Economic analysis of watersheds in Wayanad district

Abstract

The research work entitled “Economic analysis of watersheds in Wayanad district” was carried out during 2017-19 with the objectives to assess the impact of watershed development programme on cropping pattern and farm income, to examine the variation in benefits in upper, middle and lower reaches of watershed and to ascertain the problems of farmers in the watershed. Secondary data was collected from the Office of the Assistant Director of Soil Conservation, RVP Kabani, Kaniambetta sub division, Meenangadi. The treated watershed (beneficiaries) selected for the study was Poothadi watershed in Poothadi Panchayat and untreated watershed (non-beneficiaries) was Aavayal watershed in Meenangadi Panchayat of Wayanad district. Primary data were collected randomly from 45 farmers each from the treated and the untreated watershed comprising 15 farmers each from upper, middle and lower reaches and thus the total sample size was 90. Poothadi watershed project (Ka4f Poothadi) was a River Valley Project (RVP) during 2010-13 with an area of 4,428 ha. The total expenditure of the project was ₹93,44,025 and major portion was spent for construction of farm ponds, WHS (Water Harvesting Structures) and contour bunds. The project had generated an employment of 9,060 man days during the project period. The beneficiary respondents had more annual income, family size, land holdings, area under different crops and irrigation when compared to that of non-beneficiaries. Major crops cultivated in watershed area were coffee, black pepper and arecanut. There was no much variation in cropping pattern between the treated and untreated watersheds. Area under irrigation was more in treated watershed than the untreated and the average area under irrigation was more in coffee (2.98 ha). Cost of cultivation of coffee, black pepper and arecanut was worked out using the cost concepts and total cost was more for beneficiaries than the non-beneficiaries. The profitability was found using the B:C ratio and at Cost C, B:C ratio was more for beneficiaries in case of coffee (1.79) and black pepper (1.19), whereas in the case of arecanut (1.42) it was more for non-beneficiaries. From the results of regression analysis it was evident that the coefficient of multiple determination of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries had values ranging from 0.89-0.99 and 0.31-0.99 respectively, indicating 89-99 and 31-99 per cent of the variation in the gross returns was due to the independent variables considered. Positive impact of the watershed development programme was reflected in the increase in the number of beneficiaries adopting soil and water conservation measures such as construction of rain pits, trenching, live fencing, terracing and mulching. Adoption of such measures by non-beneficiaries was less compared to that of beneficiaries of treated watershed. Several market and non-market benefits derived from treated watershed resulted in increase in income due to increase in yield and livestock rearing, increased groundwater recharge and increase in aesthetic value of watershed. The analysis of impact of watershed development programme on farm income revealed that the length of contour bund had increased the farm income at 1 per cent level of significance. The coefficient of multiple determination (R2) was 0.92, which indicated that 92 per cent of the variation in farm income was explained by the independent variables such as length of contour bund, soil moisture content, organic matter content and region of the watershed. Organic matter content (4.23 per cent), soil moisture content (18.26 per cent) and depth of water column in wells (4.31 m) were more in treated watershed than the untreated watershed. In treated watershed organic matter and soil moisture content was more in upper reaches followed by lower and middle reaches. Height of water column in the wells of treated watershed was higher in lower reaches (5.13 m) followed by middle (4.83 m) and upper reaches (2.97m). Major constraints faced by the beneficiaries in treated watershed were lack of supervision, follow-up and technical guidance by the authorities. Suggestions given by the beneficiaries to improve the project were to ensure need based activities in farm, continuity and follow-up of development and maintenance activities in watershed, marketing and infrastructural facilities and biodiversity conservation. Watershed development programme improved the livelihood of the farmers in the treated watershed. Hence watershed development programmes and strategies like rain water harvesting structures should be extended to the untreated watersheds.