Wani CH003.

tex 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 53

Chapter 3

Watershed development for rainfed

areas: Concept, principles, and
approaches
Suhas P. Wani, B. Venkateswarlu, and V.N. Sharda

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Land, water, and vegetation are the natural resources, which provide food, feed, fiber,
and fuel needs for the survival of human beings. However, the growing biotic pres-
sure and overexploitation of the natural resources are leading to their accelerated
degradation, resulting in reduced productivity. The sustainable management of nat-
ural resources is the key for the sustenance and well-being of human beings. Water
is a finite resource and an elixir of life; however, water is becoming scarce due its
overexploitation to meet the demands of the ever increasing demographic pressure.
Agriculture is a major consumer (75–80%) of water for food production globally. For
meeting the food demand of the growing global population by 2025, it is estimated
that additional 2000 km3 water will be required with the current practices of food
production (Falkenmark 1986). An integrated approach to rainwater management
is necessary, where the links are addressed between investments and risk reduction,
between land, water, and crop, and between rainwater management and multiple
livelihood strategies. The conservation linked development of vital natural resources
on a sustained basis without impairing its productivity for the future generation is the
need of the hour. In this context, watershed scale becomes very effective and handy to
manage water and land resources effectively, particularly in the drought-prone rainfed
areas, which are the hot-spots of poverty, malnutrition, and water scarcity and are
prone to severe land degradation (Wani et al., 2003a, 2009; Rockström et al., 2007,
2009, 2010). For sustainable development of rainfed agriculture in tropical Asia and
Africa, small catchment or watershed management approach is recommended for the
sustainable development and to achieve food security through enhanced green water
(rainwater stored as soil moisture) and blue water (runoff water harvested in tanks
and groundwater) use efficiency (Wani et al., 2002, 2009; Rockström et al., 2007,
2010).

3.2 WATERSHED CONCEPT

A watershed is a catchment area from which all water drains into a common point,
making it an attractive hydrological unit to manage water and soil resources through
science-based technical management options. Along with water and soil, biodiversity
also can be effectively managed at the watershed scale to harness the agroecological
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 54

54 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

potential on a sustainable basis (Wani and Garg 2009). Watershed is a spatial unit that
includes diverse natural resources (soil, water, trees, biodiversity, etc.) that are unevenly
distributed within a given geographical area (Knox and Gupta 2000; Johnson et al.,
2002). The water flowing in a watershed interconnects upstream and downstream
areas, and provides life support to rural people holding unequal use rights, mak-
ing people and animals an integral part of watersheds (Wani et al., 2010). Activities
of people/animals affect the health and sustainability of watersheds and vice versa.
Clearly, watersheds are geologically, ecologically, and socially complex geographical
units characterized by temporal and spatial interdependence among resources as well
as resource users. Watersheds are also inhabited by socially and economically heteroge-
neous groups of people located at different points along the terrain, creating potential
conflicts in the resource use among those on the upper, middle, and lower reaches of
the catchment. This implies that the effectiveness of the watershed interventions will
depend on the ability to treat the entire hydrological landscape, following the ridge
to valley approach and not just a part of it. In a watershed, along with the on-site
impacts, there are off-site impacts also. The quality and status of land, water, and veg-
etation vary as per the toposequence position; and appropriate management practices
are needed for their development and sustainable use as per their capability. For prac-
tical purposes, a systematic scientific and rational approach would be to use watershed
as the unit of planning and development, and to achieve this objective a framework
for the watershed is a prerequisite.
The terms catchment, sub-catchment, and watershed are often synonymously
employed, defined by a single river system and further grouped into macro, meso,
and micro level in a hierarchical system for management using a codification system
linking different levels. It is thus essential to have a hierarchical system of delineat-
ing bigger hydrological units into watersheds, and also a codification system needs
to be developed so that each watershed could be identified as an individual entity
without losing linkage with the bigger units, i.e., catchments, sub-catchment, etc., to
which it belongs. The size of the smallest hydrological unit while delineating a bigger
system into watersheds/sub-watersheds/micro-watersheds could be restricted to viable
size dictated by the working feasibility. In general, the area under different categories
covered is 30–50 km2 for sub-watershed, 10–30 km2 for mini-watershed, 5–10 km2
for micro-watershed, and 500–5000 ha for the implementation unit.
The concept of stream order is often followed in the geomorphic analysis of the
natural drainage system. Every stream, tributary, or river has an associated watershed,
and small watersheds aggregate together to become a larger watershed. Water travels
from headwater to the downward location and meets with similar strength of stream,
then it forms one order higher stream as shown in Figure 3.1.
The stream order is a measure of the degree of stream branching within a
watershed. Each length of stream is indicated by its order (for example, first-order,
second-order, etc.). The start or headwaters of a stream, with no other streams flow-
ing into it, is called the first-order stream. First-order streams flow together to form a
second-order stream. Second-order streams flow into a third-order stream and so on.
Stream order describes the relative location of the reach in the watershed. Identification
of stream order is useful to assess the amount of water availability in reach and its qual-
ity; stream orders are also used as criteria to divide a larger watershed into smaller units.
Moreover, the criteria for selecting the watershed size also depend on the objectives
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 55

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 55

1
2
2

1 2
1
1

Stream network
Watershed
Micro-watersheds

Figure 3.1 A large watershed divided into six micro-watersheds based on stream order (Note:
Numbers on the stream network show the stream order of respective stream) (Source:
Wani and Garg 2009)

for development and terrain slope. A large watershed can be managed in plain valley
areas or where forest or pasture development is the main objective (Singh 2000). In
hilly areas or where intensive agriculture development is planned, the size of watershed
relatively preferred is small.
Moreover, because of the lateral and downhill movement of soil and water
resources unilateral action taken by any single resource user may impose positive or
negative consequences (externalities) on any other resource user. The ability to exclude
or prevent these externalities is determined by the nature of property rights held by the
resource users. When negative externalities are difficult to exclude or prevent at a low
cost, some of the production and resource use decisions for certain resources may fall
under the control of other agents. When the externalities are negative, the production
or resource use levels may be socially supra optimal. The reverse is true for desir-
able externalities for which the individual resource users are not fully compensated.
The ability to internalize these kinds of mutual spillover effects resulting from spatial
and temporal interdependence among resource users requires interventions mediated
through targeted policies and institutional incentives that encourage cooperation and
collective action. Fragmented land ownership and the settlement patterns coupled with
unequal access and use rights create conflict and diverging interests. This reduces the
incentives for cooperation and increases the transaction costs involved in organizing
the resource users for collective action (Shiferaw et al., 2009).
However, a participatory framework of watershed development calls for a dif-
ferent approach, indicative of macro- and micro-level of delineation encompassing
different communities and administrative units, avoiding social conflicts. Considering
the role of communities and importance of their participation for sustainable devel-
opment of the watersheds in India, watersheds of 500 ha were used for development
in India as community watersheds covering one village or a cluster of inhabitations.
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 56

56 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

However, through the meta analysis of available data, it was found that small water-
sheds were not as effective in terms of economic, environmental, and social impacts
as were the larger watersheds of >1200 ha (Joshi et al., 2005, 2008; Wani et al.,
2008a). The Common Watershed Guidelines released by the Government of India
(2008) adopted larger size (1000–5000 ha) of watersheds by developing them in clus-
ters. Each of the big drainage system is divided and sub-divided through stages using
different codes to indicate various stages starting with macro-level and going down to
micro-level.
In recent years, watershed management has become the focal point of agricultural
and rural development in rainfed areas with the objective of livelihood enhancement.
Watershed development is fundamentally the creation of new opportunities both in an
institutional sense and ecologically feasible manner. The ultimate indicator of success
is the ability of communities to take advantage of new opportunities and the extent to
which benefits are sustained in the long-term. Today, the concept of integrated water-
shed management (IWM) is recognized to go beyond traditional technical interventions
for soil and water conservation, to include multiple crop-livestock-tree, and market
related innovations that support and diversify livelihoods to build the resilience against
changes in the future, including those by globalization and climate change (Wani et al.,
2008b). The concept ties together the biophysical notion of a watershed as a hydrolo-
gical unit with that of the community and institutional factors that regulate the demand
and determine the viability and sustainability of such interventions. The hydrological
approach helps to identify the appropriate technical interventions on the supply side,
while the village or community-based planning and implementation is fundamental for
creating institutions for community empowerment and sustainability on the demand
side (Shiferaw et al., 2009). The landscape level, but community-based IWM inter-
ventions create synergies among targeted technologies, policies, and institutions that
improve productivity, resource use sustainability, and market access for the resource
users.
Integrated watershed management has become an approach integrating sustainable
management of natural resources through collective action of the resource users for
improving livelihoods of people in harmony with nature rather than a mere unit for
managing natural resources and has shown the potential for scaling-out the benefits
ensuring community participation, due largely as a result of the tangible economic
benefits as well as capacity development through knowledge sharing (Farrington and
Lobo 1997; Wani et al., 2000, 2003a).

3.3 IMPORTANCE OF LAND USE PLANNING

INWATERSHED DEVELOPMENT

The unevenly distributed, diverse, and interconnected natural resources and inter-
dependence of human beings and animals for their living and sustainability calls
for proper planning for the development, management, and use of land resources.
Adinarayana (2008) employed Watershed Management Information System
(WATMIS) to evaluate the agroecological characteristics using primary data, soil ero-
sion assessment, and aspects of conservation management. Data from various sources
such as National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (NBSSLUP), remote
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 57

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 57

sensing, groundwater, agriculture, forestry, rural development departments, and mar-

kets can be effectively used with the help of geographical information systems (GIS),
simulation models (crop, water, soil loss, runoff), and bioeconometric models for the
sustainable development and management of watersheds (Wani et al., 2008a, 2008b,
2009).

3.4 CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZATION OF WATERSHEDS

One of the conventional approaches for prioritization of the watershed was based
on the silt yield index (SYI) method developed by the All India Soil and Land Use
Survey (AISLUS), which consumed a lot of time and sizable human and financial
resources. Sidhu et al. (1998) used these approaches and prioritized the development of
detailed work plan for watersheds. To provide efficient framework of watersheds in the
country, AISLUS first developed Watershed Atlas of India comprising 17 sheets at a 1:1
million scale. The country was hydrologically demarcated into six major water resource
regions, 35 river basins, 112 catchments, 500 sub-catchments, and 3237 watersheds.
Subsequently, Digital Watershed Atlas of India was developed by the organization for
a GIS-based Web service on watershed, soil, and land information.
Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme (APRLP) adopted integrated water-
shed development approach to improve rural livelihoods in Andhra Pradesh, India
and devised a nine-point selection criteria (Sreedevi and Wani 2009) for watersheds,
integrating the natural resource degradation criteria with multiple deprivation crite-
ria (social and material deprivation) to arrive at reliable indicators for both technical
and social features (Table 3.1). Micro- and macro-watersheds were identified and
prioritized based on the SYI indicators of land degradation due to erosion and the
dependability of rainfall and evapotranspiration, which depend on the variability and
deviation of rainfall. Multiple deprivation criteria include the indices of poverty, con-
sidering the multiple dimensions of poverty as reflected in deprivation of income,
accessibility to services, and social status. Since APRLP took a holistic view of peo-
ple towards their livelihoods and opportunities, it integrated the indices of natural
resource degradation and multiple deprivations, and a matrix was drawn up where
each parameter was given equal importance while selecting the watersheds. A proba-
tion period of up to 18 months was made mandatory for the capacity building plans for
the primary and secondary stakeholders and the preparation of strategic (perspective
plan for 5 years) and annual action plans. Thus, it is a farmer-friendly Participatory
Net Planning (PNP) approach (Sreedevi and Wani 2009).
The IWM program has adopted similar criteria for prioritizing the watersheds in
different states in India as well as for prioritizing and allocating the financial resources
for the program. Higher priority and weightage is given to the extent of rainfed area
in the state, level of poverty, drinking water and groundwater status, low crop yields,
poverty index [people in the categories of below poverty line (BPL), scheduled caste
(SC)/scheduled tribe (ST), etc.], area owned by small and marginal farmers, SC/ST
and BPL people, contiguity to the already treated/ongoing watersheds, the extent of
treatable common property resources, and willingness of the villagers to participate,
contribute, and support the program.
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 58

58 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

Table 3.1 Nine-point criteria for the selection of watersheds under APRLP in Andhra Pradesh, Indiaa

Parameters Range Mark Weightage

% of small and marginal farmers <25 5

>25 to 50 10
>50 15 15
% of SC/ST holdings <10 3
>10 to 25 10 10
% of women organized in self-help groups <20 3
and participating in the program >20 to 50 5
>50 10 10
Status of groundwater (m) <10 2
>10 to 15 3
>15 5 5
Andhra Pradesh Remote-sensing Application Very low 6
Centre (APSRAC) prioritization Low 12
Medium 18
High 24
Very high 30 30
Livestock population <1000 2
>1000 to <2000 3
>2000 5 5
Number of families affected/involved in migration <50 3
>50 to <100 5
>100 10 10
Contiguity Yes 5
No 0 5
Availability of fallow/wasteland and common property <10 3
resources for the poor to utilize usufruct (%) >10 to <20 5
>20 10 10
Total 100
a Source: Sreedevi and Wani (2009).

3.5 COMMON FEATURES OF THE WATERSHED

DEVELOPMENT MODEL

Government agencies, development thinkers, donors, researchers and non-government

organizations (NGOs) have gradually learnt from each other and evolved the watershed
management approach (though some are ahead in the field and others deficient in some
aspect or other, principally in people participation or in the science). But in general
nowadays, the improved models have some or all of the following features in common
(Wani et al., 2008a):

• Participation of the villagers as individuals, as groups or as a whole, improving

their confidence level, enabling their empowerment and ability to plan for the
future with self-determination;
• Capturing the power of group action in the village, among villages, and from the
federations, e.g., capturing economies of scale by collective marketing;
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 59

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 59

• Construction of basic infrastructure with contributions in cash or as labor from

the community;
• Better farming techniques, notably the improved practices for the management of
soil, water, diversifying the farming systems, and integrating the joint management
of communal areas and forest;
• Involvement of the landless, often in providing services;
• Arrangements for the provision of basic services and infrastructure;
• Establishment of village institutions and their linking with the outside world;
• Improved relationships between men and women;
• Employment and income generation through enterprise development predomi-
nantly in but not exclusively agricultural-related activities.

And in some instances:

• The fusion of research and development (R&D) by capturing the extraordinary

power of participatory technology development, including varietal selection with
direct links to germplasm collections as has happened in the case of the estab-
lishment of model watersheds as well as some of the internationally funded
watershed programs, for example, the APRLP project supported by Department
for International Develoment (DFID), UK, the World Bank-funded Sujala Water-
shed Development Program in Karnataka, India, and the Integrated Watershed
Development Program supported by Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila, the
Philippines in Thailand, Vietnam, China, and India implemented by International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT);
• A complete avoidance of corruption so that the trust is built and all the benefits
are passed on to the community;
• Reduction in distress migration from the rural areas to towns in search of a
livelihood.

Recent additions to the watershed model:

• A pragmatic use of the scientific knowledge as the entry point rather than money,
leading to tangible economic benefit from low-cost interventions that generate
rapid and substantial returns for large number of people at low level of risk.
Among these are novel interventions focusing on seeds of improved cultivars, the
assessment of soil fertility status, integrated pest management (IPM), micronutri-
ents, and soil conservation and water table recharge structures (Wani et al., 2003a,
2008b; Dixit et al., 2007).
• A broad-based approach to income generation, involving private sector associated
with scientific advances and markets; for instance, in the remediation of micronu-
trient deficiencies; in marketing of the products from medicinal and aromatic
plants; with premium payments paid by industrial processors for aflatoxin-free
maize and groundnut; with high sugar sorghum, and selected crops such as
Jatropha and Pongamia sold to industry for ethanol and bio-diesel production;
with the production for sale of commercial seed, hybrid varieties, and biopesticides
(Wani et al., 2003a; Sreedevi and Wani 2009).
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 60

60 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

• Employing remote sensing, GIS, and simulation modeling for planning, execution,
and monitoring and to provide feedback to farmers; yield gap analysis and rapid
assessment of the fertility status of watersheds to improve productivity (Wani et al.,
2009).
• Building the capacity of the formal and informal rural institutions through bottom-
up approach with emphasis on owning of the program from the beginning for
sustainability. The consortium partners have come up with an innovative model
of “Advisory Council’’ (Salaha Samithi) in addition to the watershed committee,
at the watershed level, for transparency, equity, gender related issues, and conflict
resolving.
• Building productive partnership and alliance in a consortium model for conducting
research and technical backstopping and for this the members of the consortium
work together right from the planning stage (Wani et al., 2003a, 2008b, 2009).
• Focus to build resilience in the watershed and its community against climate change
and events of the post-program intervention (Wani et al., 2008a).

Where implemented properly, the model has led to profound changes in the farming
systems including improved food self-sufficiency, enhanced employment, commerce
and income. Where indifferently executed, the approach has not brought desirable
results to the community. Thus, yield gap is observed between research station and
farmers’ yields. Much of the difference can be captured by the implementing agencies
by adopting the best practice. The more recent linking of natural resource science
with private sector markets and with peoples’ broader livelihoods in consultation with
them, has been transforming the dynamic and success rate of the developmental efforts
(Wani et al., 2008a).

3.6 EVOLUTION OF WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT

APPROACH IN INDIA

In the beginning, watershed development in the rainfed areas was synonymous to soil
and water conservation and was achieved by constructing field bunds and structures
to harvest runoff water (Singh et al., 1998; Wani et al., 2002). In these activities,
the techno-centric, compartmental, and target-oriented approaches were followed by
involving one or two departments of the Government without much coordination. It
was a top-down target-based approach with hardly any involvement of the stakehold-
ers in the planning, implementation, and maintenance of the structures and bunds.
Hence, such efforts did not make headway in impacting livelihoods of the rural poor
in the rainfed areas (Farrington and Lobo 1997; Joshi et al., 2000; Dixit et al., 2001;
Kerr 2001; Wani et al., 2002; Kerr and Chung 2005; Shah 2007).
Rainfall pattern in the tropical and subtropical rainfed areas is highly variable both
in terms of total amount and distribution. This leads to moisture stress during critical
stages of crop production and makes agriculture production vulnerable to pre- and
post-production risks. Watershed development projects in India have been sponsored
and implemented by the Government from early 1970s onwards. The phases in the
journey through the evolution of watershed approach are shown in Figure 3.2 (Wani
et al., 2005, 2006a). Various watershed development programs like Drought Prone
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 61

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 61

Figure 3.2 Journey through watershed approach in India (Source:Wani et al., 2005, 2006a)

Area Programme (DPAP), Desert Development Programme (DDP), River Valley Project
(RVP), National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA), and
Integrated Wasteland Development Programme (IWDP) were launched subsequently
in various hydro-ecological regions consistently affected by water stress and drought
like situations. The entire watershed development program was primarily focused on
structure-driven compartmental approach of soil conservation and rainwater harvest-
ing during 1980s and benefited a few well to do farmers through increased groundwater
availability. In spite of putting efforts for maintaining soil conservation practices (con-
tour bunding, pits excavation, grassed waterways, etc.), the farmers used to plow
through the structures from their fields. It showed that a straightjacket top-down
approach cannot bring desired impact in watersheds and a mix of the individual- and
community-based interventions are essential along with the productivity enhancement
measures to ensure tangible benefits to small farm holders.
The integrated watershed development program with participatory approach was
emphasized during the mid 1980s and in the early 1990s. This approach had focused
on raising crop productivity and livelihood improvement in watersheds (Wani et al.,
2006b) along with the implementation of soil and water conservation measures. The
Government of India appointed a committee in 1994 under the chairmanship of
Prof. C.H. Hanumantha Rao, which strongly felt a need to move away from the con-
ventional government department approach based on bureaucratic planning without
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 62

62 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

involving the local communities (Raju et al., 2008). The new guidelines were recom-
mended in 1995, which emphasized collective action and community participation,
including participation of the primary stakeholders through community-based orga-
nizations (CBOs), NGOs, and Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) (GOI 1994, 2008;
Hanumantha Rao et al., 2000; DOLR 2003; Joshi et al., 2008). The watershed
development guidelines were again revised in 2001 (called Hariyali guidelines) to
further simplify and facilitate the involvement of PRIs more meaningfully in plan-
ning, implementation, and evaluation, and in the community empowerment (Raju
et al., 2008). The guidelines were issued in 2003 (DOLR 2003). Subsequently, “Neer-
anchal Committee’’ (2005) evaluated the entire government-sponsored, NGO and
donor-implemented watershed development programs in India and suggested a shift in
focus “away from a purely engineering and structural focus to a deeper concern with
livelihood issues’’ (Raju et al., 2008).
Appreciating the fact that to reduce poverty in the rainfed areas holistic watershed
development is a must (Wani et al., 2003a, 2009; Rockström et al., 2007, 2010), the new
generation of watershed development programs are implemented with a larger aim to
address the problems such as food security, equity, poverty, gender, severe land degra-
dation, and water scarcity in the dryland areas. Hence, in the new approach, watershed,
a land unit to manage water resources has been adopted as a planning unit to manage
total natural resources of the area. Improving livelihoods of local communities is high-
lighted by realizing the fact that in the absence of them, sustainable natural resource
management (NRM) would be elusive. With these considerations, the watershed pro-
grams have been looking beyond soil and water conservation into a range of activities
from productivity enhancement through interventions in agriculture, horticulture, ani-
mal husbandry, livelihoods, community organization, and gender equity (Wani et al.,
2002; APRLP 2007; GOI 2008). This holistic approach required optimal contribu-
tion from different disciplinary backgrounds, creating a demand for multi-stakeholder
agenda in the watershed development programs (Wani et al., 2002, 2003b).
During 1990s, there has been a paradigm shift in the thinking of policy makers
based on the learnings from the earlier programs. In India, the watershed programs
are silently revolutionizing agriculture in the rainfed areas (Joshi et al., 2005; Wani
et al., 2006b); and by 2006 (up to 10th Five Year Plan) about US$7 billion have
been invested by Government of India and other donor agencies treating 38 million
ha in the country (Wani et al., 2008b). During a detailed evaluation of the on-farm
watershed programs implemented in the country, the ICRISAT team observed that
once the project team withdrew from the villages the farmers reverted back to the
earlier practices and very few components of the improved soil, water, and nutrient
management options were adopted and followed. Although, the economic benefits of
improved technologies were observed in the on-farm experiments, the adoption rates
were quite low. Individual component technologies such as summer plowing, improved
crop varieties, and intercropping were continued by the farmers. However, the soil and
water conservation technologies were not much favored (Wani et al., 2002).
The importance of the local community participation in the watershed programs
to enhance their efficiency and sustainability has been widely acknowledged (Kerr
et al., 2000; Samra and Eswaran 2000; Wani et al., 2002; Joshi et al., 2004). As
a result, through a series of policies and guidelines the responsibilities of managing
the watershed programs have shifted towards the local communities. But achieving
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 63

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 63

participation of the primary stakeholders has not been easy. One of the major learnings
over a period of time has been that unless there is some tangible economic benefit to
the community, peoples’ participation does not come forth (Olson 1971; Wani et al.,
2002). To enhance community participation, it is necessary to achieve tangible impact
of the watershed development activities. To achieve a tangible impact, it is necessary
that different agencies such as research centers, development line departments of the
Government, training institutions, CBOs, and NGOs come together and share their
expertise in a complementary way through the convergence of approaches, actors, and
actions (Wani et al., 2002).

3.7 NEED FOR A HOLISTIC APPROACH FOR

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

The watershed implementing agencies have inbuilt strengths in community organiza-

tion but majority of these agencies lack technical competencies in the development
and management of natural resources. They depend heavily on the technical resource
agencies for building capacities of their staff and the community members involved
in NRM. Since different resource agencies have their compartmental specializations
in specific areas, there is a lack of holistic approach in providing technical support to
the NGOs, government line departments, and other implementing agencies, thereby
affecting their performance in implementing the watershed programs. On the other
hand, the research organizations are usually mandated to work at the individual farm
level. Biophysical scientists often have limited experience in the dynamics of forming
the collective action groups that is essential for watershed-based activities. However,
with the approach of ultra disciplinary specialization (reductionist approach) and the
lack of professional reward mechanisms in the research institutions, and disciplinary
hierarchy, scientists are more comfortable to work in their own area of specialization
rather than working in the multidisciplinary teams (Wani et al., 2009). In projects that
have been led by research centers, researchers seem to document results and findings
mainly for the scientific sector (Gündel et al., 2001). Focus on social organization
is less in these programs, reducing their effectiveness. Government departments have
their strengths in specific technical competencies and wider reach, but they lack skills
in social organization. Traditionally, the watershed programs implemented by govern-
ment departments have been supply-driven and target based. The Central and State
governments allocated resources for watershed development. Subsequently, the offi-
cials used to identify locations and decide various activities for implementation. Such
an approach did not match the needs of stakeholders in the watershed (Kerr et al.,
2000; Joshi et al., 2004). Since these departments operate mostly in a compartmental
way, integrated approach was lacking in such programs and thus desired success could
not be achieved. Due to such deficiencies in capacities of the implementing agencies,
most of the watershed programs failed to achieve optimal benefits (Farrington and
Lobo 1997; Kerr and Chung 2005). This situation has strongly supported the idea
of different agencies coming together to support watershed programs. But bringing
together organizations with different strengths, weaknesses, and styles of functioning
on a common platform to work together for a common cause is challenging. ICRISAT
has successfully evolved a scalable model based on the ‘Consortium Approach’ through
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 64

64 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

ADB-supported watershed development program at Kothapally in Rangareddy district

of Andhra Pradesh (Wani et al., 2003a).

3.8 EVOLUTION OF THE CONSORTIUM APPROACH

ICRISAT was one of the earliest CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricul-
tural Research) centers to give formal recognition in its mandate to supplement research
on individual crops with research in farming systems. Watershed-based research was
an example of interdisciplinary research even before the term assumed significance
(Shambu Prasad et al., 2005, 2006). This interdisciplinary research, over the years,
has shaped up into an Integrated Genetic Natural Resources Management (IGNRM)
approach at ICRISAT (Twomlow et al., 2006). But in the beginning, ICRISAT also
faced the problems of hierarchy of disciplines among scientists who were working
together. After realizing the importance and potential of combining disciplinary exper-
tise in a complementary way, such issues were sorted out which gave rise to the idea of
the Consortium Approach based on the success of multidisciplinary approach at the
research station (Wani et al., 2003a).
The Consortium is a convergence of agencies/actors/stakeholders who have a sig-
nificant role to play in the watershed development project. Facilitated by a leader/
leading organization, member-organizations prepare common plans and work towards
achieving the agreed common objectives. After witnessing ICRISAT’s pioneering and
quality work and its results, many agencies approached ICRISAT for sharing of the
knowledge/approach/technology in their areas. It was decided to work along with
the reputed NGOs in the on-farm watersheds, which much helped in strengthening the
idea of the Consortium Approach.
The ADB-supported project enabled ICRISAT to test the integrated watershed
model at Kothapally village of Rangareddy district in Andhra Pradesh, to attempt to
minimize the gap between research findings and on-farm development. The purpose of
the work was also to adopt the learning loop in the planning of strategic research based
on the participatory model in the research for development. There was also a request
from the Government of Andhra Pradesh to demonstrate the benefits by increasing
crop productivity through watershed approach in the rainfed areas under farmers’
conditions. The beginning itself of this work was highly encouraging as there was a
demand for demonstrating the success of the new approach of watershed development
on farmers’ fields and space was created for innovations in the ongoing DPAP under
the watershed program by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
For this model, as opposed to single institution based approach, relevant orga-
nizations were identified and brought into the network to form a consortium of
institutions for technical backstopping of the project. ICRISAT, M Venkatarangiah
Foundation (MVF), an NGO, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture
(CRIDA), National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA), and DPAP, now called the District
Water Management Agency (DWMA), Rangareddy district administration of the
Government of Andhra Pradesh along with farmers of the watershed formed the
consortium (Figure 3.3) (Wani et al., 2003a).
The first success of the new approach was evident when more number of farmers
came forward to undertake the participatory evaluation of the technologies for which
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 65

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 65

Figure 3.3 A pictorial representation of different partners in the Adarsha Watershed Consortium
(See color plate section)

except for the knowledge, farmers had to pay for inputs in cash or kind. Farmers
obtained threefold increase in the yields of pigeonpea and other crops in the first rainy
season itself (Table 3.2). During the second year, people from four villages surround-
ing Kothapally came to ICRISAT and asked for technical help, promising that they
would show similar or better results than shown by Kothapally farmers, in a shorter
period. This indicated to the Consortium team members that the approach was self-
replicating as people from the surrounding villages saw tangible benefits from the
approach. ICRISAT and DWMA of Rangareddy district decided to provide technical
support and necessary inputs on a cost basis to these four villages. True to their words,
the villagers demonstrated the benefits in terms of doubling their crop productivity
(Table 3.3). The model has become a success story and henceforth the model has been
suitably adapted and scaled-up/out in many other locations.

3.9 COMPONENTS OF INTEGRATED WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT

3.9.1 Entry Point Activity

Entry Point Activity (EPA) is the first formal project intervention, which is undertaken
after the transect walk, selection, and finalization of the watershed. It is highly rec-
ommended to use the knowledge-based EPA to build the rapport with the community
(Wani et al., 2002, 2008a). Direct cash-based EPA must be avoided as such activities
give a wrong signal to the community at the beginning of the implementation of vari-
ous interventions. A detailed discussion on the knowledge-based EPA to build rapport
with the community ensuring tangible economic benefits to the community members
is provided by Dixit et al. (2008).
 Wani

Table 3.2 Average crop yields with different practices at Adarsha watershed, Kothapally, 1999–2009a
[Link]

Yield (kg ha−1 )

Before 1999–
Cropping system 1998 2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 Mean CV (%) SE ±

Improved system
8/7/2011

Sole maize – 3250 3760 3300 3480 3920 3420 3920 3630 4680 4810 3820 17.8 80
Maize/Pigeonpea – 5260 6480 5600 5650 6290 4990 6390 6170 6120 6680 5960 16.7 116
intercrop system
Sorghum/ – 5010 6520 5830 – 5780 4790 5290 5310 – – 5500 13.4 154
18: 48

Pigeonpea
intercrop system
Sole sorghum – 4360 4590 3570 2960 2740 3020 2860 2500 – – 3330 23.9 141
Farmers’ practice
Page 66

Sole maize 1500 1700 1600 1600 1800 2040 1950 2250 2150 – – 1890 17.2 53
Sorghum/ 1980 2330 2170 2750 3190 3310 3000 3360 3120 – – 2900 19.2 110
Pigeonpea
intercrop system
Hybrid cotton – 2295 7050 6600 6490 6950 – – – – – 5880 37.0 511
BT cotton – – – – – – – 6210 5590 7310 9380 7120 26.1 315
Mean 3477 4970 3833 4018 4814 3651 4584 4320 6268 7396
CV (%) 11.9 31.4 10.7 8.0 14.5 20.3 10.8 12.2 16.7 16.2
SE ± 415 1559 410 323 698 742 495 525 1049 1201
a Source: Updated from Wani et al. (2008b).
In Sorghum/Pigeonpea intercrop system with farmers’ practice, the improved pigeonpea variety ICPL 87119 was grown along with local sorghum variety Pacha Jonna
from 2001; pigeonpea variety used earlier was discontinued as it was highly susceptible to fusarium wilt.
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 67

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 67

Table 3.3 Crop response to the improved management practices in 98 farmers’ fields in four villages
around Kothapally watershed, Andhra Pradesh, India in 2001 rainy season and 2001–02
postrainy seasona

Maize yield (kg ha−1 )

Farmers’ practice Improved practice (improved Farmers’ Improved

Cropping system (kg ha−1 ) seed + management) (kg ha−1 ) practice practice

Maize/Pigeonpea
Maize 1900 4365 1900 4365
Pigeonpea 350 1130 1240 3995
Sorghum/Pigeonpea
Sorghum 1200 2725 1755 3990
Pigeonpea 330 1185 1170 4190
Maize/Chickpea
Maize 2200 4800 2200 4800
Chickpea 650 1085 2380 3870
a Derived from Wani et al. (2009).

Table 3.4 Farmers’ fields deficient in plant nutrients in various states of Indiaa

Farmers’ fields (%) deficientb

No. of No. of Av P Av K Av S Av B Av Zn
State districts farmers OC (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

Andhra Pradesh 11 3650 76 38 12 79 85 69

Gujarat 1 82 12 60 10 46 100 85
Jharkhand 2 115 42 65 50 77 97 71
Karnataka 10 27500 70 46 21 84 67 55
Kerala 3 28 11 21 7 96 100 18
Madhya Pradesh 12 341 22 74 1 74 79 66
Rajasthan 9 421 38 45 15 71 56 46
Tamil Nadu 5 119 57 51 24 71 89 61
Total 53 32256 69 45 19 83 70 58
a OC = Organic carbon; Av P =Available phosphorus, Av K =Available potassium, Av S =Available sulfur, Av B =
Available boron,Av Zn =Available zinc.
b Below critical limit for a particular nutrient.

During the process of scaling-out of the consortium model for APRLP of the
Government of Andhra Pradesh supported by DFID, UK, in the states of Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Karnataka, supported by Sir Dorabji Tata Trust,
Mumbai, ADB, Sujala Watershed (program of Government of Karnataka supported
by World Bank), the baseline characterization of soils in the watersheds was used as a
knowledge-based EPA along with other EPAs. The analysis of a large number of soil
samples from farmers’ fields in various states of India revealed that soil resource base
in the tropics is not only thirsty, but also hungry, especially for micronutrients like zinc
(Zn) and boron (B) and secondary nutrients like sulfur (S), along with macronutrients
including nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) (Table 3.4). About 80–100% farmers’ fields
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 68

68 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

Table 3.5 Increase in crop productivity with micronutrient (MN) amendments in 50 watersheds in
three districts of Andhra Pradesh, 2002

Average grain yield (kg ha−1 )

Crop Control MN treatmenta Yield increase (%) over control

Maize 2800 4560 79

Mung bean 770 1110 51
Castor 470 760 61
Groundnut (pod) 1430 1825 28
a Micronutrients applied: boron (0.5 kg ha−1 ), sulfur (30 kg ha−1 ), and zinc (10 kg ha−1 ).

Table 3.6 Increase in crop productivity with micronutrient amendments and recommended dose of
macronutrients in 50 nucleus watersheds in Andhra Pradesh, 2003a

Yield (kg ha−1 )

Crop Control (C) Sulfur (S) Boron (B) Zinc (Zn) C + SBZn C + NP + SBZn

Maize 2790 3510 (26) 3710 (33) 3710 (33) 4140 (49) 4890 (75)
Groundnut 830 930 (12) 1000 (20) 1060 (27) 1230 (48) 1490 (78)
Mung bean 900 1210 (33) 1130 (24) 1320 (46) 1390 (54) 1540 (70)
Sorghum 900 1190 (32) 1160 (29) 1330 (47) 1460 (62) 1970 (119)
a Source: Rego et al. (2007).
Figures in parentheses indicate yield increase (%) over control.

in several states of India were found critically deficient in Zn, B, and S (Sahrawat et al.,
2007). Subsequent follow-up participatory research and development (PR&D) trials
in 50 micro-watersheds in Andhra Pradesh with amendments of Zn, B, and S increased
yields by 30–174% for maize, 35–270% for sorghum, 28–179% for groundnut,
72–242% for pearl millet, and 97–204% for pigeonpea (Tables 3.5 and 3.6) (Rego
et al., 2007).

3.9.2 Land and water conservation practices

The implementation of soil and water conservation practices is basic in the water-
shed management program. These practices can be divided into two main categories:
(1) In-situ, and (2) Ex-situ. Land and water conservation practices made within an
agricultural field like construction of contour bunds, graded bunds, field bunds,
terrace scoops, broad-bed and furrow (BBF) system and other soil moisture conserva-
tion practices are known as in-situ water management interventions. These practices
minimize land degradation, improve soil health, and increase soil moisture availabil-
ity and groundwater recharge. The construction of check-dams, farm ponds, and
gully control structures, and pits excavation across the stream channel are known as
ex-situ management interventions (Figure 3.4). Ex-situ watershed management prac-
tices reduce the peak discharge in order to reclaim gully formation and harvest
substantial amount of runoff, which increases groundwater recharge and irrigation
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 69

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 69

Figure 3.4 Ex-situ water management in Andhra Pradesh, India. (left) A dugout farm pond at Gunti-
madugu watershed in Kadapa; (right) Mini percolation tank in Kothapally (See color plate
section)

potential in the watersheds. Soil and water conservation measures for sustainable
watershed management are dealt in detail in this volume by Pathak et al.

3.9.3 Integrated pest and nutrient management

Water alone cannot increase crop productivity to its potential level without other inter-
ventions. A balanced nutrient supply along with adequate moisture availability and
pest and disease-free environment can increase agricultural production extremely com-
pared to unmanaged land. Integrated nutrient management (INM) involves the integral
use of organic manure, biological inputs such as biofertilizers, crop straw, and other
plant and tree biomass materials along with the application of chemical fertilizer (both
macro- and micronutrients). Integrated pest management involves the use of differ-
ent crop pest control practices like cultural, biological, and chemical methods in a
combined and compatible way to suppress pest infestations. Thus, the main goals of
INM and IPM are to maintain soil fertility, manage pests and the environment so as
to balance cost, benefit, public health, and environmental quality.

3.9.4 Farmers’ participatory research and development trials

The PR&D approach helps in empowering and capacity building of the farmers should
be an integral part of any watershed development program. Farmers’ participatory
selection of improved crop cultivars in 150 micro-watersheds of APRLP in five dis-
tricts of Andhra Pradesh resulted in identification of improved cultivars of sorghum,
pearl millet, maize, castor, green gram (mung bean), groundnut, pigeonpea, and chick-
pea (Table 3.7). Through this approach farmers are able to identify location specific
material considering the traits, which researchers would not have considered while
selecting the cultivars. Further, to ensure the availability of the seeds of improved cul-
tivars, self-help groups (SHGs) in the watershed villages are trained to handle village
seed banks (Dixit et al., 2005; Ravinder Reddy et al., 2007). Trained farmers under-
took seed production using breeders’ seeds for sowing, and with the help of consortium
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 70

70 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

Table 3.7 Farmers’ participatory evaluations for productivity enhancement in watersheds underAPRLP
in Andhra Pradesh, India during 2002–04

Yield (kg ha−1 )

Watershed No. of Farmers’ Yield gain

District villages Crop trials Cultivars practice Best-bet (%)

Kurnool, 17 Castor 41 Kranthi 780 1240 59

Nalgonda,
Mahabubnagar
Mahabubnagar, 22 Maize 40 Ratna 2232 2770 4510 63
Nalgonda
Kurnool 13 Groundnut/ 53 ICGS 76, 775 1320 70
Pigeonpea ICGV 86590
Kurnool 19 Sole 52 ICGS 76, 1075 1605 49
groundnut ICGV 86590
Kurnool 2 Chickpea 34 ICCV 37 1370 1930 41
Anantapur 19 Sole 35 ICGS 76, 770 1100 43
groundnut ICGV 86590

partner farmers maintained their purity. The village seed banks are very effective in
overcoming the bottleneck of availability of good quality seed in the villages particu-
larly of improved varieties of cereals such as pearl millet and sorghum, and legumes
such as groundnut, chickpea, and pigeonpea, which the private seed companies do not
handle.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh has scaled-up this initiative by providing
100,000 (US$2200) as a revolving fund to each SHG and organizing breeder or
foundation seeds for the SHGs. In all, 200 village seed banks are operating in the
state (Shanti Kumari 2007). In all, 255 farmers’ participatory evaluation trials with
improved cultivars of castor, maize, groundnut, sorghum, and chickpea along with
improved nutrient management showed 41–70% increase in crop yields over farmers’
management practice (Table 3.7).
In 208 watersheds in Asia, yields of several crops increased by 30 to 242% over the
baseline yields varying from 500 to 1500 kg ha−1 . Recently under the World Bank aided
Sujala-ICRISAT initiative in 22 villages in five districts of Karnataka, the results from
232 on-farm PR&D trials showed 56–198% increase in productivity of groundnut,
maize, finger millet, sunflower, and other crops (Table 3.8).

3.9.5 Crop diversification and intensification

of crops and systems
Crop diversification refers to bringing about a desirable change in the existing cropping
patterns towards a more balanced cropping system to reduce the risk of crop failure;
and crop intensification is the enhancement of cropping intensity and production to
meet the ever increasing demand for food in a given landscape. Watershed management
puts emphasis on crop diversification and sustainable intensification through the use of
advanced technologies, especially good variety of seeds, balanced fertilizer application,
and supplemental irrigation.
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 71

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 71

Table 3.8 Farmers’ participatory evaluations for productivity enhancement in watersheds under
ICRISAT-Sujala project in Karnataka, India during 2005–06

Yield (kg ha−1 )

Watershed No. of Farmers’ Yield

District villages Crop trials Cultivars practice Best-bet gain (%)

Kolar and 7 Groundnut 63 JL 24, ICGV 91114, 915 2260 146

Tumkur K1375, K6
Kolar and 9 Finger millet 62 MR 1, L 5, GPU 28 1154 1934 67
Tumkur
Chitradurga 2 Sunflower 30 KBSH-41, KBSH-44, 760 2265 198
GK 2002
Chitradurga 4 Maize 49 PA 4642, GK 3014 3450 5870 70
and Haveri
Haveri 4 Sole groundnut 16 ICGV 91114 1100 1716 56
Dharwad 4 Soybean 12 JS 335, JS 9305 1350 2470 83

Farmers in watersheds in northern Vietnam diversified maize-based systems by

including groundnut and vegetable crops, obtained increased productivity as well
as income (Table 3.9). The inclusion of groundnut, a legume, reduced inorganic N
fertilizer requirement for maize and also increased yield by 18%. Soil and water
conservation measures such as staggered contour trenching, planting of Gliricidia,
or pineapple vegetative border, rainwater harvesting pits and loose boulder gully
control structures on the sloping lands, improved water availability in open wells
(Figure 3.5) and enabled the farmers to grow high-value watermelon crop with the
highest benefit-cost ratio amongst the cropping systems (Table 3.10). In the Tad Fa
and Wang Chai watersheds of Thailand, the farm incomes increased by 45% within
three years (US$1,195 per cropping season). The Lucheba watershed in Guizhou,
China transformed its economy through crop-livestock integration with buckwheat
as an alley crop that controlled soil erosion, provided fodder, and increased per capita
income from US$200 to US$325 in two years. The implementation of improved soil,
water, nutrient, and crop management practices reduced runoff and soil loss in the
nucleus micro-watersheds in Vietnam, China, Thailand and India (Table 3.11).

3.9.6 Use of multiple resources

Farmers solely dependent on agriculture hold high uncertainty and risk of failure due
to various extreme events, pest and disease attack, and market shocks. Therefore, inte-
gration of agricultural (on-farm) and non-agricultural (off-farm) activities is required
at various scales for generating consistent source of income and support for farmers’
livelihood. For example, agriculture, livestock production, and dairy farming together
can make a more resilient and sustainable system compared to adopting agricultural
production alone. The products or by-products of one system could be utilized for the
other and vice-versa. In this example, biomass production (crop straw) after crop har-
vesting could be utilized for livestock feeding and dung/excreta obtained from livestock
could be used for energy production through biogas plants, and the plant nutrient rich
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 72

72 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

Table 3.9 Crop yields as influenced by best-bet options in Andhra Pradesh and Karnatakaa

Grain yield (t ha−1 )

Improved Traditional Yield

District Watershed practice practice advantage (%)

Andhra Pradesh
Nalgonda Kacharam 4.40 1.68 162
D. Gudem 2.96 2.25 32
K. Gudem 3.83 2.34 64
Sadhuvelli 4.02 2.84 42
Gouraipalli 3.85 1.91 102
Mean 3.81 2.20 73
Mahabubnagar Sripuram 5.76 4.44 30
Uyyalawada 3.90 2.02 93
Aloor 4.37 2.40 82
Nallavelli 5.81 4.27 36
Vanapatla 5.92 4.31 37
Naganool 5.64 4.20 34
Malleboinpally 3.89 1.62 140
Sripuram 8.32 3.04 174
Naganool 8.00 3.12 156
Vanapatla 8.39 5.52 52
Gollapally 4.73 3.56 33
Mean 5.88 3.50 68
Grand mean 5.24 3.10 69
Karnataka
Kolar and Tumkur (Groundnut) 2260 915 247
Kolar and Tumkur (Finger millet) 1934 1154 167
Chitradurga (Sunflower) 2265 760 298
Chitradurga (Maize) 5870 3450 170
Haveri (Sole groundnut) 1720 1100 156
Dharwad (Soybean) 2470 1350 183
Mean 2753 1454 203
a Source: Derived from Sreedevi and Wani (2009).

slurry from biogas plants can be applied to agricultural plots to maintain soil fertil-
ity. The integrated system includes horticulture plantation, aquaculture, and animal
husbandry at an individual farm, household, or the community scale. In all the com-
munity watersheds, the equity issues are addressed through productivity enhancement
and income-generating activities in addition to the normal soil and water conservation
measures.

3.9.7 Capacity building

Watershed development requires multiple interventions that jointly enhance the
resource base and livelihoods of the rural people. This requires capacity building of all
the stakeholders from the farmer to the policy makers. Capacity building is a process
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 73

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 73

Figure 3.5 Groundwater levels in the open wells in Thanh Ha watershed in Vietnam during 2004

Table 3.10 Economics of crops grown in Thanh Ha Commune, Ho Binh Province,Vietnam

Yield (t ha−1 )

Crop Area (%) Average Range Income (US$) Benefit-cost ratio

Maize 83 3.4 0.9–7.0 421 1.41

Watermelon 6 17.8 10.0–36.0 2015 1.73
Sugarcane 8 58.3 20.0–83.0 1270 1.06

Table 3.11 Seasonal rainfall, runoff, and soil loss from different benchmark watersheds in Thailand and
India

Runoff (mm) Soil loss (t ha−1 )

Watershed Seasonal rainfall (mm) Treated Untreated Treated Untreated

Tad Fa, Khon Kaen, NE Thailand 1284 169 364 4.21 31.2
Kothapally,Andhra Pradesh, India 743 44 67 0.82 1.90
Ringnodia, Madhya Pradesh, India 764 21 66 0.75 2.2
Lalatora, Madhya Pradesh, India 1046 70 273 0.63 3.2

to strengthen the abilities of people to make effective and efficient use of resources in
order to achieve their own goals on a sustained basis (Wani et al., 2008b). Unawareness
or ignorance of the stakeholders about the objectives, approaches, and activities is one
of the reasons that affects the performance of the watersheds (Joshi et al., 2008).
Capacity building programs focus on the construction of low-cost soil and water
conservation methods, production and use of biofertilizers and biopesticides, income-
generating activities, livestock-based activities, wasteland development, organizing
groups and promoting collective action, participatory monitoring, social auditing,
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 74

74 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

leadership skills, and market linkage for primary stakeholders. Clear understanding of
strategic planning, monitoring, and evaluation mechanism and other expertise in the
field of science and management is essential for the government officials and policy
makers. The stakeholders should be aware about the importance of various activities
and their benefits in terms of economics, social, and environmental factors. Therefore,
organizing various training programs at different scales is important for watershed
development.

3.10 KEY FEATURES OF FACILITATING THE CONSORTIUM

APPROACH

The key features of the consortium approach for watershed management are described
by Wani et al. (2009).

3.10.1 Need for a common goal – team building

Working in partnership is successful only if all the members share a common goal. For
the consortium approach, ICRISAT attempted to achieve this by identifying important
institutions whose objective is to enhance agricultural productivity and income and
reduce rural poverty, and which are working in the area of watersheds. A series of
team building workshops addressed the following objectives:

• Develop a common vision of the watershed development program among consor-

tium partners.
• Inculcate a team spirit among the members to achieve the goal of sustainable NRM
for improved rural livelihoods.
• Develop an understanding of and appreciation for the efforts and initiatives taken
up by various teams.
• Discuss and develop action plans for the desired impacts.
• Develop a combined strategy to up-scale the impact to neighboring watersheds.

3.10.2 Building on the strengths

The consortium’s main principle is to harness the strengths of the partners and over-
come the weaknesses. This principle must be ingrained amongst all the partners and
the strengths of each partner’s valuable inputs need to be highlighted to ensure the
feeling of importance.

3.10.3 Institutionalization of partnerships

The process of institutionalizing partnership began with the identification of suitable
scientists with required expertise and necessary institutions for the project to achieve
its goal. This approach was found to be more effective than that based on identify-
ing organizations first and then trying to find people within those organizations who
can get represented in the consortium. While being part of the consortium, partici-
pating organizations appreciated strengths of each other and rapport was built. This
collaborative spirit has been shared in many other projects that followed.
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 75

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 75

3.10.4 Internal and external institutional arrangements

For facilitating the functioning of the consortium, there is a need to put in place an
institutional mechanism, both internal and external, to review the progress of the
project from time to time and to take necessary action (Wani et al., 2009).

3.10.5 Dynamic and evolving

The consortium approach is not a static model but should be adapted based on field
situation and requirements. It provides the philosophy and framework, while specific
components need to be added to make it relevant as per the situation. In addition to
the critical stakeholders such as NGOs, national agricultural research systems (NARS),
State and Central Government line departments, and farmers’ organizations, based on
the need, relevant private industries can also be brought into the consortium.

3.10.6 Scaling-up/out the approach

Following the success of the model, the Consortium Approach has been scaled-up to
several locations. Starting with different districts in Andhra Pradesh through APRLP,
other states in India with financial support from the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Sir Ratan
Tata Trust, and Government of India have established watershed sites as sites of
learning. Also with the support from ADB, Bureau of Agriculture, Government of the
Philippines watersheds have been established in India, China, Vietnam, and Thailand.
There has been spill over effects of the learnings of this approach in Africa, par-
ticularly in Eastern Africa through ICRISAT’s association with the Association for
Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA). The
South-South collaboration between Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
and ASARECA in the area of integrated watershed management is facilitated by
ICRISAT and International Water Management Institute (IWMI).

3.11 ADVANTAGES OF CONSORTIUM APPROACH

The main advantages of the approach include synergy and creativeness in the tackling of
NRM challenges for which solutions are rarely found with a single discipline expertise;
for example, in the management of livestock-fisheries-agricultural systems along with
credit-markets and institutions. In the Consortium Approach where a multidisciplinary
team addresses the problem situation, there is a potential for creative thinking and new
ideas, which benefit the farmers as well as researchers and developmental workers
(Wani et al., 2008b).

3.11.1 Sustainability
The Consortium Approach facilitates members of the network to have ownership of the
objectives of the program. This leads to optimal contribution from diverse disciplinary
backgrounds providing a holistic systems approach. As a result solutions for problems
are effective. Activities are planned and are demand driven, and implementation is in a
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 76

76 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

participatory manner leading to effective solutions with good prospects of their being
sustainable initiatives.

3.11.2 Cost-effectiveness
At the time of project implementation, working linkages are established among various
actors in the consortium. This ensures quick access to relevant people when primary
stakeholders encounter a situation, leading to timely solutions. One of the main issues
in NRM work is the involvement of various departments independently and this in
many cases results in the duplication of work. In the Consortium Approach, each
of the actors knows what other departments are doing. So there is less chance for
duplication of the work.

3.11.3 Win-win solution through empowerment of partners

The Consortium Approach allows members to learn from one another. It spreads
interdisciplinary knowledge among partners. Strengths of each of the partners are
harnessed and help is provided mutually by partners to get over their weaknesses.
When there is an effort to build upon strengths of each of the partners, weaknesses
get covered with strengths of other partners. In the team, biophysical scientists not
only started offering solutions for issues related with other related disciplines but also
got sensitized with socioeconomic, gender, and institutional issues. One team became
more cohesive overcoming conventional disciplinary hegemony (Wani et al., 2008c).

3.11.4 Rapid scaling-up

Many studies on NRM indicated that it is important to work with different partners
to facilitate scaling-up. The Consortium Approach ensures intensity and closeness
in which communication and collaboration takes place among partners, which con-
tributes to an effective scaling-up. Impact could be further enhanced through new
innovative partnerships. Since different partners are involved, necessary enabling insti-
tutions and policies are put in place in a shorter time. For example, when the need to
undertake research on Jatropha arose in Andhra Pradesh, the watershed consortium
partners came together and formed the consortium in a short period and included new
members as needed (Wani et al., 2008c) while working in a watershed consortium
model to benefit landless people through bio-diesel plantations in common property
resources.

3.11.5 Change in organizational behavior

The general tendency of a researcher is to develop technology in the laboratory/research
station and transfer it to the field through extension agencies. This tendency got reengi-
neered into working closely with primary stakeholders and developing technology in a
participatory way. Governmental and non-governmental extension agencies also find it
worthwhile to play a role in developing the technology by listening to farmers carefully
and contributing through feedback and sharing indigenous knowledge options with
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 77

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 77

researchers. Different researchers within ICRISAT and other partner institutions also
got sensitized in social, gender, equity, and other disciplines and this helped to over-
come the disciplinary bias. Good research and management practices got internalized
amongst the partners (Wani et al., 2008c).

3.11.6 Public–private partnerships are facilitated

(multiplier effect)
Backward and forward linkages are important to enhance income and agricultural
production in rural areas. Private entrepreneurs came forward to join the consor-
tium for harnessing the opportunity. For example, during baseline characterization,
widespread deficiency of not only B, Zn, and S but also N and P was observed in
80–100% of farmers’ fields (Sahrawat et al., 2007). Farmers’ participatory trials with
amendments of deficient nutrients showed substantial yield increases and enhanced
incomes (Rego et al., 2007). However, the availability of B and other micronutrients
in remote villages became an issue. Borax Morarji Ltd., producer of B fertilizers in
India, came forward to join the consortium to ensure the availability of B fertilizers
in the villages through SHGs. Similarly, for handling the marketing of produce and
processing, various industries came forward to join the consortium; for example, in
the case of bio-diesel initiative, a public–private partnership amongst GTZ-Southern
Online Bio-Technology (SBT) and ICRISAT is ongoing under which SBT is operating
40 kl d−1 bio-diesel plant in Nalgonda district, Andhra Pradesh with German technol-
ogy provided by Lurgi and ICRISAT is providing technical support to the farmers for
cultivating bio-diesel plantations and facilitating buy-back arrangements between the
farmers and SBT (Kashyap 2007).

3.12 LEARNINGS FROM THE EXPERIENCE AND TRIGGERS

FOR SUCCESS

The most crucial issue that determines the success of a consortium is capable lead-
ing or facilitating partners. Partnerships need to be nurtured by the lead partner. As
mentioned earlier, the Consortium Approach is dynamic and continually evolves. Fol-
lowing the framework and philosophy, the lead partner should be innovative enough
to facilitate adaptation and evolution of the model to suit the local needs. Quite often
there would be conflicting ways of working among partners. The consortium leader
needs to understand this fact and ensure flexibility and transparency among part-
ners to accommodate opinions of the members without causing damage to the overall
objectives.
Each member of the team should know that he/she can influence the team agenda.
There should be a feeling of trust and equal influence among team members that
facilitates open and honest communication. This allows each member to provide their
technical knowledge and skills in helping to solve the problems, complete the project,
and develop new programs.
The consortium leader, where possible, should help select or influence the com-
position of consortium members. Selection of members should be based on their
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 78

78 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

willingness to work in a team and share their resources, both technical skills and finan-
cial contributions. The selection of a right set of partners determines the success to a
major extent. Learning behavior among the partners is essential for the Consortium
Approach. More importantly, there should be predisposition to work collectively for
the community development. It is essential to achieve shared understanding of objec-
tives by the members. They should be able to identify themselves with the common
objectives. The lead organization should facilitate this process. Once the objectives
are evolved, it is again the responsibility of the lead partner to always bring members’
attention to the objectives and help in ensuring focused work in the correct direction
(Wani et al., 2009).
There is a need to develop, understand, and accept a set of principles by the mem-
bers, which include norms for operating within the team. Team building measures
go a long way in developing stronger partnerships and internalizing the operating
guidelines. Sharing of the credit for the impact, publications, and policy guidelines
amongst the partners is very critical. The leader has to ensure that in all communi-
cations about the consortium activities, all partners are recognized, acknowledged,
and rewarded. Such measures go a long way to build a trust amongst the consortium
partners. Similarly, open communication and conflict resolving mechanisms must be
in place.
Tangible economic benefits to individual primary stakeholders are essential for
participation in the consortium. Integration of new science tools such as GIS and
remote sensing enhanced the efficiency of recommendations and resulted in higher
benefits to the community. Knowledge-based EPA is another reason for enhanced
sustainable community participation. Motivation of the farmers was sustained due
to the fact that there is continuous learning which is directly relevant to their fields.
Capacity building of partners and sensitization of policy makers helped in building
partnerships. Transactions costs (time and money) are higher for partnership building
but higher benefits call for partnerships (Shambhu Prasad et al., 2006; Wani et al.,
2009).

3.13 OPERATIONALIZING COMMUNITY WATERSHED

AS A GROWTH ENGINE

For community watershed development program to become the growth engine for
sustainable development of rainfed areas, the major challenge is the scaling-up to large
areas as the successful watersheds remained a few and unreplicated (Kerr et al., 2002;
Joshi et al., 2005). An integrated consortium approach for the sustainable development
of community watersheds with technical backstopping and convergence is developed
and evaluated in Asia (Wani et al., 2002, 2003a) and adopted by Government of India
(GOI 2008). The systems approach looks at various components of the rural economy –
traditional food grains, new potential cash crops, livestock, and fodder production
as well as the socioeconomic factors such as alternative sources of employment and
income. The adoption of this new paradigm in rainfed agriculture has shown that with
proper management of the natural resources, the systems productivity can be enhanced
and poverty can be reduced without causing further degradation of the natural resource
base (Rockström et al., 2007, 2010; Wani et al., 2008a).
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 79

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 79

3.14 WATERSHED AS AN ENTRY POINT TO IMPROVE

LIVELIHOODS

Watershed as an entry point should lead to exploring the multiple livelihood interven-
tions (Wani et al., 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008b). The overall objective of the whole
approach being poverty elimination through sustainable development, the new com-
munity watershed management provides an envelope that fits into the framework as
a tool to assist in providing sustainable rural livelihoods. The task is to sustainably
intensify complex agricultural production systems, while preventing damage to the
natural resources and biodiversity, and to improve the welfare of the farmers through
value addition and market linkages.
ICRISAT’s consortium model of community watershed management espouses the
principles of collective action, convergence, cooperation and capacity building (four
Cs) with technical backstopping by a consortium of institutions to address the issues of
equity, efficiency, economics, and environment (four Es) (Wani et al., 2006b). The new
integrated community watershed model provides technological options for the manage-
ment of runoff, water harvesting, in-situ conservation of rainwater for groundwater
recharging and supplemental irrigation, appropriate nutrient and soil management
practices, waterway system, crop production technology, and appropriate farming
systems with income-generating micro-enterprises for improving livelihoods, while
protecting the environment. The current model of watershed management as adopted
by ICRISAT watershed consortium team involves environment-friendly options and
the use of new science tools (Wani et al., 2000, 2002, 2008a; Sreedevi et al., 2004).
Adarsha watershed (in Kothapally, Ranga Reddy district in Andhra Pradesh)
led by ICRISAT consortium, has clearly demonstrated increased crop productivity
from rainfed systems through integrated watershed management approach (Table 3.3).
Similar benefits are recorded by several other watersheds in Asia (Wani et al., 2008c;
Pathak et al., 2009; Sreedevi and Wani 2009).

3.15 CONVERGENCE IN WATERSHED

Convergence in watersheds evolved with the community watershed management

model, which apart from the IGNRM strategy, encompasses several other entities. The
holistic community watershed is used as an entry point to converge and to explicitly
link watershed development with rural livelihoods and effective poverty eradication
and in the process identify policy interventions at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels.
Convergence takes place at different levels; at the village level it requires facilitation of
the processes that bring about synergy in all the watershed-related activities. The scope
for the issues relate to the processes for the change in micro-practices, macro-policies,
convergence, and information and management systems (Wani et al., 2008b, 2009).
Government of India has come up with an innovative approach of converging
the various schemes and programs at the watershed platform to avoid duplication
and for efficient use of available funds. There are several schemes that are in oper-
ation and one of them is Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act (MGNREGA) that provides employment for the wage seekers. In most of the
land-based developmental activities, the landless were left out, but the MGNREGA is
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 80

80 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

helping the poor by providing employment at the doorstep. Under this program, most
of the activities are land-based involving earth work. Besides, the landless, marginal
and small farmers can take up in-situ and ex-situ soil and water conservation works
on their own land and the cost met by the program. Some of the states in India like
Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh have already initiated MGNREGA planning on a water-
shed basis even in the non-IWM program areas; and in Andhra Pradesh, the activities
of MGNREGA have been converged with the IWM program.
The activities in IWM approach which involves convergence include: rainwater
conservation and harvesting, productivity enhancement through improved crop and
management options, soil test based integrated nutrient management options including
the application of micro- and secondary nutrients that are deficient in the production
systems, soil conservation, crop diversification using high-value crops, establishing the
village seed banks through SHGs, processing for value addition (seed material, poultry
feed, animal feed, grading and marketability, quality compost preparation), rehabili-
tation of degraded common lands with suitable soil, water, and nutrient management
options using grass and plantation including bio-diesel plant systems, livestock-based
livelihood activities through improvement of breed, health, and feed quality, poultry
rearing for egg and meat production and local hatching to provide chicks, and ver-
micomposting with cow dung, fodder waste, and weeds to provide quality compost
locally.

3.16 MULTIPLE BENEFITS FROM INTEGRATED WATERSHED

DEVELOPMENT

The adoption of IWM effected remarkable multiple impacts on resource-poor farm

households in the semi-arid tropics (SAT).
Reducing rural poverty in the watershed communities was evident in the trans-
formation of farmers’ economies. The improved productivity with the adoption
of cost-efficient water harvesting structures as an entry point improved livelihoods
through crop intensification and diversification with high-value crops (Wani et al.,
2008b, 2009; Sreedevi and Wani 2009). It also benefited the women, landless, and
vulnerable members through income-generating activities.
Building on social capital made a huge difference in addressing rural poverty
in watershed communities. Crop–livestock integration is another facet harnessed for
poverty reduction. The Lucheba watershed, Guizhou province of southern China has
transformed its economy through modest injection of capital-allied contributions of
labor and finance to create basic infrastructure like access to roads and drinking water
supply. In the Tad Fa and Wang Chai watersheds in Thailand, there was 45% increase
in farm income within three years. Farmers earned an average net income of US$1195
per cropping season.
Increasing crop productivity is a common objective in all the watershed pro-
grams. Enhanced crop productivity is achieved after implementation of soil and
water conservation practices along with appropriate crop and nutrient management.
Overall, in the 65 community watersheds in Andhra Pradesh and 30 watersheds in
Karnataka (Tables 3.5 to 3.9) (each measuring approximately 500 ha), implementation
of best-bet practices resulted in significant yield advantages in sorghum (35–270%),
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 81

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 81

maize (30–174%), pearl millet (72–242%), groundnut (28–179%), sole pigeonpea

(97–204%), and intercropped pigeonpea (40–110%). In Thanh Ha watershed of Viet-
nam, yields of soybean, groundnut, and mung bean increased three- to fourfold (2.8–
3.5 t ha−1 ) as compared with baseline yields (0.5–1.0 t ha−1 ), reducing the yield gap
between potential farmers’ yields. A reduction in N fertilizer (90–120 kg urea t ha−1 )
by 38% increased maize yield by 18% in Thanh Ha watershed in Vietnam. In Tad Fa
watershed in northeastern Thailand, maize yield increased by 27–34% with improved
crop management (Wani et al., 2008b; Sreedevi and Wani 2009).
Improving water availability in the watersheds was attributed to the efficient
management of rainwater and in-situ conservation, establishment of water harvesting
structures, and improved groundwater levels. Even after the rainy season, the water
level in wells close to the water harvesting structures sustained good groundwater yield
and benefited the village women through drinking water availability as well as men
with increased irrigation (Wani et al., 2006a, Pathak et al., 2009; Sreedevi and Wani
2009). Supplemental irrigation played a very important role in reducing the risk of
crop failures and in optimizing the productivity in the SAT region.
Sustaining development and protecting the environment are the two-pronged
achievements of the watersheds for reducing soil loss and runoff loss. Introduction of
IPM in cotton and pigeonpea substantially reduced the number of chemical insecticidal
sprays in Kothapally, Andhra Pradesh during the season and thus reduced the pollu-
tion of water bodies with harmful chemicals. The introduction of IPM and improved
cropping systems decreased the use of pesticides worth US$44 to 66 ha−1 (Ranga Rao
et al., 2007). Increased carbon sequestration of 7.4 t ha−1 in 24 years was observed
with improved management options in a long-term watershed experiment conducted
at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. By adopting fuel-switch for carbon, the women SHGs
in Powerguda (a remote village of Andhra Pradesh) have pioneered the sale of carbon
units (147 t CO2 C) to the World Bank from their 4,500 Pongamia trees, seeds of which
are collected for producing saplings for distribution/promotion of bio-diesel plantation
(Wani et al., 2009). Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) estimation from
satellite images showed that within four years, the vegetation cover could increase by
35% in Kothapally (Wani et al., 2005).
Conserving biodiversity in the watersheds was engendered through participatory
NRM. Pronounced agrobiodiversity impacts were observed in Kothapally watershed
where farmers now grow 22 crops in a season with a remarkable shift in cropping
pattern from cotton (200 ha in 1998 to 100 ha in 2002) to maize/pigeonpea intercrop
system (40 ha in 1998 to 180 ha in 2002), thereby changing the crop agrobiodiversity
factor (CAF) from 0.41 in 1998 to 0.73 in 2002. In Thanh Ha, Vietnam the CAF
changed from 0.25 in 1998 to 0.6 in 2002 with the introduction of legumes (Wani
et al., 2005). Building resilience is an important facet of IWM approach. The resilience
framework for watersheds using case studies is described in detail by Barron and Keys
in this volume.

3.17 CONCLUSION

The growing biotic pressure and over-exploitation along with inappropriate manage-
ment of natural resources are causing their degradation and reducing agricultural
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 82

82 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

productivity. Rainfed areas in the tropics are fragile ecosystems that are prone to
severe land degradation and are the hot-spots of poverty and water scarcity.
Management of a small catchment or watershed through participatory approach
is recommended for sustainable use of natural resources to increase agricultural pro-
ductivity and reduce rural poverty. Integrated watershed management is an approach
integrating sustainable management of natural resources through collective action of
resource users for improving livelihoods of people in harmony with nature rather
than a mere hydrological unit. Interdependence of human beings and animals for
their living through sustainable use of scientific land use planning on interconnected
natural resources need codification up to national level and scientific criteria to pri-
oritize development of watersheds in the country. Improved models of watershed
development include some or all of the features such as community participation,
collective action, consortium of soil and rainwater conservation structures, better farm-
ing practices, involvement of women and landless people through income-generating
activities, fusion of research and development, transparency, science-based productiv-
ity enhancement, monitoring and evaluation measures, building capacity of the formal
and informal rural institutions, building productive partnerships and alliances in a con-
sortium model, and building resilience of the communities and the natural resources.
The current IWM program in India has evolved over the past thirty years from top-
down target oriented approach to conserve soil and water to community participatory
integrated holistic livelihood approach to improve rural livelihoods through sustain-
able management of natural resources. The holistic, participatory, and consortium
approach integrates biophysical interventions with socioeconomic and institutional
innovations to sustainably develop and manage natural and human resources for
reducing poverty and provisioning ecosystem services. When implemented the IWM
programs produced multiple benefits in terms of conserving soil, water, and biodiver-
sity, increased productivity and family incomes, building social capital and resilience
to cope with impacts of changes in future including those due to climate change and
globalization. Integrated watershed management approach could become the growth
engine for sustainable development of dryland areas in the tropics.

REFERENCES

Adinarayana, J. 2008. A systems-approach model for conservation planning of a hilly watershed

centre. Bombay Powai, Mumbai, India: Studies in Resources Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology.
APRLP. 2007. Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project: an overview. Government of Andhra
Pradesh, India: Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Programme.
Dixit, S., C. Ramachandran, G. Sastri et al. 2001. Natural resources management vs. social
resources management: The watershed paradox. In Management issues in rainfed agricul-
ture in India, ed. K.H. Vedini, 69–78. Hyderabad, India: National Institute for Agricultural
Extension Management (MANAGE).
Dixit, S., J.C. Tewari, S.P. Wani et al. 2005. Participatory biodiversity assessment: Enabling
rural poor for better natural resource management. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report
No. 18. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics.
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 83

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 83

Dixit, S., J.C. Tewari, S.P. Wani et al. 2007. Participatory and conventional biodiversity assess-
ments: creating awareness for better natural resource management. Annals of Arid Zone
46(2):197–204.
Dixit, S., S.P. Wani, T.J. Rego et al. 2008. Knowledge-based entry point and innovative
up-scaling strategy for watershed development projects. Indian Journal of Dryland Agriculture
and Development 22(1):22–31.
DOLR. 2003. Guidelines for Hariyali. New Delhi, India: Department of Land Resources, Min-
istry of Rural Development, Government of India. ([Link]
Falkenmark, M. 1986. Fresh water – time for a modified approach. Ambio 15(4):192–200.
Farrington, J., and C. Lobo. 1997. Scaling up participatory watershed development in India:
Lessons from the Indo-German Watershed Development Programme. Natural Resource
Perspective, Number 17, February 1997. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute.
GOI. 1994. Guidelines for watershed development. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Rural
Development, Government of India.
GOI. 2008. Common guidelines for watershed development projects. India: National Rainfed
Area Authority (NRAA), Ministry of Land Resources, Government of India.
Gündel, S., J. Hancock, and S. Anderson. 2001. Scaling-up strategies for research in natural
resource management – A comparative review. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.
Hanumantha Rao, C.H. 2000. Watershed development in India: recent experience and emerging
issues. Economic and Political Weekly 35(45):3943–3947.
Johnson, N., H.M. Ravnborg, O. Westermann et al. 2002. User participation in watershed
management and research. Water Policy 3(6):507–520.
Joshi, P.K., A.K. Jha, S.P. Wani et al. 2005. Meta-analysis to assess impact of watershed pro-
gram and people’s participation. Comprehensive Assessment Research Report 8. Colombo,
Sri Lanka: Comprehensive Assessment Secretariat, IWMI.
Joshi, P.K., A.K. Jha, S.P. Wani et al. 2008. Impact of watershed program and conditions
for success: A meta-analysis approach. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report No. 46.
Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics.
Joshi, P.K., L. Tewari, A.K. Jha et al. 2000. Meta analysis to assess impact of watershed. In
Workshop on Institutions for Greater Impact of Technologies. National Centre for Agriculture
Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi, India.
Joshi, P.K., P. Vasudha, B. Shfieraw et al. 2004. Socioeconomic and policy research on watershed
management in India: Synthesis of past experiences and needs for future research. Global
Theme on Agroecosystems Report No. 7. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Kashyap, Divya. 2007. PPP on farmers’ participation in the value chain of biodiesel produc-
tion: German Development Cooperation’s experience. Presented at GTZ-ICRISAT Meeting
on Public Private Partnership (PPP), 14 September 2007, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.
Kerr, J. 2001. Watershed project performance in India: conservation, productivity and equity.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83:1223–1230.
Kerr, J.M., and K.R. Chung. 2005. Evaluating the impact of watershed management projects: A
practical econometric approach. In Natural resource management in agriculture: methods
for assessing economic and environmental impacts, ed. B. Shiferaw, H.A. Freeman, and
S.M. Winton, 223–243. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Kerr, J., G. Pangare, and V. Lokur. 2002. Watershed development projects in India. Research
Report 127. Washington, DC, USA: IFPRI.
Kerr, J., G. Pangare, L.V. Pangare et al. 2000. An evaluation of dryland watershed develop-
ment projects in India. EPTD Discussion Paper 68. Washington, DC, USA: Environment
and Policy Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI).
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 84

84 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

Knox, A., and S. Gupta, 2000. Collective action and technical workshop on watershed
management institutions: A summary paper. Collective Action PRI Working Paper No. 8.
Washington, DC, USA: IFPRI.
Olson, M. 1971. The logic of collective action: public goods and theory of groups. Revised
edition. New York, USA: Schocken Books.
Pathak, P., K.L. Sahrawat, S.P. Wani, R.C. Sachan, and R. Sudi. 2009. Opportunities for water
harvesting and supplemental irrigation for improving rainfed agriculture in semi-arid areas.
In Rainfed agriculture: unlocking the potential, ed. S.P. Wani, J. Rockström, and T. Oweis,
197–221. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series, Walling-
ford, UK: CAB International.
Raju, K.V., A. Aziz, M.S.S. Sundaram et al. 2008. Guildelines for planning and implementation
of watershed development program in India: A review. Global Theme on Agroecosystems
Report No. 48. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute
for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Ranga Rao, G.V., O.P. Rupela, S.P. Wani et al. 2007. Bio-intensive pest management reduces
pesticide use in India. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, Pesticides News 76, June 2007,
pp. 16–17.
Ravinder Reddy, Ch., K. Gurava Reddy, G. Thirupathi Reddy et al. 2007. Increased adoption of
seed treatment for groundnut disease management through farmer participatory evaluation:
A micro study in Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh. MANAGE Extension Research Review
VII(1):101–109.
Rego, T.J., K.L. Sahrawat, S.P. Wani et al. 2007. Widespread deficiencies of sulfur, boron and
zinc in Indian semi-arid tropical soils: on-farm crop responses. Journal of Plant Nutrition
30:1569–1583.
Rockström, J., M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg et al. 2009. Future water availability for global
food production: the potential of green water for increasing resilience to global change. Water
Resources Research 45, W00A12, doi:10.1029/2007WR006767.
Rockström, J., L. Karlberg, S.P. Wani et al. 2010. Managing water in rainfed agriculture – The
need for a paradigm shift. Agricultural Water Management 97: 543–550.
Rockström, J., Nuhu Hatibu, Theib Oweis et al. 2007. Managing water in rainfed agricul-
ture. In Water for food, water for life: A comprehensive assessment of water management
in agriculture, ed. D. Molden, 315–348 London, UK: Earthscan; and Colombo, Sri Lanka:
International Water Management Institute (IWMI).
Sahrawat, K.L., S.P. Wani, T.J. Rego et al. 2007. Widespread deficiencies of sulphur, boron and
zinc in dryland soils of the Indian semi-arid tropics. Current Science 93(10):1–6.
Samra, J.S., and H. Eswaran. 2000. Challenges in ecosystem management in a watershed context
in Asia. In Integrated watershed management in the global ecosystem, ed. Ratan Lal, 19–33.
Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press.
Shah, Amita. 2007. Benchmark survey for impact assessment of participatory watershed devel-
opment projects in India. Draft report submitted to Planning Commission, Government of
India, New Delhi, India.
Shambu Prasad, C., A.J. Hall, and S.P. Wani 2005. Institutional history of watershed research:
the evolution of ICRISAT’s work on natural resources in India. Global Theme on Agro-
ecosystems Report No. 12. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research
Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Shambu Prasad, C., T. Laxmi, and S.P. Wani. 2006. Institutional learning and change (ILAC)
at ICRISAT: a case study of the Tata-ICRISAT Project. Global Theme on Agroecosystems
Report No. 19. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute
for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Shanti Kumari. 2007. Building watershed based livelihoods: APRLP experience. Presented at
the Review Meeting of A Comprehensive Assessment of Watershed Programs in India, 23–27
July 2007, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 85

Watershed development for rainfed areas: Concept, principles, and approaches 85

Shiferaw, B., V. Ratna Reddy, and S.P. Wani. 2009. Watershed externalities, shifting cropping
patterns and groundwater depletion in Indian semi-arid villages: The effect of alternative
water pricing policies. Ecological Economics (Special Section: Biodiversity) 67(2):327–340.
Sidhu, G.S., T.H. Das, R.S. Singh, R.K. Sharma, and T. Ravishankar. 1998. Remote sensing and
GIS techniques for prioritization of watersheds: a case study in upper Machkund Watershed,
Andhra Pradesh. Indian Journal of Soil Conversation 26(2):71–75.
Singh, A.K., Ashok Kumar, and K.D. Singh. 1998. Impact of rainwater harvesting and recycling
on crop productivity in semi-arid areas – a review. Agriculture Review 19(1):6–10.
Singh, Raj Vir. 2000. Watershed planning and management. Bikaner, India: Yash Publishing
House.
Sreedevi, T.K., B. Shiferaw, and S.P. Wani. 2004. Adarsha watershed in Kothapally: Under-
standing the drivers of higher impact. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report No. 10.
Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics.
Sreedevi, T.K., and S.P. Wani. 2009. Integrated farm management practices and up-scaling the
impact for increased productivity of rainfed systems. In Rainfed agriculture: unlocking the
potential, ed. S.P. Wani, J. Rockström and T. Oweis, 222–257. Comprehensive Assessment of
Water Management in Agriculture Series. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Twomlow, S., B. Shiferaw, Peter Cooper et al. 2006. Integrating genetics and natural resource
management for technology targeting and greater impact of agricultural research in the semi-
arid tropics. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for
the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Wani, S.P., and K.K. Garg. 2009. Watershed management concept and principles. In Proceed-
ings of the Comprehensive Assessment of Watershed Programs in India, 25–27 July 2007,
ICRISAT, Patancheru, India, 1–11. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Wani, S.P., P.K. Joshi, K.V. Raju et al. 2008a. Community watershed as a growth engine for devel-
opment of dryland areas. A comprehensive assessment of watershed programs in India. Global
Theme on Agroecosystems Report No. 47. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Wani, S.P., P.K. Joshi, Y.S. Ramakrishna, T.K. Sreedevi, P. Singh, and P. Pathak. 2008b. A new
paradigm in watershed management: A must for development of rain-fed areas for inclusive
growth. In Conservation farming: enhancing productivity and profitability of rain-fed areas,
ed. Anand Swarup, Suraj Bhan, and J.S. Bali, 163–178. New Delhi, India: Soil Conservation
Society of India.
Wani, S.P., A.R. Maglinao, A. Ramakrishna, and [Link]. 2003a. Integrated watershed
management for land and water conservation and sustainable agricultural production in
Asia. Proceedings of the ADB-ICRISAT-IWMI Annual Project Review and Planning Meeting,
Hanoi, Vietnam, 10–14 December 2001. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India. International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Wani, S.P., Meera Reddy, T.K. Sreedevi et al. 2006a. Corporate science and technology insti-
tutions – partnerships for inclusive and sustainable development and economic growth:
Proceedings of the CII-ICRISAT Workshop, 27 February 2006 at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India:
Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics.
Wani, S.P., P. Pathak, H.M. Tam, A. Ramakrishna, P. Singh, and T.K. Sreedevi. 2002. Integrated
watershed management for minimizing land degradation and sustaining productivity in Asia.
In Integrated land management in dry areas. Proceedings of a Joint UNU-CAS International
Workshop, 8–13 September, Beijing, China, ed. Z. Adeel, 207–230. Tokyo, Japan: United
Nations University.
Wani, S.P, Y.S. Ramakrishna, T.K. Sreedevi et al. 2006b. Issues, concepts, approaches and prac-
tices in integrated watershed management: Experience and lessons from Asia. In Integrated
Wani [Link] 8/7/2011 18: 48 Page 86

86 Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture

management of watersheds for agricultural diversification and sustainable livelihoods in East-

ern and Central Africa: lessons and experiences from semi-arid South Asia. Proceedings of the
International Workshop held at ICRISAT, Nairobi, 6–7 December 2004, 17–36. Patancheru,
Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Wani, S.P., H.P. Singh, T.K. Sreedevi et al. 2003b. Farmer-participatory integrated water-
shed management: Adarsha Watershed, Kothapally, India. An innovative and up-scalable
approach. A case study. In Research towards integrated natural resources management:
examples of research problems, approaches and partnerships in action in the CGIAR, ed.
R.R. Harwood and A.H. Kassam, 123–147. Washington, DC, USA: Interim Science Council,
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
Wani, S.P., P. Singh, R.S. Dwivedi, R.R. Navalgund, and Y.S. Ramakrishna. 2005. Biophysi-
cal indicators of agro-ecosystem services and methods for monitoring the impacts of NRM
technologies at different scale. In Natural resource management in agriculture: methods
for assessing economic and environmental impacts, ed. B. Shiferaw, H.A. Freeman and
S.M. Swinton, 97–123. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Wani, S.P., P. Singh, P. Pathak et al. 2000. Sustainable management of land resources for
achieving food security in the semi arid tropics. In Advances in land resources manage-
ment for 21st Century, ed. S.P. Gavande, J.S. Bali, D.C. Das, T.K. Sarkar, D.K. Das, and
G. Narayanamurthy, 290–306. New Delhi, India: Angrokor Publishers.
Wani, S.P., T.K. Sreedevi, J. Rockström et al. 2007. Improved livelihoods and food secu-
rity through unlocking the potential of rainfed agriculture. In Food and water security, ed.
U. Aswathanarayana, 89–106. UK: Routledge.
Wani, S.P., T.K. Sreedevi, J. Rockström, and Y.S. Ramakrishna. 2009. Rainfed agriculture –
Past trends and future prospects. In Rainfed agriculture: unlocking the potential, ed.
S.P. Wani, J. Rockström, and T. Oweis, 1–35. Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture Series. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Wani, S.P., T.K. Sreedevi, R. Sudi et al. 2010. Groundwater management an important driver for
sustainable development and management of watersheds in dryland areas. In 2nd National
Ground Water Congress, 22 March 2010, New Delhi, India, 195–209. New Delhi, India:
Ministry of Resources, Government of India.
Wani, S.P., T.K. Sreedevi, T.S. Vamsidhar Reddy, B. Venkateshvarlu, and C. Shambhu Prasad.
2008c. Community watersheds for improved livelihoods through consortium approach in
drought prone rainfed areas. Journal of Hydrological Research and Development 23:55–77.