Accepted Manuscript

Review papers

Watershed Management in South Asia: A Synoptic Review

V. Ratna Reddy, Yashpal Singh Saharawat, Biju George

PII: S0022-1694(17)30336-0
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.05.043
Reference: HYDROL 22034

To appear in: Journal of Hydrology

Received Date: 5 April 2017

Revised Date: 20 May 2017
Accepted Date: 22 May 2017

Please cite this article as: Ratna Reddy, V., Saharawat, Y.S., George, B., Watershed Management in South Asia: A
Synoptic Review, Journal of Hydrology (2017), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.05.043

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Watershed Management in South Asia: A Synoptic Review

V. Ratna Reddy,
Livelihoods and Natural Resource Management Institute, Hyderabad, India.
Email: vratnareddy@lnrmi.ac.in
Yashpal Singh Saharawat, ICARDA, Kabul, Afghanistan.
Email: Y.Saharawat@CGIAR.org
Biju George, ICARDA, Cairo, Egypt
Email: biju.george41@gmail.com

Abstract

Watershed management (WSM) is the most widely adopted technology in developed as well as

developing countries due to its suitability across climatic conditions. Watershed technology is

suitable to protect and enhance soil fertility, which is deteriorating at an alarming rate with

agricultural intensification in high as well as low rainfall regions. Of late, WSM is considered as

an effective poverty alleviation intervention in the rain fed regions in countries like India. This

paper aims at providing a basic watershed policy and implementation framework based on a

critical review of experiences of WSM initiatives across South Asia. The purpose is to provide

cross learnings within south Asia and other developing countries (especially Africa) that are

embarking on WSM in recent years.

Countries in the region accord differential policy priority and are at different levels of

institutional arrangements for implementing WSM programmes. The implementation of

watershed interventions is neither scientific nor comprehensive in all the countries

limiting the effectiveness (impacts). Implementation of the programmes for enhancing

the livelihoods of the communities need to strengthen both technical and institutional

1
aspects. While countries like India and Nepal are yet to strengthen the technical aspects

in terms of integrating hydrogeology and biophysical aspects into watershed design,

others need to look at these aspects as they move towards strengthening the watershed

institutions.

Another important challenge in all the countries is regarding the distribution of benefits.

Due to the existing property rights in land and water resources coupled with the agrarian

structure and uneven distribution and geometry of aquifers access to sub-surface water

resources is unevenly distributed across households. Though most of the countries are

moving towards incorporating livelihoods components in order to ensure benefits to all

sections of the community, not much is done in terms of addressing the equity aspects of

WSM.

Keywords: Watershed Management; Evolution; Socioeconomic Impacts; Hydrology;

Institutions; South Asia.

Acknowledgements:

Thanks are due to International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dryland Agriculture

(ICARDA) for providing the financial support. Thanks are due to Evan Christen and Geoff Syme

for useful comments on the earlier drafts of the paper. However, the usual disclaimers apply.

2
I Introduction

Degradation affects over 2 billion ha of land worldwide, putting at risk the livelihoods of more

than 1 billion people (ESC, 2001). South Asia is among the worst affected as 43 percent of its

agricultural lands are degraded in one form or other (Perera and Fernado, 2004).

Watershed management is among the most widely adopted technology due to its suitability and

appropriateness across climatic conditions. Watershed technology is also suitable to protect and

enhance soil fertility, which is deteriorating at an alarming rate with agricultural intensification.

More importantly, it caught the policy attention in some countries due to its potential to conserve

soil and water in the dry regions as well.

Watershed Management

Watershed is a topographically delineated area that is drained by a stream system. It is a

hydrologic unit that has been described and used both as a physical-biological unit and as a

socio-economic and socio-political unit for planning and implementing resource management

activities. Watershed Management (WSM) deals with the changes in the institutional

arrangements required for collective action situations. Integrated Watershed Management

(IWSM) is the process of formulating and implementing a course of action involving natural and

human resources in a watershed, taking into account social, political, economic and institutional

factors operating within the watershed and its surroundings to achieve certain socio-economic

and ecological objectives (Dixon, 1992). Though the terms watershed development (WSD) and

watershed management (WSM) are often treated as synonyms, WSD could be treated as purely

3
technical while WSM is broader as it concerns with technical as well as non-technical aspects of

resource management. The approach of watershed management ought to be holistic and

integrated involving hydrological, biophysical and socio-economic systems. Peoples’

participation, is recognised as a key factor in effective implementation of the programme. Thus,

WSM is a combination of 'science and art' / 'technology and philosophy' (Tiwari, et.al., 2008 and

Reddy, et.al., 2010). Throughout this paper the terms WSM and IWSM are used as synonyms,

which incorporate WSD as well.

The size of watersheds ranges from two hectares (White and Runge, 1995) to 30,000 hectares

(World Bank, 2007). Based on the scale WSM is differently known or termed across the world -

in the Americas it is termed as river basin management; in Europe it is termed as catchment

management. The purpose of WSM varies from region to region or country to country depending

on the regional and national priorities. It ranges from soil and water conservation (most

countries) to rangeland protection (Afghanistan and Pakistan) protecting rivers / reservoirs

(irrigation) (Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.) to protecting reservoirs (hydel plants) (Nepal and

Bhutan) to enhancing ecosystem services (Sri Lanka) and to improving land productivity in rain

fed regions (India).

Objectives

This paper aims at providing a basic watershed policy and implementation framework based on a

critical review of experiences of WSM initiatives in different countries of South Asia. The

purpose is to provide cross learnings within south Asia and also lesson learning for the countries

(especially the Africa) that are embarking on the WSM in recent years. Specific objectives of the

study include:

4
a) Review the evolution of watershed management in south Asian countries,

b) Examine the institutional and implementation modalities adopted in these countries,

c) Assess the impacts (environmental and socioeconomic) of watershed intervention in varying

agro-climatic conditions, and

d) Understand the implementation bottlenecks for sustainable watershed management.

The paper is based on exhaustive review of studies on WSM in South Asian countries viz.,

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The material reviewed

include published research papers and unpublished reports. The paper is organised in six

sections. The following section discusses the evolution of WSM in South Asia. Section three

looks at the typology of WSM interventions across the countries. Section four reviews the impact

of WSM in terms of socioeconomic, ecological and equity; section five examines the

institutional and implementation modalities in the region. The last section draws lessons for

WSM interventions in wider context of developing countries and provides some policy

imperatives.

II Evolution of WSM in South Asia

WSM is as old as agriculture. Manipulating water and soils for improved agricultural practices

could be termed as a primitive form of watershed interventions. The importance of watershed

interventions has increased with the advent of modern irrigation infrastructure of constructing

storage reservoirs, which began around 3000 BC. Thus watershed interventions may be

considered as 5000 years old (FAO, 2006). Though number of countries, including Asian

5
countries, have adopted sophisticated watershed management model of vertical integration of

different ecotypes, the potential of watershed technology started to be fully exploited in Europe

between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This coincided with the advent of new

cultivation techniques (slow drainage and abundant fertilization), emergence of new crops

(maize, potato, etc), private farming and higher yields. Sustaining these yield rates to meet the

needs of growing population called for major public investment in irrigation, land reclamation

and watershed management works (FAO, 2006).

In the context of South Asia, watershed management evolved in two phases. The first phase was

triggered by the construction of big irrigation schemes and hydro-power dams during 1950s and

1960s. Protecting these systems from sedimentation consequent to the upstream-downstream

runoff linkages has become a policy priority. Speedy saturation of reservoirs, increased incidence

of flash floods in downstream areas has given rise to watershed planning - integrating economic

and social aspects. The decade of 1970s, however, was occupied with the promotion of green

revolution technologies and food security shadowed every other aspects related to agriculture.

WSM was back into policy agenda during the early eighties with the saturation of yield gains

from green revolution, which was limited to irrigated regions. As productivity growth in the

green revolution areas was showing signs of slowing down or stagnation (Pingali and Rosegrant,

2001), future growth in agricultural production and food security is likely to depend on

improving the productivity in the semi-arid and arid rainfed areas. From the economic angle

there was evidence indicating that marginal returns to investments would be substantially higher

in these regions when compared to the irrigated regions where potentials for productivity growth

6
 had been already exploited through the green revolution technologies (Fan and Hazell, 2000).

Improving the livelihoods of the communities in the rainfed regions has also become a policy

priority as these regions are politically getting more active and articulated in their demands over

the years.

By the late 1980s environmental concerns, including land degradation, have gained economic

significance with the publication of 'Our Common Future' by the United Nations. This followed

by the introduction of the concept 'sustainable development' and the ‘agenda 21’ have clearly

identified watershed development as a policy priority for natural resource protection. In fact, the

‘agenda 21’ stresses that successful watershed management must be based on local stakeholders’

informed participation in natural resource management, economic growth and social change

(FAO, 2006).

Table 1: Evolution of Modern Watershed Management in South Asia

Country Period Bio-physical conditions Purpose National priority Approach Source

Afghanistan 1980s Low rainfall and arid; Range land Low In the initial stages Ahmad
High proportion of protection and (mostly external) and Wasiq,
range lands; Heavy soil catchments 2004)
and range land
degradation
Bangladesh 1970s High Rainfall; Flood Check soil Low Only hilly Forest and catchment Misbahuzz
prone erosion and forest regions (mostly focus ama (nd.)
protection in Hilly internal). (Integrated Watershed
regions Management)

Bhutan 1980s High Rain Fall; Protection of Medium only Integrated Watershed Tsering
Degradation in reservoirs (Hydel) mountainous (mostly Management (2011)
Mountain regions and external) areas
catchments

7
India 1970s Arid and semi-arid with Enhancing the High. Participatory and Reddy,
varying rain fall; large productivity and Covering crop and integrated watershed et.al.,
proportion of rain fed; reducing yield forest lands in all management with a (2010)
Heavy soil and water vulnerability in terrains of rainfed focus on enhancing
resource degradation the rain fed regions livelihoods in rain fed
regions (mostly internal) regions
Nepal 1970s High rainfall; Protection of Medium to High. Participatory and Acharya
Degradation of reservoirs (Hydel) Covering Integrated watershed (2000)
mountain regions forest protection mountainous regions management
and livelihoods (Mostly external)

Pakistan 1980s Low rainfall; large Protection of Low Covering Participatory and Ahamad
proportion of range reservoirs mountainous regions integrated watershed (2001)
lands; degradation of (irrigation); (mostly external) management
range lands; mountain protection of
regions and catchments rangelands

Sri Lanka 1980s High rainfall; Protection of Low covering Participatory watershed Elkaduwa
degradation of soil and Reservoirs upstream areas of the management at the basin and
water resources (irrigation). catchment (mostly scale Reservoir Shaktivadi
upstream soil external) protection (Irrigation) vel (1998)
protection and
water quality

In most of the south Asian countries, evolution of WSM started early 1980s, though countries

like India and Bangladesh had introduced WSM programmes during the 1970s. The purpose of

WSM varies across the countries depending on their national priorities (Table 1). Of the

countries, India, Nepal and Bhutan appear to have accorded high/medium policy priority for the

WSM programmes. In most of the countries, watershed interventions are limited to mountainous

terrains, range lands and forest areas. In India, watershed interventions are more widespread with

a focus on rainfed regions, though not limited to. The main difference between India and other

countries is that the emphasis is on crop lands in India, while range lands, forest areas and waste

lands (mountain slopes, etc.) are mainly targeted in other countries. This differential coverage or

focus has a natural division of covering private lands (crop lands) and public or common lands.

Nepal also has to deal with treating private and common lands together due to the terrain. This

has given rise to the need for people’s participation for better implementation of the

8
interventions, as number of private parcels of land are to be treated under the watershed. Thus,

India and Nepal are among the first to introduce participatory WSM in the region and others

adopted it later.

The purpose of watershed interventions determines the linkages between local communities and

the interventions. That is the level of participation and involvement is dependent on the benefits

directly accruing to the local communities. Direct benefits to the communities are more in the

case of watershed interventions on crop lands, range lands and forest areas. Interventions on crop

lands enhance land productivity and net returns from agriculture, range land improvement

provides direct benefits through livestock development and communities in the forest fringe

areas benefit from improved access to fodder, fuel wood, and non-timber products. On the other

hand, interventions such as catchment protection, controlling soil erosion and protecting

reservoirs, protection of hilly areas, etc. may provide valuable indirect benefits to the

communities but the impacts are not strident enough and hence communities may not actively

participate in the implementation process. In counties like Bhutan, Pakistan and Nepal, the main

purpose is to protect the reservoirs from sedimentation (irrigation and hydel power projects) and

hence communities are indirectly benefited. In order to achieve active involvement of people

Nepal has integrated livelihoods components with watershed interventions. In some cases, the

interventions take place far from the communities that benefit from these interventions. For

instance, while communities in the upstream areas, where the interventions take place, may get

limited benefits while downstream communities benefit more. In such cases, upstream

communities have little incentive to participate and the downstream communities are not

involved at all.

9
III Watershed Structures

The concept of WSM involves planning the development of a resource region. Resource region

incorporates the private property as well as common property regimes. The focus of planning is

the optimal and sustainable use of the resources viz., water and land. The approach of watershed

treatment therefore ought to be holistic and involves quite a few hydrological, biophysical and

socioeconomic aspects. WSM being a land based technology, it would help conserve and

improve in situ soil moisture, check soil erosion and improve water resources, especially

groundwater in the rainfed regions. It simply means improving the management of a watershed

or rainfall catchments area through technical and non-technical interventions. Technical

interventions are required in order to adopt the hydrological and biophysical conditions to the

needs of the local communities. At the same time non-technical (socioeconomic) instruments are

required to make the technical interventions more effective.

Large variety of interventions are being adopted in WSM, most of them fall within the field of

soil and water conservation. These include both technical and non-technical measures, which in

aggregate form help to limit the rate of soil loss and provide sustainable land and water use.

Some measures may help prevent erosion whilst others may only control it, thus limiting the

extent and timing of its impact. There are also interventions which are aimed at rehabilitating

soils after erosion has negatively impacted the land, which include mechanical soil conservation

practices; vegetative cover, afforestation, building contour bunds, water harvesting structures

(farm ponds, check-dams), field bunds (raised edges), ridge bunds, etc. All these interventions

are expected to facilitate higher land productivity through improved overall ecological conditions

10
such as moisture and water availability for agriculture. It may be noted that all these

interventions are not adopted in all the watersheds or regions. Nature and intensity of

interventions vary according to the hydrogeology and bio-physical conditions of the region or

watershed. Here we discuss these interventions in brief. The technical watershed interventions

can be grouped under three broad typologies i) soil conservation; ii) in situ moisture conservation

and iii) water harvesting structures.

i) Soil Conservation

Majority of soil conservation programs instituted in the1970's and 1980's were dominated by

engineered systems. These systems were originally developed for large land holdings in

temperate regions (Doolette and Smyle, 1990). Some of them are adopted in south Asian

countries. Most popular ones include: a) lock and spill drains- graded drain which is usually

built along contours and acts by capturing runoff in small stilling ponds, which allows the

rainwater to infiltrate slowly; b) Stone walls- constructed along contours in fields or road sides

and provide an irregular form of terracing; c) bench terraces- construction of large benches on

steep slopes and cultivation may be carried out on slightly downward or back sloping surfaces;

d) bunds-artificial embankments constructed and graded so as to intercept rainfall and sediments

and lead runoff away from the cultivated land.

These interventions (see pictures) are widely used across the countries though they are mostly

implemented on the common lands and steep slopes. Besides, these approaches are commonly

used in the centrally managed tea estates in Sri Lanka, where land is not in short supply and

valuable topsoil can be sacrificed for the construction of bunds and terraces (Carson, 1989;

11
Doolette and Magrath, 1990). Pebble bunding is also popular in the regions where soil quality is

poor and crop lands are covered with pebbles. Clearing the crop lands of pebbles and using them

to make bunds across gullies and small streams observed to serve double purpose of improving

the quality of land and checking soil erosion (Reddy et al., 2010).

Continuous Contour Earth Bunding Pebble Bunding

Maintaining the vegetative cover is an effective way of reducing runoff and soil erosion. In fact,

it has been observed that vegetative cover is more effective in checking oil erosion as well as

improving water yields or stream flows. Calder (1991), has estimated that afforestation will

reduce river flows by the order of 200 mm per year (or 2,000 cubic meters / ha / year) in Sri

Lanka. Afforestation is also widely adopted in the watershed management, especially at the

ridge locations. Afforestation and forest conservation measures are extensively used in the hilly

terrains of Nepal, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. Most of these soil conservation interventions

are not very popular among the farming communities in South Asia. This is mainly due to small

size land holding. These interventions are either capital intensive or land intensive or both.

Often governments provide incentives or subsidies to promote on farm soil conservation

activities. But they do not sustain once the incentives dry up. One activity that is observed to be

very popular is the pebble bunding in many parts of the state of Andhra Pradesh, India. This is

mainly due to the nature of the terrain.

ii) In situ Moisture Conservation

12
Increasing the water holding capacity of soils in the arid and semi-arid regions is a main concern

for enhancing the agricultural productivity. Soil erosion further erodes the water holding

capacity in these regions as, organic matter and clays contribute disproportionately more to

water-holding capacity relative to other coarser soil fractions. Number of interventions are

adopted to increase in situ soil moisture content, which are known as on farm interventions.

These on farm activities are most widely promoted and adopted measures in the rainfed regions

of India, especially during the initial years of 1970s and 1980s. These include on farm bunding,

trenching and contour bunding (see pictures) to increase soil moisture within plots of land by

reducing the run off. These interventions help retaining the rainwater within the farmers own

field in the arid and semi-arid zones, where annual rainfall is low (200-600 mm). In India, these

interventions are implemented with 90-95 percent government subsidy. These interventions,

however, are land intensive and are not favoured by small and marginal farmers. In the case of

very small plots, the loss of area offsets the yield gains.

Bund cum Trench

Trenching
Water Absorption
cum Trench

Agronomically, there are a number of farming practices that can help increase soil moisture

content and enhance yield rates. These recommended interventions include: vegetative soil

cover, mulching, use of simple tillage practices, contour cultivation, ridging across the slope,

vegetative barriers, ripped furrows, land levelling, level pans, terracing, etc. These practices,

however, are only recommendations and not implemented as part of the watershed programme.

13
Number of research studies have shown that these practices enhanced soil quality and yield

(Doolette and Smyle, 1990).

iii) Rain Water Harvesting

Of late rainwater harvesting is increasingly gaining popularity among local communities as well

as policy makers. Often, this specific component draws a substantial share in the watershed

allocations. For instance, in India the density and size of rainwater harvesting structures is on the

rise during the last two decades. In the low rainfall arid and semi-arid regions, these structures

provide a life line to protect crops and livestock during lean months. Rainwater harvesting

structures can be constructed at the surface as well as subsurface level, though surface structures

are the main interventions in the watershed programmes. The structures include check-dams;

farm ponds; percolation tanks or pits; recharge wells and injection wells (see pictures). All these

interventions help to recharge groundwater. While check dams and farm ponds are part of water

spreading methods, which serve the purpose of recharge as well as direct use of water;

percolation pits, percolation tanks, recharge wells and injection wells are used for recharging the

groundwater.

Farm Pond Percolation Tank Check Dam

Pond

The adoption of these methods depend on the location (upstream / downstream) within the

watershed as well as the hydrogeology of the location. In a ridge to valley context of watersheds,

14
it is often recommended that on-farm interventions (in-situ soil moisture conservation) and water

spread methods (farm ponds and check dams) in the middle and downstream locations. However,

understanding the hydrogeology is critical for determining the suitability of these interventions.

From the hydrogeology perspective, moderate to deep weathering and fracturing zones are

suitable for artificial recharge through water spreading methods (farm ponds and check dams);

areas with deep fractures are suitable for artificial recharge methods by injection methods

depending on the aquifer position; and areas with very shallow basement are not suitable for any

interventions (Reddy and Syme, 2015). Based on the drainage order, mini-percolation and

percolation tanks are effective on the first to third order streams. Check dams are more effective

when the topography is plane. The interventions required for watersheds located on the

weathered zone are different from watersheds located on the fractured zone. Water-spreading

methods such as check dams, percolation tanks, and farm ponds are effective in weathered zones.

The impacts of rainwater harvesting methods are more conspicuous than any other interventions

of watershed management. The visible collection of water at the check dams and the impact on

the surrounding wells attract local community's attention. As a result, farmers demand more of

these structures, as these structures can't be built by individual farmers due to their capital

intensity. Besides, check dams needs to be constructed in the natural streams, which are common

property. Even the implementing agencies are leaning towards creating more of these structures

due to the demands from the communities and also due to their quick and visible impacts. These

structures, however, provide location specific impacts and hence are not equitable in terms of

distribution of benefits. Moreover, their impacts could be very limited when they are constructed

in the absence of hydrogeological information of the watershed.

15
IV Impacts and Equity

Impact assessment of the benefits from watershed interventions is complex, as the

benefits from watershed management accrues with a lag of more than 5 years, as the

interventions take time to enhance the resource base. Apart from time, extent and

magnitude of the benefits also vary across space viz., upstream and downstream.

Similarly, benefits vary with the the scale of watershed. Benefits are expected to be

more if the watershed scale coincides with the hydrological scale (Reddy and Syme,

2015). Given the externality nature of watershed benefits, if the watershed scale is

smaller than the hydrological scale, it is likely that some benefits accrue beyond the

boundaries of watershed. WSM projects are generally anticipated not only to provide

local on-site benefits at the micro-watershed level, but also to offer positive

externalities in the form of valuable environmental services downstream as well as to

provide a means of correcting downstream negative externalities within the larger

watershed. Therefore, investment in upstream cannot be justified by their on-site

benefits alone and can only pass economic reasoning when downstream benefits are

embodied. A larger watershed scale would facilitate the capture of externalities

relating to groundwater and surface water flows. This calls for taking the impacts of

positive and negative externalities across the streams into account while assessing the

watershed impacts. This requires taking hydrogeological and bio-physical aspects into

account. Very few studies have integrated these aspects into impact assessment.

16
Measuring the impacts is becoming more complex in the recent years as watershed

development programmes have transformed from a soil and water conservation to a

comprehensive rural development and livelihoods programme, especially in countries

like India and Nepal. This would also create attribution problems, as there are other

programmes related to poverty alleviation, livelihoods, etc., going on simultaneously in

most of these countries. Hither to, watershed impact assessment studies have focused

on the socio-economic and natural resource impacts (Reddy et al., 2010; Joshi et al.,

2005). With the introduction of the livelihoods component along with participatory

approach to implementation during the late 1990s, impact studies have started using

the sustainable livelihoods (SL) framework to assess the impacts (Reddy et al., 2004;

Reddy et al., 2008). The SL framework is a more comprehensive approach that looks

beyond income and employment aspects of poverty using the five capitals to assess the

impacts. The framework incorporates the social, human and physical (capitals)

dimensions of poverty, which are more long-term in nature. Despite the fact that the

prime objective of watershed development is soil and water conservation and thus

improving the productivity and resilience of the system, not much attention has been

paid to assess the resilience aspects of watershed development in the literature.

Table 2: Impacts of Watershed Management Across South Asia

Country Natural Economic Social & Overall Remarks
Resources Institutional Livelihoods
Impacts
(Magnitude)
Afghanistan Improved Improved fodder Community --- Very few and not
vegetative cover; availability managed comprehensive
number of tree grazing (social
species. fencing)

17
 Bangladesh Reduction Jhum Improved Creation of --- Very few studies.
cultivation; livelihoods Village
Improved forest community
protection forest
communities
India Improvement in Positive benefit Strengthening Good impact on Wide variations
the resource base, cost ratios; of participatory natural, financial across the regions.
especially increase in net institutions. and social Overall success
groundwater. income and Improved capitals rate is very low
Increased employment. gender (20-25%)
moisture participation
availability and
reduction in soil
erosion
Nepal Checking forest Crop intensities Education and Improvement in Not much
degradation. Soil increased; health all capitals. variation across
erosion and Cropping changed improved. Household the studies
siltation declined. to high value Participation income doubled
Vegetative cover crops; yields has increased; in some cases.
improved increased social cohesion
increased
Pakistan Reduction in soil Improved yield Increased --- Not many studies.
erosion (21%) rates of wheat, participation- There could be
Reduced groundnut, fodder. including selection bias.
sediment (38%) Increase in women.
income
Sri Lanka Reduced runoff Improved power Low Limited The focus is not
and sedimentation generation. High participation. enhancing the
in reservoirs IRR Lack of livelihoods of the
institutions communities
Source: Based on the studies quoted in the text.

Of late, resilience is gaining prominence as an important attribute of the farming

communities, especially in the context of climate change impacts. In fact, the SL

framework has resilience inbuilt. In most cases, impact studies do not have the backing

of proper baseline information. This limits the validity of the impact assessment, as the

data generated from the households suffer from memory lapse when “before and after”

methods are used; while getting a perfectly-matching sample becomes a limitation

when “with and without” methods are used. However, adopting a “double difference”

method, in which both “before and after” and “with and without” approaches are

18
combined, is expected to provide the best proxy in the absence of base line (Reddy et

al., 2004). Impact assessments are also influenced by the timing of the study. While

impacts are clearly captured in the immediate post-implementation phase given the

lag, attribution of impacts gets blurred as the gap between implementation and

assessment increases, especially when the structures are not maintained well. In this

context, using resilience as an impact indicator would help in addressing the

limitations to a large extent. Resilience is in a way directly linked to watershed

interventions and hence, could be attributed directly to the current watershed

condition. Furthermore, resilience is more long-term in nature and hence addresses

the sustainability aspects of watershed development. When resilience is linked to the

five capitals, it becomes robust and comprehensive in understanding the impacts in the

absence of base line information.

The studies, thus, dealing with the impact assessment of watersheds and measuring the

benefits should consider all these aspects. Though most of the impact assessment

studies suffer from these short comings, a review of these studies provides an

indication of the potential benefits and beneficiaries. Given the nature of national

priorities, not all the countries have systematic impact assessment studies. Nature of

impacts and benefits vary across the countries of south Asia, as their priorities and

interventions differ (Table 2).

Hydrological Impacts

Although hydrology is integral to WSM, hydrological impacts are not studied widely. Impact

assessments are often focused on socioeconomic aspects or biophysical aspects. Most of the

19
countries in South Asia have focused on upstream WSM in terms of improving the vegetative

cover and afforestation in order to reduce runoff in the upstream and sedimentation in the

downstream. Soil conservation and water harvesting measures and their impacts on surface and

sub-surface hydrology are not given due importance in impact studies. As a result, watershed

planning and designing have failed to integrate hydrogeological aspects. One reason could be the

scale of watershed is not big enough to integrate hydrogeology, as in some of the south Asian

countries the focus has been on micro watersheds, especially after the 1990s. Moreover, the

purpose of WSM in most of the countries is reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation and the

scale of these watersheds is much larger. Though hydrology (groundwater improvement) is

integral to watershed management, hydrogeological characteristics are not taken into account

while designing the watersheds (Massuel et al. 2013). For operating at the micro-watershed scale

does not necessarily aggregate up or capture upstream-downstream interactions. A mix of

upstream interventions would only have a considerable impact on downstream if prioritized and

planned within the larger watershed perspective and with understanding of the spatial and

hydrological links between the perceived externalities and their underlying factors (for example,

land and water use).

Despite their apparent objective of improving natural resource conditions in a

watershed, the WSM programs or interventions may prove detrimental to downstream

areas. Research has revealed that the micro-watershed approach may be producing

hydrological problems that would be best addressed by operating at a macro-

watershed scale. For example, in India, recent hydrological research cautions that

watershed projects may be aggravating precisely the very water scarcity they intend to

20
overcome. The study by Batchelor et al. (2003) noticed that successful water

harvesting in upper watersheds came at the expense of lower watershed areas. On the

basis of the data from the macro-watershed level (covering many villages), they

documented cases where water harvesting in upper watersheds reduced water

availability downstream. Even the interventions like rainwater harvesting structures

could harm the interests of downstream communities, especially in the low rainfall

regions (Ray and Bijarniya, 2006, George et al. 2011, Nune et al. 2013).

With the worsening of the groundwater table downstream, more intensive drilling of

wells are needed, which the poor could often not afford, leading to inequitable

distribution and use of water (Calder, 2005). Calder et al. (2006) term this as

“catchment closure,” whereby water harvesting upstream accumulates groundwater

locally and then intensive pumping depletes the shallow aquifer. In this case,

watershed development checks the movements of both surface runoff and

groundwater towards downstream locations. As the size of watershed increases, the

influence of land use on the upstream – downstream hydrology reduces while the

influence of precipitation increases (FAO, 2006). A recent study at sub-basin scale has

also observed that watershed interventions have caused water insecurity at

downstream, though they have benefited the onsite communities (George, et al., 2011).

This indicates two adverse project outcomes: first, what is good for one micro-

watershed can be bad for others in the downstream locations; and second, what is

good for a watershed in the short term can be bad in the long term. Thus, while

addressing socio-economic considerations favours small micro-watersheds as the unit

21
of operation, approaching this hydrological problem calls for working in large macro-

watersheds and the two may be inconsistent.

In the case of Sri Lanka land cover changes (from forest to tea gardens and home

gardens) has altered the flow regimes. The observed adverse environmental impacts

were directly related to changes in flow regimes. Rapid runoff was responsible for high

soil erosion rate, loss of land productivity, and more frequent flash floods. The high

rate of sediment supply due to accelerated erosion has caused degradation of stream

channels, increasing the likelihood of flash floods, reduced land productivity in rice

fields with deposition of coarse material and silting of irrigation canals. During dry

spells, relative droughts and irrigation water shortages have occurred. Reduced low

flows in downstream have threatened the dependable supply of good quality water and

increased the salinity intrusion at the river mouth whereas increased high flows have

aggravated the flooding (Elkaduwa and Sakthivadivel, 1998).

Impact on Equity (who benefits)

In order to ensure equitable distribution of benefits from improved natural resource base or

common pool resources, there needs to be effective property right regime and regulatory

structures. This has so far proved difficult because in practice access to common resources

is open and free for all in majority of the cases across south Asia. This is unlike the situation

in countries such as South Africa, where landowners don’t have automatic property rights to

commons such as subsurface water. Although restrictions on over exploitation of groundwater

22
exist, there is no restriction on how much of the common property subsurface water is

‘privatized’ through pumping onto private land.

Social organization, its equitability and sustainability, links to questions of allocation of property

rights and the distribution of benefits across different sections of the community. Whether

property rights are clearly defined and equitably distributed is more important rather than who

has the rights- individuals or groups. Unless property rights are defined clearly and equitably it is

difficult to ensure sustainable resource management even under participatory watershed

management. Allocation of rights and distribution of costs and benefits are the most important

among the rules and regulations in managing the commons. These distributional aspects are

important and affect the monitoring costs to a large extent. If solved to the satisfaction of all

socio-economic communities in the group, they would reduce the costs of monitoring. For, free

rider attitudes are more prevalent under institutional arrangements where costs and benefits are

distributed unequally across households. Those who are on the other extreme (deriving least

benefits) tend to assert their use rights inappropriately, such as encroaching. That is, when people

view an established system as inequitable according to established social standards, they have

incentives to undermine it (Hanna, 1996). For instance, grazing restrictions go against the

interests of herders while they benefit the landholders (Reddy, 2000; Turton, 2000). On the

contrary, small and marginal farmers tend to benefit from restrictions on groundwater

exploitation while large farmers loose (Reddy, 2000). Such contradictions often result in non-

cooperative behaviour among communities and hence need to be addressed in order to sustain

collective action.

23
Sustainable WSM calls for participation of the whole community, which requires sharing of

costs and benefits in a fairly equitable manner. Participatory WSM implies a fundamental

concern for ensuring equity in benefits. While it is desirable to involve all sections of the

community, watershed intervention by itself does not guarantee the distribution of benefit flows

across the community. For, watershed is a land based technology and hence most of the benefits

accrue to land owners – particularly those best placed to pump the increased groundwater –

likely to be those who have land in the valley rather than at the ridge. Though landless

households are expected to benefit to some extent, through employment opportunities and so on,

the type and magnitude of benefits accruing to them are poorly understood. Even if the

watershed covers the entire village lands, it might leave sections of dissatisfied households, due

to the nature of interventions vary by location. Farmer prefers water-harvesting structures over

soil conservation interventions. Unless benefits accruing to this section of the community are

substantial in economic terms it is unlikely that they will participate or evince any interest in the

programme. In the absence of such benefits, their apathy towards the programme might

jeopardize the sustainability of the programme.

Thus, the distribution of economic benefits across socio-economic groups holds the key for the

success of WSM. However, this important aspect is not often adequately addressed by the

existing evaluation studies as they focus mainly on the issue of total benefits at the micro

watershed level (Deshpande and Narayanamoorthy, 1999), rather than investigating the

distribution of the benefits (Shah, 2001). Of late, the issue of equity in WSM has caught the

attention of both the researchers as well as policy makers. The study by Joy and Paranjapye

(2004) has presented a detailed discussion on the issue of equity and its specific relevance to

24
WSM. The distribution of direct and tangible benefits is often observed to be discriminatory and

limited, even in some of the most ‘successful’ projects (Shah, 1998; Deshpande and

Narayanamoorthy, 1998; Kerr et al., 1998). The evidence not only indicates little impact on

equity; sometimes, they point to increased deprivation for women / poor in terms of their access

to resources in addition to further workload for project activities (Shah, 2009).

Many scholars observed that watershed development favours the land owners and those having

land in the lower reaches as well as those who have the ability to invest in wells and pumps

(Arya and Samra, 1995; Adolf and Turton, 1998; Kerr et al., 1998; Reddy et al., 2001). While

the study by Reddy et al. (2004) in the context of Andhra Pradesh observes inequalities to be

declining after the advent of WSM project. Another study (Singh et al., 1993) in the Kandi

watershed of Punjab, inequity was found to be increasing. The recent study by Reddy et al.

(2010a) in the context of Rajasthan also points towards a disturbing fact that benefits from WSM

in poor and backward regions are not only low, but are mostly cornered by large farmers

resulting in the aggravation of inter and intra-regional inequalities. In a study in Orissa and

Andhra Pradesh (Rout, 2013), participation was observed to have enhanced the benefit flows, but

it could not ensure equitable distribution of the benefits. On the other hand, as pointed out

earlier, equitable distribution ensures participation. The distinction could be absolute equity vis-

à-vis relative equity. Equity issues arise even in the spatial context. Number of studies have

observed that downstream locations benefit more from the watershed interventions when

compared to upstream interventions (Reddy and Syme, 2015).

25
The review of impacts and benefits of WSM clearly brings out that the economics of

watershed technology is unambiguously in its favour across south Asia, though the

magnitude of its impact varies across the countries and locations. The impact of

watershed technology is observed to be more effective in water scarce regions when

compared to assured rainfall regions. At the same time, absolute benefits are more in

the medium rainfall zones. For, adoption of the technology itself might be a difficult

proposition in extreme scarcity conditions, as poor households living on the margin

can hardly afford to adopt conservation practices such as losing part of their land for

contour bunding, etc. Adding to this is the long gestation required for getting the

benefits from the technology. This has led to the increasing demand for rainwater

harvesting structures to the neglect of soil conservation in countries like India. In the

absence of scientific approach (integration of hydrogeology into watershed design) the

effectiveness of water harvesting interventions could be limited. Thus, while the

potential of WSM in enhancing land productivity, livelihoods and resilience need not be

reemphasised, adopting appropriate and scientific designing and implementation is the

key for ensuring its effectiveness.

V Watershed Institutions and Implementation

The dual character of WSM as a technology and its management as an art or philosophy

makes the role of institutions critical in its implementation, management and

sustenance. While the success of WSM as a technology is well established, the

philosophy of its management is proving to be the main bottleneck for the wider

success of the programme. Collective participation and action of the community is a

26
critical ingredient for a successful WSM. This throws up a wide range of issues, such as

social organisation and property rights, which require careful scrutiny. The problem of

property rights arises in dealing with the treatment of common lands. Another

distinctive feature of watershed technology is its relatively long gestation period. That

is, farmers have to wait for 5-7 years to get benefits. The existing socioeconomic

contradictions at the community level need to be addressed in order to sustain

collective action. It is therefore necessary not only to involve them in the process but

also show benefits (tangible economic) to all sections of the community in the short

run as well. Evolution of appropriate institutions play a critical role in the

implementation and management of watershed interventions. Institutions are required

at various levels i.e., policy level to village level.

Evolution of watershed institutions varies across South Asia. Except in India and to some extent

in Nepal, watershed institutions have not evolved much, though most of the countries have

established specific departments for implementing watershed programmes at the national level.

However, institutional evolution is evident in some countries where watersheds were

implemented through donor support.

Except for India and Nepal none of the other countries in the region have formulated

systematic guidelines from national to village level. In fact, the absence of such

institutional set up is the main reason for low adoption of WSM projects in the

respective countries (Baloch and Tanik 2008; Gunawardane, Nd.). While Sri Lanka has

a watershed policy and guidelines, Pakistan and other countries are yet to formulate

27
their watershed policies. Sri Lanka though is moving towards people oriented policies,

they are not backed by institutional arrangements. Even the establishment of

watershed management committees doesn’t fit into the overall government policy,

which is against setting up new public institutions. As per the national watershed

management policy the watershed management committees represented by rural

committees and officers of the government institutions and watershed management

units under chief provincial secretaries would coordinate the activities of all agencies

at the rural, divisional, district, provincial and national levels (Gunawardane, Nd.).

Afghanistan has introduced participatory management of watersheds during 1990s but

could not provide appropriate policy and institutional support for strengthening the

social capital (Ahmad and Wasiq, 2004).

Thus, the countries in the region are at different levels of institutional arrangements

for implementing WSM programmes. Even the countries with appropriate institutional

arrangements, the implementation of watershed interventions are neither scientific

nor comprehensive. All the countries are moving towards participatory approaches.

Participatory approaches need to be backed by appropriate institutional arrangements

in order to achieve the objectives. Implementation of the programmes for enhancing

the livelihoods of the communities need to strengthen both technical and institutional

aspects. While countries like India and Nepal are yet to strengthen the technical

aspects in terms of integrating hydrogeology and biophysical aspects into watershed

design, others need to look at these aspects as they move towards formulating

watershed policies / guidelines and strengthening the watershed institutions.

28
Another important challenge faced at the implementation level in all the countries is

regarding equity in the distribution of benefits. The main benefit from WSM, as

perceived by the communities, is improved access to water. Due to the existing

property rights in land and water resources coupled with the agrarian structure access

to sub-surface water resources is unevenly distributed between households. Even

when land is distributed more evenly, the distribution and geometry of aquifers may

not be uniform. In most countries groundwater rights are linked to land rights, making

access to water further skewed, as every piece of land is not endowed with good

aquifer. In this regard, unless institutional arrangements are in place with clearly

defined property rights, it would be difficult to ensure equitable distribution of

benefits. Though most of the countries are moving towards incorporating livelihoods

components in order to ensure benefits to all sections of the community, not much is

done in terms of addressing the structural issues viz., property rights, sharing of water,

etc. Countries are yet to find viable policy options in this regard. For instance, India is

planning to move towards groundwater institutions during the 12th plan period but it

has a long way to go in making them effective at scale (Reddy, et. al., 2014).

VI Conclusions

WSM is being followed across the globe for more than a century to address soil and water

conservation and degradation problems. WSM in a comprehensive form is widely adopted in the

developed countries of America and Europe and termed as river basin or catchment management

for checking run-off and soil erosion in the catchments and protecting the rivers and reservoirs

29
from siltation. Most of the South Asian countries adopted these models of watershed

management to address similar problems (land degradation and reservoir protection) earlier.

However, India has adopted WSM with a different objective and approach. It has moved away

from the river basin or catchment management scale to protecting and enhancing the land

productivity in the rainfed areas focusing at a much smaller scale. Further, WSM is viewed as a

technological option (as green revolution for irrigated agriculture) for rainfed agriculture and

accorded high policy priority and fund allocations. In the process the scale issues of WSM are

largely neglected to achieve smooth implementation, as participation of local communities in the

programme is recognised as critical for its success. Micro watersheds are taken up at the village

level for better social organisation (participation). The focus on social aspects of WSM has led to

evolution of the programme into a more comprehensive rural development approach of

integrating livelihoods and production enhancement components as part of watershed

interventions. Though number of watersheds covering large areas are being implemented, the

technical aspects are not taken into account while selecting the watersheds for treatment. As a

result, the effectiveness of these interventions has been limited despite better social or

institutional outcomes.

Indian policy has transformed the WSM in many ways i.e., socially acceptable, economically

viable and ecologically sound. India’s experience in WSM is considered effective in addressing

the rural livelihoods as well as resource degradation issues in rainfed areas. The participatory and

livelihoods approach to WSM are now being adopted in most of the south Asian countries like

Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, etc., though some of these countries are yet to evolve in terms of

institutional aspects

30
Thus the experience of South Asia in watershed management has proved that it can be adopted as

an effective technology for addressing the broader aspects of soil and water conservation as well

as productivity and food security issues of rainfed regions. Given the high proportion of rainfed

agriculture in the region, WSM can provide a win-win situation when the broader aspects are

integrated within the rainfed context. Countries like Afghanistan are well placed to adopt such an

approach to protect soil and water resources and enhance production and productivity of rainfed

regions.

Though each country is unique in many respects, they can draw lessons from more than 3

decades of different experiences of South Asian countries. The following aspects need to be

considered in the context of WSM adoption on a wider scale:

➢ In low and medium rainfall regions watershed interventions should be targeted

towards enhanced livelihoods rather than improving the productivity alone. This

would ensure more broad based benefit flows and in turn would strengthen the social

acceptance and participation.

➢ The scale of the watershed is another area where careful planning is needed. Learning

from the experience of India and other countries placing watersheds at hydrological

scale and boundaries would ensure sustainability and realistic impacts. This requires

scientific delineation of watersheds in the first place. Implementation of watersheds

should be taken up in such a way that it would address both local (soil and water

conservation, improved productivity and livelihoods) and basin level issues (reduced

run off and soil erosion). India's recent approach of Meso scale (5000 ha.) watershed

31
 interventions covering crop lands are relatively more effective in terms of impacts on

livelihoods.

➢ Participatory approaches need to be made more science based- awareness building

and improving their capacities to understand and adopt technically sound

interventions rather than demanding quick and short term interventions. Given that

the awareness about watershed management is low among the communities,

concerted efforts are required to build awareness and gain acceptance for

implementing the interventions. This specifically required considering hydrogeology

and biophysical aspects in designing and implementing the watershed structures.

Involvement of community and ownership is critical for implementing effective

WSM. Any watershed programme with a recognized impact on downstream areas

should strongly consider a public awareness component to provide community

members a basic understanding of natural processes and how management can either

positively or negatively influence these.

➢ Resource sustainability and equity need to be built into WSM approaches. While

adopting scientific approach and scale in designing watershed interventions is

necessary for addressing the sustainability but it is not sufficient. Any successful

watershed intervention requires a combination of security/accessibility, clear land title

and control, and appropriate geologic and climatologic conditions that will permit

interventions to make a discernible difference (Groninger and Ruffner 2010).

Appropriate institutional arrangements for managing the resources i.e., access,

demand and use across socioeconomic groups need to be evolved. Such institutions

32
 need to be built around the existing institutions that are embedded in the culture of the

land.

➢ Countries with limited capacities in understanding and implementing the watershed

management approaches need capacity building at various levels. Identifying right

NGOs and encourage them to participate in the process would be a good starting

point.

References
Acharya B (2000); "Watershed Management in Nepal Recent Experiences and Lessons" Office
of Agriculture and Rural Development United States Agency for International
Development Kathmandu, Nepal, July.
Adolph, B and Turton,C. (1998), “Community Self-help Groups and Watersheds”, Partnerships
and Policies Programme Series. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Ahmad Masood and Mahwash Wasiq (2004); Water Resource Development in Northern
Afghanistan and Its Implications for Amu Darya Basin, World Bank Working Paper No.
36; The World Bank; Washington D. C.
Ahmad Shahid (2001); Watershed Management in Pakistan: Achievements And Issues; Paper
presented in the National Seminar on “Water Resources” October, organized by FFC,
Lahore.
Arya, S and Samra, J.S. (1995), “Socio-Economic Implications and Participatory Approach of
Integrated Watershed Management Project at Bunga”. Technical Bulletin No. T-27/C-6,
Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Research Centre,
Chandigarh, India, p 112.

Baloch Mansoor Ahmed, Ays¸egül Tanik (2008); Development of an Integrated Watershed

Management strategy for Resource Conservation in Balochistan Province of Pakistan
Desalination 226, 38–46 (doi:10.1016/j.desal.0000.00.000)
Batchelor, C. A. K. Singh, C. H. Rama Mohan Rao, and C. Butterworth. (2003), Watershed
Development: a Solution to Water Shortages or Part of the Problem? Land Use and
Water Resources Research 3:1-10.
Calder, I.R., (1991). Sri Lankan Link Programme – Hydrology component. Draft Tour Report
ODG 90\14.
Calder, I. R. (2005), Blue Revolution, Integrated Land and Water Resource Management, 2nd
edition. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

33
Calder, I., A. Gosain, M. S. Rama Mohan Rao, C. Batchelor, M. Snehylatha, and E.
Bishop. (2006), Planning Rainwater Harvesting in India – 1) Biophysical and Societal
Impacts. In National Workshop on Priorities for Watershed Management in India.
Bangalore, 22-23 May, Government of Karnataka and the World Bank.
Carson, B., (1989). Soil Conservation Strategies for Upland areas of Indonesia. Occasional Paper
No. 9 of the East-West Environment and Policy Institute, Honolulu.
Deshpande, R. S and Narayanamoorthy, A. (1998), “A Policy Review of Irrigation Sector in
Maharashtra”, in S.G. Bhanushali and A.G. Pujari (eds.), Changing Perspectives in
Indian Agriculture, published by R.R. Doshi Felicitation Committee, Kolhapur, pp. 120-
136.
Deshpande, R.S and Narayanamoorthy, A. (1999), “An Appraisal of Watershed Development
Programme Across Regions in India”, Artha Vijnana (whole issue), 41 (4): 415-515,
December.
Dixon J.A. (1992). Analysis and Management of Watersheds, in Partha Dasgupta and Karl-
Goran Maler (ed) The Environment and Emerging Development Issues, Vol.2, Clarendon
Press, Oxford.
Doolette, J.B. and Magrath, W.B., Eds., Watershed Developments in Asia: Strategies and
Technologies, World Book Technical Paper No. 127, Washington DC.
Doolette, J.B. and Smyle, J.W. (1990) Soil and Moisture Conservation Technologies: Review of
Literature. In: Doolette, J.B. and Magrath, W.B., Eds., Watershed Developments in Asia:
Strategies and Technologies, World Book Technical Paper No. 127, Washington DC.
Elkaduwa W. K. B. and R. Sakthivadivel (1998); Use of historical data as a decision support
tool in watershed management: A case study of the Upper Nilwala basin in Sri Lanka.
Research Report 26. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.
ESC (2001); Agriculture, Land and Desertification: Report of the Secretary General. Economic
and Social Council: United Nations.
Fan S, and Hazell P. (2000). Should developing countries invest more in less favoured areas? An
empirical analysis of rural India. Economic and political weekly, 35(17): 1455-1464.
FAO (2006), The new generation of watershed management programmes and projects, FAO
Forestry Paper 150, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
George B A., Malano H., Davidson B., Hellegers P., Bharathi L., Sylvian M. (2011). An
Integrated Hydro-Economic Modelling Framework to Evaluate Water Allocation
Strategies I: Model Development, Agricultural Water Management. 98 (5), 733-746.
Groninger, J; Charles M. Ruffner, S. Alan Walters (2013); "Sustaining Rural Afghanistan under
Limited Central Government Influence", Stability: International Journal of Security &
Development, 2(2): 24, pp. 1-13, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/sta.bk
Gunawardena Elgoda Ranawakage Nimal (Nd.) "Evolution of Watershed Management: The Sri
Lankan Experience", Proceedings of the Asian Regional Workshop on Watershed
Management (chapter 14). (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0270e/A0270E11.pdf)

34
Hanna S (1996); “Co-Management in Small-Scale Fisheries: Creating Effective Links Among
Stakeholders; International CBNRM Workshop, Washington, D.C., May
(http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/97605/conatrem/conatrem/documents/hann
a-Paper.pdf).
Joy K J and Paranjape, S. (2004), ‘Watershed Development Review: Issues and Prospects’,
Technical Report, Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development
(CISED), Institute for Economic and Social Change, Bangalore.
Joshi, P.K., Jha, A.K.,Wani, S.P., Joshi, L., and Shiyani, R.L. (2004). Meta-Analysis to Assess
Impact of Watershed Programme and People’s Participation, Comprehensive Assessment
Research Report No.8. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT), Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Kerr, J. M., Pangare, G., Lokur-Pangare, V., George, P. J. and Kolavalli, S. (1998), ‘The Role of
Watershed Projects in Developing India’s Rainfed Agriculture’. Report submitted to the
World Bank. IFPRI, Washington.
Massuel, S., George, BA., Venot, J P., Bharathi, L. 2013. Improving assessment of the
sustainable groundwater availability with deterministic modelling – A case study of Musi
sub-basin India, Hydrogeology Journal, Springer Verlag. 2013, Vol. 21, Issue 7, pp. 1567
- 1580.
Misbahuzzaman K (Nd.); Problems and Prospects of the Hilly Watersheds in Bangladesh:
Priorities for their Conservation; Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences,
Chittagong University, Chittagong, Bangladesh
(http://lib.icimod.org/record/12176/files/3539.pdf).
Nune, R., George B A., Western, A.W. 2014. Relating trends in streamflow to anthropogenic
influences: A case study of Himayat Sagar catchment, India. Water Resources
Management, 28 (6), 1579-1595.
Pingali, P. L. and Rosegrant, M. (2001): Intensive food systems in Asia: Can the degradation
problems be resolved? In: Lee, D.R., and Barrett, C.B (eds) Tradeoffs or synergies?
Agricultural intensification, economic development and the environment. CABI
publishing.
Ray Sunil and M. Bijarniya (2006), “Upstream vs Down Stream: Groundwater Management and
Rain Water Harvesting”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XLI, No. 23 June 10.
Reddy V. Ratna (2000); “Watershed Management for Sustainable Agricultural Development:
Need for an Institutional Approach”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXXV, No.
38, September 2000.
Reddy V. Ratna, et. Al. (2008); “Sustaining Rural Livelihoods in Fragile Environments:
Resource Endowments and Policy Interventions- A Study in the context of participatory
Watershed Development in Andhra Pradesh” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 63, No.2, April-June.
Reddy V. Ratna (2009); Water Security: Ecological Imperatives and Policy Initiatives,
Academic Foundation, New Delhi.

35
Reddy V. Ratna, M. Srinivasa Reddy and Sanjit Kumar Rout (2014); “Groundwater Governance:
A Tale of Three Participatory Models in Andhra Pradesh, India”, Water Alternatives, Vo.
7; Issue 2.
Reddy V. Ratna and Geoffrey J. Syme (2015); Integrated Assessment of Scale Impacts of
Watershed Intervention: Assessing Hydrological and Bio-physical Influences on
Livelihoods, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Reddy, V. Ratna., M. Gopinath Reddy and John Soussan (2010), Political Economy of
Watershed management: Policies, Institutions, Implementation and Livelihoods, Rawat
Publishers, Jaipur.
Reddy, V., Ratna., Reddy, M.G., Galab, S. and Springate-Baginski, O. (2001), “Watershed
Development and Livelihood Security: An Assessment of Linkages and Impact in
Andhra Pradesh, India”. Draft Report. CESS/University of Leeds.
Reddy V. Ratna, Reddy, M.G., Galab, S., Soussan, J and Springate-Briganski, O (2004),
“Participatory Watershed Development in India: Can it Sustain Rural Livelihoods?”
Development and Change, 35 (2):297-326, April.
Reddy, V Ratna; Rout, Sanjit Kumar and Chiranjeevi, T (2010a), The Impact Assessment Study
of Watershed Development Projects in Rajasthan, Project Report, Livelihoods and
Natural resource Management Institute, Hyderabad.
Rout, Sanjit Kumar (2013), Collective Action and Natural Resource Management: A Study of
Watershed Development in India, Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Centre for Economic
and Social Studies (CESS), BRAOU, Hyderabad.
Shah, A. (1998), ‘Watershed Development Programmes in India: Emerging Issues for
Environment Development Perspectives’, Economic and Political Weekly, 32(26), July.
Shah, A. (2001), Who benefits from participatory watershed development? Lessons from
Gujarat. IIED Gatekeeper Series No. 97, International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED), London.
Shah, A. (2009), Equity in the Impact of Watershed Development: Class, Gender and Regions, in
Impact of Watershed Management on Women and Vulnerable Groups. Proceedings of
the Workshop on Comprehensive Assessment of Watershed Programs in India (eds)
Amita Shah, Wani SP and Sreedevi TK, ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh,
India.
Singh, K, Sandhu, H. S., Singh, N and Kumar, B. (1993), “Kandi Watershed Development
Project: A Critical Evaluation,” Economic and Political Weekly, 28 (52): A122-A128.
Tiwari Krishna R; Roshan M. Bajracharya and Bishal K. Sitaula (2008); "Natural Resource and
Watershed Management in South Asia: A Comparative Evaluation with Special
References to Nepal" The Journal of Agriculture and Environment Vol:.9, June.
Tsering, K. (2011). A Roadmap for watershed management in Bhutan: From policy to practice;
Watershed Management Division; Department of Forests and Park Services; Ministry of
Agriculture and Forests Thimphu Bhutan.

36
Turton, C (2000). Enhancing Livelihoods Through Participatory watershed Development in
India. Working Paper 131,Overseas Development institute, London, UK.Development.
London: Routledge.
White, T. A. and C. F. Runge. (1995), The Emergence and Evolution of Collective Action:
Lessons from Watershed Management in Haiti. World Development, 23 (10):1683-1698.
World Bank. (2007), Watershed Management Approaches, Policies and Operations: Lessons for
Scaling-Up (draft report). Washington, DC: Agriculture and Rural Development
Department, World Bank.

37
Highlights:
i) Implementation of watershed interventions is neither scientific nor
comprehensive in south Asia.
ii) Need to strengthen the technical aspects in terms of integrating
hydrogeology and biophysical aspects into watershed design.
iii) Addressing the equity aspects of WSM remains a lacuna.
iv) Major policy changes are required in terms of property rights in
land and water resources.

38