natural resource management with people participation … · study area: chitradurga district of...

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WITH PEOPLE PARTICIPATION - A KEY TO

BRING AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT

Dr.S.S.Dolli and Dr.H.B.Babalad University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad

University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, India, www.uasd.edu.in

Outline of presentation:

• Natural Resource Management and agriculture production – global trends and Indian scenario

• Objective and Methodology of the study

• NRM interventions and approach

• Crop improvement interventions

• Results

• Conclusions


Natural resource use- Global perspective • Agricultural production systems depend on natural

resources land (over 55 percent of Non forest land), water (about 80 percent of total fresh water),

biodiversity, forests,pastures, and wildlife • Farm activities can also have major impacts on the

quality and availability of these resources well beyond the boundaries of the production system (Example, downstream pollution and soil erosion)

• Rural livelihoods closely linked to the condition of natural resources, (1.3 billion people living on fragile lands)

(World bank, 2006)


•Food production doubled in 40 years •20 million hectares of Agricultural land going out of production each year due to soil erosion (approximately 40 percent of the world’s crop land is degraded. •Irrigated agriculture consumes about 70 percent of the total volume of fresh water used by humans (World Bank, 2006)


NRM- Indian scenario

• India is the seventh largest country - 2.2 % world

geographical land and sustaining more than 17 % of

world population.

• 85% holdings (117.6million)- small and marginal

92.8 million marginal farmers with average holding size

of 0.4ha (80%) (2010-11 census)

• Total geographical area 328 million ha

146.8 million ha (44.8%) land is degraded due to

deforestation, desertification, soil erosion, loosening soil

structure, salinization, water logging and nutrient

deficiencies.

• Slowdown in agricultural growth rate and its contribution

to gross domestic product (14.6%)


Description Area (million ha)

Total geological area 328

Area affected by water erosion 93.7

Area affected by wind erosion 9.5

Area affected by water logging 14.3

Area affected by salinity/alkalinity 5.9

Area affected by soil acidity 16.0

Area affected by complex problem 7.4

Total degraded area 146.8

EXTENT OF LAND DEGRADATION IN INDIA

Bhattacharyya et al. (2015)


Study area: Chitradurga district of Karnataka

Sample : Random sample of participant farmers

Data enumeration :

Focused group discussion Personal interview method, records

Study objective and Methodology Objective: To study impact of community participation in natural resource management in turn on crop production activities


Profile of the study villages

2% 6%

9%

18%

65%

Large ( > 10 ha.) Medium (4 – 10 ha.)

Lower medium (2-4 ha.) Small (1-2 ha)

Very small (0-1 ha)

Project area: Chitradurga district of Karnataka No. of villages : 5 No of families : 1187 Land area : 3126 ha Land terrain : Highly sloppy (4-15 % slope) Soil types: Red loamy/ sandy soils/ medium black Irrigated area: V Low (<5 %) Rainfall : 550 mm


Fruits and Vegetable consumption pattern in project villages

Food grains 78%

Oil and spices

5%

Fruits 3%

Vegetables

10%

Meat 4%

Proportion of fruits and vegetable consumption by rural families per

month

Food grains 59% Oil and

spices 16%

Fruits 2%

Vegetables

12%

Meat 11%

Proportion of family expenditure on fruits and vegetables(Rs.)


Project approach for community participation in NRM

• PRA tools in planning and monitoring

• People institutions

(Livelihood committees)

• People contribution


Social map and resource maps-digitization and GIS application


University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, India,www. uasd.edu.in

Watershed treatment taken up in project villages

Year

Villages

T.NHalli B.NHalli Megalhalli Madekeripur Total

Area

(ha)

No. of

farmers

Area

(ha)

No. of farmers

Area

(ha)

No. of farmers

Area

(ha)

No. of farmers

Area

(ha)

No. of farmers

2008-09 315 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 315 81

2009-10 239 97 115 87 205 79 271 77 830 340

2010-11 243 102 185.25 67 152 57 608 140 1186.6 366

Total 797 280 300.25 154 357 136 879 217 2331.6 747


Households and area covered under watershed

2008-09

2010-110

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

T.N

.Hal

li

B.N

.Hal

li

Me

ghal

ahal

li

Mad

aker

ipu

ra

Tota

l

Villages

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

Total

2008-09

2010-110

100200300400500600700800900

1000

T.N

Hal

li

B.N

Hal

li

Me

galh

alli

Mad

eke

rip

ur

Tota

l

Vilages

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

Total


Details of watershed treatments undertaken in different villages

Sl. No Treatments Nos./trenche

cum bunds Rmt

1 Graded bunds (0.72 sectional

area)

28764 158846

2 Waste weirs ( boulder type) 370 6573.4

3 Farm ponds 13 -

4 checks 7 m length 25 289.74

5 Rubble filled checks 8m length 12 84

6 Rock filled dam (15 mt length) 20 -

7 Bund covered with grass seeds - 56000

8 Earthen bund - 23328

9 Trenches 3888 -

10 bund - 116.81


Different watershed treatments adopted

Graded bunds (0.72 sectional area), 28764

Waste weirs ( boulder type), 370

Farm ponds, 13

checks 7 m L, 25

Rubble filled checks 8m L,

12

Rock filled dam (15 mt length), 20

Trenches , 3888

People contribution for watershed interventions

Sl.No Villages Contribution (Rs.)

2009-10 2010-11

1 Tanigehali 7500 49900

2 B.N.Halli 18500 37850

3 Madakeripur 25000 112300

4 Megalhalli 20500 14667

Total 71500 214717

University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, India, uasd.edu.in

Impact of watershed treatments on yield of field crops

S.No crops Average yield

(kgs/ha)

Difference

(kgs)

Percentage Addition

al income

(Rs.) Before After

1 Maize 4565 4827.5 262.5 5.75 3200

2 Pigeonpea 65 182.5 117.5 180.42 6000

4565

4827.5

262.5

65

182.5

117.5

Before

After

Difference

Yiel

d in

K.G

per

hac

tare

Impact of watershed treatments on crop yield

Tur Maize


Water harvesting within the bunds

Particulars Average

No of times 3

Height (feet) 1.23

Distance (meter) 2.41


Perceived benefits of watershed development interventions

at the end of the project. n=80

SL.NO Benefits Frequency Percentage

1 Increased ground water level 25 31.25

2 Water flow in the nala. 8 10.00

3 Leveled land 58 72.50

4 No moisture stress to the crop 34 42.50

5 Grass availability to the

livestock

42 52.50

6 Checks fertilizers drain out

from the field.

8 10.00

7 Reduction in soil erosion 61 76.25

8 Water conservation 46 57.50

9 Increasing moisture holding

capacity of soil 17 21.25

10 Good crop stand in dry spell 4 5.00

11 Increase in yield 29 36.25

12 Increase in ground water level 64 80.00


Crop improvement-

Farmers practices • maize and pigeon pea

intercropping with row proposition of 6:1, 5:1 and 8:1.

• Higher seed rate in maize up to 20 kg/ha with narrow spacing followed in maize + pigeon pea inter crop

( 45 x30 cm) • Imbalanced use of major

nutrients and no micronutrient application

New interventions

• Maize and pigeonpea intercrop 4:2

• New variety introduction and appropriate spacing

• Nutrient management


Interventions: Intercrop Maize + pigeon pea , new variety of pigeon pea and nutrient mgt

SN Villages Coverage during the

project period

HH Area (ha)

1 Meghalahalli 129 188

2 B.N.Halli 136 139

3 Konanur 24 25

4 Madikeripur 230 245

5 Tenigehalli 312 314

Total 831 911


Comparison of yield of improved method and farmers practice

SI.No. Village name

Improved practice Farmers practice

Avg. yield (kg/ha) Avg. yield(kg/ha) Maize Pigeon pea Maize Pigeon pea

1 B.N.Halli 4625 245 4250 102

2 Meghalahalli 4700 280 4500 145

3 Konanur 5000 250 4725 167

4 Madakeripura 4750 192 4000 130

5 Tenagihalli 4500 262 4500 137

S.N Maize yield kg/ha % increase Pigeon pea yield kg/ha % increase

Local Improved Local Improved

1 4395 4715 6.78 136.2 245.8 44.58


Knowledge and symbolic adoption of maize + tur demonstration farmers

n=80

SI. No. Particulars

Knowledge Symbolic Adoption

F % F %

a New variety 79 98.75 58 72.50

b Time of sowing 78 97.50 38 47.50

c Spacing 35 43.75 28 35.00

d Seed rate 73 91.25 29 36.25

e Seed treatment 13 16.25 12 15.00

f 1) Organic Fertilizers 55 68.75 10 12.50

g 2)Chemical fertlizer

Quantity(kg) 47 58.75 17 21.25

f Bio fertilizer 25 31.25 20 25.00

i Insect control 24 30.00 20 25.00


Adoption of improved practices by farmers

SL.NO Practices Frequency Percentage

1 Tur variety(Maruti/BRG-2) 80 100

2 Maize variety(Arjun) 36 45

3 Inter crop (Maize+tur 4:2) 80 100

4 Zinc sulphate 28 35

5 Rhizobium 20 25

6 Azospirilum 20 25

7 P.S.B 20 25


Conclusion and policy implication: • Community mobilization can be driven with NRM interventions

mainly soil and water conservation, which in turn result in crop intensification and diversification.

• Community participation in NRM and crop management result in higher level of adoption of conservation and crop production practices.

• Private investments (Farmers) in natural resource development increases participation and ownership building.

• Investment on NRM can be recovered in three year period.(per ha expenditure of Rs 12500/-).

• Change in cropping system and low cost technologies ensure higher productivity and income (25 to 50 percent).

• Adoption level is higher in case of the practices which contribute to the yield and net income.

Participatory approach should necessarily involve participatory tools, people institutions and cash contribution.

NRM interventions have direct and long term effect on crop productivity improvement and resource conservation.


We acknowledge the support and assistance of 1.Community members for providing information 2.UAS Dharwad for giving an opportunity to carry out the research

project 3. SESAGOA Ltd. for financial assistance and cooperation 3. Co-principal investigator and Project staff

Thank you

University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, India,www. uasd.edu.in

natural resource management with people participation … · study area: chitradurga district of...

Documents