A people's movement for Indian high Himalayan watershed management - beyond Chico movement
Farmers' participation in the sustainable development of natural resources in rainfed areas
The experience of asian watershed management network (asian watmanet)
To scale up the participatory processes the first article in this part ill, is a story of building people's movements for Indian High Himalayas. This story goes beyond participatory processes reported here. We soon hope to have a new field document on the subject. The article on farmers ' participation in NRM explain how FARM program is trying to make farmer the central actor in sustainable development of upland and rainfed areas by institutioning participatory assessment and planning methods in its innovative demonstration sites around Asia. The article on ASIAN WATMANET narrates the experience of action research and information dissemination on participatory watershed management for updating human resources to facilitate sustainable development of upland watersheds in Asia.
Sheena Chadha1
1 National Coordinator, Eco-Volunteer Program (UNDP/UNV), Gandhi Peace Foundation, D.D.U. Marg, New Delhi, India.
Unlike the other articles, this article is written in a story telling style which suits the topic better. Hence, the original style of the author has been maintained - editor.
Perched at a height of 6,000 ft. above mean sea level, the Doodhatoli Mountain has the entire world at its feet. As soon as one entered the Ufrainkhal region in the district of Pauri Garhwal in the high reaches of the Himalayas, in Uttar Pradesh province of India; one was greeted with the cool mountain breezes, the sweet smelling expanses of the Oak, Spruce and Fir forests and the lilting music of the cascading waterfalls and mountain streams.
But by the early 80's, this picture of perfect paradise was soon becoming a distant memory in the minds of the local people whose forefathers had felt blessed to be a part of such bountiful nature. The intervening decades had seen the entire country in the grip of modern politics of rapid urbanization, industrialization and economic growth. In the government policies where the token of industrial growth was measured in the number statistics of percentage increase and per capita income, the dense green forests had become fodder for paper mills and timber industry. And within a span of four decades (beginning with the early 50's), the picturesque face of the mountains had changed into stark landscapes with barren hillsides and dust-laden wind storms.
Shri Sachchidanand Bharti's childhood has been witness to the rampant agonizing destruction of his homeland. But by the early 70's, a strong grassroot campaign of the hill people to protect their forests had emerged which became famous as the 'Chipko Andolan' at the national and international level. At that time, Shri Sachchidanandji was studying in the local college at Gopeswar (the hot bed of the Chipko movement) and came in close contact with the individuals and the organisation spread-heading this people's movement called Chipko (meaning hug the tree) movement in Garhwal Himalaya region of North India. In early 70's, villagers realised that increasing local floods were due to widespread commercial clearing of hill side forests. Village women launched a non-voilent peasant movement to preserve access to local forests. In 1982, commercial logging of all live trees was banned for fifteen years in the eight hill districts of Uttar Pradesh in Himalayas.
This struggle of the local people to safeguard their forests and their environment made a lasting impact on the young mind of Sachchidanandji. It wasn't before long that he became an active member of the campaign. Often travelling long distances in the adjoining districts and far-flung hilly regions along with his young college friends, he was instrumental in forming many 'Yuva Nirman Samities' or youth organisations committed to the task of tree planting. This initiated Shri Sachchidanandji into the realm of local interaction, planning and participatory action.
In 1974, he served as a catalyst in building the 'Uttarakhand Sangharsh Vahini', a volatile student forum comprising of young college students of the entire Uttarakhand region. This student forum came to be regarded as an apex student body of the entire state, committed towards environmental conservation and networking of local interests. By the mid-70's, this youth forum had swept a wave of rejuvenation and concerted action in the entire young blood of the hill state.
With this experience of committed action and initiative, Shri Sachchidanandji returned to his home town Ufrainkhal (in the district of Pauri Garhwal) about 25 km from the Doodhatoli mountain. Located at a height of 6,000 ft. above mean sea-level with a 300 sq. km. expanse, the Doodhatoli mountain has been the natural benefactor of about 100,000 people spread around in the various villages and towns. It derives its name from the immense cattle wealth of the local people and the abundance of milk which the entire region was famous for. Hence 'Doodhatoli' - the land of milk. The Doodhatoli mountain had been home to the lush dense forests of Oak, Spruce, Fir and many indigenous species of flora. Its undulating meadows and rich pasture lands had served as expansive grazing lands for the large cattle herds. Hence, fulfilling the fuel and fodder needs of the cattle and people alike. Even today, there are about 500 'Kharak' (forest 'Goshalas' or 'Cattle sheds') where more than 25,000 cows and buffaloes graze. Most of the local mountainous rivers like the Nayar, the Ramganga, find their source within these mountain recesses.
Besides harnessing their natural life support systems, the people of Ufrainkhal have even adopted many non-conventional energy sources. Today there are more than 400 households in various villages of Pauri Garhwal using the smokeless chuhlas (cooking stoves). The hill people have even created their own mini hydel project for electricity generation. The hill societies have been tapping the water energy to run water mills for a long time. But at Bungidhar (Bung) in the local dialect is synonymous with the narrowing of a water channel) near Ufrainkhal, the villagers have installed a turbine which generates 5 KW of electricity and also energizes the native water mill. Today, many solar energy panels also dot the roofs of the village houses. These panels are maintained by the villagers themselves without any outside support or intervention.
Hence, the cornerstone of Shri Sachchidanauldji's successful efforts has been in reinforcing the versatile self-reliance of local communities by strengthening, not subverting, community traditions and institutions. But, with the advent of the sawing machines and the strong contractor lobbies, much of tree cover was being lost to the paper and timber industry based in the valleys below.
It was in such conflicting environs that Shri Sachchidanandji initiated the move for local dialogue and participatory action to safeguard the interests, the livelihood, the entire life support system of the local people. The beginning was made in the form of a small meeting held inside the forest where local people of all the adjoining villages gathered in an effort to discuss their common problems. This paved the way for growing involvement and participation of the local people and the ground work for further initiative was laid with the first environmental camp held in Ufrainkhal in 1980.
In 1982, Shri Sachchidanandji formed the 'Doodhatoli Vikas Sansthan', a small developmental organisation named after the Doodhatoli mountain as a tribute to safeguard and conserve their benefactor. During the meetings and discussion with the village people, a recurring problem came into focus. In the overall picture of rampant tree felling and destruction of the forest cover, the wild animals found within the deep recesses of the forest were displaced. As the forest could no longer meet their food needs, the animals had started to enter the villages and would destroy the farm lands and the grain stocks in the granaries or kill the smaller cattle and carry over goats or sheep. Daera village, in particular, was one such village in the grip of this crisis. Hence, it was collectively decided that to obstruct the entry of the wild animals into the cultivated fields, a stone protection wall be built between the forest line and the village, surrounding the farm lands of the village. In Daera village, a protection wall of 9 km in length with 2 m height and 50 cm width was built beyond the village limits on the strip of uncultivated land between the forest line and the last outpost of the village farm lands. It was further decided that along the wall, trees would be planted to regenerate the lost tree cover. The wall would protect the village lands from the menace of the wild animals while the trees would generate the fuel and fodder requirements of the village.
In this tree planting initiative, the role of the women could not be forgotten. It is common knowledge that the women of the hills play a major role in keeping the family and the hearth together as most of the men are out of the villages working in cities close by or far away in the plains. It is the women who keep the home fires burning. They collect the fuel and fodder for their cooking and cattle. In fact, it is not surprising to find entire villages devoid of any young men. All the agricultural activities tending to the fields; looking after the cattle, the children and the elders are borne by the women. Therefore, in such a life fabric it was the women who rose to the occasion and 'Mahila Mangal Dals' or women collectives were formed. The local women have immaculate knowledge of the indigenous species of plants and trees which need to be planted to meet their fuel and fodder needs. In the wake of the mass planting of only those particular tree species which served as the prerequisites of the paper and timber industries, many indigenous plant species had almost vanished from the face of the hillsides. In fact, most of the local forests had been replaced with tall trees of the 'Chir' or 'Pine' which sustains the paper mills. But with this exercise many indigenous species of tree were identified, selected and planted by the women in their villages. Besides, the fuel and fodder trees, many fruit bearing trees were also planted. The 'Walnut', in particular, is a mountain fruit which was planted in large number by the villagers.
The stone protection walls were built in many adjoining villages like Sunder Gaon, Suisal, Jadris, and Tolia. With this, about 75% of the food crops stored in the granaries could be saved. In Daera village alone, 45 households benefitted and 400 hectares of farm land was freed from the menace of the wild animals.
The tree planting activity along the protection walls has led to reforestation on mare than 500 ha of land and protected forests in which more than 200,000 indigenous species of Banj (Oak) and Tilanj have been planted. This has not only established the equilibrium between the demand and supply of the fodder needs but also the surplus fodder generated has led to the increase in the cattle herds. Today, there are 34 cows and buffaloes in each household of the various villages.
The planting of the fruit trees have created fruit orchards in various villages. Today in the Jobata village, there is a walnut orchard with more than 20,000 trees and village Jandra has a 5,000 tree orchard. In Gadhkharak, the walnut orchards are spread over 30 hectares. The villagers have chosen this plant in particular because it can bear fruit for many years and is also easily marketable if needed.
Initially when the tree planting initiatives started in the various villages, the local people faced the critical issue of getting the required saplings of the indigenous species they wanted to plant. In those days, the plants made available by the Forest Department for afforestation would mostly be of species unsuitable to the climatic condition of the high altitudes. The saplings were generally brought from far flung areas hundreds of kilometers away. In this process, many of the tender saplings would not survive till they reached the mountain nurseries. Hence, it was decided that the needs of the villages would be replenished from within the villages itself. The villagers started their own village nurseries. Today, besides the farmers organizations' nursery, there are more than 14 plant nurseries in adjoining villages. This, not only meets the requirements of the local people but also creates a surplus which is sold to the various miscellaneous state bodies and the forest department. The backbone of all these activities have been the 150 strong Mahila Mangal Dals or the women collectives which are spread out in the various villages in the region and are active in building stone protection walls and protected forest covers in their villages.
The Mahila Mandal Dals have found a helping hand from the school children of the region. Shri Sachchidanandji is a school teacher in a Non-Government Intermediate College at Ufrainkhal. Given his close interaction with children and his earlier experiences in the 'Chipko Movement', the potential of these children was not lost on him. He initiated the spirit of love, respect and dedication towards one's home and the environment in the young minds. From learning at school to sharing at home, those children have proved to be catalysts for change through the word of mouth. The children who come from far and near to study at this institution carry back with them, to their native villages, the values and principles of environmental conservation and protection.
In this process many far off villages have come in contact with the organisation. The organisation conducts 1-5 days environmental camps, about 4 times in a year and children, men and women, young and old come from all around to participate in them. Since 1985, many schools have started to establish plant nurseries. At present, there are almost two dozen school plant nurseries in the region.
In the closely knit pattern of mountain ecosystem, the forests play a crucial role in maintaining the delicate balance between the climate and the overall temperature of the region. They serve as the natural barometers and have been the formidable keepers of temperature variations. But, with the widespread deforestation and rampant loss of tree cover, a subtle imbalance in the climate and in the overall temperature was created. The snow capped mountains and ice covered glaciers which in earlier times remained snow bound started to melt at a greater speed than before. Thus, releasing more than the normal amount of water in the mountain rivers leading to widespread flooding along the river courses and river banks in the entire region. Accompanied with the high density of rainfall in the rainy months, much of the top soil would get washed away due to the absence of any forest cover, thus further affecting the fertility of the soils.
During the intervening periods, the natural reservoirs of water, lakes, springs, talaabs (manmade water tanks) and mountain streams also started to dry up. The hill people who had never been witness to any water shortage were caught in the vicious cycle of pelting rainfall, accompanied by flooding rivers but at the end of the rains faced acute water shortage. In 1992, the local newspapers reported 75 % of the Almora district (an adjoining hill district) to be in the grip of acute water crisis. The forests in the past had served to maintain the precarious environmental balance inherent to the mountain eco-system. The forests besides providing the required resource base of the green cover also acted as natural conservers of the high rainfall in the area, thereby sustaining the precious ground water table of the entire region. But in the changing face of rapid deforestation, the land got dry and barren, the ground water lost its recharging instruments and most of the rainwater got washed away with the flooding of the mountain rivers. The land which used to be scattered with fresh water streams rolling with sweet mountain waters got converted into dry water channels. It was in this background of devastating physical realities that endeavours to conserve the natural watershed resources also got focused. Besides large scale tree planting, the local people also identified certain indigenous species of trees which helped to retain water in the ground thereby recharging the ground water resources. Many such indigenous varieties like the Kadamb, the Peepal, were planted close to water bodies, the lakes, talaabs (water tanks), along the banks of the rivers and streams.
In Gadhkara, a village near Ufrainkhal, there was a tract of 30 hectares of land located along a sharp decline. The villagers planted many indigenous species of trees along the slope which helped in preventing soil erosion providing the top soil with the required tree cover and also helped in conserving rain water thereby recharging the ground water resources of the area.
In the adjoining village of 'Bharanidhar', the villagers recovered and renovated their old 5-7 talaabs (manmade water tanks) and an old naula (a traditional water harvesting system, similar to a small water body) in their village. In the village of Gadhkarak again, there was a large lake of water with no taps near the water source. The villagers got together to lay out a pipeline and today there are 27 taps connected to this water source. Hence, with collective efforts and little expenditure, the villagers managed to raise their own support structures.
At present, the entire workforce of the mentioned region, is focused on endeavours for land water and forest conservation, a perfect example of a people's movement for high Himalayan watershed management.
Note:
We are hoping to document soon, the processes used in building people's movements for watershed management such as in this story. The case studies and a training manual for building people's movements for integrated WM in India, is under preparation by the author for the PWMTA program editor.
John M. Dixon1
1Program Coordinator, UNDP/FAO, FARM Program, RAP/FAD, Bangkok, Thailand. At present, Sr. Farming Systems Officer, AGSP, FAO(UN), Rome.
This paper was presented at the "People, Participation and Sustainable Development" International Conference, IAAS, Rampur, Nepal, March 1996. Reprinted with the permission of the conference organizers, the FARM program and the author.
INTRODUCTION
Throughout the evolution of Man, the management of natural resources for the production of food and other primary products has been a central concern. The relationship between man and resources has been dynamic, with rapidly increasing population pressure and resource productivity during this Century. During the past three decades food supply per capita has increased and needs to further increase (about double) by the year 2025. Even if this doubling can be achieved, it is expected that regional differences in the severity of hunger will persist, with particular shortfalls in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (McCalla 1994). However, associated with the recent successes in food production, there have been significant environmental costs (Brown and Kane 1994).
This concern over the sustainability of natural resources and food supplies, which can be traced back to the late 1950s and early 1960s, is reflected in the agriculture and rural development literature of the 1980s and early 1990s -- see, for example, lodha (1990), in this Journal. Attention focused initially on the concepts and measurement of sustainability-- see, for example, Dixon (1993) and Harrington (1992) -- and subsequently moved on to new development approaches -- see, for example, UNDP (1994) and Norman and Douglas (1994). Therefore, sustainability is considered in the following section in the context of the dynamics of natural resource management (NRM).
The interface between natural resources and rural dwellers are institutions, and this also has evolved significantly during the past several decades. Institutions are the formal or informal "rules of the game" which guide human interaction and, of considerable significance, reduce uncertainty therein (North 1990). Recently, the effectiveness of the State's interventions in institutions related to NRM has been questioned and many national line agencies have, per force, attempted to transfer part or all of the responsibility for the NRM back to local communities. This major shift of public sector strategy with regard to NRM has created an opportunity for a much expanded role for people's participation in the NRM.
DYNAMICS OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Adjustments in NRM can be observed on many scales: geological, seasonal and even daily. During the next few decades which is a period on which many agricultural and environmental scientists focus, the pressure on natural resources in agriculture is expected to intensify. Because of the continuous change in underlying factors, tackling resource degradation and food insecurity can be likened to 'hitting a moving target'. Dixon (1990) has summarized the principal determinants of Asian food and agricultural system evolution, which apply equally to NRM, as follows:
· expanding and changing demand for natural resource products, as a consequence of the growth in population and incomes;
· increasing scarcity of agricultural land, water, forest and other natural resources, as a result of conversion to other uses, depletion and degradation;
· intensifying commercialisation of both agricultural (and forestry) inputs and outputs;
· growing off-farm opportunities which promote labour-saving practices in agriculture; and,
· changing agricultural and natural resource policies, sometimes fundamental such as structural adjustment.
In the context of the evolving management of natural resources, sustainability can be interpreted as both a system characteristic and a decision objective. In many of the early definitions of sustainable development, emphasis was placed on ecosystem condition and productivity; in contrast, many current definitions incorporate dimensions related to economics, household welfare and resource management. With reference to the management of agriculture and natural resources, the following two definitions of sustainability are appropriate:
· the management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable development (in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors) conserves land, water, plant and animal genetic resources, is environmentally non- degrading, technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable. (FAO 1989); and
· the general requirement that a vector of development characteristics be non- decreasing over time, where the elements to be included in the vector are open to ethical debate and where the relevant time horizon for practical decision-making is similarly indeterminate outside of agreement on inter generational objectives. (Pearce et al 1990).
While the former definition is more general, the latter definition leads naturally to the measurement of sustainability and the identification of indicators. Both the definitions allow for the distinction between weak sustainability, signifying overall improvement, regardless of the outcome in any particular time period, and strong sustainability, meaning continuous improvement in all relevant characteristics in each time period (Pearce et al. 1990). Both definitions also imply a multidisciplinary perspective. Generally, measures and indicators of sustainability are sought in at least the three disciplinary areas of ecology, economics and sociology (Dixon 1993). Although such measures and indicators theoretically exist at numerous system levels, their specification is of greatest practical value at the three levels where decision-making about resource management is concentrated, viz, household, community and nation.
Evolving Approaches to NRM
The evolution of natural resource systems, culminating in the prevailing drive for agricultural intensification and the concurrent deterioration of natural resource base, has induced innovations in approaches to natural resource use and rural development. Table 1 summarises some key characteristics of selected development approaches, listed in approximate order of their first popularisation. The approaches are characterised according to the breadth of development concern, the degree of emphasis on new production technology, the emphasis on farm household and community participation and the extent of required Government support.
These approaches are generally well known and have been exhaustively discussed in the development literature (Chambers 1993). The Community Development approach was the first of the modern genre of comprehensive approaches to rural development, and faced institutional difficulties during implementation. The Green Revolution approach initially boosted food production in well irrigated districts but now confronts soil and pest constraints, and failed to have an equivalent impact in rainfed areas. The Basic Needs approach concentrated on the fundamental needs of the poorest, and over time its components have tended to be absorbed in more comprehensive national programs. The spread of Integrated Rural Development projects represented a swing back towards a comprehensive approach, yet, in the absence of suitable collaborative models and simple participatory tools, proved difficult to manage. Farming Systems Research incorporated farmers circumstances and preferences into the final stages of technology generation and testing: to a significant degree the approach has been institutionalized in national research, has spread to national support services (e.g., Farming Systems Development) and underpins the organization of regional ecoregional research. The Training & Visit system of extension effectively tackled administrative weaknesses, but failed to have significant impact in complex and risky agricultural systems. Structural Adjustment rectified serious imbalances in many economies and set the stage for efficient management and use of agricultural resources. The People's Participation approach has proven to be a necessary but not sufficient approach to rural development. The Farmer-centred Agricultural Resource Management (FARM) approach represents a selective synthesis of the methods of earlier rural development approaches.
It should be noted that the approaches are not mutually exclusive, and each has tended to emerge in response to perceived (not always real) shortcomings in the earlier approaches. Scientists and other development professionals have progressively revised their approaches to agricultural production and resource management in response to emerging challenges. Over time, the accumulated induced shift in key characteristics of the sequence of approaches has amounted to a paradigm shift -- in Table 2 the old and new paradigms are contrasted.
The limitations and inefficiency of input-intensive agriculture (Reijntes, Haverkort and Waters-Bayer, 1992) promoted by the Community Development and Green Revolution approaches are now apparent. Thus, a higher priority is now given to the development of diversified regenerative farming systems (Pretty 1995) and non-material or 'soft' technologies, related to information, household decision-making and the management of farm-household resources. The understanding of the major role of women as resource managers is also growing. For many reasons -- including a perception of some development economists of 'Government failure' -the private and public support for development support NGOs has grown (see Alders et al. 1993), manifested in, for instance, frameworks for GONGO relationships issued by the National Planning Commission, India, and the Philippines Council for Sustainable Development.
Table 1: Characteristics of Selected Development Approaches
Dominant Orientation | ||||
Development Approach |
Broad based Development |
New Technology |
Local Initiative |
Govt Initiative |
Community Development |
**** |
**** |
*** | |
Green Revolution |
* |
**** |
*** | |
Basic Human Needs |
** |
* |
**** | |
Integrated Rural Development |
**** |
* |
** |
**** |
Farming Systems Research |
** |
**** |
*** |
*** |
Training & Visit Extension |
* |
*** |
* |
** |
People's Participation |
*** |
* |
**** |
* |
Structural Adjustment |
** |
** | ||
Farmer-centred Agricultural Resource Management |
*** |
** |
*** |
** |
Notes: * weak, ** intermediate, *** strong, **** very strong. Adapted from FAO 1994.
Table 2: Rural Development Paradigm Shift
Previous Paradigms |
New Paradigm |
centralised, top down |
farmer centred, participatory |
mono-disciplinary |
systems approach |
input-intensive |
reduced and balanced/efficient input use |
maximisation of foodcrop yields |
regenerative diversified farming |
disregard of gender |
gender-sensitive focus |
isolated research and development agencies |
networked partnerships of agencies with common interest |
An Illustration: An Asian Regional Initiative
The above paradigm shift has been incorporated, to a greater or lesser degree, in a number of major collaborative resource management initiatives. For example, the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SANE) has been launched with UNDP support to expedite global information exchange among NGOs on sustainable agriculture. The Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Program (SANREM) supports community based multidisciplinary approaches to improved resource management in selected pilot watersheds in different regions. The FARM Program links eight Asian countries in a collaborative program to identify, disseminate and test sustainable agricultural resource management technologies and modalities.
Following the Earth Summit, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) led a regional initiative to develop an Asian agricultural resource management program based on the concepts of sustainable human development, as summarised by Speth (1994): 'Development will bring food security only if it is people-centred, if it is environmentally sound, if it is participatory, and if it builds local and national capacity for self-reliance'. The resulting FARM Program involves eight Asian countries (China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam) and three United Nations agencies (UNDP, the Food and Agriculture Organization FAO and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization UNIDO).
Based on the experience of senior government staff, scientists and NGOs, the following key components were included in the Program: people's participation, farming systems, watershed management, agroforestry, integrated pest management, biotechnology and biodiversity and pesticide information. As can be noted in the FARM Program Vision and Mission set forth in Box 1, people's participation was a central thrust and a common theme of all FARM activities. Other important themes were a systems approach, gender-sensitivity and organizational partnerships.
Box 1: FARM Vision, Mission and Objective Vision: Communities in rainfed areas of Asia practicing sustainable agriculture resource management in partnership with development professionals to achieve improved household food security and a better quality of life. Mission: To support the human and institutional capacities to learn, understand, and respond to rapidly changing rural systems with the purpose of boosting productivity, eradicating human deprivation and eliminating resource degradation, whilst respecting farm women, men and children, as intelligent, knowledgeable and forward-looking resource managers. Objective: . to enhance the capabilities of GOs and NGOs to build local capacity of (rainfed) resource-poor communities and farmers in Asia for equitable and sustainable development. (FAO 1995) |
Field operations began in August 1994, with an initial emphasis on networking and human resource development. Integrated field sites were established in most participating countries, following systems and participatory principles, for the identification, testing and demonstration of agricultural technologies and development modalities. In order to facilitate integrated support to pilot site communities for the enhancement of NRM, national and regional multi-disciplinary groups were established. The experience of the Program with the provision of support to NRM identified the following key aspects: field sites as learning nodes; farmer participation; institutional partnerships; systems methods; and information systems.
Field Sites as Learning Nodes
From its inception, the Program planned to establish integrated field sites to identify, test and demonstrate technologies and modalities; and thereby to underpin the national and regional information exchange mechanisms. Map I lists 18 identified field sites, of which thirteen were well established in December 1995: China (two sites), India (three sites), Indonesia (one site), the Philippines (one site), Nepal (two sites), Sri Lanka (one site), Thailand (one site) and Vietnam (two sites). In these fully operational sites, participatory diagnostic studies and planning had been completed, usually by joint Government-NGO-farmer teams. The Table 4 summarises the progress with diagnosis and planning, farmer training and other field site activities.
There is a long tradition of pilot sites to demonstrate technologies, following a top-down technology-push mode. In contrast, these FARM sites were planned as learning nodes for successful technology and modality identification and testing. These diagnoses used a composite methodology selectively derived from Farming Systems Development, Diagnosis & Design (from agroforestry), Agroecosystems Analysis and Participatory Rural Appraisal which came to be termed Participatory Assessment & Planning (PAP) within the Program. Through this means, the communities have articulated their priorities for sustainable agriculture interventions. It is apparent that communities' understanding and vision of sustainable development deepened during the field site work, notably where the community envisioning methodology was applied in the Philippines site and full control over funds was vested with farmers' organizations in Nepal (Sharma et al. 1996).
In general, most of the initial PAP reports followed the conventional emphasis (of the above FSD, D&D and AA) on problems, and thus did not document indigenous technologies or other resource management successes in a satisfactory way for subsequent dissemination. However, with the appointment of Site Technical Officers with specific responsibilities for the reporting and evaluation of field site activities, the flow of information related to field site experience increased substantially. Although ideally the sustainable development strategies and intervention plans would be developed with the site communities during the initial diagnosis, it transpired that, in a majority of cases, adequate planning required a second round of dialogue with the communities. In practice, the identification of detailed field site workplans has been a longer process in countries with a stronger tradition of participation.
There was also a strong emphasis on human resource development for site communities -- for example, more than 800 farmers were trained in agricultural production, resource management and organizational technologies, or participated in farmer cross-visits, during 1995 (FAO 1995). Topics for training included farmer group formation, leadership, bookkeeping, loan preparation, environmental assessment, fruit tree production; livestock production, soil conservation measures, integrated pest management, and other income generation activities.
Map 1: FARM Field Sites
Participation of Farmers
The recognition that farm women and men, and their communities, are the principal decision-makers on matters of resource management (Chart 1) has led development programs to emphasise the role of participatory methods and the analysis of gender issues. Experience with participatory methods has deepened and now emphasises community envisioning, tapping of indigenous knowledge and creativity and mobilising local resources and stakeholder platforms for local and equitable development (Dixon and Singh 1995, Roling 1994).
Many different types of farmers' participation exist, and can be classified according to the degree of initiative, from passive to active self-mobilisation which rests with the farm households (Pretty 1994). Table 3 shows a similar, but simplified, grouping of types of participation which were present in FARM field sites (Dixon and Singh 1995). Unfolded participation was in evidence in two field sites, facilitated participation in a majority of sites and induced participation in remaining sites. Over time, the degree and nature of participation in the field sites tended to improve as farmers' organizations grew in strength and took more control.
An initial priority in each field site was the formation or strengthening of farmers' organizations. In most sites these were in turn networked at the village and site levels (see Sharma et al. 1996 for a description of the Nepal field site model). Many organizations have experienced considerable institutional resistance to the shift to a full users participation (see, for example, Prain (1993)). The degree of control which can be devolved to the local farmers' organizations is dependent on local social, institutional and policital circumstances. FARM's experience shows that this transition from user perspective to user participation is easier in pilot development activities than in action research activities. In the latter area of endeavour, professionals and scientists are reluctant to "let go" and give farmers significant influence and/or control (despite guidelines that farmer representatives should be full members of participatory diagnostic teams). In pilot development, however, farmer cooperation and contributions are of greater significance and FARM has had considerable success in supporting farmer group formation and relying on these farmer groups for managing interventions including the management of group savings and loan funds.
Table 3: Farm-household and Community Participation
Types |
Typical Agents |
Unfolded - indigenous; a process initiated and controlled by local communities |
People's organisations (POs) |
Facilitated - intervention by outside agents; a liberating and empowerment process |
Non governmental organisations (NGOs) |
Induced - influenced by outside agents; a process of manipulation principally for external purposes |
NGOs |
Co-opted -- coercion by outside agents, a process where behaviour is modified by fear or propaganda |
Employers |
(adapted from Dixon and B. Singh 1995)
Systems Approach
The FARM Program was designed to address the problems of environmental degradation and poverty in marginal rainfed areas. The original design envisaged seven Sub-programs related to key constraint areas of rainfed zone development. The relevance of these seven different areas varies. Clearly, the systems and participatory approaches are useful in most aspects of FARM; but the relevance of the "technology " Sub-programs depends entirely upon local circumstances and local perceptions of farmers of critical production and sustainability constraints. For example, in Vietnam farmers have requested litchi fruit trees and not agroforestry; in Nepal farmers have requested assistance with animal diseases not IPM for crops; in Sri Lanka the Country Coordinating Committee is searching for relevant biotechnologies for testing in the field site.
The establishment of the Country Coordinating Committees, the Site Working Groups and the Regional Multi Disciplinary Facility encourage integration and cooperation between farmers, technicians, and government officers. This represents one of the FARM Programs innovative approaches to program management.
Where the common good is clearly best served by cooperation, harmonisation and coordination are relatively easily achieved. This circumstance is not infrequently found in the field, say, at district and village levels. Thus, GO officials and NGO workers are effectively working together on Site Working Groups in several field sites.
Country Coordinating Committees, comprising the National Coordinators of each of the seven thrust areas, an NGO representative and key resource persons, have been formally established in all countries. These Committees are the key elements in the country-level governance of FARM and are charged with the oversight of FARM activities in the country, including ensuring appropriate focus and integration of the work, selection and monitoring of field sites, and effective linkage to national programs (including identification of domestic resources for the local implementation of FARM). The Program has a responsibility to keep the 50 senior decision-makers on these eight Committees abreast of cutting edge developments in sustainable agriculture.
Institutional Partnerships
The Program support to integrated and participatory development of sustainable agriculture is concentrated in the field sites. Therefore, the Country Coordinating Committees have established in interim or final form, for each site, a multidisciplinary Site Working Group at the local level, e.g., district, county or province. The Site Working Group comprises representatives of major stakeholders and ensures effective and integrated implementation of site activities. These are unusual in that they comprise Government, NGO and community representatives.
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Following the new paradigm described in Table 2, the Program has invested heavily in horizontal and vertical information linkages, as shown in Figure 1. Cases of successful resource management abound, but tend to be localised and individual solutions to growing resource pressure. FARM has identified many such successes, sometimes called "centres of excellence", and is initiating systematic documentation of these successes. In general, the level of documentation and understanding even by farm neighbours of these systems are limited.
Figure
The priority has been given to the dissemination of information within FARM and to a wider audience. Thus FARM Updates, Newsletters, Field Documents and Reports have been issued. The value of email in reducing the need for meetings is recognised, and about one-third of the seventy persons comprising the FARM community, comprising Country Coordinating Committees, UNDP, FAO and UNIDO officers, and Program staff, now have access to email.
CONCLUSION
The pressure from increasing population and expanding commerce on agricultural resources in Asia is increasing rapidly. The disappointing performance of traditional research and development approaches to NRM have induced a major shift of paradigm among researchers and to a lesser degree development professionals. The new paradigm recognises the complexity and inter-dependence between resource sub-systems and the central role of participation of farm-households and communities in research and development.
Sustainability is multi-dimensional (with ecological, economic and socio-institutional facets); and must be analysed at three distinct levels of decision-making (household, community and nation). Sustainable agricultural resource management requires increased capacity of farm-households and communities to manage resources, including the fostering of innovation to generate appropriate biological and social technologies. The FARM Program supports such an approach, with particular emphasis on systems and participatory methods. Although field work is only fifteen months old, early indications are that community-NGO-Government partnerships at the village level are successfully identifying and implementing key interventions for improved resource management.
Table 4: Field Site Implementation
Site Diagnosis/Planning |
Training of Farmers |
Other Field Implementation |
Chine (Wuhua & Deqing) | ||
Local Team trained in Innovatory |
Five courses in Wuhua Field site, about 200 farmers trained in topics such as Watershed Conservation, Fish Farming, Poultry Raising, Pig Raising, Prevention of Soil and Water Loss. |
|
India (Alwar, Almora, Chengalpattu) | ||
Existing watershed site surveys and plans have been used. |
Training Workshops on Cash Crops, Agroforestry and Ecological Environment Protection |
Fruit cultivation expanded. Bulgarian rose nursing established (Almora). A bioindexing application (Chengalpattu). |
Indonesia (Rembang) | ||
Regional Workshop with participation of CCC and several thrusts identified site and key issues. |
20 farmers group leaders participated in a farmer to farmer training. |
Field tests of biotechnologies. Biodiversity survey. |
Nepal (Khanigoan & Barku) | ||
Local Kanigoan Team and farmers trained in Innovatory Methods of Farming Systems integrated with diagnosis/planning of site, 26 farmers(Khanigoan and Barku). |
Five courses for 36 group leaders from Khanigaon in topics such as farm training on pest and disease control of vegetables crops, Pig raising and their disease control, saving and loan rotating fund management |
Farmers group leaders (men & women) formed. Group savings and loan, fund increased, pig production improved. Fruit trees planted, vegetable production improved. |
Philippines (lnfanta Site) | ||
Local training in Infanta Field Site on Innovatory Methods of Farming Systems integrated with diagnosis/planning. |
Articulation of problems and vision through community envisioning. Community planning workshop. |
Establishment of biotechnology village. |
Sri Lanka (Tirappane site) | ||
Local Training on Innovatory Methods of Farming Systems with integrated diagnosis/planning. |
Study Tour of successful experiences of NRM in tropics. One household member from each of 141 families. |
|
Thailand (Nan) | ||
Local Training in Farming Systems. Diagnosis of Nan Province site. |
Establishment of "man made" forest. | |
Vietnam (Ha Bac & Minh Hai Sites) | ||
Local Training on Innovatory Methods of Farming Systems with integrated diagnosis/planning. |
Training on NRM. 40 farmer group leaders participated (Ha Bac). Farmer training in IPM. |
Farmer groups registered Village loan fund increased. Litchi planting increased. Further land transferred to households. (Ha Bac). |
REFERENCES
Alders, C., B. Haverkort and L. van Veldhuizen. 1993. Linking with Farmers: Networking for Low-External-lnput and Sustainable Agriculture. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK.
Alexandratos, N. 1995. World Agriculture: Towards 2010. FAO and John Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Brown, L.R. and H. Kane. 1994. Full House: Reassessing the Earth's Population Carrying Capacity. Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series, W W Norton, New York, N.Y., USA.
Chambers, R., A. Pacey and L.A. Thrup (eds). 1989. Farmer First: innovation and agricultural research. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK.
Chambers, R. 1993. Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development. Intermediate Technology, London, UK.
Dixon,J. 1990. Ways Forward for the Farming Systems Approach in Asia and the Pacific, Asian Farming Systems Research and Extension Symposium, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Dixon, J. 1993, 'Multiple Objectives Analysis and Sustainable Agriculture', Journal of Asian Farming Systems Association, 2(1): 121-132.
Dixon, J. and B. Singh. 1995. People's Participation in Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development, FAO NGO-SARD Workshop (Sept. 1995), FAD-RAP, Bangkok, Thailand.
FAO. 1989. Sustainable Development and Natural Resources Management, Twenty-fifth Conference Paper C 89/2 - Sup. 2. Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1994. Farming Systems Approach to Development: a participatory approach to small-scale farmers. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1995. FARM Progress January-December 1995. Farmer-centred Agricultural Resource Management Program, Bangkok, Thailand.
Farrington, J. and S.B. Mathema. 1991. Managing Agricultural Research for Fragile Environments. Amazon and Himalayan Case Studies. Occasional Paper 11. Agricultural Administration Unit, Overseas Development Institute, London, UK.
Harrington, L.W. 1992. 'Measuring Sustainability', Journal for Farming Systems Research-Extension 3 (1). 1-20.
Jodha, N.S. 1990. 'Mountain Agriculture: the Search for Sustainability, Journal for Farming Systems Research-Extension I (1): 55-76.
McCalla, A. F. 1994. Agriculture and Food Needs to 2025: Why We Should Be Concerned. CGIAR Secretariat, World Bank, Washington, USA.
Norman, D. and M. Douglas. 1994. Farming Systems Development and Soil Conservation. Farm Systems Management Series 7, FAO, Rome.
Pearce, D.W., E. Barbier, and A. Markandya. 1990. Sustainable Development: Economics and Environment in the Third World, London, UK: Earthscan.
Prain, G.D. 1993. 'The trials of participation'. UPWARD Field Notes Newsletter 3(2):3.
Pretty, J.N. 1994. 'Alternative Systems of Inquiry for Sustainable Agriculture', IDS Bulletin 25(2): 3748.
Pretty, J. N. 1995. Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self-reliance. Earthscan, London, UK.
Reijntjes, C., B. Haverkort and A. Waters-Bayer. 1992. Farming for the Future. An introduction to LowExternal-lnput and Sustainable Agriculture. MacMillan Press, London, UK.
Roling, N. 1994. Creating Human Platforms to Manage Natural Resources: First Results of a Research Program. Systems-Oriented Research in Agriculture and Rural Development International Symposium, November 1994, Montpellier, France.
Sharma, P.N., B. Pudasaini, S.N. Mandal and M.P. Wagley. 1996. Empowerment of Farmers and its Impact on Natural Resources Management at FARM Program Demonstration Watershed in Nuwakot, Nepal. PWMTA-FARM Field Doc. # 6, fan. 1997 (II edition), Netherland/UNDP/ FAO, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Singh, G. 1994. Sustainable Agricultural Development: challenges and prospects, Inaugural Professorial Address, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Speth, G. 1994. Foreword in UNDP, Sustainable Human Development in Agriculture, UNDP Guidebook Series, UNDP, New York, USA.
Swaminathan, M S. 1994. Uncommon Opportunities: An Agenda for Peace and Equitable Development, Report of the International Commission on Peace and Food, Zed Books, London, UK.
UNDP. 1993. Farmer-centred Agricultural Management Program Document. UNDP, New York, USA.
Walker, T.S. and J.G. Ryan. 1990. Village and Household Economies in India's Semi-arid Tropics. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.
Wang, Z. 1996. Experience and Lesson of Implementing FARM Program. Working papers, Zhejiang Agricultural University, Hongzhou, China.
Prem N. Sharma1
1 Regional Coordinator/CTA and Sr. Natural Resources Management Advisor (WM) of the Participatory Watershed Management Training in Asia (PWMTA) Program, GCP/RAS/161/NET and FARM Program, RAS/93/062, Netherlands/UNDP/FAO (UN), P. O. Box 25, Kathmandu, Nepal, respectively.
This article was also used to deliver a seminar in the Asia Pacific Mountain Network (APMN) meeting held at ICIMOD at Kathmandu from March 17-19, 1997.
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the objectives of the programs which support the Asian Watershed Management Network. The purpose behind the network is explained and its functioning is described. The ASIAN WATMANET, a network for people's participation in watershed management in Asia, has been operational since late 1994. During this period, it has tried to fill the gap in literature and trained manpower in participatory watershed management and diffused it through its membership. While the network is for 13 countries for the purpose of its actions, information exchange is open to all countries around the world who request it. The action research/studies are described and the regional training/workshops planned to help create a minimum critical mass of trained manpower in participatory watershed management is explained. The network is broad based where by any related institution, organization, library or individual can avail of its membership. This open membership policy, not limited to its focal points only, has made the network dynamic and vibrant.
INTRODUCTION
The ASIAN WATMANET was launched to fulfil the objectives of the UNDP/FAO, RAS/93/063, "Watershed Management in Tropics and Upper Himalayas (WMTUH)" sub-program of the Farmer-centred Agricultural Resources Management (FARM) program in Aug., 1994. This program belongs to its 8 member countries namely China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. The network was launched based on the decisions of its national coordinators in the first Advisory Committee Meeting of the RAS/93/063, held in China in Nov., 1994. Since April 1996, the sub-program has been merged into the FARM program to fully integrate it with other components of agricultural resources management. Thus, its budget was also merged into the RAS/93/062 FARM program. Since then, the Netherlands funded "Participatory Watershed Management Training in Asia (PWMTA)" (GCP/RAS/161/NET) became operational which was designed to co-finance the network along with RAS/93/063. The PWMTA is a program of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Thailand, thus expanding the ASIAN WATMANET to five more Asian countries.
This article exposes you to the objectives behind the ASIAN WATMANET and associated programs. It further briefly reports on its operational experience and the achievements made from Aug., 1994-to-date. The experience is narrated to show how ASIAN WATMANET is trying to update the human resources in participatory WM.
The UNDP/FAO, WMTUH, RAS/93/063, who initiated the ASIAN WATMANET was designed to fulfil the following objectives:
· Strengthening people's participation and networks at all levels in achieving sustainable integrated watershed management (WM) support to documentation and information flow/ exchange.
· Demonstration of mechanisms of people's participation in integrated watershed management on FARM demonstration micro-watersheds.
· Strengthening human resources (training of trainers) for watershed management at regional and national levels, with emphasis on participatory approaches.
· Promotion of increased international support to community participation in watershed management and uplands rehabilitation.
These objectives were designed to support sustainable food security in FARM program's eight member countries. As a child of the earth summit, FARM is designed to support UNCED agenda 21, with a focus on the major problems of agricultural resources degradation and poverty. The ultimate goal of the FARM program is improved conservation, management and utilization (for improved household food security and poverty alleviation) of agricultural resources by resource-poor communities and farm households in Asian rainfed areas.
ASIAN WATMANET meets the first three of the above objectives (including models of farmers' organization networks at FARM sites). The Netherlands funded Participatory Watershed Management Training in Asia (PWMTA) program, GCP/RAS/161/NET, was designed to co-finance the ASIAN WATMANET with the following objectives:
· Development of human resources for participatory watershed management through training, workshops and seminars in the region.
· Exchange of technology and sharing of experiences through regional and national networks among member countries.
The ASIAN WATMANET
The ASIAN WATMANET is a regional network for people's participation in watershed management of 13 Asian countries (PWMTA and FARM members). In addition to the regional networking, it initiates and assists the grass root level farmers' organization networks (assisted by RAS/93/063 on all FARM demonstration sites during 1994-1996) and national WATMANETs which are formally or informally now being initiated by the PWMTA member countries. The ASIAN WATMANET has the following objectives:
· help form and strengthen farmers' organization networks for watershed management at village, district, and national (national WATMANETs) level,
· facilitate exchange of experience at all levels i.e. farmers, extensionists, as well as technical and professional levels within a member country and in the region,
· facilitate exchange of information between member countries through regional/national workshops and training/seminars, production and dissemination of literature on participatory watershed management based on state of art studies/action research,
· strengthen a movement of the Government, Non-Government, People's or Farmers' Organizations (GO/NGO/PO/FO) for sustainable natural resources management of the fragile watersheds in the Asian region, and
· publish a quarterly regional newsletter of ASIAN WATMANET for strengthening people' participation in WM and fill the gap in participatory WM literature by publishing other field documents and training aids.
In April 1996, a Regional Expert Consultation cum Advisory Committee Meeting (REC-ACM) was organized by PWMTA, GCP/RAS/161/NET to identify gaps in participatory watershed management education and training in Asia, at Kathmandu, Nepal. Here, the national focal points decided to launch national WAMANETs with the goal of:
· peoples' participation in WM for sustainable natural resources management (NRM) and poverty alleviation on a small watershed basis for human development.
These national WATMANETs (formally or informally) are now being initiated by the PWMTA to fill the gap at national level since there are very few national training institutions imparting training in participatory watershed management.
OPERATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE NETWORK
Prevalent organizational models, most of which represent vertical hierarchical administration and control relations, are not very conducive to participation of their clientele. Often these organizations are top heavy and require so much of their own institutional management, that managing themselves becomes their main task. In the process, their clients are sidelined and in fact often they defeat their own purpose.
On the contrary, networks are horizontal and flexible organizations which can be efficiently run with least bureaucracy. For example, Asian WATMANET headquarters was run by a single professional man team in its first two years and the second professional staff has joined in last 9 months only. It has a support staff of three. However, it has been seen that many such efforts have also closed down soon after their initial funding is exhausted. This is so because the national or regional organizations have often refused to internalize the concept of the networks. To avoid such a situation, the experience of the ASIAN WATMANET so far shows that the networks need to be very broad based. The main participants i.e. the vast membership (today close to 800 in Asia and continuously increasing) have been highly dynamic and active in making contributions to newsletters and in distributing the information. Dozens of letters are received with various information or request for additional membership or with research articles or with comments for improvements. This has given a great impetus to the Asian WATMANET. These dynamic members have never been participants to a regional training/workshop but in information exchange only.
With the help of the focal points of the Asian WATMANET and the dynamic membership, many achievements have been made since the network started in Aug., 1994.
INNOVATIVE MODELS OF WM/NRM THROUGH FARMERS' ORGANIZATION NETWORK BUILDING AT FARM DEMONSTRATION WATERSHEDS
The field level demonstrations of farmers' organization building for empowering them to manage their land, water and forest resources for their own development and poverty alleviation were started in 6 of the 8 FARM countries beginning early 1995 through RAS/93/063 WMTUH and by other FARM sub-programs. This was also an action research to document and demonstrate innovative models of participatory watershed management and agricultural resource management through farmers' empowerment. The actions were started by RAS/93/063 in early 1995 and have been going on till the end of 1996 while at the same time being taken over by the merged FARM program, RAS/93/062, beginning middle of 1996.
The ideas behind this field level experience have been to document and demonstrate impact of farmers' empowerment and their organizational networks. Capacity building of farmers is through farmer to farmer exchange where indigenous knowledge was paramount and frontier technologies demonstrated to farmers for fitting them into their own natural resource management and farming systems. This work is in progress on the following sites of the FARM program:
· Wuhua county in Guangzhou province of China
· Alwar, Rajasthan and Almora, U.P., in India (by national efforts only)
· Khanigaon in Nuwakot district, and Sanu/Thallo Bharkhou and Goljung villages in Rasuwa district in Nepal
· Tirrapani watershed in Mahaillapalam in Sri Lanka
· Deo Zao and Kha La villages, Luc Nac district, Ha Bac province, Northern Vietnam
· Infanta in Quzon province, Philippines
These experiences are slowly starting to raise doubts in many concerned minds on the fallacy of top down efforts which are still prevalent at the implementation level. It has also shown that most of the national professionals need to unlearn a lot to become better facilitators of participatory WM/NRM and/or agricultural resource management.
ACTION RESEARCH/STUDIES CONDUCTED
Study of the Status of Watershed Management in Asia
The national coordinators of WMTUH, RAS/93/063 (now focal points of GCP/RAS/161/NET in 5 of the 8 FARM countries), conducted studies to assess the status of integrated watershed management in 7 of the 8 FARM countries (except Indonesia). This status was presented in the first Advisory Committee Meeting of the WMTUH/FARM in Nov., 1994. Based on this an analysis of the policy issues in participatory watershed management was made. The outcome has been published as field Doc. 1 titled "Status of Watershed Management in Asia". The demand for the publication is still increasing daily as such a study has not been available earlier in this form neither to the member countries, nor to the donors (who are handsomely investing in WM in most Asian countries today). The major demand has been from the training, research and agricultural/forestry library members of the network. The status has brought the participatory watershed management policy issues to the forefront.
Assessment of National Watershed Management Project for Rainfed Areas in India
The assessment was jointly conducted by RAS/93/063 (WMTUH) and RAS/93/062 (RAFSA) of the FARM in early 1995 on the request of the Government of India to identify the gaps and constraints in implementation of the US$ 423 million national watershed management (WM) program. Recommendations were made to the Government of India which will hopefully influence the design of national WM program for the next five year plan expected to be of the order of 5 billion US$. The study was published as Field Doc. No. 2 (in 2 editions) as "A rapid Assessment of the National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA) in India" and distributed to all the Asian WATMANET members in India and else where.
Case Studies of People's Participation in Watershed Management in Asia
These studies were commissioned by the RAS/93/063 WMTUH sub-program of the FARM by mid 1995 and completed by mid 1996 in 7 of the 8 FARM countries. The studies were conducted as most modern efforts in WM/NRM were not very effective due to lack of people's participation. At the same time, there are many ancient examples of WM which have sustained considerable populations over ages. The studies have been published as Field Doc. 4 and 5 by the WMTUH RAS/93/063 (jointly with PWMTA GCP/RAS/161/NET). The case studies were analyzed in a regional workshop held by the GCP/RAS/161/NET in Oct. 1996 to establish the participatory processes for integrated watershed management (Field Doc. 7, under preparation) based on the lessons learnt from the indigenous and traditional case studies. Based on these case studies, participatory WM has been redefined as:
"Utilization and conservation of land, water and forest resources at and within (women/men) farm household and community or given small watershed level for continually improved livelihood and human development".
This is refocussing the WM/NRM actions to achieve human development. The case studies should make national implementation agencies to rethink their strategies.
In addition to the documents from above research/studies, assistance was provided to produce Resource Management Kit for South East Asia in Sept. 1994. The activity was led by another FARM sub-program called Asian Pacific Agro-forestry Network (APAN), RAS/93/064, of the UNDP/FAO.
Gaps in Participatory Watershed Management Education and Training
The national focal points of 9 of 13 Asian WATMANET countries reviewed the status of education and in-service training in participatory WM in their countries in early 1996 and analyzed them in a regional expert consultation (REC) organized by the PWMTA, GCP/RAS/161/NET in April 1996. It became clear that:
the most glaring gap in watershed management/natural resources management (WM/NRM) programs is that most professionals and trainers do not know the processes to make them farmers' programs.
This has happened due to the prevalence of transfer of technology (TOT) model of extension which was successfully used for green revolution but has not proven successful in upland and rainfed area watershed management. The finding of the REC have been published as "Recent Developments, status and gaps in participatory WM education and training" in Field Doc. No. 6 of the PWMTA-FARM.
Participatory Processes in Integrated Watershed Management
A regional workshop was organized in Oct. 1996 to analyze the case studies of participatory WM in Asia. It culled out the most critical elements of the participatory processes which are: envisioning for man's relation with nature or the higher cosmic dimension, farmers' ownership and empowerment, land use titling for sustainable WM, and integration/ mainstreaming of gender concerns into the integrated WM programs. This Field Doc. No. 7 is making it available to the Asian region.
Research/Studies being Commissioned
During the 1997-98, at least the following studies are tentatively planned in each of the ten PWMTA member countries:
· Indigenous technology knowledge and practices for integrated watershed management in the Himalayan and rainfed regions of Asia.
· Farmers' organization building for integrated watershed management in Asia
· Building people's movements for integrated watershed management.
REGIONAL WORKS HOPS /TRAINING
PWMTA, GCP/RAS/ 161 /NET, is designed to further the Asian WATMANET actions through human resources development (training of trainers) in participatory WM along with FARM. It has now completed the document on "Recent Developments, Status and Gaps in Participatory WM Education and Training in Asia" based on which a work plan for retraining and networking for 1997-98 has been worked out. Minimum critical needs of the countries in trained manpower will be met through regional training/workshops. This is to create a minimum critical mass of trainers in each member country who, in turn, are expected to help train more personnel at national level through national efforts with some assistance from the PWMTA program. So far one regional workshop was conducted in 1994 and two in 1996. Four such regional events are planned for 1997 in collaboration with ICIMOD and Texas A & M and four also in 1998. All these regional training require preparation of a trainer's manual and the regional workshops require detailed studies before they can be held. This is because not much documentation is at present available in participatory WM. Thus, these events in addition to training a minimum critical mass of trainers also fill the gaps in literature and research on the subject matter. Many national trainees were sponsored to participate in various related training/workshops also.
In addition to regional actions and information exchange, the RAS/93/062-063 conducted many farmer to farmer exchanges/training of the farmers' organization leaders in 6 of the 8 FARM countries from 1995-96. Around 1,500 farmers' leaders have been trained by the RAS/93/063 on FARM sites during 1995-96.
The regional training/workshops are to create national resource persons in each country who in turn, should be able to multiply the efforts. For this, national WATMANETs are being established (formally or informally) by the focal points. However, since there is no budget available from FARM for this activity to the countries, the meagre resources available from the GCP/RAS/161/NET (only US$ 3,500/year for action research/studies and US$ 6,000/year for national networking per country for 1997 and 98) is a very serious constraint. Each country has chosen an educational/training institute to follow up on the ASIAN WATMANET actions with the limited budget available.
There is no other organization doing this in the region. In fact, there is a need for a full International Institute of Participatory Watershed Management in the Asian Region and the member countries.
ASIAN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT NETWORKING (WATMANET) ACTIVITIES
The Asian WATMANET has rapidly increased in its membership. Two editions of the membership directory have been published and distributed on the demand of the members. The request was made by the members so that they can also do informal networking among themselves.
While the network is geared to promote grass root level farmers' organization networks for participatory WM, models of which were promoted at the FARM demonstration watersheds, its membership consists of GO/NGO/PO organizations and individuals totalling around 800 so far (dozens of daily requests are received for membership). They fall in the category of WM implementors, research, extension, training and education institutions and individuals. All the libraries of the Asian agricultural and forestry universities and training/research institutions are also members as there is a serious dearth of published materials on participatory watershed management.
REGIONAL EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
The most important activity which is available to all has been exchange of information through state of art literature in participatory watershed management produced by the program through the research/studies as earlier explained. This is not limited to only 13 member countries but all countries in the world who request it are included in the membership. The documents produced and distributed consist of field documents, training manuals and quarterly newsletters of the Asian WATMANET. The following box shows what has been produced based on ASIAN WATMANET research/studies and distributed.
Field Documents (jointly by GCP/RAS/ 1 61 /NET-RAS/93/062)
#1: Status of Watershed Management in Asia (2,500 copies distributed)
#2: A rapid assessment of NWDPRA in India (1,500 copies distributed)
#3: A case study of people's participation at BTRT watershed in Nepal (in Nepalese, 1000 distributed, publication exhausted)
#4: Case studies of people's participation in WM in Asia, part I: Nepal, China, India (2,000 copies distributed)
#5: Case studies of people's participation in WM in Asia, part II: Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam and Philippines (1,300 copies distributed)
#6: Recent developments, status and gaps in participatory WM training and education in Asia (2,400 copies distributed)
#7: Participatory processes in integrated WM (this field document, 3,000 copies printed)
#8: Trainers' resource book on farmer led integrated upland watershed management (in preparation at ICIMOD for Asian WATMANET, PWMTA, GCP/RAS/161/NET)
#9: Modelling for rapid impact assessment for management of small watersheds (in preparation at Texas A & M for PWMTA, GCP/RAS/161/NET)
Quarterly ASIAN WATMANET Newsletters (4, 000 copies distribution)
issue # I Dec., 1994: Theme |
WMTUH/FARM program |
issue # 2 March, 1995: Theme |
Status of WM in Asia |
issue # 3 June, 1995: Theme |
Farmers' organizations for WM |
issue # 4 Sept., 1995: Theme |
Policy issues in WM |
issue # 5 Dec., 1995: Theme |
Gender framework for resource management |
issue # 6 March, 1996: Theme |
PWMTA program |
issue # 7 June, 1996: Theme |
Gaps in participatory WM education/training |
issue # 8 Sept., 1996: Theme |
Envisioning of WM professionals |
issue # 9 Dec., 1996: Theme |
Elements of participatory processes in WM |
issue #10 March, 1997: Theme |
Land use titles-A key to people's participation |
issue #11 June, 1997: Theme |
Sustainability of participatory WM (in preparation) |
Special issues (I, II edition) |
Membership directory |
Other materials distribution
Many other documents, videos and kits available in the region on subjects related to participatory WM have been diffused through the focal points, and regional workshops! training. Many trainers' manuals and case studies of ITK/WM, people's movement building' farmers' organization building etc. will be produced.
CONCLUSION
The ASIAN WATMANET has only been an activity of the PWMTA, GCP/RAS/161/NET and FARM, RAS/93/062 programs so far. Time has come to turn it into a full ASIAN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT NETWORK program which could one day become a full international institution with the help of the UNDP and other donors.
To further assist the Asian countries in research, regional and national networking in participatory watershed management full participation and cooperation of the country focal points and membership is required for fulfilling the national needs. There is an urgent need to counteract the bias which is towards irrigated plain lands today vis-a-vis upland mountainous and rainfed watersheds. A more affirmative voice is required to speak for the upland watershed regions and its people in Asia and the Pacific.
