Forest and watershed protection in India.

India, with about 60% its population living in rural areas, is struggling with huge poverty
problems. About 35% of the population has less than 1US$ to spend per day and about 80%
lives below the 2US$ per day poverty line. Given the large rural population, rural
development is crucial in reducing poverty in India. This case shows the local initiative of
Sukhomajri Village where the community has worked together in protecting watershed and
forest resources. The village has become a model of community participatory management for
the rest of the country.

1. Introduction.
Sukhomajri village of is located near the city of Chandigarh, in the Shiwalik hills in north-
west India in the state of Haryana. The village is scarcely populated with only 455 inhabitants
in 1976. Like any other village in the sub-Himalayan Shiwalik foothills, the village was
sparsely vegetated (barely 5 percent of the slopes had any vegetation cover), with poor
agriculture, and high levels of soil erosion and runoff in the 1970s. Though the annual
average rainfall was about 1.137 mm, groundwater was not available at a reasonable depth.
Soil erosion and gully formation was steadily leading to a decrease in farm area, forcing
villagers to keep herds of livestock to minimise risk. The villagers cultivated about 50ha of
non-irrigated land and kept about 411 heads of animals. The open grazing by the livestock
suppressed regeneration and kept the surrounding hills and watersheds bare.

2. Intervention
A joint forest management programme, developed by the Central Soil and water Conservation
Research and Training Institute, was introduced in the village in 1976. The project began out
of concern for the silting up of Sukhna Lake, which supplies water to the downstream city of
Chandigarh. This problem was traced to the severe degradation of the catchment area in the
hills near the village of Sukhomajri. Initially, attempts at regenerating the local environment
and reducing free grazing failed because the villagers had little regard for Chandigarh’s water
concern. A change in attitude occurred after 1977 when four tanks were built by the villagers
under guidance of environmentalist P.R. Mishra. These tanks successively created an
increased storage capacity for rainwater which in turn, increased crop yields. In return for
water, the villagers agreed to protect the watershed. This water availability, thus, became an
immediate incentive for the villagers to stop grazing in the surrounding hills and initiate
afforestation and watershed protection activities. Since then the villagers have built a few
more tanks and have protected the heavily degraded forest that lies within and around the
catchment of its minor irrigation tanks.
Rights over impounded water in the dam area have been equally shared by both land-
holders and the landless in the village, so that benefits of rainwater harvesting are equally
shared between community members. Furthermore, the project ensured that a portion of the
incremental gain is ploughed back to create social capital.

3. Benefits for growth.

A combination of public, private and community participation has produced a rate of return in
the order of 19 per cent (Chopra et al., 1990)

· One of the most impressive savings resulting from the project are the savings in desilting
costs of the Sukhna Lake. The inflow of sediment has come done by over 90 percent. This
saves the government Rs. 7,65 million (US$0,2 million) each year in dredging and other
costs.
· Tank construction and watershed protection led to an increase in the availability of
irrigation water. The increase in irrigation water boosted wheat as well as maize
production (Table 1).

· Protection of the watershed has led to increased grass production which provides fodder
for livestock. Increased availability of fodder led to a transformation in the livestock
composition. The number of goats (a low value livestock) went down while the number of
buffaloes (a high value livestock) went up. This led to increased milk production.

· Watershed protection has also resulted in increased production of ‘bhabhar’. This is a

highly fibrous grass that is used for fodder, pulping material for paper mills or ropes. As
the society pays 10 percent sales tax on bhabhar, the increase in production generates
income for the government as well.
Table 1. Changes in production in Sukhomajri village, India (1977-1986).
Commodity 1977 1986
Wheat 40.60 63.60 tonnes
0.68 1.43 tonnes/ha
Maize 40.90 54.30 tonnes
0.61 1.22 tonnes/ha
1
Grass 0.04 3 tonnes/ha
2
Goats 246 10 number
2
Buffaloes 79 291 number
Milk 334 579 litres/day
Tree density 13 1292 number/ha
1
Year 1992
2
Year 1975.

4. Benefits for poverty reduction.

The local economic growth has benefited the inhabitants of the village. Between 1979
and1984, annual household incomes went up from about Rs. 2.000 to Rs. 3.000. The village
now earns about Rs. 350.000 from collective sale of milk and another Rs. 100.000 or so from
the sale of ‘bhabhar’.
The benefits to villagers are clearly visible by the replacement of thatch-arid-mud
dwellings by birch-and-cement houses, many of them boasting with electronic devices like
radios or television.

Watershed protection programs can lead to substantial benefits for the communities involved
in the project. However, impacts are usually greatest for poor and medium wealth households,
with access to farming lands. Income increases are smallest for the poorest farmers, who are
given access to the poorest quality land. Community programs should be targeted at
benefiting the poorest groups as well. Sukhomajri provides an example of a project that
includes the poorer households in the village in its economic growth. Villagers without land
or with very small holdings were also allotted a share of the collected water. These property
rights could be sold for cash or sharecropping. This market-like mechanism delinked water
rights from land rights and allowed the landless and the land-poor to benefit from their share
of the water.

5. Benefits to the environment.

Protection of the watershed has lead to ecological regeneration of the surrounded forests. The
region suffered from substantial soil erosion and forest degradation before the project started.
Vegetation was sparse and incomes from agricultural activities were low. Thanks to the soil
protection efforts around Sukhomajri, soil productivity has increased considerable. The
project also included reforestation efforts, which have benefited the 400 ha Sukhomajri forest.
Tree density in the forest increased from 13 to 1292 trees/ha between 1977 and 1986.
The ecological benefits of increased tree density have also lead to economic benefits.
The forest now has over 0.3 million, highly valuable, ‘khair’ trees, each worth about Rs.
3.000 (US$70). If the wood is converted into ‘katha’ it will be worth even more, as ‘katha’ is
a highly valued condiment. The village has yet to earn anything from the wood because the
forest department has not yet decided how it will share the proceeds with villagers.

6. Policies and coalitions for change.

The villagers have achieved sustainable development with limited financial investment from
outside. Economic benefits from watershed management have been substantial. By the
mid1980s, Sukhomajri had turned from a food –importing village to a food-exporting village.
Tank construction and watershed protection led to an increased availability of irrigation
water. This has helped to increase crop production by nearly three times, the protection of the
forest area has greatly increased grass and tree fodder availability. Increased incomes from
agriculture have allowed villagers to improve housing conditions.

The success of the village is due to the efforts of the people of the village. Nevertheless,
instrumental in the success of the project has been the assurance of the Government Forestry
Department that the village could dispose of the increased grass yields and collected
rainwater. Villages would not have agreed to protect the watershed, if water and grass rights
would not have been disbursed to them.
Equally important in the initiative of the villagers to protect their watershed was the
establishment of a village society. This Hill Resources Management Society has played an
crucial role in the watershed protection. It provided a soundboard for all villagers to discuss
problems as well as supervised management of the local environment, the distribution of
generated resources (like water, wood and grass) amongst the households and compliance
with protective measures.
Another critical factor in establishing protection of the catchment was the equitable
sharing of the resources that accrued as a result of the collective watershed protection work.
The landless were also given an incentive to participate equally in protecting the surrounding
forests and stop grazing the hills, by allotting them with an equal share of the water collected
in the dam. This provided the small landowners/landless with a direct incentive to participate
in watershed protection and financially compensated them for loss of access to traditional
grazing lands.

7. Remaining challenges.
Sukhomajri village provides an example of sustainably increasing local incomes through
improved water management. A sound land care system, based on the principle of social
fencing, was not only capable of triggering a range of farm and non-farm activities, but also
regenerated biotic resources. However, the sustainability of this unique resource management
programme is threatened by the arbitrarily division of the 400 ha hill tract between
Sukhomajri and the neighbouring village of Dhamala by the Forestry Department in 1995.
The upper caste village of Dhamala was given a richer portion of the forest. Instead of sharing
forest produce and grazing rights in the whole area, the two villages are now competing for
forest products. This leads to social tensions and may cause a conflict in the area.

An important challenge related to watershed protection initiatives is the question of scaling up

the local example and replicate it on a larger scale. Sukhomajri village has become a model of
community-based watershed management for the rest of the country. Following the successful
example of Sukhomajri, several other ecorestoration projects have started. In Madhye
Pradesh, a state-wide watershed program of water and soil protection has generated
considerable benefits. This program shows that watershed protection can be successfully
replicated on a larger scale (Agarwal and Mahapatra, 1999).
8. References.

· Agarwal A. and R. Mahapatra (1999) “Madhya Pradesh: Regaining Paradise”. In:

Agarwal, A., S. Narain and S. Sen (ed) 1999, State of India’s Environment-1999:
Citizens’ Fifth Report, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, pg 33-53.

· Agarwal A. and S. Narain (1999) Community and Household Water Management: The
Key to Environmental Regeneration and Poverty Alleviation. Paper presented to EU-
UNDP Feb 1999 Brussels Conference.

· Central Soil & Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Dehradun, India.

· Chopra, K., G. Kadekodi and M N Murthy (1990) Participatory Development: People

and Common Property Resources, Sage Publications, New Delhi.

· Gobar Times (2004) Sukhomajri Village. Gobar Times, July 2004, www.gobartimes.org

· Rainwaterharvesting.org (2005) Sukhomajri Model Village. Quoted from

www.rainwaterharvesting.org/rural/sukhomajri.htm

· Sharma, S. (2002) Reinventing Watersheds, Proposing a New Approach to India’s Rural

Drought Problems. D+C Development and Cooperation, No.1, January/February 2002,
p.24-26. Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale Entwicklung (DSE), Frankfurt.

· World Bank (2004) World Development Report 2005, A Better Investment Climate for
Everyone. The World Bank, Washington, DC.