state of environment and natural resources 2006 -...
TRANSCRIPT
State of Environment and Na tural Resources 2006
C M Shastri, Deepak M Shetti, G N Hegde, G T Hegde,
Prabhakar R Bhat, S G Patgar, N H Ravindranath
Uttara Kannada District, Karnataka
Sirsimakki Village Ecosystem
Indian Institute of ScienceBangalore 560012
India Canada Environment FacilityNew Delhi 110066
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012CES
State of Environment and
Natural Resources 2006
Sirsimakki Village Ecosystem
Uttara Kannada District, Karnataka
North Sahyadris and Western Karnataka Plateau
Centre for Sustainable Technologies,Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012
Sirsimakki Village Ecosystem; State of Environment and Natural Resources 2006
Centre for Ecological Sciences,
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012
Published by
Centre for Sustainable TechnologiesIndian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012Karnataka, India.
Year of publication
2007
Team–CES
C M Shastri, Deepak M Shetti, G N Hegde, G T Hegde,Prabhakar R Bhat, S G Patgar
Team–CST
Deepa Kumar, Girish A C, Hameedulla Khan, Mythri D J, Sannadurgappa S D
Coordinated by
N H Ravindranath, Prabhakar R Bhat, Indu K Murthy, Rakesh Tiwari
Supported by
India Canada Environment FacilityNew Delhi 110066
Collaborating Institutions
Dr. Sandhya Rao, INRM Consultants Pvt. Ltd., New DelhiProf. K Kameshwar Rao, Andhra University, VisakhapatnamDr. Ramakrishna Parama, University of Agricultural Sciences, BangaloreDr. P Pramod, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, CoimbatoreDr. Shailaja Ravindranath, Centre for Environment Education South, Bangalore
Contact
N H RavindranathCentre for Sustainable TechnologiesIndian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012Karnataka, [email protected]
Acknowledgement
The invaluable support provided by the people of Sirsimakki is deeply appreciated. The cooperation of GramPanchayat of Yadalli, Revenue Department, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department and ForestDepartment of Sirsi is deeply acknowledged. We would also like to acknowledge the technical support extendedby Mr. Mariappa Raju and Mr. K R Thiruppathi. We thank Y Joshi for editing the draft report andMr. Rozario M Furtado for ably assisting us during field work.
Report available online: URL: http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/ravi/vnrm/Home.html
Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................1
2. Demography and Rainfall ...........................................................................4
3. Land ................................................................................................................6
4. Forests ............................................................................................................11
5. Livestock ....................................................................................................... 13
6. Water ............................................................................................................15
7. Soil ................................................................................................................. 17
8. Birds, Large Mammals and Fish Resources ..............................................18
9. Energy and Sanitation ................................................................................20
10. Summary ....................................................................................................... 22
1
1. Introduction
Conservation and sustainable
management of natural resources
are fundamental to sustainable food
production, water supply and livelihoods.
Natural resources such as land,
biodiversity, water, livestock and soil are
being continuously exploited by human
societies often leading to the
degradation of these resources. Village
ecosystems are complex systems
with inter-linkages between natural
resources as well as livelihoods of
communities.
The state of environment and natural
resource report of a village focuses on
major natural resources, its status and
trends over the years and also the
inter-linkages. With this understanding,
the report highlights key environmental
issues with implications for resource,
livelihoods and sustainability. To
understand the status and trends,
indicators were identified and an
inventory of the natural resources
carried out. Agro-ecological zone (AEZ)
approach has been adopted in selecting
the village, taking into consideration the
key features of the selected AEZ and the
representativeness of the village. This
facilitates understanding of the strata of
the sub-AEZ in which the village is
located. This report serves as a model
and has been generated adopting the
indicators and methods developed by
the Indian Institute of Science for
monitoring natural resources.
The report presents general information
of the village in the initial section.
Subsequent sections systematically
address the status of various resources,
and the final section concludes with a
synthesis of the findings which identifies
inter-linkages of various resources and
environmental issues.
1.1. Utility of a State of theEnvironment Report
This state of environment and natural
resource report is of importance to:
� Policy makers at regional, state and
national level to design strategies
and policies to conserve natural
resources.
� District / block / panchayat level
planners and decision makers.
� Development departments such as
forests, agriculture, pasture
development, water resource,
environment etc., to promote
sustainable practices.
� Educational institutions to create
awareness.
1.2. Agro-Ecological ZoneApproach
India is a large country with diverse
temperature, rainfall, soil, vegetation
type and socio-economic conditions.
India has been categorized into 20
AEZs based on rainfall, moisture and
temperature regimes, soil type, land
form, etc.
AEZ categorization is based on the
Length of the Growing Period (LGP),
which is derived from climate, soil and
topography data with water balance
model and knowledge of the crop
requirements.
AEZ approach is globally adopted by FAO
for all forest, cropland and other land
resource related planning activities. The
AEZ and village ecosystem approach has
been adopted in this study due to the
following reasons:
� Approach widely used by the
Planning Commission, Agriculture
2
Ministry, National Bureau for Soil
Survey and Land-use Planning,
Agricultural universities, etc.
� Functional interdependence among
the natural resources (forests,
watersheds, grasslands, water
bodies, livestock, cropland, soil) at
village environment level in each
AEZ.
� Decision-making on use and
management of natural resources
such as forests, biodiversity, grazing
lands and irrigation water occurs at
village environment level.
� Participatory institutions such as
water sanghas, forest protection
committees, biodiversity
management committees, etc., are
organized and function at village
level.
� AEZ does not recognize the
administrative boundaries; E.g.,
Western Ghat evergreen forests
occur in several states, rivers pass
through several states.
� The current study has been taken up
in Sirsimakki village of Uttara
Kannada district.
1.3. Village Location
Sirsimakki village (14°34'6'' - 14°35'58'' N
and 74° 47' 4'' to 74° 48' 57'' E) is about 50
km from the western coast; 540–600 m
above the mean sea level and a part of
the hilly regions of the Western Ghats. It
falls in Uttara Kannada district of
Karnataka (Figure 1). The village is 8 km
from Sirsi, which is the nearest town. The
village consists of four hamlets, namely
Sirsimakki, Halasnalli, Sahasralli and
Melina Tumbemane spread over 384
hectares of undulating land.
The village falls in the sub AEZ 6.4
characterized as North Sahyadris and
Western Karnataka Plateau with
150–180 days of LGP. The soil is shallow
and medium loamy and clayey black
(deep clayey black soils as inclusion).
Figure 1: Location of Sirsimakki
KARNATAKA
UTTARA KANNADA
SIRSIMAKKI
1.4. Reason for SelectingSirsimakki
Sirsimakki was selected for the study
because of following reasons:
� Sirsimakki is a typical village of a hilly
region in Western Ghats having
characteristic land-use system with
multiple cropping pattern, high
rainfall and rich natural forests.
� The village represents stabilized
land-use and cropping patterns,
intensive use of natural resources
and changes in livestock
composition over the years.
� Past information on some aspects of
natural resources for one of the
hamlets of the village was available.
� Indian Institute of Science field
station is located about 12 km from
3
� Secondary records for data on
rainfall, population, land-use pattern
and livestock.
� Land survey to map different
land-use systems as well as estimate
area to enable comparison with past
data and to understand changes in
land-use pattern.
� Household survey to obtain
information on cropping pattern,
water sources, fuelwood
catchment area, and consumption
pattern.
� Field measurements for estimating
fuelwood and water consumption
and assessment of fish resource and
diversity.
� Vegetation survey to estimate
the species composition and
biomass of different forest types.
� Laboratory measurements to assess
the quality of drinking water sources
and the status of soil organic carbon.
� Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
to gather detailed and qualitative
descriptions of village resources,
patterns of use, trends and changes
in the status of resources over the
years.
1.7. Monitoring Period
The study was conducted during
October 2006 to April 2007, which is
referred to as the “current” period in
the report. The land cover and cropping
details described refer to the main
cropping season, i.e. kharif (June to
November). Since most of the cultivated
area is under perennial crops the
cropping details do not vary significantly
during any particular year.
the village and the staff have
good rapport with the village
communities.
� There is a scope to institutionalize
and conduct long-term monitoring
of natural resources due to the
presence of cooperative village
community, NGOs such as Sahyadri
Parisara Vardhini, Technonology
Demonstration Centre, Prakruthi,
and Indian Institute of Science Field
Station.
1.5. Natural ResourcesMonitored
The resources monitored in Sirsimakki
village ecosystem are:
� Demography: Population, land
holding and occupation pattern.
� Climate: Rainfall.
� Land : Cropland, grazing land, forest
lands and agro-forestry.
� Water bodies: Streams, open wells,
borewells.
� Soil: Soil organic carbon status.
� Livestock: Population, breeds,
grazing pattern and dung
production.
� Wildlife: Birds and large mammals.
� Fish resources: Diversity, production
and consumption pattern.
� Settlements and Infrastructure:
Sanitation, electrification status
housing areas and roads.
1.6. Methods Adopted
Several studies were conducted using
different methods to obtain information
on all major components of the natural
resources of the village. They include:
4
2. Demography and Rainfall
2.1. Population
2.1.1. Current
• 158 households account for a total
population of 699 with 255 male, 284
female and 160 children. The
average household size is 4.4.
• Population density is 189 per square
kilometre of land area.
2.1.2. Trends
• Number of households has almost
doubled since 1971 and is currently
158.
• There is 10% decrease in population
during the same period from 780 to
699 currently (Figure 2).
2.1.3. Factors Contributing
• Fragmentations within resident
families and establishment of a new
settlement of landless families have
resulted in increase in the number
of households.
Figure 2: Trends in population
Figure 3: Current land holding
• Increased awareness among
communities, reduced family size
and out migration of local
population to some extent.
2.2. Occupation andLand Holding Pattern
2.2.1. Current Status
• Farming has been the traditional
and main occupation of the village
communities with horticulture and
agriculture practiced on lands
situated in the valley.
• About 100 households with 67% of
total population of the village own
cultivable lands and practice
mainly horticulture and agriculture.
• About 38% of the population are
landless and depend on agricultural
labour and other occupations.
• 7% of the households are marginal
farmers1, 23% small farmers and 32%
of them large farmers (Figure 3).
1 In Uttara Kannada district, farmers are categorised as marginal, small and large on the basis of holding of dry
lands that are called as khushki lands. Paddy lands and areca gardens are considered as irrigated lands.
Farmers with less than 2.5 acres of dry lands are categorised as marginal farmers, those with greater then 2.5
acres and less than 5 acres are small farmers and large farmers are those with more than 5 acres of dry lands.
5
Figure 4: Distribution of rainfall in 2005
• Nearly 86% of annual rainfall occurs
from June to September, July being
the peak month.
• The average annual rainfall of Uttara
Kannada district is 2700 mm and that
of Sirsi taluk is 2500 mm.
• Nearest rain gauge station to the
village is situated in Sirsi which has a
mean annual rainfall of 2130 mm.
• The rainfall recorded during 2005
was 2609 which is 22% more than the
district average, highest in the past
seven years.
2.3.2. Trends in Rainfall
• Average annual rainfall over the
years has been normal without any
major fluctuation (Figure 5).
• Number of actual rainy days has
come down over the years.
2.3.3. Implications
• Normal rainfall has greatly helped
farming activities.
• Long rainy season has resulted in
ground water recharge and regular
water supply almost throughout the
year.
Figure 5: Trends in annual rainfall
• Main occupations of men are
farming (58%), agriculture labour
(33%), and others are engaged in
carpentry, barber, construction
labour and other business.
• People are also engaged in
secondary occupations such as
beekeeping and animal husbandry
(7%).
• Animal husbandry is an important
subsidiary occupation with 53% of
households practicing it.
2.3. Rainfall
2.3.1. Current Rainfall Pattern
• Most of rainfall occurs during
southwest monsoon with
july being the peak (Figure 4).
6
3. Land
3.1. Land Use
Sirsimakki vil lage is situated at an
altitude of 540-600 m above mean sea
level with an undulating topography. It
is surrounded by villages Heepanalli in
the north, Mundgesara and Karsulli in the
east, Hanumanti on the west and Urtota
and Amblihonda on the south. The
village supports rich forests and fertile
agricultural lands. Total geographical
area of the village is 384 ha. Major
land-use features are forest, croplands,
settlement, wasteland, grazing land,
revenue land and water bodies
including stream and tanks (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Current land use
7
3.1.1. Current Land Use
• About 285 ha of forest occupy 74%
of total land cover of the village.
• About 72 ha cropland accounts for
19%.
• Khushki lands which are non-arable
private lands account for about 4%.
• Settlements, wasteland, grazing
and revenue lands together
account for the rest 3%.
3.1.2. Trends in Land-Use
• There have been no major changes
in the land-use of the village and is
more or less stable over the past
three decades (Figure 7).
• Area under crops and settlement
has marginally increased.
• About 2% (4 ha) of forest land was
converted to cropland.
• About 36 ha of forest plantation was
raised during 1990 on reserve
forest and betta forest (refer
Section 4.3).
3.1.3. Factors Contributing
• Awareness among the communities
to sustain the forest resource.
• Management practices adopted for
maintaining betta lands.
Figure 7: Trends in land-use
• Assured returns from areca.
• Stringent forest regulations.
3.2. Grazing Land
3.2.1. Current Status
• Since, village does not have any
dedicated grazing land, forest lands
serve as grazing lands.
• About 50% of total forest lands are
available to livestock for grazing
throughout the year.
• About 25% of forest lands are
available for grazing between
December and June since these
areas would be closed for grazing
to promote grass production during
the months of July to November, to
promote grass growth.
• About 5 ha (30%) of paddy lands in
Sirsimakki and Sahasralli hamlets are
used for grazing after the harvest of
kharif paddy till the onset of
monsoon.
3.2.2. Trends
• Grazing pressure decreased in
recent years due to increased stall
feeding.
• Farmers prefer stall feeding of
crossbred cows and in some cases
are forced to stall feed even
indigenous cows due to
degradation of grazing lands.
8
3.2.3. Implications
• Decreased grazing pressure in
recent years provides scope for
improvement and regeneration of
grazing lands or forest lands.
3.3. Cropland
3.3.1. Current Cropping Pattern
• Farmers grow both perennial and
seasonal crops in cultivated lands
situated in the valley.
• Major crops include areca on about
45 ha (62%) and 15 ha paddy (21%).
• Banana, pepper, cardamom and
vanilla are grown along with areca
as intercrops.
• Coconut (6%), cashew (5%), mango,
and banana (2%) are other crops on
dry lands (Figure 8).
3.3.2. Trends
• There is a marginal increase in
cropland area with 4 ha of forest
lands converted into cropland
mainly banana, coconut, and areca
in the past 15 years.
• About 15% of the paddy lands
(2.3 ha) have been converted
into areca garden in the past 20
years.
• 7 ha of khushki land have been
converted into croplands
with crops such as coconut and
cashew.
Figure 8: Major crops
• Vanilla, a cash crop has become
popular since 2000 and generally is
grown in areca garden as a mixed
crop.
• Hybrid variety of banana – G9 is
being grown in betta forests lands
with irrigation (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Changes in cropping pattern
Areca
9
3.3.3. Factors Contributing
• Since, paddy crop is less economical
and its cultivation is labour
intensive, farmers have converted
paddy land into areca garden.
3.3.4. Implications
• Area under commercial crop like
areca has increased by 7%.
• Increase in area under areca has
lead to increased pressure on forests
for green manure or plant resources
since areca cultivation requires lot
of organic inputs.
3.4. Crop Varieties
3.4.1. Current Status
• Traditional crop varieties are more
common.
• Areca variety cultivated currently
is only traditional or local variety.
• In paddy, both traditional (in 70% of
houesholds) and high yielding
varieties are cultivated.
• Traditional varieties of banana,
cardamom and coconut are grown.
• Paniyur, high yielding variety of
pepper is common.
• High yielding variety of paddy - Jaya,
is also grown along with traditional
varieties like hegge, halaga,
aloorsanna, mysoorsanna.
• New banana variety G9 (GRANDE 9)
is grown on an area of 2 ha apart
from traditional varieties.
3.4.2. Factors Contributing
• Hybrid banana crop has been
introduced because of early
maturity and better yield.
• Paniyur variety of pepper is grown
for its better yield, resistance to
diseases, and also ease of
management.
3.4.3. Implications
• G-9 banana and paniyur pepper
have given better yield and
economic returns.
• However, crop area under some
traditional varieties of paddy
(Halaga, Hegge), pepper like
mallisara, is reduced.
3.5. Manure and FertilizerApplication
3.5.1. Current Status
• People use mainly farm yard manure
(FYM) for their croplands.
• Only 13% of land holding households
use inorganic fertilizer for areca,
paddy and banana.
3.6. Pests, Diseases andPesticide Application
3.6.1. Current Status
• Areca: Koleroga, a fungal disease
has been reported by 100% of the
areca cultivating households.
° Bordeaux mixture is applied at
the rate of 15 kg/ha.
• Paddy: Blast (benkiroga) and neck
blast (bilikole) are the common
diseases, reported by all households
that are cultivating paddy.
° Enosan is applied at the rate of
2.5 litre/ha to control blast.
• Coconut: All households reported
mites (Aceria guerreronis)
infestation or nusiroga.
• Banana: Bunchy top of banana was
reported by 100% of the banana
cultivating households.
3.6.2. Implications
• Because of koleroga disease,
farmers sometimes incur heavy loss
in yield up to 25% to 40%.
10
3.7. Crop Yields
3.7.1. Trends in Crop Yields
• Areca: 25% of households reported
decrease in yield where as others
responded that there is no change
over the past 5 years.
• Paddy: About 100% households
cultivating paddy reported that
there was no change in the yield of
paddy over the past 5 years.
• Banana: About 66% banana
cultivating households reported
decrease in yield and others
reported no change over the past 5
years.
3.7.2. Factors Contributing
• Decrease in yield of areca was
mainly due to koleroga disease.
• Farmers experienced loss in yield of
banana due to bunchy top disease.
• Other important diseases and pests
that have affected crop yields are
wilt in pepper, mites infestation in
coconut.
3.7.3. Implications
• Increased application of pesticides
leading to soil degradation.
• Loss in yield of banana and other
crops has caused economic loss.
Table 1: Agro-forestry tree composition
Species Trees/ha Total
number
Cocos nucifera 7 298
Artocarpus integrifolia 5 246
Mangifera indica 5 234
Holigarna arnottiana 3 132
Caryota urens 3 129
Vateria indica 2 76
Aporosa lindleyana 1 67
Citrus reticulata 1 59
Myristica fragrans 1 47
Lonicera malabaricum 1 35
Others (121species) 17 754
3.8. Agro-forestry
3.8.1. Current Status
• Agro-forestry is practiced in the
form of bund planting along areca
garden and paddy field on an area
of about 72 ha.
• It is dominated by economically
important species like coconut, jack
fruit, mango and nutmeg. Also, there
are wild or forest trees species such
as Holigarna arnottiana, Caryota
urens and Vateria indica.
• Major products are nuts, and fruits.
Other important uses of these
species are protection to the
cultivated lands, shade and soil
protection.
11
4. Forests
Sirsimakki village consists of natural
forests as well as forest plantations. The
village consists of three categories of
natural forests namely reserve forests,
minor forests and protected forests.
These natural forests are of tropical semi
evergreen type.
4.1. Reserve Forests
4.1.1. Current Status
• Forests are under the control and
management of Karnataka Forest
Department.
• The area under reserve forest is 7 ha.
• Access to forest produce by the
farmers is restricted.
• Any kind of non-forestry activities in
these forests is banned.
• The major species include Acacia
auriculiformis, Xantolis tomentosa,
Holigarna arnottiana and Casuarina
equisetifolia, which totally account
for 87% of the total.
4.1.2. Trends
• Only a third of the area (3 ha) support
natural vegetation.
• The remaining area has been partly
encroached by farmers and in the
rest 5 ha acacia, plantations have
been raised by the Forest
Department.
4.2. Minor Forests
4.2.1. Current Status
• Minor forests are under the
ownership and control of the Forest
Department but communities have
access rights.
• People collect dry, dead and fallen
forest produce like fuelwood, dry
leaves, grass, non-timber forest
products (NTFPs), etc.
• Grazing is allowed on these lands.
• Currently, an area of 0.73 ha minor
forest is present in the village.
4.3. Soppinabetta
Betta or soppinabetta (soppina means
leaves and betta means an area or
hil lock with vegetation in local
language) is the local name of the
protected forest adopted in the Indian
Forest Act. The Betta forests are
assigned to farmers for the purpose of
supplying organic matter in the form of
green and dry leaves to areca gardens.
This special privilege was extended to
areca farmers by the British during 1867
with some regulations facilitating
optimal and sustainable use of these
forests. The farmers have the privilege
of collecting green leaves for the
purpose of mulch, fuelwood, grass, NTFPs,
small timber for their bonafide use.
About 6-9 ha of betta lands were
assigned per hectare of areca garden.
Any type of commercial level extraction
is banned in these forests.
4.3.1. Current Status
• Total extent of betta forests in
Sirsimakki is 278 ha, constituting
about 95% of the total forest lands
in the village.
• Forests are continuous and are
spread across 140 survey numbers
of the village.
• A network of about 7 km long road
running through the forest divides
the forest into eight fragments.
12
• The major species include Aporosa
lindleyana, Terminalia tomentosa,
Careya arborea and Terminalia
paniculata, which totally account
for 64% of the total (Table 2).
4.3.2. Trends
• About 36 ha of forest plantation
dominated by Acacia auriculiformis
were raised on betta lands between
1988-1990.
Table 2: Major tree species in reserve forest and soppinabetta
Reserve forest Soppinabetta
Trees/ha Percent Trees/ha Percent
Acacia auriculiformis 396 73 Aporosa lindleyana 122 28
Xantolis tomentosa 32 6 Terminalia tomentosa 62 15
Holigarna arnottiana 26 5 Careya arborea 47 11
Casuarina equisetifolia 14 3 Terminalia paniculata 41 10
Aporosa lindleyana 8 1 Eugenia jambolana 31 7
Nothopegia colebrookiana 6 1 Bassia latifolia 20 5
Lagerstroemia lanceolata 6 1 Lophopetalum wightianum 14 3
Flacourtia montana 6 1 Eugenia umbellata 12 3
Careya arborea 4 1 Buchanania lanzan 12 3
Mimusops elengi 4 1 Terminalia chebula 9 2
Others (17 species) 38 7 Others (32 species) 59 14
Total 100 Total 100
13
5. Livestock
5.1. Livestock Population
5.1.1. Current Population
• Of the total 158 households, 53%
households mostly landowners
maintain livestock.
• Total livestock population is 278 with
crossbred 100, indigenous cows 83,
buffaloes 61 and bullocks 16
(Figure 10).
Figure 10: Current livestock population
• The purpose of livestock rearing in
the village include milk, dung and
draught purposes.
5.1.2. Trends
• Crossbred cows were introduced in
1983.
• Population of livestock in 2006 has
increased slightly when compared
with the population of 1986
(Figure 11).
Figure 11: Trends in livestock population
• However, there has been a 33%
reduction in the number of
indigenous cows as well as bullocks.
• The number of crossbred cows has
almost doubled since 1986.
5.1.3. Factors Contributing
• Crossbred cows has replaced
indigenous cow population since
people prefer crossbred cows for
more milk production.
• Assured market through a milk
collection unit in the village.
• Stall feeding system and also
breeding programme of the
government have promoted shift to
crossbred animals.
• Reduction in the draught animal
population is mainly due to less
labour intensive crop or the shift
from paddy to areca.
5.1.4. Implications
• Increase in number of crossbred
animals has led to intensive
livestock management practices
such as stall feeding of animals.
• Increased dependency on dry
fodder and feeds purchased from
the market.
• Reduced pressure on grazing and
forest lands.
14
• Increase in number of crossbred
animals and decrease in indigenous
livestock may lead to loss of
local breeds and hence the
biodiversity.
5.2. Grazing Practice
5.2.1. Current Status
• Some livestock are stall-fed, some
are sent out for grazing and some
are subjected to both.
• Livestock are grazed mainly in forest
and paddy lands.
• About 56, 30 and 30% of crossbred
animals, buffaloes and bullock,
respectively are stall-fed.
• Only 25% of livestock are let out for
grazing throughout the year
(Figure 12).
• Grazing density is about 1.1 animal
per ha of available grazing area.
5.2.2. Trends
• In general, the practice of open
grazing is becoming less primarily
due to degradation of grazing lands
and decreased grass production.
5.2.3. Implication
• Change in grazing practice has lead
to reduced grazing pressure on forest
land.
• Reduced grazing pressure would
enhance regeneration of forests.
• However, it would put increased
pressure on the farmers’ economy.
5.3. Dung Production
• With a production of 19 kg of dung
per day, crossbred cows account
for 58% of total dung production.
• 54 (34%) households use dung for
biogas production.
• 94% of families owning livestock use
dung as manure (Table 3).Figure 12: Grazing practice of livestock
Table 3: Average dung production (fresh)(kg/day)
Animal type Average dung Total for
production/ a day
animal in kg in kg
Indigenous cow 7 581
Crossbred cow 19 1900
Bullock 6 96
Buffalo 11 671
Total 3023
15
6. Water
6.1. Irrigation Water
6.1.1. Current Irrigation Sources
• Open wells (44%), stream (34%), pond
(11%), borewell (3%) and others
(7%) are the sources of irrigation
water.
• 31 households use irrigation systems.
• People use flow (25%) or drip (12%)
or jet (63%) irrigation methods.
6.1.2. Trends
• Number of irrigation units has
increased in the last 5-10 years.
6.2. Drinking Water Sources
6.2.1. Current Status
• Open wells are the main source of
water for drinking as well as for
domestic usage.
• 53% households own open wells and
use water from these wells for
drinking.
• Public water supply system with
borewells as its water source meets
the demand of drinking water of 43%
of households.
6.3. Drinking Water Quality
6.3.1. Current
• In all the samples, pH is low and does
not conform with the BIS standards
(Table 4).
• Higher concentration of iron was
found in waters from hand pumps.
6.3.2. Factors Contributing
• Turbidity and pH can be attributed
to the geological sources and salts.
• Turbidity can also be due to
dissolved calcium, magnesium or
iron, attributable to geological
sources.
6.3.3. Implications
• Iron imparts unpleasant odour and
colour to water, rendering the water
less acceptable for drinking and
domestic usage.
Table 4: Drinking water quality
Parameters Desirable Permissible Taps Open wells Hand pumps
limit* limit*
pH 6.5-8.5 - 6.38 5.39 5.44
Total dissolved solids# 500 2000 81.67 104.76 75.00
Chloride# 250 1000 5.91 12.22 3.54
Sulphate# 200 400 16.93 25.85 10.00
Total hardness as CaCO3
# 300 600 43.67 30.14 20.00
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3
# 200 600 71.25 28.29 25.00
Iron# 0.3 1 1.71 0.08 12.28
Nitrate# 45 100 0.12 3.48 12.68
Fluoride# 1.9 1.5 0.05 0.12 0.04
#mg/L
*Bureau of Indian Standards
16
6.4. Microbial Load
• About 14% of the open well samples
and hand pumps conformed to
standards and none of the tap
water samples met the standards.
• 38% of open well samples and 67%
of the tap samples had total coliform
count ranging from 11 to 100.
• 14%, 3% and 7% of open well samples
had total coliform count ranging
from 201 to 300, 301 to 400 and 400
to 500 respectively. None of the tap
water samples fell under this range
of total coliform count.
• 24% of the samples had total MPN
count greater than 500.
• About 33% of the tap water samples
had total coliform load ranging
from 301 to 400.
6.4.1. Factors Contributing
• As most of the sampled sources were
open wells, the contamination may
be due to improper lining (insulation)
and presence of manure pits close
to water sources.
• The presence of coliforms can also
be due to contamination by birds,
animals and rotten leaves.
6.4.2. Implications
• If the coliforms are pathogenic,
they are expected to cause
diseases.
17
7. Soil
7.1. Soil Quality
7.1.1. Current Status
• Soils are lateritic, red brown in colour
and acidic in nature with pH 4.5 to 6.
• The organic carbon content in these
less disturbed soils is very high.
• In soils of paddy land the organic
carbon content was high (1.34%)
compared to soils collected from
low rainfall areas showing high
fertility of soils.
Table 5: Organic carbon status in differentland-use systems
Land category % organic carbon
Areca garden 1.75
Coconut garden 1.8
Paddy 1.34
Betta 2.25
Betta plantation 2.25
• In plantation soils, organic carbon
ranges from 1.15% to 1.8% which is
very high, indicating high fertility of
soils.
• In betta lands, OC is 2.5% at shallow
depth (0-15 cm) and at lower depth
(15-30 cms) 0.75-1.0%.
7.1.2. Factors Contributing
• Large quantity of organic manure
(FYM) is used for plantation
croplands and paddy fields.
• Betta lands support lot of trees,
shrubs and herbs from which organic
matter get mixed in soils.
7.1.3. Implications
• Shallow depth soils are very fertile
due to accumulation of leaf litter
and are undisturbed.
18
8. Birds, Large Mammals and Fish Resources
• The village has a rich variety of wild
fauna especially birds.
• The key habitats for fauna include
forests, betta (grazing lands), wet
lands (tanks, stream) and croplands,
• Birds, which are mainly terrestrial
birds are found in all habitats
distributed throughout the village.
• Some habitat specialist birds such
as hornbills, woodpeckers are also
found in the village.
8.1. Large Mammals
• Wild boars, mongoose, and hares are
occasionally hunted for meat.
8.1.1. Trends
• There is no major change in the
population of wild fauna over the
years.
• According to people’s perception,
there is marginal increase in the
population of wild boars and
monkeys in the recent past .
• Barking deer, varanus and hare have
decreased over the years.
• Population of civets, squirrels,
mongoose, foxes and bats has
remained stable (Table 6).
8.1.2. Implications
• Wild boars and monkey have
become pests to crops such as
paddy, sugarcane, banana and
young coconut, causing loss in the
yields (Table 7).
Table 7: Major vertebrate pests
Pests Crop affected
Wild boar Paddy, sugarcane,
young coconut trees,
young areca trees,
banana plantations
Hanuman langur Cardamom plants
and fruits, banana,
areca nuts
Bonnet Macaque Cardamom plants
and fruits, banana,
areca nuts
Fox Sugarcane
Rat Paddy crop and
Paddy/rice in houses
Peafowl Paddy
Table 6: Changes in population of birds and mammal species
Animals / birds Trend Reason
Vulture Decreased Scarcity of food
House sparrow Decreased Pesticides used in the houses (Domestic
pollution), habitat loss
Wild boar Increased Protection under Wildlife Protection Act
Monkeys Increased Protection under Wildlife Protection Act
8.2. Birds
8.2.1. Trends
• Number of vultures and house
sparrow has decreased.
19
8.3. Fish resource
• Fishing is carried out in tanks and
stream.
• No professional fishing is carried out
in Sirsimakki.
• About 10 major fish species have
been recorded.
• The dominant fish species are Dania
eaquipinnatus, Garrha gotla
stenorhynchus, Puntius sophore and
Rasbora daniconius.
• Currently, 25% of households
consume fish.
8.3.1. Trends
• Fish catch has come down over the
years.
• There is 15% increase in the fish
consuming families.
8.3.2. Factors contributing
• Sedimentation in the tanks lowers
the depth of the water which leads
to stunted growth of fish, and
eventually decreases yield.
Table 8: Major birds sighted
Ashy wren warbler
Barn owl
Black drongo
Blue jay
Common peafowl
Crimson breasted barbet
Crow-Pheasant
Egrets
Golden oriole
Grey wagtail
Hoopoe
Indian golden backed woodpecker
Indian myna
Jungle crow
Koel
Large grey babbler
Lorikeet
Magpie robin
Malbar grey hornbill
Malbar pied hornbill
Red vented bulbul
Red wattled lapwing
Red whiskered bulbul
Rockettailed drongo
Rose ringed parakeet
Rufous backed shrike
Small green barbet
Small green bee-eater
Small minivet
Spotted dove
Tailor bird
Whit breasted water hen
White breasted kingfisher
Yellow wagtail
20
9. Energy and Sanitation
9.1. Energy Sources
9.1.1. Current Status
• Firewood is the main source of
energy for about 82% of the
households.
• The main energy requirements are
for household cooking, processing
of horticultural and agricultural
produce.
• Biogas is an important alternate
source of cooking energy with 34%
of the households using it mainly for
cooking. This can be linked to dung
section.
• In addition, 7 (4%) households use
LPG for cooking.
• There are 39 (24%) households
where fuel efficient improved
(ASTRA) stoves are used for
cooking.
• 25-50% fuel saving with improved
stoves has been reported by
people.
• People use crop residue also as fuel.
• About 79% households are
electrified and use it as the main
source of lighting.
• Among them 72% use various
electrical appliances.
9.1.2. Trend
• Number of fuel efficient stoves and
alternate source of energy such as
biogas units and LPG have
increased since last two decades by
almost100%.
9.1.3. Implication
• ASTRA stoves, biogas units and LPG
have reduced pressure on forests for
firewood since forests are the main
source of firewood.
9.2. Sanitation
9.2.1. Current Status
• Only 52% households have toilets in
their house and 100% of them use
regularly.
• 70% of these toilets are septic tanks
and remaining is pit type.
• Only 50% households have taps in
toilets.
• All households with cattle have
separate cattle shed.
9.2.2. Implication
• 48% of households do not have
toilets in their houses and continue
to defecate in open and hence
pose the risks of affecting the health
of the communities.
21
Fuelwood Conservation - Effect of ImprovedStoves and Biogas PlantsSirsimakki is a biomass-based village. People use a large quantity of biomass collected
mainly from the forests as fuel for various purposes such as cooking, bathwater heating,
processing agriculture products such as cardamom and areca, and drying clothes
during monsoon. About 55% of the total fuelwood consumed is for cooking purposes.
People have been using traditional stoves of different types for biomass combustion.
Traditional stoves have been found to be less efficient with only about 12-15% of the
total heat generated being utilized for heating and rest being wasted. Increase in
population has lead to increased pressure on forest for biomass resources. On an average
about 2 to 2.25 kg of fuelwood is used per person daily.
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore introduced fuel-efficient ASTRA stoves in Sirsimakki
during 1983. Since then 39 stoves have been installed in the village. People have
reported overall efficiency of 25-50% with these stoves.
The annual biomass consumption, which was 534 tonnes during 1980, has now reduced
to 166 tonnes, a 69% decrease. This reduction is mainly due to increase in the number of
improved stoves. Use of improved stoves has drastically reduced biomass consumption
to about 294 tonnes. Further, 54 biogas plants have been installed in Sirsimakki since
1980 in 54 households (34% of total), which has also reduced the demand for biomass by
128 tonnes. Introduction of LPG has also contributed to reducing pressure on forest for
biomass.
The dependence on forest for biomass
resources has reduced drastically in
Sirsimakki, owing to reduction in
population, and adoption of fuel
efficient stoves and LPG. Community
initiative and adaptation of improved
technology have positively impacted
the forest resource. Apart from saving
the forests, improved stoves which emit
less smoke have improved the health
of women involved in cooking activities.
Num
ber
of h
ouse
hold
s
160
120
80
40
01980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Without biogas plantWith biogas plant
600
450
300
150
0
Bio
mas
s in
ton
nes
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006*
Annual biomassrequired/consumed in theabsence of improvedstoves
Annual biomassconsumed withintroduction of improvedstoves
* 34% shift to LPG incorporated
22
10. Summary
Sirsimakki, which represents a hilly
village ecosystem, is endowed with
rich natural resources. Soil, water and
forest resources that provide fodder,
fuelwood, green and dry leaves, small
timber, NTFPs, medicinal plants form the
basic and most important natural
resources that people are dependent
upon.
The land use including cropping pattern
of the village has more or less stabilized
with Paddy and Areca being the major
crops. Different high yielding varieties
of crops have been introduced. The
agricultural practices are largely
organic with mulching of areca gardens
with green leaves from soppinabetta.
The croplands also support rich tree
cover dominated by traditional species.
Forests which occupy significant part of
the total geographic area of the village
have undergone marginal changes in
area over the past decade, with
conversion of a part of the area to
acacia plantation. Soppinabetta, which
is a managed forest, serves as a source
of leaf litter, fuelwood as well as some
fruits and timber.
Livestock composition has changed to
a significant extent with introduction of
crossbred cows. This in turn has led to
increased milk production and
therefore income. On the other hand,
the demand for grass has increased with
decrease in population of indigenous
cows and increase in crossbred cows.
The village receives high rainfall and
over the past decade, rainfall has been
consistent. The groundwater is high due
to this constant recharge and therefore
households have adequate drinking as
well as irrigation water all through the
year.
Effective management, traditional
agricultural practices and policy
decisions by the communities at the
local level have helped maintain the
soil quality as well as sustained use of
resource over the years.
State of Environment and Na tural Resources 2006
C M Shastri, Deepak M Shetti, G N Hegde, G T Hegde,
Prabhakar R Bhat, S G Patgar, N H Ravindranath
Uttara Kannada District, Karnataka
Sirsimakki Village Ecosystem
Indian Institute of ScienceBangalore 560012
India Canada Environment FacilityNew Delhi 110066
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012CES