Master of Science - ETD | Electronic Theses and Dissertations of ...
Master of Science - ETD | Electronic Theses and Dissertations of ...
Master of Science - ETD | Electronic Theses and Dissertations of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RAIN WATER HARVESTING<br />
STRUCTURES – A CASE STUDY OF FARM-PONDS<br />
Thesis submitted to the<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Agricultural <strong>Science</strong>s, Dharwad<br />
In partial fulfillment <strong>of</strong> the requirements for the<br />
Degree <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Master</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Science</strong><br />
in<br />
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS<br />
By<br />
RAJESHWARI DESAI<br />
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS<br />
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD<br />
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,<br />
DHARWAD - 580 005<br />
AUGUST, 2005
ADVISORY COMMITTEE<br />
DHARWAD ( B. L. PATIL )<br />
AUGUST, 2005 MAJOR ADVISOR<br />
Approved by :<br />
Chairman : ____________________________<br />
(B. L. PATIL)<br />
Members : 1. __________________________<br />
(L. B. KUNNAL)<br />
2. __________________________<br />
(H. BASAVARAJA)<br />
3. __________________________<br />
(S. B. MAHAJANASHETTI)<br />
4. __________________________<br />
(Y. N. HAWALDAR)
Chapter<br />
No.<br />
C O N T E N T S<br />
Title Page<br />
No.<br />
I INTRODUCTION 1<br />
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11<br />
III METHODOLOGY 33<br />
IV RESULTS 54<br />
V DISCUSSION 82<br />
VI SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 92<br />
VII REFERENCES 99<br />
APPENDICES 111
Table<br />
No.<br />
LIST OF TABLES<br />
Title Page<br />
No.<br />
3.1 L<strong>and</strong> utilization pattern <strong>of</strong> Dharwad district <strong>and</strong> selected taluks<br />
(2001-02)<br />
3.2 Irrigation status <strong>of</strong> Dharwad district (2001-03) 37<br />
3.3 Demographic information <strong>of</strong> Dharwad district <strong>and</strong> selected taluks<br />
2001 census<br />
3.4 Number <strong>of</strong> sub-watersheds in Dharwad district under different<br />
schemes<br />
3.5 Total area covered by each SWS in Dharwad district under Sujala<br />
Watershed Development Scheme<br />
3.6 Number <strong>of</strong> sample farmers selected for the study 44<br />
4.1 Age <strong>and</strong> education status <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers 56<br />
4.2 Family type <strong>and</strong> size <strong>of</strong> sample farmers 58<br />
4.3 Classification <strong>of</strong> sample farmers according to their l<strong>and</strong> holdings 59<br />
4.4 Extent <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> RWHS in selected micro-watersheds 61<br />
4.5 Investment on RWHS through watershed project 63<br />
4.6 Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping pattern on sample farms 64<br />
4.7 Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping intensity on sample farms 66<br />
4.8 Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on productivities <strong>of</strong> major crops 67<br />
4.9 Cost <strong>and</strong> returns pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> paddy <strong>and</strong> jowar 69<br />
4.10 Cost <strong>and</strong> returns pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> soybean <strong>and</strong> maize in with <strong>and</strong> without<br />
farm-pond areas<br />
4.11 Comparison <strong>of</strong> cost <strong>and</strong> returns pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> cotton <strong>and</strong> groundnut 72<br />
4.12 Cost <strong>and</strong> returns pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> Rabi jowar <strong>and</strong> green gram in with <strong>and</strong><br />
without farm-pond areas<br />
4.13 Comparison <strong>of</strong> average net incomes from different sources <strong>of</strong> the<br />
sample farmers<br />
4.14 Employment levels in different sources <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers in with<br />
farm-pond <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas<br />
4.15 Financial feasibility <strong>of</strong> investment in farm-ponds 78<br />
4.16 Farmers perception about the benefits <strong>of</strong> the RWHS 80<br />
4.17 Constraints for non-adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS 81<br />
36<br />
37<br />
40<br />
41<br />
71<br />
74<br />
75<br />
77
Figure<br />
No.<br />
LIST OF FIGURES<br />
Title Between<br />
pages<br />
1. Showing selected study district <strong>and</strong> taluks in Karnataka 34-35<br />
2. Showing districts covered under World Bank assisted Sujala<br />
Watershed Scheme in Karnataka state<br />
40-41<br />
3. Age status <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers 56-57<br />
4. Education level <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers 56-57<br />
5. Categories <strong>of</strong> selected sample farmers 61-62<br />
6. Extent <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> RWHS in Managundi MWS 61-62<br />
7. Extent <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> RWHS in Tumari-koppa MWS 61-62<br />
8. Investment on various RWHS (Rs. per ha) 64-65<br />
9. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping pattern 64-65<br />
10 Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping intensity 67-68<br />
11. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on crop yields 67-68<br />
12. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on net income 75-76<br />
13. Average net income generation from different sectors 75-76
Plate<br />
No.<br />
LIST OF PLATES<br />
Title Between<br />
pages<br />
1. Farm pond 53-54<br />
2. Contour bunding 53-54<br />
3. Check dam 53-54<br />
4. Nala bunding 53-54<br />
5. Researcher collecting data from respondents 53-54<br />
6. Diversion channel 53-54
Appendi<br />
x No.<br />
LIST OF APPENDICES<br />
Title Page<br />
No.<br />
I. Schedule 111<br />
II. Area under different crops in Dharwad district <strong>and</strong> in selected<br />
taluks during 2001-02<br />
III. Per ha cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation according to cost concepts in with<br />
farm-pond area<br />
IV. Per ha cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation according to cost concepts in with<br />
farm-pond area<br />
V. Per ha cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation according to cost concepts in without<br />
farm-pond area<br />
VI. Per ha cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation according to cost concepts in without<br />
farm-pond area<br />
119<br />
120<br />
121<br />
122<br />
123
INTRODUCTION<br />
Complex <strong>and</strong> extreme climatic events such as aridity, drought, heat wave, flood,<br />
cyclone, <strong>and</strong> stormy rainfall were expected to leave an impact on human society. They are<br />
also expected to generate wide spread response to adapt <strong>and</strong> mitigate the sufferings<br />
associated with these extremes. Societal <strong>and</strong> cultural responses attached to prolonged water<br />
scarcity leads to the population dislocation, dwelling ab<strong>and</strong>onment, wide spread migration<br />
<strong>and</strong> societal collapse. A typical response to local aridity is the human migration to safer <strong>and</strong><br />
productive areas. However, climate <strong>and</strong> culture can interact in numerous ways. People may<br />
resort to modify dwelling <strong>and</strong> field environments by adopting new strategies to optimize the<br />
utility <strong>of</strong> available water <strong>and</strong> by harvesting the very vital natural resource like rainwater (rather<br />
then migrating to newer area).<br />
Water, that magical substance form which all life springs forth, is essential to the very<br />
existence <strong>of</strong> every life, which forms on earth. The role <strong>of</strong> water in the living organism has not<br />
changed since life’s first creation in salt water billions <strong>of</strong> years ago <strong>and</strong> the water supports life,<br />
as we know it, giving our earth the name “Living Planet”. Our earth is also called the “Blue<br />
Planet” because <strong>of</strong> the large quantities <strong>of</strong> water. The Water is indispensable for life <strong>and</strong> is<br />
wonder liquid which is so useful in every one’s life as it provides food from the sea, means <strong>of</strong><br />
trade <strong>and</strong> transport, source <strong>of</strong> salt, minerals, oil <strong>and</strong> natural gas, energy generation etc. Thus<br />
“WATER is considered as AN ELIXIR OF LIFE”.<br />
Water is an essential <strong>and</strong> precious resource upon which our ecosystems <strong>and</strong><br />
agricultural production depend. However, water a natural resource <strong>of</strong> the world constitutes,<br />
1,384 million cubic kilometers <strong>of</strong> which around 97.39 per cent (i.e 1,348 million cubic<br />
kilometers) <strong>of</strong> water is in the oceans, which is salty in nature. Another 2.61 per cent (i.e., 36<br />
million km 3 ) is fresh water <strong>of</strong> this 77.23 per cent (27.82 million km 3 ) is in the polar ice caps,<br />
icebergs <strong>and</strong> glaciers. Only small fraction <strong>of</strong> water resources (0.59% or 8.2 million KM 3 ) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
earth present I the ground, lakes, rivers <strong>and</strong> atmosphere <strong>and</strong> is useful to mankind. Where as,<br />
more than 99 per cent <strong>of</strong> water present on the earth is not useful to mankind (Anonymous,<br />
2003).<br />
Fresh potable water is poorly distributed across countries (Canada has 1.20 lakh<br />
cubic meter per capita per year, Kenya has 600 m 3 per capita per year), India has adequate<br />
average water availability <strong>of</strong> 2200 m 3 per capita per year <strong>and</strong> global average per capita<br />
availability <strong>of</strong> water is about 7400 m 3 /year. Per capita availability is highest in Latin America<br />
<strong>and</strong> North America <strong>and</strong> lower in Africa, Asia <strong>and</strong> Europe indicating the huge variability <strong>of</strong><br />
water availability.<br />
Generally, if the water availability in the region or state is less or equal to 1700 m 3 /<br />
person / year it experiences periodic water stress <strong>and</strong> if the availability is 1000 m 3 / person /<br />
year the state <strong>of</strong> region will be under water scarcity. The above norms reveal that northern<br />
pert <strong>of</strong> India comes under water stress <strong>and</strong> southern parts <strong>of</strong> India experience water scarcity.<br />
In India, out <strong>of</strong> the total geographical area <strong>of</strong> 329 million hectares, 143 million<br />
hectares is under cultivation, <strong>of</strong> which 108 million hectares area is confined to rainfed (75%).<br />
Rainfed agriculture contributes about 44 per cent <strong>of</strong> the total food grain production in the<br />
country <strong>and</strong> supports 40 per cent <strong>of</strong> the population. Bulk <strong>of</strong> pulses, oilseeds, coarse cereals<br />
<strong>and</strong> commercial crop like cotton etc. are accounted by the rainfed agriculture. Thus, dry l<strong>and</strong>s<br />
hold greater prospect <strong>of</strong> contributing substantially to the country’s food production <strong>and</strong> unless<br />
the production increases form theses areas, the real break through in agriculture cannot be<br />
achieved (Sridhara, 2002).<br />
Karnataka has 19 million hectares <strong>of</strong> cultivable l<strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> which 15 million hectare<br />
depends on rainfall for cultivation. It is estimated that even after, all the water resources<br />
including ground water are fully tapped, hardly 35 per cent <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong> will enjoy<br />
irrigation facilities leaving 65 per cent <strong>of</strong> cultivated l<strong>and</strong> to rainfed agriculture. Scanty rainfall<br />
on one h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> high density <strong>of</strong> rainfall on the other are the two major threats to the dry l<strong>and</strong>
agriculture. An improved crop production technology with an efficient utilization <strong>of</strong> available<br />
rainwater plays an important role in increasing the dry l<strong>and</strong> crop yields.<br />
A brief history <strong>of</strong> Rain Water Harvesting Structures<br />
The history <strong>of</strong> rainwater harvesting in Asia can be traced back <strong>of</strong> about the 9 th or 10 th<br />
Century <strong>and</strong> the small-scale collection <strong>of</strong> rainwater from ro<strong>of</strong>s <strong>and</strong> simple dam constructions<br />
in the rural areas <strong>of</strong> south <strong>and</strong> south-east Asia. Rainwater collection from the space <strong>of</strong> ro<strong>of</strong>s<br />
or via simple gutters into traditional jars <strong>and</strong> pots has been traced back almost 2000 years in<br />
Thail<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> 4000 years in India.<br />
The Kuhals <strong>of</strong> Jammu, Kuls <strong>of</strong> Himachal Pradesh, Parts <strong>of</strong> Maharashtra, Tankas,<br />
K<strong>and</strong>is, Bawdis, Jhalaras, etc. <strong>of</strong> Rajasthan are a few <strong>of</strong> the traditional rain water harvesting<br />
system, which existed in India, but now, dying a slow death.<br />
World Day for water is celebrated each year on March 22, as designated by United<br />
Nations General Assembly resolution. This day was first formally proposed in Agenda 21 <strong>of</strong><br />
the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment <strong>and</strong> Development (UNCED) in Rio de<br />
Janereio, Brazil. Observance was expected to begin in 1993 <strong>and</strong> has grown significantly ever<br />
since.<br />
World Water Day (WWD) 2005 was guided by the water decade’s theme ‘Water for<br />
Life’. 22 March 2005 was the starting day for this International Decade for Action, ‘Water for<br />
Life’ 2005-2015, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution.<br />
Similarly previous year’s themes were Water <strong>and</strong> Disasters in 2004, Water for Future in 2003,<br />
Water for Development in 2002, Water for health in 2001 <strong>and</strong> Water for the Twenty-first<br />
Century in 2000.<br />
Watershed approach for Rain Water Harvesting<br />
Rainwater harvesting (RWH) acts as an important measure to conserve, to develop<br />
<strong>and</strong> to utilize the natural resources. An efficient conservation <strong>and</strong> scientific management <strong>of</strong><br />
harvested water is crucial for optimum utilization <strong>of</strong> water for crop production, domestic use<br />
<strong>and</strong> industrial purposes.<br />
Watershed Development Approach is the way to make efficient <strong>and</strong> judicious use <strong>of</strong><br />
harvested rainwater <strong>and</strong> to build <strong>and</strong> strengthen the basic resources in the watershed, so as<br />
to enable the establishment <strong>of</strong> sustainable life support. This is an integrated approach on a<br />
natural hydrologic unit called “a watershed”. Hence Rainwater harvesting structure [RWHS] or<br />
soil <strong>and</strong> water conservation structures in rural areas at farmers field are taken up on the basis<br />
<strong>of</strong> watershed approach.<br />
Watershed is the piece <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> from where all the rainwater drains out to a common<br />
outlet. Naidu (2005) has defined watershed as a dynamic <strong>and</strong> integrated social, economic<br />
<strong>and</strong> biophysical system that may contain people <strong>of</strong> urban <strong>and</strong> rural communities, agriculture<br />
<strong>and</strong> forestry, primary <strong>and</strong> secondary industry, communications, services <strong>and</strong> recreational<br />
facility.<br />
This watershed management has recognized internationally as an important holistic<br />
approach to natural resource management, which seeks to promote the concept <strong>of</strong><br />
sustainable development. Watershed management involves the co-ordinated use <strong>and</strong><br />
management <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong>, water, vegetation <strong>and</strong> other biophysical resources within the entire<br />
watershed with the objective <strong>of</strong> ensuring minimal l<strong>and</strong> degradation, erosion <strong>and</strong> also to<br />
manage <strong>and</strong> utilize the run<strong>of</strong>f for useful purposes in order to enhance the ground water<br />
recharge.<br />
Technically speaking, water harvesting means capturing the rain from where it falls or<br />
capturing the run<strong>of</strong>f in one’s own field or house. Thus RWH is defined as collecting the
ainwater falling on housetops, collection in ponds, lakes <strong>and</strong> checking the RW that gets<br />
wasted as run<strong>of</strong>f <strong>and</strong> also conserving it by recharging the ground water or by storing it.<br />
Experts suggest the following various ways <strong>of</strong> harvesting rainwater.<br />
Capturing run-<strong>of</strong>f from local catchments <strong>and</strong> ro<strong>of</strong>-tops<br />
Conserving water through watershed management<br />
The major works <strong>of</strong> RWHS adopted in the watershed are check dams, farm-ponds,<br />
nalabunds, contour bunds, vegetative covers etc., which play major role in managing<br />
<strong>and</strong> conserving the soil <strong>and</strong> water resources.<br />
Broadly there are five different watershed programmes operating in the country,<br />
which differ in terms <strong>of</strong> techniques, administration, <strong>and</strong> planning <strong>and</strong> system composition. The<br />
first group consists <strong>of</strong> operation research projects (ORP) taken up by ICAR at different<br />
locations. Secondly World Bank financed watershed projects viz., Sujala Watershed Project,<br />
thirdly, the State Government sponsored watershed projects. Fourthly, Central Government<br />
assisted NWDPRA implemented by each State Government <strong>and</strong> the fifth is watershed<br />
projects under taken by the NGO’s.<br />
The Managundi <strong>and</strong> Galagi sub-watersheds <strong>of</strong> Dharwad <strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi taluks <strong>of</strong><br />
Dharwad district are coming under the World Bank assisted Sujala Watershed Development<br />
Project. The total area covered under the project <strong>of</strong> World Bank in Karnataka itself is 4.27<br />
lakh hectares <strong>of</strong> which 49,840 hectares falls under Dharwad district alone. This World Bank<br />
assisted watershed development programme is implemented in all the 5 taluks <strong>of</strong> the district.<br />
This scheme is under implementation for the last three years, out <strong>of</strong> the total five <strong>and</strong> half<br />
years, i.e., from September 2001 to March 2007. The watershed work has been taken up in a<br />
phased manner. The major objective <strong>of</strong> the project is to improve <strong>and</strong> conserve the soil <strong>and</strong><br />
water for efficient <strong>and</strong> sustained production through improved techniques with the purpose to<br />
increase production <strong>and</strong> productivity <strong>of</strong> agriculture l<strong>and</strong> or to improve the status <strong>of</strong> natural<br />
resource base in the project area.<br />
There is a considerable scope to find out the impact <strong>of</strong> the RWHS under watershed<br />
development programme on cropping pattern, production, productivity, <strong>and</strong> income <strong>of</strong> the<br />
farmers. Since such an attempt has not been made on Sujala Watershed so far, hence the<br />
present study was designed with the following specific objectives.<br />
1. To identify the extend <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> Rain Water Harvesting Structures (RWHS) in the<br />
study area.<br />
2. To study the cost involved in construction <strong>of</strong> various RWHS.<br />
3. To examine the impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping pattern, productivity,<br />
employment <strong>and</strong> income <strong>of</strong> the farmers.<br />
4. To examine the feasibility <strong>of</strong> investment in farm-ponds.<br />
HYPOTHESES<br />
1. There exists more number <strong>of</strong> rainwater harvesting structures in the study area.<br />
2. Construction <strong>of</strong> RWHS requires considerably huge investments.<br />
3. Farm-ponds have positive impact on cropping pattern, productivity, employment<br />
<strong>and</strong> income <strong>of</strong> farmers.<br />
4. Investment in farm-ponds is financially feasible.<br />
SCOPE OF THE STUDY<br />
The present study attempts to examine the impact <strong>of</strong> rainwater harvesting structures<br />
though a comparative analysis between, “with farm-pond” area <strong>and</strong> “without farm-pond” area.<br />
This study highlights the performance <strong>of</strong> farm ponds in agriculture through various parameters<br />
like cropping pattern, cropping intensity, crop yield, income pattern etc. The economics <strong>of</strong> arm<br />
ponds were also analysed <strong>and</strong> the end results <strong>of</strong> the research helps in analysing the<br />
economic viability <strong>of</strong> the structure.
Therefore, the results <strong>of</strong> the study will study will help to the policy makers, planners<br />
<strong>and</strong> researchers to assess the performance <strong>of</strong> various RWHS under watershed development<br />
programme <strong>and</strong> generate suitable policy for its effective utilization.<br />
LIMTATION OF THE STUDY<br />
The present study had the limitations <strong>of</strong> time <strong>and</strong> resources usually faced by a<br />
student investigator, However, considerable care has been taken in making the study as<br />
systematic as possible.<br />
Before <strong>and</strong> after Farm-Pond (FP) methods have been more ideal for evaluating<br />
impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds. As it would not be possible to collect the data relating to preimplementation<br />
<strong>of</strong> farm ponds form farmers through survey method, therefore separate data<br />
have been collected from with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond farmers in the watershed area for<br />
comparing performance in watershed area. The results <strong>of</strong> the study concluded in Managundi<br />
<strong>and</strong> Galagi SWS in Dharwad district may not be generalized beyond the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the<br />
area under investigation <strong>and</strong> such other areas having similar agro-climatic <strong>and</strong> socio-cultural<br />
conditions.<br />
ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS<br />
The presentation <strong>of</strong> this study is organized under the following seven chapters.<br />
Chapter I: Introduction<br />
study<br />
Deals with the background <strong>of</strong> the problem, objective, scope <strong>and</strong> limitations <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Chapter II: Review <strong>of</strong> literature.<br />
Attempts to review the past studies, those relevant to the current problem.<br />
Chapter III: Methodology<br />
used.<br />
Contains the description <strong>of</strong> the study area, sampling design <strong>and</strong> the analytical tools<br />
Chapter IV: Results<br />
Contain the results obtained after analysis <strong>of</strong> various economic indicators.<br />
Chapter V: Discussion<br />
Encompasses, the results obtained <strong>and</strong> discussed for their relevance <strong>and</strong><br />
significance.<br />
Chapter VI: Summary <strong>and</strong> policy implications<br />
The results are summarized <strong>and</strong> conclusions are drawn to make necessary policy<br />
suggestions <strong>of</strong> r large-scale adoption by the end users.<br />
Chapter VII: References<br />
References <strong>of</strong> related reviews <strong>and</strong> appendices are presented in this chapter.
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE<br />
Review <strong>of</strong> related issues <strong>of</strong> earlier studies helps to comprehend, adopt, modify <strong>and</strong> to develop<br />
the framework <strong>and</strong> provide a link with the past approaches. The reviews are arranged under the<br />
following major sections.<br />
2.1 Watershed approach <strong>and</strong> rainwater harvesting<br />
2.2 Impact <strong>of</strong> various RWHS on cropping pattern, cropping intensity, employment, returns <strong>and</strong><br />
groundwater recharge<br />
2.3 Feasibility <strong>of</strong> investment on various RWHS including farm ponds<br />
2.4 Constraints in adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS<br />
2.1 Watershed approach <strong>and</strong> Rainwater harvesting<br />
Anonymous (1977) reported that since water is the first limiting natural factor for crop<br />
production in arid <strong>and</strong> semi-arid tracts, improving the management <strong>of</strong> soil <strong>and</strong> water for increased<br />
crop production becomes the primary aim <strong>of</strong> the watershed based resource utilization research. In<br />
rainfed agriculture, only the rain which falls in a given area is used, thus the watershed or catchement<br />
is the natural focus for studies <strong>of</strong> watershed management in relation to crop production, resource<br />
conservation <strong>and</strong> utilization.<br />
Mann <strong>and</strong> Singh (1981) viewed that conservation programmes till recently used to be carried<br />
out on an individual pieces <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> holding which used to be fertile, it appear reaches <strong>of</strong> the catchment<br />
were left untreated. They were <strong>of</strong> the opinion that every single piece <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> on a small watershed was<br />
hydrologically interrelated <strong>and</strong> water availability potential at different points <strong>of</strong> the watershed was<br />
diverged due to relief <strong>of</strong> geohydrological <strong>and</strong> soil factors.<br />
Sharma <strong>and</strong> Hooja (1981) stated that the term watershed is an area which has ridgeline on<br />
three sides <strong>and</strong> whose surplus run-<strong>of</strong>f is drained from a drainage point. Watersheds could be as small<br />
as 50 hectares in hilly areas <strong>and</strong> also as large at 500 to 1000 hectares or even more. The size <strong>of</strong><br />
watershed to be chosen for l<strong>and</strong> development depends upon the objectives <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> development<br />
planning.<br />
Jaiswal <strong>and</strong> Singh (1982) stated that in order to obtain maximum benefits from technological<br />
developments, it was imperative that the natural resources like soil. Vegetation <strong>and</strong> water were to be<br />
properly protected <strong>and</strong> judiciously utilized to improve productivity constantly. A watershed is supposed<br />
to be the most scientific unit for efficient management <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> water resources.<br />
Sekar (1990) reported that stability in crop production <strong>and</strong> sustainability <strong>of</strong> farm income in<br />
dryl<strong>and</strong>s can be brought about by l<strong>and</strong> treatment, construction <strong>of</strong> farm ponds, percolation tanks, gully<br />
checks, agro-forestry, improved agricultural practices, integrating crop husb<strong>and</strong>ry with animal<br />
husb<strong>and</strong>ry. The future course <strong>of</strong> action for allocating the sufferings <strong>of</strong> dryl<strong>and</strong> farmers a development<br />
<strong>of</strong> dryl<strong>and</strong> farming should direct at development <strong>of</strong> dryl<strong>and</strong> agriculture on ‘watershed basis’.<br />
Chaurasia <strong>and</strong> Singh (1991) viewed Watershed as the most appropriate unit for l<strong>and</strong> use <strong>and</strong><br />
crop planning, particularly in hilly areas all over the world.<br />
Ramanna (1991) described the watershed approach as a “Panacea for dry l<strong>and</strong> agriculture”. He<br />
stated that l<strong>and</strong> should be tackled for development keeping in mind the organic boundary rather than<br />
administrative or ownership boundaries. He desired a comprehensive plan for use <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>and</strong> wherein<br />
both arable <strong>and</strong> non-arable l<strong>and</strong>s could be utilized on the basis <strong>of</strong> their capability to result in better<br />
productivity.<br />
Vidyanathan (1991) was <strong>of</strong> the opinion that the programme <strong>of</strong> watershed development to be<br />
planned, implemented <strong>and</strong> managed by democratically constituted Panchayatraj institutions with<br />
technical support from the government <strong>and</strong> the non-governmental organisations. But these institutions<br />
are not existing every where <strong>and</strong> the programme is still in experimental stage, the government<br />
agencies <strong>and</strong> non-governmental organizations will have to play a significant role in demonstrating the<br />
efficacy <strong>of</strong> the approach educating village communities about its rationale <strong>and</strong> encouraging them to<br />
adopt it.<br />
Narayanagowda (1992) opined that in the context <strong>of</strong> development, it is more appropriate to call this<br />
programme as ‘watershed development programme’ (WDP) rather than watershed management<br />
programme. It could be defined as an integrated scientific strategy aimed at optimising l<strong>and</strong>, water<br />
<strong>and</strong> vegetation in all area <strong>and</strong> thus could provide an answer to mitigate drought, moderate floods,<br />
prevent soil erosion improve water availability, increase fuel, fodder, fruits <strong>and</strong> food production,<br />
employment generation <strong>and</strong> income on a sustained basis.
Prasad (1994) opined that watershed approach <strong>of</strong>fers an excellent opportunity for all organized <strong>and</strong><br />
integrated management <strong>of</strong> dryl<strong>and</strong>s. It can facilitate an optimal use <strong>of</strong> the available resources<br />
including soil <strong>and</strong> water. It leads to greater diversification <strong>of</strong> dryl<strong>and</strong> farming which would generate<br />
more employment <strong>and</strong> income earning opportunities <strong>and</strong> help to reduce mostly the risks inherent in<br />
crop centred activity.<br />
Rajput <strong>and</strong> Verma (1997) defined integrated watershed management as an appropriate approach to<br />
develop both arable <strong>and</strong> non-arable l<strong>and</strong>s in rain fed areas for increasing <strong>and</strong> stabilizing production by<br />
adopting improved soil <strong>and</strong> water conservation measures.<br />
R<strong>and</strong>hawa (1987) emphasized that the improvement <strong>and</strong> sustainability <strong>of</strong> agricultural<br />
production in the dryl<strong>and</strong> agricultural areas can be achieved through appropriate l<strong>and</strong> shaping, which<br />
will optimise in -situ moisture conservation <strong>and</strong> will also permit the excess water to be managed in a<br />
manner, where, it could be stored <strong>and</strong> utilized at a life saving irrigation, also on the adoption <strong>of</strong><br />
improved production technologies which involves the use <strong>of</strong> seeds, fertilizers, plant protection<br />
chemicals <strong>and</strong> improved implements.<br />
Rajput et al. (2000) opined that watershed development programme should integrate with<br />
multi-disciplinary management to take up soil <strong>and</strong> water conservation activities, generation <strong>of</strong><br />
irrigation facilities, construction <strong>of</strong> water harvesting structures for multiple uses, animal husb<strong>and</strong>ry,<br />
horticulture, farm forestry <strong>and</strong> afforestation, which were necessary to maximize production on sustained<br />
basis for overall development <strong>of</strong> the area.<br />
Tiwari <strong>and</strong> Mal (2000) quoted water harvesting technology includes inducement <strong>and</strong><br />
increment <strong>of</strong> run-<strong>of</strong>f from l<strong>and</strong> surface by using surface treatment, collection <strong>and</strong> storage <strong>of</strong> run-<strong>of</strong>f<br />
water in suitable reservoir or pond, reducing the seepage <strong>and</strong> evaporation losses <strong>and</strong> use <strong>of</strong><br />
conserved water most efficiently at critical time to provide life saving irrigation to crops.<br />
Singh (2000) opined that watershed as a geographic area drained by stream or a system <strong>of</strong><br />
connecting streams such that all surface run<strong>of</strong>f originating due to the precipitation in this area leaves<br />
the area in a concentrated flow through a single outlet.<br />
Aravind Kumar et al. (2001) opined that the rainwater harvesting techniques recommended<br />
for rainfed crop production in the regions includes the hydraulic efficiency micro-catchments in arid<br />
l<strong>and</strong>s, interplot run-<strong>of</strong>f conservation or storage in surface ponds <strong>and</strong> under ground reservoir for life<br />
saving irrigation to rainfed crops as well as for domestic purpose.<br />
Padmavathi <strong>and</strong> Reddy (2002) viewed watershed as a geo-hydrological unit, which drained at<br />
a common point, <strong>and</strong> they stated that watershed had been accepted as a scientific unit for area<br />
development all over the world.<br />
Sreedharan (2002) reported, that in watersheds <strong>of</strong> Tamil Nadu, the down stream l<strong>and</strong>s were<br />
benefited by the control <strong>of</strong> sedimentation through run-<strong>of</strong>f <strong>and</strong> arrest <strong>of</strong> flooding by impounding<br />
rainwater. Increase in water table levels observed in dug wells <strong>and</strong> increased availability <strong>of</strong> water for<br />
irrigation <strong>and</strong> drinking water were observed. There was an appreciable increase in water table level<br />
due to various water harvesting structures in the watershed.<br />
Rajvedi (2003) reported in rainwater harvesting as a panacea for water woes <strong>and</strong> opined that<br />
rainwater conservation makes droughts less severe, rivers will have water throughout year <strong>and</strong> soil<br />
holds greater level <strong>of</strong> moisture <strong>and</strong> consequently, there is increase in agricultural production <strong>and</strong> thus<br />
economic conditions <strong>of</strong> rural poor is appreciably improved.<br />
Naidu (2005) defined watershed is an economic <strong>and</strong> bio-physical system which may contain<br />
people from urban, rural communities, agriculture <strong>and</strong> forestry, primary <strong>and</strong> secondary industry. The<br />
l<strong>and</strong> resources <strong>of</strong> soil, water <strong>and</strong> vegetation cannot be managed for quality <strong>and</strong> sustained availability<br />
in isolation from each other or from the watershed environment. Integrated watershed management<br />
has been recognized internationally as an important holistic approach to national resource<br />
management.<br />
2.2 Impact <strong>of</strong> various rwhs on cropping pattern, cropping intensity,<br />
employment, returns <strong>and</strong> groundwater recharge<br />
Reddy <strong>and</strong> Sudha (1988) conducted study at Chevella watershed in Rangareddy district <strong>of</strong><br />
Andhra Pradesh <strong>and</strong> Mittemari watershed in Kolar district <strong>of</strong> Karnataka, the income from all sources<br />
were higher by Rs. 463/household at Chevella <strong>and</strong> Rs. 1046/household at Mittemari watershed area,<br />
compared to non-watershed area.<br />
Srinivasa (1988) studied the impact <strong>of</strong> Chitravathi watershed <strong>of</strong> Kolar district in Karnataka <strong>and</strong> found<br />
that productivity <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> in terms <strong>of</strong> yield per hectare increased by 66.79 per cent in ragi, 64.56 per
cent in paddy <strong>and</strong> 98.56 per net in groundnut due to nala bund. Similarly, as an impact <strong>of</strong> farm pond,<br />
groundnut yield increased by 94.44 per cent followed by ragi (73.42%) <strong>and</strong> paddy (66.66%).<br />
Atheeq <strong>and</strong> Venkataram (1989) assessed the optimum l<strong>and</strong> use pattern <strong>of</strong> Kabbalanala watershed<br />
<strong>of</strong> Karnataka <strong>and</strong> found that the l<strong>and</strong> use pattern <strong>of</strong> the farmers in the watershed area was closer to the<br />
optimum <strong>and</strong> hence a reorganization <strong>of</strong> the existing resource use pattern would yield only 17 to 18 percent<br />
increase in net returns.<br />
Bharadwaj et al. (1989) reported that in the Aravali watershed <strong>of</strong> Haryana, the irrigated area<br />
was doubled, the number <strong>of</strong> wells <strong>and</strong> sprinkler sets went up four times, crop yields increased<br />
dramatically <strong>and</strong> income <strong>of</strong> the farmers increased by as much as 166 per cent.<br />
Ch<strong>and</strong>regowda <strong>and</strong> Jayaramaiah (1990) in their study reported that the average yield <strong>of</strong> ragi<br />
increased by 3.09 q / acre <strong>and</strong> 2.14 q per acre in case <strong>of</strong> small <strong>and</strong> marginal farmers, respectively<br />
over a period <strong>of</strong> four years. In case <strong>of</strong> groundnut also there was increased from 3.32 <strong>and</strong> 2.25 q per<br />
acre in the fields <strong>of</strong> small <strong>and</strong> marginal farmers, respectively.<br />
Phadnawis et al. (1990) reported that the production <strong>of</strong> food grains increased from 5 to 10 q /<br />
ha <strong>of</strong> bajra crop due to adoption <strong>of</strong> improved technology. The water structures developed in this area<br />
helped in increase <strong>of</strong> irrigation from 0.80 ha to 40 ha. The per capita annual income <strong>of</strong> Rs. 1587<br />
increased to Rs. 6541. The cropping intensity increased from 106 to 150.7 per cent. The adoption <strong>of</strong><br />
recommended cropping pattern <strong>of</strong> watershed was to the extent <strong>of</strong> 90 per cent.<br />
Reddy <strong>and</strong> Walker (1990) observed that on an average the total income <strong>and</strong> agricultural<br />
income were higher by Rs. 248 <strong>and</strong> Rs.278/household respectively, in case <strong>of</strong> watershed compared<br />
to non-watershed villages at Chevella <strong>of</strong> Andhra Pradesh similarly the total income <strong>and</strong> agricultural<br />
income were higher by Rs. 1,595 <strong>and</strong> Rs. 2,394/household respectively at Mittemari watershed <strong>of</strong><br />
Karnataka. Both the total <strong>and</strong> agricultural income/household increased with the increase in size <strong>of</strong> the<br />
holding at both locations.<br />
Singh (1990) in his study conducted in Uttar Pradesh reported that the productivity increased<br />
21.4 per cent (pigeonpea) 24.58 per cent (wheat) in about five years. The increase in productivity in<br />
other prime crops like mustard (23.9%), groundnut (22.5%), pearlmillet (22.0%), blackgram (17.0%),<br />
lentil (11.7%), grain (10.7%) <strong>and</strong> pea (7.5%), respectively. Further his study revealed that the<br />
cropping intensity was increased from 84.28 per cent in 1984-85 to 173.9 per cent in 1989-90. This<br />
was the increase in cropped area both in kharif <strong>and</strong> rabi.<br />
According to Singh <strong>and</strong> Rahim (1990) optimum l<strong>and</strong> use plans in Uttar Pradesh hills showed<br />
that the returns over variable costs could be increased by as much as 89 per cent with the adoption <strong>of</strong><br />
improved technology <strong>and</strong> availability <strong>of</strong> credit compared to the optimum crop plan under existing<br />
technology. The returns over variable costs from community orchards <strong>and</strong> pastures were found to be<br />
Rs. 2178/hectare.<br />
Alagumani (1991) assessed the impact <strong>of</strong> soil conservation measures in terms <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> area<br />
protected from erosion, increase in productivity, production, employment <strong>and</strong> income <strong>and</strong> claimed that<br />
the productivity <strong>of</strong> cotton <strong>and</strong> gingelly increased by 23.37 % <strong>and</strong> 19.76 % crops except groundnut in<br />
the Avanashi Watershed in Coimbatore district.<br />
Biradar (1991) noticed while studying techno-economic issues <strong>of</strong> watershed development<br />
approach in Gulbarga district <strong>of</strong> Karnataka that the soil erosion <strong>of</strong> the fields reduced considerably <strong>and</strong><br />
the crop yields have increased by 80 to 100 per cent.<br />
Ghosh (1991) attempted to study the changes in l<strong>and</strong> use pattern, crop pattern, productivity <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> labour, labour use intensity in the comm<strong>and</strong> area after the introduction <strong>of</strong> the programme in the<br />
district <strong>of</strong> Bankura, West Bengal <strong>and</strong> noticed that the per acre (net sown area) value <strong>of</strong> productivity in<br />
the comm<strong>and</strong> area increased from Rs.1, 788 in the pre-introduction period to Rs.2, 776 in post-<br />
introduction period compared to non-comm<strong>and</strong> area.<br />
Hafeez et al. (1991) analysed the crop diversification <strong>and</strong> its economics in Chitravati watershed <strong>of</strong><br />
Karnataka <strong>and</strong> found that the crop diversification constantly increased in the villages at Chitravati<br />
watershed. Benefit cost ratio worked out to be 1.48 indicating higher return on each rupee invested in<br />
the cultivation <strong>of</strong> these crops.<br />
Jahagirdar (1991) conducted a study on the growth parameters in Manoli watershed project <strong>of</strong><br />
Akola district in Maharashtra <strong>and</strong> found that the cropping intensity increased from 104 to 115 per cent,<br />
the area under well irrigation increased by 206 hectares <strong>and</strong> also reported that the adoption <strong>of</strong> in situ<br />
moisture conservation technologies <strong>and</strong> in particular vegetative barriers helped in increasing the yield<br />
per hectare <strong>of</strong> various crops.<br />
Kallur (1991) assessed the socio-economic impacts <strong>of</strong> Muchkulla nala Watershed<br />
development project <strong>of</strong> Gulbarga district <strong>and</strong> reported that the farmers in the project area became<br />
progressive in their approach, which is reflected in their adoption <strong>and</strong> use <strong>of</strong> high-yielding variety<br />
seeds, chemical fertilizers <strong>and</strong> plant protection measures. Watershed approach has opened up new
vistas <strong>of</strong> productive <strong>and</strong> remunerative employment. Therefore an increase in the agricultural incomes<br />
through several avenues like construction <strong>and</strong> repair <strong>of</strong> storage structures, canals <strong>and</strong> terraces could<br />
be undertaken.<br />
Neema et al. (1991) attempted to monitor the changes emerging in the Watershed<br />
Development Programme area <strong>of</strong> Barkheds-Hat in Guna district <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh <strong>and</strong> indicated<br />
that the intensity <strong>of</strong> cropping in farms <strong>of</strong> the watershed was higher by 13 to 20 per cent than the farms<br />
in the non-watershed area.<br />
Norman et al. (1991) stated that about 25 per cent <strong>of</strong> the beneficiaries in Palakkad district <strong>of</strong><br />
Kerala were benefited by the l<strong>and</strong> development works by way <strong>of</strong> increased yields, irrigation potentials<br />
<strong>and</strong> subsequent change in cropping pattern, the net irrigated area increased by about 5 per cent.<br />
Singh (1991) examined the impact <strong>of</strong> watershed development programme on ground water<br />
table in Bundelkh<strong>and</strong> region <strong>of</strong> Uttar Pradesh <strong>and</strong> revealed that the average annual increase in the<br />
water table was 3.7 meters, varying from 3 meters in rainy season to 6.5 meters in summer season.<br />
Singh <strong>and</strong> Thapaliyal (1991) assessed the impact <strong>of</strong> watershed programme on rain fed<br />
agriculture in Jhansi district <strong>of</strong> Uttar Pradesh <strong>and</strong> indicated that the underground water table in the<br />
area showed a significant increase, the average annual increase in the water table being 3.7 meters.<br />
A shift in the area from pulses to cereals <strong>and</strong> from cereals to pulses was observed in Rabi <strong>and</strong> kharif<br />
seasons, respectively.<br />
Srivatsava et al. (1991) reported that the watershed programme in M<strong>and</strong>sur district <strong>of</strong> Madhya<br />
Pradesh <strong>of</strong>fered an opportunity to the farmers to bring in more area under rabi crops <strong>and</strong> in a few<br />
cases under summer crops also. The gross cropped area increased by 38.31 per cent. The increase<br />
in the yield was more in rabi crops than in kharif crops, the maximum yield was recorded in opium<br />
(93%).<br />
Kumar <strong>and</strong> Dhawan (1992) reported that the l<strong>and</strong> development programme in K<strong>and</strong>i<br />
watershed <strong>of</strong> Punjab, increased the per household income <strong>of</strong> the small, medium <strong>and</strong> large farmers by<br />
38.37, 52.99 <strong>and</strong> 53.45 per cent respectively. On overall, the before <strong>and</strong> after implementation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
project, the average household income was Rs. 12122.20 <strong>and</strong> Rs. 18078.4 (i.e., 49.13% increase)<br />
respectively.<br />
Manhot et al. (1992) in their study revealed that watershed programme helps to increase the<br />
availability <strong>of</strong> irrigation water to increase the cropping intensity. Further, in their study revealed that<br />
the favourable change due to soil <strong>and</strong> water conservation has increased the m<strong>and</strong>ays <strong>of</strong> work <strong>of</strong> the<br />
farmers <strong>and</strong> bullock days in the field, which indicate the increase in employment.<br />
Karam Singh et al. (1993) compared two periods 1979-80 <strong>and</strong> 1986-87 <strong>of</strong> K<strong>and</strong>i watershed<br />
project area in Punjab, reported that the operational area increased from 2.69 hectare to 2.71<br />
hectares, livestock from 182 to 192 per 100 households use <strong>of</strong> chemical fertilizers from 38.9 to 61.8<br />
kg per hectare.<br />
Kumar (1993) found that the net returns <strong>of</strong> small <strong>and</strong> large farmers in the watershed area<br />
under existing cropping pattern <strong>and</strong> resources were Rs. 24099 <strong>and</strong> Rs. 50466 respectively. The<br />
optimal plans increased the income <strong>of</strong> small <strong>and</strong> large farms <strong>of</strong> watershed area by 8.83 <strong>and</strong> 4.86 per<br />
cent respectively.<br />
Kaushal et al. (1994) also revealed the generation <strong>of</strong> employment opportunities to the extent<br />
<strong>of</strong> 70,606 man-days for casual <strong>and</strong> 2, 08,606 man-days for regular labour over a period <strong>of</strong> 24 years,<br />
which would be further helpful in checking the outflow <strong>of</strong> migration from the rural to the urban area.<br />
Krishnappa et al. (1994) in their study on impact assessment <strong>of</strong> watershed development<br />
found that the net returns from crop production from an area <strong>of</strong> 28.45 ha at Achalu micro watershed in<br />
Kabbalanala <strong>of</strong> Karnataka improved form a net loss <strong>of</strong> 1400 during the pre project to positive returns<br />
<strong>of</strong> Rs. 84130 in the post project period.<br />
Vamanamoorthy <strong>and</strong> Shankarmurthy (1994) revealed that there is positive effect <strong>of</strong> watershed<br />
development activity on production, productivity <strong>and</strong> increased the m<strong>and</strong>ay <strong>of</strong> work <strong>of</strong> the farmers,<br />
which indicated the increase in employment.<br />
Jally et al. (1995) revealed that the post project income from crop production <strong>and</strong> new income per<br />
farm increased by 57 per cent 67 per cent respectively compared to those <strong>of</strong> the pre project period at<br />
Nartora watershed <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh. They also indicated that the income inequalities reduced<br />
during the post project period.<br />
Purohit <strong>and</strong> Murthy (1995) concluded that in Bijapur district <strong>of</strong> Karnataka, the economics <strong>of</strong><br />
scale could be seen in three oil seed crops (safflower, groundnut <strong>and</strong> sunflower). Both cost <strong>of</strong><br />
production <strong>and</strong> gross <strong>and</strong> net returns were higher for adopters <strong>of</strong> recommendations such as correct<br />
use <strong>of</strong> fertilizer, plant protection chemicals, cropping pattern, seed rate <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong> improvement in the<br />
form <strong>of</strong> bunding <strong>and</strong> contour cultivars than the non-adopters.
Singh et al. (1995) in their study revealed that after implementation <strong>of</strong> project for five years<br />
(1988-89 to 1992-93). The project was evaluated in terms <strong>of</strong> conservation <strong>and</strong> development <strong>of</strong><br />
resources <strong>and</strong> increased in productivity. The watershed management programme has not only<br />
increased the crops yield but also developed fodder resources in the area. The productivity <strong>of</strong> maize,<br />
paddy, jowar, blackgram <strong>and</strong> wheat have increased by about 2.15, 2.16, 1.79, 1.62 <strong>and</strong> 2.07 times,<br />
respectively. Over the base year (1988-89) yield <strong>of</strong> 5.0, 4.5, 5.0, 2.0 <strong>and</strong> 6.50 q per ha, respectively.<br />
Ram Mohan Rao (1996) while studying the impact <strong>of</strong> watershed development in Chinnatekur<br />
watershed <strong>of</strong> Karnool district in Andhra Pradesh on income <strong>and</strong> its distribution concluded that there<br />
was an increase <strong>of</strong> 2.32 to 4.72 per cent income in the post project period over that <strong>of</strong> pre-project<br />
period. The study also revealed that the increase in income was higher on small <strong>and</strong> medium farmers<br />
compared to marginal <strong>and</strong> large farmers, which they attributed to better resource utilization among<br />
farmer group.<br />
Hazra (1997) in his overview <strong>of</strong> crop yield performance in Tejpura watershed reported that,<br />
due to soil <strong>and</strong> water conservation works <strong>and</strong> water storage structures, the wells which earlier used to<br />
fetch water for about 1-2 hours, fetched water for more than 8-10 hours due to the increased ground<br />
water table by 10 to 23 feet after the construction <strong>of</strong> water storage structures. As a result <strong>of</strong><br />
increased water availability <strong>and</strong> productivity, the monthly net income per family increased more than<br />
seven times from Rs. 240 to Rs. 1734.<br />
Singh <strong>and</strong> Singh (1997) examined the gains <strong>of</strong> the Rendhar watershed project in Jalaun<br />
district <strong>of</strong> Uttar Pradesh <strong>and</strong> found that there has been a phenomenal increase in the cropping<br />
intensity <strong>and</strong> crop productivity that because <strong>of</strong> an increase <strong>of</strong> gross cultivated area.<br />
Arunkumar (1998) in his case study on Kuthangere micro watershed in Karnataka found that the total<br />
income per household <strong>of</strong> the watershed farmers (Rs. 27411.25) was higher by Rs. 10183.46<br />
compared to that <strong>of</strong> the non-watershed farmers (Rs. 17227.79) during 1996-97 <strong>and</strong> also total<br />
employment generated by the project activities was 27,941 m<strong>and</strong>ays <strong>and</strong> annual incremental<br />
employment in crop production <strong>and</strong> maintenance <strong>of</strong> horticultural crops was 18,609 m<strong>and</strong>ays in four<br />
years.<br />
Singh (1999) conducted study in the Chhajawa watershed <strong>and</strong> adjacent villages in Baran<br />
district <strong>of</strong> Rajasthan to assess the impact <strong>of</strong> watershed management effects on the farmer’s income.<br />
The average family income inside the watershed area was 2.15 per cent higher as compared to those<br />
outside <strong>of</strong> it.<br />
Bisrat (2000) in his study on economic analysis <strong>of</strong> watershed treatment through groundwater<br />
recharge <strong>of</strong> Basavapura micro-watershed in Kolar district <strong>of</strong> Karnataka revealed that average yield <strong>of</strong><br />
bore well increased from 1150 gallons per hour (GPH) to 1426 GPH that is by 24 per cent due to<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> water harvesting structures.<br />
Bharathkumar (2001) in his case study <strong>of</strong> Perambalur district <strong>of</strong> Tamil Nadu reported that<br />
annual average incremental employment in crop production <strong>and</strong> maintenance <strong>of</strong> horticultural crops<br />
during four years was 15,263 m<strong>and</strong>ays. Thus, the watershed project had resulted in an average<br />
additional employment <strong>of</strong> 37,550 m<strong>and</strong>ays in four years.<br />
Naidu (2001) in his study Vnjuvankal watershed <strong>of</strong> Andhra Pradesh noticed that water<br />
harvesting structures <strong>and</strong> percolation ponds showed a rise in ground water level in the wells by 2 to 3<br />
meters. It was also noted that there was an increase in the double-cropped area in the watershed.<br />
The farmers shifted towards commercial crops <strong>and</strong> agricultural productivity was higher. The net<br />
returns <strong>of</strong> farmers growing commercial <strong>and</strong> horticultural crop increased substantially <strong>and</strong> varies from<br />
Rs. 5000 to Rs. 8000 per hectare.<br />
Ramesh <strong>and</strong> Srinivasa Gowda (2001) reported that the small <strong>and</strong> large groups <strong>of</strong> farmers in<br />
Kabbalanala watershed area <strong>of</strong> Karnataka obtained comparatively higher productivity out <strong>of</strong> scarce<br />
resources than their counter parts in the non-watershed areas. They have also analysed <strong>and</strong> found<br />
that, in respect <strong>of</strong> small farmers, in watershed area, except human labour, all other resources<br />
contributed significantly towards ragi cultivation, whereas for non-watershed farmers, l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> farm<br />
yard manure (FYM) resources had shown negative effect on ragi cultivation.<br />
Reddy et al. (2003) reported the environmental sustainability through watershed programme<br />
in semi-arid region <strong>of</strong> Andhra Pradesh that the red soil was developed on water shed basis <strong>and</strong> the<br />
conservation measures reduced run-<strong>of</strong>f <strong>and</strong> increased the yields <strong>of</strong> major crops as groundnut by 15<br />
per cent <strong>and</strong> further the run-<strong>of</strong>f stored against conservation structures recharged the water levels in<br />
open wells by 0.5 to 1.5 m. The per capita income also increased from Rs. 1443 to 1917 in addition to<br />
the creation <strong>of</strong> employment opportunities to the tune <strong>of</strong> 29,938 m<strong>and</strong>ays.<br />
Karegoudar et al. (2004) studied the impact <strong>of</strong> soil <strong>and</strong> water conservation measures in<br />
Kudligi watershed <strong>of</strong> Karnataka <strong>and</strong> indicated that there has been positive impact <strong>of</strong> soil <strong>and</strong> water
conservation measures on watershed basis including check dams, nala bunding, farm ponds etc., on<br />
resource conservation <strong>and</strong> productivity.<br />
2.3 Feasibility <strong>of</strong> investment on various rwhs including farm ponds<br />
Agnihotri et al. (1986) estimated the economics <strong>of</strong> small storage dams at village Nada in<br />
Shivalik foot hills. The analysis showed that the B:C ratio is 1.23:1 at 10% discount rate <strong>and</strong> IRR 20%<br />
further opined that these values indicate water resources appears to good possibility <strong>and</strong> such<br />
projects also provide insurance against drought, floods <strong>and</strong> sedimentation <strong>of</strong> reservoirs <strong>and</strong> also<br />
reported that the availability <strong>of</strong> fodder <strong>and</strong> grasses have increased considerably due to protection <strong>of</strong><br />
catchment area.<br />
Anonymous (1988) on an evaluation <strong>of</strong> soil conservation works <strong>of</strong> Nalabunds in the<br />
catchments <strong>of</strong> three River Valley Projects, viz. Matatila, Nizamsagar <strong>and</strong> Ukai, which was done by<br />
Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd., Bombay. And reported that the benefit cost ratio <strong>and</strong> the<br />
internal rate <strong>of</strong> return was 1.38:1 <strong>and</strong> 32 %, 1.3:1 <strong>and</strong> 48 % & 1.23:1 <strong>and</strong> 33% respectively in Matatila,<br />
Nizamsagar <strong>and</strong> Ukai catchments <strong>of</strong> three River Valley Projects <strong>of</strong> Nalabunds for 12 year life span.<br />
Selvarajan et al. (1984) reported that even with the 50 per cent decrease in crop benefits<br />
under farmers management, the investment on farm-ponds was found economically feasible as<br />
revealed by high Internal Rate <strong>of</strong> Returns (IRR) with highest Benefit-Cost ratio <strong>of</strong> 3.4 which was<br />
obtained when five cm <strong>of</strong> water was applied to crops as protective irrigation from the ponds.<br />
Palanisami (1991) reported that the investment in percolation ponds in Tamil Nadu state has<br />
been increasing over years. Financial evaluation <strong>of</strong> the ponds showed that ponds with moderate<br />
maintenance had a B:C ratio <strong>and</strong> IRR <strong>of</strong> 1.14 <strong>and</strong> 14.83 per cent while those with good maintenance<br />
had a B:C ratio <strong>and</strong> IRR <strong>of</strong> 1.89 <strong>and</strong> 20.42 per cent respectively.<br />
S<strong>and</strong>hu et al. (1991) attempted to evaluate the development works done by the forestry,<br />
animal husb<strong>and</strong>ry, <strong>and</strong> soil conservation <strong>and</strong> engineering components <strong>of</strong> the project. The economic<br />
analysis indicated that the rate <strong>of</strong> return was 15.2 percent for forestry, 13.1 percent for livestock <strong>and</strong><br />
12.6 percent for soil conservation <strong>and</strong> a benefit –cost ratio <strong>of</strong> more than unity at 12 percent discount<br />
rate. The overall rate <strong>of</strong> return was found to be 14.5 percent, which could be considerably stepped up<br />
by proper maintenance <strong>and</strong> increase in area under the various components <strong>of</strong> the watershed.<br />
Singh et al. (1991) evaluated two watershed development projects for Shivalik hills in Punjab.<br />
The Benefit cost ratio worked out was more than unity at 12 percent discount rate with an IRR <strong>of</strong> more<br />
than 15.5 percent for both the watersheds. This study also reported that the horticultural sector was<br />
the most beneficial with a B-C ratio <strong>of</strong> 4.65 <strong>and</strong> 5.01 at 15 percent discount rate for Maili <strong>and</strong> Chohal<br />
watersheds, respectively.<br />
Dhayani et al. (1993) concluded from their study that adoption <strong>of</strong> soil <strong>and</strong> water conservation<br />
technologies on farmers field on watershed basis in the outer Himalayan region was economical with<br />
B:C ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.93.<br />
Basavaraja (1999) evaluated the economic feasibility <strong>of</strong> vegetative <strong>and</strong> mechanical barriers<br />
used for soil moisture conservation in the medium black soils <strong>of</strong> the northern dry zone <strong>of</strong> Karnataka.<br />
The study showed that the net present value <strong>of</strong> the conservation measured was not only positive but<br />
also appealing, the IRR was more than 100 per cent <strong>and</strong> B:C ratio being more than two.<br />
Naik (2000) conducted study on economics <strong>of</strong> soil <strong>and</strong> water conservation structures in<br />
Kanakanala <strong>and</strong> Indawar-Hullalli watersheds in the Northern Dry Zone <strong>of</strong> Karnataka <strong>and</strong> analysed that<br />
the payback period was less in both vegetative bund (2.34) <strong>and</strong> contour bund (2.77), B:C ratio was<br />
found highest in farm ponds (3.59) followed by contour bunds (3.34). NPV was positive <strong>and</strong> highest in<br />
farm ponds (16,506) <strong>and</strong> IRR was more in case <strong>of</strong> vegetative bund (35%) contour bund (34%) <strong>and</strong><br />
farm ponds (29.5%) <strong>and</strong> overall indicated that the adoption <strong>of</strong> soil <strong>and</strong> water conservation structure at<br />
farmer’s level were economically viable <strong>and</strong> financially feasible.<br />
Reddy et al. (2003) reported that the conservation <strong>of</strong> natural resources on watershed basis in<br />
semi arid region with B:C ratio 2.29 in Andhra Pradesh <strong>and</strong> proved to be economically viable <strong>and</strong><br />
environmentally sustainable.<br />
Ch<strong>and</strong>rappa (2004) studied economic evaluation <strong>of</strong> percolation tanks in Chitradurga district <strong>of</strong><br />
Karnataka <strong>and</strong> summarized that the net present worth <strong>of</strong> investment on percolation tanks was Rs.<br />
12.56 lakhs with 15 per cent discount rate. While the B:C ratio was 1.47. The pay back period with 15<br />
per cent discount rate was 7.36 years <strong>and</strong> the internal rate <strong>of</strong> returns was 26 per cent.
2.4 Constraints in adoption <strong>of</strong> rwhs<br />
Krishnappa et al. (1988) in their study on Kabbalanala watershed at Bangalore reported that<br />
simultaneous adoption <strong>of</strong> all the components <strong>of</strong> technology was obstructed by lack <strong>of</strong> adequate capital<br />
<strong>and</strong> credit in the case <strong>of</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> farmers. Agro-climatic conditions, scanty <strong>and</strong> uneven distribution<br />
<strong>of</strong> rainfall, undulating topography, shallow depth <strong>of</strong> soil, low moisture retention capacity, low fertility <strong>of</strong><br />
soil, small <strong>and</strong> fragmented nature <strong>of</strong> holdings <strong>and</strong> the lack <strong>of</strong> adequate market facilities also came in<br />
the way <strong>of</strong> adoption <strong>of</strong> new agronomic practices.<br />
Singh (1988) analysed the constraints <strong>of</strong> rabi crops in Parva Nala watershed <strong>of</strong> Madhya<br />
Pradesh <strong>and</strong> found that lack <strong>of</strong> capital at the time <strong>of</strong> major farm operations was the main constraint.<br />
Other constraints found were non-availability <strong>of</strong> desired fertilizers. Lack <strong>of</strong> HYV seeds, non-availability<br />
<strong>of</strong> desired variety seeds <strong>and</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> technical know. He also reported that, constraint <strong>of</strong> ‘nonavailability<br />
<strong>of</strong> credit’, was felt more intensively by marginal <strong>and</strong> small farmers.<br />
Norman et al. (1991) suggested that the <strong>of</strong>ficial machinery should have been streamlined to<br />
co-ordinate the implementation <strong>of</strong> the project in Palakkad district <strong>of</strong> Kerala. Lack <strong>of</strong> perception <strong>of</strong> the<br />
objectives <strong>of</strong> the programme by the target group was the main lacunae in the project implementation.<br />
It should also be noted that some important components like forestry programme, pasture<br />
development dairying were not given enough weightage.<br />
R<strong>and</strong>hir <strong>and</strong> Ravich<strong>and</strong>ran (1991) in their policy implications in Anakatti region <strong>of</strong> Coimbatore<br />
district <strong>of</strong> Tamil Nadu, included the implementation <strong>of</strong> the programme by enlisting the participation <strong>of</strong><br />
farmers, educating them in soil <strong>and</strong> water conservation, bringing more area under watershed<br />
management, encouraging farmers in the maintenance <strong>of</strong> structures <strong>and</strong> subsidizing the inputs for<br />
watershed management.<br />
Narayanagowda (1992) reported that the adoption level <strong>of</strong> soil <strong>and</strong> moisture conservation<br />
practices was higher among the participants <strong>of</strong> Chitravati watershed in Kolar district <strong>of</strong> Karnataka as<br />
compared to non-participants. However, he observed that a higher percentage <strong>of</strong> farmers had not<br />
adopted the practice <strong>of</strong> stabilization <strong>of</strong> bunds with vegetative species, lack <strong>of</strong> conviction <strong>and</strong> difficulty<br />
to establish were the dominant reasons for their lack <strong>of</strong> adoption.<br />
An<strong>and</strong> (2000) in his study conducted in Bidar district <strong>of</strong> Karnataka revealed that the major<br />
problems/reasons for non-adoption or partial adoption <strong>of</strong> watershed technology include, lack <strong>of</strong> capital<br />
for contour bund <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong> levelling, unawareness <strong>of</strong> technology for compartment bunding <strong>and</strong> live<br />
bunds, lack <strong>of</strong> knowledge <strong>and</strong> hard sub-surface soil in opening <strong>of</strong> ridges <strong>and</strong> furrows <strong>and</strong> plantation <strong>of</strong><br />
horticulture <strong>and</strong> forest tree species.<br />
Naik (2000) reported the major reasons for non-adoption <strong>of</strong> water harvesting structures <strong>and</strong><br />
grade stabilization structures in the Kanakanala <strong>and</strong> Indawar-Hullalli watersheds in Northern Dry Zone<br />
<strong>of</strong> Karnataka <strong>and</strong> found that credit non-availability <strong>and</strong> high interest rates were severe problems (69%<br />
each) followed by long gestation period (68%), high hiring charges <strong>of</strong> improved implements (65%) <strong>and</strong><br />
small holdings (61%) etc. in the non-watershed area.<br />
Nirmala (2003) reported that the farmers perception <strong>and</strong> constraint analysis under impact<br />
study <strong>of</strong> watershed development programme on socio-economic dimensions in Ranga Reddy district<br />
<strong>of</strong> Andhra Pradesh <strong>and</strong> found that technologies were beneficial in the form <strong>of</strong> increased income<br />
(58.33%), increased moisture (51.66%) <strong>and</strong> increased productivity (48.33%) along with increased<br />
employment generation. Reduced soil erosion integrated ground water recharge etc. were other<br />
benefits <strong>of</strong> technology as perceived by the farmers. Further observed that the major reasons for nonadoption<br />
<strong>of</strong> structures in non-watershed area were lack <strong>of</strong> capital (51.6%) technical know-how<br />
(46.60%), size <strong>of</strong> holding (45%) followed by problems <strong>of</strong> irrigation, inadequate input availability nonavailability<br />
<strong>of</strong> labour, inadequate extension services, poor quality <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> etc.
III. METHODOLOGY<br />
The design <strong>of</strong> the study is an important component <strong>of</strong> research. To realize the various<br />
objectives <strong>of</strong> the study, an appropriate methodology describing sampling design, data<br />
collection <strong>and</strong> tools <strong>of</strong> analysis for the conduct <strong>of</strong> the study are inevitable. In this chapter the<br />
methodology adopted for the present study, including the selection <strong>and</strong> description <strong>of</strong> the<br />
study area, sampling design, collection <strong>of</strong> data <strong>and</strong> analytical tools employed are presented<br />
under the following heads.<br />
3.1 Description <strong>of</strong> the study area<br />
3.2 Selection <strong>of</strong> the study area<br />
3.3 Sampling design<br />
3.4 Collection <strong>of</strong> data<br />
3.5 Analytical tools employed<br />
3.6 The terms <strong>and</strong> concepts used in the study<br />
3.1 Description <strong>of</strong> the study area<br />
An assessment <strong>of</strong> any development activity can be made only with a detailed<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> the physical <strong>and</strong> natural characteristics <strong>of</strong> the region as well as the socioeconomic<br />
status <strong>of</strong> the population. Hence an attempt has been made to describe the physical,<br />
natural <strong>and</strong> socio-economic features <strong>of</strong> Dharwad district, with special reference to Dharwad<br />
<strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi taluks those are chosen for the study, <strong>and</strong> secondary data were collected<br />
from the District Statistical Office <strong>of</strong> Dharwad district.<br />
3.1.1 Geographic location <strong>and</strong> extent<br />
Dharwad district falls in the northern part <strong>of</strong> Karnataka state (Fig. 1). It is situated in<br />
the interior <strong>of</strong> the Deccan peninsula <strong>and</strong> lies between the Northern latitudes <strong>of</strong> 15°15’ <strong>and</strong><br />
15°35’ <strong>and</strong> East longitudes <strong>of</strong> 75°00’ <strong>and</strong> 75°20’. It is bound on the North by Belgaum district,<br />
while on the South by Haveri district, on the East by Gadag district <strong>and</strong> on the West by Uttar<br />
Kannada district.<br />
The total geographical area <strong>of</strong> the district is 4.27 lakh hectares, which is about 2.22<br />
per cent <strong>of</strong> the state. The district has five taluks viz., Dharwad, Hubli, Kalaghatagi, Kundgol<br />
<strong>and</strong> Navalgund. Out <strong>of</strong> the five taluks, Dharwad <strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi taluks were chosen for the<br />
study. This district has 127 gram panchayaths encompassing 397 villages.<br />
3.1.2 Rainfall <strong>and</strong> temperature<br />
The average annual rainfall <strong>of</strong> the district is around 670 mm with a bimodal<br />
distribution. The first peak occurs in May-June while the second in October. The maximum<br />
temperature is 38°C with minimum <strong>of</strong> 16°C in April-May <strong>and</strong> December-January respectively.<br />
3.1.3 Soils<br />
The soils <strong>of</strong> the district are predominantly red s<strong>and</strong>y loams with patches <strong>of</strong> black<br />
soils. The soils <strong>of</strong> the Dharwad <strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi taluks are practically homogeneous <strong>and</strong> red<br />
s<strong>and</strong>y loams with medium to deep black soils.<br />
Most <strong>of</strong> the area <strong>of</strong> both the taluks comes under rainfed condition <strong>and</strong> depends more<br />
or less absolutely on rain.<br />
3.1.4 L<strong>and</strong> utilization pattern<br />
L<strong>and</strong> utilization pattern <strong>of</strong> a particular area is an indicator <strong>of</strong> the natural endowment<br />
<strong>and</strong> opportunities for development <strong>of</strong> the area. The l<strong>and</strong> utilization pattern <strong>of</strong> the study area<br />
during 2001-02 has been given in Table 3.1. The total geographical area <strong>of</strong> the district was<br />
4,27,329 hectares, that <strong>of</strong> Dharwad taluk has 1,11,788 hectares <strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi taluk<br />
accounted for about 68,757 hectares. The forest cover was more (28.39%) in Kalaghatagi<br />
taluk compared to Dharwad taluk (12.23%). The l<strong>and</strong> not available for cultivation, other<br />
cultivable waste <strong>and</strong> fallow l<strong>and</strong>s together constituted around 14.18 per cent in Dharwad<br />
district, 22.83 per cent in Dharwad taluk <strong>and</strong> 10.5 per cent in Khalaghatagi taluk to their<br />
respective geographical area. In Dharwad district the total cropped area was 4,80,267<br />
hectares accounting 112.38 per cent <strong>and</strong> in Dharwad <strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi taluk the total cropped<br />
area was 88.56 <strong>and</strong> 66.66 per cent respectively with more than 60 per cent net sown area,<br />
indicated that more than100 per cent cropping intensity existed in the study area. In Dharwad
Fig. 1. Showing Selected study district <strong>and</strong> taluks in Karnataka
Table 3.1 L<strong>and</strong> utilization pattern <strong>of</strong> Dharwad district <strong>and</strong> selected taluks (2001-02)<br />
Area in hectares<br />
Sl.<br />
No. Particulars<br />
Dharwad<br />
district<br />
% to total<br />
area<br />
Dharwad<br />
taluk<br />
% to total<br />
area<br />
Kalaghatagi<br />
taluk<br />
% to total<br />
area<br />
1. Area under forest 35,235 8.24 13,676 12.23 19,526 28.40<br />
2. L<strong>and</strong> not available for cultivation 25,506 5.96 9,188 8.21 4,634 6.74<br />
3. Cultivable waste 6,402 1.49 3,490 3.12 1,494 2.17<br />
4. Fallow l<strong>and</strong> 28,790 6.73 12,862 11.50 1,106 1.60<br />
5. Net sown area 3,31,396 77.50 72,572 64.91 41,997 61.08<br />
6. Total geographical area 4,27,329 100.00 1,11,788 100.00 68,757 100.00<br />
7. Total cropped area 4,80,267 112.39 99,008 88.56 45,839 66.66<br />
Source: Dharwad district at a glance 2002-03.<br />
District Statistical Office, Dharwad
Table 3.2 Irrigation status <strong>of</strong> Dharwad district (2001-03)<br />
Sl.<br />
No. Particulars<br />
Total area in<br />
hectares<br />
Per cent to total area<br />
irrigated<br />
1. Irrigation under canals 10,932 38.60<br />
2. Irrigation under tanks 412 1.46<br />
3. Irrigation under open wells 241 0.85<br />
4. Irrigation under bore wells 9,244 32.64<br />
5. Others 7,494 26.45<br />
Total irrigated area 28,323 100.00<br />
Source: Dharwad district at a glance 2002-03<br />
Table 3.3 Demographic information <strong>of</strong> Dharwad district <strong>and</strong> selected taluks<br />
2001 census<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
Total numbers<br />
Particular<br />
Dharwad district Dharwad taluk Kalaghatagi taluk<br />
1. Male population 8,23,415 1,12,252 70,720<br />
2. Female population 78,379 1,06,561 66,258<br />
3. Total population 16,03,794 2,18,803 1,36,978<br />
4. Literacy (%) 62.57 85.69 85.05<br />
5. Total families 2.17 lakh<br />
Source: Dharwad district at a glance 2002-03.<br />
District Statistical Office, Dharwad
district canals are the major source <strong>of</strong> irrigation (Table 3.2) <strong>and</strong> irrigating about 38.60 per cent<br />
<strong>of</strong> total irrigated area (28,323 ha) followed by wells (33.49 per cent) <strong>and</strong> other sources<br />
including tanks (27.91 per cent).<br />
The total population <strong>of</strong> the district is 16.03 lakh (As per 2001 census) comprising <strong>of</strong><br />
8.23 lakh males <strong>and</strong> 7.83 lakh females 62.57 per cent literacy with 2.17 lakh families. (Table<br />
3.3) The total population <strong>and</strong> literacy percentage is 2,18,803 <strong>and</strong> 85.69 per cent <strong>and</strong> 1,36,978<br />
<strong>and</strong> 85.05 per cent in Dharwad <strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi taluks respectively. And there are 948<br />
females for every 1000 males.<br />
3.1.5 Crops <strong>and</strong> cropping pattern<br />
Area under different crops in Dharwad district <strong>and</strong> selected taluks for the year 2001-<br />
02 has been given in Appendix II.The gross cropped area in Dharwad district, Dharwad taluk<br />
<strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi taluk during 2001-02 was 4,80,267 hectares, 99,008 hectares <strong>and</strong> 45,839<br />
hectares respectively. The area under cereal crops in Dharwad district was 1,48,126 hectares<br />
(30.84%) <strong>of</strong> the total cropped area. The corresponding figures for Dharwad <strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi<br />
taluks were 41,750 hectares (42.16%) <strong>and</strong> 27,128 (59.18%).<br />
Jowar <strong>and</strong> paddy are the staple food crops <strong>of</strong> the region accounting for 20.14 per<br />
cent <strong>of</strong> total cropped area in the district. The corresponding figures for Dharwad <strong>and</strong><br />
Kalaghatagi taluks were 31.87 per cent <strong>and</strong> 57.36 per cent, which were higher than the<br />
district share to their respective total cropped area. Pulses occupied a larger proportion in<br />
Dharwad taluk (26.53%) as compared to Kalaghatagi taluk (4.04%) to the total cropped area<br />
<strong>of</strong> respective taluks. In Dharwad district pulses occupied to an extent <strong>of</strong> 13.91 per cent<br />
(66,808 ha) to the total cropped area. Under commercial crops Dharwad district occupied<br />
higher proportion <strong>of</strong> 31.25 per cent (1,50,108 hectares) to the total cropped area. The<br />
Kalaghatagi taluk (32.02%) occupied larger proportion <strong>of</strong> commercial crops as compared to<br />
Dharwad taluk (21.33%) to the total cropped area.<br />
3.1.6 Number <strong>of</strong> sub-watersheds in Dharwad district under different schemes<br />
The talukwise distribution <strong>of</strong> sub-watersheds (SWS) in the district is presented in the<br />
Table 3.4.<br />
The total number <strong>of</strong> sub-watersheds (SWS) under National Watershed Development<br />
programme for Rainfed Agriculture (NWDPRA) are 17, under River Valley Project (RVP) are<br />
16, Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP) are 45. Under WGDP only one SWS <strong>and</strong> under<br />
World Bank sponsored scheme called Sujala Watershed Project, the number <strong>of</strong> subwatersheds<br />
covered are 9 <strong>of</strong> that 2 SWS in Dharwad taluk <strong>and</strong> 1 SWS in Kalaghatagi taluk.<br />
3.2 Selection <strong>of</strong> study area<br />
The focus <strong>of</strong> the study was confined to the economic evaluation <strong>of</strong> Rain Water<br />
Harvesting Structures (RWHS) especially farm-ponds <strong>and</strong> their impact on cropping pattern,<br />
employment <strong>and</strong> income <strong>of</strong> farmers in Managundi <strong>and</strong> Galagi sub-watersheds <strong>of</strong> Dharwad<br />
<strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi taluks at Dharwad district <strong>of</strong> Karnataka state, where the Sujala Development<br />
Project is being implemented. The scheme is also implemented in other districts (Fig. 2) <strong>of</strong><br />
Karnataka state viz., Kolar, Tumkur, Chitradurga <strong>and</strong> Haveri. The total area covered under<br />
this project <strong>of</strong> World Bank assisted Sujala Watershed Scheme in Karnataka (Table 3.5) it self<br />
is 4.27 lakh hectares <strong>of</strong> which, 49,840 hectares falls under Dharwad district alone. The<br />
scheme has already run for three years out <strong>of</strong> the total five <strong>and</strong> half years, i.e. from<br />
September 2001 to March 2007.<br />
Managundi <strong>and</strong> Galagi sub-watershed were selected purposively in Dharwad district<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the three reasons, namely (i) These sub-water sheds have many watershed<br />
treatment activities especially farm-ponds (ii) The sub-watersheds are covered under Sujala<br />
Watershed Development Scheme, (iii) Availability <strong>of</strong> accurate <strong>and</strong> needful data <strong>and</strong> more<br />
area is under rainfed situation.<br />
Managundi SWS has six micro-watersheds viz., Mansur-I, Nuggikeri-II,<br />
Benakanakatti-III, Managundi IV, V <strong>and</strong> VI. Where as, Galagi SWS has five micro-watersheds<br />
viz., Galagi-I, Arebasavanakoppa-II, Tumari-koppa-III, Mutagi-IV <strong>and</strong> Sangameshwar-V.<br />
Out <strong>of</strong> the above mentioned, micro-watersheds Managundi <strong>and</strong> Tumari-koppa microwatersheds<br />
have been selected from Managundi <strong>and</strong> Galagi SWS in Dharwad <strong>and</strong><br />
Kalaghatagi taluks, respectively.
Table 3.4. Number <strong>of</strong> sub-watersheds in Dharwad district under different schemes<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
Taluka wise distribution <strong>of</strong> sub watersheds in Dharwad district<br />
Schemes<br />
Dharwad Hubli Kalaghatagi Kundgol Navalagund Total<br />
1. NWDPRA (National Watershed Development<br />
Programme for Rainfed Agriculture)<br />
4 4 2 3 4 17<br />
2. RVP (River Valley Project) 4 4 - 2 6 16<br />
3. Sujala (World Bank Sponsored Scheme) 2 3 1 2 1 9<br />
4. DPAP (Drought Prone Area Programme) 11 11 12 11 - 45<br />
5. WGDP (Western Ghat Development Programme) 1 - - - - 1<br />
Source: Sujala Watershed Development Division, Dharwad
Fig. 2. Showing districts covered under World Bank assisted Sujala<br />
Watershed Scheme in Karnataka state
Table 3.5. Total area covered by each SWS in Dharwad district under Sujala<br />
Watershed Development Scheme<br />
I. Phase sub-watersheds<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
Taluk Sub-watershed Area (ha)<br />
1. Dharwad Managundi 5,090<br />
2. Kalaghatagi Galagi-Hulakoppa 4,024<br />
Sub total 9,114<br />
II. Phase sub-watersheds<br />
1. Navalgund Yarnal 6,917<br />
2. Hubli Kurdikeri 7,446<br />
3. Kundagol Googihalla 6,168<br />
Sub total 20,531<br />
III. Phase sub-watersheds<br />
1. Dharwad Amblikoppa 6,889<br />
2. Hubli Devaragundihal 6,356<br />
3. Hubli Unakal 3,134<br />
4. Kundagol Bennohalla 3,816<br />
Sub total 20,195<br />
District total (I+II+III) 49,840<br />
Area in Karnataka state 4.27 lakh<br />
Source: Sujala Watershed Development Division, Dharwad<br />
Table 3.6. Number <strong>of</strong> sample farmers selected for the study<br />
Sample WS<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> sample farmers selected<br />
With farm-pond Without farm-pond<br />
Managundi MWS 25 25<br />
Tumari-koppa MWS 20 20<br />
Total 45 45
3.3 Sampling design<br />
For the present study, multistage sampling procedure was adopted. In the first stage,<br />
based on the criterion <strong>of</strong> availability maximum number <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds in each <strong>of</strong> the subwatersheds<br />
in Dharwad district i.e. one sub-watershed in Dharwad taluk <strong>and</strong> another subwatershed<br />
from Kalaghatagi taluk were selected for the study.<br />
In the II stage, one micro-watershed from each <strong>of</strong> the two selected sub-watersheds<br />
were considered. Accordingly Managundi micro-watershed in Managundi SWS <strong>and</strong> Tamarikoppa<br />
micro-watershed from Galagi SWS were chosen.<br />
In the final stage, from selected two MWS, 25 per cent <strong>of</strong> the farmers were r<strong>and</strong>omly<br />
selected from each MWS based on the availability <strong>of</strong> farm- ponds located on their fields to<br />
make a sample size <strong>of</strong> 45 <strong>and</strong> for comparison purpose another sample <strong>of</strong> 45 farmers who do<br />
not possess farm-ponds i.e. without farm-pond were r<strong>and</strong>omly interviewed. Thus, total sample<br />
size constituted 90 farmers (Table 3.6).<br />
3.4 Collection <strong>of</strong> data<br />
The required data for the study included both secondary <strong>and</strong> primary data. Secondary<br />
data on the extent <strong>of</strong> various rainwater harvesting structures as well as their construction<br />
costs etc. were collected from the District Watershed Development Office (DWDO), Dharwad,<br />
lead NGO (IDS) <strong>of</strong> Sujala watershed <strong>and</strong> also from sub-<strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> Managundi <strong>and</strong> Tumarikoppa<br />
villages.<br />
The primary data on household composition, l<strong>and</strong> holdings, farm machinery <strong>and</strong><br />
equipments, livestock, cropping pattern, cost <strong>and</strong> returns <strong>of</strong> different activities were collected<br />
from the selected 90 sample farmers <strong>of</strong> both with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas. Primary data<br />
related to the agriculture year 2003-04 was elicited using pre-structured <strong>and</strong> pre-tested<br />
schedules.<br />
3.5 Analytical tools employed<br />
Following different methods were employed to analyze the data, interpret the results, to draw<br />
inferences <strong>and</strong> to design policy options for adoption by farmers, researchers <strong>and</strong><br />
Government.<br />
3.5.1 Conventional analysis<br />
Tabular presentation technique was employed including percentages <strong>and</strong> averages in<br />
respect <strong>of</strong> socio-economic features <strong>of</strong> sample farmers, cropping pattern, input usage, cost <strong>of</strong><br />
cultivation <strong>and</strong> returns etc. for both the sample farmer’s group, to facilitate comparison<br />
between With <strong>and</strong> Without farm-pond areas.<br />
3.5.2 Cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation <strong>and</strong> returns<br />
3.5.2.1 Cost concepts<br />
The cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation per hectare <strong>of</strong> all the crops cultivated in both with farm-pond<br />
<strong>and</strong> without farm pond areas were calculated according to cost concepts used in Farm<br />
business analysis for the data pertaining to the crop year 2003-04.<br />
Cost A: For computing Cost A, following items <strong>of</strong> expenditure were included <strong>and</strong> aggregated.<br />
Wages <strong>of</strong> hired human labour<br />
Charges <strong>of</strong> owned <strong>and</strong> hired bullock labour<br />
Charges <strong>of</strong> owned <strong>and</strong> hired machine labour<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> seeds (both farm produced <strong>and</strong> purchased)<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> manures, fertilizers, seed treatment <strong>and</strong> plant protection chemicals<br />
Depreciation <strong>of</strong> farm implements, machinery, farm buildings etc.,<br />
L<strong>and</strong> revenue<br />
h. Interest on working capital.<br />
Cost B: This was computed by adding the following items to cost A,<br />
Rental value <strong>of</strong> owned l<strong>and</strong><br />
Interest on fixed capital<br />
Cost C: This was worked out by adding the value <strong>of</strong> imputed human labour supplied by the<br />
family <strong>and</strong> marketing cost to Cost- B, the value <strong>of</strong> imputed human labour was taken at the<br />
prevailing wage rate for hired labour.<br />
3.5.2.2 Returns
Gross returns for each crop was aggregate value <strong>of</strong> both the main product <strong>and</strong> byproduct<br />
at the selling prices. Net returns were computed by deducting the cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation<br />
from the gross returns. Finally returns per rupee <strong>of</strong> investment (B:C ratio) was calculated by<br />
dividing total returns over total cost.<br />
3.5.2.3 Depreciation charges<br />
Depreciation on farm buildings, machinery <strong>and</strong> equipments were calculated by using<br />
straight-line method using the formula given under.<br />
Purchase value – Junk value<br />
Depreciation = ——————————————<br />
Expected life <strong>of</strong> the item<br />
Note: Depreciation charge was considered at fixed rate for all the crops.<br />
3.5.3 Financial feasibility<br />
The financial feasibility analysis is a systematic way to compare the streams <strong>of</strong><br />
benefits <strong>and</strong> costs. The costs <strong>and</strong> benefits can be evaluated to find out the economic<br />
efficiency <strong>of</strong> the project. In the present study, the benefits <strong>and</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds were<br />
studied to determine whether the technology was financially viable or not, i.e., by using four<br />
principal measures viz., Net present worth (NPW), Pay back period, Benefit cost ratio (BCR),<br />
Internal rate <strong>of</strong> returns (IRR) based on the following assumptions<br />
1. The benefits <strong>of</strong> the farm- ponds were taken based on increase in net returns per<br />
hectare <strong>of</strong> all crops on sample farms due to enhanced yield after construction <strong>of</strong> farmponds.<br />
2. The cost incurred per farmer on construction <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds was considered, as an<br />
initial investment <strong>and</strong> maintenance cost per annum was considered as variable cost<br />
3. Cash inflows were discounted at 8.5 per cent as this rate represents prevailing bank<br />
rate on working capital.<br />
4. The project period was considered for 10 years, accordingly discounted cash flows<br />
were worked out <strong>and</strong> analysed with the four-foresaid parameters.<br />
3.5.3.1 Net Present Worth (NPW)<br />
Net present worth (NPW), also known as the present value, is based on the desire to<br />
determine the present value <strong>of</strong> net benefits from the watershed project. Since the goal <strong>of</strong> the<br />
analysis was to determine the total net contribution <strong>of</strong> the Farm-Ponds to the sample farmers<br />
in the With Farm-Pond area. For a project to be economically viable the NPW should be<br />
positive <strong>and</strong> as high as possible. The formula used for the calculation <strong>of</strong> NPW is<br />
n -i<br />
NPW = ∑ Yi(1+r) -I<br />
i=1<br />
Where,<br />
Y i = net cash inflows obtained by the sample farms due to the Farm-pond in i th year<br />
(i=1,2….n)<br />
r = discount rate<br />
i= no. <strong>of</strong> year<br />
n=life period <strong>of</strong> the farm-pond<br />
I = Initial investment on the farm-pond<br />
3.5.3.2 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)<br />
The benefit cost ratio <strong>of</strong> the Farm-pond was analysed to compare the present value<br />
<strong>of</strong> benefits to the present value <strong>of</strong> costs to determine whether the watershed project is<br />
economically a viable proposition or not. The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) was worked out by<br />
using the following formula.<br />
Discounted returns<br />
BC Ratio = ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯<br />
Initial investment
If the benefit cost ratio <strong>of</strong> the watershed technology appears greater than unity, then<br />
the adoption <strong>and</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> the farm-pond structure would be economically sound.<br />
The ratio is expressed in the following form.<br />
n -i<br />
BC ratio = ∑ Yi(1+r) /I<br />
i=1<br />
Where,<br />
Y i = net cash inflows obtained by the sample farms due to the Farm-pond in i th year<br />
(i=1,2….n)<br />
r = the discount rate<br />
i= no. <strong>of</strong> year<br />
n=life period <strong>of</strong> the farm-pond<br />
I = Initial investment on the farm-pond<br />
3.5.3.3 Pay Back period (PB period)<br />
The pay back period is the time required to recover invested money in the project.<br />
The pay back period was estimated by summing up all the undiscounted net benefits over<br />
years to make up the initial investment incurred for establishment.<br />
The pay back period is a common, rough means <strong>of</strong> choosing among investments<br />
especially when projects entail a high degree <strong>of</strong> risk. However, as a measure <strong>of</strong> investment<br />
worth, the pay back period has two important weaknesses. Firstly, it fails to consider cash<br />
flows after the pay back period, Secondly, even though it measures projects liquidity, it does<br />
not indicate the liquidity position <strong>of</strong> the firm as a whole. The pay back period is worked out as<br />
below.<br />
I<br />
P = ⎯⎯⎯<br />
Y<br />
Where,<br />
P = Pay back period in pre-defined time units (in present study it is ‘years’)<br />
I = Capital investment on the project in rupees<br />
Y = Net income realized after meeting production expenditure.<br />
3.5.3.4 Internal Rate <strong>of</strong> Returns (IRR)<br />
The rate at which the net present value <strong>of</strong> project is equal to zero is nothing but the<br />
Internal Rate <strong>of</strong> Return (IRR). The net cash inflows were discounted to determine the present<br />
worth following the interpolation technique as under.<br />
IRR = Lower discount +<br />
rate<br />
Net present worth <strong>of</strong> the cash flows at<br />
lower discount rate<br />
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯<br />
Difference between the ⎯⎯<br />
two discount rates<br />
Absolute difference between present<br />
worth (cash flow) stream at the two<br />
discount rates<br />
If the IRR calculated appears greater than the reference rate, then the adoption <strong>of</strong><br />
Farm-ponds in the sample farms is economically attractive. If the IRR calculated is lesser than<br />
the reference rate, then practicing Farm-ponds in the sample farms is said to be economically<br />
not viable.<br />
3.6 Terms <strong>and</strong> concepts<br />
3.6.1 Watershed<br />
The term watershed is typically an area having common drainage i.e. is a natural<br />
geo-hydrological entity.<br />
3.6.2 Watershed development approach
It implies a cognizant effort to optimize <strong>and</strong> maintain the productivity <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>and</strong><br />
systems through integrated <strong>and</strong> optimal development <strong>of</strong> water, l<strong>and</strong>, vegetation <strong>and</strong> livestock<br />
researchers <strong>and</strong> suggesting appropriate l<strong>and</strong> use practices causing minimum environmental<br />
damage.<br />
3.6.3 Rain Water harvesting (RWH)<br />
RWH is capturing <strong>and</strong> storing rainwater in ponds, lakes, open areas for agriculture<br />
purpose as well as domestic purpose.<br />
3.6.4 Rain Water Harvesting Structures (RWHS)<br />
RWHS are the barriers or measures created or adopted to harvest the rainwater.<br />
Major RWHS under watershed approach are check dams, farm-ponds, nala bunding, contour<br />
bunds, vegetative barriers etc.<br />
3.6.5 Farm ponds<br />
Farm ponds are small water harvesting structures used for collecting <strong>and</strong> storing run<strong>of</strong>f<br />
water. Farm ponds are constructed with varying size <strong>and</strong> may fulfil several farm needs<br />
such as supply <strong>of</strong> the water to crops for protective irrigation, fish production etc.<br />
3.6.6 With farm-pond area<br />
The area where the farm-pond concept is adopted.<br />
3.6.7 Without farm-pond area<br />
The area not only includes the area outside farm pond but also where the concept <strong>of</strong><br />
farm pond is not at all adopted.<br />
3.6.8 Sub-watershed (SWS)<br />
Area with 5000-7000 hectares.<br />
3.6.9 Micro-watershed (MWS)<br />
Area with 500-700 hectares.<br />
3.6.10 Cropping intensity<br />
It is the ratio <strong>of</strong> gross cropped area to the net sown area expressed in percentage.<br />
Gross cropped area<br />
Cropping intensity = —————————————— X 100<br />
Net cropped area<br />
3.6.11 Total income<br />
It is the sum <strong>of</strong> the earnings by the sample farmers in the household from all the<br />
sources i.e. farm <strong>and</strong> non-farm cases in case <strong>of</strong> beneficiary.<br />
3.6.12 Total employment<br />
It is obtained by summing up the total days employed in a year by each person in a<br />
family.<br />
3.6.13 Man-day<br />
Refers to eight hours work turned out by an adult male in a day.<br />
3.6.14 Conversion factor<br />
Female workday to man equivalent day. The conversion ratio <strong>of</strong> two man equivalent<br />
days equal to three female workdays was used in the study to compute total employment per<br />
farm in man equivalent days.
3.6.15 Seed<br />
Farm produced seed has been valued at the village prices prevalent at the time <strong>of</strong><br />
sowing <strong>and</strong> purchased seeds have been considered at actual rates paid by the sample<br />
farmers.<br />
3.6.16 Farm yard manure<br />
Farm yard manure was valued at the village prices prevalent at the time <strong>of</strong> sowing<br />
<strong>and</strong> farm yard manure purchased was valued at actual rates paid by the sample farmers.<br />
3.6.17 Farm business income<br />
The difference between the gross income <strong>and</strong> Cost-A, that is, pr<strong>of</strong>it at Cost A<br />
represented the Farm business income <strong>of</strong> cultivators.<br />
3.6.18 Family labour income<br />
The pr<strong>of</strong>it at Cost-B, that is, the difference between the gross income <strong>and</strong> Cost B<br />
represented the income <strong>of</strong> the cultivators on account <strong>of</strong> his own <strong>and</strong> family labour.<br />
3.6.19 Net income<br />
The pr<strong>of</strong>it at Cost-C, that is, the difference between gross income <strong>and</strong> Cost-C<br />
represented the net income <strong>of</strong> the farm enterprise.
Plate 1. Farm-pond<br />
Plate 2. Contour bunding<br />
Plate 3. Check dam
Plate 4. Nala bunding<br />
Plate 5. Researcher collecting data from respondents<br />
Plate 6. Diversion channel
IV. RESULTS<br />
The key focus <strong>of</strong> the present study is to analyse the impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on<br />
cropping pattern, productivity, income etc. <strong>and</strong> also the financial feasibility <strong>of</strong> investment on<br />
farm-ponds adopted by the farmers in the identified watershed area. The primary information<br />
<strong>and</strong> the data collected from the sample farmers were examined using the various economic<br />
tools. The results obtained have been presented with respect to the objectives under the<br />
following heads.<br />
4.1 Socio-economic characteristics <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers<br />
4.2 Extent <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> RWHS in the selected micro-watersheds<br />
4.3 Cost involved in various RWHS in the study area pertaining to sample farmers<br />
4.4 Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping pattern, cropping intensity, crop productivity, cost <strong>and</strong><br />
returns pr<strong>of</strong>ile, income <strong>and</strong> employment levels<br />
4.5 Financial feasibility <strong>of</strong> investment in farm-ponds<br />
4.6 Farmers perception <strong>and</strong> constraints towards RWHS<br />
4.1 Socio-economic characteristics <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers<br />
The socio-economic features <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers <strong>of</strong> with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond<br />
areas are presented below under the following sub-headings.<br />
4.1.1 Age <strong>and</strong> education status <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers<br />
The details <strong>of</strong> the age <strong>and</strong> education status <strong>of</strong> the head <strong>of</strong> the family <strong>of</strong> the sample<br />
farmers are presented in Table 4.1. The average age <strong>of</strong> the head <strong>of</strong> the household was 53.44<br />
<strong>and</strong> 50.11 years among with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond sample farmers, respectively.<br />
Majority <strong>of</strong> the farmers (60 per cent) having with farm-pond area were belonged to old<br />
age group (Fig. 3) which was followed by middle age group constituting 26.7 per cent while<br />
more number <strong>of</strong> the farmers (44.5%) were belonged to middle aged group which was followed<br />
by old aged (42.2%) in case <strong>of</strong> without farm-pond area. Equal (13.3%) number <strong>of</strong> farmers<br />
were observed to the young aged group in both with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas.<br />
The educational status <strong>of</strong> heads in the case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area was higher than<br />
the without farm-pond area. About 73 per cent <strong>of</strong> farmers in with farm-pond area were<br />
literates; where as only about 53 per cent <strong>of</strong> farmers in case <strong>of</strong> without farm-pond area were<br />
literates. It was found (Fig.4) that 66.66 per cent <strong>and</strong> 44.44 per cent <strong>of</strong> the farmers were<br />
educated up to primary level in case <strong>of</strong> with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas respectively.<br />
However equal percentage (6.67%) <strong>of</strong> farmers were educated up to secondary school. Table<br />
also indicated only 2.22 per cent <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers were observed in without farm-pond<br />
area as educated up to college level while no sample farmers were observed in case <strong>of</strong> with<br />
farm-pond area.<br />
4.1.2 Family type <strong>and</strong> size <strong>of</strong> sample farmers<br />
Majority (76 per cent <strong>and</strong> 82 per cent) <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers belonged to nuclear<br />
family type while, 24 per cent <strong>and</strong> 18 per cent <strong>of</strong> the farmers were belonged to joint family<br />
type in case <strong>of</strong> with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas (Table 4.2) respectively. There were 362<br />
family members in with farm-pond area <strong>and</strong> average family size worked out to 8.04, while<br />
corresponding figures for the without farm-pond area were 347 <strong>and</strong> 7.71. The percentage <strong>of</strong><br />
adult male population to the total population was relatively higher in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond<br />
area (38.12%) compared to without farm-pond area (36.89%) while the percentage <strong>of</strong> adult<br />
female population was marginally higher in without farm-pond (33.72%) area over with farmpond<br />
(32.04%) area. However, the percentage <strong>of</strong> children to the total population was almost<br />
same in both with farm-pond area (29.84%) <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond area (29.39%).<br />
4.1.3 L<strong>and</strong> holding <strong>and</strong> its classification among the sample farmers<br />
The l<strong>and</strong> holdings were classified as marginal, small <strong>and</strong> large <strong>and</strong> were compared<br />
with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas <strong>and</strong> presented under table 4.3 which indicates the average<br />
l<strong>and</strong> holding was 1.73 ha <strong>and</strong> 1.77 ha in with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas, respectively.<br />
Majority <strong>of</strong> the farmers were belonged to small farmers category with equal proportion<br />
(48.89%) both in with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas.
Table 4.1. Age <strong>and</strong> education status <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
With farm-pond (n=45) Without farm-pond (n=45)<br />
Particulars<br />
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage<br />
I Age<br />
i Young (50 yr) 27 60 19 42.2<br />
Average age (years) 53.44 50.11<br />
II Education<br />
i Illiterate (0) 12 26.67 21 46.67<br />
ii Primary (1-7) 30 66.66 20 44.44<br />
iii Secondary school (8-<br />
10)<br />
3 6.67 3 6.67<br />
iv College (>10) 0 0 1 2.22<br />
Total 45 100 45 100
Percentages<br />
Percentages<br />
100%<br />
90%<br />
80%<br />
70%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
100%<br />
90%<br />
80%<br />
70%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
13.3<br />
13.3<br />
44.5<br />
26.7<br />
With FP Without FP<br />
Young Middle Old<br />
Category<br />
42.2<br />
Fig. 3. Age status <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers<br />
Illiterate (0) Primary (1-7)<br />
Secondary school (8-10) College (>10)<br />
0<br />
6.67<br />
66.66<br />
26.67<br />
2.22<br />
6.67<br />
44.44<br />
46.67<br />
With farm Pond Without Farm Pond<br />
Farm pond ownership<br />
Fig. 4. Education level <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers<br />
Fig. 4. Education level <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers<br />
60
Table 4.2. Family type <strong>and</strong> size <strong>of</strong> sample farmers<br />
Sl.<br />
No. Particulars<br />
I Family type<br />
With farm-pond Without farm-pond<br />
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage<br />
a Joint 11 24.4 8 17.8<br />
b Nuclear 34 75.6 37 82.2<br />
c Total 45 100 45 100<br />
II Family size<br />
a Adult male 138 38.12 128 36.89<br />
b Adult female 116 32.04 117 33.72<br />
c Boys 63 17.4 45 12.97<br />
d Girls 45 12.44 57 16.42<br />
e Total 362 100 347 100<br />
f Average<br />
family size<br />
8.04 7.71<br />
Table 4.3. Classification <strong>of</strong> sample farmers according to their l<strong>and</strong> holdings<br />
Sl.<br />
Farmer's type<br />
No.<br />
With farm-pond Without farm-pond<br />
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage<br />
1 Marginal (2 hectares) 15 33.33 18 40<br />
4 Total 45 100 45 100<br />
5 Average l<strong>and</strong><br />
holding (ha)<br />
1.73 1.77
On the other h<strong>and</strong>, nearly 18 <strong>and</strong> 11 per cent (Fig.5) <strong>of</strong> the farmers were marginal farmers in<br />
case <strong>of</strong> with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas, respectively, while the 33 per cent in with farmpond<br />
area <strong>and</strong> 40 per cent <strong>of</strong> farmers in without farm-pond area were large farmers.<br />
4.2 Extent <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> rwhs in the selected micro-watersheds<br />
For the present study Managundi <strong>and</strong> Tumarikoppa micro-watersheds were selected<br />
from Managundi <strong>and</strong> Galagi sub-watershed in Dharwad <strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi taluks <strong>of</strong> Dharwad<br />
district, respectively.<br />
The total numbers <strong>of</strong> beneficiaries (Table 4.4) <strong>of</strong> the project were 497 <strong>and</strong> 470 with<br />
total investment <strong>of</strong> Rs. 56.87 lakhs <strong>and</strong> Rs. 54.13 lakhs in Managundi <strong>and</strong> Tumari-koppa<br />
MWS respectively, in the study area. Among the identified RWHS, farm-ponds occupied<br />
major part <strong>of</strong> investment (47.60%) with 19.52 per cent (Fig.6) <strong>of</strong> beneficiaries followed by<br />
contour bunding (31.38% <strong>of</strong> investment) benefited to 60.76 per cent <strong>of</strong> total beneficiaries in<br />
Managundi MWS. While, in Tumari-koppa MWS, contour bunding occupied major part <strong>of</strong><br />
investment (52.77%) followed by farm ponds (37.16%) with 66.17 per cent <strong>and</strong> 17.23 per cent<br />
(Fig.7) proportion <strong>of</strong> beneficiaries respectively.<br />
Other structures, namely, check dams, diversion channel, rubble checks, percolation<br />
tanks <strong>and</strong> nalabunds <strong>and</strong> sunken ponds were found <strong>and</strong> together constituted to around 21.02<br />
per cent <strong>of</strong> total investment consisting 19.70 per cent <strong>of</strong> total number <strong>of</strong> beneficiaries in<br />
Managundi MWS. However, in Tumari-koppa MWS other structures viz., checkdams, rubble<br />
checks, nalabunds <strong>and</strong> diversion channel except sunken ponds <strong>and</strong> percolation tanks were<br />
found <strong>and</strong> constituted to the 10.07 per cent <strong>of</strong> investment with 16.6 per cent <strong>of</strong> beneficiaries<br />
under project.<br />
4.3 Cost <strong>of</strong> various rwhs<br />
Table 4.5 indicates the detail <strong>of</strong> the investments involved on RWHS by the project.<br />
Among the six structures, farm-ponds had covered majority (Fig.8) <strong>of</strong> the area (77.81 ha) next<br />
in order was contour bunding (47.85 ha) followed by diversion channel, nala bunding, Rubble<br />
checks, <strong>and</strong> sunken ponds, accounting for area <strong>of</strong> 13.44, 11.66, 5.10 <strong>and</strong> 1.78 hectares<br />
respectively. Among different RWHS, the investment per hectare made on farm-pond (Rs.<br />
14,573.96 /ha) was highest <strong>and</strong> the second most expensive treatment was sunken ponds (Rs.<br />
13,496.62/ha) followed by contour bunding (Rs. 3,854.54/ha), nala bunding (Rs. 3,679.24/ha),<br />
rubble checks (Rs. 1,764.70/ha) <strong>and</strong> diversion channel (Rs. 1,261.90/ha). Among all the<br />
RWHS, which were implemented in the project area, diversion channel required the lowest<br />
investments <strong>of</strong> Rs. 1,262 per hectare.<br />
4.4 Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds<br />
4.4.1 Cropping pattern<br />
The particulars <strong>of</strong> cropping pattern <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers <strong>of</strong> with <strong>and</strong> without farmpond<br />
area are presented for comparison in Table 4.6 indicates that the total cropped area<br />
was 110.04 ha <strong>and</strong> 89.96 ha in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas<br />
respectively.<br />
The total kharif area was 69.82 per cent (76.84 ha) in with farm-pond area <strong>and</strong> in<br />
without farm-pond area was 86.95 per cent (78.22 ha). There was no much change in<br />
cropping pattern as for as kharif crops were concerned, except in case <strong>of</strong> soybean (i.e.<br />
7.36%) as compared with(Fig.9) without farm-pond area (5.85%).<br />
However, the total rabi area in with FP area was relatively higher (30.18 per cent)<br />
than without farm-pond area (13.05 per cent). Rabi jowar <strong>and</strong> green gram (i.e. paddy followed<br />
by green gram) were prominent rabi crops with an area <strong>of</strong> 8.10 per cent <strong>and</strong> 22.08 per cent in<br />
case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area whereas in case <strong>of</strong> without farm-pond area it was hardly 2.70 per<br />
cent <strong>and</strong> 10.35 per cent respectively.<br />
4.4.2 Cropping intensity<br />
Table 4.7 indicates that, the cropping intensity was relatively higher (141.42 per cent)<br />
in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area (Fig.10) compared to without farm-pond (112.67 per cent)<br />
area. Although net cropped area in both cases was almost observed same <strong>and</strong> gross cropped<br />
area was more in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond compared to without farm-pond area.
Table 4.4. Extent <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> RWHS in selected micro-watersheds<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
Structures Physical<br />
achievement<br />
Managundi micro-watershed Tumari-koppa micro-watershed<br />
Total<br />
investment<br />
(Rs.)<br />
No. <strong>of</strong><br />
beneficiaries<br />
Physical<br />
achievement<br />
Total<br />
investment (Rs.)<br />
No. <strong>of</strong><br />
beneficiaries<br />
1 Farm-ponds (No) 97 27,07,316 97<br />
81 20,11,102 81<br />
(47.60) (19.52)<br />
(37.16) (17.23)<br />
2 Check dams (No) 8 7,22,477 8<br />
5 3,75,000 5<br />
(12.70) (1.61)<br />
(6.93)<br />
(1.06)<br />
3 Nala bunds (No) 3 66,000 3<br />
3 78,000 3<br />
(1.16) (0.60)<br />
(1.44)<br />
(0.64)<br />
4 Contour bunding 89268 17,84,489 302<br />
127331 28,56,383 311<br />
(mts)<br />
(31.38) (60.76)<br />
(52.77) (66.17)<br />
5 Rubble checks (No) 37 1,10,583 37<br />
14 81,200 14<br />
(1.94) (7.44)<br />
(1.50)<br />
(2.99)<br />
6 Sunken ponds (No.) 3 24,026 3<br />
0 - -<br />
(0.42) (0.60)<br />
7 Diversion channel 8639 1,72,437 45<br />
543 10,964 56<br />
(mts)<br />
(3.03) (9.05)<br />
(0.20)<br />
(11.91)<br />
8 Percolation tank 2 1,00,000 2<br />
0 - -<br />
(No)<br />
(1.77) (0.40)<br />
Total 56,87,328 497 54,12,649 470<br />
Figures in parentheses indicate percentages to total
Percentages<br />
100%<br />
80%<br />
60%<br />
40%<br />
20%<br />
0%<br />
33.33<br />
48.89<br />
17.78<br />
Large (>2 hactare)<br />
Small (1 to 2 hactare)<br />
Marginal (
Table 4.5. Investment on RWHS through watershed project<br />
Sl.<br />
No. Structure<br />
Average<br />
investment<br />
per farmer<br />
(Rs.)<br />
No. <strong>of</strong><br />
beneficiaries<br />
Total<br />
investment<br />
Area<br />
treated<br />
(hectares)<br />
Investment<br />
per hectare<br />
(Rs.)<br />
1 Farm-ponds (No.) 25,200 45 11,34,000 77.81 14573.96<br />
2 Contour bunding<br />
(mts)<br />
6,360 29 1,84,440 47.85 3854.54<br />
3 Diversion<br />
channel (mts)<br />
2,120 8 16,960 13.44 1261.90<br />
4 Rubble checks<br />
(No.)<br />
3,000 3 9,000 5.10 1764.70<br />
5 Sunken ponds<br />
(No.)<br />
8,008 3 24,024 1.78 13496.62<br />
6 Nala bunding<br />
(No.)<br />
21,450 2 42,900 11.66 3679.24<br />
Note: Data pertaining to sample farmers<br />
Table 4.6. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping pattern on sample farms<br />
(Area in hectares)<br />
Sl.<br />
No. Season/crop<br />
With farm-pond Without farm-pond<br />
Area<br />
Proportion<br />
(%)<br />
Area<br />
Proportion<br />
(%)<br />
I Kharif<br />
1 Paddy 31.42 28.55 28.02 31.15<br />
2 Cotton 22.27 20.23 18.62 20.70<br />
3 Jowar 6.07 5.52 7.69 8.55<br />
4 Maize 4.13 3.75 11.34 12.60<br />
5 Soybean 8.10 7.36 5.26 5.85<br />
6 Groundnut 4.85 4.41 7.29 8.10<br />
7 Fallow 0.97 - 1.62 -<br />
Total kharif cropped 76.84 69.82 78.22 86.95<br />
II Rabi<br />
1 Rabi jowar 8.91 8.10 2.43 2.70<br />
2 Green gram 24.29 22.08 9.31 10.35<br />
3 Fallow 44.61 - 68.10 -<br />
Total rabi cropped 33.20 30.18 11.74 13.05<br />
Gross cropped area 110.04 100 89.96 100<br />
Note: Percentages to gross cropped area
Percentages<br />
13496.62<br />
3679.24<br />
1764.7<br />
3854.54<br />
1261.9<br />
14573.96<br />
Contour bund<br />
Diverssion channel<br />
Farm-ponds<br />
Rubble checks<br />
Sunken ponds<br />
Nala bund<br />
Fig. 8. Investment on various RWHS (Rs. per ha)<br />
35<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
Paddy<br />
cotton<br />
Jowar<br />
Maize<br />
Soybean<br />
Crops<br />
With Farm Pond<br />
Without Farm Pond<br />
Groundnut<br />
Rabi Jowar<br />
Green gram<br />
Fig. 9. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping pattern<br />
Fig. 8. Investment <strong>of</strong> various RWHS (Rs. Per ha)<br />
Fig. 9. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping pattern
4.4.3 Productivity <strong>of</strong> major crops<br />
The productivities <strong>of</strong> eight major crops grown by sample farmers are presented in<br />
Table 4.8.<br />
The net crop yield in with farm-pond area over without farm-pond area was more<br />
(Fig.11) in case <strong>of</strong> maize (7.43 q/ha) followed by paddy (4.60 q/ha) <strong>and</strong> soybean (2.63 q/ha)<br />
with percentage change <strong>of</strong> 30.20, 22.74 <strong>and</strong> 20.04 respectively. The paddy was grown under<br />
rainfed condition in case <strong>of</strong> both with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas. The change in crop yield<br />
in other crops, namely groundnut was 2.41 q/ha (16.15%), cotton 2.07q/ha (20.95%), jowar<br />
2.15 q/ha (22.56%), rabi jowar 1.85 q/ha (i.e., 22.23%) <strong>and</strong> green gram 1.11 q/ha (41.20%)<br />
over without FP area.<br />
4.4.4 Comparison <strong>of</strong> Cost <strong>and</strong> returns structure <strong>of</strong> major crops<br />
The per hectare cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation for the important crops grown by sample farmers<br />
in with farm-pond <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond area were computed <strong>and</strong> presented as under.<br />
Cost <strong>and</strong> returns pr<strong>of</strong>ile paddy <strong>and</strong> jowar crops<br />
The details regarding costs, returns <strong>and</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>its <strong>of</strong> paddy <strong>and</strong> jowar crops presented in<br />
Table 4.9 <strong>and</strong> indicate that the cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation for paddy (Rs. 15,540.96) <strong>and</strong> jowar (Rs.<br />
10,221.72) was more in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area as compared to without farm-pond area<br />
(Rs. 14,462.34 <strong>and</strong> Rs. 8,673.15, respectively). The gross returns were also more in both<br />
paddy (Rs. 20,899.26) <strong>and</strong> jowar (Rs. 11,584.30) in with farm-pond area as compared to<br />
without farm-pond (Rs. 17,121.05 <strong>and</strong> Rs. 9,131.59, respectively) area.<br />
The farm business income, farm labour income <strong>and</strong> net income <strong>of</strong> paddy <strong>and</strong> jowar<br />
was more in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area (Rs.10, 122.36, 7,244.09 <strong>and</strong> 5,358.30 <strong>of</strong> paddy <strong>and</strong><br />
Rs.5, 380.50, 2,502.24 <strong>and</strong> 1,362.58 <strong>of</strong> jowar, respectively) as compared to without farmpond<br />
area.<br />
The B: C ratio for paddy <strong>and</strong> jowar was relatively high (1.34 <strong>and</strong> 1.13) in with farmpond<br />
area as compared to without farm-pond (1.18 <strong>and</strong> 1.05, respectively) area. The overall<br />
change in net returns from paddy <strong>and</strong> jowar was Rs. 2,699.58 <strong>and</strong> Rs. 904.14 respectively in<br />
with farm-pond area over without farm-pond area.<br />
Cost <strong>and</strong> returns structure <strong>of</strong> soybean <strong>and</strong> maize crops<br />
Table 4.10 indicates that both in case <strong>of</strong> soybean <strong>and</strong> maize cost C (Rs. 14,439.89<br />
<strong>and</strong> 14,693.90, respectively), gross returns (Rs. 18,839.35 <strong>and</strong> 20,186.74, respectively), net<br />
income (Rs. 4,399.46 <strong>and</strong> Rs. 5,492.84, respectively) were more in with farm-pond area as<br />
compared to without farm-pond area. The B: C ratio was also more both in soybean <strong>and</strong><br />
maize (1.30 <strong>and</strong> 1.37, respectively) in with farm-pond compared to without farm-pond (1.18<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1.14 respectively) area. The change in net returns over without farm-pond area in<br />
soybean <strong>and</strong> maize were Rs. 1,974.10 <strong>and</strong> Rs. 3,564.60, respectively, in with farm-pond<br />
area.<br />
Cost <strong>and</strong> returns structure <strong>of</strong> cotton <strong>and</strong> groundnut<br />
The per ha cost <strong>and</strong> returns pr<strong>of</strong>ile for cotton <strong>and</strong> groundnut crops are presented in<br />
the Table 4.11 shows that Cost A, Cost B <strong>and</strong> Cost C <strong>of</strong> cotton <strong>and</strong> groundnut were high in<br />
case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area (Rs.16, 279.81, 19,158.08 <strong>and</strong> 21,531.60 <strong>of</strong> cotton <strong>and</strong> Rs.13,<br />
611.71, 16,489.98 <strong>and</strong> 18,012.79 <strong>of</strong> groundnut, respectively) over without farm-pond area.<br />
The farm business income, farm labour income <strong>and</strong> net income <strong>of</strong> cotton <strong>and</strong><br />
groundnut were more in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area (Rs.14, 702.85, 11,824.58 <strong>and</strong> 9,451.06<br />
<strong>of</strong> cotton <strong>and</strong> Rs.12, 477.64, 9,599.37 <strong>and</strong> 8,076.56 <strong>of</strong> groundnut, respectively) as compared<br />
to without farm-pond area.<br />
The change in net returns over without FP in with FP area for cotton <strong>and</strong> groundnut<br />
was Rs. 3,865.79 <strong>and</strong> Rs. 1,424.81 respectively. The B: C ratio was relatively high in both<br />
cotton <strong>and</strong> groundnut in with farm-pond (1.43 <strong>and</strong> 1.44, respectively) area compared to<br />
without farm-pond (1.27 <strong>and</strong> 1.39, respectively) area.<br />
Cost <strong>and</strong> returns structure <strong>of</strong> rabi jowar <strong>and</strong> green gram<br />
Table 4.12 reveals that the Per ha Cost C <strong>and</strong> gross returns <strong>of</strong> rabi jowar <strong>and</strong> green<br />
gram (i.e paddy followed by green gram) were higher in with farm-pond (Rs. 10,119.88 <strong>and</strong><br />
14,109.85 <strong>and</strong> Rs. 6,503.70 <strong>and</strong> 8,964.42, respectively) area compared to without farm-pond<br />
(Rs. 8,755.53 <strong>and</strong> 11,454.62 <strong>and</strong> Rs. 5,970.50 <strong>and</strong> 7,836.59, respectively) area. The overall<br />
change in net returns from rabi jowar <strong>and</strong> green gram was Rs. 1,290.88 <strong>and</strong> 594.63
Table 4.7. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping intensity on sample farms<br />
Particulars With farm-pond Without farm-pond<br />
Gross cropped area<br />
(hectares)<br />
110.04 89.96<br />
Net cropped area (hectares) 77.81 79.84<br />
Cropping intensity (%) 141.42 112.67<br />
Table 4.8. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on productivities <strong>of</strong> major crops<br />
q/hectare<br />
Crops With farm-pond Without farm-<br />
pond<br />
Change in crop yield over<br />
without farm pond area<br />
Paddy 24.82 20.22 4.60 (22.74)<br />
Cotton 11.95 9.88 2.07 (20.95)<br />
Jowar 11.68 9.53 2.15 (22.56)<br />
Maize 32.03 24.60 7.43 (30.20)<br />
Soybean 15.75 13.12 2.63 (20.04)<br />
Ground nut 17.33 14.92 2.41 (16.15)<br />
Rabi jowar 10.17 8.32 1.85 (22.23)<br />
Green gram 3.80 2.69 1.11 (41.26)<br />
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage increase over without farm-pond area
Area (ha)<br />
Yield (q/ha)<br />
160<br />
140<br />
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
110.04<br />
89.96<br />
Gross cropped<br />
area (hectares)<br />
With farm-pond<br />
Without farm-pond<br />
77.81<br />
79.84<br />
Net cropped area<br />
(hectares)<br />
Crop cultivation practices<br />
141.42<br />
112.67<br />
Cropping intensity<br />
(%)<br />
Fig. 10. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping intensity<br />
35<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
Paddy<br />
24.82<br />
20.22<br />
Cotton<br />
11.95<br />
9.88<br />
Jowar<br />
11.68<br />
9.53<br />
Maize<br />
32.03<br />
24.6<br />
15.75<br />
Soybean<br />
13.12<br />
Ground nut<br />
Name <strong>of</strong> the crop<br />
With farm-pond area<br />
Without farm-pond area<br />
17.33<br />
14.92<br />
Rabi jowar<br />
10.17<br />
8.32<br />
Green gram<br />
Fig. 11. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on crop yields<br />
Fig. 10. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping intensity<br />
Fig. 11. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on crop yields<br />
3.8<br />
2.69
Table 4.9. Cost <strong>and</strong> returns pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> paddy <strong>and</strong> jowar<br />
(Rs. per ha)<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
Item<br />
Paddy<br />
With farmpond<br />
Without<br />
farm-pond<br />
Jowar<br />
With farmpond<br />
Without<br />
farm-pond<br />
1 Cost A 10776.90 10068.55 6203.80 4791.92<br />
2 Cost B 13655.17 12817.70 9082.06 7541.08<br />
3 Cost C 15540.96 14462.34 10221.72 8673.15<br />
4 Gross returns 20899.26 17121.05 11584.30 9131.59<br />
5 Farm business income 10122.36<br />
(pr<strong>of</strong>it at cost ‘A’)<br />
7052.5 5380.50 4339.67<br />
6 Farm labour income<br />
(pr<strong>of</strong>it at cost ‘B’)<br />
7244.09 4303.35 2502.24 1590.51<br />
7 Net income (pr<strong>of</strong>it at<br />
cost ‘C’)<br />
5358.30 2658.71 1362.58 458.44<br />
8 B:C ratio 1.34 1.18 1.13 1.05<br />
9 Change in net returns 2699.58 904.14
Table 4.10. Cost <strong>and</strong> returns pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> soybean <strong>and</strong> maize in with <strong>and</strong> without<br />
farm-pond areas<br />
(Rs. per ha)<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
Item<br />
Soybean<br />
With farmpond<br />
Without<br />
farm-pond<br />
Maize<br />
With farmpond<br />
Without<br />
farm-pond<br />
1 Cost A 10018.44 9315.38 10276.70 8841.31<br />
2 Cost B 12896.70 12064.54 13154.97 11590.47<br />
3 Cost C 14439.89 13405.06 14693.90 12954.58<br />
4 Gross returns 18839.35 15830.43 20186.74 14882.81<br />
5 Farm business income 8820.91<br />
(pr<strong>of</strong>it at cost ‘A’)<br />
6515.05 9910.04 6041.5<br />
6 Farm labour income<br />
(pr<strong>of</strong>it at cost ‘B’)<br />
5942.65 3765.89 7031.77 3292.34<br />
7 Net income (pr<strong>of</strong>it at<br />
cost ‘C’)<br />
4399.46 2425.36 5492.84 1928.23<br />
8 B:C ratio 1.30 1.18 1.37 1.14<br />
9 Change in net returns 1974.10 3564.60<br />
Table 4.11. Comparison <strong>of</strong> cost <strong>and</strong> returns pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> cotton <strong>and</strong> groundnut<br />
(Rs. per ha)<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
Item<br />
Cotton<br />
With farmpond<br />
Without<br />
farm-pond<br />
Groundnut<br />
With farm- Without<br />
pond farm-pond<br />
1 Cost A 16279.81 15601.16 13611.71 12690.98<br />
2 Cost B 19158.08 18350.32 16489.98 15440.13<br />
3 Cost C 21531.60 20673.30 18012.79 16869.36<br />
4 Gross returns 30982.66 26258.57 26089.35 23521.12<br />
5 Farm business income 14702.85<br />
(pr<strong>of</strong>it at cost ‘A’)<br />
10657.41 12477.64 10830.14<br />
6 Farm labour income<br />
(pr<strong>of</strong>it at cost ‘B’)<br />
11824.58 7908.25 9599.37 8080.99<br />
7 Net income (pr<strong>of</strong>it at<br />
cost ‘C’)<br />
9451.06 5585.27 8076.56 6651.75<br />
8 B:C ratio 1.43 1.27 1.44 1.39<br />
9 Change in net returns 3865.79 1424.81
espectively in with farm-pond area over without farm-pond area. The B:C ratio was found to<br />
1.39 <strong>and</strong> 1.30 ,respectively in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond area for rabi<br />
jowar <strong>and</strong> corresponding B:C ratio for green gram was 1.37 <strong>and</strong> 1.31.<br />
4.4.5 Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on income level<br />
The details <strong>of</strong> the average net income household <strong>of</strong> both with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond<br />
areas are presented in the Table 4.13.<br />
The extent <strong>of</strong> income generated in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area (Rs. 16,748.85) was<br />
higher by 48.21 per cent than that <strong>of</strong> without farm-pond area (Rs. 11,300.65). So also the<br />
income generated in case <strong>of</strong> sample farmers <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area in agriculture sector<br />
(Fig.13) was Rs. 12,887.09, horticulture was Rs. 911.03, animal husb<strong>and</strong>ry <strong>of</strong> Rs. 1,880.32<br />
compared to without farm-pond area (Rs. 6,427.85, Rs. 876.66 <strong>and</strong> Rs. 1,692.26,<br />
respectively). However, in case <strong>of</strong> labour the income generated was more (Rs. 1,955.2) in<br />
without farm-pond area than that <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond (Rs. 643.2) area. The income generated<br />
from other source in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area is more (Rs. 427.21) than that <strong>of</strong> without<br />
farm-pond area.<br />
4.4.6 Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on employment generation (in man days)<br />
The employment levels <strong>of</strong> the farmers in with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas are<br />
presented in the Table 4.14. The total employment days were conveniently divided in to four<br />
groups viz., agriculture, animal husb<strong>and</strong>ry, labour <strong>and</strong> others (business <strong>and</strong> service). The<br />
total employment generated in with farm-pond area (343.33 m<strong>and</strong>ays) was higher (4.08%)<br />
than that <strong>of</strong> without farm-pond area (329.85 m<strong>and</strong>ays). The employment generated from<br />
agriculture sector was more (6.86%) in with farm-pond area than without farm-pond area<br />
(268.89 m<strong>and</strong>ays).<br />
4.5 Financial feasibility <strong>of</strong> investment in farm-ponds<br />
To evaluate the financial feasibility <strong>of</strong> investment in farm-ponds, the criteria such as<br />
Net Present Worth (NPW). Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), Pay Back Period (PBP) <strong>and</strong> Internal<br />
Rate <strong>and</strong> Return (IRR) were employed <strong>and</strong> the results are presented in Table 4.15.<br />
The net present worth <strong>of</strong> investment on farm-ponds was Rs. 51,719.86 with 8.5 per<br />
cent discount rate as this rate represents prevailing bank rate. While the Benefit Cost ratio<br />
was 3.05. The pay back period was found hardly 1.54 years. The internal rate <strong>of</strong> return was<br />
51.48 per cent. It could be revealed that the net present worth was positive, B: C ratio was<br />
more than unity <strong>and</strong> internal rate <strong>of</strong> return was more than that <strong>of</strong> referenced bank rate <strong>and</strong> all<br />
indicated that the investment in farm-ponds was financially found more feasible.<br />
4.6 Farmers perception <strong>and</strong> constraints towards rwhs<br />
4.6.1 Farmers perception about benefits RWHS<br />
Table 4.16 indicates that majority <strong>of</strong> the farmers expressed that the RWHS under<br />
watershed technology is highly beneficial in the form <strong>of</strong> increased moisture availability (60%).<br />
The next best benefit, as perceived by the farmers was increased income (55.56%).<br />
Increased yield was found to be third important benefit (53.33%) as opined by the farmers,<br />
followed by reduced soil erosion (51.11%). Increased employment (46.67%), maintenance <strong>of</strong><br />
common assets (44.45%) <strong>and</strong> increased ground water recharge (42.22%) were other benefits<br />
<strong>of</strong> RWHS as perceived by the farmers.<br />
4.6.2 Reasons for non-adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS<br />
The reasons expressed by the farmers for the non-adoption <strong>of</strong> Rain Water Harvesting<br />
Structures (RWHS) presented in table 4.17 <strong>and</strong> indicate that lack <strong>of</strong> credit availability was<br />
severe constraint (64.44%) followed by heavy investment (51.11%), fragmented l<strong>and</strong> holdings<br />
(46.67%) <strong>and</strong> long gestation period (40%). Poor soil fertility (37.77%), improper extension<br />
service (31.11%), high labour rates (28.89%) were the other problems faced by farmers.<br />
Whereas non-suitability <strong>of</strong> technology (4.44%) <strong>and</strong> not aware <strong>of</strong> technology (8.89%) were not<br />
major problems as opined by the farmers.
Table 4.12. Cost <strong>and</strong> returns pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> Rabi jowar <strong>and</strong> green gram in with <strong>and</strong><br />
without farm-pond areas<br />
(Rs. per ha)<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
Item<br />
Rabi jowar<br />
With farmpond<br />
Without<br />
farm-pond<br />
Green gram<br />
With farm- Without<br />
pond farm-pond<br />
1 Cost A 6032.35 4904.13 2995.34 2634.74<br />
2 Cost B 8910.62 7653.28 5873.61 5383.90<br />
3 Cost C 10119.88 8755.53 6503.70 5970.50<br />
4 Gross returns 14109.85 11454.62 8964.42 7836.59<br />
5 Farm business income 8077.50<br />
(pr<strong>of</strong>it at cost ‘A’)<br />
6550.49 5969.08 5201.85<br />
6 Farm labour income<br />
(pr<strong>of</strong>it at cost ‘B’)<br />
5199.23 3801.34 3090.81 2452.69<br />
7 Net income (pr<strong>of</strong>it at<br />
cost ‘C’)<br />
3989.97 2699.09 2460.72 1866.09<br />
8 B:C ratio 1.39 1.30 1.37 1.31<br />
9 Change in net returns 1290.88 594.63<br />
Table 4.13. Comparison <strong>of</strong> average net incomes from different sources <strong>of</strong> the<br />
sample farmers<br />
(Rs./ household)<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
Source With farm-pond Without farm-pond<br />
1 Agriculture 12,887.09 6,427.85<br />
2 Horticulture 911.03 876.66<br />
3 Animal husb<strong>and</strong>ry 1,880.32 1,692.26<br />
4 Labour 643.20 1,955.20<br />
5 Others 427.21 348.68<br />
6 Total average net<br />
income<br />
16,748.85 11,300.65<br />
7 Percentage change 48.21
Amount (Rs./ha)<br />
Amount (Rs./ha)<br />
10000<br />
9000<br />
8000<br />
7000<br />
6000<br />
5000<br />
4000<br />
3000<br />
2000<br />
1000<br />
0<br />
5358<br />
Paddy<br />
2659<br />
1363<br />
458<br />
4399<br />
2425<br />
5493<br />
1928<br />
9451<br />
5585<br />
With Farm Pond<br />
Without Farm Pond<br />
8077<br />
6652<br />
3989.97<br />
2699.09<br />
Jowar<br />
Soyabean<br />
Maize<br />
Cotton<br />
Groundnut<br />
Rabi Jowar<br />
Green gram<br />
Name <strong>of</strong> the crop<br />
Fig. 12. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on net income<br />
14000<br />
12000<br />
10000<br />
8000<br />
6000<br />
4000<br />
2000<br />
0<br />
12887.09<br />
Agriculture<br />
6427.85<br />
911.03<br />
Horticulture<br />
876.66<br />
1880.32<br />
Animal husb<strong>and</strong>ry<br />
1692.26<br />
Labour<br />
Name <strong>of</strong> the sector<br />
643.2<br />
1955.2<br />
427.21<br />
Others<br />
2461<br />
348.68<br />
1866<br />
With farm-pond<br />
Without farm-pond<br />
Fig. 13. Average net income generation from different sectors<br />
Fig. 12. Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on net income<br />
Fig. 13. Average net income generation from different sectors
Table 4.14. Employment levels in different sources <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers in<br />
with farm-pond <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas<br />
(man days/house hold)<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
Source With farm-pond Without farm-pond<br />
1 Agriculture 287.34 268.89<br />
2 Animal husb<strong>and</strong>ry 27.38 16.53<br />
3 Labour 18.08 37.60<br />
4 Others 10.53 6.83<br />
5 Total employment 343.33 329.85<br />
6 Percentage change 4.08<br />
Table 4.15. Financial feasibility <strong>of</strong> investment in farm-ponds<br />
Net present value (Rs.) 51719.86<br />
Pay back period (years) 1.54<br />
Benefit: cost ratio 3.05<br />
Internal rate <strong>of</strong> return (%) 51.48<br />
Table 4.16 Farmers perception about the benefits <strong>of</strong> the RWHS<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
(n=45)<br />
Perception about RWHS<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> respondents Percentage<br />
Benefits<br />
H M L H M L<br />
1. Reduced soil erosion 23 18 4 51.11 40.00 8.89<br />
2. Maintenance <strong>of</strong> common<br />
assets<br />
20 19 6 44.45 42.22 13.33<br />
3. Increased moisture<br />
availability<br />
27 16 2 60.00 35.56 4.44<br />
4. Increased ground water<br />
recharge<br />
19 17 9 42.22 37.78 20.00<br />
5. Increased yield 24 17 4 53.33 37.78 8.89<br />
6. Increased employment 21 19 5 46.67 42.22 11.11<br />
7. Increased income 25 17 3 55.56 37.78 6.66<br />
Note: H = Higher, M = Moderate, L = Lower
Table 4.17 Constraints for non-adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS<br />
(n=45)<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
Non-adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> respondents Percentage<br />
Constraints<br />
S MS NS S MS NS<br />
1. Not aware <strong>of</strong> technology 4 19 22 8.89 42.22 48.89<br />
2. Technology not suitable 2 16 27 4.44 35.56 60.00<br />
3. Heavy investment 23 12 10 51.11 26.67 22.22<br />
4. Lack <strong>of</strong> credit availability 29 12 4 64.44 26.67 8.89<br />
5. Poor soil fertility 17 12 16 37.77 26.67 35.56<br />
6. Fragmented l<strong>and</strong> holdings 21 15 9 46.67 33.33 20.00<br />
7. High labour rates 13 13 19 28.89 28.89 42.22<br />
8. Improper extension<br />
service<br />
14 13 18 31.11 28.89 40.00<br />
9. Long gestation period 18 12 15 40.00 26.67 33.33<br />
Note: S = Severe, MS = Moderately severe, NS = Not severe
V. DISCUSSION<br />
The results <strong>of</strong> the study presented in the previous chapter have been discussed in<br />
this chapter with cross references done under review <strong>of</strong> literature, to highlight the major<br />
trends observed <strong>and</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the reasons responsible for the findings have been discussed<br />
under the following headings.<br />
5.1 Socio-economic characteristics <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers<br />
The impact assessment <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds will be easily facilitated if the socio-economic<br />
indicators <strong>of</strong> the selected sample farmers <strong>of</strong> with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas are<br />
homogenous. If there is heterogeneity, the information on the differences that exists help in<br />
drawing meaningful interpretations from the results. With this view the socio-economic<br />
characteristics <strong>of</strong> the sample farmers are analysed <strong>and</strong> discussed here under with detailed<br />
perspectives.<br />
5.1.1 Age <strong>and</strong> education status<br />
The average age <strong>of</strong> farmers <strong>of</strong> the both with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond (Table 4.1) area<br />
was around fifty years (53.44 <strong>and</strong> 50.11 years, respectively). As regards to education level <strong>of</strong><br />
sample farmers, the percentage <strong>of</strong> illiterates was lower in the case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area<br />
(26.61%) compared to without farm-pond area (46.67%).<br />
The primary education level was more in (Fig.4) with farm-pond (66.66%) area as<br />
compared to without farm-pond area (44.44%). The secondary school education was exactly<br />
<strong>of</strong> same proportion (6.67%) by farmers <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas. Thus,<br />
it could be inferred that about 73 per cent <strong>of</strong> farmers in farm-pond area were literates,<br />
whereas only about 53 per cent <strong>of</strong> farmers in without farm-pond area.<br />
5.1.2 Family type <strong>and</strong> size<br />
More than 75 per cent <strong>of</strong> the families were nuclear type families in both the cases <strong>of</strong><br />
with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas <strong>and</strong> hardly 24 per cent <strong>and</strong> 18 per cent <strong>of</strong> the farmers<br />
belonged to joint family type in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond (Table 4.2)<br />
areas, respectively. The average family size was almost same between the areas (8.04 <strong>and</strong><br />
7.71), which were not confirmed to norms specified as ideal size <strong>of</strong> the family.<br />
5.1.3 L<strong>and</strong> holding <strong>and</strong> its classification among the sample farmers<br />
Majority <strong>of</strong> the farmers belonged to (Table 4.3) small farmer’s category with exactly<br />
equal proportion (Fig.5) <strong>of</strong> 48.89 per cent in both with farm-pond <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond<br />
areas. Followed by large farmers <strong>of</strong> 33.33 per cent <strong>and</strong> 40 per cent in with farm-pond <strong>and</strong><br />
without farm-pond areas respectively. The average l<strong>and</strong> holding observed was almost same<br />
(1.73 ha <strong>and</strong> 1.77 ha) in both areas, respectively.<br />
Whereas marginal farmers were <strong>of</strong> smaller proportion in both with farm-pond<br />
(17.78%) <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond (11.11%) area.<br />
5.2 Extent <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> rwhs in the selected micro-watershed<br />
Table 4.4 reveals that the total number <strong>of</strong> beneficiaries under the project were 497<br />
<strong>and</strong> 470 with almost equal total investment <strong>of</strong> Rs. 56.87 lakhs <strong>and</strong> Rs. 54.13 lakhs in the<br />
selected Managundi <strong>and</strong> Tumari-koppa MWS respectively. By considering different harvesting<br />
structures in the study area major part <strong>of</strong> investment was on farm-ponds (47.60%) followed by<br />
contour bunding (31.38%) in Managundi MWS. Where as in Tumari-koppa MWS high<br />
investment was made on contour bunding (52.77%) followed by farm-ponds (37.16%).<br />
The analysis <strong>of</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> any practice in the study area helps in proper<br />
designing <strong>of</strong> sample farmers. In both Managundi <strong>and</strong> Tumari-koppa MWS, the number <strong>of</strong><br />
beneficiaries (Fig.6 <strong>and</strong> 7) was more in adoption <strong>of</strong> contour bunding (60.76% <strong>and</strong> 66.17%)<br />
followed by farm ponds (19.52% <strong>and</strong> 17.23%, respectively).<br />
5.3 Cost involved in various rwhs<br />
It is generally felt by the farmers that the rain water harvesting structures need heavy<br />
investment <strong>and</strong> the returns are spread over few years. The investment was highest (Rs.<br />
14,573.96/ha) for farm-pond (Fig.8) as compared to other structures. A note worthy feature <strong>of</strong>
farm-pond in the study region was that they provided irrigation to crops at critical stages.<br />
Similar advantages <strong>of</strong> farm-pond was also reported by Naik, (2000).<br />
A sunken pond is another expensive water harvesting structure (Rs, 13,496.6) among<br />
farmers <strong>of</strong> the study area. In case <strong>of</strong> contour bunding (Rs. 3,854.54/ha) <strong>and</strong> Nala bunding<br />
(Rs. 3,679.24/ha) the investment was quite high <strong>and</strong> almost similar. Rubble checks <strong>and</strong><br />
diversion channel are other most important water harvesting structures, which need moderate<br />
investment <strong>of</strong> Rs. 1,764.70/ha <strong>and</strong> Rs. 1,261.90/ha, respectively.<br />
5.4 Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds<br />
5.4.1 Cropping pattern<br />
A critical observation <strong>of</strong> cropping pattern (Table 4.6) reveals that the gross cropped<br />
area increased by 22.32 per cent in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area over without farm-pond area<br />
<strong>and</strong> as for as kharif crops were concerned, there was no much change in cropping pattern<br />
between with farm-pond <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas.<br />
However, the total rabi area was (Fig.9) relatively more (30.18%) in with farm-pond<br />
area than without farm-pond (13.05%) area. The area under rabi jowar <strong>and</strong> green gram in<br />
with farm-pond area (8.10% <strong>and</strong> 22.08% respectively) was higher as compared to the without<br />
farm-pond (2.70% <strong>and</strong> 10.35%, respectively) area. The improved soil moisture condition due<br />
to farm-ponds undertaken in watershed area has resulted in increased area under the above<br />
crops.<br />
The results were in confirmity with the findings <strong>of</strong> Srivatsava et al. (1991) <strong>and</strong><br />
reported that the gross cropped area increased by 38.31 per cent <strong>and</strong> watershed helps<br />
farmers to bring more area under rabi crops. Moreover, the availability <strong>of</strong> water from water<br />
harvesting structures had resulted in diversification <strong>of</strong> the cropping pattern with the<br />
substitution <strong>of</strong> more pr<strong>of</strong>itable crops.<br />
5.4.2 Cropping intensity<br />
It is evident from Table 4.7 that the gross cropped area was more in case <strong>of</strong> with<br />
farm-pond (110.04 ha) area compared to without farm-pond (89.96 ha) area. The area under<br />
double cropping (30.18%) was also increased in with farm-pond area as compared to without<br />
farm-pond (13.05%) area mainly because <strong>of</strong> better conservation <strong>of</strong> residual moisture in the<br />
rabi season due to construction <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds. As a result, cropping intensity enhanced<br />
(141.42%) in case (Fig.10) <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area.<br />
The results gain support from the study conducted by Phadnawis et al. (1990),<br />
Jahagirdar (1991), Neema et al. (1991), Singh (1990) <strong>and</strong> others who observed that the<br />
adoption <strong>of</strong> in situ moisture conservation techniques had resulted in decline <strong>of</strong> the area under<br />
waste l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> helps in increased the cropping intensity. Therefore, in order to bring fallow<br />
l<strong>and</strong> under cultivation <strong>and</strong> to increase cropping intensity farmers need to be encouraged to<br />
follow the adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS under watershed technology.<br />
5.4.3 Productivities <strong>of</strong> major crops<br />
The results presented in Table 4.8 revealed better idea about the differences in crop<br />
productivities <strong>of</strong> all crops <strong>of</strong> with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond areas by virtue <strong>of</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong><br />
farm-ponds. In could be inferred that percentage increase <strong>of</strong> crop productivity obtained by the<br />
farmers was considerably higher over without farm-pond area.<br />
The change in crop yield over without farm-pond area was noticed (Fig.11) more in<br />
case <strong>of</strong> maize (7.43 q/ha) followed by paddy (4.60 q/ha) indicated that paddy <strong>and</strong> maize were<br />
highly responsible for water <strong>and</strong> overall change in crop yield was vary from 16 per cent to 41<br />
per cent.<br />
The reason that could be attributed to this phenomenon is availability <strong>of</strong> water as a<br />
protective irrigation at critical stages <strong>of</strong> crop production from the farm-ponds. As a result <strong>of</strong><br />
farm-pond treatment in the watershed area, there was additional storage <strong>of</strong> moisture in the<br />
soil pr<strong>of</strong>ile due to this factor production <strong>and</strong> productivity have increased considerably in case<br />
<strong>of</strong> with farm-pond region.<br />
The result was in confirmity with the findings <strong>of</strong> Singh (1990), Ch<strong>and</strong>regouda <strong>and</strong><br />
Jayaramaiah (1990) <strong>and</strong> reported that due to increased soil moisture <strong>and</strong> increased area<br />
under kharif <strong>and</strong> rabi that positively lead to increase in the crop yields.<br />
5.4.4 Cost <strong>and</strong> returns pr<strong>of</strong>ile for different crops
A critical observation <strong>of</strong> cost <strong>and</strong> returns structure (Table 4.9 to 4.12) revealed that<br />
the cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation was higher in all crops in with farm-pond area over without farm-pond<br />
area because <strong>of</strong> higher levels <strong>of</strong> input usage. However, returns also increased in case <strong>of</strong> with<br />
FP area in all crops over without FP area due to increased production as well as better price.<br />
The change in net returns was (Fig.12) varied from Rs. 594.63 (green gram) to Rs. 3,865.79<br />
(cotton). So overall change in net returns from all crops due to farm-ponds was Rs.<br />
16,318.53/ha.<br />
The above findings was supported with the study conducted by Naidu (2001) noticed<br />
that water harvesting structures showed a rise in groundwater level <strong>and</strong> hence increase in the<br />
double cropped area <strong>and</strong> net returns were varying from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000 per ha.<br />
5.4.5 Impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on levels <strong>of</strong> income <strong>and</strong> employment<br />
The per household average net income generated was revealed by Table 4.13<br />
depicts that average net income generated in with farm-pond area (Rs. 16,748.85) was found<br />
to be relatively higher than that <strong>of</strong> without farm-pond area (Rs. 11,300.65). In percentage<br />
terms, the corresponding increase <strong>of</strong> income was 48.21 per cent. The definite positive change<br />
in yield levels <strong>of</strong> all crops, employment as well as addition income generated from all crops or<br />
animal husb<strong>and</strong>ry brought about by effective implementation <strong>of</strong> farm ponds had given<br />
opportunity to increase the income <strong>of</strong> the farmers.<br />
Similar results were noticed by Kumar <strong>and</strong> Dhawan (1992) <strong>and</strong> observed that the<br />
overall change in income in the watershed area due to harvesting structures was 49.13 per<br />
cent.<br />
A glance on Table 4.14 provides an increase in man-days per household in with farmpond<br />
area (343.33) over without farm-pond area (329.85) with a percentage increase <strong>of</strong> 4.08<br />
per cent. From different sources <strong>of</strong> employment agriculture followed by animal husb<strong>and</strong>ry<br />
generated more number <strong>of</strong> man days in with farm-pond area.<br />
The improved crop management practices <strong>and</strong> operations have resulted in the change <strong>of</strong><br />
cropping pattern <strong>and</strong> cropping intensity <strong>and</strong> this contributed for providing additional<br />
employment among farmers.<br />
In addition to this, in <strong>of</strong>f-season, other sources <strong>of</strong> employment that included the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds, there was an involvement <strong>of</strong> more labours that provides more<br />
employment opportunities in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area.<br />
5.5 Financial feasibility <strong>of</strong> investment in farm-ponds<br />
The investment in farm-ponds was evaluated by using various investment or project<br />
evaluation techniques viz., pay back period, benefit: cost ratio, net present worth <strong>and</strong> internal<br />
rate <strong>of</strong> returns. The economic life <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds was assumed to be 10 years. Cash flows<br />
were discounted at 8.5 per cent discount rate as this rate represents prevailing bank rate. The<br />
pay back period was very low <strong>and</strong> the investment could be recovered in one <strong>and</strong> half years.<br />
The B: C ratio was 3.05, which is more than unity, <strong>and</strong> NPV was Rs. 51,719.86 <strong>and</strong> was<br />
found positive. The result showed that the investment in farm-ponds was economically viable<br />
the internal rate <strong>of</strong> return was high as 51.48 per cent which is so high <strong>and</strong> indicated the<br />
investment in farm-ponds was financially feasible.<br />
The pay back period, B: C ratio <strong>and</strong> net present worth results were in line with the<br />
study conducted by Palanisami (1991), Naik (2000) <strong>and</strong> IRR result was gain support from<br />
study conducted by Selvarajan et al. (1984) <strong>and</strong> reported that the investment in farm-ponds<br />
was found economically more feasible as evidenced by high internal rate <strong>of</strong> returns (IRR).<br />
5.6 Farmers perception <strong>and</strong> constraints towards rwhs<br />
All the 90 sample farmers <strong>of</strong> with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond area were asked to list their<br />
perceived benefits <strong>and</strong> constraints in adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS.<br />
All the 45 farmers <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond had opined that the RWHS were beneficial<br />
(Table 4.16) because <strong>of</strong> realization <strong>of</strong> increased moisture availability (60%), increased income<br />
(55.56%), increased yield (53.33%) <strong>and</strong> reduced soil erosion (51.11%) followed by additional<br />
employment (46.67%). Maintenance <strong>of</strong> common assets <strong>and</strong> increased ground water recharge<br />
were other benefits indicated by the farmers.<br />
The main objective <strong>of</strong> the watershed development project is to improve <strong>and</strong> conserve<br />
the soil <strong>and</strong> water for efficient <strong>and</strong> sustained production <strong>and</strong> productivity <strong>of</strong> agriculture l<strong>and</strong> or<br />
to improve the status <strong>of</strong> natural resource base in the project area. Due to adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS
(especially farm ponds) there was an increased in crop yields <strong>and</strong> employment in case <strong>of</strong> with<br />
farm-pond area <strong>and</strong> thus resulted in increased income <strong>of</strong> the farmers.<br />
The adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS also have resulted in reduction <strong>of</strong> soil erosion <strong>and</strong> increased<br />
moisture conservation although marginally which led to recharge <strong>of</strong> ground water <strong>and</strong> helped<br />
in maintaining common assets <strong>of</strong> environment. Similar findings were also reported by Nirmala<br />
(2003).<br />
Thus majority <strong>of</strong> the farmers felt that the RWHS are beneficial <strong>and</strong> therefore needs to<br />
be encouraged to adopt these technologies in rainfed areas.<br />
The major constraints as opined by the farmers in adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS (Table 4.17)<br />
were lack <strong>of</strong> credit availability (64.44%), heavy investment (51.11%), fragmented l<strong>and</strong><br />
holdings (46.67%) <strong>and</strong> long gestation period (40%). Poor soil fertility, improper extension<br />
service, high labour rates are other reasons for non-adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS.<br />
Krishnappa et al. (1998), Naik (2002), Nirmala (2003) were also reported similar<br />
findings <strong>and</strong> reported that major reasons for non-adoption <strong>of</strong> practices were, lack <strong>of</strong> capital,<br />
technical know-how, size <strong>of</strong> holding, input availability, high interest rates, heavy investments,<br />
inadequate extension services <strong>and</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong>.<br />
There is need to educate the farmers with suitable extension activities on the benefits<br />
<strong>of</strong> RWHS in the long run. Development <strong>of</strong> suitable low cost <strong>and</strong> labour effective technology<br />
would helps to overcome the problems faced by the farmers for better adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS.
VI. SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS<br />
Water is the life-blood <strong>of</strong> the environment, without water no living being can survive,<br />
water plays an unique role in development <strong>of</strong> all sectors in any economy <strong>of</strong> every country.<br />
Water is used for power generation, waste disposal, transportation, recreation, agriculture <strong>and</strong><br />
other various purposes but gross misuse <strong>of</strong> water resources causes widespread degradation<br />
<strong>of</strong> soil <strong>and</strong> disrupts the supply <strong>of</strong> potable water, <strong>and</strong> generates massive economic losses.<br />
More than 200 million people would live under conditions <strong>of</strong> high water stress by the year<br />
2050, according to the UNEP reports, which warns that water could prove to be limiting factor<br />
for development in a number <strong>of</strong> regions in the world. About 1/5 th <strong>of</strong> the world’s population,<br />
lack <strong>of</strong> access to safe drinking water <strong>and</strong> with the present consumption patterns. Two out <strong>of</strong><br />
three persons on the earth would live in the water stressed conditions by 2025.<br />
Around 1/3 rd <strong>of</strong> the world’s population now living in countries with moderate to high<br />
water stress-where water consumption is more than 10 per cent <strong>of</strong> renewable fresh water<br />
supply, said the GEO (Global Environment Outlook) 2000, the UNEPs millennium report. The<br />
present decade in India is characterized by the damage caused by scarcity <strong>of</strong> rainfall on one<br />
h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> flash floods due to heavy rainfall on the other. Since ours is monsoonic country<br />
where the rainfall is erratic, uneven <strong>and</strong> failure occurs at least once in 3 or 4 years, there is a<br />
need to take up comprehensive conservation <strong>and</strong> harvesting <strong>of</strong> rainwater, by the farmers who<br />
have practicing farming under rainfed situations, for the rest <strong>of</strong> the years. In order to mitigate<br />
water scarcity during critical stages <strong>of</strong> crop production the rain water harvesting structure on<br />
watershed basis viz., farm ponds would help in taking supplementary or protective irrigation.<br />
Comprehensive research studies that focus on watershed programmes, particularly<br />
rain water harvesting structures viz., farm- ponds are few <strong>and</strong> far between. With this in view,<br />
the present study was under taken with the below mentioned objectives <strong>and</strong> the results<br />
obtained from economic evaluation <strong>of</strong> farm ponds would help in learning <strong>and</strong> drawing policy<br />
guidelines for the future investments planned.<br />
The present study was taken up in the Dharwad <strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi taluks <strong>of</strong> Dharwad<br />
district <strong>of</strong> Karnataka state with the following specific objectives.<br />
To identify the extent <strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> Rain Water Harvesting Structures (RWHS) in the study<br />
area<br />
To study the cost involved in construction <strong>of</strong> various RWHS<br />
To examine the impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping pattern, productivity, employment <strong>and</strong><br />
income <strong>of</strong> the farmers<br />
To examine the feasibility <strong>of</strong> investment in farm-ponds<br />
6.1 Sampling <strong>and</strong> data<br />
The present study was purposively undertaken in the rainfed areas <strong>of</strong> Dharwad <strong>and</strong><br />
Kalaghatagi taluks at Dharwad district <strong>of</strong> Karnataka, where the World Bank assisted Sujala<br />
Watershed is under operation.<br />
For the present study, Managundi MWS in Managundi SWS <strong>and</strong> Tumari-koppa MWS<br />
in Galagi SWS were selected respectively, from Dharwad <strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi taluks.<br />
From the selected two MWS 25 per cent <strong>of</strong> the farmers were r<strong>and</strong>omly selected from each<br />
MWS based on the availability <strong>of</strong> farm ponds located on their fields to make a sample size <strong>of</strong><br />
45 <strong>and</strong> for comparison purpose another sample <strong>of</strong> 45 farmers who do not possess farm<br />
ponds i.e. without farm-pond were r<strong>and</strong>omly interviewed <strong>and</strong> the data pertaining agriculture<br />
year 2003-04 was collected using pre-tested interview schedules.<br />
The technique <strong>of</strong> tabular presentation including averages <strong>and</strong> percentages were<br />
adopted in respect to compute socio-economic features <strong>of</strong> sample farmers, cropping pattern,<br />
input usage, cropping intensity, cost <strong>and</strong> returns using cost concepts etc. <strong>and</strong> the financial<br />
feasibility criteria was used to evaluate the financial feasibility <strong>of</strong> farm ponds.<br />
6.2 Major findings <strong>of</strong> the study<br />
A brief summary <strong>of</strong> findings <strong>of</strong> the study is presented below.<br />
The sample farmers in with <strong>and</strong> without farm-pond area are almost same with respect<br />
to age <strong>and</strong> family type (average <strong>of</strong> 53.44 <strong>and</strong> 50.11 respectively) while education status was<br />
comparatively higher in with farm-pond (73.33%) area over without farm-pond (53.33%) area.
The average l<strong>and</strong> holding was more or less similar <strong>and</strong> most <strong>of</strong> the farmers belonged<br />
to the small farmers category with equal proportion (48.89%) in both with <strong>and</strong> without farmpond<br />
areas.<br />
Under the extent <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> RWHS, majority <strong>of</strong> the beneficiaries had benefited from<br />
contour bunding (302 <strong>and</strong> 311 beneficiaries, respectively) followed by farm-ponds (97 <strong>and</strong> 81<br />
beneficiaries, respectively) in both selected Managundi <strong>and</strong> Tumari-koppa MWS.<br />
Across different rain water harvesting structures the investment made on farm pond<br />
(Rs.14, 573.96/ha) was the highest, while it was lowest in diversion channel (Rs.1,<br />
261.90/ha).<br />
The extent <strong>of</strong> gross cropped area increased by 22.32 per cent in with farm-pond<br />
(110.04 ha) area over without FP (89.96 ha) area.<br />
The cropping pattern indicated that the cropped area under kharif was more or less<br />
similar in with FP (76.84 ha) area over without FP (78.22 ha) area. While cropped area under<br />
rabi was comparatively higher (30.18%) in with FP area than without FP (13.05%) area.<br />
The cropping intensity in with farm-pond area (141.42%) was relatively higher that <strong>of</strong> without<br />
farm-pond (112.67%) area.<br />
A definite positive change has been observed in the productivities <strong>of</strong> all crops in with<br />
farm-pond area than without farm-pond area <strong>and</strong> change in yield was found high in maize<br />
(7.43 q/ha) followed by paddy (4.60 q/ha).<br />
The net returns from all the crops were substantially higher in with farm-pond area<br />
compared to without farm-pond area <strong>and</strong> the change in net returns vary from Rs.3, 865.79 (in<br />
cotton) to Rs.594.63 (in green gram).<br />
The per household average net income generated from the with farm-pond area was<br />
found to be relatively higher by 48.21 per cent than that <strong>of</strong> without farm-pond area.<br />
The per household human labour employment generated in the with farm-pond area was<br />
higher by 4.08 per cent than that <strong>of</strong> without farm-pond area.<br />
It has been clearly indicated that the investment in farm-ponds was financially<br />
feasible <strong>and</strong> viable activity with 51.48 per cent IRR <strong>and</strong> net present worth <strong>of</strong> Rs.51,719.86<br />
<strong>and</strong> a B:C ratio <strong>of</strong> 3.05 <strong>and</strong> pay back period was found to be low at1.54 years.<br />
All the farmers in the case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond area opined that major benefits accrued<br />
were in the farm <strong>of</strong> increased moisture availability (60%), increased income (55.56%),<br />
increased yield (53.33%), reduced soil erosion (51.11%) <strong>and</strong> increased employment<br />
(46.67%). Moreover the maintenance <strong>of</strong> common assets <strong>of</strong> environment <strong>and</strong> increased<br />
ground water recharge were other major benefits <strong>of</strong> RWHS.<br />
The major reasons for partial adoption/non-adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS in without farm-pond<br />
area includes lack <strong>of</strong> credit availability (64.44%), heavy investment (51.11%), fragmented l<strong>and</strong><br />
holdings (46.67%). Long gestation period, poor soil fertility <strong>and</strong> improper extension services<br />
were the other reasons for non-adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS.<br />
6.3 Conclusions<br />
The following conclusions are drawn on the basis <strong>of</strong> the results <strong>of</strong> the present study.<br />
The watershed project had given top priority to rainwater harvesting structures in rainfed<br />
conditions <strong>of</strong> dry l<strong>and</strong>s based on extent <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> RWHS <strong>and</strong> heavy investment on those<br />
structures.<br />
Construction <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds had brought about a perceptible change in cropping<br />
pattern by increasing area under rabi crops <strong>of</strong> about 30.18 per cent in case <strong>of</strong> with farm-pond<br />
area as compared to without farm-pond area (13.05%).<br />
The yield, gross returns <strong>and</strong> net returns <strong>of</strong> all crops were higher in with farm-pond area over<br />
without farm-pond area.<br />
The percent household income (48.21%) <strong>and</strong> employment levels (4.08%) were higher<br />
in with farm-pond area than without farm-pond area.<br />
All the economic indicators <strong>of</strong> investment on farm-ponds justified with a positive NPW, B:C<br />
ratio <strong>of</strong> more than unity <strong>and</strong> the IRR <strong>of</strong> investment with 51.48 per cent.<br />
6.4 Policy implications<br />
Watershed technology has helped in augmenting returns from dry l<strong>and</strong> crop<br />
production as well as other subsidiary activities. Therefore the implementation <strong>of</strong> watershed<br />
development programme needs to be continued <strong>and</strong> extended to other areas.
Farm-ponds were found to have positive impact on cropping intensity, productivity,<br />
average net income <strong>and</strong> employment levels. Hence, farmers need to be encouraged to follow<br />
this technology particularly in the areas where ground water level has declined.<br />
Financial feasibility analysis <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds indicated a favourable results in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
NPW, B:C ratio, PBP <strong>and</strong> IRR. In other words, investment in farm-ponds was found<br />
economically feasible. Therefore they can be extended in the next phase <strong>of</strong> development<br />
especially in dry l<strong>and</strong> tracts.<br />
Majority <strong>of</strong> the farmers enjoyed the benefits <strong>of</strong> RWHS. Also, they expressed various<br />
problems like non-availability <strong>of</strong> timely credit <strong>and</strong> requirement <strong>of</strong> high investment. Therefore, a<br />
suitable credit policy needs to be designed for better adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS.
VII. REFERENCES<br />
AGNIHOTRI, Y., MITTAL, S.P. AND MISRA, P.R., 1986, An economic evaluation <strong>of</strong> water<br />
resource development in a Shivalik foot hills- A case study. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Soil Conservation, 14(2): 7-14.<br />
ALAGUMANI, T., 1991, Economic evaluation <strong>of</strong> soil conservation in Avinasi Taluk <strong>of</strong><br />
Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 46(3):<br />
300-301.<br />
ANAND, S.S., 2000, Economic analysis <strong>of</strong> national watershed development programme for<br />
rainfed area in Bidar district. M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Agricultural<br />
<strong>Science</strong>s, Dharwad.<br />
ANONYMOUS, 1977, International crop research institute for semi-arid <strong>and</strong> tropics on farm<br />
watershed research. Annual Report, Hyderabad.<br />
ANONYMOUS, 1988, Evaluation study <strong>of</strong> soil conservation in River Valley Projects <strong>of</strong><br />
Matatila, Nizamsagar <strong>and</strong> Ukai- Summary report. Agricultural Finance<br />
Corporation Ltd., Bombay, pp.58.<br />
ANONYMOUS, 2003, National water policy <strong>of</strong> water resource. Government <strong>of</strong> India, New<br />
Delhi, www.watermgmt.com/en/index.htm.<br />
ARAVIND KUMAR, SINGHAL, O.P. AND SINGH, A., 2001, Water harvesting for sustainable<br />
agricultural production <strong>and</strong> rural water supply. Farmer’s Forum, pp.6-9.<br />
ARUNKUMAR, Y.S., 1998, Economic evaluation <strong>of</strong> watershed development – A case study <strong>of</strong><br />
Kuthanagere micro-watershed in Karnataka. Ph.D. Thesis, University <strong>of</strong><br />
Agricultural <strong>Science</strong>s, Bangalore.<br />
ATHEEQ, L.K. AND VENKATARAM, J.V.V., 1989, Optimum l<strong>and</strong> use pattern <strong>of</strong> a watershed<br />
– A study <strong>of</strong> Kabbalanala Watershed Project Karnataka. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Agricultural Economics, 44(3): 268-269.<br />
BASAVARAJA, H., BELGAUMI, M.I., ITNAL C.J. AND RADDER, G.D., 1999, Economic<br />
evaluation <strong>of</strong> vegetative <strong>and</strong> mechanical barriers used for soil <strong>and</strong> moisture<br />
conservation in medium black soils. Agricultural Economics Research<br />
Review, 12(2): 129-136.<br />
BHARADWAJ, S.P., DHRUVANARAYANA, V.V., SHARMA, A.K. AND SINGH, J.P., 1989,<br />
Fortunes take a turn in Aruvali watershed. Indian Farming, 39(9): 11-13.<br />
BHARATHKUMAR, K.A., 2001, Impact <strong>of</strong> watershed development programme in the<br />
Perambalur district <strong>of</strong> Tamil Nadu. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Acharya N.G. Ranga<br />
Agricultural University, Hyderabad.<br />
BIRADAR, A.A., 1991, Techno-economic issues <strong>of</strong> watershed development approach. Indian<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 313.<br />
BISRAT, A.M., 2000, Access <strong>of</strong> water resource for irrigation: economics <strong>of</strong> watershed<br />
development in a drought prone area <strong>of</strong> Karnataka. M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Agricultural <strong>Science</strong>s, Bangalore.<br />
CHANDRAPPA, T., 2004, Economic analysis <strong>of</strong> percolation tanks in Chitradurga district <strong>of</strong><br />
Karnataka. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Agricultural <strong>Science</strong>s,<br />
Bangalore.<br />
CHANDREGOUDA, M.J., AND JAYARAMAIAH, K.M., 1990, Impact <strong>of</strong> watershed<br />
development programme on socio-economic status, l<strong>and</strong> productivity <strong>and</strong><br />
income <strong>of</strong> small <strong>and</strong> marginal farmers. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Extension Education,<br />
26(3&4): 44-47.<br />
CHAURASIA, S.P.R., AND SINGH, L.R., 1991, Optimal cropping pattern for minimizing soil<br />
loss in Nauraur watershed <strong>of</strong> Almora district in Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal<br />
<strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 320.<br />
DHAYANI, B.L., SHARMA, J.S., JUYAL, G.P., RAMBABU, KATIYAR, V.S. AND BABU, R.,<br />
1997, Socio-economic analysis <strong>of</strong> a participatory integrated watershed<br />
management in Gharwal Himalaya Fakot watershed (Bulletin). Central Soil<br />
<strong>and</strong> Water Conservation Research <strong>and</strong> Training Institute, 52(24): 33-113.<br />
GHOSH, M.G., 1991, An evaluation <strong>of</strong> the National Watershed Development Programme in<br />
West Bengal. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 299-300.<br />
HAFEEZ, S., LAKSHMI, R. NATH, RAJU, R.K. AND REDDY, V.R., 1991, A study on crop<br />
diversification <strong>and</strong> its economics at Chitravathi watershed neighbouring<br />
villages in Kolar district <strong>of</strong> Karnataka. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural<br />
Economics, 46(3): 318.
HAZRA, C.R., 1997, Sustainable agricultural development on watershed approaches – A<br />
decade on Tejpura watershed. Indian Gross L<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Fodder Research<br />
Institute Jhansi, Fertilizer News, 42(7): 51-61.<br />
JAHAGIRDAR, D.V., 1991, Manoli watershed project – A study <strong>of</strong> some growth parameters.<br />
Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 304.<br />
JAISWAL, N.K. AND SINGH, R.N., 1982, Need for Watershed Approach in Drought Prone<br />
Areas – Guide for Planning <strong>and</strong> Implementation <strong>of</strong> Watershed Development<br />
Projects in Drought Prone Areas: National Institute <strong>of</strong> Rural Development,<br />
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, pp.2-3.<br />
JALLY, M.K., MAROTHIA, D.K. AND AGARWAL, D.K., 1995, Managing dryl<strong>and</strong> watershed<br />
development programme, lessons <strong>of</strong> Nartora project. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Agricultural Research Development, 19(2): 115-130.<br />
KALLUR, M.S., 1991, Socio-economic impact <strong>of</strong> Muchkulla Nala Watershed Development<br />
Project, Gulbarga district <strong>of</strong> Karnataka – A case study <strong>of</strong> pattern village.<br />
Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 314-315.<br />
KARAM SINGH, SANDHU, H.S., NIRMAL SINGH AND BALBIR KUMAR, 1993, K<strong>and</strong>hi<br />
watershed project – A critical evaluation. Economic <strong>and</strong> Political Weekly,<br />
28(52): A123-A125.<br />
KAREGOUDAR, A.V., VEERANNA, V.S. AND KALIBAVI, C.M., 2004, Impact <strong>of</strong> soil <strong>and</strong><br />
water conservation measures in Kudlagi watershed <strong>of</strong> Karnataka. Karnataka<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural <strong>Science</strong>s, 17(2): 270-274.<br />
KAUSHAL, R.C., SWARNA LATA ARYA AND GREWAL, S.S., 1994, Economic viability <strong>of</strong><br />
watershed management project selected to rehabilitate degraded Aravali<br />
foothills <strong>of</strong> Haryana. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 49(4): 591-<br />
600.<br />
KRISHNAPPA, A.M., NAGARAJ AND ARUNKUMAR, Y.S., 1988, Crop production in red soils<br />
under resource constraints – A case study in Kabbalanala watershed. Paper<br />
presented at State Level Interaction Session on Watershed Development<br />
Programme on 5-6 May, held at University <strong>of</strong> Agricultural <strong>Science</strong>s, Dharwad.<br />
KRISHNAPPA, A.M., ARUNKUMAR, Y.S., REDDY, T.G. AND NAGARAJU, 1994, Watershed<br />
approach – A boon for dry l<strong>and</strong> farming. The Experience <strong>of</strong> Operational<br />
Research Project, KWMS, University <strong>of</strong> Agricultural <strong>Science</strong>s, Bangalore,<br />
pp.20-30.<br />
KUMAR, B. AND DHAWAN, K.C., 1992, Impact <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> development programmes on socioeconomic<br />
parameters in K<strong>and</strong>i area <strong>of</strong> Punjab. Journal <strong>of</strong> Rural<br />
Development, 11(3): 325-339.<br />
KUMAR, S.C.R., 1993, Risk efficient farming systems for eastern dry zone: A comparative<br />
study <strong>of</strong> watershed <strong>and</strong> non-watershed areas in Karnataka. Ph.D. Thesis,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Agricultural <strong>Science</strong>s, Bangalore.<br />
MANHOT, S.C., SINGH, P.K. AND YOGESH SHARMA, 1992, Socio-economic evaluation <strong>of</strong><br />
watershed management project – A case study. Journal <strong>of</strong> Rural<br />
Development, 11(2): 219-227.<br />
MANN, H.S. AND SINGH, H.P., 1981, Watershed management-An integrated approach to<br />
conserving the soil <strong>and</strong> water resources <strong>and</strong> increasing the productivity <strong>of</strong><br />
arid <strong>and</strong> semi arid regions. Lecture Delivered at Training Course on<br />
Watershed Management, Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur.<br />
NAIDU, A., 2001, Evaluation <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> water resources <strong>and</strong> socio-economic impact<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> Vanjurankal watershed in Ananthpur district <strong>of</strong> Andhra<br />
Pradesh, India. Environment <strong>and</strong> People, 8(1): 3-7.<br />
NAIDU, S.A.B., 2005, Integrated watershed management. Kisan World, pp.42-43.<br />
NAIK, M.R., 2000, Economics <strong>of</strong> soil <strong>and</strong> water conservation in northern dry zone <strong>of</strong><br />
Karnataka. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Agricultural <strong>Science</strong>s,<br />
Dharwad.<br />
NARAYANAGOUDA, K., 1992, Consequences <strong>of</strong> watershed development programme – An<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> Chitravati watershed project in Karnataka. Ph.D. Thesis,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Agricultural <strong>Science</strong>s, Bangalore.<br />
NEEMA, M.G., SINGH, V.N. AND MISHRA, B.L., 1991, Impact <strong>of</strong> Barkheda – Hat Watershed<br />
Development Programme in district <strong>of</strong> Guna <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh. Indian<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 305-306.
NIRMALA, B., 2003, Impact <strong>of</strong> watershed development programme on socio-economic<br />
dimensions <strong>of</strong> beneficiaries in Ranga Reddy district <strong>of</strong> Andhra Pradesh.<br />
M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Agricultural <strong>Science</strong>s, Dharwad.<br />
NORMAN, T.S.J., RAJAN, K.C. AND NARAYANAN KUTTY, M.C., 1991, Impact study on<br />
National Watershed Development Programme in Palakkad district <strong>of</strong> Kerala<br />
state. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 302.<br />
PADMAVATHI, M. AND REDDY, M.S., 2002, Personal <strong>and</strong> socio-economic characteristics <strong>of</strong><br />
Mitra Kisans in National Watershed Development Project for rainfed areas.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Research Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, 30(1): 71-<br />
75.<br />
PALANISAMI, K., 1991, Economic evaluation <strong>of</strong> percolation ponds in Tamil Nadu. Indian<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Soil Conservation, 19(1&2): 45-52.<br />
PHADNAWIS, A.N., BIRAJDAR, J.M., NANGRE AND ASHMATODDIN, M., 1990, Integrated<br />
management <strong>of</strong> resources on watershed basis for optimising production –<br />
Padalsing watershed. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> International Symposium on Water<br />
Erosion, Sedimentation <strong>and</strong> Resources Conservation, CSWCRTI Deharadun,<br />
pp.348-354.<br />
PRASAD, V.N.R., 1994, Challenges to meet future water needs. Paper presented at<br />
Workshop on Water Needs at Shivakumala, Balekundhi Trust, Dharwad.<br />
PUROHIT, K.V.M. AND MURTHY, H.G.S., 1995, Impact <strong>of</strong> watershed development<br />
programme on the production <strong>of</strong> oilseed crops in Bijapur district, Karnataka –<br />
An economic analysis. National Bank News Review, Bombay, 11(1): 23-28.<br />
RAJPUT, A.M. AND VERMA, A.R., 1997, Impact <strong>of</strong> Integrated Watershed Development<br />
Programme in Indore district <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Agricultural Economics, 52(3): 537-538.<br />
RAJPUT, A.M., VERMA, A.R. AND SHARMA, J.P., 2000, Economic Impact <strong>of</strong> Rajiv G<strong>and</strong>hi<br />
watershed Development Programme in Tribal district Jhabua <strong>of</strong> Madhya<br />
Pradesh. Agricultural Situation in India, 7(4): 181-186.<br />
RAJVEDI, V.P., 2003, Rainwater harvesting – A panacea for water woes. Kurukshetra, pp.62-<br />
65.<br />
RAM MOHAN RAO, M.S., 1996, Soil <strong>and</strong> water conservation through watershed<br />
management in the semi-arid region <strong>of</strong> South India in watershed<br />
development. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> Paridas International Workshop on Watershed<br />
Development, WDCV, New Delhi.<br />
RAMANNA, R., 1991, Watershed approach to dry l<strong>and</strong> agricultural development. Indian<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 251-260.<br />
RAMESH, R.S. AND SRINIVASA GOUDA, M.V., 2001, Econometric analysis <strong>of</strong> watershed<br />
development programme. Financing Agriculture, 33(1): 22.<br />
RANDHAWA, N.S., 1987, Indian Agriculture extent <strong>and</strong> direction <strong>of</strong> progress. Yojana, 3(1):<br />
72-75.<br />
RANDHIR, O.T. AND RAVICHANDRAN, M., 1991, Economic analysis <strong>of</strong> watershed<br />
management in Anakatti region <strong>of</strong> Coimbatore district through national<br />
perspective. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 301.<br />
REDDY, G.P., RAMAMOHAN, RAO, M.S., MATH, N.S.K. AND ADHIKARI, 2003,<br />
Environmental sustainability through watershed programme in semi-arid<br />
region <strong>of</strong> Andhra Pradesh. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Soil Conservation, 31(1): 57-65.<br />
REDDY, Y.V.R. AND SUDHA, M., 1988, Impact <strong>of</strong> watershed programme on adoption <strong>and</strong><br />
economics <strong>of</strong> technology <strong>and</strong> also economic condition <strong>of</strong> rural people. Annual<br />
Report, CRIDA, Hyderabad, pp.69-71.<br />
REDDY, Y.V.R. AND WALKER, J.S., 1990, Impact <strong>of</strong> watershed programme on adoption <strong>and</strong><br />
economics <strong>of</strong> technology <strong>and</strong> also on economic conditions <strong>of</strong> rural people,<br />
CRIDA, Annual Report, 1989, pp.67-71.<br />
SANDHU, H.S., SINGH, N. AND BALBIR KUMAR, 1991, An evaluation <strong>of</strong> watershed<br />
development approach for Shivalik hills in Punjab. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 322.<br />
SEKAR, K., 1990, Dry farming: Problems <strong>and</strong> prospects. Yojana, 34(8): 31-34.<br />
SELVARAJAN, S., RAMAMOHANRAO, M.S. AND CHITTARANJAN, S., 1984, Economic<br />
feasibility <strong>of</strong> farm-pond for supplemental irrigation for Rabi crops in Semi-arid<br />
deep black soils <strong>of</strong> Bellary. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Soil Conservation, 12(1): 73-79.
SHARMA, H.C. AND HOOJA, R., 1981, Watershed management <strong>and</strong> people participation.<br />
Kurukshetra, 29(8): 7-10.<br />
SINGH, A.J., JOSHI, A.S., SINGH, R.P. AND RAVI GUPTA, 1991, An economic appraisal <strong>of</strong><br />
K<strong>and</strong>hi watershed <strong>and</strong> area development project in Punjab. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 287-293.<br />
SINGH, B. AND SINGH, R.P., 1997, Participatory approach watershed management.<br />
Agricultural Extension Review, 9(1): 11-14.<br />
SINGH, D.K., 1991, Impact <strong>of</strong> watershed on l<strong>and</strong> use <strong>and</strong> cropping pattern in the catchment<br />
area <strong>of</strong> Matatila River Valley Project in Lalithpur district <strong>of</strong> Bundelk<strong>and</strong> region<br />
<strong>of</strong> Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 324-325.<br />
SINGH, J.P., 2000, Economic Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Manchal Watershed, MANAGE, Hyderabad.<br />
SINGH, K., 1988, Managing Dryl<strong>and</strong> Watershed Development Programs- Lessons <strong>of</strong><br />
Karnataka Experience. Research Paper, Institute <strong>of</strong> Rural Management,<br />
An<strong>and</strong>, India.<br />
SINGH, K. AND RAHIM, K.M.B., 1990, Identification <strong>and</strong> evaluation <strong>of</strong> optimal cropping<br />
system for a typical watershed in Uttar Pradesh hills. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Agricultural Economics, 45(1): 29-35.<br />
SINGH, M.P., 1990, Rainfed agro-technology on watershed basis – A case study. Indian<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Extension Education, 26(3&4): 47-52.<br />
SINGH, P.K., JASPAL SINGH, S.C. AND SANJAY MODI, 1995, Watershed approach in<br />
improving the socio economic status <strong>of</strong> tribal area – A case study. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Rural Development, 14(2): 107-116.<br />
SINGH, R. AND THAPALIYAL, K.N., 1991, Impact <strong>of</strong> National Watershed Development<br />
Projects on Rainfed Agriculture in Bundelkh<strong>and</strong> region <strong>of</strong> Uttar Pradesh.<br />
Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 309-310.<br />
SINGH, S.V., 1999, Watershed management – A holistic approach to improve socioeconomic<br />
status <strong>of</strong> the farmers. Indian Journal <strong>of</strong> Soil Conservation, 27(3):<br />
243-246.<br />
SREEDHARAN, C.K., 2002, Joint forest management <strong>and</strong> Watershed Development<br />
Programme in Tamil Nadu. An experience in TAP. The Watershed<br />
Management Issues <strong>and</strong> Policies for 21 st Century, Eds. Palanisamy, K.,<br />
Suresh Kumar, D., Ch<strong>and</strong>rashekharan, B., Tamil Nadu.<br />
SRIDHARA, K., 2002, Evaluative study <strong>of</strong> watershed programme in Pavgada taluk <strong>of</strong> Tumkur<br />
district in Karnataka. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Agricultural <strong>Science</strong>s,<br />
Dharwad.<br />
SRINIVASA, G.I., 1988, Water harvesting structures <strong>and</strong> their impact on l<strong>and</strong> use <strong>and</strong><br />
cropping pattern in dry l<strong>and</strong> agriculture, Kolar district, Karnataka – An<br />
economic evaluation. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Agricultural<br />
<strong>Science</strong>s, Dharwad.<br />
SRIVATSAVA, A., GUPTA, S.K. AND ATHAVALE, M.C., 1991, Importance <strong>of</strong> watershed<br />
development programme on M<strong>and</strong>aur district <strong>of</strong> Madhya Pradesh. Indian<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 297-298.<br />
TIWARI, K.N. AND MAL, P.K., 2000, Conservation, storage <strong>and</strong> effective utilization <strong>of</strong><br />
rainwater. National Workshop on Rainwater <strong>and</strong> Groundwater for Rice<br />
Ecosystems, 25-2 September, 2000 IIT, Kharagpur.<br />
VAMANAMOORTHY, P.K. AND SHANKARMURTHY, H.G., 1994, Impact <strong>of</strong> watershed<br />
development programme on income <strong>and</strong> employment from major crops in<br />
Bijapur district, Karnataka – An economic analysis. Agricultural Situation in<br />
India, 49(2): 87-92.<br />
VIDYANATHAN, A., 1991, Integrated watershed development – Some major issues. Waste<br />
L<strong>and</strong> News, 7(2): 127-134.
Sl.<br />
No<br />
I. Basic Information:<br />
APPENDIX I<br />
SCHEDULE<br />
A. Secondary data collection schedule<br />
1. Watershed Name / Sangha Name :<br />
2. Location :<br />
3. Area in Hectors :<br />
4. Taluk :<br />
5. District :<br />
6. Topo-sheet Number :<br />
7. Above Mean Sea level :<br />
8. Year <strong>of</strong> development :<br />
9. Developmental total cost :<br />
II. Natural Resource Survey:<br />
a. Annual Average Rainfall<br />
b. Rainfall distribution<br />
L<strong>and</strong> classification<br />
1. Cultivatable l<strong>and</strong> (ha)<br />
c.<br />
2. Cultivatable waste (ha)<br />
3. Non Cultivatable (ha)<br />
d. Soil Type<br />
Total Number <strong>of</strong> Beneficiaries<br />
1. Small<br />
e.<br />
2. Marginal<br />
3. Large<br />
Size <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>and</strong> holding<br />
f. 1. Rain fed (ha)<br />
2. Irrigated (ha)<br />
g. Average L<strong>and</strong> holding<br />
III. Details <strong>of</strong> different RWHS <strong>and</strong> their investments in ________________MWS<br />
2003-04<br />
Different RWHS<br />
Physical<br />
Unit<br />
1 Contour bund Mt<br />
2 Rubble checks No<br />
3 Farm Ponds No<br />
4 Diversion<br />
Channels<br />
Mt<br />
5 Check Dam No<br />
6 Percolation<br />
No<br />
tanks<br />
7 Nalabunding No<br />
8 Sunken ponds No<br />
Total<br />
Contribution<br />
Rs<br />
Area<br />
Covered<br />
(ha)<br />
Physical<br />
Achievement<br />
Financial<br />
Investment<br />
(Rs./ str)<br />
Year Of<br />
Construction<br />
Expected<br />
Life Span<br />
Remarks
IV. Important Crops, Area, Yield <strong>and</strong> Production<br />
Sl<br />
No<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
Crops<br />
Area Rain<br />
fed<br />
Other Cropping Pattern<br />
I<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
Horticulture<br />
II<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
Forestry<br />
III<br />
1<br />
2<br />
Pasture<br />
Irrigated<br />
Yield<br />
Production<br />
Rain fed Irrigated Rain fed Irrigated<br />
V. Distribution <strong>of</strong> L<strong>and</strong> Holdings in _____________________MWS<br />
Sl<br />
No<br />
Category<br />
No Area (acres)<br />
Avg. l<strong>and</strong> holding<br />
1<br />
Marginal Farmers<br />
(< ha)<br />
2<br />
Small Farmers<br />
(1 to 2 ha)<br />
3<br />
Medium & Large Farmers<br />
(> 2 ha<br />
Total<br />
Sl<br />
No<br />
I<br />
II<br />
VI. Socio Economic Features <strong>of</strong> ___________MWS<br />
Population<br />
(i) Male<br />
(ii) Female<br />
(iii) Total<br />
Literacy %<br />
(i) Male<br />
(ii) Female<br />
(iii) Overall<br />
III Total Number <strong>of</strong> families<br />
Live stock Population (Number)<br />
1 Cattle<br />
IV<br />
2<br />
3<br />
Buffalos<br />
Sheep<br />
4 Goats<br />
Particulars Details<br />
5 Poultry<br />
V Family Occupation<br />
Farm facilities<br />
Agricultural Labors<br />
L<strong>and</strong>less labors<br />
Artisans <strong>and</strong> others<br />
VI Impact <strong>of</strong> RWHS on farming systems:
Sl<br />
No<br />
Particulars Unit<br />
1 Area Acre / ha<br />
2 Water Table Acre / ha<br />
3<br />
Live stock<br />
Possession<br />
Number<br />
Total Wells Number<br />
4 Working<br />
Non Working<br />
5 Social Forestry ha<br />
6 Agri - silviculture ha<br />
7 Drip Irrigation ha<br />
8 Inter cropping Ha<br />
9 Sericulture Ha<br />
10 Pasture Ha<br />
11 Agro-processing<br />
(if any)<br />
Number<br />
I General Information:<br />
Before<br />
Implementation<br />
B. Primary Data Collection Schedule<br />
1 Name <strong>of</strong> the Village :<br />
2 Name <strong>of</strong> the Taluk :<br />
3 Name <strong>of</strong> the District :<br />
4 Name <strong>of</strong> the Watershed :<br />
5 Location <strong>of</strong> the L<strong>and</strong> : Upper :<br />
in relation to RWHS Middle :<br />
activities Down trench :<br />
6 Name <strong>of</strong> the respondent :<br />
7 Age <strong>of</strong> the respondent :<br />
8 Size <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>and</strong> holding (Ac) Total :<br />
a) Rain fed :<br />
b) Irrigated :<br />
9 Family Type : a) Joint :<br />
b) Nuclear :<br />
10 Number <strong>of</strong> people working :<br />
in Agriculture<br />
11 Details <strong>of</strong> the Family : a) Adults :<br />
Composition Male :<br />
Female :<br />
b) Children :<br />
Boys :<br />
Girls :<br />
After<br />
Implementation<br />
12 Details on,<br />
(i) Education, Occupation & Income:<br />
Name A Education Occupation Income
Sl<br />
No Name<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
Education<br />
G<br />
E I P S C Occupation<br />
Rupees<br />
/<br />
Annum<br />
Note: I – Illiterates, P – Primary Schooling,<br />
S – Secondary Schooling, C – College Educated<br />
(ii) Income Earning activities:<br />
Sl No Occupation Income Rupees / Annum<br />
1 Agriculture<br />
2 Horticulture<br />
3 Animal Husb<strong>and</strong>ry<br />
4 Wages<br />
5 Salary<br />
6 Business<br />
7 Others (If any)<br />
II. Details <strong>of</strong> the L<strong>and</strong> Holding:<br />
Sl<br />
No<br />
I<br />
II<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> the L<strong>and</strong><br />
Dry L<strong>and</strong> with Farm<br />
Pond<br />
Dry L<strong>and</strong> without<br />
Farm Pond<br />
Area (in<br />
Acres)<br />
III. Farm Assets Possession:<br />
a) Farm Buildings<br />
Sl<br />
No<br />
Item Number<br />
1 Dwelling House<br />
2 Farm House<br />
3 Cattle Shed<br />
4 Poultry Shed<br />
5 Others (If any)<br />
Soil<br />
Type<br />
Year <strong>of</strong><br />
Construction<br />
Value<br />
<strong>of</strong> the<br />
L<strong>and</strong><br />
Rental<br />
Value <strong>of</strong><br />
the L<strong>and</strong><br />
Construction<br />
Cost (Rs)<br />
L<strong>and</strong><br />
Tax<br />
Paid<br />
Dist to<br />
FP<br />
Present Value<br />
(Rs)
Sl<br />
No<br />
b) Farm Machinery & Equipments:<br />
Sl<br />
No<br />
Particulars No.<br />
1 Bullock Cart<br />
2 Power Tiller<br />
3 Tractor<br />
4 Irrigation Pump set<br />
5 Ploughs<br />
Wooden<br />
Iron<br />
6 Seed Drill<br />
7 Thresher<br />
8 Sprayer<br />
9 Peddlers<br />
10 Leveler<br />
11 Others (if any)<br />
IV Impact <strong>of</strong> FP on Cropping Pattern:<br />
Crop / Season<br />
I Dry<br />
1 Field Crops<br />
Khariff<br />
A<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
B<br />
C<br />
Rabi<br />
A<br />
B<br />
C<br />
Summer<br />
A<br />
B<br />
C<br />
II Irrigation through FP<br />
1 Field Crops<br />
Khariff<br />
A<br />
(i)<br />
B<br />
C<br />
(ii) Rabi<br />
A<br />
B<br />
C<br />
Summer<br />
A<br />
(iii)<br />
B<br />
C<br />
VI Cost <strong>of</strong> Cultivation:<br />
Area<br />
(Acres) Variety<br />
Year <strong>of</strong><br />
Purchase/<br />
Installed<br />
Production<br />
(Qtls)<br />
Purchase<br />
Price (Rs)<br />
Price<br />
(Rs / Qtls)<br />
Current Value<br />
Approximate<br />
Cost <strong>of</strong><br />
Production
Crop: __________ Variety: _________ Season: __________ Area:<br />
______ Dry: ____________ Irrigation through FP: ____<br />
A. Implements <strong>and</strong> labour charges:<br />
Sl No Particulars<br />
1. Ploughing<br />
2. Clod crushing<br />
3. Transportation <strong>of</strong> FYM<br />
4. Harrowing<br />
5. Spreading <strong>of</strong> FYM<br />
6. Seed bed preparation<br />
7. Sowing<br />
8. Fertilizer application<br />
9. H<strong>and</strong> weeding<br />
10. Intercultivation<br />
11. Spraying/Dusting<br />
12. Irrigation<br />
13. Harvesting<br />
14. Threshing<br />
15. Winnowing<br />
16. Bagging & Bundling<br />
17. Transport & Marketing<br />
18.<br />
Others (Watch &<br />
Ward)<br />
Family Labour<br />
Total Cost (A)<br />
Wage Per Day (Rs.)<br />
B. Input information:<br />
Frequ<br />
ency<br />
Human labor (Man days)<br />
Hired Family<br />
Male Female Male Female<br />
Bullock<br />
labor<br />
(Pair<br />
days)<br />
Machin<br />
e Labor (Hours)<br />
Hired Owned Hired Owned<br />
Sl Particulars Qty ( Kg) Price/ unit Total Cost<br />
No<br />
(Rs)<br />
1. FYM (Cart Load)<br />
2. Seeds (Kg)<br />
3.<br />
a.<br />
b.<br />
c.<br />
Seed Treatment Chemicals<br />
4.<br />
a.<br />
b.<br />
c.<br />
Fertilizers<br />
5.<br />
a.<br />
b.<br />
c.<br />
PPC<br />
Total Cost Rs.<br />
C.Marketing Cost:<br />
i. Transportation Cost :Rs.<br />
Implem<br />
ent<br />
charges<br />
(Rs)
Sl<br />
No<br />
ii. Commission Paid :Rs.<br />
iii. Tax Paid :Rs.<br />
iv. Any Other Charges:Rs.<br />
Total Cost (C) :Rs.<br />
Total Cost :Rs.<br />
Gross Returns:<br />
Sl No Product Qty (Qtls) Rate (Rs.)<br />
1. Main Product<br />
2. By-Product<br />
3. Total<br />
4. Total Returns<br />
5. Net Returns<br />
VI. Impact <strong>of</strong> Farm Ponds in taking the activity <strong>of</strong> Animal Husb<strong>and</strong>ry:<br />
Type<br />
1 Bullock<br />
2 Cow<br />
3 Buffaloes<br />
4 Sheep<br />
5 Goat<br />
6 Poultry<br />
Local<br />
(No)<br />
Cross<br />
Breed<br />
(No)<br />
Purchase<br />
Price<br />
(Rs)<br />
Milk Sold<br />
/ Month<br />
(Liter)<br />
VII. Farmers perception about the benefits <strong>of</strong> the RWHS<br />
Gross<br />
returns<br />
per year<br />
Amount<br />
(Rs.)<br />
Cost <strong>of</strong><br />
Maintenance<br />
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
Benefits<br />
Perception <strong>of</strong> RWHS<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> respondents Percentage<br />
H M L H M L<br />
1. Reduced soil erosion<br />
2. Maintenance <strong>of</strong> common<br />
assets<br />
3. Increased moisture<br />
availability<br />
4. Increased ground water<br />
recharge<br />
5. Increased yield<br />
6. Increased employment<br />
7. Increased income<br />
Note: H = Higher, M = Moderate, L = Lower
VIII. Constraints for non-adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS<br />
Non-adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS<br />
Sl.<br />
Benefits<br />
No. <strong>of</strong> respondents Percentage<br />
No.<br />
S MS NS S MS NS<br />
1. Not aware <strong>of</strong> technology<br />
2. Technology not suitable<br />
3. Heavy investment<br />
4. Lack <strong>of</strong> credit availability<br />
5. Poor soil fertility<br />
6. Fragmented l<strong>and</strong> holdings<br />
7. High labour rates<br />
8. Improper extension service<br />
9. Long gestation period<br />
Note: H = Higher, M = Moderate, L = Lower<br />
Sl<br />
No<br />
IX. Details <strong>of</strong> RWHS taken on the farm:<br />
Different RWHS Units<br />
1 Contour bund Mt<br />
2 Rubble checks No<br />
3 Farm Ponds No<br />
4 Diversion Channels Mt<br />
5 Check Dam No<br />
6 Percolation tanks No<br />
7 Nalabunding No<br />
8 Sunken ponds No<br />
Number<br />
&<br />
Dimensi<br />
on<br />
Year <strong>of</strong><br />
Constru<br />
ction<br />
Investm<br />
ent<br />
Source<br />
<strong>of</strong><br />
Improvement<br />
Investm<br />
ent Year Cost<br />
Function<br />
al or<br />
Non<br />
function<br />
al<br />
Reason<br />
s if non<br />
functioni<br />
ng
Sl.<br />
No.<br />
APPENDIX II<br />
Area under different crops in Dharwad district <strong>and</strong> in selected taluks<br />
during 2001-02<br />
I. Cereals<br />
Crops Dharwad district<br />
Taluk<br />
Dharwad Kalaghatagi<br />
1. Paddy 39,324 (8.18) 14,409 (14.55) 22,718 (49.56)<br />
2. Jowar 57,459 (11.96) 17,151 (17.32) 3,576 (7.80)<br />
3. Maize 9,316 (1.94) 1,644 (1.66) 317 (0.69)<br />
4. Wheat 39,212 (8.16) 7,366 (7.43) 22 (0.04)<br />
5. Soybean 2,498 (0.52) 1,180 (1.19) 488 (1.06)<br />
6. Minor millets 317 (0.06) - (0.00) 7 (0.01)<br />
Total (I) 1,48,126 (30.84) 41,750 (42.16) 27,128 (59.18)<br />
II. Pulses<br />
7. Bengal gram 39,597 (8.23) 14,503 (14.64) 21 (0.04)<br />
8. Tur 2,247 (0.46) 812 (0.82) 281 (0.61)<br />
9. Green gram & other<br />
pulses<br />
24,964 (5.20) 10,956 (11.06) 1,553 (3.38)<br />
Total (II) 66,808 (13.91) 26,271 (26.53) 1,855 (4.04)<br />
III. Commercial crops<br />
10. Groundnut 37,069 (7.71) 8,510 (8.59) 4,401 (9.60)<br />
11. Cotton 1,05,429 (21.95) 8,157 (8.23) 7,620 (16.62)<br />
12. Sugarcane 2,868 (0.60) 2,675 (2.70) 175 (0.38)<br />
13. Other oilseeds 4,742 (0.98) 1,785 (1.80) 2,484 (5.41)<br />
Total (III) 1,50,108 (31.25) 21,127 (21.33) 14,680 (32.02)<br />
IV Other crops 1,15,225 (23.99) 9,860 (9.95) 2,176 (4.74)<br />
Total cropped area 4,80,267 (100.00) 99,008 (100.00) 45,839 (100.00)<br />
Note: Figures in the parentheses indicates percentages <strong>of</strong> total cropped area<br />
Source: District Statistical Office, Dharwad
APPENDIX III<br />
Per ha cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation according to cost concepts in with farm-pond area<br />
Crops<br />
Hired human<br />
labour<br />
(m<strong>and</strong>ays)<br />
Owned <strong>and</strong><br />
hired bullock<br />
labour (pair<br />
days)<br />
Owned <strong>and</strong><br />
hired machine<br />
labour (hrs)<br />
Seeds (kg) FYM (t)<br />
Plant protection<br />
Fertilizers (kg) Depreciati<br />
chemicals (Ilit)<br />
on (Rs.)<br />
L<strong>and</strong><br />
revenue<br />
(Rs.)<br />
Q V Q V Hr V Q Price V Q V Q V Q V<br />
Paddy 71.21 2863.8 20.00 3004.5 0.76 231.56 82.12 5.00 410.63 14.35 1806.1 191.02 1272.6 0 0 936.92 110.65<br />
0<br />
0<br />
8<br />
2<br />
Jowar 29.59 1097.9 9.88 1482 0 0 7.41 50 370.5 7.90 1052.2 74.1 718.77 0 0 936.92 110.65<br />
1<br />
2<br />
Soybean 35.69 1347.2 15.04 2256.6 0 0 86.45 13.90 1202.4 10.76 1347.2 247 2264.1 0 0 936.92 110.65<br />
6<br />
6<br />
2<br />
6<br />
9<br />
Maize 44.85 1679.6 12.96 1945.1 2.47 741 12.35 40 494 12.35 1568.4 216.12 1980.9 0 0 936.92 110.65<br />
2<br />
5<br />
4<br />
Crops<br />
Maint Interest<br />
enan on<br />
ce working<br />
cost capital<br />
(Rs.) (Rs.)<br />
Cost A<br />
(Rs.)<br />
Rental<br />
vale <strong>of</strong><br />
owned<br />
l<strong>and</strong><br />
(Rs.) 1<br />
Interes<br />
Cost B<br />
Cost C<br />
t on<br />
Imputed value Marketin<br />
(Rs.)<br />
(Rs.)<br />
fixed <strong>of</strong> family human g cost<br />
(Cost<br />
(cost<br />
capital labour 3 (Rs.) 4<br />
A+1+2)<br />
B+3+4)<br />
2<br />
Main product (q)<br />
Q Price/q V<br />
By product (q)<br />
Q Price/q V<br />
Total Net<br />
B:C<br />
returns returns<br />
ratio<br />
(Rs.) (Rs.)<br />
Paddy 0 320.01 10776.9 2778.75 99.52 13655. 43.99 1651.0 234.75 15540.9 24.82 495 12297. 6.54 1315.2 8601.9 20899. 5358.3 1.34<br />
0<br />
17<br />
2<br />
6<br />
31<br />
9 4 26<br />
Jowar 303.8 131.00 6203.80 2778.75 99.52 9082.0 29.09 1043.5 96.33 10221.7 10.54 557 5872.4 3.18 1796 5711.8 11584. 1362.5 1.13<br />
1<br />
6<br />
7<br />
2<br />
2<br />
7 3 8<br />
Soybean 334.2 218.76 10018.4 2778.75 99.52 12896. 37.19 1393.3 149.87 14439.8 15.75 1164.6 18345. 1.38 358 494 18839. 4399.4 1.30<br />
8<br />
4<br />
70<br />
0<br />
9<br />
3 35<br />
35 6<br />
Maize 523.3 296.67 10276.7 2778.75 99.52 13154. 32.99 1218.5 320.40 14693.9 32.03 529 16962. 2.79 1155.8 3224.7 20186. 5492.8 1.37<br />
4<br />
0<br />
97<br />
2<br />
0<br />
04<br />
0 0 74 4<br />
- 10 -
APPENDIX IV<br />
Per ha cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation according to cost concepts in with farm-pond area<br />
Crops<br />
Hired human<br />
labour<br />
(m<strong>and</strong>ays)<br />
Owned <strong>and</strong><br />
hired bullock<br />
labour (pair<br />
days)<br />
Owned <strong>and</strong><br />
hired machine<br />
labour (hrs)<br />
Seeds (kg) FYM (t)<br />
Plant protection Seed treatment Deprec L<strong>and</strong><br />
Fertilizers (kg)<br />
chemicals (lit) (g)<br />
iation revenu<br />
(Rs.) e (Rs.)<br />
Q V Q V Hr V Q Price V Q V Q V Q V Q V<br />
Cotton 116.43 4408.4 19.09 2864.2 0.93 284.98 2.50 360. 889.2 14.82 1855.3 313.49 2624.7 4.94 1079.1 0 0 936.92 110.65<br />
5<br />
3<br />
4<br />
4<br />
9<br />
Groundnut 99.12 3694.7 10.27 1543.7 2.86 864.5 83.98 23.80 2058.3 14.82 2000.7 627.77 1890.5 0 0 200 123.5 936.92 110.65<br />
0<br />
5<br />
2<br />
6<br />
Rabi jowar 17.36 644.25 8.64 1296.7 1.43 432.25 7.41 9.03 66.88 8.32 1070.5 113.20 1098.1 0 0 0 0 936.92 110.65<br />
5<br />
4<br />
1<br />
Greengram 11.09 417.43 6.22 933.66 0.098 118.56 16.69 15 250.45 0 0 19.76 191.67 0 0 0 0 936.92 110.65<br />
Crops<br />
Maint Interest<br />
enan on<br />
ce working<br />
cost capital<br />
(Rs.) (Rs.)<br />
Cost A<br />
(Rs.)<br />
Rental<br />
vale <strong>of</strong><br />
owned<br />
l<strong>and</strong><br />
(Rs.) 1<br />
Interes<br />
Cost B<br />
Cost C<br />
t on<br />
Imputed value Marketin<br />
(Rs.)<br />
(Rs.)<br />
fixed <strong>of</strong> family human g cost<br />
(Cost<br />
(cost<br />
capital labour 3 (Rs.) 4<br />
A+1+2)<br />
B+3+4)<br />
2<br />
Main product (q)<br />
Q Price/q V<br />
By product (q)<br />
Q Price/q V<br />
Total Net<br />
B:C<br />
returns returns<br />
ratio<br />
(Rs.) (Rs.)<br />
Cotton 741 485.08 16279.8 2778.75 99.52 19158. 57.30 2156.4 217.01 21531.6 11.95 2427.2 29006. 2.48 796.77 1976 30982. 9451.0 1.43<br />
1<br />
08<br />
8<br />
0<br />
8 66<br />
66 6<br />
Groundnut 0 388.11 13611.7 2778.75 99.52 16489. 37.91 1349.2 173.56 18012.7 17.33 1134.2 19657. 2.22 2897.4 6432.2 26089. 8076.5 1.44<br />
1<br />
98<br />
3<br />
9<br />
7 07<br />
7 35 6<br />
Rabi jowar 290.2 86.49 6032.35 2778.75 99.52 8910.6 30.05 1109.4 99.81 10119.8 10.17 738.88 7514.4 2.47 2791.6 6895.4 14109. 3989.9 1.39<br />
2<br />
2<br />
2<br />
8<br />
5<br />
5 0 85 7<br />
Greengra 0 35.98 2995.34 2778.75 99.52 5873.6 15.80 592.8 37.29 6503.70 3.75 1595.7 5983.9 1.50 1986.8 2980.3 8964.4 2460.7 1.37<br />
m<br />
1<br />
3 7<br />
6 0 2 2<br />
- 11 -
APPENDIX V<br />
Per ha cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation according to cost concepts in without farm-pond area<br />
Crops<br />
Hired human<br />
labour<br />
(m<strong>and</strong>ays)<br />
Owned <strong>and</strong><br />
hired bullock<br />
labour (pair<br />
days)<br />
Owned <strong>and</strong><br />
hired machine<br />
labour (hrs)<br />
Seeds (kg) FYM (t)<br />
Plant protection<br />
Fertilizers (kg) Depreciati<br />
chemicals (lit)<br />
on (Rs.)<br />
L<strong>and</strong><br />
revenue<br />
(Rs.)<br />
Q V Q V Hr V Q Price V Q V Q V Q V<br />
Paddy 67.57 2544.1 19.31 2900.2 0.15 46.31 79.48 5.00 400.58 13.68 1726.0 171.73 1167.0 0 0 874.47 114.11<br />
9<br />
8<br />
7<br />
Jowar 27.63 1020.1 9.26 1389.3 0 0 7.41 50 370.5 7.41 11.11 67.92 658.87 0 0 874.47 114.11<br />
1<br />
7<br />
Soybean 33.02 1242.8 13.46 2020.9 0.66 202.07 81.04 13.88 1125.6 9.63 1202.4 218.91 2003.3 0 0 874.47 114.11<br />
5<br />
0<br />
2<br />
2<br />
9<br />
Maize 38.72 1455.3 12.52 1881.7 0.24 77.97 12.35 40 494 10.37 1333.8 204.73 1876.6 0 0 874.47 114.11<br />
4<br />
4<br />
5<br />
Crops<br />
Maint Interest<br />
enan on<br />
ce working<br />
cost capital<br />
(Rs.) (Rs.)<br />
Cost A<br />
(Rs.)<br />
Rental<br />
vale <strong>of</strong><br />
owned<br />
l<strong>and</strong><br />
(Rs.) 1<br />
Interes<br />
Cost B<br />
Cost<br />
t on<br />
Imputed value Marketin<br />
(Rs.)<br />
(Rs.)<br />
fixed <strong>of</strong> family human g cost<br />
(Cost<br />
(cost<br />
capital labour 3 (Rs.) 4<br />
A+1+2)<br />
B+3+4)<br />
2<br />
Main product (q)<br />
Q Price/q V<br />
By product (q)<br />
Q Price/q V<br />
Total Net<br />
B:C<br />
returns returns<br />
ratio<br />
(Rs.) (Rs.)<br />
Paddy 0 295.48 10068.5 2655.25 93.90 12817. 38.23 1434.6 209.95 14462.3 20.22 477 9638.7 5.23 1430 7482.3 17121. 2658.7 1.18<br />
5<br />
70<br />
9<br />
4<br />
1<br />
5 05 1<br />
Jowar 250.7 102.65 4791.92 2655.25 93.90 7541.0 29.66 1053.4 78.62 8673.15 8.89 515 4574.4 2.76 1651 4557.1 9131.5 458.44 1.05<br />
0<br />
8<br />
5<br />
4<br />
5 9<br />
Soybean 328.3 201.13 9315.38 2655.25 93.90 12064. 32.25 1206.9 133.60 13405.0 13.11 1172 15358. 1.33 354.52 471.52 15830. 2425.3 1.18<br />
8<br />
54<br />
1<br />
6<br />
91<br />
43 6<br />
Maize 479.2 253.94 8841.31 2655.25 93.90 11590. 30.18 1117.9 246.11 12954.5 24.60 494 12152. 2.37 1157.8 2729.9 14882. 1928.2 1.14<br />
5<br />
47<br />
9<br />
8<br />
81<br />
9 9 51 3<br />
- 12 -
APPENDIX VI<br />
Per ha cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation according to cost concepts in without farm-pond area<br />
Crops<br />
Hired human<br />
labour<br />
(m<strong>and</strong>ays)<br />
Owned <strong>and</strong><br />
hired bullock<br />
labour (pair<br />
days)<br />
Owned <strong>and</strong><br />
hired machine<br />
labour (hrs)<br />
Seeds (kg) FYM (t)<br />
Plant protection Seed treatment Deprec L<strong>and</strong><br />
Fertilizers (kg)<br />
chemicals (lit) (g)<br />
iation revenu<br />
(Rs.) e (Rs.)<br />
Q V Q V Hr V Q Price V Q V Q V Q V Q V<br />
Cotton 110.40 4198.4 20.10 3018.0 0.19 61.75 2.5 360.00 900 13.46 1699.6 298.45 2478.8 4.71 1059.0 0 0 874.47 114.11<br />
8<br />
1<br />
5<br />
4<br />
1<br />
Groundnut 95.95 3572.5 11.43 1717.7 0.66 202.07 82.39 24.08 1984.9 14.02 1894.5 623.10 1845.1 0 0 600 123.5 874.47 114.11<br />
0<br />
6<br />
6<br />
8<br />
8<br />
Rabi jowar 14.96 540.31 7.41 1111.5 0 0 7.41 8.33 61.75 6.17 833.62 108.06 1048.1<br />
9<br />
0 0 0 0 874.47 114.11<br />
Greengram 8.76 330.06 5.92 892.55 0 0 15.26 15 229.01 0 0 16.79 163.34 0 0 0 0 874.47 114.11<br />
Crops<br />
Maint Interest<br />
enan on<br />
ce working<br />
cost capital<br />
(Rs.) (Rs.)<br />
Cost A<br />
(Rs.)<br />
Rental<br />
vale <strong>of</strong><br />
owned<br />
l<strong>and</strong><br />
(Rs.) 1<br />
Interes<br />
Cost B<br />
Cost<br />
t on<br />
Imputed value Marketin<br />
(Rs.)<br />
(Rs.)<br />
fixed <strong>of</strong> family human g cost<br />
(Cost<br />
(cost<br />
capital labour 3 (Rs.) 4<br />
A+1+2)<br />
B+3+4)<br />
2<br />
Main product (q)<br />
Q Price/q V<br />
By product (q)<br />
Q Price/q V<br />
Total Net<br />
B:C<br />
returns returns<br />
ratio<br />
(Rs.) (Rs.)<br />
Cotton 741 466.60 15601.1 2655.25 93.90 18350. 56.41 2115.4 207.52 20673.3 10.10 2409.3 24339. 2.40 800 1921.0 26258. 5585.2 1.27<br />
6<br />
32<br />
5<br />
0<br />
3 77<br />
9 57 7<br />
Groundnut 0 361.80 12690.9 2655.28 93.90 15440. 36.08 1279.9 149.31 16869.3 14.91 1129.5 16840. 2.28 2909.0 6680.2 23521. 6651.7 1.39<br />
8<br />
13<br />
0<br />
6<br />
0 90<br />
9 1 12 5<br />
Rabi jowar 250.0 70.07 4904.13 2655.25 93.90 7653.2 28.77 1017.7 83.36 8755.53 8.32 675 5619.2 2.28 2550 5835.3 11454. 2699.0 1.30<br />
8<br />
8<br />
6<br />
5<br />
7 62 9<br />
Greengra 0 31.17 2634.74 2655.25 93.90 5383.9 14.96 561.35 25.24 5970.50 2.69 1828.2 4917.5 1.46 2000 2919.0 7836.5 1866.0 1.31<br />
m<br />
0<br />
7 2<br />
7 9 9<br />
- 13 -
An economic analysis <strong>of</strong> rain water harvesting structures<br />
– A case study <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds<br />
Rajeshwari Desai 2005 Dr. B. L. Patil<br />
Major Advisor<br />
Abstract<br />
Water is recognized as an elixir <strong>of</strong> life, human, societal development <strong>and</strong><br />
environmental sustainability. Hence, water should be treated as an economical <strong>and</strong> social<br />
good <strong>and</strong> its management must aim for the worthwhile use envisaging equity concerns,<br />
efficiency <strong>and</strong> environmental sustainability. Comprehensive research studies that focus on<br />
watershed programmes, particularly on rainwater harvesting are few. Hence the study was<br />
undertaken with main objectives <strong>of</strong> assessing impact <strong>of</strong> farm-ponds on cropping pattern,<br />
productivity, employment <strong>and</strong> income <strong>of</strong> the farmers <strong>and</strong> examining the feasibility <strong>of</strong><br />
investment in farm-ponds at farm level <strong>and</strong> analyzing benefits <strong>and</strong> constraints therein.<br />
The study was conducted in rainfed areas <strong>of</strong> Dharwad <strong>and</strong> Kalaghatagi taluks at<br />
Dharwad district <strong>of</strong> Karnataka. For the present study, Managundi MWS in Managundi SWS<br />
<strong>and</strong> Tumari-koppa MWS in Galagi SWS were selected respectively from Dharwad <strong>and</strong><br />
Kalaghatagi taluks. The primary data pertaining to agriculture year 2003-04 was collected<br />
using pre-tested interview schedules through personal interview method from 90 farmers, 45<br />
from With Farm Pond farmers <strong>and</strong> 45 from without farm-pond farmers. The data were<br />
analyzed using various statistical techniques including tabular <strong>and</strong> financial analysis.<br />
The results indicated that the Farm-ponds have positive impact on cropping pattern,<br />
cropping intensity, productivity, average net income <strong>and</strong> employment levels. Also an<br />
investment in farm-ponds was financially feasible <strong>and</strong> viable with 51.48 per cent IRR <strong>and</strong> net<br />
present worth (Rs.51, 719.86) <strong>and</strong> B:C ratio (3.05) <strong>and</strong> pay back period was low at 1.54<br />
years.<br />
Majority <strong>of</strong> farmers enjoyed the benefits <strong>of</strong> RWHS. Also the Constraints severely<br />
faced by farmers were non-availability <strong>of</strong> credit, requirement <strong>of</strong> high investment, Therefore,<br />
low-cost effective technology with suitable credit policy needs to be designed for the better<br />
adoption <strong>of</strong> RWHS.