Appreciation of the project at national level
I. Methodology of farmers' organization and people's/women's participation in NWDPRA
II. The farming systems development (FSD) approach observations
III. Subsidies/incentives for watershed resource management activities
IV. Watershed management and farming systems technology
V. Common property resources management
VI. Training needs and institutions
One cannot fail to be impressed by the scale of the watershed development task which the Government of India has undertaken and by the determination of officers at all levels to make it succeed. In particular, the following program components are worthy of note:
1. The adoption of the program approach aimed at the integration of different components of natural resource management.2. The magnitude of the program on a national scale.
3. The approach to sustainable rainfed area development based on a small watershed.
4. The goal of people's participation, and in particular, the efforts directed at the participation of women.
5. Efforts at the application of the farming systems development (FSD) approach.
6. The two day state level and six day district/watershed level training program, presently being introduced all over the country (MOAC, 1994) is noteworthy both for its integrated approach and for its technology based content.
7. The enthusiasm of the technicians and professionals involved in the implementation of the project.
The MKM comprises a group of about 5 farmers from each of the villages in a watershed of up to 1,000 ha. The members of the MKM represent specific socio-economic classes within the community. The team felt that a forum of about five farmers from each of the watershed villages rather than representatives of farmers' groups as building blocks of the MKM may be too restricted to facilitate the dynamic and vibrant participation of all the farmers/beneficiaries within the constituency. Thus, while it is correct to consider the MKMs as a watershed farmers' organization, their membership composition might well be reviewed, since the mere fact of five farmers from each village will not necessarily ensure the full range of people's participation within the community.
The team noted that the self help groups which had been formed were not necessarily represented in the MKM. Thus, they may be unable to directly influence the decision making process in terms of the activities of the MKM. However, the experience gained in group formation is very valuable. They should be the building blocks of the farmers' organization or MKM.
The team's observations in the four MKMs which were visited suggest that they are being actively used in the role of extension agents for the watershed management teams in the transfer of technology (TOT). Their potential for being developed as peoples' representatives for the bottom-up integration of traditional knowledge and people's interests into the planning process (Chambers, Pacey and Thrupp, 1991) is not being fully exploited. Thus, neither the Department of Agriculture's extension service watershed management teams nor the MKMs are yet in a position to be able to marry the farmer first (FF) approach with the TOT model of extension, which seems to be the original intention of the NWDPRA.
The team felt that the majority of the NWDPRA officers involved in the watersheds considered that the implementation of an activity (which is generally over 90 percent subsidized), was their major responsibility. Where peoples' participation was involved, it seemed in the main to be directed towards paid activity implementation. More especially, people's participation seemed to be linked to conservation measures. The watershed teams do not yet seem to have been prepared/trained for empowering people in their own decision making and organization building. One can understand the situation of the watershed teams. There must be a quite natural desire to show that the project is busy in the site. Indeed, the generation of "...massive employment during the project period... "is described in the NWDPRA Guidelines as one of the objectives of the project. The three day training program for the farmers (as proposed in the NWDPRA Guidelines, MOAC, 1992) as well as the planned six day training courses for watershed professionals (MOAC, 1994), seem to concentrate mainly on training in integrated improved technological activities. Training of farmers in their own organization and institution building and in the mechanisms of a dynamic peoples' participation seems to have a lower priority.
Since the MKMs also include enlightened or innovative farmers, the team felt that there could be a tendency for them to take over the presidency of the MKMs as they will often be relatively larger and more influential farmers with time to do this. While the role of the innovative farmer in the Green Revolution has been very significant, the same may not be entirely true in the uplands and other rainfed areas since their achievements may not be replicable. Thus, care needs to be taken that the NWDPRA project (which works in fragile areas where most of the people are small or marginal farmers or landless), does not repeat the negative aspects of the Green Revolution and the transfer of technology model of extension.
The role of women still appears to be marginalized. In the hilly areas, it is evident that women play a major role in farming. In other rainfed areas also, their role is at least as important as that of the men. Thus, it is important to treat the women as farmers rather than as domestic workers only. In this context, it should be recognized that the women farmers' outlook is likely to be substantially different from that of men farmers. If this can be accepted then a fresh look at the activities being funded by the NWDPRA project may be justified. Also, the encouragement of a major representation of women farmers in farmers' organizations would be desirable.
The marginalized groups of the villagers (e.g. basket makers, blacksmiths, carpenters and other landless people) seemed unable to break out of the vicious circle of poverty as their single activities alone were unable to make a significant impact on the standard of living of these groups. Thus, a combination of cash income generating activities would probably be more effective in uplifting them than a concentration on a single activity only. While hereditary professions (e.g. blacksmithing, basket making, carpentry etc.) are definitely to be encouraged (as is already being done in Almora), more cash income generating activities need to be encouraged for them so that they do not remain dependent on a single enterprise.
In the projectization (planning) process no assessment of the indigenous forms of farmers' organizations and their traditional institutions appears to be made. Thus, farmers' traditional institutions seem to have been excluded from the planning process. Therefore the MKM may be in danger of becoming a replica of the village panchyat system which has been a political rather than a development body.
The NICNET monitoring system seems to be very efficient for the purpose of the administration and control of the program. However, it may be questioned if this system helps the farmers to improve their activities; the ultimate purpose of any evaluation and monitoring exercise in a program of this nature. The Sumangal Diary which is retained by the farmer, appears to be completed on his behalf by visiting officers.
Modifications in the present MKMs are suggested in the following paragraphs for consideration as a possible modified farmers' organization network model, based on previous experience of FAO rural development programs (FAO, 1993a, 1994) arid the MKM experience of the NWDPRA.
One of the first efforts on entry into the watershed after the farmers are motivated, should be on the formation of farmers' groups. These groups should be as homogenous as possible. A small group size not exceeding 15 families, will create more vibrancy and dynamism. The farmers' groups could be built around fast cash income generating multiple activities. The selection of these activities could include a cafeteria of choices as has already been done by the NWDPRA program. Each farmers' group could have two elected group leaders: a women and a man. All these elected women and men group leaders (WGL and MGL) could form the membership of the friendly farmers' committees in a village or Village MKM (VMKM) within a given small watershed. Five elected farmers from these farmers' group leaders could form a village MKM board (called VMKMB) of a particular village in the small watershed. It could include three women and two men group leaders from small/marginal and landless farmers only, including the Gopals. No innovative or so called enlightened farmer should be included in the village MKM. The women/men group leaders from each of the villages in the small watershed would also form the membership of the MKM of the small watershed itself which would then elect the small Watershed MKM Board (called WMKMB) in the same way as the VMKMB. The WMKMB would be the farmers' organization responsible for the NWDPRA program in a watershed.
Thus, the major modification in the existing MKMs suggested here is that the proposed MKMs at village (VMKM) as well as at small watershed (WMKM) level consist of the women/men representatives of small homogenous farmers' groups rather than any 5 farmers elected/selected from each village. The existing MKMs are forums of the 5 farmers from each village in a watershed while the proposed VMKMs and WMKMs are federations of farmers groups in each of the village as well as in a small watershed. The WMKMBs need to be further linked in a network at district level, province level, and at the national level once the watershed level WMKMB has become successful. The proposed organization model is outlined in Fig. 1.
The working of the VMKMB and WMKMB should be decided solely by the farmers or their group leaders. All the rules and regulations for their operation should also be defined by the farmers themselves. Thus, they will learn to make their own organizations based on their traditional institutions and mores. The government team should act as facilitators in all aspects of the program.
Fig. 1: Proposed farmers' organization network model for NWDPRA in India
Legend:
|
FG |
Farmers' Group |
|
WGL |
Woman Group Leader |
|
MGL |
Man Group Leader |
|
VMKM |
Village Friendly Farmers' Committee |
|
VMKMB |
Village Friendly Farmers' Board |
|
WMKMB |
Watershed Friendly Farmers' Board |
All the funding of the activities should be directly handed over to these organizations also, once they are formed and trained in handling and managing the funds. All the decision making on the activities to be taken up should also be the responsibility of the group leaders, based on the wishes of each household, who help them integrate it into watershed plans on an annual basis. These organizations should also be asked to actively look at the question of incentives. This could result in savings and a more appropriate allocation of incentives.
The NWDPRA program's first responsibility should be to facilitate the building of farmers' organizations. In fact, three to six months at the beginning of the program in a small watershed could be dedicated to this activity alone. The seven steps to facilitate people's participation, (PCSD, 1995) should precede the farmers' organization building.
At present only a religious NGO (for moral and character building of the officials) and a research NGO, were found to be integrated into this program on the sites visited by the team. There are many rural development NGOs (including AVARD, MYARDA etc.) in India which have gained considerable experience in farmer organization. The NWDPRA program could plan to utilise these NGOs for the purpose of building the WMKMs.
An intensive farmers' organization and its network as proposed above will help to better empower the people. The proposed WMKMs would be self sufficient farmers' organization networks which could take care of their own natural resources. At the same time the government organizations and the NGOs would facilitate them on all the aspects as proposed in the NWDPRA (FAO, 1994).
In order to improve watershed management activities a participatory monitoring and evaluation system (PME) could be instituted at the VMKMB level (Stephens and Putman, 1990).
Before definite views can be formed on the application of the FSD approach in the field under the nwdpra program, it will be necessary to have access to details of the actual databases and analyses generated in the
Original diagnostic activities in the FARM watersheds. It is not easy to determine the composition of the survey teams which did the work in the field, or the extent of the involvement of the communities in design, data collection and analysis, verification or dialogue relating to the planning and design of subsequent programs for the watershed. The NWDPRA Training Manual (page 8) suggests that the emphasis "...so far..." has been on engineering surveys.
The NWDPRA has identified 115 agro-ecological zones at national level. It was not clear to the team that any form of farming systems zoning exercise had been undertaken at the NWDPRA small watershed level. It seemed that there were likely to be enough differences even in a small watershed of 500-1000 ha to warrant this zoning work. There can be a variety of criteria for determining homogenous zones, for example, size of land holding or landless; supplementally irrigated or non irrigated; slope, soil depth, rainfall, land use, land capability, draft power or no draft power. These criteria can best be decided locally to reflect the specific situation (FAO, 1990). Such zoning could provide a basis for discussion between the watershed teams and the farmers in the search for improvement. Demonstrations could be targeted at areas of specific land capability. The FSD concept of homogenous zones might also assist in identifying groups of farmers with similar characteristics as a possible aid to building a dynamic farmers' organization.
The team felt that it would be an advantage to include a farming systems zoning exercise in the work at the initial projectization stage. This will enable the identification of homogenous areas for possible development interventions.
The NWDPRA guidelines and the training manual emphasise farming systems. The team felt that in the field this has so far been reflected more as an emphasis on single activities rather than as a systems based approach. Traditionally, the farm household, as a unit involved in resource management integrates a number of activities. At present farmers' groups are based on single activities although the members are, in fact, involved in all aspects of household and farm production. Thus, it may not be advisable to base group formation on single activities. In this way, the families will not devote all their efforts to single activities.
Subsidies or incentives for activities which are not part of the traditional day to day farming activities, or which represent a change from the traditional activities of farmers can be justified on the basis of a cost sharing arrangement between the up-stream and down-stream beneficiaries. Thus, the institutionalization of certain well defined incentives to the up-stream populations involved in resource conservation is an excellent idea formalized by the NWDPRA program. A good example of this can be seen in the Nihal watershed where a series of ponds and checkdams have helped to recharge the only source of water for a nearby village. The NWDPRA provides a maximum of Rs. 3,500 per ha in lowland (defined as less than 8% slope) and Rs. 5,500 per ha in upland (more than 8% slope) areas for income generating activities. For landless or very marginal farmers the program provides up to Rs. 1,000 per family for income generating activities. For plantations, Rs. 15 per plant (about US$ 500 per ha) is provided.
In some cases (particularly for the landless and marginal farmers) the activities carried out through the Rs. 1,000 subsidy seemed hardly able to make a significant impact on the standard of living of the people. For landless people the subsidy is directed only at a single activity and not at a number of cash income generating activities. On the other hand, in the case of the small and medium farmers there was some evidence that a dependent attitude was being created in many people as they seemed interested in the program because of the 100 percent subsidy available. They apparently had no other motivation to participate in the program. It is important that ways be determined to avoid the dependency syndrome. A rational way of incentive determination, probably based on a three dimensional model is required. The three dimensions of the decision making model could be: a) land holding; b) type of activity (normally not done by a farmer) and c) the magnitude and time frame of on-site net benefits generated by the activity (Sharma, 1993).
The incentive needs should be examined in more detail. The farmers' organizations should themselves be involved with government in the determination of the exact needs within a given framework. One of the criteria for this incentive framework could be based on land tenancy (or type of farmer i.e. large, medium, small, marginal, landless, men, women etc.), type of activities, and expected benefits to be generated by the activity for a certain type of farmer. In other words, small, marginal and landless farmers need more direct incentives than do the medium and large farmers who may only need indirect incentives (e.g. price guarantees or small industries in the neighbourhood for processing of the produce). Similarly the same activity can produce a different level of benefits for different types of farmers, based on economies of scale. The method suggested here for determination of incentive levels does not mean that incentive need to be determined for each and every farmer. It is to be separately determined for a social group (e.g. land less, marginal, small and medium farmers, common property resources etc.) for a given activity (e.g. agricultural, horticultural, forestry, livestock etc.).
The present levels of incentive payments may not be enough for marginal and landless farmers and may be too much for certain small and medium farmers in which group it can encourage an attitude of dependency.
The best incentive results from the on-farm benefits generated by the watershed resources management activities. Thus, the watershed resources management activities should be propagated based on these benefits which will make the farmers self sufficient rather than the apparent present day practice of propagating the activities through the incentives. This is often self defeating and can create dependence.
At present the major emphasis in a watershed appears to be on the transfer of technology. Nevertheless, rather limited efforts at the integration of indigenous technology knowledge seem to have been made in the FARM watersheds. It is not clear to what extent the technicians and officials responsible for the project have utilised techniques of rapid rural appraisal or participatory rapid appraisal in the preliminary diagnostic activities. Even in the training of the farmers little or no time seems to have been allocated to indigenous technology knowledge or its marriage with improved technological options, which have rather limited available options even today.
Since the program is led (and rightly so) by the soil conservation departments of the provinces, there seems to have been a concentration on mainly structural methods of soil conservation. Pure vegetative hedges as outlined in the guide lines (MOAC, 1992) could not be observed in the field except for those being planted on the conservation structures.
Photo 3: Vegetative hedges planted on contour dykes in Beganhari watershed in Alwar, Rajesthan
The majority of the population of the rainfed rural areas in India, are small/marginal and landless farmers. First and foremost, the effort needs to be on quick income generating activities (preferably within a crop season or at most within a year), if people's participation is to be assured and sustained. Only direct and quick benefit generation can ensure the small, marginal and landless farmers' interest in the program. Otherwise the tendency will be to regard the program only in terms of the possibility for employment. The same is true for efforts to increase women's participation. Women generally do not have time to participate in activities which bring only long term benefits, since these benefits generally are owned by men.
In the above context, water harvesting/conservation, supplemental irrigation, drinking water, agro-forestry, home gardens, orchards, vegetable growing, chicken, fish, pig, rabbit rearing etc. can become more important in the beginning of a project than soil conservation measures alone. While these efforts are certainly being undertaken in the watersheds they do not appear to be on the same scale as check dams and contour ditches/bunds etc.
In the projectization (planning) surveys there seems to be no specific mention of understanding and incorporating indigenous technology knowledge into the planning process. This is an important part of the FSD approach and can often provide a basis for a subsequent point of entry for a planned activity.
The team feels that an effort to identify and review successful indigenous technologies and to screen them for adaptation in the watersheds would be justified. Since, improved technological options for resource poor farmers in rainfed areas remain limited, indigenous technology might provide the basis of improvements.
Cash income generating activities, agro-forestry, orchards/fruit trees, horticultural/vegetable farming, and small ruminant propagation should take precedence over the purely soil conservation activities. Water harvesting for supplemental irrigation, drinking water, and in-situ moisture conservation in the semi arid zone, and runoff harvesting for fruit tree planting in arid zones, are equally important. For income generation, priority can be given first to those activities which do not necessarily need added water conservation.
In general, the technological options available are very well understood by officials at all levels of the program. It is now important to integrate these options with the traditional knowledge of the household system and to determine the correct sequencing (quick cash income generating first) in order to make an impact. In this connection, it is felt that the NWDPRA may benefit from an exchange of experiences with the Chinese watershed management program which is even larger than that of the Government of
India and which, over the past ten years, has brought about a revolution in upland conservation through community based farming systems and cash income generating activities.
In discussions in the field it was learned that some ten years ago a policy decision was made by the Government of India which made it possible to hand over rights of usufruct on community lands to groups such as a village panchayat, or to individuals on request, for appropriate land use. It was observed that this has generally not occurred. Farmers are apparently not willing to use these lands unless they are given land use titles by the revenue department. It seems that in many instances the village revenue officials do not allow the people to harvest the benefits of these lands. Thus, although these lands are often encroached upon by farmers they are never put to rational land use (e.g. orchards, pastures, forests, woodlot or other long term use). The NWDPRA project is constrained by the fact that it does not have land use titling authority, which belongs to the district revenue office only.
A single case was found of a village panchyat (Neekaj village, Alwar, Rajesthan) where the leader, Mrs. Asha Rani Rathore, had organized the villagers to identify and demarcate community lands, and had obtained the permission of the district revenue officials for communal use. This is a clear case of the use of people's power for community land recovery.
The progress of the NWDPRA in the development of common property resources seems to be limited. This may be caused by the fact that the land revenue department is not integrated with the program. Obtaining a land use title can be a major incentive for these areas. By giving such titles China has converted millions of ha of waste lands into fruit orchards and forest plantations under their watershed management programs. In India also, examples can be found. In Nepal, land use titling of common property lands is poised to bring a revolution in community forestry. Hence, it is suggested that the NWDPRA can learn from these experiences and, not least of all, the program can study the constraints being faced by them.
It is proposed that the NWDPRA negotiate with the Revenue Department and the Forestry Department of the Government of India so that the authority to provide land use titles on the communal lands (panchyat lands, village pasture lands, as well as nearby forest lands) may reside with the NWDPRA itself. Without this, it seems likely that common property resources development will continue to be severely limited.
As was noted above, one village leader, Mrs. Asha Rani Rathore of the Neekaj village in Alwar in the program's Karkhari watershed, has been able to unite all the farmers to take control of 54 ha of village panchyat and pasture lands and has also been able to obtain title for these lands. However, she is now looking forward to program aid for the rehabilitation of these areas. This model is being used successfully to develop community forests around villages in Nepal. However, if the land use titles can be provided to
individual farmers, it would seem the farmers will have a direct interest in developing the lands by themselves as is done in some areas of India and in the whole of China.
The nurseries established or planned in each of the small watersheds are appreciated. However, given the apparent survival rate of the plants in the fields, they are an expensive item, while the task of rehabilitating the uplands is gigantic. Hence, it is suggested that direct seeding be investigated. Although the sum of Rs. l5/plant (= US $ 1,400/ha @ 3,000 plants/ha) subsidy reflects about dounle the real cost of reforestation by the Government of India, in a people's participation watershed management program it should be expected that farmers will manage their own plantations. But for this to happen, farmers will need to be sure that they have full rights on the land.
Photo 6: A village nursery planned at Khutgath watershed in Almora, U.P.
The farmers training curriculum provided in the NWDPRA guidelines concentrates very largely on bio-physical aspects. Training in the development of peoples' organizations seems minimal, although MKMs and self-help thrift groups are indeed covered. If peoples' mobilization for poverty alleviation through natural resources management is a key factor in the NWDPRA, it may be difficult to sustain peoples' participation without appropriate attention to farmer's organizations.
The farmer's training strategy seems to be concentrated on communicating certain messages. It is not clear how successful local technologies will be integrated into this process.
The best example of improved farming systems adoption (new wheat varietal acceptance rate of 60 percent in two years) was seen in the Khutgath watershed where a plant breeder had been posted as a District Soil Conservation Officer. This very clearly suggests that farming systems improvement should be an integral part of the soil conservation effort. Since, in the uplands most of the area is already under traditional bench terraces, agronomic, cultural, vegetative and agro-forestry methods of on-farm soil conservation will be adequate enough. This also converts into quick benefits to the farmers.
It was felt that considerable benefits could accrue to the continued training of the NWDPRA professionals in such topics as farmers' organization/institution building; socio-cultural aspects of people's participation; women and gender issues; participatory monitoring and evaluation techniques; quick income generation activities; techniques of rapid rural appraisal and participatory rural appraisal; learning from farmers; and the use of indigenous technology and its incorporation in watershed development plans.
Farmers' group/organization networking, watershed resource management professionals networking, and education/training institutions networking will help update professionals on the latest thinking in watershed management and farming systems. Most of this thinking originates with Indian and other Asian professionals (Government and Non-Government Organisations), but it does not seem to have percolated fully in the NWDPRA. Thus, efforts at national watershed resources management networking seem to be missing.
The contents of the 2 day officers courses, 6 day watershed technicians courses and 3 day farmers courses appear to be comprehensive in their technological aspects. However, it is felt that the courses could benefit, mainly in terms of the participatory approach, from an intensification of instruction in the following topics:
1. Rapid Rural Appraisal and Participatory Rural Appraisal techniques,2. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation methods
3. Community Envisioning to build people's participation and empowerment as well as farmer motivation
4. The importance of quick income generation as a priority vis a vis soil conservation
5. The determination of direct and indirect incentives
To help update the existing in-service courses quickly, references of selected documents are provided in Annex I. Items of interest can be adapted from these documents to suit the NWDPRA program.
Some of existing institutions such as IIM Ahmdabad and some NGOs such as MYARDA in India are skilled on these issues. The Watershed Management profession has experienced very fast and drastic changes in the recent past. It is continuing to evolve. The NWDPRA program, in itself, is a proof of this change in thinking. Hence, while existing institutions can be strengthened, to meet the training needs, the possibility of a full fledged national watershed management institute needs to be urgently explored. India will expand the NWDPRA program soon in the Ninth Plan which visualises a 25 year effort in this direction. Hence, investment in an Indian Institute of Watershed Management (IIWM) would be a wise decision. This Institute should be designed to produce field level technicians, graduates and watershed managers along with in-service training for the existing staff.
