In order to change over from the old strategy, which was restricted to taking measures for the protection of forest areas and forest use, to the new, which anticipates the complete development of these areas, taking into account needs of the people living there, radical reforms of the administrative structures are absolutely essential. The objectives are many and specific and must bring about the economic and social advancement of the people concerned, while at the same time safeguarding their interests by means of appropriate legislation.
Responsibility for achieving these objectives cannot be left to the Water and Forest Ministries, Departments, Boards or Services (depending on the country) even though, logically, the forester remains the manager in zones with forest potential.
Administration is a discipline with its own principles and rules which cannot be set out and analyzed at all levels in this guide.
It is with grass-roots administrative structures that rural development programmes in upland watershed management are concerned. Theoretically, the government body in charge of water and forests must constitute the core of the rural development administrative structure in upland watershed management. However, complete integrated development strategy requires multi-disciplinary teams. There are three possibilities:
There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these possibilities.
In the first case (i) the programme management authorities will have complete authority over these experts, but the government bodies in charge of other disciplines are likely to disapprove of this encroachment on their prerogatives and make it difficult for the experts in question to obtain help from research centres and specialized equipment.
The second possibility is more acceptable, but less likely, since the government authorities often lack expert staff. On the other hand, the special status of detached staff poses problems of authority and administration.
In theory, the third possibility (iii) is clearly the best, but implementation will remain difficult as long as the Ministry authorities do not feel the need to break down the barriers which separate them from each other.
| The existence of good structures at the country's central level does not suffice. They must extend to all regions, right up to village level. |
It is vital that provision be made for all services and institutions interested in the development of the mountain areas, state, para-statal or mixed economy authorities, to consult each other, especially as they will be called upon to participate in the design and preparation of plans and in the implementation of the programme.
Consultation, however, is not enough; there must be dialogue and wherever possible, cooperation.
Each Ministry has its own programmes, either in the planning or implementation phases, and this complicates the problem even more. This is why the first step must be to inform all the authorities concerned.
Information, dialogue, coordination, are still inadequate at the level of national and international bodies as well as government and non-government authorities, in spite of all the wishes expressed and the numerous recommendations voted at all types of conferences.
To achieve effective coordination, each body and responsible authority must renounce some of their prerogatives, give less importance to their own prestige and consider the common aim: development in the interest of all.
It is true that this is easier said than done, but it is the basis of any coordination, dialogue or cooperation.
Two main levels of coordination may be distinguished:
Although coordination at the higher level is extremely important for the design and planning of the overall programmes, coordination which results in cooperation in the field of all officers working in the interest of development is vital in the implementation stage.
| An uncoordinated approach and competition between institutions has the most deplorable effect on the local people and on their participation. |
Both high-level authorities and mere workers must undergo preparation for this dialogue, coordination and frank cooperation. Some are naturally inclined; others must be encouraged by means of education and training.
Team spirit must be taught and developed from early childhood. Later, after specialized vocational training, at all levels, those who intend going into rural development should be able to undergo special training in a specialized centre for rural development. This specialization could be taken at the end of the vocational training, but it could also be very profitable after a few years "in the field", where the real problems arise, It could be followed up periodically by seminar a, round-tables, seminar-workshops, refresher courses.
In most cases of reservoir construction, the governments have assigned the management of the watershed development programmes to new bodies, set up specially for the circumstance.
Formerly, the sole concern in watershed planning was the development of water resources, either for supplying drinking water or for producing energy or for irrigation. But as erosion increases by leaps and. Bounds and threatens the very existence of the dam-reservoirs or at least is seriously curtailing their utilization period due to silting up, the authorities have recognized the great importance of the upland areas and this is why special bodies were assigned to rural development in management programmes in these areas.
It was in 1933, with the start of the Tennessee Valley Management Scheme in the United States that the attitude to the problem changed and the "watershed" was acknowledged as a unit for development of all its resources, not only water. Implementation of this huge undertaking was assigned to a special government body, the "Tennessee Valley Authority" (TVA), which enjoyed great autonomy. Its success is largely due to the convergence of four main factors:
Another large-scale management undertaking is that of the Damodar Valley, in India. The "Damodar Valley Corporation" (DVC), which was set up in 1948 on the decision of the Indian Parliament, is the authority in charge of the development of the watershed. Among its activities are: the construction of dam-reservoirs to control river flow and prevent floods, to produce electrical energy, irrigation, providing water for the people, drainage, improving river navigation, reafforestation and erosion control, improving economic and social conditions in the area. The DVC can purchase lands and other goods, set up cooperatives and take steps against pollution.
In Colombia, the "Corporaoión Autónoma Regional del Cauca", set up by the Government in 19541 is in charge of integrated development of the Cauoa River Valley, which shows high potential.
In Haiti, the "Artibonite Valley Development Authority" (ODVA) is in charge of the development of the Artibonite Valley.
In Ghana, the "Volta River Authority", set up in 1961, is in charge of everything connected with the development of the Volta basin.
Hundreds of examples, all roughly similar as regards organization and objectives, could be mentioned.
What is the scope of activities of these new bodies?
They are usually headed by Hoards of Administration, presided over by the Minister responsible, in which all services concerned are represented, ministries, offices, sectors, operations, etc., as well as cooperating foreign technical assistance agencies, usually in a consultative capacity. In fact, these Councils have the power of decision as regards planning and financing.
The communities concerned should also be represented.
Theoretically, these special bodies should be considered as temporary, provisional institutions which will disappear once the work connected with the programme is completed. But experience shows that it is easier to set them up than wind them up. They present both advantages and disadvantages.
Some of the advantages have already been mentioned, but there are others. Here are the main ones:
However, there is also the other side of the coin, i.e. the disadvantages, which must be borne in mind:
The long-term objective should be to strengthen the ministries, to enable them to undertake development of upland watershed areas over the whole national territory so that efforts may not be wasted and in order to standardize methods.
The ideal solution would be for the population directly concerned to take charge of its own development with the help of officers from the various ministries, thus taking over responsibility from the specialized bodies. This must be the aim of all efforts.
This taking over process will be all the easier if the resources at the disposal of the special agencies are limited.
This is one of the most serious problems facing many programmes.
Shortage of personnel is due to two factors:
In developing countries, governments are practically the only employers of specialized staff for development and management of upland watershed areas.
When we look more closely at the organization charts of the various ministries and at the staff reports, we note that many higher level posts are either not filled or filled by technicians of a lower level than required.
Watershed management programmes also suffer from this lack of qualified staff.
The new strategy also implies a new profile for water and forest management staff. The role of the forester can no longer be limited to protecting and conserving the forest as FAO pointed out in the State of Food and Agriculture, 1979:
| The role of the forester is not only purely technical but also social in the sense of making decisions in the long-term interests of all concerned. The question arises of what role the forester should perform and what qualifications he requires for it. The forestry profession has already undergone an evolution from one predominantly based on the biological sciences to one oriented to the management of production. The forester must now become in addition a manager of socio-economic systems, and also be sufficiently conversant with agriculture and animal husbandry to be able to relate them to the broader needs of rural development. |
The medium level staff is also inadequate. At this level, it is the practical training which is lacking and should be reinforced to complement the theory.
But, the most serious staff inadequacies are felt at the grassroots level where the peasant leaders, those in permanent contact with the crop and livestock farmers, are found. While one leader for approximately 200 crop or livestock farmers is necessary if tangible results are to be obtained, in developing countries the number of staff is inadequate, except in so-called "pilot" areas.
The most urgent need is for trained staff at the grassroots level...
Staff efficiency, especially at the middle and lower levels leaves much to be desired l for various reasons:
When special agencies for rural development, benefiting from foreign technical assistance, exist, a certain number of these negative factors are eliminated.
In a Thailand programme there is:
1 technical assistant for 5 water and soil conservation supervisors and 40 farmers for supervisor.
The annual achievement target (bench terraces) is 0.4 ha. per farmer, i.e. 16 ha. per supervisor and 80 ha. per technical assistant.
Staffing is tighter; there are productivity bonuses and equipment is plentiful. Many upland watershed management programmes train their extension staff themselves, through intensive courses or "on the job" training. Firstly, practical training is provided from the top down, i.e. high level staff are trained by the experts and they in turn train their direct subordinates and so on.
Specialization and refresher courses are often essential for staff required to work on these programmes.
| Team spirit is an important factor for success. |
Personnel involved in a programme must be aware of the interdependence of all the disciplines involved: physical, biological, economic. The team spirit will depend largely on the attitude of the programme authorities (director, co-ordinator, administrator).
As part of a study concerning strategies for more successful projects, the following question was posed: should the programme manager be an effective administrator rather than a competent technician or should he possess good human relation skills? The answer was that the 3 qualifications were important, but technical competence was considered most important and aptitude for establishing contacts came next.
For further information, please consult:
See also part III, chap. 10. (Return)
UNDP/FAO. Mae Sa integrated watershed and forest land use project. THA/76/001. Working Paper No. 11. Appendix 11. (Return)
Strategies for more successful projects, by Bruce N. Baker, David C. Murphy, Dalmar Fisher p. 13 FAO (Return)
