Master of Science - ETD | Electronic Theses and Dissertations of ...

The average land holding was more or less similar and most of the farmers belonged
to the small farmers category with equal proportion (48.89%) in both with and without farmpond
areas.
Under the extent of use of RWHS, majority of the beneficiaries had benefited from
contour bunding (302 and 311 beneficiaries, respectively) followed by farm-ponds (97 and 81
beneficiaries, respectively) in both selected Managundi and Tumari-koppa MWS.
Across different rain water harvesting structures the investment made on farm pond
(Rs.14, 573.96/ha) was the highest, while it was lowest in diversion channel (Rs.1,
261.90/ha).
The extent of gross cropped area increased by 22.32 per cent in with farm-pond
(110.04 ha) area over without FP (89.96 ha) area.
The cropping pattern indicated that the cropped area under kharif was more or less
similar in with FP (76.84 ha) area over without FP (78.22 ha) area. While cropped area under
rabi was comparatively higher (30.18%) in with FP area than without FP (13.05%) area.
The cropping intensity in with farm-pond area (141.42%) was relatively higher that of without
farm-pond (112.67%) area.
A definite positive change has been observed in the productivities of all crops in with
farm-pond area than without farm-pond area and change in yield was found high in maize
(7.43 q/ha) followed by paddy (4.60 q/ha).
The net returns from all the crops were substantially higher in with farm-pond area
compared to without farm-pond area and the change in net returns vary from Rs.3, 865.79 (in
cotton) to Rs.594.63 (in green gram).
The per household average net income generated from the with farm-pond area was
found to be relatively higher by 48.21 per cent than that of without farm-pond area.
The per household human labour employment generated in the with farm-pond area was
higher by 4.08 per cent than that of without farm-pond area.
It has been clearly indicated that the investment in farm-ponds was financially
feasible and viable activity with 51.48 per cent IRR and net present worth of Rs.51,719.86
and a B:C ratio of 3.05 and pay back period was found to be low at1.54 years.
All the farmers in the case of with farm-pond area opined that major benefits accrued
were in the farm of increased moisture availability (60%), increased income (55.56%),
increased yield (53.33%), reduced soil erosion (51.11%) and increased employment
(46.67%). Moreover the maintenance of common assets of environment and increased
ground water recharge were other major benefits of RWHS.
The major reasons for partial adoption/non-adoption of RWHS in without farm-pond
area includes lack of credit availability (64.44%), heavy investment (51.11%), fragmented land
holdings (46.67%). Long gestation period, poor soil fertility and improper extension services
were the other reasons for non-adoption of RWHS.
6.3 Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn on the basis of the results of the present study.
The watershed project had given top priority to rainwater harvesting structures in rainfed
conditions of dry lands based on extent of use of RWHS and heavy investment on those
structures.
Construction of farm-ponds had brought about a perceptible change in cropping
pattern by increasing area under rabi crops of about 30.18 per cent in case of with farm-pond
area as compared to without farm-pond area (13.05%).
The yield, gross returns and net returns of all crops were higher in with farm-pond area over
without farm-pond area.
The percent household income (48.21%) and employment levels (4.08%) were higher
in with farm-pond area than without farm-pond area.
All the economic indicators of investment on farm-ponds justified with a positive NPW, B:C
ratio of more than unity and the IRR of investment with 51.48 per cent.
6.4 Policy implications
Watershed technology has helped in augmenting returns from dry land crop
production as well as other subsidiary activities. Therefore the implementation of watershed
development programme needs to be continued and extended to other areas.