| MYRADA |
No.2, Service Road
|
||||||||||||
| Rural Management Systems Series Paper 24 |
|||||||||||||
|
Before going on to solution strategies used to overcome the above problems we present a brief statement of the activities undertaken in Kadiri and Kamasamudram in the last 4 – 5 years :
The impact of these efforts has given us enough reason to believe that we were right in stressing on a participatory approach. And this brings us to the solution strategies we used to address the problems mentioned earlier. Organising people : We used the strategy of motivating resource-poor farmers to form savings and credit management groups. There are now 53 such groups in Kadiri with a total common fund of Rs.789,800/-. In Kamasamudram, there are 162 groups and their total common fund is Rs.5,151,215/-. Watershed development activities were taken up for discussion at their credit group meetings. This also became the forum for initial planning and budgeting. In Kadiri these groups have continued to serve adequately for planning, executing, and managing all watershed activities, and task-related sub-committees were formed for various works. In Kamasamudram, there was a gradual realisation of the need to integrate other watershed users who were not in the credit groups. This has led to the formation of Watershed Associations.
Motivating People : Helping them form groups and establishing a credit management system helped. This was followed up with intensive awareness building efforts, training programmes, and exposure visits to other successful projects. MYRADA also assisted the villages in other needbased programmes such as health care, veterinary care, drinking water, working capital loans (through credit groups) for income generating programmes, etc., The people were also assured of MYRADA’s continuous presence and support for watershed development activities. One strategically important effort was that MYRADA did not go to the people with a pre-formulated, prescribed package of activities; rather, we facilitated many participatory discussions, provided a lot of explanations, incorporated many of the people’s own suggestions and traditional practices into the action plan, and enabled the people to see their watershed holistically (this is why we choose to work in micro watersheds that can later integrate into mini and macro-watersheds.)
Reducing Dependency : We can claim to have reduced but not entirely eliminated dependency, particularly financial dependency. The following actions have helped in this process:
Increasing People’s Knowledge of Regenerative Technologies :
External science-based information and technical guidance was mobilized from several sources: a) MYRADA employs technically qualified staff who are available to the people at all times. b) MYRADA seeks and obtains expert advice from Agriculture Universities and scientists whenever required, on a consultancy basis. c) In Kamasamudram, MYRADA has entered into a formal collaboration with the Philippine-based International Institute of Rural Reconstruction whose scientists visit the project site regularly – at six monthly intervals – and provide technical guidance and management advice, including advice related to documentation of project activities. The information thus obtained is not only used in discussions but also integrated into farmers’ training programmes.
Financing dry zone development programmes : To a large extent, the financial support has come from MYRADA which, in turn, mobilises funds both from the government and from external aid agencies. However, local contributions are also insisted upon, to the extent possible and this has taken several forms:
Increasing the rate of adoption of technologies : All the above factors have succeeded in promoting the adoption rate of dry zone management technologies. However, the financial factor is the most crucial factor in translating motivation into action. Willing and motivated farmers are still constrained by their inability to make the necessary investments on the full basket of technologies necessary for dryland management. An equally crucial factor is the control of finances. Full participation is possible only when the farmers understand how the various parts of the watershed interact with one another, the role of the different technologies proposed, and when they are involved in planning as well as budgeting for the proposed works, and not just in their execution. A few other important observations on the question of technology adoption have been made towards the end of this paper.
Management of Common resources and equitable sharing of benefits continue to pose the most difficult management problems; MYRADA has experienced as many failures as successes. Large communities, heterogeneous populations, and the presence of powerful farmers with vested interests make it very difficult to arrive at decisions that are acceptable to all. Projects planned and executed entirely by the people have shown a better rate of success. However, MYRADA’s experience has been that each situation has to be separately dealt with. The most obvious problems (e.g. controlling grazing on common lands) have to be addressed and resolved even before any work is begun or any investment is made. The decisions on how to manage have to be arrived at by the people themselves, and responsibilities have to be clearly defined and allocated, with penalties for violation.
Securing Government involvement : In Kadiri and Kamasamudram, these problems have not been solved. Elsewhere within MYRADA (e.g. PIDOW Gulbarga) formal agreements have been made with the Government prior to the commencement of project activities, and this has definitely helped to address land-management issues that crop up from time to time.
Involving Women : By making it compulsory for credit groups / watershed associations to include the representation of women, MYRADA has successfully created conditions for women to be present at meetings where decisions are being taken and responsibilities are being discussed. However, partly because most of the land is owned by men, and partly because men are generally expected to do outdoor work, conduct land-related negotiations, and engage in financial transactions, the role of women has still not developed to the ideal extent. (Recently an effort has been made in Gulbarga to implemen activities in one watershed entirely through women, including handling finances, making purchases, and engaging and paying labourers for work to be done. This effort has not yet been evaluated. It is interesting to note that the initiative for this came from the women themselves, when they saw that the men’s groups were generating surpluses out of their fund allocations for watershed works simply by using management systems that were locally more appropriate.)
Livelihoods for landless people : MYRADA has been sensitive to the problems of the landless poor. However, in watershed development projects it is a fact that the majority of the benefits go to landowners. MYRADA’s efforts upto now with regard to the landless families have been:
To conclude are a few principles on which MYRADA now bases its watershed programmes: 1. The micro-watershed approach : People must be able to see their watershed, appreciate how the different parts of a watershed interact with one another, and understand how the different activities impact on one another to increase the life and productivity of the area as a whole. 2. Budgeting for enough time and manpower : Participatory processes are time consuming and labour intensive; nevertheless, they are the only means to ensure sustainability. Meeting people at a time of their convenience (generally after 7.30 p.m.), organizing them into credit groups and watershed associations, interacting with them on a daily basis, conducting training programmes and exposure visits, being present at the times when conflicts have to be addressed – have all to find a place in the management plan. A team of one technical staff and one community organizer can manage approximately 700 acres of land and around 5 to 7 credit groups, provided they work together as a team. 3. There is no shortcut to consultations with the people and participatory planning, implementation conflict-resolutions, monitoring, and evaluation. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques are effective in getting this process started, but are by no means the end of the process. PRA techniques have to be followed up with building and strengthening grassroot level institutions that have a major role to play in watershed development (e.g. credit groups/watershed associations). 4. MYRADA has found the Credit Management Group to be a sound base and basic building block on which to develop watershed management programmes. 5. Keeping aside some provision for other needbased programmes: Poor people who are lacking in other basic requirements such as drinking water, health facilities, timely credit, etc., will involve in watershed activities much better if such other basic concerns are addressed on priority. It is necessary to make budgetary provisions for such eventualities. 6. The question of acceptance and adoption of technologies requires a separate and special mention. In a recent exchange of experiences at MYRADA’s Gulbarga Project it was possible to isolate some of the most crucial issues that have to be addressed with regard to the promotion of physical structures relating to dryland development (since they generally constitute the major and most expensive part of the basket of technologies) and ensuring farmer participation with regard to the same:
All of the above have to be understood by the farmers, acceptable to them, and affordable in terms of maintenance costs. Farmers are also inventors, experimenters, builders, and managers. They hold opinions and also have a wealth of practical experience. If this fact is forgotten, then the Best Practice Manual on Dry zone Development can never be written. Note : Illustrations for all the above mentioned issues and experiences are available but not included in this paper. |