Participatory Net Planning:Refl ections and Learnings from the Field

Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR)‘The Forum’, 2nd Floor,S.No. 63/2B, Padmawati Corner, Pune Satara Road, Parvati, Pune 411 009Phone : +91-20-24226211Fax: (91) 241 2451134Email: info@wotr.org • Website: www.wotr.org

Research Report

Natural Resources Management

Supported by:

Lalita Joshi and Ratna Huirem

Participatory Net Planning: Reflections and Learnings from the Field

Lalita Joshi and Ratna Huirem

Research Report

Research Report : Participatory Net Planning: ReflectionsandLearningsfromtheField

No.ofcopies : 300

Publishedby : WatershedOrganizationTrust(WOTR)

Supportedby : German Agency for Technical Co-operation (GTZ)

LayoutandDesign : Mudra,383NarayanPeth,Pune30

Printed : September2009

ISBN : 978-81-86748-16-9

YOuaReIMPORTaNT

DearReader,

Yourvaluablecommentsandsuggestionswillbenefitusandthedevelopmentsector.

Dohelpus.

Writeto:publications@wotr.org

Table of Contents

Forward 5

Executive Summary 7

1. Introduction: The Context and Origins of Participatory

Net Planning (PNP) 11

2. PNP: Concept, Key Elements, Implementation and Steps 16

3. The Study: Purpose, Nature and Research Methodology 20

4. Impacts of PNP and Watershed Development:

Perceptions and Observations 24

5. Participation, Consultation and Inclusion: Stakeholder

Perceptions and Observations 30

6. Stakeholder Roles and Functions 35

7. Limitations and Strengths of PNP: Stakeholder View Points 40

8. Difficulties Faced and Solutions Evolved 44

9. Factors Facilitating Participation and Implementation of PNP:

Stakeholder Perceptions 48

10. Lessons Learnt and New Paradigms 51

11. Concluding Remarks 53

Appendics 54

Acronyms/Abbreviations

CBP CapacityBuildingPhase

CCT ContinuousContourTrench

CPR CommonPropertyResources

DP DevelopmentPhase

DSS DecisionSupportSystem

FIP FullImplementationPhase

GO-POP GenderOrientedParticipatoryOperationalPedagogy

Govt. Government

GP GramPanchayat

GS GramSabha

IGWDP IndoGermanWatershedDevelopmentProgram

LPG LiquidPetroleumGas

MIS ManagementInformationSystem

NaBaRD NationalBankforagricultureandRuralDevelopment

NGO NonGovernmentalOrganisation

NT NomadicTribe

PNP ParticipatoryNetPlanning

POP ParticipatoryOperationalPedagogy

SC ScheduleCaste

SHG SelfHelpGroup

Shramdaan VoluntaryLabourcontribution

SMS SanyuktaMahilaSamitee(JointWomen’sCommittee)– avillagelevelfederationofSHGs.

ST Scheduletribe

Taluka asub-divisionofadistrict;alsocalledaBlock.

VDC VillageDevelopmentCommittee

VWC VillageWatershedCommittee

WaSuNDHaRa aninclusivepedagogythatiscommunityledandequityfocussed

WaT WaterabsorptionTrench

WOTR WatershedOrganisationTrust

WSD WatershedDevelopment

Foreword

Iampleasedtopresentthisstudytitled,“ParticipatoryNetPlanning:ReflectionsandLearningsfromtheField”.

Participatory Net Planning (PNP), a methodology which was developed anddeployed byWOTR in 1995, is nowwell known in India and has beenwidelyadopted,albeitadaptedtolocalrequirementsandalsosometimes,differentlynamed,inmajorpublicanddonorfundedwatersheddevelopmentprojectsinIndia.

Its particular appeal is that while it delivers site specific, technically beststandardslanduseandlandhusbandryrecommendations,itdoessowhileputtingthe farmer and his spouse (the farmer couple) at the centre of the planningprocesswhichbasicallyisadialoguebetweenmodernknowledgeandtraditionalpractices that leads to consensually defined solutions that the farmer couplefeelsis“theirs”andtowhichtheycommittorealising.

PNPhasbeenrecognizednotonlyasamethodforplanningbutalsoforpeople’smobilisationandtraining.PNPhasestablisheditselfasasignificantpedagogicalandconceptualtoolforparticipatoryplanning,ownershipbuildingandknowledgeacquisition.

after10yearsofPNPhavingbeendeployedonalargescale,WOTRdecidedtoconduct a qualitative study to review its practise and the experience gainedwith a view to fine-tuning it and addressing shortcomings and lacuna. Thisreportistheoutcomeofthatstudy.andtheresultsareindeedhearteningandencouraging. Based on these findings,WOTR has introduced a new pedagogycalledtheWaSuNDHaRaPedagogy(forwhichWOTRwontheKyotoWorldWaterGrandPrizeinMarch2009)andanewtoolcalled“ObjectivesOrientedProjectPlanning(OOPP)”tocomplementthePNP.

IwouldliketocommendMs.LalitaJoshiandMs.RatnaHuiremforundertakingthisimportanttaskinaprofessionalandexactingmanner.ParticularthanksarealsoduetoMr.CrispinoLobo,whoappliedakeeneditorialknifetothetextthusmakingitconcise.

6

Finally,IwouldliketothankGermanagencyforTechnicalCooperation(GTZ)forsupportingusinconductingthisstudy.Sincerethanksarealsoduetothevillagersofthesamplevillagesaswellasthemanyintervieweeswhogenerouslygaveoftheirtimetopatientlyanswertheseeminglyendlessquestions.ThefacilitatingNGOsalsodeservespecialmentionandgratitude.Withouttheircommitment,hard work and generous cooperation, there would have been no successfulprojectstoanalysenorwouldwehavebeenabletosatisfactorilycomprehendthecomplexdynamicsthataroseoncetheyenteredthevillageswiththeofferofalife-changingproject.

I hope you enjoy reading this report. We very much look forward to yourfeedback.

Dr. Marcella D’SouzaExecutive Director (WOTR)

Executive Summary

Since1993WOTRhasbeenintheforefrontofmobilizingvulnerablecommunitiesinsemiaridandresourcefragileregionstohelpthemselvesoutofpovertybyharvestingrainwaterwhereveritfallsandregeneratingtheecosystemstheyliveinalongwatershedlines.

atthetimeofitsfounding,WOTRwasgivenamandateofcreatinga"people'smovement for watershed development" within the context, at that point intime,oftheIndo-GermanWatershedDevelopmentProgram(IGWDP).Giventheurgencyofrapidupscalingwhilemaintainingqualityandfosteringsustainability,WOTRdevelopedanddeployedin1995anewsystemicapproachthatincludedan inclusive planning methodology called the Participatory Net PlanningMethodology(popularlyreferredtoasPNP)andacapacitybuildingpedagogy,calledthePOP(ParticipatoryOperationalPedagogy)whichincludedtheGO-POP(GenderOrientedParticipatoryOperationalPedagogy).IthassincebeenutilizedbyWOTRaswellasitspartnersintheIGWDPandelsewhere.

Participatory Net Planning (PNP) is a gender sensitive planning,mobilisation,projectformulationandtrainingtoolthatislocalespecific,putsthestakeholderatthecentreoftheprocessandengageshiminadialoguetoarriveatoptimalchoices.

In2005,adecadeafterthePNPwas introduced,WOTRdecidedtoconductastudyin4watershedvillageswherePNPhadbeenundertaken,withthebroadobjectiveofdocumentingandanalysingtheperceptionsandexperiencesofthekeystakeholders,namely,thefarmercouples,women,thelandless,theVillageWatershedCommittee and facilitatingNGOs,with a view to drawing lessons,bestpracticesandimprovingtheprocess.This isaqualitativestudybasedonrecall and narrative. The cumulative number of interviews conducted for allrespondentcategoriesisseventy-five.

Thispublicationistheoutcomeofthisstudy.Itconsistsofelevenchapters.Thefirst threediscuss thecontextandoriginsofPNP; theconcept,keyelementsandstepsinvolvedandthepurpose,natureandresearchmethodologyused.ThefourthchapteroutlinestheimpactsofPNPaswellasofwatersheddevelopmentundertakeninthesamplevillagesasperceivedbythevillagersthemselves.The

8

nexttwochaptersanalysetheextentofstakeholderparticipation,consultationand inclusion as well as their roles and functions. Chapters 7 and 8 discussthe perceived limitations and strengths of PNP and difficulties encounteredwhenundertakingit.Chapter10spellsoutlessonslearntandoutlinesthenewapproachesdevelopedbyWOTRtoaddresstheshortcomingsexperiencedinthecurrentapproach.Thelastchaptersumsuptheconclusionsofthestudy.

Basedonthefeedbackobtainedfromthisstudy,WOTRreviewedthePNPaswellasitsoverallcapacitybuildingpedagogy(thePOPandtheGO-POP)inordertoaddress the shortcomings thatwere uncovered. It has introduced a new tool- the Objectives Oriented Project Planning (OOPP)methodology1which helpsvillagers seethecausal relationshipsbetweentheircurrentproblemsandthechoicesmadepreviously;helpsthemenvisagewhattheywouldliketheirvillagetobecomeandwhatshouldbeaddressedanddoneinordertogetthere.TheOOPPprecedesthePNP.

In order to address the concerns of the poorest and the marginalised andmaketheGramPanchayat(apoliticalbody)akeyplayer,whilealsoinsulatingthe developmental effort from competitive and negative politics2,WOTR hasdevelopedanewpedagogy-theWaSuNDHaRa3approach.ThisapproachbuildsonthePOPandseekstomakeequityacommunityconcern.TheVWChasbeenreplacedwith aVillageDevelopmentCommittee (VDC), also a representativebody,butwithamandatethatencompassesallthedevelopmentalneedofthevillageincludingwatersheddevelopmentandmanagementofnaturalresources.Thisapproachisnowbeingimplementedinasmanyas111projects(148villages)with generally remarkable results. This successful pedagogy recently gotinternationalrecognitionwhenWOTRwontheKyotoWorldWaterGrandPrizeattheWorldWaterForuminIstanbulinMarch2009.

1. ModifiedandpatternedontheZOPP(GoalOrientedProjectPlanning)orLFa(LogicalFrameworkanalysis)methodology

2. Thereasonforthesettingupofanon-political,non-electedrepresentativeVWC,inthefirstplace.

3. Whilethisisanacronym–WOTRAttentivetoSocialUnityforNature,DevelopmentandHarmony inRuralAreas – it also connotes, in the local language, a “caringearth”,“motherearth”denotingcompassion.

9

ThestudyshowsthatPNPhas,inallcases,raisedthevillagers’awarenessonavarietyofissues,helpedbuildcapacities,fosteredtheacquisitionofskillsandcompetencies,ledtotheformationofactiveandrepresentativelocalinstitutionsthat are accountable to their communities, improved social relationships andsocialharmony inusually faction-riddenvillagesandhasdefactocontributedto a peaceful and sustained transformation of gender relationships,women’sempowerment and their mainstreaming in the institutional life of theircommunities.

From the analysis, the overall conclusion is that PNP, as a concept andpractice,hasfulfilledallitskeyobjectives,namely,tomobilisecommunitiestoundertakesuccessfulwatersheddevelopmentandsustainablenaturalresourcesmanagementinaninclusive,participatoryandgenderequitablemannerwherethemembersofthecommunityaredriversoftheprojectandartisansoftheirowndevelopment.

ItwouldbeaccuratetosaythatPNPisaneffectivemethodologyforcommunityengagement andmobilisation, land use and land husbandry planning and hasplayedaveryimportantroleincatalysingadynamicofhopeanddevelopmentintheprojectvillages.

ThisisreflectedinthefactthatPNPhasnowgonewellbeyonditsoriginalmilieuandhasbeenwidelyadopted(withlocalvariations)inallmajorgovernmentalanddonorfundedwatershedprograms4.Ithasestablisheditselfasasignificantpedagogicalandconceptualtoolforparticipatoryplanning,ownershipbuildingandknowledgeacquisition.

nn

4. Forexample,theDroughtProneareaProgram(DPaP) inMaharashtra,aPRLP-DPaP(andhraPradeshRuralLivelihoodsProgram–DPaP)inandhraPradesh,allwatersheddevelopment projects funded byNaBaRD; the RajivGandhiWatershedMission inMadhyaPradesh,tomentionafew.

1. Introduction: The Context and Origins of Participatory Net Planning (PNP)

Since1993WOTRhasbeenintheforefrontofmobilizingvulnerablecommunitiesinsemiaridandresourcefragileregionstohelpthemselvesoutofpovertybyharvesting rainwater wherever it falls and regenerating the ecosystems theyliveinalongwatershedlines.Thisisbecauseofourbeliefthatthewell-beingand economic sufficiency of agrarian communities, is directly related to theproductivity, quality, quantity and range of services that the ecosystems orwatershedstheyliveincanprovide.PleaseseeBox 1foranoverviewofwhatwatersheddevelopmentis.

Thekeyhowevertoanysuccessfuldevelopmentalinterventionisthedegreeofparticipationandinvolvementofthetargetgroup(theprimarystakeholders)inallstagesoftheendeavour(fromacceptanceoftheproject,throughplanning,implementation,monitoring,evaluationanditsongoingmaintenance)andtheextentofownershipandstakeholdingtheyhaveintheexpectedoutcomesandtheirsustenance.

This is especially so while implementing a land based intervention such aswatersheddevelopment,wherethetreatmentoneachpieceoflandaffectsthoselandsadjoiningitandinfluencestheoveralloutcome.anypatchoflandleftoutdiminishestheoverallrealizableoutcomesorbenefits.awatersheddevelopmentprojectisverymuchlikefittingintogetherthehundredsofpiecesofajigsawpuzzle.eachpiece isunique, ispartofanoveralldesign,directly impacts itsneighbours,hasaspecificplaceandintowhichwheninsertedcontributestowardscompletingtheoriginaldesignorstructure.Henceitisimportanttotreateverypieceoflandinasequenced,integratedandcomprehensivemannerinthewaywaterflows, fromsteep togentle slopes, fromupper to lower reaches, fromridgetothevalleybelow.Foronlythencanthefullpotentialofatreatedandre-vitalizedwatershedberealized.

In agrarian communities, this presents a severe challenge sincemost, if notall,landandwaterresourcesarealreadylaidclaimtoandutilizedbyvariousinterests, individuals and groups. Land and access to natural resources arelargely the onlymeans of survival, sustenance and livelihoods and hence areverysensitiveissues.Sincewatersheddevelopmentnecessarilyinvolveschanges

12

Box 1: Watershed Development

aWatershedcanbedefinedasthedrainagebasinorcatchmentareaofaparticularstreamorriver.asrainfalls,itgushesdownthehills,alongslopinglands.Itcollectsintorills,rivuletsandbrooksasthewaterrushesdownandfinallygathersintostreamsandrivers.Thewatershedreferstotheareaaboveanypointonastream/riverwhichfeedswaterintoit.awatershedmayvaryfromafewhectarestoseveralthousandsofhectaressuchas theHimalayanwatersheds.Watershedsarenaturallyoccurringgeographicallyunitsdefinedbyhydrologicalflowswhichconsistofnestedhierarchiesofdynamicallyinteractingecosystems.

awatershedisnotonlyageographicalarea,butalsoalivingspace.Itis basically the area of survival of the community livingwithin it anddrawingitssustenancefromit.Thereisadirectsymbioticrelationshipbetween the robustness and vitality of the local ecosystem and thequalityoflifeofthepeoplelivingtherein,especiallyinresourcefragileregions.adegradedenvironmenteventuallyleadstosignificantreductionin the availability of water, food, fodder, fuel for cooking and fibresfor household consumption and economic production thus leading tohardships,pauperizationandmigration.Women,inparticularly,havehadtobearthebruntoftheseadverseimpacts.

TheWorldResourcesReport2008convincinglyarguedthat“ecosystemscanbecomethefocusofapowerfulmodelfornature-basedenterprisethatdeliverscontinuingeconomicandsocialbenefitstothepoor,evenas it improves the natural resource base” (WRR,2008,Ch.1,pg. 3).ecosystemsareembeddedinwatersheds,whicharegeographicallybasedhydrologicalunits.

essentially, watershed and ecosystems-based interventions revitalizethe environment, enhance the capture and storage of rain water andstabilizetheproductionbaseofthevillageeconomy,whichinturnresultsinincreasedavailabilityofwaterandfood,andlivelihoodandquality-of-lifeneedsofthecommunitybeingmetonasustainablebasis.Suchanapproachalsoincreasesthe“stayingcapacity”ofcropsandlivestockintimesofdroughtandstrengthensthecapacityofthecommunitytoadapttolocalclimaticvariations

13

inlanduse,landameliorationmeasuresaswellasmanagingresourceaccessandutilization,theconsentofmost,ifnotallthevariousstakeholders,agreementsandcompromise,tradeoffsandsharingarrangementshavetobenegotiatedandinstitutionalized.

DuringtheearlyyearsofWOTR’sintervention,weadoptedthe“grossplanningmethod”whenplanninganddesigningwatershedinterventions.

“GrossPlanning” is basically amacro-approachwhich involvesdeployment ofsurveyingequipmentforcontourmappingofthewatershedanduseofstandardizedscientificandlaboratorybasedtechnologyandmethodsforpurposesofresourcemapping,planninganddesigningofmeasures and structures.The roleof thefarmers/resource users in this approach isminimal; his/her opinions are notreally soughtandoftennotconsidered.Theprimary stakeholder ispresentedwithafaitaccompliofmeasuresthataredeterminedinaccordancewithcurrentscientific parameters and established technical norms and practices. His/herconcurrenceisnotrequired,onlyhis/heracquiescence,evenwherethemotionsseekinghis/her“activeconsent”aregonethrough.

asaresult,whentheelegantand“scientificallycorrect”planissoughttobeimplemented,seriousdifficultiesariseasthereisaprofoundmismatchbetweenwhatissoughttobeimplementedandwhatthefarmersorstakeholdersthinkought to bedone. Since the latter have not adequately understoodnor havebeentakenintoconfidence,theyoftendonotallowtheproposedmeasurestobeimplementedontheirlands.asaresult,workisoftenstopped,disputesarise,themeasuresarebadlydoneandmoreimportantly,sincethereisnosenseofinvolvement,ownershiporpersonalstake,thestructuresandmeasuresundertakenarerarely,ifatall,maintainedandcontinuedpostprojectimplementation.Thisexplainswhymostprojects,despitesubstantialfundingand“rigorousplanning”,either“fail”ordeliverdisappointingoutcomes.

WOTR had a mandate of creating a “people’s movement for watersheddevelopment”within the context, at that point in time, of the Indo-GermanWatershedDevelopmentProgram(IGWDP).PleaseseeBox 2 foranoteonWOTRandtheIGWDP.

14

Box 2: WOTR and the IGWDP

The IndoGermanWatershed Development Program (IGWDP) is a largescalewatersheddevelopmentprogramthatwasconceivedbyFr.HermannBacher and launched in Maharashtra in 1989. Its purpose is povertyreduction through community- led environmental regeneration alongwatershedlines.

ItisfundedbytheGermanGovernmentandinvolvesontheGermansidethe German Bank for Development (KFW) and the Germanagency forTechnicalCooperation(GTZ).OntheIndianside,itinvolvesNaBaRDandWOTR,thelatterwhich,eventhoughanNGO,wasaccordedanofficialstatus by the Government of India thus allowing it to receive officialdevelopmentassistancedirectly.

InordertoprogresstheIGWDP,WOTRwassetupin1993withthemandatetorapidlyupscaletheprogram,developacapacitybuildingmethodology,develop the necessary training programs and knowledge products,disseminateinformationwidelyandengagewiththepolicyestablishmentinordertosecureanenablingpolicyframeworkforcountry-widelargescalereplication.

The Capacity Building Pedagogy (the POP,GO-POP, PNP) developed byWOTRhasenabledtheIGWDPtogrowfromonly7NGOsandapproximately16,000hectaresin1992to76NGOscoveringover208,031hectaresasonMarch2009.Inaddition,theCapacityBuildingPhase(CBP)asapre-qualificationforenteringintofullimplementationhasbeenadoptedbyallmajorprogramsinthecountrytoday.PNPasaplanning,mobilisationandproject formulationmethodology (adapted to local situations) hasnowbeenadoptedbyallmajorwatershedprojectsinthecountry.

Facedwiththissituationandexperience,WOTRbeganworkonanewsystemicapproachontwolevels-thedevelopmentofaneffectiveandinclusiveplanningmethodology called the Participatory Net Planning Methodology (popularlyreferred to as PNP), on the one hand, and, on the other, the designing anddeployment of an accompanying capacity building pedagogy, called the POP

15

(Participatory Operational Pedagogy) which included the GO-POP (Gender Oriented Participatory Operational Pedagogy) wherein empowering andmainstreamingwomen isgiven specific focus.ThePNPalso formspartof thePOPthoughitcanbedeployedseparatelyandindependently.ThisstudyfocusesonlyonthePNP.

ThisendeavourfullyengagedWOTR’sresources,involvedmanyatrialanderrorandtookwellclose to2years to fructify. In1995bothweredeployed in theIGWDP.asWOTRanditspartnerNGOsimplementedthePNP(andthePOP),theexperiencegainedwasreflectedupononanon-goingbasisandledtoseveralchangesovertime,whichresultedingreaterinclusivenessandparticipationwhilestillretainingitscomprehensiveness,scientificcomplianceandmethodologicalrigour.

PNPhasnowgonewellbeyonditsoriginalmilieuandhasbeenwidelyadopted(with localvariations) inallmajorgovernmentalanddonorfundedwatershedprograms1. Ithasbeenrecognizednotonlyasamethodforplanningbutalsoforpeople’smobilisationandtraining. Ithasestablished itselfasasignificantpedagogicalandconceptualtoolforparticipatoryplanning,ownershipbuildingandknowledgeacquisition.

nn

1. Forexample,theDroughtProneareaProgram(DPaP) inMaharashtra,aPRLP-DPaP(andhraPradeshRuralLivelihoodsProgram–DPaP)inandhraPradesh,allwatersheddevelopment projects funded byNaBaRD; the RajivGandhiWatershedMission inMadhyaPradesh,tomentionafew.

2. Participatory Net Planning: Concept, Key Elements, Implementation and Steps

ParticipatoryNetPlanning(PNP)isaplanning,mobilisation,projectformulation,trainingandmonitoringtoolthatisalsoinvaluableforevaluationpurposes.ThePNPmethodologyputsthestakeholderatthecentreoftheprocess;introduceshimtotestedscientificpracticesandknowledge;engageshiminadialoguewithaviewtoarrivingatinformedchoicesandallowshimthefinalwordinregardtomeasurestobeundertaken.Itfocusesprimarilyonresourcemanagementandisconcernedwiththeconservation,productivityenhancementandsustainablemanagement of all natural and biotic resources available in the watershed.and it takes intoaccountthespecificcharacteristicsofeach land,waterandvegetationresource;assessestheusesitisputtoandcanbestbeputto,andevolvesdetailedplanswithcoststorealisethedesiredoutcomes.

It isalsogender sensitive.Menandwomenareboth involved in theplanningandformulationprocess.Inthecaseoffarmlandsorotherlands,whereprivateownership exists even if only in theman’s name, thewife’s involvement (orthatoftheconcernedresponsiblewomanofthehousehold) isactivelysoughtindeterminingoutcomes.PNPisonlyundertakenifthe“farmerorlandowningcouple”ispresentontheirfieldsorlandsatthetimeoftheplanning.

atthetimeofundertakingPNP,theplanningteam2togetherwiththefarmerorlandowningcoupleand/oradultmembersof the farmerhouseholdstudythefarmorplotoflandfromallaspects,includingthatofproposedlanduseaftertreatment.Theydiscuss,agreetoandfinaliseinwritingtheproposedtreatments,costestimateand“owncontribution”.Thefarmercouple/landownerhasthelastsayinanyactivitythatisplannedprovideditdoesnotadverselyaffecttheneighboursormayresultindamage.

WhenPNPisdoneforCommonPropertyResources(CPRs),wherethelandlesspoor,marginalfarmers,small livestockownersandtheshepherdcommunities

2. usuallyanengineer/agronomist/technicalpersontogetherwithwatershedcommitteemembers.

17

aretheprimarystakeholders,thentheVillageWatershedCommittee(VWC)3andGramPanchayat(GP)4arealsoinvolved.Thisistoaddressconcernsofequitableaccess,compensatoryarrangementsincaseoflossofaccess,conflictresolutionand the setting up of institutional arrangements for sustainablemanagementoftheCPRsandcreatedassets.ThemannerinwhichPNPisdeployedwhenawatershedprojectisbeingundertakenaswellastheoverallstepsinvolvedareindicatedinBox 3.

PNP is flexible and is viewed as an on-going “work in progress” that can bechangedastheprojectevolvesorwhenresourceownersoruserschangetheirpreferences.Itattemptstobringtogetherandbalancetechnicalrequirements,people’spreferencesaswellasthesocialdynamicsprevailingandthatwilllikelyariseduringthecourseofprojectimplementation.

This approach thus promotes mutual learning, incorporation of indigenoustechnologiesaswell as theexperiences, knowledgeandconcernsof the landownerandresultsinthedeterminationofsite-specificandappropriatetreatmentsandmeasures.PNPthusfostersownership,minimisesthepotentialforconflicts,supports smooth implementation of the planned measures and enhances thesustainabilityofthetreatmentsandmeasuresundertaken.anditalsoallowsforaccuratemonitoringandtrackingofmeasuresimplementedorotherwise.

everywatershedprojectimplementedbyWOTRaswellasintheIGWDP,goesthrough2phases–theCapacityBuildingPhase(CBP)andtheDevelopmentPhase(DP)5.Onlywhen a projectmeets the “qualifying criteria” and is deemed tohavesuccessfullycompletedtheCBP(usuallylastingbetween6-12monthssinceinitiationandincludingonerainyseason),itmovesintotheDevelopmentPhase(DP)whereworkonalargescaleacrosstheentirewatershedisbegun.DuringtheCBPphase,asmallmicrowatershed(100-200hectares)ispickedupfortreatmentandaPNP for a small area (30-50ha)within this is undertaken.Thework is

3. TheVWC(VillageWatershedCommittee) isarepresentativebodynominated(notelected)bytheGramSabha(thisconsistsofalladultvotingmembersofthevillage)whichconsistsofrepresentativesofallsocialandeconomicgroupsinthevillageaswellasgeographicareasinthewatershed.

4. TheGP(GramPanchayatorVillageCouncil)istheconstitutionallymandatedlocalselfgovernmentbodywhichisconstitutedofelectedmembersofthevillage.

5. FormerlyitwasknownastheFullImplementationPhase(FIP).

18

BOX 3: Steps involved in PNP

TheteamthatundertakesthePNPconsistsofatrainedorexperiencedtechnicallyqualifiedpersonandaminimumof2-3membersoftheVWC.Theymoveacrossthewatershedplotbyplot.

1. Thefarmercouple(ifnotalladultmemberofthehousehold)havetobepresentontheirfarm.Theteamthendiscusseswiththemthedetailsofthelandsuchas,theslopeoftheland,erosionstatus,soiltexture,land use, types of crops taken, etc, and it is physicallymeasuredtogetherwithwhateversoilandwaterconservationmeasuresexist.

2. The land is then classified and the most suitable land use andtreatments areproposed to theowners.The farmerhousehold arehelpedtovisualizehowthetreatmentswouldhelpsolvetheexistingproblemsontheirland,thetransformationthatwilltakeplaceoncetreatmentsareimplementedandthebenefitsthatcanbeobtained.Ifthefarmerdoesnotagreetotheproposedtreatments,thenhis/her opinion is accepted provided it doesn’t adversely affect theneighboursnorcausedamage.

3. Onceaconsensusisarrivedat,thefarmerisgivenasheetofpaperwhichcontainsthediagramofhisland,detailsofcurrentandproposedtreatmentsandlanduse,overallcostsandhiscontributiontowardsthesame.

4. an agreement is then signed by the farmer which formalizes theconsent of both husband andwife to implement the treatment asplannedandmaintainthesame.

Inthismanneronanaverage,inoneday,approximately10-15hectaresofareacanbesurveyedbyoneteam.

begunandwhenthisplanned-for-areaistreated,anotherareawithinthesamemicro-watershedissimilarlyplannedforandtreated.Thus,dependingupontheprogressofmobilization,theextentofparticipationandthesizeofthemicro-watershedchosen,asmanyas3-6smallPNPswillhavebeenundertakenbeforetheprojectmovesintotheDP.Theformatinwhichdataiscollected,measures

19

plannedandcostsandcontributionscomputedisattachedas Annexure- 1.atthestartoftheDP,amacroPNPcoveringtheentirewatershedisundertaken.

Thisiterativeprocessispremisedontheprincipleof“learningbydoing”.Whenthepeoplebegintoimplementwhattheyhaveplanned,theybegintoseeandunderstandwhatitmeans;whentheyseetheimpactsoftheiractions(thebundsretainingwater,thecropslookinghealthierandproducingmore,theincreaseinthewatertable,etc)theyunderstandwhatWSDisallabout,whatitentails,andaboveall,theyrealisethecrucialnecessityofbeingfullyengagedindeterminingwhatmustbedone(andimplemented)inordertoenjoyoptimumbenefitsona sustainablebasis.Hence,PNPand thebenefitsor impacts that follow fromimplementingitareinextricablyintertwinedandmutuallyreinforcing.

nn

3. The Study: Purpose, Nature and Research METHODOLOGy

The Sample Villages

Forthispurpose, fourvillageswere identified,namely,JatdeolaandPirewadiinPatharditaluka(Block)ofahmadnagardistrict,SagarwadiinBadnapurtalukaandMalshendrainJalnataluka,bothofJalnadistrict.Thewatershedprogrammeinthesefourvillagesbeganduring1999and2003 andPNPhadbeenundertakeninallofthem.

Thesevillageswerefacilitatedby4NGOs,3ofwhichwereprovidedcapacitybuildingandback-stoppingsupportbyWOTR.TheNGO,NityasevaMedicalMissionHospital,supportedJatdeola;theNGOsNirmanSansthaandManavGraminVikasSanshodhan,supportedMalshendraandSagarwadirespectivelyandPirewadiwassupportedbyWOTR.

Inallthesefourvillages,thepre-watershedsituationwasmoreorlesssimilarwith agriculture being themain activity,whichwas solely dependent on rainexceptforafewbetterofffarmerswhohadsomeirrigatedland.asaresulttheagriculturaloutputwasnotsufficienttofeedmostvillagersthroughouttheyear.Beforewatershedactivitiesbeganinthesevillages,theywerefacedwithkeyproblemslikenon-availabilityofwaterforagricultureandfordrinkingduringthesummermonths,lackofemploymentandlivelihoodopportunities.Migrationwasanecessityformanyfamiliesespeciallyfromthetwovillagesoftheahmednagardistrict.InJatdeola,atleastonepersonfromeachfamilymigratedeveryyearinsearchoflivelihoods.Besides,peoplewerealsodependentfortheirlivingontheemploymentGuaranteeScheme.InPirewadi,theincidenceofmigrationwasextremelyhigh,withasmuchas95%ofthevillagersmigratingtoworkascanecuttersforsugarfactoriesacrossMaharashtra.

InMalshendra,thepopulationofthevillageis1350.Thecastecompositionis:61.23% open category, 37.32% Scheduled Castes (SCs), and 1.45% ScheduledTribes(STs).Sagarwadihasapopulationof1311.Here77.49%belongedtoopencategory,12.99%toScheduledCaste,and9.52%toNomadicTribes (NTs).ThepopulationofJatdeolais2070,ofwhich50.30%arefromopencategory,36.83%areSTs,and12.87%areSCs.amongstthesamplevillages,Pirewadiisthesmallestvillagewithapopulationof627.Inthisvillagethereare67%NTs,whereasopen

21

categoryhas33%. InopencastecategoryMuslimshavesignificantpopulation,whichis23%.

Objectives of the Study

Thespecificobjectivesofthestudywereasfollows:

1. assesstowhatextentthestakeholderswereactuallyinvolvedinPNP.

2. enumeratewhatdifficultieswereencounteredandhowtheywereresolved.

3. assess the perception of the stakeholders regarding advantages anddisadvantagesofPNP.

4. IdentifythefactorsresponsibleforthesuccessorfailureofPNP.

5. assesstheusefulnessandimpactofPNPasobservedbythestakeholders.

6. assesstowhatextentwomenwereactuallyinvolvedintheprocessandthebenefitsreceivedbythemasaresult.

7. assess the level ofparticipation,benefits receivedandoverall perceptionofthemarginalisedsections,namely,landless,marginalandsmallfarmers,ScheduleCastes,andScheduletribes.

Research Methodology

a) Sampling Framework: The sample was identified using the judgmental orpurposive sampling method wherein a minimum of one respondent wasselectedfromeachof5categories,i.e.,Landless,Marginal,Small,Medium,andLarge6farmers.Carewastakentoensurethatitisrepresentativeoftheminority groups in the village suchas the schedule castes (SCs), scheduletribes(STs)andsinglewomentoo.KeyInformantInterviewsofrepresentatives

6. These are not necessarily “Rich farmers” in the sense commonly understood. Insemi-aridrain-dependentfarmingsystems,“richfarmers”or“largefarmers”cannotbecomparedwith farmers in irrigatedor“assuredrainfall” farmingsystems.Thedifferenceishuge.afarmerwithlargelandholdingintheformercasecanbeevenpoorerthanasmallfarmerhavingaccesstoassuredirrigationorwater.Henceweusuallyusetheword“BetterOff”todescribe“medium”and“large”farmers,exceptintherareeventthattheyarerichbyconventionalstandards.

22

of VWCs as well as implementing NGOs were also conducted to obtaintheirperspectivesofPNP.IntheVWCgroupinterviews,whereverpossible,representationfromSCs,STsandwomenwasalsoensured.

b) Sample Size:Forthefarmercouples,eleveninterviewswereconductedinPirewadiandthirteeninJatdeola;intheothertwovillages,twelveinterviewseachwereconducted.Thus,atotalofforty-eightinterviewswereconductedasunder:

FortheVWCs,inPirewadi,fourinterviewswereconductedwhileintheotherthreevillages,sixinterviewseachwereconducted.Thusatotaloftwenty-twointerviewswereconductedforthisgroupofrespondents.

Five interviewswith the three facilitating NGOs (other thanWOTR)wereconducted. These persons had expertise in community organisation,agricultureandfarming,engineering,administrationandmanagement.

Thecumulativenumberofinterviewsconductedforallrespondentcategories wasseventy-five.

d) Tools and Method for Data Collection:Threeseparate interviewschedules(seeAnnexure 1a, b and c)withsomevariationswerepreparedforthethreedifferentclassesofrespondents,namely,farmers/landless7,VWCsandNGOs.Since the tools were of a kind which invited qualitative responses, dataobtainedisthusofaqualitativenature.

ThefarmercoupleshavenarratedtheirexperiencesofPNPintermsofhowtheyperceivedtheprocess,howitaffectedthem,thequalityandnatureofsocialrelationshipsinthevillageandtheimpactithashadontheirlivelihoods.Repeatedreferenceshavebeenmadetotheimplementationofthewatersheddevelopmentprojectbeingimplementedinthesamplevillagesaswellasitsimpacts;butthisisinevitableasPNPisnotonlyaplanningandmobilisationtool,butisalwaysfollowedbyimplementationofplannedmeasuresandtheconsequent impacts that follow,bothofwhichreinforcetheobjectivesofPNP.ThisisbecausePNPispremisedona“learning-by-doing”strategy.

TheVWCmembershavedescribedthepivotalroletheyplayedinmobilizingthevillagersandhowPNPhelped thevillagersunderstandandcommit to

7. ThesameInterviewQuestionnairewasusedforboth

23

undertaking the technical, social and institutional measures necessary toimplementandsustainablymanageawatershedproject.

TheNGOrepresentativessharedtheirexperiences,bothpositiveaswellasnegativeaboutPNPandalsosuggestedsolutions,especiallytoproblemsfacedintheinitialstagesofmobilisationandplanningwhenthereisconsiderableresistancefromthevillagers.

e) Data Analysis and Interpretation: Data has been collected in the form ofrecollectionofexperiencesobtainedduringtheimplementationofPNP.Thedatacollectedisofaqualitativenature–recall,descriptive,narrativeandreflective.Nostatisticalorcomparativeanalysishasbeenattemptedsincethepurposeofthisstudywastogleaninsightsandlearningsinordertoimproveandfine tune thePNPmethodology (hurdles faced,how overcome,moreefficientways of doing things) and uncover enabling factors or conditionsthatmakePNPasuccess.

Theviewsandexperiencesnarratedbymarginalgroupsinthesamplevillageswerespecificallyconsideredwhiledrawinginferences.ThiswasdonewithaviewtounderstandinghowthesegroupsperceivedthePNPprocess,whethertheyfeltincluded,whetherithadanyrelevancetotheirneedsandinterestsandwhethertheybenefited,ifatall,fromtheexercise.

nn

4. Impacts of PNP and Watershed Development: Perceptions and Observations

ThebenefitsaccruingfromPNPandwatersheddevelopmentasperceivedandobservedby3keystakeholders,namely,theFarmercouples,theVWCandtheNGOshavebeenenumeratedbelow8.The reason for including the impactsofWSD,eventhoughthisisnotafocusofthestudy,isbecause,asoutlinedabove,PNPandthebenefitsorimpactsthatfollowfromimplementingitareinextricablyintertwinedandmutuallyreinforcing.

Impact of PNP

ThefollowingishowthevariousstakeholdersseetheimpactofPNP:

Farmer Couples

The overall opinions of respondents from all the four villages were stronglyfavourable,irrespectiveofthesizeoftheirlandholding,casteorsocialstatus.Theyaresummarizedbelow.

1. Creation of a Positive Attitude: The dialogue andmeetings were greatlyinstrumental insolvingdifficultiesandclarifyingdoubts.Thisresultedinapositivechangeintheattitudeofthepeople.

2. Consensus Building: Involvement and participation of all individuals inplanning,discussions,decision-makingandimplementationledtoconsensusbeingbuiltupandconflictsresolvedormitigated.

3. Knowledge and Skills Enhancement:Duetotheiractiveparticipationinthewholeprocess,villagershavealsobecomemoreknowledgeableofmodernmethods and techniques of farming (use of bio-fertilizers, suitability ofcropsforcultivationontheir land,pestmanagement,etc),soilandwaterconservation techniques (treatment of land as per need and suitability,constructingofCCTs,WaTS,farmbunds,etc),marketinformation,etc.

8. Thisapproachhasbeenadopteddespitetherebeinganoverlapinsomeobservationssoastouncoverandunderstandthedifferentperceptionsandinterestsofthevariousstakeholders.

25

4. Enhanced Status of Women: Women became confident to freely expresstheirviews,opinionsandsuggestionsandthustheirparticipationincreased.Suchparticipationenhancedthestatusofwomen.Womenarenowequippedwith information, technical and financial skills, which makes them feelempowered.

Village Watershed Committees (VWCs)

1. Increased Unity and Social Cohesion: Respondents fromvarious categoriesincludingthelandlessandmarginalfarmersintheVWCexpressedthatthemostimportantcontributionofPNPwastobringpeopletogetherandhelpdevelopa senseofunity.This increased social cohesionwhich resulted insharing of responsibilities and increased work efficiency. There is nowincreasedparticipationandinvolvementinotherspheresoflife.ThevillagersofMalshendraremarkedthatgossip,factionalismandnegativepoliticshasreducedasfarmersareworkingforalongerdurationintheirfieldsduetoincreasedavailabilityofwater.

2. Proactive Inclusion, Reduced Conflicts:ConsciouseffortstoincludeSC,thelandless and marginal groups enhanced their participation. Participationofall sections improvedrelationshipsbetween thevarious socio-economicclassesandresultedingreaterinteractionandunderstandingbetweenoftencompeting groups and interests. For instance, in Sagarwadi, PNP createdthespaceandprovidedaplatformforpromotinggreaterunderstandingandacceptancebetweenthedifferentcastesliketheRajputsandSCsandthishelpedreduceconflictsamongstthem.

3. Increased Inter Group Trust: Therequirementoflocalcontribution(shramdan9)ensured that villagersworked in each other’s fields. This improved socialrelationships,dilutedprejudicesandhelpedbuildaconsensusinregardtoprojectmeasuresanddisciplines.

4. All Benefit, Common Good Upheld:PNPensuresthatboththeindividualaswellasat thecommunitybenefits.Whereaconflicting situationarises, itplacesemphasisonthegreatercommongoodandthedevelopmentofthewholevillageratherthanonbenefittingparticularindividualsorgroups.

9. Shramdaanmeansvoluntarycontributionoflabour

26

5. Obstacles Overcome:TheparticipatorynatureofPNPandprioritisingfarmers’needsandopinionsduringimplementationhelpedovercomeobstacles.

6. Women Better Mainstreamed, Drudgery Reduced: The villagers haveunderstood that women’s participation is as equally important as that ofmen’s.ThisboostedtheconfidenceofthewomentoparticipateinGramsabhasandsharetheiropinions.Thiswasalsomadepossiblebecauseworkhoursforwomen have considerably reduced aswater ismore easily available. Thestatusofwomenhasthusimproved.

7. Control of Social Evils: InSagarwadiespecially,the womenplayeda leadrole10inenforcingabanonliquorvendinganddrinkinginthevillage.Thishelpedinreducingthedifficultiesthatwerefacedearlierduetothetroublecreatedbythealcoholicsduringpublicmeetings.

NGOs

There is unanimity of opinion amongst theNGOs about the need, utility andrelevanceofPNP.Despitediversedesignationsandprofessionalbackgroundsoftherespondents,whichrangedfromtechnicalexpertisesuchasagronomyandengineeringtosocialexpertiselikecommunityorganization,allwereconvincedabout itssignificance.They lookedatPNPnotonlyasatoolforparticipatoryplanningbutalsoasatoolnecessarytochangetheattitudesofthepeople.

Thefeatureswhichaccordingtothemaresignificantarepresentedbelow.

1. Comprehensive and Participatory Approach:Itisaveryeffectivemethodfordeterminingappropriatetreatment,thetotalfinancialcostsaswellasownercontributionsuitedtothespecificsofeveryparceloflandinaparticipatorymanner.

2. Awareness Generation and Capacity Building:astrikingdistinctionofPNPascomparedtoanyothermethod(especiallythatusedingovernmentfunded

10.Womenwereorganized intoSelfHelpGroups(SHGs)whichhelpedbuildbondsofsolidarity and emboldened them to put forward their interests and demands andactively participate in the institutional life of the village.The SHGs also provideopportunitiesforwomentodisplaytheirleadershipqualities.

27

projects)isthelevelofawarenessandtransparencygeneratedinthevillageresultinginthewillingparticipationoffarmersandotherstakeholdersintheplanning,decision-makingandexecutionoftheproject.Thisbuildsuptheircapacities,knowledgeandskillsaswellastheirselfconfidence.Itresultsinapositiveattitude,greaterunityandcohesioninthevillage

3. Sense of Ownership and Cohesion: During agricultural planning and landtreatments,itismandatorythatthefarmersworkintheirownfield.emphasisontheparticipationofpeoplefromallsocio-economiccategoriesgeneratesasenseofownershipofthePNPprocessamongstallthevillagers.

4. Institutional Arrangements: The intensive discussions involved help touncoverresourceuse,claims,existingarrangementsandrelationshipswhichthusenables the formulationof a strategyandestablishmentofeffectiveandrepresentativelocalinstitutionsforimplementationandmanagementofprojectcreatedassetsandcommonpropertyresources.

5. Women’s Empowerment:BeforethePNPprocesswasinitiated,womenwereextremelyhesitanttospeakupinfrontofmen.Theemphasisonparticipationofwomen in thePNPplayed adecisive role in improving their social andeconomic status as it boosted their confidence levels, increased theirknowledgeandskillssets.Thishelpedaltertheattitudesofthementowardsthewomenwhothenbeganplayingagreaterroleincommunityaffairs.Thewomen feel that they toohave contributed in thebenefits received fromWSDandsomeevenfeelaproprietarysenseofownershipofcommonassets.aspinoffhasbeenthegrowingkeennessofwomentobecomeliteratesothattheycanmoreeffectivelyparticipateinactivitiesbeneficialtothemandtheirfamilies.

InSagarwadi,thewomenplayedaleadingroleinmobilisingthecommunitytoparticipateinthePNP.Here,PNPservedasatoolfortheempowermentofthewomeninparticularandthedevelopmentofthevillageingeneral.

Impacts of Watershed Development

TheimpactsofWSD,asobservedbyallthestakeholders,havebeensignificantandhavebenefittednotonlyindividualsandfamilies,butalsothevillageasawhole.Theyareenumeratedbelow.

28

1. Improved water and soil conservation and reduction in soil erosion:Thishasresultedintheregenerationofnaturalresources–treecoverandbiomasshasincreasedaswellaslocalbiodiversity.Thequalityofwasteandarablelandshasimprovedthusresultinginincreasedproduction.

2. Increased drinking water availability:Theneed for tanker suppliedwaterhasceased. InJatdeolaandMalshendra, respondentsacrossallcategoriesmentioned that the drinkingwater pipeline and tap connections at homegreatlylessenedwomen’sworkanddrudgeryandtimethussavedcouldbeutilizedformorebeneficialhouseholdwork,otherproductiveactivitiesorleisure.

3. Increased water availability for agriculture and livestock:This has led toanincreaseindiggingofwells,establishmentofirrigationsystems,increaseinareaoflandundercultivationaswellasinagriculturalproductivityandoutput,diversificationincropsgrown,increasedincomeandenhancementoflivingstandards.InSagarwadi,asagreaterareaoflandisnowbeingirrigated,manyfarmersarenowbusythroughouttheyearandthereisavailabilityofemploymentforwomenaswell.Thishasalsoenhancedthesocialstatusofwomenastheyarenowalsosignificantwageearners.Moreover,somefarmershavetakenuporchard-farmingaswellandarenotconfinedtotraditionalcropsonly.

4. Improved Agriculture, Diversification and Marketable Surpluses:adoptionof better agricultural practices, appropriate and better quality of seeds,different types of crops, use of insecticides, pesticides, bio-fertilizers,etc. have resulted in marketable surplus, greater incomes, savings andinvestments.additionally increased crop residues from the fields are alsoavailableforfodderandfuelpurpose.

5. Improved Livestock and Increased Productivity:Soilandwaterconservationmethodshavemadegrowinggrassonfarmbundsandwastelandspossible,resulting in greater fodder availability. This has improved the health oflivestockandhasledtoanincreaseinhighvaluelivestockholdingssuchasmilchcattle.Thishasparticularlybenefittedthelandless,herdersofsmallruminantsanddairyfarmers.

6. Food Security and Better Standard of Living:Greaterfoodandincomesecurityhasresultedinbetterfoodconsumptionpatterns,improvementinthehealth

29

ofthepeople,especiallywomen,greaterenrolmentandschoolattendancebychildren,greaterleisureandlessstrainedfamilyandsocialrelationships.

7. Reduction in Distress Migration:averysignificantoutcome is thatwork isavailablewithinthevillage.Thisenhancesincomesecurityespeciallyforthelandless,poorandmarginalized.Ithasalsoresultedinreducedmigration.InSagarwadi,awomanfromlandless-SCcategorysaid,“Workingfortheprojecthasbeenasourceofincomeformeandtherewasnoneedtosearchforotherworkformysustenance”.InJatdeola,earlier60-70percentofthepeopleused tomigrate in search ofwork.The situation has changed remarkablynow.

8. Increased Social Capital: Significant social and community benefits havebeen realised. These were visible in the greater cohesion and unity inthe village, increased sense of ownership of the work done, amicablesettlementofdisputes,greaterparticipationinsocialandculturaleventsinthevillageaswellastheformationofvariousculturalandinterestgroups.

nn

5. Participation, Consultation and Inclusion: Stakeholder Perceptions and Observations

Farmer/Land Owning Couples

Datafromallthefourvillagesrevealsthatlandownersactivelyparticipatedinplanninganddecision-making.Thekindof responses indicates thatdecisions,overall,werenottakenhaphazardlyorarbitrarily.

The technical person (of the NGO) discussed things in detail with the landownersonsite,whereverpossible,aswellaswiththevillagersduringtheGramSabhas11. Their knowledge, experiences and opinions regarding the slope andqualityoftheland,cropsgrown,typeofsoil,treestobegrown,etc.,wastakenintoconsiderationandafterduediscussion,planningandconsent,treatmentswerefinalized.Thefactthattheirtraditionalknowledgewasconsideredfurtherenhancedtheirfeelingsofparticipation.

Nomeasureswereundertakenwithouttheconsentofthe landowners.Therewas the instance of a small farmerwho insisted uponhaving only twobundsconstructedonhisfarmlandinsteadofthree(whichwasfeasibleandadvisable)andthiswasagreedto.abetter-offfarmerfromJatdeola said,“Ididn’tagreetointer-croppingearlierandsodidn’toptforit.afterIunderstoodthebenefits,Iadopteditandmyincomefromcropsstartedincreasing”.Sometimesitalsohappensthatafterdiscussingwithhisfamilyorpeers,thefarmerrealizesthatthedecisiontakenbyhimwasnotappropriate,fore.g.,thetype,numberorheightofthebund,thenumberortypeofthetree/plantspecieschosen,etc.Insuchcases,evenwhentheplanisfinalised,thesechangesareincorporatedintotheactionplan.

However,inafewcases,wherefarmer-suggestedtreatmentswerenottechnicallyfeasible (especially in the case ofwater harvesting structures12, horticulturalandforestspecies),theirwisheswerenotaccommodated.abetter-offwomanfarmerwhowantedsweetlimesaplingswasnotgiventhembecausetheseplants

11.Meetingofalltheadultandvotingmembersofavillage.

12.Forinstancecheckweirs,gabionstructures,etc.

31

werenotsuitableforherland.afarmerwhowantedtohaveacheckdambuiltnexttohisfieldwasdeniedthesameasitwasn’ttheappropriatelocation.

ItisinterestingtonotethatfollowingthePNPexercise,mostoftherespondentsacrossallthevillages,sharedtheshortcomingsofthetraditionalmethodstheyhadbeenpracticing.Sincetheyhadnotbuiltanyerosionarrestingandwaterimpoundingstructures inanysignificantmanner,nor inan integratedmanner,most of the rainwater would simply drain away thus leading to depletion ofsoil fertilityand lowagriculturalproductivityandoutput.abetter-off farmeropinedthatevenwhensmalldamsorsimilarimpoundingstructureswerebuiltpreviously, since traditionally theydidnotdoany coordinatedplanning, theywouldlosealotoftherainwater.

Respondentsindicatedthat,onthewhole,theirqueriesaboutcroppingpatterns,land slopes, planning of location for bunds, etc., were addressed to theirsatisfaction.

PNPhasthusresultedinanenhancedunderstandingofconservationmeasures,betterutilisationofwaterandtheadoptionofnewanddifferentmethodsoffarming.

In Pirewadi, eight out of eleven respondents across all economic and socialgroups13saidthattheyfeltfreetomakesuggestionsateverystage.Theyalsoaddedthatsincetreatmentswereplannedafterseekingdueconsensus,theregenerallyhardlyarosetheneedforchanges.Similarly,inSagarwadi,Malshendraand Jatdeole,data reveals that theoverwhelmingmajority of farmers acrossallcategoriesweresatisfiedabouttheirparticipationandtheinclusionoftheiropinionsintheplanningprocessandexecution.

Inthesevillagesalso,themajorityoftherespondentsincludingsmallandmediumSCfarmersaswellasthebetter-offfarmerssaidtheywereabletoexpresstheirviewsfreelyinthemeetingsandcarefulconsiderationwasgiventothem.

13.Theseincludemarginal,small,mediumaswellasbetter-offfarmersfromtheSCaswellasopencategories(uppercastes)

32

Women and Marginal Groups

Thedatarevealsthatgenerally,inallvillages,womenwereinvolvedtogetherwith theirmen folk indetermining the treatments tobeundertakenon theirfarmsandtheirviewsandopinionswerealsogivendueconsideration.

InPirewadi,womenplayedamajorroleinallthediscussions.allthefivewomenpresentatthetimeoftheinterviewsaidthatimportantsuggestionsandopinionsthattheyhadofferedwereaccepted.ThewifeofasmallfarmerwhowasaSCsaid, “When I suggested that the height of the bund be increased, everyonereadilyagreed”.

ThewomeninPirewadisaidthattheyfoundtheirvoiceandwereabletorepresenttheirinterestsduetothesupporttheyreceivedfromtheirmembershipinthevillagelevelWomen’sFederation(theSMS14).Theywereabletostronglyexpresstheirconcernswithrespecttofetchingwater,fuel,andfodderandtheirneedswereprioritised;subsequentlytheirtroubleshavesincereducedconsiderably.TheopinionsoftheminoritycommunitiesliketheMuslimsandtheVanjaris(NT)werealsoincludedintheplanninganddesignprocess.

In Jatdeola, amarginalwoman farmerwas proud that her opinion about theneedforadrinkingwatertankandpipelinewasconsideredimportantandwasaccepted.anotherwomanfromthesamecategorysaidthatshecouldexpressherselfonlywhenherhusbandwasnotpresentandthuscouldnotalwaysspeakhermind.Thewomen’sdemandforLPG(gascookingburners15)wasacceptedandtheirconcernsforreductionofdrudgeryandthussavingtimewereaddressed.

InMalshendraandSagarwadi,SC,NTandlandlesswomenexpressedsatisfactionthat their suggestions and opinions in regard to land treatments wereconsideredandlargelyaccepted.alandlessSCwomaninSagarwadiremarked, “IhadsuggestionsregardingwhichvarietyoftreestobeplantedwhichIconveyed

14.TheSMS(SanyuktaMahilaSamitee)orJointWomen’sCommitteeisthevillagelevelapexfederationofallSHGsinthatvillage.

15.Gascookers,apartfrombeingefficient,healthandenvironmentfriendlyarealsoaprestigesymbolinruralareasandaremuchsoughtafter.

33

inourmonthlymeetings.Thosesuggestionswereaccepted.”ForthewomenofSagarwadi,amajorconcernwastheproblemofalcoholism,whichwasovercomebybanningvendinganddrinkingofliquorinthevillagewiththeassistanceoftheVWCandtheNGOs.Thewomenbelievethatthisplayedanimportantroleinthesuccessoftheprojectasitincreasedasenseofunityamongstallcommunities(allcommunitieshadtheirshareofproblematicdrunks),reducedconflictsandallowedtheproperconductingofpublicmeetings.

Whilethe landlessplayedanactiverole indeterminingtreatmentspertainingtoCommonPropertyResources(CPRs)16,theydidnotplayanysignificantroleinPNP,since,toquoteabetter-offmemberoftheJatdeolaVWC,“theydonothaveanyagriculturallandandsotheyarealsonotmuchinterestedintheprocess”.alandlesspersonfromthesamevillagehadthistosay:“Wewerenotconsultedbeforeworkwasstarted.WewereinitiallyonlyaskedwhetherwewerereadytodoShramdaanornot”.ItshouldhoweverberememberedthatPNPasaplanningtoolisprimarilyfocusedonlandbasedactivitiesonly.

Murmurs of Discontent

There, however, have been a few exceptional cases of dissatisfaction. Threefarmers in Pirewadi did express dissatisfaction with that fact that some ofthe landtreatmentswerenotoftheirchoice,norweretheytoldthereasonsof it.Oneof themsaid,“Iwantedthedepthof theCCTtobe increasedbut IwastoldthatCCTshavetofollowaspecificallydefinedpattern;otherwisethewaterpressuremaybreakthepit.Itdoesn’tmatterifwateroverflowsfromit”.anSCwomanmarginalfarmerinJatdeolaremarked,“Mysuggestionswerenotacceptedfullyandconsequentlythebundbrokedown.”

16.These include grazing lands, common wells, tanks, existing check dams, handpumps, drinking water borewells, water pipelines, village roads and communityhalls.Treatmentsinregardtowatershedrelatedactivitiesoncommonlandspertaintotreeandgrassplantation,enforcementofbanonfreegrazingandtreecutting,buildingoferosioncontrolmeasuresaswellaswaterharvestingstructures inthedrainagechannels.

34

Thesesituationsmayreflectlimitationsimposedbytechnicalorsocialfeasibility17;buttheyalsocouldindicateadegreeofinsensitivityandperhapsevenatechnicallapseonthepartofsomeofthefacilitators.

Itispertinenttonotehowever,thatthisdissatisfactionisnotconfinedonlytothepoorgroups,butalsoincludesthebetter-off,thusindicatingthatnopreferencewasgiventoanyparticularfarmercategoryassuch.

ThusPNPasamethod, ingeneral,promotedtransparency inthevillagesandalsopreventedelitecaptureoftheprocess.Thisensuredgreaterinclusiveness,fairnessandawiderandmoreequitablesharinginthebenefitsoftheproject.

nn

17.InonecaseawidowbelongingtotheSCmarginalfarmercategorycomplainedthatsomeofthebundsonherfieldwerebuiltinaccordancewithherdesireswhiletherestwerebuiltaccordingtotechnicalrequirements. Inthiscasethough,thiswasdoneinordertoprotectworksinthesurroundingfields.

6. Stakeholder Roles and Functions

Villagers and Farmer Couples

all the farmer couples interviewedparticipated constructively at every stageduringplanning. everybodyreadilyagreedtocontributeShramdaantotheextentoftwentypercentofthecostofthelabourcomponentoftheproject.Villagers,acrossallcategories,enthusiasticallyparticipatedinimplementationandwereinvolvedinsupervisionofworks,takingmeasurementsandkeepingrecordsofactualworkdone.

Villagers, on the whole, freely shared their views, opinions and suggestions.The blending of this local and experiential knowledge together withmodernknow-how resulted in successful anddesirable outcomes aswell as in properplanning.

ThefollowingquotefromoneoftheNGOrespondentsunderscoresthevillagers’contributionandtheroleoftheGramSabhainthePNPprocess.“Thevillagers,menaswellaswomen,activelyparticipatedinthePNP,whichledtoitssuccessfulimplementation. The experiences of the farmers have been considered indesigningandplanningoftheproject.alldecisionswereratifiedbytheGramSabhaandthiscreatedasenseofownershipandenthusiasm.WomenplayedaveryimportantroleinconvincingthemenfolktoattendandparticipateintheGramSabha”.

The banning of vending and drinking of liquor by women in Sagarwadi alsocontributedtotheorderlyconductofGramSabhasaswellasgreaterharmonyinthevillage.

VWC Members

TheVWCmembersplayedacrucialroleinmobilisingthelocalcommunityandformulationoftreatmentplans.Theyperformedthefollowingfunctions:

1. TheyconvincedpeopleabouttheimportanceandbenefitsofPNPbymeetingeveryindividualfarmer.eachfarmerwasexplainedabouttreatmentstobe

36

done,costs,owncontributionandthecooperationrequiredfromthem.Incase of any disagreement, discussions with the technical person and thefarmersresultedinagreeduponchangesbeingmadeintheplans.

2. Theneedforparticipationateverystagefromplanningtoimplementationbeing explained helped in decision-making and problem solving. Thesignificance of Shramdaan and the need for 20% contribution by way ofShramdaanwasexplainedandthiscontributedtobuildingupownership.InordertobringonboardthemarginalisedsocialgroupsinSagarwadi,avocalpersonofthiscommunitywasmadeamemberoftheVWCandhesucceededinmainstreamingthisgroupintheproject.

3. While implementing PNP, in case of a conflict between any two or moreneighbouringfarmers,theVWCmembersensuredthatacompromiseisstruckamongsttheparties.

4. Manyatimes, ithappensthatthefarmerandtheengineeraresayingthesamething,butduetomiscommunications,misunderstandingsoccur.HerethemediationoftheVWCiscrucial.Wheredifferencespersist,whenworkactuallybegins(inotherpeople’sfields),usuallysuchmisunderstandingsaresortedoutwhenthefarmersseetheadvantagesoftheproposedworks.

5. TheVWCplayedaprincipalroleinfosteringcommunitywideconsensusbyorganizingandfacilitatingtheGramSabhas.Inthesemeetings,decisionsaretakenregardingtheplantationofvariousspeciesinCPRsandprivatelands,supervision over CPRs, monitoring works, implementing the ban on freegrazingandtreecutting, imposingoffinesforanyoffences,disbursementof labourpaymentsandencouragingwomen to formSHGs.a farmer fromJatdeola,whoearlieropposedthebanonfreegrazingwasexplainedaboutthebenefitsandwasalsoappointedthepresidentoftheVWC.Becauseofsucharesponsibilitybeinggiventohim,hetookthetroubletounderstandthereasonsbehindthebanandsuccessfullyenforcedthedecision.

6. ThebanonliquorvendinganddrinkinginthevillagewasonlyenforceablebecausetheVWC(andtheNGO)gavetheirbackingforthesame.

37

The NGOs

NGOs played a very important and crucial role as facilitators in the project.Togetherwith theVWCs theyorganized thepeopleonvariousplatforms suchasGramSabhas,disseminatedinformation,madecontinuouseffortsinordertocreateawareness,enthusiasmandconsensus,builttrust,andconvincedpeopleto actively participate in the PNP process.TheNGO personnelmobilised thepeople,ensuredtheestablishmentofrepresentativelocalinstitutions,undertookresourcemappingandlandsurveys,togetherwiththevariousstakeholdersdecidedlanduseandcroppingpattern,organisedthework,providedon-sitetechnicalsupport,assisted in themaintenanceof records,accountsand supervised themeasurementofworkandpaymentofwages.

ThespecialeffortmadebytheNGOstoincludeandencourageparticipationofmarginalizedcommunitiesrightfromthebeginningoftheprojectandthefair,transparentandconsensus-seekingapproachadoptedgeneratedanenthusiasticresponse, created social interest and ensured that all sections of the villagewereinvolvedintheproject.

Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR)

WOTR played the role of capacity builder by providing customised exposuresandtrainings18totheVWCandthefacilitatingNGOs,linkedthemupwithotherprojectsformutuallearningandencouragement,establishedrelationshipswiththelocalgovernmentalandpoliticalactorsandmainstreamedthepartnerNGOsintothisnetwork,providedon-sitetechnicalsupport,undertookmonitoringanddevelopedthetechnology,enabledsystemsandsoftwareneededtoprocessandformulatethedataobtained fromthePNPprocess intoaprojectproposal. Italsoprovidedfunding19andoversightanddevelopedtheMIS,theDSSandtheexpert Systems20needed to archive, analyse, track,monitor andmanage the

18.SuchashowtoconductPNP,datacollection,togetherwithfocusedinputsonsocial,technical,financial,managerialandinstitutionaldevelopment,asrequired.

19.aspartoftheCapacityBuildingPhase.

20.TheMISreferstoManagementInformationSystem;theDSSistheDecisionSupportSystemandtheexpertSystemistheanalyticalandscrutinyprogramthatverifiestheaccuracyandeligibilityofdata/informationprovided.

38

manywatershed projects thatwere being simultaneously implemented, eachhavinglocalspecificitiesanditsownuniqueness.

TheCapacityBuildingPedagogy(POPandtheGO-POP21)ofwhichthePNPwasonemajorcomponentwasalsoaveryimportantcontributoryfactor.Sinceitwasastructuredsequenceofactivitiesandbenchmarkswhichclearlyoutlinedtheroadmaptobefollowed(forthecommunitiesaswellastheNGOs)andlaidoutclearlywhatwasexpectedandresourcesavailable,therewasclarityofpurposeandunambiguityofwhathadtobedoneinordertoachieveprojectgoals.

Women – Through the Eyes of the VWCs and NGOs

RatherthanhavewomentalkabouttheroletheyplayedintheimplementationofPNP(andtoanextentinprojectimplementationalso),weaskedtheVWCsandthefacilitatingNGOswhattheythoughtoftherolethewomenandmarginalgroupsplayed.

Herearetheirobservations

InPirewadiandJatdeola,whilemostofthewomenactivelyparticipatedinthePNPprocessinregardtotheirfarmsandCPRs,aswellasincontributingShramdaan,their participation was not particularly strong at the Gram Sabha level norweretheyabletosingularlyinfluencethem.Infact,oneoftheVWCmembersremarked,“theroleofwomenisnotsoimportantandtheirresponsibilitiesareoflesserimportance”,acommentthatmirrorsthegroundrealityofwomeninlargelyfeudalsettings.

InMalshendraandSagarwadi,however,theoppositesituationobtains.

InMalshendra,thewomenwereattheforefrontofactionandcanbetrulysaidtohaveplayedadecisiveroleintheproject.TheirresponsetoPNPwasgreaterthanthatofthemen’sandtheywereassertiveinputtingforwardtheiropinions.Womenwere involved in decision-making, supervision and implementation of

21.POPreferstoParticipatoryOperationalPedagogyandGO-POPistheGender-OrientedParticipatoryOperationalPedagogy.

39

PNP.awomanmember from the SC category said decisions taken bywomenweregivenpriority.SherecalledthatitwasthewomenwhohadindependentlyinitiatedGramsabhasforfacilitatingPNP.

DuringShramdaan theyparticipatedinequalnumbersasmen.Theydecidedwhattreestoplantoncommonlandsandundertooktheresponsibilityofprotectingthese plantations.Women encouraged the villagers to implement the ban onfreegrazingandtreecuttingandwereinstrumentalinensuringthatthebanwasobservedbyimposingandcollectingfinesfromviolators.DuecognizanceoftheiropinionswastakenduringtheGramsabhas.

In Sagarwadi, a SC woman member of the VWC expressed that women hadinitiatedtheprocessofPNP,supporteditthroughoutandinitiatedShramdaan.Womenparticipatedinexposurevisits.Theycarriedoutprotestmarchestothelocalpolicestationinordertoimposeabanonliquor.Theyalsocameupwithsuggestionsfortreeplantation,constructionofbundsontheirfarms,horticulturalplantations,kitchengardensandplayedacrucialroleinenforcingthebanonfreegrazing.amalememberoftheVWCemphasizedthepivotalroleplayedbythewomen.HesaidthatthecreditofPNPclearlygoestothewomen,becausetheyhadput inmoreefforts andwere fullyenthusiastic about implementingPNP in the village. They were involved in decision-making, supervision, andimplementation.awomanmemberopinedthatthezealthewomenshowedforPNPresultedinitssuccessfulimplementation.

Itisindeedencouragingthatinboththesevillages(MalshendraandSagarwadi),the men have readily acknowledged the pivotal role played by women. Thewomen in these villages exuded confidence and enthusiasm and have a keensenseofownershipoftheworkdone.

nn

7. Limitations and Strengths of PNP : Stakeholder Points

NoneofthestakeholderspointedtoanylimitationsofPNP,assuch.TheNGOsonly remarked that greater involvement of the Gram Panchayat should havebeensought.

Somepeople,however,makethecritiquethatPNPrequiresarelatively largeamountoftimetobecompletedandrequiresignificantinvestmentintimeofthevillagersaswellasanintensivefacilitatingeffortonthepartoftheNGOs.

Thefollowingiswhatthekeystakeholdershavetosayabouttheseaspects:

On the “Time and Effort Factor”

Farmer Couples

Overall,respondentsdidn’tobjecttothetimetakenastheywereoftheopinionthatitensuresthatworkisdonewellandspendingadequatetimeinplanningincreases the benefits.Theywere of the opinion that PNP cannot be carriedout any faster as the process includes detailed discussions, convincing thefarmers, planning of land treatments, formation of committees, all ofwhichtaketime.InJatdeola,alandlessrespondentsaid,“Timeshouldbecalculatedinproportiontotheareaofworktobecovered.”InMalshendra,aSCfarmersaidthat“sustainabilityshouldbethekeyoutcomeofplanningstrategies”implyingthat it takes time togetpeople tounderstandwhat it takes toget there. InSagarwadialso,similarviewswereexpressed.Whenaskedhowtheywouldliketo“re-design”,themajorityoftherespondentsfromallthevillageswereoftheopinionthatthey“willnotchangeanything”.

VWC Members

Inallthevillages,theywereoftheopinionthatthetimerequiredisjustifiedconsidering the details that are required and the farmers also having to besatisfiedwiththelikelyoutput.aVWCmarginalfarmermembersaidthatthetimetakenisdeterminedbytheareaofthevillageandavailabilityofthefarmersandotherstakeholders.

41

In Pirewadi, theVWC in fact opined that farmers should bemade to sign anundertaking on judicial paper22 as itwouldmake themmore responsible andtheworkwouldbecarriedoutmoreefficiently. InJatdeola,mostoftheVWCmemberssaidthattheywouldcontinuetousethesamemethods,astheyfeltthattherearenolimitationsinthecurrentpractice.InSagarwadi,memberssaidtheyweresatisfiedwiththewayinwhichPNPwasconductedanddidnotfeeltheneedforanychangestobemade.

NGOs

TheNGOsfeltthattheextentofdetailsoughtinthePNPformataswellasthetimetakenincollectingandprocessingitwasnecessaryinordertoplanwell,motivate, informthe farmersandsecure their“buy-in”andagreement.Theyfeltthattheeffortandtimespentinthisexercisewaswellworthit.

afterhavinggonethroughtheexerciseandtheattendingtrainings,theyfeelthatnowtheycanundertakePNPontheirownandtailorittosuitlocalconditions.Theonlylimitationtheyfelt,isthatsinceitisperson-powerandtimeintensiveascomparedtothewaystheytraditionallydidplanningandprojectformulation,theywouldrequiresomeadditionalfinancialsupporttoundertakethesame23.

On the Strengths of PNP

Thisiswhatthekeystakeholdershavetosay:

Farmer Couples

(1) People in the Driver’s Seat:Theopinionsofthefarmersaresoughtbeforeanytreatmentonthelandisbegunwhichwasnotthecaseinearlier24projects.asonesmallSCfarmerremarked,“Individualexperienceshaveanimportantroletoplay;thenonefeelsitisone’sownprocess”

22.Thiswouldmakethecommitmentsolemnandformalandthusenforceableinacourtoflaw.Thecurrentpracticeistotakeaformalagreementonplainpaper.

23.ItisinterestingtonotethatinwatershedsfundedbydonorsotherthantheIGWDP,theseNGOsstillusethePNPmethodology.DonorshaveappreciatedtheclarityandvalueofPNPandarefundingtheNGOstodeploythesame.

24.This is usually in reference to govt. funded projects and even in most NGO ledones.

42

(2) Shramdaan:ContributingtoShramdaanmakespeoplemoreresponsibleandraisesinteresttoknowmoreaboutwhatishappeningontheirlandsortheirsurroundings.allclassesoffarmersaswellasthelandlessbenefitandtheyalsolearntoworktogetherasateam.KnowledgeandskillsgainedthroughShramdaanisanotherstrengththathasbeenlistedoutbyallcategoriesofrespondents.

(3) Transparency:aSCfarmeralsotalksofthetransparencyoftheprocessandthepeoplebeingthusabletogetadequateinformationaboutwhatisbeingdone, what costs are involved, contributions, time frames and expectedbenefits.

(4) Status of Women:Increasedstatusofwomenresultingfromtheirparticipationandmoreimportantly,theiropinionsbeingconsidered,isanimportantaspectofPNP.earlier,womenwereneverinvolvedandnordidtheycometogetherforanyissuethatpertainedtothewholevillage.

VWC Members

(1) Consensus:Participationbasedonconsentbyallstakeholders,i.e.,farmersand their wives, marginalised sections of the village, VWC members andNGOsandduecognizancebeinggiventotheiropinionswasamajorstrength.Consentofallisalwaysthebasisofobligation.

(2) Skills Acquisition: During PNP, they acquire skills of making calculatedinvestmentsintheirfields,whichhelpsthemplanforthefuture.Moreover,suchintensiveparticipationimpartsbasicskillsandknowledgetothevillagersabout farming, suitability of crops, market opportunities, sustainableagriculture, how to deal with others, how to effectively represent theirinterests,etc,thathelptheminotheraspectsoflifealso.Italsoprovidesaplatformtoarriveataconsensusandtakeappropriatedecisions.

(3) Gender and the Family25:Womengetanopportunitytovoicetheiropinionsand toworkwithmenasequals for thefirst time.Considerationgiven to

25.Thisaspectofinvolvingthewomenalongwiththeirmenfolk(orvice-versa)isanimportantreasonwhywomencouldbesosuccessfullymainstreamedandempoweredwithouttheusualreactionsattendingsuchmajorrestructuringofgenderrelationshipsingenerallyconservativeruralareas.

43

eachindividualfamilyindesigningPNPandtransparencyoftheprocessisyetstrength.

(4) Benefits: Diversebenefits intheformof increasedagriculturalandfodderproduction,availabilityandaccessibilityofwater,improvedsanitationandimproved health resulting from watershed development are seen as theoutcomesofPNPdonewellandreinforcesitsvalue.

NGOs

1) Inclusiveness and Information Dissemination:Participationofvillagersfromallstrataofsocietyandwidespreaddisseminationofinformationrightfromplanningtocompletionofwork,isamajorstrengthofPNP.

2) All Included:Work is carriedoutoneach individual’s farmby consideringtheowner’sopinions,whichhelpgenerateawarenessabouttheprocessandbuildsasenseofownership.

3) Local Institutions:TherolesplayedbytheVWC,theGramSabha,theSHGsandtheNGOareimportant.

4) Skills Upgradation:Trainingonplantationofgrass,trees,rearingofcows,buildingofsoilandwaterconservationmeasures,agriculturaldiversificationand productivity improvement, financial management, organisational andprojectmanagement,etc.werepartoftheinputsthataccompaniedthePNPandcapacitybuildingprocess.

nn

8. Difficulties Faced and Solutions Evolved

Farmer Couples

Majorityofthefarmersinallthevillageswereoftheopinionthattheydidnotfaceanymajorobstacles;minorproblemsanddifferenceswereeasilyresolvedthroughdiscussions.PNPwasexplainedto thoseopposedto itandtheywerebroughttounderstandthelikelybenefitstheywouldgetbyparticipatinginit.

Difficulties,sometimes,didarisewhenfarmersdidnotagreetomeasuresthatwouldbenefitsomebutwhichtheyfeltwouldadverselyaffectthem.acaseinpointisthelocationofcheckweirs–whilethosedownstreamwouldnecessarilybenefitfromincreasedwateravailability,thosewhoselandswereadjoiningthestream feared that the standing water would damage their fields. However,instances of thesewere very few in number and often could be resolved bybuildingsmallerstructuresormakingsiteadjustments.

VWC Members

In all villages, VWC members expressed that initially, most villagers hadreservationsabout thePNPpre-conditions, suchascutting trees,banon freegrazing26,formationofSHGsforwomen,Shramdaanetc.andsome,especiallythose illiterate,opposedPNP.Theywerescepticalaboutbeingable to followthese conditions and the benefits thereof and hence about fifteen to twentypercentofthepeopledidnotagreewiththem.ButtheVWCmembersconvincedthemaboutitsbenefitsandthentheyagreedtoit.

Moreover,initially,quiteafewfarmerswerereluctanttohaveworkstartedintheirfields.Theyfearedthatthecostsincurredforameliorationwouldbefoistedonthemasloansandtheywouldthusbeindebted27.Henceconsiderabletimewasspentinexplainingtothemthattheywouldnotbeindebtedinanyway.

26.Implementing the ban on free gazingwasn’t easy though and continued to be achallengethroughouttheprojectperiod.

27.Manyyearsearlier,thegovernmenthadundertakensoilandwaterconservationworksonprivatelandsandbookedtheexpensesasaloantoberepaidbythelandowner.alienwasplacedonthelandthuseffectivelypreventingfarmersfromsecuringloansfrombanksorsellingtheland.Theseweretheso-called“Takavi”loans.

45

InSagarwadi,thebetter-offfarmerswithlargerlandholdings,fearingthattheywouldfaceshortagesinlabouravailability(mostoftheagriculturallabourisinfact the peasantry-small andmarginal farmers) if thewatershed projectwasimplementedinthevillage28,deliberatelyspreadrumoursandmisinformedthevillagersthattheywouldhavetoinvesttheirownmoneyforcompletingtheworkon their respective lands. This created some confusion and villagers becameuncertainuntilitwasexplainedtothemthattheironly“financialcontribution”wouldbebywayofshramdaan-wagesforegonetotheextentof20%oftheworkdoneontheirownfields;thattheywouldgetdecentregularwagesforworkdonethroughouttheprojectperiodwhichwouldlastbetween4-5years;andthatthebenefitsthatwouldaccruetothemintermsofincreasedagriculturalproductivityandoutput,wouldreducetheneedforthemtoworkinotherpeople’sfieldsormigrateforaliving.

Insomecaseswherecommonresourceshadbeenappropriatedforprivategain,eg.,individualcultivationalongthestreamandriverbeds,ittookquitesomeeffortonthepartoftheVWCtogettheencroacherstostoptheirpracticesandallowtheseresourcestoreverttocommonuseortobeusedtositeconservationmeasures(eg.waterharvestingstructures).InJatdeola,abetter-offfarmerwasusingwaterfromacommonwellaloneashewaslivingclose-byandwasde-factoclaimingownershiprights.TheVWCconvincedhimthatitwascommonpropertythusensuringthatotherscouldalsobenefitfromit.

usuallyoppositionmeltedawayoncesuch“squatters”begantoexperiencethebenefits that resulted from implemented conservationmeasures and realisedthatinfact,theywerenetgainers!

Some Innovative Solutions

Inordertoenforcethebanonfreegrazingintreatedareas,finesrangingfromRs.50toRs.100percattleheadwerelevied,andashareofthecollectedmoney

28.Thisarisesbecausethewagerateofferedishigherthantheprofferedagriculturalwages;itisavailablethroughouttheyearbarringthe3-4monthswhenagriculturalactivities are being undertaken and more importantly, once the quality of landimprovesandwaterismoreavailable,agriculturalproductivitygoesupandpeasantfarmerswouldratherworktheirownfarmsthanthoseoftheirerst-whilebetter-offfarmeremployers.

46

wassharedwiththepersonreportinganinfractionorimpoundingthecattle29. InMalshendra,peoplewerewarnedthattheywouldbereportedtothepolicein case of violations and two supervisorswere appointed to enforce the banatnight,whencattleareusually let free.Regarding the strayingcattle fromneighbouringvillages,thevillagersfiledcomplaintswiththedistrictauthorities.InPirewadi,everyfarmerwomanintheSHGscontributedFiveRupeesamonthtoformapoolandthiswasutilizedtohiretheservicesofawatchmantoeffectivelyimplementtheban.

InJatdeola,theVWCandtheGramPanchayatdecidedthatthosevillagerswhodidnotagreetoandfollowthepre-conditionswouldnothaveaccesstobasicfacilities such as the ration shop30. If a farmer refused to participate in theprocess,thatparticularfarmerwasnotallowedtoworkasalabourerinothers’fields, under the project. So he ends up losing an opportunity to earnwhichincentivisesare-think.

NGOs

While implementing PNP in the field,many difficultieswere encountered forwhichsolutionswerealsoidentifiedbytheNGOintheprocess.Thesearelistedbelow.

1. Inthebeginning,theNGOfacedbigdifficultiesandoppositioninorganizingthepeople.Thevillagersdidn’thaveapositiveopinionabouttheimplementingNGOs as they had no previous experience of them. Hence, considerabletimewasspentinrapportbuildingandinconvincingthevillagersaboutthebenefitsofPNPandwatersheddevelopment.GramSabhaswereorganizedonaregularbasis,opendiscussionswereheldandpeopleweretakenintoconfidence.Homevisitsalsoproveduseful.Winningtheconfidenceoftheelderly,theopinionmakersandbetter-accomplishedpersonsinthevillagewasthefirststeptowardsovercomingthesedifficulties.exposurevisitswereorganizedforthevillagerssothattheycouldsee,observeanddiscusswith

29.asmuchas50%inthecaseofMalshendra.

30.PublicDistribution Systemwhereessential commodities like grains, keroseneandsugarare soldat subsidizedprices. It is an importantprovisioning source for themajorityofvillagers,especiallythepoor.

47

farmers from other places where work had been successfully completed.Moreover,theVWCmembersweredeputedfortrainingperiodicallyandasneeded.

2. Somefarmerswereinitiallyhesitantastheywereundertheimpressionthatitisagovernmentscheme.Theyfearedthattheirlandswouldbetakenaway.Discussionshelpedovercomethisfear.

3. The concepts of Shramdaan, Ban on tree cutting and free grazing wasacceptable to some villagers while the reverse held true for others. Thebenefitsofthesewerethusexplainedtothosewhowerenotconvinced.InMalshendra,theproblemoffreegrazingwasovercomewiththeassistanceofthepoliceandalsobylevyingfinesonthosewhobroketherules.

4. a watershed development project had been implemented in the villageadjacenttoSagarwadiandtheelderlypeoplewereawareaboutit.However,whentheprocesswasactuallyinitiated,thealcoholicsofthevillagecreatedproblems.TheywouldnotparticipateinGramSabhas andwhentheywerepresent; they created disturbances and provoked needless arguments. Inordertokeepacheckonsuchproblems,thedecisiontoprohibitliquorinthevillagewastaken.Thewomenmarchedtothepolicestationandsoughttheirassistanceinthisregard.

5. InSagarwadi,duetothedifferentethnicgroups,communicationandcommonunderstandingproveddifficulttoachieve.However,womenplayedakeyroleinovercomingtheseastheytooktheinitiativeinthePNPandalsoactivelyparticipatedinGramSabhas.

6. Initially,activeinvolvementofvillagerswasminimal.However,astheactualworkstartedandpeopleobservedandunderstoodthebenefitsofPNPaswellastheimpactsoftheworkthathadbeenimplemented,theopinionsofthevillagersalsochanged.

nn

9. Factors Facilitating Participation and Implementation of PNP: Stakeholder Perceptions

Thekeyfactorsasperceivedbyfarmers,theVWCsandNGOsareasfollows:

1. Regular Meetings:Thesewereheldfrequentlyandgreatlyhelpedinclarifyingissuesandbuildingconfidence.InstancesofbenefitsofPNPinothervillageswhereithadbeenimplementedwereoftencitedinthemeetings.TheGramSabhaprovidedaplatformwheredisputeswereaddressed,doubtsclearedandconsensusforged.Thisopenprocesswasanimportantcatalyst.

2. Exposure Visits:Theexposurevisitsgavethemtheopportunity toseethedevelopments that had taken place in other villages as a result of thewatershedprogramandthustheygotconvinced.Theydiscoveredthatthenon-traditionalmethodsusedhadledtosignificantbenefitsinashorttime.WhentheyinteractedwiththesevillagerswherePNPhadbeeneffectivelyimplemented, they understood its benefits. Special exposure visits werearrangedforwomenandSCsinordertowidentheirhorizonsandmotivatethem.

3. Participation: The insistence on complete involvement of the farmer andthevillagersineveryaspectoftheprojectandthepersistenceoftheNGOsinensuringthisplayedagreatroleinbuildingconfidenceandownershipoftheeffort.Peoplefeltrespectedandatthecentreofactivities.Theywerenottreatedasbeneficiariesbutratherasactors,asdriversoftheprocess.Transparency,opennessandinclusivenesswerethedefiningcharacteristicsofthePNPapproachandthisenthusedparticipation.ThefactthatShramdaanwasinsisteduponalsohelpedbuildstakeholding.

4. Women’s Participation:Women’sparticipationinmeetings,inthePNPandindecisionmakingbodiesofthevillageplayedanimportantrole.InsomeofthevillagesitwasthewomenwhomadepossibletheinitiationofPNPandthelaunchingoftheproject.

5. Inclusiveness:Thefactthateverybody’sland(thebetteroff’sandthepoor)wouldbetreatedandthatwomenandmarginalgroupswereactivelysoughttobemainstreamedhadaprofoundimpactonvillagedynamics.Thisbroughthope,improvedsocialrelationshipsandcreatedeconomicopportunitiesandspacesforpeoplewhohithertohadbeenshutoutofthepowerstructureofthevillage.

49

31.Inpubliclyfundedprogramsofasimilartype,rentseekingbehaviorofofficialsandcontractorsresultedinpeoplegettingfarlesswagesthanwhattheywereentitledto.Thisledtopoorqualityofworkandmoreimportantly,ledtoalossofselfrespect,anerosionofsocialcapital,alienationandalackofownershipofthework.

6. Representative local Institutions:FormationofvariouscommitteeslikeVWCs,SHGs,andyouthgroupswereinstrumentalinmotivatingactiveparticipationofthevillagers.Sinceaminimumfixedrepresentationbywayofquotaswasallocatedtowomen,thelandlessandthepoor,thesegroupsfeltincluded,takenseriouslyandcouldrepresenttheirinterests.

7. Capacity Building and Training: Besides the meetings, house visits andexposurevisits,specifictrainingprogramscoveringarangeoftopicsandskillsall relatedtotheir livelihoods, institutional life inthevillage,governanceandmanagementoftheproject inallaspectsespeciallytransparencyandaccountabilitywereconductedfortheVWC,thevillagelevelsupervisorsandwomen’sgroups,bytheNGOsandWOTR.Thisenhancedknowledge,skills,builtconfidenceandincreasedparticipation.

8. Water as a Priority:allthevillagesareaffectedbydrought,albeittodifferingdegrees. everyone participated actively when they understood that byregeneratingtheirwatershedsthroughrainwaterharvesting,soilconservationandplantationoftreesandgrassestheywouldbeabletoaddressthisacuteproblem.abasicnecessitywasbeingaddressed.

9. Regular Income:Thepossibilityofreceivingfull31anddecentwagesregularlyforthegreaterpartoftheyearifawatershedprojectwasimplementedwasalsoagreatincentive.Twowomenrespondents,oneofwhomwasalandless,remarked,“Wecannowfindworkondailywagebasisinthevillageitself.Thereisnoneedtomigrateoutinsearchofwork”.Forfarmers,especiallythesmalloneswhomakeupthevastmajority,earningmoneywithintheirownvillagewhilealsoimprovingtheirownfieldsistrulyabigincentive.InMalshendra,manyyouthtootookuptemporaryjobsinanearbytownaftertheagriculturalseason,livinginbarelyhumanconditions.Whentheybecameawareofthepossibilityofregularwageearningopportunitiesarisingintheirvillage itself as well as increased agricultural possibilities, they becamestrongadvocatessupportingPNPandthewatershedproject.

10. Economic Benefits and A Better Life: after the first monsoon itself, thebenefitsbecameevidentintheformofincreasedwaterlevels,reductionin

50

soilloss,increaseincropproductionandenhancedavailabilityofnutritiousfodder. For thefirst time therewas the realpossibilityof theirbecomingwaterandfoodsufficientwithmarketablesurplusesalsobeinggenerated.Peoplebegantorealisethattheirlifecouldindeedbecomebetterandwiththathopegrew.Thesuccessoftheeffortbecameavillagewidepriority.

nn

32.ModifiedandpatternedontheZOPP(GoalOrientedProjectPlanning)orLFa(LogicalFrameworkanalysis)methodology

33.ThisapproachhasbeenwidelyadoptedbytheRajivGandhiWatershedMissionoftheGovt.ofMadhyaPradesh(India)andWOTRhastrainedmanyoftheirfieldpersonnelinitsconceptandpractice.

34.Whilethisisanacronym–WOTRattentivetoSocialunityforNature,DevelopmentandHarmonyinRuralareas–italsoconnotes,inthelocallanguage,a“caringearth”,“motherearth”denotingcompassion.

10. Lessons Learnt and New Paradigms

Basedonthefeedbackobtainedfromthisstudy,WOTRreviewedthePNPaswellasitsoverallcapacitybuildingpedagogy(thePOPandtheGO-POP)inordertoaddresstheshortcomingsthatwereuncovered.

Ithasintroducedanewtool-theObjectivesOrientedProjectPlanning(OOPP)methodology32whichhelpsvillagersenvisagewhattheywouldliketheirvillagetobecomeandwhatshouldbeaddressedanddoneinordertogetthere.This“Visioningexercise”hashadaprofound impactas ithashelpedvillagers seethecausalrelationshipsbetweentheproblemstheyfaceandthestateoftheenvironment,betweencollectivechoicesmadepreviouslyandtheircurrentsocialandeconomicsituations.Thisunderstandingthenhelpsthemdevelopappropriateresponsestorectifyorprogressthesituation33.Italsomakespeoplerealiseandacknowledgetherolethey(ortheirpredecessorsorspecificcircumstances)haveplayedinshapingtheircurrentsituationandgetsthemtocommittocollectiveactionforchange.TheOOPPeitherprecedesoraccompaniesthePNP.

InordertoaddresstheconcernsofthepoorestandthemarginalisedandmaketheGramPanchayat (a political body) a key player,while also insulating thedevelopmental effort from competitive and negative politics (the reason fora non-elected representative VWC), WOTR has developed a new pedagogy- theWaSuNDHaRa34approach.Thisapproachbuildson thePOPand seeks tomakeequityacommunityconcern.TheVWChasbeenreplacedwithaVillageDevelopmentCommittee(VDC),alsoarepresentativebody,butwithamandatethatencompassesallthedevelopmentalneedofthevillage,includingwatersheddevelopment and management of natural resources. This VDC is included

52

institutionallyandformallyasasub-committeeoftheGramPanchayatandassuch,cannowactonitsbehalfinrealisingitsmandate35.

ThecoreoftheWaSuNDHaRaapproachistofocusattentionontheneedsofthemarginalisedandvulnerablegroupsandgettheGramPanchayatandthelocalcommunity(throughtheVDC)tomakeittheirconcerntoprioritiseandfulfiltheirneeds.Thisapproachisnowbeingimplementedinasmanyas111projects(148villages)with generally remarkable results.This successful pedagogy recentlygotinternationalrecognitionwhenWOTRwasawardedtheKyotoWorldWaterGrandPrizeattheWorldWaterForuminIstanbulinMarch2009.

nn

35.ThishasbeenpossiblebecauseGovernmentofMaharashtrahasmadealegalprovisionforthesame.

11. Concluding Remarks

Thebroadobjectiveofthisstudywasdocumentingandanalysingtheperceptionsandexperiencesofthekeystakeholders,namely,thefarmercouples,women,VWCmembersandtheimplementingNGOSinregardtothePNPprocess.FactorsthathavecontributedtothesuccessofPNPaswellasitsperceivedlimitationshavebeenidentifiedanddiscussed.aspecificfocuswasonperceptionsofthemarginalisedsections(suchaslandless,marginalfarmers,SCs,STs,andwomen)with a view to assessing their participation levels and the challenges theyfaced.

asclearlyindicated(andintended),PNPhasraisedthevillagers’awarenessona variety of issues, helped build capacities, fostered the acquisition of skillsandcompetencies,contributedtotheformationofactiveandrepresentativelocal institutions that are accountable to their communities, improved socialrelationshipsandsocialharmonyinusuallyfaction-riddenvillages,andhasdefactocontributedtoapeacefulandsustainedtransformationofgenderrelationships,women’sempowermentandtheirmainstreamingintheinstitutionallifeoftheircommunities.

From the analysis, the overall conclusion is that PNP, as a concept andpractice,hasfulfilledallitskeyobjectives,namely,tomobilisecommunitiestoundertakesuccessfulwatersheddevelopmentandsustainablenaturalresourcesmanagementinaninclusive,participatoryandgenderequitablemannerwherethemembersofthecommunityaredriversoftheprojectandartisansoftheirowndevelopment.

Itwould, therefore,beaccurate to say thatPNP isaneffectivemethodologyfor community engagement and mobilisation, land use and land husbandryplanningandhasplayedaveryimportantroleincatalysingadynamicofhopeanddevelopmentintheprojectvillages.

nn

Annexure 1-A

Interview Schedule for Assessing the impact of PNP as perceived by the Farmer Couple

A. General Questions

1. (a)Nameoftherespondent(farmercouple)

(b) NameoftheVillage/Block/District

2. Landowned

3. a. TreatmentonlandasaresultofPNP:

Sr.No. Typeofland area Natureof Typeoftreesplanted (ha.) Treatment (mentiontheno.also)

1. Irrigated 2. Rainfed 3. Wasteland 4. Non-cultivable

b. Whichtreeswouldyouchoose/haveyouchosentomeetyourfueland fodderrequirements?

c. Whichtrees(plants)didyouselectandwhy?

B. Experiences

4. WhatareyouropinionsaboutPNP?

5. WhatistheextentofyourparticipationinthePNPprocess?HowdidPNPtakeplaceonyourfield?(Probe:Whatwasyourcontributiontoplanning,designing,decisionmaking.encouragetherespondenttorecallthesteps.)

6. Towhatextentare/wereyouropinions/suggestionstakenintoconsideration?

7. What were the land treatments/measures you suggested that were from yourexperience/traditionalknowledge?

8. Were you freely able to discuss your opinions and make changes if required? (askhusbandandwifeseparately.)

55

9. Whatwerethedifficultiesthatyoufaced?

10.Whathavebeentheimpactsoftheworkdoneonyourland?(Probe:Benefitsintermsofimprovedfertilityofland,increasedproductivity,availabilityofwater,earningsetc.askthemenandwomentogivetheirseparateresponses.also,encouragebothmenandwomentotalkoftheotherbenefitsbesidesthephysicalbenefits.askaboutbeforeandafterdifferences.)

11.WhatisyourreactiontothetimetakenforPNPconsideringthatitisquitelong? (Couldthishavebeendoneinashortertime?Wasthetimetakenrequired?

12.WhatwasthemotivatingfactortowardsyouractiveparticipationinthePNPprocess?(Probe:IncaserespondentdidnotinclinetowardsPNP,askwhatthedemotivatingfactorwas)

13.WhataccordingtoyouarethestrengthsandlimitationsofthePNPprocess?(Probe:DoyouthinkthatsustainabilityofthewatershedprogramowesalottoPNPasitinvolvesgreaterparticipationofthefarmercouplerightfromtheplanningstageuptodecisionmaking?Or, doyouthinkPNPisnotrequiredandisjustanothertimeconsumingprocess?)

14.Listoutsuggestionstoovercomethelimitations.

15.Howwouldyouasafarmer,redesignthePNPprocess,ifyouweretodoitagainonyourown?(ShowthemthelistofinformationcollectedinthePNPFormat)

C. Common Property Resources (CPRs)

16.WhataretheCPRsthatthevillagersshare?

17.Whoaretheprincipalbeneficiaries?Whatisthenatureofbenefit?(Dothelandlessandmarginalfarmers,singlewomen,andothermarginalizedsectionsofthecommunitysuchasSCsandSTsalsobenefit?)

18.Whoplaysthekeyroleindecision-makingforPNPwhereCPRsareinvolved?(Probe: Howwas PNP done for the CPRs?Who was involved?Were the landless,especiallythosewhoneedtheCPRsalsoinvolved?

19.WhatwasthenatureofinterventionswhereCPRswereinvolved?

20.Whatweretheexpectedbenefits?(Probe:benefitsfromtrees,benefitsfromgrasses,andotherbenefits)

21.Whatwastheoutcome(advantagesaswellasdisadvantages)ofinterventionintheCPR?

56

D. Gender Equity (questions to be asked to women)

22.Wereyourviewsandconcernsacceptedorrejected?Ifaccepted,whatwasit? (Probe:evenifitwasrejected,whatwasitandwhy?)

23.Howhaveyouasa farmerandmorespecificallyasawomanbenefitted fromthewholeprocess?(Probe:Whataboutincreased/decreasedaccessibilitytoCPRs?WhatwerethebenefitsyoureceivedfromtheCPR?)

24.What benefits would you look for from your land and CPRs? What benefits haveyouobtained/notobtained?Why? (Probe: In termsof reductionofdrudgery,easyavailabilityofpotable/drinkingwater,fuel,fodderetc.)

25.Do thewomen feel that they are also equal owners of the assets created as anoutcomeofthewatershedprocess?

Date: NameoftheInterviewer

Place: SignatureoftheInterviewer

57

Annexure 1-B

Interview Schedule for Assessing the impact of PNP as perceived by the VWC Members

A. General Questions

1. Nameoftherespondent:

2. NameoftheVillage/Block/District:

B. Experiences

3. Whatwasyourinitialreactiontothewatershedprogram?

4. WhatareyouropinionsaboutPNP?

5. WhatistheextentofyourparticipationinthePNPprocess? (Probe: Whatwas theircontribution toplanning, designing, decisionmaking, implementation,monitoringandevaluation?)

6. Whatwerethevillagers’contributiontoPNP? (Probe:Howhavetheirfieldexperiences

andtraditionalandlocallevelknowledgehelpedwhileplanninginterventions?)

7. Towhatextentare/weretheiropinions/suggestionstakenintoconsideration?

8. Didtheyhaveanyreservationsabouttheprocess?Ifyes,pl.specify.

9. Howwerethereservationsresolved?

10.WhatarethestepsfollowedduringPNP?

11.WhatwerethedifficultiesthattheVWCmemberasafacilitatorfaced?

12.Howdidyouresolvetheproblems/difficulties?

13.HowfarhavethevillagersbenefitedfromPNP? (Probe: improvedfertilityofland,increasedproductivity,availabilityofwater,increasedearnings,increasedtechnicalknowledge,practicalskills,anddecisionmakingabilities)

14.WhatisyourreactiontothetimetakenforPNPconsideringthatitisquitelong?

58

15.What do you thinkwas the factormotivating villagers to active participation (orotherwise)inthePNPprocess?Whatwasyourroleinmotivatingthevillagers? (Probe: IncaseofexperiencesofvillagersbeingnotinclinedtowardsPNP,askwhatwasthedemotivatingfactor.)

16.WhataccordingtoyouarethestrengthsandlimitationsofthePNPprocess? (Probe: DoyouthinkthatsustainabilityofthewatershedprogramowesalottoPNPasitinvolves greaterparticipationof the farmer couple right from theplanning stageuptodecisionmaking?Or,doyouthinkPNPisnotrequiredandisjustanothertimeconsumingprocess?)

17.Listoutsuggestionstoovercomethelimitations.

18.HowwouldyouasaVWCmember,redesignthePNPprocess,ifyouweretodoitagainonyourown?(Show them the list of information collected in the PNP Format)

C. Common Property Resources (CPRs)

18.WhataretheCPRsthatthevillagersshare?

19.asaVWCmember,whatwastheroleplayedbyyouinfacilitatingthePNPprocesswhereCPRswereconcerned? (Probe: Difficulties encountered in case of disputes, unceraintly and how they were overcome)

20.Whoaretheprincipalbeneficiaries?Whatisthenatureofbenefit?(Probe: Is it the landless and marginal farmers, single women, and other marginalized sections of the community such as SCs and STs?)

21.Whoplaysthekeyroleindecision-makingforPNPwhereCPRsareinvolved?

22.WhatwasthenatureofinterventionwhereCPRswereinvolved?

23.Whatwerethebenefitsandwhowerethebeneficiaries?

24.Whatwastheoutcome(advantagesaswellasdisadvantages)ofintervention intheCPRs?

D. Gender Equity

25.WhatwastheroleplayedbywomeninPNP? 26.Howfardoyouthinkthey(women)havebeenabletocontributetowardsdecision

making?

59

27.Were their views and concerns accepted or rejected? If accepted, what was it?(Probe: evenifitwasrejected,whatwasitandwhy?)

28.Howfardoyouthinkshe,asafarmer,andmorespecificallyasawomanbenefittedfromthewholeprocess?(Probe: Whataboutincreased/decreasedaccessibilitytoCPRs?)

29.Howhasthewatershedprocessaffectedtheirdailyactivities? (Probe: Intermsofreduction of drudgery, easy availability of potable/ drinking water, fuel, fodderetc.)

30.Do thewomen feel that they are also equal owners of the assets created as anoutcomeofthewatershedprocess?

Date: NameoftheInterviewer

Place: SignatureoftheInterviewer

60

Annexure 1-C

Interview Schedule for Assessing the impact of PNP as perceived by the NGO

A. General Questions

1. Nameoftherespondent

2. NameofNGO

3. NameoftheVillage/Block/District:

B. Experiences

4. WhatareyouropinionsaboutPNPanditsuseinplanning?

5. WhatistheextentofyourparticipationinthePNPprocess? (Probe:Whatwas theircontribution toplanning, designing, decisionmaking, implementation,monitoringandevaluation?)

6. What were the villagers’ contributions to PNP? (Probe: How have their fieldexperiences, traditionaland local levelknowledgehelpedorwere includedwhileplanninginterventions?)

7. Towhatextentare/weretheiropinions/suggestionstakenintoconsideration?

8. Didtheyhaveanyreservationsabouttheprocess?Ifyes,pleasespecify.

9. Howwerethereservationsresolved?

10.WhatarethestepsfollowedduringPNP?

11.WhatwerethedifficultiesthattheNGOasafacilitatorfaced?

12.Howdidyouresolvetheproblems/difficulties?

13.WhatwerethebenefitsofusingPNP?

61

14.HowfarhavethevillagersbenefitedfromPNP?(Probe: improvedfertilityof land,increasedproductivity,availabilityofwater,increasedearnings,increasedtechnicalknowledge,practicalskills,anddecisionmakingabilities)

15.WhatisyourreactiontothetimetakenforPNPconsideringthatitisquitelong?

16.Whatdoyouthinkwasthefactor/smotivatingvillagerstoactiveparticipation inthePNPprocess?Whatwasyourroleinmotivatingthevillagers?(Probe:IncaseofexperiencesofvillagersbeingnotinclinedtowardsPNP,askwhatwasthedemotivatingfactor/s.)

17.WhataccordingtoyouarethestrengthsandlimitationsofthePNPprocess? (Probe:DoyouthinkthatsustainabilityofthewatershedprogramowesalottoPNPasitinvolvesgreaterparticipationofthefarmercouplerightfromtheplanningstageuptodecisionmaking?Or,doyouthinkPNPisnotrequiredandisjustanothertimeconsumingprocess?)

18.Listoutsuggestionstoovercomethelimitations.

19.HowwouldyouasanNGO,redesignthePNPprocess,ifyouweretodoitagainonyourown?(ShowthemthelistofinformationcollectedinthePNPFormat)

C. Common Property Resources (CPRs)

20.WhataretheCPRsthatthevillagersshare?

21.asanimplementingNGO,whatwastheroleplayedbyyouinfacilitatingthePNPprocesswhereCPRswereconcerned? (Probe: Difficultiesencounteredincaseofdisputes,uncertaintyandhowweretheyovercome)

22.Whoaretheprincipalbeneficiaries?Whatisthenatureofbenefit? (Probe:Isitthe

landlessandmarginalfarmers,singlewomen,andothermarginalizedsectionsofthecommunitysuchasSCsandSTs?)

23.HowcouldweimprovethePNPtogivemorebenefitstothemarginalizedpoor,landless,shepherds,cowherds,andwomen?

24.Whoplaysthekeyroleindecision-makingforPNPwhereCPRisinvolved?

25.WhatwasthenatureofinterventionwhereCPRwasinvolved?

26.Whatwerethebenefitsandwhowerethebeneficiaries?(Groups,caste,drinkingwateretc.)

62

27.Whatwastheoutcome(advantagesaswellasdisadvantages)ofinterventionintheCPR?

28.Ifyouaretore-designPNPandtheprocess,howwouldyoudoittoaddress(1)women’sneedsbeingmetand(2)Preferencetopoorandmarginalized.

D. Gender Equity

29.WhatwastheroleplayedbywomeninPNP?

30.Howfardoyouthinkthey(women)havebeenabletocontributetowardsdecision-making?

31.Weretheirviewsandconcernsacceptedorrejected?Ifaccepted,whatwasit? (Probe:evenifitwasrejected,whatwasitandwhy?)

32.Howfardoyouthinkshe,asafarmer,andmorespecificallyasawomanbenefittedfromthewholeprocess?(Probe:Whataboutincreased/decreasedaccessibilitytoCPRs?)

33.Howhasthewatershedprocessaffectedtheirdailyactivities?(Probe: Intermsofreductionofdrudgery,easyavailabilityofpotable/drinkingwater,fuel,fodderetc.)

34.Dothewomenfeelthattheyarealsoequalownersoftheassetscreatedasanoutcomeofthewatershedprocess?

Date: NameoftheInterviewer

Place: SignatureoftheInterviewer

63

Annexure 1-D

Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR)"Net" Planning Format

NameofWatershed:

NameofVillage:

NameofFarmer: Gat.No/SurveyNo.

Totalarea(Ha):

a)Irrigated: b)Rainfed: c)Fallow:

d)unculturablewaste: e)Forest:

Present use of land

a) areaundercultivation(ha):

Season Area under Type of crop Area (ha) Production Irrigation/ Grain Fodder Rainfed

B) Wasteland(ha):

a)Barren b)Gairan(commongrazinglands)

c)Scrubs d)Rocky

C) Forest/Treecover(ha):

i)Thin ii)Thick iii)Barren

64

D) InformationrequiredforLandCapabilityClassification (LCC):

Land Irrigated Rainfed Unculturable Forest/Tree characteristics Area Area land cover area

Area (ha) - Slope (%) Soil depth (cm) Soil texture Erosion atus Land Class

Proposed Work to be done as per Land Use

a) Worktobedoneonwasteland:

afforestation/Treeplantation (Yes/No)

PastureDevelopment (Yes/No)

agro.Forestry (Yes/No)

Horti-Pasture (Yes/No)

Sr.No Treatment Area/ Length Cross Grass/ Type of Units Section No. of Plants Species

B) Worktobedoneonlandunderagricultureuse:

RainfedKharif(monsoons)orRabbi(winter)(C1R)-(Yes/No)

RainfedKharifandRabbi(C2R)- (Yes/No)

areaunderirrigation(C1I)- (Yes/No)

agrohorticulture- (Yes/No)

65

Type of Area Bund Measurement of treatments treatment (Ha) No. Proposed Existing Proposed Total Outlet length/ Cross- Section Earthwork Unit/No. Section (cum)

C) Drainagelinetreatment:

Sr.No. Treatment Length Breadth Height Earth work Type (m) (m) (av. of all heights) (cum)

SignatureofFarmer(landowner) SignatureofTechnicalperson

SignatureofSite-Supervisor SignatureofCommunityOrganiser

Roughsketchoffarmer’sfield/gatnumber:

Code:

Symbols:“Let your knowledge be useful to your SOIL”.

66

An Example

Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR) Net Planning Format

NameoftheWatershed : Darewadi–Shelkewadi GaTNo.:80

Village : Darewadi area:3.45ha.

a)Irrigated : 0.45ha B)Rainfed : 2.00ha.

C)Wasteland : 1ha. D)Forest : Nil

Land Use

A) Cultivable land

Season Irri/Rainfed Crop Area Production (ha) Grain Fodder (Q) (Ton)

Monsoon Irrigated Tomato 0.45 200.00

Rainfed Bajra 1.50 8.00 35.00

Rainfed Groundnut 0.50 4.50 10.00

Winter Irrigated Onion 0.45 150 Nil

Rainfed Wheat 0.80 2.50 5.00

Summer Irrigated FodderMaize 0.20 25.00

B) Waste lands (ha.) Open Pasture Thornybushes Rocky

C) Forest lands (ha.) Thin Thick Open

67

D) Information regarding land capability classification

Land Irrigated Rainfed Waste Forest Land/ Character Area Area Land Tree Cover

area 0.45 2.00 1.00 nil

Slope(%) 0-1(a) 3-5(C) 12(e) nil

SoilDepth(cm) 87cm(d5) 27cm(d3) 7cm(d1) nil

SoilTexture Sl Sl gls nil

erosionStatus e1 e2 e3 nil

Proposed Land Treatment According Land Use

A) Waste Land afforestration PastureDevelopment agroForestry HortiPasture

Sr.No. Treatment Area/No. Length Cross Plants Section

1. Continuous 1.00ha. 900m 0.18sq.m. Custardapple, ContourTrench amla,Subabul, eucalyptusetc 2. Waterabsorption 300m 0.60sq.m. Trench

3. Stone/earthen 3 6 0.6sq.m. Plugs

4. GrassBeds 8 10m 0.15sq.m.

5. Pits Nil

Map of GAT No. Land Capability Map

B) Cultivable Land

SingleRainfedCrop DoubleRainfedCropP IrrigatedCropP

Type of Area Bund Measurements of bunds Bund ha. No. Length Ex.Sec. Pro.Sec. Total No. of Plants meter sq.m. sq.m. Earth Spill- Work way

Contour 2.00 1 180 - 0.60 108.00 1 Na

Bunds 2 260 0.60 156.00 1 Na

3 110 0.60 66.00 1 Na

Farm 0.45 1 50 0.15 0.60 22.50 1 Na

Bunds 2 40 0.15 0.60 18.00 Na

C) Drainage Line

Treatments No. Length Width Av. Height

StonePlug

earthenPlug

LooseBoulderStructure 2 10 1.45 1.00

GabionStructure

FarmerSign engg.Sign

SiteSupervisorSign CommunityOrganiserSign