See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281105759

Indicators for assessing the impacts of watershed development

programmes in different regions of India

Article · April 2012

CITATIONS READS
13 3,436

3 authors, including:

Pradeep Dogra
Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation (Formerly Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute)
45 PUBLICATIONS 743 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pradeep Dogra on 20 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vol. 40, No. 1, pp 1-12, 2012
Indian Journal of Soil Conservation
Online URL:http://indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:ijsc&type=home
Estd. 972
1

Indicators for assessing the impacts of watershed development programmes in

different regions of India
V.N. Sharda1, Pradeep Dogra2 and B.L. Dhyani2
Member, Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board, Pusa, New Delhi - 110012, India; 2Central Soil and Water Conservation
Research and Training Institute, 218 Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun-248195, Uttarakhand, India
1
E-mail: vnsharda@icar.org.in

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history :
Received : October, 2011 Numerous watershed management projects have been undertaken in the recent
Revised : December, 2011 past by various developmental agencies in different agro-climatic regions having
Accepted : January, 2012 diverse physiographic, climatic and socio-economic conditions. However, the
impacts of various watershed interventions have not been objectively evaluated
for comparison across the watersheds, states and regions due to lack of availability
of appropriate indicators. In this paper, the authors have evolved a large number of
useful indicators which have the potential to systematically and scientifically
Key words : assess the impact of various intervention on bio-physical, socio-economic and
Impact, sustainability attributes in the watershed management projects being executed
Indicators, across different regions of the country. The main objective of this paper is to
Watershed development sensitize the implementing agencies about the importance of collecting the
relevant data during planning, implementation and maintenance phases of the
watershed development projects to arrive at useful and logical conclusions and
justify public investments. The use of appropriate indicators would also help in
critically analysing the relative performance of watershed projects in terms of
quantifiable benefits under identical agro-climatic settings as well as across
different regions of the country. The results of some of the indicators, tested and
evaluated under field conditions have also been presented.

1. INTRODUCTION A huge knowledge gap exists with respect to the impact

Since 1960s, many soil conservation and watershed
development projects have been undertaken in the world
under diverse agro-climatic conditions. These projects
usually aimed at reducing soil erosion and preventing land
degradation besides increasing crop and biomass
productivity. To achieve these broad objectives, a multitude
of activities were undertaken, ranging from bunding,
terracing, gully control structures, reforestation and
horticulture development, off-farm employment and other
livelihood support systems. However, while evaluating
these projects, during and post project periods, it was
observed that no concrete conclusions could be drawn,
mainly due to non-availability of tools and techniques for
effective monitoring of project outcomes and impacts (de
Graaff et al., 2007).
of soil and water conservation technologies in particular,
such as the effectiveness of on-farm technologies in
controlling soil erosion, their impact on human and natural
resources, cost-benefit ratios, or the level of integration into
prevailing farming systems (Liniger and Schwilch, 2002;
Liniger et al., 2002). The reasons for this may be numerous.
But development programmes generally seem to lay more
emphasis on performance rather than impact. For example,
a soil and water conservation programme may be
responsible for the design and implementation of soil and
water conservation measures (performance) but may have
no mandate to monitor the consequences in the mid or long-
term (outcome / impact). Another issue that prevents people
from seriously dealing with impact monitoring is the fact
that there are always unintended impacts, both positive and
negative. Who wants to admit negative effects when this
could lead to a loss of funding? (Herweg, 2007).
 2 V.N. Sharda et al. /Ind.J.Soil Cons. 40(1) : 1 -12, 2012
The Government of India is presently investing over Rs
2500 crore annually on watershed development
programmes through its various Central Ministries. In all
the countries, the consequences of free market ideology and
policies have increased pressure on public expenditure. The
result is much greater scrutiny over the use of public funds
for development and environmental programmes.
Furthermore, growing public and political skepticism about
the results from the last 50 years of international
development is forcing development agencies to demand
greater accountability and greater evidence of impact for
each money unit spent. The number of development
organizations competing for both public and private
funding has also increased dramatically, making
accountability an important aspect of being competitive in
bidding for funding. However, it is not only upward
accountability that is important. Some development
organizations are now putting much more emphasis on
transparency and accountability towards the people they
aim to serve and their implementing partners. Increasingly,
donors want to know and development agencies want to
demonstrate the ultimate results of investments made.
“How have people's lives changed for the better?” or “How
has the environment actually been improved?” are recurring
questions (Woodhill, 2007).
There is a need to monitor and evaluate the impact of
soil conservation and watershed development projects that
are multi-sectoral in essence from various points of view to
achieve the objective of sustainable development.
Interventions to conserve soil and develop watersheds are
being undertaken globally by a wide variety of agencies, but
we need to have instruments to assess the impact of these
interventions. This means identifying the variables that the
interventions are aiming to affect, indicators of those
variables, and the people who are the intended beneficiaries.
The challenge is not only to evaluate the performance of any
project in terms of inputs and outputs delivery, but to assess
the added-value of an integrated project approach, which
hinges on the interactions and synergies among the
institutional, social, economic and technical driving forces
to reverse or prevent a trend in soil and environmental
degradation of a specific watershed.
To be able to verify to what extent the activities in the
implementation phase contribute towards the objectives,
clearly defined indicators need to be established for these
objectives. Since objectives often relate to both physical
factors, such as erosion and hydrological status, and socio-
economic and sustainability factors, including local
institution development, capacity building, participation
rates, financial performance and resource leveraging, a
wide range of direct or proxy indicators need to be
established. Further, continuing improvement in project
performance requires identification of even more effective
indicators to take the informed decisions.
2. INDICATORS
 Indicators are variables or statistics that help to measure
changes in a given situation/phenomenon, changes in
state of something valued or change of quality. They are
defined as specific and objectively verifiable measures
of changes or results brought about by an activity
(Guidelines UNDP, 1984).
 An indicator is a proxy measurement-one easily
measured phenomenon, which is closely related to a
target phenomenon that is more difficult to measure.
 They are used as markers of the progress towards
achieving short-term, intermediate term or long term
objectives. In other words, indicators are designed to
provide a standard by which we measure or assess the
progress of an activity against stated targets. It must be
clear that indicators are not targets because targets are
specified results in terms of quantity and/or time.
 Indicators differ from other statistics (processed raw
data) in containing some added significance to a specific
problem.
Careful selection of key indicators for monitoring and
impact assessment is cost-effective as it is not possible to
monitor every aspect of a project. The main challenge in
identifying indicators is to select those that are sufficiently
representative and at the same time easy to understand and
measure on a routine basis. The classic mantra for
monitoring and evaluation has been to develop simple,
measurable, achievable, relevant and time-sensitive
(SMART) indicators. Some general criteria for selecting
key indicators are suggested as follows:
F It must be clearly and unambiguously defined in the
project context. Then it can be clearly measured, no
matter who does the work.
F The difficulty with indicators lies not just in selecting
ones that can be easily measured, but in selecting valid
indicators, that is indicators that are suitable (directly or
as proxies) for the objectives ultimately being
measured. They must reflect the objectives of the
project. Indicators by themselves have little meaning.
Indicators only have meaning in the light of specified
threshold values and targets.
F They must be sensitive to change and responsive to the
project work. An indicator may be a valid measure of
some phenomenon, but if it fails to register anything
except very large changes, it is of little value. Also, the
indicator must register a change reasonably soon after it
has occurred.
F Indicators must be comparable across time and space
and must be scale neutral. They are useful to monitor
changes and provide means to compare trends and
progress over time. They are also useful for comparing
results across different locations.
 V.N. Sharda et al. /Ind.J.Soil Cons. 40(1) : 1 -12, 2012
F The data needed for the indicators must be relatively
easy to collect i.e. the collection of data should be
practicable.
F The data and results should be cost effective in terms of
time and money required to obtain them.
Some indicators have been evolved and used in the
world, mainly for assessing the bio-physical impacts in the
watersheds (Sánchez et al., 2007; Chen and Wei, 2008;
Sinclair et al., 2009; Fitch et al., 2010; Careya et al., 2011).
However, many of these indicators cannot be easily
understood or employed by the agencies implementing
watershed development programmes in India. Recently,
Sharda et al. (2005) also evolved several indicators for
assessing some of the bio-physical as well as socio-
economic impacts of the watershed development projects in
the country. A need was felt to identify some more useful
and practicable indicators to reasonably monitor and assess
the impacts of watershed interventions on biophysical,
socio-economic and sustainability attributes. In this paper,
efforts have been made to evolve and present those
indicators which can be easily employed by the
implementing agencies to scientifically and systematically
analyse the impacts of various interventions in watershed
development programmes. These indicators, as listed
below, relate only to the tangible impacts, though watershed
development projects also yield many intangible benefits,
which are often difficult to quantify and valuate.
I. Bio-Physical Indicators
A watershed development project contains a package
of interventions and is multi-sectoral in essence. It is
designed to use a set of inputs (goods and services) to yield a
set of outputs, which are transformed into different goods
and services. The outputs offer opportunities to change the
production, use and consumption patterns of the watershed
resources. A number of bio-physical outputs are derived
from a watershed development project. The project's
primary endeavour is to mitigate soil erosion occurring in
any form on any kind of land within the watershed along
with water conservation, which leads to protection of the
watershed and improvement in the quantity and quality of
surface and ground water available for various uses of the
stakeholders, among which the major use is for irrigation
and maintaining environmental flow in local streams. By
this, the watershed development activities also help in
mitigating losses due to floods and droughts. The health of
land and the soil it is composed of improves. The project
finally helps to boost production from arable and non-arable
lands in a sustainable manner, in addition to providing
environmental benefits such as enhancement of flora and
fauna.
The bio-physical changes or effects are, therefore, on
many fronts, which can be segregated into broad groups or
parametric areas. Each can be classified into several sub-
3
groups or sub-parametric areas. Assessing the changes
brought about in these sub-groups would demand a large
number of indicators. Thus, sub-parametric areas should be
short-listed and then appropriate indicators should be
chosen for each sub-parametric area (Das et al., 2007). The
following broad groups and sub-parametric areas related to
bio-physical aspects of watershed development projects are
suggested:
1. Physical developments
a. Soil and water conservation on arable and non arable
lands (e.g. cultivated area levelled, number of terraces
restored, area covered under drainage line treatment,
number of water resources improved, number of water
harvesting and irrigation structures created, land slide
area treated etc.)
b. Arable land production systems development (e.g.
agriculture, horticulture, livestock, fishery etc.)
c. Non-arable land production systems development (e.g.
forests, pastures, plantation crops etc.)
d. Tertiary livelihood development (e.g. mushroom
cultivation, beekeeping, sericulture etc.)
2. Changes due to physical developments
a. Soil (e.g. soil loss, nutrient loss, soil physical and
chemical properties, soil biota etc.)
b. Surface water (e.g. water resources, flow pattern in local
streams, sedimentation, flood/drought mitigation, water
storage capacity, water availability and utilization for
drinking, domestic, irrigation and livestock purposes, water
storage and utilization efficiencies, water quality etc.)
c. Ground water (e.g. ground water table, water
availability and utilization for drinking, domestic,
irrigation and livestock purposes, water quality etc.)
d. Land (e.g. slope reduction, stabilization of mass eroded
areas, vulnerability, land utilization etc.)
e. Agriculture (e.g. productivity, cropping intensity,
diversification, fertilization etc.)
f. Horticulture (e.g. productivity, diversification,
fertilization etc.)
g. Livestock (e.g. number, composition, productivity,
health etc.)
h. Fishery (e.g. number of units, productivity etc.)
i. Non-arable land (e.g. productivity, carrying capacity,
vegetation biodiversity etc.)
j. Sustainability (e.g. vegetative cover, forest dependency,
drought tolerance, etc.)
Land Levelling Index
For mitigation of runoff and soil loss, especially from
arable lands, reduction of land slope through land
improvement activities is inevitably undertaken in
watershed management programmes. Land Levelling Index
 4 V.N. Sharda et al. /Ind.J.Soil Cons. 40(1) : 1 -12, 2012
(LLI), which is the ratio of recommended land slope to the
existing land slope, can be utilized in the pre-project (PrP)
and post-project (PoP) scenarios to quantify the extent of
land improvement and is defined as:
Recommended slope (%)
Land Levelling Index (LLI) = ------------------------------------ (1)
Existing or treated slope (%)
where, existing slope refers to the individual land slope
before the inception of the project and treated slope is the
moderated slope resulting from land levelling activities.
Higher value of LLI is a measure of better moderation in
land slope. LLI can attain a maximum value of 1.0, which
refers to a perfectly levelled field.
Critical Area Index
Before actually undertaking the treatment of a
watershed, its critical areas are identified for implementing
suitable location specific bio-engineering measures. For
quantifying the total work undertaken at watershed level,
Critical Area Index (CAI), which is the ratio of the critical
area benefitted due to treatment with conservation
structures and the total critical area that needs to be treated is
defined as:
Benefitted critical area
from structures
Critical Area Index (CAI) = ----------------------------- (2)
Total critical area
The CAI can attain a maximum value of 1.0 and a
higher value of CAI is a measure of better treatment of the
critical area.
Gully Stabilization Index
It is an important indicator to measure the impact of
gully control structures and drainage line treatment on the
stability of the gullied area during the PoP period. It is
defined as:
0.5 SR + 0.5 SSR
Gully Stabilization Index (GSI) = -------------------- x 100 (3)
SR + SSR
where, SR is Stream Slope Reduction and SSR is Stream
Side Stabilization Ratio, which are defined as:
Equivalent slope of
the gullies (%)
Stream Slope Reduction (SR) =-------------------------- (3.1)
Expected equivalent
slope (%)
Average width of streams
after the project
Stream Side Stabilization = --------------------------- (3.2)
Ratio (SSR) Average width of streams
before the project
The SSR may be worked out by assigning suitable
weights to different streams based on the water volume
discharged or stream order (Wi) as:
n
S Wix SSRi after the project
i=1
Weighted SSR = ------------------------------------------- (4)
n
S Wj xSSRj before the project
j=1
where, n refers to number of streams in the watershed. GSI
can have any value between 0 and 100 and a higher value
will indicate higher stability of the gullies after the
watershed interventions.
Cultivated Land Utilization Index
Cultivated Land Utilization Index (CLUI) indicates the
impact of watershed interventions on changes in cultivable
land area and duration of crop cultivation in PrP and PoP
periods. It is calculated by summing the products of land
area planted under each crop, multiplied by actual duration
of days of that crop, and dividing the sum by the total
cultivated land area times 365 days as given below:
n
S ai di
i=1
Cultivated Land Utilization Index (CLUI) = ------------ (5)
A x 365
where, n are the total number of crops; ai is the area occupied
by ith crop; di are the days that the ith crop occupied in the ai
area; and A is total cultivable land area. The CLUI can attain
a maximum value of 1.0 and higher value of CLUI indicates
that the maximum part of cultivable area is under crop
production for maximum period in a year.
Water Storage Capacity Utilization Index
Success of any watershed management project largely
depends on harvesting of water within the watershed and its
judicious utilization. Water Storage Capacity Utilization
Index (WSCUI) combines conservation of water available
from all the potential resources within the watershed and its
optimal utilization by assigning proper weights to the two
aspects and then adding the products. WSCUI is defined as:
Water Storage Capacity Utilization Index (WSCUI) =
(0.4SE + 0.6 UE) x 100 (6)
where, Storage Efficiency (SE), which needs to be assessed
for improving availability and planning of water resources,
can be estimated as a ratio of water actually stored to the
designed live storage capacity expressed in percent terms:
n
S Water actually stored in
i=1live storage capacity
Storage Efficiency (SE) = ----------------------- x 100 (6.1)
n
S Designed live storage capacity
i=1
 V.N. Sharda et al. /Ind.J.Soil Cons. 40(1) : 1 -12, 2012
and, Utilization Efficiency (UE) of the stored water can be
computed as a ratio of the total water utilized (i.e. excluding
losses through seepage and evapo-transpiration, and
unutilized part), and the total water actually stored in live
storage.
n watershed management project is minimization of risk of
S Total water utilized
i=1out of live storage
Utilization
Efficiency = ----------------------------------x100 (6.2)
(UE) n
S Total water actually
i=1stored in live storage
where, n = Number of structures.
Storage Efficiency, Utilization Efficiency and Water
Storage Capacity Utilization Index can vary from 0 to 100
and a higher value will indicate higher efficiency /
utilization.
Irrigability Index
Major utilization of the harvested water is for irrigation
of crops to ensure sustainable agricultural production in the
watershed. Irrigability Index (II) is a ratio of additional
gross irrigated area and net incremental irrigated area. Gross
irrigated area may be estimated by adding the net
incremental irrigated area as many times as it was irrigated.
Additional gross irrigated area
Irrigability Index (II) = ------------------------------------- (7)
Net incremental irrigated area
The index can attain any value more than 0, and a
higher value will indicate successful utilization of harvested
water in the watershed management project.
Crop Productivity Index
For assessing the overall improvement in crop
productivity at the watershed level, Crop Productivity Index
(CPI), which indicates the level of average crop
productivity in comparison to the potential or best yield of
crops, is calculated before and after the project by dividing
the crop yield obtained in the watershed by the yield
obtained under recommended package of practices or
highest yield within the watershed:
n Recommended/required NPK dose
Crop Productivity Index (CPI) = 1 S (yi/Yi) (8)
n i=1
where, n is the total number of crops cultivated in the
watershed, yi is the average yield of ith crop cultivated in the
watershed, and Yi is the yield of ith crop with standard
package of practices or highest yield within the watershed.
The CPI can attain any value greater than zero in a given
location. Higher value of CPI is indicative of crops' yields
5
closer to the maximum attainable yield under standard
package of practices.
Crop Diversification Index
One aspect of crop improvement undertaken during a
loss in crop production through crop diversification. Crop
Diversification Index (CDI) can be utilized for PrP and PoP
scenarios to assess the changes in the cropping
patterns/systems due to crop improvement programmes and
is defined as follows:
n
Crop Diversification Index (CDI) = S Pi log (1/Pi) (9)
i=1
where, Pi is proportion of ith crop in comparison with total
cropped area and n is the total number of crops in the
watershed. The CDI can attain any value > 0 and higher
value of CDI is a measure of better crop diversification.
Conserved Water Productivity Index
Conserved Water Productivity Index helps in assessing
the change in the irrigated crops' yields in terms of water
utilized, and is defined as ratio of sum of average equivalent
yields per unit of conserved water utilized by crops that
were irrigated in terms of targeted production. The value of
the index can vary from 0 to 1, and a higher value will
indicate achievement closer to the targeted production.
Avg. production achieved
(equivalent yield)/
Conserved Water unit of water
Productivity = ------------------------------------- (10)
Index (CWPI) Production targeted
(equivalent yield)/unit of water
Crop Fertilization Index
For assessing the change in fertilizer consumption
between PrP and PoP scenarios, the ratio of actual
consumption of NPK and as per recommended/required
NPK doses is a useful indicator. The value of Crop
Fertilization Index varies from 0 to 1, and a higher value will
indicate that the NPK consumption is closer to the
recommended or required amount of consumption.
Crop Fertilization Average NPK consumption
Index (CFI) = -------------------------------------- (11)
Soil Nutrient Index
Conservation measures undertaken on arable lands
such as minimum tillage, zero tillage, bunding, vegetative
barriers etc. that prevent loss of nutrients through soil loss
along with mulching, manuring, INM, intercropping, mixed
cropping etc. build up soil fertility, which leads to
sustainable production of crops, vegetables and fruits.
Therefore, estimating the changes in soil fertility through
changes in soil nutrients in PrP and PoP scenarios is
 6 V.N. Sharda et al. /Ind.J.Soil Cons. 40(1) : 1 -12, 2012
essential for understanding the impact of watershed
management. Soil Nutrient Index (SNI) is expressed as:
Nl + 2 Nm + 3 Nh
Soil Nutrient Index (SNI) = -------------------------
Nl + Nm + Nh
where, N is number of samples (depending upon soil type
and land use) and l, m and h refer to low, medium and high
percentages, respectively of a particular nutrient as per
ranges given below:
Organic Carbon (%):
l = low fertility (< 0.5%)
m = medium fertility (0.5% - 0.75%)
h = high fertility (> 0.75%)
Available Nitrogen (N kg/ha):
l = low fertility (< 250 kg/ha)
m = medium fertility (250 - 500 kg/ha)
h = high fertility (> 500 kg/ha)
Available Phosphorus (P2O5 kg/ha):
l = low fertility (< 11 kg/ha)
m = medium fertility (11 - 25 kg/ha)
h = high fertility (> 25 kg/ha)
Available Potassium (K2O kg/ha):
l = low fertility (<120 kg/ha)
m = medium fertility (120-280 kg/ha)
h = high fertility (>280 kg/ha)
For any of the nutrients, the value of its SNI can attain a
value between 1.0 to 3.0. A value of 1.0 will indicate that the
soil has low fertility whereas a value of 3.0 will indicate that
the soil fertility is high in terms of that nutrient. Any value in
between the two extreme values will indicate the medium
fertility status of the soil.
Livestock Composition Index
For measuring the change in livestock composition
between PrP and PoP scenarios, the ratio of total livestock
units of improved breeds of cows and buffaloes and total
livestock units of local breeds of cows and buffaloes is a
useful indicator. The ratio can vary from 0 to infinity.
Total livestock units of improved
Livestock buffaloes & crossbred cows
Composition = --------------------------------------- (13)
Index (LCI) Total livestock units of local cows &
buffaloes
Livestock Production Value Index
Change in value of production due to changes in
livestock composition can be assessed with Livestock
{ }/
Production Value Index (LPVI) which is defined as:
k n
S SPi Yij Xj L after the project
Livestock Production i=1 j=1
{ }/
(12) Value Index (LPVI) = ---------------------------------- (14)
(at constant price) k n
S SPi Yij Xj L before the project
i=1 j=1
where,
Pi = Price of ith product (at constant price),
Yij = Average production of ith product from jth category
of animal,
Xj = Number of jth category of animal, and
L = Total number of standard livestock units.
A higher value of LPVI indicates increased value of the
livestock production after the implementation of improved
animal husbandry practices.
II. Socio-Economic Indicators
Watershed management programmes are no longer
considered to be simply of technical nature. It is now well
realized that the social components of these programmes are
equally important as technical components since changes in
natural resources and ecological conditions affect the
quality of life of stakeholders. For self-sustainable growth,
it is essential to assess the impact of watershed management
projects from social and economic point of view in addition
to the technical aspects. In addition to the existing socio-
economic indicators, some more indicators were also
developed to objectively assess the impact of the watershed
development programmes on the socio-economic and
participatory aspects of the stakeholders. The section
describes the indicators that have been developed to assess
the impact of watershed interventions on socio-economic
conditions of the watershed community.
Poverty Index
It is simply percentage of families below poverty line
(BPL) based on their real annual income within the
watershed:
Number of BPL families
Poverty Index (PI) = ------------------------------- x 100 (15)
Total Number of families
Poverty Index can have a value ranging from 0 to 100,
and it can be utilized in PrP and PoP scenarios to assess the
change in number of poor stakeholder families within the
watershed.
Women Productive Time Utilization Ratio
Women constitute 32% of the agricultural workforce in
the Indian sub-continent and this percentage is rising due to
the out migration of men to urban areas. Therefore, women
play a major role in managing natural resources for ensuring
food and nutritional security, in addition to devoting their
labour and time in daily household chores. Under harsh
 V.N. Sharda et al. /Ind.J.Soil Cons. 40(1) : 1 -12, 2012
environmental conditions and limited natural resources, a
lot of time is devoted to unproductive activities such as
fuelwood collection, water collection, grazing etc.
Watershed management activities provide opportunities to
the women for utilizing their labour in more productive
activities. Women Productive Time Utilization Ratio
(WPTUR) will help in indirectly assessing the benefits
derived by the women stakeholders from watershed
management programmes.
Time spent on more
Women Productive productive activities
Time Utilization Ratio = --------------------------------- (16)
(WPTUR) Time spent on less
productive activities
where, more productive activities cover dairying, cottage
industry, cropping, horticulture and agri-business while less
productive activities include fuel wood collection, water
collection, grazing etc. The ratio can be measured at two
points of project period i.e. PrP and PoP. An improvement in
the ratio will indicate more productive utilization of the time
by women folk in the watershed and vice versa.
Regular Employment Generation Index
Watershed management projects are a great source of
generation of one time employment through land based
activities such as soil conservation, plantation (horticulture,
forestry), and other works, as well as regular employment
by introducing labour intensive new agricultural production
technologies and non-land based activities such as cottage
industry or thrift societies for the land less rural masses. In
case of regular employment, which is more important than
the casual employment, the watershed management impact
can be assessed through the Regular Employment
Generation Index:
n change in outmigration.
S Ei x Ai (after the project)
Regular Employment i=1
Generation Index (REGI)= -------------------------------x100
k for measuring the success of any watershed management
S Ej x Aj (before the project)
j=1 (17)
where,
Ei = The number of mandays utilized per hectare in the ith
enterprise (crop, horticulture, agro-forestry, forestry,
livestock, fishery etc.) in a year after the project
Ai = Area in hectares utilized in the ith enterprise (crop,
horticulture, agro-forestry, forestry, livestock, fishery
etc.) in a year after the project,
Ej = The number of mandays utilized per hectare in the jth
enterprise (crop, horticulture, agro-forestry, forestry,
livestock, fishery etc.) in a year before the project,
Aj = Area in hectares utilized in the jth enterprise (crop,
horticulture, agro-forestry, forestry, livestock, fishery
etc.) in a year before the project, and
7
k,n =Number of enterprises before and after the project,
respectively.
Regular Employment Generation Index can attain any
positive value, and any value higher than 100 will indicate the
percentage improvement in regular employment leading to
reduction in outmigration under ceteris paribus condition.
Seasonal Outmigration Ratio
Significant decline in outmigration is achieved through
watershed management activities when there has been a
substantial increase in irrigation intensity, cropping
intensity, crop diversification etc. leading to an increase in
watershed productivity. It creates opportunities for the
seasonal outmigrants to obtain gainful employment within
the watershed. The impact of a watershed management
project on the socio-economic malady of outmigration can
be assessed through the Seasonal Outmigration Ratio
(SOR), which is defined as:
n
S Di (after the project)
Seasonal Outmigration i=1
Ratio (SOR) = ---------------------------------- (18)
k
S Dj (before the project)
j=1
where,
Di= is the number of days outmigrated by ith outmigrant in a
year after the project, and
Dj= is the number of days outmigrated by jth outmigrant in a
year before the project.
Seasonal Outmigration Ratio can attain any value, and
zero value will indicate that outmigration has been
completely eliminated, while unit value will indicate no
Social Equity Index
Social equity is one of the most important paradigms
project. Social Equity Index (SEI) combines equity in
income distribution, budget sharing, contributions made
and benefit sharing by assigning proper weights to the four
aspects and then adding the products:
3 IGR+ 2 BuSGR +
2 CGR + 3 BeSGR
Social Equity Index (SEI) = --------------------------x100 (19)
10
where,
n
Income Gini Ratio (IGR) = 1 - S Pi (qi + qi-1) (19.1)
i=1
n
Budget Sharing Gini Ratio (BuSGR) = 1 - S Pi (bi + bi-1) (19.2)
i=1
 8 V.N. Sharda et al. /Ind.J.Soil Cons. 40(1) : 1 -12, 2012

n considered as economically viable and economic soundness

Contribution Gini Ratio (CGR = 1-S Pi (ci + ci-1) (19.3) of the project increases as the BCR value increases.
i=1
Net Present Value
n Net Present Value (NPV) is simply the discounted
Benefit Sharing Gini Ratio (BeSGR)= 1- S Pi (di + di-1)(19.4) value of additional gross benefits minus the discounted
i=1 value of additional costs. The general formula for Net
where,
Present Value is:
Pi = Proportion of population in ith class,
qi = Cumulative proportion of income upto ith class, n Bt - Ct
th
bi = Cumulative proportion of budget shared upto i class, Net Present Value (NPV) = S -------- (22)
t=1 (1 + i)t
ci = Cumulative proportion of contributions made upto ith
class, and where, Bt = Additional benefits at time t, Ct = Additional
di = Cumulative proportion of benefits shared upto ith class. costs at time t,
Social Equity Index can vary from 0 to 100 and a lower i = Discount rate (%), and t = Life of the project
value will indicate higher social equity. Net Present Value can attain any value. Higher the positive
Net Present Value, more economically sound is the project.
Human Development Index A project having negative NPV value will be an economical
It is expressed in terms of height for age coefficient of failure.
children upto 10 years of age and can be computed
separately for males and females as: Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
k n Internal Rate of Return is the rate of discount which
S S Observed hij makes the present value of benefits equal to present value of
j=1 i=1 costs. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is the discount rate 'i',
Height for Age Coefficient (HAC) = ---------------------- (20) such that
n Bt - Ct
k S -------- = 0 (23)
S fj x Recommended hj t
t=1 (1 + i)
j=1
where, IRR can be calculated as follows:
h = Height of a child in cm, The present value for
i = ith observation, the discount rate which
j = jth class, and Last gave the positive Difference
fj = number of observations (frequency) in jth class. discount total present value the two
IRR= rate which + ------------------------- x discount
The value of HAC can vary between more than 0 and 1 yields a The sum, without regard rates
positive to sign, of the above mentioned
and a higher value is indicative of better development of
present number and the present in this
humans as an impact of watershed interventions leading to value value for the discount formula
enhanced food and nutritional security. rate which yielded the
first negative present value (24)
Benefit Cost Ratio
Economic analysis of the watershed development Internal Rate of Return can have any value equal to or
projects is carried out separately for arable lands and non- more than zero. If the IRR is higher than the discount rate at
arable lands and also for the watershed as a whole using the which the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) and Net Present Value
discounted measure of the project worth, namely Benefit Cost (NPV) are estimated, then the watershed project is
Ratio (BCR). It is defined as the ratio of present value of economically successful. In general, the IRR should be
additional gross benefits to the present value of additional sufficiently larger than the interest rate to be charged on the
total costs as given below: funds required for the project to accomodate uncertainity
n Bt / (1+ i)t and risk factors associated with the project.
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) = S ------------- (21)
t=1 Ct / (1 + i)t Enterprise Cost Effectiveness Index
where, Bt are the additional benefits (Rs.) at time t; Ct are the Benefits accrued out after introduction of an improved
additional costs (Rs.) at time t; i is discount rate (%); and t is technology in a watershed can be assessed by Enterprise
life of the project. Benefit Cost Ratio can attain any value
equal to or more than zero. Projects with BCR > 1.0 are
 V.N. Sharda et al. /Ind.J.Soil Cons. 40(1) : 1 -12, 2012
Cost Effectiveness Index which can be defined as:
Benefits from improved techology (Rs./ha)
Enterprise -----------------------------------------------------
Cost Benefits from traditional practice (Rs./ha)
Effectiveness = -------------------------------------------- x 100
Index (ECEI) Cost of production through improved
technology (Rs./ha)
--------------------------------------------------
Cost of production through existing
technology (Rs./ha)
It can be computed separately for different physiographic
locations of the watershed and for each important technology.
The value of ECEI may vary from 0 to 100 and a higher value
indicates higher net returns from the improved technology as
compared to traditional practice followed by the farmers
during the PrP period.
III. Sustainability Indicators
Overall impact of watershed development activities
needs to be assessed in the light of those aspects that ensure
sustainability of the watershed development programmes in
the long run. Important indicators relevant to sustainability
aspects are presented as follows:
Runoff Conservation Index
It is an important indicator to define as to how much
runoff has been conserved within the watershed for bio-
mass production and/or groundwater recharge after
adopting need based watershed interventions. It can be
expressed as:
Runoff water conserved in the
Runoff watershed after the project
Conservation =-------------------------------------------- x 100
Index (RCI) Runoff water estimated before
the project (26)
The runoff water conserved in the watershed can be
computed by estimating the runoff by hydrologic soil cover
complex number method after the implementation of
agronomical, vegetative and engineering measures, which
affect the land use and topographical characteristics of the
watershed and subtracting it from the estimated runoff
during the pre-project period. The value of RCI may vary
from 0 to 100 and a value of 100 denotes that the entire
runoff from the watershed in the PrP period has been
intercepted and conserved within the watershed in the PoP
scenario. It may, however, not be desirable from
environmental flow point of view.
Soil Erosion Risk Index
Mitigation of soil erosion prevailing in a watershed is
one of the main objectives of watershed development
projects. The extent of mitigation achieved needs to be
assessed in terms of the permissible soil loss in a watershed.
Soil Erosion Risk Index (SERI) indicates the change
9
brought about in the soil loss occurring in a watershed in
terms of ratio of total permissible soil loss as per soil loss
tolerance limit of different homogenous units (in terms of
soil depth, infiltration rate, bulk density, erodibility factor,
organic carbon and fertility status) of a watershed and the
total actual prevailing soil loss occurring from these units of
the watershed.
n
S Permissible soil loss (t/ha) as per
i = 1 Soil Loss Tolerance
(25)
Limit in the ith homogenous x
Soil Erosion unit of watershed
Risk Index = ---------------------------------------------------
(SERI) n
th
S Prevailing soil loss (t/ha) in the i
i = 1 homogenous unit
of watershed (27)
where, i is a homogenous unit of the watershed in terms
of soil depth, infiltration rate, bulk density, erodibility
factor, organic carbon and fertility status. The value of the
index can vary from 0 to 1 and in some cases even higher.
Higher value of SERI is a measure of better moderation in
soil loss, whereas a very low value near to zero indicates that
the watershed is suffering from a soil loss significantly more
than its permissible limit and is at risk of degrading.
Drought Resilience Ratio
For measuring the drought tolerance of a watershed,
ratio of sum of weighted equivalent yields of food, fodder
and horticultural crops during drought and normal years can
be utilized. Drought Resilience Ratio can be estimated for
rainfed, irrigated and watershed as a whole for the adopted
watershed and non-adopted area outside the watershed. The
value of the indicator can vary from 0 to 1, and a higher
value will indicate higher resilience to drought.
0.5 (equivalent food crop production)
+ 0.3 (equivalent fodder production)
+ 0.2 (equivalent horti crops
Drought Resilience production) in a drought year
Ratio (DRR) = -------------------------------------------------
0.5 (equivalent food crop production)
+ 0.3 (equivalent fodder production)
+0.2 (equivalent horti crops
production) in a normal year
(28)
Induced Watershed Eco-Index
Induced Watershed Eco-Index (IWEI) is an indicator of
additional area brought under vegetative cover due to crops,
pasture and grassland development and horticultural and
forestry plantations in a watershed during the project period.
IWEI is calculated as the additional area made green
through watershed interventions in proportion to the total
watershed area as given below:
10 V.N. Sharda et al. /Ind.J.Soil Cons. 40(1) : 1 -12, 2012
Additional area vegetated during
Induced Watershed the project
Eco-Index (IWEI) = ---------------------------------------- (29)
Total area of the watershed
The IWEI can attain a maximum value of 1.0, which
indicates that whole of the watershed area has been brought
under some form of vegetation.
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
This indicator is utilized to define the improvement in
vegetative cover as a result of bio-engineering measures in
the watershed. It can be expressed as:
Normalized Difference NIR - R
Vegetation Index (NDVI) = ----------------- x100 (30)
NIR + R
where,
NIR = Near Infra Red (0.76 to 0.90 m) radiation, and
R = Red (0.63 to 0.69 m) radiation.
The values of NIR and R can be obtained through
remotely sensed data. NDVI can have any value varying
from 0 to 100 and a higher value indicates better quality of
vegetative cover in the PoP scenario as compared to PrP
period.
Carrying Capacity Index
Increasing fodder availability through afforestation
and other related activities is an important component of
watershed development for boosting livestock sector and
thereby the outputs emanating from it. Therefore, assessing
the carrying capacity of the watershed in terms of fodder
supply for supporting its livestock population is essential.
For this, the Carrying Capacity Index is a suitable indicator,
which is the ratio of the quantity of fodder available and
required for the existing livestock population. The value of
the index varies from 0 to 1.
Carrying Quantity of fodder available
Capacity Index = --------------------------------------------
(CCI) (No. of standard x (Standard requirement
livestock units) of green fodder per
livestock unit) (31)
Participatory Watershed Development Index
Approaches for assessing success of watershed
development in India have evolved over time from evaluation
primarily based on biophysical criteria (changes in soil loss,
vegetative cover, water table depth etc.) to the one based on
biophysical plus productive, social and equity criteria. A
further evolution in assessing success of a watershed
development project is evaluation of the participatory
criterion in addition to the above mentioned criteria.
Participation Paradigm Index and Participatory Watershed
Development Index have been developed (Dogra et al., 2005)
to quantitatively monitor and evaluate participation of
stakeholders in watershed development programmes.
10
S Weighted Scorei
Participatory i =1
Watershed Development= --------------------------------x 100
Index (PWDI) 10
S Maximum Weighted Scorei
i =1 (32)
where, i=ith major component of participatory watershed
development (Participation, Transparency, Watershed Plan
Preparation, Watershed Stakeholders Institutions, Watershed
Meetings, Accounts and Records, Monitoring and
Withdrawal Strategy, Common Property Resource
Management, Project Implementing Agency, Watershed
Development Team and Equity). For each of the individual
component:
Participation Paradigm Weighted Score
Index (PPdI) = ------------------------- x 100 (33)
Max Weighted Score
Participatory Watershed Development Index and
Participation Paradigm Index can have values ranging from
0 to 100 and a higher value will indicate that higher numbers
of the participatory aspects of the programmes have been
executed.
3. FIELD TESTING AND EVALUATION
Some of the indicators evolved were used in pre-
project and post-project scenarios to evaluate the overall
impact of the watershed development interventions in six
model watersheds developed under Integrated Wastelands
Development Programme (IWDP) of Ministry of Rural
Development in different agro-ecological regions of the
country, namely Eastern Ghats, Western Ghats (Nilgiris),
Shivaliks (Himalayan foot-hills), Bundelkhand Region,
Western Coast Gujarat Plain and Chambal Ravines, having
diverse physiographic, climatic and socio-economic
conditions to demonstrate participatory watershed
management concept as enshrined in the Guidelines of
Govt. of India (1994). The morphological characteristics
and socio-economic features of the six watersheds are
presented in Table 1 (Sharda et al., 2005). Monitoring and
evaluation of various developmental interventions was
carried out during the implementation phase to quantify
their impact on productivity and ecology by employing
appropriate indicators.
Keen interest was shown by the farmers of these
watersheds in improving their land through levelling,
terracing and bunding, which reduced the general slope of
their fields, as indicated by the Land Levelling Index (LLI),
which improved from 0.37 to 0.65. This along with other
interventions helped in reducing runoff from the watersheds
by 9% to 24% and soil loss ranging from 0.4 to 40 t/ha/yr
down to 0.04 to 10 t/ha/yr, with an average decrease of 72%.
 V.N. Sharda et al. /Ind.J.Soil Cons. 40(1) : 1 -12, 2012 11
Table:1
Characteristics of IWDP watersheds implemented by Research Centres of CSWCRTI, Dehradun

Agro- Average Average

Area Elevation
Watershed District & State ecological Population land- annual
(ha) range (m)
region holding income
amsl
size(ha) (Rs./family)
Aganpur- Patiala 9 550 80-286 1150 1.72 30,523
Bhagwasi (Punjab)
Antisar Kheda(Gujarat) 5 812 25-35 2104 3.12 16,247
Badakhera Bundi(Rajasthan) 5 682.5 150-173 1117 3.23 25,811
Bajni Datia (Madhya Pradesh) 4 532 263-284 993 1.10 18,597
Kokriguda Koraput(Orissa) 12 317.5 880-1329 249 2.15 12,155
Salaiyur Coimbatore(Tamil Nadu) 19 513 370-472 1314 1.98 19,837

As a result, the overall Crop Productivity Index (CPI)
increased by 12% to 45% with overall increase of 28% in the
crop productivity. Crop Diversification Index (CDI) also
increased by 6% to 79% in the watersheds with average
increase of 22%. Cultivated Land Utilization Index (CLUI)
also improved significantly (2% to 81%) with an average
value of 27%. The Induced Watershed Eco-index (IWEI)
also showed improvement indicating that 12% additional
watershed area was rehabilitated through green bio-mass.
These projects were found to be economically viable with
Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) of more than 1.0 and varying
from 1.14 (Salaiyur) to 1.69 (Kokriguda). In addition to the
bio-physical indicators presented in the preceding section,
several socio-economic and sustainability indicators were
also evaluated, which have been described in Sharda et al.
(2005).
4. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a set of indicators evolved to analyse the
impact of watershed and sustainability attributes has been
presented. The indicators would provide a sound and
scientific basis to critically evaluate the impact of
agronomical, biological and engineering measures on
improving the productivity of arable and non-arable lands,
socio-economic status of the watershed community and
ensure environmental stability in the long run. They would
also help in economically justifying the expenditure on
various activities in the watershed development programmes
involving huge investments in the country. The evaluation
of such programmes through the developed indicators
would also bring greater transparency and accountability
towards the people and also inculcate better confidence
among the implementing agencies. The indicators would
also facilitate comparison of various watershed development
projects executed by different developmental agencies in
terms of performance and impact more scientifically and
systematically across the watersheds within the state, in the
region and the country as a whole. It is, therefore, proposed
that implementation of these indicators may be made
mandatory in all the ongoing watershed development
programmes by the Government of India as an integral
component of Common Guidelines for Watershed
Development Projects.
Though some of the indicators have been tested and
evaluated under field condition in selected watersheds by
the authors, they need to be adopted and evaluated on a
wider scale representing different climatic, physiographic,
edaphic and socio-economic conditions in the country to
realistically assess the performance of watershed
development programmes and their inter-comparisons.
Moreover, the developed indicators only pertain to tangible
benefits. Enough scope exists to develop more indicators in
the near future to account for intangible benefits and some
other tangible benefits, which may not have been covered in
the present study.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thankfully acknowledge all the scientists
of the CSWCRTI, Dehradun who have actively contributed
in evolving the indicators and their testing in watershed
management projects representing different agro-climatic
regions of the country.
REFERENCES
Careya, R.O., Migliacciob, K.W., Lic, Y., Schafferd, B., Kikere, G.A., and
Brownf, M.T. 2011. Land use disturbance indicators and water
quality variability in the Biscayne Bay Watershed, Florida. Ecol.
Indic., 11(5):1093-1104.
Chen, W. and Wei, X. 2008. Assessing the relations between aquatic habitat
indicators and forest harvesting at watershed scale in the interior of
British Columbia. Forest Ecol. Manag., 256(12):152-160.
Das, D.C., Gupta, K.K. and Tejwani, K.G. 2007. Monitoring and
evaluation of watershed development projects in India. In: (Eds Jan
de Graaff, John Cameron, Samran Sombatpanit, Christian Pieri and
Jim Woodhill) Monitoring and Evaluation of Soil Conservation and
Watershed Development Projects. 2007. Science Publishers, USA.
pp 27-49.
12 V.N. Sharda et al. /Ind.J.Soil Cons. 40(1) : 1 -12, 2012
de Graaff, Jan, Cameron, J., Sombatpanit, S., Pieri, C. and Woodhill, J.
2007. Monitoring and Evaluation of Soil Conservation and
Watershed Development Projects. Science Publishers, USA. 532p.
Dogra, P., Tripathi, K.P., Sharda, V.N. and Dhyani, S.K. 2005. Quantitative
evaluation of participation paradigms of watershed development
projects A methodology. Indian J. Soil Conserv., 33(2):152-161.
Fitch, D.T., Stow, D.A., Hope, A.S. and Rey, S. 2010. MODIS vegetation
metrics as indicators of hydrological response in watersheds of
California Mediterranean-type climate zones. Remote Sens. of
Environ., 114: 2513-2523.
Herweg, K. 2007. Impact monitoring of soil and water conservation:
Taking and wider look. In: (Eds Jan de Graaff, John Cameron,
Samran Sombatpanit, Christian Pieri and Jim Woodhill) Monitoring
and Evaluation of Soil Conservation and Watershed Development
Projects, 2007. Science Publishers, USA. pp 69-82.
Liniger, H.P., van Lynden, G. and Schwilch, G. 2002. Documenting field
knowledge for better land management decisions: Experiences with
WOCAT tools in local, national and global programs. Proceedings of
ISCO Conference 2002, Vol. I. Beijing, China: ISCO. pp 259-267.
View publication stats
Liniger, H.P. and Schwilch, G. 2002. Enhanced decision making based on
local knowledge The WOCAT method for sustainable soil and water
management. Mt. Res. Dev., 22(1):14-18.
Sánchez, E., Colmenarejo, M.F., Vicente, J., Rubio, A., García, M.G.,
Travieso, L. and Borja, R. 2007. Use of the water quality index and
dissolved oxygen deficit as simple indicators of watersheds
pollution. Ecol. Indic., 7(2):315-328.
Sharda, V.N., Samra, J.S. and Dogra, P. 2005. Participatory watershed
management programmes for sustainable development: Experiences
from IWDP. Indian J. of Soil Conserv., 33(2):93-103.
Sinclair, A., Hebb, D., Jamieson, R., Gordon, R., Benedict, K., Fuller, K.,
Stratton, G.W. and Madani, A. 2009. Growing season surface water
loading of faecal indicator organisms within a rural watershed. Water
Res., 43(5):1199-1206.
Woodhill, J. 2007. M&E learning: Rethinking the dominant paradigm. In:
(Eds Jan de Graaff, John Cameron, Samran Sombatpanit, Christian
Pieri and Jim Woodhill) Monitoring and Evaluation of Soil
Conservation and Watershed Development Projects, 2007. Science
Publishers, USA. pp 83-107.