Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2021/Sustainable rural livelihoods and community participation in restoration: A case study from Southern India

From UBC Wiki

Background

Talakaveri Temple and surroundings- the origin of the River Cauvery

The Cauvery (also spelt as Kaveri) is an easterly flowing river of South India that originates in the Western Ghats - one of the world’s 36 biodiversity hotspots. Like other Indian rivers, it is also revered and worshipped for feeding millions of people through its water and fine, nutrient-rich silt. This sentiment reflects well in the Tamil literature from Sangam period, “The forceful water flow in the river Cauvery that can even uproot a tree, takes care of all the living beings of the world, as a woman feeds a child through her breast”[1]. While the respect for the river is the same today, the flow of Cauvery has been affected due to a decreasing rainfall pattern, land use changes and expansion of irrigated land. Effect of decreasing trend in volume of rainfall and number of rainy days has led to the decreasing trends in the streamflow of main channel and tributaries of the Cauvery River [2]. Number of rainfall events have been declining in the middle Cauvery region and is more significant during the southwest monsoon season (a major contributor of the total rainfall)[2]. Changes in both climatic and socio-economic factors strongly influence future water resource system performance in the basin [3]. Cauvery is also known for its century old water sharing conflict between the two states Karnataka and Tamil Nadu[4][5]. Today, the Cauvery River Basin faces the impacts of climate change and land use changes in the form of extreme weather events, resulting in droughts and floods. While most believe that deforestation in the headwaters of Cauvery is the root cause, there are other contributors like dams, inefficiency in water use, loss of wetlands and water recharge structures and climate change- making it a complex web of problems. Similarly consequences are many, one of them being crop failures, affecting the livelihood of millions.

The complex history of land use change

Traditional Shade coffee plantations in Chikmaglur, Karnataka

While India may be recording an increase in forest cover every year, it is mainly due to plantations. The Western Ghats has lost 35.3 percent of its total ‘natural forest’ cover between 1920 and 2013, whereas Kerala has recorded a loss of 62.7 percent of its ‘natural forest’ [6]. There has also been a shift from staple food crops like ragi to export crops like paddy due to minimum support prices and other policy changes[5] [7]. Similarly, native species Ficus agroforestry system is being increasingly abandoned for intensive agriculture due to increased water supply and fast growing exotic trees[8]. Within the coffee agroforestry system, exotic trees like Grevillea robusta are preferred over native trees[9]. In Kodagu (a district in Karnataka) coffee plantation expansion led to deforestation of western forested area[10]. Coffee plantations started in 1980s and Kodagu has 43 percent of India’s plantations and 80 percent of coffee in India comes from the state of Karnataka[11]. Traditionally shade coffee has been a more integrated system of timber trees, pepper and coffee, with higher carbon sequestration due to trees. Also, shade coffee is more resilient to temperature changes than sun coffee[12]. But recently there has been a trend of switch towards sun coffee as it gives higher yield [12].

Areca nut plantations in Devanur, Karnataka.

Further, in certain parts of the basin, there has been conversion of paddy fields for eco-tourism, areca nut plantations, silver oak and oil palm[11]. Between 2013-14 and 2017-18 Karnataka increased area under areca nut by 61000 ha, total area being 0.28 million ha[7]. Areca plantations have low maintenance and start giving returns in 6-7 years. Besides paddy, sugarcane, ginger, banana and ragi cultivation have also been replaced with areca nut[7]. Economic value of timber, accessibility to the supply chain, seedling availability, agronomic properties etc. have an important role to play in decision making for planting trees on farm[9]. For example, Casuarina equisetifolia which is native to Australia, was introduced in Madras in 1860 for fuel steam locomotives but is now being encouraged for cultivation by Tamil Nadu Forest Department in private lands and for Emergency Tsunami Reconstruction Project and paper making industry[13]. It is good for farmers because of its short gestation period, periodic returns (pruned branches), ability to improve soil fertility and ready marketability[13]. The abandoned areas in the riparian corridors resulting from sand mining and paddy cultivation promoted deciduous species Pongamia pinnata and Salix tetraspermae, subsequently posing a threat to the evergreen species that require shade and soil moisture in the sapling stage[14].

Traditional practices

Orchard of Casuarina equisetifolia in Tamil Nadu
Sacred grove surrounded by paddy fields in Coorg, Karnataka.

In the sea of these large-scale land use changes, there are still islands of traditional home-gardens and sacred groves that maintain and preserve biodiversity. Sacred groves have been found to support the highest number of endemic tree saplings, supporting a higher diversity of species and a significant diversity (~65% of tree species) occurring within the riparian forests[14]. Betta lands was another system during colonial time when the government would grant rights for collection of leaf mulch from forest in return for protection of forests. The Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel has found that Bettas are conserved in some parts while degraded in others[7]. Today, with changing values, the number of scared groves is also not the same as before.

Sustainability of agriculture within Cauvery River Basin

Theme: Sustainable Rural Livelihood
Country: India
Province/Prefecture: Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu

This conservation resource was created by Vaishali Vasudeva.
It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0.


Sustainable livelihood

A simple Oxford Dictionary definition of livelihood is “a means of securing necessities of life”. The concept of sustainable livelihood was put forth in an Advisory Panel report of World Commission on Environment and Development 1987 and defined as “adequate stocks and flows of food and cash to meet basic needs". Security refers to "secure ownership of, or access to, resources and income-earning activities, including reserves and assets to offset risk, ease shocks and meet contingencies". Sustainable refers to "the maintenance and enhancement of resource productivity on a long-term basis". A household may be enabled to gain sustainable livelihood security in many ways – "through ownership of land, livestock or trees; rights to grazing, fishing, hunting or gathering; through stable employment with adequate remuneration or through varied repertoires of activities”[15]. In simpler terms, “A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base”[16]. Capability, Equity and Sustainability all come together to form the idea of sustainable livelihoods and they are all both means and an end to livelihood[15]. For example, capability is required to earn a livelihood (a means), and a livelihood enables enhancement of capability (an end).


A livelihood can have four components (1) People, (2) Activities, (3) Assets, and (4) Gains or outputs[15]. Swift (1989)[17] distinguished assets into three classes- investments, stores and claims. Broadly, for an agricultural household in India, the assets may look like-

  • Investment: gold, bank schemes, livestock
  • Stores: land, agriculture equipment, tractors, cash savings, house, vehicles
  • Claims: claim and access to land, forest and water

In reality, inequalities exist and further enlarge based on the initial assets and surplus income.  The value of these assets will vary widely between a landless farmer, smallholder farmer and a large-scale farmer; those that have access to irrigation infrastructure versus those who do not. Often, smallholder farmers struggle to recover the cost of chemical inputs and suffers due to repeated crop failures and debts. On the other hand, a farmer with larger land can multiply his income through investments, provided resources are not scarce. Further, the access to resources might be impacted by policy, geography or socio-economic constraints. For example, in case of coffee agroforestry, majority of farms in Kadagu region fall under the ‘‘Unredeemed’’ tenure category and farmers cannot harvest the native tree species without taking permission from forest department, restricting their means to earn a livelihood[9]. In rural areas, other factors are lack of access to market, infrastructure, technology and financial literacy which further impacts the output. This raises the question whether irrigation infrastructure like dams have actually widened the rich poor divide and whether introduction of precision farming will further widen it in future? How useful will the multi-billion river-linking projects be in solving water-related issues?

Environmental Sustainability

A farmer protesting with a rat in his mouth during the 2017 Tamil Nadu Farmers Protest, demanding waiver of the loan in the light of crop failures due to drought.

Human well-being is linked to natural resources like forests, water and soil. It may be thought of as important for the rural poor but is equally important for the urban elites as a big chunk of the urban development came at the cost of these natural resources. In the process of earning a livelihood, humans have not only modified but also degraded the natural ecosystems. Therefore, environmental sustainability has been looked at, at two levels- the local “…whether livelihood activities maintain and enhance or deplete or degrade, the local natural resource base” and the global, “whether, environmentally, livelihood activities make a net positive or negative contribution to the long-term environmental sustainability of other livelihoods” [15].

Change in land use and land cover within Cauvery Basin have led to deforestation, excessive groundwater extraction, expansion of monocultures, which has been a driver of loss of biodiversity and essential ecosystem services like water regulation. It is interesting to note that the unsustainable choices of the urban rich (the consumer) influences the sustainability of livelihoods of the rural poor, by influencing the market (e.g. increasing demand of rice over millets).

Social Sustainability

Social sustainability refers to “whether a human unit (individual, household or family) can not only gain but maintain an adequate and decent livelihood”[15]. It has two dimensions (1) “coping with stress and shock”; (2) “enhancing and exercising capabilities in adapting to, exploiting and creating change, and in assuring continuity”[15]. Some of the common stresses and shocks in the basin include:

  • Stresses mainly include market prices, human migration for employment, labour shortages, pest infestations, higher wage rates of contractual labour, lack of storage facilities, high cost of agricultural input, degrading water bodies, declining water table[18]
  • Shocks involve extreme weather events and natural disasters like floods, droughts, landslides.

Strategies for coping

  • Adapt: Some farmers are moving towards cotton farming replacing paddy and sugarcane[19], others are adopting drip irrigation to continue with cultivating three crops per year[20]
  • Diversify: Adding fruit and nut trees on farm is one way to enhance the income.
  • Move: Migration from rural to urban areas is probably prevalent across the country where youth abandons farming and looks for other jobs in and around the cities[18]
  • Deplete: Farmers in arid areas have started using borewells to grow water intensive crops, thereby depleting groundwater resources. In other instances, farmers may sell their assets to make up for the losses[11][8]
  • Claim: This is one of the extreme measures taken by farmers in this region. Farmers (usually the family head) have attempted taking their own lives so that their debt can be cleared by the government for the rest of the family. The claims however are not always “believable” by the authorities.[21]  

Community based watershed development

Art of Living (AOL), a volunteer based non-profit, has been actively working in the field of environmental sustainability. Its focus has been to towards enhancing sustainability of the livelihoods by increasing the resilience and capacity to cope with stresses and shocks. What started as a small success near the Chikmaglur area (Karnataka) in 2017, extended to more than 27 streams and rivers across six states in India (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh).

Approach

In its approach it sees the river as not just a channel carrying water but a living ecosystem, with its interacting components floodplains, wetlands, vegetation, and humans. For any region, the process starts with understanding the natural system i.e., the geology, aquifers, pedology, biodiversity etc. Secondly, understanding the causes of degradation and human use in the area. Third step involves using remote sensing images in a Geographic Information System, to better understand the specific sites and problems. This also helps in preparation of an action plan for implementation. At the next stage, communities are involved through awareness, consultations, trainings, and finally implementation. The efforts are scaled up from sub-watershed level to watershed level. After the project is “closed”, there is periodic follow up to ensure that the structures created survive and continue to bring the benefit.

Depending on the site and the problem, the actions can range from removing excess silt, creating water harvesting structures, reviving existing traditional structures, cleaning the rivers, to planting trees for soil stabilization. Both local knowledge and site-specific characteristics like slope, soil etc. are utilized in decision making. Wastelands are converted to Deemed Forest Areas through afforested supported by of communities. Monocropping is avoided and tree species are chosen in a way that it is beneficial to people and attracts bees and birds. People are consulted on the historical vegetation trends and the ecology of the area. Plants such as Jamun (Syzigium cumini), Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus), Neem (Azadirachta indica), Mango (Mangifera indica), Peeple (Ficus religiosa), and trees with timber value are preferred.

Stakeholders

While AOL works as an intermediary, the process involves various stakeholders like Scientists, Forest Department, Private Sector, Industry, Government Departments like Central Groundwater Board, and people who play different roles. This network of stakeholders is termed as ‘Village lab’ (or a local think tank). Throughout the process, the emphasis is on empowering the local communities so that they can carry forward the change. Water user groups are created mostly involving the youth, but participation of women and children is also considered an important part of the long-term success.

Incentives for the community

The community benefits by enhancements of assets, generation of employment (four million man days of employment has been generated through MGNREGA) and recognition as ‘water heroes’, ‘Water Positive’ or ‘Carbon Neutral Villages’, recognition of success on the radio show with the Prime Minister of India- ‘Mann Ki Baat’. More importantly, it is the need to improve the livelihoods and ensure household welfare, that brings people together despite the socio-cultural and economic differences within the village or community.

Challenges

One of the first challenges is to bring together the stakeholders. Different stakeholders may have different time schedules, difference of opinion and overlapping or conflicting interests. Another challenge is the high cost associated with increasing the scale of operations. Maintenance of structure on common land is difficult since these are not cemented and are essentially loose boulders check dams. This requires building community ownership and responsibility.

Defining success

In this case, people define success, and it is often visible in the form of raised water levels and increase in cropping cycles. As expressed by a farmer named Balaram in Tamil Nadu, “Our village had been facing a water problem for the last 15 years. We didn’t even have drinking water on our side of the village. We were forced to grow crops like tomatoes and millets, which do not fetch much money. Now we have started growing rice. Next year, we plan to cultivate wheat and sugarcane. I now see 30 feet of water in my 45 feet deep well. It was parched for the last three years. This is a huge step forward.”(Art of Living, 2021). Inspired by the success and visible results, other villagers also start taking initiative, scaling up the process. The impacts of such interventions are assessed through independent impact assessments and also by government bodies like the Central Groundwater Board. Another visible impact is reverse migration. Youth who had earlier left for jobs in the city returns back, once the agriculture is profitable again.

What makes it successful?

  • Reciprocity of knowledge: Instead of taking a ‘Transfer of Knowledge’ approach, there is a mutual exchange of knowledge where communities are consulted with and trained as well. Knowledge was also exchanged with other tropical countries like Australia and New Zealand.
  • Reviving traditional methods: The emphasis is on reviving the traditional structures than creating new ones. This also makes it cost effective.
  • Public-Private Partnerships: The private sector plays as important role in financing these projects through the Corporate Social Responsibility funds and Government Schemes like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (MGNREGA) creates new employment. Forest Department provides with nurseries and saplings
  • Adaptive management: The approach is an evidence-based approach and a constant process of learning from both successes and failures. The overall framework is adapted to different sites based on the site conditions, which makes it repeatable.
  • Self-sufficiency: The approach involves local actors, local resources and local solutions to make it time and cost effective. Though intensive training, water literacy programmes, and monitoring programmes, people are empowered to keep the changes long-lasting. It gives importance to local governance instead of relying on solutions offered by the Central Government.

Discussion

Almost every river in India is facing issues due to pollution, sand mining, dams, ground water extraction. This negatively impacts the society since river ecology is directly related to the livelihood of millions of people. Bringing change requires an initiative from the communities, sometimes mediated by the outside organizations like the AOL. Long-term, large-scale projects like the Yamuna Action Plan and Ganga Action Plan may still fail to clean the rivers despite having enough funds, technology, political support in place. The success lies in asking the right questions before making any intervention- “Restoration for whom, by whom?” This entails not only identifying the goals but also who sets those goals, for whom and why? How will the actions be implemented and who will implement it? Who defines success and how is it defined? Whether it is restoration or enhancement of sustainability of the livelihood, it is important to understand the needs of those who are meant to be benefitted and not just the desires of the “experts”.

Acknowledgement

The author thanks Mr. Ravindra Desai, Director of Govt. & Corporate Relations, River Rejuvenation Projects, Art of Living for providing inputs and feedback for this article. Author is also thankful to Mr. Sandeep Panwar from Art of Living for facilitating the interview and his insights on river rejuvenation programme.


References

  1. ↑ Sundaraju, V. (2019). Cauvery: The river that the Tamils thought would never fail. Down To Earth. Accessed from https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/water/cauvery-the-river-that-the-tamils-thought-would-never-fail-64973
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Sreelash, K., Mathew, M. M., Nisha, N., Arulbalaji, P., Bindu, A. G., & Sharma, R. K. (2020). Changes in the Hydrological Characteristics of Cauvery River draining the eastern side of southern Western Ghats, India. International Journal of River Basin Management, 1-14.
  3. ↑ Bhave, A. G., Conway, D., Dessai, S., & Stainforth, D. A. (2018). Water resource planning under future climate and socioeconomic uncertainty in the Cauvery River Basin in Karnataka, India. Water resources research, 54(2), 708-728.
  4. ↑ Murty, K. S. (2002). River water sharing: India's problems. FRIEND 2002- Regional Hydrology: Bridging the Gap Between Research and Practice, (274), 323-328.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Ghosh, N., & Bandyopadhyay, J. (2009). A scarcity value based explanation of trans-boundary water disputes: the case of the Cauvery River Basin in India. Water Policy, 11(2), 141-167.
  6. ↑ Reddy, C. S., Jha, C. S., & Dadhwal, V. K. (2016). Assessment and monitoring of long-term forest cover changes (1920–2013) in Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot. Journal of Earth System Science, 125(1), 103-114.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Rao, M. (2021). From the margins of the Spice Garden Economy: Agroforestry and Gendered Practices in the Western Ghats, Karnataka. Sociological Bulletin, 70(2): 180-196. doi: 10.1177/0038022921993968
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Dhanya, B. Purushothaman, S., Vishwanath, S. (2016). Economic rationale of traditional agroforestry systems: a case-study of Ficus trees in semiarid agro-ecosystems of Karnataka, southern India. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 25(4), 267-281, doi:10.1080/14728028.2016.1218800
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Nath, C.D., Pelissier, R., Ramesh, B. R., Garcia, C. (2011). Promoting native shade coffee plantations of southern India: comparison of growth rates with the exotic Grevillea robusta. Agroforestry System, 83, 107-119. doi: 10.1007/s10457-011-9401-8
  10. ↑ Guillemot, J., le Maire, G., Munishamappa, M., Charbonnier, F., and Vaast, P. (2018). Native coffee agroforestry in the Western Ghats of India maintains higher carbon storage and tree diversity compared to exotic agroforestry. Agriculture, Ecosystems and environment, 265, 461-469
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Jitendra (2019). Deforestation, urbanisation, illegal mining, waste dumping leave Cauvery battered and bruised. Down To Earth. Accessed from https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/urbanisation/deforestation-urbanisation-illegal-mining-wastedumping-leave-cauvery-batteredand-bruised-66032
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Narain, S. (2016). Coffee that will keep the Cauvery flowing. Down To Earth. Accessed from https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/water/coffee-that-will-keep-the-cauvery-flowing-54919
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Vijayabhama, M., Jaisankar, R., Varadha Raj, S., and Baranidharan, K. (2016). Spatial-temporal variation of Casuarina spread in Cauvery delta and north-eastern zone of Tamil Nadu, India: a spatial autoregressive model. Journal of applied statistics, 45(1): 1-7. doi: 10.1080/02664763.2016.1247786
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Sunil, C., Somashekhar, R.K., and Nagaraja, B. C. (2012). Riparian Vegetation Dynamics across two different landscapes along the river Cauvery in the Kodagu Region of Western Ghats. Journal of Meteorological Science, 9, 351–361. doi: 10.1007/s11629-009-2080-5
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies (UK).
  16. ↑ Morse, S., & McNamara, N. (2013). Sustainable livelihood approach: A critique of theory and practice. Springer Science & Business Media.
  17. ↑ Swift, J. (2006). Why are rural people vulnerable to famine?. Accessed from https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/8389/IDSB_37_4_10.1111-j.17595436.2006.tb00285.x.pdf?sequence=1
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Ashwini, B.C. and Kiresur, V.R. (2018). Are crops still profitable in Cauvery River Basin of Karnataka? Economic Affairs, 63(4), 795-803. doi: 10.30954/0424-2513.4.2018.3
  19. ↑ Balaji, R. (2018a). How cotton is comforting Cauvery delta farmers. June 1, 2018. The Hindu. Accessed from https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/h indu-business-line-howcottonis-comforting/docview/2048216144/se-2?accountid=14656
  20. ↑ Balaji, R. (2018b). Little drops of water can raise a good crop, find Cauvery Delta farmers. The Hindu. Accessed from https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/hindu-business-line-littledropswater-can-raise/docview/2057616734/se-2?accountid=14656
  21. ↑ Sabarisakthi, M. (2019). An Exploration of Farm Crisis and Suicides in the Cauvery Delta Districts of Tamil Nadu. International Journal of Economics, 7(4): 84-90. doi: 10.34293/economics.v7i4.646
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Documentation:Open_Case_Studies/FRST522/2021/Sustainable_rural_livelihoods_and_community_participation_in_restoration:_A_case_study_from_Southern_India&oldid=729900"