How far do Watershed Development Activities (WSD) activities result in new livelihood opportunities? Are opportunities equitably distributed? How sustainable are they?

Management of natural resources has increasingly devolved to the community level over the last decade with strong support from the Indian government. Micro-watershed development is currently attracting over £300m a year of central government funding. Using the sustainable livelihoods approach, this Overseas Development Institute paper takes a fresh look at the impact of WSD on rural livelihoods.

WSD can offer new opportunities for livelihood strategies by supporting agricultural intensification. Increases in crop intensity can lead to the creation of new labour opportunities. Some of the most striking evidence of the positive benefits of intensification comes from livestock. Restrictions on access to Common Pool Resources have encouraged the move towards stall-feeding systems for small and large ruminants.

However while increases in agricultural productivity might occur as a result of WSD, this does not always mean good news for all. Men often appropriate on-farm gains and the increased workload involved maybe disproportionately borne by women. Choices relating to intensification may differ according to livelihood priorities: men frequently choose to increase the production of cash crops such as sugarcane and cotton whilst women may prefer food crops or vegetable production.

A Sustainable Livelihoods perspective provides an opportunity to stand back and explore in more detail how WSD affects the poor, and how impacts can be enhanced. Key findings include:

• Overall WSD can lead to substantial improvements in rural livelihoods but is not a cure-all solution. Productivity gains in pilot projects have not been achieved to the same extent on a wide scale: links between productivity gains and livelihoods is complex and poorly understood.
• WSD can provide opportunities for households to diversify into areas such as weaving, basket-making or mushroom cultivation. The scope for any increased contribution to livelihoods is likely to be limited though, as the market for artisanal products is often limited.
• WSD is not necessarily compatible with existing livelihood strategies: migration, for example, is a key means of diversifying in India. WSD involves the establishment of new institutions such as watershed committees and because migrants are by definition often absent, they will be marginalized from decision-making processes.
• Productivity gains can actually work against the livelihood strategies of certain groups. For instance, restricting access to CPRs to improve grassland productivity denies the poor access to a valuable resource. The question remains whether the short-term losses in terms of access to CPRs are outweighed by the longer-term gains.

In reality, although WSD can play an important role in generating new livelihood opportunities it is not a panacea. By its very nature it will have more to offer some groups than others – those with access to natural capital, with good social capital, for example. Far more can be done, however, to ensure a more equitable distribution of new opportunities.

To improve the design, implementation and follow-up of WSD projects, policy suggestions include strengthening:

• human capital at two broad levels: a) a longer pre-investment period to create and support ‘local’ focus groups and b) stronger capacity building for the staff of government agencies
• financial capital: inter alia, the creation of small locally-managed savings and credit groups allows poor people to break free from moneylenders
• links between project and policy: opportunities need to be created for partnerships between NGOs and government and for close collaboration among different government departments, and between state and central government bodies.

Source(s):
‘Enhancing livelihoods through participatory watershed development in India’ ODI Working Paper #131, by C. Turton (2000) Full document.
‘Learning Processes: The approach of OUTREACH’ in Participatory watershed development: challenges for the 21st Century edited by J. Farrington et al New Delhi and Oxford: OUP by J. Mascarenhas (1998)

Funded by: DFID (Rural Livelihoods Department)

id21 Research Highlight: 31 May 2001

Further Information:
Cate Turton
The IDL Group PO Box 20
Crewkerne
Somerset TA18 7YW
UK

Contact the contributor: lidct@compuserve.com

Other related links:
'Reaching a watershed? Local government reform and water management in India'

'Confluence of interests. Object lessons from India in participatory watershed management'

'Water policy watershed? Rehabilitating rain-fed wastelands in India'

WRI aims to improve human access to clean water and reverse watershed degradation

IWMI supports better water resource management for food security and poverty eradication

FAO promotes efficient use of water resources to achieve sustainable agriculture and rural development