3.1 Environmental Services

Factors such as low crop and livestock productivity, water shortage for drinking and irrigation and scarcity of fuel wood and grass lead to rural poverty. This can be linked to degradation of natural resources such as soil, water resources, grazing lands and forests. Soil erosion and loss of soil fertility, silting of water bodies and low water percolation rates, excessive groundwater extraction, overgrazing, and over harvesting of forests are all factors that result in low crop and livestock production and water scarcity. The only way to increase and sustain crop and livestock production and water supply (for drinking and irrigation) is through conserving natural resources and enhancing their capacity to provide higher levels of environmental services.

The activities under the NREGA are largely linked to water, soil and land, which are the key natural resources determining agricultural and livestock production. They can have a positive or negative influence on these natural resources, affecting their ability to provide environmental services. Environmental services include recharging groundwater, increasing rain water percolation, conserving water, increasing the area irrigated, reducing soil erosion, increasing soil fertility, conserving biodiversity, reclaiming degraded crop and grazing lands, enhancing the supply of leaf manure, fuel wood and non-wood forest produce, and carbon sequestration. The goal of NREGA activities has to be conserving natural resources and enhancing environmental services to sustain food and livestock production, increasing the supply of fresh water for drinking, and increasing grass and forest product production. The benefi ts accruing from the activities implemented under the NREGA can be described as “services provided”. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) considers humans an integral component of

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

the natural ecosystem unlike classical approaches, which differentiate humans as non-natural. The approach also addresses the sustainability of resources and livelihoods by considering human wellbeing a parallel theme to the functioning of the natural ecosystem.

The impact of NREGA activities may be manifested immediately or over the long term. Some of the effects can be directly measured, as with a quantifiable increase in the area irrigated, the storage capacity of a water body, the area afforested, the production of food, fodder or grass and other parameters linked to the functioning of the ecosystems. However, the linkages between various resources and processes in village ecosystems are highly complex and changes or interventions are likely to have broader and wider implications, some in the long term.

Identifying the potential environmental services that result from NREGA activities is crucial to understanding and quantifying their impact. As the MEA (2005) points out, the linkages and the trade-offs of interventions or changes in an ecosystem are very complex. In this study, for the first level, we identify the key environmental services of NREGA activities. The defi nition of “services” in this context has been expanded to incorporate measurable physical, biological and socio-economic indicators, including livelihood indicators. Global concerns related to food security, water security, adaptation to climate change and variability, and sustainable livelihoods have been given adequate importance. Indicators have been developed for assessing and quantifying the effect NREGA activities have on delivering these services. Services having direct implications within the ecological boundary of the activity and related components of the system are considered local. Village or micro-watershed boundaries have been considered local. Global services include those that have implications beyond regional boundaries (for example, climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration). These services are classified as provisional and regulatory (Table 3).

In this study, an indicator refers to a measurable parameter representing the extent or quantum of any resource, dependency or

Table 3: NREGA Activities and Key Environmental Services: Local and Global

NREGA Activities Local Environmental Services Regional and Global Environmental Services

Water conservation Groundwater recharge, soil moisture Water conservation

and harvesting retention and protection (erosion control), flood control (reduced risk), providing irrigation and drinking water and soil quality (nutrient cycling)

Irrigation Providing irrigation, improved – provisioning and agriculture and livelihoods, increased improvement crop production

Renovation of Improved storage capacity, irrigation Water conservation traditional water availability, groundwater recharge, soil bodies quality (nutrient cycling), biomass

production and crop production

Land development Land reclaimed for agriculture, improved – irrigation availability, hence agriculture and livelihood improvement

Drought proofing Soil moisture retention, protection Water conservation, (erosion control) and soil quality carbon sequestration, (nutrient cycling), flood control biodiversity (reduced risk), biomass production conservation (fuel wood) and local climate regulation

Flood control Groundwater recharge, soil moisture Water conservation retention and protection (erosion control) and flood control (reduced risk)

suffi ciency/defi ciency, which may vary due to the impact of NREGA activities over time. These indicators range from direct generic indicators such as water quantity, groundwater level and soil carbon to socio-economic aspects such as employment availability, income, access to resources and their availability. These indicators were selected and developed to represent local situations. Indicators for poverty, environmental impact, socio-economic status, food security, fuel security, climate vulner ability and other aspects have also been included to provide a wider scope and to test their performance and relevance to the respective themes.

Each activity is associated with several interlinked components of a village ecosystem, and therefore services. An integrated approach of aggregating the services keeping in mind the interlinkages is essential. An indicator-based approach was adopted to identify key indicator parameters measurable either from secondary data, direct measurement or proxies. The set of indicators included primary indicators (those that reflect immediate and directly measurable implications such as changes in water holding capacity, the groundwater level and the area irrigated) and secondary indicators (usually representing the implications of primary indicators on the processes and outputs in the ecosystems such as variations in yield, biomass production, nutrient cycling, soil moisture retention and biodiversity conservation).

Indicators that reflect the implications of NREGA activities on natural resources, the environment and livelihoods of the communities were identified by looking at them through two lenses – sectorwise and activity-wise. Further, based on the properties of the parameters being measured, the indicators can be classifi ed into physical, biological and ecological. These indicators are region and objective specific and they have to be redefined to suit regional details and the purpose of monitoring. Factors such as effi ciency of the methods, reliability, replicability, convenience, expertise

Table 4: Methods Adopted for Quantification of Indicators for Environmental Services

FGD: focus group discussions; KIS: key informant surveys.

required and costs were considered during selection of the indicators. They were quantified adopting a two-tier approach of simple as well as advanced methods and tools, as detailed in Table 4.

3.2 Vulnerability Assessment

The effects of NREGA activities on the vulnerability of agricultural production systems and livelihoods were assessed using three indices – those of water, agricultural and livelihood vulnerability. A vulnerability assessment may be virtually indistinguishable from a sustainability assessment (Brenkert and Elizabeth 2005). A vulnerability assessment shifts the focus from relatively more physical and quantifiable effects to meaningful consequences for human societies. The focus also shifts from a physical/economic representation of climate changes, emission activities, effects on crop yields and water availability to a more qualitative representation of human attributes and institutions (Challinor et al 2006). This study provides a numerical framework rather than a descriptive assessment to understand multidimensional systems (such as village ecosystems) and the effect resource management has on improving sustainability of resources and livelihoods. The steps adopted include the following.

Selection of Indicators: Indicators were selected to refl ect the environmental services that contribute to reducing vulnerability.

Methods for Quantification of Indicators: Field measurements, focus group discussions, key informant surveys, analyses of stakeholders’ perceptions, hydrological modelling and soil chemical analyses.

Baseline Assumptions: The pre-NREGA scenario was developed on the basis of secondary data, focus group discussions and fi eld observations.

Development of Vulnerability Indices: Environmental service indicators were measured/estimated and interpreted for their impact on vulnerability of the system and as effects of NREGA activities. Indicator status before and after implementation of NREGA activities was compared.

Normalisation: Indicators were normalised to assess the aggregated impact of different NREGA activities on vulnerability. Normalisation renders the value dimensionless and enables aggregation. The approaches considered for normalisation specific to indicators include (a) maximum value based; the maximum value a parameter can have; (b) endowment based; for parameters that depend on the actual potential of a resource;

(c) increment based; for some parameters the base number is technically irrelevant and only the incremental service is reflected by the indicators; and (d) minimum value assumption; the minimum value a parameter can have.

Weighting and Aggregation: The relevance of each indicator in an index affects the final index as well as the interpretation and trends the analysis conveys. To account for the differential signifi cance of indicators, weights were assigned based on a multi-stakeholder

may 14, 2011 vol xlvi no 20

perception analysis. Farmers and district administrators at various levels were interviewed to arrive at the final weights. A linear aggregation method was adopted to aggregate the weighted indicator variables.

n

Index (I) = ¦ wi × Equation 1

i = 1 ibase

where an index (I) is a linear aggregation of n number of indicators (i) represented as a ratio to the respective baseline (ibase) value and with weightage of wi. The current or post-NREGA implementation value is represented by i and ibase represents the pre-implementation value.

3.3 Baseline Value Determination

There are different approaches and methods to represent or aggregate indicators. The key indicators identified for an index are most often measured in different units, using different methods. So it is difficult to directly aggregate the indicators. Normalisation of both the units and the scores is necessary before aggregation. Further, representing the optimum or baseline value for the parameter is complex. The baseline assumptions for the various indicators considered are presented in Table 5. The following considerations played a part in choosing the approach.

Boundary: The village, the production system boundary, was taken as the unit, including croplands, water sources, wasteland, forests and communities. It is not possible to precisely mark the boundary of the effects of an intervention, but it is necessary to have a boundary to identify the scale of work and the levels of impact.

Regional Variability: Regional variability in the scale of activity, physical barriers or variability in natural resource base, which may determine the impact of an NREGA activity and the other factors that need to be considered. Villages with tanks, with potential land for afforestation, and the extent of land suitable for plantation are some examples of parameters that determine the feasibility of implementing a particular activity.

Extent of Work and Endowment: The potential for implementing an activity varies from village to village and determines its potential in reducing vulnerability. Examples would be the potential area available for afforestation or the size of a tank. Or, there could be technical limitations to implementing soil conservation measures in some places.

3.4 Impact Measurability

The projects implemented in Chitradurga district include those that provide benefits in the short term as well as in the long run. Further, some of the effects will be visible only over a period of time. For example, desilting will have an immediate effect on the groundwater level in the downstream area. Similarly, application of silt to croplands will generate an immediate benefi t in the form of improved

700 250

Talavatti

Pre-NREGA

and contributing to water and food security

400

in the villages of drought-prone Chitra-

Depth in feet

250

500

durga district. Loss of vegetation cover,

Parashuramapura

over grazing and inappropriate cultivation

350

practices in water catchment areas have led

to silting of water bodies such as tanks and

dams, resulting in a loss of water storage ca

pacity and reduction of groundwater re-

Kandikere

300

from the water body using human labour.

cussions. Past values were obtained from focus group discussions.

2

Koverahatti, Khandikere and Talavatti recorded a signi fi cant improvement in groundwater levels. Koverahatti recorded a rise of 113

1

metre (a 77% rise). Khandikere and Talavatti recorded an 82 metre and 46 metre rise (53% and 30%), respectively. Khandikere has wit-Farmers are encouraged to collect the silt and apply it to crop fi elds to improve soil fertility. The tanks in the district are largely used as percolation tanks.

In Chitradurga, about 62% of the total cultivable land is dryland. Only about 9% of cropland (63,631 ha) is irrigated. Further, 79% of the irrigated land is dependent on tube wells, 9% each on tanks and canals and 3% on open wells. There are 291 small and large tanks in Chitradurga district with 53 and 72 in Hiriyur and Challakere taluks, respectively. About 9,26,890 cubic metres of silt was removed from the tanks in the district, most of them during 2007 and 2008 under the NREGA. Among the 20 sample villages, this activity was studied in Table 6 where it was done on a signifi cant scale.

Environmental services from desilting were assessed in six villages where it was done in a big way. Among the six, there was a signifi cant improvement in groundwater levels in three villages, which could be measured by the level of water in their borewells.

4.1.2 Impact on Soil Quality

Silt removed from water bodies was applied to crop fields in all the villages where desilting was carried out. The effect of tank silt on cropland soil quality was assessed by sampling the soil from croplands, with and without silt. Wasteland sample values were taken as the baseline. Silt applied cropland soils recorded a two to threefold

Figure 4: Changes in Soil Organic Carbon with Silt Application

(% organic carbon)

4
Cropland
3.18
3	Cropland + silt Wasteland	2.59	2.59

soil fertility and increased crop productivity. However, structures such as percolation tanks and check dams will provide benefi ts only in the long term through reducing soil erosion and recharging groundwater. Likewise, afforestation programmes involving trees of genuses such as Pongamia will provide oil seeds only after 8 to 10 years.

4 Results Part I: Environmental Services

This section provides an assessment of NREGA activities in enhancing and providing environmental services. The implications of resource management were assessed through a rapid scientifi c appraisal method. The implications and the drivers are discussed below in each class of activity.

4.1 Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies: Desilting Tanks

Desilting has provided several sustained environmental services, in Talavatti, the impact has been observed in downstream villages such as Basappanamalige and Bandlurahatti (Figure 3).

Table 6: Villages Studied and Extent of Desilting under the NREGA
Village	Desilted Tank	Year	Silt Removed (m3)
Khandikere	Khandikere tank	2009	40,500
Gowdanahalli	Sannakere	2008	5,063
Gudnuranahalli	Hosakere, Halekere	2007	60,750
Talavatti	Talavatti tank	2008	1,800
Budnahatti Kere	Budnahatti Kere	2006	675
Upparahatti	Upparahatti Kere	2007	7,594
Dodderi	Kunte Kere	2006	6,143

The area irrigated in a village is determined by the availability of groundwater for irrigation. Khandikere, Gudnuranahalli, Gowdanahalli and Talavatti also have surface water irrigation through tanks. Six villages showed a significant improvement in area irrigated by borewells (Figure 3). Dodderi and Khandikere

0

nessed groundwater recharge in all its downstream borewells and Gowdanahalli Gudanuranahalli Koverahatti Pagadalabande Parashurampura Rangavvanahalli

EPW

increase in organic carbon content. Organic carbon is also indicative of nitrogen in soil (Figure 4, p 44). The increase reflected the potential of silt to enhance soil fertility. In Parashuramapura, no change in soil organic carbon was reported and the reason for this is not clear.