The CommissionerKarnataka Watershed Development Department
KHB Complex, Cauvery BhavanBengaluru– 560009
The CommissionerKarnataka Watershed Development Department
KHB Complex, Cauvery BhavanBengaluru– 560009
Impact of Watershed Management Under
PMKSY-WD, (Erstwhile IMWP, Karnataka)
Batch II
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
1
A. Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................5
A. Survey methodology and Data analysis ...................................................................7
B. Profile of the study area ...........................................................................................8
C. Report on program implementation .........................................................................8
D. Evaluation of impacts ............................................................................................12
CHAPTER-1 ........................................................................................................................18
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................18
1.1 Watershed Development as a strategy ...................................................................20
1.2 Integrated Watershed Management Project; ..........................................................23
1.3 Institutional Base created for IWMP implementation: ..........................................23
CHAPTER-II .......................................................................................................................31
METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................31
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................31
2.2 Objectives of the study: .........................................................................................31
2.3 Methodology: .........................................................................................................32
2.4 Approach ................................................................................................................34
CHAPTER-III .....................................................................................................................36
PHYSICAL PROGRESS OF ACTIVITIES ...............................................................................36
3.1 Socio-economic conditions of the Project Taluks .................................................36
3.2 Demographic Details of the Taluks Selected .........................................................42
3.3 Particulars of watersheds selected for study ..........................................................44
3.4 Economic status of households ..............................................................................47
3.5 Fund management by SWSs ..................................................................................47
3.6 Entry Point activityand Community Mobilization .................................................52
3.7 Capacity building of Community Based Organisations.........................................57
3.8 Bio-Physical interventions .....................................................................................59
3.9 Rain Water Harvesting structures ..........................................................................69
3.10 Bio-mass Production: ...........................................................................................73
3.11 Production system ................................................................................................80
3.12 Livelihood activities.............................................................................................92
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
2
CHAPTER 4 ...................................................................................................................101
IMPACT EVALUATION .............................................................................................101
4.1.1. Land Use Changes: ..........................................................................................101
4.1.2. Soil and water conservation measures: ............................................................105
4.1.3. Drainage line treatment (Water harvesting structures): ...................................106
4.1.4. Crops and cropping pattern ..............................................................................106
4.1.5. Horticulture and forestry activities: .................................................................114
4.1.6. Village common property resources ................................................................116
4.1.7 Livestock activity and fodder production .........................................................119
4.1.8 Adequacy of drinking water and quality ...........................................................121
4.1.9. Depth to water table in tube wells ....................................................................121
4.2. Economic Impacts ...............................................................................................123
4.2.1. Significance of impact evaluation:...................................................................123
4.2.2. Average size of farm households: ....................................................................124
4.2.3. Size of operational land holdings: ....................................................................124
4.2.4. Impact of Watershed development on rural incomes: .....................................125
4.2.5. Trends in income across agro-climatic zones ..................................................131
4.2.6. Statistical significance of the results ................................................................131
4.2.7. Impact of SWS on farm credit position of farmers ..........................................133
4.2.8 Impact of watershed development on assets position of farmers .....................136
4.2.9 Impact of Watershed Development on per-hectare Crop Yields ......................140
4.2.10 Impact of Watershed Development on employment generation .....................140
4.2.11 Indicators of watershed sustainability .............................................................141
Conclusion .................................................................................................................148
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
3
List of tables
Table 1.0: Projects Implemented under Watershed Development in Karnataka .......................... 22
Table.1.1: Watershed projects, along with area selected for treatment for the next 18 years in
Karnataka: ............................................................................................................................. 26
Table 1.2: Taluk-wise Watersheds selected for development in Karnataka during 2010-11 ....... 27
Table 3.1: Agro-climatic zones of selected Taluks of different districts of Karnataka ................ 36
Table 3.2. Details of Taluks with respect to soils and land use .................................................... 40
Table 3.3: Taluk Level Demographic Information ....................................................................... 43
Table 3.4 Particulars of watersheds selected for the study ........................................................... 45
Table 3.5: Economic status (Average Annual Income per family) .............................................. 48
Table.3.6: Fund Management in watersheds (in Lakh Rs.) ........................................................ 49
Table 3.7: Details of structures constructed under E.P.A Entry Point Activities ........................ 54
Table.3.8: Awareness building activities in different watersheds ................................................ 55
Table 3.9: Formation of Community Based Organizations and representation of different
categories. ............................................................................................................................. 58
Table 3.10: Trainings for Capacity Building of different CBOs ................................................. 57
Table 3.11: Physical Progress Achieved - Soil Conservation..................................................... 60
Table 3.12: Increase in Production and income level across the watersheds due to bunding. ..... 62
Table 3.13: Physical Progress Achieved with respect to Disposal Systems for safe disposal run-
off water ................................................................................................................................ 66
Table 3.14: Physical Progress Achieved with respect to gully control cum water harvesting
structures. .............................................................................................................................. 71
Table 3.15: Impact of conservation measures on runoff conservation and groundwater levels. .. 72
Table: 3.16: Horticulture seedlings distributed in the selected watersheds .................................. 74
Table 3.17: Horticulture intensification ........................................................................................ 76
Table 3.18: Details of seedlings distributed for promoting agro-forestry .................................... 78
Table 3.19: Afforestation activities in the common lands ............................................................ 80
Table 3.20: Status of Animal Health Camps ................................................................................ 83
Table: 3.21: Details of members trained through Village Based trainings in different watersheds.
............................................................................................................................................... 85
Table 3.22: Status of Livestock maintenance activities ................................................................ 88
Table 3.23: Status of fodder mini-kit distribution and fodder production in selected watersheds 92
Table 3.24: Distribution of members across the new and old SHG groups (graded) .................. 94
Table 3.25: Distribution of members as per social class across watersheds ................................. 95
Table.3.26: Members trained through EAP and SEDP and number adopted in the watersheds .. 96
Table. 3.27: Savings group wise and bank linkages in the watersheds ........................................ 97
Table 4.1: Impact of watershed program on land use changes ................................................... 102
Table 4.1b: Change in Land use pattern due to watershed development programs across 29
watersheds ........................................................................................................................... 104
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
4
Table 4.2: Changes in cropping pattern and area under irrigation after implementation of
watershed program. ............................................................................................................. 109
Table 4.3. Area under different types of cropsacross the watersheds before and after the project
period. ................................................................................................................................. 113
Table.4.4. Density of trees per 100 ha across 29 watersheds. .................................................... 115
Table 4.5. Changes in the availability of Village Common Property Resources across watersheds
............................................................................................................................................. 117
Table 4.6. Increase in green fodder production and milk yield ................................................. 120
Table 4.7: Impact of watershed development programs on drinking water facilities and depth to
water table ........................................................................................................................... 122
Table 4.8. Change in depth to water table (in m from ground level) in tube wells due to
intervention of watershed programs across watersheds ...................................................... 123
Table 4.9: Average Size of Farm households across different locations (Nos.) ......................... 124
Table 4.10: Average Size of households across different holding size of farmers (Nos) ......... 124
Table 4.11: Average landholding size across different reaches of watershed (ha) ..................... 125
Table 4.12: Landholding size across different holding size (ha) ................................................ 125
Table.4.13: Per capita Income from different sources across farm locations (Rs.) .................... 127
Table 4.14: Per capita (PC) Income from different sources across Social classes (Rs.) ............ 128
Table 4.15: Per capita Income from different sources across Holdings (in Rs.) ....................... 129
Table 4.16: Per capita Income from different sources across agro-climatic zones (Rs.) ............ 131
Table 4.17: Paired t- test for Total Household Income ............................................................... 132
Table 4.18: Paired-test for Total per capita income .................................................................... 133
Table 4.19: Amount of loan (Rs.) taken by farmers across different social categories .............. 134
Table 4.20: Amount of loan (Rs.) taken by farmers across different Farm Size-classes ............ 135
Table 4.21: Amount of loan (Rs.) taken by farmers across different farm locations ................ 135
Table 4.22: Changes observed with respect to assets across holding size of farmers (in Nos) .. 136
Table 4.23: Yields (quintals per hectare) of principal crops grown by sample farmers in the
watershed areas ................................................................................................................... 140
Table 4.24. Impact of Watershed Development on employment generation ............................. 142
Table 4.25. Sustainability indicators of watersheds.................................................................... 143
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Soil and water conservationists worldwide have been advocating practicing watershed-based
approach for holistic management of land and water resources. This approach has become the
cornerstone for sustainable development of agriculture sector to achieve food and water security.
Shrinking cultivated area in India coupled with intensification of high input-driven agriculture
have resulted in over-exploitation of land and water, and forced farmers to cultivate steep and
highly erosion-prone marginal lands. Good cultivation/management practices have also been
replaced by ineffective ones as an answer to external shocks like falling crop price. These factors
have resulted in the widespread degradation of watersheds. The term watershed degradation
(similar to land degradation in the Indian or global context), broadly defined as degradation of
both soil and water in a watershed thereby resulting in the long-term reduction of the quantity
and quality of these resources, has emerged as a critical issue in different states of the country,
particularly the states with large areas under degradation making them highly vulnerable to
climate change.
Karnataka is the seventh largest state of the country contributing about 7.4% to the nation’s
Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) ranking it fifth among the Indian states in 2016-17. The
state is third in terms of the area affected by land degradation (about 41% of the total
geographical area) and has a net sown area of about 105.23 lakh ha as per the 2010-11 census, of
which 70.3 lakh ha (67%) is rainfed. Further, around 62.8% of the rural population is dependent
on agriculture. Among the cultivators, while marginal farmers constitute 48% with an average
holding size of 0.45 ha, small farmers constitute 27% with an average holding size of 1.43 ha.
Such a situation aggravates the existing mounting pressure on natural resources in terms land-
man ratio making farming unviable. According to a recent report, 70% of the state is vulnerable
to droughts, with 13 of the last 17 years declared as drought years. Another study points out that
about 51% of the state supporting 42% of the population is climate change-vulnerable. The state
ranks 18 among the Indian States according to the Human Development Index (2017). One of the
main reasons for this is the stagnant or declining annual growth in agricultural sector and also a
decline in the share of agriculture in the economy of the state. These points indicate the inability
of the sector to absorb the growing work force leading to unemployment and social unrest.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
6
In order to increase yields of rain fed crops and reduce poverty in drought prone areas, several
programs were initiated by the Government from time to time. However, most of these programs
were target-oriented with subsidies for the use of external inputs. Though these programs helped
to improve yield, production was insufficient to meet the ever-growing demands. In order to
provide a major thrust to the development of rain fed areas on a sustainable basis, the National
Rain fed Area Authority was established in November 2006. The watershed programs carried out
under Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) and Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) were merged
into a single program namely the Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWMP) with
the objectives of: (a) Improving the productive potential of degraded lands through various
interventions; (b) Increasing the bio-diversity through different agro-forestry activities; (c)
Promoting IGA to the asset-less residents and other vulnerable groups for improving their
economy; (d) Supporting livestock sector for higher incomes, and (e) Maximizing production
through efficient farming systems and micro-enterprises.
The Watershed Development Department (WDD), Government of Karnataka is the nodal agency
for the implementation of watershed development projects across all the districts of the state
through IWMP. The watersheds available for the treatment have been technically prioritized
using various indicators/parameters like rainfall, soil type, general slope, drought intensity,
extent of vulnerable groups, extent of irrigation etc., as suggested by the Department of Land
Resources (DoLR), Government of India (GoI). The Program has been implemented in batches.
Under Batch-II, 127 Projects were sanctioned for 127 taluks of 29 districts across the state during
2010-11 in order to develop 5.47 lakh ha covering 5272 villages and improve socio- economic
conditions of 16,11,090 households residing in these villages. The total cost involved in
developing these areas as per the guidelines was earmarked at Rs.141.58 crores.
The Department has facilitated the watershed development program through a network of
institutions, by entrusting the responsibility of program implementation to the village
communities. Watershed development Team (WDT) ensured proper implementation of the
programs through Grama Panchayat sub-committee (GPSC) or Executive Committee (EC), with
its President being the head of the EC/GPSC along with members of GP, and vulnerable groups
(SC, ST, landless/self-help groups and women) representing all sections of the society. The
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
7
Secretary of the committee is nominated from the Department to ensure accountability. As per
the guidelines, the capacities of the communities have been built by organizing trainings required
under the program for effective implementation as well as to enable them to take up management
of natural resources (soil, water and vegetation) on a sustainable basis after completion of the
withdrawal phase.
The WDD also established a well-developed Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning & Development
(MEL&D) framework for ensuring the success of the program. The agencies identified for this
purpose were M/s Consulting Engineering Services, New Delhi for Bengaluru and Mysuru
divisions, M/s Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology, Bengaluru for Belagavi
Division, and M/s Remote Sensing Instruments (RSI), Hyderabad for reporting on the activities
in Kalaburagi Division. These agencies have submitted their impact evaluation reports for the
respective divisions. Now, M/s RSI has been given the responsibility of submitting the
consolidated impact evaluation report for the state under Batch-II Projects, which has been done
and presented as below:
B. Survey methodology and Data analysis
The survey covers 29 SWSs in 29 taluks of 29 districts, representing all the agro-climatic zones.
The total number of watersheds in the districts is 127, spreading across 127 taluks in the state.
From each of the 29 SWSs selected for the study, the same 120 households used for baseline and
mid-term evaluation were selected for the study to assess the impacts. One micro-watershed,
each in ridge, middle and valley was selected to ensure representation. Villages were then
identified to select 40 sample farmers representing landless, marginal, small, and large farmers
numbering 10 in each category based on stratified sampling method. To ensure collection of
realistic data from households, the schedules were pre-tested on a small sample keeping in view
the objectives of the study. Both primary and secondary data were collected by trained field
investigato The sample village, where baseline survey was carried out, but not considered for
implementation of the project, was taken as control. The survey, therefore, provided scope for
impact assessment by adopting the cross-sectional as well as longitudinal approach. Based on the
data collected from each village, an estimate is made for the SWS and district as a whole. The
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
8
data were scrutinized and verified for correctness and consistency. Simple statistical tools like
averages and percentages were used to analyze and interpret the data for preparing the report.
C. Profile of the study area
The impact of development initiatives on improvement of natural resources varied depending
upon climate as well as soil conditions. The taluks in which sample projects were identified for
undertaking the study represented the 10 agro-climatic zones of the state. The predominant soil
types in the SWSs are: red (13 SWSs), black (9 SWSs), and mixed red/black/lateritic (7 SWSs).
The 29 SWSs comprises 1.34 lakh ha, covering 497 villages and 82,181 households. The average
area per SWS is 4637 ha, and ranges from 2750 ha in respect of Jakkenahalli SWS in Mandya
district to 8194 ha (Mavalli SWS, Uttara Kannada district). The income of all rural landless
families varied from about Rs.7,500/- (Doddamanikere SWS) to Rs. 1,64,000/- (Kerkalmatti
SWS) across the watersheds before the implementation of project. For marginal families, it
varied from Rs.13,400/- to Rs. 2,45,000/-, whereas for small farmers it varied from Rs.
16,700/- to Rs. 2,35,000/- and for large farmers it varied from Rs.33,900/- to Rs. 3,03,000/-.
D. Report on program implementation
Community Mobilization, Awareness Creation Programs and Entry Point Activity (EPA):
All the planned EPAs have been executed and the expenditure for the same in each of the sample
watersheds has also been fully made as per the guidelines. 106 check dams and 111 Gokattes
were constructed across the watersheds as a part of the EPA. The planned number and
expenditure on awareness activities have been achieved as per the guidelines. In all 205 Gram
Sabhas, 188 Kala Jathas, 150 Street Plays, 137 wall paintings and 14 exposure visits were
carried out across the watersheds. During discussions with the community, it was understood that
block wise meetings, film shows, slide shows and awareness through school children will help to
empower the communities better than the present training systems.
Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and Capacity building:
The WDD has trained the Non-Government Organization (NGO) staff namely Team Leader and
Income Generation (IG) specialist for 5 days at Soil and Water Conservation Training Centers at
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
9
Mysuru and Vijayapura on the concept of watershed development in general, and IWMP and its
implementation procedures in particular as well as their roles and responsibilities. Trainings have
been organized to CBOs - EC, User Groups (UGs) and Self Help Group (SHG) members - in all
the watersheds. These members were given trainings at 3 levels using Subject Matter Specialists
(SMSs) as resource persons in most of the cases. Totally, 1426 EC members, 41,750 UG
members, and 17,729 SHG members have been trained across the watershed projects. However,
interactions with stakeholders revealed that trainings need to have practical classes or exposure
to places where the programs are successfully implemented for better understanding as class
room lectures may not help them to comprehend the good impact of various Programs. Further,
they also suggested that refresher courses may help them to better understand at the time of
implementation of the Program, in addition to providing them hands-on experience.
Soil and Water Conservation activities
Bunding in cultivated areas of the SWSs is completed as planned as it has been achieved to the
extent of 74% across the 29 watersheds. In more than 17 watersheds, additional expenditure was
incurred (when compared to sanctioned) in order to complete the bunding activity, which has
proven benefits of conserving rain water in rain fed areas. Yields of ragi were found to increase
from 180 to 400 kg/ha and in case of maize, the yield improvement varied from 150 kg/ha to 900
kg/ha. Such yield improvements in ragi brought an additional income ranging from Rs. 3,200/-
per ha to Rs. 6,000/- per ha. The overall increase in the income ranged from Rs.12.7 lakh to 624
lakhs, considering the total ragi grown area across SWSs in the state.
The disposal systems such as waste weirs, diversion channel, rubble checks, boulder checks and
gully plugs were planned and implemented as per the needs of the SWS. In case of waste weirs,
the achievement varied from 21.9% in Hirehadagali (Ballary district) to more than 100% in six
watersheds, with an overall achievement of 74%. The diversion channels were planned in eight
SWSs and the achievement was 100%, in respect of these SWSs excepting in Yelakundi SWS
where the achievement was 9.3%.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
10
Rain water harvesting structures were planned and executed as per requirement and through
participatory planning in the selected watersheds. These structures included farm ponds, mini
percolation tanks, check dams, nala bunds, vented dams and gokatte. Farm ponds were not
considered in eight SWSs, which suggests that need based planning is adopted in developing the
area. In case of Udupi, Dakshina Kannada, Uttara Kannada and Shivamogga districts, the vented
dams are constructed in place of check dams because of terrain conditions. Assuming 5% runoff
from the average annual rainfall, the expected runoff varied from 214 TCM in Khyadigera to as
high as 15865 TCM in Kalyadi. The average total runoff stored through the conservation
structures was 3910 thousand cubic metres (TCM), which is only 5% of the runoff generated
across watersheds. This indicates that the developmental activities are planned considering the
downstream requirements so as to prevent negative externalities associated with conservation
measures. The highest storage volume as percentage of runoff was observed in Kariyalpura
watershed of Chitradurga district (68%).
Horticulture /Agro forestry
Horticulture program consisted of providing mango, coconut, sapota, lemon, and pomegranate
and guava saplings to the farmers. The finance earmarked for the Program was fully utilized. The
number of seedlings distributed varied from 1945 in Vadaganahalli SWS (Kolara district) to
about 1,47,965 in Kuntahole SWS (Udupi district). At least, 10,000 seedlings were distributed in
all but four watersheds. Average survival rate at the end of project varied from 10 to 79% across
the watersheds under study. Under forestry, a total of 24 lakhs seedlings of different forest
species was distributed across all the watersheds, covering about 30,000 farmers with an
expenditure of Rs. 1115 lakhs (range: Rs. 2.09 lakhs in Mattighatta watershed to Rs. 72.6 lakhs
in Agadi watershed). The survival percentage of agro-forestry species taken together across all
watersheds was 51%. The horticulture/agro forestry interventions has remarkably improved the
density of different species (per 100 ha).
Livestock management
Animal health camps, village-based trainings for livestock maintenance and fodder enrichment
were amply carried out across all the watersheds. Further, fodder mini-kits (about 29,000
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
11
covering 2761 ha) were distributed to the farmers. A total of 306 camps (90% of target) were
organized to cover 236 villages by spending Rs 99.3 lakhs. This has helped to reduce the disease
incidence from 25 to 42%. Trevis, sheep pens, cattle sheds, silage pits and Azolla production
units have been provided wherever required.
Alternative Livelihoods
Across the selected watersheds, 403 old SHGs were already existing and functioning. In
addition, 730 new SHGs are formed out of left-over individuals to ensure justice and equity
among the landless. Over all, there are 6,610 members in the old SHGs and 11,088 members in
the new SHGs. All categories of people are considered according to their proportion in the total
population without any discrimination. Representation from the weaker sections of the society
was about 35% of the SHG members. A significant number belonged to landless and marginal
which indicated equity and justice in sharing limited benefits.
Income generation activities were promoted through members of the SHGs. All the members
have been provided EAP training wherein they are given a choice to select an activity suitable to
them. The members involved in the EAP were trained in either skilled or non-skilled activities,
with only 29% of them opting for the latter. This is a matter of serious concern as there is always
a question mark on the sustainability of non-skilled activities, particularly during drought years,
besides marketing risks. It would be more appropriate to enthuse people to develop technical
skills related to services required in the rural areas (tailoring, motor repairs, plumbing, electrical,
food products, etc.) for sustaining the activities as well as possible benefits from them.
Savings made by different groups varied from a minimum of Rs. zero in Mavalli watershed
(Uttara Kannada district) to Rs 27.5 lakhs in Doddamanikere watershed (Bengaluru Rural
district). These variations are mainly due to variations in the number of and members in the
groups. In order to undertake IGA by the members, initially a revolving fund of Rs. 50,000/- was
provided to each group. A total revolving fund of Rs. 465.8 lakhs was distributed across
watersheds and bank loan of Rs. 719 lakhs, obtained to undertake IG activities under Batch–II
across all the watersheds. The assets created among the existing SHGs in different Watersheds
ranged from Rs. 8.5 lakhs in Punacha SWS (Dakshina Kannada district) to Rs. 137.0 lakhs in
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
12
Ragimakalahalli SWS (Chikkaballapura district). A total asset creation of Rs.1105.4 lakhs is
generated through the watershed Program in all the districts.
Budget utilization
More than 90% of the amount released for the individual SWSs, except in six cases, has been
utilized. The utilization of funds was the least in Hirevankalakunta (45.5%) followed by
Ragimakalahalli (79.5%). This indicates that finances provided are effectively utilized for
implementing the Program in most of the watersheds.
E. Evaluation of impacts
Changes in land use
With the exception of three SWSs wherein the cultivated area remained unchanged from its
value before the start of the watershed project, the area increased varying from 3.0 ha in
Doddamanikere watershed to 150 ha in Khyadigera watershed of Raichuruu district. This clearly
established better use of land resources in the area due to better planning and education of
farmers. Increase in area under cultivation was mostly due to the conversion of cultivable fallows
(799 ha across all the watersheds). As a result of judicious conservation of soil and rainwater, an
additional 932 ha across the 29 watersheds could be brought under irrigation, which is an
increase by 6% over the pre-project area. Area under irrigation increased in all watersheds except
in Neginal and Kadadi SWSs of Belagavi and Gadaga districts, respectively. The increase in
irrigated varied from 5.0 ha in Kalyadi SWS, Hassan district to 151.0 ha in Yalakundi SWS,
Shivamogga district. Increase in irrigated area occurred as a result of decline in rain fed area
(420 ha) and fallow/wasteland (512 ha). The wastelands have been brought down to the tune of
176 ha in six watersheds taken together while being unchanged in the remaining 23 watersheds.
Changes in Water Resources
Soil and water conservation measures resulted in groundwater recharge and improved
groundwater level by an average of 15 m, with the rise in water table in the range of 2 to 70 m,
except in one watershed (Hulaginakati), where the water table was unchanged. The rise in water
table was maximum in Habalanala (30 m) followed by Hirevankalaunta (25 m) watersheds.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
13
Further, across watersheds, construction of water harvesting structures have improved the
number of functional open wells (from 1247 before project to 1389 after the project) by 11% as
well as tube wells (from 3529 – before project to 4842 – after the project) by 13% – both in
quantity (from 1” discharge – before project to 1½” to 2½” discharge of water- after the project)
as well as duration of period (July to November – before project to July to January/April months
– at the end of Project). The quality of water which was hard/salty water prior to watershed
Program changed to good water in 12 watersheds. However, in one watershed (Khyadigera SWS,
Raichuru), fluoride content in drinking water remained unchanged even after the Program. The
time spent for fetching drinking water was reduced by two minutes to two hours across the
watersheds after the Program implementation.
Changes in cropping pattern and crop productivity
There was an increase in the gross cropped area by 6.82% from the base value of 113788 ha
across the watersheds. This was due to the combined effect of 7.01% increase in the rain fed area
(kharif + rabi), 20% increase in irrigated area (kharif + rabi), and 87% increase in the area of
crops grown during summer season. Under rain fed condition, the overall cropped area showed
an increase from 88116 ha (before project) to 88241 ha (at the end of project) and the increase
being 0.14% across the watersheds. Further, this increase in rain fed area across watersheds is
accomplished largely through increase in area during kharif and to a smaller extent during rabi
season particularly in northern Karnataka where rabi crops like sorghum, chickpea, sunflower,
wheat are grown on black soils. Under irrigation through the use of tube/open wells, increase in
area was to an extent of 6.0% over the irrigated area (15591 ha prior to the project) due to
groundwater recharge through water harvesting structures. This increase in area was reflected in
all districts of Karnataka barring Neginal SWS of Belagavi district. One encouraging fact is that
the area under irrigated pulses (kharif + rabi) was found to increase by 16.5%, as compared to
the increase of 17% and 14% in cereals and oilseeds, respectively.
By comparing crops grown during kharif, rabi and summer under irrigated condition, cropping
intensity was also worked out separately for area before and after the project. Among the
different watersheds, highest cropping intensity of 176% (post-project) was achieved in case of
Kariyalpura watershed (Chitrdurga district), which was a 10% rise from the base value (166%).
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
14
The highest increment in cropping intensity to the tune of 33% from the base value of 100% was
reported from Mallayanapura SWS (Chamrajanagara district), followed by 27% in Kaylyadi
watershed (Hassan district). Overall, there was an increase in cropping intensity from 110 to
116% at the end of the project mainly due to water availability in water harvesting structures.
There was no change in cropping intensity in respect of two SWSs, viz, Khyadigera and
Hirevankalakunta SWSs in Raichuru and Koppal districts respectively.
The watershed interventions not only improved the cropping intensity, but also improved crop
yields across all the watersheds due to improved moisture storage in soil profile and better
nutrient recycling. The rise in productivity per ha ranges from 41.5 percent in the case of
sunflower to 61.5 percent in the case of banana.
Changes in vegetation density
There was a more-than-seven-fold rise in tree density after implementation of the Program in
different watersheds of Kalaburagi Division (41 trees before the start of the project to 317 trees/
100 ha after the closure of the Program). In Bengaluru division, the average tree density/100 ha
under horticulture activity increased from 256 trees (before project) to 687 trees (after the
project) and thus registered an increase in tree density by 2.7 times. Similarly, in Mysuru
division, the average tree density/100 ha under horticulture activity increased by 53% from 1324
trees (before project) to 2030 trees (after the project).
The average tree density/100 ha under forestry increased from 49 trees (before project) to 1206
trees (after the project) and thus registered an increase in density by 24 times in Bengaluru
division. Similarly, in Mysuru division, the average tree density/100 ha under forestry increased
from 315 trees before project to 1311 trees after the project, which is a whopping 316% rise from
the base value. Tree density increased from 179 to 1192 per 100 ha across the watersheds of
Kalaburagi division. In case of Belagavi division, initial tree density was not recorded, however,
the density at the end of the project period was 873 trees/ 100 ha. Thus, tree density across the
divisions increase due to watershed Programs and their increase followed the trend Mysuru >
Bengaluru >Kalaburagi> Belagavi.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
15
Livestock management and fodder production
Fodder mini-kits have been distributed in all but six districts of the 29 Batch-II IWMP districts to
cover an area of 2871 ha, and the overall production of green fodder amounted to 9024.0 tonnes
meeting the fodder requirement of the households, apart from dry fodder obtained through crops
grown in their respective fields. Due to more area under fodder crops in southern Karnataka,
more fodder production has been obtained than the northern parts of Karnataka. The yield of
fodder ranged from 12 to 60 q/ha under rain fed condition, while the fodder yield ranged from 45
to 90 q/ha under irrigated conditions. With this increased supply of green fodder along with dry
fodder, milk yield of cows have increased by 50 to 100% in all districts of southern Karnataka
(except four districts for which data is not available), while 14 and 25% increase in milk yield
have been reported from Belagavi and Kalaburagi divisions, respectively.
Changes in per capita income
After the implementation of the watershed project across 29 districts, the per capita income has
gone up substantially across all the reaches within the watershed areas varying from 21 to 254%.
The average annual per capita income from all sources which was Rs.42,413/- before the launch
of the watershed project rose to Rs. 71,635/- after the Program which amounts to about 69 % rise
in the per capita income. Among the different divisions, the rise in per capita income was the
highest in Bengaluru (195%), followed by Kalaburagi (190%), Mysuru (125%) and Belagavi
(30%). Further, the percentage of farm income to the total per capita income, which was 62.0%
before the launch of the Program rose to 77.0% at the end of the project. Across all the
watersheds, the rise in per capita income observed the trend: Upper reach (81%) > Middle reach
(78%) > lower-reach (55%) farmers.
Among the different farm categories, the largest gainers were landless farmers (202%), followed
by marginal (186%), small (168%) and large farmers (123%). However, the increase in per
capita income from agriculture followed the trend: landless farmers (235%) > small farmers
(163%) > marginal farmers (149%) > large farmers (110%).Share of agricultural income in the
total per capita income has gone up across all the agro-climatic zones, with the Hilly zone
registering the highest rise in per capita agricultural income (from 48% to 85%, i.e. a growth of
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
16
37%). The share of agricultural income in the total per capita income which was hardly 56%
across the nine zones before the launch of SWS shot up to 81% at the end of the project.
Changes in loans and assets, employment generation
Increased income from agriculture had a positive influence on declining amount of loans availed
from banks by the farmers of almost all the watersheds. There was an overall decrease in the
average amount of loan taken by sample farmers by about 21% after the project. Interestingly,
this decrease was mostly accounted for by the ST farmers in the three of the four divisions.
While the highest rise in the loan amount was seen in the watersheds of Belagavi Division
(28.6%), the maximum decline was noticed in the watersheds of Bengaluru Division (70.2%).
Among the farm categories, the percent decline followed the order: landless farmers (118%) >
marginal farmers (65%) > small farmers (20%) > large farmers (15%).
The asset position of the farmers has improved in respect of all the items under survey except a
few, for instance tractor-drawn implements and tillers in Bengaluru Division and plough in
Mysuru Division. Along with the rise in the number of farm assets, there has also been a rise in
the number of durable consumable family assets including two/four wheelers, biogas/LPG,
TV/Radios/Tape recorders and sundry assets in most of the watersheds.
A total of 88 lakh man-days were generated by the Project across the watersheds, with an
average of over 3 lakh man-days per watershed, which is a welcome sign in the sense that it has
helped in reducing out-migration of labour from the watersheds in search of work. Maximum
employment generation was observed in Hassan district (over 10 lakh man-days) followed by
Mysuru district (9.16 lakh man-days). Among the different employment generating activities,
about 47% of the total man-days was created by livestock rearing alone, followed by soil
conservation activities (25%).
Sustainability of the project
The success of any watershed Program depends on the post-withdrawal scenario, i.e. on how the
resources are collectively managed and improved after the watershed Program is completed. This
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
17
would depend on the sustainability of the Institutions created during the implementation of the
watershed Program. The status of all the evaluated sustainability indicators (functional status,
financial linkages, record maintenance, etc.) were encouraging in almost every watershed, which
leads us to conclude that sustainability issues were taken care of during the planning and
implementation of the watershed Program.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
18
Chapter-1
Introduction
Land perhaps the most critical resource, for human and animal livelihood, is limited and a finite
resource. It is subject to competing and ever increasing demands from agriculture and non-
agriculture sectors. The compulsive need for augmenting food production to meet the demand of
the growing population has an adverse serious impact on land use resulting in large areas of
marginal lands being put to cultivation on one hand and increased demand for fire wood, timber
and fodder, leading to deforestation and over grazing of pasture lands adversely affecting the
grass and tree cover on the other. As a result, degradation of natural resources was set in and the
same is on the increase. The degradation of lands has marginalized further with time leading to
ecological imbalance. To prevent the above, there is a need to adapt scientific land use plans for
conserving resources and develop strategies to balance the competing as well as growing
demands so as to sustain productivity and production.
Karnataka state located between 110
30ǀ
and 180 30
ǀ N latitudes and 74
0 15
ǀ and 78
0 30
ǀ E
longitudes covering an area of 1,91790 sq.km with 300km coast line on the west. About 103.81
lakh ha is the net sown area of which 80 lakh ha is rain fed. It is the abode of poor people and
livestock. These lands are ecologically and economically disadvantaged and constitute
hinterlands. The natural resources in these areas are poorly managed and impoverished, in the
process enormous degradation has taken place. As a consequence to improper management, the
areas degraded due to water erosion, nutrient losses and salinity are 35.5%, 3.9 % and 0.6%
respectively (Plates 1, 2 and 3). More than 62.5% of the severely eroded and 59% of the
moderately eroded areas of the country is in the dry zones. In the command areas, more than
10% of the irrigated area has become water logged (1999). The absence of vegetation and lack of
protection measures both in arable and non-arable areas are causing enormous soil loss (plates 4
to 6). Soil erosion is estimated to reduce yields by 0.14t/ha/mm of soil loss (~~15t/ha/annum).
Thus, soil erosion is undermining our efforts to increase productivity and production, which
needs to be prevented.
Soil, thus, eroded from arable and non-arable lands settles in the water storage structures such as
tanks and reservoirs. The rate of silt deposition in irrigation tanks is estimated at 8.51 ha-m/
100sq km/ year against an assumed siltation of 3.02 ha m/ 100 sq.km/year. This not only reduced
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
19
the irrigated area year by year but ultimately the economic life of the storage structures. As a
result, the irrigated area under tanks which was once at 684,500 ha now reduced to 240,000 ha.
Thus, land degradation in the catchment area is not only reducing productivity and production in
the catchment areas but also adversely affecting the production of command area. Thus,
degradation of natural resources due to erosion is all pervasive and pernicious, and requires to be
prevented.
The occurrence and distribution of rainfall is highly erratic in the state and varies from as low as
569mm in the northern plateau region to as high as 4240.3mm in the coastal region. Though the
average annual rainfall is 1138mm received over 55 days, about 66% of the geographical area
receives less than 750mm with a climatic condition varying from semiarid to arid making
agriculture a gamble. Due to lack of vegetation and removal of top soils, rain water hardly
infiltrates to recharge ground water, and as a result, much of it is lost as runoff. Increase in the
number of wells (>10 lakh wells) coupled with absence of measures to recharge groundwater for
preventing fall in water table levels, reduced groundwater draft from 41 lakh ha-m in 1972 to
10.7 lakh ha-m in 2004. In about 43 Taluks groundwater is over exploited (2013) and in 14
Taluks it is critical and in 21 taluks semi critical. Hence continuous use of groundwater without
appropriate recharge measures will have severe impact on the ecological balance of the region
apart from reducing irrigated area. As of now, only 36.9 % of the area is irrigated across the state
with a cropping intensity of 117.9%.
Added to the above, the population pressures are continuously mounting and have doubled
between 1960 and 2011. The rural population dependant on agriculture is around 61.3%. Among
the farmers/cultivators, marginal farmers constitute 48% with an average holding size of 0.45 ha
and small constitute 27% with an average holding size of 1.4 ha. Such a situation is putting
tremendous pressure on natural resources in terms land-man ratio making farming an unviable
one. All the above is reflected in the Human Development Index (2017) where Karnataka ranks
18 among the Indiana States. One of the main reasons is the lack of growth in agricultural sector.
In sixties, it contributed to about 60% to the GSDP and it reduced to 36% during nineties and to
13.5% during 2015-16. Such a decline in the share of agriculture in the economy and its poor
growth indicates its inability to absorb the growing work force leading to unemployment and
social unrest.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
20
The combined effects of the above related to farm sector is something that need to be given
proper weightage in formulating agriculture development plans. Government from time to time
being fully aware of the problems organized Programs to conserve soil and water since 1950 and
on augmenting production.
In order to increase yields of rain fed crops and reduce poverty in drought prone areas, several
Programs were initiated from time to time. However, these programs were target-oriented with
subsidies for the use of external inputs. Though these programs helped to improve yield,
production was still not sufficient to meet domestic demands. The overall impact of all the
Programs implemented earlier, is that (a) food and nutritional insecurity has been increasing at
the habitation level, (b) incidental effects have been neglected and (c) ecological damage is on
the increase.
1.1 Watershed Development as a strategy
Several developmental paradigms experimented during the India’s post-independence era have
indicated that development, to be sustainable, needs to be community-oriented rather than being
just a government-run program. Environmental degradation as a fallout of the development
models tried so far has brought into sharp focus that each effort needs to be in consonance with
Nature’s laws. This has led to visualize the watershed concept and philosophy for the overall
development of rain fed lands through an integrated approach by converging all developmental
programs under different departments into a comprehensive plan for resource conservation and
optimizing production by considering resources on one hand and the demands for the economic
wellbeing of the population living in a given watershed on the other. Several external agencies
have taken up watershed development programs in the backward areas of the state subsequent to
1984. These projects have proved that inclusion of livelihood support systems is a pre-requisite
for developing areas on a sustainable basis to achieve poverty reduction by establishing social
justice, and is now being pursued by all the agencies involved in watershed development
programs.
The main focus of watershed development Program is on developing land and water resources
and their judicious use to maximize production so as to improve economic status of people and
bring stability to livelihoods. The strategy aims to minimize risks involved in farming through
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
21
appropriate conservation strategies and promotion of area specific technologies to improve use
efficiency of resources. The conservation measures include land leveling, bunding, construction
of water disposal and impounding structures along the drainage lines, promotion of alternative
farming systems like agro-forestry, agro-horticulture and silvi-horti- pastoral systems through
climate smart agriculture and alternative livelihoods for landless to provide stable income.
Livestock based activities are also promoted to strengthen the draught and milch animals which
sustain the rain fed farmer by providing resilience to agriculture income.
Karnataka is the first State to conceive the necessity of watershed development following the
experiences gained from G.R. Halli, Kabbalnalawatersheds in 1980s. These experiences have
decisively proved that development adopting watershed approach results in ensuring food
security, enhancing farming viability, reestablishing ecological balance, ultimately leading to
equity, efficiency and stability to the economy. The state had approved the replication of this
model in 18 districts and created an organizational structure having 3 tier systems at state,
divisional and project level. At the divisional level, Dry Land Development Boards (DLDBs)
with multidisciplinary teams were set up to implement district watershed development projects.
The major learning from these pilot projects is that it would be easier to integrate sectoral
activities over small areas when compared to large area leading to micro-watershed as a planning
unit.
The watershed development program as a development strategy adopted by the Karnataka
Government has expanded from the earlier limited goals of increasing productivity of the land
through soil and water conservation to improving livelihoods, enabling greater distributive social
justice (direct and indirect). It was found to be sustainable as a development strategy because it
ensured conservation of natural resources and agricultural productivity. Thus, Watershed
Development today is considered a strategy for integrated development of a given area
(Watershed) involving people in every aspect of planning, implementation and management of
local resources. In essence these programs aim to convert resource users into resource managers.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
22
Table 1.0: Projects Implemented under Watershed Development in Karnataka
Agency year
Name of the Major Project and Year of Initiation
IDALD DPAP SFDA/
MFOL CRVP NWDPRA
DLDA and
WS aided PIDOW KWDP KAWAD SUJALA
SUJALA
(RIDF)
1971 1973-74 1975-76 1984-85 1989-90 1985-86 1984-85 1991 1995 2002 2009
Extent of
Coverage by
the agency
Two
taluks
72 taluks All over the
State
41 out of 3
major
catchments
of reservoirs
Initially in 45,
subsequently
increased to
67 WS, all
over the State.
One each in
all districts.
Covering
25 - 35
thousand
ha.
Kalaburagi
dist.
Covering
3400 ha
Dharwad,
Belgaum
and
U.Kannada
dist.
3 taluks, one each
in Chithradurga,
Ballary&Vijayapura
districts.
5 dist, 77
SWS
(Kolara,
Tumakuru,
Haveri,
C.Durga
and
Dharwad)
6 dist, 69
WS
(Hassan,
C
Magalur,
C. Durga,
Kodagu,
Belgaum
and
Shimoga)
Implementing
Agency
Agri.
Dept
Various
govt. depts.
Coordination
at dist. Level
Staff of soil
conservation
and partly
through
commercial
banks
Soil
conservation
wing of
Agri. Dept.
Soil
conservation
wing of Agri.
Dept.
Watershed
devlp.
Team
draws from
agri. Forest
and horti.
NGO and
sectoral
staff
initially
and NGO
& WDT
later.
Team of
Agri. Horti
and Forest
Dept.
Society specially
created by the
Government for the
purpose – with
NGOs.
WDD and
NGO with
CBOs.
WDD and
NGO with
CBOs.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
23
1.2 Integrated Watershed Management Project
In order to give a major thrust to developing rain fed areas on a sustainable basis using watershed
as a unit for integrated development, the National Rain fed Area Authority was established in
November 2006. The watershed programs carried out under MoRD and MoA have been merged
into a single program namely the Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWMP)
which is presently known as PMKSY-WD for which certain common guidelines are prepared
and implemented with effect from 1.4.2008. Watershed Development has thus become the
central focus for rural development throughout India. The major objectives of the IWMP are:
Improving the productive potential of degraded lands through various interventions;
Increasing the bio-diversity through agro-horticulture, agro-forestry and silvi-pastoral
activities;
Promoting IGA to the asset-less residents, and other vulnerable groups for improving
their economy;
Supporting livestock sector for higher incomes, and
Maximizing production through efficient farming systems and micro-enterprises.
1.3 Institutional Base created for IWMP implementation
In view of the fact that several agencies involved in watershed development programs had
followed different approaches, the Karnataka Government felt that it was essential to bring all
the programs under one umbrella. Towards this end, the Government established the Department
of Watershed Development with its Head Quarters at Bengaluru and District Watershed
Development Offices involving multidisciplinary staff with effect from 01-01-2000. All
Watershed Development Programs under the state sector including externally funded projects
were brought under the Watershed Development Department (WDD), whereas the centrally
sponsored schemes were implemented by the respective District Watershed Development Offices
under the administrative control of Zilla Panchayats.
The Watershed Development Department has prepared a strategic perspective plan to cover all
the uncovered areas considering the areas covered earlier under different Programs (Table-1) in
the coming years (Table.1.1) through IWMP. The area available for the treatment has been
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
24
technically prioritized using parameters such as, rainfall, slope, drought intensity, soil type and
the extent of vulnerable groups, extent of irrigation etc., suggested by DoLR, GoI keeping
watershed as unit. Based on this Prioritization, the critical ones are to be treated on priority in the
ensuing years. The year-wise list of watersheds to be treated in the next 18 years in Karnataka is
given in Table 1.1. The projects initiated with the approval of MoRD, GoI during 2010-11 in the
state are provided in Table.1.2. These projects have been implemented as per the common
guidelines.
The State has essentially played the role of a facilitator through a network of institutions, leaving
the responsibility of program implementation to the village communities. Watershed
development Team (WDT) will ensure implementation of the Watershed Development Programs
through Grama Panchayat Sub-Committee (GPSC)/ Executive Committee (EC). Grama
Panchayat President will be the head of the EC/GPSC along with members of GP, and vulnerable
groups (SC, ST, landless/self-help groups and women) representing all sections of the society to
ensure proper implementation of the Program. The Secretary of the committee is nominated from
the Department to ensure accountability of the Program. As per the guidelines, the capacities of
the communities have been built by organizing trainings required under the program for effective
implementation as well as to enable them to take up management of natural resources (soil, water
and vegetation) on a sustainable basis after the Government withdraws. The program included
several other sectoral schemes to enable poor and landless people to earn additional income
through agricultural and non-agricultural activities.
Across the state, 127 Projects are sanctioned in 123 taluks of 29 districts under Batch-II during
2010-11 and implemented to develop 5.47 lakh ha covering 5272 villages so as to improve socio-
economic conditions of 16,11,100 households residing in these villages. The total cost involved
in developing these areas as per the guidelines is around Rs. 141.58 crores.
Keeping in tune with the contemporary thinking on the importance of Monitoring, Evaluation,
Learning and Documentation (MEL&D), the Department guided by previous experiences
established a well articulated MEL&D frame work for successful implementation of the
Program. The Department procured external agencies for undertaking the MEL&D works as per
the accepted procedures. M/S Consulting Engineering Services, New Delhi to provide MEL&D
services in Bengaluru and Mysuru divisions; M/S Karnataka State Council for science and
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
25
technology, Bengaluru for providing services in Belagavi Division and M/S Remote Sensing
Instruments (RSI), Hyderabad for providing services in Kalaburagi Division were identified for
the purpose. These agencies as per their contracts have submitted their impact evaluation reports
for the respective divisions. Now, M/s RSI has been requested to consolidate the reports and
submit impact evaluation report for the state under Batch-II Projects. Accordingly RSI has taken
up the responsibility and the same is presented below.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
26
Table.1.1: Watershed projects, along with area selected for treatment for the next 18 years in Karnataka:
Sl.
No District
Remaining Period of XI
Plan (2009-10 to 2011 -12)
XII Plan
(2012-13 to 2016-17)
XIII Plan
(2017-18 to 2021-22)
XIV Plan
(2022-23 to 2026-27) Total For 18 Years
Physical
('000 ha)
Financial
(Rs in Crore)
Physical
('000 ha)
Financial
(Rs in
Crore)
Physical
('000 ha)
Financial
(Rs in Crore)
Physical
('000 ha)
Financial
(Rs in
Crore)
Physical
('000 ha)
Financial
(Rs in Crore)
1 Bagalakote 53.1 63.72 48.46 58.15 17.22 20.67 9.15 10.98 127.92 153.51
2 Ballari 73.28 109.93 141.45 212.17 19.53 29.3 0 0 234.27 351.4
3 Belagavi 95.57 143.36 178.53 267.8 123.75 185.63 15.19 22.79 413.05 619.57
4 Bengaluru (R ) 33.58 40.3 51.86 62.23 21.34 25.6 0.05 0.06 106.83 128.19
5 Bidar 79.25 95.09 120.69 144.83 93.17 111.8 4.64 5.57 297.74 357.29
6 Chamarajanagaraa 56.31 67.57 82.25 98.7 64.6 77.52 28.61 34.33 231.78 278.13
7 Chikkaballapura 59.75 71.7 82.65 99.18 37.19 44.62 0 0 179.58 215.5
8 Chikkamagaluruu 57.42 68.91 133.07 159.68 43 51.6 13.48 16.18 246.97 296.36
9 Chitradurga 86.53 103.83 134.58 161.49 112.72 135.27 78.62 94.34 412.44 494.93
10 D.Kannada 53.23 79.84 115.32 172.98 103.6 155.41 45.9 68.85 318.05 477.08
11 Davanagere 71.74 86.09 106.27 127.53 66.56 79.87 32.07 38.48 276.64 331.97
12 Dharwad 62.68 75.22 62.95 75.54 33.35 40.02 0.07 0.11 159.05 190.88
13 Gadaga 58.98 70.78 101.52 121.82 88.67 106.41 24.09 28.91 273.26 327.92
14 Hassan 75.44 90.52 145.76 174.92 78.23 93.87 40.7 48.84 340.13 408.16
15 Haveri 75.41 90.49 108.18 129.81 31.24 37.49 0.01 0.02 214.84 257.81
16 Kalaburagi 91.27 109.52 207.38 248.86 175.44 210.52 157.61 189.13 631.69 758.03
17 Kodagu 24.53 29.44 51.85 62.22 34.68 41.62 0 0 111.06 133.27
18 Kolara 73.27 87.92 96.18 115.41 41.92 50.3 0.08 0.1 211.44 253.73
19 Koppal 61.07 91.6 79.99 119.98 50.97 76.45 0 0 192.02 288.03
20 Mandya 54.41 65.3 110.74 132.88 11.07 13.29 0 0 176.22 211.47
21 Mysuru 70.36 84.44 125.09 150.11 93.46 112.15 23.24 27.89 312.15 374.58
22 Raichuru 62.72 94.09 111.8 167.7 31 46.49 0 0 205.52 308.28
23 Ramanagaram 43.41 52.09 74.76 70.36 30.24 70.36 0 70.36 148.41 263.18
24 Shivamogga 90.17 135.26 135.83 203.75 84.51 126.77 63.77 95.66 374.29 561.43
25 Tumakuru 123.15 0 232.97 0 201.24 0 119.03 0 676.39 0
26 Udupi 28.93 70.36 70.06 70.36 65.35 70.36 42.53 70.36 206.86 281.45
27 Uttara Kannada 99.72 149.59 168.42 252.64 41.13 61.7 10.38 15.57 319.66 479.49
28 Vijayapura 66.83 100.24 95.71 143.56 83.69 125.53 54.65 81.98 300.87 451.31
29 Yadgirii 36.54 43.84 81.21 97.45 760.76 912.91 45.21 54.25 923.72 1108.46
Total 1918.65 2371.04 3255.53 3902.11 2639.63 3113.53 809.08 974.76 8622.85 10361.41
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
27
Table 1.2: Taluk-wise Watersheds selected for development in Karnataka during 2010-11
Sl. No. Name of the District Name of the Taluk/Block Name of the Project
Project Area
Proposed for
treatment (ha)
Agro-
Climatic
Zone
1 Bagalakote Badami IWMP -5/10-11 5443.1 NDZ
Hungunda IWMP -6/10-11 5572.43 NDZ
Badami IWMP -7/10-11 3634.07 NDZ
Hungunda IWMP -8/10-11 4871.4 NTZ
4 Total 19521
2 Ballari Kudligi IWMP - 7/10-11 5000 NDZ
Hosapete IWMP - 8/10-11 3200 NDZ
Sandur IWMP - 9/10-11 2300 NDZ
H. B. Halli IWMP - 10/10-11 3800 NDZ
Hadagali IWMP - 11/10-11 2280 NDZ
Ballary IWMP - 12/10-11 4000 NDZ
6 Total 20580
3 Belagavi Athani IWMP -9/10-11 4070.5 NTZ
Hukkeri IWMP -10/10-11 2994.28 NTZ
Saudathi IWMP -11/10-11 5992 NTZ
Bailhongal IWMP -12/10-11 4350 NTZ
Chikkodi IWMP -13/10-11 3560 NTZ
Raibag IWMP -14/10-11 3400 NTZ
6 Total 24366.78
4 Bengaluru Rural Hoskote IWMP - 4/10-11 4928.59 EDZ
Devanahally IWMP - 5/10-11 5052.08 EDZ
2 Total 9980.67
5 Bidare Aurad IWMP - 5/10-11 7685 NETZ
Basavakalyan IWMP - 6/10-11 7016 NETZ
Bhalki IWMP - 7/10-11 6002 NETZ
Humnabad IWMP - 8/10-11 6142 NETZ
4 Total 26845
6 Chamrajanagara Kollegala IWMP - 4/10-11 5407.49 SDZ
Gundlupet IWMP - 5/10-11 3523.11 SDZ
C.R.Nagara IWMP - 6/10-11 3467.68 SDZ
3 Total 12398.28
7 Chikkaballapura Bagepalli IWMP - 6/10-11 2610.12 EDZ
Bagepalli IWMP - 7/10-11 2701 EDZ
Chintamani IWMP - 8/10-11 5088.41 EDZ
Gowribidanur IWMP - 9/10-11 4843.45 EDZ
4 Total 15242.98
8 Chikkamagaluruu Tarikere IWMP - 3/10-11 5001 STZ
Chikkamagaluru IWMP - 4/10-11 4480 HZ
Kadur IWMP - 5/10-11 6180 CDZ
3 Total 15661.45
9 Chitradurga Molakalmuru IWMP - 7/10-11 2521 CDZ
Challakere IWMP - 8/10-11 4764.44 CDZ
Holalkere IWMP - 9/10-11 3936.22 CDZ
Hosadurga IWMP - 10/10-11 4393.96 CDZ
Hiriyur IWMP - 11/10-11 5400.56 CDZ
Chitradurga IWMP - 12/10-11 4220 CDZ
6 Total 25236.18
10 Dakshina Kannada Sulya IWMP - 3/10-11 4300 CZ
Puttur IWMP - 4/10-11 4000 CZ
Bantwal IWMP - 5/10-11 5000 CZ
3 Total 13300
11 Davanagere Jagalur IWMP - 6/10-11 4800 CDZ
Harapanahalli IWMP - 7/10-11 5104 NDZ
Channagiri IWMP - 8/10-11 5092 STZ
3 Total 14996
12 Dharwad Kalghatgi IWMP -5/10-11 2500 HZ
Dharwad IWMP -6/10-11 4910 HZ
Hubli IWMP -7/10-11 2928.97 HZ
Kundagol IWMP -8/10-11 2939.11 HZ
Navalgund IWMP -9/10-11 3156.07 HZ
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
28
Sl. No. Name of the District Name of the Taluk/Block Name of the Project
Project Area
Proposed for
treatment (ha)
Agro-
Climatic
Zone
5 Total 16434.15
13 Gadaga Ron IWMP -5/10-11 5252 NTZ
Shirahatti IWMP -6/10-11 5220 NTZ
Gadaga IWMP -7/10-11 5476.28 NTZ
Mundargi IWMP -8/10-11 5122 NTZ
4 Total 21070.28
14 Hassan Hassan IWMP - 6/10-11 3832.78 STZ
Arasikere IWMP - 7/10-11 3624.59 CDZ
Channarayapatna IWMP - 8/10-11 3761.88 SDZ
Sakaleshpura IWMP - 9/10-11 3768 HZ
Alur IWMP - 10/10-11 4142 STZ
Arakalagudu IWMP - 11/10-11 3675 STZ
6 Total 22804.25
15 Haveri Ranebennur IWMP -6/10-11 3642 HZ
Hangal IWMP -7/10-11 6905 HZ
Shiggaon IWMP -8/10-11 5442.63 HZ
Haveri IWMP -9/10-11 5006 HZ
Byadgi IWMP -10/10-11 2631 HZ
Hirekerur IWMP -11/10-11 3314 HZ
6 Total 26940.63
16 Kalaburagi Afzalpur IWMP- 7/10-11 2957 NEDZ
Chincholi IWMP- 8/10-11 4854 NEDZ
Kalaburagi IWMP- 9/10-11 5204 NEDZ
Chitapur IWMP- 10/10-11 3464 NEDZ
Aland IWMP- 11/10-11 3335 NEDZ
Habalanala IWMP- 12/10-11 4263 NEDZ
Jewargi IWMP- 13/10-11 3603 NEDZ
7 Total 27702
17 Kodagu Madikeri IWMP 1/10-11 5104.24 HZ
1 Total 5104.24
18 Kolara Kolara IWMP - 6/10-11 3638.39 EDZ
Mulbagal IWMP - 7/10-11 3450.77 EDZ
Bangarpet IWMP - 8/10-11 3780.88 EDZ
Srinivasapura IWMP - 9/10-11 3891.97 EDZ
Malur IWMP - 10/10-11 3194.25 EDZ
5 Total 17956.26
19 Koppal Yalburga IWMP- 5/10-11 4690 NDZ
Koppal IWMP- 6/10-11 4960 NDZ
Gangavathi IWMP- 7/10-11 4936 NDZ
Kustagi IWMP- 8/10-11 4805 NDZ
4 Total 19391
20 Mandya Pandavapura IWMP - 4/10-11 2750 SDZ
Maddur IWMP - 5/10-11 4950 SDZ
Nagamanagala IWMP - 6/10-11 4300 SDZ
3 Total 12000
21 Mysuru Nanjanagudu IWMP - 5/10-11 4450.54 SDZ
Nanjanagudu IWMP - 6/10-11 5889.17 SDZ
Periyapatna IWMP - 7/10-11 6721.09 STZ
3 Total 17060.8
22 Raichuruu Devadurga IWMP - 5/10-11 6200 NEDZ
Sindanur IWMP - 6/10-11 5250 NEDZ
Raichuru IWMP- 7/10-11 4550 NEDZ
Lingsugur IWMP - 8/10-11 5100 NEDZ
Manvi IWMP - 9/10-11 3855 NEDZ
5 Total 24955
23 Ramanagara Kanakapura IWMP - 3/10-11 4593.66 EDZ
Channapatna IWMP - 4/10-11 3558.67 EDZ
Magadi IWMP - 5/10-11 3857.45 EDZ
3 Total 12009.78
24 Shivamogga Shikaripura IWMP 9/10-11 3026.79 STZ
Soraba IWMP 10/10-11 3020 HZ
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
29
Sl. No. Name of the District Name of the Taluk/Block Name of the Project
Project Area
Proposed for
treatment (ha)
Agro-
Climatic
Zone
Shivamogga IWMP 11/10-11 3010 STZ
Sagara IWMP 12/10-11 3040 HZ
Thirthahally IWMP 13/10-11 3000 HZ
5 Total 15096.79
25 Tumakuru Pavagada IWMP - 9/10-11 2635 CDZ
Madhugiri IWMP - 10/10-11 4928.25 CDZ
Sira IWMP - 11/10-11 3500.2 CDZ
Koratagere IWMP - 12/10-11 3671 CDZ
Turuvekere IWMP - 13/10-11 4450.4 SDZ
Gubbi IWMP - 14/10-11 4524.1 EDZ
Tiptur IWMP - 15/10-11 3621 CDZ
Tumakuru IWMP - 16/10-11 4977 EDZ
Chikkanayakanahalli IWMP - 17/10-11 3503.01 CDZ
Kunigal IWMP - 18/10-11 4155 SDZ
10 Total 39964.96
26 Udupi Udupi IWMP - 2/10-11 4000 CZ
Kundapura IWMP - 3/10-11 6000 CZ
2 Total 10000
27 Uttara Kannada Joida IWMP -4/10-11 4990 CZ
Bhatakal IWMP -5/10-11 5000 CZ
Honnawar IWMP -6/10-11 5000 CZ
3 Total 14990
28 Vijayapura Vijayapura IWMP -6/10-11 4537.41 NDZ
B.Bagewadi IWMP -7/10-11 4163.12 NDZ
Muddebihal IWMP -8/10-11 3799.16 NDZ
Sindhagi IWMP -9/10-11 5298.12 NDZ
Muddebihal IWMP -10/10-11 3495.21 NDZ
Indi IWMP -11/10-11 5433.81 NDZ
B.Bagewadi IWMP -12/10-11 3182.51 NDZ
Vijayapura IWMP -13/10-11 2823 NDZ
8 Total 32732.34
29 Yadgirii Yadgirii IWMP- 3/10-11 9339 NEDZ
Shahpur IWMP - 4/10-11 3106 NEDZ
Shorapur IWMP - 5/10-11 4854 NEDZ
Total
3 Total 12299
Grand total for State (2010-11) 127 546640.47
NDZ - Northern Dry Zone, NTZ - Northern Transition Zone, NEDZ - North-eastern Dry Zone, NETZ - North-
eastern Transition Zone, CDZ - Central Dry Zone, EDZ - Eastern Dry Zone, SDZ – Southern Dry Zone, STZ -
Southern Transition Zone, HZ - Hilly Zone, CZ - Coastal Zone
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
30
Plate. 1: Status of soil erosion in Karnataka
sssssss
Eroded Land in Shirali village, Mavalli
SWS, Bhatkal taluk, Uttara Kannada
district
Eroded Land in Gharawade, Kadadi SWS,
Gadaga taluk & District
First Order Soil Erosion in Ballary
District
Dessert like situation: Due to lack of
Conservation Measures, Bidar district
Gully erosion is an advanced stage of rill
erosion
Rill Erosion
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
31
Chapter-II
Methodology
2.1 Introduction
Productivity and production enhancement in agricultural sector are the effective drivers of
economic growth resulting in poverty reduction both within and outside agriculture sectors.
Of late the share of agriculture in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is spiraling downward
from 30 percent in 1990-91 to 13.5 per cent in 2014-15. This clearly establishes that more
and more public investment in agriculture becomes imperative to promote economic growth.
Such investment in agricultural sector will also promote private investment to ensure growth
at individual and community level by safeguarding natural resources. However, the per cent
rate of investment towards agriculture declined from 2.43 in 1979-80 to as low as 0.59 in
1994-95. This shift in public policy of reducing public investment in general and particularly
in agriculture was indirectly responsible for the reduced share of agricultural sector in GDP.
Recognizing the above in the Eleventh Five Year Plan, the allocation was increased
significantly. In order to give a major thrust to develop rain fed agriculture on a sustainable
basis using watershed as a unit for integrated development National Rain fed Area Authority
was established in 2006 and funds are placed under DoLR, GOI. The watershed development
programs carried out under MoRD and MoA have been merged into a single Program as
Integrated Watershed Management Program and funds are channelized through DoLR. The
annual release ranged from 1500 crores in 2011 to 2721 crores in 2012-13. Since then the
amount of money spent annually is around 1500 crores. As a result, it has become a flagship
program of the country. Such investments call for the value realized for money spent so as to
make decisions regarding up sealing either the entire program or certain components. Hence
evaluation of the Program for its impacts is essential, as it contributes to evidence based
policy making. Impact evaluation helps the organization to decide whether to scale up
projects with proven positive results and to stop activities which have no impact. It will also
help to improve the design of development projects. In view of the above, monitoring and
evaluation are included as integral component of the project while formulating the program.
As the projects are now completed, impact evaluation is undertaken using the methodology
described below.
2.2 Objectives of the study
The basic objective of an evaluation is to assess the impact of the watershed development
project on socio-economic, environmental and other land related features of the villages
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
32
falling under the watershed projects. The evaluation process focuses on the resources
developed during implementation phase, changes in bio-physical parameters in the watershed
area and socio-economic conditions of people, with particular emphasis on the improvement
in local knowledge levels and capacities.
A baseline survey of the area as well as the villages was conducted at the start of the project
in order to evaluate the impact of the project on the socio-economic conditions of the
beneficiaries and also on the environmental conditions of the watershed villages. Four years
after the initial evaluation (baseline survey) of the projects, the present evaluation study
would help to compare the present socio-economic and environmental conditions of the area
with its pre-project conditions.
The specific objectives of the study are:
To examine the present cropping pattern, cropping intensity, crop yields, etc., in the
watershed areas as compared to prior to the launching of the watersheds.
To compare the socio-economic and environmental conditions of the village before
and after the implementation of the watershed projects.
To assess the impact of the watersheds development on the household income of the
stakeholders.
To examine the effect of the watershed program on the groundwater position in the
area.
To analyse the impact of the watershed on the livestock performance of the sample
farmers in relation to size of holdings.
To ascertain the present land use pattern of the sample farmers with respect to forestry
and horticulture as compared to their land use pattern before the commencement of
the watershed projects.
2.3 Methodology
The study covered all the districts and the watersheds across different agro-climatic zones of
the state where the IWMP was implemented. SWSs (one per district) were selected based on
stratified random sampling, the strata being agro-climatic zones, districts, taluks and SWS.
The total number of watersheds in the twenty-nine districts under IWMP is 127. 23% of the
total projects were selected.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
33
As the projects are distributed in all the districts, a multi-stage sampling procedure was
adopted for impact assessment of the project. In the first stage of sampling, all districts were
considered to have representation in the sample. In each district, the one watershed project
was selected using random sampling method. However, during selection, criteria such as
good representative nature of the district scenario both in physical and social aspects and the
number of micro-watersheds in each project were given more weightage. After selecting the
SWS, one micro-watershed each in ridge, middle and valley were selected to ensure
representation. Villages were then identified to select 40 households per village (total of 120
in the three villages selected in the watershed) through stratified sampling for household
survey, thereby ensuring adequate representation of all classes within the village community.
The households are classified into the following Strata based on the land holding criteria:
i) Marginal farmers- (Up to 1 ha) - 10 Households
ii) Small farmers - (1 ha to 2 ha) - 10 Households
iii) Medium and Big farmers – (Above 2 ha) - 10 Households
iv) Landless households (Not owning any land) - 10 Households
Total 40 Households
In the cross-sectional approach, nearby villages not going to be covered by the project in the
coming 4 to 5 years were considered and 40 households representing the above categories
were selected for the impact study. The methodology used for selection of sample farmers is
schematically presented below (Fig.1.1).
Fig.1.1 Sampling Design for impact assessment under IWMP -GOK (2009-10 Project)
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
34
2.4 Approach
Detailed formats/schedules for the collection of household data, infrastructure and other
aspects of the sample farmers were prepared and finalized in consultation with the WDD.
They are:
Household schedule – to collect the socio-economic, demographic and other aspects of
the sample households (Annexure-I).
Village schedule – to collect information on the present status of infrastructure and other
facilities available in the area (Annexure – II)
To ensure collection of realistic data from households and villages, the schedules were pre-
tested on a small sample keeping in view the objectives of the study. Both primary and
secondary data were collected by trained field investigators. Intensive orientation was given
by the Consultants of the respective Agencies to the investigators and the field survey was
carried out under their supervision and guidance. The data were cross-checked at regular
intervals during the survey to ensure reliability and quality. Secondary data were collected
from published documents and records of the Department of Economics and Statistics.
The sample village, where baseline survey was carried out, but not considered for
implementation of the project was taken as control. This would enable to assess the impact
by adopting cross-sectional approach – comparing the villages with project implementation
and those without project. The survey, therefore, provided scope for impact assessment by
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
35
adopting the cross-sectional approach as well as longitudinal approach. This survey has a
unique incidental advantage for planning, policy and even academic purpose in future.
Data analysis for Impact Assessment involves livelihood analysis, economic analysis, socio-
economic changes, changes in cropping pattern and intensity, fuel and fodder availability,
changes in the groundwater level, and yield. Based on the data collected from each village, an
estimate is made for the SWS and district as a whole. The data were scrutinized and verified
for correctness and consistency. Simple statistical tools like averages and percentages were
used to analyze and interpret the data for preparing the report.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
36
Chapter-III
Physical Progress of Activities
3.1 Socio-economic conditions of the Project Taluks
The impact of development initiatives on conservation and augmentation of natural resources
vary depending upon climate, soil and social-economic conditions of the stakeholders. The
taluks in which sample watershed projects are located for undertaking the study represent all
ten agro-climatic zones of the state, as given in Table 3.1 and described thereafter.
Table 3.1: Agro-climatic zones of selected Taluks of different districts of Karnataka
Agro-climatic
Zone District (Taluk)
Northern Dry zone Bagalakote (Badami),Vijayapura (Vijayapura), Gadaga ( Gadaga),
Koppal (Yelburga), Bellari (Hoovinahadagali)
Northeastern Dry
Zone Kalaburagi (Sedam), Yadgiri (Shapur), Raichuru (Devadurga)
Eastern Dry zone Bengaluru-R (Hoskote), Chikkaballapura (Chintamani), Kolara
(Malur), Ramanagara (Channapatna)
Central Dry zone Tumakuru (Tumakuru), Chitradurga (Hiriyur), Chikkamagaluru
(Kadur),
Southern Dry Zone Chamarajanagara (Chamrajanagara), Mandya (Pandavapura)
Northern Transition
zone Haveri (Haveri),Belagavi (Bailhongal)
Northeastern
Transition Zone Bidar (Humnabad)
Southern Transition
Zone Davanagere (Channagiri), Hassan (Hassan), Mysuru (Periyapattana)
Hilly Zone Dharwad (Kalghatgi), Shivamogga (Sagara), Kodagu (Madikere),
Coastal zone Dakshina Kannada (Bantwala), Udupi (Kundapura), Uttara Kannada
(Bhatkal)
Northern Dry Zone: Five taluks of five districts viz., Bagalkote, Vijayapura, Gadaga,
Yelburga and Bellari fall under northern dry zone. Annual rainfall in the zone varies from
465 to 977 mm and 76.5% of the cultivated area in the taluks is rain fed. Crops are grown in
red and shallow black soils during kharif and in medium and deep black soils during rabi
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
37
season. The major crops grown are sorghum, maize, bajra, groundnut, pulses, sunflower,
cotton and sugarcane (Table.3.2).
Northeastern Dry Zone: Sedam, Shahpur and Devadurga taluks fall under northeastern dry
zone. The general topography is flat, gently sloping forming broad valleys and flat-topped
hills. Three types of soils viz. black, lateritic and mixed are found. The climate is
characterized by general dryness throughout the year, except during southwest monsoon. The
average annual rainfalls in taluks vary from 669 to 1023 mm, with about 82.4% of the
cropped area being rain fed. About 80% of the annual rainfall is received during the period -
June to September.
Eastern Dry Zone: Hoskote, Chintamani, Malur and Channapatna taluks fall under the
Eastern dry zone. The soils are mostly red loam. The area under rainfed crops ranged from 74
to 85% of the cultivated area. The average annual rainfall is around 748 mm (ranging from
556 to 841). The major cropping season is kharif in which ragi, maize, pulses and oilseeds are
cultivated under rain fed condition, while paddy, mulberry, vegetables and flowers are
cultivated under irrigation.
Central Dry Zone: Tumakuru, Hiriyur and Kadur taluks fall under the central dry zone. The
rain fed area in the taluks varies from 75.7 to 80.5% of the cropped area and the rainfall
ranges from 450 to 750 mm. The areas are affected by periodic droughts ranging from 3 to 5
years in a decennial period. The major soil is red loam. Shallow and deep black soils are
found in pockets. The important rain fed crops are ragi, sorghum, oilseeds and pulses.
Southern Dry Zone: Chamrajanagara and Pandavapura taluks fall under the southern dry
zone. The rain fed area in the taluks accounts for 68.0 and 36.7% respectively and the rainfall
ranges from 829 to 892 mm. The area experiences periodic droughts (Fig-6). The major soils
are red loam. Shallow and deep black soils are found sporadically. The important rain fed
crops are ragi, minor millets, oil seeds, pulses and sugarcane.
Northern Transition Zone: Haveri taluk of Haveri district and Bailhongal taluk in Belagavi
district fall under this zone. The zone receives an average annual rainfall varying from 900-
2600 mm and about 77% of the cultivated area in these taluks is rain fed. Major soil types are
gravelly sandy clay loam and laterites. Paddy, pulses, groundnut, cotton, chillies and
sugarcane are the principal crops grown in the region.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
38
North Eastern Transition Zone: Humnabad taluk in Bidar district falls under northeastern
transition zone. The altitude varies from 420 to 684 m above MSL. The general topography is
flat, gently sloping forming broad valleys with flat-topped hills. The soils found are lateritic
red soil, black cotton soil and loamy to sandy loam soil. The climate is characterized by
general dryness throughout the year, except during the southwest monsoon. The average
annual rainfall varies from 821 to 887 mm. About 86% of the cultivated area of the taluk is
rain fed.
Southern Transition Zone: Channagiri, Hassan and Periyapattana taluks fall under this
zone. The rainfall received in the zone varies from 610 to 1293 mm. The area under rain fed
crops is around 77.7%. The major soils are red loam. The important crops grown during
kharif are paddy, ragi, sorghum, pulses and tobacco (Table.3.2).
Hilly Zone: Kalghatgi, Sagara and Madikere taluks fall under this zone. The rainfall received
in this zone varies from 900-4318mm. The area under rain fed crops is around 81%. The
major soil types are red and laterites. The important crops grown in the region during kharif
are paddy, pulses and sugarcane. Plantation crops such as areca nut, coconut, banana,
cardamom, etc. cover large area.
Coastal Zone: Bantwala, Kundapura and Bhatkal taluks of Dakshina Kannada, Udupi and
Uttara Kannada districts, respectively, belong to this zone. The zone receives an average
annual rainfall ranging from 900 to 4500 mm, and 55 to 74% of the cultivated area is rain fed
in these Taluks. Crops grown are paddy, pulses, groundnut and sugarcane. Plantation crops
cover large areas. The major soils are red laterite and coastal alluvial.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
39
Fig-3.1 Drought prone areas in Karnataka as determined by Length of growing season.
Source: NBSS&LUP Regional Centre, Bengaluru
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
40
Table 3.2. Details of Taluks with respect to soils and land use
District Taluk Agro-climatic
Zone
Rainfall
(mm)
Area cultivated (ha) Soil type Cropping season and crops
Total Rain fed
Bagalakote Badami
Northern Dry Zone 465 to 977
119494 75561
(63.23) Major soils are shallow to
medium black soils and red
loams distributed in equal
proportion
General crop season is kharif in shallow
black soils and rabi in medium and deep
black soils. Major crops are sorghum, maize,
bajra, groundnut, pulses, sugarcane, cotton
and sunflower.
Vijayapura Vijayapura 182723 116468
(63.74)
Gadaga Gadaga 552926 517613
(93.61)
Koppal Yelburga 135613 102996
(75.94) Clay soils
General cropping growing season is kharif in
shallow redand black soils, rabi in red and
deep black soils. Sorghum, ragi, maize,
bajra, groundnut, pulses, sunflower, cotton
and sugarcane are the crops grown. Fruits
and vegetables are also grown in pockets.
Ballari Hoovinahadagali 75361
(79.45)
64743
(85.91) Black and red Loam
Kalaburagi Sedam
North-eastern Dry
Zone
669 to
1023
110342 86132
(78.05) Predominantly Black soils
General cropping season is kharif and crops
grown are paddy, jowar, maize, wheat, tur,
black gram, green gram, bengal gram,
groundnut, sunflower, cotton vegetables are
also grown in pockets.
Yadgiri Shahpur 145130 112433
(77.47)
Raichuru Devadurga 90200 76093
(84.36%) Predominantly Black soils
Bengaluru (R) Hoskote
Eastern Dry zone 556 to 841
37719 31488
(83.48%)
Major soil type is non-
gravelly red loam with a
narrow belt of Laterite soil.
General cropping season is Kharif. Principal
crops are paddy, maize, pulses, oil seeds and
mulberry. A sizeable area is also under
vegetables and flower crops.
Chikkaballapura Chintamani 38188 32392
(84.82)
Kolara Malur 33508 25240
(75.33)
Ramanagara Channapatna 28961 17182
(59.33)
Tumakuru Tumakuru
Central Dry zone 450 to 750
67133 45126
(67.22) Major soil type is red loam
with sporadic occurrence of
shallow to deep black soils.
Predominantly kharif area. Paddy, sorghum,
ragi, oilseeds & pulses are the major crops. Chitradurga Hiriyur 89277
72016
(80.67)
Chikkamagaluru Kaduru 107217 99966
(93.2)
Chamarajanagaraa Chamarajanagaraa
Southern Dry zone 829 to 892
69568 47311 (68) Major soils are red loam
with pockets of black soils
Cropping season is kharif. Major crops are
Paddy, ragi, sugarcane, pulses and minor
millets and mulberry. Mandya Pandavapura 31030
11400
(36.7)
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
41
District Taluk Agro-climatic
Zone
Rainfall
(mm)
Area cultivated (ha) Soil type Cropping season and crops
Total Rain fed
Davanagere Channagiri
Southern
Transition Zone
610 to
1293
84187 52389
(62.23)
Major soils are red loam. Major season is kharif. Principal crops are
paddy, sorghum, ragi, pulses and tobacco. Hassan Hassan 84218
73035
(86.7)
Mysuru Periyapatna 87233 73636
(84.4)
Haveri Haveri
Nothern Transition
Zone
900 to
2600
74974 61989
(82.68) Major soil types are
gravelly sandy clay loam
and laterites.
Paddy, pulses, groundnut and sugarcane are
the principal crops grown in the region.
Plantation crops such as areca nut, coconut,
cashew, cardamom, banana, etc. cover a
large area. Belagavi Bailhongal 82891
59713
(72.03)
Bidar Humnabad North-eastern
Transition Zone 821 to 887 72044
62070
(86.15)
Lateritic, red and black
soils are the major soils
General cropping season is kharif in red and
black soils, rabi in, medium and deep black
soils. Crops grown are paddy, jowar, bajra,
maize, wheat, gram, pigeon pea, groundnut,
sunflower, sugarcane. Fruits and vegetables
are also grown in pockets.
Shivamogga Sagara
Hilly Zone 900 to
4318
26265 13370
(50.9) The major soils are red
gravelly clay, red clay:
lateritic clay: medium deep
black: non-saline and saline
alluvo-colluvial: and brown
forest soil
Most of the area is under forest cover. The
crops cultivated in this district are paddy,
maize, ragi, oilseeds, cotton, areca nut,
cashew nut, pepper, chilli and ginger.
Kodagu Madikeri 52513 52436
(99.9)
Dharwad Kalghatgi 50361 46657
(92.64)
Dakshina Kannada Bantwala
Coastal Zone 900 to
4500
34679 18955
(54.7)
Major soil types are red,
laterite and costal alluvial.
Paddy, pulses, groundnut and sugarcane are
the principal crops grown in the region.
Plantation crops cover large area.
Udupi Kundapura 48962 36447
(74.4)
Uttara Kannada Bhatkal 5760 4105
(71.26)
*Figures in parenthesis indicate percent of total cultivated area.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
42
3.2 Demographic Details of the Taluks Selected
The total population across the taluks ranged from 1,11,846 in Bhatkal taluk, Uttara Kannada
to as high as 5,16,661 in Tumakuru taluk, (Table 3.3). The percentage of males and females
across the project taluks under study varied from 46.2 to 51.9% and 48.1 to 53.8%,
respectively (Figure 3.1a). The scheduled caste population accounted for 16.7% across all
taluks, the highest being 26.2% in Vijayapura taluk and the lowest 4.3% in Bantwala taluk.
Scheduled tribes represented 28.5% in Kudligi followed by Humnabad (15.7%) and the
average across the districts is 7.0% (Figure 3.1b). Together, these vulnerable groups
constitute 23.7%, indicating that any developmental program to be successful needs to focus
on inclusiveness and poverty reduction. It is interesting to note that the percentage population
of vulnerable groups is more in areas with recurrent droughts.
Figure 3.1 a: Gender details across sub watersheds in the state
Fig.3.1 b: Distribution of Social groups across sub watersheds in the state
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
43
Table 3.3: Taluk Level Demographic Information
District Taluk No of
Villages
Total
Households
(No)
Total
Population
(No)
District Taluk No of
Villages
Total
Households
(No)
Total
Population
(No)
Bengaluru Rural Hoskote 297 32103 222430 Udupi Kundapura 99 79417 377420
Chikkaballapura Chintamani 400 53922 271284 Bagalakote Badami 149 45260 246804
Kolara Malur 363 40047 207009 Belagavi Bailhongal 132 69611 332007
Ramanagara Channapatna 145 53496 252574 Vijayapura Vijayapura 130 72613 393648
Tumakuru Tumakuru 373 109576 516661 Dharwad Kalghatgi 87 27965 137742
Chitradurga Hiriyur 159 79393 332718 Gadaga Gadaga 60 36684 175883
Davanagere Channagiri 249 54933 292507 Haveri Haveri 90 43966 213260
Shivamogga Sagara 238 39077 200995 Uttar
Kannada Bhatkal 59 22559 111846
Chamarajanagaraa Chamarajanagaraa 184 81854 337571 Bidar Humnabad 112 48327 294587
Mandya Pandavapura 171 55128 175009 Kalaburagi Sedam 179 36057 196154
Hassan Hassan 391 127971 361147 Yadgiri Shahapur 73 48435 293518
Mysuru Periyapatna 203 58696 224254 Raichuru Devadurga 206 36709 222457
Chikkamagaluru Kaduru 312 80172 289406 Koppal Yalburga 143 41379 236373
Kodagu Madikeri 67 32819 142012 Ballary Hoovinahadagali 122 31084 168118
Dakshina
Kannada Bantwala 79 71847 361554 Total 5272 16,11,100 75,86,948
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
44
3.3 Particulars of watersheds selected for study
The details of the sample watersheds selected for the impact study are presented in Table.3.4.
Altogether, 29 SWSs were selected, one from each district. The 29 SWSs extend over 1.34
lakh ha, encompassing 497 villages and 82,181 households. Mattighatta SWS in
Chikkamagaluru district has the largest number of villages (49), followed by Doddamanikere
SWS (Bengaluru rural) with 34 villages, and Akkur SWS in Ramanagara district (31). About
seven SWSs have less than 10 villages. The topography in many of the SWSs is either hilly
or of undulating terrain caused by soil erosion. The predominant soil types in the SWS are:
red (13 SWSs), black (9 SWSs) and mixed red/black/lateritic (7 SWSs). While five SWSs
have a household density in excess of 1 per ha, 10 SWSs have less than 0.5 households in one
hectare.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
45
Table 3.4 Particulars of watersheds selected for the study
Name of the
District Name of the SWS/ Code Latitude Longitude Area (ha) Topography Soil type Depth (m) Villages (Nos)
Total
Households
(Nos)
Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/Doddamanikere 13°4'56" -
13°8'31"
77°28'52" -
77°33'38" 4929
Plain
Red Sandy
loam
Moderately
Deep 34 4262
Chikkaballapura Chintamani/
Ragimakalahalli
13°19'28" -
13°22'13"
78°5'40" -
78°7'16" 4200 Shallow red Shallow 9 2038
Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 13°35'59" 76°18'00" -
76°21'43" 5400.56
Red Sandy
loam
Moderately
Deep to Deep 7 2754
Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 13°18'14" 75°45'08" 5092
Red sandy
loam & clay
loam
Moderately
Deep 14 2475
Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 13°02'50" 77°59'13" 3194.25 Red sandy
loam
Shallow to
Moderately
Deep
20 4108
Ramanagara Channapatna/ Akkur 12°39'0" 77°13'12" 3559 Red sandy
loam
Shallow to
Moderately
Deep
31 5160
Shivamogga Sagara/ Yelakundli 14°10'53" 75°35'40" 3040 Hilly
Red sandy
loam & clay
loam
Deep to very
Deep 26 1640
Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagiri 13°15'11" -
13°18'04"
77°04'36" -
77°09'00" 4977 Plain
Red sandy
loam
Shallow to
Moderately
Deep
19 3175
Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/
Mallayanapura 11°55'19"
76°49'19" -
76°52'55" 3467.68
Undulating
Red and Black Medium to
Deep 12 2472
Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 15
°24’19” -
15°32’
75°38’25” -
75°40’27" 2750 Red soil
Medium to
Deep 22 2831
Chikkamagalore Kadur/ Mattighatta 13°20’00” 75°50’00° 6180 Red sandy Deep 49 3860
Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 13°1'20" 76°35'46" 3832.78 Hilly
Gravelly red
sandy loam
Medium to
Deep 25 1360
Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigudu 12
°25'32" -
12°30'04"
76°05'41" -
76°11'16"
6721.09 Plain Red loam Medium to
Deep 27 3706
Dakshina
Kannada
Bantwala/
Punacha/Peruvai 12°56'0" 70
°7'0" 5000
Hilly
Red loam&
Lateritic soils Deep 6 5456
Udupi Kundapura/ Kuntahole/
Narasipura 13
°34'33" 74
°55'59" 6000
Red loam&
Lateritic soils Deep 7 2265
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
46
Name of the
District Name of the SWS/ Code Latitude Longitude Area (ha) Topography Soil type Depth (m) Villages (Nos)
Total
Households
(Nos)
Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/
Makandoor 12°31'18" 75
°38'24" 5104.24 Red loam Deep 13 1415
Bagalakote Kerkalmatti/ Badami 16°12'58" 75°47'43" 3355
Undulating
to nearly
level
Black clay
loam to clay
Moderate to
very deep 15 3226
Belagavi Neginal/ Bailhongal 15°89'12" 74°79'29" 4354 Black clay
loam to clay
Deep to very
deep 30 960
Vijayapura Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 16°61'02" 75°56'49" 4716.51 Black clay
loam to clay
Moderate to
very deep 14 936
Dharwad Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 15°12'15" 75°02'24" 3043.15 Black, clay
loam Deep 11 3126
Gadaga Kadadi/ Gadaga 15°52'47" 75°61'40" 4595.5 Black sandy
clay loam
Moderately
Deep to Deep 22 3026
Haveri Agadi/ Haveri 14°52'37" 75°45'33" 6107 Black clay
loam to clay
Moderate to
very deep 21 3619
Uttara Kannada Mavalli/ Bhatkal 14°16'11" 74°49'24" 8194.13
Undulating
to gently
sloping
Red and
laterite
Shallow to
Moderate 14 2483
Bidar Nirna/ Humnabad 17°42' 55" 77
° 16' 9" 6142
Undulating
& Hilly
Lateritic Red
and black
Shallow to
Moderately
Deep
11 3786
Kalaburagi Habalanala/ Sedam 17°15'2"
77° 18’
12.70” E 4263
Undulating
and Plain
Black Cotton,
loamy to sandy
Shallow to
Moderately
Deep
7 2151
Yadgiri Wadigera/ Shahpur 16°37'2" 77
°0'44" 3106
Plain &
Hilly Black
Moderately
Deep to Deep 6 2065
Raichuru Khyadigera/ Devadurga 16°17'6" 76
° 4’34" 6200
Plain,
Undulating
& Hilly
Black and red
Shallow to
Moderately
Deep
11 2250
Koppal Hirevankalakunta/
Yelburga 15
°43'39" 76
°6'30" 4690 Black and red
Moderately
Deep to Deep 11 3741
Ballary Hirehadagali/
Hoovinahadagali 14
°57'22" 75
°46'32" 2280 Black and red
Shallow to
Deep 3 1835
Total 134494 - - - 497 82181
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
47
3.4 Economic status of households
The economic status of households and their standard of living in any area are determined by
their income level. Table 3.5 shows the income level of different category of farmers at the
household level within the sample watersheds. The income of all rural landless families
varied from about Rs. 7,500/- (Doddamanikere SWS) to 1,64,000/- (Kerkalmatti SWS) across
the watersheds before the implementation of project. For marginal families it varied from
Rs.13,400/- to Rs. 2,45,000/-, whereas for small farmers it varied from Rs. 16700/- to Rs.
2,35,000/- and for large farmers it varied from Rs.33,900/- to Rs. 3,03,000/-. According to
the circular issued by the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, GoK, the people are
considered to be below poverty line if the rural household income is less than Rs.12,000/-. In
this respect, barring the landless labourers from six SWSs, none of the other farmer
categories across the 29 SWSs were under the poverty line before the project.
3.5 Fund management by SWSs
The magnitude of funds received and the amount utilized by the SWSs in the successive
years during the period is given in Table.3.6. The data presented in table reveals, that more
than 90% of the amount released for the individual SWSs, except in six cases, has been
utilized. The utilization of funds was the least in Gadaga (36.9%) followed by Badami
(58.0%). It can however be assumed that the finances provided are effectively utilized for
implementing the Program in most of the watersheds. Focus group discussions with WDT
and EC members revealed that advance planning as well as revised annual action plans have
helped to undertake the works as per the plan and book the expenditure. The WDT facilitated
the EC to complete assignments by guiding them wherever required. As a result of advance
planning after studying the local conditions and requirements, works could be handled with
continuous guidance from WDT and complete in time. The regular meetings held by EC
helped to review the progress from time to time and any constraints noticed were cleared in
time. This speaks of good co-operation between the WDT, EC and stakeholders.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
48
Table 3.5: Economic status (Average Annual Income per family)
Name of the Taluk/SWS
Income to
land less (Rs)
Income to
marginal
farmers (Rs)
Income to
small
farmers (Rs)
Income to large
farmers (Rs)
Hosakote/ Doddaammanikere 7488 13486 26087 33901
Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 26628 21570 20778 41810
Hiriyur/ Kariyalapura 11218 13488 16778 59143
Channagiri/ Nallur 25975 58112 51905 171586
Malur/ Vadaganahalli 16895 38688 34070 140605
Channapattana/ Akkur 25526 30482 42470 50135
Sagara/ Yalakundi 10138 16728 27114 42738
Tumakuru/ Hanumanthagiri 10315 14703 26253 45330
Chamarajanagaraa/
Mallayanapura 23393 19409 34503 121928
Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 9525 22685 27855 36660
Kadur/ Mattighatta 62125 107766 97064 172805
Hassan/ Kalyadi 10220 35848 59173 116193
Periyapattana/ Attigudu 94829 94733 117000 163900
Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 13670 18113 19419 49588
Kundapura/ Kuntahole/
Narasipura 57551 42183 66208 112400
Madikere/ Vatahole/
Makandoor 41750 46836 68595 102725
Kerkalmatti/ Badami 164444 246615 173965 280969
Neginal/ Bailhongal 54830 53634 91940 133484
Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 46375 110266 129623 153692
Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 32033 46416 96615 113097
Kadadi/ Gadaga 12465 34533 78466 80366
Agadi/ Haveri 108615 84104 66964 139895
Mavalli/ Bhatkal 99856 98689 156930 303066
Nirna/ Humnabad 79606 141057 214421 290496
Habalanala/ Kalaburagi 54000 46800 124490 177765
Wadigera/ Yadgiri 78073 125521 171990 256431
Khyadigera/ Raichuru 28375 152183 220991 195895
HV Kunta/ Koppal 28300 160960 235347 300532
Hirehadagali/ Ballary 87083 161150 229152 296323
Average 45562 70923 94006 144257
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
49
Table.3.6: Fund Management in watersheds (in Lakh Rs.)
District. Name of the
SWS/Code
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Fund
received
Fund
utilized
Fund
received
Fund
utilized
Fund
received
Fund
utilized
Fund
received
Fund
utilized
Fund
received
Fund
utilized
Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/
Doddamanikere 23.7 0.5 33.4 32.7 104.8 92.2 177.4 152.4 79.8 73.5
Chikkaballapura Chintamani/
Ragimakalahalli 28.9 27.8 126.6 124.8 256.3 252.8 26.6 23.5 18.6 15.7
Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 0 0 111.7 107.8 143.7 142.2 174 161.7 134 132.6
Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 30 0 61.6 26.1 224.8 63.1 213.7 183.2 94.6 94.2
Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 18.6 15.3 25.6 6.9 108.6 77.2 58.1 137.3 91.9 82.6
Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 20.3 0 33.6 31.1 156.8 126.6 241.7 220.8 21.3 11.8
Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 21.6 0 43.8 27.1 267.5 234.7 169.5 122.6 38.4 21.9
Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumant
hagirir 38.2 33.2 121.5 121.2 296.7 296.4 126.7 124.3 2.4 0.8
Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/
Mallayanapura 16.7 0 26.2 24.7 86.2 79.3 135.4 113.1 57 55.3
Mandya Pandavapura/
Jakkenahalli 24 4.2 60.2 19.3 165 131.4 158.9 136.1 29.2 12.9
Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 30.6 29.3 128.7 88.5 268.3 288.6 105.3 81.6 36 74
Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 10 0 45.2 30.2 108.6 95.5 174 155.4 77.6 54.9
Mysuru Periyapattana/
Attigodu 52.3 14.8 100.7 78 361.3 303.4 305.7 286.2 52 49.6
Dakshina Kannada Bantwala/
Punacha/Peruvai 35.6 0 60.3 56.3 217.3 126.1 354.5 244.6 196.5 180.1
Udupi
Kundapura/
Kuntahole/
Narasipura 34.3 6.4 63.3 35.3 193.7 141.6 176.9 162.4 144.1 129.5
Kodagu Madikere/Vatahole/
Makandoor 36.4 0 38.7 32.2 171.7 132.8 154.7 149.6 110.4 54.2
Bagalakote Kerkalmatti/ Badami 45.2 0 168.6 70.1 485.5 292.1 316.5 216.5 108.9 67.9
Belagavi Neginal/ Bailhongal 26.1 0 37.7 33 194.1 192.5 293.4 267.3 59.8 51.2
Vijayapura Arjunagihalla/
Vijayapura 31.9 0 60.6 35 385.4 376.6 162.8 137.9 50 45.5
Dharwad Hulaginkatti/
Khalgatagi 0 0 22.9 16.9 55.6 31.8 135.2 104.7 106.3 89.7
Gadaga Kadadi/ Gadaga 31 0 88.2 37.9 240 153 279.1 264.9 714.3 55.7
Haveri Agadi/ Haveri 24.1 0 52.3 40.3 180.7 162.9 252.1 236.5 47.4 46.5
Uttara Kannada Mavalli/ Bhatkal 30 22.4 20.5 20.4 368.6 365.7 248.2 245 59.3 55.9
Bidar Nirna/ Humnabad 0 0 48.5 44.8 204.5 155.3 284.1 229.6 100.2 53.8
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
50
Kalaburagi Habalanala/ Sedam 22.6 0 48.4 31.8 167.8 164.8 217.2 208.5 38.6 37.4
Yadgiri Wadigera/ Shahpur 0 0 39.6 24 109.6 100.2 155.7 142.3 20.1 13.9
Raichuru Khyadigera/
Devadurga 44.2 0 55.3 12.6 218.1 169.2 208.4 196.9 103.5 85.8
Koppal Hirevankalakunta/
Yelburga 0 0 69.4 41.2 194.7 174.5 235.5 201 85.6 81.5
Ballary Hirehadagali/
Hoovinahadagali 17.3 0.3 88.8 88.8 122.2 112.1 51.3 51 28.5 8.1
Table.3.6: continued
District. Name of the SWS/Code
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Total
%
Utilization
Fund
received
Fund
utilized
Fund
received
Fund
utilized
Fund
received
Fund
utilized
Fund
received
Fund
utilized
Fund
received
Fund
utilized
Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 32.8 3.3 56.1 42.7 68.9 58.3 10.7 1 587.6 456.6 77.7
Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 19.9 17.1 3.2 1.2 3.1 1.8 1.3 1 484.5 465.7 96.1
Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 28.3 9.2 37.6 36.8 48.6 45.1 3.5 3.5 681.4 638.9 93.8
Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 82.5 2 104.1 92.1 152.1 145.4 7.3 1 970.7 607.1 62.5
Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 40.5 20.4 35.1 34.1 8.9 7.3 1.7 1.7 389 382.8 98.4
Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 33.9 10.6 25.1 18.2 7.1 1.3 5.9 0.9 545.7 421.3 77.2
Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 37.3 18.9 10.7 9.9 4.3 3.6 0.8 0.8 593.9 439.5 74.0
Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 1.6 0.5 1.6 0.5 1.4 0 1.5 1.5 591.6 578.4 97.8
Chamarajanagara
Chamarajanagaraa/
Mallayanapura 24.1 23 23.9 19.9 60.6 58.7 1.9 1.9 432 375.9 87.0
Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 21.9 12.1 2.4 1.5 1 0 1 1 463.6 318.5 68.7
Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 112.7 109.4 112.7 109.4 10.5 2.9 0 0 804.8 783.7 97.4
Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 45.9 26.3 97.4 53.1 70.8 35.5 35.8 9 665.3 459.9 69.1
Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 53.4 51 21.1 18.9 2.3 0 3.3 0.9 952.1 802.8 84.3
Dakshina
Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 86.4 74.4 12.4 2.3 32.2 30 1.2 1.2 996.4 715 71.8
Udupi
Kundapura/ Kuntahole/
Narasipura 88 43.5 49.4 28.5 67.2 55.3 11.3 1.4 828.2 603.9 72.9
Kodagu Madikere/Vatahole/Makandoor 126.5 129.5 0.8 59.9 0 0 0 0 639.2 558.2 87.3
Bagalakote Kerkalmatti/ Badami 61.4 41.4 30.9 30.2 22.5 13.4 21 1 1260.5 732.6 58.1
Belagavi Neginal/ Bailhongal 73.9 66.5 15.1 9.6 31.8 26.7 6.2 1.4 738.1 648.2 87.8
Vijayapura Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 50.4 16.2 50.7 46.9 7.4 4.2 3.3 0.9 802.5 663.2 82.6
Dharwad Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 27.5 15.6 21.6 19.5 21.5 6.5 15.2 15.1 405.8 299.8 73.9
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
51
Gadaga Kadadi/ Gadaga 50.3 2.4 0.9 0.1 7.8 7.3 0.5 0 1412.1 521.3 36.9
Haveri Agadi/ Haveri 46.5 30.6 24.8 22.7 37.9 36.77 4.8 4.3 670.6 580.57 86.6
Uttara Kannada Mavalli/ Bhatkal 43 39.6 3.6 0 3.7 0 3.7 0.9 780.6 749.9 96.1
Bidar Nirna/ Humnabad 105.7 79.4 51.3 30.1 84.3 69.2 15.9 0.9 894.5 663.1 74.1
Kalaburagi Habalanala/ Sedam 27.7 10.9 31.7 10.2 35.4 31.9 3.9 1.1 593.3 496.6 83.7
Yadgiri Wadigera/ Shahpur 23.5 10.3 13.3 12.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 362.8 304.5 83.9
Raichuru Khyadigera/ Devadurga 99.1 2.8 122 80.1 195.3 123.3 70.7 67.5 1116.6 738.2 66.1
Koppal Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 22.2 0 19.5 18 28 24.5 4 1.1 658.9 541.8 82.2
Ballary Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 34.6 0 56.1 11.5 6.9 5.2 4.2 1.6 409.9 278.6 68.0
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
52
3.6 Entry Point Activity (EAP) and Community Mobilization
The details of EPAs implemented in all the watersheds are presented in Table 3.7. It is
noticed that all the planned EPAs have been executed and the expenditure on them in each of
the sample watersheds has also been fully made as per the guidelines. The amount spent is as
per the guidelines (4.0%)
Focus group discussions with stakeholders revealed that activities under EPA are identified
through a democratic process, by conducting a transact walk with the stakeholders at several
places. In general, efforts were made to create surface storages to accommodate excess runoff
from rainfall so as to make water available for livestock and also other non-domestic uses at
the field level apart from facilitating groundwater recharge. These structures have helped to
improve groundwater recharge and thereby increased availability of water in the bore wells.
As of now, the water harvesting structures are in good condition.
Awareness building:
In all the SWSs, the planned number of awareness building programs has been fully
accomplished and the finances allocated for these programs have been fully utilized as per
plan.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
53
Plate.2: Entry Point Activities (AHC, CD/VD/GK.RWS etc.) across SWS
sssssss
Stone pitching and de-silting of Tank at
Huluginakatti SWS, Kalaghatagi taluk,
Dharwad district
Check Dam at Nirna SWS, Humnabad
Taluk and Bidar District
Gokatte formed as EPA in Ragimakalpalli,
Chinthamani SWS, IWMP-8 during Batch
II/2010-11
EPA / Nala Bund, Mallaianapura SWS,
Chamarajanagaraa Taluk & District
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
54
Table 3.7: Details of structures constructed under E.P.A Entry Point Activities
No of the Taluk/SWS Planned Ach Gokatte
Nala
bund
(Nos)
Check
Dam MNB
Medicinal
Plants
Veg.
Kits AHC
Ravine
reclamation
structure
MPT V.D Kalyani Tank
desilting
Number
Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 13 13 1 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 12 11 2 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 9 9 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
Channagiri/ Nallur 10 10 0 5 0 4 1000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Malur/Vadaganahalli 9 9 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Channapatna/Akkur 7 7 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sagara/Yelakundli 18 18 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0
Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 9 9 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 18 18 10 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 25 25 13 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kadur/ Mattighatta 25 25 3 8 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hassan/ Kalyadi 42 42 40 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Periyapattana/ Attigodu 14 14 6 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0
Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 20 20 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0
Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 19 19 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0
Kerkalmatti/ Badami 7 7 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Neginal/ Bailhongal 5 5 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 7 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Kadadi/ Gadaga 21 21 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 8
Agadi/ Haveri 10 10 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mavalli/ Bhatkal 11 11 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
Nirna/ Humnabad 11 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Habalanala/ Sedam 10 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wadigera/ Shahpur 10 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
Khyadigera/ Devadurga 1210 1210 0 0 0 0 0 1200 10 0 0 0 0 0
Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0
Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1604 1602 111 66 106 4 1000 1200 16 2 19 60 4 14
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
55
The details of the Programs organized are presented in Table 3.8. Totally, 205 Gram Sabhas,
188 Kala Jathas, 150 Street Plays, 137 wall paintings and 14 exposure visits were organized
across the watersheds. These Programs were either conducted in each village or in selected
villages of the watersheds. Building awareness about the project and making them to
understand the Program has resulted in motivation of stakeholders to actively participate in
implementing of the project. It was observed from the Programs conducted that attendance
level in these Programs is varied and not up to the mark. The District level agency needs to
follow a different road map for building awareness about the project, its necessity,
implementation arrangements for various components under different sectors to achieve the
goal. To this effect, organizing a cultural Program and a film show for attracting maximum
number of people would achieve the objective. In the school, these activities can be better
explained during parents’ day meet to children and parents together with documentary films
on the subject. Alternatively, weekly one-hour speech or short plays could be arranged in
schools so that the children will imbibe the need for protecting environment and sensitize
parents about the benefits of conservation. The timings of these Programs should be
convenient to the maximum number of stakeholders, particularly to women. Such campaign
needs to be on a mission mode rather than on target basis.
Table.3.8: Awareness building activities in different watersheds
SWS
Gra
ma
Sabh
a
Kal
a
Jat
ha
Stre
et
play
Wall
Painti
ng
Expos
ure
visits SWS
Gra
ma
Sabh
a
Kal
a
Jat
ha
Stre
et
play
Wall
Painti
ng
Expos
ure
visits
(Nos) (Nos)
Doddamanikere 27 10 4 0 0 Vatahole/
Makandoor 5 5 6 0 1
Ragimakalahalli 2 9 9 10 1 Kerkalmatti 21 10 6 10 3
Kariyalpura 9 17 16 9 1 Neginal 12 12 12 0 1
Nallur 6 16 16 17 1 Arjunagihalla 3 3 3 0 1
Vadaganahalli 22 8 5 0 1 Hulaginkatti 1 1 6 0 0
Akkur 31 20 20 0 1 Kadadi 5 5 5 4 25
Yelakundli 10 10 10 0 1 Agadi 3 4 4 0 4
Hanumanthagirir 10 19 8 40 1 Mavalli 8 16 16 8 1
Mallayanapura 9 9 9 24 1 Nirna 6 6 6 6 5
Jakkenahalli 22 8 8 0 1 Habalanala 6 6 6 6 1
Mattighatta 7 21 21 21 1 Wadigera 6 6 6 6 9
Kalyadi 9 4 4 16 1 Khyadigera 11 11 11 11 2
Attigodu 25 25 10 0 1 Hirevankalakunt
a 10 10 10 10 2
Punacha/Peruvai 6 6 6 0 1 Hirehadagali 4 4 4 4 3
Kuntahole/
Narasipura 10 6 4 0 1 Total 205 188 150 137 14
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
56
Plate.3: Awareness building Programs (Kalajatha, street Play, gram sabha,Jalanayana
mela) across SWS
sssssss
Jalanayana mela Program conducted in
Panja village of Idiyodi, Kunjethady,
Kenya SWS, SullyaTaluk, Dakshina
Kannada District
Gramasabha in Gadaga district
PRA in progress in Uttara Kannada Street Play in Yaliyur Village,
Kothathevanur Sub- watershed IWMP-5
Devanahalli Taluk Bengaluru Rural
District.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
57
3.7 Capacity building of Community Based Organisations (CBOs)
The present watershed development Program was implemented following new guidelines
issued under National Rain fed Area Authority has specific provisions regarding the
formation of local level institutions like Watershed Committee (Executive Committee), User
Groups (UGs) and SHGs. These local institutions have certain roles to play for successful
implementation of the Program. For example, WC (EC) is the project implementer with
financial responsibility; UGs to identify interventions and maintain the assets created during
post project period for sustaining the development; and SHG members need to actively
participate in improving the conditions of common property resources to enable them to
improve their livelihood options.
In order to identify whether the CBOs had been formed with due representation of different
categories of members as prescribed in the guidelines, information is collected and presented
in Table 3.9. It could be seen from the data presented in the table that CBOs are formed in all
the SWSs as required under the guidelines.
The ECs formed have members representing the Panchayat Raj institution i.e. gram
panchayat and women varying from 31 (Mallayanapura SWS) to 78.8% (Kerkalmatti/
Badami SWS) and members from vulnerable groups (9 to 57%). A total of 106 ECs exist
across all watersheds with an average of three per watershed. These differences in
representation were due to variations in the population of different categories in a given
SWS. The members were selected unanimously through Grama Sabha.
UGs are formed on area basis as per the drainage line. A total of 1072 UGs were formed
across the twenty-nine watersheds, with the number of groups varying from 18 to 85 due to
variations in the number of villages and households. In UG women headed households are
also considered by making them as members in the group. Women’s enrolling in UG is a
clear indication that communities are mobilized as required under the guidelines.
Watershed Development Team consisting of multi – disciplinary team representing
agriculture, horticulture, forestry and animal husbandry is formed for each SWS. These staff
is well trained in the areas of resource conservation and management. These teams have
acted as facilitators for implementing the Program. This becomes clear when one examines
the type of entry point activity undertaken (identification process and its implementation).
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
58
Table 3.9: Formation of Community Based Organizations and representation of different categories.
Name of the SWS/ Code
EC SHG UG
No.
of
ECs
No. of
members
Representations
from local
institution (%)
Women
representation
(%)
SC/ST
representation
(%)
UG
Representation
(%)
SHG
representation
(%)
No. of
groups
No. of
Members
No. of
groups
No. of
Members
Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 4 49 32.6 42.8 34.6 42.8 24.8 55 1056 44 1092
Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 2 28 17.8 39.2 24.9 49.9 32.1 50 1000 30 600
Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 2 28 35.7 NA 28.5 53.5 32.1 54 972 44 880
Channagiri/ Nallur 5 71 21 40.6 57.4 39.2 32.2 48 717 48 952
Malur/Vadaganahalli 6 94 20.2 37.1 33.9 45.6 27.5 31 580 35 2485
Channapatna/Akkur 4 51 13.7 54.8 19 39 39.2 40 793 28 5280
Sagara/Yelakundli 2 32 18.7 31.2 9.4 49.9 31.2 16 298 25 820
Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 3 40 30 50 32.5 37.5 56 40 621 40 800
Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 2 29 31 31 37.9 31 34.5 30 525 18 360
Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 5 62 25.7 40.3 40.3 40.3 17.7 34 550 21 420
Kadur/ Mattighatta 7 109 25.7 41.3 44 43.6 14.7 46 676 83 670
Hassan/ Kalyadi 3 37 24.3 36 35 36 24.3 40 591 34 679
Periyapattana/ Attigodu 4 49 24.5 40.8 40.8 40.8 38.8 50 924 50 924
Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 5 60 25.1 48.4 41.7 41.7 21.7 60 594 34 466
Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 4 50 24 42 40 42.6 26 28 325 38 549
Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 3 37 24.3 62.1 40.5 40.5 24.3 33 499 33 449
Kerkalmatti/ Badami 3 33 NA 78.8 48.5 NA NA 45 553 35 657
Neginal/ Bailhongal 4 44 NA 54.5 25.4 NA NA 25 406 27 540
Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 3 33 NA 51.5 42.4 NA NA 40 533 30 2282
Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 2 30 NA 50 13.3 NA NA 20 265 18 1070
Kadadi/ Gadaga 4 44 NA 38.6 13.6 NA NA 42 496 32 1473
Agadi/ Haveri 2 24 NA 16.7 45.8 NA NA 21 339 42 3299
Mavalli/ Bhatkal 6 75 NA 36 48 NA NA 85 1285 85 1275
Nirna/ Humnabad 5 78 NA 38.5 38 NA NA 36 540 40 3286
Habalanala/ Sedam 2 32 NA 39.1 17.4 NA NA 40 760 41 1851
Wadigera/ Shahpur 3 48 NA 39.3 41.9 NA NA 25 434 18 1765
Khyadigera/ Devadurga 3 49 NA 33.9 45.9 NA NA 55 645 45 1950
Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 5 77 NA 38.9 32.9 NA NA 30 420 34 3241
Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 3 33 NA 41.6 46.7 NA NA 20 332 20 1635
Overall 106 1426 24.6 42.7 35.2 42.1 29.8 1139 17729 1072 41750
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
56
Capacity building of the CBOs:
As the new guidelines insist upon community participation in every aspect of watershed
development, planning, execution and maintenance, a provision has been made in the project
design to build the capacities of the community, who are the resource users so as to convert
them into resource managers to prevent degradation and reestablish ecological balance.
Towards this end the department has prepared 24 training modules for imparting training to
different groups in three schedules. These trainings are given by the Support Organization
(NGOs) recruited for the purpose under the supervision of the department.
The details of capacity building activities in the watershed projects under study are presented
in Table.3.10. It clearly reveals that lot of expenditure has been incurred to build capacities of
the farmers to handle the Program by becoming partners to it in the watershed area. The
Watershed Development Department has trained GO staff namely, Team Leader and IG
specialist for 5 days at Soil and Water Conservation Training Centers at Mysuru and
Vijayapura on the concept of watershed development in general and Integrated Watershed
Management Project and its implementation procedures in particular as well as their roles and
responsibilities. Similarly, Data Entry Operator engaged by NGO is trained for two days at
the Head Quarters of the Department regarding data entry and uploading into the State MIS.
These trainings are given only once and incase if there is change in the staff, the trainings
become waste and no provision exists for training the new entrants. Further such trainings
need to be not only focused but also intensive, as these persons in turn are required to train
the CBOs. These aspects need to be considered in the future Programs.
Trainings have been organized to CBOs (EC, UG and SHG members) in all the watersheds.
These members were given trainings at 3 levels using Subject Matter Specialists as resource
persons in most of the cases. In all 1426 EC members, 41750 UG members and 17729 SHG
members have been trained across the watershed projects. However, interactions with
stakeholders revealed that trainings need to have practical classes or exposure to places where
the Programs are successfully implemented for better understanding as class room lectures
are not enough to help them much. Further they also suggested that refresher courses may
help them to better understand at the time of implementation of the Program, which gives
them hands-on experience. In future Programs, steps need to be taken to address the above,
for improving the Program’s performance.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
57
Table 3.10: Trainings for Capacity Building of different CBOs
Name of the SWS
NGO
Members
(Nos)
Expend
iture (in
Lakh Rs)
WAs
Trained
(Nos)
Expend
iture (in
Lakh
Rs)
UGs
(Nos)
UG
members
Trained
(Nos)
Expend
iture (in
Lakh Rs)
SHGs
(Nos)
SHG
Members
Trained
(Nos)
Expend
iture (in
Lakh Rs) ECs(Nos)
EC
members
Trained
(Nos)
Expend
iture
(in
Lakh
Rs)
Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 3 0.02 4 0.06 44 1092 1.97 55 1056 1.9 4 49 0.09
Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 3 0.02 3 0.06 30 600 1.08 50 1000 1.69 2 28 0.5
Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 3 0.02 5 0.02 44 880 1.58 54 972 1.75 2 28 0.5
Channagiri/ Nallur 3 0.02 5 0.02 48 952 1.71 48 717 1.29 5 71 0.12
Malur/Vadaganahalli 3 0.02 3 0.02 35 2485 4.47 31 580 1.04 6 94 0.16
Channapatna/Akkur 3 0.02 5 0.02 28 5280 9.5 40 793 1.37 4 51 0.09
Sagara/Yelakundli 3 0.02 3 0.02 25 820 1.48 16 298 0.54 2 32 0.05
Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 3 0.02 5 0.07 40 800 1.44 40 621 1.12 3 40 0.07
Chamarajanagaraa/Mallayanapura 3 0.1 4 0.13 18 360 0.65 30 525 0.95 2 29 0.05
Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 3 0.1 5 0.17 21 420 0.76 34 550 0.99 5 62 0.12
Kadur/ Mattighatta 3 0.1 5 0.17 83 670 1.51 46 676 1.21 7 109 0.2
Hassan/ Kalyadi 3 0.1 5 0.17 34 679 1.22 40 591 1.06 3 37 0.07
Periyapattana/ Attigodu 3 0.1 4 0.13 50 924 1.38 50 924 1.66 4 49 0.09
Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 3 0.1 5 0.17 34 466 1.1 60 594 0.84 5 60 0.1
Kundapura/ Kuntahole/Narasipura 3 0.1 5 0.17 38 549 0.59 28 325 1.41 4 50 0.09
Madikere/ Vatahole/Makandoor 3 0.1 5 0.17 33 449 0.85 33 499 0.44 3 37 0.06
Kerkalmatti/ Badami 3 0.04 4 NA 35 657 1.55 45 553 1.36 3 33 0.17
Neginal/ Bailhongal 3 0.04 4 NA 27 540 0.76 25 406 0.6 4 44 0.94
Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 6 0.05 2 NA 30 2282 4.73 40 533 1.16 3 33 0.13
Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 3 0.04 2 NA 18 1070 NA 20 265 NA 2 30 NA
Kadadi/ Gadaga 2 0.02 5 NA 32 1473 1.8 42 496 1.08 4 44 0.13
Agadi/ Haveri 5 0.01 2 NA 42 3299 4.1 21 339 0.07 2 24 0.04
Mavalli/ Bhatkal 3 0.04 3 NA 85 1275 2.7 85 1285 2.74 6 75 0.23
Nirna/ Humnabad 3 0.04 7 0.17 40 3286 0.8 36 540 1.09 5 78 0.08
Habalanala/ Sedam 3 0.04 4 0.17 41 1851 1.59 40 760 1.56 2 32 0.17
Wadigera/ Shahpur 3 0.04 3 0.17 18 1765 3.52 25 434 0.85 3 48 0.08
Khyadigera/ Devadurga 3 0.04 6 0.17 45 1950 2.25 55 645 1.45 3 49 0.1
Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 3 0.04 6 0.17 34 3241 1.48 30 420 0.83 5 77 0.19
Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 3 0.04 2 0.17 20 1635 0.74 20 332 0.58 3 33 0.05
Overall 91 1.44 121 1.02 1072 41750 57.31 1139 17729 32.63 106 1426 4.664
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
58
Plate.4: Capacity building zctivities and Net Plan Preparation
Net planning in Nandeganahalli SWS in
IWMP-9, Gauribidanur taluk.
E1 training at Rameswara SWS, Athani
taluk, Belagavi district
U1 training at Rameswara SWS, Athani
taluk, Belagavi district
Capacity building of SHGs of
Chikkaballapur district – batch 2
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
59
3.8 Bio-Physical interventions
Watershed development involves a series of bio-physical measures with the main objective of
in situ conservation of rain water, prevention of soil erosion, rainwater harvesting and bio
mass development. These measures are undertaken on private and common land resources
and along drainage lines as deemed necessary by the community in a given watershed. A
large variety of interventions for the purpose are undertaken based on the local conditions,
watershed characteristics and climatic conditions. The major aim of the present Program is to
spread investments widely to reach all the beneficiaries so as to achieve equity in investments
through an area-based approach. It is also ensured that beneficiaries will provide part of the
investment depending upon their social status so as to enable them to own the Program.
In all the watersheds, conservation measures like bunding, trenching, diversion drains, rubble
checks, waterways, farm ponds, mini percolation tanks, nala revetment and plantation works
are carried out under area development while check dams, nalabunds, gokatte and vented
dams are carried out as part of drainage line treatment. The physical and financial progress
achieved in different watersheds is presented in Table 3.11.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
60
Table 3.11: Physical Progress Achieved - Soil Conservation
District Name of the SWS Bunding (ha) Total
Expenditure (In
Lakh Rs.) Planned Achieved
Bengaluru Rural Doddamanikere 469 287 17.13
Chikkaballapura Ragimakalahalli 3816 1442 108.2
Chitradurga Kariyalpura 4050 2116 257.2
Davanagere Nallur 3815 1195 34.1
Kolara Vadaganahalli 1885 717 59.1
Ramanagara Akkur 2668 1739 119.2
Shivamogga Yelakundli 0 0 0
Tumakuru Hanumanthagirir 2668 2022 112.72
Chamarajanagara Mallayanapura 1933 2479 151.0
Mandya Jakkenahalli 1650 2588 93.9
Chikkamagaluru Mattighatta 4660 2779 154.7
Hassan Kalyadi 1500 940 59.4
Mysuru Attigodu 2500 4249 325.2
Dakshina Kannada Punacha/Peruvai 0 0 0
Udupi Kuntahole/ Narasipura 12443** 12443** 4.41
Kodagu Vatahole/ Makandoor 758 758* 154.87
Bagalakote Kerkalmatti 2705 3120 177.2
Belagavi Neginal 3434 3434 187.6
Vijayapura Arjunagihalla 3868 4521 293.0
Dharwad Hulaginkatti 1594 1462 65.8
Gadaga Kadadi 5582 5582 276.1
Haveri Agadi 4606 4216 226.6
Uttara Kannada Mavalli 0 0 0
Bidar Nirna 5528 3562 225.6
Kalaburagi Habalanala 4263 3594 152.8
Yadgiri Wadigera 1818.85 1696 123.2
Raichuru Khyadigera 6200 3428 171.4
Koppal Hirevankalakunta 4690 4092 117.45
Ballary Hirehadagali 2140 2063 126.0
Overall 91243.85 76524 3793.88
* Staggered trenches ** Trenches in meters
The data presented in the table reveals that bunding in cultivated areas of the SWSs has been
achieved to the extent of 74% across the twenty-nine watersheds. In 10 watersheds,
additional expenditure was incurred (in comparison with sanctioned) in order to complete the
bunding activities, which has proven benefits of conserving rain water in rain fed areas.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
61
Plate.5: Soil and water conservation works
TCB, Arasapur Village,
Chikkanarayangalakere SWS, Tumakuru
District
TCB, Kondlahalli Village & SWS,
Molakamooru Taluk, Chitradurga District
Bunding with Waste weir in Karjigi village, Agadi
SWS, Haveri taluk & district
Bund Sowing on bunds in Neginal SWS,
Bailhongal Taluk, Belagavi district
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
62
It was observed that the bunding conserved rain water and improved yields of ragi by 180 to
400 kg/ha and incase of maize the yield improvement are varied from 150 kg/ha to 900 kg/ha.
Such yield improvements in ragi brought an additional income ranging Rs. 3,200/- per ha to
Rs. 6,000/- per ha. In case of maize the increase in income varied from Rs 3,000/ ha to as
high as Rs 12,000/-. Consequent to this intervention, the total yield in the watershed area has
increased by 72 to 3177 tonnes across the watersheds. The overall increase in the income has
ranged from 12.7 to 624 lakhs (Table. 3.12). The results indicate that payback period for the
investment made on the intervention is one to two years.
Table 3.12: Increase in Production and income level across the watersheds due to
bunding.
District SWS
Total
Area
(ha)
Under
crop
Crop
Area
bunded
(ha)
Yield
increase
Kg/ha
Increase
in
income
Rs./Ha
Total
increase in
production
(tons)
Total
increase
in income
at
watershed
level (Rs.
lakhs)
Bengaluru Rural Doddamanikere 4929.0 Ragi 287.1 245 4400 70.34 12.7
Chikkaballapura Ragimakalahalli 4200.0 G.Nut 1442.0 125 4375 346.8 624.3
Chitradurga Kariyalpura 5400.6 G.Nut 2115.9 250 8700 985.25 343.5
Davanagere Nallur 5092.0 Maize 1195 550 7100 1365.1 176.22
Kolara Vadaganahalli 3194.3 Ragi 717 180 3200 126.86 22.55
Ramanagara Akkur 3559.0 Ragi 1739 250 4500 434.5 78.21
Shivamogga Yelakundli (D.C) 3040.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tumakuru Hanumanthagirir 2286.3 Ragi 1324.8 330 6000 441 74.09
Chamarajanagara Mallayanapura 3467.7 Ragi 2479 400 6000 1322.16 198.32
Mandya Jakkenahalli 2750.0 Ragi 2599 400 6000 568.83 85.32
Chikkamagaluru Mattighatta 6180.0 Ragi 2779 400 6000 1101.16 165.24
Hassan Kalyadi 3832.8 Ragi 940 400 6000 294.4 44.16
Mysuru Attigodu 6721.1 Ragi 4249 400 6000 126.66
Dakshina
Kannada Punacha/Peruvai*
5000.0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Udupi Kuntahole/ Narasipura 4000.0 0 12443 0 0 0 0
Kodagu Vatahole/ Makandoor 5104.2 0 758 0 0 0 0
Bidar Nirna 6142.0 Redgram 3562 100 4500 356 160.29
Kalaburagi Habalanala 4263.0 Togari 3594 400 22000 1206 542.9
Yadgiri Wadigera 3106.0 Cotton 1696 100 4800 180 204.07
Raichuru Khyadigera 6200.0 Cotton 3428 200 9600 706 338.88
Koppal Hirevankalakunta 4690.0 Maize 4092 150 3000 614 122.7
Ballary Hirehadagali 2280.0 Maize 2063 900 12000 3177 423.6
*Plantation crops
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
63
The data presented above amply demonstrate that the bunding, whether done alone or in
combination with trenches helps to conserve rain water and increase the proportion of rainfall
used in crop production resulting in higher yields and income (See box-1). Further, a bund of
0.54 m2 cross section provides an additional surface area of 135 sq. m per ha and could be
planted with cowpea/red gram /castor and other perennial vegetation. This is being done at
many places and farmers are realizing additional income ranging from Rs. 5,700 to Rs.
13,188/ha on seasonal basis.
In order to sustain such benefits, farmers are required to maintain size and shape of the bund
by periodically dressing as part of annual maintenance and establish appropriate vegetation.
Farmers also need to maintain equalizers particularly in places where waste weirs are not
organized to prevent gullying. It is observed that awareness towards this end is not up to the
mark as of now, which should be considered in future programs.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
64
Box – I: Bunding/TCB effect on crop yields and income
Focus group discussions with stake holders revealed that trench cum bunds conserved rain
water which consequently helped to improve yields and income. The cost of bunding per
acre varied from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 2,600/-. Farmers have realized additional income ranging
from Rs. 1,500 to Rs.6,300 per acre. Thus, payback period for the investment is one to two
years. This could be further improved if improved practices are followed.
Name Crop Yield (q/ ha) Income (Rs. / ha)
Before After Before After
Sri HuchhaiahKattemalinahalli,
Hassan Ragi 20 25 25000 36000
Smt.Parvathamma, Bachenahalli,
Alur,Hassan Maize 55 60 49000 56500
Sri Shivabasappa, Heggatore,
Chamarajanagara Ragi 15 17.5 25000 32125
Sri Eranna, Udevu, Tarikere,
Chikkamagaluru Potato 80 92 52000 59200
Sri Rangappa, Udevu, Tarikere,
Chikkamagaluru Maize 37.5 42.5 42250 46125
Sri Mahadevaswamy, Nerale,
Nanjanagudu,Mysuru District Ragi 10.0 12.5 17000 21250
Devaraju,Chittenahalli, Pandavapura
Taluk,Mandya Ragi 15.0 16.25 8281 13438
Sri Gopalasetty,Terakanahalli,
Gundlupet Taluk Jowar 11.25 15.0 12625 19625
Sri Narayanappa,
Ankanahalli,Channarayapatana
Taluk, Hassan District
Ragi 15.0 18.0 16200 18850
VenkatappaGorke,Devanahalli Ragi 2180 2425 35000 41600
Srinivasappa,Kodigenahalli G.Nut 1125 1250 39300 43750
Devanayaka,
GowrasumdranMankalmuru
G.Nut 500 750 17500 26200
HanumanthappaRudrapuraChannagiri Maize 3500 4050 45500 52600
Channamma, Hirikondalahalli Ragi 750 930 13500 16700
Puttaswamaya, AkkinalaMagadi Ragi 1750 2000 31500 36000
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
65
Safe Disposal systems for preventing damage due to excess runoff on the downstream.
The progress achieved regarding the disposal systems in the catchment area of the watersheds
is presented in table 3.13. The disposal systems include waste weirs, diversion channels,
rubble checks, boulder checks and gully plugs. Not all these interventions were either
planned or taken up in every SWS. Waste weirs were planned and executed in all except
seven SWSs. Gully plugs were planned and constructed only in four SWSs, while rubble
checks were planned in two SWSs and bolder checks planned in nine SWSs only. Hence, the
achievements in respect of disposal systems varied from one to other SWS. In case of waste
weirs, none of the planned waste weirs could be executed in Doddamanikere SWS, and in the
remaining watersheds, the achievement varied from 21.9% in Hirehadagalli (Ballari) to more
than 100% in three watersheds, with an overall achievement of 74%. Diversion channels
were planned in eight watersheds. The achievement was 100%, in respect of these
watersheds.
Rubble Check, Marigowdanadoddi Village, Doddayalachegere SWS, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
66
Table 3.13: Physical Progress Achieved with respect to Disposal Systems for safe disposal run-off water
Name of Sub watershed
Disposal Systems
Total
Expenditure
(in Lakh Rs.)
Waste Weirs
(WW)(Nos.)
Diversion Channel
(DC)(RMT)
Rubble Checks
(RC) (RMT)
Boulder Checks
(BC) (Nos.)
Gully Plugs
(GP)/LRS (No.)
Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd
Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 1387 956 6094 6094 0 0 69 69 0 0 43.8
Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 1975 2410 0 0 352 352 79 79 99 99 57.6
Channagiri/ Nallur 1241 920 0 0 0 0 1 1 184 184 5.98
Malur/Vadaganahalli 396 396 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 2.44
Channapatna/Akkur 869 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.82
Sagara/Yelakundli 0 0 17903 17903 0 0 0 0 0 0 40.4
Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 1011 1252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.13
Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 1653 534 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 8.47
Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 7879 7879 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51.21
Kadur/ Mattighatta 0 0 6527* 6527* 373 474 0 0 201 201 68.7
Hassan/ Kalyadi 98 64 538 800 0 0 75 75 0 0 27.7
Periyapattana/ Attigodu 674 674 700 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 49.88
Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 0 0 599 599* 0 0 0 0 0 0 52.96
Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 300** 300** 45398 45398 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.25
Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kerkalmatti/ Badami 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 NA
Neginal/ Bailhongal 1352 1393 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.07
Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 250 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 1550 1403 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 40.5
Kadadi/ Gadaga 300 185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Agadi/ Haveri 450 250 0 6630** 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.75
Mavalli/ Bhatkal 500 375 6630 6630 0 0 0 180 8 8 12.55
Nirna/ Humnabad 0 0
0 0 1000 925 0 0 27.8
Habalanala/ Sedam 2560 1283 0 0 0 0 1458 1458 0 0 26.8
Wadigera/ Shahpur 4263 3016 3** 3** 0 0
60 0 0 27.6
Khyadigera/ Devadurga 642 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.23
Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 6200 3530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.65
Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 1455 318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.14
Overall 37120 27557 84392 91284 725 826 2685 2914 500 500 615.43 * NRVT ** Water ways
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
67
In future Programs, it is essential to include cost of waste weirs within the bund cost and
execute along with bunding. Fortunately, as of now, no damage is noticed. Provision of
diversion drain for safe disposal of excess runoff from high ridges has stabilized agriculture
on the downstream. After formation of these channels, the farmers on the downstream are
able to cultivate and diversify the crops (ragi to maize) for higher returns. (See Box-2).
During field visit, it is observed that though the diversion drain is connected to natural drain,
required bed gradient is not given to prevent gullying while making the drain. The spoil is
used to form the bund on the downstream but no vegetation is established. It is, therefore,
necessary to educate farmers to establish vegetation on the bund and provide vegetative
checks in the gully bed at appropriate places to prevent collapsing of the drain and gullying.
To ensure this, the capacity building should be done at two stages viz. first stage during
planning and second stage during implementation to develop maintenance mechanism.
Name Crop
Yield (q/ha) Net income
(Rs. /ha)
Before After Before After Before After
Sri Palakshappa,
Kallur
Arakalagudu,
Hassan
Paddy
Maize
Paddy
Maize
27.5
40.0
37.5
50.0
23125
41500
Total
64625
39875
5775
97625
Sri Basavaraj,
Kumbarahalli, Alur
Taluk, Hassan
Paddy
Maize
Paddy
Maize
35.0
47.50
46.25
50.0
31125
44250
40125
54500
Sri Basavaraj,
Kumbarahalli, Alur
Taluk, Hassan
Paddy
Maize
Paddy
Maize
35.0
47.50
46.25
50.0
31125
44250
40125
54500
Smt.Revathi Casta,
Madamakki,
Kundapura, Udupi
Dist.
Paddy
Paddy
22.50 23.75 13583 15958
Sri Nage Gowda,
Vatahole, Madikeri,
Kodagu
Paddy
Maize
Paddy
Maize
35.0
43.75
40.0
50.0
44625
37375
62625
46750
Sri Subbaiah,
Vatahole, Madikeri,
Kodagu
Paddy
Paddy
40.0 43.75 63875 72500
Sri Ramanna
Gowda,
Idyodi, Puttur
Taluk, D.K.
Paddy
Paddy
47.73 61.36 71818 97727
Sri Kariyaiah,
Galaganakere,
Periyapatna,
Ragi+
Redgram
Paddy
16+
3.0
37 22760 46200
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
68
Mysuru Dist.
Smt.Sarvothamma,
Cherkady, Udupi
Dist.
Paddy
Paddy
36.67 40.0 16500 25167
Sri Eswara Naik,
Amasebail,
Kundapura Taluk,
Udupi Dist.
Paddy
Paddy
30.0 32.5 32625 36125
Sri Srinivasa
Gowda,
Kandenahalli,
Pandavapura,
Mandya
Ragi
Horsegram
Ragi
Horsegram
Chry……
9.50
5.0
12.50
5.17
300
2750
30
6081
2997
10500
Sri Lanke Gowda,
Sri Narashime
Gowda,
Sri Chennige
Gowda,
Adani Gowda
Koppalu,
Pandavapura,
Mandya
Ragi
Paddy
35.0
32.0
35.0
40.0
36.0
40.0
20850
16000
19350
41850
35000
38100
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
69
3.9 Rain Water Harvesting structures
Rain water harvesting structures planned and executed in the selected watersheds included
farm ponds, mini percolation tanks, check dams, nala bunds, vented dams and gokatte
(Table–3.14). It is observed that all the above structures are not planned in all the watersheds.
For example, farm ponds are not considered in six SWSs (Table–3.14). This clearly suggests
that need based planning is adopted in developing the area. This could be the result of
participatory planning. Achievement with respect to different activities such as farm ponds,
check dams, nala bunds, gokatte, vented dams and mini percolation tanks varied across
watersheds. In the watersheds of Udupi, Dakshina Kannada, Uttara Kannada and
Shivamogga districts, because of terrain conditions, vented dams are constructed in place of
check dams. These structures have helped to stabilize gully and also helped to retain water
in the off-season to provide protective irrigation to the crops around the site. The extent of
the area irrigated varied from structure to structure depending upon the site conditions.
Of the 22 watersheds for which data is available, the average total runoff stored was 3910
T.C.M. The amount of water retained varied between the watersheds due to number of
structures (Table – 3.15). Assuming 5% runoff from the average annual rainfall, the runoff
expected varied from 214 T.C.M in Khyadigera to as high as 15865 T.C.M in Kalyadi, and
the measures have helped to conserve only 5% of the runoff water across watersheds. The
highest storage volume as percentage of runoff was observed in Kariyalpura watershed of
Chitradurga district (68%).This clearly indicates that the developmental activities are planned
considering the downstream requirements so as to prevent negative externalities associated
with conservation measures. These interventions have positively impacted groundwater
recharge, as can be inferred from table 3.15.
The rise in water table was maximum in Attigodu (70 m) followed by Wadigera (51 m). A
minimum water table rise of 2 m was observed for all watersheds. Such rise in water table
helped farmers to stabilize the irrigated areas under bore wells and provided opportunity to
extend area under irrigation and cropping intensity.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
70
Plate.6: Rainwater harvesting structures across SWS
Farm Pond, Koteganguru Village & SWS,
Shivamogga District
Check Dam, Kondavada Village,
ChikkamaluruKere SWS, Madhugiri
Taluk, Tumakuru District
Percolation Tank in Mavalli Village,
Mavalli SWS, BhatkalTq., UK District
Vented Dam filled with water in
Mavalli Village, Mavalli SWS,
BhatkalTq., UK District.
Gokatte in VK kunte SWS, Koppal taluk
and district
Nalabund at Chilakanahatti SWS,
Hospete taluk and Bellari district
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
71
Table 3.14: Physical Progress Achieved with respect to gully control cum water harvesting structures.
Name of the SWS
Water Harvesting
Check Dams (CDs)
(Nos)
VD (Vented Dams)
(Nos)
NB (Nala Bunds)
(Nos)
FP (Farm pond)
(Nos)
MPT (Mini
Percolation Tanks)
(Nos)
Gokattes
(Nos)
Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd Plnd Achd
Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 17 17 0 0 60 60 35 35 0 0 1 1
Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 6 6 0 0 15 15 76 76 11 11 8 8
Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 0 0 0 0 13 13 5 5 31 31 0 0
Channagiri/ Nallur 59 59 0 0 25 25 3 3 0 0 24 0
Malur/Vadaganahalli 13 16 0 0 1 1 138 138 7 7 19 26
Channapatna/Akkur 12 12 0 0 0 0 63 63 0 10 1 1
Sagara/Yelakundli 12 12 24 24 6 6 0 0 3 3 30 34
Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 36 34 0 0 6 6 237 234 10 10 3 3
Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 1 1 0 0 0 0 41 7 0 0 5 5
Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 8 4 0 0 0 1 130 96 0 0 0 0
Kadur/ Mattighatta 30 29 0 0 0 6 30 172 0 0 41 30
Hassan/ Kalyadi 0 0 0 0 7 7 156 156 0 0 16 16
Periyapattana/ Attigodu 8 16 0 0 3 3 110 92 0 0 47 47
Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 70 70 55 55 0 0 58 58 0 0 2 2
Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 0 0 30 73 0 2 206 317 4 4 9 12
Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 4 4 0 0 0 8 20 294 0 0 0 0
Kerkalmatti/ Badami 20 43 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 3 0 6
Neginal/ Bailhongal 58 58 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 4
Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 10 10 0 0 13 17 0 0 2 2 0 0
Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 5 6 0 0 2 2 25 8 8 8 0 0
Kadadi/ Gadaga 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 08 14
Agadi/ Haveri 12 12 12 12 0 0 3 3 1 1 24 24
Mavalli/ Bhatkal 7 7 94 94 0 0 40 22 0 0 47 47
Nirna/ Humnabad 11 33 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0
Habalanala/ Sedam 28 46 0 0 0 0 15 12 0 0 0 0
Wadigera/ Shahpur 9 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Khyadigera/ Devadurga 20 48 0 0 2 2 0 0 20 35 0 0
Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 13 4 0 0 0 0 19 16 25 0 18 18
Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 27 27 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
496 591 219 262 157 178 1428 1827 122 125 307 298
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
72
Table 3.15: Impact of conservation measures on runoff conservation and groundwater levels.
Name of the taluk/SWS Area (ha)
Area
budnded
(ha)
Rainfall
(MM)
expected run
off (5% of
Avg. rainfall)
(TCM)
Water Collected (Cu. m) against storage type Change in ground
water level (m)#
Run off stored
in bunds
(TCM)
EPA WHS
Gully
control
structures
Total
Storage Before After
Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 4929.0 287.1 774 1908 38.75 5.20 8.37 16.89 69.21 60 50
Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 4200.0 1442 725 1523 374.59 4.00 33.75 3.00 415.34 340 320
Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 5400.6 2115.9 443.8 1198 710.81 99.00 0.81 0 810.62 95 73
Channagiri/ Nallur 5092.0 1195 767 1953 446.76 0.70 0.81 0.66 448.93 33 26
Malur/Vadaganahalli 3194.3 717 704 1107 95.04 5.30 37.26 11.53 149.13 335 295
Channapatna/Akkur 3559.0 1739 839 1493 233.28 1.40 4.86 1.33 245.87 147 125
Sagara/Yelakundli 3040.0 0 2164 3289 0 8.00 0 22.56 30.56 110 99
Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 4977.0 2022 625 1555 272.96 4.00 66.00 5.29 75.29 190 177
Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 3467.7 2479 739 1281 429.70 7.00 11.97 0 448.67 30 28
Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 2750.0 2588 668 918 184.90 118.50 35.10 2.55 234.40 97 95
Kadur/ Mattighatta 6180.0 2779 592 3658 358.00 925.00 8.10 21.15 396.50 80 60
Hassan/ Kalyadi 3832.8 940 828 15865 95.70 18.80 8.10 3.15 125.75 73 67
Periyapattana/ Attigodu 6721.1 4249 830 2789 274.40 6.30 27.70 5.15 313.45 170 100
Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 5000.0 0 4827 12067 0.00 5.30 15.70 13.30 34.10 100 95
Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 4000.0 12443* 3788 7576 5.80 7.50 55.60 11.15 80.15 37 32
Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 5104.2 578** 4300 10974 75.14 5.95 5.40 1.08 87.57 150 125
Kerkalmatti/ Badami 3355 3120 598 1627 0.27 0 4.20 30 4.47 51 45
Neginal/ Bailhongal 4354 3434 691 1503 0.08 0 3.10 26 3.18 13 10
Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 4716.5 4521 675 1531 0.21 0 1.70 20 1.91 56 54
Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 3043.2 1462 1004 1255 0.07 0 9.60 20 9.67 78 73
Kadadi/ Gadaga 4595.5 5582 671 1837 0.26 0 6.80 8 7.06 85 70
Agadi/ Haveri 6107 4216 781 1955 0.20 0 NA 3 0.20 38 32
Mavalli/ Bhatkal 8194.1 0 4252 10630 0.00 0 53.40 125 53.40 13 11
Nirna/ Humnabad 6142.0 3562 828 414 62.30 1.36 1.41 11 65.07 32 30
Habalanala/ Sedam 4263.0 3594 896 448 66.30 1.28 8.21 43 75.79 65 54
Wadigera/ Shahpur 3106.0 1696 873 436 35.00 0.30 0.68 9 35.98 222 171
Khyadigera/ Devadurga 6200.0 3428 428 214 78.00 0 14.16 33 92.16 210 173
Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 4690.0 4092 597 299 47.00 2.82 6.73 19 56.55 36 33
Hirehadagali/ Hoovinahadagali 2280.0 2063 596 296 24.30 0.76 1.77 14 26.83 70 60
Overall 132494.0 76344 36503.8 91599.6 3909.82 1228.47 431.29 479.79 4397.81 103.9 89.17
* Trenches, ** Staggered trenches, # Average change in water table depth
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
73
3.10 Bio-mass Production:
Watershed development under IWMP includes improvement in bio-diversity through
afforestation of common land and promotion of agro-horti and agro-forestry system in private
lands for providing resilience to income to farmers. It is observed that WDT and EC have
paid considerable attention to this kind of intervention and effectively organized activities.
Horticulture and Agro-Horti systems:
Horticulture development is taken up in all SWSs and the Program consisted of providing
seedlings to the farmers. The details of horticulture development taken up in the selected
watersheds are presented in Table 3.16. The finance earmarked for the Program is fully
utilized. The seedlings provided mostly consisted of mango, coconut, sapota, lemon,
pomegranate and guava. It was noticed that the number of seedlings provided varied from
1945 in Vadaganahalli (Kolara) SWS to about 1,47,965 in Kuntahole (Udupi) SWS. At least
10,000 seedlings were provided in all but four watersheds. The lesser number of seedlings
provided in the latter could be due to the fact that already considerable number of fruit trees
existed in these watersheds. This clearly indicates that activity is undertaken considering the
need, its performance and interests of the stakeholders. Average survival rate at the end of
project is noticed to vary from 10 to 79% across the watersheds under study. Focus group
discussions with stake holders revealed that farmers having watering facilities are able to
protect the plants during summer, whereas the farmers without irrigation facilities could not
protect the plants. It was also noticed that distribution time in relation to monsoon rains
greatly affects the survival percent. For better results farmers feel that individuals should be
permitted to buy the seedlings of their choice and plant by themselves.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
74
Table: 3.16: Horticulture seedlings provided in the selected watersheds
Sub watershed
Total
Area
(ha)
No. of
Plants
Average
survival
(%)
No. of
Farmers
benefited
Total
expenditure
(Rs. In lakhs)
Doddamanikere 4929.0 7850 61.7 32 7.59
Ragimakalahalli 4200.0 20405 54.0 265 24.2
Kariyalpura 5400.6 36964 58.5 436 33.03
Nallur 5092.0 57478 49.1 594 57.47
Vadaganahalli 3194.3 1945 67.8 78 1.94
Akkur 3559.0 65913 60.3 1145 65.87
Yelakundli 3040.0 28820 63.3 359 25.29
Hanumanthagirir 4977.0 35034 60.1 398 35.04
Mallayanapura 3467.7 47273 62 1161 48.21
Jakkenahalli 2750.0 131745 65 3293 134.35
Mattighatta 6180.0 30056 65 751 32.65
Kalyadi 3832.8 42895 68 1081 44.93
Attigodu 6721.1 40415 62 1010 41.22
Punacha/Peruvai 5000.0 133174 76 3329 135.88
Kuntahole/ Narasipura 4000.0 147965 79 3699 147.99
Vatahole/ Makandoor 5104.2 47310 70.1 1415 48.24
Kerkalmatti 3355 62700 60.49 844 65.41
Neginal 4354 33248 32.36 473 16.05
Arjunagihalla 4716.5 24500 36.2 310 35.8
Hulaginkatti 3043.2 21026 65.55 215 22.01
Kadadi 4595.5 15008 26.37 673 35.05
Agadi 6107 111060 70.23 2806 40.34
Mavalli 8194.1 106800 76.4 897 79.92
Nirna 6142.0 55171 69.3 149 60.26
Habalanala 4263.0 43507 57 406 38.75
Wadigera 3106.0 45727 30 1500 31.91
Khyadigera 6200.0 3907 10 19 3.24
Hirevankalakunta 4690.0 53402 62 951 66.58
Hirehadagalli 2280.0 8000 40 136 7.35
Overall 132494.0 1459298.0 1657.8 28425.0 1386.6
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
75
Horticulture intensification:
The Program comprises of intensifying horticulture through high density plantation with fruit
and flower crops for generating higher incomes. Data on intensification was available in 10
out of the 29 SWSs (Table 3.17). Fruit crops and vegetable cultivation were taken up in eight
and six watersheds, respectively, while flower production was taken up in five SWSs. In
terms of the expenditure planned in this regard, the achievement varied from 25% (in
Yelakundi SWS) to 115% (Neginal SWS, Belagavi).
The farmers who preferred fruit crops are maintaining them properly and the survival
percentage ranged from 85 and above. Focus group discussions with farmers have revealed
that those who have invested directly towards plants and pits have been able to achieve 100%
establishment, by timely replacing the dead plants. This clearly indicates that wherever
personal investments are made the Program efficiency improves.
Floriculture was promoted in Haveri, Kolara and Shivamogga districts in view of the existing
traditional occupations. Under the Program, small and marginal farmers belonging to
vulnerable groups with irrigation facilities are considered. All the selected members have
planted rose and started harvesting flowers from 4th
month after planting. They are realizing
an annual income ranging from Rs. 8,750 to Rs. 14,000 per unit. The most important feature
of this activity is employment generation which is to the extent of 850 to 1000 man-
days/ha/year. This has indirectly helped to reduce migration.
Agro-forestry
Promotion of agro-forestry is one of the important activities undertaken in any watershed
development program. Table 3.18 shows the details of agro-forestry program taken up in the
sample SWSs. The program involved providing seedlings to the farmers and educating them
regarding their cultivation. A total of 24 lakhs seedlings spanning all the watersheds,
covering about 30,000 farmers and with an expenditure of Rs. 1115 lakhs (range: Rs. 2.09
lakhs in Mattighatta watershed to Rs. 72.6 lakhs in Agadi watershed), were provided. The
survival percentage of agro-forestry species taken together across all watersheds was 51%.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
76
Table 3.17: Horticulture intensification
Name of the SWS
No. identified Total
Expenditure Fruits Flowers Vegetables # (in Lakh Rs.)
Nos Area
(ha) Nos Area
(ha) Nos Area
(ha) Plnd Achd Hosakote/Doddamanikere 43286 103.21 0 0 0 0 43.28 43.28
Chintamani/Ragimakalahalli 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Channagiri/Nallur 0 0 3200 0.18 0 0 3.96 3.96
Malur/Vadaganahalli 0 0 16902 0.95 0 0 20.09 5.07
Channapatna/Akkur 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sagara/Yelakundli 0 0 7100 0.4 0 0 8.8 2.13
Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kerkalmatti 62,700 539 6000 0.6 10250 20 68.41 65.41 Neginal 33,248 332 0 0 14,800 32 13.89 16.05 Arjunagihalla 24,500 240 0 0 12,000 16 36.5 35.8 Hulaginakatti 21,026 210.26 0 0 0 0 33.34 22.014 Kadadi 15,008 52.22 0 0 8500 11 35.05 35.05 Agadi 29,846 295.47 58,430 55.5 12,778 28 70.74 40.34 Mavalli 897 680.88 0 0 600 8 75.78 79.92
Forestry activities in watersheds - Afforestation
Practice of planting trees along with agricultural crops in cropped areas was also undertaken
in the watershed development Program. It is expected that such a practice would supply the
required timber, minor fruits and retain rain water, protect crops from the advective energy,
increase in biodiversity and prevent soil erosion. If done with proper planning and at
appropriate sites, it may become a commercially viable solution for meeting human needs
without disturbing ecological balance. It is hoped to serve dual purpose of developing
non0forest land and also to meet the domestic demand of fuel and timber wood.
Afforestation helps to establish favorable micro climatic condition at the village level, and
can be carried out in the public lands as well as private wastelands and
undulating/slopy/terrain zones.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
77
Plate.7: Horticulture activities across SWS
Coconut Plantation at Bangre village, Mavalli
SWS, Bhatkal taluk, UK District
Convergence of Drip irrigation under RADP
Program for High density Mango block
plantation under IWMP Program in Angadi
SWS in Haveri Tq&District
Cashew plantation in Bailuru, Mavalli SWS,
Bhatkal taluk, UK district
Vegetable minikit demonstration under
Production system atMavalli village, Mavalli
SWS, Bhatkal taluk, UK District
Mango and sapota at Habalanana SWS, Sedum
taluk and Kalaburagidistict
Mango coconut and sapota at Hirehadagali
SWS, Hadagali taluk and Bellari district
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
78
Table 3.18: Details of seedlings provided for promoting agro0forestry
District Taluk/Subwatershed
Total
Area
(ha)
Seedlings
provided
(Nos)
Farmers
benefited
(Nos)
Survival
percent Total
Expenditure
(Lakhs)
Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 4929.0 228000 678 42.9 91.2
Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 4200.0 76000 487 55.5 31.14
Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 5400.6 38740 474 58.2 12.45
Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 5092.0 120686 929 48.0 45.85
Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 3194.3 11330 1037 40.5 4.46
Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 3559.0 185547 1246 53.2 70.5
Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 3040.0 61300 1246 60.1 24.52
Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 4977.0 88583 972 39.2 39.18
Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/Mallayanapura 3467.7 126966 2196 73.0 50.78
Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 6180.0 97142 2831 65.0 38.85
Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 5104.2 5248 68 65.0 2.09
Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 5000.0 86182 1492 65.0 34.47
Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 3832.8 138982 2792 60.0 57.34
Dakshina
Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 6721.1 82052 345 95.0 32.82
Udupi Kundapura/Kuntahole/Narasipura 6000.0 62056 2265 78.0 24.82
Kodagu Madikere/Vatahole/Makandoor 2750.0 Not taken up
Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 5443.1 28000 230 53.5 38
Belagavi Bailhongal/Neginal 4350.0 21700 278 41.2 7.59
Vijayapura Vijayapura/ Arjunagihalla 4537.4 32000 426 20.8 42
Dharwad Khalgatagi/ Hulaginkatti 2500.0 51550 567 65.1 25.67
Gadaga Gadaga/Kadadi 5476.3 73633 1018 22.6 41.81
Haveri Haveri/Agadi 5006.0 157300 404 42.1 72.58
Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/Mavalli 5000.0 61800 224 72.2 57.74
Bidar Humnabad/Nirna 6142.0 35552 932 63.3 67.27
Kalaburagi Sedam/Habalanala 4263.0 35000 500 40.0 35.34
Yadgiri Shahpur/Wadigera 3106.0 64600 1295 38.0 25.52
Raichuru Devadurga/Khyadigera 6200.0 150000 1020 12.0 51
Koppal Yelburga/Hirevankalakunta 4690.0 221364 2799 18.0 63.68
Ballary Hoovinahadagali/Hirehadagali 2280.0 66220 946 50.0 26.35
Overall 132441 2407533 29697.0 51.3 1115.0
Afforestation program, including planting and nurturing seedlings of appropriate varieties of
trees in common property lands, was undertaken in all SWSs under evaluation. Data available
from 21 SWSs at the time of evaluation (Table 3.19) indicates that survival rate of seedlings
planted varied from 10% in case of Doddamanikere and Kadadi SWSs to 70% in
Arjunagihalla SWSs. The average survival rate was about 36 % across the 21 SWSs. The
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
79
species planted were silver oak, teak and Hebbevu. In order to improve performance, it is
better to promote species native to the area and by using well grown tall seedlings before the
onset of monsoon.
Plate.8: Forestry and agro0forestry activities across SWS sssssss
Forestry Teak block plantation, Dastikoppa
Village, Huluginakatti SWS, KalghatgiTq.,
Dharwad Dist.
Teak & Silver Oak, NilogalVillagge,
Basaapatna SWS, Channagiri Taluk,
Devenagere District
Teak, KanchipuraNala SWS, Hosadurga
Taluk, Chitradurga District
Teak and silver oak at Kyadigera SWS,
Devadurga taluk and Raichuru district
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
80
Table 3.19: Afforestation activities in the common lands
District Subwatershed
Common land
Expenditure
(Rs. lakhs)
Area
Covered
(ha)
No. of
Seedlings
Planted
% of
Survival Achieved
Bengaluru
Rural
Hoskote/ Doddamanikere
224.25 26910 10* 10.76
Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 10 1000 40 0.4
Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 153 25830 33 10.33
Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 67 21772 30 8.71
Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 15 1500 30 0.64
Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 0 0 0 0
Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 179 78300 55 31.32
Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 0.77 310 15* 0.12
Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 68.82 13763 45 0
Belagavi Bailhongal/Neginal 0 0 0 0
Vijayapura Vijayapura/ Arjunagihalla 115.7 13836 70 0
Dharwad Khalgatagi/ Hulaginkatti 0 0 0 0
Gadaga Gadaga/Kadadi 0.2 1224 10* 3.74
Haveri Haveri/Agadi 0 0 0 0
Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/Mavalli 145.87 42500 65 57.74
Bidar Humnabad/Nirna 65 6500 NA 17.24
Kalaburagi Sedam/Habalanala 0 0 0 0
Yadgiri Shahpur/Wadigera 0 0 0 0
Raichuru Devadurga/Khyadigera 119.64 34510 NA 21.19
Koppal Yelburga/Hirevankalakunta 117.53 11753 NA 3.13
Ballary Hoovinahadagali/Hirehadagali 49 13540 NA 8
Overall 1330.78 293248 36.6 173.32
* Low survival due to less care taken in common lands NA: Not available
3.11 Production system
Livestock activities
Livestock activities is an important subsidiary component for rain fed farmers as it provides
additional income to the family apart from providing farm yard manure to enrich soil fertility.
In fact, it is a major income to the landless, small and marginal farmers who maintain
livestock. Accordingly, budget provision has been made in the project to the extent of 4 % of
project cost to undertake livestock improvement and animal husbandry activities. Animal
health camps, village based trainings for effective maintenance of livestock, fodder
enrichment, silage making, azolla production, and increasing green fodder production
through distribution of fodder minikits both perennial and annual, and construction of
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
81
livestock shelters (cattle sheds and sheep pens) are the important activities taken up by the
ECs facilitated by the project authorities in the watersheds.
Animal health camps are widely acclaimed by the stakeholders as they were able to get their
animals treated due to non availability of veterinary services within their reach. The project
has proposed to organize two camps in each village or a cluster of nearby villages and VBT
involving women so as to enable them to take care of the livestock. The details of the animal
health camps conducted, animals treated, expenditure involved and its impact on reduction of
diseases are presented in Table 3.20. It could be seen from the data presented in table that in
all 380 camps (92% of target) were organized to cover 235 villages by spending Rs 88.1
lakhs. Animals treated during the camps included birds, cows, buffaloes, goat and sheep.
Among the treated livestock, cattle are more in number and it helped to reduce the disease
incidence apart from improving health and productivity. The treatment records available at
veterinary hospitals have shown a smaller number of cases subsequent to the camps.
Reduction in disease incidences reported across watersheds varied from 25 to 42%, which
could be considered as a good achievement.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
82
Plate.9: Livestock development activities across SWS
Veterinary doctor examining the animal
by using the Travis in Arjunagi
villageSWS0Arjunagihalla, Vijayapura
Taluk & District
Animals treated during Health Camp at
Garwade village in Kadadi SWS, Gadaga
Taluk & District
AHC, Vadrepaly Village, Musturu SWS,
Chikkaballapura Taluk & District
AHC, Peruvai Village & SWS, Bantwal
Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District
AHC at Hablanala SWS, Sedum taluk and
Kalaburagi district
AHC at Byalachinta SWS, Bellari taluk
and district
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
83
Table 3.20: Status of Animal Health Camps
Name of the District Name of the SWS
Target Achievement Reduction in
incidence of disease
(%) Camps Village
Finance
(Lakhs) Camps Village
Finance
(Lakhs)
Animals
treated
Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 12 28 2.9 5 8 1.2 1849 19 to 41
Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 28 9 2.9 28 6 2.9 8597 10 to 35
Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 16 7 3.9 3 3 2.7 16147 10 to 65
Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 14 5 3.4 4 5 2.4 8538 11 to 28
Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 14 20 3.4 28 20 3.4 5177 22 to 55
Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 21 38 4.3 21 36 4.3 3720 15 to 51
Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 9 10 2.2 6 10 2.2 5631 11 to 35
Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 10 19 2.4 30 19 2.4 5518 15 to 68
Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 12 12 2.8 15 12 2.8 4112 40 to 60
Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 18 12 2.2 18 12 2.2 8549 40 to 60
Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 23 21 2.2 23 21 6.4 5116 60 to 80
Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 28 16 3.8 28 16 3.8 6200 50 to 60
Dakshina Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 6 6 1.4 10 8 1.4 1713 80 to 100
Udupi Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 12 7 1.7 12 7 1.7 851 80 to 100
Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 3 3 0.7 10 3 0.7 710 80 to 90
Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 15 8 2.0 15 8 2.0 2110 5 to 10
Belagavi Bailhongal/Neginal 12 12 2.3 12 12 2.3 3000 8 to 12
Vijayapura Vijayapura/ Arjunagihalla 12 4 1.5 6 8 3.0 2230 5 to 10
Dharwad Khalgatagi/ Hulaginkatti 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
Gadaga Gadaga/Kadadi 6 3 0.8 6 3 0.8 375 12 to 15
Haveri Haveri/Agadi 20 9 5.0 6 6 1.5 1852 10 to 20
Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/Mavalli 12 12 3.0 12 12 3.0 1335 10 to 15
Bidar Humnabad/Nirna 40 11 20.0 24 11 6.0 5130 18 to 29
Kalaburagi Sedam/Habalanala 6 7 3.0 7 7 3.0 1589 15 to 18
Yadgiri Shahpur/Wadigera 18 6 9.0 8 6 3.0 2092 12 to16
Raichuru Devadurga/Khyadigera 18 11 9.0 14 11 9.0 4021 11 to 21
Koppal Yelburga/Hirevankalakunta 22 11 11.0 22 11 11.0 19361 14 to 23
Ballary Hoovinahadagali/Hirehadagali 6 3 3.0 7 3 3.0 1276 11 to 13
Overall 413 310 110 380 284 88.1 126799
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
84
As per the opinion of District Officials, the Animal health camps are the most successful
Program due to the fact that i) Foot and Mouth disease is a highly contagious disease of
cloven0footed animals including cattle, sheep, goat and pigs. The F&M disease is controlled
in the watershed villages by at least 50 to60%. ii) Enterotoxaemia (ET) is a deadly disease of
sheep and goats, suitable treatment has lowered mortality of sheep by 60% and more in all
local breeds as all animals were compulsorily treated. iii) Mastitis 0 denotes an inflammation
of the udder and is responsible for heavy financial loss to dairy farmers due to discard of
milk, reduced production of milk and butter, decreased market value of cow and increased
cost of drugs and veterinary services. In addition to this, the mastitis milk causes deadly
diseases like tuberculosis, brucellosis, sore throat, and food poisoning etc. in human beings.
Treatment to the affected cattle has lowered this disease by over 62 to 65%.iv) Deforming in
Cows and Heifers'(reduction by 55 to 65%) and infertility treatment (reduction by 30 to 42%)
have led to increased in fertility and productivity of cows. Fodder enrichment with simple
techniques, awareness about animal maintenance through VBTs and improvement in
knowledge of local farmers on the need to contact local veterinary services has increased
milk yield by 200100% which is visible in terms of additional cans of milk pooled in each of
the milk pooling centres.
VBT Trainings
VBTs have been organized in all the districts. Total number of Programs were 655 and
ranged from two (Habalanala) to 133 (Vadaganahalli). Members attending the training
ranged from 91 in Habalanala SWS, Kalaburagi district to 7033 in Vadaganahalli SWS,
Kolara district. A total of 41103 members have attended the training as per records available
at the time of evaluation. It was observed that women participation in the training was much
more than men. The feedback collected from the community members, who attended the
training, revealed that they desire to have these trainings frequently. Hence a decision has
been taken to conduct these trainings once in 6 months and the same was followed in all the
districts. The details of the trainings conducted are presented in the Table 3.21.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
85
Table: 3.21: Details of members trained through Village Based trainings in different watersheds.
Name of the
District Name of the SWS
Total
VBTs
conducte
d
Person
s
traine
d
(Nos.) Name of
the District Name of the SWS
Total
VBTs
conducte
d Persons
trained (Nos.) Bengaluru
Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 39 3110 Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 10 500
Chikkaballapur
a Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 4 2584 Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 1 NA
Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 38 1781 Belagavi Bailhongal/ Neginal 0 0
Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 50 2333 Vijayapura Vijayapura / Arjunagihalla 2 NA
Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 133 7033 Dharwad Khalgatagi / Hulaginkatti 3 NA
Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 97 6548 Gadaga Gadaga/ Kadadi 6 NA
Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 9 2328 Haveri Haveri/Agadi 4 NA
Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 83 4096 Uttara
Kannada Bhatkal/ Mavalli 14 NA
Chamarajanaga
ra Chamarajanagaraa/
Mallayanapura 0 0 Bidar Humnabad/ Nirna 6 398
Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 34 1516 Kalaburagi Sedam/ Habalanala 2 91
Chikkamagalur
u Kadur/ Mattighatta 0 0 Yadgiri Shahpur/ Wadigera 0 0
Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 92 3189 Raichuru Devadurga/ Khyadigera 20 650
Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 34 1516 Koppal Yelburga/ Hirevankalakunta 16 579
Dakshina
Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 25 4398 Ballary Hoovinahadagali /Hirehadagali 3 140
Udupi Kundapura/ Kuntahole/
Narasipura 17 671 Overall 655 41103
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
86
In general, farmers were not aware of the fodder and nutrition requirement with respect to
different categories of livestock used for milching, draught, meat and wool production, and
also the type of diseases for which they are prone before the start of the Program. As a result,
performance of the livestock maintained was much below the average level. Village based
trainings have helped them to take timely steps for improving their performance.
Status of livestock improvement
The activities implemented across the division are: installation of trevis, construction of
Azolla production units, cattle sheds and sheep pens and promotion of fodder production.
The contribution from the farmers is collected for implementing activities that require
maintenance subsequently. The progress achieved is presented below in Table 3.22.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
87
Plate.10: Fodder development Programs across the project
Fodder cultivation in Agadi village, Agadi
SWS, Haveri taluk& district
Fodder cultivation in Agadi village, Agadi
SWS, Haveri taluk& district
Fodder Development, Thalya Village,
Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District
Fodder Development, Pagadekallalli
Village, Melukote –Jakkanahalli SWS,
Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District
Fodder mini kits distribution at Nirna
SWS, Humnabad taluk and Bidar district
Perennial Fodder at Hirevenkalakunta
SWS, Yelaburga taluk and Koppal district
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
88
Table 3.22: Status of Livestock maintenance activities
District Taluk/ SWS Trevis
Catleshed
(Nos.)
Sheep
pen
(Nos.)
Silage
pit
(Nos.)
Azola
production
(units)
Veg.
Kit
Honey
bee (Nos.)
Bio0fertilizers/
Medicines
Sprinklers
(Nos.)
Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 12 37 13 2 0 0 0 0 0
Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170
Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 0 4 0 45 0 0 0 0 7
Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 12 43 21 2 0 0 0 0 0
Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 8 8 0 0 45 0 0 0 113
Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148
Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/Mallayanapura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 5 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 11 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105
Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 222
Dakshina Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162
Udupi Kundapura/Kuntahole/Narasipura 0 161 0 0 0 0 2 0 131
Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 10 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 54
Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 12 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 43
Belagavi Bailhongal/ Neginal 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119
Vijayapura Vijayapura / Arjunagihalla 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 120
Dharwad Khalgatagi / Hulaginkatti 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
Gadaga Gadaga/ Kadadi 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haveri Haveri/Agadi 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108
Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/ Mavalli 24 193 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bidar Humnabad/ Nirna 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 0
Kalaburagi Sedam/ Habalanala 6 0 0 0 0 160 0 0 41
Yadgiri Shahpur/ Wadigera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
Raichuru Devadurga/ Khyadigera 10 0 0 0 0 1200 0 0 0
Koppal Yelburga/ Hirevankalakunta 10 2 0 0 0 200 0 0 12
Ballary Hoovinahadagali /Hirehadagali 6 0 0 0 0 50 0 10 0
Overall 176 541 51 49 45 2410 2 10 1707
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
89
Installation of Trevis
Trevises are installed in almost all the districts except in ten. In general, these Trevises are fixed
at public places to ensure accessibility to all the community members without any bias.
Construction of Cattle sheds
The highest number of Cattle sheds are constructed in the district of Uttara Kannada (193)
followed by Udupi (161). A total of 541 cattle sheds have been constructed across all the SWSs.
Wherever it is constructed, specifications are followed and the activity is liked by the
beneficiary.
Construction of Sheep pen
As of now, 51 sheep pens are constructed. The highest number constructed is in the district of
Ramanagara (21). The target fixed for constructing pens is almost achieved.
Azolla and silage production.
It is reported that Azolla production has been initiated in Shivamogga alone and silage
production in Chikkaballapura, Davanagere and Ramanagara districts. A total of 45 members
has taken up Azolla production and are realizing 2 kg green bio-mass per day. About 49
members have taken up silage production across the watersheds.
One of the important components under the project is to diversify and maximize the production
and productivity of agriculture system as a whole. Promotion of fodder development Programs
under the project has resulted in adequate green fodder production. As a result of increased
availability of fodder, the farmers are using green fodder which improved milk production by 14
to 100% with consequent improvement in economic status (See Box 03) Napier, Rhodes, CO03,
Riverdale, Multi cut sorghum, and African tall maize are promoted through fodder mini kit
Program across the districts. Farmers who have received the kits have sown the seeds. The area
under perennial grasses is increased by 50 ha in dry land and 100 ha under irrigation. This
Program is liked by the farmers as their requirement of fodder is met and thereby improved the
health of livestock. As a result, self0sufficiency is achieved with respect to fodder requirement
by many households.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
90
Farmers who are having green fodder production now are expanding the area under perennial
fodder. The focus group discussions with the stake holders revealed demand for mini0kits and
frequent animal health camps. Further, the LEO needs to work with beneficiaries to enthuse
them to have silage pits so as to have multiplier effect of the benefits derived.
Production system improvement
Production system improvement is undertaken through micro enterprise component under
watershed development Program. Department intends to introduce innovative technologies for
saving water so as to improve water use efficiency with irrigated farmers and through use of
improved technologies enhancing productive utilization of conserved resources. The data related
to these aspects is presented in Table 3.22 and 3.23. That financial targets fixed are fully
achieved. In addition to fixing trevis, construction of cattle sheds and sheep pens, fodder mini
kits (about 33720 kits distributed for cultivation in 3372 ha), health camps and vegetable kits,
promotion of micro irrigation system and crop demonstrations are undertaken(Table 3.23). The
details of micro irrigation systems both sprinklers and drip systems supplied in different
watersheds indicates that micro irrigation systems are supplied in 18 out of 29 watersheds.
Nevertheless, such units are distributed in other watersheds in the district as per the demand.
The farmers are found to be extremely happy and able to irrigate more area now than before and
get higher returns.
It was surprising to see that crop demonstrations with improved technologies are not organized in
spite of the fact that present yields are much lower than that can be achieved. This clearly
reflects the weakness of the extension network which needs to be strengthened in future.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
91
Box: 3 Fodder production vis-a-vis milk yield Farmers have increased the area under fodder as well as purchased a greater number of
animals. They are able to get better feed to their cattle.
Sri. Satish Chandra, a small farmer is one of the beneficiaries of fodder mini kit Program.
He was given fodder maize for growing in his field at a cost of Rs. 2200/0 for which the
farmer has contributed Rs. 220/0
The farmer is maintaining one dairy cow earlier and purchasing all the fodder from outside.
After growing green fodder in his field, a series of changes took place as detailed below.
Before After
Number of local cow 0 2 He purchased additional 3 buffalos, 8 goats and
10 sheeps.
Dry and green fodder purchased from
outside cost. Rs.60,000/0
No purchase from outside
Milk yield – 10 liters/day 20 ltr/day
Milk rate Rs.20/ltr Rate Rs. 20/0 ltr
Yearly income from milk Rs.72000/0 Yearly income Rs.1,44,000/animal
Subject to frequent foot and mouth
disease – more expenditure
No disease – no expenditure on disease control
Net income Rs.2400/buffaloes Net income Rs.18000/buffalso
The farmer is very happy that green fodder production has helped him and made dairying
more profitable and his herd size is increasing day by day. His milch animals are now
healthy and shining.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
92
Table 3.23: Status of fodder mini0kit distribution and fodder production in selected
watersheds
District Taluk/ SWS
No of
Perennial
fodder
(No/ha))
No. of
fodder
minikits
distributed
(Nos.)
Rainfed Irrigated
(Nos)
Yield
(Q) (Nos)
Yield
(Q)
Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 66 1900 1900 100 20 66 40045
Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 248 2200 2200 15025 248 40045
Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 0 800 800 15020 0 0
Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 0 90 90 25030 0 0
Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 86 2750 2750 15020 86 40045
Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 86 9 9 20025 86 35045
Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 40 300 300 25035 40 40050
Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 0 4282 4282 20025 0 0
Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/ Mallayanapura 0 95 95 25030 0 0
Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 21 3095 3095 25030 21 35040
Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 0 1680 1680 15020 0 0
Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 0 1645 1605 12015 40 25035
Dakshina
Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 0 308 0 0 308 35040
Udupi Kundapura/ Kuntahole/ Narasipura 90 0 0 0 90 25030
Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 0 1162 1162 5 to 6 0 0
Belagavi Bailhongal/ Neginal 0 800 800 7 to 8 0 0
Vijayapura Vijayapura / Arjunagihalla
0.4 2140 2140 6 to 8 0.4
20 to
25
Dharwad Khalgatagi / Hulaginkatti 0 2290 2290 6 to 8 0 0
Gadaga Gadaga/ Kadadi 0 800 800 0 0 0
Haveri Haveri/Agadi 0 700 700 7 to 8 0 0
Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/ Mavalli
40.9 2400 2400 8 to 10 40.9
25 to
40
Bidar Humnabad/ Nirna 0 1400 1400 9 to 11.5 0 0
Kalaburagi Sedam/ Habalanala
0 1214 1214
8.5 to
10.9 0 0
Yadgiri Shahpur/ Wadigera 0 0 0 0 0 0
Raichuru Devadurga/ Khyadigera
0 1300 1300
5.9 to
11.5 0 0
Koppal Yelburga/ Hirevankalakunta
30 360 360
9.5 to
25.5 30
25 to
55.5
Ballary Hoovinahadagali /Hirehadagali 0 0 0 0 0 0
Overall 708.3 33720 33372 1056.3
3.12 Livelihood activities.
In order to ensure economic development across watersheds it is essential to form a group of
people having common interest and goal in order to ensure economic development of
watersheds. The approach helps to make the collective wisdom available along with combined
resources to undertake any task and face any risk. Such an effort has led to the emergence of
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
93
SHGs formed out of women. Government of India felt that group strategy is the best for women
empowerment and would contribute substantially to the economic development. Accordingly, a
provision has been made in the project to grade the existing groups for their performance
efficiency and form new groups by considering the left over if any in the given watersheds. The
supporting organization deployed for the purpose have graded the existing SHGs for including
under the project and formed new SHGs considering all those that are left over earlier to ensure
justice among the landless and marginal families. The numbers of groups thus formed are
presented in Table 3.24.
Across the selected watersheds, 403 old SHGs were already existing and functioning. In
addition, 730 new groups are formed out of left0over individuals to ensure justice and equity
among the landless. In all there are 6,610 members in the old groups and 11,088 members in the
new groups. Distribution of the members according to social class presented in Table 3.25
indicates that all categories of people are considered according to their proportion in the total
population without any discrimination. Representation from the weaker sections of the society
was about 35% of the SHG members. A significant number belonged to landless and marginal
which indicated equity and justice in sharing limited benefits.
Income generation activities are promoted through members of SHG. Most of the members of
the SHGs are given EAP training wherein they are made to select an IGA of their choice and for
which business plans for taking up the activities are prepared. Members who are requiring
training for taking up activities requiring skills are provided EDP training. The details of the
trainings given are presented in Table 3.26.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
94
Table 3.24: Distribution of members across the new and old SHG groups (graded)
District Taluk/ SWS
New SHG Existing SHG Total SHGs
No. Members No. Members No. Members
Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 45 874 10 183 55 1057
Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 20 400 30 600 50 1000
Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 28 556 26 416 54 972
Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 18 292 30 425 48 717
Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 10 168 21 412 31 580
Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 40 793 0 0 40 793
Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 16 298 0 0 16 298
Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 40 621 0 0 40 621
Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/
Mallayanapura 18 308 12 217 30 525
Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 10 181 24 369 34 550
Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 8 105 38 571 46 676
Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 19 329 15 230 40 591
Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 5 100 45 824 50 924
Dakshina Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 60 594 0 0 60 594
Udupi Kundapura/ Kuntahole/
Narasipura 28 325 0 0 28 325
Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 33 499 0 0 33 499
Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 45 553 0 0 45 553
Belagavi Bailhongal/ Neginal 25 406 0 0 25 406
Vijayapura Vijayapura / Arjunagihalla 40 533 0 0 40 533
Dharwad Khalgatagi / Hulaginkatti 10 130 10 135 20 265
Gadaga Gadaga/ Kadadi 42 496 0 0 42 496
Haveri Haveri/Agadi 21 339 0 0 21 339
Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/ Mavalli 85 1285 0 0 85 1285
Bidar Humnabad/ Nirna 0 0 36 540 36 540
Kalaburagi Sedam/ Habalanala 10 160 30 600 40 760
Yadgiri Shahpur/ Wadigera 22 374 3 60 25 434
Raichuru Devadurga/ Khyadigera 32 369 23 276 55 645
Koppal Yelburga/ Hirevankalakunta 0 0 30 420 30 420
Ballary Hoovinahadagali /Hirehadagali 0 0 20 332 20 332
Overall 730 11088 403 6610 1139 17730
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
95
Table 3.25: Distribution of members as per social class across watersheds
District Taluk/ SWS No. of
members
in SHG
SC ST Others
% % % Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 1057 17.2 7.9 74.9 Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 1000 32.4 12.7 55 Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 972 41.7 7.8 50.5 Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 717 11.4 0 88.6 Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 580 26.1 6.8 67.1 Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 793 23.4 29.1 47.5 Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 298 31.2 34.6 34.2 Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 621 8.5 0.4 91.1
Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/
Mallayanapura 525 21.8 17.7 60.5 Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 550 0.5 0 99.5 Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 676 49.4 7.5 43.1 Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 591 19.4 6.2 74.5 Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 924 6.7 2.1 91.2 Dakshina
Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 594 17.8 4.7 77.5
Udupi Kundapura/ Kuntahole/
Narasipura 325 14.5 53.4 32.2
Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/
Makandoor 499 10.6 10.3 79 Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 553 24.4 17.9 57.7 Belagavi Bailhongal/ Neginal 406 2.5 2 95.6 Vijayapura Vijayapura / Arjunagihalla 533 10.1 1.9 88 Dharwad Khalgatagi / Hulaginkatti 265 20.8 6.4 72.8 Gadaga Gadaga/ Kadadi 496 20.6 1.8 77.6 Haveri Haveri/Agadi 339 22.4 13.9 63.7 Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/ Mavalli 1285 19 20.5 60.5 Bidar Humnabad/ Nirna 540 6.9 4.6 88.5 Kalaburagi Sedam/ Habalanala 760 18.4 3.9 77.6 Yadgiri Shahpur/ Wadigera 434 29.9 14.7 55.3 Raichuru Devadurga/ Khyadigera 645 49 31.2 19.8 Koppal Yelburga/ Hirevankalakunta 420 18.6 28.8 52.6
Ballary Hoovinahadagali
/Hirehadagali 332 27.1 34.3 38.6 Overall 17730 20.8 13.2 66.0
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
96
Table.3.26: Members trained through EAP and SEDP and number adopted in the
watersheds
District Taluk/ SWS Members
involved in
EAP
IGA SDEP training
No. engaged in
IGA after
training
Non skill
activity
Nos.
Skill
activity
Nos.
Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 951 795 156 187
Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 925 637 288 270
Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 550 381 169 307
Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 713 299 414 234
Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 539 483 56 297
Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 496 315 181 290
Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 298 205 93 265
Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 274 149 125 239
Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/
Mallayanapura 525 415 110 NA
Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 550 453 97 NA
Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 676 576 100 NA
Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 591 564 27 NA
Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 924 686 238 NA
Dakshina Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 594 394 200 NA
Udupi Kundapura/ Kuntahole/
Narasipura 325 298 27 NA
Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/ Makandoor 449 159 290 NA
Bagalakote Badami / Kerkalmatti 543 374 169 510
Belagavi Bailhongal/ Neginal 406 223 183 73
Vijayapura Vijayapura / Arjunagihalla 533 235 53 161
Dharwad Khalgatagi / Hulaginkatti 203 228 36 0
Gadaga Gadaga/ Kadadi 494 293 201 137
Haveri Haveri/Agadi 339 258 81 268
Uttara Kannada Bhatkal/ Mavalli 1285 0 1285 855
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
97
Table 3.27: Savings-group wise and bank linkages in the watersheds
District Taluk/ SWS
SHGs
Revolving
fund (Rs.
In lakhs)
Initial
savings
amount
(Rs. In
lakhs)
Loan
from
other
sources
(Rs. in
lakhs)
Assets
created
(Rs. In
lakhs)
Bengaluru Rural Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 55 27.5 14.5 31.5 73.3
Chikkaballapura Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 50 25.0 28.6 83.5 137.0
Chitradurga Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 54 27.0 8.5 11.6 47.1
Davanagere Channagiri/ Nallur 48 24.0 10.5 40.9 75.4
Kolara Malur/Vadaganahalli 31 15.5 1.2 84.3 101.0
Ramanagara Channapatna/Akkur 40 20.0 11.9 17.9 49.8
Shivamogga Sagara/Yelakundli 16 8.0 2.3 6.4 16.7
Tumakuru Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 40 20.0 1.2 22.4 43.7
Chamarajanagara Chamarajanagaraa/
Mallayanapura 30 15.0 25.5 62.0 95.0
Mandya Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 34 10 21.0 16.5 46.0
Chikkamagaluru Kadur/ Mattighatta 46 11.5 22.8 36.0 70.0
Hassan Hassan/ Kalyadi 40 8.5 14.6 25.5 46.2
Mysuru Periyapattana/ Attigodu 50 24.1 0.1 25.3 37.8
Dakshina
Kannada Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 60 15.0 8.2 23.0 46.2
Udupi Kundapura/ Kuntahole/
Narasipura 28 7 0.4 25.3 32.2
Kodagu Madikere/ Vatahole/
Makandoor 33 8.2 0.3 0.0 8.5
Bagalakote Kerkalmatti/ Badami 45 22.5 4.2 38.0 59.7
Belagavi Neginal/ Bailhongal 25 12.5 15.1 16.0 43.6
Vijayapura Arjunagihalla/ Vijayapura 40 20.0 8.1 42.4 70.5
Dharwad Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 20 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
Gadaga Kadadi/ Gadaga 42 21.0 10.2 11.8 43.0
Haveri Agadi/ Haveri 21 10.5 10.5 24.5 45.5
Uttara Kannada Mavalli/ Bhatkal 85 0.0 48.9 46.9 95.8
Bidar Nirna/ Humnabad 36 18.0 10.9 4.5 33.4
Kalaburagi Habalanala/ Sedam 40 20.0 17.3 12.0 50.3
Yadgiri Wadigera/ Shahpur 25 12.5 8.8 0* 21.3
Raichuru Khyadigera/ Devadurga 55 27.5 9.0 0* 22.0
Koppal Hirevankalakunta/ Yelburga 30 15.0 14.5 8.5 36.5
Ballary Hirehadagali/
Hoovinahadagali 20 10.0 3.6 2.5 16.1
Overall 1139 465.8 332.7 719.2 1473.6
*Loan not availed
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
98
Plate.11: IG Activities (Tailoring, Petty Shop / Agarbhatti / Plate Making, Rope Making
etc)
EDP training on Tailoring at Kerakalamatti SWS,
Badami taluk, Bagalkot district
EDP training on Handbag making and Embroidary
at Byadagitaluk, Haveri
EDP on Beautician Course at Haveri Hotel business by a member of Sri Lakshmi SHG in
Kerakalmatti village, Badami taluk, Bagalakote
district
Bangal and fancy business at Belavadigi SWS,
Chitapura Taluk and Kalaburagi district
Snacks preparation at Kydigera SWS, Devdurga
taluk and Raichuru district
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
99
It could be seen from the data presented in Table 3.26 that all members involved in EAP were
trained in either skilled or unskilled activities, with only 29% of the members opting for the
latter. This is a matter of serious concern as there is always a question mark on the sustainability
of non0skilled activities, particularly during drought years, besides marketing risks. It would be
more appropriate to enthuse people to develop technical skills related to services required in the
rural areas (tailoring, motor repairs, plumbing, electrical, food products) for sustaining the
activities as well as benefits associated with it.
Savings made by different groups and number of members linked with bank for serving loan
varied from district to district. The saving amount varied from a minimum of Rs Nil in Mavalli
(Uttara Kannada) watershed to Rs 27.5 lakhs in Doddamanikere (Bengaluru rural) watershed.
These variations are mainly due to variations in the number of groups, year of formation and
members in the groups (Table 3.27).
Revolving fund and loan provided to SHGs
In order to undertake IGA by the members initially a revolving fund of Rs. 50,000/0 is provided
to each group. A total revolving fund of Rs. 465.8 lakhs is distributed across watersheds and
bank loan of Rs. 719.2 lakhs was obtained to undertake IG activities under Batch – II across all
the watersheds. All the members feel that revolving fund was a great boon and incentive to them
to initiate the activity chosen.
Assets created due to IGA
The assets created among the existing SHGs in different Watersheds ranged from Rs. 8.5 lakhs
in Makandoor/Vatahole SWS (Kodagu) to Rs. 137.0 lakhs in Ragimakalahalli SWS
(Chikkaballapura). A total asset creation of Rs.1473.6 lakhs is generated in the watersheds. The
increase in the assets due to the Program is two to four times when compared to the pre-project
status.
Impacts:
The members who have pursued alternative livelihoods started earning additional income. In
some SWS, for example (Box-4) members are earning an additional income ranging from Rs.
16600 to as high as Rs. 1,33,200 and all of them have crossed the poverty line. It clearly
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
100
establishes that watershed development Programs have helped to reduce poverty among landless
and vulnerable groups.
Box: 4 – SHG members who are pursuing alternative livelihoods are earning more income and
living with self0esteem and moved out of BPL.
Name of the
member Taluk Name of the SHG
Activities
selected
Income Rs. Per
year
Net
increase
Before After
Shashikala
Gulihosahalli
Holalkere Sri Thimappa Sheep
rearing
74000 140800 66800
Jayamma
Gulihosahalli
Holalkere Sri Thimappa Ragi
flouring
159000 279890 120890
Jayalakshmibai
Rudrapura
Channagiri Sri Thulaja Dairy 15000 37800 22800
Rathnabai
Rudrapura
Channagiri Sri Thulaja Nursery 30000 61400 31400
Sema
Horabailu
Shivamogga Sri Gavibasavewara Tailoring 10200 78600 68400
Yashoda
Horabailu
Shivamogga Sri Gavibasavewara Dairy 9000 43860 34860
Nagamma
Bommanahalli
Davanagere Sarvodaya Business 65000 131000 66000
Muniyamma
Mallenahalli
Davanagere Mother Theresa Business 19000 152200 133200
Prema
Dinnur
Bangarpet Sri Venakteshwara Dairy 23000 39600 16600
Kavyashree Chennaptna Mother Theresa Computer
Operator
20000 106000 86000
Kamalamma Chennaptna Prakruthi Mat
Mashing
22000 76000 54000
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
101
CHAPTER 4
IMPACT EVALUATION
Impact evaluation is an assessment to determine how a given project is affecting the outcome,
whether such effects are intended or unintended. It will also help to understand whether the
program under the project has brought any physical changes in the area that would have helped
the target population economically or not. Impact evaluation can be used as a tool for improving
the program and for deriving learnings. In view of this, final impact evaluation of the Batch–II
watersheds is undertaken and the results are presented below:
4.1.1. Land Use Changes:
Watershed development envisages the use of land according to its capability so as to optimize
production. Accordingly, information is collected under different uses during pre and end project
period, to assess the changes. Data on pre and post project land use changes pertaining to all the
watersheds are presented in Table 4.1a. With the exception of three SWSs wherein the cultivated
area remained unchanged from its value before the start of the watershed project, the area
increased varying from 3.0 ha in Doddamanikerewatershed to 150 ha in Khyadigera watershed of
Raichuru district (Figure 4.1a). This clearly established better use of land resources in the area
due to better planning and education of farmers. Increase in area under cultivation was mostly
due to the conversion of cultivable fallows (799 ha across all the watersheds), as could be seen in
Figure 4.1c and Table 4.1b. As a result of judicious conservation of soil and rainwater, an
additional 932 ha across the twenty nine watersheds could be brought under irrigation, which is
an increase by 6% over the preproject area. The impact of watershed program on the area under
irrigation before and after the project period is depicted in Figure 4.1b. Area under irrigation
increased in all watersheds except in Neginal and Kadadi SWSs of Belagavi and Gadaga
districts, respectively. The increase in irrigated area varied from 5.0 ha in Kalyadi SWS, Hassan
district to 151.0 ha in Yalakundi SWS, Shivamogga district. Increase in irrigated area occurred
as a result of decline in rain fed area (420 ha) and fallow/wasteland (512 ha). This has reduced
the risks associated with rain fed cultivation. Wastelands have been brought down to the tune of
176 ha in six watersheds taken together while no change is noticed in the remaining 23
watersheds.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
102
Table 4.1: Impact of watershed program on land use changes
SWS
SWS
area
Changes in land use after implementation of SWS
Rainfed Irrigated Wasteland Community
land
Cultivable
fallow
(ha)
Doddamanikere 4929.0 (-) 3 (+) 6 0 0 (-) 3
Ragimakalahalli 4200.0 (-) 20 (+) 60 0 0 (-) 40
Kariyalpura 5401.0 0 (+) 12 0 0 (-) 12
Nallur 5092.0 (+) 63 (+) 7 0 0 (-) 70
Vadaganahalli 3194.0 (-) 34 (+) 44 0 0 (-) 10
Akkur 3559.0 (-) 3 (+) 21 0 0 (-) 18
Yelakundli 3040.0 (-) 151 (+) 151 0 0 0
Hanumanthagirir 4977.0 (+) 1.5 (+) 15.5 0 0 (-) 17
Mallayanapura 3467.7 (-) 5 (+) 15 0 0 (-) 10
Jakkenahalli 2750.0 (-) 0.5 (+) 20.5 0 0 (-) 20
Mattighatta 6180.0 (-) 10 (+) 45 0 0 (-) 35 Kalyadi 3832.8 0 (+) 5 0 0 (-) 5 Attigudu 6721.1 (-) 8 (+) 13 0 0 (-) 5
Punacha/Peruvai 5000.0 (-) 30 (+) 65 0 0 (-) 35
Kuntahole/ Narasipura 4000.0 (+) 32 (+) 56 0 0 (-) 88
Vatahole/ Makandoor 5104.2 (+) 10 (+) 48 0 0 (-) 58
Kerakalmatti 3355.0 (+) 90 (+) 10 (-) 90 0 (-) 10
Neginhal 4354.0 0 0 0 0 0
Arjunagihalla 4716.5 (+) 56 (+) 34 0 (-) 62 (-) 28
Hulaginakatti 3043.2 (-) 30 (+) 30 0 0 0
Kadadi 4595.5 (-) 10 (+) 10 0 0 0
Agadi 6107.0 (-) 8 (+) 14 0 0 (-) 6
Mavalli 8194.1 (+) 50 (+) 13 0 0 (-) 63
Nirna 6142.0 (+) 15 (+) 20 0 (-) 20 (-) 15 Habalanala 4263.0 (+) 7 (+) 34 (-) 7 0 (-) 34 Wadigera 3106.0 (+) 102.6 (+) 11.4 (-) 9 0 (-) 105
Khyadigera 6200.0 (+) 119 (+) 31 (-) 50 0 (-) 100
Hirevankalakunta 4740.0 (-) 106 (+) 121 0 0 (-) 15
Hirehadagali 2280.0 0 (+) 20 (-) 20 0 0
+ Indicates increase in area, (-) Indicates decrease in area
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
103
Figure 4.1: Impact of watershed development on Land use of watersheds.
a
b
c
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
104
Table 4.1b: Change in Land use pattern due to watershed development programs across 29 watersheds
District Name of the
Taluk/SWS
Area under cultivation (ha) Total Area under
cultivation (ha)
Area under waste
lands (ha)
Community lands
(ha)
Cultivatable
fallow land (Ha)
Rainfed Irrigated
Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Bengaluru Rural Doddamanikere 2950 2947 50 56 3000 3003 0 0 1758 1758 171 168
Chikkaballapur Ragimakalahalli 2932 2912 190 250 3122 3162 0 0 984 984 94 54
Chitradurga Hiriyur/ Kariyalpura 3480 3480 781 793 4261 4273 0 0 830 830 309.6 297.6
Davanagere Nallur 2140 2203 1189.1 1196 3329 3399 0 0 1464.1 1464.1 298.84 228.84
Kolara Vadaganahalli 2601 2567 144.89 188.88 2746 2756 50 50 383.31 383.31 15 5
Ramanagara Akkur 2808.4 2805.4 420.5 441.5 3229 3247 0 0 97 97 233.07 215.07
Shivamogga Yelakundli 2321.8 2170.8 496 647 2818 2818 43.2 43.2 179 179 0 0
Tumakuru Hanumanthagiri 2895 2893.5 76 91.5 2971 2985 0 0 1710 1710 296 282
Chamarajanagara Mallayanapura 2149.5 2144.5 316.28 331.28 2466 2476 301.9 301.9 420 420 280 270
Mandya Jakkenahalli 1873.2 1872.7 141 161.5 2014 2034 95.8 95.8 300 300 340 320
Chikkamagalore Mattighatta 4017.6 4007.6 556 601 4574 4609 282 282 1124.4 1124.4 200 165
Hassan Kalyadi 3080.8 3080.8 409 414 3490 3495 0 0 228 228 115 110
Mysuru Attigudu 5449.1 5441.1 410 423 5859 5864 0 0 612 612 250 245
Dakshina Kannada Punacha/Peruvai 2580 2550 1400 1465 3980 4015 0 0 844 844 176 141
Udupi Kuntahole/ Narasipura 2360 2392 900 956 3260 3348 80 80 250 250 410 322
Kodagu Vatahole/ Makandoor 1837 1847 2732.2 2780.2 4569 4627 70 70 315 315 150 92
Bagalakote Kerakalmatti 3150 3240 35 45 3185 3285 125 35 0 0 45 35
Belagavi Neginhal 4200 4200 50 50 4250 4250 25 25 77 77 2 2
Vijayapura Arjunagihalla 4010 4066 431 465 4441 4531 60 60 155.2 93 60 32
Dharwad Hulaginakatti 1470 1440 630 660 2100 2100 170 170 773 773 0 0
Gadaga Kadadi 4543 4533 23 33 4566 4566 0 0 19.5 19.5 9.5 9.5
Haveri Agadi 1748 1740 3258 3272 5006 5012 604.45 604.45 485.05 485.05 12 6
Uttara Kannada Mavalli 4400 4450 82 95 4482 4545 859 859 1870 1870 983 928
Bidar Nirna 4322 4337 290 310 4612 4647 742 742 753 733 35 20
Kalaburagi Habalanala 3767 3774 154 188 3921 3962 35 28 112 112 195 161
Yadgiri Wadigera 1828 1931 129 140 1957 2071 205 196 798.4 798.4 146 41
Raichuru Khyadigera 3446 3565 43 74 3489 3639 1000 950 1335 1335 376 276
oppal Hirevankalakunta 4177 4071 174 295 4351 4366 0 0 369 369 20 5
Ballary Hirehadagali 1580 1580 90 110 1670 1690 275 255 335 335 0 0
Total 88116 88241 15601 16533 103717 104774 5023 4847 18580 18499 5222 4431.01
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
105
4.1.2. Soil and water conservation measures:
Trench cum bund in cultivated areas and diversion drains along the foot hills are the major
interventions used in the program to conserve rain water for prevention of water erosion. Bunds
of cross sections 0 0.54, 0.72, 1.07 and 1.2 m2, and diversion drains of 1.0 to 1.5m top width, 0.5
to 0.6m bottom width and 1.0m depth with side slopes of 1:1 are made. Bunds of 0.54 and 0.72
m2 cross are formed by opening trenches of 5.0m length, 0.6 to 1.3m width depending upon
section, and 0.6m depth are made with 60cm equalizers. The spoil from trenches is used for
making bund. These trenches have acted as catch pits for runoff water and stored the water. A
total of 78,261 ha are covered with these measures across the watersheds. As a result of these
interventions, moisture status in the soil profile improved resulting in higher yields. It also
helped to improve groundwater recharge to benefit the wells in the surrounding area.
Consequently, ragi yields improved ranging from 180 to 400kgha01
(Figure 4.2), which resulted
in increased watershed income ranging from 12.7 to 198.3 lakhs. Similarly, maize yields
increased by150 to 900 kgha01
, resulting in additional income ranging from Rs. 3000 to Rs.
12000ha01
yr01
. As result the total production from bunded area of the watershed increased
varying from 615 to 3177 tonnes (Table 3.12).Similarly, diversion drains stabilized crops
adjoining the mounds, hills and helped to increase their income varying from Rs.3000 to 8000
every year. The extent of areas thus reclaimed varied from 40 to 50% of the catchment areas.
Figure 4.2 Impact of bunding on ragi yields and income in selected watersheds.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
106
4.1.3. Drainage line treatment (Water harvesting structures):
Gully controls cum water harvesting structures are constructed to prevent gully erosion and
conserve rainwater. Depending upon the size of gully location, structures like percolation tanks,
check dams, vented dams, gokattes, nalabunds, farm ponds and seepage ponds were constructed
across the watersheds. A total of 317 Check dams, 188 vented dams, 193 Nala bunds, 1260 farm
ponds of different sizes, 170 percolation tanks and 153gokattewere executed during work phase
of the program, with a total expenditure of Rs. 1368 lakhs. These structures have helped to store
about 1700 TCM of rain water which otherwise would have been lost as runoff. Creation of such
storages across watershed(s) increased the surface water availability period from November to
April in many cases. This has resulted in groundwater recharge as evidenced by the increase in
area under irrigation both on spatial and time scale. The depth to water tables reduced by 30m in
Habalanala followed by and 25 m in Hirevankalakunta watersheds. Consequent to this the
discharge from bore wells improved from 1.0″ to 1.5″ 0 2.5″ with increase in pumping period
which is evident from the increase in irrigated area in most of the watersheds at the end of the
project when compared to the pre0project period.
4.1.4. Crops and cropping pattern
Across sample watersheds, area under rain fed (Kharif and Rabi seasons) and irrigated crops
(Kharif, rabi and summer seasons) showed an increase due to interventions of watershed. Under
rain fed condition, the overall cropped area showed an increase from 88116 ha (before project) to
88241 ha (at the end of project) and the increase being 0.14% across the watersheds (Table 4.1b).
Further, this increase in rain fed area across watersheds is accomplished largely through increase
in area during kharif and to a smaller extent during rabi season particularly from northern
Karnataka where rabi crops like sorghum, chickpea, sunflower, wheat are grown on black soils.
Nevertheless, increase in area during kharif season after the project was through growing of
maize, ragi, sorghum, bajra, groundnut, sunflower and redgram (Table 4.2). This increase in the
area under rain fed conditions is due to bunding activity carried out across the watersheds.
Under irrigation through the use of tube/open wells, increase in area was to an extent of 6.0%
over the irrigated area (15591 ha prior to the project) due to groundwater recharge consequent to
surface water availability from July to December/ January months in water harvesting structures.
This increase in area was reflected in all districts of Karnataka barring Nominal SWS of
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
107
Belagavi district (Table 4.1 and 4.2). Further, across watersheds, construction of water
harvesting structures have aided in recharging groundwater and consequential improvement in
functioning of open wells (from 1247 before project to 1389 after the project) by 11% as well as
tube wells (from 3529 – before project to 4842 – after the project) by 13% – both in quantity
(from 1” discharge – before project to 1½” to 2½“ discharge of water0 after the project) as well
as duration of period (July to November – before project to July to January/April months – at the
end of Project). The distribution of open and bore wells before and after the implementation of
the watershed program across the 29 watersheds is shown in Figure 4.3a and 4.3b. Thus,
increased water availability due to water harvesting structures have increased the irrigated area
by 6% from 15591 ha (before project) to 16523 ha (at the end of project) during kharif, rabi and
summer seasons. The area irrigated from open/tube wells was more during kharif mainly due to
supplemental/ lifesaving irrigation provided during rain0deficit period, followed by rabi season,
while it was pretty less during summer season due to cultivation of cereals – maize/ ragi, oilseeds
0 groundnut, horticulture 0 flower crops and vegetables fetching higher income (Table 4.1a,
4.1b, 4.2 and 4.3).
Perusal of data in Table 4.3 reveals that there was an increase in the gross cropped area by 6.82%
from the base value of 113788 ha across the watersheds. This was due to the combined effect of
7.01% increase in the rain fed area (kharif + rabi), 20% increase in irrigated area (kharif + rabi),
and about 87% increase in the area of crops grown during summer season. One encouraging fact
is that the area under irrigated pulses (kharif + rabi) was found to increase by 16.5%, as
compared to the increase of 17 and 14% in cereals and oilseeds, respectively. By comparing
crops grown during kharif, rabi and summer under irrigated condition, cropping intensity was
also worked out separately for area before project and after the project (Figure 4.4). Among the
different watersheds, highest cropping intensity of 176% (post-project) was achieved in case of
Kariyalpura watershed (Chitrdurga), which was a 10% rise, from the base value (166%). The
highest increment in cropping intensity to the tune of 33% from the base value of 100% was
reported from Mallayanapura sub0watershed (Chamrajanagara), followed by Kaylyadi
watershed, Hassan (27%).Overall, there was an increase in cropping intensity from110 to 116%
at the end of the project mainly due to water availability in water harvesting structures. There
was no change in cropping intensity in respect of two sub0watersheds, viz, Khyadigera
(Raichuru) and Hirevankalakunta (Koppal) sub0watersheds.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
108
Figure 4.3a.Distribution of open wells across watersheds before and after the project period.
Figure 4.3a.Distribution of borewells across watersheds before and after the project period.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
109
Table 4.2: Changes in cropping pattern and area under irrigation after implementation of watershed program.
Name of the SWS
Rainfed area (ha) Irrigated area (ha) Summer
Gross Cropped
Area (Ha) Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi
Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Doddamanikere Cereals 2747 2769 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 70 2767 2839
Oilseeds 62 70 0 0 50 53 0 0 30 90 142 213
Pulses 122 122 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 122 125
Commercial 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 15
Total 2931 2966 0 5 50 56 0 0 50 165 3031 3192
Ragimakalahalli Cereals 1331 1320 30 105 190 250 45 60 130 180 1726 1915
Oilseeds 1050 1050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1050 1050
Pulses 550 545 50 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 705
Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2931 2915 80 265 190 250 45 60 130 180 3376 3670
Kariyalpura Cereals 685 710 375 425 0 0 150 160 40 50 1250 1345
Oilseeds 940 1040 200 220 0 0 50 53 60 75 1250 1388
Pulses 0 0 1925 2105 0 0 0 0 0 0 1925 2105
Commercial 1860 1860 0 0 580 580 0 0 200 230 2640 2670
Total 3485 3610 2500 2750 580 580 200 213 300 355 7065 7508
Nallur Cereals 1405 1505 100 180 985 990 190 260 95 140 2775 3075
Oilseeds 25 30 0 0 201 206 50 60 20 25 296 321
Pulses 20 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 25
Commercial 690 690 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 690 690
Total 2140 2250 100 180 1186 1196 240 320 115 165 3781 4111
Vadaganahalli Cereals 1150 1145 125 140 145 190 140 175 145 160 1705 1810
Oilseeds 875 855 155 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 1030 1045
Pulses 577 565 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 577 565
Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2602 2565 280 330 145 190 140 175 145 160 3312 3420
Akkur Cereals 2243 2240 0 0 150 171 0 0 0 0 2393 2411
Oilseeds 320 309 0 0 66 66 0 0 0 0 386 375
Pulses 245 255 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 245 255
Commercial 0 0 0 0 205 205 0 60 0 60 205 325
Total 2808 2804 0 0 421 442 0 60 0 60 3229 3366
Yelakundli Cereals 2325 2160 0 0 155 40 50 55 0 0 2530 2255
Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial 0 0 0 0 290 335 0 210 0 210 290 755
Total 2325 2160 0 0 445 375 50 265 0 210 2820 3010
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
110
Name of the SWS
Rainfed area (ha) Irrigated area (ha) Summer
Gross Cropped
Area (Ha) Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi
Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Hanumanthagirir Cereals 1650 1845 0 0 75 90 15 20 0 0 1740 1955
Oilseeds 168 255 0 0 0 0 50 70 0 0 218 325
Pulses 62 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 70
Commercial 1010 1010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010 1010
Total 2890 3180 0 0 75 90 65 90 0 0 3030 3360
Mallayanapura Cereals 1577 2075 0 0 200 216 0 0 0 0 1777 2291
Oilseeds 160 300 0 0 115 115 0 0 0 0 275 415
Pulses 225 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 400
Commercial 190 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 190
Total 2152 2965 0 0 315 331 0 0 0 0 2467 3296
Jakkenahalli Cereals 1180 1330 0 0 106 110 0 0 0 0 1286 1440
Oilseeds 58 70 0 0 35 51 0 0 0 0 93 121
Pulses 75 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 100
Commercial 560 560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 560 560
Total 1873 2060 0 0 141 161 0 0 0 0 2014 2221
Mattighatta Cereals 2300 2680 0 0 500 531 0 0 0 0 2800 3211
Oilseeds 645 785 0 0 46 50 0 0 0 0 691 835
Pulses 580 675 125 135 10 20 0 0 0 0 715 830
Commercial 493 493 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 493 493
Total 4018 4633 125 135 556 601 0 0 0 0 4699 5369
Kalyadi Cereals 1395 1600 0 0 26 46 0 0 0 0 1421 1646
Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial 1686 1950 0 140 107 136 276 276 0 276 2069 2778
Total 3081 3550 0 140 133 182 276 276 0 276 3490 4424
Attigudu Cereals 3251 3830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3251 3830
Oilseeds 15 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 20
Pulses 165 182 0 25 45 58 0 0 0 0 210 265
Commercial 2018 2018 0 0 365 365 0 0 0 0 2383 2383
Total 5449 6050 0 25 410 423 0 0 0 0 5859 6498
Punacha/Peruvai Cereals 2218 2465 0 0 40 50 0 0 0 0 2258 2515
Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial 362 362 0 0 1360 1415 0 0 0 0 1722 1777
Total 2580 2827 0 0 1400 1465 0 0 0 0 3980 4292
Kuntahole/ Narasipura Cereals 795 945 0 0 120 150 30 45 0 0 945 1140
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
111
Name of the SWS
Rainfed area (ha) Irrigated area (ha) Summer
Gross Cropped
Area (Ha) Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi
Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 50 0 0 45 50
Pulses 0 0 0 0 50 70 25 30 0 0 75 100
Commercial 1565 1565 0 0 685 686 0 0 0 0 2250 2251
Total 2360 2510 0 0 855 906 100 125 0 0 3315 3541
Vatahole/ Makandoor Cereals 1620 1680 0 0 632 645 0 0 0 0 2252 2325
Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pulses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial 220 220 0 0 2100 2135 0 0 0 0 2320 2355
Total 1840 1900 0 0 2732 2780 0 0 0 0 4572 4680
Kerkalmatti Cereals 332 438 1480 1490 10 20 0 0 0 0 1822 1948
Oilseeds 788 780 510 472 20 20 0 15 12 12 1330 1299
Pulses 466 476 38 127 5 5 0 0 0 0 509 608
Commercial 416 416 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 416 416
Total 2002 2110 2028 2089 35 45 0 15 12 12 4077 4271
Neginhal Cereals 190 188 0 0 50 55 0 0 0 0 240 243
Oilseeds 3288 3290 988 1050 0 0 0 0 10 15 4286 4355
Pulses 120 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 126
Commercial 602 602 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 15 614 617
Total 4200 4206 988 1050 50 55 0 0 22 30 5260 5341
Arjunagihalla Cereals 370 386 1418 1457 350 375 0 0 22 24 2160 2242
Oilseeds 1129 1175 798 804 82 90 0 0 15 18 2024 2087
Pulses 1212 1200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1212 1200
Commercial 251 295 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 251 295
Total 2962 3056 2216 2261 432 465 0 0 37 42 5647 5824
Hulaginakatti Cereals 370 422 0 0 90 106 0 0 0 0 460 528
Oilseeds 500 550 0 0 50 55 0 0 0 0 550 605
Pulses 0 0 85 93 335 340 80 85 0 0 500 518
Commercial 600 600 0 0 155 160 0 0 0 0 755 760
Total 1470 1572 85 93 630 661 80 85 0 0 2265 2411
Kadadi Cereals 0 0 876 903 0 0 0 0 0 0 876 903
Oilseeds 200 258 705 756 23 33 0 0 0 0 928 1047
Pulses 1360 1387 175 212 0 0 15 18 0 0 1550 1617
Commercial 1602 1606 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1602 1606
Total 3162 3251 1756 1871 23 33 15 18 0 0 4956 5173
Agadi Cereals 753 776 45 58 1220 1234 42 43 0 25 2060 2136
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
112
Name of the SWS
Rainfed area (ha) Irrigated area (ha) Summer
Gross Cropped
Area (Ha) Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi
Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Oilseeds 165 235 0 0 0 0 88 95 0 0 253 330
Pulses 20 32 135 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 147
Commercial 695 728 0 0 2038 2038 186 182 97 60 3016 3008
Total 1633 1771 180 173 3258 3272 316 320 97 85 5484 5621
Maavalli Cereals 1042 1100 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 70 1104 1170
Oilseeds 350 375 20 28 0 0 0 0 22 26 392 429
Pulses 435 440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 435 440
Commercial 2573 2617 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2573 2617
Total 4400 4532 20 28 0 0 0 0 84 96 4504 4656
Nirna Cereals 1375 1370 125 185 150 160 25 55 0 0 1675 1770
Oilseeds 550 560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 550 560
Pulses 1495 1500 625 715 0 0 0 0 0 0 2120 2215
Commercial 900 900 0 0 140 150 0 0 0 0 1040 1050
Total 4320 4330 750 900 290 310 25 55 0 0 5385 5595
Habalanala Cereals 985 990 110 130 70 80 0 0 15 35 1180 1235
Oilseeds 867 880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 867 880
Pulses 1515 1520 100 120 0 0 0 0 12 22 1627 1662
Commercial 400 400 0 0 80 110 0 0 0 0 480 510
Total 3767 3790 210 250 150 190 0 0 27 57 4154 4287
Wadigera Cereals 661 650 65 85 129 140 15 28 0 0 870 903
Oilseeds 475 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 475 500
Pulses 567 576 64 121 0 0 0 0 10 32 641 729
Commercial 125 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 130
Total 1828 1856 129 206 129 140 15 28 10 32 2111 2262
Khyadigera Cereals 1548 1586 0 0 43 74 0 0 0 0 1591 1660
Oilseeds 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20
Pulses 125 125 1418 1500 0 0 0 0 0 0 1543 1625
Commercial 460 460 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 460 460
Total 2153 2191 1418 1500 43 74 0 0 0 0 3614 3765
H V Kunta Cereals 1885 1845 145 100 100 135 0 0 0 0 2130 2080
Oilseeds 105 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 100
Pulses 0 0 1617 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 1617 1600
Commercial 570 570 0 0 74 160 0 0 0 0 644 730
Total 2560 2515 1762 1700 174 295 0 0 0 0 4496 4510
Hirehadagali Cereals 616 610 100 145 90 110 0 0 15 30 821 895
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
113
Name of the SWS
Rainfed area (ha) Irrigated area (ha) Summer
Gross Cropped
Area (Ha) Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi
Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Oilseeds 205 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 200
Pulses 134 148 625 610 0 0 10 25 0 0 769 783
Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 955 958 725 755 90 110 10 25 15 30 1795 1878
Note: Total gross cropped area in all SWSs have shown increase across the State
Table 4.3. Area under different types of crops across the watersheds before and after the project period.
Crop
Rainfed area (ha) Irrigated area (ha) Summer
Gross Cropped
Area (Ha) Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi
Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After
Cereals 37999 40660 4994 5403 5626 5968 702 901 544 784 49865 53716
Oilseeds 12960 13707 3376 3520 688 739 283 343 169 261 17476 18570
Pulses 10070 10469 6982 7638 445 496 130 158 22 54 17649 18815
Commercial 19848 20247 0 145 8179 8475 462 728 309 856 28798 30451
Total 80877 85083 15352 16706 14938 15678 1577 2130 1044 1955 113788 121552
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
114
Figure 4.4.Cropping intensity scenario across watersheds before and after the project
period.
4.1.5. Horticulture and forestry activities:
Changes in tree density/100 ha was worked out based on cumulative distribution of saplings of
horticulture and forestry, and the area covered during different years in the project. The tree
density prior to start of the program and after the program was worked out and compared for the
benefit of increase in the tree density on account of saplings provided.
The data of tree density for Bengaluru, Mysuru and Kalaburagi divisions are available for pre-
project period (Table 4.4). In Bengaluru division, the average tree density/100 ha under
horticulture activity increased from 256 trees (before project) to 687 trees (after the project) and
thus registered an increase in tree density by 2.7 times. Similarly, in Mysuru division, the
average tree density/100 ha under horticulture activity increased by 53% from 1324 trees (before
project) to 2030 trees (after the project. Similar indications on higher tree density have recorded
even in Kalaburagi division. Provision of horticulture species has been highly successful, as
evident from the more0than0seven0fold rise in tree density after implementation of the program
in different watersheds of the Division (41 trees before the start of the project to 317 trees/100 ha
at the closure of the program).While data on initial density are not available for the watersheds of
Belagavi division (Table 4.4), the density of horticultural tree species at the end of the project
stood at 324 per 100 ha. Among the different watersheds, density of horticultural crops is higher
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
115
in southern Karnataka, particularly those under Mysuru division as compared to the watersheds
of northern Karnataka, which could be attributed to conducive soils, and higher amount and even
distribution of rainfall facilitating better growth of the horticultural crops.
Akin to horticulture, density of tree cover under forestry activities increased across all divisions
(Table 4.4). In Bengaluru division, the average tree density/100 ha under forestry increased from
49 trees (before project) to 1206 trees (after the project) and thus registered an increase in density
by24 times. Similarly, in Mysuru division, the average tree density/100 ha under forestry
increased from 315 trees before project to 1311 trees after the project, which is a whopping
316% rise from the base value. Tree density increased from 179 to 1192 per 100 ha across the
watersheds of Kalaburagi division. In case of Belagavi division, initial tree density was not
recorded, however, the density at the end of the project period was 873 trees/ 100 ha. Thus, tree
density across the divisions decreased in the order: Mysuru > Bengaluru> Kalaburagi>
Belagavi. Therefore, implementation of watershed programs has helped in bringing more area
under canopy coverage which would in due course mitigate the ill effects of adverse climatic
conditions.
Table.4.4. Density of trees per 100 ha across 29 watersheds.
Districts
Horticulture Trees’ density/ 100 ha Forestry Trees’ density/ 100 ha
Pre-project Post-project Pre-project Post-project
Bengaluru
Bengaluru Rural 0 107 0 1567
Chikkaballapura 199 627 69 600
Chitradurga 179 501 82 781
Davanagere 46 434 0 527
Kolara 857 1001 120 505
Ramanagara 0 1046 0 2782
Shivamogga 88 1065 92 1230
Tumakuru 685 1008 1040 1908
Mysuru
C R Nagar 556 912 3 22
Chikkamagalore 138 500 322 1614
Hassan 426 832 528 1718
Kodagu 0 732 NA NA
Mandya 1475 1721 137 1414
Mysuru 119 945 904 2116
Mangalore 7518 8936 278 642
Udupi 361 1659 NA 1421
Kalaburagi
Bidar 73 638 95 402
Kalaburagi 1 117 1 297
Yadgiri 7 152 645 1082
Raichuru 1 15 0 460
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
116
Districts
Horticulture Trees’ density/ 100 ha Forestry Trees’ density/ 100 ha
Pre-project Post-project Pre-project Post-project
Koppal 126 835 289 3688
Ballary 40 142 41 1220
Belagavi
Bagalkote NA 968.4 NA 1421
Belagavi NA 440.7 NA 72
Vijayapura NA 614.0 NA 404
Dharwad NA 840.1 NA 1922
Gadaga NA 400.8 NA 311
Haveri NA 535.0 NA 1107
Uttara Kannada NA 745.4 NA NA
4.1.6. Village common property resources
Common property resources in villages namely forest for fuel and grazing land in 29 watersheds
were analyzed for changes if any, due to interventions of watershed development programs, and
the data in this regard are presented in Table 4.5. The data relating to village forest for fuel
purpose are available for nine watersheds only, out of which, three watersheds showed an
increase in area for fuel purpose due to afforestation taken up by the watershed development
programs in the village communes, while no change has occurred in other six watersheds. The
increase in the village area for fuel collection ranged from 12% in Mavalli SWS, Uttara Kannada
district to 25% in Arjunagihalla SWS, Vijayapura district. With regard to change in grazing
land, a marginal increase in the area (6%) was observed in Kerakalamattu SWS in Bagalkote
district due to planting of fodder crops to a smaller extent. In the remaining three SWS for which
data is available, no change has occurred in grazing area.
Thus, watershed development programs have helped to maintain or improve the utility of
common land meant for fuel purpose and grazing in at least some of the sub0watersheds (where
data is available)
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
117
Table 4.5. Changes in the availability of Village Common Property Resources across watersheds
District Subwatershed Resources
Before W/s After W/s Increase/
Decrease/
Same
Change in
Area(Ha) Area (ha) Area (ha)
Bengaluru Rural
Village forest for fuel 0 0 0 0
Doddamanikere Grazing Land 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Chikkaballapur
Village forest for fuel 0 0 0 0
Ragimakalahalli Grazing Land 20.66 20.66 Same 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Chitrudurga
Village forest for fuel 0 0 0 0
Kariyalpura Grazing Land 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Davanagere
Village forest for fuel 175 175 Same 0
Nallur Grazing Land 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Kolara
Village forest for fuel 54 54 Same 0
Vadaganahalli Grazing Land 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Ramanagara
Village forest for fuel 0 0 0 0
Akkur Grazing Land 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Shivamogga Yalakundi
Village forest for fuel 48.26 48.26 Same 0
Grazing Land 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Tumakuru
Village forest for fuel 0 0 0 0
Hanumanthagirir Grazing Land 118.56 118.56 Same 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Bagalkote Kerakalamatti
Village forest for fuel 30 35 Increase 5
Grazing land 30 32 Increase 2
Others 0 0 0 0
Belagavi Neginhal Village forest for fuel 0 0 0 0
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
118
District Subwatershed Resources
Before W/s After W/s Increase/
Decrease/
Same
Change in
Area(Ha) Area (ha) Area (ha)
Grazing land 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Vijayapura Arjunagihalla
Village forest for fuel 8 10 Increase 2
Grazing land 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Dharwad Hulaginakatti
Village forest for fuel 0 0 0 0
Grazing land 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Gadaga Kadadi
Village forest for fuel 0 0 0 0
Grazing land 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Haveri Agadi
Village forest for fuel 10 10 Same
Grazing land 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Uttara Kannada Mavalli
Village forest for fuel 43 48 Increase 5
Grazing land 8 8 Same 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
119
4.1.7 Livestock activity and fodder production
Fodder mini kits have been distributed in all but six districts of the 29 Batch-II IWMP districts.
Fodder min kits have been distributed to cover an area of 2871 ha and the overall production of
green fodder amounted to 9024.0 tonnes meeting the fodder requirement of the households, apart
from dry fodder obtained through crops grown in their respective fields. Due to more area under
fodder crops in southern Karnataka, more fodder production is obtained than the northern parts
of Karnataka. The yield of fodder ranged from 12 to 60 q/ha under rain fed condition, while the
fodder yield ranged from 45 to 90 q/ha under irrigated conditions. If perennial fodders are
provided and with supplemental irrigation, fodder yield can be to the tune of 150 to 250
tonnes/ha/year (from 5 cuts). Fodder mini kit distribution needs to be done in all watersheds in
order to meet the fodder requirement of livestock which provide substantial income throughout
the year and will provide resilience to agriculture during drought period. With this increased
supply of green fodder along with dry fodder, milk yield of cows have shown increase by 50 to
100% in all districts of southern Karnataka (except four districts for which data is not available),
while 14 and 25% increase in milk yield have been reported from Belagavi and Kalaburagi
divisions, respectively (Table 4.6). Thus, distribution of fodder mini kits is an important activity
which needs to be strengthened and prioritized from the initial phase of the project itself to make
subsidiary occupation like animal husbandry a profitable enterprise, to fetch additional income
for the farmer.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
120
Table 4.6. Increase in green fodder production and milk yield
District Subwatershed Area under fodder
kits Yield (two cuts) (q/ha)
Increase in milk
yield
Rainfed Irrigated %
Bengaluru Rural Doddaammanikere 196 30 80
500100
Chikkaballapura Ragimakalahalli 244.8 40 80
Chitradurga Kariyalapura 80.0 40 80
Davanagere Nallur 8.0 30 80
Kolara Vadaganahalli 283.6 40 80
Ramanagara Akkur 9.5 50 90
Shivamogga Yalakundi 34.0 60 90
Tumakuru Hanumanthagiri 428.0 50 0
Chamarajanagaraa Mallayanapura 9.5 50 0
Mandya Jakkenahalli 311.5 50 80
Chikkamagaluru Mattighatta 168.0 40 70
Hassan Kalyadi 0.0 0 0
Mysuru Attigudu 164.5 22 45
Dakshina Kannada Punacha/Peruvai 30.8 0 75
Udupi Kuntahole/ Narasipura 9.0 50 90
25050
Kodagu Vatahole/ Makandoor 0
Bidar Nirna 140.0 20 0
Kalaburagi Habalanala 121.4 20 0
Yadgiri Wadigera 0 0 0
Raichuru Khyadigera 130 18 0
Koppal Hirevankalakunta 36 34 0
Ballary Hirehadagali 0 0 0
Bagalkote Kerkalmatti 116.2 12 0
14
Belagavi Neginal 80 15 0
Vijayapura Arjunagihalla 214.4 14 50
Dharwad Hulaginakatti 229.0 14 0
Gadaga Kadadi 80.0 15 0
Haveri Agadi 70.0 15 0
Uttara Kannada Mavalli 240.0 18 65
Total 3434.2
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
121
4.1.8 Adequacy of drinking water and quality
The favorable effect of watershed programs on parameters namely increase in the functional
efficiency of water sources (tanks, open wells and tube wells), adequacy of drinking water,
changes in quality of water (fluoride content, hard water, salty water, good water), time spent in
fetching drinking water and depth to water table were analyzed for all the 29 sub0watersheds and
are presented in Table 4.7.
Implementing watershed programs across the State improved the groundwater recharge
considerably which was reflected in terms of increase in water availability in tanks, open wells
(from 1247 wells initially to 3897 after the program, i.e., 11% increase) and tube wells (from
3437 initially to 1092 Nos. after the program, i.e., 13% increase).
Water availability was adequate in all the watersheds, with the exception of Mattighatta SWS of
Chikkamagaluruu district. Improvement in quality of drinking water due to intervention of
watershed programs was also assessed in all the watersheds. It revealed that quality of water
which was hard/salty water prior to watershed program changed to good water in 12 watersheds.
However, in one watershed (Khyadigera SWS, Raichuru), fluoride content in drinking water
remained unchanged after the program. The remaining 16 watersheds had good water for
drinking purpose earlier to watershed programs and quality continued further after the programs.
Time spent for fetching drinking water was reduced by 2 minutes to 2 hours across the
watersheds after the program implementation. This could be mainly due to increased
groundwater recharge, water availability in tanks, open wells and tube wells leading to
improvement in quality of water for drinking purposes (hard/salt water or fluoride content to
good/ potable water).
4.1.9. Depth to water table in tube wells
The favorable effect of watershed programs on parameters namely increases in the functional
efficiency of water source particularly tube wells and depth to water table were analyzed in all
the 29 SWSs and presented in Table 4.8. Soil and water conservation measures resulted in
groundwater recharge and improved the groundwater level by an average of 15 m, with the rise
in water table in the range of 2 to 70 m.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
122
Table 4.7: Impact of watershed development programs on drinking water facilities and
depth to water table
Subwatershed Water Supply
Systems
Adequacy of
drinking
water
[Yes/No]
Quality of
drinking water
(Good/Salty/
Hard/Fluoride)
Time spent for
Fetching drinking
water [hrs]
Before
W/s
After
W/s
Before
W/s
After
W/s
Before
W/s
After W/s
Doddamanikere Wells/Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 20 min. 15 min.
Ragimakalahalli Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 10 min 5 min
Kariyalapura Tank/Borewells Yes Yes Hard Good 25 min 20 min
Nalluru Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 25 min 25 min
Vadaganahalli Borewells Yes Yes Hard Good 20 min 15 min.
Akkur Tank/Wells/Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 20 min 15 min.
Yalakundi Wells/Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 15 min. 10 min
Hanumanthagiri Wells/Borewells No Yes Salty Good 25 min 20 min
Mallayanapura Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 25 min 20 min
Mattighatta Borewells No No Good Good 20 min 15 min.
Punacha/Peruvai Borewells No Yes Hard Good 5 min 3 min
Kalyadi Borewells No No Good Good 30 min 25 min
Vatahole/ Makandoor Borewells No Yes Good Good 10 min 8 min
Jakkenahalli Wells Yes Yes Good Good 15 min. 10 min
Attigudu Wells/Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 20 min 15 min.
Kuntahole/Narasipura Wells Yes Yes Good Good 5 min 5 min
Kerakalmatti Borewell Yes Yes Good Good 30045
min.
30040
min.
Neginal Borewell Yes Yes Hard Good 102 hr 1hr
Arjunagihalla Well Yes Yes Hard Good 30050
min.
40045
min.
Hulaginakatti Tank Yes Yes Salty Salty 102 hr 1hr
Kadadi Tank Yes Yes Hard Good 40050
min.
30045
min.
Agadi Borewell Yes Yes Salty Good 20 min. 15 min.
Mavalli Borewell Yes Yes Salty Good 15min02hr 15min01hr
Nirna Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 103 h 1 h
Habalanala Borewells No Yes Hard Good 203 h 2 h
Wadigera Borewells No Yes Salty Good 102 h 3 h
Khyadigera Borewells No Yes Fluoride Fluoride 103 h 1 h
Hirevankalakunta Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 103 h 1 h
Hirehadagali Borewells Yes Yes Good Good 103 h 1 h
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
123
Table 4.8. Change in depth to water table (in m from ground level) in tube wells due to
intervention of watershed programs across watersheds
Name of the taluk/SWS Depth of Water Table (m)
Name of the taluk/SWS Depth of Water Table (m)
Before
W/s After
W/s Rise Before
W/s After
W/s Rise
Hoskote/ Doddamanikere 60 50 10 Madikere/ Vatahole/
Makandoor 150 125 25
Chintamani/ Ragimakalahalli 340 320 20 Kerkalmatti/ Badami 51 45 6
Hiriyur/Kariyalpura 95 73 22 Neginal/ Bailhongal 13 10 3
Channagiri/ Nallur 33 26 7 Arjunagihalla/
Vijayapura 56 54 2
Malur/Vadaganahalli 335 295 40 Hulaginkatti/ Khalgatagi 78 73 5
Channapatna/Akkur 147 125 22 Kadadi/ Gadaga 85 70 15
Sagara/Yelakundli 110 99 11 Agadi/ Haveri 38 32 6
Tumakuru/Hanumanthagirir 190 177 13 Mavalli/ Bhatkal 13 11 2 Chamarajanagaraa/
Mallayanapura 30 28 2 Nirna/ Humnabad 32 30 2
Pandavapura/ Jakkenahalli 97 95 2 Habalanala/ Sedam 65 54 11
Kadur/ Mattighatta 80 60 20 Wadigera/ Shahpur 222 171 51
Hassan/ Kalyadi 73 67 6 Khyadigera/ Devadurga 210 173 37
Periyapattana/ Attigodu 170 100 70 Hirevankalakunta/
Yelburga 36 33 3
Bantwala/ Punacha/Peruvai 100 95 5 Hirehadagali/
Hoovinahadagali 70 60 10 Kundapura/ Kuntahole/
Narasipura 37 32 5 Overall 103.9 89.17 15
4.2. Economic Impacts
4.2.1. Significance of impact evaluation:
This impact evaluation subsequent to the launching of the Watershed Development projects is
basically meant to assess the impact of Project interventions on socio-economic conditions of the
villagers in general and farmers in particular. For this purpose, the pre-project and post-project
socio-economic characteristics of 120 sample farmers in each of the twenty-eight SWSs (SWS’s,
for short) were studied and compared. The chief socio-economic characteristics analyzed in the
present study included the size of farm households, the size of the land holding, per capita
income, sources of income to the households and the proportion of farm income to the total
household income, amount of farm loans availed by the farmers, basic facilities available to the
villagers, asset holdings of farmers and yield per hectare of the principal crops grown in the
watershed area.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
124
4.2.2. Average size of farm households:
The average size of the farm households is not affected across the reaches and watersheds at the
end of the project. There was a marginal improvement in average size of farm household by 0.10
from the initial average of 4.8 (Table 4.1), while there was no change in the size of households in
the watersheds of Bengaluru, Mysuru and Belagavi divisions, an increase in value across all
reaches (0.40) was observed in case of Kalaburagi division. Employment opportunities created
by the watershed programs have reduced out-migration from villages to urban areas thereby
maintaining or increasing the size of households across the watersheds.
Table 4.9: Average Size of Farm households across different locations (Nos.)
Division Bengaluru Mysuru Belagavi Kalaburagi
Farm
Location
Before
project
End of
project
Before
project
End of
project
Before
project
End of
project
Before
project
End of
project
TR 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.7 5.0 5.3 4.7 4.9
MR 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.5 5.5 5.0 4.1 4.9
LR 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.7 5.5 5.2 4.2 5.3
Average 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.6 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.0
Table 4.10: Average Size of households across different holding size of farmers (No’s)
Size class
Bengaluru Mysuru Belagavi Kalaburagi
Before
project
End of
project
Before
project
End of
project
Before
project
End of
project
Before
project
End of
project
Large 5.9 5.7 5.3 5.0 5.2 5.5 3.8 5.2
Small 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.6 5.1 5.1 4.5 4.9
Marginal 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.5 5.0 5.1 4.9 4.7
Landless labor 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.5 5.2 5.8 4.2 4.8
Average 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.6 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.0
Table 4.10 shows the size of households according to farm sizes. The average size of the
households across the state was found to improve by 0.09 considering all holding sizes of
farmers (from the initial values of 4.80). While the increase was highest (0.29) in case of large
farmers, there occurred a decline in case of marginal farmers (00.20). This decline could be as a
result of the current trend in the rural areas where the erstwhile joint families are breaking up
into nuclear families.
4.2.3. Size of operational land holdings:
The average size of operational land holding has gone up significantly from 2.07 ha to 2.81 ha
across all the watersheds after the project. This rise has occurred across all the reaches within the
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
125
watershed area as well as across all the operational holding classes of farmers except Belgavi
(marginal and small farmers) and Kalaburagi (marginal farmers) divisions (Tables 4.11 and
4.12). Across all the watersheds and different size classes of farmers, the operational holding of
big farmers has improved from 3.80 to 5.23 ha, while that of the small farmers has improved
from 1.52 ha. to 2.09 ha. The size of operational holding of marginal farmers has increased from
0.89 ha to 1.10 ha (Table 4.12). This indicates an improvement in economic condition of the
farming communities as a result of project.
Table 4.11: Average landholding size across different reaches of watershed (ha)
Farm
location
Bengaluru Mysuru Belagavi Kalaburagi
Before
project
End of
project
Before
project
End of
project
Before
project
End of
project
Before
project
End of
project
Lower 1.79 2.8 1.7 3.3 3.02 4.13 2.05 1.85
Middle 1.67 2.6 2.1 3.7 2.06 2.26 2.16 2.07
Upper 2.04 3.0 2.1 3.7 2.04 2.14 2.02 2.25
Average 1.8 2.8 2.0 3.6 2.37 2.84 2.11 2.05
* TR0Top Reach, MR0Middle Reach, LR0Lower Reach.
Table 4.12: Landholding size across different holding size (ha)
Size class
Bengaluru Mysuru Belagavi Kalaburagi
Before
project
End of
project
Before
project
End of
project
Before
project
End of
project
Before
project
End of
project
Marginal 0.8 1.7 0.9 1.3 0.87 0.79 0.98 0.67
Small 1.4 3.0 1.6 2.7 1.82 1.37 1.35 1.4
Large 3.6 6.9 3.4 5.2 4.54 5.01 3.7 3.79
Average 1.9 3.8 2.0 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.0 2.0
The increase in the size of operational holdings is one of the salutary effects of watershed
development program. Harvesting runoff has helped to bring the hitherto uncultivated
(inoperative) lands into operation. Thus, the watershed development programs in the area under
study have led to an increase in the size of the operational holding.
4.2.4. Impact of Watershed development on rural incomes:
Tables 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15 presents the level and sources of per capita income of the sample
farmers according to different farm locations (reaches), social classes and farm sizes. The tables
clearly reveal that the per capita income has gone up substantially across all the reaches within
the watershed areas varying from 21 to 254%. The average annual per capita income from all
sources which was Rs.42413/0 before the launch of the watershed project rose to Rs. 71635/0
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
126
after the launch. This amounts to about 69% rise in the per capita income. Among the different
divisions, the rise in per capita income was highest in Bengaluru (195%), followed by
Kalaburagi (190%), Mysuru (125%) and Belagavi (30%).
The watershed development projects have generally impacted changes in the relative importance
of different sources of per capita income. An important point to be noted in this respect is that
the percentage of farm income to the total per capita income, which was 62.0% before the launch
of the program rose to 77.0% at the end of the project. This is perhaps due to the possibility that
watershed development facilitated cultivation of commercial crops in place of need based
subsistent crops for higher benefits. It is also interesting to note that while the per capita income
originating from agriculture rose faster (by 89%) than the total income (which increased by
69%),there was a decline in the non0agricultural income by 13% in Mysuru division. Across all
the watersheds, the rise in per capita income observed the trend: Upper reach (81%) > Middle
reach (78%) >lower0reach (55%) farmers (Table 4.13, Fig 4.5).
Social class wise analysis of the results related to the rise in the total per capita income revealed
that the per cent rise was the highest in the case of SC farmers (96%), followed by ST farmers
(70%) and other farmers (70%). The rise in per capita income originating from agriculture was
the highest (103%) in the case of SC farmers, while it was about 100 and 102%, respectively for
ST’s and others (Table 4.14, Fig 4.6). Further the proportion of income related to agriculture has
improved by 3.0, 8.0 and 12% respectively across SC, ST and others. This clearly establishes
that vulnerable groups have also reaped the benefits due to project in all the watersheds.
Looking at the rise in total per capita income from the angle of land holding size, the data (Table
4.15, Fig 4.7) reveal that the largest gainers were landless farmers (202%), followed by marginal
(186%), small (168%) and large farmers (123%). However, the increase in per capita income
from agriculture followed the trend: landless farmers (235%) > small farmers (163%) > marginal
farmers (149%) > large farmers (110%).
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
127
Fig.4.5. Per capita Income from different sources across different farm locations
Table.4.13: Per capita Income from different sources across farm locations (Rs.)
Source of Income LR MR UR Average %
Bengaluru
Before launch of
watershed
project
PC agriculture income 6411 5398 3968 5089 57.15
PC Non agriculture
income 4451 3171 4163 3816 42.85
PC Total income 10863 8568 8131 8905 100
During end of
watershed
project
PC agriculture income 21735 22091 16521 18623 70.84
PC Non agriculture
income 8202 7575 7999 7667 29.16
PC Total income 29937 29666 24520 26290 100
Mysuru
Before launch of
watershed
project
PC Agriculture 5247 7367 9395 7174 49.35
PC Non Agriculture 7800 6774 7355 7362 50.65
PC total income 13047 14142 16751 14535 100
During end of
watershed
project
PC Agriculture 26297 27285 25399 26252 80.38
PC Non Agriculture 6074 7788 7210 6408 19.62
PC total income 32371 35073 32609 32659 100
Kalaburagi
Before launch of
watershed
project
PC Agriculture 20400 16300 13850 17710 74.9
PC Non Agriculture 7350 4650 5250 5927 25.1
PC total income 27750 20950 19100 23637 100
During end of
watershed
project
PC Agriculture 56095 64107 58142 59799 87.3
PC Non Agriculture 6768 10178 8835 8683 12.7
PC total income 62863 74285 66977 68482 100
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
128
Source of Income LR MR UR Average %
Belagavi
Before launch of
watershed
project
PC Agriculture 90151 78041 77635 81942 66.8
PC Non Agriculture 40485 48097 33855 40812 33.2
PC total income 130636 126137 111490 122754 100
During end of
watershed
project
PC Agriculture 114110 110461 102544 109039 68.5
PC Non Agriculture 43662 52009 54536 50069 31.5
PC total income 157772 162470 157080 159108 100
Table 4.14: Per capita (PC) Income from different sources across Social classes (Rs.)
Source of Income SC ST Others Average %
Bengaluru
Before launch
of watershed
project
PC agriculture income 3739 3846 5571 5102 57.2
PC Non agriculture
income 3290 2996 4047 3817 42.8
PC Total income 7028 6842 9618 8919 100
End of
watershed
project
PC agriculture income 15915 14620 20083 18623 70.8
PC Non agriculture
income 5466 7009 8983 7667 29.2
PC Total income 21381 21629 29066 26290 100
Mysuru
Before launch
of watershed
project
PC Agriculture 3041 4114 7475 7174 49.4
PC Non Agriculture 3344 6409 7618 7362 50.6
PC total income 6386 10523 15093 14535 100
End of
watershed
project
PC Agriculture 14718 14146 28069 26252 80.4
PC Non Agriculture 8181 9310 6079 6408 19.6
PC total income 22899 23456 34148 32659 100
Kalaburagi
Before launch
of watershed
project
PC Agriculture 15250 12700 21000 17710 74.9
PC Non Agriculture 6050 3650 7350 5927 25.1
PC total income 21300 16350 28350 23637 100
End of
watershed
project
PC Agriculture 40774 44141 80958 59799 84.3
PC Non Agriculture 10381 10431 11991 11121 15.7
PC total income 51155 54572 92949 70920 100
Belagavi
Before launch
of watershed
project
PC Agriculture 67613 66516 85863 73331 71.1
PC Non Agriculture 13729 31912 43641 29760 28.9
PC total income 81342 98428 129504 103091 100
During end of
watershed
project
PC Agriculture 110813 101037 113066 108305 77.5
PC Non Agriculture 21505 31602 41307 31471 22.5
PC total income 132317 132639 154372 139776 100
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
129
Table 4.15: Per capita Income from different sources across Holdings (in Rs.)
Source of Income LL MF SF BF Average %
Bengaluru
Before launch
of watershed
project
PC agriculture income 0 3108 4561 12725 5089 57.1
PC Non agriculture income 4963 3327 3105 3869 3816 42.9
PC Total income 4963 6434 7666 16594 8905 100
End of
watershed
project
PC agriculture income 0 11454 20108 42419 18623 70.8
PC Non agriculture income 10460 7831 7618 4794 7667 29.2
PC Total income 10460 19285 27726 47212 26290 100
Mysuru
Before launch
of watershed
project
PC agriculture income 0 5066 7972 17351 7174 49.4
PC Non agriculture income 12054 5272 4678 6528 7362 50.6
PC Total income 12054 10338 12650 23879 14535 100
End of
watershed
project
PC agriculture income 0 15021 36953 49994 26252 80.4
PC Non agriculture income 17921 5731 4068 3856 6408 19.6
PC Total income 17921 20752 41021 53850 32659 100
Kalaburagi
Before launch
of watershed
project
PC agriculture income 6992 12733 22533 32191 17710 74.9
PC Non agriculture income 2900 4950 4700 7550 5927 25.1
PC Total income 9892 17683 27233 39741 23637 100
End of
watershed
project
PC agriculture income 16370 27979 45358 99959 59799 87.3
PC Non agriculture income 8396 7194 10015 7067 8683 12.7
PC Total income 24766 35173 55373 107026 68482 100
Belagavi
Before launch
of watershed
project
PC agriculture income 44899 55417 82859 123147 76581 67.2
PC Non agriculture income 29189 40906 30642 48934 37418 32.8
PC Total income 74088 96322 113500 172081 113998 100
During end of
watershed
project
PC agriculture income 61974 67342 109599 147949 96716 65.7
PC Non agriculture income 40997 56532 42274 62017 50455 34.3
PC Total income 102971 123874 151873 209966 147171 100
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
130
Fig.4.6. Per capita Income from different sources across Social classes
Fig. 4.7. Per capita Income from different sources across different Size 0classes of farmers
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
131
4.2.5. Trends in income across agro-climatic zones
Table 4.16 reveals trends in per capita agricultural income as percentage of the total per capita
income across different agro-climatic zones. While data was available for nine out of the ten
zones, that pertaining toone zone (Northern Transition Zone) represented by the sub0watersheds
of Belagavi and Haveri districts was not available. Share of agricultural income in the total per
capita income has gone up across all the agro-climatic zones, with the Hilly zone registering the
highest rise in per capita agricultural income (from 48% to 85%, i.e. a growth of 37%). The share
of agricultural income in the total per capita income which was hardly 56% across the nine zones
before the launch of SWS shot up to 81% at the end of the project.
Table 4.16: Per capita Income from different sources across agro-climatic zones (Rs.)
Agro-climatic zone
PC Agriculture Income PC Total income
Pre0project
Post-
project
%
increase Pre0project
Post-
project
%
increase
Central Dry Zone 3586 31058 766* 5576 32947 591*
Eastern Dry Zone 4029 11701 190 8672 22128 155
Northern Dry Zone 14123 62456 342 24844 68665 176
Southern Dry Zone 4995 24964 400 8885 30045 238
North0eastern Dry
Zone 13801 39441 186 22908 55580 143
North0eastern
Transition Zone 14038 62108 342 23413 81351 247
Southern Transition
Zone 11149 38627 246 16320 43555 167
Hilly Zone 8283 37603 354 17243 44307 157
Coastal Zone 6688 23926 258 16600 32534 96
Average 8966 36876 311 16051 45679 185
* Very high increase in agriculture income in central dry zone is due to increased cropped yields
and consequential increase in PC total income
4.2.6. Statistical significance of the results
Paired t‐test compares one set of measurements with a second set from the same sample. It is
often used to compare “before” and “after” scores in experiments to determine whether
significant changes have occurred.
A paired t-test looks at the difference between paired values in the two sets of the sample, takes
into account the variation of values within each sample, and produces a single number known as
t-value.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
132
The paired t-test, also referred to as the paired-sample t-test or dependent t-test, is used to
determine whether the mean of a dependent variable (e.g., income of farmers) is the same in two
related groups (e.g., two groups of farmers that are measured at two different "time points" or
who undergo two different "conditions"). For example, we could use a paired t-test to understand
whether there was a difference in farmers’’ income before and after launching of a watershed
program (i.e., our dependent variable would be income’’, and our two related groups would be
the two different "time points"; that is, incomes "before" and "after" launching of the watershed).
Specifically, we use a paired t-test to determine whether the mean difference between two groups
is statistically significant.
The data pertaining to income changes were subjected to paired t-test in order to ascertain the
statistical significance of the results of analysis of data. The test results are shown in Tables 4.17
and 4.18. The values presented in the tables clearly indicate that they are statistically significant.
Table 4.17: Paired t-test for Total Household Income
Statistical Parameters Total income - pre project
(Rs.)
Total income - post project
(Rs.)
Bengaluru
Mean 36654.8 105364
Std. Deviation 55075.3 174850.4
Pearson Correlation 0.02
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
t Stat 013.39
Mysuru
Mean 64078.6 128633.2
Std. Deviation 69391.3 156651.4
Pearson Correlation 0.78
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
t Stat 013.96
Kalaburagi
Mean 53568.54 71256.54
Std. Deviation 57315.4 79654.35
Pearson Correlation 0.118
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
T0Stat 5.505
Significant 0
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
133
Table 4.18: Paired-test for Total per capita income
Statistical Parameters Total income pre project
(Rs.) Total income -post project (Rs.)
Bengaluru
Mean 8932.94 26290.41
Std. Deviation 13518.45 41166.79
Pearson Correlation 00.16
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
t Stat 014.23
Mysuru
Mean 14705.29 32703.837
Std. Deviation 16610.29 48698.55
Pearson Correlation 0.067
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
t Stat 012.8
Kalaburagi
Mean 10088.24 14777.15
Std. Deviation 11463.08 15850.38
Pearson Correlation 0.151
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
t0Stat 6.39
Significant 0
4.2.7. Impact of SWS on farm credit position of farmers
Tables 4.19 through 4.21 present details relating to loans availed by the sample farmers in the
watershed area. There was an overall decrease in the average amount of loan taken by sample
farmers increased by about 21% after the project. It is important to note that this decrease was
mostly accounted for by the ST farmers in the three of the four divisions (Table 4.19). While the
highest rise in the loan amount was seen in the watersheds of Belagavi Division (28.6%), the
maximum decline occurred in the watersheds of Bengaluru Division (70.2%).
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
134
Table 4.19: Amount of loan (Rs.) taken by farmers across different social categories
Social Class Average loan amount
Before
Average loan amount
End % increase
Bengaluru
SC 16959 12113 040.0
ST 57809 9877 0485.3
Others 25579 36979 30.8
Average 33449 19656 070.2
Mysuru
SC 30143 97538 69.1
ST 55000 3635 01413.2
Others 72973 25545 0185.7
Average 52705 42239 024.8
Kalaburagi
SC 31756 23005 038.0
ST 29516 26851 09.9
Others 35599 31721 012.2
Average 32290 27192 018.7
Belagavi
SC 24492 53006 53.8
ST 40534 46824 13.4
Others 71870 91834 21.7
Average 45632 63888 28.6
The amount of loans availed by all categories of farmers was found to decrease after the end of
the project as compared to the baseline values. The percent decline followed the order: landless
farmers (118%) > marginal farmers (65%) > small farmers (20%) >large farmers (15%) (Table
4.20).
An interesting finding with regard to credit availed by farmers located in different reaches within
the watershed is that the loans taken by the lower, middle and upper reach farmers have
decreased by 81,68 and 48%, respectively across all the watersheds (Table 4.21). Diverse
interpretations are possible on the phenomenon of declining loans by all classes of farmers across
most the watersheds. Firstly, the decline may be due to improvement in the income and hence in
the financial position of the farmers as a result of rise in farm incomes. Proper implementation
of watershed plans led to various benefits to farm families, which in turn would have reduced
dependence on fresh loans and increased repayment of outstanding loans. Secondly, the decline
in the amount of outstanding loans may also be due partly to the waiving0off of outstanding farm
loans and arrears thereof by the government.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
135
Table 4.20: Amount of loan (Rs.) taken by farmers across different Farm Size0classes
Holding Size Average loan amount
Before Average loan amount End % increase
Bengaluru Landless 6589 4432 048.7 Marginal farmers 29668 28138 05.4 Small farmers 15800 19519 19.1 Large farmers 57491 68577 16.2 Average 27387 30166 9.2
Mysuru Landless 38669 6059 0538.2 Marginal farmers 61258 15766 0288.6 Small farmers 64863 28369 0128.6 Large farmers 128288 75854 069.1 Average 73269 31512 0132.5
Kalaburagi Landless 2950 21522 86.3 Marginal farmers 11800 16796 29.7 Small farmers 16200 26977 39.9 Large farmers 43516 37198 017.0 Average 18616 25623 27.3
Belagavi Landless 19743 26988 26.8 Marginal farmers 29804 31462 5.3 Small farmers 64520 59223 08.9 Large farmers 109716 122205 10.2 Average 55946 59970 6.7
Table 4.21: Amount of loan (Rs.) taken by farmers across different farm locations Location Average loan amount Before Average loan amount End % increase
Bengaluru
LR 30103 59392 49.3
MR 24117 16369 047.3
UR 32852 33434 1.7
Average 29024 36398 20.3
Mysuru
LR 56855 13129 0333.1
MR 65889 19703 0234.4
UR 85922 66193 029.8
Average 69555 33008 0110.7
Kalaburagi
LR 37421 30864 021.2
MR 32981 29954 010.1
UR 31271 22020 042.0
Average 33891 27613 022.7
Belagavi
LR 53041 44274 019.8
MR 55607 66196 16.0
UR 122924 55833 0120.2
Average 77191 55434 039.2
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
136
4.2.8 Impact of watershed development on assets position of farmers
With an improvement in the water availability for cultivation, better soil conservation and
consequent increase in crop yields per ha, the asset position of the farmers in farm assets as well
as in consumption assets is expected to improve. To ascertain the changes in the assets position
of the farmers, a survey of 16 important assets in both farm production and non-farm (personal
consumption) assets was conducted. Table 4.22 presents the changes in the assets position of the
farmers consequent upon the end of the watershed program. The table clearly shows that the
asset position of the farmers has improved in respect of all the items under survey except a few,
for instance, tractor-drawn implements and tillers in Bengaluru Division and ploughs in Mysuru
Division (Table 4.22). In case of these two items, the decline in their number possessed by the
sample farmers could be due to the fact that there is a perceptible shift from tractors and bullock-
drawn ploughs towards cheaper, fuel-efficient and more versatile power tillers and their
accessories in dry land agriculture apart from availability custom hire services within their reach
in recent years.
Table 4.22: Changes observed with respect to assets across holding size of farmers (in no’s)
Source
Type of farmer
LL MF SF BF Total
Bengaluru
Before
launch
of SWS
Tractor 9 14 16 59 98
Bicycle 119 134 117 154 524
Tiller 12 0 8 19 39
Tractor drawn implements 3 2 16 64 85
Two Four wheeler vehicles 57 117 168 310 652
Bullock cart 10 12 31 50 103
Threshing machine 0 3 1 7 11
Plough 37 325 347 495 1204
Drip Sprinkler irrigation 5 20 15 150 190
Crow bar pickaxe etc 167 547 550 773 2037
Sprayers 8 23 26 60 117
Biogas LPG cooking gas 49 101 115 168 433
Tables Chairs 490 884 859 1075 3308
TV Radio Tape recorder 317 346 359 437 1459
Toilets 99 148 164 209 620
Others 8 5 0 6 19
End
project
of SWS
Tractor 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycle 0 0 0 0 0
Tiller 3 0 8 21 32
Tractor drawn implements 2 0 8 46 56
Two Four wheeler vehicles 96 204 210 346 856
Bullock cart 9 18 26 54 107
Threshing machine 0 0 0 0 0
Plough 85 412 476 531 1504
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
137
Drip Sprinkler irrigation 32 126 212 447 816
Crow bar pickaxe etc 287 672 711 873 2543
Sprayers 15 32 47 59 153
Biogas LPG cooking gas 149 197 218 257 821
Tables Chairs 1360 2064 2190 2743 8357
TV Radio Tape recorder 567 675 662 702 2606
Toilets 294 367 375 480 1516
Others 1 45 89 177 311
Mysuru LL MF SF BF Total
Before
launch
of SWS
Tractor 1 7 2 15 25
Bicycle 193 171 162 182 708
Tiller 0 2 0 4 6
Tractor drawn implements 0 5 3 11 19
Two/Four wheeler vehicles 53 88 94 154 389
Bullock cart 6 18 23 31 78
Threshing machine 0 3 0 5 8
Plough 306 409 452 493 1660
Drip Sprinkler irrigation 0 5 11 18 34
Crowbar pickaxe etc 496 651 631 677 2455
Sprayers . 63 53 127 243
Biogas/LPG cooking gas 55 68 77 128 328
Tables Chairs 601 718 801 914 3034
TV/Radio/Tape recorder 264 295 280 406 1245
Toilets 124 145 127 182 578
Others 7 6 4 19 36
End
project
of SWS
Tractor 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycle 0 0 0 0 0
Tiller 0 2 4 40 46
Tractor drawn implements 0 31 34 51 116
Two/Four wheeler vehicles 210 1999 333 489 3031
Bullock cart 0 23 38 57 118
Threshing machine 0 0 0 0 0
Plough 0 412 418 634 1464
Drip Sprinkler irrigation 0 32 70 122 224
Crowbar pickaxe etc 0 777 779 1234 2790
Sprayers 0 80 77 185 342
Biogas/LPG cooking gas 274 348 390 461 1473
Tables Chairs 2654 2574 2670 3310 11208
TV/Radio/Tape recorder 669 588 584 11635 13476
Toilets 380 415 396 473 1664
Others 0 16 30 122 168
Kalabuaragi Assets LL MF SF BF Total
Bef
ore
th
e p
roje
ct
Own Housing 85 219 438 147 889
RCC House 0 0 16 81 97
Tiled House 10 203 422 66 701
Thatched House 75 16 0 0 91
Tractor 0 2 5 40 47
Tractor Drawn Implements 0 0 0 7 7
Tillers 0 0 1 4 5
Farm implements 10 167 492 231 900
Bullock Cart 5 12 30 10 57
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
138
Pumpset 0 2 22 81 105
Sprayers 0 0 9 11 19
Threshing Machine 0 0 2 18 20
Drip/ Sprinkler Irrigation 0 0 1 5 6
Two/Four Wheeler 2 16 59 119 196
Biogas/ LPG 0 0 8 29 37
Jewellery 14 151 190 147 502
Electronic goods 28 171 228 147 574
Refrigerator 0 0 0 5 5
Furniture 22 330 520 394 1266
Telephone/ Mobile 11 15 16 101 143
Toilets 0 5 15 101 121
Others 13 15 105 126 259
En
d o
f th
e P
roje
ct
Own Housing 94 142 222 262 720
RCC House 30 37 21 41 129
Tiled House 11 16 32 94 153
Thatched House 47 88 164 127 426
Tractor 0 0 1 5 6
Tractor Drawn Implements 0 0 0 0 0
Tillers 0 0 1 1 2
Farm implements 0 222 365 317 904
Bullock Cart 0 4 13 49 66
Pump set 0 3 28 65 96
Sprayers 0 11 15 21 47
Threshing Machine 0 0 0 0 0
Drip/ Sprinkler Irrigation 0 1 2 17 20
Two/Four Wheeler 6 27 64 101 198
Biogas/ LPG 6 6 10 36 58
Jewellery 72 32 132 194 430
Electronic goods 59 201 310 241 811
Refrigerator 0 2 10 7 19
Furniture 367 414 640 771 2192
Telephone/ Mobile 113 148 275 346 882
Toilets 11 31 63 90 195
Others 3 4 6 9 22
Belagavi
Assets
Landless
Labor
Marginal
farmer
Small
farmer
Medium
& Big
Farmers Total
Bef
ore
th
e p
roje
ct
Sample Households 212 232 206 190 840
Own Housing 200 225 190 180 795
RCC House 6 19 27 16 68
Tiled House 52 48 43 53 196
Thatched House 87 91 71 42 291
Mud 54 67 51 67 239
Tractor 0 0 2 16 18
Pumpset 3 48 45 54 150
Tractor Drawn Implements 0 0 0 2 2
Tillers 0 0 1 5 6
Jewelry 1 1 4 7 13
Drip/ Sprinkler Irrigation 0 3 14 26 43
Two/Four Wheelers 27 25 46 79 177
Bullock Cart 0 0 0 9 9
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
139
Biogas/ LPG 47 68 32 34 181
Sprayers 0 36 42 48 126
Electronic goods/TV 62 104 99 89 354
Computer 0 0 0 4 4
Threshing Machine 0 1 0 1 2
Crow0bar, Pick axe, etc. 0 0 0 0 0
Refrigerator 1 10 4 3 18
Furniture 62 98 68 65 293
Telephone/ Mobile 126 168 158 182 634
Toilets 47 75 37 28 187
Farm Implements 1 85 57 52 195
Washing machine 0 0 0 1 1
Others 0 0 0 0 0
En
d o
f th
e P
roje
ct
Own Housing 195 226 189 180 790
RCC House 7 20 15 20 62
Tiled House 65 48 42 55 210
Thatched House 83 90 70 38 281
Mud house 54 67 64 65 250
Tractor 0 0 1 15 16
Pumpset 3 47 42 46 138
Tractor Drawn Implements 0 0 0 0 0
Tillers 0 0 2 4 6
Jewelry 3 5 11 19 38
Drip/ Sprinkler Irrigation 0 2 6 11 19
Two/Four Wheelers 39 53 64 124 280
Bullock Cart 0 0 6 24 30
Biogas/ LPG 50 81 62 66 259
Sprayers 0 36 38 42 116
Electronic goods (TV) 110 149 151 152 562
Computer/Desktop 1 3 1 6 11
Threshing Machine 0 1 0 0 1
Crow0bar, Pick axe, etc. 0 0 0 0 0
Refrigerator 1 13 7 10 31
Furniture 93 118 95 101 407
Telephone/ Mobile 177 193 199 198 767
Toilets 71 81 69 55 276
Farm Implements 1 85 48 35 169
Washing machine 0 0 0 1 1
Others 0 2 1 0 3
The number of ploughs has come down perceptibly in view of the increasing tillage of land by
using tractors/tillers. This is corroborated by the fact that the number of tillers has steeply risen
in most of the watersheds in a span of four years.
Along with the rise in the number of farm assets, there has also been a rise in the number of
durable consumable family assets including two/four wheelers, biogas/LPG, TV/Radios/Tape
recorders and sundry assets in most of the watersheds.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
140
4.2.9 Impact of Watershed Development on per0hectare Crop Yields
One of the salutary effects of Watershed Development is increase in the crop yields per hectare
as a result of enhanced water availability through soil and water conservation measures apart
from impounding rain water in water harvesting structures like check dams, Nala bunds, farm
ponds and gokatte. In addition, improvement in groundwater table through increased rain water
recharge on one hand and soil conservation on the other have helped to increase productivity.
Table 4.23 shows the impact of watershed development on the per-hectare yields of principal
crops grown in the watershed areas under study. The rise in productivity per ha ranges from 41.5
percent in case sunflower to 61.5 percent in banana.
Table 4.23: Yields (quintals per hectare) of principal crops grown by sample farmers in the
watershed areas
Crops Before the project End of the project % increase
Areca nut 12.4 32.4 61.5
Banana 9.6 28.9 66.8
Cotton 5.9 16.7 64.8
Groundnut 9.6 20.7 53.9
Maize 13.4 38.9 65.6
Paddy 30.3 55.1 45.0
Pigeon pea 6.3 11.0 43.2
Ragi 14.3 25.4 43.8
Sorghum 5.7 10.7 46.7
Sunflower 5.5 9.4 41.5
4.2.10 Impact of Watershed Development on employment generation
Table 4.24 shows the effect of watershed program on the employment (in terms of man days)
generated due to different activities (including livelihood generation) across all watersheds. A
total of 88 lakh man days were generated by the Project across the watersheds, with an average
of over 3 lakh man days per watershed, which is a welcome sign in the sense that it has helped in
reducing out migration of labour from the watersheds in search of work. Maximum employment
generation was observed in Hassan district (over 10 lakh man days) followed by Mysuru (9.16
lakh man days). Among the different employment generating activities, about 47% of the total
man days was created by livestock rearing alone, followed by soil conservation activities (25%).
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
141
4.2.11 Indicators of watershed sustainability
The success of any watershed program depends on the post-withdrawal scenario, i.e. on how the
resources are collectively managed and improved years after the watershed program is
completed. This would depend on the sustainability of the Institutions created during the
implementation of the watershed program. The sustainability indicators of different watersheds
were evaluated during the post-project period, and are presented in Table 4.25. It can be seen that
all the indicators (functional status, financial linkages, record maintenance, etc.) were
encouraging in almost every watershed, which leads us to conclude that sustainability issues
were taken care of during the planning and implementation of the watershed program.
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
142
bnTable 4.24. Impact of Watershed Development on employment generation
District SWS
Employment generated
Soil Conservation
measures
Water harvesting
structures Agriculture Horticulture Afforestation Livestock Total
Bengaluru Rural Doddamanikere 20384 29575 717 5233 28500 51425 135834
Chikkaballapura Ragimakalahalli 197010 11221 3469 136269 9500 74250 431719
Chitradurga Kariyalapura 49829 24149 1267 1296 1416 84425 162382
Davanagere Nalluru 123398 3149 4345 43942 23193 64350 262377
Kolara Vadaganahalli 94061 17040 4369 23355 11072 81675 231572
Ramanagara Akkur 280379 7071 9870 24643 4872 79750 406585
Shivamogga Yalakundi 176222 5213 13651 38318 15085 12450 260939
Tumakuru Hanumanthagiri 0 78000 0 19213 7662 65725 170600
Chamarajanagaraa Mallayanapura 234655 28650 8262 31515 15870 507375 826327
Mandya Mattighatta 102382 70250 3605 87829 12142 612975 889183
Chikkamagaluru Punacha/Peruvai 195534 100500 68854 20037 656 54800 440381
Hassan Kalyadi 52256 93775 1840 28596 10772 884675 1071914
Mysuru Vatahole/ Makandoor 149881 59850 5277 26943 17372 656975 916298
Dakshina Kannada Jakkenahalli 0 40710 0 88782 10256 433225 572973
Udupi Attigudu 2904 88400 0 98643 7757 240075 437779
Kodagu Kuntahole/Narasipura 53818 6900 0 31539 0 112475 204732
Bagalkote Kerakalmatti 36868 2450 0 14880 23319 0 77517
Belagavi Neginal 14426 980 0 8000 1238 0 24644
Vijayapura Arjunagihalla 32710 0 0 14304 9760 0 56774
Dharwad Hulaginakatti 11717 4900 0 8328 52355 0 77300
Gadaga Kadadi 47694 4655 0 3072 8622 0 64043
Haveri Agadi 40358 0 0 9600 27214 0 77172
Uttara Kannada Mavalli 20788 16180 0 21788 3209 0 61965
Bidar Nirna 46593 12100 23235 12551 26944 29725 151148
Kalaburagi Habalanala 45240 34475 17640 2523 9782 39460 149120
Yadgiri Wadigera 22053 9900 14000 14588 12684 8975 82200
Raichuru Khyadigera 52950 182605 18195 889 34943 21430 311012
Koppal Hirevankalakunta 50058 21650 19460 12149 42483 24590 170390
Ballary Hirehadagali 34518 14545 11400 1820 16324 10910 89517
Total 2188686 968893 229456 830645 445002 4151715 8814397
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
143
Table 4.25. Sustainability indicators of watersheds District Subwatershed Particulars Project initiation End of project
Bengaluru Rural Doddaamanikere
Total members Male: 0, Female:
1056
Male: 0, Female:
1056
Functional Status Good Good
Books maintenance Good Good
Group Savings 14.58 lakhs 73.29 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs: 20/0 Rs 100/0
Financial Linkages & Status 0 22 lakhs
Chikkaballapura Ragimakalahalli
Total members Male: 0, Female:
939
Male: 0, Female:
939
Functional Status Good Good
Books maintenance Good Good
Group Savings 28.55 lakhs 137 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 40 Rs. 40
Financial Linkages & Status 6.50 lakhs 10.0 lakhs
Chitradurga Kariyalapura
Total members Male: 0, Female:
972
Male: 0, Female:
972
Functional Status Moderate Good
Books maintenance Good Good
Group Savings 8.47 lakhs 47.08 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 50 Rs. 50
Financial Linkages & Status 0 20.6 lakhs
Davanagere Nalluru
Total members Male: 0, Female:
2717
Male: 0, Female:
2717
Functional Status Moderate Good
Books maintenance Moderate Good
Group Savings 10.5 lakhs 75 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 50 Rs. 50
Financial Linkages & Status 24.4 lakhs 22.20 lakhs
Kolara Vadaganahalli
Total members Male: 0, Female:
580
Male: 0, Female:
580
Functional Status Moderate Good
Books maintenance Moderate Good
Group Savings 1.19 lakhs 83 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 80 Rs. 80
Financial Linkages & Status 58.0 lakhs 24.0 lakhs
Ramanagara Akkur
Total members Male: 0, Female:
762
Male: 0, Female:
762
Functional Status Good Good
Books maintenance Good Good
Group Savings 11.89 lakhs 49.0 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 100 Rs. 100
Financial Linkages & Status 15.72 lakhs 0
Shivamogga Yalakundi
Total members Male: 0, Female:
282
Male: 0, Female:
282
Functional Status Moderate Good
Books maintenance Good Good
Group Savings 2.29 lakhs 16 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 50 Rs. 50
Financial Linkages & Status 0 6.0 lakhs
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
144
District Subwatershed Particulars Project initiation End of project
Tumakuru Hanumanthagiri
Total members Male: 0, Female:
621
Male: 0, Female:
621
Functional Status Good Good
Books maintenance Moderate Good
Group Savings 1.19 lakhs 43.0 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 40 Rs. 40
Financial Linkages & Status 0 22.10 lakhs
Chamarajanagara Mallayanapura
Total members Male: 0, Female:
555
Male: 0, Female:
555
Functional Status Good Good
Books maintenance Good Good
Group Savings 14.58 lakhs 73.29 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month 25.47 lakhs 94.97 lakhs
Financial Linkages & Status Rs:20 Rs: 50
Chikkamagaluru Mattighatta
Total members Male: 0, Female:
670
Male: 0, Female:
670
Functional Status Moderate Good
Books maintenance Good Good
Group Savings 22.83 lakhs 70.03 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 20 Rs. 80/0
Financial Linkages & Status 23 lakhs 36 lakhs
Dakshina
Kannada Punacha/Peruvai
Total members Male: 0, Female:
594
Male: 0, Female:
594
Functional Status Moderate Good
Books maintenance Moderate Good
Group Savings 8.2 lakhs 46.2 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 40/0 Rs. 40/0
Financial Linkages & Status 8 lakhs 23.0 lakhs
Hassan Kalyadi
Total members Male: 0, Female:
559
Male: 0, Female:
559
Functional Status Good Good
Books maintenance Moderate Good
Group Savings 14.63 lakhs 65.13 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 80/0 Rs. 80/0
Financial Linkages & Status 14.0 lakhs 25.5 lakhs
Kodagu Vatahole/
Makandoor
Total members Male: 0, Female:
449
Male: 0, Female:
449
Functional Status Moderate Good
Books maintenance Good Good
Group Savings 0.32 lakhs 8.52
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 40/0 Rs. 40/0
Financial Linkages & Status No No
Mandya Jakkenahalli
Total members Male: 0, Female:
550
Male: 0, Female:
550
Functional Status Good Good
Books maintenance Good Good
Group Savings 20.99 lakhs 45.99 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 80/0 Rs. 100
Financial Linkages & Status 0 16.5 lakhs
Mysuru Attigudu Total members Male: 0, Female: Male: 0, Female:
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
145
District Subwatershed Particulars Project initiation End of project
924 924
Functional Status Good Good
Books maintenance Moderate Good
Group Savings 0.07 lakhs 37.82 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 80/0 Rs. 10/0
Financial Linkages & Status 0 25.25 lakhs
Udupi Kuntahole/
Narasipura
Total members Male: 0, Female:
878
Male: 0, Female:
878
Functional Status Good Good
Books maintenance Good Good
Group Savings 0.38 lakhs 41.88 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month Rs. 20/0 Rs. 50/0
Financial Linkages & Status 1.0 lakhs 25.25 lakhs
Bagalkote Kerkalmatti
Total members Male: 0 Female:
519
Male: 0; Female:
519
Functional Status
[functioning/defunct – Nos.]
Functioning: 130
Defunct: 389
Functioning: 505
Defunct: 14
Books maintenance [no] 35 145
Group Savings [Rs. In
Lakhs] 0.45 5.6
Financial Linkages & Status
[linked/ not linked – Nos.]
Linked: 0 Not
Linked: 0
Linked: 20 Not
Linked: 15
Group Meetings
[regular/irregular – Nos.]
Regular: 25
Irregular: 10
Regular: 35
Irregular:
Belagavi Neginal
Total members Male: 0 Female:
406
Male: 0; Female:
406
Functional Status
[functioning/defunct – Nos.]
Functioning: 0
Defunct: 0
Functioning: 18
Defunct: 7
Books maintenance [no] 0 0
Group Savings [Rs. In
Lakhs] 0 15.09
Financial Linkages & Status
[linked/ not linked – Nos.]
Linked: No Not
Linked: No
Linked: 2 Not
Linked: 23
Group Meetings
[regular/irregular – Nos.]
Regular: 25
Irregular: 0
Regular: 18
Irregular: 7
Vijayapura Arjunagihalla
Total members Male: 0 Female:
533
Male: 0 Female:
596
Functional Status
[functioning/defunct – Nos.]
Functioning: 40
Defunct: 0
Functioning: 45
Defunct: 0
Books maintenance [no] 7 7
Group Savings [Rs. In
Lakhs] 5.21 8.14
Financial Linkages & Status
[linked/ not linked – Nos.]
Linked: 21 Not
Linked: 0
Linked: 21 Not
Linked: 0
Group Meetings
[regular/irregular – Nos.]
Regular: 40
Irregular: 0
Regular: 40
Irregular: 0
Dharwad Hulaginakatti
Total members Male: 0 Female:
265
Male: 0 ; Female:
265
Functional Status
[functioning/defunct – Nos.]
Functioning: NA
Defunct: NA
Functioning: NA
Defunct: NA
Books maintenance [no] 0 0
Group Savings [Rs. In
Lakhs] 0 0
Financial Linkages & Status
[linked/ not linked – Nos.]
Linked: NA Not
Linked: NA
Linked: NA Not
Linked: NA
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
146
District Subwatershed Particulars Project initiation End of project
Group Meetings
[regular/irregular – Nos.]
Regular: Regular
Irregular: 0
Regular: Regular
Irregular: 0
Gadaga Kadadi
Total members Male: 0; Female:
497
Male: 0; Female:
497
Functional Status
[functioning/defunct – Nos.]
Functioning: 42
Defunct: 0
Functioning: 42
Defunct: 0
Books maintenance [no] 42 42
Group Savings [Rs. In
Lakhs] 10.24 10.24
Financial Linkages & Status
[linked/ not linked – Nos.]
Linked: 23 Not
Linked: 0
Linked: 23 Not
Linked: 0
Group Meetings
[regular/irregular – Nos.]
Regular: Weekly
Irregular: 0
Regular: Weekly
Irregular: 0
Haveri Agadi
Total members Male: 0 Female:
339
Male: 0 Female:
322
Functional Status
[functioning/defunct – Nos.]
Functioning: Good
Defunct: 0
Functioning: Good
Defunct: 0
Books maintenance [no] 21 21
Group Savings [Rs. In
Lakhs] 0.35 0.4000.75
Financial Linkages & Status
[linked/ not linked – Nos.]
Linked: 21 Not
Linked: 0
Linked: 21 Not
Linked: 0
Group Meetings
[regular/irregular – Nos.]
Regular: Regular
Irregular: 0
Regular: Regular
Irregular: 0
Uttara Kannada Mavalli
Total members Male: 0 Female: 0 Male: 0 Female:
1285
Functional Status
[functioning/defunct – Nos.]
Functioning: 0
Defunct: 0
Functioning: 85
Defunct: 0
Books maintenance [no] 0 8
Group Savings [Rs. In
Lakhs] 0 0.4500.85
Financial Linkages & Status
[linked/ not linked – Nos.]
Linked: 0 Not
Linked: 0
Linked: 85 Not
Linked: 0
Group Meetings
[regular/irregular – Nos.]
Regular: 0
Irregular: 0
Regular: 38
Irregular: 42
Bidar Nirna
Total members Male: 0, Female:
540
Male: 0, Female:
534
Functional Status All new Operational
Books maintenance Just started Good
Group Savings 0 10.60 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month 40 60
Financial Linkages & Status 0 Linked00
Kalaburagi Habalanala
Total members Male: 0, Female:
760
Male: 0, Female:
760
Functional Status Operational/ Few
new Operational
Books maintenance Average Good
Group Savings 0.40 lakhs 16.50 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month 40 100
Financial Linkages & Status 0 Linked08
Yadgiri Wadigera Total members Male: 0, Female:
394
Male: 0, Female:
394
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
147
District Subwatershed Particulars Project initiation End of project
Functional Status Operational/ Few
new
Operational/ Few
new
Books maintenance Poor Good
Group Savings 0.37lakhs 8.74 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month 40 60
Financial Linkages & Status 0 Linked-0
Raichuru Khyadigera
Total members Male: 0, Female:
645
Male: 0, Female:
645
Functional Status Operational/ Few
new Operational
Books maintenance Average Good
Group Savings 1.55 lakhs 8.63 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month 40 100
Financial Linkages & Status 0 Linked-0
Koppal Hirevankalakunta
Total members Male: 0, Female:
420
Male: 0, Female:
420
Functional Status All New Operational
Books maintenance Just started Good
Group Savings 0.34 lakhs 13.79 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month 40 80
Financial Linkages & Status 0 Linked-7
Ballary Pandavapura/
Jakkenahalli
Total members Male: 0, Female:
332
Male: 0, Female:
332
Functional Status All New Operational
Books maintenance Just started Good
Group Savings 0.10 lakhs 3.52 lakhs
Individual Savings per
month 40 60
Financial Linkages & Status 0 Linked-5
Impact Evaluation of Batch II Projects
148
Conclusion
The foregoing analysis clearly reveals that watershed development does help to enhance
water availability for farming and reduce soil erosion, besides a number of welcome benefits
to the farmers in dry land regions. The benefits include increased groundwater availability,
rise in yields per hectare, increase in cropping intensity thereby leading to greater on-farm
employment opportunities and, above all, a substantial rise in farm incomes. The present
study revealed that with an active participative management of the watershed by the farmers,
they can reap much greater benefits from the integrated watershed development program,
through promotion of effective extension services.
MEL&D-AgencyRemote Sensing Instruments, Bengaluru
Prepared by