batchelor (2001), 'Addressing Water Needs of the Poor in Watershed Management, Paper presented at the 27th WEDC Conference, People and Systems for Water, Sanitation and Health, Lusaka, Zambia, 20-24, August.

(4) Butterworth J, YV Malla Reddy and Charles Batchelor (2001), 'Addressing Water Needs of the Poor in Watershed Management, Paper presented at the 27th WEDC Conference, People and Systems for Water, Sanitation and Health, Lusaka, Zambia, 20-24, August.

(5) Butterworth J, YV Malla Reddy and Charles Batchelor (2001), 'Addressing Water Needs of the Poor in Watershed Management, Paper presented at the 27th WEDC Conference, People and Systems for Water, Sanitation and Health, Lusaka, Zambia, 20-24, August.

(6) Saxena, N.C. (1999), Foreward in: Farrmgton, J., C. Turton and A.J. James (Eds.). Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

(7) Rural Development Trust: A Non- Governmental Organisation (NGO), in Anantapur District of Andhra Pradesh, founded in 1969 by Father Vincent Ferret.

(8) Butterworth J, YV Mafia Reddy and Charles Batchelor (2001), 'Addressing Water Needs of the Poor in Watershed Management, Paper presented at the 27th WEDC Conference, People and Systems for Water, Sanitation and Health, Lusaka, Zambia, 20-24, August.

(9) Shah, A. (2001), 'Who Benefits From Participatory Watershed Development? Lessons from Gujarat, India'. IIED Gatekeeper Series SA97. IIED, London.

(10) Butterworth J, YV Malla Reddy and Charles Batchelor (2001), 'Addressing Water Needs of the Poor in Watershed Management, Paper presented at the 27th WEDC Conference, People and Systems for Water, Sanitation and Health, Lusaka, Zambia, 20-24, August.