participatory appraisal, improvement and management of grassland

PARTICIPATORY APPRAISAL, IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF GRASSLAND RESOURCES IN H1MALAYAN WATERSHEDS Dr.Rajan Kotru Indo-German Changar Eco-Development Project, Palampur, H.P., India

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Background Indo-German Changar Eco-Dcvelopmcnt Project (IGCEDP) is being implemented by Himachal Pradesh Eco-Development Society (HPEDS) as a joint venture of the Federal Republic of Germany and (Himachal Pradesh) the Federal State of India. The first phase was between 1994-99 and the Phase II is up to 2004. The Project area of 428 km2 is located in Kangra district of Himachal Pradesh falling in the lower Himalayas or Shiwaliks. The altitude in project area varies between 700 m to 1300 m a.s.L Changar -signifying remoteness, water scarcity and rugged terrain- is characterised fissured hills, steep slopes and flood plains. Hence the landscape is conspicuous for microwatersheds and mini-microwatersheds having on the average an area of 500 ha. The area though subtropical is peculiar for transitional temperate vegetation due to its vicinity to the temperate lesser Himalayas. The project purpose is that village development committecs/organizations/uscr groups, manage their natural resources on sustainable basis with the support of HPEDS and other institutions/ agencies. The project area is subdivided in to 4 Contact Offices and aims at developing i) functional village-level Integrated Resource Management Plans (IRMPs) ii) locally adapted Natural Resource Development Programmes and iii) professional capacity and organizational structures of HPEDS. Table 1.

The project data Project area

428 km2

Number of villages

578

Total population

136 000 (women approx. 65%)

Population growth

0.9 % p.a,

Average Landholding

0.74 ha

Livestock population

90, 000 (Cows 27%; Bullocks 25%; Buffaloes 23%, Sheep/Goals 23%, Rest Miscl.)

Household size (average)

4.8 persons

The population dynamics currently is characteristic for its low population growth of 0.9% p.a. and the local population is marked by a higher percentage of

women. The livestock population is approximately 90000. The average livestock density goes up to 4.6 SAU (one SAU was taken equivalent to 150 kg. Accordingly local cow=l SAU, buffalo=1.5 SAU etc.) if only cultivated land, private and public grasslands are considered for fodder production. The farming, of which livestock management is an integral part is still the prevalent land use and occupation of the local people. The resource utilization and flow linked to livestock management is to great extent supported by the grazing lands where open grazing and grass harvesting is practiced on regular basis. 1.2 Landownership and Grazing Lands The cultivation is the major (29%) land use followed by forest land (18%). However, less than 50% of the forest cover can be termed as supporting substantial tree cover dominated by chir pine (Finns roxhiirghii). Table 2: Landuse types in Changar Land Use Forest land Cultivated Land Private Hay land Grazing Land Barren and unculturable Culturable waste Miscl.

Ha 7747 12658 6313 7573 5384 3142 141

% age 18 29 14 16 12 7 4

About 65% of the land is used for grazing out of which 30% of land is private hay land and community grazing land, which are exclusively meant for open grazing or grass production. However, it is obvious that grazing and the productivity of the grazing lands is of central importance to livestock keepers. Consequently, subsistence hill farming supporting the local livelihoods can only benefit through better management in grazing lands as well as through increase of quality fodder from private lands. 1.2.1 Features of grazing lands The following five types of lands are used exclusively for grazing, grass and fodder production, which are: 1.2.1.1 Forest lands The grass production in such forests is poor due to annual fires, infestation of weeds and degraded soil. Moreover, the technical aspects of silviculture have not been applied since the moratorium on green felling 16 years back, which has led to poor growth in aboveground as well as in ground vegetation. The current state of forests in Changar area, which are dominated by Chir Pine forests and partly by Acacia catechu and Dalbergia sissoo. do not promise substantial grass production. The most of the forest land is degraded and hardly ideal to promote green forage production. Nevertheless, the whole forest land is grazed. Moreover, there is hardly any leaf fodder available from such forests. 1.2.1.2 Grazing lands Usually grazing lands are state-owned with local people having grazing rights. In reality they arc treated as community lands with open access and are used exclusively for grazing by the villagers. Grass production is generally lesser on ridges than on middle and slightly steep slopes. Grazing lands are often used and managed by few villages and mostly grazed round the year. Due to degradation

(soil compaction, erosion etc.) and intensive trespassing these lands are suffering from low productivity, which is partly reflected by low contents of phosphorus and potassium and lesser grass production. Moreover tree cover is scant. There is as such no sustainable management practiced on these lands. In rare cases villagers are cutting grass on rotational basis and maintenance efforts are made by closing some patches. 1.2.1.3 Hay lands These represent the individual property of the farmers and have resulted mostly out of the state-based land reform made in early 1970s. Some farmers have tried to practice agriculture-as terraces are buildbut have reverted back to grass production. These haylands are usually well-maintained and traditionally grazing during monsoon is avoided. Fanners also practice group closures and make arrangements for protection during monsoon. The trees growing on such lands or on the bunds are harvested on a sustainable basis so that absolute number remains same. Often such lands are under silvipasture management with Species such as Acacia catechu, Grewia optiva, Baiihinia variegafa. Albizia stipulate!, Dench'ocalamiis strictus, Artocarpus (etc.) and have a balanced nutrient status. The grazing animals manure the sites and the tree cover usually benefits soil conservation and nutrient dynamics. 1.2.1.4 Cultivated land (Homesteads) Two of the major fodder crops on cultivated land along with the homestead production form a major portion of fodder requirement from private land. The temporal and spatial arrangements of vegetation on this type of land is key to sustainable production of fodder. Alone homesteads provide 15% of the total fodder required annually (Wicnold, 1997). Traditionally these productive units of land are well-maintained and used on sustainable bases. Nevertheless the grazing during off-season is practiced for shorter durations i.e., hours. 1.2.1.5 Culturable waste Even though only 7% of the project area is represented by this category of land, it has substantial role in open grazing as animals arc often grazed here. This is especially the case when other grazing lands are closed during monsoon or that such areas are enclosed for afforestation. Especially in the river- or rivulet-beds this area provides the ready space for grazing. It is difficult to assess how much of the fodder requirement is met from forest lands and culturable waste. However, the eco-dcgradation in the area speaks for increasingly low output of these lands towards fodder and grass production. 1.3 Problems Increasing human and livestock population, deforestation and improper land management have resulted in a steady process of degradation especially that of land and water resources. Fodder deficit and low productivity of grasslands (0.5 to 1 t DM/ha/a) is a common feature. Centuries of uncontrolled open grazing, fires, infestation of weeds and natural erosive forces are some of the prime reasons for fodder deficit. With the result the livestock production (milk etc.) is very low-even for crossbred cows- and its utility is only seen as manure and draft power function. The local cow on the average gives 1.4 litres of milk per day and Cross bred Jersey just over 2.5 litres per day (Wienold, 1977). On the other hand, the researchers of the region in the field of sustainable grassland and fodder management have mostly developed campus-packages of fodder production and pasture management so that the relevancy in the field is often unjustified. Moreover, the developed technology has not given much thought to pertinent issues such as socio-economic (see Point 1.31) and livestock dynamics and their linkage to farming systems. The issue of heavy workload resulting from livestock management is hardly touched. This is obvious from the different type of farmers following a specific

strategy of resource production and management. Thus it is very essential to know about the socioeconomic dynamics of a village or watershed before rangeland or grazing land can be improved. The degradation of grasslands is further complicated by the fact that the H.P. States breeding policy has remained unchanged since last two decades. It aimed at replacing the local stock by Jersey breed which has only raised the demand for fodder and its quality. For this however, livestock keepers have not been supported with innovative ideas so that even hybrid breeds are producing much below their potential as mentioned earlier. 1.3.1 Features of Farmers Table 3: Income through farming in project area of three types of farmers (Ind. RS)

Farmer Type

Farming

Wages SelfRemittances Pensions Total Employment Income

Resource 4100 (25) Poor

3000

1800

3100

4300

16300

Marginal 7900(31)

2500

2200

3700

8700

25000

Small

10200 (36) 3400

2100

4300

8400

28400

Average

5800 (29)

1900

3400

5900

19900

2900

The farming and livestock is losing its place of economic importance which shows that for all the categories of fanners in Changar make approximately one third or lesser amount of the total income from fanning. The resource poor are least dependent (25%) on their smaller patch of land. Similarly the marginal farmers have a substantial income coming as pensions and remittances even if farming also lends support with 32% (Table 3). For farm production to improve, the livestock production had to improve which is not possible without the grazing-land improvement and quality fodder production. This also means that innovative ideas of grassland management have to be developed. It is visible that for their livelihood the farmers are clearly following the strategy of income-diversification. In addition to the high population density, the lack of qualitative fodder, labour scarcity due to permanent and temporary migration of potentially male workers (labour) are also affecting livestock management. The situation is further complicated by not having a concept for sustainable management of degraded grasslands. 1.3.2 Quintessence of degradation As a sum-up problems it can be said: 1) The disinterest in fanning is leading towards a lesser cattle population and almost 27% of the population having no cattle at all. Subsequently, no effort is made to improve the grassland production and management. 2) Fodder production and rangeland development has not earned the focus due to individual sectoral policies not allowing for a holistic approach. 3) The research has been campus-oriented with limited field success and farmers adoption. The stress has been mostly on high-yielding cultivated grass varieties and the interwoven complexities linked to natural resource management/flow are ignored.

4) The dynamics involved in livestock management is too complex to apply mono-sectoral approaches. Since open grazing is a common practice and controlled or stop in grazing demand participatory techniques to prepare the community. The innovative concepts must be prepared with the local farmers. 5) Subsidized system also reduced the initiatives among the farmers as well that of line departments and research organisations. 6) Due to socio-economic insecurity in the village and due to better education facilities, young villagers are losing interest in farming and looking for livelihood options beyond the village boundaries. 7) More potential pasture and grazing land may be lost to low productivity and disinterest of farmers if viable and sustainable output from such lands is not promoted. 2. Methodology To address the numerous problems related to natural resource management and grassland, the project has developed an integrated concept based on watershed development principles. 2.1 Project Approach During the Phase 1 (1994-99), the overall objective of 1GCEDP was to significantly reduce the imbalance between production and use of renewable natural resources in Changar area. Through multidisciplinary interventions focused on land husbandry, soil and water conservation, forestry and animal husbandry, simultaneous socio-economic and ecological stabilisation of Changar was aimed. Following a watershed-approach, the project put emphasis on strengthening of village self-help organisations. It assisted them to develop sustainable operational strategies as well as technologies for the rehabilitation and management of village areas in the context of small watersheds. Watershed approach of 1GCEDP put people at the centre of development. Watershed development is seen as an integral part of the sustainable use and management of natural resources by local people and institutions. Land and water conservation in the context of the watershed ecosystem is a result of improved land management practices. However, the improvements have to be in the form of short term economic benefit and livelihood-betterment oriented since at the end of the day, if fanners perceive a positive impact of various resource development interventions -within a watershed- only then long-term interest is generated. The objective therefore was to improve the existing land management uses which integrate local people's problems and solutions with the knowledge of experts. Participatory planning based on Participator) Rural Appraisal tools (PRA) and implementation processes (Kar et al., 1995) in a village and watershed, were to enhance people's capacity to use their natural resources in a responsible and sustainable manner. Hence PRA was used in a big way to formulate the long term strategy for, inter alia, degraded grasslands as per the basic needs of local communities and their long-term vision. 2.2 Culmination of PRA results In terms of higher forage production and its better quality, a four tier-system was proposed out of the findings of PRA-results (Bayer, 1997): 1) increasing forage yield on communal land by protecting the area from grazing and by planting forage trees 2) improving private hay lands by not only planting fodder trees but also using high yielding grasses 3) promotion of fodder grasses such as Napier on field bunds and around homesteads. 4) Promoting annual winter forages. The four-tier system was shaped by doing the following activities on Forest/Community/Hay land:

Table 4: Overview of activities for grassland/fodder promotion in Phase I (1994-99) Type of Land

No, of Major Species Trees/ha

Objectives*

Forest/Community 1)Community plantation 1100

Acacia catechu, Dalbergia sissoo, Bauhinia variegata, Toona ciliata, Prunus padus, Artocarpus species, Dendrocalamus hamiltonii, Albizia stipulate Leucaena etc.

Leaf fodder, Grass Fuelwood Other NonTimber products Soil conservation Small Timber

2)Rehabilitation of 600-900 As above (mostly Acacia Soil degraded grasslands catechu, Albizia stipulata, conservation and Dalbergia sissoo) Leaf fodder, Grass Fuelwood 3)Silvipasture plantation

400

As previous + grass tufts + Leaf Clover species Grass

fodder,

Private 1)On-Farm Forestry as per Morus alba, (Homesteads, cultivated demand Terminalia land) Artocarpus Syzygium cuminii, mustard 2)Hayland

400

Prunus, species, species, + oats,

Leaf fodder Fuelwood, Fruits, Fibre, Timber

Acacia catechu, Bauhinia Fodder, variegata, Terminalia fuelwood species, Dendrocalamus hamiltonii, Syzygium cuminii, Leucaena, Artocarpus

3)Cultivated As per Napier, Setaria, Styloxanthus Fodder Grass/Clover Promotion demand hamata etc.

*

The objectives are arranged as per the priority, hence fodder in Community Plantation has the first priority

The fodder/grass has been among the major commodities local communities have in mind while going for natural resource based interventions for improvement of their livelihoods. However, the focus in the first phase of the project was on plantations on community/forest and hay lands. Wherever such areas were enclosed in one go it was hoped that planted trees will enhance grass production and leaf fodder will be available in few years time. The panacea was seen in the total stop of grazing.

2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M»&E) The project evolved a systematic concept of impact monitoring, which did not only incorporate community's observations of such lands after plantation and closure but also established fixed sample plot to monitor the development of vegetation on such sites. Among more than 250 villages, where PRA -consisting of fodder calendar. seasonably of grazing and women's work-load, resource flow dynamics and matrix and rankings of various forage types- has been employed as the tool for doing a thorough resource and situation analysis and find people's oriented solution (Kotru et. al, 1996), over 70% of Village-based PRAs and participatory planning documents have shown that fodder and its quality are deficient. However, the grassland improvement and increase in fodder production is among the top priorities among the villagers as per the PRA results. But any effort to make farming a lucrative option would need considerable improvement of grazing lands, botli private and government, as well as fodder production increase on cultivated and homestead areas. The methodology adopted in monitoring the grass production was same from 1995 to 1999 except that number of sample plots were increased and other data were collected (soil analysis etc.). Both the enclosed and planted grasslands (hay lands and Govt./community lands) in selected microcatchments were monitored. Every attemptwas made to select the same time-period of harvesting as done in 1995 (Kotru, 1997)r The M&E data is based on Activity Monitoring and Impact Monitorin. Fixed sample plots in each micro-catchment where tree growth is also regularly being monitored were simultaneously sites for grass-production sample points of 1m" annually. The systematic network of sample plots allowed to take care of all slopes and consideration of low productive patches as well. Hence the data has been extrapolated simply. This data was however compared to what individual farmers mentioned as annual grass yield cut from such sites. 3. Results and Discussion The maximum grass production has been mentioned for a private hay land with 26.3 t fresh weight/ha whereas the lowest yield is obtained for degraded community land with 4.2 t fresh weight/ha. In general the increase in grass production after enclosure has been instant and in few cases even more than 100% of increase is seen. Wherever there has been decrease in the initial years or even only a perceptible increase the reason has been mostly that grazing was not stopped completely and fires did occur. The vegetation cover is also substantially comprising of weeds such as Lantana, Ageratum etc. Yet again the question of nutrient dynamics remains an enigma. The grassland soils have been found generally poor in potassium and phosphorus. Also some micronutrients are in low quantity. After the enclosure grazing is totally stopped and there is no nutrient input to such lands. Moreover, grass vegetation gets harvested each year and to some extent also limited quantity of biomass in the shape of fuel wood and leaf fodder. Certainly, over the years such a situation must be affecting nutrient dynamics but needs a detailed analysis. Based on the survey of 9 farmers annually who had planted various number of napier-tufts on their field bunds and in homesteads with age of tufts between 2 and 3 years, the total yield per tuft/year (all the cuts made in a year) varied between 10 kg and 21 kg fresh weight. The seasonably of the cuts (3-4 cuts/year) is between July-October and March-April. This helps in getting substantial amount of green forage even during the lean season (March to June). In general the production of fodder on cultivated lands such as oats, mustard etc. were grown on demonstration basis. The farmers have not taken up such crops on large scale. It is obvious that the cultivated land is used to produce food grains primarily and socio-economic insecurity does not allow to risk investments on cultivated lands on crops other than food grains.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Conclusions The livestock-keepers of Changar are greatly dependent on the grass production on various types of land to fulfil the growing fodder requirements. They are equally interested, as per the PRAfindings, to increase the productivity of grasslands as well as in the increased availability of green fodder round the year. Most of the fanners however cannot afford to provide regular animal feed to boost the milk production. Therefore, any significant increase in the grass production and leaf fodder is of relevance. Moreover, any time-saving in resource harvesting is equally a positive development. Similarly, improvement of grassland productivity and management is an urgent requirement to make farming a viable economic option. Especially on the enclosed degraded community land it was observed that immediately after the enclosure grass production shows a significant increase. Hence it is expected that the degraded community or forest land as well as inappropriately managed private hay-land after enclosure and afforestation enhances the grass availability in early years of enclosure. However, this increase cannot be maintained after the period of 5 years of enclosure. This means that in the plantations, silvipasture management must be well-conceived to maintain the optimum productivity of grasslands. On the other hand, the multi-layered vegetation, which develops after enclosure has multiple benefits for the local communities. Such long-term enclosures -at least 5 years- mean also a shift of open-grazing to other areas especially among resource poor and landless. Such farmers -when not able to raise their voiceimmediatcly get affected by non-availability of grasslands. Moreover, trespassing in the plantations and community conflicts are generated if there is not a general consensus on closure of grasslands. The aspect of increase in work-load among women cannot be ruled out especially when enclosed grazing lands arc far away from villages and head loads of grass are to be cut and carried home. However, a periodic assessment of grass production and development of enclosed grasslands was useful in two ways: a) It allowed a reflection on the impact of enclosures and afforestation b) It provided early signals for the type and time of management interventions needed. In this regard the fodder production in homesteads or on cultivated land can prove effective. Napier tufts on field bunds especially during the part of the lean season have eased the fodder supply situation. Growing foddcr-c.g. oats, mustard etc.-on cultivated land has not been taken up by farmers. The food grain production remains their priority. 4.2 Recommendations a) The increase in grass production opens up avenues for the promotion of silage, improved hay making, improved silvipasturc management and rotational grazing. These options can be taken up gradually to support livestock management and livelihood systems in general. b) Labour conservative techniques must be further explored to maintain the interest of livestock keepers in livestock and grassland management. c) The concept of rotational grazing suitable to different type of farmers and ensuring sustainable forage production have to be developed on the basis of experiences so far. This includes models for long-term management concepts of silvipasture plantations based on socio-economic and growth/yield data of such grasslands. Pasture or grassland development must take in to account the whole social scenario and resource flow linked to a farming system. The new challenge lies in dealing with different types of fanners who are managing grazing lands differently and benefits have to accrue in short-term. It is clear that leaf fodder takes at least 6 years to augment on such degraded lands. d) Research and observations must focus on -Changes in vegetation composition after enclosure

-Nutrient dynamics -Watcr-flow/output in a catchment -Soil conservation -Behavioural changes in livestock management. -Ideal tree/grass/clover combination, Low-input technology to enhance the grass production -Weed management -Subsistence hill fanning and promotion of sustainable grassland management e) The scope of improvement of grass production on private hay land must not be underestimated and there is a fair potential for increasing the quality and quantity of fodder on such types of lands. f) The silvipasture system adopted on private hay lands must be surveyed closely so that the concept of management to be adopted in a plantation on community/forest land is easier to develop. g) The monitoring of selected sites should continue and photo-monitoring should also be applied. h) The breeding policy must take in to account that hybrids though high yielding need long-term thinking in terms of medical services, disease management, animal management and quality fodder production. i) Alternatives other than planting trees on such grasslands have to be found. Here leguminous shnibs and herbs can equally be effective in terms of soil conservation and quality fodder. j) Among the farmers and communities the local level expertise (animators) on technical issues of grazing and grassland management (Training) has to be built, which also included continuous working linkage with concerned institutions/line departments. 5. LITERATURE CITED Bayer, Wolfgang. 1997. Consultancy Report on Livestock Management. IGCEDP. Palampur, H.P., India (Project Report). Kamal, Kar et al. 1995. Participatory Rural Appraisal for Village Integrated Resource Management Plan. Guidelines for application of PRA Techniques for facilitating Village Integrated Resource Management Plan (VIRMP) by the field staff of Indo-German Changar Eco-Development Project. Palampur. H.P., India (Project Report).. Kotru, Rajan. 1997. Status of soils and grass production in Changar. IGCEDP, Palampur. H.P., India (Project Report). Kotru, Rajan et. al. 1996. Feasibility Study and Macro Plan for Mini Microswaterhed, Chambi, IGCEDP. Palampur, H.P., India (Project Report). Wienold, Harms. 1997. Socio economic situation of Changar area. A baseline with special focus on four Test-Minimicrowatersheds. IGCEDP, Palampur. H.P., India (Project Report).