The Ministry of Rural Development (MORD) entrusted a quick evaluation study of its watershed programmes, viz. Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP), Integrated Watershed Development Programme (IWDP) and Desert Development Programme (DDP) to the Agricultural Finance Corporation Limited (AFC) in October, 1999 as a part of similar studies of its six other programmes viz. Development of Women & Children in Rural Areas (DWCRA), Training of Rural Youth for Self Employment (TRYSEM), Information, Education and Communication (IEC), Supply of Improved Tool Kits to Rural Artisans (SITRA), Jawahar Rojgar Yojana (JRY) and National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP). The study is based mainly on primary information and data collected from selected districts, watersheds and the beneficiaries of these programmes through a field survey. The survey covered 53 districts distributed over 20 States. The number of households canvassed under the Survey was 2467.

The AFC as the nodal agency coordinated the survey undertaken by 27 field organisations designated by the Ministry of Rural Development for this work. The Survey extended from May-July, 2000. Data processing was undertaken in Aug-Sept, 2000.

The Drought Prone Area Programme and Desert Development Programme adopted the watershed approach in 1987. The Integrated Wasteland Development Programme implemented by the National Wastelands Development Board in 1989 also aimed at developing wastelands on watershed basis. The Desert Development Programme focussed on re-afforestation to arrest the growth of hot and cold deserts. The Drought Prone Area Programme concentrated on non-arable lands. Drainage lines for in-situ soil and moisture conservation, agro-forestry, pasture development, horticulture and alternate land use were its main components. The Integrated Wasteland Development Programme made silvi-culture and soil & moisture conservation in lands under government or community or private control as its predominant activity.

The Ministry of Rural Development appointed a Technical Committee on Drought Prone Area Programme and Desert Development Programme in 1994 under the chairmanship of Dr. C.H.H. Rao to evaluate the implementation and impact of these programmes. The Committee recommended that a common set of operational guidelines, objectives, strategies and expenditure norms for these three projects based on the watershed development approach should be evolved. The new guidelines, emphasising community participation in the programme and capacity building, were finalised as a follow up of the Technical Committee’s recommendations. The focus of these programmes may differ but their common basic objective is land and water resource management for sustainable production.

The main TORs of this study were:

• The extent to which these programmes were implemented according to the common guidelines and approach;

• The extent of involvement of Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) in promoting peoples’ participation in project planning, implementation and post-project management on a sustainable basis of community assets created;

• Impact of the programme in terms of restoration of ecological balance in watershed through sustained community action, creation of additional water resources and reduction of soil erosion, economic development (employment generation, increase in agricultural/livestock production, promotion of savings and investments by increasing income of village community etc.) through optimum utilization of natural resources of land, water and vegetation.

The Introductory chapter of this Report gives a brief account of the nature of the programmes evaluated and the scope and objectives of the Study and is followed by the chapter on Methodology adopted for the Study. The next chapter gives an overview of inter-se performance of these programmes on the basis of the findings of the field survey and also recommendations for more effective and efficient implementation. These chapters are followed by State-wise analysis of the project interventions and their impact and lastly a chapter on Suggestions and Recommendations.

The Study has revealed that with the sole exception of J&K, the revised guidelines for implementing these programmes were followed. The felt needs of the communities for physical works were addressed. However, community’s actual involvement in planning and designing these works was generally weak. The condition of the physical assets ranged from "poor" to "fair" where these were maintained by Watershed Associations/Committees or Panchayats except in Rajasthan and Tamilnadu where the Community took ‘good’ care of these works. Government departments maintained these assets in Punjab & Manipur and their condition was good. However, the projects have succeeded in arousing community awareness of the need for managing the land and water resources in an eco-friendly manner.

The impact of the programme was perceptible both in terms of increase in irrigation coverage, reduction in soil erosion and containing the process of soil degradation. Productivity increase in crops cultivated was also significant. In several States like Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Manipur, Meghalaya this impact was, however, not significant. There was no perceptible shift in cropping patterns except in Maharashtra where horticulture crops were introduced.

The impact of the programme on encouragement of mixed farming or livestock related activity was also not very significant.

The impact on farm incomes was positive but not significant except in States like Maharashtra, Punjab and Haryana.

Highlights of the nature of the programme implemented in each State and their impact on rural development is brought out in chapter-IV. The main findings and recommendations are recapitulated below.

This quick evaluation exercise has revealed that in terms of utilisation of financial allocations, the performance under Integrated Wasteland Development Programme was comparatively better than under Drought Prone Area Programme. In the identified districts while financial allocations were utilised to the extent of 73.1 per cent under Integrated Wasteland Development Programme, the utilisation was 68.6 per cent in Drought Prone Area Programme. The performance under Desert Development Programme was 57.8 per cent. In overall terms, allocations were utilised to the extent of 61.7%. While in Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh utilization exceeded 75% of allocations, in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa & Bihar it ranged from 60 to 74%. In the remaining States i.e. Haryana, West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Maghalaya & Manipur utilization was less than 50% of allocations.

The performance of these three programmes was evaluated also on the basis of three other parameters viz. water resources development, crop productivity and overall impact on rural economy.

In the selected watersheds under Desert Development Programme the irrigated area increased by 60.4 per cent. The corresponding increase under Integrated Wasteland Development Programme and Drought Prone Area Programme was 49.1 and 31.6 per cent respectively. Provision of protective irrigation coverage in Drought Prone Area Programme areas needs higher emphasis.

The percentage increase realised in the yield of dominant crops in the selected watersheds have been analysed district-wise. In case of food crops i.e. paddy, wheat, jowar, bajra, arhar and gram the productivity increase was most impressive under Drought Prone Area Programme. In Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh, for example, the increase in paddy yield of around 80 per cent was recorded compared to 29.8 per cent in Madhya Pradesh under Integrated Wasteland Development Programme. Similarly, in case of wheat yield increment of 82.2 per cent was realised in Gujarat (Bhavnagar) under Drought Prone Area Programme and 60 per cent in Haryana (Hisar) under Desert Development Programme.

The impact of these programmes on the rural economy has been evaluated in terms of percentage increase in average income of household surveyed in the selected watersheds. A district-wise analysis is given in Annexure-IV. The range of these increases are given below:

These data indicate that the programme had a positive and significant impact on overall economic development in selected watersheds, except in Almora district.

The common guidelines for implementation of these programmes even though termed "flexible" laid down uniform mechanisms for implementation of these programmes from the State to watershed level, spelt out in detail the modalities for formulation of projects, their implementation and monitoring (Project components, watershed treatment development works, training, cost norms and funding arrangements). These guidelines were observed in practice by the various State Governments with the sole exception of Jammu & Kashmir which implemented the programme in terms of old guidelines.

The survey of assets indicates that there is need for proper technical support for designing works under these projects to ensure that site specific needs are addressed and local technologies/materials are used to the maximum extent possible as laid down under the new guidelines. It has been observed that where Govt. departments continue to look after these works as in Punjab and Manipur, their up-keep and maintenance is upto the required standards. However, where the maintenance of these works has been transferred to Users' Associations etc., their up-keep was poor to fair. There is need to involve the community right from the start in the maintenance of these works.

The cost norms laid down in the guidelines are somewhat rigid in nature i.e. 60 per cent for labour cost and 40 per cent material cost. These norms need to be kept flexible depending upon the cost of earth work per cubic meter and cost of materials needed for a project which vary from State to State and depend on the kind of work to be carried out.

The field survey has revealed that quite often Integrated Wasteland Development Programme covers lands already under cultivation and therefore no programmes for land development or reclamation were taken up under these watersheds. It is recommended that only wastelands should be identified for coverage under this project so that the resources available are utilised for reclamation of such lands for productive purposes as intended.

In low fertility status soils covered by Drought Prone Area Programme and Desert Development Programme, cultivation of surface spreading crops (e.g. groundnut, soyabean, mung and urad) would help in checking soil erosion. In non-arable lands 3 tier system of plantation (grasses, bushes and trees) would provide adequate bio-mass to meet fodder, fuel and timber needs of the local population.

Contour vegetative hedges should be planted on sectional earthen bunds of small cross-section. Sunken dug-outs at suitable places need to be constructed for rain-water harvesting. Small stone and live checks across rills and gullies would stabilise soilscape and reduce erosion. Under DPAP, particularly, earthen and concrete water impounding structures should be constructed to collect maximum run off. Diversion drains in upper reaches of a watershed need to be provided for safe disposal of rain water and prevention of soil erosion.

Crop cultivation alone cannot lead to viable farm enterprises. Although, the programme guidelines provide for developing alternative sources of farm income (e.g. livestock development, milk production, poultry & piggery, fisheries and bee-keeping etc.), in actual practice enough attention is not paid to such diversification. Greater thrust to such programmes is needed.